|
Potential balances changes in the next, upcoming patch!
From Dayvie on the SC2 forums:
http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/8796589934
Thank you everyone for playtesting and giving us feedback on the balance test map.
We wanted to let you know our thoughts after extensive testing on the balance test map, hearing your feedback, gathering pro level feedback, looking at the ladder stats, and watching the various tournament games around the world throughout HotS.
1. Pro level balance is looking great in all 3 regions.
2. Ladder data is showing no sign of imbalance at any skill level.
3. We think it's too early to be making changes to promote different types of play. Even at the pro level, ZvP for example has changed a lot within the last couple weeks which makes us think players still need time to explore the game.
4. Oracle/Burrow changes could be problematic as you guys bring up, and we really don't want to risk messing with a game that's already really solid. Especially since the game is still changing frequently without balance patches, we just don't think it's a good time to be exploring new options yet.
5. A change for ZvZ is still looking like it's necessary.
More specifically for ZvZ, we're starting to think: - Defending against early Mutalisk harasses are so much easier now with the Spore change.
- Best case scenario, it'll be possible to not only tech to Mutalisks but other options as well.
- Worst case scenario, even if Muta/Ling/Bane is still the best way to play the matchup, it'll be easier to mix Infestors in due to Mutalisk offense being weaker and defense being stronger. Which means games that go to Mutalisk + Infestors will be more common compared to only mutalisks, and from this point onwards, there's potential that strategies can branch out to other units.
- We'd much rather go in smaller steps to address this issue rather than tweaking something big that does something so drastic that could cause problems in other matchups.
Therefore, we're currently looking at just doing the Spore Crawler change next week at the earliest.
We'd just like to point out once again that one of the major reasons that SC2 is looking better than ever right now is because we were able to incorporate our community in the development process. However, the game is definitely not perfect and there's always room for improvement so we will continue to do our best to loop everyone in our thoughts as well as future changes to the game, and thank you again for your help.
(Thanks Existor for the banner link!)
|
Really like that they aren't changing anything.
|
That is good to hear. It is nice that they are keeping their word on taking things slowly.
|
GG Blizzard. Liking the no-change. I don't know how I feel about the spore change.
|
|
The spore crawler change still seems bizarre to me, but so is muta vs muta. :/
|
Glad to hear it. Even as a Protoss player I thought the Oracle buffs were silly.
|
Damn I actualy think that the Sc2 balance team is the smartest devision in the blizzard building
|
Finally they're showing some good sense. :D
|
The Spore change will be a buff to Phoenix-lifting strategies in team games.
I personally would rather see either an acceleration buff or a speed buff for Oracles, but not both at once.
|
|
And David Kim said to the masses, "the game is solid!" Terrans rejoice at the lack of nerfs, and somewhere in the world Idra's disdain of Mr.Kim grows tenfold.
Really like the no changes approach.
|
I like it. Hopefully the spore change does some good.
|
Yeah I'm a zerg and I think burrow timings are pretty redicoulusly strong already... Terrans are all playing so greedy, no tanks ever, so even just straight up roach busts are really good right now(as we've seen in the gsl). If burrow was just fifty it'd be stupid not to get it with an allin. Also I don't thing making major patches mid wcs season is a good idea.
|
Even as someone who was a oracle-buff believer, I can support this decision. The game is looking fair even for foreigners right now, and after the long hiatus all terran foreigners had in WoL, I can support no changes till things look imbalanced.
|
Nice, I was really not digging their changes and it's good give more time for the metagame to shift.
|
Thank god burrow change is not going through.
|
I am glad Blizzard is giving the players and the game itself to evolve instead of being too keen on deciding which direction the game should go. +1 Blizzard!
|
I dont see why burrow would be risky its easy to see what you can do with burrow in the current meta and time. If you can block expansions for example. I didn't think of burrow to be offensively good more defensively good. Like if someone does a timing push and burrow would help. But you would never get it for 100 gas if you didn't plan for a timing yourself.
|
Russian Federation4295 Posts
|
They still really should do something with the orcale its a cheese only unit right now which is kinda sad considering the potential revelation has.
|
|
No bunker change? This is clearly a fake balance patch note!
|
Damn nice. The burrow & oracle buffs weren't necessary, to be honest. I'm not sure if the spore buff is enough to stop the ZvZ muta madness, but its a good sign. In contrast to WoL, HotS is pretty damn balanced right now.
|
Awesome to hear this by Blizzard, sounds good! :D
|
|
They sound on point. Seems like they are listening, and I love that in a game developper.
|
Good, I think burrow is already strong enough, ind people should be using it more without a buff(Edit: And I do _NOT_ think the developers should be trying to force meta game changes such as the reason for the burrow buff was). I think oracle need just a change, not a buff. They do to much dmg and are to fragile.
|
It's good they're not going through with the changes. There's a lot of good units, which are just better than others, which could cause staleness later on, so we shouldn't introduce more of these, rather just tone down some of them. What the Oracle really need, is a third spell which makes it good lategame and then just give Revelation detection, instead of something like a movespeed increase.
|
Russian Federation4295 Posts
What the Oracle really need, is a third spell which makes it good lategame and then just give Revelation detection, instead of something like a movespeed increase. Oracle itself can detect, and revelation can just spot units for tempests or just for you to see where enemy is walking around. For example where are his siege mushrooms
|
This makes some really good sense. Even now, there seems to be no real consistent meta. Players are constantly innovating and finding new compositions or tweaking old ones. While widow mines, for instance, may seem a bit crazy right now, there is a distinct possibility that someone later will find out a solution, which will mean that terrans can fight with swords and not get nerfed down to boring plastic bats.
|
On May 10 2013 04:15 captainwaffles wrote: And David Kim said to the masses, "the game is solid!" Terrans rejoice at the lack of nerfs, and somewhere in the world Idra's disdain of Mr.Kim grows tenfold.
Really like the no changes approach. Actually, has IdrA complained about HotS balance just yet? I haven't kept too much track, but I have watched his stream a little. I saw complaints about other players, cheesy strats, etc. but no balance complaints. Odd when Stephano is the EG player complaining about imbalance
|
Awesome! I'm really loving HotS and except the the stupidity of Muta vs Muta which I don't really think will go away with this patch, the game's in a pretty good place. There are probably issues with the game but considering what we had at the end of WoL I really do like the "small, gradual steps" approach (:
|
Muta wars were getting really boring
|
United Kingdom14103 Posts
YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
They did it right!!!!
+1 to Blizz so bad!
<3
|
|
the burrow change would have been the very first change to zerg in hots before the 10 minute mark, surely it wouldve been too risky
|
|
Spore crawler change is nice, since it'll only affect 1 matchup, and ZvZ is already getting stale with the muta vs muta.
|
I think this is pretty smart, I do think something could be done to encourage more Oracle use. Though it does really seem like pro level players haven't quite figured out how to use it yet and it's probably wise to keep any buffs at bay until they have more information.
|
blizzard, keep up the good work, FINALLY SOME GOOD SENSE FROM YOU!
keep it that way, give the game some time to develop, and slowly work your way towards balancing, i like the concept
+1 blizzard
|
On May 10 2013 04:42 Tsubbi wrote: the burrow change would have been the very first change to zerg in hots before the 10 minute mark, surely it wouldve been too risky
You mean that protoss cant kill 1 drone before they get an observer or terran cant kill 1 drone without scan? That is kinda risky right?
|
Excellent decision -- balance is good now, no need to get cray. I hate ZvZ at the moment so the one change they are making will benefit me greatly.
|
I like the stance of waiting for the game to fully and properly evolve this time. People cried Widow Mines OP (and shitty players still do), but the higher level players are so good at splitting their units (welcome to the world of Terran) that it's not nearly as much of an issue anymore (and most Terrans don't even target properly with the Widow Mines except maybe Fantasy). If you guys saw KangHo vs Gumiho, KangHo split his Lings and Banelings so incredibly well after he saw the Mines activate. That 1.5 seconds is enough time for good players to split their units (not enough for me though).
Hellbats though, ARE a problem. Don't mind waiting a bit longer to watch people find a way to deal with them properly though.
Don't like the Spore Crawler change though. Was there an option in BW ZvZ to do anything else other than Muta/Ling except in the super late game? I like the speed, aggression, and multitasking that comes with Mutas in ZvZ. However, seeing the slightly more skill-oriented Infestors be used against them could be cool to watch. I said COULD, not would. I like nonstop action when I watch a game.
|
Totally agree with his judgements. Great points.
|
Awesome.
Spore Crawler change is going to work out great in opening up ZvZ a little bit, and the no changes in the other match ups I agree with for the most part.
|
Nice banner.
Maybe they should also increase the attack radius of the Sporecrawler of Doom. xD
|
Nice Blizzard! Better wait a little while longer and then make the right choices than destroy the game with balance changes. I think at the moment its the right choice!
|
It's definately a good call. It's really hard to differentiate between potential imbalances and playing mistakes right now. The game needs more time and relatively solid overall winrates in all 3 matchups point out that there is no reasoning for a nerf without a buff and vise versa in all 3 non mirrors right now.
|
Gratz Terrans. You won. Hope you continue to be happy with your dropplay freewins
User was warned for this post
|
Thank god they are not buffing oracle...
|
On May 10 2013 04:15 eviltomahawk wrote: The Spore change will be a buff to Phoenix-lifting strategies in team games.
I personally would rather see either an acceleration buff or a speed buff for Oracles, but not both at once. I don't think you thought through your entire thought.
|
Looks like Blizzard is close to a promotion from bronze league in my heart.
|
Still think speedvacs needs some kinda fix, it's just too easy to do at the moment.
|
honestly dont like the part where they say Best case scenario, it'll be possible to not only tech to Mutalisks but other options as well. so is spire going to include vipers? thats pretty broken if thats the case.
|
On May 10 2013 04:49 freerolll wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 04:42 Tsubbi wrote: the burrow change would have been the very first change to zerg in hots before the 10 minute mark, surely it wouldve been too risky You mean that protoss cant kill 1 drone before they get an observer or terran cant kill 1 drone without scan? That is kinda risky right?
Oh dear God... If you put it that way... o.o No more need for Spine Crawlers! Just Burrow micro! Could you imagine if you started the game with Burrow? Reapers would never get a Drone kill and it wouldn't cost them a damn thing other than a little bit of lost mining time to keep them alive (as opposed to forcing Extractors and Spine Crawlers).
I don't think cheaper Burrow would've been bad (you still need Lair tech right? If not, then yeah OP).
And Zerg doesn't need more options before the 10 minute mark at the moment. Do you not see all the Zergs destroying Terrans with Roach/Bane all ins? Suppy beat Ryung with it and Symbol beat Gumiho with it. Make Roaches and you win until Terrans finally decide to not make Hellions and go for early defensive Tanks instead.
|
Whatever happens. Muta play is so fun!
|
I like it
ZvP changes a lot now (Swarmhosts finally arrived in GSL), would be a bad idea to change anything there ZvT looks fine to me TvT and PvP too
TvP i cant comment, I have no idea of that matchup
|
Well, I guess the T changes will have to wait. Time will just have to do its thing and exacerbate the problem.
|
Yeah I can accept this. I would be skeptical but I can see the reasoning behind all of it, which is nice.
|
I was excited for hte burrow change to make early roach aggression -> roach hydra viper SH styles in zvt to be buffed. But this is fine i guess.
|
On May 10 2013 04:52 RyLai wrote: Don't like the Spore Crawler change though. Was there an option in BW ZvZ to do anything else other than Muta/Ling except in the super late game? I like the speed, aggression, and multitasking that comes with Mutas in ZvZ. However, seeing the slightly more skill-oriented Infestors be used against them could be cool to watch. I said COULD, not would. I like nonstop action when I watch a game. Not really. The vast majority of Brood War ZvZ matches were decided by Mutalisk/Scourge micro wars, with some Devourers thrown in on occasion to tank damage. Not exactly a diverse matchup.
|
TvZ is still terran favored, i don't care what anyone says. Other match-ups are better--can go either way--and really map dependent, but non-retarded Terrans will still make zerg look silly. stats fail to illustrate the full picture, i'm afraid.
User was warned for this post
|
On May 10 2013 05:04 RogerChillingworth wrote: TvZ is still terran favored, i don't care what anyone says. Other match-ups are better--can go either way--and really map dependent, but non-retarded Terrans will still make zerg look silly. stats fail to illustrate the full picture, i'm afraid.
Good thing Code S is filled with retarded Terrans, then, otherwise zerg would be having issues.
|
On May 10 2013 05:04 RogerChillingworth wrote: TvZ is still terran favored, i don't care what anyone says. Other match-ups are better--can go either way--and really map dependent, but non-retarded Terrans will still make zerg look silly. stats fail to illustrate the full picture, i'm afraid.
Hmm, TvZ was 55% WR for T in march, 56% in April.It's not terrible but yea, TvZ does favor T atm.
PvT seems to be favoring protoss pretty hard for the past 2 weeks or so as well, but thats early to suggest any problems.
Edit: You can clearly see the terrans are very happy about no changes, they're kinda expecting a nerf hehe.
|
Spores gonna be so strong vs overlords.
|
On May 10 2013 05:04 RogerChillingworth wrote: TvZ is still terran favored, i don't care what anyone says. Other match-ups are better--can go either way--and really map dependent, but non-retarded Terrans will still make zerg look silly. stats fail to illustrate the full picture, i'm afraid.
agreed, blizzard never cites their stats anyways lol, tvz is at a steady 55% so far in terrans favor which is clearly too much, the burrow change wouldve been at aleast a tiny change that would help in zvt the most so i have no idea why they would revert it
|
it's shaping up to be a dam good expansion
|
I really hope they change muta's in zvz, i CANT stand playing zvz because of it
|
Wise decision from Blizzard.
|
Wow, completely balanced game at all levels? Sounds fun. What game is he talking about again?
|
While I agree that the balance updates they were suggesting were kind of silly what I don't understand is where they get this information that the game is balanced at all levels. Ladder as the only basis for this is sort of silly, and someone being better than someone else does not mean it's balanced it just means they're better. There have been numerous games in WCS alone that show how strong some things can be when used by the correct people. It's like the only time they're ever going to change something is if it's so incredibly strong, garners so much attention, and is so effective that they have no other choice than to change it. To say the least, people I've talked to over the past 2 days are not happy with the current balance and neither am I. I think in the grand scheme of things we don't really matter, but objectively, I still think there are tons of "really strong" things in the game. They've even been around since beta sooo.. :/
|
As always blizzard is blind about balance, prolly gonna take few months for them to see that actually TvZ is far from being balanced eh.
|
On May 10 2013 05:08 Tsubbi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 05:04 RogerChillingworth wrote: TvZ is still terran favored, i don't care what anyone says. Other match-ups are better--can go either way--and really map dependent, but non-retarded Terrans will still make zerg look silly. stats fail to illustrate the full picture, i'm afraid. agreed, blizzard never cites their stats anyways lol, tvz is at a steady 55% so far in terrans favor which is clearly too much, the burrow change wouldve been at aleast a tiny change that would help in zvt the most so i have no idea why they would revert it Why is 55% too great a discrepancy? It's obviously not ideal, but it doesn't seem unreasonable either. And is it possible that the win rates are skewed not because of balance issues, but rather due to map variance and players having yet to "figure out" the game? I think the dev team is making the right choice by reserving judgment for the time being. If the ZvT win rate trend continues for another month or two, then perhaps balance is the culprit. Until then, though, I think it's fine to wait things out.
|
On May 10 2013 04:40 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 04:15 captainwaffles wrote: And David Kim said to the masses, "the game is solid!" Terrans rejoice at the lack of nerfs, and somewhere in the world Idra's disdain of Mr.Kim grows tenfold.
Really like the no changes approach. Actually, has IdrA complained about HotS balance just yet? I haven't kept too much track, but I have watched his stream a little. I saw complaints about other players, cheesy strats, etc. but no balance complaints. Odd when Stephano is the EG player complaining about imbalance
Oddly enough the only thing he has publicly complained about is the Viper being too strong vs mech.
|
people seriously still whining about medivacs?
|
That 55% is overall? or just pro scene stats
|
|
On May 10 2013 05:17 Archas wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 05:08 Tsubbi wrote:On May 10 2013 05:04 RogerChillingworth wrote: TvZ is still terran favored, i don't care what anyone says. Other match-ups are better--can go either way--and really map dependent, but non-retarded Terrans will still make zerg look silly. stats fail to illustrate the full picture, i'm afraid. agreed, blizzard never cites their stats anyways lol, tvz is at a steady 55% so far in terrans favor which is clearly too much, the burrow change wouldve been at aleast a tiny change that would help in zvt the most so i have no idea why they would revert it Why is 55% too great a discrepancy? It's obviously not ideal, but it doesn't seem unreasonable either. And is it possible that the win rates are skewed not because of balance issues, but rather due to map variance and players having yet to "figure out" the game? I think the dev team is making the right choice by reserving judgment for the time being. If the ZvT win rate trend continues for another month or two, then perhaps balance is the culprit. Until then, though, I think it's fine to wait things out.
It may be a small sample size, but given the WCS statistics, it seems like Z actually has the lead in said matchup. As for the topic, I like the "take it slow" pace for balancing HoTS. Before anyone says anything about Koreans owning up foreigners, the stats for just korea are 29 games won out of 59 played which is almost 50%, not bad.
|
On May 10 2013 05:08 Tsubbi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 05:04 RogerChillingworth wrote: TvZ is still terran favored, i don't care what anyone says. Other match-ups are better--can go either way--and really map dependent, but non-retarded Terrans will still make zerg look silly. stats fail to illustrate the full picture, i'm afraid. agreed, blizzard never cites their stats anyways lol, tvz is at a steady 55% so far in terrans favor which is clearly too much, the burrow change wouldve been at aleast a tiny change that would help in zvt the most so i have no idea why they would revert it
Im pretty sure its much closer to 50% this month based on last results
|
On May 10 2013 04:15 eviltomahawk wrote: The Spore change will be a buff to Phoenix-lifting strategies in team games.
I personally would rather see either an acceleration buff or a speed buff for Oracles, but not both at once.
why ? are there phoenix/muta combos ? its only vs bio buff edit: do you mean lift with phoenix and let spore kill them like roaches ? crazy man xD
|
As Terran was getting scared of faster oracles. They are already pretty hard to defend if you don't see it coming. Fast burrow was also interesting but potentially too strong.
Go Blizzard!
|
I'm thinking if PvZ lategame needs to be addressed. The swarmhosts turtly style like the ones of roro or the big mutalisk switches like leenock demonstrated are really strong in lategame, and protoss doesn't seem to have an answer to it yet, or there is no answer. But on the other hand, anything else the zerg would make just melts to protoss lategame, and if nerfed can lead to protoss just doing turtle every game for ultimate composition. So I'm not sure what really need to be done to make the lategame more solid for both protoss and zerg.
|
On May 10 2013 04:42 Tsubbi wrote: the burrow change would have been the very first change to zerg in hots before the 10 minute mark, surely it wouldve been too risky hah, no kidding
|
Is spore crawler the bunker of hots?
|
On May 10 2013 05:08 Tsubbi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 05:04 RogerChillingworth wrote: TvZ is still terran favored, i don't care what anyone says. Other match-ups are better--can go either way--and really map dependent, but non-retarded Terrans will still make zerg look silly. stats fail to illustrate the full picture, i'm afraid. agreed, blizzard never cites their stats anyways lol, tvz is at a steady 55% so far in terrans favor which is clearly too much, the burrow change wouldve been at aleast a tiny change that would help in zvt the most so i have no idea why they would revert it That 55% was pretty much completely due to the WCS qualifiers. Remove them from the stats and it was something like 51%. In other words there simply wasn't enough data for statistical significant conclusions. What most people forget is that the number of games in the data doesn't say alot about the significance if the games are heavily correlated, and that is the case!
Anyway saying that zerg is too weak is kinda funny since zerg is significantly more played in every league above silver than terran. Zerg is most represented race in Code S RO32, RO16 and RO8 (where we are now). Also in the American premier league zerg is most represented. Only in Europe there are more terrans than zerg active in premier league atm.
I have to admit I expected blizzard to just do what they had for the balance map. Good that they did listen to the community and don't want to overdo balance changes when it is looking so well balanced atm. That said I still dislike spore changes, it is just not a neat way.
|
The game is still being figured out.
The oracle buff seemed completely unnecessary, and isn't actually promoting the unit in mid-game. It would instead just cement it as a cheese-unit. Glad they withheld that change.
|
was wondering what the picture in the OP meant? now I got it
|
|
On May 10 2013 05:17 Archas wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 05:08 Tsubbi wrote:On May 10 2013 05:04 RogerChillingworth wrote: TvZ is still terran favored, i don't care what anyone says. Other match-ups are better--can go either way--and really map dependent, but non-retarded Terrans will still make zerg look silly. stats fail to illustrate the full picture, i'm afraid. agreed, blizzard never cites their stats anyways lol, tvz is at a steady 55% so far in terrans favor which is clearly too much, the burrow change wouldve been at aleast a tiny change that would help in zvt the most so i have no idea why they would revert it If the ZvT win rate trend continues for another month or two, then perhaps balance is the culprit. Until then, though, I think it's fine to wait things out.
It likely won't as it has already improved (not to mention Zergs winning major tournaments), as any upset you've seen before and even right now is primarily based on shock value from Zerg players needing some unit control after the WoLings era which involved (aside from smart-casted fungal) practically none.
|
On May 10 2013 05:26 Chocobo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 04:42 Tsubbi wrote: the burrow change would have been the very first change to zerg in hots before the 10 minute mark, surely it wouldve been too risky hah, no kidding
i think its good because for example reapers, medivacs, free siege, widow mines and hellbats had no significant effect on early and midgame terran play as well
|
Haha. Ha. ;____; Oh well. I can deal :D
|
They... use good reasoning? That's new.
|
United Kingdom31934 Posts
Bizzard doing a great job in Hots so far :D
|
aw no 50/50 burrow D;
I wanted to be imba.
|
On May 10 2013 04:32 drugsarebad wrote: They still really should do something with the orcale its a cheese only unit right now which is kinda sad considering the potential revelation has.
So what it's fine if one units is only useful in cheese.
Might i remind you that cheese is delicous and it comes in a myriad of ways.
|
On May 10 2013 05:05 Rostam wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 05:04 RogerChillingworth wrote: TvZ is still terran favored, i don't care what anyone says. Other match-ups are better--can go either way--and really map dependent, but non-retarded Terrans will still make zerg look silly. stats fail to illustrate the full picture, i'm afraid. Good thing Code S is filled with retarded Terrans, then, otherwise zerg would be having issues.
The game is very well balanced at the pro level but at the mere-humans level, mines are pretty silly. Incredibly cost efficient, takes 10 times more effort to counter than to use, and one mistake vs mines can be game ending. I know that balancing the game for the pro level is far more important than other skill levels... but I can't help but wish they didn't introduce a unit like this into the game.
For me in low masters mines just make me want to quit the game. I can't leave my base, I can't ling harrass or go for surrounds, just in case there's a mine there that'll blow up everything for free. I can get mine dropped before I have detection. And even if I know exactly where every mine is, it's still a mess to deal with them... and the only unit that really counters them is broodlords. It's just so frustrating and half the time I just allin against terran now because I'm sick of facing bio/mines and not being able to do anything about it because it takes pro level control to deal with it.
WoL ZvT was zerg-favored for a long time but the infestor nerfs and raven buffs made it close to balanced at the very end... then HotS hits and the matchup changed so much in terran's favor. Reapers, speedvacs, hellbats, and mines are all so good and can be gotten quickly, they can affect every game. Meanwhile SH is bad vs terran, so zerg's new toys are the ultra and viper... which are great, but the early game is so much harder.
I'm disappointed that changes to mines or reapers apparently weren't even discussed... and something potentially useful for zerg (early burrow) was tossed out before giving it a chance. I feel like I should switch races just so I can use units that can deal with mines better.
|
Good to hear, as a even as a Protoss player i thought that the oracle buff was unnecesary. On the other hand, i think that the problem with mutas is related with mutas themselves being too much powerful, and not with the defenses...
Also, mines are okay, but at non progamer level, they are waaaaaaaaaaaaay too much cost efficient and very easy to use, but very hard to fight against. I mean, a single missclick can make you loose all your zerglings or all your probes to a 75/25 unit that only needs to burrow to work. It's a bit silly.
Anyway i think they do a great job balancing the game, no like creating maps xD...
|
What exactly is the "spore change"? Can't find it anywhere.
|
@Choco I first thought you were talking about banelings, which pro's are far better at dealing with due to superior micro (and lets face it, you need 10 times more efforct to split against banelings than to use banelings), but then I saw you meant mines, okay. Really mines are just the banelings of terran. Of course there are significant differences between them, but yeah if you fuck up as opponent they deal terrible damage. So always a good idea not to do that.
And why wouldn't you be able to go for ling haras? Send one ling ahead and you notice soon enough if there are widow mines.
@Xupi, a single misclick can make you lose your entire bio army to AOE, or your entire mech army because you sieged up too late (been there, done that). If anything the terran army is probably the most unforgiving one to misclicks: Mech is quite all or nothing, there is no retreat when misclicking. Bio can retreat, but dies incredibly quick to AOE weapons.
So yeah if you do it wrong as zerg you can be quite irritated by widow mines, but don't forget that widow mines also have this habit of blowing up terran troops.
|
I don't like the spore change because they already tried it, and it didn't work. So now they're trying harder?
Here's the thing: If you aren't the mutalisk player and you're not doing a huge all-in attack before they're out, you don't get to have a 3rd base on time. You don't get to have creep spread, you don't get to have your army on the map.
This advantage is so powerful that spire before infestors was becoming the de-facto standard in wol. The idea being that you make your mutas, force spores and clear overlords, secure map control, get your third... And then just go roach/infestor with a better economy than your opponent.
So I really don't see this changing zvz a lot. Sure, it might open some options up, that's great. But I don't understand why they didn't make a "zvz only" adjustment to the corruptor, hydralisk or queen, rather than buffing static defense. Defending your own base just isn't the problem with mutalisks, its being able to move out on the map and do stuff if you're the one without mutalisks.
i was really excited for 50/50 burrow but I guess that would be too strong. even still, we don't see a whole lot of people actually using burrow at hatchery tech.
|
Russian Federation4295 Posts
On May 10 2013 05:47 Chocobo wrote: What exactly is the "spore change"? Can't find it anywhere. Spore Crawlers can deal 45 damage to biological targets
|
Dang, I was looking forward to 'gotta go fast' oracles, but overall I'm glad they didn't make rash decisions. I'm still awful in PvT right now though, but I think it's because I'm bad not really imba.
|
gj Blizzard taking it slow, I like that
|
China6282 Posts
Absolutely great! Only rolling out the Spore change is the best result.
|
|
On May 10 2013 05:08 Tsubbi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 05:04 RogerChillingworth wrote: TvZ is still terran favored, i don't care what anyone says. Other match-ups are better--can go either way--and really map dependent, but non-retarded Terrans will still make zerg look silly. stats fail to illustrate the full picture, i'm afraid. agreed, blizzard never cites their stats anyways lol, tvz is at a steady 55% so far in terrans favor which is clearly too much, the burrow change wouldve been at aleast a tiny change that would help in zvt the most so i have no idea why they would revert it I'd say that's a pretty good number when you consider how abysmally Zergs were able to get away with playing and still collect wins in WoL. There's a lrn2play process currently going on and Zergs are making strides.
I'm glad Blizzard isn't doing much of anything yet. It's still early and things are looking a hell of a lot better than they did over the 10 months before HotS.
|
really good thinking by blizzard we'll see how the spore tweak will change zvz
|
I really like the approach they are taking, and I agree that the balance has never been as good as we see right now, so it's good that we see only a very, very small change affecting a single mirror. Props to them, hopefully we'll see a little less muta wars (though I'm a bad judge on how good this change actually is, as ZvZ is the one matchup which I usually don't watch and have the least first hand experience with).
|
|
On May 10 2013 05:08 Tsubbi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 05:04 RogerChillingworth wrote: TvZ is still terran favored, i don't care what anyone says. Other match-ups are better--can go either way--and really map dependent, but non-retarded Terrans will still make zerg look silly. stats fail to illustrate the full picture, i'm afraid. agreed, blizzard never cites their stats anyways lol, tvz is at a steady 55% so far in terrans favor which is clearly too much, the burrow change wouldve been at aleast a tiny change that would help in zvt the most so i have no idea why they would revert it
What the hell are you even talking about?
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/2013_StarCraft_II_World_Championship_Series/Statistics
Game is better now than it's ever been, and Zerg actually has the 55%
|
On May 10 2013 05:49 Sissors wrote: @Choco I first thought you were talking about banelings, which pro's are far better at dealing with due to superior micro (and lets face it, you need 10 times more efforct to split against banelings than to use banelings), but then I saw you meant mines, okay. Really mines are just the banelings of terran. Of course there are significant differences between them, but yeah if you fuck up as opponent they deal terrible damage. So always a good idea not to do that.
And why wouldn't you be able to go for ling haras? Send one ling ahead and you notice soon enough if there are widow mines.
It's silly to compare banelings to mines. Dealing with mines cost efficiently is a little more difficult than "don't have your entire army clumped into a tight ball". And mines don't die when they kill things... for a terran it feels like "ugh I had some half decent splits but banelings still took out my army" but if you check the units lost tab, the zerg lost as much as the terran due to the cost of the banes that were used up.
"Not fucking up" as terran meant learning to split your army up a bit if you see banelings coming. For zerg now it means "don't go anywhere there might be mines, have overseers with your army at all times, anytime you move units around have 1-2 of them leading the way, and then when you do discover a minefield you need to play this micro-intensive time-consuming game of sending in single units at a time to suicide" and so on, and it's even more complicated with terran units are interfering with you cleaning up the mines... honestly it amazes me every time I see a pro zerg handle it.
Actually I am in favor of skill-intensive gameplay like this which raise the skill ceiling back a little closer to where it was in BW... but not that tougher challenge isn't shared by all three races.
|
On May 10 2013 05:43 Chocobo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 05:05 Rostam wrote:On May 10 2013 05:04 RogerChillingworth wrote: TvZ is still terran favored, i don't care what anyone says. Other match-ups are better--can go either way--and really map dependent, but non-retarded Terrans will still make zerg look silly. stats fail to illustrate the full picture, i'm afraid. Good thing Code S is filled with retarded Terrans, then, otherwise zerg would be having issues. The game is very well balanced at the pro level but at the mere-humans level, mines are pretty silly. Incredibly cost efficient, takes 10 times more effort to counter than to use, and one mistake vs mines can be game ending. I know that balancing the game for the pro level is far more important than other skill levels... but I can't help but wish they didn't introduce a unit like this into the game. For me in low masters mines just make me want to quit the game. I can't leave my base, I can't ling harrass or go for surrounds, just in case there's a mine there that'll blow up everything for free. I can get mine dropped before I have detection. And even if I know exactly where every mine is, it's still a mess to deal with them... and the only unit that really counters them is broodlords. It's just so frustrating and half the time I just allin against terran now because I'm sick of facing bio/mines and not being able to do anything about it because it takes pro level control to deal with it. WoL ZvT was zerg-favored for a long time but the infestor nerfs and raven buffs made it close to balanced at the very end... then HotS hits and the matchup changed so much in terran's favor. Reapers, speedvacs, hellbats, and mines are all so good and can be gotten quickly, they can affect every game. Meanwhile SH is bad vs terran, so zerg's new toys are the ultra and viper... which are great, but the early game is so much harder. I'm disappointed that changes to mines or reapers apparently weren't even discussed... and something potentially useful for zerg (early burrow) was tossed out before giving it a chance. I feel like I should switch races just so I can use units that can deal with mines better.
There's no such thing as imbalance in lower levels, it just means you're not doing things correctly.
|
yeah, 55% winrate for t in tvz seems balanced
|
|
I think it's the right decision to not make any balance changes. The game should evolve through player innovation and not metagame patches.
|
On May 10 2013 06:01 Mefaso wrote: yeah, 55% winrate for t in tvz seems balanced
Its actually a 55% winrate for zerg in ZvT in the WCS
|
Somewhere IdrA is crying into a fifth of Jack right now.
|
On May 10 2013 06:00 Chocobo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 05:49 Sissors wrote: @Choco I first thought you were talking about banelings, which pro's are far better at dealing with due to superior micro (and lets face it, you need 10 times more efforct to split against banelings than to use banelings), but then I saw you meant mines, okay. Really mines are just the banelings of terran. Of course there are significant differences between them, but yeah if you fuck up as opponent they deal terrible damage. So always a good idea not to do that.
And why wouldn't you be able to go for ling haras? Send one ling ahead and you notice soon enough if there are widow mines. It's silly to compare banelings to mines. Dealing with mines cost efficiently is a little more difficult than "don't have your entire army clumped into a tight ball". And mines don't die when they kill things... Sadly the things those mines kill are also friendly units...
Also saying that dealing with banelings is easy, just don't clump your units up, is ridiculous. I could say the same about mines.
On May 10 2013 06:01 Mefaso wrote: yeah, 55% winrate for t in tvz seems balanced No quoting non-significant stats is balanced, just like ignoring that zerg is most represented on both ladder and code S.
Anyway just for fun I opened unit test map and did a roughly equal cost scenario for the non-micro'd case (hey we are talking about non-pros). We have 15 marines + 4 widow mines vs 50 lings. Both sides 1-1 upgrades, zerg has ling speed, terran has combat shield + stim. My micro consisted of telling lings to a-move and pressing stim on the marines. Result: Everyone died. Yes it wasn't some kind of one-sided slaughter due to the widow mines, the widow mines got by far the majority of the kills, but that majority of the kills did include the marines themselves. Was off creep btw.
Btw those who claim TvZ is unbalanced, maybe you can first decide if it is unbalanced at pro level (so then explain for example code S), or at regular level (so then stop quoting the non-significant 55% stat).
Edit: Heh lol @ WCS stats. Wonder how many of the zergs who wanted terran nerfs because of their 55% stat want it now for zerg.
|
|
|
On May 10 2013 06:03 Emzeeshady wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 05:59 heartagram wrote:On May 10 2013 05:08 Tsubbi wrote:On May 10 2013 05:04 RogerChillingworth wrote: TvZ is still terran favored, i don't care what anyone says. Other match-ups are better--can go either way--and really map dependent, but non-retarded Terrans will still make zerg look silly. stats fail to illustrate the full picture, i'm afraid. agreed, blizzard never cites their stats anyways lol, tvz is at a steady 55% so far in terrans favor which is clearly too much, the burrow change wouldve been at aleast a tiny change that would help in zvt the most so i have no idea why they would revert it What the hell are you even talking about? http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/2013_StarCraft_II_World_Championship_Series/StatisticsGame is better now than it's ever been, and Zerg actually has the 55% This does not include pro league, GSTL, Code A, Any qualifiers, MLG, IEM or Dreamhack super accurate stats (not).
Way more accurate than adding IEM, MLG, DH or any qualifier with invitations for sure.
|
And that one has been shown to be non-significant so many times. Easy method: remove WCS qualifiers and it is pretty much 50/50. If removing only the WCS qualifiers already has such a large influence then it is not statistically significant.
|
Seriously how hard is it to buff hydra anti-air? Fixes both muta and skytoss problem with 1 change.
|
On May 10 2013 05:56 Emzeeshady wrote: Mines make ZvT hell, ZvZ sucks now for everyone and ZvP seems hopeless. Even though I suck with Terran I got to masters in a week and am having way more fun then I did with Zerg spamming widow mines and hellbats. I was hoping the burrow change might make me interested in playing Zerg again but it seems as though I am stuck playing Terran for awhile :/
Actually ZvP is not hopeless at all, the protoss air deathball is nasty but some zergs have found a counter to it, and Catz has been spreading awareness of it on his stream. The solution is corruptors with some vipers to pull in voids/tempests one by one, and swarmhosts on the ground to make it difficult for high templars to be used effectively (tempests love to fire at locusts too). Without psi storm on all of your air units it's possible take on the protoss army. A few infestors are good to have too in case of a big engagement, fungal on all of the void rays helps the corruptors wipe them out quickly.
I've been watching terran streams and TvZ just looks so easy... other than allins, your base will never be attacked within the first 12 minutes of the game, leaving you free to macro like mad and just throw army at the zerg constantly. Send a drop here, a drop there, charge up the middle with the rest, leave mines laying around for Z to deal with... it's almost impossible to be cost inefficient too.
Of course TvZ isn't free wins all day, but it seems if you're playing terran then it takes a much more skilled player behind the zerg controls to stop you. Sort of the opposite of the final months of WoL where terran had to play near-flawless to keep up with standard zerg play anyone could execute.
|
|
On May 10 2013 06:11 Sissors wrote:And that one has been shown to be non-significant so many times. Easy method: remove WCS qualifiers and it is pretty much 50/50. If removing only the WCS qualifiers already has such a large influence then it is not statistically significant.
Oh Scissors. Yes, let's remove a huge percentage of the games, and claim it is balanced when those games are removed...
That sounds objective.
|
I wish they would post ladder stats or have I just missed them?
|
On May 10 2013 05:15 -Kyo- wrote: While I agree that the balance updates they were suggesting were kind of silly what I don't understand is where they get this information that the game is balanced at all levels. Ladder as the only basis for this is sort of silly, and someone being better than someone else does not mean it's balanced it just means they're better. There have been numerous games in WCS alone that show how strong some things can be when used by the correct people. It's like the only time they're ever going to change something is if it's so incredibly strong, garners so much attention, and is so effective that they have no other choice than to change it. To say the least, people I've talked to over the past 2 days are not happy with the current balance and neither am I. I think in the grand scheme of things we don't really matter, but objectively, I still think there are tons of "really strong" things in the game. They've even been around since beta sooo.. :/ What is it that is too strong? Im sure everyone still complains about medivacs and terran in general because that's the common trend. It has been the common trend since sc2 release.
|
On May 10 2013 06:13 Emzeeshady wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 06:11 Godwrath wrote:On May 10 2013 06:03 Emzeeshady wrote:On May 10 2013 05:59 heartagram wrote:On May 10 2013 05:08 Tsubbi wrote:On May 10 2013 05:04 RogerChillingworth wrote: TvZ is still terran favored, i don't care what anyone says. Other match-ups are better--can go either way--and really map dependent, but non-retarded Terrans will still make zerg look silly. stats fail to illustrate the full picture, i'm afraid. agreed, blizzard never cites their stats anyways lol, tvz is at a steady 55% so far in terrans favor which is clearly too much, the burrow change wouldve been at aleast a tiny change that would help in zvt the most so i have no idea why they would revert it What the hell are you even talking about? http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/2013_StarCraft_II_World_Championship_Series/StatisticsGame is better now than it's ever been, and Zerg actually has the 55% This does not include pro league, GSTL, Code A, Any qualifiers, MLG, IEM or Dreamhack super accurate stats (not). Way more accurate than adding IEM, MLG, DH or any qualifier with invitations for sure. I would disagree. Any statistic with 44 games can hardly be called more accurate then something with ten times the sample size. Simply by adding proleague and GSTL the stats you presented turn into Terran's favour.
Well here is proleague Round 5...
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/2012-2013_Proleague/Statistics/Round_5
Is that accurate?
And you do know that at the end of wings there were multiple months in a row with Zerg around 64% winrate vs T? 55% is not even close to imbalanced. And that's still absurd! considering Zerg is performing better than Terran right now.
The game is balanced. Stop crying. There won't be any balance changes and there shouldn't.
|
On May 10 2013 06:07 AnomalySC2 wrote: I think it's the right decision to not make any balance changes. The game should evolve through player innovation and not metagame patches.
I agree, however is the game evolving? That is the real question. If the game is actually evolving then sure, let it go. But if it isn't, if it is stale, then it needs to be addressed.
Some of the matchups are getting pretty stale honestly, ZvZ especially. Unforunately, a lot of players aren't innovating, they are using the same old strategies over and over! For this reason, some units need to changed in order to encourage players to use them! For instance I'd love to see something happen with the dynamic between Vipers and Siege Tanks (maybe make Blinding Cloud only effect Bio, or perhaps it should reduce range by 4).
|
On May 10 2013 06:13 Emzeeshady wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 06:11 Godwrath wrote:On May 10 2013 06:03 Emzeeshady wrote:On May 10 2013 05:59 heartagram wrote:On May 10 2013 05:08 Tsubbi wrote:On May 10 2013 05:04 RogerChillingworth wrote: TvZ is still terran favored, i don't care what anyone says. Other match-ups are better--can go either way--and really map dependent, but non-retarded Terrans will still make zerg look silly. stats fail to illustrate the full picture, i'm afraid. agreed, blizzard never cites their stats anyways lol, tvz is at a steady 55% so far in terrans favor which is clearly too much, the burrow change wouldve been at aleast a tiny change that would help in zvt the most so i have no idea why they would revert it What the hell are you even talking about? http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/2013_StarCraft_II_World_Championship_Series/StatisticsGame is better now than it's ever been, and Zerg actually has the 55% This does not include pro league, GSTL, Code A, Any qualifiers, MLG, IEM or Dreamhack super accurate stats (not). Way more accurate than adding IEM, MLG, DH or any qualifier with invitations for sure. I would disagree. Any statistic with 44 games can hardly be called more accurate then something with ten times the sample size. Simply by adding proleague and GSTL the stats you presented turn into Terran's favour.
And you didn't get what i implied, they are way more inaccurate because the large skill gap on those make any stat taken out of it completely insignificant, while WCS premier have a lesser skill gap for the most part. FFS you had korean terrans beating the crap out of foreigner zergs at IEM.
About teamleagues, yes, and how does it show for Proleague? And teamleagues have a fairly different format.
|
|
I too really like the fact that they're taking it slow with the changes. BronzeKnee - I don't think the other match ups are anywhere near to being stale as people are still figuring out which builds work the best. And ZvZ, while a bit stale with muta vs muta, is exactly what Blizzard is going to address in this upcoming balance patch.
|
I apparently missed the patch notes where Blizzard fixed a bug causing nerfs and buffs to units based on data that didn't exist
|
|
On May 10 2013 06:13 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 06:11 Sissors wrote:And that one has been shown to be non-significant so many times. Easy method: remove WCS qualifiers and it is pretty much 50/50. If removing only the WCS qualifiers already has such a large influence then it is not statistically significant. Oh Scissors. Yes, let's remove a huge percentage of the games, and claim it is balanced when those games are removed... That sounds objective. I don't claim its balanced when those are removed, I claim the stats are close to 50/50 when those games are removed. Which is fairly easy to verify...
And by that I still don't claim it is balanced, I claim the data is not statistically significant. And that is not because the number of games is too low, but because the correlation between the games is too high.
|
On May 10 2013 06:19 SolidMoose wrote:I apparently missed the patch notes where Blizzard fixed a bug causing nerfs and buffs to units based on data that didn't exist
Well, PvT was at 50% when they removed KA. They don't just change things for balance purposes, they also change things because they make the game one dimensional and boring.
|
On May 10 2013 06:00 Kergy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 05:43 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 05:05 Rostam wrote:On May 10 2013 05:04 RogerChillingworth wrote: TvZ is still terran favored, i don't care what anyone says. Other match-ups are better--can go either way--and really map dependent, but non-retarded Terrans will still make zerg look silly. stats fail to illustrate the full picture, i'm afraid. Good thing Code S is filled with retarded Terrans, then, otherwise zerg would be having issues. The game is very well balanced at the pro level but at the mere-humans level, mines are pretty silly. Incredibly cost efficient, takes 10 times more effort to counter than to use, and one mistake vs mines can be game ending. I know that balancing the game for the pro level is far more important than other skill levels... but I can't help but wish they didn't introduce a unit like this into the game. For me in low masters mines just make me want to quit the game. I can't leave my base, I can't ling harrass or go for surrounds, just in case there's a mine there that'll blow up everything for free. I can get mine dropped before I have detection. And even if I know exactly where every mine is, it's still a mess to deal with them... and the only unit that really counters them is broodlords. It's just so frustrating and half the time I just allin against terran now because I'm sick of facing bio/mines and not being able to do anything about it because it takes pro level control to deal with it. WoL ZvT was zerg-favored for a long time but the infestor nerfs and raven buffs made it close to balanced at the very end... then HotS hits and the matchup changed so much in terran's favor. Reapers, speedvacs, hellbats, and mines are all so good and can be gotten quickly, they can affect every game. Meanwhile SH is bad vs terran, so zerg's new toys are the ultra and viper... which are great, but the early game is so much harder. I'm disappointed that changes to mines or reapers apparently weren't even discussed... and something potentially useful for zerg (early burrow) was tossed out before giving it a chance. I feel like I should switch races just so I can use units that can deal with mines better. There's no such thing as imbalance in lower levels, it just means you're not doing things correctly. Actually there is. Things like fast DTs or 10 pools are extremely strong at low skill levels, where players don't have the skill to identify what's coming, prepare for it, or deal with it effectively when it comes.
In the past though, these things were only overpowered against below-average players. Around gold or plat, players started learning to prepare for these things and deal with them more effectively. And then at that skill level and above, those simple strats weren't overpowered.
It's different with mines, because it's so challenging to find them and deal with them effectively. Instead of the bottom 40% of players struggling to counter a simple offensive style, it's the bottom 97%. You have to be very skilled to counter bio + mines in a cost efficient way - far more skill than it takes to scout a dark shrine, wall off vs 10p, or split your marines up.
|
I agree with the spore change, I'd love to see a bit more ZvZ defense vs. Mutas.
|
Why does so called professional game designers need trial and error and statistics so much... does a engineer or mechanic try every piece when building a machine or fixing a car. This is core problem we've been dealing with since the very beginning, the way they approach their game and balance design "Lets try this and see what happens" a hobo off the street can design/balance a game using that process. im pretty confident certain members of this community could have this game balanced in a weekend yet alone 6 years or however long its been.
blizzard + 1
|
|
On May 10 2013 06:26 Yoshinaka wrote: Why does so called professional game designers need trial and error and statistics so much... does a engineer or mechanic try every piece when building a machine or fixing a car. This is core problem we've been dealing with since the very beginning, the way they approach their game and balance design "Lets try this and see what happens" a hobo off the street can design/balance a game using that process. im pretty confident certain members of this community could have this game balanced in a weekend yet alone 6 years or however long its been.
blizzard + 1
The game is as balanced as it's been in how many months/years? I'm glad they aren't making needless changes that screw up the game like they did in wings. I think they are doing a great job.
|
On May 10 2013 06:27 heartagram wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 06:26 Yoshinaka wrote: Why does so called professional game designers need trial and error and statistics so much... does a engineer or mechanic try every piece when building a machine or fixing a car. This is core problem we've been dealing with since the very beginning, the way they approach their game and balance design "Lets try this and see what happens" a hobo off the street can design/balance a game using that process. im pretty confident certain members of this community could have this game balanced in a weekend yet alone 6 years or however long its been.
blizzard + 1 The game is as balanced as it's been in how many months/years? I'm glad they aren't making needless changes that screw up the game like they did in wings. I think they are doing a great job.
The game was more balanced at the end of WOL than it is now. February 2012 was probably the closest it was to balanced in general.
http://aligulac.com/reports/
|
|
On May 10 2013 06:30 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 06:27 heartagram wrote:On May 10 2013 06:26 Yoshinaka wrote: Why does so called professional game designers need trial and error and statistics so much... does a engineer or mechanic try every piece when building a machine or fixing a car. This is core problem we've been dealing with since the very beginning, the way they approach their game and balance design "Lets try this and see what happens" a hobo off the street can design/balance a game using that process. im pretty confident certain members of this community could have this game balanced in a weekend yet alone 6 years or however long its been.
blizzard + 1 The game is as balanced as it's been in how many months/years? I'm glad they aren't making needless changes that screw up the game like they did in wings. I think they are doing a great job. The game was more balanced at the end of WOL than it is now. February 2012 was probably the closest it was to balanced in general. http://aligulac.com/reports/
You mean the month that Zerg won its 3rd straight GSL and in a ZvZ finals to boot? Also, that graph is so bad. It combines Foreigner and Korean (something that's never done) and includes qualifiers (something that's also never been done)
|
It's great that they're taking a more pragmatic approach to balance, making sure pros have time to explore different plays.
|
On May 10 2013 06:30 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 06:27 heartagram wrote:On May 10 2013 06:26 Yoshinaka wrote: Why does so called professional game designers need trial and error and statistics so much... does a engineer or mechanic try every piece when building a machine or fixing a car. This is core problem we've been dealing with since the very beginning, the way they approach their game and balance design "Lets try this and see what happens" a hobo off the street can design/balance a game using that process. im pretty confident certain members of this community could have this game balanced in a weekend yet alone 6 years or however long its been.
blizzard + 1 The game is as balanced as it's been in how many months/years? I'm glad they aren't making needless changes that screw up the game like they did in wings. I think they are doing a great job. The game was more balanced at the end of WOL than it is now. February 2012 was probably the closest it was to balanced in general. http://aligulac.com/reports/
You just take 1 spot and choose how balanced the game is ? Even if the last three months had way more imbalance stats ? C'mon you can't be serious.
|
|
Awesome! Thanks Blizzard!
|
David Kim continuing to pull perfectly balanced stats out of nowhere.
|
On May 10 2013 06:30 Emzeeshady wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 06:27 heartagram wrote:On May 10 2013 06:26 Yoshinaka wrote: Why does so called professional game designers need trial and error and statistics so much... does a engineer or mechanic try every piece when building a machine or fixing a car. This is core problem we've been dealing with since the very beginning, the way they approach their game and balance design "Lets try this and see what happens" a hobo off the street can design/balance a game using that process. im pretty confident certain members of this community could have this game balanced in a weekend yet alone 6 years or however long its been.
blizzard + 1 The game is as balanced as it's been in how many months/years? I'm glad they aren't making needless changes that screw up the game like they did in wings. I think they are doing a great job. August win ratesI would say this is more balanced but I am still happy they haven't made any big changes yet.
Yes, let's just ignore the fact that 3 months preceding and following August had some of the worst TvZ stats in history Great idea.
On May 10 2013 06:35 Emzeeshady wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 06:34 Godwrath wrote:On May 10 2013 06:30 BronzeKnee wrote:On May 10 2013 06:27 heartagram wrote:On May 10 2013 06:26 Yoshinaka wrote: Why does so called professional game designers need trial and error and statistics so much... does a engineer or mechanic try every piece when building a machine or fixing a car. This is core problem we've been dealing with since the very beginning, the way they approach their game and balance design "Lets try this and see what happens" a hobo off the street can design/balance a game using that process. im pretty confident certain members of this community could have this game balanced in a weekend yet alone 6 years or however long its been.
blizzard + 1 The game is as balanced as it's been in how many months/years? I'm glad they aren't making needless changes that screw up the game like they did in wings. I think they are doing a great job. The game was more balanced at the end of WOL than it is now. February 2012 was probably the closest it was to balanced in general. http://aligulac.com/reports/ You just take 1 spot and choose how balanced the game is ? Even if the last three months had way more imbalance stats ? C'mon you can't be serious. Isn't that what you are doing now though?
Edit: My fallacy detector ran through the roof. You get called out for cherri-picking data so you accuse someone of cherri-picking data when they include more data? How does that even work?!
***
I'm very glad Blizzard is being cautious. Statistics or no statistics, the games look drastically different from week to week. No-one knows how the MUs will end up.
Zs should be embarrassed by all the balance whine they did at the start of HotS. So many Z said it's impossible to win against T, yet Life and Leenock and all the Code S zergs are doing fine. This points at a certain learning curve where the skill ceiling for zergs was raised so those with worse mechanics started losing games they would have steamrolled at the end of WoL. Sure, losing your ranking is going to make people upset, but that says nothing about balance.
|
On May 10 2013 06:35 Emzeeshady wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 06:34 Godwrath wrote:On May 10 2013 06:30 BronzeKnee wrote:On May 10 2013 06:27 heartagram wrote:On May 10 2013 06:26 Yoshinaka wrote: Why does so called professional game designers need trial and error and statistics so much... does a engineer or mechanic try every piece when building a machine or fixing a car. This is core problem we've been dealing with since the very beginning, the way they approach their game and balance design "Lets try this and see what happens" a hobo off the street can design/balance a game using that process. im pretty confident certain members of this community could have this game balanced in a weekend yet alone 6 years or however long its been.
blizzard + 1 The game is as balanced as it's been in how many months/years? I'm glad they aren't making needless changes that screw up the game like they did in wings. I think they are doing a great job. The game was more balanced at the end of WOL than it is now. February 2012 was probably the closest it was to balanced in general. http://aligulac.com/reports/ You just take 1 spot and choose how balanced the game is ? Even if the last three months had way more imbalance stats ? C'mon you can't be serious. Isn't that what you are doing now though?
Nope. Or i am not explaining myself well enough. Just take August to december and watch the trend, it's always getting peaks and going lower than the last time, over and over and over. That was TvZ at that time. What i am saying to Bronzeknee is that he is deluding himself trying to find conclussions if he is really trying to compare a 2 year old game, where the last patch happened many months ago that finally was setting up, to a game which is starting with just one month.
|
On May 10 2013 05:59 heartagram wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 05:08 Tsubbi wrote:On May 10 2013 05:04 RogerChillingworth wrote: TvZ is still terran favored, i don't care what anyone says. Other match-ups are better--can go either way--and really map dependent, but non-retarded Terrans will still make zerg look silly. stats fail to illustrate the full picture, i'm afraid. agreed, blizzard never cites their stats anyways lol, tvz is at a steady 55% so far in terrans favor which is clearly too much, the burrow change wouldve been at aleast a tiny change that would help in zvt the most so i have no idea why they would revert it What the hell are you even talking about? http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/2013_StarCraft_II_World_Championship_Series/StatisticsGame is better now than it's ever been, and Zerg actually has the 55% also 50% zerg in codes ro8
|
On May 10 2013 06:41 teddyoojo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 05:59 heartagram wrote:On May 10 2013 05:08 Tsubbi wrote:On May 10 2013 05:04 RogerChillingworth wrote: TvZ is still terran favored, i don't care what anyone says. Other match-ups are better--can go either way--and really map dependent, but non-retarded Terrans will still make zerg look silly. stats fail to illustrate the full picture, i'm afraid. agreed, blizzard never cites their stats anyways lol, tvz is at a steady 55% so far in terrans favor which is clearly too much, the burrow change wouldve been at aleast a tiny change that would help in zvt the most so i have no idea why they would revert it What the hell are you even talking about? http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/2013_StarCraft_II_World_Championship_Series/StatisticsGame is better now than it's ever been, and Zerg actually has the 55% also 50% zerg in codes ro8
People will always cry I guess. Glad Blizzard is thinking rationally.
|
If people want to link to data with small sample sizes to back up balance arguments....
Here's the final word on balance, Play XP QQ Meter: http://www.playxp.com/sc2/jingjing/
Edit: the race with the bigger bar has more QQ
|
|
On May 10 2013 06:09 Sissors wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 06:00 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 05:49 Sissors wrote: @Choco I first thought you were talking about banelings, which pro's are far better at dealing with due to superior micro (and lets face it, you need 10 times more efforct to split against banelings than to use banelings), but then I saw you meant mines, okay. Really mines are just the banelings of terran. Of course there are significant differences between them, but yeah if you fuck up as opponent they deal terrible damage. So always a good idea not to do that.
And why wouldn't you be able to go for ling haras? Send one ling ahead and you notice soon enough if there are widow mines. It's silly to compare banelings to mines. Dealing with mines cost efficiently is a little more difficult than "don't have your entire army clumped into a tight ball". And mines don't die when they kill things... Also saying that dealing with banelings is easy, just don't clump your units up, is ridiculous. I could say the same about mines.
Come on now. Either you're being silly here or you have a poor understanding of the challenges involved in different aspects of the game. Dealing with mines as zerg is far more difficult than "look, banelings are coming my way, time to execute that split I've been practicing". Plus you can actually see the banelings coming, and can attack them from outside of their own range.
The risk/reward is far different with banelings as well... at best you'll gain a slight advantage over the opponent in the resources lost meter, usually it's pretty close to breakeven, and there's the chance of losing a ton of banelings while doing no damage. Show me one game where a terran lost because his mines were too cost inefficient.
|
|
zvz definitely needs a change, glad to see the are going through with it
|
|
On May 10 2013 06:18 Emzeeshady wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 06:12 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 05:56 Emzeeshady wrote: Mines make ZvT hell, ZvZ sucks now for everyone and ZvP seems hopeless. Even though I suck with Terran I got to masters in a week and am having way more fun then I did with Zerg spamming widow mines and hellbats. I was hoping the burrow change might make me interested in playing Zerg again but it seems as though I am stuck playing Terran for awhile :/ Actually ZvP is not hopeless at all, the protoss air deathball is nasty but some zergs have found a counter to it, and Catz has been spreading awareness of it on his stream. The solution is corruptors with some vipers to pull in voids/tempests one by one, and swarmhosts on the ground to make it difficult for high templars to be used effectively (tempests love to fire at locusts too). Without psi storm on all of your air units it's possible take on the protoss army. A few infestors are good to have too in case of a big engagement, fungal on all of the void rays helps the corruptors wipe them out quickly. I've been watching terran streams and TvZ just looks so easy... other than allins, your base will never be attacked within the first 12 minutes of the game, leaving you free to macro like mad and just throw army at the zerg constantly. Send a drop here, a drop there, charge up the middle with the rest, leave mines laying around for Z to deal with... it's almost impossible to be cost inefficient too. Of course TvZ isn't free wins all day, but it seems if you're playing terran then it takes a much more skilled player behind the zerg controls to stop you. Sort of the opposite of the final months of WoL where terran had to play near-flawless to keep up with standard zerg play anyone could execute. I didn't say it is hopeless. I said it seems hopeless. I feel like there isn't anything I can do against turtle sky toss. I hate playing long drawn out games because I have wrist problems but I can never kill Toss now because of nexus canon/photon canons/force field and super ranged units. Like seriously, how defensive can you get? Yeah, I know what you mean. I used to mix some roach/ling allins into my ZvP, but now even if I manage to get past the forcefields and cannons with some units alive, the nexuscannon and mothership clean it up before the probes are in trouble. But if turtle protoss becomes standard, zergs can start expanding everywhere and getting 8 gas much sooner than usual... I don't see any imbalance. I think pro ZvP average game lengths might be 50 minutes in a few months though...
|
Bleh hots still sucks ass in many parts and they dont change anything. PvT is a crap matchup still, completely stale and any new unit is a gimmick at most there, practically useless except for cheeses. Where is the mech fix for example? ZvT is a bit stale too but more in flux stale so i guess its fine to let that sort out a bit still. PvZ, PvP and TvT only good matchups now, ZvZ is at least getting some sort of fix and ZvT is okish too but they really need to focus on PvT.. The matchup is the same as WoL but even worse, MsC removes most early aggression but isnt used for recall and aggression at all. Oracle just provides a new gimmick allin or dt like strat which does amazing damage or fails and is completely useless afterwards, stargate has almost no use except keeping mech out of the game in PvT.
I had hoped they wouldnt resort to just balance fixing now. Dynamic play should be much more important than balance and matchups involving terran are just a little too onesided in harassment capability. T is dropping and attcking, the other race just waits to get to their superior endgame occassionally doing an allin to keep T honest. Its not fun and fixing mech is the obvious answer. Giving T a slow way to play, perhaps nerfing drops a little as well opens up possibilites for the other race to finally dictate play a bit instead of just having to react and defend mostly. I dont believe at all ZvT is balanced by the way, pro game statistics mean little as they have qualifiers usually and thus correct themselves to 50/50. I would be very surprised if T will not show to be favored a fair bit overall in a month or two but i guess its a fair move delaying real balance changes till that hows. Unfortunatelt i find watching dropfests only to be quite repetetive already
|
|
terran not imba?! whats wrong with you?
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On May 10 2013 06:23 Chocobo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 06:00 Kergy wrote:On May 10 2013 05:43 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 05:05 Rostam wrote:On May 10 2013 05:04 RogerChillingworth wrote: TvZ is still terran favored, i don't care what anyone says. Other match-ups are better--can go either way--and really map dependent, but non-retarded Terrans will still make zerg look silly. stats fail to illustrate the full picture, i'm afraid. Good thing Code S is filled with retarded Terrans, then, otherwise zerg would be having issues. The game is very well balanced at the pro level but at the mere-humans level, mines are pretty silly. Incredibly cost efficient, takes 10 times more effort to counter than to use, and one mistake vs mines can be game ending. I know that balancing the game for the pro level is far more important than other skill levels... but I can't help but wish they didn't introduce a unit like this into the game. For me in low masters mines just make me want to quit the game. I can't leave my base, I can't ling harrass or go for surrounds, just in case there's a mine there that'll blow up everything for free. I can get mine dropped before I have detection. And even if I know exactly where every mine is, it's still a mess to deal with them... and the only unit that really counters them is broodlords. It's just so frustrating and half the time I just allin against terran now because I'm sick of facing bio/mines and not being able to do anything about it because it takes pro level control to deal with it. WoL ZvT was zerg-favored for a long time but the infestor nerfs and raven buffs made it close to balanced at the very end... then HotS hits and the matchup changed so much in terran's favor. Reapers, speedvacs, hellbats, and mines are all so good and can be gotten quickly, they can affect every game. Meanwhile SH is bad vs terran, so zerg's new toys are the ultra and viper... which are great, but the early game is so much harder. I'm disappointed that changes to mines or reapers apparently weren't even discussed... and something potentially useful for zerg (early burrow) was tossed out before giving it a chance. I feel like I should switch races just so I can use units that can deal with mines better. There's no such thing as imbalance in lower levels, it just means you're not doing things correctly. It's different with mines, because it's so challenging to find them and deal with them effectively. Instead of the bottom 40% of players struggling to counter a simple offensive style, it's the bottom 97%. You have to be very skilled to counter bio + mines in a cost efficient way - far more skill than it takes to scout a dark shrine, wall off vs 10p, or split your marines up.
Do you have any proof that 97% of zerg players are struggling, other than your own experiences? I'm having a hard time seeing evidence of it based on the ladder statistics.
|
well thought out by blizzard, surprised but pleased.
|
On May 10 2013 05:43 Chocobo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 05:05 Rostam wrote:On May 10 2013 05:04 RogerChillingworth wrote: TvZ is still terran favored, i don't care what anyone says. Other match-ups are better--can go either way--and really map dependent, but non-retarded Terrans will still make zerg look silly. stats fail to illustrate the full picture, i'm afraid. Good thing Code S is filled with retarded Terrans, then, otherwise zerg would be having issues. The game is very well balanced at the pro level but at the mere-humans level, mines are pretty silly. Incredibly cost efficient, takes 10 times more effort to counter than to use, and one mistake vs mines can be game ending.
Welcome to Banelings for all of WoL. As a Zerg player you're simply not accustomed to having to face which you've been dishing out.
Infestor/BL really did a number on what players like you perceive as a "balanced" matchup causing you to complain when ZvT is the best it has ever been not only from a gameplay depth and viability standpoint but from a spectator standpoint too.
|
|
On May 10 2013 06:52 Chocobo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 06:09 Sissors wrote:On May 10 2013 06:00 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 05:49 Sissors wrote: @Choco I first thought you were talking about banelings, which pro's are far better at dealing with due to superior micro (and lets face it, you need 10 times more efforct to split against banelings than to use banelings), but then I saw you meant mines, okay. Really mines are just the banelings of terran. Of course there are significant differences between them, but yeah if you fuck up as opponent they deal terrible damage. So always a good idea not to do that.
And why wouldn't you be able to go for ling haras? Send one ling ahead and you notice soon enough if there are widow mines. It's silly to compare banelings to mines. Dealing with mines cost efficiently is a little more difficult than "don't have your entire army clumped into a tight ball". And mines don't die when they kill things... Also saying that dealing with banelings is easy, just don't clump your units up, is ridiculous. I could say the same about mines. Come on now. Either you're being silly here or you have a poor understanding of the challenges involved in different aspects of the game. Dealing with mines as zerg is far more difficult than "look, banelings are coming my way, time to execute that split I've been practicing". Plus you can actually see the banelings coming, and can attack them from outside of their own range. The risk/reward is far different with banelings as well... at best you'll gain a slight advantage over the opponent in the resources lost meter, usually it's pretty close to breakeven, and there's the chance of losing a ton of banelings while doing no damage. Show me one game where a terran lost because his mines were too cost inefficient.
It wasn't really about the resources lost in the midgame, it was about the Terran losing their opportunity to be aggressive because the Zerg could produce units much faster.
That said, I think Widow Mines are finally fulfilling the purpose that Siege Tanks were never able to due to fragility and low damage, which was to create map control for the Terran. Zergs that A-move into a place where the Terran is positionally fortified should expect to be punished, just like Terrans can be when they aren't extremely careful about their army control.
Engaging correctly should be micro-intensive, and I'll be damned if you think that players like Flash, Innovation, Taeja, Life, Soulkey and Roro aren't microing their armies like a hawk for the entire duration of their battles.
|
disappointed at no burrow change
|
Mutas are the unit to go to in ZvZ and are very strong in ZvP due to the ridiculous regen. Nerf the regen and you won't need to make weird buffs to spores constantly, and maybe toss can not be forced into mass phoenix at the sniff of a muta switch. The regen buff was unnecessary to begin with.
Hellbats still do way way way way too much dps for a unit that costs 100 minerals and also deals that damage in splash. Needs a dps nerf. 15 dps to light at 0 weapon upgrades is absolutely broken.
Voidray charge duration needs to be reduced to like 15 seconds at most, (15 with 45 cd maybe), and could use a slight charge dps nerf.
Swarmhost locusts need some number tweaking. Again, a free siege unit was given too much dps (15), and render a lot of ground forces completely obselete. Needs a dps nerf and hp buff or some other change, as a swarmhost spawning two mini hydras per round is pretty ridiculous.
|
Thank god. They seem to have used WoL as a learning tool.
|
Glad that Blizzard is not doing anything drastic. They recognize that people will change the meta as time goes on, and don't force anything unnecessary upon the game.
|
Awesome, seems like a lot won't change too much. Nothing feels too broken right now, so I'm glad we're getting more time to really look into the game before major changes.
|
Very happy with the non-changes. Even more happy that so many people seem to agree.
|
I like the idea of not changing much this early, but I'm glad the spore buff went through. ZvZ isn't very fun to play right now. I think oracles won't really be used except for revelation past the early game until they have more movement speed and acceleration, but changes to the oracle can wait until the metagame is more developed.
|
Yes, no burrow and oracle change, those were horrible >_<
|
41 Posts
the oracle is good but still feel it needs a little buff, maybe they buffed too much but better acceleration would be nice, it's a difficult one to balance though, in the right circumstance is decimates things, take it out of that and it just seems to die not doing much. don't know if the spore change will fix the muta wars but even if it's a failed experiment, won't affect other match ups and was worth a shot. still think the corruptors need to change, could solve so much if they just made them better. glad they're not rushing too much though, game feels good.
|
On May 10 2013 07:01 vansvemirac wrote: terran not imba?! whats wrong with you?
User was temp banned for this post.
You'll not be missed.
Glad to hear about this "no change yet" from Blizzard, that's definitely the way to go atm.
|
Think they're not exploring enough options..
They can make Queens have bonus vs Bio, Corruptors have it or sth... Spores will seem to be ridiculous a bit IMO
|
the best solution for the viewership would be giving mutas +35 dmg vs bio, so mutas kill mutas faster, and zvz matches go by faster.
. only negative aspect: compassion for the poor terrans)
|
I like this change actually, its small but very useful. They could even make the glaive not bounce to other units off spores to further encourage not trying to kill them for all I care. Ive been going mutas in zvz since WoL because it was an easy way to do damage and take my own 3rd. Racing to mutas now, or getting 1-1 lings and trying to kill my opponent before mutas come out isnt that fun. Its not very dynamic.
|
On May 10 2013 07:53 VArsovskiSC wrote: Think they're not exploring enough options..
They can make Queens have bonus vs Bio, Corruptors have it or sth... Spores will seem to be ridiculous a bit IMO
The last thing we need is for Queens to be better against bio; TvZ would return to late WoL levels of imbalance.
I'm glad to see Blizzard isn't doing anything drastic. The matchups seem fairly balanced so far in HoTS.
|
On May 10 2013 07:53 VArsovskiSC wrote: Think they're not exploring enough options..
They can make Queens have bonus vs Bio, Corruptors have it or sth... Spores will seem to be ridiculous a bit IMO
Yeah please. Buff the queens. That's genius! :p
|
Am I blind?
I see SPORE CHANGE and "this might happen because SPORE CHANGE" and "we'll implement the SPORE CHANGE maybe next patch"
...What's the spore change?
|
Russian Federation4295 Posts
On May 10 2013 08:05 kingcars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 07:53 VArsovskiSC wrote: Think they're not exploring enough options..
They can make Queens have bonus vs Bio, Corruptors have it or sth... Spores will seem to be ridiculous a bit IMO The last thing we need is for Queens to be better against bio; TvZ would return to late WoL levels of imbalance. I'm glad to see Blizzard isn't doing anything drastic. The matchups seem fairly balanced so far in HoTS. Queen has 2 separate attacks - anti-air and anti-ground. They are talking about QUEEN BUFF TO ANTI-AIR attack. It will not change anything to TvZ matchup, because there is no biological air at Terran side.
|
Russian Federation4295 Posts
On May 10 2013 08:11 Staboteur wrote: Am I blind?
I see SPORE CHANGE and "this might happen because SPORE CHANGE" and "we'll implement the SPORE CHANGE maybe next patch"
...What's the spore change? Spore deals 45 damage to biological targets
|
So dumb. Muta-fest ZvZ is just silly...
|
On May 10 2013 08:12 Existor wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 08:05 kingcars wrote:On May 10 2013 07:53 VArsovskiSC wrote: Think they're not exploring enough options..
They can make Queens have bonus vs Bio, Corruptors have it or sth... Spores will seem to be ridiculous a bit IMO The last thing we need is for Queens to be better against bio; TvZ would return to late WoL levels of imbalance. I'm glad to see Blizzard isn't doing anything drastic. The matchups seem fairly balanced so far in HoTS. Queen has 2 separate attacks - anti-air and anti-ground. They are talking about QUEEN BUFF TO ANTI-AIR attack. It will not change anything to TvZ matchup, because there is no biological air at Terran side.
Ah ok. Didn't know the attacks were handled separately.
|
I like that they aren't changing anything to affect other matchups. But I wish they didn't change the spore crawler either. No need for it imo, muta vs muta zvz is still better than zvz has ever been imo.
|
Great news! If it a'int broke, don't fuck with it! Always better to let players figure things out before going with crazy balance changes.
|
It finally comes! The spore crawlers are gonna rule in z v z.
|
IMHO...spore still needs to be in base-hatch tech for ZvP. If spore requires an evo-chamber, this will mess up ZvP timings. Zerg has been able to punish a greedy Protoss by cutting an evo-chamber in build. However, if Protoss builds just ONE stalker and can prevent Zerg from scouting a stargate, now a Zerg has to build evo by default just to be safe from oracle harass? This costs resources and time. Right now, if Zerg correctly positions overlords around protoss base to scout oracle, voidrays, mothership core, whatever, leaving protoss bass, then the Zerg could throw up a spore at each base and successfully defend due to good scouting and overlord positioning. Having to build an evo chamber by default was fine in WoL, but with many more harassment options in HotS, I feel that this will put Zerg behind in early game.
Again...just my humble opinion...
|
Really disappointed. I abandoned Wol about 6 months before hots launched since i didnt like where the meta game landed, but I´ve been playing hots since its release. I never thought they would have managed to get the balance right right off the bat. I mean, remember when roaches cost 1 supply and had +1 range? Remember when they buffed the infestor ( its been nerfed twice since then )? I knew it would take time to iron it out and I was prepared to wait. They were still releasing balance patches for brood war what was it 7-8 years later? They just released a major expansion, and they think they nailed on the first try? Really? Did they not outline a bunch of balance issues they were seeing about a month ago?
To me it just seems really obvious that zerg drew the short end of the stick. Terrans got 2 AMAZING new units in the hellbat with ridiculous hp, splash damage and even healing capability. They got the mine which is so good the entire zvt meta game revolves around it. Zerg was given the viper which to be fair is awesome against mech, but i would play vs mech without vipers over biomine any day of the week. The viper doesn't really have a use vs biomine. All this means is that mech tvz is dead, making for an even more stale meta game. Biomine isnt just the best option, its the only option.
That means that in the tvz meta game right now, terran has a bunch of new toys, mines, hellbats and turbovacs, all of which play very well together, and zerg has a slightly better ultra, and lets not forget that drops are a lot harder to deal with when youre on ultra tech, and even more so now with the boost. The viper, hydra and swarm host do not work vs biomine. Am I missing something, because I sure as hell dont understand what happened or how its supposed to be fair or balanced. It feels like zerg has a lot of cool new stuff that would work great in wol zvt, but is pretty useless in hots.
Terran just straight up does better vs zergs staple ling bling muta, a LOT better, and zergs still have no alternative unit composition. Infestors do OK vs mines, but not vs medevacs.
|
So glad they didn't buff oracles, plus 1 blizzard.
|
On May 10 2013 06:26 Yoshinaka wrote: Why does so called professional game designers need trial and error and statistics so much... does a engineer or mechanic try every piece when building a machine or fixing a car. This is core problem we've been dealing with since the very beginning, the way they approach their game and balance design "Lets try this and see what happens" a hobo off the street can design/balance a game using that process. im pretty confident certain members of this community could have this game balanced in a weekend yet alone 6 years or however long its been.
blizzard + 1 Uhm, time to learn a bit history, a lot of things were trial an error...i bet a lot of the first engines literally exploded. And you are soo underestimating balancing its not even funny. If the community would get even a hand in balancing it would be a trainwreck beyond belief.
|
Nice, they're slowly but surely getting the hang of it.
|
On May 10 2013 08:12 Existor wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 08:05 kingcars wrote:On May 10 2013 07:53 VArsovskiSC wrote: Think they're not exploring enough options..
They can make Queens have bonus vs Bio, Corruptors have it or sth... Spores will seem to be ridiculous a bit IMO The last thing we need is for Queens to be better against bio; TvZ would return to late WoL levels of imbalance. I'm glad to see Blizzard isn't doing anything drastic. The matchups seem fairly balanced so far in HoTS. Queen has 2 separate attacks - anti-air and anti-ground. They are talking about QUEEN BUFF TO ANTI-AIR attack. It will not change anything to TvZ matchup, because there is no biological air at Terran side.
massing macro units is so stupid. it should never be a strategy. 10 Queens with 200 energy each late game is bad enough to watch. please, no more queen buff.
|
On May 10 2013 09:36 heartagram wrote: massing macro units is so stupid. it should never be a strategy. 10 Queens with 200 energy each late game is bad enough to watch. please, no more queen buff.
Not as stupid as hellbats for 100 minerals.
|
While I was looking forward to totally abusing Speedy Gonzales Oracles I am glad they're letting the meta settle before making potentially huge changes. They're right about how it's unstable at the moment, PvZ has completely changed in the last week alone without any balance changes at all (just a case of Zergs finally learning how to use the Swam Host properly).
|
It seems most everyone is of the same opinion here that, for the most part, the game is pretty well-balanced currently. I agree and I'm glad the Blizzard balance team agrees too.
As unfortunate as it is that my hopes of them increasing the locust spawn timer on swarm hosts are dashed, I'm glad they aren't making any completely major changes that would change the game entirely (as fun as it can be to learn to play again).
|
For the most part right now they made a good decision to leave everything alone. The game is near perfect balance at the moment.
Only 4* things can be argued are imbalanced or issues:
1. TvP early game, too many freewin/coinflip wins for the Protoss available, while Terran cannot outright win the game and Protoss has less risk with planetary nexus. Risk/reward is out of whack when one race can kill the other but there is zero opportunity for the other race to kill them.
Beyond build order openings, the game is perfectly balanced.
2. Tempest/Void + templar lategame vs Terran mech and vs Zerg. This is arguably imbalanced and brood+infestor 2.0 and should not exist in the game. It makes Terran mech vs Protoss weaker just by the fact that the tempest exists in the game at 4 supply, and if Protoss "reaches" this composition in lategame PvZ Zerg has no answer (opposite of brood infestor from wings where Protoss had no answer).
3. ZvZ mass muta, which is being addressed.
4. TvT hellbat drops too powerful.
That's about it though. GJ on them on seeing how players develop the metagame further.
|
As a protoss player I'd like to see void rays nerfed and an upgrade to buff stalkers late game. Maybe decreased blink cooldown or +1 AA range. Maybe this upgrade could require a templar archives or robotics support bay. Although voids can't be nerfed to significantly because then pvp would be more similar to WOL.
|
Do their "winrate" statistics even mean anything? If your race is weak in a matchup your "skill level" decreases and if your race is strong your "skill level" increases.
PvZ at master level is completely Zerg favored. TvZ at master level is completely Terran favored. I have no idea about TvP. Seems like it favors Terran with the medivac boost + hellions/hellbats/widow mines/bio.
|
United States7483 Posts
On May 10 2013 10:19 Cranium wrote: Do their "winrate" statistics even mean anything? If your race is weak in a matchup your "skill level" decreases and if your race is strong your "skill level" increases.
PvZ at master level is completely Zerg favored. TvZ at master level is completely Terran favored. I have no idea about TvP. Seems like it favors Terran with the medivac boost + hellions/hellbats/widow mines/bio.
They might be referencing adjusted statistics to account for that, or to professional tournament statistics.
|
I was quite supportive of the oracle change as a protoss who frequently tries to use them for mid/late game strategic purposes, but almost no change is still mostly fine with me, let the meta game does its thing, and patch when it becomes stagnant.
|
On May 10 2013 09:43 lue wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 09:36 heartagram wrote: massing macro units is so stupid. it should never be a strategy. 10 Queens with 200 energy each late game is bad enough to watch. please, no more queen buff. Not as stupid as hellbats for 100 minerals.
yea Yoda and Gumiho dominated with those broken ass units
|
all that's missing is a bunker change
but in all seriousness, good job blizzard. if this game never gets touched once, i'm positive the game will be fine in 10 years. of course LotV will be out by then, but you can imagine this game being the next BW.
|
I feel that this is will be an awesome change! Muta battles get really boring in HotS every single game.
|
Sounds pretty good to me
|
The blizzard balance team makes more and more sense. I would not really have done and say any different things (they are even aware that the spore change will probably not change the metagame ).
On May 10 2013 10:04 avilo wrote: 2. Tempest/Void + templar lategame vs Terran mech and vs Zerg. This is arguably imbalanced and brood+infestor 2.0 and should not exist in the game. It makes Terran mech vs Protoss weaker just by the fact that the tempest exists in the game at 4 supply, and if Protoss "reaches" this composition in lategame PvZ Zerg has no answer (opposite of brood infestor from wings where Protoss had no answer).
Hey I'm alright that you always compalin that terran have issues, but don't brought zergs here. They have ways to deal with protoss air (Roro did a good exemple).
|
I am still under the impression that TvZ needs some fix, otherwise we will have a few years of bio mine only TvZ which would be extremely boring to watch. I know quite a number of people who are already bored of the constant drop, drop defense, small group bio mine attack etc.
|
On May 10 2013 10:17 FreedomMurder wrote: As a protoss player I'd like to see void rays nerfed and an upgrade to buff stalkers late game. Maybe decreased blink cooldown or +1 AA range. Maybe this upgrade could require a templar archives or robotics support bay. Although voids can't be nerfed to significantly because then pvp would be more similar to WOL.
I don't think a late game stalker buff is necessary. Blink CD is already pretty short as it is, and if you feel like you need more blinks then maybe you just need to engage better/be more stingy with them. I'm fine with stalkers not scaling very well into late game, they are a basic unit. It makes sense, given that protoss is a tech race, that lower tech units eventually get phased out by higher tech units.
Honestly PvP is really nice right now, all techs are viable and they've all got their own strengths/weaknesses and it makes the match-up a lot more interesting than it was in WoL.
|
That's fine by me Blizzard, great approach. Just do not give an extra +2 to Queen range, please. *wink*
|
Damnit...I really wanted that oracle speed boost. It would be a much better late game scouting tool....
|
On May 10 2013 07:05 DemigodcelpH wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 05:43 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 05:05 Rostam wrote:On May 10 2013 05:04 RogerChillingworth wrote: TvZ is still terran favored, i don't care what anyone says. Other match-ups are better--can go either way--and really map dependent, but non-retarded Terrans will still make zerg look silly. stats fail to illustrate the full picture, i'm afraid. Good thing Code S is filled with retarded Terrans, then, otherwise zerg would be having issues. The game is very well balanced at the pro level but at the mere-humans level, mines are pretty silly. Incredibly cost efficient, takes 10 times more effort to counter than to use, and one mistake vs mines can be game ending. Welcome to Banelings for all of WoL. As a Zerg player you're simply not accustomed to having to face which you've been dishing out. Infestor/BL really did a number on what players like you perceive as a "balanced" matchup causing you to complain when ZvT is the best it has ever been not only from a gameplay depth and viability standpoint but from a spectator standpoint too. The Mine vs Banelings argument has been done so many times it shouldn't be brought up anymore. It's not a very good comparison to begin with and how often do you see Banelings come out as cost efficient as Mines? People see Banelings melt Marines and they go "OMG IMBA". Newsflash: that's minerals vs minerals+gas, more often than not it's not actually very efficient for Zerg lol. Not only do Mines pwn Zerglings but they pwn Banelings, Mutas and almost every Zerg unit. At best Banelings serve as a "stall" form of AoE where you are just trying to keep the Terran army small to avoid dying while going for Hive tech and more efficient forms of AoE (Infestors/Ultras). On the other hand Mines are very efficient and can be used almost all game long.
I already stated in the balance discussion thread that I don't actually think mines are hugely OP, but I do think they are a little too efficient and a tiny change should be made (very, very tiny as the game is extremely close to balanced as is). It's good that Blizzard isn't jumping the gun on anything tho.
|
On May 10 2013 04:15 captainwaffles wrote: And David Kim said to the masses, "the game is solid!" Terrans rejoice at the lack of nerfs, and somewhere in the world Idra's disdain of Mr.Kim grows tenfold.
Really like the no changes approach.
Idra isnt really worried about that so much right now as he just got kicked out of EG
|
On May 10 2013 10:33 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 10:19 Cranium wrote: Do their "winrate" statistics even mean anything? If your race is weak in a matchup your "skill level" decreases and if your race is strong your "skill level" increases.
PvZ at master level is completely Zerg favored. TvZ at master level is completely Terran favored. I have no idea about TvP. Seems like it favors Terran with the medivac boost + hellions/hellbats/widow mines/bio. They might be referencing adjusted statistics to account for that, or to professional tournament statistics.
lol.....your race being favored means you win...gotcha
|
On May 10 2013 06:30 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 06:27 heartagram wrote:On May 10 2013 06:26 Yoshinaka wrote: Why does so called professional game designers need trial and error and statistics so much... does a engineer or mechanic try every piece when building a machine or fixing a car. This is core problem we've been dealing with since the very beginning, the way they approach their game and balance design "Lets try this and see what happens" a hobo off the street can design/balance a game using that process. im pretty confident certain members of this community could have this game balanced in a weekend yet alone 6 years or however long its been.
blizzard + 1 The game is as balanced as it's been in how many months/years? I'm glad they aren't making needless changes that screw up the game like they did in wings. I think they are doing a great job. The game was more balanced at the end of WOL than it is now. February 2012 was probably the closest it was to balanced in general. http://aligulac.com/reports/
February 2012 was not end of the WOL. February 2012 was before famous queen patch and i agree that at beginning of 2012 game was pretty balanced. At begining of 2013 when WoL ended TvZ was at 42-46%for 4 straight months- not really balanced.
|
Dayvie said
2. Ladder data is showing no sign of imbalance at any skill level.
4. Oracle/Burrow changes could be problematic as you guys bring up, and we really don't want to risk messing with a game that's already really solid. Especially since the game is still changing frequently without balance patches, we just don't think it's a good time to be exploring new options yet. #2 Rofl ... as if the ladder didnt adjust itself automatically. Ladder data doesnt say anything about the game being good, because BALANCE <> GOOD GAME. Balance is necessary to a certain degree, but it isnt the "be all, end all" of game design.
#4 As if it wasnt totally obvious that a faster Oracle would be a stupid idea and making burrow cheaper doesnt change a thing anyways. People who want the upgrade will get it and will have the time (so its not the same issue as for the Siege upgrade change - which I disagree with).
|
I like it. The spore change is needed.
|
Introduce something like an airbaneling guys!
|
Why don't they return the scourge?
|
Spore change isn't going to do jack shit
|
Spore crawler is the new Bunker!! you heard it here first!
|
On May 10 2013 14:47 SamirDuran wrote: Why don't they return the scourge?
because you're just going to get people patrolling scourge everywhere and it'll be super boring.
|
On May 10 2013 14:24 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +Dayvie said
2. Ladder data is showing no sign of imbalance at any skill level.
4. Oracle/Burrow changes could be problematic as you guys bring up, and we really don't want to risk messing with a game that's already really solid. Especially since the game is still changing frequently without balance patches, we just don't think it's a good time to be exploring new options yet. #2 Rofl ... as if the ladder didnt adjust itself automatically. Ladder data doesnt say anything about the game being good, because BALANCE <> GOOD GAME. Balance is necessary to a certain degree, but it isnt the "be all, end all" of game design.
Ladder has a lot of data of balance, it has all the played games on ladder! You can tell many things about balance from the ladder data. On top of that blizzard might be collecting even more data from ladder that is know at this point. In a competitive game balance is a huge part of a game being good. Good balancing equals more interested players. If people play more games then before doesn't that mean it is a better game in average? I think that SC2 hots has all the other stuff solid (other then balancing).
|
+ Show Spoiler +On May 10 2013 06:59 Markwerf wrote: Bleh hots still sucks ass in many parts and they dont change anything. PvT is a crap matchup still, completely stale and any new unit is a gimmick at most there, practically useless except for cheeses. Where is the mech fix for example? ZvT is a bit stale too but more in flux stale so i guess its fine to let that sort out a bit still. PvZ, PvP and TvT only good matchups now, ZvZ is at least getting some sort of fix and ZvT is okish too but they really need to focus on PvT.. The matchup is the same as WoL but even worse, MsC removes most early aggression but isnt used for recall and aggression at all. Oracle just provides a new gimmick allin or dt like strat which does amazing damage or fails and is completely useless afterwards, stargate has almost no use except keeping mech out of the game in PvT.
I had hoped they wouldnt resort to just balance fixing now. Dynamic play should be much more important than balance and matchups involving terran are just a little too onesided in harassment capability. T is dropping and attcking, the other race just waits to get to their superior endgame occassionally doing an allin to keep T honest. Its not fun and fixing mech is the obvious answer. Giving T a slow way to play, perhaps nerfing drops a little as well opens up possibilites for the other race to finally dictate play a bit instead of just having to react and defend mostly. I dont believe at all ZvT is balanced by the way, pro game statistics mean little as they have qualifiers usually and thus correct themselves to 50/50. I would be very surprised if T will not show to be favored a fair bit overall in a month or two but i guess its a fair move delaying real balance changes till that hows. Unfortunatelt i find watching dropfests only to be quite repetetive already
I don't understand your complaint about tvz being stale it is far less stale and way way way more dynamic then it has been for the last year. drops are exiting not stale and so is constant agresion and constant defense. There are so many decisions made by both players in these high aggression games that its really interesting and exciting to watch. Whats stale is watching low to no agro games were t banks all his chances on one big push and then z either dies to the push or stops it, get bl infestor then turtles until t inevitably dies to it, if that's what you consider fun to watch i don't understand why you watch esports. T having aggressive options in the match up is really good, though i wouldn't mind having mech play being more viable so that as you said we could see zerg and protoss get a chance to dictate the pace of the game, though in some ways they already do because the amount of agro t commits to is largely determined by how fast their opponent techs and econs since both p and z need to be prevented by t from safely and stabaly getting late game tech or things can get ugly for t. Still it was realy cool to see zerg and protoss try disassemble the slow but strong mech army in bw and i bet it would be fun to watch in hots as well.
I also do agree that tvp is kind of stale but i think that it might be not fixible without drastic changes to mech otherwise it will always be the same kind of metta were p can allin or macro. If they allin the game ends prity quick with their allin either working or failing. If they macro, well right now what t has to deal with p is mmmvg and what p has to deal with that composition are hts, colosus, and archons with a gateway based meatshield. This is how the matchup is and i don't think any small changes to the game can ever change that. Sure we see mech pop up everyone in awhile in the pro scen such as when liquid sea and strelock used it but no stable and safe way to use it has been found, mech is really vulnerable early on to some builds and also has terrible trouble with imortal,archon,chargelot,ht into air.
overall I'm happy though that blizz is not messing with the game to much its just to new and changing to fast to make any major adjustments, though the zvz fix from both a viewer and player perspective is a good step in the right direction.
|
On May 10 2013 07:05 DemigodcelpH wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 05:43 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 05:05 Rostam wrote:On May 10 2013 05:04 RogerChillingworth wrote: TvZ is still terran favored, i don't care what anyone says. Other match-ups are better--can go either way--and really map dependent, but non-retarded Terrans will still make zerg look silly. stats fail to illustrate the full picture, i'm afraid. Good thing Code S is filled with retarded Terrans, then, otherwise zerg would be having issues. The game is very well balanced at the pro level but at the mere-humans level, mines are pretty silly. Incredibly cost efficient, takes 10 times more effort to counter than to use, and one mistake vs mines can be game ending. Welcome to Banelings for all of WoL. As a Zerg player you're simply not accustomed to having to face which you've been dishing out. Infestor/BL really did a number on what players like you perceive as a "balanced" matchup causing you to complain when ZvT is the best it has ever been not only from a gameplay depth and viability standpoint but from a spectator standpoint too. Like I've been saying, banelings are not particularly cost efficient. Yes they are slightly harder to counter than to use, but not anywhere near the level that mines take things.
It's fine for an RTS game to have strong units that take a specialized effort to deal with, but mines take it too far. "Be ready to split your army when the banelings come and try to target them down" is a challenge, but an achievable one with practice. "Always have detection around, and follow this complex mine-removal process, and don't ever send units across the map without being ready to instantly turn around if you see a mine, and don't mess up even once or you'll be too cost inefficient" is too much effort and requires too much skill to perform for all but the very best of players.
Don't put that "infestor/BL was balanced" strawman on me.
|
On May 10 2013 07:01 Rostam wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 06:23 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 06:00 Kergy wrote:On May 10 2013 05:43 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 05:05 Rostam wrote:On May 10 2013 05:04 RogerChillingworth wrote: TvZ is still terran favored, i don't care what anyone says. Other match-ups are better--can go either way--and really map dependent, but non-retarded Terrans will still make zerg look silly. stats fail to illustrate the full picture, i'm afraid. Good thing Code S is filled with retarded Terrans, then, otherwise zerg would be having issues. The game is very well balanced at the pro level but at the mere-humans level, mines are pretty silly. Incredibly cost efficient, takes 10 times more effort to counter than to use, and one mistake vs mines can be game ending. I know that balancing the game for the pro level is far more important than other skill levels... but I can't help but wish they didn't introduce a unit like this into the game. For me in low masters mines just make me want to quit the game. I can't leave my base, I can't ling harrass or go for surrounds, just in case there's a mine there that'll blow up everything for free. I can get mine dropped before I have detection. And even if I know exactly where every mine is, it's still a mess to deal with them... and the only unit that really counters them is broodlords. It's just so frustrating and half the time I just allin against terran now because I'm sick of facing bio/mines and not being able to do anything about it because it takes pro level control to deal with it. WoL ZvT was zerg-favored for a long time but the infestor nerfs and raven buffs made it close to balanced at the very end... then HotS hits and the matchup changed so much in terran's favor. Reapers, speedvacs, hellbats, and mines are all so good and can be gotten quickly, they can affect every game. Meanwhile SH is bad vs terran, so zerg's new toys are the ultra and viper... which are great, but the early game is so much harder. I'm disappointed that changes to mines or reapers apparently weren't even discussed... and something potentially useful for zerg (early burrow) was tossed out before giving it a chance. I feel like I should switch races just so I can use units that can deal with mines better. There's no such thing as imbalance in lower levels, it just means you're not doing things correctly. It's different with mines, because it's so challenging to find them and deal with them effectively. Instead of the bottom 40% of players struggling to counter a simple offensive style, it's the bottom 97%. You have to be very skilled to counter bio + mines in a cost efficient way - far more skill than it takes to scout a dark shrine, wall off vs 10p, or split your marines up. Do you have any proof that 97% of zerg players are struggling, other than your own experiences? I'm having a hard time seeing evidence of it based on the ladder statistics.
No, but if they're ruining the game for me at mid masters, somehow I doubt that platinum zergs are dealing with mines just fine. Now that I think about it I suppose 97% is too high though, because at lower levels the terrans will put mines in bad places or forget to burrow them and things like that... it's still a large percentage of zergs though.
|
Really like this approach. Only concern is Oracle which I like, but it cost a lot and yes, spells aren't that good. Revelation on a muta pack is fun, but its easily sniped. I actually wanted the speedbuff/acceleration because of Revelation. The unit looks badass!
As a protoss player I love speedvacs, they really make you kind of respect the terran a lot. I get all nerdschill when I am afraid to leave my base. I want to feel the power of my opponents race, not laughing at the nerf-fest they received over the last few months. Bravo Blizzard, I enjoy your approach <3
|
Too soon to change anything indeed. Perhaps the spore conoly could you a brush up against biological units.
|
On May 10 2013 13:00 vRadiatioNv wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 07:05 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 10 2013 05:43 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 05:05 Rostam wrote:On May 10 2013 05:04 RogerChillingworth wrote: TvZ is still terran favored, i don't care what anyone says. Other match-ups are better--can go either way--and really map dependent, but non-retarded Terrans will still make zerg look silly. stats fail to illustrate the full picture, i'm afraid. Good thing Code S is filled with retarded Terrans, then, otherwise zerg would be having issues. The game is very well balanced at the pro level but at the mere-humans level, mines are pretty silly. Incredibly cost efficient, takes 10 times more effort to counter than to use, and one mistake vs mines can be game ending. Welcome to Banelings for all of WoL. As a Zerg player you're simply not accustomed to having to face which you've been dishing out. Infestor/BL really did a number on what players like you perceive as a "balanced" matchup causing you to complain when ZvT is the best it has ever been not only from a gameplay depth and viability standpoint but from a spectator standpoint too. The Mine vs Banelings argument has been done so many times it shouldn't be brought up anymore. It's not a very good comparison to begin with and how often do you see Banelings come out as cost efficient as Mines? People see Banelings melt Marines and they go "OMG IMBA". Newsflash: that's minerals vs minerals+gas, more often than not it's not actually very efficient for Zerg lol. Not only do Mines pwn Zerglings but they pwn Banelings, Mutas and almost every Zerg unit. At best Banelings serve as a "stall" form of AoE where you are just trying to keep the Terran army small to avoid dying while going for Hive tech and more efficient forms of AoE (Infestors/Ultras). On the other hand Mines are very efficient and can be used almost all game long. The Mine vs Banelings argument has been done so many times it shouldn't be brought up anymore. It's not a very good comparison to begin with and how often do you see Banelings come out as cost efficient as Mines?[/quote] Quite often when they are used as baneling mines. Which cannot be detected by simply running a single ling ahead of the rest. Really that isn't that much work. Not to mention speedlings can run pretty much directly over mines without activating them.
Another newsflash: Not only do mines pwn lings and mutas, they pwn marines too. I tested it before, do equal supply/cost of speedlings vs marine/mine, unmicro'd on both sides, even with stimming the marines, and the end result is generally a draw. Mines kill everything, including friendly units. So that balances it out for lower levels.
And then talking about being used all-game long? Mines are pretty much useless when BLs come out, and tbh also infestors and ultras don't make them more impressive, although with BLs out they actually only kill your own army. Meanwhile banelings stay very useful throughout all the game.
And of course it is hard to compare two units which are quite different, but I agree that mines are probably more cost efficient generally. At the same time banelings are generally more supply efficient.
|
On May 10 2013 16:22 Chocobo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 07:01 Rostam wrote:On May 10 2013 06:23 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 06:00 Kergy wrote:On May 10 2013 05:43 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 05:05 Rostam wrote:On May 10 2013 05:04 RogerChillingworth wrote: TvZ is still terran favored, i don't care what anyone says. Other match-ups are better--can go either way--and really map dependent, but non-retarded Terrans will still make zerg look silly. stats fail to illustrate the full picture, i'm afraid. Good thing Code S is filled with retarded Terrans, then, otherwise zerg would be having issues. The game is very well balanced at the pro level but at the mere-humans level, mines are pretty silly. Incredibly cost efficient, takes 10 times more effort to counter than to use, and one mistake vs mines can be game ending. I know that balancing the game for the pro level is far more important than other skill levels... but I can't help but wish they didn't introduce a unit like this into the game. For me in low masters mines just make me want to quit the game. I can't leave my base, I can't ling harrass or go for surrounds, just in case there's a mine there that'll blow up everything for free. I can get mine dropped before I have detection. And even if I know exactly where every mine is, it's still a mess to deal with them... and the only unit that really counters them is broodlords. It's just so frustrating and half the time I just allin against terran now because I'm sick of facing bio/mines and not being able to do anything about it because it takes pro level control to deal with it. WoL ZvT was zerg-favored for a long time but the infestor nerfs and raven buffs made it close to balanced at the very end... then HotS hits and the matchup changed so much in terran's favor. Reapers, speedvacs, hellbats, and mines are all so good and can be gotten quickly, they can affect every game. Meanwhile SH is bad vs terran, so zerg's new toys are the ultra and viper... which are great, but the early game is so much harder. I'm disappointed that changes to mines or reapers apparently weren't even discussed... and something potentially useful for zerg (early burrow) was tossed out before giving it a chance. I feel like I should switch races just so I can use units that can deal with mines better. There's no such thing as imbalance in lower levels, it just means you're not doing things correctly. It's different with mines, because it's so challenging to find them and deal with them effectively. Instead of the bottom 40% of players struggling to counter a simple offensive style, it's the bottom 97%. You have to be very skilled to counter bio + mines in a cost efficient way - far more skill than it takes to scout a dark shrine, wall off vs 10p, or split your marines up. Do you have any proof that 97% of zerg players are struggling, other than your own experiences? I'm having a hard time seeing evidence of it based on the ladder statistics. No, but if they're ruining the game for me at mid masters, somehow I doubt that platinum zergs are dealing with mines just fine. Now that I think about it I suppose 97% is too high though, because at lower levels the terrans will put mines in bad places or forget to burrow them and things like that... it's still a large percentage of zergs though.
You have to look at it from another perspective: Mines are no burrow and forget units. If a terran has no idea how to use them and burrows them at the wrong spots, they will never ever trigger any explosions or do crucial damage. So it's not only that zergs are worse at lower levels, terrans also neither play perfect. Yes, maybe zergs can lose like 30 lings on a single mine here and there, but such mistakes are forgiveable below diamond I'd say.
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?36665 Posts
YES!!!!
NO ORACLE CHANGE!!!
|
Ugh please don't bring back infestors in zvz. I actually watch zvz now
|
On May 10 2013 16:45 Prugelhugel wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 16:22 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 07:01 Rostam wrote:On May 10 2013 06:23 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 06:00 Kergy wrote:On May 10 2013 05:43 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 05:05 Rostam wrote:On May 10 2013 05:04 RogerChillingworth wrote: TvZ is still terran favored, i don't care what anyone says. Other match-ups are better--can go either way--and really map dependent, but non-retarded Terrans will still make zerg look silly. stats fail to illustrate the full picture, i'm afraid. Good thing Code S is filled with retarded Terrans, then, otherwise zerg would be having issues. The game is very well balanced at the pro level but at the mere-humans level, mines are pretty silly. Incredibly cost efficient, takes 10 times more effort to counter than to use, and one mistake vs mines can be game ending. I know that balancing the game for the pro level is far more important than other skill levels... but I can't help but wish they didn't introduce a unit like this into the game. For me in low masters mines just make me want to quit the game. I can't leave my base, I can't ling harrass or go for surrounds, just in case there's a mine there that'll blow up everything for free. I can get mine dropped before I have detection. And even if I know exactly where every mine is, it's still a mess to deal with them... and the only unit that really counters them is broodlords. It's just so frustrating and half the time I just allin against terran now because I'm sick of facing bio/mines and not being able to do anything about it because it takes pro level control to deal with it. WoL ZvT was zerg-favored for a long time but the infestor nerfs and raven buffs made it close to balanced at the very end... then HotS hits and the matchup changed so much in terran's favor. Reapers, speedvacs, hellbats, and mines are all so good and can be gotten quickly, they can affect every game. Meanwhile SH is bad vs terran, so zerg's new toys are the ultra and viper... which are great, but the early game is so much harder. I'm disappointed that changes to mines or reapers apparently weren't even discussed... and something potentially useful for zerg (early burrow) was tossed out before giving it a chance. I feel like I should switch races just so I can use units that can deal with mines better. There's no such thing as imbalance in lower levels, it just means you're not doing things correctly. It's different with mines, because it's so challenging to find them and deal with them effectively. Instead of the bottom 40% of players struggling to counter a simple offensive style, it's the bottom 97%. You have to be very skilled to counter bio + mines in a cost efficient way - far more skill than it takes to scout a dark shrine, wall off vs 10p, or split your marines up. Do you have any proof that 97% of zerg players are struggling, other than your own experiences? I'm having a hard time seeing evidence of it based on the ladder statistics. No, but if they're ruining the game for me at mid masters, somehow I doubt that platinum zergs are dealing with mines just fine. Now that I think about it I suppose 97% is too high though, because at lower levels the terrans will put mines in bad places or forget to burrow them and things like that... it's still a large percentage of zergs though. You have to look at it from another perspective: Mines are no burrow and forget units. If a terran has no idea how to use them and burrows them at the wrong spots, they will never ever trigger any explosions or do crucial damage. So it's not only that zergs are worse at lower levels, terrans also neither play perfect. Yes, maybe zergs can lose like 30 lings on a single mine here and there, but such mistakes are forgiveable below diamond I'd say.
I'm sorry but it takes more effort for Terran to counter 99% of Zerg units than it does to use them. Mines are just one unit that finally Zerg can't just amove around the map into. I'm not saying Zerg is easier to play overall than Terran (I play mid master random) but the justification that mines are ruining the game because it takes Zerg more effort to deal with them is just stupid.
|
On May 10 2013 16:20 Chocobo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 07:05 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 10 2013 05:43 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 05:05 Rostam wrote:On May 10 2013 05:04 RogerChillingworth wrote: TvZ is still terran favored, i don't care what anyone says. Other match-ups are better--can go either way--and really map dependent, but non-retarded Terrans will still make zerg look silly. stats fail to illustrate the full picture, i'm afraid. Good thing Code S is filled with retarded Terrans, then, otherwise zerg would be having issues. The game is very well balanced at the pro level but at the mere-humans level, mines are pretty silly. Incredibly cost efficient, takes 10 times more effort to counter than to use, and one mistake vs mines can be game ending. Welcome to Banelings for all of WoL. As a Zerg player you're simply not accustomed to having to face which you've been dishing out. Infestor/BL really did a number on what players like you perceive as a "balanced" matchup causing you to complain when ZvT is the best it has ever been not only from a gameplay depth and viability standpoint but from a spectator standpoint too. Like I've been saying, banelings are not particularly cost efficient. Yes they are slightly harder to counter than to use
Bolded for emphasis. With all due respect you are incredibly biased, and unfortunately the rest of your post falls victim to this style of thinking. Downplaying things to suit your agenda isn't making a valid point, so everything I mentioned still effectively stands.
|
On May 10 2013 16:20 Chocobo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 07:05 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 10 2013 05:43 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 05:05 Rostam wrote:On May 10 2013 05:04 RogerChillingworth wrote: TvZ is still terran favored, i don't care what anyone says. Other match-ups are better--can go either way--and really map dependent, but non-retarded Terrans will still make zerg look silly. stats fail to illustrate the full picture, i'm afraid. Good thing Code S is filled with retarded Terrans, then, otherwise zerg would be having issues. The game is very well balanced at the pro level but at the mere-humans level, mines are pretty silly. Incredibly cost efficient, takes 10 times more effort to counter than to use, and one mistake vs mines can be game ending. Welcome to Banelings for all of WoL. As a Zerg player you're simply not accustomed to having to face which you've been dishing out. Infestor/BL really did a number on what players like you perceive as a "balanced" matchup causing you to complain when ZvT is the best it has ever been not only from a gameplay depth and viability standpoint but from a spectator standpoint too. Like I've been saying, banelings are not particularly cost efficient. Yes they are slightly harder to counter than to use, but not anywhere near the level that mines take things. It's fine for an RTS game to have strong units that take a specialized effort to deal with, but mines take it too far. "Be ready to split your army when the banelings come and try to target them down" is a challenge, but an achievable one with practice. "Always have detection around, and follow this complex mine-removal process, and don't ever send units across the map without being ready to instantly turn around if you see a mine, and don't mess up even once or you'll be too cost inefficient" is too much effort and requires too much skill to perform for all but the very best of players. Don't put that "infestor/BL was balanced" strawman on me. Stop arguing with them. Mines don't even suicide, and you name all the problems we have with Mines, while they start to compare them to Banelings that suicides, you lose them to do damage, you almost always lose half of them before they even connect to something, and in the end, if our attack and Banelings hit were good, the resources lost are about equal.
I am not saying that things are imbalanced at the moment. I enjoy new match-ups a lot more than the camping ones from WoL, but saying that Widow Mines are same as Banelings is stupid as hell. You can't reason with Terran players that are saying this.
|
On May 10 2013 17:10 Ramiz1989 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 16:20 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 07:05 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 10 2013 05:43 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 05:05 Rostam wrote:On May 10 2013 05:04 RogerChillingworth wrote: TvZ is still terran favored, i don't care what anyone says. Other match-ups are better--can go either way--and really map dependent, but non-retarded Terrans will still make zerg look silly. stats fail to illustrate the full picture, i'm afraid. Good thing Code S is filled with retarded Terrans, then, otherwise zerg would be having issues. The game is very well balanced at the pro level but at the mere-humans level, mines are pretty silly. Incredibly cost efficient, takes 10 times more effort to counter than to use, and one mistake vs mines can be game ending. Welcome to Banelings for all of WoL. As a Zerg player you're simply not accustomed to having to face which you've been dishing out. Infestor/BL really did a number on what players like you perceive as a "balanced" matchup causing you to complain when ZvT is the best it has ever been not only from a gameplay depth and viability standpoint but from a spectator standpoint too. Like I've been saying, banelings are not particularly cost efficient. Yes they are slightly harder to counter than to use, but not anywhere near the level that mines take things. It's fine for an RTS game to have strong units that take a specialized effort to deal with, but mines take it too far. "Be ready to split your army when the banelings come and try to target them down" is a challenge, but an achievable one with practice. "Always have detection around, and follow this complex mine-removal process, and don't ever send units across the map without being ready to instantly turn around if you see a mine, and don't mess up even once or you'll be too cost inefficient" is too much effort and requires too much skill to perform for all but the very best of players. Don't put that "infestor/BL was balanced" strawman on me. Stop arguing with them. Mines don't even suicide, and you name all the problems we have with Mines, while they start to compare them to Banelings that suicides, you lose them to do damage, you almost always lose half of them before they even connect to something, and in the end, if our attack and Banelings hit were good, the resources lost are about equal. I am not saying that things are imbalanced at the moment. I enjoy new match-ups a lot more than the camping ones from WoL, but saying that Widow Mines are same as Banelings is stupid as hell. You can't reason with Terran players that are saying this. No one is saying mines are same as banelings... But since banelings are the zerg unit most like mines it is the logical choice for comparisons.
And I can also make such a list about mines: They are alot slower than your banelings, they have to burrow to attack, they do friendly damage!, you cannot disable their autoattack, etc.
|
On May 10 2013 17:40 Sissors wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 17:10 Ramiz1989 wrote:On May 10 2013 16:20 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 07:05 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 10 2013 05:43 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 05:05 Rostam wrote:On May 10 2013 05:04 RogerChillingworth wrote: TvZ is still terran favored, i don't care what anyone says. Other match-ups are better--can go either way--and really map dependent, but non-retarded Terrans will still make zerg look silly. stats fail to illustrate the full picture, i'm afraid. Good thing Code S is filled with retarded Terrans, then, otherwise zerg would be having issues. The game is very well balanced at the pro level but at the mere-humans level, mines are pretty silly. Incredibly cost efficient, takes 10 times more effort to counter than to use, and one mistake vs mines can be game ending. Welcome to Banelings for all of WoL. As a Zerg player you're simply not accustomed to having to face which you've been dishing out. Infestor/BL really did a number on what players like you perceive as a "balanced" matchup causing you to complain when ZvT is the best it has ever been not only from a gameplay depth and viability standpoint but from a spectator standpoint too. Like I've been saying, banelings are not particularly cost efficient. Yes they are slightly harder to counter than to use, but not anywhere near the level that mines take things. It's fine for an RTS game to have strong units that take a specialized effort to deal with, but mines take it too far. "Be ready to split your army when the banelings come and try to target them down" is a challenge, but an achievable one with practice. "Always have detection around, and follow this complex mine-removal process, and don't ever send units across the map without being ready to instantly turn around if you see a mine, and don't mess up even once or you'll be too cost inefficient" is too much effort and requires too much skill to perform for all but the very best of players. Don't put that "infestor/BL was balanced" strawman on me. Stop arguing with them. Mines don't even suicide, and you name all the problems we have with Mines, while they start to compare them to Banelings that suicides, you lose them to do damage, you almost always lose half of them before they even connect to something, and in the end, if our attack and Banelings hit were good, the resources lost are about equal. I am not saying that things are imbalanced at the moment. I enjoy new match-ups a lot more than the camping ones from WoL, but saying that Widow Mines are same as Banelings is stupid as hell. You can't reason with Terran players that are saying this. No one is saying mines are same as banelings... But since banelings are the zerg unit most like mines it is the logical choice for comparisons. And I can also make such a list about mines: They are alot slower than your banelings, they have to burrow to attack, they do friendly damage!, you cannot disable their autoattack, etc. Of course, you can make such list for every unit in SC2, my point is that Banelings are suicide units, and Mines aren't, and it is extremely hard to be cost-efficient with Banelings, since most of the times you won't kill as much as they cost, while it is hard for Mines to NOT be cost-efficient when they are used as support for Bio units. You can't trigger them with few units when the Bio is on top of them, and if you charge on Terran army with your units then complete chaos happens.
|
On May 10 2013 18:07 Ramiz1989 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 17:40 Sissors wrote:On May 10 2013 17:10 Ramiz1989 wrote:On May 10 2013 16:20 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 07:05 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 10 2013 05:43 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 05:05 Rostam wrote:On May 10 2013 05:04 RogerChillingworth wrote: TvZ is still terran favored, i don't care what anyone says. Other match-ups are better--can go either way--and really map dependent, but non-retarded Terrans will still make zerg look silly. stats fail to illustrate the full picture, i'm afraid. Good thing Code S is filled with retarded Terrans, then, otherwise zerg would be having issues. The game is very well balanced at the pro level but at the mere-humans level, mines are pretty silly. Incredibly cost efficient, takes 10 times more effort to counter than to use, and one mistake vs mines can be game ending. Welcome to Banelings for all of WoL. As a Zerg player you're simply not accustomed to having to face which you've been dishing out. Infestor/BL really did a number on what players like you perceive as a "balanced" matchup causing you to complain when ZvT is the best it has ever been not only from a gameplay depth and viability standpoint but from a spectator standpoint too. Like I've been saying, banelings are not particularly cost efficient. Yes they are slightly harder to counter than to use, but not anywhere near the level that mines take things. It's fine for an RTS game to have strong units that take a specialized effort to deal with, but mines take it too far. "Be ready to split your army when the banelings come and try to target them down" is a challenge, but an achievable one with practice. "Always have detection around, and follow this complex mine-removal process, and don't ever send units across the map without being ready to instantly turn around if you see a mine, and don't mess up even once or you'll be too cost inefficient" is too much effort and requires too much skill to perform for all but the very best of players. Don't put that "infestor/BL was balanced" strawman on me. Stop arguing with them. Mines don't even suicide, and you name all the problems we have with Mines, while they start to compare them to Banelings that suicides, you lose them to do damage, you almost always lose half of them before they even connect to something, and in the end, if our attack and Banelings hit were good, the resources lost are about equal. I am not saying that things are imbalanced at the moment. I enjoy new match-ups a lot more than the camping ones from WoL, but saying that Widow Mines are same as Banelings is stupid as hell. You can't reason with Terran players that are saying this. No one is saying mines are same as banelings... But since banelings are the zerg unit most like mines it is the logical choice for comparisons. And I can also make such a list about mines: They are alot slower than your banelings, they have to burrow to attack, they do friendly damage!, you cannot disable their autoattack, etc. Of course, you can make such list for every unit in SC2, my point is that Banelings are suicide units, and Mines aren't, and it is extremely hard to be cost-efficient with Banelings, since most of the times you won't kill as much as they cost, while it is hard for Mines to NOT be cost-efficient when they are used as support for Bio units. You can't trigger them with few units when the Bio is on top of them, and if you charge on Terran army with your units then complete chaos happens.
That's so incredibly biased. You know what happens most of the time when I use mines at Diamond level? I move command them while the Z attacks and they never go off. Or they burrow and eat popcorn as the Z army runs past them and ravages everything I have. Mines are essentially siege tanks with tiny range, if you don't position them well and have good timings for burrow, they do absolutely nothing. They sit there, wiggle their little legs and get eaten by zerglings.
Not to mention, why are talking about the balance worries of low master players. Just like I don't think mines should be any easier to use, you shouldn't think that your ling a-moves should be easier to execute. The game is finally looking great at the highest level of play and that's what we want.
|
Thank you, even though the spore change is still a bit too much imo given that top level koreans are starting to be able to transition out of mutas, I really appreciate that they are not going to do the completly retarded oracle/burrow change.
|
On May 10 2013 18:14 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 18:07 Ramiz1989 wrote:On May 10 2013 17:40 Sissors wrote:On May 10 2013 17:10 Ramiz1989 wrote:On May 10 2013 16:20 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 07:05 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 10 2013 05:43 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 05:05 Rostam wrote:On May 10 2013 05:04 RogerChillingworth wrote: TvZ is still terran favored, i don't care what anyone says. Other match-ups are better--can go either way--and really map dependent, but non-retarded Terrans will still make zerg look silly. stats fail to illustrate the full picture, i'm afraid. Good thing Code S is filled with retarded Terrans, then, otherwise zerg would be having issues. The game is very well balanced at the pro level but at the mere-humans level, mines are pretty silly. Incredibly cost efficient, takes 10 times more effort to counter than to use, and one mistake vs mines can be game ending. Welcome to Banelings for all of WoL. As a Zerg player you're simply not accustomed to having to face which you've been dishing out. Infestor/BL really did a number on what players like you perceive as a "balanced" matchup causing you to complain when ZvT is the best it has ever been not only from a gameplay depth and viability standpoint but from a spectator standpoint too. Like I've been saying, banelings are not particularly cost efficient. Yes they are slightly harder to counter than to use, but not anywhere near the level that mines take things. It's fine for an RTS game to have strong units that take a specialized effort to deal with, but mines take it too far. "Be ready to split your army when the banelings come and try to target them down" is a challenge, but an achievable one with practice. "Always have detection around, and follow this complex mine-removal process, and don't ever send units across the map without being ready to instantly turn around if you see a mine, and don't mess up even once or you'll be too cost inefficient" is too much effort and requires too much skill to perform for all but the very best of players. Don't put that "infestor/BL was balanced" strawman on me. Stop arguing with them. Mines don't even suicide, and you name all the problems we have with Mines, while they start to compare them to Banelings that suicides, you lose them to do damage, you almost always lose half of them before they even connect to something, and in the end, if our attack and Banelings hit were good, the resources lost are about equal. I am not saying that things are imbalanced at the moment. I enjoy new match-ups a lot more than the camping ones from WoL, but saying that Widow Mines are same as Banelings is stupid as hell. You can't reason with Terran players that are saying this. No one is saying mines are same as banelings... But since banelings are the zerg unit most like mines it is the logical choice for comparisons. And I can also make such a list about mines: They are alot slower than your banelings, they have to burrow to attack, they do friendly damage!, you cannot disable their autoattack, etc. Of course, you can make such list for every unit in SC2, my point is that Banelings are suicide units, and Mines aren't, and it is extremely hard to be cost-efficient with Banelings, since most of the times you won't kill as much as they cost, while it is hard for Mines to NOT be cost-efficient when they are used as support for Bio units. You can't trigger them with few units when the Bio is on top of them, and if you charge on Terran army with your units then complete chaos happens. That's so incredibly biased. You know what happens most of the time when I use mines at Diamond level? I move command them while the Z attacks and they never go off. Or they burrow and eat popcorn as the Z army runs past them and ravages everything I have. Mines are essentially siege tanks with tiny range, if you don't position them well and have good timings for burrow, they do absolutely nothing. They sit there, wiggle their little legs and get eaten by zerglings. Not to mention, why are talking about the balance worries of low master players. Just like I don't think mines should be any easier to use, you shouldn't think that your ling a-moves should be easier to execute. The game is finally looking great at the highest level of play and that's what we want. So, when you fuck up, Mines don't do anything? You don't say!?
You know what happens when I a-click with Banelings? 10 of them get killed, 7 of them suicide on single Marauder, next 7 on the next Marauder, and I am out of the Banelings! Yeah, Banelings are terrible! On a serious note, Zerg won't be able to pass by them if you use them correctly, or should I say, burrow the Mines, and attack with Bio, then stim Bio and run back to the Mines when he tries to attack? Only problem you can have if you don't burrow the Mines on time, and with the upgrade, Mines burrow in one second, so in the mid game, I don't even see that happening.
I agree with you about the highest level of play though, as I said in one of previous posts, I am not balance whining, I like how game is played right now, just when Terran players think that Mines are same as Banelings, or that Banelings are as cost-efficient as Mines are, those Terrans are delusional.
|
so sad the worst of the 3 suggestions goes through. burrow on hatchtech is still 100% useless. sad to see. would finally give Z something new in the early game which has changed a lot for T and P and not at all for Z. really hope they rethink about it in some weeks when they see its still completely useless.
|
On May 10 2013 17:00 DemigodcelpH wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 16:20 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 07:05 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 10 2013 05:43 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 05:05 Rostam wrote:On May 10 2013 05:04 RogerChillingworth wrote: TvZ is still terran favored, i don't care what anyone says. Other match-ups are better--can go either way--and really map dependent, but non-retarded Terrans will still make zerg look silly. stats fail to illustrate the full picture, i'm afraid. Good thing Code S is filled with retarded Terrans, then, otherwise zerg would be having issues. The game is very well balanced at the pro level but at the mere-humans level, mines are pretty silly. Incredibly cost efficient, takes 10 times more effort to counter than to use, and one mistake vs mines can be game ending. Welcome to Banelings for all of WoL. As a Zerg player you're simply not accustomed to having to face which you've been dishing out. Infestor/BL really did a number on what players like you perceive as a "balanced" matchup causing you to complain when ZvT is the best it has ever been not only from a gameplay depth and viability standpoint but from a spectator standpoint too. Like I've been saying, banelings are not particularly cost efficient. Yes they are slightly harder to counter than to use Bolded for emphasis. With all due respect you are incredibly biased, and unfortunately the rest of your post falls victim to this style of thinking. Downplaying things to suit your agenda isn't making a valid point, so everything I mentioned still effectively stands.
If you think that's biased then I don't think you understand the game very well, or at least haven't played the matchup from both sides. Seeing banelings and reacting by splitting your marines (or stim + run to cover) is not that hard, and is certainly nowhere near the difficulty of dealing with mines cost efficiently as zerg. That's simply a fact.
Additionally, banelings have higher risk and lower reward than mines. Usually some "great baneling connections!" are an even trade on the resources lost meter, and still means zerg is spending gas to wipe out mineral-only units. The reward for successful banelings is low, and they carry the risk of being inefficient and costing you the game (if you run into tank fire, perfect splits, or hit the wrong units).
Mines simply aren't like that. I've never seen a terran lose due to being inefficient with his mines. I've seen many terrans win, including at the pro level, where mines wipe out large portions of armies at once while losing nothing. Mines are far more cost efficient and that means the risk you take by making them is virtually nothing... and the rewards are often so high. They're useful all game long too - they're even good against ultras.
As an esports fan I recognize that mines are balanced at the pro level and I appreciate seeing the skill on display in using them and countering them. But as a player, I can recognize a problem in a game where non-expert players have no chance to deal with something efficiently even if they know it's coming.
|
On May 10 2013 18:28 Ramiz1989 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 18:14 Ghanburighan wrote:On May 10 2013 18:07 Ramiz1989 wrote:On May 10 2013 17:40 Sissors wrote:On May 10 2013 17:10 Ramiz1989 wrote:On May 10 2013 16:20 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 07:05 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 10 2013 05:43 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 05:05 Rostam wrote:On May 10 2013 05:04 RogerChillingworth wrote: TvZ is still terran favored, i don't care what anyone says. Other match-ups are better--can go either way--and really map dependent, but non-retarded Terrans will still make zerg look silly. stats fail to illustrate the full picture, i'm afraid. Good thing Code S is filled with retarded Terrans, then, otherwise zerg would be having issues. The game is very well balanced at the pro level but at the mere-humans level, mines are pretty silly. Incredibly cost efficient, takes 10 times more effort to counter than to use, and one mistake vs mines can be game ending. Welcome to Banelings for all of WoL. As a Zerg player you're simply not accustomed to having to face which you've been dishing out. Infestor/BL really did a number on what players like you perceive as a "balanced" matchup causing you to complain when ZvT is the best it has ever been not only from a gameplay depth and viability standpoint but from a spectator standpoint too. Like I've been saying, banelings are not particularly cost efficient. Yes they are slightly harder to counter than to use, but not anywhere near the level that mines take things. It's fine for an RTS game to have strong units that take a specialized effort to deal with, but mines take it too far. "Be ready to split your army when the banelings come and try to target them down" is a challenge, but an achievable one with practice. "Always have detection around, and follow this complex mine-removal process, and don't ever send units across the map without being ready to instantly turn around if you see a mine, and don't mess up even once or you'll be too cost inefficient" is too much effort and requires too much skill to perform for all but the very best of players. Don't put that "infestor/BL was balanced" strawman on me. Stop arguing with them. Mines don't even suicide, and you name all the problems we have with Mines, while they start to compare them to Banelings that suicides, you lose them to do damage, you almost always lose half of them before they even connect to something, and in the end, if our attack and Banelings hit were good, the resources lost are about equal. I am not saying that things are imbalanced at the moment. I enjoy new match-ups a lot more than the camping ones from WoL, but saying that Widow Mines are same as Banelings is stupid as hell. You can't reason with Terran players that are saying this. No one is saying mines are same as banelings... But since banelings are the zerg unit most like mines it is the logical choice for comparisons. And I can also make such a list about mines: They are alot slower than your banelings, they have to burrow to attack, they do friendly damage!, you cannot disable their autoattack, etc. Of course, you can make such list for every unit in SC2, my point is that Banelings are suicide units, and Mines aren't, and it is extremely hard to be cost-efficient with Banelings, since most of the times you won't kill as much as they cost, while it is hard for Mines to NOT be cost-efficient when they are used as support for Bio units. You can't trigger them with few units when the Bio is on top of them, and if you charge on Terran army with your units then complete chaos happens. That's so incredibly biased. You know what happens most of the time when I use mines at Diamond level? I move command them while the Z attacks and they never go off. Or they burrow and eat popcorn as the Z army runs past them and ravages everything I have. Mines are essentially siege tanks with tiny range, if you don't position them well and have good timings for burrow, they do absolutely nothing. They sit there, wiggle their little legs and get eaten by zerglings. Not to mention, why are talking about the balance worries of low master players. Just like I don't think mines should be any easier to use, you shouldn't think that your ling a-moves should be easier to execute. The game is finally looking great at the highest level of play and that's what we want. So, when you fuck up, Mines don't do anything? You don't say!? You know what happens when I a-click with Banelings? 10 of them get killed, 7 of them suicide on single Marauder, next 7 on the next Marauder, and I am out of the Banelings! Yeah, Banelings are terrible! On a serious note, Zerg won't be able to pass by them if you use them correctly, or should I say, burrow the Mines, and attack with Bio, then stim Bio and run back to the Mines when he tries to attack? Only problem you can have if you don't burrow the Mines on time, and with the upgrade, Mines burrow in one second, so in the mid game, I don't even see that happening. I agree with you about the highest level of play though, as I said in one of previous posts, I am not balance whining, I like how game is played right now, just when Terran players think that Mines are same as Banelings, or that Banelings are as cost-efficient as Mines are, those Terrans are delusional.
I would argue Terran is the hardest to play at the lowest level. The reason I feel this is because they have the most players in bronze. Terran has always been over represented in bronze/silver, whilst zerg is under represented in the lower leagues. Evidence - http://www.sc2ranks.com/stats/league/all/1/all. Not that I mind. I'd prefer if rank scaled more evenly with skill between the races, but I don't think it really matters. If mines make the match up a little harder for zerg at lower levels I don't think thats a bad thing.
|
On May 10 2013 18:57 Chocobo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 17:00 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 10 2013 16:20 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 07:05 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 10 2013 05:43 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 05:05 Rostam wrote:On May 10 2013 05:04 RogerChillingworth wrote: TvZ is still terran favored, i don't care what anyone says. Other match-ups are better--can go either way--and really map dependent, but non-retarded Terrans will still make zerg look silly. stats fail to illustrate the full picture, i'm afraid. Good thing Code S is filled with retarded Terrans, then, otherwise zerg would be having issues. The game is very well balanced at the pro level but at the mere-humans level, mines are pretty silly. Incredibly cost efficient, takes 10 times more effort to counter than to use, and one mistake vs mines can be game ending. Welcome to Banelings for all of WoL. As a Zerg player you're simply not accustomed to having to face which you've been dishing out. Infestor/BL really did a number on what players like you perceive as a "balanced" matchup causing you to complain when ZvT is the best it has ever been not only from a gameplay depth and viability standpoint but from a spectator standpoint too. Like I've been saying, banelings are not particularly cost efficient. Yes they are slightly harder to counter than to use Bolded for emphasis. With all due respect you are incredibly biased, and unfortunately the rest of your post falls victim to this style of thinking. Downplaying things to suit your agenda isn't making a valid point, so everything I mentioned still effectively stands. If you think that's biased then I don't think you understand the game very well, or at least haven't played the matchup from both sides. Seeing banelings and reacting by splitting your marines (or stim + run to cover) is not that hard, and is certainly nowhere near the difficulty of dealing with mines cost efficiently as zerg. That's simply a fact. Additionally, banelings have higher risk and lower reward than mines. Usually some "great baneling connections!" are an even trade on the resources lost meter, and still means zerg is spending gas to wipe out mineral-only units. The reward for successful banelings is low, and they carry the risk of being inefficient and costing you the game (if you run into tank fire, perfect splits, or hit the wrong units). Mines simply aren't like that. I've never seen a terran lose due to being inefficient with his mines. I've seen many terrans win, including at the pro level, where mines wipe out large portions of armies at once while losing nothing. Mines are far more cost efficient and that means the risk you take by making them is virtually nothing... and the rewards are often so high. They're useful all game long too - they're even good against ultras. As an esports fan I recognize that mines are balanced at the pro level and I appreciate seeing the skill on display in using them and countering them. But as a player, I can recognize a problem in a game where non-expert players have no chance to deal with something efficiently even if they know it's coming.
You could also play roach hydra. That's very strong when your opponent goes mines. I don't think it's as good as skillful ling bane muta play, but you can hit a very strong midgame timing where the onus is once more on the terran to recognize what you are doing and react appropriately.
|
On May 10 2013 16:45 Prugelhugel wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 16:22 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 07:01 Rostam wrote:On May 10 2013 06:23 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 06:00 Kergy wrote:On May 10 2013 05:43 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 05:05 Rostam wrote:On May 10 2013 05:04 RogerChillingworth wrote: TvZ is still terran favored, i don't care what anyone says. Other match-ups are better--can go either way--and really map dependent, but non-retarded Terrans will still make zerg look silly. stats fail to illustrate the full picture, i'm afraid. Good thing Code S is filled with retarded Terrans, then, otherwise zerg would be having issues. The game is very well balanced at the pro level but at the mere-humans level, mines are pretty silly. Incredibly cost efficient, takes 10 times more effort to counter than to use, and one mistake vs mines can be game ending. I know that balancing the game for the pro level is far more important than other skill levels... but I can't help but wish they didn't introduce a unit like this into the game. For me in low masters mines just make me want to quit the game. I can't leave my base, I can't ling harrass or go for surrounds, just in case there's a mine there that'll blow up everything for free. I can get mine dropped before I have detection. And even if I know exactly where every mine is, it's still a mess to deal with them... and the only unit that really counters them is broodlords. It's just so frustrating and half the time I just allin against terran now because I'm sick of facing bio/mines and not being able to do anything about it because it takes pro level control to deal with it. WoL ZvT was zerg-favored for a long time but the infestor nerfs and raven buffs made it close to balanced at the very end... then HotS hits and the matchup changed so much in terran's favor. Reapers, speedvacs, hellbats, and mines are all so good and can be gotten quickly, they can affect every game. Meanwhile SH is bad vs terran, so zerg's new toys are the ultra and viper... which are great, but the early game is so much harder. I'm disappointed that changes to mines or reapers apparently weren't even discussed... and something potentially useful for zerg (early burrow) was tossed out before giving it a chance. I feel like I should switch races just so I can use units that can deal with mines better. There's no such thing as imbalance in lower levels, it just means you're not doing things correctly. It's different with mines, because it's so challenging to find them and deal with them effectively. Instead of the bottom 40% of players struggling to counter a simple offensive style, it's the bottom 97%. You have to be very skilled to counter bio + mines in a cost efficient way - far more skill than it takes to scout a dark shrine, wall off vs 10p, or split your marines up. Do you have any proof that 97% of zerg players are struggling, other than your own experiences? I'm having a hard time seeing evidence of it based on the ladder statistics. No, but if they're ruining the game for me at mid masters, somehow I doubt that platinum zergs are dealing with mines just fine. Now that I think about it I suppose 97% is too high though, because at lower levels the terrans will put mines in bad places or forget to burrow them and things like that... it's still a large percentage of zergs though. You have to look at it from another perspective: Mines are no burrow and forget units. If a terran has no idea how to use them and burrows them at the wrong spots, they will never ever trigger any explosions or do crucial damage. So it's not only that zergs are worse at lower levels, terrans also neither play perfect. Yes, maybe zergs can lose like 30 lings on a single mine here and there, but such mistakes are forgiveable below diamond I'd say.
You're right, mines are not great at every skill level below the pros. In the lower leagues where terrans put them in useless places or forget to burrow, they won't do much. My 97% estimate was wrong.
But for the upper half of the ladder, they're easily the most cost efficient unit in the game... and I'd argue that it's worse to have a problem in the game at those skill levels, which contain the players who really care about the game and play more often.
I don't know if there's any good way to change the mines without making them too weak at the pro level though. You don't want to nerf them into uselessness... but right now zerg doesn't have any good tools for dealing with them effectively.
|
Why is everyone comparing widow mines with banelings? Has everyone forgotten the free spell called fungal that can win the game all for 0 mins 0 gas?
|
On May 10 2013 18:28 Ramiz1989 wrote:
You know what happens when I a-click with Banelings? 10 of them get killed, 7 of them suicide on single Marauder, next 7 on the next Marauder, and I am out of the Banelings! Yeah, Banelings are terrible! On a serious note, Zerg won't be able to pass by them if you use them correctly, or should I say, burrow the Mines, and attack with Bio, then stim Bio and run back to the Mines when he tries to attack? Only problem you can have if you don't burrow the Mines on time, and with the upgrade, Mines burrow in one second, so in the mid game, I don't even see that happening.
I agree with you about the highest level of play though, as I said in one of previous posts, I am not balance whining, I like how game is played right now, just when Terran players think that Mines are same as Banelings, or that Banelings are as cost-efficient as Mines are, those Terrans are delusional.
You know what happens when I a-click with marines? 90% of them get killed by banelings, the others die against the lings, and I am out of Marines! Yeah, Marines are terrible!
You know what happens when I a-click with marines? 90% of them get killed by fungal, the others die against the lings, and I am out of Marines! Yeah, Marines are terrible!
If you read your post you would think TvZ is 70-30 atm!
|
On May 10 2013 19:19 Lock0n wrote: Why is everyone comparing widow mines with banelings? Has everyone forgotten the free spell called fungal that can win the game all for 0 mins 0 gas?
Thats like saying every single unit in the game is free apart from banelings (and maybe carriers) as the damage they deal are free of charge.
|
On May 10 2013 19:06 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 18:57 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 17:00 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 10 2013 16:20 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 07:05 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 10 2013 05:43 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 05:05 Rostam wrote:On May 10 2013 05:04 RogerChillingworth wrote: TvZ is still terran favored, i don't care what anyone says. Other match-ups are better--can go either way--and really map dependent, but non-retarded Terrans will still make zerg look silly. stats fail to illustrate the full picture, i'm afraid. Good thing Code S is filled with retarded Terrans, then, otherwise zerg would be having issues. The game is very well balanced at the pro level but at the mere-humans level, mines are pretty silly. Incredibly cost efficient, takes 10 times more effort to counter than to use, and one mistake vs mines can be game ending. Welcome to Banelings for all of WoL. As a Zerg player you're simply not accustomed to having to face which you've been dishing out. Infestor/BL really did a number on what players like you perceive as a "balanced" matchup causing you to complain when ZvT is the best it has ever been not only from a gameplay depth and viability standpoint but from a spectator standpoint too. Like I've been saying, banelings are not particularly cost efficient. Yes they are slightly harder to counter than to use Bolded for emphasis. With all due respect you are incredibly biased, and unfortunately the rest of your post falls victim to this style of thinking. Downplaying things to suit your agenda isn't making a valid point, so everything I mentioned still effectively stands. If you think that's biased then I don't think you understand the game very well, or at least haven't played the matchup from both sides. Seeing banelings and reacting by splitting your marines (or stim + run to cover) is not that hard, and is certainly nowhere near the difficulty of dealing with mines cost efficiently as zerg. That's simply a fact. Additionally, banelings have higher risk and lower reward than mines. Usually some "great baneling connections!" are an even trade on the resources lost meter, and still means zerg is spending gas to wipe out mineral-only units. The reward for successful banelings is low, and they carry the risk of being inefficient and costing you the game (if you run into tank fire, perfect splits, or hit the wrong units). Mines simply aren't like that. I've never seen a terran lose due to being inefficient with his mines. I've seen many terrans win, including at the pro level, where mines wipe out large portions of armies at once while losing nothing. Mines are far more cost efficient and that means the risk you take by making them is virtually nothing... and the rewards are often so high. They're useful all game long too - they're even good against ultras. As an esports fan I recognize that mines are balanced at the pro level and I appreciate seeing the skill on display in using them and countering them. But as a player, I can recognize a problem in a game where non-expert players have no chance to deal with something efficiently even if they know it's coming. You could also play roach hydra. That's very strong when your opponent goes mines. I don't think it's as good as skillful ling bane muta play, but you can hit a very strong midgame timing where the onus is once more on the terran to recognize what you are doing and react appropriately.
If there's an answer it definitely lies in roach/hydra... this is the only pre-broodlord unit comp that can deal with mines. But all terran has to do is recognize "oh it's roach hydra, time to stop making mines and go MMM". I don't think roach/hydra/viper has a future, blinding cloud is too easy to run back from (and zerg can't chase through the cloud without being blinded themselves). Maybe there's a way to transition out of roach/hydra back into something stronger vs MMM...
Anyway, this isn't the balance thread. I was just really hoping they'd at least be considering some kind of change to mines, or some kind of beneficial change for zerg that comes before hive tech. Oh well.
|
On May 10 2013 19:22 Chocobo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 19:06 Ghanburighan wrote:On May 10 2013 18:57 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 17:00 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 10 2013 16:20 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 07:05 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 10 2013 05:43 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 05:05 Rostam wrote:On May 10 2013 05:04 RogerChillingworth wrote: TvZ is still terran favored, i don't care what anyone says. Other match-ups are better--can go either way--and really map dependent, but non-retarded Terrans will still make zerg look silly. stats fail to illustrate the full picture, i'm afraid. Good thing Code S is filled with retarded Terrans, then, otherwise zerg would be having issues. The game is very well balanced at the pro level but at the mere-humans level, mines are pretty silly. Incredibly cost efficient, takes 10 times more effort to counter than to use, and one mistake vs mines can be game ending. Welcome to Banelings for all of WoL. As a Zerg player you're simply not accustomed to having to face which you've been dishing out. Infestor/BL really did a number on what players like you perceive as a "balanced" matchup causing you to complain when ZvT is the best it has ever been not only from a gameplay depth and viability standpoint but from a spectator standpoint too. Like I've been saying, banelings are not particularly cost efficient. Yes they are slightly harder to counter than to use Bolded for emphasis. With all due respect you are incredibly biased, and unfortunately the rest of your post falls victim to this style of thinking. Downplaying things to suit your agenda isn't making a valid point, so everything I mentioned still effectively stands. If you think that's biased then I don't think you understand the game very well, or at least haven't played the matchup from both sides. Seeing banelings and reacting by splitting your marines (or stim + run to cover) is not that hard, and is certainly nowhere near the difficulty of dealing with mines cost efficiently as zerg. That's simply a fact. Additionally, banelings have higher risk and lower reward than mines. Usually some "great baneling connections!" are an even trade on the resources lost meter, and still means zerg is spending gas to wipe out mineral-only units. The reward for successful banelings is low, and they carry the risk of being inefficient and costing you the game (if you run into tank fire, perfect splits, or hit the wrong units). Mines simply aren't like that. I've never seen a terran lose due to being inefficient with his mines. I've seen many terrans win, including at the pro level, where mines wipe out large portions of armies at once while losing nothing. Mines are far more cost efficient and that means the risk you take by making them is virtually nothing... and the rewards are often so high. They're useful all game long too - they're even good against ultras. As an esports fan I recognize that mines are balanced at the pro level and I appreciate seeing the skill on display in using them and countering them. But as a player, I can recognize a problem in a game where non-expert players have no chance to deal with something efficiently even if they know it's coming. You could also play roach hydra. That's very strong when your opponent goes mines. I don't think it's as good as skillful ling bane muta play, but you can hit a very strong midgame timing where the onus is once more on the terran to recognize what you are doing and react appropriately. If there's an answer it definitely lies in roach/hydra... this is the only pre-broodlord unit comp that can deal with mines. But all terran has to do is recognize "oh it's roach hydra, time to stop making mines and go MMM". I don't think roach/hydra/viper has a future, blinding cloud is too easy to run back from (and zerg can't chase through the cloud without being blinded themselves). Maybe there's a way to transition out of roach/hydra back into something stronger vs MMM... Anyway, this isn't the balance thread. I was just really hoping they'd at least be considering some kind of change to mines, or some kind of beneficial change for zerg that comes before hive tech. Oh well.
Are we playing a different game? Because in my game, zergs are actually winning games. You act like there is no counter to mines and the moment a terran makes a few mines, he wins. You need to micro now, the easy 1a WOL times are OVER and you should really start practicing.
|
On May 10 2013 15:23 RanEncounter wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 14:24 Rabiator wrote:Dayvie said
2. Ladder data is showing no sign of imbalance at any skill level.
4. Oracle/Burrow changes could be problematic as you guys bring up, and we really don't want to risk messing with a game that's already really solid. Especially since the game is still changing frequently without balance patches, we just don't think it's a good time to be exploring new options yet. #2 Rofl ... as if the ladder didnt adjust itself automatically. Ladder data doesnt say anything about the game being good, because BALANCE <> GOOD GAME. Balance is necessary to a certain degree, but it isnt the "be all, end all" of game design. Ladder has a lot of data of balance, it has all the played games on ladder! You can tell many things about balance from the ladder data. On top of that blizzard might be collecting even more data from ladder that is know at this point. In a competitive game balance is a huge part of a game being good. Good balancing equals more interested players. If people play more games then before doesn't that mean it is a better game in average? I think that SC2 hots has all the other stuff solid (other then balancing). How does "data" tell you if the game is INTERESTING and most importantly FUN? You cant have a "fun statistic" and losing to super efficient harrassment units just because you are in gold league and cant beat that speed-Medivac with those two Hellbats inside (because you forgot) is a NOT FUN WAY TO LOSE. If you lose after fighting for your life in an almost equal battle which lasted for many minutes you had fun, but the super aggressive harrassment which kills most of your workers and makes continuing pointless is not fun. You cant get this from "data", you have to THINK and make the right decisions.
Apart from that the ladder adjusts its numbers automatically and consequently "player skill" doesnt mean you are in the same league with other players of equal skill level. You are just in the same league with players of the same MMR.
|
On May 10 2013 19:12 Chocobo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 16:45 Prugelhugel wrote:On May 10 2013 16:22 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 07:01 Rostam wrote:On May 10 2013 06:23 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 06:00 Kergy wrote:On May 10 2013 05:43 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 05:05 Rostam wrote:On May 10 2013 05:04 RogerChillingworth wrote: TvZ is still terran favored, i don't care what anyone says. Other match-ups are better--can go either way--and really map dependent, but non-retarded Terrans will still make zerg look silly. stats fail to illustrate the full picture, i'm afraid. Good thing Code S is filled with retarded Terrans, then, otherwise zerg would be having issues. The game is very well balanced at the pro level but at the mere-humans level, mines are pretty silly. Incredibly cost efficient, takes 10 times more effort to counter than to use, and one mistake vs mines can be game ending. I know that balancing the game for the pro level is far more important than other skill levels... but I can't help but wish they didn't introduce a unit like this into the game. For me in low masters mines just make me want to quit the game. I can't leave my base, I can't ling harrass or go for surrounds, just in case there's a mine there that'll blow up everything for free. I can get mine dropped before I have detection. And even if I know exactly where every mine is, it's still a mess to deal with them... and the only unit that really counters them is broodlords. It's just so frustrating and half the time I just allin against terran now because I'm sick of facing bio/mines and not being able to do anything about it because it takes pro level control to deal with it. WoL ZvT was zerg-favored for a long time but the infestor nerfs and raven buffs made it close to balanced at the very end... then HotS hits and the matchup changed so much in terran's favor. Reapers, speedvacs, hellbats, and mines are all so good and can be gotten quickly, they can affect every game. Meanwhile SH is bad vs terran, so zerg's new toys are the ultra and viper... which are great, but the early game is so much harder. I'm disappointed that changes to mines or reapers apparently weren't even discussed... and something potentially useful for zerg (early burrow) was tossed out before giving it a chance. I feel like I should switch races just so I can use units that can deal with mines better. There's no such thing as imbalance in lower levels, it just means you're not doing things correctly. It's different with mines, because it's so challenging to find them and deal with them effectively. Instead of the bottom 40% of players struggling to counter a simple offensive style, it's the bottom 97%. You have to be very skilled to counter bio + mines in a cost efficient way - far more skill than it takes to scout a dark shrine, wall off vs 10p, or split your marines up. Do you have any proof that 97% of zerg players are struggling, other than your own experiences? I'm having a hard time seeing evidence of it based on the ladder statistics. No, but if they're ruining the game for me at mid masters, somehow I doubt that platinum zergs are dealing with mines just fine. Now that I think about it I suppose 97% is too high though, because at lower levels the terrans will put mines in bad places or forget to burrow them and things like that... it's still a large percentage of zergs though. You have to look at it from another perspective: Mines are no burrow and forget units. If a terran has no idea how to use them and burrows them at the wrong spots, they will never ever trigger any explosions or do crucial damage. So it's not only that zergs are worse at lower levels, terrans also neither play perfect. Yes, maybe zergs can lose like 30 lings on a single mine here and there, but such mistakes are forgiveable below diamond I'd say. I don't know if there's any good way to change the mines without making them too weak at the pro level though. You don't want to nerf them into uselessness... but right now zerg doesn't have any good tools for dealing with them effectively. I have to admit, those zerg players are dedicated! They have no way to deal with mines, they must lose pretty much always against terran, and yet zerg is still played ALOT more than terran in the region where it is worst according to you.
|
On May 10 2013 19:24 Snowbear wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 19:22 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 19:06 Ghanburighan wrote:On May 10 2013 18:57 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 17:00 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 10 2013 16:20 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 07:05 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 10 2013 05:43 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 05:05 Rostam wrote:On May 10 2013 05:04 RogerChillingworth wrote: TvZ is still terran favored, i don't care what anyone says. Other match-ups are better--can go either way--and really map dependent, but non-retarded Terrans will still make zerg look silly. stats fail to illustrate the full picture, i'm afraid. Good thing Code S is filled with retarded Terrans, then, otherwise zerg would be having issues. The game is very well balanced at the pro level but at the mere-humans level, mines are pretty silly. Incredibly cost efficient, takes 10 times more effort to counter than to use, and one mistake vs mines can be game ending. Welcome to Banelings for all of WoL. As a Zerg player you're simply not accustomed to having to face which you've been dishing out. Infestor/BL really did a number on what players like you perceive as a "balanced" matchup causing you to complain when ZvT is the best it has ever been not only from a gameplay depth and viability standpoint but from a spectator standpoint too. Like I've been saying, banelings are not particularly cost efficient. Yes they are slightly harder to counter than to use Bolded for emphasis. With all due respect you are incredibly biased, and unfortunately the rest of your post falls victim to this style of thinking. Downplaying things to suit your agenda isn't making a valid point, so everything I mentioned still effectively stands. If you think that's biased then I don't think you understand the game very well, or at least haven't played the matchup from both sides. Seeing banelings and reacting by splitting your marines (or stim + run to cover) is not that hard, and is certainly nowhere near the difficulty of dealing with mines cost efficiently as zerg. That's simply a fact. Additionally, banelings have higher risk and lower reward than mines. Usually some "great baneling connections!" are an even trade on the resources lost meter, and still means zerg is spending gas to wipe out mineral-only units. The reward for successful banelings is low, and they carry the risk of being inefficient and costing you the game (if you run into tank fire, perfect splits, or hit the wrong units). Mines simply aren't like that. I've never seen a terran lose due to being inefficient with his mines. I've seen many terrans win, including at the pro level, where mines wipe out large portions of armies at once while losing nothing. Mines are far more cost efficient and that means the risk you take by making them is virtually nothing... and the rewards are often so high. They're useful all game long too - they're even good against ultras. As an esports fan I recognize that mines are balanced at the pro level and I appreciate seeing the skill on display in using them and countering them. But as a player, I can recognize a problem in a game where non-expert players have no chance to deal with something efficiently even if they know it's coming. You could also play roach hydra. That's very strong when your opponent goes mines. I don't think it's as good as skillful ling bane muta play, but you can hit a very strong midgame timing where the onus is once more on the terran to recognize what you are doing and react appropriately. If there's an answer it definitely lies in roach/hydra... this is the only pre-broodlord unit comp that can deal with mines. But all terran has to do is recognize "oh it's roach hydra, time to stop making mines and go MMM". I don't think roach/hydra/viper has a future, blinding cloud is too easy to run back from (and zerg can't chase through the cloud without being blinded themselves). Maybe there's a way to transition out of roach/hydra back into something stronger vs MMM... Anyway, this isn't the balance thread. I was just really hoping they'd at least be considering some kind of change to mines, or some kind of beneficial change for zerg that comes before hive tech. Oh well. Are we playing a different game? Because in my game, zergs are actually winning games. You act like there is no counter to mines and the moment a terran makes a few mines, he wins. You need to micro now, the easy WOL times are OVER and you should really start practicing.
I never said mines are autowin or anything like that. ZvT is not unwinnable, but I'd be shocked if the winrates weren't favoring terran in the area of platinum to mid masters. When something is that efficient and there's no way to counter or punish it, what else could happen?
"Learn to play" is such a pointless thing to say. In the infestor/broodlord era did you tell terran and protoss players "yeah it's strong, deal with it. go practice and find a way to beat it, if MVP does it so can you"?
Of course difficult challenges can be often overcome if you practice endlessly and put in a herculean effort. But the point is that there's an issue if one person is required to do that and the other is not.
|
I really wish they would stop worrying so much about zvz, and look at things like mines in zvt. So hard to engage effectively with mass mine bio.
|
On May 10 2013 19:40 Sissors wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 19:12 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 16:45 Prugelhugel wrote:On May 10 2013 16:22 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 07:01 Rostam wrote:On May 10 2013 06:23 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 06:00 Kergy wrote:On May 10 2013 05:43 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 05:05 Rostam wrote:On May 10 2013 05:04 RogerChillingworth wrote: TvZ is still terran favored, i don't care what anyone says. Other match-ups are better--can go either way--and really map dependent, but non-retarded Terrans will still make zerg look silly. stats fail to illustrate the full picture, i'm afraid. Good thing Code S is filled with retarded Terrans, then, otherwise zerg would be having issues. The game is very well balanced at the pro level but at the mere-humans level, mines are pretty silly. Incredibly cost efficient, takes 10 times more effort to counter than to use, and one mistake vs mines can be game ending. I know that balancing the game for the pro level is far more important than other skill levels... but I can't help but wish they didn't introduce a unit like this into the game. For me in low masters mines just make me want to quit the game. I can't leave my base, I can't ling harrass or go for surrounds, just in case there's a mine there that'll blow up everything for free. I can get mine dropped before I have detection. And even if I know exactly where every mine is, it's still a mess to deal with them... and the only unit that really counters them is broodlords. It's just so frustrating and half the time I just allin against terran now because I'm sick of facing bio/mines and not being able to do anything about it because it takes pro level control to deal with it. WoL ZvT was zerg-favored for a long time but the infestor nerfs and raven buffs made it close to balanced at the very end... then HotS hits and the matchup changed so much in terran's favor. Reapers, speedvacs, hellbats, and mines are all so good and can be gotten quickly, they can affect every game. Meanwhile SH is bad vs terran, so zerg's new toys are the ultra and viper... which are great, but the early game is so much harder. I'm disappointed that changes to mines or reapers apparently weren't even discussed... and something potentially useful for zerg (early burrow) was tossed out before giving it a chance. I feel like I should switch races just so I can use units that can deal with mines better. There's no such thing as imbalance in lower levels, it just means you're not doing things correctly. It's different with mines, because it's so challenging to find them and deal with them effectively. Instead of the bottom 40% of players struggling to counter a simple offensive style, it's the bottom 97%. You have to be very skilled to counter bio + mines in a cost efficient way - far more skill than it takes to scout a dark shrine, wall off vs 10p, or split your marines up. Do you have any proof that 97% of zerg players are struggling, other than your own experiences? I'm having a hard time seeing evidence of it based on the ladder statistics. No, but if they're ruining the game for me at mid masters, somehow I doubt that platinum zergs are dealing with mines just fine. Now that I think about it I suppose 97% is too high though, because at lower levels the terrans will put mines in bad places or forget to burrow them and things like that... it's still a large percentage of zergs though. You have to look at it from another perspective: Mines are no burrow and forget units. If a terran has no idea how to use them and burrows them at the wrong spots, they will never ever trigger any explosions or do crucial damage. So it's not only that zergs are worse at lower levels, terrans also neither play perfect. Yes, maybe zergs can lose like 30 lings on a single mine here and there, but such mistakes are forgiveable below diamond I'd say. I don't know if there's any good way to change the mines without making them too weak at the pro level though. You don't want to nerf them into uselessness... but right now zerg doesn't have any good tools for dealing with them effectively. I have to admit, those zerg players are dedicated! They have no way to deal with mines, they must lose pretty much always against terran, and yet zerg is still played ALOT more than terran in the region where it is worst according to you. I didn't realize balance is determined by how many people play each race.
|
On May 10 2013 19:42 Chocobo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 19:24 Snowbear wrote:On May 10 2013 19:22 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 19:06 Ghanburighan wrote:On May 10 2013 18:57 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 17:00 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 10 2013 16:20 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 07:05 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 10 2013 05:43 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 05:05 Rostam wrote: [quote]
Good thing Code S is filled with retarded Terrans, then, otherwise zerg would be having issues. The game is very well balanced at the pro level but at the mere-humans level, mines are pretty silly. Incredibly cost efficient, takes 10 times more effort to counter than to use, and one mistake vs mines can be game ending. Welcome to Banelings for all of WoL. As a Zerg player you're simply not accustomed to having to face which you've been dishing out. Infestor/BL really did a number on what players like you perceive as a "balanced" matchup causing you to complain when ZvT is the best it has ever been not only from a gameplay depth and viability standpoint but from a spectator standpoint too. Like I've been saying, banelings are not particularly cost efficient. Yes they are slightly harder to counter than to use Bolded for emphasis. With all due respect you are incredibly biased, and unfortunately the rest of your post falls victim to this style of thinking. Downplaying things to suit your agenda isn't making a valid point, so everything I mentioned still effectively stands. If you think that's biased then I don't think you understand the game very well, or at least haven't played the matchup from both sides. Seeing banelings and reacting by splitting your marines (or stim + run to cover) is not that hard, and is certainly nowhere near the difficulty of dealing with mines cost efficiently as zerg. That's simply a fact. Additionally, banelings have higher risk and lower reward than mines. Usually some "great baneling connections!" are an even trade on the resources lost meter, and still means zerg is spending gas to wipe out mineral-only units. The reward for successful banelings is low, and they carry the risk of being inefficient and costing you the game (if you run into tank fire, perfect splits, or hit the wrong units). Mines simply aren't like that. I've never seen a terran lose due to being inefficient with his mines. I've seen many terrans win, including at the pro level, where mines wipe out large portions of armies at once while losing nothing. Mines are far more cost efficient and that means the risk you take by making them is virtually nothing... and the rewards are often so high. They're useful all game long too - they're even good against ultras. As an esports fan I recognize that mines are balanced at the pro level and I appreciate seeing the skill on display in using them and countering them. But as a player, I can recognize a problem in a game where non-expert players have no chance to deal with something efficiently even if they know it's coming. You could also play roach hydra. That's very strong when your opponent goes mines. I don't think it's as good as skillful ling bane muta play, but you can hit a very strong midgame timing where the onus is once more on the terran to recognize what you are doing and react appropriately. If there's an answer it definitely lies in roach/hydra... this is the only pre-broodlord unit comp that can deal with mines. But all terran has to do is recognize "oh it's roach hydra, time to stop making mines and go MMM". I don't think roach/hydra/viper has a future, blinding cloud is too easy to run back from (and zerg can't chase through the cloud without being blinded themselves). Maybe there's a way to transition out of roach/hydra back into something stronger vs MMM... Anyway, this isn't the balance thread. I was just really hoping they'd at least be considering some kind of change to mines, or some kind of beneficial change for zerg that comes before hive tech. Oh well. Are we playing a different game? Because in my game, zergs are actually winning games. You act like there is no counter to mines and the moment a terran makes a few mines, he wins. You need to micro now, the easy WOL times are OVER and you should really start practicing. I never said mines are autowin or anything like that. ZvT is not unwinnable, but I'd be shocked if the winrates weren't favoring terran in the area of platinum to mid masters. When something is that efficient and there's no way to counter or punish it, what else could happen? "Learn to play" is such a pointless thing to say. In the infestor/broodlord era did you tell terran and protoss players "yeah it's strong, deal with it. go practice and find a way to beat it, if MVP does it so can you"? Of course difficult challenges can be often overcome if you practice endlessly and put in a herculean effort. But the point is that there's an issue if one person is required to do that and the other is not.
You can split your units, just like the lower league terrans have to godsplit against banelings. We all knew this would happen: wol zerg was too strong > a lot of zergs were playing above their actual level > balanced hots comes out > the zergs lose against people they won against in wol > balance whine.
And one person (terran) is required to split against banelings (terran armies HAVE to be microed): - in WOL the other person (zerg) wasn't required > ISSUE - in HOTS also the other person (zerg) is required to mico > NO ISSUE, perfect game.
|
United Kingdom14103 Posts
On May 10 2013 18:28 Ramiz1989 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 18:14 Ghanburighan wrote:On May 10 2013 18:07 Ramiz1989 wrote:On May 10 2013 17:40 Sissors wrote:On May 10 2013 17:10 Ramiz1989 wrote:On May 10 2013 16:20 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 07:05 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 10 2013 05:43 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 05:05 Rostam wrote:On May 10 2013 05:04 RogerChillingworth wrote: TvZ is still terran favored, i don't care what anyone says. Other match-ups are better--can go either way--and really map dependent, but non-retarded Terrans will still make zerg look silly. stats fail to illustrate the full picture, i'm afraid. Good thing Code S is filled with retarded Terrans, then, otherwise zerg would be having issues. The game is very well balanced at the pro level but at the mere-humans level, mines are pretty silly. Incredibly cost efficient, takes 10 times more effort to counter than to use, and one mistake vs mines can be game ending. Welcome to Banelings for all of WoL. As a Zerg player you're simply not accustomed to having to face which you've been dishing out. Infestor/BL really did a number on what players like you perceive as a "balanced" matchup causing you to complain when ZvT is the best it has ever been not only from a gameplay depth and viability standpoint but from a spectator standpoint too. Like I've been saying, banelings are not particularly cost efficient. Yes they are slightly harder to counter than to use, but not anywhere near the level that mines take things. It's fine for an RTS game to have strong units that take a specialized effort to deal with, but mines take it too far. "Be ready to split your army when the banelings come and try to target them down" is a challenge, but an achievable one with practice. "Always have detection around, and follow this complex mine-removal process, and don't ever send units across the map without being ready to instantly turn around if you see a mine, and don't mess up even once or you'll be too cost inefficient" is too much effort and requires too much skill to perform for all but the very best of players. Don't put that "infestor/BL was balanced" strawman on me. Stop arguing with them. Mines don't even suicide, and you name all the problems we have with Mines, while they start to compare them to Banelings that suicides, you lose them to do damage, you almost always lose half of them before they even connect to something, and in the end, if our attack and Banelings hit were good, the resources lost are about equal. I am not saying that things are imbalanced at the moment. I enjoy new match-ups a lot more than the camping ones from WoL, but saying that Widow Mines are same as Banelings is stupid as hell. You can't reason with Terran players that are saying this. No one is saying mines are same as banelings... But since banelings are the zerg unit most like mines it is the logical choice for comparisons. And I can also make such a list about mines: They are alot slower than your banelings, they have to burrow to attack, they do friendly damage!, you cannot disable their autoattack, etc. Of course, you can make such list for every unit in SC2, my point is that Banelings are suicide units, and Mines aren't, and it is extremely hard to be cost-efficient with Banelings, since most of the times you won't kill as much as they cost, while it is hard for Mines to NOT be cost-efficient when they are used as support for Bio units. You can't trigger them with few units when the Bio is on top of them, and if you charge on Terran army with your units then complete chaos happens. That's so incredibly biased. You know what happens most of the time when I use mines at Diamond level? I move command them while the Z attacks and they never go off. Or they burrow and eat popcorn as the Z army runs past them and ravages everything I have. Mines are essentially siege tanks with tiny range, if you don't position them well and have good timings for burrow, they do absolutely nothing. They sit there, wiggle their little legs and get eaten by zerglings. Not to mention, why are talking about the balance worries of low master players. Just like I don't think mines should be any easier to use, you shouldn't think that your ling a-moves should be easier to execute. The game is finally looking great at the highest level of play and that's what we want. So, when you fuck up, Mines don't do anything? You don't say!? You know what happens when I a-click with Banelings? 10 of them get killed, 7 of them suicide on single Marauder, next 7 on the next Marauder, and I am out of the Banelings! Yeah, Banelings are terrible! On a serious note, Zerg won't be able to pass by them if you use them correctly, or should I say, burrow the Mines, and attack with Bio, then stim Bio and run back to the Mines when he tries to attack? Only problem you can have if you don't burrow the Mines on time, and with the upgrade, Mines burrow in one second, so in the mid game, I don't even see that happening. I agree with you about the highest level of play though, as I said in one of previous posts, I am not balance whining, I like how game is played right now, just when Terran players think that Mines are same as Banelings, or that Banelings are as cost-efficient as Mines are, those Terrans are delusional.
God damn that bias.
Forget the baneling/mine comparison, mines are actually hard to use effectively, however when done right they wreck shit, it's a tradeoff and it works pretty well at the highest levels, tbh where I'm playing (against plat/low dia Zergs) they can deal with stationary mines very easily.
|
On May 10 2013 19:47 Snowbear wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 19:42 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 19:24 Snowbear wrote:On May 10 2013 19:22 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 19:06 Ghanburighan wrote:On May 10 2013 18:57 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 17:00 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 10 2013 16:20 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 07:05 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 10 2013 05:43 Chocobo wrote: [quote]
The game is very well balanced at the pro level but at the mere-humans level, mines are pretty silly. Incredibly cost efficient, takes 10 times more effort to counter than to use, and one mistake vs mines can be game ending. Welcome to Banelings for all of WoL. As a Zerg player you're simply not accustomed to having to face which you've been dishing out. Infestor/BL really did a number on what players like you perceive as a "balanced" matchup causing you to complain when ZvT is the best it has ever been not only from a gameplay depth and viability standpoint but from a spectator standpoint too. Like I've been saying, banelings are not particularly cost efficient. Yes they are slightly harder to counter than to use Bolded for emphasis. With all due respect you are incredibly biased, and unfortunately the rest of your post falls victim to this style of thinking. Downplaying things to suit your agenda isn't making a valid point, so everything I mentioned still effectively stands. If you think that's biased then I don't think you understand the game very well, or at least haven't played the matchup from both sides. Seeing banelings and reacting by splitting your marines (or stim + run to cover) is not that hard, and is certainly nowhere near the difficulty of dealing with mines cost efficiently as zerg. That's simply a fact. Additionally, banelings have higher risk and lower reward than mines. Usually some "great baneling connections!" are an even trade on the resources lost meter, and still means zerg is spending gas to wipe out mineral-only units. The reward for successful banelings is low, and they carry the risk of being inefficient and costing you the game (if you run into tank fire, perfect splits, or hit the wrong units). Mines simply aren't like that. I've never seen a terran lose due to being inefficient with his mines. I've seen many terrans win, including at the pro level, where mines wipe out large portions of armies at once while losing nothing. Mines are far more cost efficient and that means the risk you take by making them is virtually nothing... and the rewards are often so high. They're useful all game long too - they're even good against ultras. As an esports fan I recognize that mines are balanced at the pro level and I appreciate seeing the skill on display in using them and countering them. But as a player, I can recognize a problem in a game where non-expert players have no chance to deal with something efficiently even if they know it's coming. You could also play roach hydra. That's very strong when your opponent goes mines. I don't think it's as good as skillful ling bane muta play, but you can hit a very strong midgame timing where the onus is once more on the terran to recognize what you are doing and react appropriately. If there's an answer it definitely lies in roach/hydra... this is the only pre-broodlord unit comp that can deal with mines. But all terran has to do is recognize "oh it's roach hydra, time to stop making mines and go MMM". I don't think roach/hydra/viper has a future, blinding cloud is too easy to run back from (and zerg can't chase through the cloud without being blinded themselves). Maybe there's a way to transition out of roach/hydra back into something stronger vs MMM... Anyway, this isn't the balance thread. I was just really hoping they'd at least be considering some kind of change to mines, or some kind of beneficial change for zerg that comes before hive tech. Oh well. Are we playing a different game? Because in my game, zergs are actually winning games. You act like there is no counter to mines and the moment a terran makes a few mines, he wins. You need to micro now, the easy WOL times are OVER and you should really start practicing. I never said mines are autowin or anything like that. ZvT is not unwinnable, but I'd be shocked if the winrates weren't favoring terran in the area of platinum to mid masters. When something is that efficient and there's no way to counter or punish it, what else could happen? "Learn to play" is such a pointless thing to say. In the infestor/broodlord era did you tell terran and protoss players "yeah it's strong, deal with it. go practice and find a way to beat it, if MVP does it so can you"? Of course difficult challenges can be often overcome if you practice endlessly and put in a herculean effort. But the point is that there's an issue if one person is required to do that and the other is not. You can split your units, just like the lower league terrans have to godsplit against banelings. We all knew this would happen: wol zerg was too strong > a lot of zergs were playing above their actual level > balanced hots comes out > the zergs lose against people they won against in wol > balance whine. And one person (terran) is required to split against banelings (terran armies HAVE to be microed): - in WOL the other person (zerg) wasn't required > ISSUE - in HOTS also the other person (zerg) is required to mico > NO ISSUE, perfect game. None of these "Boom, I have a massive amount of Banelings / Infestors and you lost because you looked away for a second" designs is really awesome. It is rather terrible due to one core concept of Blizzards game design: critical number.
The problem isnt the units themselves, because 3 Infestors can run out of energy while 25 will always have enough energy for a Fungal and some Infested Marines. The same for Banelings, because 3 dont bust a wall. Critical number (which is a consequence of the tight unit movement coupled with the unlimited unit selection and the fact that there is no way to punish them for it) is really the reason behind the bad gameplay in SC2.
|
Cool. Personally, I'm glad they aren't rushing things. The meta game is still evolving.
|
On May 10 2013 19:21 Snowbear wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 18:28 Ramiz1989 wrote:
You know what happens when I a-click with Banelings? 10 of them get killed, 7 of them suicide on single Marauder, next 7 on the next Marauder, and I am out of the Banelings! Yeah, Banelings are terrible! On a serious note, Zerg won't be able to pass by them if you use them correctly, or should I say, burrow the Mines, and attack with Bio, then stim Bio and run back to the Mines when he tries to attack? Only problem you can have if you don't burrow the Mines on time, and with the upgrade, Mines burrow in one second, so in the mid game, I don't even see that happening.
I agree with you about the highest level of play though, as I said in one of previous posts, I am not balance whining, I like how game is played right now, just when Terran players think that Mines are same as Banelings, or that Banelings are as cost-efficient as Mines are, those Terrans are delusional. You know what happens when I a-click with marines? 90% of them get killed by banelings, the others die against the lings, and I am out of Marines! Yeah, Marines are terrible! You know what happens when I a-click with marines? 90% of them get killed by fungal, the others die against the lings, and I am out of Marines! Yeah, Marines are terrible! If you read your post you would think TvZ is 70-30 atm! I think that you missed the obvious sarcasm in my post. My point was that you can't say how unit is bad because you don't use it correctly. He was saying how my post is biased because his Widow Mines are not cost-efficient because he doesn't use them correctly...
|
On May 10 2013 19:47 Chocobo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 19:40 Sissors wrote:On May 10 2013 19:12 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 16:45 Prugelhugel wrote:On May 10 2013 16:22 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 07:01 Rostam wrote:On May 10 2013 06:23 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 06:00 Kergy wrote:On May 10 2013 05:43 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 05:05 Rostam wrote: [quote]
Good thing Code S is filled with retarded Terrans, then, otherwise zerg would be having issues. The game is very well balanced at the pro level but at the mere-humans level, mines are pretty silly. Incredibly cost efficient, takes 10 times more effort to counter than to use, and one mistake vs mines can be game ending. I know that balancing the game for the pro level is far more important than other skill levels... but I can't help but wish they didn't introduce a unit like this into the game. For me in low masters mines just make me want to quit the game. I can't leave my base, I can't ling harrass or go for surrounds, just in case there's a mine there that'll blow up everything for free. I can get mine dropped before I have detection. And even if I know exactly where every mine is, it's still a mess to deal with them... and the only unit that really counters them is broodlords. It's just so frustrating and half the time I just allin against terran now because I'm sick of facing bio/mines and not being able to do anything about it because it takes pro level control to deal with it. WoL ZvT was zerg-favored for a long time but the infestor nerfs and raven buffs made it close to balanced at the very end... then HotS hits and the matchup changed so much in terran's favor. Reapers, speedvacs, hellbats, and mines are all so good and can be gotten quickly, they can affect every game. Meanwhile SH is bad vs terran, so zerg's new toys are the ultra and viper... which are great, but the early game is so much harder. I'm disappointed that changes to mines or reapers apparently weren't even discussed... and something potentially useful for zerg (early burrow) was tossed out before giving it a chance. I feel like I should switch races just so I can use units that can deal with mines better. There's no such thing as imbalance in lower levels, it just means you're not doing things correctly. It's different with mines, because it's so challenging to find them and deal with them effectively. Instead of the bottom 40% of players struggling to counter a simple offensive style, it's the bottom 97%. You have to be very skilled to counter bio + mines in a cost efficient way - far more skill than it takes to scout a dark shrine, wall off vs 10p, or split your marines up. Do you have any proof that 97% of zerg players are struggling, other than your own experiences? I'm having a hard time seeing evidence of it based on the ladder statistics. No, but if they're ruining the game for me at mid masters, somehow I doubt that platinum zergs are dealing with mines just fine. Now that I think about it I suppose 97% is too high though, because at lower levels the terrans will put mines in bad places or forget to burrow them and things like that... it's still a large percentage of zergs though. You have to look at it from another perspective: Mines are no burrow and forget units. If a terran has no idea how to use them and burrows them at the wrong spots, they will never ever trigger any explosions or do crucial damage. So it's not only that zergs are worse at lower levels, terrans also neither play perfect. Yes, maybe zergs can lose like 30 lings on a single mine here and there, but such mistakes are forgiveable below diamond I'd say. I don't know if there's any good way to change the mines without making them too weak at the pro level though. You don't want to nerf them into uselessness... but right now zerg doesn't have any good tools for dealing with them effectively. I have to admit, those zerg players are dedicated! They have no way to deal with mines, they must lose pretty much always against terran, and yet zerg is still played ALOT more than terran in the region where it is worst according to you. I didn't realize balance is determined by how many people play each race. Well luckily I did mention it, otherwise you still wouldn't realize it!
But all kidding aside, while also other factors play a role, how good something is definately plays a role, in every single game I played whatever is strongest at a time attracts more people. Now in SC2 it is a bit more work to switch a race than for example in BF3 to switch a gun, but it isn't exactly impossible either. So while I would not want to balance solely depending on people playing a race, it is also a bit weird to boost the most played race while nerfing the least played race.
|
On May 10 2013 19:49 Targe wrote: God damn that bias.
Forget the baneling/mine comparison, mines are actually hard to use effectively, however when done right they wreck shit, it's a tradeoff and it works pretty well at the highest levels, tbh where I'm playing (against plat/low dia Zergs) they can deal with stationary mines very easily. Where I am playing (Diamond - Master), dealing with Mines is not easy at all.
|
On May 10 2013 19:49 Targe wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 18:28 Ramiz1989 wrote:On May 10 2013 18:14 Ghanburighan wrote:On May 10 2013 18:07 Ramiz1989 wrote:On May 10 2013 17:40 Sissors wrote:On May 10 2013 17:10 Ramiz1989 wrote:On May 10 2013 16:20 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 07:05 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 10 2013 05:43 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 05:05 Rostam wrote: [quote]
Good thing Code S is filled with retarded Terrans, then, otherwise zerg would be having issues. The game is very well balanced at the pro level but at the mere-humans level, mines are pretty silly. Incredibly cost efficient, takes 10 times more effort to counter than to use, and one mistake vs mines can be game ending. Welcome to Banelings for all of WoL. As a Zerg player you're simply not accustomed to having to face which you've been dishing out. Infestor/BL really did a number on what players like you perceive as a "balanced" matchup causing you to complain when ZvT is the best it has ever been not only from a gameplay depth and viability standpoint but from a spectator standpoint too. Like I've been saying, banelings are not particularly cost efficient. Yes they are slightly harder to counter than to use, but not anywhere near the level that mines take things. It's fine for an RTS game to have strong units that take a specialized effort to deal with, but mines take it too far. "Be ready to split your army when the banelings come and try to target them down" is a challenge, but an achievable one with practice. "Always have detection around, and follow this complex mine-removal process, and don't ever send units across the map without being ready to instantly turn around if you see a mine, and don't mess up even once or you'll be too cost inefficient" is too much effort and requires too much skill to perform for all but the very best of players. Don't put that "infestor/BL was balanced" strawman on me. Stop arguing with them. Mines don't even suicide, and you name all the problems we have with Mines, while they start to compare them to Banelings that suicides, you lose them to do damage, you almost always lose half of them before they even connect to something, and in the end, if our attack and Banelings hit were good, the resources lost are about equal. I am not saying that things are imbalanced at the moment. I enjoy new match-ups a lot more than the camping ones from WoL, but saying that Widow Mines are same as Banelings is stupid as hell. You can't reason with Terran players that are saying this. No one is saying mines are same as banelings... But since banelings are the zerg unit most like mines it is the logical choice for comparisons. And I can also make such a list about mines: They are alot slower than your banelings, they have to burrow to attack, they do friendly damage!, you cannot disable their autoattack, etc. Of course, you can make such list for every unit in SC2, my point is that Banelings are suicide units, and Mines aren't, and it is extremely hard to be cost-efficient with Banelings, since most of the times you won't kill as much as they cost, while it is hard for Mines to NOT be cost-efficient when they are used as support for Bio units. You can't trigger them with few units when the Bio is on top of them, and if you charge on Terran army with your units then complete chaos happens. That's so incredibly biased. You know what happens most of the time when I use mines at Diamond level? I move command them while the Z attacks and they never go off. Or they burrow and eat popcorn as the Z army runs past them and ravages everything I have. Mines are essentially siege tanks with tiny range, if you don't position them well and have good timings for burrow, they do absolutely nothing. They sit there, wiggle their little legs and get eaten by zerglings. Not to mention, why are talking about the balance worries of low master players. Just like I don't think mines should be any easier to use, you shouldn't think that your ling a-moves should be easier to execute. The game is finally looking great at the highest level of play and that's what we want. So, when you fuck up, Mines don't do anything? You don't say!? You know what happens when I a-click with Banelings? 10 of them get killed, 7 of them suicide on single Marauder, next 7 on the next Marauder, and I am out of the Banelings! Yeah, Banelings are terrible! On a serious note, Zerg won't be able to pass by them if you use them correctly, or should I say, burrow the Mines, and attack with Bio, then stim Bio and run back to the Mines when he tries to attack? Only problem you can have if you don't burrow the Mines on time, and with the upgrade, Mines burrow in one second, so in the mid game, I don't even see that happening. I agree with you about the highest level of play though, as I said in one of previous posts, I am not balance whining, I like how game is played right now, just when Terran players think that Mines are same as Banelings, or that Banelings are as cost-efficient as Mines are, those Terrans are delusional. God damn that bias. Forget the baneling/mine comparison, mines are actually hard to use effectively, however when done right they wreck shit, it's a tradeoff and it works pretty well at the highest levels, tbh where I'm playing (against plat/low dia Zergs) they can deal with stationary mines very easily.
I mainly play zerg which is my best race by far, but I do also enjoy my share of random and I can safely say that mines are not hard to use effectively . Neither is banelings. The main problem with widow mines isnt that you need to micro a lot against them. With excellent micro most units in the game can be countered by the very unit they're designed to kill themselves. The problem is just the design of widow mines itself, while you can aim their fire, mines arent really a unit you micro due to their reload time. Burrow, one click (although usually people just burrow) and then you wait. Because of this they also do massive single target damage along with good aoe. This simply means that there's no good unit against it, the weakness of the widow mine only comes from how the enemy engage it, and very little from the unit composition you build to counter it.
Now I'm sure many have seen banelines being countered by marines alone and widow mines can be countered with zerglings. All of this requires micro and thats just fine. Banelings can however also be countered by tanks or thors or marauders. Units that in themselves are designed to be a good counter, regardless of micro (even though micro ofc still make things easier). A natural counter to another unit is the very basics of game design and all other units follow that rule. Widow mines do not, they are a counter to poor micro and punished by good micro alone.
This doesnt mean that widow mines are overpowered, just that their design is pretty bad.
|
really happy that oracle change didnt make it
|
United Kingdom14103 Posts
On May 10 2013 20:32 Stol wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 19:49 Targe wrote:On May 10 2013 18:28 Ramiz1989 wrote:On May 10 2013 18:14 Ghanburighan wrote:On May 10 2013 18:07 Ramiz1989 wrote:On May 10 2013 17:40 Sissors wrote:On May 10 2013 17:10 Ramiz1989 wrote:On May 10 2013 16:20 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 07:05 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 10 2013 05:43 Chocobo wrote: [quote]
The game is very well balanced at the pro level but at the mere-humans level, mines are pretty silly. Incredibly cost efficient, takes 10 times more effort to counter than to use, and one mistake vs mines can be game ending. Welcome to Banelings for all of WoL. As a Zerg player you're simply not accustomed to having to face which you've been dishing out. Infestor/BL really did a number on what players like you perceive as a "balanced" matchup causing you to complain when ZvT is the best it has ever been not only from a gameplay depth and viability standpoint but from a spectator standpoint too. Like I've been saying, banelings are not particularly cost efficient. Yes they are slightly harder to counter than to use, but not anywhere near the level that mines take things. It's fine for an RTS game to have strong units that take a specialized effort to deal with, but mines take it too far. "Be ready to split your army when the banelings come and try to target them down" is a challenge, but an achievable one with practice. "Always have detection around, and follow this complex mine-removal process, and don't ever send units across the map without being ready to instantly turn around if you see a mine, and don't mess up even once or you'll be too cost inefficient" is too much effort and requires too much skill to perform for all but the very best of players. Don't put that "infestor/BL was balanced" strawman on me. Stop arguing with them. Mines don't even suicide, and you name all the problems we have with Mines, while they start to compare them to Banelings that suicides, you lose them to do damage, you almost always lose half of them before they even connect to something, and in the end, if our attack and Banelings hit were good, the resources lost are about equal. I am not saying that things are imbalanced at the moment. I enjoy new match-ups a lot more than the camping ones from WoL, but saying that Widow Mines are same as Banelings is stupid as hell. You can't reason with Terran players that are saying this. No one is saying mines are same as banelings... But since banelings are the zerg unit most like mines it is the logical choice for comparisons. And I can also make such a list about mines: They are alot slower than your banelings, they have to burrow to attack, they do friendly damage!, you cannot disable their autoattack, etc. Of course, you can make such list for every unit in SC2, my point is that Banelings are suicide units, and Mines aren't, and it is extremely hard to be cost-efficient with Banelings, since most of the times you won't kill as much as they cost, while it is hard for Mines to NOT be cost-efficient when they are used as support for Bio units. You can't trigger them with few units when the Bio is on top of them, and if you charge on Terran army with your units then complete chaos happens. That's so incredibly biased. You know what happens most of the time when I use mines at Diamond level? I move command them while the Z attacks and they never go off. Or they burrow and eat popcorn as the Z army runs past them and ravages everything I have. Mines are essentially siege tanks with tiny range, if you don't position them well and have good timings for burrow, they do absolutely nothing. They sit there, wiggle their little legs and get eaten by zerglings. Not to mention, why are talking about the balance worries of low master players. Just like I don't think mines should be any easier to use, you shouldn't think that your ling a-moves should be easier to execute. The game is finally looking great at the highest level of play and that's what we want. So, when you fuck up, Mines don't do anything? You don't say!? You know what happens when I a-click with Banelings? 10 of them get killed, 7 of them suicide on single Marauder, next 7 on the next Marauder, and I am out of the Banelings! Yeah, Banelings are terrible! On a serious note, Zerg won't be able to pass by them if you use them correctly, or should I say, burrow the Mines, and attack with Bio, then stim Bio and run back to the Mines when he tries to attack? Only problem you can have if you don't burrow the Mines on time, and with the upgrade, Mines burrow in one second, so in the mid game, I don't even see that happening. I agree with you about the highest level of play though, as I said in one of previous posts, I am not balance whining, I like how game is played right now, just when Terran players think that Mines are same as Banelings, or that Banelings are as cost-efficient as Mines are, those Terrans are delusional. God damn that bias. Forget the baneling/mine comparison, mines are actually hard to use effectively, however when done right they wreck shit, it's a tradeoff and it works pretty well at the highest levels, tbh where I'm playing (against plat/low dia Zergs) they can deal with stationary mines very easily. I mainly play zerg which is my best race by far, but I do also enjoy my share of random and I can safely say that mines are not hard to use effectively . Neither is banelings. The main problem with widow mines isnt that you need to micro a lot against them. With excellent micro most units in the game can be countered by the very unit they're designed to kill themselves. The problem is just the design of widow mines itself, while you can aim their fire, mines arent really a unit you micro due to their reload time. Burrow, one click (although usually people just burrow) and then you wait. Because of this they also do massive single target damage along with good aoe. This simply means that there's no good unit against it, the weakness of the widow mine only comes from how the enemy engage it, and very little from the unit composition you build to counter it. Now I'm sure many have seen banelines being countered by marines alone and widow mines can be countered with zerglings. All of this requires micro and thats just fine. Banelings can however also be countered by tanks or thors or marauders. Units that in themselves are designed to be a good counter, regardless of micro (even though micro ofc still make things easier). A natural counter to another unit is the very basics of game design and all other units follow that rule. Widow mines do not, they are a counter to poor micro and punished by good micro alone. This doesnt mean that widow mines are overpowered, just that their design is pretty bad.
I would actually argue that widow mines take more micro then you give them credit for, they need to be burrowed in the right places at the right time or they will either splash your own units or not hit at all.
Just like mines take a lot of micro to work against at your level banelings take a a lot of micro to work against at the lower levels, the game is balanced at the top and at different skill levels different units seem to be more powerful.
On May 10 2013 20:17 Ramiz1989 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 19:49 Targe wrote: God damn that bias.
Forget the baneling/mine comparison, mines are actually hard to use effectively, however when done right they wreck shit, it's a tradeoff and it works pretty well at the highest levels, tbh where I'm playing (against plat/low dia Zergs) they can deal with stationary mines very easily. Where I am playing (Diamond - Master), dealing with Mines is not easy at all.
I said that stationary mines are dealt with easily, you're referring to mine + bio which is a different thing, I'm not saying that mines aren't good, but they can be beaten, just like banelings appear very good at the bronze to gold skill level.
|
On May 10 2013 20:40 Targe wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 20:32 Stol wrote:On May 10 2013 19:49 Targe wrote:On May 10 2013 18:28 Ramiz1989 wrote:On May 10 2013 18:14 Ghanburighan wrote:On May 10 2013 18:07 Ramiz1989 wrote:On May 10 2013 17:40 Sissors wrote:On May 10 2013 17:10 Ramiz1989 wrote:On May 10 2013 16:20 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 07:05 DemigodcelpH wrote: [quote]
Welcome to Banelings for all of WoL. As a Zerg player you're simply not accustomed to having to face which you've been dishing out.
Infestor/BL really did a number on what players like you perceive as a "balanced" matchup causing you to complain when ZvT is the best it has ever been not only from a gameplay depth and viability standpoint but from a spectator standpoint too. Like I've been saying, banelings are not particularly cost efficient. Yes they are slightly harder to counter than to use, but not anywhere near the level that mines take things. It's fine for an RTS game to have strong units that take a specialized effort to deal with, but mines take it too far. "Be ready to split your army when the banelings come and try to target them down" is a challenge, but an achievable one with practice. "Always have detection around, and follow this complex mine-removal process, and don't ever send units across the map without being ready to instantly turn around if you see a mine, and don't mess up even once or you'll be too cost inefficient" is too much effort and requires too much skill to perform for all but the very best of players. Don't put that "infestor/BL was balanced" strawman on me. Stop arguing with them. Mines don't even suicide, and you name all the problems we have with Mines, while they start to compare them to Banelings that suicides, you lose them to do damage, you almost always lose half of them before they even connect to something, and in the end, if our attack and Banelings hit were good, the resources lost are about equal. I am not saying that things are imbalanced at the moment. I enjoy new match-ups a lot more than the camping ones from WoL, but saying that Widow Mines are same as Banelings is stupid as hell. You can't reason with Terran players that are saying this. No one is saying mines are same as banelings... But since banelings are the zerg unit most like mines it is the logical choice for comparisons. And I can also make such a list about mines: They are alot slower than your banelings, they have to burrow to attack, they do friendly damage!, you cannot disable their autoattack, etc. Of course, you can make such list for every unit in SC2, my point is that Banelings are suicide units, and Mines aren't, and it is extremely hard to be cost-efficient with Banelings, since most of the times you won't kill as much as they cost, while it is hard for Mines to NOT be cost-efficient when they are used as support for Bio units. You can't trigger them with few units when the Bio is on top of them, and if you charge on Terran army with your units then complete chaos happens. That's so incredibly biased. You know what happens most of the time when I use mines at Diamond level? I move command them while the Z attacks and they never go off. Or they burrow and eat popcorn as the Z army runs past them and ravages everything I have. Mines are essentially siege tanks with tiny range, if you don't position them well and have good timings for burrow, they do absolutely nothing. They sit there, wiggle their little legs and get eaten by zerglings. Not to mention, why are talking about the balance worries of low master players. Just like I don't think mines should be any easier to use, you shouldn't think that your ling a-moves should be easier to execute. The game is finally looking great at the highest level of play and that's what we want. So, when you fuck up, Mines don't do anything? You don't say!? You know what happens when I a-click with Banelings? 10 of them get killed, 7 of them suicide on single Marauder, next 7 on the next Marauder, and I am out of the Banelings! Yeah, Banelings are terrible! On a serious note, Zerg won't be able to pass by them if you use them correctly, or should I say, burrow the Mines, and attack with Bio, then stim Bio and run back to the Mines when he tries to attack? Only problem you can have if you don't burrow the Mines on time, and with the upgrade, Mines burrow in one second, so in the mid game, I don't even see that happening. I agree with you about the highest level of play though, as I said in one of previous posts, I am not balance whining, I like how game is played right now, just when Terran players think that Mines are same as Banelings, or that Banelings are as cost-efficient as Mines are, those Terrans are delusional. God damn that bias. Forget the baneling/mine comparison, mines are actually hard to use effectively, however when done right they wreck shit, it's a tradeoff and it works pretty well at the highest levels, tbh where I'm playing (against plat/low dia Zergs) they can deal with stationary mines very easily. I mainly play zerg which is my best race by far, but I do also enjoy my share of random and I can safely say that mines are not hard to use effectively . Neither is banelings. The main problem with widow mines isnt that you need to micro a lot against them. With excellent micro most units in the game can be countered by the very unit they're designed to kill themselves. The problem is just the design of widow mines itself, while you can aim their fire, mines arent really a unit you micro due to their reload time. Burrow, one click (although usually people just burrow) and then you wait. Because of this they also do massive single target damage along with good aoe. This simply means that there's no good unit against it, the weakness of the widow mine only comes from how the enemy engage it, and very little from the unit composition you build to counter it. Now I'm sure many have seen banelines being countered by marines alone and widow mines can be countered with zerglings. All of this requires micro and thats just fine. Banelings can however also be countered by tanks or thors or marauders. Units that in themselves are designed to be a good counter, regardless of micro (even though micro ofc still make things easier). A natural counter to another unit is the very basics of game design and all other units follow that rule. Widow mines do not, they are a counter to poor micro and punished by good micro alone. This doesnt mean that widow mines are overpowered, just that their design is pretty bad. I would actually argue that widow mines take more micro then you give them credit for, they need to be burrowed in the right places at the right time or they will either splash your own units or not hit at all. Just like mines take a lot of micro to work against at your level banelings take a a lot of micro to work against at the lower levels, the game is balanced at the top and at different skill levels different units seem to be more powerful. Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 20:17 Ramiz1989 wrote:On May 10 2013 19:49 Targe wrote: God damn that bias.
Forget the baneling/mine comparison, mines are actually hard to use effectively, however when done right they wreck shit, it's a tradeoff and it works pretty well at the highest levels, tbh where I'm playing (against plat/low dia Zergs) they can deal with stationary mines very easily. Where I am playing (Diamond - Master), dealing with Mines is not easy at all. I said that stationary mines are dealt with easily, you're referring to mine + bio which is a different thing, I'm not saying that mines aren't good, but they can be beaten, just like banelings appear very good at the bronze to gold skill level.
You missed my point, I wasnt talking about balance, or even micro for that matter, just the design of widow mines. I will stick by my point though, widow mines are not hard to use effectively. Even at master levels you can just burrow them way ahead of time and simply spread out and run back and forth, either establishing a contain or slowly push forward on creep. At master levels its still tricky to remember all the spots they're burrowed when left laying during the course of a fight.
They're not hard to use as their effectiveness mainly comes from how good your opponent plays against them, rather than how good you are at positioning them (even though you can ofc still place them in worse or better spots).
|
On May 10 2013 19:47 Snowbear wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 19:42 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 19:24 Snowbear wrote:On May 10 2013 19:22 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 19:06 Ghanburighan wrote:On May 10 2013 18:57 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 17:00 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 10 2013 16:20 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 07:05 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 10 2013 05:43 Chocobo wrote: [quote]
The game is very well balanced at the pro level but at the mere-humans level, mines are pretty silly. Incredibly cost efficient, takes 10 times more effort to counter than to use, and one mistake vs mines can be game ending. Welcome to Banelings for all of WoL. As a Zerg player you're simply not accustomed to having to face which you've been dishing out. Infestor/BL really did a number on what players like you perceive as a "balanced" matchup causing you to complain when ZvT is the best it has ever been not only from a gameplay depth and viability standpoint but from a spectator standpoint too. Like I've been saying, banelings are not particularly cost efficient. Yes they are slightly harder to counter than to use Bolded for emphasis. With all due respect you are incredibly biased, and unfortunately the rest of your post falls victim to this style of thinking. Downplaying things to suit your agenda isn't making a valid point, so everything I mentioned still effectively stands. If you think that's biased then I don't think you understand the game very well, or at least haven't played the matchup from both sides. Seeing banelings and reacting by splitting your marines (or stim + run to cover) is not that hard, and is certainly nowhere near the difficulty of dealing with mines cost efficiently as zerg. That's simply a fact. Additionally, banelings have higher risk and lower reward than mines. Usually some "great baneling connections!" are an even trade on the resources lost meter, and still means zerg is spending gas to wipe out mineral-only units. The reward for successful banelings is low, and they carry the risk of being inefficient and costing you the game (if you run into tank fire, perfect splits, or hit the wrong units). Mines simply aren't like that. I've never seen a terran lose due to being inefficient with his mines. I've seen many terrans win, including at the pro level, where mines wipe out large portions of armies at once while losing nothing. Mines are far more cost efficient and that means the risk you take by making them is virtually nothing... and the rewards are often so high. They're useful all game long too - they're even good against ultras. As an esports fan I recognize that mines are balanced at the pro level and I appreciate seeing the skill on display in using them and countering them. But as a player, I can recognize a problem in a game where non-expert players have no chance to deal with something efficiently even if they know it's coming. You could also play roach hydra. That's very strong when your opponent goes mines. I don't think it's as good as skillful ling bane muta play, but you can hit a very strong midgame timing where the onus is once more on the terran to recognize what you are doing and react appropriately. If there's an answer it definitely lies in roach/hydra... this is the only pre-broodlord unit comp that can deal with mines. But all terran has to do is recognize "oh it's roach hydra, time to stop making mines and go MMM". I don't think roach/hydra/viper has a future, blinding cloud is too easy to run back from (and zerg can't chase through the cloud without being blinded themselves). Maybe there's a way to transition out of roach/hydra back into something stronger vs MMM... Anyway, this isn't the balance thread. I was just really hoping they'd at least be considering some kind of change to mines, or some kind of beneficial change for zerg that comes before hive tech. Oh well. Are we playing a different game? Because in my game, zergs are actually winning games. You act like there is no counter to mines and the moment a terran makes a few mines, he wins. You need to micro now, the easy WOL times are OVER and you should really start practicing. I never said mines are autowin or anything like that. ZvT is not unwinnable, but I'd be shocked if the winrates weren't favoring terran in the area of platinum to mid masters. When something is that efficient and there's no way to counter or punish it, what else could happen? "Learn to play" is such a pointless thing to say. In the infestor/broodlord era did you tell terran and protoss players "yeah it's strong, deal with it. go practice and find a way to beat it, if MVP does it so can you"? Of course difficult challenges can be often overcome if you practice endlessly and put in a herculean effort. But the point is that there's an issue if one person is required to do that and the other is not. You can split your units, just like the lower league terrans have to godsplit against banelings. We all knew this would happen: wol zerg was too strong > a lot of zergs were playing above their actual level > balanced hots comes out > the zergs lose against people they won against in wol > balance whine. And one person (terran) is required to split against banelings (terran armies HAVE to be microed): - in WOL the other person (zerg) wasn't required > ISSUE - in HOTS also the other person (zerg) is required to mico > NO ISSUE, perfect game.
LOL about people talking about roach hydra being viable. Yeah, sure, stephano uses it because he's really fucking good, but the reason like 95 percent of zergs right now are going Muta ling bane is because the minute your scouted going roach hydra, your opponent puts a tech lab on his factory and pumps out siege tanks. And without mutas, your fucked vs drops. and about the baneling vs mine risk vs reward thing, most terrans have learned how to split vs banelings reasonably well. unless you know where the mines are buried, its super hard to do the same micro tricks. yeah, you say that you can run a ling in to blow them up, but any decent terran at this point with unburrow the mine so it won't go off, or keep a good amount of units in front of the mine so the units kill the lings or whatever before the mines are set off. the cost of making overseers alone is almost worth going mine. you usually have to make a lot, as mines can target overseers and kill them, plus stimmed marines>overseers.
|
|
On May 10 2013 19:47 Snowbear wrote: You can split your units, just like the lower league terrans have to godsplit against banelings. We all knew this would happen: wol zerg was too strong > a lot of zergs were playing above their actual level > balanced hots comes out > the zergs lose against people they won against in wol > balance whine.
And one person (terran) is required to split against banelings (terran armies HAVE to be microed): - in WOL the other person (zerg) wasn't required > ISSUE - in HOTS also the other person (zerg) is required to mico > NO ISSUE, perfect game.
Hai friend, I just thought I'd point out that your exaggerations aren't helping you prove your point, both zerg and terran have always been forced to micro and you know that just aswell as I do.
|
No Oracle change? thank god
|
Sounds good. Good work D.Kim!
|
it's good that they're listening to the community and not going through with the oracle and burrow changes
|
|
On May 10 2013 16:45 Sissors wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 13:00 vRadiatioNv wrote:On May 10 2013 07:05 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 10 2013 05:43 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 05:05 Rostam wrote:On May 10 2013 05:04 RogerChillingworth wrote: TvZ is still terran favored, i don't care what anyone says. Other match-ups are better--can go either way--and really map dependent, but non-retarded Terrans will still make zerg look silly. stats fail to illustrate the full picture, i'm afraid. Good thing Code S is filled with retarded Terrans, then, otherwise zerg would be having issues. The game is very well balanced at the pro level but at the mere-humans level, mines are pretty silly. Incredibly cost efficient, takes 10 times more effort to counter than to use, and one mistake vs mines can be game ending. Welcome to Banelings for all of WoL. As a Zerg player you're simply not accustomed to having to face which you've been dishing out. Infestor/BL really did a number on what players like you perceive as a "balanced" matchup causing you to complain when ZvT is the best it has ever been not only from a gameplay depth and viability standpoint but from a spectator standpoint too. The Mine vs Banelings argument has been done so many times it shouldn't be brought up anymore. It's not a very good comparison to begin with and how often do you see Banelings come out as cost efficient as Mines? People see Banelings melt Marines and they go "OMG IMBA". Newsflash: that's minerals vs minerals+gas, more often than not it's not actually very efficient for Zerg lol. Not only do Mines pwn Zerglings but they pwn Banelings, Mutas and almost every Zerg unit. At best Banelings serve as a "stall" form of AoE where you are just trying to keep the Terran army small to avoid dying while going for Hive tech and more efficient forms of AoE (Infestors/Ultras). On the other hand Mines are very efficient and can be used almost all game long. Show nested quote +The Mine vs Banelings argument has been done so many times it shouldn't be brought up anymore. It's not a very good comparison to begin with and how often do you see Banelings come out as cost efficient as Mines? Quite often when they are used as baneling mines. Which cannot be detected by simply running a single ling ahead of the rest. Really that isn't that much work. Not to mention speedlings can run pretty much directly over mines without activating them. Another newsflash: Not only do mines pwn lings and mutas, they pwn marines too. I tested it before, do equal supply/cost of speedlings vs marine/mine, unmicro'd on both sides, even with stimming the marines, and the end result is generally a draw. Mines kill everything, including friendly units. So that balances it out for lower levels. And then talking about being used all-game long? Mines are pretty much useless when BLs come out, and tbh also infestors and ultras don't make them more impressive, although with BLs out they actually only kill your own army. Meanwhile banelings stay very useful throughout all the game. And of course it is hard to compare two units which are quite different, but I agree that mines are probably more cost efficient generally. At the same time banelings are generally more supply efficient. Really now... 1. Your unit needs to walk over the Baneling. 2. You need 2 to kill a marine and even then it does less damage than a mine. 3. No range. 4. You lose the Banelings. Burrowed Banelings aren't even that good and it's too risky to be effective (if burrow was cheaper this might change but currently pros rarely get burrow to use burrowed Banelings). Like I said, these arguments have been done again and again and there's a reason Terrans use tons of Mines while Zergs try to avoid using Banelings if they can.
As for the friendly splash damage, there is a reason the mines are in front of your army. And all you are saying is that at best the Zerg can trade equal to the Terran, Zerglings vs Marines and that's assuming the Terran just has crap micro. At worst the Zerg is trading Lings, Banelings, and Mutas for Marines.
Notice I said mines are efficient "almost" all game long. Obviously BLs are good against mines but in current ZvT it's actually quite hard not only to get to BL but to even have decent upgrades for them. Right now pros are trying to do melee and ground carapace + air attack simultaneously and it's insanely gas intensive. It's extremely difficult to afford that while simultaneously reloading your Banes and Mutas when they die, teching to Hive and Greater Spire, and finding the resources to build the Corrupters and finally BL. We don't typically even see BL until very, very late game ZvT. This is delayed even further if the Zerg decides to get Ultras and, while Ultras can take mine hits fairly well, the mines still do a flat 125 damage per hit to Ultras which ignores all armor upgrades so it's not like mines are terrible vs Ultras. Infestors don't work very well to counter mines at all. If you are trying to use ITs to bait mine shots that's energy that is not going into fungal and if the Terran is smart he will just unburrow and back up unless he thinks he can win even without the mines. Also remember you will need at least 1 IT per mine. But let's be honest here, the majority of time in ZvT games is spent where Zerg is on Ling, Bling, Muta vs MMMM. It takes a long time for Zerg to get more efficient AoE than Banelings.
Being supply efficient is pointless if the unit is cost inefficient not to mention Banelings aren't actually that supply efficient. You need 2 to kill a Marine (1 supply) and you are guaranteed to lose some before the connections are made. But again, it's irrelevant because, if the unit is not very cost efficient you don't want to build a lot of them to begin with so being able to build a lot of them is pointless (and this is exactly what Zergs are doing: building as few Banelings as possible trying to hold out until they can get more efficient AoE ie. Ultras).
|
United Kingdom12010 Posts
I'd just like to point out that people complaining about cost efficieny with banelings is that no zerg unit outside of or lair are really super cost efficient. If zerglings, banelings and roaches for example were guarenteed to be cost efficient every game zerg would be horribly broken as they'd have not only the best way of remaxxing super fast, but they'd also have the best army cost efficiency wise.
There was a massive reason zerg having infestors like they were and broodlords were broken. They basically countered every single unit in the game cost efficiently and that was the issue with it.
|
I really liked the Oracle changes (would really have helped my Funday monday proxy oracle into warp-prism DTs build), but overall not unhappy with the no changes. HotS is a fucking amazing game and is probably more balanced than WoL ever was it (it's certainly more fun for me).
|
Super glad to hear this!
I was too obsessed with the Idra news to see this right away but I'm glad they're just considering the spore crawler change at this point. I'm really happy with the state of the game right now as far as balance as both a player and a fan.
|
More air damage for Queens, please.
|
On May 10 2013 23:38 kafkaesque wrote: More air damage for Queens, please. Actually, with how much they are used in other matches, I don't think that Queens need any buff. We have seen recently new pushes in ZvZ with Queens, Roaches and Nydus, that were made just for stopping mass Mutas from happening.
|
On May 10 2013 23:38 kafkaesque wrote: More air damage for Queens, please.
Only against biological air units right? Like with the spore crawlers? Otherwise it is going to affect non-ZvZ matchups.
|
No oracle buff!!! blizz finally making good choices!!! also good they are not messing with burrow. dont know if spore is the right change, but we certainly need one so i guess just wait and see how it works out.
|
This announcement is tipping point for me and i had to uninstall the game.
My current level was slightly behind GM, best rated as 259th (Master) few days ago. (http://sc2ranks.com/eu/603719/Pitro)
I am playing with 21% win-rate vs Terran on my level while i have 60+ vs Z and 70- vs P. (+- 150 games sample size)
I believe all-ins should be way to add variability to your game. If they became standard in metagame i feel it is wrong and game is volatile. Ultra-greedy terran openings are forcing zergs to make allin or be behind. We can see this on GSL (Symbol nydus play) and everywhere else with roach - bling busts.
I always loved ling, bling, muta style while adding fast burrow to expand and map control, baneling mines and infestors instead of hive rush.
Things i hate:
1, Terran scan randomly to push creep and because of ridiculous size of scan he sees baneling mines before line of creep. 2, Hellbat drop is impossible to be cost ineffective. Even if i loose 0 drones and pull them all until the drop is cleared i lost more than 300:100 in mining time.
3, Overseers are so uncomfortable to use. When i compare ease of pressing button and gaining vision to struggles of keeping overseers alive ... Eventually they run into stimmed marines or mine and die .. i have to remake and wait for them with rest of army due to their ridiculous move speed (even upgraded)
4, You loose one fight, you lost the game. .. this never applies vice versa. Ever since terrans realised all they have to do is to rally all barracks after winning fight i loose a lot more games.
5,Great disparities in gas spending. Having to upgrade 4 upgrades instead of terran 2 when i play my style. Terrans had to upgrade vehicle weapons as well, now they just rush to 3:3 bio. They had to use ghost and spend gas. Now ? They don't even need or use them. Zerg, on the other hand must upgrade melee and muta upgrades while making gas heavy units like infestors or banelings to counter mineral sink. (powered by mules)
6, Fact that you almost cant punish widow mines. If you caught sieges out of position you could snipe them. Now you need 3 baneling (150 : 75) to snipe 1 widow mine (75 : 25). If you are being dropped in several places while trying to hold main army, creeps spread etc you don't have chance for more micro intensive techniques .. at least i don't on my level.
7, Fact that you almost cant counter attack now. WM negate fast counter attacks into thinking how to split lings if overseer is needed, where is your overseer located etc.
8, Expand structure on maps. While i have 3 bases close to each other i can defend. Later in game you are getting dropped, trying to deny terran 4 active mining bases ( which if achieved by T is GG) your expands tend to be far more apart from each other. Often times your expands are on different side of map. You need to get your main army thinner and thinner while terran start to go into mass orbital mode, sacrifice scv's and his army is getting bigger and bigger instead.
9, Fact that zerg static defence is loosing in value as time progress. Terran can upgrade armour, toss shields. I cant make spine crowlers do shit in late games against 3:3 bio... but i still make them since i have to spend minerals somehow.
This is why i cant stand playing ZvT anymore .. it may be balanced stat wise (which i dont believe except for top 30 zerg worldwide) but i am forced to do allins and it sure is not balanced effort or satisfaction - wise... whole ZvT feels like big frustration-fest for me.
|
On May 10 2013 23:45 plogamer wrote:Only against biological air units right? Like with the spore crawlers? Otherwise it is going to affect non-ZvZ matchups.
Against every unit, but this is just me being frustrated with drops and voidray allins, spouting nonsense.
|
On May 11 2013 00:04 kafkaesque wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 23:45 plogamer wrote:On May 10 2013 23:38 kafkaesque wrote: More air damage for Queens, please. Only against biological air units right? Like with the spore crawlers? Otherwise it is going to affect non-ZvZ matchups. Against every unit, but this is just me being frustrated with drops and voidray allins, spouting nonsense. Build static defenses ...
With the amount of buffing which harrassment got with HotS you should realize that Day[9]'s mantra of "that is a Spine Crawler he didnt want to build" is made totally obsolete (if it wasnt already). Spore Crawlers are great against Medivacs and Oracles and they even detect Widow Mines AND they cost no gas (which is scarce in the beginning of the game anyways).
You REALLY NEED the stuff and the efficiency of Widow Mines and Hellbats against Zerglings (the usual fast response unit) should make this need absolutely clear.
On May 10 2013 23:49 Pandahunterz wrote: No oracle buff!!! blizz finally making good choices!!! also good they are not messing with burrow. dont know if spore is the right change, but we certainly need one so i guess just wait and see how it works out. That isnt a "good choice" it is "not making a terrible choice" ... which isnt the same.
|
On May 10 2013 19:00 FirstGear wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 18:28 Ramiz1989 wrote:On May 10 2013 18:14 Ghanburighan wrote:On May 10 2013 18:07 Ramiz1989 wrote:On May 10 2013 17:40 Sissors wrote:On May 10 2013 17:10 Ramiz1989 wrote:On May 10 2013 16:20 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 07:05 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 10 2013 05:43 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 05:05 Rostam wrote: [quote]
Good thing Code S is filled with retarded Terrans, then, otherwise zerg would be having issues. The game is very well balanced at the pro level but at the mere-humans level, mines are pretty silly. Incredibly cost efficient, takes 10 times more effort to counter than to use, and one mistake vs mines can be game ending. Welcome to Banelings for all of WoL. As a Zerg player you're simply not accustomed to having to face which you've been dishing out. Infestor/BL really did a number on what players like you perceive as a "balanced" matchup causing you to complain when ZvT is the best it has ever been not only from a gameplay depth and viability standpoint but from a spectator standpoint too. Like I've been saying, banelings are not particularly cost efficient. Yes they are slightly harder to counter than to use, but not anywhere near the level that mines take things. It's fine for an RTS game to have strong units that take a specialized effort to deal with, but mines take it too far. "Be ready to split your army when the banelings come and try to target them down" is a challenge, but an achievable one with practice. "Always have detection around, and follow this complex mine-removal process, and don't ever send units across the map without being ready to instantly turn around if you see a mine, and don't mess up even once or you'll be too cost inefficient" is too much effort and requires too much skill to perform for all but the very best of players. Don't put that "infestor/BL was balanced" strawman on me. Stop arguing with them. Mines don't even suicide, and you name all the problems we have with Mines, while they start to compare them to Banelings that suicides, you lose them to do damage, you almost always lose half of them before they even connect to something, and in the end, if our attack and Banelings hit were good, the resources lost are about equal. I am not saying that things are imbalanced at the moment. I enjoy new match-ups a lot more than the camping ones from WoL, but saying that Widow Mines are same as Banelings is stupid as hell. You can't reason with Terran players that are saying this. No one is saying mines are same as banelings... But since banelings are the zerg unit most like mines it is the logical choice for comparisons. And I can also make such a list about mines: They are alot slower than your banelings, they have to burrow to attack, they do friendly damage!, you cannot disable their autoattack, etc. Of course, you can make such list for every unit in SC2, my point is that Banelings are suicide units, and Mines aren't, and it is extremely hard to be cost-efficient with Banelings, since most of the times you won't kill as much as they cost, while it is hard for Mines to NOT be cost-efficient when they are used as support for Bio units. You can't trigger them with few units when the Bio is on top of them, and if you charge on Terran army with your units then complete chaos happens. That's so incredibly biased. You know what happens most of the time when I use mines at Diamond level? I move command them while the Z attacks and they never go off. Or they burrow and eat popcorn as the Z army runs past them and ravages everything I have. Mines are essentially siege tanks with tiny range, if you don't position them well and have good timings for burrow, they do absolutely nothing. They sit there, wiggle their little legs and get eaten by zerglings. Not to mention, why are talking about the balance worries of low master players. Just like I don't think mines should be any easier to use, you shouldn't think that your ling a-moves should be easier to execute. The game is finally looking great at the highest level of play and that's what we want. So, when you fuck up, Mines don't do anything? You don't say!? You know what happens when I a-click with Banelings? 10 of them get killed, 7 of them suicide on single Marauder, next 7 on the next Marauder, and I am out of the Banelings! Yeah, Banelings are terrible! On a serious note, Zerg won't be able to pass by them if you use them correctly, or should I say, burrow the Mines, and attack with Bio, then stim Bio and run back to the Mines when he tries to attack? Only problem you can have if you don't burrow the Mines on time, and with the upgrade, Mines burrow in one second, so in the mid game, I don't even see that happening. I agree with you about the highest level of play though, as I said in one of previous posts, I am not balance whining, I like how game is played right now, just when Terran players think that Mines are same as Banelings, or that Banelings are as cost-efficient as Mines are, those Terrans are delusional. I would argue Terran is the hardest to play at the lowest level. The reason I feel this is because they have the most players in bronze. Terran has always been over represented in bronze/silver, whilst zerg is under represented in the lower leagues. Evidence - http://www.sc2ranks.com/stats/league/all/1/all. Not that I mind. I'd prefer if rank scaled more evenly with skill between the races, but I don't think it really matters. If mines make the match up a little harder for zerg at lower levels I don't think thats a bad thing.
Or it could be that the people that are completely new to RTS, bought sc2 and played the campaign then tried laddering with the only race they knew how, do their 5 placement matches and then quit cause they didnt know how to play.
|
Russian Federation4295 Posts
4, You loose one fight, you lost the game. .. this never applies vice versa. Ever since terrans realised all they have to do is to rally all barracks after winning fight i loose a lot more games. Marine building time = 25 sec Locust spawning time for free = 25 sec
|
On May 11 2013 00:19 phodacbiet wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 19:00 FirstGear wrote:On May 10 2013 18:28 Ramiz1989 wrote:On May 10 2013 18:14 Ghanburighan wrote:On May 10 2013 18:07 Ramiz1989 wrote:On May 10 2013 17:40 Sissors wrote:On May 10 2013 17:10 Ramiz1989 wrote:On May 10 2013 16:20 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 07:05 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 10 2013 05:43 Chocobo wrote: [quote]
The game is very well balanced at the pro level but at the mere-humans level, mines are pretty silly. Incredibly cost efficient, takes 10 times more effort to counter than to use, and one mistake vs mines can be game ending. Welcome to Banelings for all of WoL. As a Zerg player you're simply not accustomed to having to face which you've been dishing out. Infestor/BL really did a number on what players like you perceive as a "balanced" matchup causing you to complain when ZvT is the best it has ever been not only from a gameplay depth and viability standpoint but from a spectator standpoint too. Like I've been saying, banelings are not particularly cost efficient. Yes they are slightly harder to counter than to use, but not anywhere near the level that mines take things. It's fine for an RTS game to have strong units that take a specialized effort to deal with, but mines take it too far. "Be ready to split your army when the banelings come and try to target them down" is a challenge, but an achievable one with practice. "Always have detection around, and follow this complex mine-removal process, and don't ever send units across the map without being ready to instantly turn around if you see a mine, and don't mess up even once or you'll be too cost inefficient" is too much effort and requires too much skill to perform for all but the very best of players. Don't put that "infestor/BL was balanced" strawman on me. Stop arguing with them. Mines don't even suicide, and you name all the problems we have with Mines, while they start to compare them to Banelings that suicides, you lose them to do damage, you almost always lose half of them before they even connect to something, and in the end, if our attack and Banelings hit were good, the resources lost are about equal. I am not saying that things are imbalanced at the moment. I enjoy new match-ups a lot more than the camping ones from WoL, but saying that Widow Mines are same as Banelings is stupid as hell. You can't reason with Terran players that are saying this. No one is saying mines are same as banelings... But since banelings are the zerg unit most like mines it is the logical choice for comparisons. And I can also make such a list about mines: They are alot slower than your banelings, they have to burrow to attack, they do friendly damage!, you cannot disable their autoattack, etc. Of course, you can make such list for every unit in SC2, my point is that Banelings are suicide units, and Mines aren't, and it is extremely hard to be cost-efficient with Banelings, since most of the times you won't kill as much as they cost, while it is hard for Mines to NOT be cost-efficient when they are used as support for Bio units. You can't trigger them with few units when the Bio is on top of them, and if you charge on Terran army with your units then complete chaos happens. That's so incredibly biased. You know what happens most of the time when I use mines at Diamond level? I move command them while the Z attacks and they never go off. Or they burrow and eat popcorn as the Z army runs past them and ravages everything I have. Mines are essentially siege tanks with tiny range, if you don't position them well and have good timings for burrow, they do absolutely nothing. They sit there, wiggle their little legs and get eaten by zerglings. Not to mention, why are talking about the balance worries of low master players. Just like I don't think mines should be any easier to use, you shouldn't think that your ling a-moves should be easier to execute. The game is finally looking great at the highest level of play and that's what we want. So, when you fuck up, Mines don't do anything? You don't say!? You know what happens when I a-click with Banelings? 10 of them get killed, 7 of them suicide on single Marauder, next 7 on the next Marauder, and I am out of the Banelings! Yeah, Banelings are terrible! On a serious note, Zerg won't be able to pass by them if you use them correctly, or should I say, burrow the Mines, and attack with Bio, then stim Bio and run back to the Mines when he tries to attack? Only problem you can have if you don't burrow the Mines on time, and with the upgrade, Mines burrow in one second, so in the mid game, I don't even see that happening. I agree with you about the highest level of play though, as I said in one of previous posts, I am not balance whining, I like how game is played right now, just when Terran players think that Mines are same as Banelings, or that Banelings are as cost-efficient as Mines are, those Terrans are delusional. I would argue Terran is the hardest to play at the lowest level. The reason I feel this is because they have the most players in bronze. Terran has always been over represented in bronze/silver, whilst zerg is under represented in the lower leagues. Evidence - http://www.sc2ranks.com/stats/league/all/1/all. Not that I mind. I'd prefer if rank scaled more evenly with skill between the races, but I don't think it really matters. If mines make the match up a little harder for zerg at lower levels I don't think thats a bad thing. Or it could be that the people that are completely new to RTS, bought sc2 and played the campaign then tried laddering with the only race they knew how, do their 5 placement matches and then quit cause they didnt know how to play. Not after this long time ... and Terran is the most limited and most complicated race to play. You need to decide which amount of buildings you want and can not switch that easily.
|
United Kingdom14103 Posts
On May 11 2013 00:22 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2013 00:19 phodacbiet wrote:On May 10 2013 19:00 FirstGear wrote:On May 10 2013 18:28 Ramiz1989 wrote:On May 10 2013 18:14 Ghanburighan wrote:On May 10 2013 18:07 Ramiz1989 wrote:On May 10 2013 17:40 Sissors wrote:On May 10 2013 17:10 Ramiz1989 wrote:On May 10 2013 16:20 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 07:05 DemigodcelpH wrote: [quote]
Welcome to Banelings for all of WoL. As a Zerg player you're simply not accustomed to having to face which you've been dishing out.
Infestor/BL really did a number on what players like you perceive as a "balanced" matchup causing you to complain when ZvT is the best it has ever been not only from a gameplay depth and viability standpoint but from a spectator standpoint too. Like I've been saying, banelings are not particularly cost efficient. Yes they are slightly harder to counter than to use, but not anywhere near the level that mines take things. It's fine for an RTS game to have strong units that take a specialized effort to deal with, but mines take it too far. "Be ready to split your army when the banelings come and try to target them down" is a challenge, but an achievable one with practice. "Always have detection around, and follow this complex mine-removal process, and don't ever send units across the map without being ready to instantly turn around if you see a mine, and don't mess up even once or you'll be too cost inefficient" is too much effort and requires too much skill to perform for all but the very best of players. Don't put that "infestor/BL was balanced" strawman on me. Stop arguing with them. Mines don't even suicide, and you name all the problems we have with Mines, while they start to compare them to Banelings that suicides, you lose them to do damage, you almost always lose half of them before they even connect to something, and in the end, if our attack and Banelings hit were good, the resources lost are about equal. I am not saying that things are imbalanced at the moment. I enjoy new match-ups a lot more than the camping ones from WoL, but saying that Widow Mines are same as Banelings is stupid as hell. You can't reason with Terran players that are saying this. No one is saying mines are same as banelings... But since banelings are the zerg unit most like mines it is the logical choice for comparisons. And I can also make such a list about mines: They are alot slower than your banelings, they have to burrow to attack, they do friendly damage!, you cannot disable their autoattack, etc. Of course, you can make such list for every unit in SC2, my point is that Banelings are suicide units, and Mines aren't, and it is extremely hard to be cost-efficient with Banelings, since most of the times you won't kill as much as they cost, while it is hard for Mines to NOT be cost-efficient when they are used as support for Bio units. You can't trigger them with few units when the Bio is on top of them, and if you charge on Terran army with your units then complete chaos happens. That's so incredibly biased. You know what happens most of the time when I use mines at Diamond level? I move command them while the Z attacks and they never go off. Or they burrow and eat popcorn as the Z army runs past them and ravages everything I have. Mines are essentially siege tanks with tiny range, if you don't position them well and have good timings for burrow, they do absolutely nothing. They sit there, wiggle their little legs and get eaten by zerglings. Not to mention, why are talking about the balance worries of low master players. Just like I don't think mines should be any easier to use, you shouldn't think that your ling a-moves should be easier to execute. The game is finally looking great at the highest level of play and that's what we want. So, when you fuck up, Mines don't do anything? You don't say!? You know what happens when I a-click with Banelings? 10 of them get killed, 7 of them suicide on single Marauder, next 7 on the next Marauder, and I am out of the Banelings! Yeah, Banelings are terrible! On a serious note, Zerg won't be able to pass by them if you use them correctly, or should I say, burrow the Mines, and attack with Bio, then stim Bio and run back to the Mines when he tries to attack? Only problem you can have if you don't burrow the Mines on time, and with the upgrade, Mines burrow in one second, so in the mid game, I don't even see that happening. I agree with you about the highest level of play though, as I said in one of previous posts, I am not balance whining, I like how game is played right now, just when Terran players think that Mines are same as Banelings, or that Banelings are as cost-efficient as Mines are, those Terrans are delusional. I would argue Terran is the hardest to play at the lowest level. The reason I feel this is because they have the most players in bronze. Terran has always been over represented in bronze/silver, whilst zerg is under represented in the lower leagues. Evidence - http://www.sc2ranks.com/stats/league/all/1/all. Not that I mind. I'd prefer if rank scaled more evenly with skill between the races, but I don't think it really matters. If mines make the match up a little harder for zerg at lower levels I don't think thats a bad thing. Or it could be that the people that are completely new to RTS, bought sc2 and played the campaign then tried laddering with the only race they knew how, do their 5 placement matches and then quit cause they didnt know how to play. Not after this long time ... and Terran is the most limited and most complicated race to play. You need to decide which amount of buildings you want and can not switch that easily.
I would say it's 1. due to the original expansion being Terran based and 2. because Terran matches the design of most other RTS races more closely than Protoss or Zerg.
|
I think it's too early to make changes deliberately focused around encouraging different styles. Oh, well, it doesn't affect me much because I don't play Zerg.
|
My personal journey.
Oh a balance change! cool.
Oh nothing is changing except ZvZ, eh i guess thats ok Muta vs Muta is getting quite old.
Good call by blizzard though, if everything is balanced then why poke it.
|
I find it hillarious, that Zergs are still complaining.Yes you can't amove every single engagement anymore and expect to win by a large margin - tough luck! And btw. your personal little balance stats matter jack shit, because of the way MMR works. It only means, that YOU suck at this specific MU.
|
On May 11 2013 00:49 Greenei wrote: I find it hillarious, that Zergs are still complaining.Yes you can't amove every single engagement anymore and expect to win by a large margin - tough luck! And btw. your personal little balance stats matter jack shit, because of the way MMR works. It only means, that YOU suck at this specific MU.
This is pretty much the truth of the matter.
I'd really like to see hellbats changed a bit (even just removing the bio tag so they can't be healed by medivacs would be fantastic) because they're so cost-efficient, but if dropping those every game to win TvT is what has to be done, then i'll do it.
|
On May 11 2013 00:19 phodacbiet wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 19:00 FirstGear wrote:On May 10 2013 18:28 Ramiz1989 wrote:On May 10 2013 18:14 Ghanburighan wrote:On May 10 2013 18:07 Ramiz1989 wrote:On May 10 2013 17:40 Sissors wrote:On May 10 2013 17:10 Ramiz1989 wrote:On May 10 2013 16:20 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 07:05 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 10 2013 05:43 Chocobo wrote: [quote]
The game is very well balanced at the pro level but at the mere-humans level, mines are pretty silly. Incredibly cost efficient, takes 10 times more effort to counter than to use, and one mistake vs mines can be game ending. Welcome to Banelings for all of WoL. As a Zerg player you're simply not accustomed to having to face which you've been dishing out. Infestor/BL really did a number on what players like you perceive as a "balanced" matchup causing you to complain when ZvT is the best it has ever been not only from a gameplay depth and viability standpoint but from a spectator standpoint too. Like I've been saying, banelings are not particularly cost efficient. Yes they are slightly harder to counter than to use, but not anywhere near the level that mines take things. It's fine for an RTS game to have strong units that take a specialized effort to deal with, but mines take it too far. "Be ready to split your army when the banelings come and try to target them down" is a challenge, but an achievable one with practice. "Always have detection around, and follow this complex mine-removal process, and don't ever send units across the map without being ready to instantly turn around if you see a mine, and don't mess up even once or you'll be too cost inefficient" is too much effort and requires too much skill to perform for all but the very best of players. Don't put that "infestor/BL was balanced" strawman on me. Stop arguing with them. Mines don't even suicide, and you name all the problems we have with Mines, while they start to compare them to Banelings that suicides, you lose them to do damage, you almost always lose half of them before they even connect to something, and in the end, if our attack and Banelings hit were good, the resources lost are about equal. I am not saying that things are imbalanced at the moment. I enjoy new match-ups a lot more than the camping ones from WoL, but saying that Widow Mines are same as Banelings is stupid as hell. You can't reason with Terran players that are saying this. No one is saying mines are same as banelings... But since banelings are the zerg unit most like mines it is the logical choice for comparisons. And I can also make such a list about mines: They are alot slower than your banelings, they have to burrow to attack, they do friendly damage!, you cannot disable their autoattack, etc. Of course, you can make such list for every unit in SC2, my point is that Banelings are suicide units, and Mines aren't, and it is extremely hard to be cost-efficient with Banelings, since most of the times you won't kill as much as they cost, while it is hard for Mines to NOT be cost-efficient when they are used as support for Bio units. You can't trigger them with few units when the Bio is on top of them, and if you charge on Terran army with your units then complete chaos happens. That's so incredibly biased. You know what happens most of the time when I use mines at Diamond level? I move command them while the Z attacks and they never go off. Or they burrow and eat popcorn as the Z army runs past them and ravages everything I have. Mines are essentially siege tanks with tiny range, if you don't position them well and have good timings for burrow, they do absolutely nothing. They sit there, wiggle their little legs and get eaten by zerglings. Not to mention, why are talking about the balance worries of low master players. Just like I don't think mines should be any easier to use, you shouldn't think that your ling a-moves should be easier to execute. The game is finally looking great at the highest level of play and that's what we want. So, when you fuck up, Mines don't do anything? You don't say!? You know what happens when I a-click with Banelings? 10 of them get killed, 7 of them suicide on single Marauder, next 7 on the next Marauder, and I am out of the Banelings! Yeah, Banelings are terrible! On a serious note, Zerg won't be able to pass by them if you use them correctly, or should I say, burrow the Mines, and attack with Bio, then stim Bio and run back to the Mines when he tries to attack? Only problem you can have if you don't burrow the Mines on time, and with the upgrade, Mines burrow in one second, so in the mid game, I don't even see that happening. I agree with you about the highest level of play though, as I said in one of previous posts, I am not balance whining, I like how game is played right now, just when Terran players think that Mines are same as Banelings, or that Banelings are as cost-efficient as Mines are, those Terrans are delusional. I would argue Terran is the hardest to play at the lowest level. The reason I feel this is because they have the most players in bronze. Terran has always been over represented in bronze/silver, whilst zerg is under represented in the lower leagues. Evidence - http://www.sc2ranks.com/stats/league/all/1/all. Not that I mind. I'd prefer if rank scaled more evenly with skill between the races, but I don't think it really matters. If mines make the match up a little harder for zerg at lower levels I don't think thats a bad thing. Or it could be that the people that are completely new to RTS, bought sc2 and played the campaign then tried laddering with the only race they knew how, do their 5 placement matches and then quit cause they didnt know how to play.
That was argument in WoL. Now we have campaing where you play Zerg not Terran.
|
Russian Federation4295 Posts
On May 11 2013 00:57 keglu wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2013 00:19 phodacbiet wrote:On May 10 2013 19:00 FirstGear wrote:On May 10 2013 18:28 Ramiz1989 wrote:On May 10 2013 18:14 Ghanburighan wrote:On May 10 2013 18:07 Ramiz1989 wrote:On May 10 2013 17:40 Sissors wrote:On May 10 2013 17:10 Ramiz1989 wrote:On May 10 2013 16:20 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 07:05 DemigodcelpH wrote: [quote]
Welcome to Banelings for all of WoL. As a Zerg player you're simply not accustomed to having to face which you've been dishing out.
Infestor/BL really did a number on what players like you perceive as a "balanced" matchup causing you to complain when ZvT is the best it has ever been not only from a gameplay depth and viability standpoint but from a spectator standpoint too. Like I've been saying, banelings are not particularly cost efficient. Yes they are slightly harder to counter than to use, but not anywhere near the level that mines take things. It's fine for an RTS game to have strong units that take a specialized effort to deal with, but mines take it too far. "Be ready to split your army when the banelings come and try to target them down" is a challenge, but an achievable one with practice. "Always have detection around, and follow this complex mine-removal process, and don't ever send units across the map without being ready to instantly turn around if you see a mine, and don't mess up even once or you'll be too cost inefficient" is too much effort and requires too much skill to perform for all but the very best of players. Don't put that "infestor/BL was balanced" strawman on me. Stop arguing with them. Mines don't even suicide, and you name all the problems we have with Mines, while they start to compare them to Banelings that suicides, you lose them to do damage, you almost always lose half of them before they even connect to something, and in the end, if our attack and Banelings hit were good, the resources lost are about equal. I am not saying that things are imbalanced at the moment. I enjoy new match-ups a lot more than the camping ones from WoL, but saying that Widow Mines are same as Banelings is stupid as hell. You can't reason with Terran players that are saying this. No one is saying mines are same as banelings... But since banelings are the zerg unit most like mines it is the logical choice for comparisons. And I can also make such a list about mines: They are alot slower than your banelings, they have to burrow to attack, they do friendly damage!, you cannot disable their autoattack, etc. Of course, you can make such list for every unit in SC2, my point is that Banelings are suicide units, and Mines aren't, and it is extremely hard to be cost-efficient with Banelings, since most of the times you won't kill as much as they cost, while it is hard for Mines to NOT be cost-efficient when they are used as support for Bio units. You can't trigger them with few units when the Bio is on top of them, and if you charge on Terran army with your units then complete chaos happens. That's so incredibly biased. You know what happens most of the time when I use mines at Diamond level? I move command them while the Z attacks and they never go off. Or they burrow and eat popcorn as the Z army runs past them and ravages everything I have. Mines are essentially siege tanks with tiny range, if you don't position them well and have good timings for burrow, they do absolutely nothing. They sit there, wiggle their little legs and get eaten by zerglings. Not to mention, why are talking about the balance worries of low master players. Just like I don't think mines should be any easier to use, you shouldn't think that your ling a-moves should be easier to execute. The game is finally looking great at the highest level of play and that's what we want. So, when you fuck up, Mines don't do anything? You don't say!? You know what happens when I a-click with Banelings? 10 of them get killed, 7 of them suicide on single Marauder, next 7 on the next Marauder, and I am out of the Banelings! Yeah, Banelings are terrible! On a serious note, Zerg won't be able to pass by them if you use them correctly, or should I say, burrow the Mines, and attack with Bio, then stim Bio and run back to the Mines when he tries to attack? Only problem you can have if you don't burrow the Mines on time, and with the upgrade, Mines burrow in one second, so in the mid game, I don't even see that happening. I agree with you about the highest level of play though, as I said in one of previous posts, I am not balance whining, I like how game is played right now, just when Terran players think that Mines are same as Banelings, or that Banelings are as cost-efficient as Mines are, those Terrans are delusional. I would argue Terran is the hardest to play at the lowest level. The reason I feel this is because they have the most players in bronze. Terran has always been over represented in bronze/silver, whilst zerg is under represented in the lower leagues. Evidence - http://www.sc2ranks.com/stats/league/all/1/all. Not that I mind. I'd prefer if rank scaled more evenly with skill between the races, but I don't think it really matters. If mines make the match up a little harder for zerg at lower levels I don't think thats a bad thing. Or it could be that the people that are completely new to RTS, bought sc2 and played the campaign then tried laddering with the only race they knew how, do their 5 placement matches and then quit cause they didnt know how to play. That was argument in WoL. Now we have campaing where you play Zerg not Terran.
Plus there are tons of new things for new players, like training stages as all races, some challenges, laddering vs AI, etc etc
|
Other than a fix for Muta ZvZ, I don't think much of anything needs a huge overhaul. WM's are showing to be difficult to deal with in TvZ, but I don't think "being difficult" is enough of a reason to change them. People will adapt.
|
On May 10 2013 10:04 avilo wrote: For the most part right now they made a good decision to leave everything alone. The game is near perfect balance at the moment.
...
Beyond build order openings, the game is perfectly balanced.
...
That's about it though. GJ on them on seeing how players develop the metagame further.
Wow, never thought I'd see the day.
|
On May 11 2013 01:03 Greendotz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 10:04 avilo wrote: For the most part right now they made a good decision to leave everything alone. The game is near perfect balance at the moment.
...
Beyond build order openings, the game is perfectly balanced.
...
That's about it though. GJ on them on seeing how players develop the metagame further. Wow, never thought I'd see the day. A true sign of the apocalypse
|
On May 10 2013 19:12 Chocobo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 16:45 Prugelhugel wrote:On May 10 2013 16:22 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 07:01 Rostam wrote:On May 10 2013 06:23 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 06:00 Kergy wrote:On May 10 2013 05:43 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 05:05 Rostam wrote:On May 10 2013 05:04 RogerChillingworth wrote: TvZ is still terran favored, i don't care what anyone says. Other match-ups are better--can go either way--and really map dependent, but non-retarded Terrans will still make zerg look silly. stats fail to illustrate the full picture, i'm afraid. Good thing Code S is filled with retarded Terrans, then, otherwise zerg would be having issues. The game is very well balanced at the pro level but at the mere-humans level, mines are pretty silly. Incredibly cost efficient, takes 10 times more effort to counter than to use, and one mistake vs mines can be game ending. I know that balancing the game for the pro level is far more important than other skill levels... but I can't help but wish they didn't introduce a unit like this into the game. For me in low masters mines just make me want to quit the game. I can't leave my base, I can't ling harrass or go for surrounds, just in case there's a mine there that'll blow up everything for free. I can get mine dropped before I have detection. And even if I know exactly where every mine is, it's still a mess to deal with them... and the only unit that really counters them is broodlords. It's just so frustrating and half the time I just allin against terran now because I'm sick of facing bio/mines and not being able to do anything about it because it takes pro level control to deal with it. WoL ZvT was zerg-favored for a long time but the infestor nerfs and raven buffs made it close to balanced at the very end... then HotS hits and the matchup changed so much in terran's favor. Reapers, speedvacs, hellbats, and mines are all so good and can be gotten quickly, they can affect every game. Meanwhile SH is bad vs terran, so zerg's new toys are the ultra and viper... which are great, but the early game is so much harder. I'm disappointed that changes to mines or reapers apparently weren't even discussed... and something potentially useful for zerg (early burrow) was tossed out before giving it a chance. I feel like I should switch races just so I can use units that can deal with mines better. There's no such thing as imbalance in lower levels, it just means you're not doing things correctly. It's different with mines, because it's so challenging to find them and deal with them effectively. Instead of the bottom 40% of players struggling to counter a simple offensive style, it's the bottom 97%. You have to be very skilled to counter bio + mines in a cost efficient way - far more skill than it takes to scout a dark shrine, wall off vs 10p, or split your marines up. Do you have any proof that 97% of zerg players are struggling, other than your own experiences? I'm having a hard time seeing evidence of it based on the ladder statistics. No, but if they're ruining the game for me at mid masters, somehow I doubt that platinum zergs are dealing with mines just fine. Now that I think about it I suppose 97% is too high though, because at lower levels the terrans will put mines in bad places or forget to burrow them and things like that... it's still a large percentage of zergs though. You have to look at it from another perspective: Mines are no burrow and forget units. If a terran has no idea how to use them and burrows them at the wrong spots, they will never ever trigger any explosions or do crucial damage. So it's not only that zergs are worse at lower levels, terrans also neither play perfect. Yes, maybe zergs can lose like 30 lings on a single mine here and there, but such mistakes are forgiveable below diamond I'd say. You're right, mines are not great at every skill level below the pros. In the lower leagues where terrans put them in useless places or forget to burrow, they won't do much. My 97% estimate was wrong. But for the upper half of the ladder, they're easily the most cost efficient unit in the game... and I'd argue that it's worse to have a problem in the game at those skill levels, which contain the players who really care about the game and play more often. I don't know if there's any good way to change the mines without making them too weak at the pro level though. You don't want to nerf them into uselessness... but right now zerg doesn't have any good tools for dealing with them effectively.
Dirt cheap hellbats probably give them a run for their money. Honestly you end up with overkill heavy units like collosi (and I guess storm though that's a stretch) because terran gets such absurdly good cost effficiency for not too too much in the early to midgame. Limited counter micro and dirt cheap efficient units put you in that scenario.
|
On May 11 2013 01:01 Mortal wrote: Other than a fix for Muta ZvZ, I don't think much of anything needs a huge overhaul. WM's are showing to be difficult to deal with in TvZ, but I don't think "being difficult" is enough of a reason to change them. People will adapt.
It's nice to hear a zerg say this. I've seen zergs absolutely crush widow mine play. They just have to be patient with the engagements they pick but they've always had to do that with tanks anyways.
|
United Kingdom14103 Posts
On May 10 2013 23:50 Pitrocelli wrote: This announcement is tipping point for me and i had to uninstall the game.
My current level was slightly behind GM, best rated as 259th (Master) few days ago. (http://sc2ranks.com/eu/603719/Pitro)
I am playing with 21% win-rate vs Terran on my level while i have 60+ vs Z and 70- vs P. (+- 150 games sample size)
I believe all-ins should be way to add variability to your game. If they became standard in metagame i feel it is wrong and game is volatile. Ultra-greedy terran openings are forcing zergs to make allin or be behind. We can see this on GSL (Symbol nydus play) and everywhere else with roach - bling busts.
I always loved ling, bling, muta style while adding fast burrow to expand and map control, baneling mines and infestors instead of hive rush.
Things i hate:
1, Terran scan randomly to push creep and because of ridiculous size of scan he sees baneling mines before line of creep. 2, Hellbat drop is impossible to be cost ineffective. Even if i loose 0 drones and pull them all until the drop is cleared i lost more than 300:100 in mining time.
3, Overseers are so uncomfortable to use. When i compare ease of pressing button and gaining vision to struggles of keeping overseers alive ... Eventually they run into stimmed marines or mine and die .. i have to remake and wait for them with rest of army due to their ridiculous move speed (even upgraded)
4, You loose one fight, you lost the game. .. this never applies vice versa. Ever since terrans realised all they have to do is to rally all barracks after winning fight i loose a lot more games.
5,Great disparities in gas spending. Having to upgrade 4 upgrades instead of terran 2 when i play my style. Terrans had to upgrade vehicle weapons as well, now they just rush to 3:3 bio. They had to use ghost and spend gas. Now ? They don't even need or use them. Zerg, on the other hand must upgrade melee and muta upgrades while making gas heavy units like infestors or banelings to counter mineral sink. (powered by mules)
6, Fact that you almost cant punish widow mines. If you caught sieges out of position you could snipe them. Now you need 3 baneling (150 : 75) to snipe 1 widow mine (75 : 25). If you are being dropped in several places while trying to hold main army, creeps spread etc you don't have chance for more micro intensive techniques .. at least i don't on my level.
7, Fact that you almost cant counter attack now. WM negate fast counter attacks into thinking how to split lings if overseer is needed, where is your overseer located etc.
8, Expand structure on maps. While i have 3 bases close to each other i can defend. Later in game you are getting dropped, trying to deny terran 4 active mining bases ( which if achieved by T is GG) your expands tend to be far more apart from each other. Often times your expands are on different side of map. You need to get your main army thinner and thinner while terran start to go into mass orbital mode, sacrifice scv's and his army is getting bigger and bigger instead.
9, Fact that zerg static defence is loosing in value as time progress. Terran can upgrade armour, toss shields. I cant make spine crowlers do shit in late games against 3:3 bio... but i still make them since i have to spend minerals somehow.
This is why i cant stand playing ZvT anymore .. it may be balanced stat wise (which i dont believe except for top 30 zerg worldwide) but i am forced to do allins and it sure is not balanced effort or satisfaction - wise... whole ZvT feels like big frustration-fest for me.
I lose to Zergs frequently enough.
|
I feel like a stronger spore crawler should mean a cheaper contaminate. The whole reason it was nerfed was because of its strength in ZvZ.
|
On May 10 2013 23:50 Pitrocelli wrote: This announcement is tipping point for me and i had to uninstall the game.
My current level was slightly behind GM, best rated as 259th (Master) few days ago. (http://sc2ranks.com/eu/603719/Pitro)
I am playing with 21% win-rate vs Terran on my level while i have 60+ vs Z and 70- vs P. (+- 150 games sample size)
I believe all-ins should be way to add variability to your game. If they became standard in metagame i feel it is wrong and game is volatile. Ultra-greedy terran openings are forcing zergs to make allin or be behind. We can see this on GSL (Symbol nydus play) and everywhere else with roach - bling busts.
I always loved ling, bling, muta style while adding fast burrow to expand and map control, baneling mines and infestors instead of hive rush.
Things i hate:
1, Terran scan randomly to push creep and because of ridiculous size of scan he sees baneling mines before line of creep. 2, Hellbat drop is impossible to be cost ineffective. Even if i loose 0 drones and pull them all until the drop is cleared i lost more than 300:100 in mining time.
3, Overseers are so uncomfortable to use. When i compare ease of pressing button and gaining vision to struggles of keeping overseers alive ... Eventually they run into stimmed marines or mine and die .. i have to remake and wait for them with rest of army due to their ridiculous move speed (even upgraded)
4, You loose one fight, you lost the game. .. this never applies vice versa. Ever since terrans realised all they have to do is to rally all barracks after winning fight i loose a lot more games.
5,Great disparities in gas spending. Having to upgrade 4 upgrades instead of terran 2 when i play my style. Terrans had to upgrade vehicle weapons as well, now they just rush to 3:3 bio. They had to use ghost and spend gas. Now ? They don't even need or use them. Zerg, on the other hand must upgrade melee and muta upgrades while making gas heavy units like infestors or banelings to counter mineral sink. (powered by mules)
6, Fact that you almost cant punish widow mines. If you caught sieges out of position you could snipe them. Now you need 3 baneling (150 : 75) to snipe 1 widow mine (75 : 25). If you are being dropped in several places while trying to hold main army, creeps spread etc you don't have chance for more micro intensive techniques .. at least i don't on my level.
7, Fact that you almost cant counter attack now. WM negate fast counter attacks into thinking how to split lings if overseer is needed, where is your overseer located etc.
8, Expand structure on maps. While i have 3 bases close to each other i can defend. Later in game you are getting dropped, trying to deny terran 4 active mining bases ( which if achieved by T is GG) your expands tend to be far more apart from each other. Often times your expands are on different side of map. You need to get your main army thinner and thinner while terran start to go into mass orbital mode, sacrifice scv's and his army is getting bigger and bigger instead.
9, Fact that zerg static defence is loosing in value as time progress. Terran can upgrade armour, toss shields. I cant make spine crowlers do shit in late games against 3:3 bio... but i still make them since i have to spend minerals somehow.
This is why i cant stand playing ZvT anymore .. it may be balanced stat wise (which i dont believe except for top 30 zerg worldwide) but i am forced to do allins and it sure is not balanced effort or satisfaction - wise... whole ZvT feels like big frustration-fest for me.
All those things may be valid issues but at this point its very hard to make the correct call. In a couple of weeks time someone might come with a trick/build to combat hellbat drops or deal with mines. A classic example is air toss against zerg... A month back everyone was whining this was impossible to beat. However as was shown in Flying vs Roro it is possible to counter this effectively. Also allins affect metagame a lot. If every terran on ladder is greedy and suddenly all zergs start doing roach/bane allins the moment they see greedy plan (or even hellbats for that matter) then in a few weeks time that will stop. An allin is a perfectly viable strat to combat greediness. What blizzard did wrong in WoL was change balance based on metagame which was wrong. It led to the patch zerg phenomenon.... Once the metagame starts to stabilize the balance situation will start to become a bit clearer. At this point if blizzard changes something it is possible it may to totally wrong. I personally feel balance patches should be spaced by atleast 6 months unless there is a strat that breaks the game completely. Even this patch is not a balance fix but a fix to make ZvZ more watchable.
|
On May 10 2013 14:24 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +Dayvie said
2. Ladder data is showing no sign of imbalance at any skill level.
4. Oracle/Burrow changes could be problematic as you guys bring up, and we really don't want to risk messing with a game that's already really solid. Especially since the game is still changing frequently without balance patches, we just don't think it's a good time to be exploring new options yet. #2 Rofl ... as if the ladder didnt adjust itself automatically. Ladder data doesnt say anything about the game being good, because BALANCE <> GOOD GAME. Balance is necessary to a certain degree, but it isnt the "be all, end all" of game design. #4 As if it wasnt totally obvious that a faster Oracle would be a stupid idea and making burrow cheaper doesnt change a thing anyways. People who want the upgrade will get it and will have the time (so its not the same issue as for the Siege upgrade change - which I disagree with).
Why are you still posting about a game that you don't even play?
Also you have been whining about how it is impossible to balance this game because of a multitude of alleged design flaws, and now even Avilo has said the game is essentially balanced. Since it appears HoTS is on the right track, if you're going to continue posting I think you should admit that you were egregiously mistaken in your earlier posts and you do not know what you're talking about.
Also stop talking about how HoTS is or is not a "good game" or "bad game". This is obviously just your opinion, which you've been repeating ad nauseam since the Beta. Stop posting it over and over and over. We get it; you sucked at SC2 as a Terran and you're mad about it. Just move on to a different game.
Since you don't play the game and have failed to make a a single constructive point in any of your posts, why don't you stop posting in these forums? You can create a blog dedicated to dissecting all of the "design flaws" in HoTS. One of the many benefits will be that I don't have to get confused and angry when I accidentally read one of your posts.
|
On May 10 2013 23:50 Pitrocelli wrote: This announcement is tipping point for me and i had to uninstall the game.
My current level was slightly behind GM, best rated as 259th (Master) few days ago. (http://sc2ranks.com/eu/603719/Pitro)
I am playing with 21% win-rate vs Terran on my level while i have 60+ vs Z and 70- vs P. (+- 150 games sample size)
those numbers are too ridiculous to be taken as an indication of balance. When the disparity between your winrate and the winrate we see in pro scene is that abnormally large the only conclusion to make is that you do not understand ZvT. Granted, 150 games is not in any way a meaningful sample size.
|
I have almost no problems at all with the game's current state. It's much more enjoyable than hots. I only think that hellbat drops are a bit op. Design wise I'd like to see the removal of the widow mine compensated with a big tank buff.
|
[QUOTE]On May 10 2013 10:04 avilo wrote: For the most part right now they made a good decision to leave everything alone. The game is near perfect balance at the moment.
...
2. Tempest/Void + templar lategame vs Terran mech and vs Zerg. This is arguably imbalanced and brood+infestor 2.0 and should not exist in the game. It makes Terran mech vs Protoss weaker just by the fact that the tempest exists in the game at 4 supply, and if Protoss "reaches" this composition in lategame PvZ Zerg has no answer (opposite of brood infestor from wings where Protoss had no answer).
...QUOTE]
I disagree that the above P composition is a problem for the best zergs, who I'm sure you'll agree are the only zergs that matter when we're discussing balance. The key to beating it is swarm hosts and vipers (the swarm hosts empower the vipers by zoning out the HT) and then the right blend of infestors and hydras to pick off the air units. I'm predicting that within three to six months (when everyone is using swarm hosts at leat somewhat competently) the main complaint of players will be that swarmhost, spine, spore, viper, viper, hydra, infestor is OP versus Protoss. That composition is every bit as impenetrable as Blord infestor although slightly less mobile.
|
I like the way they are approaching HotS, instead of immediately trying to 'balance' everything just letting all the metagame develop and go from there.
|
I like that Mutas are being challenged in some way for ZvZ, shaking up that monotony quite a bit. However, I'm not exactly sold on there being the best possible balance for PvT when Terran goes for Mech or Bio (or Biomech) and then masses Ghosts/Vikings alongside the composition. The fact is that Protoss can only win late game PvT now by using Psionic Storms (hence why you see a lot of Pro-Protoss players going for All-In strategies versus Macro games) alongside Colossus and Archons which are utterly devastated by M/M/M/V/G. Given how devastating EMP can be to a Protoss Army (it removes the shields of everything and all energy), going for Void Rays to kill the Vikings isn't even that feasible once you factor Marines into it all. I do think Voids need to be looked at, but also in conjunction with buffing some other Protoss air or even ground units for the sake of having better ways to make the late game PvT less of a coin flip.
I'm not saying Terran is imbalanced. I'm saying that the late game PvT is still a coin-flip and relatively predictable. Furthermore, the coin-flip can further be in Terran's favor when Hellbats are introduced into the M/M/M/V/G, since they absolutely vaporize Zealots and Archons, both of which are absolutely vital to the Protoss late game. Yes, Psionic Storms are good to at deal with Hellbats, but when nothing aside from Colossus (which are destroyed easily by well-positioned Vikings) can tackle them properly and when the HTs are out of energy from EMPs or dead from Snipes, it's almost a cake-walk for the Terran. What if there was a late-game buff to a Protoss ground unit that gave them additional HP or damage against Bio? I know Archons deal additional damage to Bio, but EMP basically makes Archons a liability in Supply alongside a waste in Warpgates.
I also want to question Blizzard's use of statistics on Ladder to qualify the balance of the game. A major counter to their resource is that they assume a lot of Terrans on Ladder are actually good enough to the point of the winrates for PvT and ZvT being equalized. From what I've seen, a lot of people are off-racing to try Terran in HotS (seriously, it's more like a promotion for Terran multiplayer it seems) and that means skill levels are going to be crazy throughout each Ladder ranking. A lot of Terran losses are a result of experimentation or simply off-racing, not to mention Terran does take more skill to utilize early on than the other two (arguably). Good P/Z players are beating mediocre Terran players in each League (whether or not there is off-racing). My point is that the quantitative results Blizzard is using to excuse balance as being great is offset by qualitative variables.
|
On May 10 2013 23:50 Pitrocelli wrote: This announcement is tipping point for me and i had to uninstall the game.
My current level was slightly behind GM, best rated as 259th (Master) few days ago. (http://sc2ranks.com/eu/603719/Pitro)
I am playing with 21% win-rate vs Terran on my level while i have 60+ vs Z and 70- vs P. (+- 150 games sample size)
I believe all-ins should be way to add variability to your game. If they became standard in metagame i feel it is wrong and game is volatile. Ultra-greedy terran openings are forcing zergs to make allin or be behind. We can see this on GSL (Symbol nydus play) and everywhere else with roach - bling busts.
I always loved ling, bling, muta style while adding fast burrow to expand and map control, baneling mines and infestors instead of hive rush.
Things i hate:
1, Terran scan randomly to push creep and because of ridiculous size of scan he sees baneling mines before line of creep. 2, Hellbat drop is impossible to be cost ineffective. Even if i loose 0 drones and pull them all until the drop is cleared i lost more than 300:100 in mining time.
3, Overseers are so uncomfortable to use. When i compare ease of pressing button and gaining vision to struggles of keeping overseers alive ... Eventually they run into stimmed marines or mine and die .. i have to remake and wait for them with rest of army due to their ridiculous move speed (even upgraded)
4, You loose one fight, you lost the game. .. this never applies vice versa. Ever since terrans realised all they have to do is to rally all barracks after winning fight i loose a lot more games.
5,Great disparities in gas spending. Having to upgrade 4 upgrades instead of terran 2 when i play my style. Terrans had to upgrade vehicle weapons as well, now they just rush to 3:3 bio. They had to use ghost and spend gas. Now ? They don't even need or use them. Zerg, on the other hand must upgrade melee and muta upgrades while making gas heavy units like infestors or banelings to counter mineral sink. (powered by mules)
6, Fact that you almost cant punish widow mines. If you caught sieges out of position you could snipe them. Now you need 3 baneling (150 : 75) to snipe 1 widow mine (75 : 25). If you are being dropped in several places while trying to hold main army, creeps spread etc you don't have chance for more micro intensive techniques .. at least i don't on my level.
7, Fact that you almost cant counter attack now. WM negate fast counter attacks into thinking how to split lings if overseer is needed, where is your overseer located etc.
8, Expand structure on maps. While i have 3 bases close to each other i can defend. Later in game you are getting dropped, trying to deny terran 4 active mining bases ( which if achieved by T is GG) your expands tend to be far more apart from each other. Often times your expands are on different side of map. You need to get your main army thinner and thinner while terran start to go into mass orbital mode, sacrifice scv's and his army is getting bigger and bigger instead.
9, Fact that zerg static defence is loosing in value as time progress. Terran can upgrade armour, toss shields. I cant make spine crowlers do shit in late games against 3:3 bio... but i still make them since i have to spend minerals somehow.
This is why i cant stand playing ZvT anymore .. it may be balanced stat wise (which i dont believe except for top 30 zerg worldwide) but i am forced to do allins and it sure is not balanced effort or satisfaction - wise... whole ZvT feels like big frustration-fest for me.
In complete agreement...though to be honest, I'm thrilled when I see Hellbats as I'm typically forced to go into Roach play anyway. I'd much rather see Hellbat drops than bio because it typically means the Terran has less barracks than normal or less mines.
The most important point you make it cost-efficiency though and you're absolutely correct.
A bio-medevac-mine army needs: bio attack x3, bio armor x3, stim, marine health and possibly maurader slow. Ling, bling, muta needs: melee attack x3, armor x3, air attack x3, air armor x3, ling speed and bling speed. Roach, Hydra, Infestor needs: Range Speed x3, armor x3, Roach speed, Hydra range, Hydra speed and Infestor Mana
Made even worse, on a long enough timeline (i.e. once bio is 3/3) Zerg won't trade effectively and will need to progress to Ultra's and their armor upgrade, whereas Terran progresses to essentially nothing (possibly Ravens, but it's rare to see).
The anti-Zerg response has always been: "Well, Zerg's aren't supposed to be cost-efficient, they're supposed to be up on bases!" Sadly it's near impossible to stay up on bases against a mid-game Terran with the addition of Medevac boosters (which, btw, isn't an upgrade that Terran needs to spend anything on -- seriously, I'd love to know the reason why I need to invest 300/300 for my Hydra's to not be worthless--400/400 if you include the den itself--but Terran has Medevac boosts at no cost).
The entire matchup feels broken to me and the gaming community is relying on the elite pro-Zerg players doing well as proof that it's ok. I want to see Blizzard come forward with TvZ matchup data outside of GM and show me that's it's balanced.
As I've mentioned before in this thread, I'm under 30% winrate vs. Terran now and I'm not alone. The numbers speak for themselves...so for any Zerg out there claiming the matchup is balanced, what is your strategy, league and winrate vs. Terran right now?
|
On May 11 2013 02:48 1Dhalism wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 23:50 Pitrocelli wrote: This announcement is tipping point for me and i had to uninstall the game.
My current level was slightly behind GM, best rated as 259th (Master) few days ago. (http://sc2ranks.com/eu/603719/Pitro)
I am playing with 21% win-rate vs Terran on my level while i have 60+ vs Z and 70- vs P. (+- 150 games sample size)
those numbers are too ridiculous to be taken as an indication of balance. When the disparity between your winrate and the winrate we see in pro scene is that abnormally large the only conclusion to make is that you do not understand ZvT. Granted, 150 games is not in any way a meaningful sample size.
I forgot to mention (but it somehow can be deduced from previous post) that I refused to use all-ins in my ladder ZvT games since i have been trying solid style instead of all-in metagamish volatile style which I don't want to use in BO1 tournaments. If i scouted CC first i responded with 3 hatch instead of bust etc. Adding rouch based allin in different timing every game would artificially pump my win-rate to somehow standard 45% for sure but i prefer uninstalling over doing style I believe to be broken in long run.
I have been doing a simple ritual after every ZvT game. I checked my opponent TvZ win-rate. Only one has been below 50%, 3 have been 51-60% and all the rest had 61% + winrate while most had 65+. One opponent had 95% win-rate in TvZ.. I dare you finding zerg with 95% ZvT win-rate.
I maybe still have screens, dunno if they got erased after uninstall. I am pretty sure my understanding of game is not perfect but is better than that of 99% of players. Point me to exact logic flaws in points from my previous post.
|
I really like the way the game looks right now. More than ever I find myself thinking about how are the players performing rather than what races they play. I even switched to random as it seems a lot of fun.
Speaking of fun, it's hilarious how the zergs are still whining about the balance and stuff, winning two last major tournaments (MLG and Dreamhack) and taking up half of the spots in GSL Code S ro8. Please, guys... just stop.
|
On May 11 2013 03:44 scypio wrote: I really like the way the game looks right now. More than ever I find myself thinking about how are the players performing rather than what races they play. I even switched to random as it seems a lot of fun.
Speaking of fun, it's hilarious how the zergs are still whining about the balance and stuff, winning two last major tournaments (MLG and Dreamhack) and taking up half of the spots in GSL Code S ro8. Please, guys... just stop.
It's so frustrating to think that some of you feel that the races who win torney's have any relevance on 99.9% of the rest of us.
In fact, I'd even argue that the reason Zerg's elite are doing so well now is because elite Terran's are abusing lesser Zerg's on ladder and in practice games and aren't being forced to evolve their bio-mine strat in practice. The strat has no end-game transition...it's just mass bio-mine and drop everywhere until your Zerg opponent rage quits. Elite Zerg's are able to withstand the assualt and punish the Terran's lack of transition, but that doesn't help the rest of us.
We see 20 or so Zerg's performing really well against Terran right now and every other Zerg getting rolled and you think that equates to balance?
|
On May 11 2013 03:52 Graven wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2013 03:44 scypio wrote: I really like the way the game looks right now. More than ever I find myself thinking about how are the players performing rather than what races they play. I even switched to random as it seems a lot of fun.
Speaking of fun, it's hilarious how the zergs are still whining about the balance and stuff, winning two last major tournaments (MLG and Dreamhack) and taking up half of the spots in GSL Code S ro8. Please, guys... just stop. It's so frustrating to think that some of you feel that the races who win torney's have any relevance on 99.9% of the rest of us. In fact, I'd even argue that the reason Zerg's elite are doing so well now is because elite Terran's are abusing lesser Zerg's on ladder and in practice games and aren't being forced to evolve their bio-mine strat in practice. The strat has no end-game transition...it's just mass bio-mine and drop everywhere until your Zerg opponent rage quits. Elite Zerg's are able to withstand the assualt and punish the Terran's lack of transition, but that doesn't help the rest of us. We see 20 or so Zerg's performing really well against Terran right now and every other Zerg getting rolled and you think that equates to balance?
Yes! Also, I remember the days when terrans went extinct from the foreign scene. In those days the Zergs just said: look at GSL you bunch of scrubs and L2P (well, at least until the terrans were dead in GSL too).
What happened: second or third tier zergs did take some damage but they are still doing fine. I think they bring a lot of good to the competition. I'm talking about guys like Bly, Slivko or Tefel... maybe there is only 20 of them, but compared to the days of WoL and the way the T's did that is plenty.
The matchups did evolve. I remember the days of WoL where TvP was my best matchup. With HotS a lot has changed and my favourite pressure-expand build simply fails almost every time. I know this simply means I need to adapt, not whine about how unwinnable the TvP has become.
Just let it go. As long as you are not a pro gamer you can live with having 2 hot matchups and a single bad one. Just take the demotion or whatever like a man. Have fun playing the game, enjoy the few wins you can eek out vs Terrans and the all the others where you smash those noob zergs and tosses into oblivion. And watch your favorite players do the things that you apparently can't.
|
On May 11 2013 03:52 Graven wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2013 03:44 scypio wrote: I really like the way the game looks right now. More than ever I find myself thinking about how are the players performing rather than what races they play. I even switched to random as it seems a lot of fun.
Speaking of fun, it's hilarious how the zergs are still whining about the balance and stuff, winning two last major tournaments (MLG and Dreamhack) and taking up half of the spots in GSL Code S ro8. Please, guys... just stop. It's so frustrating to think that some of you feel that the races who win torney's have any relevance on 99.9% of the rest of us. In fact, I'd even argue that the reason Zerg's elite are doing so well now is because elite Terran's are abusing lesser Zerg's on ladder and in practice games and aren't being forced to evolve their bio-mine strat in practice. The strat has no end-game transition...it's just mass bio-mine and drop everywhere until your Zerg opponent rage quits. Elite Zerg's are able to withstand the assualt and punish the Terran's lack of transition, but that doesn't help the rest of us. We see 20 or so Zerg's performing really well against Terran right now and every other Zerg getting rolled and you think that equates to balance?
Balance at the very top level is more important than balance at whatever level you're at (even if you're high Masters or something). I'd rather it be balanced for the people who have dedicated their lives to the game rather than the people who casually play in their free time. If it could be for both, then great, but if it's currently well-balanced at the pro level and not as well balanced at the lower levels, I'd prefer that Blizzard forego balance changes in favor of keeping the equilibrium at the pro level.
|
Did they change the way that Apm is calculated or did I just get worse. I wish they would stop messing with Apm, it's odd to see me get 1/3 the apm after the change.
|
On May 11 2013 01:03 Greendotz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 10:04 avilo wrote: For the most part right now they made a good decision to leave everything alone. The game is near perfect balance at the moment.
...
Beyond build order openings, the game is perfectly balanced.
...
That's about it though. GJ on them on seeing how players develop the metagame further. Wow, never thought I'd see the day. I know right? From avilo?? Well all we need now is IdrA to admit it lol
|
On May 11 2013 03:31 Graven wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 23:50 Pitrocelli wrote: This announcement is tipping point for me and i had to uninstall the game.
My current level was slightly behind GM, best rated as 259th (Master) few days ago. (http://sc2ranks.com/eu/603719/Pitro)
I am playing with 21% win-rate vs Terran on my level while i have 60+ vs Z and 70- vs P. (+- 150 games sample size)
I believe all-ins should be way to add variability to your game. If they became standard in metagame i feel it is wrong and game is volatile. Ultra-greedy terran openings are forcing zergs to make allin or be behind. We can see this on GSL (Symbol nydus play) and everywhere else with roach - bling busts.
I always loved ling, bling, muta style while adding fast burrow to expand and map control, baneling mines and infestors instead of hive rush.
Things i hate:
1, Terran scan randomly to push creep and because of ridiculous size of scan he sees baneling mines before line of creep. 2, Hellbat drop is impossible to be cost ineffective. Even if i loose 0 drones and pull them all until the drop is cleared i lost more than 300:100 in mining time.
3, Overseers are so uncomfortable to use. When i compare ease of pressing button and gaining vision to struggles of keeping overseers alive ... Eventually they run into stimmed marines or mine and die .. i have to remake and wait for them with rest of army due to their ridiculous move speed (even upgraded)
4, You loose one fight, you lost the game. .. this never applies vice versa. Ever since terrans realised all they have to do is to rally all barracks after winning fight i loose a lot more games.
5,Great disparities in gas spending. Having to upgrade 4 upgrades instead of terran 2 when i play my style. Terrans had to upgrade vehicle weapons as well, now they just rush to 3:3 bio. They had to use ghost and spend gas. Now ? They don't even need or use them. Zerg, on the other hand must upgrade melee and muta upgrades while making gas heavy units like infestors or banelings to counter mineral sink. (powered by mules)
6, Fact that you almost cant punish widow mines. If you caught sieges out of position you could snipe them. Now you need 3 baneling (150 : 75) to snipe 1 widow mine (75 : 25). If you are being dropped in several places while trying to hold main army, creeps spread etc you don't have chance for more micro intensive techniques .. at least i don't on my level.
7, Fact that you almost cant counter attack now. WM negate fast counter attacks into thinking how to split lings if overseer is needed, where is your overseer located etc.
8, Expand structure on maps. While i have 3 bases close to each other i can defend. Later in game you are getting dropped, trying to deny terran 4 active mining bases ( which if achieved by T is GG) your expands tend to be far more apart from each other. Often times your expands are on different side of map. You need to get your main army thinner and thinner while terran start to go into mass orbital mode, sacrifice scv's and his army is getting bigger and bigger instead.
9, Fact that zerg static defence is loosing in value as time progress. Terran can upgrade armour, toss shields. I cant make spine crowlers do shit in late games against 3:3 bio... but i still make them since i have to spend minerals somehow.
This is why i cant stand playing ZvT anymore .. it may be balanced stat wise (which i dont believe except for top 30 zerg worldwide) but i am forced to do allins and it sure is not balanced effort or satisfaction - wise... whole ZvT feels like big frustration-fest for me. In complete agreement...though to be honest, I'm thrilled when I see Hellbats as I'm typically forced to go into Roach play anyway. I'd much rather see Hellbat drops than bio because it typically means the Terran has less barracks than normal or less mines. The most important point you make it cost-efficiency though and you're absolutely correct. A bio-medevac-mine army needs: bio attack x3, bio armor x3, stim, marine health and possibly maurader slow. Ling, bling, muta needs: melee attack x3, armor x3, air attack x3, air armor x3, ling speed and bling speed. Roach, Hydra, Infestor needs: Range Speed x3, armor x3, Roach speed, Hydra range, Hydra speed and Infestor Mana Made even worse, on a long enough timeline (i.e. once bio is 3/3) Zerg won't trade effectively and will need to progress to Ultra's and their armor upgrade, whereas Terran progresses to essentially nothing (possibly Ravens, but it's rare to see). The anti-Zerg response has always been: "Well, Zerg's aren't supposed to be cost-efficient, they're supposed to be up on bases!" Sadly it's near impossible to stay up on bases against a mid-game Terran with the addition of Medevac boosters (which, btw, isn't an upgrade that Terran needs to spend anything on -- seriously, I'd love to know the reason why I need to invest 300/300 for my Hydra's to not be worthless--400/400 if you include the den itself--but Terran has Medevac boosts at no cost). The entire matchup feels broken to me and the gaming community is relying on the elite pro-Zerg players doing well as proof that it's ok. I want to see Blizzard come forward with TvZ matchup data outside of GM and show me that's it's balanced. As I've mentioned before in this thread, I'm under 30% winrate vs. Terran now and I'm not alone. The numbers speak for themselves...so for any Zerg out there claiming the matchup is balanced, what is your strategy, league and winrate vs. Terran right now? I have been playing with probably a 30% winrate in TvP in masters the last half year. Although I don't come crying on the forums that the game is broken. Sure I get mad but I have just come to realize I am just bad at the matchup. I don't have good enough micro to beat the protoss deathball. I have also realized by watching pros that my ghosts come late and my Viking count is usually too low. In my opinion TvP at masters is the same as ZvT. It just happens to be a little easier for one side. I look at the zergs I lose to and many are still maintaining good winrates in TvZ. Maybe zergs need to just realize their ling bling muta play is weak because they were playing a completly different style in Wol. My bio is weak which is why I struggle against toss and even zergs still.
|
On May 11 2013 04:05 scypio wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2013 03:52 Graven wrote:On May 11 2013 03:44 scypio wrote: I really like the way the game looks right now. More than ever I find myself thinking about how are the players performing rather than what races they play. I even switched to random as it seems a lot of fun.
Speaking of fun, it's hilarious how the zergs are still whining about the balance and stuff, winning two last major tournaments (MLG and Dreamhack) and taking up half of the spots in GSL Code S ro8. Please, guys... just stop. It's so frustrating to think that some of you feel that the races who win torney's have any relevance on 99.9% of the rest of us. In fact, I'd even argue that the reason Zerg's elite are doing so well now is because elite Terran's are abusing lesser Zerg's on ladder and in practice games and aren't being forced to evolve their bio-mine strat in practice. The strat has no end-game transition...it's just mass bio-mine and drop everywhere until your Zerg opponent rage quits. Elite Zerg's are able to withstand the assualt and punish the Terran's lack of transition, but that doesn't help the rest of us. We see 20 or so Zerg's performing really well against Terran right now and every other Zerg getting rolled and you think that equates to balance? Yes! Also, I remember the days when terrans went extinct from the foreign scene. In those days the Zergs just said: look at GSL you bunch of scrubs and L2P (well, at least until the terrans were dead in GSL too). What happened: second or third tier zergs did take some damage but they are still doing fine. I think they bring a lot of good to the competition. I'm talking about guys like Bly, Slivko or Tefel... maybe there is only 20 of them, but compared to the days of WoL and the way the T's did that is plenty. The matchups did evolve. I remember the days of WoL where TvP was my best matchup. With HotS a lot has changed and my favourite pressure-expand build simply fails almost every time. I know this simply means I need to adapt, not whine about how unwinnable the TvP has become. Just let it go. As long as you are not a pro gamer you can live with having 2 hot matchups and a single bad one. Just take the demotion or whatever like a man. Have fun playing the game, enjoy the few wins you can eek out vs Terrans and the all the others where you smash those noob zergs and tosses into oblivion. And watch your favorite players do the things that you apparently can't.
I don't care what league I'm in, lol...I'd gladly drop down if it would help...but because I do well against Zerg's and Protoss currently, I don't get demoted. I'm stuck in a viscous cycle at this point. When I lose to a Protoss it's because I screwed up or got out-played, but when I lose to a Terran, it's just frustration...it's very rare that I genuinley feel that the Terran was a better player. So dropping down another league so I can steam roll two of my matchups and compete against bad Terrans doesn't sound fun.
|
On May 11 2013 04:12 HolyArrow wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2013 03:52 Graven wrote:On May 11 2013 03:44 scypio wrote: I really like the way the game looks right now. More than ever I find myself thinking about how are the players performing rather than what races they play. I even switched to random as it seems a lot of fun.
Speaking of fun, it's hilarious how the zergs are still whining about the balance and stuff, winning two last major tournaments (MLG and Dreamhack) and taking up half of the spots in GSL Code S ro8. Please, guys... just stop. It's so frustrating to think that some of you feel that the races who win torney's have any relevance on 99.9% of the rest of us. In fact, I'd even argue that the reason Zerg's elite are doing so well now is because elite Terran's are abusing lesser Zerg's on ladder and in practice games and aren't being forced to evolve their bio-mine strat in practice. The strat has no end-game transition...it's just mass bio-mine and drop everywhere until your Zerg opponent rage quits. Elite Zerg's are able to withstand the assualt and punish the Terran's lack of transition, but that doesn't help the rest of us. We see 20 or so Zerg's performing really well against Terran right now and every other Zerg getting rolled and you think that equates to balance? Balance at the very top level is more important than balance at whatever level you're at (even if you're high Masters or something). I'd rather it be balanced for the people who have dedicated their lives to the game rather than the people who casually play in their free time. If it could be for both, then great, but if it's currently well-balanced at the pro level and not as well balanced at the lower levels, I'd prefer that Blizzard forego balance changes in favor of keeping the equilibrium at the pro level.
Agreed...there is no debate there. Making sure that the pro-scene is balanced is the top priority and no amount of under-league issues should phase that balance. However, I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. I think the game could stay competative at the top while being tweaked.
The issue is that the current imbalance preys on lesser players.
|
On May 11 2013 04:32 Mattumsfox wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2013 03:31 Graven wrote:On May 10 2013 23:50 Pitrocelli wrote: This announcement is tipping point for me and i had to uninstall the game.
My current level was slightly behind GM, best rated as 259th (Master) few days ago. (http://sc2ranks.com/eu/603719/Pitro)
I am playing with 21% win-rate vs Terran on my level while i have 60+ vs Z and 70- vs P. (+- 150 games sample size)
I believe all-ins should be way to add variability to your game. If they became standard in metagame i feel it is wrong and game is volatile. Ultra-greedy terran openings are forcing zergs to make allin or be behind. We can see this on GSL (Symbol nydus play) and everywhere else with roach - bling busts.
I always loved ling, bling, muta style while adding fast burrow to expand and map control, baneling mines and infestors instead of hive rush.
Things i hate:
1, Terran scan randomly to push creep and because of ridiculous size of scan he sees baneling mines before line of creep. 2, Hellbat drop is impossible to be cost ineffective. Even if i loose 0 drones and pull them all until the drop is cleared i lost more than 300:100 in mining time.
3, Overseers are so uncomfortable to use. When i compare ease of pressing button and gaining vision to struggles of keeping overseers alive ... Eventually they run into stimmed marines or mine and die .. i have to remake and wait for them with rest of army due to their ridiculous move speed (even upgraded)
4, You loose one fight, you lost the game. .. this never applies vice versa. Ever since terrans realised all they have to do is to rally all barracks after winning fight i loose a lot more games.
5,Great disparities in gas spending. Having to upgrade 4 upgrades instead of terran 2 when i play my style. Terrans had to upgrade vehicle weapons as well, now they just rush to 3:3 bio. They had to use ghost and spend gas. Now ? They don't even need or use them. Zerg, on the other hand must upgrade melee and muta upgrades while making gas heavy units like infestors or banelings to counter mineral sink. (powered by mules)
6, Fact that you almost cant punish widow mines. If you caught sieges out of position you could snipe them. Now you need 3 baneling (150 : 75) to snipe 1 widow mine (75 : 25). If you are being dropped in several places while trying to hold main army, creeps spread etc you don't have chance for more micro intensive techniques .. at least i don't on my level.
7, Fact that you almost cant counter attack now. WM negate fast counter attacks into thinking how to split lings if overseer is needed, where is your overseer located etc.
8, Expand structure on maps. While i have 3 bases close to each other i can defend. Later in game you are getting dropped, trying to deny terran 4 active mining bases ( which if achieved by T is GG) your expands tend to be far more apart from each other. Often times your expands are on different side of map. You need to get your main army thinner and thinner while terran start to go into mass orbital mode, sacrifice scv's and his army is getting bigger and bigger instead.
9, Fact that zerg static defence is loosing in value as time progress. Terran can upgrade armour, toss shields. I cant make spine crowlers do shit in late games against 3:3 bio... but i still make them since i have to spend minerals somehow.
This is why i cant stand playing ZvT anymore .. it may be balanced stat wise (which i dont believe except for top 30 zerg worldwide) but i am forced to do allins and it sure is not balanced effort or satisfaction - wise... whole ZvT feels like big frustration-fest for me. In complete agreement...though to be honest, I'm thrilled when I see Hellbats as I'm typically forced to go into Roach play anyway. I'd much rather see Hellbat drops than bio because it typically means the Terran has less barracks than normal or less mines. The most important point you make it cost-efficiency though and you're absolutely correct. A bio-medevac-mine army needs: bio attack x3, bio armor x3, stim, marine health and possibly maurader slow. Ling, bling, muta needs: melee attack x3, armor x3, air attack x3, air armor x3, ling speed and bling speed. Roach, Hydra, Infestor needs: Range Speed x3, armor x3, Roach speed, Hydra range, Hydra speed and Infestor Mana Made even worse, on a long enough timeline (i.e. once bio is 3/3) Zerg won't trade effectively and will need to progress to Ultra's and their armor upgrade, whereas Terran progresses to essentially nothing (possibly Ravens, but it's rare to see). The anti-Zerg response has always been: "Well, Zerg's aren't supposed to be cost-efficient, they're supposed to be up on bases!" Sadly it's near impossible to stay up on bases against a mid-game Terran with the addition of Medevac boosters (which, btw, isn't an upgrade that Terran needs to spend anything on -- seriously, I'd love to know the reason why I need to invest 300/300 for my Hydra's to not be worthless--400/400 if you include the den itself--but Terran has Medevac boosts at no cost). The entire matchup feels broken to me and the gaming community is relying on the elite pro-Zerg players doing well as proof that it's ok. I want to see Blizzard come forward with TvZ matchup data outside of GM and show me that's it's balanced. As I've mentioned before in this thread, I'm under 30% winrate vs. Terran now and I'm not alone. The numbers speak for themselves...so for any Zerg out there claiming the matchup is balanced, what is your strategy, league and winrate vs. Terran right now? I have been playing with probably a 30% winrate in TvP in masters the last half year. Although I don't come crying on the forums that the game is broken. Sure I get mad but I have just come to realize I am just bad at the matchup. I don't have good enough micro to beat the protoss deathball. I have also realized by watching pros that my ghosts come late and my Viking count is usually too low. In my opinion TvP at masters is the same as ZvT. It just happens to be a little easier for one side. I look at the zergs I lose to and many are still maintaining good winrates in TvZ. Maybe zergs need to just realize their ling bling muta play is weak because they were playing a completly different style in Wol. My bio is weak which is why I struggle against toss and even zergs still.
Ling-bling-Muta is "weak" vs. Bio-Mine-Medevac because Marines and Mines hard counter Muta's, which are the largest investment in the Zerg composition. The issue is that the "ideal" Zerg response right now to Bio-Mine is illogical, haha. I'm hoping that someone can pioneer an alternative because it's terribly frustrating right now.
And I hate to think that these convos are us crying...it's really just Zerg's opening up the discussion. Presumably, all of us are looking for answers
|
On May 11 2013 04:40 Graven wrote: Ling-bling-Muta is "weak" vs. Bio-Mine-Medevac because Marines and Mines hard counter Muta's, which are the largest investment in the Zerg composition. The issue is that the "ideal" Zerg response right now to Bio-Mine is illogical, haha. I'm hoping that someone can pioneer an alternative because it's terribly frustrating right now.
And I hate to think that these convos are us crying...it's really just Zerg's opening up the discussion. Presumably, all of us are looking for answers
The one thing you could do is switch to Terran. You should quickly reach a level similar or a little below the one you have as a zerg. And you will soon find out: how do zergs win games at your level. What is the most frustrating thing to play against as a terran. What do the zergs do to snipe does mines, bust through defensive lines, successfully harrass, outmacro, obliterate whole armies with a bunch of ultras that never seem to die.
Than you go back to zerg and try to do those things. I play random and when I lose to something I try to mirror it and look for some weak spots. This makes a lot of frustration go away.
|
On May 11 2013 04:40 Graven wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2013 04:32 Mattumsfox wrote:On May 11 2013 03:31 Graven wrote:On May 10 2013 23:50 Pitrocelli wrote: This announcement is tipping point for me and i had to uninstall the game.
My current level was slightly behind GM, best rated as 259th (Master) few days ago. (http://sc2ranks.com/eu/603719/Pitro)
I am playing with 21% win-rate vs Terran on my level while i have 60+ vs Z and 70- vs P. (+- 150 games sample size)
I believe all-ins should be way to add variability to your game. If they became standard in metagame i feel it is wrong and game is volatile. Ultra-greedy terran openings are forcing zergs to make allin or be behind. We can see this on GSL (Symbol nydus play) and everywhere else with roach - bling busts.
I always loved ling, bling, muta style while adding fast burrow to expand and map control, baneling mines and infestors instead of hive rush.
Things i hate:
1, Terran scan randomly to push creep and because of ridiculous size of scan he sees baneling mines before line of creep. 2, Hellbat drop is impossible to be cost ineffective. Even if i loose 0 drones and pull them all until the drop is cleared i lost more than 300:100 in mining time.
3, Overseers are so uncomfortable to use. When i compare ease of pressing button and gaining vision to struggles of keeping overseers alive ... Eventually they run into stimmed marines or mine and die .. i have to remake and wait for them with rest of army due to their ridiculous move speed (even upgraded)
4, You loose one fight, you lost the game. .. this never applies vice versa. Ever since terrans realised all they have to do is to rally all barracks after winning fight i loose a lot more games.
5,Great disparities in gas spending. Having to upgrade 4 upgrades instead of terran 2 when i play my style. Terrans had to upgrade vehicle weapons as well, now they just rush to 3:3 bio. They had to use ghost and spend gas. Now ? They don't even need or use them. Zerg, on the other hand must upgrade melee and muta upgrades while making gas heavy units like infestors or banelings to counter mineral sink. (powered by mules)
6, Fact that you almost cant punish widow mines. If you caught sieges out of position you could snipe them. Now you need 3 baneling (150 : 75) to snipe 1 widow mine (75 : 25). If you are being dropped in several places while trying to hold main army, creeps spread etc you don't have chance for more micro intensive techniques .. at least i don't on my level.
7, Fact that you almost cant counter attack now. WM negate fast counter attacks into thinking how to split lings if overseer is needed, where is your overseer located etc.
8, Expand structure on maps. While i have 3 bases close to each other i can defend. Later in game you are getting dropped, trying to deny terran 4 active mining bases ( which if achieved by T is GG) your expands tend to be far more apart from each other. Often times your expands are on different side of map. You need to get your main army thinner and thinner while terran start to go into mass orbital mode, sacrifice scv's and his army is getting bigger and bigger instead.
9, Fact that zerg static defence is loosing in value as time progress. Terran can upgrade armour, toss shields. I cant make spine crowlers do shit in late games against 3:3 bio... but i still make them since i have to spend minerals somehow.
This is why i cant stand playing ZvT anymore .. it may be balanced stat wise (which i dont believe except for top 30 zerg worldwide) but i am forced to do allins and it sure is not balanced effort or satisfaction - wise... whole ZvT feels like big frustration-fest for me. In complete agreement...though to be honest, I'm thrilled when I see Hellbats as I'm typically forced to go into Roach play anyway. I'd much rather see Hellbat drops than bio because it typically means the Terran has less barracks than normal or less mines. The most important point you make it cost-efficiency though and you're absolutely correct. A bio-medevac-mine army needs: bio attack x3, bio armor x3, stim, marine health and possibly maurader slow. Ling, bling, muta needs: melee attack x3, armor x3, air attack x3, air armor x3, ling speed and bling speed. Roach, Hydra, Infestor needs: Range Speed x3, armor x3, Roach speed, Hydra range, Hydra speed and Infestor Mana Made even worse, on a long enough timeline (i.e. once bio is 3/3) Zerg won't trade effectively and will need to progress to Ultra's and their armor upgrade, whereas Terran progresses to essentially nothing (possibly Ravens, but it's rare to see). The anti-Zerg response has always been: "Well, Zerg's aren't supposed to be cost-efficient, they're supposed to be up on bases!" Sadly it's near impossible to stay up on bases against a mid-game Terran with the addition of Medevac boosters (which, btw, isn't an upgrade that Terran needs to spend anything on -- seriously, I'd love to know the reason why I need to invest 300/300 for my Hydra's to not be worthless--400/400 if you include the den itself--but Terran has Medevac boosts at no cost). The entire matchup feels broken to me and the gaming community is relying on the elite pro-Zerg players doing well as proof that it's ok. I want to see Blizzard come forward with TvZ matchup data outside of GM and show me that's it's balanced. As I've mentioned before in this thread, I'm under 30% winrate vs. Terran now and I'm not alone. The numbers speak for themselves...so for any Zerg out there claiming the matchup is balanced, what is your strategy, league and winrate vs. Terran right now? I have been playing with probably a 30% winrate in TvP in masters the last half year. Although I don't come crying on the forums that the game is broken. Sure I get mad but I have just come to realize I am just bad at the matchup. I don't have good enough micro to beat the protoss deathball. I have also realized by watching pros that my ghosts come late and my Viking count is usually too low. In my opinion TvP at masters is the same as ZvT. It just happens to be a little easier for one side. I look at the zergs I lose to and many are still maintaining good winrates in TvZ. Maybe zergs need to just realize their ling bling muta play is weak because they were playing a completly different style in Wol. My bio is weak which is why I struggle against toss and even zergs still. Ling-bling-Muta is "weak" vs. Bio-Mine-Medevac because Marines and Mines hard counter Muta's, which are the largest investment in the Zerg composition. The issue is that the "ideal" Zerg response right now to Bio-Mine is illogical, haha. I'm hoping that someone can pioneer an alternative because it's terribly frustrating right now. And I hate to think that these convos are us crying...it's really just Zerg's opening up the discussion. Presumably, all of us are looking for answers My guess is that the answer will be infestors, either with roach (hydra), or ling, baneling. (I think despite the obvious advantage of locking down units with fungal and then killing them with banelings that with roach hydra it is easier on non-pro level, you can pretty much a-move roach hydra while micro'ing infestors). Aditionally what I am already seeing more on streams is a more diverse tech path. For example with that tech path investing a bit in a spire to make a bunch of mutas while not going full on mutas.
But really I expect infestors to become more popular again. ITs are heavily nerfed, but the fungal has even more range. With the speed of the projectile actively dodging it with bio is pretty much impossible, passive dodging (ie, you just happened to make a turn just when the zerg casts) will happen and limit its effectiveness. But I think in general it is a matter of practising with it, where to cast for best hits.
Luckily due to IT nerf we won't go back to the era of: make 20 infestors, ???, profit. How many you want exactly for fungals is something that will need to be discovered, it also depends on your casting skill, but I really think they are underused right now.
|
On May 11 2013 04:53 scypio wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2013 04:40 Graven wrote: Ling-bling-Muta is "weak" vs. Bio-Mine-Medevac because Marines and Mines hard counter Muta's, which are the largest investment in the Zerg composition. The issue is that the "ideal" Zerg response right now to Bio-Mine is illogical, haha. I'm hoping that someone can pioneer an alternative because it's terribly frustrating right now.
And I hate to think that these convos are us crying...it's really just Zerg's opening up the discussion. Presumably, all of us are looking for answers The one thing you could do is switch to Terran. You should quickly reach a level similar or a little below the one you have as a zerg. And you will soon find out: how do zergs win games at your level. What is the most frustrating thing to play against as a terran. What do the zergs do to snipe does mines, bust through defensive lines, successfully harrass, outmacro, obliterate whole armies with a bunch of ultras that never seem to die. Than you go back to zerg and try to do those things. I play random and when I lose to something I try to mirror it and look for some weak spots. This makes a lot of frustration go away.
I think that's great advice for all competative gaming...and I tended to play a lot of random in WC3 and currently play random in all SC2 team games. It's always helpful to see things from the other side and your advice would solve 90% of all gaming-related QQ. My concern, however, is that there is a genuine imbalance right now and it extends beyond perspective.
As for Ultra's, I already know they wrech Terran's, haha...the problem is getting to Ultra's before your economy is in shambles or you've already lost the game.
|
On May 11 2013 05:40 Sissors wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2013 04:40 Graven wrote:On May 11 2013 04:32 Mattumsfox wrote:On May 11 2013 03:31 Graven wrote:On May 10 2013 23:50 Pitrocelli wrote: This announcement is tipping point for me and i had to uninstall the game.
My current level was slightly behind GM, best rated as 259th (Master) few days ago. (http://sc2ranks.com/eu/603719/Pitro)
I am playing with 21% win-rate vs Terran on my level while i have 60+ vs Z and 70- vs P. (+- 150 games sample size)
I believe all-ins should be way to add variability to your game. If they became standard in metagame i feel it is wrong and game is volatile. Ultra-greedy terran openings are forcing zergs to make allin or be behind. We can see this on GSL (Symbol nydus play) and everywhere else with roach - bling busts.
I always loved ling, bling, muta style while adding fast burrow to expand and map control, baneling mines and infestors instead of hive rush.
Things i hate:
1, Terran scan randomly to push creep and because of ridiculous size of scan he sees baneling mines before line of creep. 2, Hellbat drop is impossible to be cost ineffective. Even if i loose 0 drones and pull them all until the drop is cleared i lost more than 300:100 in mining time.
3, Overseers are so uncomfortable to use. When i compare ease of pressing button and gaining vision to struggles of keeping overseers alive ... Eventually they run into stimmed marines or mine and die .. i have to remake and wait for them with rest of army due to their ridiculous move speed (even upgraded)
4, You loose one fight, you lost the game. .. this never applies vice versa. Ever since terrans realised all they have to do is to rally all barracks after winning fight i loose a lot more games.
5,Great disparities in gas spending. Having to upgrade 4 upgrades instead of terran 2 when i play my style. Terrans had to upgrade vehicle weapons as well, now they just rush to 3:3 bio. They had to use ghost and spend gas. Now ? They don't even need or use them. Zerg, on the other hand must upgrade melee and muta upgrades while making gas heavy units like infestors or banelings to counter mineral sink. (powered by mules)
6, Fact that you almost cant punish widow mines. If you caught sieges out of position you could snipe them. Now you need 3 baneling (150 : 75) to snipe 1 widow mine (75 : 25). If you are being dropped in several places while trying to hold main army, creeps spread etc you don't have chance for more micro intensive techniques .. at least i don't on my level.
7, Fact that you almost cant counter attack now. WM negate fast counter attacks into thinking how to split lings if overseer is needed, where is your overseer located etc.
8, Expand structure on maps. While i have 3 bases close to each other i can defend. Later in game you are getting dropped, trying to deny terran 4 active mining bases ( which if achieved by T is GG) your expands tend to be far more apart from each other. Often times your expands are on different side of map. You need to get your main army thinner and thinner while terran start to go into mass orbital mode, sacrifice scv's and his army is getting bigger and bigger instead.
9, Fact that zerg static defence is loosing in value as time progress. Terran can upgrade armour, toss shields. I cant make spine crowlers do shit in late games against 3:3 bio... but i still make them since i have to spend minerals somehow.
This is why i cant stand playing ZvT anymore .. it may be balanced stat wise (which i dont believe except for top 30 zerg worldwide) but i am forced to do allins and it sure is not balanced effort or satisfaction - wise... whole ZvT feels like big frustration-fest for me. In complete agreement...though to be honest, I'm thrilled when I see Hellbats as I'm typically forced to go into Roach play anyway. I'd much rather see Hellbat drops than bio because it typically means the Terran has less barracks than normal or less mines. The most important point you make it cost-efficiency though and you're absolutely correct. A bio-medevac-mine army needs: bio attack x3, bio armor x3, stim, marine health and possibly maurader slow. Ling, bling, muta needs: melee attack x3, armor x3, air attack x3, air armor x3, ling speed and bling speed. Roach, Hydra, Infestor needs: Range Speed x3, armor x3, Roach speed, Hydra range, Hydra speed and Infestor Mana Made even worse, on a long enough timeline (i.e. once bio is 3/3) Zerg won't trade effectively and will need to progress to Ultra's and their armor upgrade, whereas Terran progresses to essentially nothing (possibly Ravens, but it's rare to see). The anti-Zerg response has always been: "Well, Zerg's aren't supposed to be cost-efficient, they're supposed to be up on bases!" Sadly it's near impossible to stay up on bases against a mid-game Terran with the addition of Medevac boosters (which, btw, isn't an upgrade that Terran needs to spend anything on -- seriously, I'd love to know the reason why I need to invest 300/300 for my Hydra's to not be worthless--400/400 if you include the den itself--but Terran has Medevac boosts at no cost). The entire matchup feels broken to me and the gaming community is relying on the elite pro-Zerg players doing well as proof that it's ok. I want to see Blizzard come forward with TvZ matchup data outside of GM and show me that's it's balanced. As I've mentioned before in this thread, I'm under 30% winrate vs. Terran now and I'm not alone. The numbers speak for themselves...so for any Zerg out there claiming the matchup is balanced, what is your strategy, league and winrate vs. Terran right now? I have been playing with probably a 30% winrate in TvP in masters the last half year. Although I don't come crying on the forums that the game is broken. Sure I get mad but I have just come to realize I am just bad at the matchup. I don't have good enough micro to beat the protoss deathball. I have also realized by watching pros that my ghosts come late and my Viking count is usually too low. In my opinion TvP at masters is the same as ZvT. It just happens to be a little easier for one side. I look at the zergs I lose to and many are still maintaining good winrates in TvZ. Maybe zergs need to just realize their ling bling muta play is weak because they were playing a completly different style in Wol. My bio is weak which is why I struggle against toss and even zergs still. Ling-bling-Muta is "weak" vs. Bio-Mine-Medevac because Marines and Mines hard counter Muta's, which are the largest investment in the Zerg composition. The issue is that the "ideal" Zerg response right now to Bio-Mine is illogical, haha. I'm hoping that someone can pioneer an alternative because it's terribly frustrating right now. And I hate to think that these convos are us crying...it's really just Zerg's opening up the discussion. Presumably, all of us are looking for answers My guess is that the answer will be infestors, either with roach (hydra), or ling, baneling. (I think despite the obvious advantage of locking down units with fungal and then killing them with banelings that with roach hydra it is easier on non-pro level, you can pretty much a-move roach hydra while micro'ing infestors). Aditionally what I am already seeing more on streams is a more diverse tech path. For example with that tech path investing a bit in a spire to make a bunch of mutas while not going full on mutas. But really I expect infestors to become more popular again. ITs are heavily nerfed, but the fungal has even more range. With the speed of the projectile actively dodging it with bio is pretty much impossible, passive dodging (ie, you just happened to make a turn just when the zerg casts) will happen and limit its effectiveness. But I think in general it is a matter of practising with it, where to cast for best hits. Luckily due to IT nerf we won't go back to the era of: make 20 infestors, ???, profit. How many you want exactly for fungals is something that will need to be discovered, it also depends on your casting skill, but I really think they are underused right now.
I've been under that similar line of thinking for a little while now -- Infestors paired with anything do great against bio...the issue is that creating an army of Roach-Hydra-Infestor and a pack of lings to defend from drops is impossible before drops start coming. Hydra's and Infestors are very gas dependant, on top of the entire army composition requiring heavy gas upgrades. It's rare that you face a passive bio-mine-medevac player. There's just a gap in time between when you have Roach-Ling and when you have Roach-Ling-Hydra-Infestor where Zerg tends to get overrun. And if you race for faster Hydra-Infestor, a simple timing push will crush you.
The synergy stength of Bio-Mine-Medevac is just a very frustrating army to deal with. You constantly feel like you're on the defensive, and that's after Terran has started with Reaper into Hellion harrass. To be honest, as a Zerg player I often feel like I'm the evil atificial intelligence that someone is trying to beat in a one-player video game, lol. The only early opportunity for Zerg to go on the attack is an all-in. We're forced to constantly mitigate damage long enough to where we can gain a significant enough economic advantage to strike.
|
I am really interested to see how this will work out. I mean mutas can kill spores pretty fast when you have a good number of mutas. So I am wondering how many mutas a spore can kill before it dies to mutas.
|
On May 11 2013 03:31 Graven wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 23:50 Pitrocelli wrote: This announcement is tipping point for me and i had to uninstall the game.
My current level was slightly behind GM, best rated as 259th (Master) few days ago. (http://sc2ranks.com/eu/603719/Pitro)
I am playing with 21% win-rate vs Terran on my level while i have 60+ vs Z and 70- vs P. (+- 150 games sample size)
I believe all-ins should be way to add variability to your game. If they became standard in metagame i feel it is wrong and game is volatile. Ultra-greedy terran openings are forcing zergs to make allin or be behind. We can see this on GSL (Symbol nydus play) and everywhere else with roach - bling busts.
I always loved ling, bling, muta style while adding fast burrow to expand and map control, baneling mines and infestors instead of hive rush.
Things i hate:
1, Terran scan randomly to push creep and because of ridiculous size of scan he sees baneling mines before line of creep. 2, Hellbat drop is impossible to be cost ineffective. Even if i loose 0 drones and pull them all until the drop is cleared i lost more than 300:100 in mining time.
3, Overseers are so uncomfortable to use. When i compare ease of pressing button and gaining vision to struggles of keeping overseers alive ... Eventually they run into stimmed marines or mine and die .. i have to remake and wait for them with rest of army due to their ridiculous move speed (even upgraded)
4, You loose one fight, you lost the game. .. this never applies vice versa. Ever since terrans realised all they have to do is to rally all barracks after winning fight i loose a lot more games.
5,Great disparities in gas spending. Having to upgrade 4 upgrades instead of terran 2 when i play my style. Terrans had to upgrade vehicle weapons as well, now they just rush to 3:3 bio. They had to use ghost and spend gas. Now ? They don't even need or use them. Zerg, on the other hand must upgrade melee and muta upgrades while making gas heavy units like infestors or banelings to counter mineral sink. (powered by mules)
6, Fact that you almost cant punish widow mines. If you caught sieges out of position you could snipe them. Now you need 3 baneling (150 : 75) to snipe 1 widow mine (75 : 25). If you are being dropped in several places while trying to hold main army, creeps spread etc you don't have chance for more micro intensive techniques .. at least i don't on my level.
7, Fact that you almost cant counter attack now. WM negate fast counter attacks into thinking how to split lings if overseer is needed, where is your overseer located etc.
8, Expand structure on maps. While i have 3 bases close to each other i can defend. Later in game you are getting dropped, trying to deny terran 4 active mining bases ( which if achieved by T is GG) your expands tend to be far more apart from each other. Often times your expands are on different side of map. You need to get your main army thinner and thinner while terran start to go into mass orbital mode, sacrifice scv's and his army is getting bigger and bigger instead.
9, Fact that zerg static defence is loosing in value as time progress. Terran can upgrade armour, toss shields. I cant make spine crowlers do shit in late games against 3:3 bio... but i still make them since i have to spend minerals somehow.
This is why i cant stand playing ZvT anymore .. it may be balanced stat wise (which i dont believe except for top 30 zerg worldwide) but i am forced to do allins and it sure is not balanced effort or satisfaction - wise... whole ZvT feels like big frustration-fest for me. In complete agreement...though to be honest, I'm thrilled when I see Hellbats as I'm typically forced to go into Roach play anyway. I'd much rather see Hellbat drops than bio because it typically means the Terran has less barracks than normal or less mines. The most important point you make it cost-efficiency though and you're absolutely correct. A bio-medevac-mine army needs: bio attack x3, bio armor x3, stim, marine health and possibly maurader slow. Ling, bling, muta needs: melee attack x3, armor x3, air attack x3, air armor x3, ling speed and bling speed. Roach, Hydra, Infestor needs: Range Speed x3, armor x3, Roach speed, Hydra range, Hydra speed and Infestor Mana Made even worse, on a long enough timeline (i.e. once bio is 3/3) Zerg won't trade effectively and will need to progress to Ultra's and their armor upgrade, whereas Terran progresses to essentially nothing (possibly Ravens, but it's rare to see). The anti-Zerg response has always been: "Well, Zerg's aren't supposed to be cost-efficient, they're supposed to be up on bases!" Sadly it's near impossible to stay up on bases against a mid-game Terran with the addition of Medevac boosters (which, btw, isn't an upgrade that Terran needs to spend anything on -- seriously, I'd love to know the reason why I need to invest 300/300 for my Hydra's to not be worthless--400/400 if you include the den itself--but Terran has Medevac boosts at no cost). The entire matchup feels broken to me and the gaming community is relying on the elite pro-Zerg players doing well as proof that it's ok. I want to see Blizzard come forward with TvZ matchup data outside of GM and show me that's it's balanced. As I've mentioned before in this thread, I'm under 30% winrate vs. Terran now and I'm not alone. The numbers speak for themselves...so for any Zerg out there claiming the matchup is balanced, what is your strategy, league and winrate vs. Terran right now?
The problem isnt mines or drops, the problem is greed. Seriously, rewatch any of the latest gsl TvZs. Zergs win a lot with roach, baneling, nydus busts. If you however let a 3cc, double ups, no tank, 2marines in a bunker opening go unpunished, you are simply behind unless you have 3base 70drones and double ups going at 9min. Which you wont if the terran built a reaper or hellion to go with his build.
|
Good choice by Blizzard the game is pretty fun to watch and does look pretty decently balanced so let it just evolve on its own. I think hellbats should be changed though like removing medivacs healing them or something because tvt has actually gotten more boring then wings. Its just whoever gets their drop into enemy base wins because you can not stop drops cost efficiently ever with how fast hellbats slaughter scvs.
|
I like this decision by Blizzard. Even if the game has been out for a while, there is still so much being figured out and it's really only ZvZ that is actually suffering in a way that makes it not fun to play or watch
|
On May 11 2013 03:37 Pitrocelli wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2013 02:48 1Dhalism wrote:On May 10 2013 23:50 Pitrocelli wrote: This announcement is tipping point for me and i had to uninstall the game.
My current level was slightly behind GM, best rated as 259th (Master) few days ago. (http://sc2ranks.com/eu/603719/Pitro)
I am playing with 21% win-rate vs Terran on my level while i have 60+ vs Z and 70- vs P. (+- 150 games sample size)
those numbers are too ridiculous to be taken as an indication of balance. When the disparity between your winrate and the winrate we see in pro scene is that abnormally large the only conclusion to make is that you do not understand ZvT. Granted, 150 games is not in any way a meaningful sample size. I forgot to mention (but it somehow can be deduced from previous post) that I refused to use all-ins in my ladder ZvT games since i have been trying solid style instead of all-in metagamish volatile style which I don't want to use in BO1 tournaments. If i scouted CC first i responded with 3 hatch instead of bust etc. Adding rouch based allin in different timing every game would artificially pump my win-rate to somehow standard 45% for sure but i prefer uninstalling over doing style I believe to be broken in long run. I have been doing a simple ritual after every ZvT game. I checked my opponent TvZ win-rate. Only one has been below 50%, 3 have been 51-60% and all the rest had 61% + winrate while most had 65+. One opponent had 95% win-rate in TvZ.. I dare you finding zerg with 95% ZvT win-rate. I maybe still have screens, dunno if they got erased after uninstall. I am pretty sure my understanding of game is not perfect but is better than that of 99% of players. Point me to exact logic flaws in points from my previous post. i know how you feel because i can tell you ive played during the worst zerg days and im a horrible whiner myself. But my winrate in any matchup never dipped that low.
It could be that ZvT is imbalanced. I'm not gonna comment on that. It could be that you know how to play ZvT. But 21% is simply unnatural. Whether its because its a matchup that doesnt click for you, maybe it was a downward spiral where you lost confidence in yourself and give up at the loading screen, or just feel rage i don't know.
But you cant blame imbalance on that. You have to step back and reexamine your play from ground up. There is like ~20% winrate lost there that is your fault.
I dunno if thats helpful or relevant seeing how you uninstalled. If this irritated you i apologize.
|
On May 11 2013 12:56 1Dhalism wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2013 03:37 Pitrocelli wrote:On May 11 2013 02:48 1Dhalism wrote:On May 10 2013 23:50 Pitrocelli wrote: This announcement is tipping point for me and i had to uninstall the game.
My current level was slightly behind GM, best rated as 259th (Master) few days ago. (http://sc2ranks.com/eu/603719/Pitro)
I am playing with 21% win-rate vs Terran on my level while i have 60+ vs Z and 70- vs P. (+- 150 games sample size)
those numbers are too ridiculous to be taken as an indication of balance. When the disparity between your winrate and the winrate we see in pro scene is that abnormally large the only conclusion to make is that you do not understand ZvT. Granted, 150 games is not in any way a meaningful sample size. I forgot to mention (but it somehow can be deduced from previous post) that I refused to use all-ins in my ladder ZvT games since i have been trying solid style instead of all-in metagamish volatile style which I don't want to use in BO1 tournaments. If i scouted CC first i responded with 3 hatch instead of bust etc. Adding rouch based allin in different timing every game would artificially pump my win-rate to somehow standard 45% for sure but i prefer uninstalling over doing style I believe to be broken in long run. I have been doing a simple ritual after every ZvT game. I checked my opponent TvZ win-rate. Only one has been below 50%, 3 have been 51-60% and all the rest had 61% + winrate while most had 65+. One opponent had 95% win-rate in TvZ.. I dare you finding zerg with 95% ZvT win-rate. I maybe still have screens, dunno if they got erased after uninstall. I am pretty sure my understanding of game is not perfect but is better than that of 99% of players. Point me to exact logic flaws in points from my previous post. i know how you feel because i can tell you ive played during the worst zerg days and im a horrible whiner myself. But my winrate in any matchup never dipped that low. It could be that ZvT is imbalanced. I'm not gonna comment on that. It could be that you know how to play ZvT. But 21% is simply unnatural. Whether its because its a matchup that doesnt click for you, maybe it was a downward spiral where you lost confidence in yourself and give up at the loading screen, or just feel rage i don't know. But you cant blame imbalance on that. You have to step back and reexamine your play from ground up. There is like ~20% winrate lost there that is your fault. I dunno if thats helpful or relevant seeing how you uninstalled. If this irritated you i apologize.
I forgot to mention (but it somehow can be deduced from previous post) that I refused to use all-ins in my ladder ZvT games since i have been trying solid style instead of all-in metagamish volatile style which I don't want to use in BO1 tournaments. If i scouted CC first i responded with 3 hatch instead of bust etc. Adding rouch based allin in different timing every game would artificially pump my win-rate to somehow standard 45% for sure but i prefer uninstalling over doing style I believe to be broken in long run. It's right there. People need to stop attempting to take the "moral highground" in a strategy game.
|
On May 11 2013 04:27 tuho12345 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2013 01:03 Greendotz wrote:On May 10 2013 10:04 avilo wrote: For the most part right now they made a good decision to leave everything alone. The game is near perfect balance at the moment.
...
Beyond build order openings, the game is perfectly balanced.
...
That's about it though. GJ on them on seeing how players develop the metagame further. Wow, never thought I'd see the day. I know right? From avilo?? Well all we need now is IdrA to admit it lol
Of course he doesn't want anything changed. Terran is ridiculously overpowered right now.
So disgusted that they're not fixing TvZ.
|
On May 11 2013 04:27 tuho12345 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2013 01:03 Greendotz wrote:On May 10 2013 10:04 avilo wrote: For the most part right now they made a good decision to leave everything alone. The game is near perfect balance at the moment.
...
Beyond build order openings, the game is perfectly balanced.
...
That's about it though. GJ on them on seeing how players develop the metagame further. Wow, never thought I'd see the day. I know right? From avilo?? Well all we need now is IdrA to admit it lol
actually, what you're saying doesn't make any sense.
a lot of people feel TvZ favors terran. for a terran to say it's 'perfectly balanced' is just more of the same...
|
On May 11 2013 04:25 ixi.genocide wrote: Did they change the way that Apm is calculated or did I just get worse. I wish they would stop messing with Apm, it's odd to see me get 1/3 the apm after the change.
There has been reports of the apm before being bugged, for instance when playing team games there would be an overall apm cut when someone left the game. I've already read somewhere about the fact that it seemed to be some sort of multiplier at certain moments in the game. The apm cuts in team games I've experienced myself and the comments about apm multipliers seemed fairly legit but I'm afraid I cant find the source of it .
Knowing how fast I am myself though the current numbers seem to be more accurate.
|
I don't understand this.
Surely buffing the spore crawlers gives a huge nerf to Protoss? So that stargate, oracles and warp prism harass are even less viable now?
|
On May 11 2013 17:25 Morlock wrote: I don't understand this.
Surely buffing the spore crawlers gives a huge nerf to Protoss? So that stargate, oracles and warp prism harass are even less viable now?
The spore crawler buff is only plus damage to bio, so it only affects the ZvZ matchup.
|
On May 11 2013 13:57 _Search_ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2013 04:27 tuho12345 wrote:On May 11 2013 01:03 Greendotz wrote:On May 10 2013 10:04 avilo wrote: For the most part right now they made a good decision to leave everything alone. The game is near perfect balance at the moment.
...
Beyond build order openings, the game is perfectly balanced.
...
That's about it though. GJ on them on seeing how players develop the metagame further. Wow, never thought I'd see the day. I know right? From avilo?? Well all we need now is IdrA to admit it lol Of course he doesn't want anything changed. Terran is ridiculously overpowered right now. So disgusted that they're not fixing TvZ.
A bit of history: it took about 8 months for the zergs to fully acknowledge the possibilities that opened for them once the queen+overlord patch kicked in. After these 8 months dominated almost every tournament in the world.
Right now we are two months into HotS. The zergs won MLG, they won Dreamhack, they have half of the spots in GSL CodeS ro8. And what do they say? "Terran is overpowered". Are you serious?
It takes way more time for the Z's to figure out new strategies and adapt to new micro requirements. It took 8 months for z's in WoL to adapt to a simple change affecting two units. It's dazzling how after just 2 months of HotS and great tournament results we have the "nerf T"! chant all over the place.
It seems that the "free 3 base + 75 drones" build no longer works in HotS. Oh well... suck it up and L2P, just the way the pro zergs did.
|
On May 10 2013 23:07 Qikz wrote: I'd just like to point out that people complaining about cost efficieny with banelings is that no zerg unit outside of or lair are really super cost efficient. If zerglings, banelings and roaches for example were guarenteed to be cost efficient every game zerg would be horribly broken as they'd have not only the best way of remaxxing super fast, but they'd also have the best army cost efficiency wise.
Let me be clear, I am not complaining about baneling cost efficiency at all. They are exactly where they should be. I was countering the "mines are no different than banelings" nonsense by describing the cost efficiency difference - my opinion is not that banelings are too weak, it's that mines are too strong.
There was a massive reason zerg having infestors like they were and broodlords were broken. They basically countered every single unit in the game cost efficiently and that was the issue with it.
Yep. Kinda like how mines are cost efficient vs everything zerg has in the first 15-20 minutes of the game.
|
On May 11 2013 18:06 Chocobo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 23:07 Qikz wrote: I'd just like to point out that people complaining about cost efficieny with banelings is that no zerg unit outside of or lair are really super cost efficient. If zerglings, banelings and roaches for example were guarenteed to be cost efficient every game zerg would be horribly broken as they'd have not only the best way of remaxxing super fast, but they'd also have the best army cost efficiency wise. Let me be clear, I am not complaining about baneling cost efficiency at all. They are exactly where they should be. I was countering the "mines are no different than banelings" nonsense by describing the cost efficiency difference - my opinion is not that banelings are too weak, it's that mines are too strong. Show nested quote +There was a massive reason zerg having infestors like they were and broodlords were broken. They basically countered every single unit in the game cost efficiently and that was the issue with it. Yep. Kinda like how mines are cost efficient vs everything zerg has in the first 15-20 minutes of the game.
Roaches.
|
On May 11 2013 18:07 Douillos wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2013 18:06 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 23:07 Qikz wrote: I'd just like to point out that people complaining about cost efficieny with banelings is that no zerg unit outside of or lair are really super cost efficient. If zerglings, banelings and roaches for example were guarenteed to be cost efficient every game zerg would be horribly broken as they'd have not only the best way of remaxxing super fast, but they'd also have the best army cost efficiency wise. Let me be clear, I am not complaining about baneling cost efficiency at all. They are exactly where they should be. I was countering the "mines are no different than banelings" nonsense by describing the cost efficiency difference - my opinion is not that banelings are too weak, it's that mines are too strong. There was a massive reason zerg having infestors like they were and broodlords were broken. They basically countered every single unit in the game cost efficiently and that was the issue with it. Yep. Kinda like how mines are cost efficient vs everything zerg has in the first 15-20 minutes of the game. Roaches. unbelievably cost inefficient against bio naked mines are fine, mines protected by bio/bio protected by mines are another story
|
On May 11 2013 17:32 scypio wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2013 13:57 _Search_ wrote:On May 11 2013 04:27 tuho12345 wrote:On May 11 2013 01:03 Greendotz wrote:On May 10 2013 10:04 avilo wrote: For the most part right now they made a good decision to leave everything alone. The game is near perfect balance at the moment.
...
Beyond build order openings, the game is perfectly balanced.
...
That's about it though. GJ on them on seeing how players develop the metagame further. Wow, never thought I'd see the day. I know right? From avilo?? Well all we need now is IdrA to admit it lol Of course he doesn't want anything changed. Terran is ridiculously overpowered right now. So disgusted that they're not fixing TvZ. A bit of history: it took about 8 months for the zergs to fully acknowledge the possibilities that opened for them once the queen+overlord patch kicked in. After these 8 months dominated almost every tournament in the world. Right now we are two months into HotS. The zergs won MLG, they won Dreamhack, they have half of the spots in GSL CodeS ro8. And what do they say? "Terran is overpowered". Are you serious? It takes way more time for the Z's to figure out new strategies and adapt to new micro requirements. It took 8 months for z's in WoL to adapt to a simple change affecting two units. It's dazzling how after just 2 months of HotS and great tournament results we have the "nerf T"! chant all over the place. It seems that the "free 3 base + 75 drones" build no longer works in HotS. Oh well... suck it up and L2P, just the way the pro zergs did.
That is exactly the problem right now. Imagine player JhonnyMaster. He was a high master zerg in WOL. He went infestor + ling bling into broodlord infestor corruptor, terrans had a hard time against it. Everyone agreed that in a game between 2 players with the same skill level, the zerg had an advantage. But for JhonnyMaster it was all fine and dandy. Now JhonnyMaster plays HOTS. His race became harder (now he finally has to micro as hard as the terran) and now the 2 players with the same skill level have the same chance to win the game. What does this mean? - JhonnyMaster will lose more against the players he owned before. - JhonnyMaster, who thought wol was all fine and dandy, is confused. - JhonnyMaster blames imbalance. I mean, the terran has a chance now. That is unacceptable. He wants his old 80% winrate in zvt back.
I almost never see vipers in TvZ. They don't even try it. No swarmhosts (and when some genius uses them against me, I lose every single time). No constant banelingbombs with the speedlords. No banelingburrows everywhere on the map. No infestors.
Zergs also forgot to make spines & spores, like they did in WOL, REMEMBER?
When I make mines, it's imbalanced. When I make hellbats and no mines, it's imbalanced. When I make no hellbats, no mines, but pure MMM, it's imbalanced (speedvac).
I mean, seriously?
|
On May 10 2013 23:50 Pitrocelli wrote: 3, Overseers are so uncomfortable to use. When i compare ease of pressing button and gaining vision to struggles of keeping overseers alive ... Eventually they run into stimmed marines or mine and die .. i have to remake and wait for them with rest of army due to their ridiculous move speed (even upgraded) This is a major problem imo. Compared to terran and protoss, it's difficult just to be able to see the mines even if you know they're out there. Overseers are just not great for this purpose and are easily killed... and it's not like terrans have even been trying to target them, once they start it'll get even worse.
4, You loose one fight, you lost the game. .. this never applies vice versa. Ever since terrans realised all they have to do is to rally all barracks after winning fight i loose a lot more games. This isn't new, but it happens more often. One significantly cost inefficient move by an opponent can lose a game... but zerg rarely has one in their favor, and terrans get them much more frequently with mines on the field.
6, Fact that you almost cant punish widow mines. If you caught sieges out of position you could snipe them. Now you need 3 baneling (150 : 75) to snipe 1 widow mine (75 : 25). If you are being dropped in several places while trying to hold main army, creeps spread etc you don't have chance for more micro intensive techniques .. at least i don't on my level.
Another good point. Mines are pretty much the replacement for tanks now, and they lack the counterability of tanks. Maybe if they took as long to burrow as tanks took to siege, it would help. When they're less gas intensive, easier to use, and they're cloaked... there's just so many strengths and few weaknesses compared to WoL.
This is why i cant stand playing ZvT anymore .. it may be balanced stat wise (which i dont believe except for top 30 zerg worldwide) but i am forced to do allins and it sure is not balanced effort or satisfaction - wise... whole ZvT feels like big frustration-fest for me. I would love to see the overall ladder zerg winrates by matchup in diamond and masters. It's definitely balanced at the pro level but I suspect things look very different at these levels.
|
Mines are so strong that to counter zergs in teamleagues, teams pick protosses unless flash or innovation.
Mines and old infestors are VERY different, I don't even know how you can compare them. Old infestors had a targeted AOE with good range and radius that rooted and killed things. You compare that which a very cheap (it's true) but very random unit, which utility can range from 0 to killing packs of zerglings with quite a long cooldown. You can micro against that, maybe not easily but there are ways (sending little packs of units first, sending tanky units, infested terrans, locusts). You couldn't micro against fungals and it was way too easy to catch 20 or so marines and to kill them with it. Hell, you can even see burrowed mines. You cannot see burrowed banes. Ho, and also, friendly fire. Sometimes mines will kill more marines than lings, because the funny thing is, the most vulnerable unit to mines in the game as far as I know is the marine. They can't run over mines without triggering them, and you might loose 2x more supply than with zerglings if you take mine hits.
While I agree that mines are strong, I don't understand why people complain so much about them. I played a bit of zerg recently at a low master level, and I found protoss way more frustrating than terran to play against. Terran is basically the same than before, less OP fungals and plus a unit that prevents early bane all ins from being unstoppable/Mass ling/bane to autokill bio (remember the WoL games were symbol was taking 3 bases and spammed speedlings and banes into marine tank endlessly and won games without breaking a sweat?).
People that were used to win by pressing F and A moving in the lower leagues (not high master) are maybe getting frustrated at the game having to be played the way it's supposed to. I'm personally finding ZvT way funnier than before, the only thing bothering me as zerg right know is the muta fuckfest in mirror, which is awfully boring and uninteresting to play/watch in my opinion.
|
On May 11 2013 17:32 scypio wrote: It seems that the "free 3 base + 75 drones" build no longer works in HotS. Oh well... suck it up and L2P, just the way the pro zergs did.
"Suck it up and L2P" is just as silly and tiresome as the "everything I lose to is imbalanced" whiners. It adds nothing to the conversation, it makes no claim about balance, it adds nothing to the specific situations being discussed.
BTW there are a lot of players who are "learning to play" and trying to improve against these strats every day. The issue is that despite our best efforts, it doesn't lead to anything. This isn't "wahh I lost, make it easier for me". It's "I am practicing for hours and hours and still getting destroyed no matter what I try".
You could specifically tell me that you're using the same bio+mine build, with the same strategy and same attack timings, for 20 games in a row and I would still lose over 2/3 of the time (assuming I play for a macro game). Like the final months of WoL where protoss would always choose one allin or another in PvZ because there's so little hope if the game goes longer than 10 minutes... that's what ZvT is like now.
|
On May 11 2013 17:32 scypio wrote:
A bit of history: it took about 8 months for the zergs to fully acknowledge the possibilities that opened for them once the queen+overlord patch kicked in. After these 8 months dominated almost every tournament in the world.
Right now we are two months into HotS. The zergs won MLG, they won Dreamhack, they have half of the spots in GSL CodeS ro8. And what do they say? "Terran is overpowered". Are you serious?
It takes way more time for the Z's to figure out new strategies and adapt to new micro requirements. It took 8 months for z's in WoL to adapt to a simple change affecting two units. It's dazzling how after just 2 months of HotS and great tournament results we have the "nerf T"! chant all over the place.
It seems that the "free 3 base + 75 drones" build no longer works in HotS. Oh well... suck it up and L2P, just the way the pro zergs did.
Yeah. It didn't take that long for Terrans to start whining about the machup. You say it took 8months until the queen patch really showed? I tell you that Terrans whined from the moment blizzard put up a CTA map that the matchup would be completly unplayable.
And the "free 3base + 75 drones" build was never a thing if the Terran did a standard 3CC+hellion opening in WoL. But somehow the same opening prevents zergs from doing "this build" in HotS... makes me wonder in which way they buffed hellions in your world.
|
On May 11 2013 18:30 Chocobo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 23:50 Pitrocelli wrote: 3, Overseers are so uncomfortable to use. When i compare ease of pressing button and gaining vision to struggles of keeping overseers alive ... Eventually they run into stimmed marines or mine and die .. i have to remake and wait for them with rest of army due to their ridiculous move speed (even upgraded) This is a major problem imo. Compared to terran and protoss, it's difficult just to be able to see the mines even if you know they're out there. Overseers are just not great for this purpose and are easily killed... and it's not like terrans have even been trying to target them, once they start it'll get even worse. Sorry but overseers are a way better detection against mines than scan. Every scan costs 270 resources!!! You cannot just spam scans around in the case there might be mines (well outside very late game).
Show nested quote +4, You loose one fight, you lost the game. .. this never applies vice versa. Ever since terrans realised all they have to do is to rally all barracks after winning fight i loose a lot more games. This isn't new, but it happens more often. One significantly cost inefficient move by an opponent can lose a game... but zerg rarely has one in their favor, and terrans get them much more frequently with mines on the field. For me it is exactly the opposite. Granted I prefer bio-mech instead of bio-mine, but unless I do an early game push I have to decisively beat the zerg 3-4 times before I got a chance in hell to actually push into their bases. Everytime you win a fight they just remax so fast. Meanwhile if I lose a fight it generally is game over. Sure often I can stabilize on 3 bases, but then it is just a long death animation.
assuming I play for a macro game Btw a terran trying to play a pure macro game vs zerg is pretty much setting himself op for an autoloss. There is nothing wrong with early agression.
I tell you that Terrans whined from the moment blizzard put up a CTA map that the matchup would be completly unplayable.
Seems they were right, queen range patch was completely ridiculous.
Edit: But btw then which changes are you zergs in favor of? While taking into account that zerg is way more played than terran, it is preferable if you don't nerf everything down the drain for other matchups, and oh also that zerg is at least as strong, if not stronger, on pro level.
And while busy also take into account that Terran always had the issue in WoL, where only a few Korean Terrans could muster the necesary micro against zerg and toss AOE weapons.
|
On May 11 2013 19:00 Sissors wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2013 18:30 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 23:50 Pitrocelli wrote: 3, Overseers are so uncomfortable to use. When i compare ease of pressing button and gaining vision to struggles of keeping overseers alive ... Eventually they run into stimmed marines or mine and die .. i have to remake and wait for them with rest of army due to their ridiculous move speed (even upgraded) This is a major problem imo. Compared to terran and protoss, it's difficult just to be able to see the mines even if you know they're out there. Overseers are just not great for this purpose and are easily killed... and it's not like terrans have even been trying to target them, once they start it'll get even worse. Sorry but overseers are a way better detection against mines than scan. Every scan costs 270 resources!!! You cannot just spam scans around in the case there might be mines (well outside very late game). Show nested quote +4, You loose one fight, you lost the game. .. this never applies vice versa. Ever since terrans realised all they have to do is to rally all barracks after winning fight i loose a lot more games. This isn't new, but it happens more often. One significantly cost inefficient move by an opponent can lose a game... but zerg rarely has one in their favor, and terrans get them much more frequently with mines on the field. For me it is exactly the opposite. Granted I prefer bio-mech instead of bio-mine, but unless I do an early game push I have to decisively beat the zerg 3-4 times before I got a chance in hell to actually push into their bases. Everytime you win a fight they just remax so fast. Meanwhile if I lose a fight it generally is game over. Sure often I can stabilize on 3 bases, but then it is just a long death animation. Btw a terran trying to play a pure macro game vs zerg is pretty much setting himself op for an autoloss. There is nothing wrong with early agression.
And how much does losing an overseer cost? 150/50 + (minutes the game goes on 17seconds after you started the overlord)*42. So usually much more than your 270minerals
|
On May 11 2013 18:06 Chocobo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 23:07 Qikz wrote: I'd just like to point out that people complaining about cost efficieny with banelings is that no zerg unit outside of or lair are really super cost efficient. If zerglings, banelings and roaches for example were guarenteed to be cost efficient every game zerg would be horribly broken as they'd have not only the best way of remaxxing super fast, but they'd also have the best army cost efficiency wise. Let me be clear, I am not complaining about baneling cost efficiency at all. They are exactly where they should be. I was countering the "mines are no different than banelings" nonsense by describing the cost efficiency difference - my opinion is not that banelings are too weak, it's that mines are too strong. Show nested quote +There was a massive reason zerg having infestors like they were and broodlords were broken. They basically countered every single unit in the game cost efficiently and that was the issue with it. Yep. Kinda like how mines are cost efficient vs everything zerg has in the first 15-20 minutes of the game. Mines are perfectly useless most of the time because they are a unit which is based in its efficiency sooooo much on luck that it balances itself out. Only looking at the "awesome mine kills" doesnt work.
The only point when Widow Mines are potentially super strong is the early game, BUT only if the stupid defending Zerg tries to solve the Widow Mine crisis by throwing tons of Zerglings at them (or the Hellbats which got dropped) while not building any Spore or Spine Crawler to give his bases a "solid" defense.
Banelings are far too efficient because they can be massed in a critical number and then right-clicked into a Planetary Fortress which has ZERO CHANCE to survive. For Widow Mines there is no such thing as a critical number, because it is a DEFENSIVE UNIT in its method of use, i.e. you dont really trigger its attack but rather the mine triggers itself (which can be abused by smart players).
|
On May 11 2013 19:03 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2013 19:00 Sissors wrote:On May 11 2013 18:30 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 23:50 Pitrocelli wrote: 3, Overseers are so uncomfortable to use. When i compare ease of pressing button and gaining vision to struggles of keeping overseers alive ... Eventually they run into stimmed marines or mine and die .. i have to remake and wait for them with rest of army due to their ridiculous move speed (even upgraded) This is a major problem imo. Compared to terran and protoss, it's difficult just to be able to see the mines even if you know they're out there. Overseers are just not great for this purpose and are easily killed... and it's not like terrans have even been trying to target them, once they start it'll get even worse. Sorry but overseers are a way better detection against mines than scan. Every scan costs 270 resources!!! You cannot just spam scans around in the case there might be mines (well outside very late game). 4, You loose one fight, you lost the game. .. this never applies vice versa. Ever since terrans realised all they have to do is to rally all barracks after winning fight i loose a lot more games. This isn't new, but it happens more often. One significantly cost inefficient move by an opponent can lose a game... but zerg rarely has one in their favor, and terrans get them much more frequently with mines on the field. For me it is exactly the opposite. Granted I prefer bio-mech instead of bio-mine, but unless I do an early game push I have to decisively beat the zerg 3-4 times before I got a chance in hell to actually push into their bases. Everytime you win a fight they just remax so fast. Meanwhile if I lose a fight it generally is game over. Sure often I can stabilize on 3 bases, but then it is just a long death animation. assuming I play for a macro game Btw a terran trying to play a pure macro game vs zerg is pretty much setting himself op for an autoloss. There is nothing wrong with early agression. And how much does losing an overseer cost? 150/50 + (minutes the game goes on 17seconds after you started the overlord)*42. So usually much more than your 270minerals Really?
Scan costs 20 resources + (minutes the game goes on - some production time) * 42 *5. So usually way much more than your overseer... (assuming you made 5 SCVs with the income from your mule).
That makes as much sense as your calculation.
Edit: And of course while you will sometimes lose an overseer, I hope you aren't losing one for everytime you need to kill a single widow mine.
|
On May 11 2013 18:59 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2013 17:32 scypio wrote:
A bit of history: it took about 8 months for the zergs to fully acknowledge the possibilities that opened for them once the queen+overlord patch kicked in. After these 8 months dominated almost every tournament in the world.
Right now we are two months into HotS. The zergs won MLG, they won Dreamhack, they have half of the spots in GSL CodeS ro8. And what do they say? "Terran is overpowered". Are you serious?
It takes way more time for the Z's to figure out new strategies and adapt to new micro requirements. It took 8 months for z's in WoL to adapt to a simple change affecting two units. It's dazzling how after just 2 months of HotS and great tournament results we have the "nerf T"! chant all over the place.
It seems that the "free 3 base + 75 drones" build no longer works in HotS. Oh well... suck it up and L2P, just the way the pro zergs did. Yeah. It didn't take that long for Terrans to start whining about the machup. You say it took 8months until the queen patch really showed? I tell you that Terrans whined from the moment blizzard put up a CTA map that the matchup would be completly unplayable.
Because it did not take 8 months, Right after patch TvZ dropped to around 45% and never recovered
|
On May 11 2013 19:07 Sissors wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2013 19:03 Big J wrote:On May 11 2013 19:00 Sissors wrote:On May 11 2013 18:30 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 23:50 Pitrocelli wrote: 3, Overseers are so uncomfortable to use. When i compare ease of pressing button and gaining vision to struggles of keeping overseers alive ... Eventually they run into stimmed marines or mine and die .. i have to remake and wait for them with rest of army due to their ridiculous move speed (even upgraded) This is a major problem imo. Compared to terran and protoss, it's difficult just to be able to see the mines even if you know they're out there. Overseers are just not great for this purpose and are easily killed... and it's not like terrans have even been trying to target them, once they start it'll get even worse. Sorry but overseers are a way better detection against mines than scan. Every scan costs 270 resources!!! You cannot just spam scans around in the case there might be mines (well outside very late game). 4, You loose one fight, you lost the game. .. this never applies vice versa. Ever since terrans realised all they have to do is to rally all barracks after winning fight i loose a lot more games. This isn't new, but it happens more often. One significantly cost inefficient move by an opponent can lose a game... but zerg rarely has one in their favor, and terrans get them much more frequently with mines on the field. For me it is exactly the opposite. Granted I prefer bio-mech instead of bio-mine, but unless I do an early game push I have to decisively beat the zerg 3-4 times before I got a chance in hell to actually push into their bases. Everytime you win a fight they just remax so fast. Meanwhile if I lose a fight it generally is game over. Sure often I can stabilize on 3 bases, but then it is just a long death animation. assuming I play for a macro game Btw a terran trying to play a pure macro game vs zerg is pretty much setting himself op for an autoloss. There is nothing wrong with early agression. And how much does losing an overseer cost? 150/50 + (minutes the game goes on 17seconds after you started the overlord)*42. So usually much more than your 270minerals Really? Scan costs 20 resources + (minutes the game goes on - some production time) * 42 *5. So usually way much more than your overseer... (assuming you made 5 SCVs with the income from your mule). That makes as much sense as your calculation.
a) really? scans/mules use the same production queue you use for workers? Always interesting what you can learn from forum Terrans. Do Overlords/Drones use the same production queue? Yes. Can I choose to make one more drone by not making an overlord (assuming I'm making one for the sole purpose of turning it into an overseer). Yes. Can you just spawn 5SCVs anytime you have 270money? Nope. So the only example that doesn't make sense is yours. b) of course the example is ridiculous, because the opportunity to mine money =/= having/spending money. Just like saying that a scan costs 270money. Do you have to bank 270money that you lose for a scan? No. Can you scan while you are not mining (basetrade situations)? Yes! Is your base running out faster when you choose to mule? Yes! Do you have to wait for some time to "slowly" acquire some money from a mule? yes.......... There is a huge difference between having money and "having something that mines minerals". HUGE, HUGE, HUGE. You are not suddenly running out of scans in a combat, just because you don't have the money for it. Go ahead and try starbow. They made a worker calldown that costs 50minerals. Then you see what real costs on such an ability are.
Edit: And while you may sometimes just scan for scouting/positioning, I hope that you will not always just scan and then not kill something cloaked, drop something that was not protected properly, defend some rush more costefficiently...
|
Has anybody every considered than balance between regions revolves around variability of imbalance? Has this EVER been tested, or are we just hiding under the bush and pretending that everything is ok because the game isn't figured out yet? Seems like a typical Blizzard cop-out. But what can you do: when you create a Human game, it's bound to have Human errors. But at least admit it, Blizzard. You made such an imba game that you can actually fall back on a neutral statement to defend it. That's sad.
|
On May 11 2013 18:41 Chocobo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2013 17:32 scypio wrote: It seems that the "free 3 base + 75 drones" build no longer works in HotS. Oh well... suck it up and L2P, just the way the pro zergs did. "Suck it up and L2P" is just as silly and tiresome as the "everything I lose to is imbalanced" whiners. It adds nothing to the conversation, it makes no claim about balance, it adds nothing to the specific situations being discussed. BTW there are a lot of players who are "learning to play" and trying to improve against these strats every day. The issue is that despite our best efforts, it doesn't lead to anything. This isn't "wahh I lost, make it easier for me". It's "I am practicing for hours and hours and still getting destroyed no matter what I try". You could specifically tell me that you're using the same bio+mine build, with the same strategy and same attack timings, for 20 games in a row and I would still lose over 2/3 of the time (assuming I play for a macro game). Like the final months of WoL where protoss would always choose one allin or another in PvZ because there's so little hope if the game goes longer than 10 minutes... that's what ZvT is like now.
OK then, since I play zerg too (33% of the time) I'll give you my insight on the matchup from a (terrible) zerg perspective.
First of all, the mindset "I play the macro game" is incorrect. The zerg is a reactionary race and you need to react to what your opponent is doing. I guess if toss would go for a 1-gate 3-nexus you would try to do something about it and kill the expansion. Same goes for terrans who opt for a quick 3rd cc build. You need to scout and punish that, even if that means a lot of commitment (or even all-in).
If the T does not build 3rd cc then you are in a good shape for a macro game (see Losira vs Gumiho, final series in GSL Code S).
This is not WoL where you could just say "I want to macro and there is nothing you can do about it". This is a new game, the rulse have changed. Once again: it's been around for only two months! And it took 8 months to take advantage of the queen + ov buff in WoL. This is way too soon to say "well, I've tried anything and there is absolutely nothing more I can do".
Another thing: Starcraft 2 is not similar to digging a ditch. If you take a shovel and dig long enough you will have a nice, deep ditch that you imagined. If you play SC2 and practice a lot you still might not be able to accomplish anything spectacular skill-wise. You can go to sc2earnings.com and look at the second hundred players. Why are they there? Why didn't they do better? Sorry... it is not a ditch.
|
On May 11 2013 18:41 Chocobo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2013 17:32 scypio wrote: It seems that the "free 3 base + 75 drones" build no longer works in HotS. Oh well... suck it up and L2P, just the way the pro zergs did. "Suck it up and L2P" is just as silly and tiresome as the "everything I lose to is imbalanced" whiners. It adds nothing to the conversation, it makes no claim about balance, it adds nothing to the specific situations being discussed. BTW there are a lot of players who are "learning to play" and trying to improve against these strats every day. The issue is that despite our best efforts, it doesn't lead to anything. This isn't "wahh I lost, make it easier for me". It's "I am practicing for hours and hours and still getting destroyed no matter what I try". You could specifically tell me that you're using the same bio+mine build, with the same strategy and same attack timings, for 20 games in a row and I would still lose over 2/3 of the time (assuming I play for a macro game). Like the final months of WoL where protoss would always choose one allin or another in PvZ because there's so little hope if the game goes longer than 10 minutes... that's what ZvT is like now.
while the game may not be imbalanced, it still is frustrating to play (and a game should not be frustrating to play but fun instead)
technically you can micro against widow mines (until terrans figure out that you can hold and aim them -.-), but it is frustrating to see your effort compared to the opponents effort. Against siege tanks there was plenty of counterplay, snipe with mutas, flank with Zerglings, catch them out of position... there were obvious weaknesses. Against Biomine - currently you run in and hope for a clean headshot on the wrong Zergling. Maybe with increased use of swarm hosts this situation will improve, but widow mines are still way too strong for their raw stats in controlling space, given zerg has both the worst detection and the lowest ranged units (especially since if you do make ranged units, bio just crushes that). But even though I personally hate the mine (as it ruined my favourite matchup where I would just go muta ling bling into ultras and both the terran and me always had lots of fun compared to now) I think the situation will improve for Zergs. Probably making ~10 Mutas will become mandatory, as with only ground units (and no fungal to root them) the new speedy medivacs can demolish your economy in no time with 2-4 well controlled hellbat drops. Which by the way feel way more frustrating to me than widow mines, as the mines just counter most things softly, while the hellbat (when build more than one) simply denies you from making a core unit.
On the other hand there seems to be quite a problem in late game ZvP, where once again both players camp for hours as they cannot engage when Zerg turtles with mass static defense + Vipers + Swarm hosts/Corruptor. I expect a ton of QQ from protoss players in the future, as split-map-turtle-Zerg is about as deadly as BL/infestor was in WoL, just takes longer to starve the opponent to death. If you need an example of that, try to catch some of CatZ' ZvP, as he has a ridiculously high win rate once he manages to split the map by just turtling and using Vipers to pull stuff into static defense.
And I don't expect the spore crawler buff to fix ZvZ at all. Yeah, maybe you need one less spore to defend your main vs mutas, but that never was the problem. The problem was to get your third up, which gets denied by the map control the player going mutas has over his opponent. Mutas should never fly above the main/natural of the opponent anyway, they prevent ling runbys, snipe overlords, give you vision and if you know your opponents muta position they can assist in sniping the enemy third base. Which now becomes even more attractive, as you can build spores in your main/natural to defend vs base trades in a muta vs muta and just go kill their third if you feel like trading third bases. Besides the massive advantage mutas give in map control/denying the third, even under the assumption that both players can somewhat get their third up - what then? The muta player can simply take his fourth, because buffed spores will not give you any map control. Now that infestors cannot reliably defend your hydras from multiple baneling flanks anymore (and cannot really catch mutas), Muta + baneling still can crush any army in ZvZ with ease. And with additional bases over your opponent (thanks to map control) you can tech switch into whatever you want - ultras, Brood Lords, you name it. So while Blizzard did see that ZvZ is only the same ol' muta vs muta battle with nothing else really viable (besides all-ins and counter-all-ins and the gimmicky super fast double upgrades for lings which get countered by roach baneling allin) they will not improve the matchup by an inch with a spore crawler buff vs bio.
Funny, I just noticed I started with stuff that is frustrating to play against (and toxic to a good playing experience while maybe being balanced) and ended up with what the topic was really about. To add to the stuff that just feels aweful, there would of course be the sentry, the zerg anti-air being stupidly ineffective and costly at the same time, the power of muta switches mid-late game, the warp in of units anywhere on the map, the baneling bust, the widow mine or hellion/hellbat drops, baneling mines, tempests, lack of an invisible attacker for zerg that does not die from its attack and that has an attack that cannot be destroyed before doing any damage, map designs, too many workers needed -> not enough units on map -> on fight to rule them all, units countering units too hard (such as immortals gaining 150% more dmg when against armored - wtf?)... If it was up to me, I would try to change those things to turn them into something more fun to play with/play against, and go from there trying to archieve balance once more. Currently a lot of the game feels like the minigame "I wanna be the boshy" on one of the harder difficulties. While the game might be somewhat balanced and both play- and winnable, it more often is just frustrating to play, and a game should not be that frustrating to play.
|
On May 11 2013 19:26 Cirqueenflex wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2013 18:41 Chocobo wrote:On May 11 2013 17:32 scypio wrote: It seems that the "free 3 base + 75 drones" build no longer works in HotS. Oh well... suck it up and L2P, just the way the pro zergs did. "Suck it up and L2P" is just as silly and tiresome as the "everything I lose to is imbalanced" whiners. It adds nothing to the conversation, it makes no claim about balance, it adds nothing to the specific situations being discussed. BTW there are a lot of players who are "learning to play" and trying to improve against these strats every day. The issue is that despite our best efforts, it doesn't lead to anything. This isn't "wahh I lost, make it easier for me". It's "I am practicing for hours and hours and still getting destroyed no matter what I try". You could specifically tell me that you're using the same bio+mine build, with the same strategy and same attack timings, for 20 games in a row and I would still lose over 2/3 of the time (assuming I play for a macro game). Like the final months of WoL where protoss would always choose one allin or another in PvZ because there's so little hope if the game goes longer than 10 minutes... that's what ZvT is like now. while the game may not be imbalanced, it still is frustrating to play (and a game should not be frustrating to play but fun instead) technically you can micro against widow mines (until terrans figure out that you can hold and aim them -.-), but it is frustrating to see your effort compared to the opponents effort. Against siege tanks there was plenty of counterplay, snipe with mutas, flank with Zerglings, catch them out of position... there were obvious weaknesses. Against Biomine - currently you run in and hope for a clean headshot on the wrong Zergling. Maybe with increased use of swarm hosts this situation will improve, but widow mines are still way too strong for their raw stats in controlling space, given zerg has both the worst detection and the lowest ranged units (especially since if you do make ranged units, bio just crushes that). But even though I personally hate the mine (as it ruined my favourite matchup where I would just go muta ling bling into ultras and both the terran and me always had lots of fun compared to now) I think the situation will improve for Zergs. Probably making ~10 Mutas will become mandatory, as with only ground units (and no fungal to root them) the new speedy medivacs can demolish your economy in no time with 2-4 well controlled hellbat drops. Which by the way feel way more frustrating to me than widow mines, as the mines just counter most things softly, while the hellbat (when build more than one) simply denies you from making a core unit. On the other hand there seems to be quite a problem in late game ZvP, where once again both players camp for hours as they cannot engage when Zerg turtles with mass static defense + Vipers + Swarm hosts/Corruptor. I expect a ton of QQ from protoss players in the future, as split-map-turtle-Zerg is about as deadly as BL/infestor was in WoL, just takes longer to starve the opponent to death. If you need an example of that, try to catch some of CatZ' ZvP, as he has a ridiculously high win rate once he manages to split the map by just turtling and using Vipers to pull stuff into static defense. And I don't expect the spore crawler buff to fix ZvZ at all. Yeah, maybe you need one less spore to defend your main vs mutas, but that never was the problem. The problem was to get your third up, which gets denied by the map control the player going mutas has over his opponent. Mutas should never fly above the main/natural of the opponent anyway, they prevent ling runbys, snipe overlords, give you vision and if you know your opponents muta position they can assist in sniping the enemy third base. Which now becomes even more attractive, as you can build spores in your main/natural to defend vs base trades in a muta vs muta and just go kill their third if you feel like trading third bases. Besides the massive advantage mutas give in map control/denying the third, even under the assumption that both players can somewhat get their third up - what then? The muta player can simply take his fourth, because buffed spores will not give you any map control. Now that infestors cannot reliably defend your hydras from multiple baneling flanks anymore (and cannot really catch mutas), Muta + baneling still can crush any army in ZvZ with ease. And with additional bases over your opponent (thanks to map control) you can tech switch into whatever you want - ultras, Brood Lords, you name it. So while Blizzard did see that ZvZ is only the same ol' muta vs muta battle with nothing else really viable (besides all-ins and counter-all-ins and the gimmicky super fast double upgrades for lings which get countered by roach baneling allin) they will not improve the matchup by an inch with a spore crawler buff vs bio. Funny, I just noticed I started with stuff that is frustrating to play against (and toxic to a good playing experience while maybe being balanced) and ended up with what the topic was really about. To add to the stuff that just feels aweful, there would of course be the sentry, the zerg anti-air being stupidly ineffective and costly at the same time, the power of muta switches mid-late game, the warp in of units anywhere on the map, the baneling bust, the widow mine or hellion/hellbat drops, baneling mines, tempests, lack of an invisible attacker for zerg that does not die from its attack and that has an attack that cannot be destroyed before doing any damage, map designs, too many workers needed -> not enough units on map -> on fight to rule them all, units countering units too hard (such as immortals gaining 150% more dmg when against armored - wtf?)... If it was up to me, I would try to change those things to turn them into something moree fun to play with/play against, and go from there trying to archieve balance once more. Currently a lot of the game feels like the minigame "I wanna be the boshy" on one of the harder difficulties. While the game might be somewhat balanced and both play- and winnable, it more often is just frustrating to play, and a game should not be that frustrating to play.
and why would i read something this long?
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On May 11 2013 19:26 Cirqueenflex wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2013 18:41 Chocobo wrote:On May 11 2013 17:32 scypio wrote: It seems that the "free 3 base + 75 drones" build no longer works in HotS. Oh well... suck it up and L2P, just the way the pro zergs did. "Suck it up and L2P" is just as silly and tiresome as the "everything I lose to is imbalanced" whiners. It adds nothing to the conversation, it makes no claim about balance, it adds nothing to the specific situations being discussed. BTW there are a lot of players who are "learning to play" and trying to improve against these strats every day. The issue is that despite our best efforts, it doesn't lead to anything. This isn't "wahh I lost, make it easier for me". It's "I am practicing for hours and hours and still getting destroyed no matter what I try". You could specifically tell me that you're using the same bio+mine build, with the same strategy and same attack timings, for 20 games in a row and I would still lose over 2/3 of the time (assuming I play for a macro game). Like the final months of WoL where protoss would always choose one allin or another in PvZ because there's so little hope if the game goes longer than 10 minutes... that's what ZvT is like now. while the game may not be imbalanced, it still is frustrating to play (and a game should not be frustrating to play but fun instead) + Show Spoiler [for length] + technically you can micro against widow mines (until terrans figure out that you can hold and aim them -.-), but it is frustrating to see your effort compared to the opponents effort. Against siege tanks there was plenty of counterplay, snipe with mutas, flank with Zerglings, catch them out of position... there were obvious weaknesses. Against Biomine - currently you run in and hope for a clean headshot on the wrong Zergling. Maybe with increased use of swarm hosts this situation will improve, but widow mines are still way too strong for their raw stats in controlling space, given zerg has both the worst detection and the lowest ranged units (especially since if you do make ranged units, bio just crushes that). But even though I personally hate the mine (as it ruined my favourite matchup where I would just go muta ling bling into ultras and both the terran and me always had lots of fun compared to now) I think the situation will improve for Zergs. Probably making ~10 Mutas will become mandatory, as with only ground units (and no fungal to root them) the new speedy medivacs can demolish your economy in no time with 2-4 well controlled hellbat drops. Which by the way feel way more frustrating to me than widow mines, as the mines just counter most things softly, while the hellbat (when build more than one) simply denies you from making a core unit.
On the other hand there seems to be quite a problem in late game ZvP, where once again both players camp for hours as they cannot engage when Zerg turtles with mass static defense + Vipers + Swarm hosts/Corruptor. I expect a ton of QQ from protoss players in the future, as split-map-turtle-Zerg is about as deadly as BL/infestor was in WoL, just takes longer to starve the opponent to death. If you need an example of that, try to catch some of CatZ' ZvP, as he has a ridiculously high win rate once he manages to split the map by just turtling and using Vipers to pull stuff into static defense.
And I don't expect the spore crawler buff to fix ZvZ at all. Yeah, maybe you need one less spore to defend your main vs mutas, but that never was the problem. The problem was to get your third up, which gets denied by the map control the player going mutas has over his opponent. Mutas should never fly above the main/natural of the opponent anyway, they prevent ling runbys, snipe overlords, give you vision and if you know your opponents muta position they can assist in sniping the enemy third base. Which now becomes even more attractive, as you can build spores in your main/natural to defend vs base trades in a muta vs muta and just go kill their third if you feel like trading third bases. Besides the massive advantage mutas give in map control/denying the third, even under the assumption that both players can somewhat get their third up - what then? The muta player can simply take his fourth, because buffed spores will not give you any map control. Now that infestors cannot reliably defend your hydras from multiple baneling flanks anymore (and cannot really catch mutas), Muta + baneling still can crush any army in ZvZ with ease. And with additional bases over your opponent (thanks to map control) you can tech switch into whatever you want - ultras, Brood Lords, you name it. So while Blizzard did see that ZvZ is only the same ol' muta vs muta battle with nothing else really viable (besides all-ins and counter-all-ins and the gimmicky super fast double upgrades for lings which get countered by roach baneling allin) they will not improve the matchup by an inch with a spore crawler buff vs bio.
Funny, I just noticed I started with stuff that is frustrating to play against (and toxic to a good playing experience while maybe being balanced) and ended up with what the topic was really about. To add to the stuff that just feels aweful, there would of course be the sentry, the zerg anti-air being stupidly ineffective and costly at the same time, the power of muta switches mid-late game, the warp in of units anywhere on the map, the baneling bust, the widow mine or hellion/hellbat drops, baneling mines, tempests, lack of an invisible attacker for zerg that does not die from its attack and that has an attack that cannot be destroyed before doing any damage, map designs, too many workers needed -> not enough units on map -> on fight to rule them all, units countering units too hard (such as immortals gaining 150% more dmg when against armored - wtf?)... If it was up to me, I would try to change those things to turn them into something more fun to play with/play against, and go from there trying to archieve balance once more. Currently a lot of the game feels like the minigame "I wanna be the boshy" on one of the harder difficulties. While the game might be somewhat balanced and both play- and winnable, it more often is just frustrating to play, and a game should not be that frustrating to play.
I wish Blizzard would hire you. You've basically covered everything I've been wanting to write about but have neither the in game experience or skill to make a good post about. I don't think the game is particularly imbalanced (except for a couple of specific late game scenarios, like the split map ZvP people have brought up), but that's evry different from saying that things shouldn't be changed.
And on the topic of the actual upcoming change, I really wish if they were going to change the spore crawler they did something other than this kinda bland +damage thing. Heck, it's a spore crawler, give it something sporey - maybe the spores prevent regeneration of health for 30 seconds or something. I'm not suggesting that should be the change, but something else would have been better, and I don't think the change they are making will have enough of an imapact in the match up.
|
lol, i think this thread should be closed. OP was just talking about the upcoming patch, right? now it's a qq fest.
|
On May 11 2013 18:06 Chocobo wrote: Yep. Kinda like how mines are cost efficient vs everything zerg has in the first 15-20 minutes of the game.
Erhm, no.
|
On May 11 2013 19:26 Cirqueenflex wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2013 18:41 Chocobo wrote:On May 11 2013 17:32 scypio wrote: It seems that the "free 3 base + 75 drones" build no longer works in HotS. Oh well... suck it up and L2P, just the way the pro zergs did. "Suck it up and L2P" is just as silly and tiresome as the "everything I lose to is imbalanced" whiners. It adds nothing to the conversation, it makes no claim about balance, it adds nothing to the specific situations being discussed. BTW there are a lot of players who are "learning to play" and trying to improve against these strats every day. The issue is that despite our best efforts, it doesn't lead to anything. This isn't "wahh I lost, make it easier for me". It's "I am practicing for hours and hours and still getting destroyed no matter what I try". You could specifically tell me that you're using the same bio+mine build, with the same strategy and same attack timings, for 20 games in a row and I would still lose over 2/3 of the time (assuming I play for a macro game). Like the final months of WoL where protoss would always choose one allin or another in PvZ because there's so little hope if the game goes longer than 10 minutes... that's what ZvT is like now. while the game may not be imbalanced, it still is frustrating to play (and a game should not be frustrating to play but fun instead) technically you can micro against widow mines (until terrans figure out that you can hold and aim them -.-), That is more a theoretical ability than a practical one. Why do you think even pro's rather unburrow than do that? It is a ridiculously micro intensive way to prevent them from firing and only possible really early in the game when for example a ling pokes your wall off. And aiming them is just pretty much impossible when we are talking about more than 2 mines and you don't want ridiculous overkill.
|
What change? I don't see it???
|
On May 11 2013 19:47 sinigang wrote: lol, i think this thread should be closed. OP was just talking about the upcoming patch, right? now it's a qq fest.
those threads always are. When there are real changes, some people will complain about them because "something changes for me, and though I agree that something has to be changed, don't make it so that it actually influences something". And when there are none, people complain about "all the issues" blizzard hasn't dealt with yet.
|
On May 11 2013 19:49 Sissors wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2013 19:26 Cirqueenflex wrote:On May 11 2013 18:41 Chocobo wrote:On May 11 2013 17:32 scypio wrote: It seems that the "free 3 base + 75 drones" build no longer works in HotS. Oh well... suck it up and L2P, just the way the pro zergs did. "Suck it up and L2P" is just as silly and tiresome as the "everything I lose to is imbalanced" whiners. It adds nothing to the conversation, it makes no claim about balance, it adds nothing to the specific situations being discussed. BTW there are a lot of players who are "learning to play" and trying to improve against these strats every day. The issue is that despite our best efforts, it doesn't lead to anything. This isn't "wahh I lost, make it easier for me". It's "I am practicing for hours and hours and still getting destroyed no matter what I try". You could specifically tell me that you're using the same bio+mine build, with the same strategy and same attack timings, for 20 games in a row and I would still lose over 2/3 of the time (assuming I play for a macro game). Like the final months of WoL where protoss would always choose one allin or another in PvZ because there's so little hope if the game goes longer than 10 minutes... that's what ZvT is like now. while the game may not be imbalanced, it still is frustrating to play (and a game should not be frustrating to play but fun instead) technically you can micro against widow mines (until terrans figure out that you can hold and aim them -.-), That is more a theoretical ability than a practical one. Why do you think even pro's rather unburrow than do that? It is a ridiculously micro intensive way to prevent them from firing and only possible really early in the game when for example a ling pokes your wall off. And aiming them is just pretty much impossible when we are talking about more than 2 mines and you don't want ridiculous overkill.
no need for ridiculous overkill. As far as I know they stop shooting and start aiming once you select a new target, even if that target is out of reach. And when you tell them to attack a target that is out of reach they start to attack the closest target, which should be fine in most cases if you held them long enough to ignore the first ling poking in. So yeah, both holding and targetting is tough to control, but doing either one should be enough to get quite the advantage. And I wouldn't mind overkilling a mutalisk if the splash kills the other 10.
|
On May 11 2013 19:54 Cirqueenflex wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2013 19:49 Sissors wrote:On May 11 2013 19:26 Cirqueenflex wrote:On May 11 2013 18:41 Chocobo wrote:On May 11 2013 17:32 scypio wrote: It seems that the "free 3 base + 75 drones" build no longer works in HotS. Oh well... suck it up and L2P, just the way the pro zergs did. "Suck it up and L2P" is just as silly and tiresome as the "everything I lose to is imbalanced" whiners. It adds nothing to the conversation, it makes no claim about balance, it adds nothing to the specific situations being discussed. BTW there are a lot of players who are "learning to play" and trying to improve against these strats every day. The issue is that despite our best efforts, it doesn't lead to anything. This isn't "wahh I lost, make it easier for me". It's "I am practicing for hours and hours and still getting destroyed no matter what I try". You could specifically tell me that you're using the same bio+mine build, with the same strategy and same attack timings, for 20 games in a row and I would still lose over 2/3 of the time (assuming I play for a macro game). Like the final months of WoL where protoss would always choose one allin or another in PvZ because there's so little hope if the game goes longer than 10 minutes... that's what ZvT is like now. while the game may not be imbalanced, it still is frustrating to play (and a game should not be frustrating to play but fun instead) technically you can micro against widow mines (until terrans figure out that you can hold and aim them -.-), That is more a theoretical ability than a practical one. Why do you think even pro's rather unburrow than do that? It is a ridiculously micro intensive way to prevent them from firing and only possible really early in the game when for example a ling pokes your wall off. And aiming them is just pretty much impossible when we are talking about more than 2 mines and you don't want ridiculous overkill. no need for ridiculous overkill. As far as I know they stop shooting and start aiming once you select a new target, even if that target is out of reach. And when you tell them to attack a target that is out of reach they start to attack the closest target, which should be fine in most cases if you held them long enough to ignore the first ling poking in. So yeah, both holding and targetting is tough to control, but doing either one should be enough to get quite the advantage. And I wouldn't mind overkilling a mutalisk if the splash kills the other 10.
And meanwhile, the MM splits/stutters by itself. The problem is not if it's possible, but it is just not worth it for the most part.
|
On May 11 2013 19:57 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2013 19:54 Cirqueenflex wrote:On May 11 2013 19:49 Sissors wrote:On May 11 2013 19:26 Cirqueenflex wrote:On May 11 2013 18:41 Chocobo wrote:On May 11 2013 17:32 scypio wrote: It seems that the "free 3 base + 75 drones" build no longer works in HotS. Oh well... suck it up and L2P, just the way the pro zergs did. "Suck it up and L2P" is just as silly and tiresome as the "everything I lose to is imbalanced" whiners. It adds nothing to the conversation, it makes no claim about balance, it adds nothing to the specific situations being discussed. BTW there are a lot of players who are "learning to play" and trying to improve against these strats every day. The issue is that despite our best efforts, it doesn't lead to anything. This isn't "wahh I lost, make it easier for me". It's "I am practicing for hours and hours and still getting destroyed no matter what I try". You could specifically tell me that you're using the same bio+mine build, with the same strategy and same attack timings, for 20 games in a row and I would still lose over 2/3 of the time (assuming I play for a macro game). Like the final months of WoL where protoss would always choose one allin or another in PvZ because there's so little hope if the game goes longer than 10 minutes... that's what ZvT is like now. while the game may not be imbalanced, it still is frustrating to play (and a game should not be frustrating to play but fun instead) technically you can micro against widow mines (until terrans figure out that you can hold and aim them -.-), That is more a theoretical ability than a practical one. Why do you think even pro's rather unburrow than do that? It is a ridiculously micro intensive way to prevent them from firing and only possible really early in the game when for example a ling pokes your wall off. And aiming them is just pretty much impossible when we are talking about more than 2 mines and you don't want ridiculous overkill. no need for ridiculous overkill. As far as I know they stop shooting and start aiming once you select a new target, even if that target is out of reach. And when you tell them to attack a target that is out of reach they start to attack the closest target, which should be fine in most cases if you held them long enough to ignore the first ling poking in. So yeah, both holding and targetting is tough to control, but doing either one should be enough to get quite the advantage. And I wouldn't mind overkilling a mutalisk if the splash kills the other 10. And meanwhile, the MM splits/stutters by itself. The problem is not if it's possible, but it is just not worth it for the most part.
fair point, but while in many mid game engagements it is more important to save the marines from your own widow mine shots by running away from zerglings, there are also a lot of situations where you are in the comfortable situation to be able to micro your mines (for example against an early game push with 1-2 zerglings running up your ramp trying to trigger your 2 widow mines to allow the 8 banelings to crush you; or when you lose a pack of marines mid game and the zerg army starts running through your widow mine field that is set up to protect you in case your marine push fails). Also I'm really sorry if that was the most important thing for you to take away from my huge wall of text, maybe I failed to make myself clear enough.
|
I still think that hellbats should be changed in a way. Im not quite sure in which but they have to change. We all know that mines are quite strong atm but wouldn't increasing overseer detection range a bit help alot with detecting mines? Right now if you don't watch your army and every part of it the whole time, you have a big change of losing 25 lings in 1 shot. I feel that increasing overseer detection range would help a little bit with this and not really nerfing the mine directly
|
On May 11 2013 18:25 Snowbear wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2013 17:32 scypio wrote:On May 11 2013 13:57 _Search_ wrote:On May 11 2013 04:27 tuho12345 wrote:On May 11 2013 01:03 Greendotz wrote:On May 10 2013 10:04 avilo wrote: For the most part right now they made a good decision to leave everything alone. The game is near perfect balance at the moment.
...
Beyond build order openings, the game is perfectly balanced.
...
That's about it though. GJ on them on seeing how players develop the metagame further. Wow, never thought I'd see the day. I know right? From avilo?? Well all we need now is IdrA to admit it lol Of course he doesn't want anything changed. Terran is ridiculously overpowered right now. So disgusted that they're not fixing TvZ. A bit of history: it took about 8 months for the zergs to fully acknowledge the possibilities that opened for them once the queen+overlord patch kicked in. After these 8 months dominated almost every tournament in the world. Right now we are two months into HotS. The zergs won MLG, they won Dreamhack, they have half of the spots in GSL CodeS ro8. And what do they say? "Terran is overpowered". Are you serious? It takes way more time for the Z's to figure out new strategies and adapt to new micro requirements. It took 8 months for z's in WoL to adapt to a simple change affecting two units. It's dazzling how after just 2 months of HotS and great tournament results we have the "nerf T"! chant all over the place. It seems that the "free 3 base + 75 drones" build no longer works in HotS. Oh well... suck it up and L2P, just the way the pro zergs did. That is exactly the problem right now. Imagine player JhonnyMaster. He was a high master zerg in WOL. He went infestor + ling bling into broodlord infestor corruptor, terrans had a hard time against it. Everyone agreed that in a game between 2 players with the same skill level, the zerg had an advantage. But for JhonnyMaster it was all fine and dandy. Now JhonnyMaster plays HOTS. His race became harder (now he finally has to micro as hard as the terran) and now the 2 players with the same skill level have the same chance to win the game. What does this mean? - JhonnyMaster will lose more against the players he owned before. - JhonnyMaster, who thought wol was all fine and dandy, is confused. - JhonnyMaster blames imbalance. I mean, the terran has a chance now. That is unacceptable. He wants his old 80% winrate in zvt back. I almost never see vipers in TvZ. They don't even try it. No swarmhosts (and when some genius uses them against me, I lose every single time). No constant banelingbombs with the speedlords. No banelingburrows everywhere on the map. No infestors. Zergs also forgot to make spines & spores, like they did in WOL, REMEMBER?
Couldn't have said it better myself. Sums things up quite well.
|
On May 11 2013 19:54 Cirqueenflex wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2013 19:49 Sissors wrote:On May 11 2013 19:26 Cirqueenflex wrote:On May 11 2013 18:41 Chocobo wrote:On May 11 2013 17:32 scypio wrote: It seems that the "free 3 base + 75 drones" build no longer works in HotS. Oh well... suck it up and L2P, just the way the pro zergs did. "Suck it up and L2P" is just as silly and tiresome as the "everything I lose to is imbalanced" whiners. It adds nothing to the conversation, it makes no claim about balance, it adds nothing to the specific situations being discussed. BTW there are a lot of players who are "learning to play" and trying to improve against these strats every day. The issue is that despite our best efforts, it doesn't lead to anything. This isn't "wahh I lost, make it easier for me". It's "I am practicing for hours and hours and still getting destroyed no matter what I try". You could specifically tell me that you're using the same bio+mine build, with the same strategy and same attack timings, for 20 games in a row and I would still lose over 2/3 of the time (assuming I play for a macro game). Like the final months of WoL where protoss would always choose one allin or another in PvZ because there's so little hope if the game goes longer than 10 minutes... that's what ZvT is like now. while the game may not be imbalanced, it still is frustrating to play (and a game should not be frustrating to play but fun instead) technically you can micro against widow mines (until terrans figure out that you can hold and aim them -.-), That is more a theoretical ability than a practical one. Why do you think even pro's rather unburrow than do that? It is a ridiculously micro intensive way to prevent them from firing and only possible really early in the game when for example a ling pokes your wall off. And aiming them is just pretty much impossible when we are talking about more than 2 mines and you don't want ridiculous overkill. no need for ridiculous overkill. As far as I know they stop shooting and start aiming once you select a new target, even if that target is out of reach. And when you tell them to attack a target that is out of reach they start to attack the closest target, which should be fine in most cases if you held them long enough to ignore the first ling poking in. So yeah, both holding and targetting is tough to control, but doing either one should be enough to get quite the advantage. And I wouldn't mind overkilling a mutalisk if the splash kills the other 10. Letting them attack the closest target is not my definition of targeting them though.
So what we have left then is holding them, which is indeed possible, but unburrowing them is simply alot easier and generally way preferable since otherwise your other units die horribly.
And that you want that we also get other stuff from your text wall, I disagree that fungal can't counter banelings anymore. With practise you should still be able to fungal them, but you have to learn how far ahead of them you need to cast it. But in general quite frankly, you use alot of words without actually saying much there, which is why I at least have little to comment on it.
@Rainman, 11 detection range isn't sufficient?
|
On May 11 2013 17:32 scypio wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2013 13:57 _Search_ wrote:On May 11 2013 04:27 tuho12345 wrote:On May 11 2013 01:03 Greendotz wrote:On May 10 2013 10:04 avilo wrote: For the most part right now they made a good decision to leave everything alone. The game is near perfect balance at the moment.
...
Beyond build order openings, the game is perfectly balanced.
...
That's about it though. GJ on them on seeing how players develop the metagame further. Wow, never thought I'd see the day. I know right? From avilo?? Well all we need now is IdrA to admit it lol Of course he doesn't want anything changed. Terran is ridiculously overpowered right now. So disgusted that they're not fixing TvZ. A bit of history: it took about 8 months for the zergs to fully acknowledge the possibilities that opened for them once the queen+overlord patch kicked in. After these 8 months dominated almost every tournament in the world. Right now we are two months into HotS. The zergs won MLG, they won Dreamhack, they have half of the spots in GSL CodeS ro8. And what do they say? "Terran is overpowered". Are you serious? It takes way more time for the Z's to figure out new strategies and adapt to new micro requirements. It took 8 months for z's in WoL to adapt to a simple change affecting two units. It's dazzling how after just 2 months of HotS and great tournament results we have the "nerf T"! chant all over the place. It seems that the "free 3 base + 75 drones" build no longer works in HotS. Oh well... suck it up and L2P, just the way the pro zergs did.
It's funny when people "remember" things, it actually took about a couple of months for ZvT to favor Z.
http://aligulac.com/reports/
|
On May 11 2013 20:06 Cirqueenflex wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2013 19:57 Godwrath wrote:On May 11 2013 19:54 Cirqueenflex wrote:On May 11 2013 19:49 Sissors wrote:On May 11 2013 19:26 Cirqueenflex wrote:On May 11 2013 18:41 Chocobo wrote:On May 11 2013 17:32 scypio wrote: It seems that the "free 3 base + 75 drones" build no longer works in HotS. Oh well... suck it up and L2P, just the way the pro zergs did. "Suck it up and L2P" is just as silly and tiresome as the "everything I lose to is imbalanced" whiners. It adds nothing to the conversation, it makes no claim about balance, it adds nothing to the specific situations being discussed. BTW there are a lot of players who are "learning to play" and trying to improve against these strats every day. The issue is that despite our best efforts, it doesn't lead to anything. This isn't "wahh I lost, make it easier for me". It's "I am practicing for hours and hours and still getting destroyed no matter what I try". You could specifically tell me that you're using the same bio+mine build, with the same strategy and same attack timings, for 20 games in a row and I would still lose over 2/3 of the time (assuming I play for a macro game). Like the final months of WoL where protoss would always choose one allin or another in PvZ because there's so little hope if the game goes longer than 10 minutes... that's what ZvT is like now. while the game may not be imbalanced, it still is frustrating to play (and a game should not be frustrating to play but fun instead) technically you can micro against widow mines (until terrans figure out that you can hold and aim them -.-), That is more a theoretical ability than a practical one. Why do you think even pro's rather unburrow than do that? It is a ridiculously micro intensive way to prevent them from firing and only possible really early in the game when for example a ling pokes your wall off. And aiming them is just pretty much impossible when we are talking about more than 2 mines and you don't want ridiculous overkill. no need for ridiculous overkill. As far as I know they stop shooting and start aiming once you select a new target, even if that target is out of reach. And when you tell them to attack a target that is out of reach they start to attack the closest target, which should be fine in most cases if you held them long enough to ignore the first ling poking in. So yeah, both holding and targetting is tough to control, but doing either one should be enough to get quite the advantage. And I wouldn't mind overkilling a mutalisk if the splash kills the other 10. And meanwhile, the MM splits/stutters by itself. The problem is not if it's possible, but it is just not worth it for the most part. fair point, but while in many mid game engagements it is more important to save the marines from your own widow mine shots by running away from zerglings, there are also a lot of situations where you are in the comfortable situation to be able to micro your mines (for example against an early game push with 1-2 zerglings running up your ramp trying to trigger your 2 widow mines to allow the 8 banelings to crush you; or when you lose a pack of marines mid game and the zerg army starts running through your widow mine field that is set up to protect you in case your marine push fails). Also I'm really sorry if that was the most important thing for you to take away from my huge wall of text, maybe I failed to make myself clear enough.
I didn't say it's not worth it all the time, but it is highly situational as you clearly see, when engagement occurs, you will want to be microin'g your bio because there are banelings, ultras and/or infestors. It's as simple as that, there are only a few things one can do at the same time. Chocobo for example is speaking about how hard is to deal with new players with mines. That's true for oracles, banelings, hellbat drops, etc... units which require reactive or preemptive micro from your opponent you will find them to be "OP" if we try to compare it to how they work on the progamer scene. And that's a bad way to look at it because it's like trying to balance two different games.
People "trying" to get better playing builds of the progamers must accept they will lose to silly stuff. It's how it is until you get better and better. If you want to win, abuse the units that expose the most your opponent's skill level weakness. In lower lower league, that's just macro
On May 11 2013 22:10 sibs wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2013 17:32 scypio wrote:On May 11 2013 13:57 _Search_ wrote:On May 11 2013 04:27 tuho12345 wrote:On May 11 2013 01:03 Greendotz wrote:On May 10 2013 10:04 avilo wrote: For the most part right now they made a good decision to leave everything alone. The game is near perfect balance at the moment.
...
Beyond build order openings, the game is perfectly balanced.
...
That's about it though. GJ on them on seeing how players develop the metagame further. Wow, never thought I'd see the day. I know right? From avilo?? Well all we need now is IdrA to admit it lol Of course he doesn't want anything changed. Terran is ridiculously overpowered right now. So disgusted that they're not fixing TvZ. A bit of history: it took about 8 months for the zergs to fully acknowledge the possibilities that opened for them once the queen+overlord patch kicked in. After these 8 months dominated almost every tournament in the world. Right now we are two months into HotS. The zergs won MLG, they won Dreamhack, they have half of the spots in GSL CodeS ro8. And what do they say? "Terran is overpowered". Are you serious? It takes way more time for the Z's to figure out new strategies and adapt to new micro requirements. It took 8 months for z's in WoL to adapt to a simple change affecting two units. It's dazzling how after just 2 months of HotS and great tournament results we have the "nerf T"! chant all over the place. It seems that the "free 3 base + 75 drones" build no longer works in HotS. Oh well... suck it up and L2P, just the way the pro zergs did. It's funny when people "remember" things, it actually took about a couple of months for ZvT to favor Z. http://aligulac.com/reports/
You should look at your own link. Not only it appears as favored the whole time from may on, but there is only one point where it's at a 48.9%, and that was the month of taeja and his crazy TvZ winrate.
|
On May 11 2013 20:20 Rainmansc wrote: I still think that hellbats should be changed in a way. Im not quite sure in which but they have to change. We all know that mines are quite strong atm but wouldn't increasing overseer detection range a bit help alot with detecting mines? Right now if you don't watch your army and every part of it the whole time, you have a big change of losing 25 lings in 1 shot. I feel that increasing overseer detection range would help a little bit with this and not really nerfing the mine directly
Well, you know, same as with Terran who can for one second leave view form his army and lost it due to zerg surrond. Blizz did a good job with mines, it forces opponents to actually micro their armies.
|
Seriously whats the purpose of this thread, unless a top 5 grandmaster posts i seen no posts of any kind in it that are worth reading, its all just QQ about a change that may or may not happen.
|
On May 11 2013 22:14 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2013 20:06 Cirqueenflex wrote:On May 11 2013 19:57 Godwrath wrote:On May 11 2013 19:54 Cirqueenflex wrote:On May 11 2013 19:49 Sissors wrote:On May 11 2013 19:26 Cirqueenflex wrote:On May 11 2013 18:41 Chocobo wrote:On May 11 2013 17:32 scypio wrote: It seems that the "free 3 base + 75 drones" build no longer works in HotS. Oh well... suck it up and L2P, just the way the pro zergs did. "Suck it up and L2P" is just as silly and tiresome as the "everything I lose to is imbalanced" whiners. It adds nothing to the conversation, it makes no claim about balance, it adds nothing to the specific situations being discussed. BTW there are a lot of players who are "learning to play" and trying to improve against these strats every day. The issue is that despite our best efforts, it doesn't lead to anything. This isn't "wahh I lost, make it easier for me". It's "I am practicing for hours and hours and still getting destroyed no matter what I try". You could specifically tell me that you're using the same bio+mine build, with the same strategy and same attack timings, for 20 games in a row and I would still lose over 2/3 of the time (assuming I play for a macro game). Like the final months of WoL where protoss would always choose one allin or another in PvZ because there's so little hope if the game goes longer than 10 minutes... that's what ZvT is like now. while the game may not be imbalanced, it still is frustrating to play (and a game should not be frustrating to play but fun instead) technically you can micro against widow mines (until terrans figure out that you can hold and aim them -.-), That is more a theoretical ability than a practical one. Why do you think even pro's rather unburrow than do that? It is a ridiculously micro intensive way to prevent them from firing and only possible really early in the game when for example a ling pokes your wall off. And aiming them is just pretty much impossible when we are talking about more than 2 mines and you don't want ridiculous overkill. no need for ridiculous overkill. As far as I know they stop shooting and start aiming once you select a new target, even if that target is out of reach. And when you tell them to attack a target that is out of reach they start to attack the closest target, which should be fine in most cases if you held them long enough to ignore the first ling poking in. So yeah, both holding and targetting is tough to control, but doing either one should be enough to get quite the advantage. And I wouldn't mind overkilling a mutalisk if the splash kills the other 10. And meanwhile, the MM splits/stutters by itself. The problem is not if it's possible, but it is just not worth it for the most part. fair point, but while in many mid game engagements it is more important to save the marines from your own widow mine shots by running away from zerglings, there are also a lot of situations where you are in the comfortable situation to be able to micro your mines (for example against an early game push with 1-2 zerglings running up your ramp trying to trigger your 2 widow mines to allow the 8 banelings to crush you; or when you lose a pack of marines mid game and the zerg army starts running through your widow mine field that is set up to protect you in case your marine push fails). Also I'm really sorry if that was the most important thing for you to take away from my huge wall of text, maybe I failed to make myself clear enough. I didn't say it's not worth it all the time, but it is highly situational as you clearly see, when engagement occurs, you will want to be microin'g your bio because there are banelings, ultras and/or infestors. It's as simple as that, there are only a few things one can do at the same time. Chocobo for example is speaking about how hard is to deal with new players with mines. That's true for oracles, banelings, hellbat drops, etc... units which require reactive or preemptive micro from your opponent you will find them to be "OP" if we try to compare it to how they work on the progamer scene. And that's a bad way to look at it because it's like trying to balance two different games. People "trying" to get better playing builds of the progamers must accept they will lose to silly stuff. It's how it is until you get better and better. If you want to win, abuse the units that expose the most your opponent's skill level weakness. In lower lower league, that's just macro Show nested quote +On May 11 2013 22:10 sibs wrote:On May 11 2013 17:32 scypio wrote:On May 11 2013 13:57 _Search_ wrote:On May 11 2013 04:27 tuho12345 wrote:On May 11 2013 01:03 Greendotz wrote:On May 10 2013 10:04 avilo wrote: For the most part right now they made a good decision to leave everything alone. The game is near perfect balance at the moment.
...
Beyond build order openings, the game is perfectly balanced.
...
That's about it though. GJ on them on seeing how players develop the metagame further. Wow, never thought I'd see the day. I know right? From avilo?? Well all we need now is IdrA to admit it lol Of course he doesn't want anything changed. Terran is ridiculously overpowered right now. So disgusted that they're not fixing TvZ. A bit of history: it took about 8 months for the zergs to fully acknowledge the possibilities that opened for them once the queen+overlord patch kicked in. After these 8 months dominated almost every tournament in the world. Right now we are two months into HotS. The zergs won MLG, they won Dreamhack, they have half of the spots in GSL CodeS ro8. And what do they say? "Terran is overpowered". Are you serious? It takes way more time for the Z's to figure out new strategies and adapt to new micro requirements. It took 8 months for z's in WoL to adapt to a simple change affecting two units. It's dazzling how after just 2 months of HotS and great tournament results we have the "nerf T"! chant all over the place. It seems that the "free 3 base + 75 drones" build no longer works in HotS. Oh well... suck it up and L2P, just the way the pro zergs did. It's funny when people "remember" things, it actually took about a couple of months for ZvT to favor Z. http://aligulac.com/reports/ You should look at your own link. Not only it appears as favored the whole time from may on, but there is only one point where it's at a 48.9%, and that was the month of taeja and his crazy TvZ winrate.
Yea? So you're agreeing with me and telling me to look at my own link again? I don't understand.
|
On May 11 2013 22:46 sibs wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2013 22:14 Godwrath wrote:On May 11 2013 20:06 Cirqueenflex wrote:On May 11 2013 19:57 Godwrath wrote:On May 11 2013 19:54 Cirqueenflex wrote:On May 11 2013 19:49 Sissors wrote:On May 11 2013 19:26 Cirqueenflex wrote:On May 11 2013 18:41 Chocobo wrote:On May 11 2013 17:32 scypio wrote: It seems that the "free 3 base + 75 drones" build no longer works in HotS. Oh well... suck it up and L2P, just the way the pro zergs did. "Suck it up and L2P" is just as silly and tiresome as the "everything I lose to is imbalanced" whiners. It adds nothing to the conversation, it makes no claim about balance, it adds nothing to the specific situations being discussed. BTW there are a lot of players who are "learning to play" and trying to improve against these strats every day. The issue is that despite our best efforts, it doesn't lead to anything. This isn't "wahh I lost, make it easier for me". It's "I am practicing for hours and hours and still getting destroyed no matter what I try". You could specifically tell me that you're using the same bio+mine build, with the same strategy and same attack timings, for 20 games in a row and I would still lose over 2/3 of the time (assuming I play for a macro game). Like the final months of WoL where protoss would always choose one allin or another in PvZ because there's so little hope if the game goes longer than 10 minutes... that's what ZvT is like now. while the game may not be imbalanced, it still is frustrating to play (and a game should not be frustrating to play but fun instead) technically you can micro against widow mines (until terrans figure out that you can hold and aim them -.-), That is more a theoretical ability than a practical one. Why do you think even pro's rather unburrow than do that? It is a ridiculously micro intensive way to prevent them from firing and only possible really early in the game when for example a ling pokes your wall off. And aiming them is just pretty much impossible when we are talking about more than 2 mines and you don't want ridiculous overkill. no need for ridiculous overkill. As far as I know they stop shooting and start aiming once you select a new target, even if that target is out of reach. And when you tell them to attack a target that is out of reach they start to attack the closest target, which should be fine in most cases if you held them long enough to ignore the first ling poking in. So yeah, both holding and targetting is tough to control, but doing either one should be enough to get quite the advantage. And I wouldn't mind overkilling a mutalisk if the splash kills the other 10. And meanwhile, the MM splits/stutters by itself. The problem is not if it's possible, but it is just not worth it for the most part. fair point, but while in many mid game engagements it is more important to save the marines from your own widow mine shots by running away from zerglings, there are also a lot of situations where you are in the comfortable situation to be able to micro your mines (for example against an early game push with 1-2 zerglings running up your ramp trying to trigger your 2 widow mines to allow the 8 banelings to crush you; or when you lose a pack of marines mid game and the zerg army starts running through your widow mine field that is set up to protect you in case your marine push fails). Also I'm really sorry if that was the most important thing for you to take away from my huge wall of text, maybe I failed to make myself clear enough. I didn't say it's not worth it all the time, but it is highly situational as you clearly see, when engagement occurs, you will want to be microin'g your bio because there are banelings, ultras and/or infestors. It's as simple as that, there are only a few things one can do at the same time. Chocobo for example is speaking about how hard is to deal with new players with mines. That's true for oracles, banelings, hellbat drops, etc... units which require reactive or preemptive micro from your opponent you will find them to be "OP" if we try to compare it to how they work on the progamer scene. And that's a bad way to look at it because it's like trying to balance two different games. People "trying" to get better playing builds of the progamers must accept they will lose to silly stuff. It's how it is until you get better and better. If you want to win, abuse the units that expose the most your opponent's skill level weakness. In lower lower league, that's just macro On May 11 2013 22:10 sibs wrote:On May 11 2013 17:32 scypio wrote:On May 11 2013 13:57 _Search_ wrote:On May 11 2013 04:27 tuho12345 wrote:On May 11 2013 01:03 Greendotz wrote:On May 10 2013 10:04 avilo wrote: For the most part right now they made a good decision to leave everything alone. The game is near perfect balance at the moment.
...
Beyond build order openings, the game is perfectly balanced.
...
That's about it though. GJ on them on seeing how players develop the metagame further. Wow, never thought I'd see the day. I know right? From avilo?? Well all we need now is IdrA to admit it lol Of course he doesn't want anything changed. Terran is ridiculously overpowered right now. So disgusted that they're not fixing TvZ. A bit of history: it took about 8 months for the zergs to fully acknowledge the possibilities that opened for them once the queen+overlord patch kicked in. After these 8 months dominated almost every tournament in the world. Right now we are two months into HotS. The zergs won MLG, they won Dreamhack, they have half of the spots in GSL CodeS ro8. And what do they say? "Terran is overpowered". Are you serious? It takes way more time for the Z's to figure out new strategies and adapt to new micro requirements. It took 8 months for z's in WoL to adapt to a simple change affecting two units. It's dazzling how after just 2 months of HotS and great tournament results we have the "nerf T"! chant all over the place. It seems that the "free 3 base + 75 drones" build no longer works in HotS. Oh well... suck it up and L2P, just the way the pro zergs did. It's funny when people "remember" things, it actually took about a couple of months for ZvT to favor Z. http://aligulac.com/reports/ You should look at your own link. Not only it appears as favored the whole time from may on, but there is only one point where it's at a 48.9%, and that was the month of taeja and his crazy TvZ winrate. Yea? So you're agreeing with me and telling me to look at my own link again? I don't understand.
TvZ became zerg-favored the moment the patch hit. It took 8 more months for the zergs to utterly dominate the whole SC2 tournament scene worldwide. So I'd say that it took 8 months to fully exploit the power of the patch - although some of its effects were immediate.
We are in a similar place right now - the game is balanced at the top, zergs are performing really well and improving.
Meanwhile the players are whining about how unwinnable the matchup is, how difficult it is to micro vs widow mines and that it is so unfair. The dreaded hellion contain of early 2012 was just as unfair, it forced zergs to make units and it was killed with a patch. We moved on to those awful NR15 games, total zerg domination, the community ditching WoL the moment HotS came out and never looking back.
Yes, it would be good to make the game somewhat less frustrating at lower levels etc. But I am not willing to sacrifice top-level balance in favor of my own ladder experience. And it seems that Blizzard thinks alike.
|
On May 11 2013 22:59 scypio wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2013 22:46 sibs wrote:On May 11 2013 22:14 Godwrath wrote:On May 11 2013 20:06 Cirqueenflex wrote:On May 11 2013 19:57 Godwrath wrote:On May 11 2013 19:54 Cirqueenflex wrote:On May 11 2013 19:49 Sissors wrote:On May 11 2013 19:26 Cirqueenflex wrote:On May 11 2013 18:41 Chocobo wrote:On May 11 2013 17:32 scypio wrote: It seems that the "free 3 base + 75 drones" build no longer works in HotS. Oh well... suck it up and L2P, just the way the pro zergs did. "Suck it up and L2P" is just as silly and tiresome as the "everything I lose to is imbalanced" whiners. It adds nothing to the conversation, it makes no claim about balance, it adds nothing to the specific situations being discussed. BTW there are a lot of players who are "learning to play" and trying to improve against these strats every day. The issue is that despite our best efforts, it doesn't lead to anything. This isn't "wahh I lost, make it easier for me". It's "I am practicing for hours and hours and still getting destroyed no matter what I try". You could specifically tell me that you're using the same bio+mine build, with the same strategy and same attack timings, for 20 games in a row and I would still lose over 2/3 of the time (assuming I play for a macro game). Like the final months of WoL where protoss would always choose one allin or another in PvZ because there's so little hope if the game goes longer than 10 minutes... that's what ZvT is like now. while the game may not be imbalanced, it still is frustrating to play (and a game should not be frustrating to play but fun instead) technically you can micro against widow mines (until terrans figure out that you can hold and aim them -.-), That is more a theoretical ability than a practical one. Why do you think even pro's rather unburrow than do that? It is a ridiculously micro intensive way to prevent them from firing and only possible really early in the game when for example a ling pokes your wall off. And aiming them is just pretty much impossible when we are talking about more than 2 mines and you don't want ridiculous overkill. no need for ridiculous overkill. As far as I know they stop shooting and start aiming once you select a new target, even if that target is out of reach. And when you tell them to attack a target that is out of reach they start to attack the closest target, which should be fine in most cases if you held them long enough to ignore the first ling poking in. So yeah, both holding and targetting is tough to control, but doing either one should be enough to get quite the advantage. And I wouldn't mind overkilling a mutalisk if the splash kills the other 10. And meanwhile, the MM splits/stutters by itself. The problem is not if it's possible, but it is just not worth it for the most part. fair point, but while in many mid game engagements it is more important to save the marines from your own widow mine shots by running away from zerglings, there are also a lot of situations where you are in the comfortable situation to be able to micro your mines (for example against an early game push with 1-2 zerglings running up your ramp trying to trigger your 2 widow mines to allow the 8 banelings to crush you; or when you lose a pack of marines mid game and the zerg army starts running through your widow mine field that is set up to protect you in case your marine push fails). Also I'm really sorry if that was the most important thing for you to take away from my huge wall of text, maybe I failed to make myself clear enough. I didn't say it's not worth it all the time, but it is highly situational as you clearly see, when engagement occurs, you will want to be microin'g your bio because there are banelings, ultras and/or infestors. It's as simple as that, there are only a few things one can do at the same time. Chocobo for example is speaking about how hard is to deal with new players with mines. That's true for oracles, banelings, hellbat drops, etc... units which require reactive or preemptive micro from your opponent you will find them to be "OP" if we try to compare it to how they work on the progamer scene. And that's a bad way to look at it because it's like trying to balance two different games. People "trying" to get better playing builds of the progamers must accept they will lose to silly stuff. It's how it is until you get better and better. If you want to win, abuse the units that expose the most your opponent's skill level weakness. In lower lower league, that's just macro On May 11 2013 22:10 sibs wrote:On May 11 2013 17:32 scypio wrote:On May 11 2013 13:57 _Search_ wrote:On May 11 2013 04:27 tuho12345 wrote:On May 11 2013 01:03 Greendotz wrote:On May 10 2013 10:04 avilo wrote: For the most part right now they made a good decision to leave everything alone. The game is near perfect balance at the moment.
...
Beyond build order openings, the game is perfectly balanced.
...
That's about it though. GJ on them on seeing how players develop the metagame further. Wow, never thought I'd see the day. I know right? From avilo?? Well all we need now is IdrA to admit it lol Of course he doesn't want anything changed. Terran is ridiculously overpowered right now. So disgusted that they're not fixing TvZ. A bit of history: it took about 8 months for the zergs to fully acknowledge the possibilities that opened for them once the queen+overlord patch kicked in. After these 8 months dominated almost every tournament in the world. Right now we are two months into HotS. The zergs won MLG, they won Dreamhack, they have half of the spots in GSL CodeS ro8. And what do they say? "Terran is overpowered". Are you serious? It takes way more time for the Z's to figure out new strategies and adapt to new micro requirements. It took 8 months for z's in WoL to adapt to a simple change affecting two units. It's dazzling how after just 2 months of HotS and great tournament results we have the "nerf T"! chant all over the place. It seems that the "free 3 base + 75 drones" build no longer works in HotS. Oh well... suck it up and L2P, just the way the pro zergs did. It's funny when people "remember" things, it actually took about a couple of months for ZvT to favor Z. http://aligulac.com/reports/ You should look at your own link. Not only it appears as favored the whole time from may on, but there is only one point where it's at a 48.9%, and that was the month of taeja and his crazy TvZ winrate. Yea? So you're agreeing with me and telling me to look at my own link again? I don't understand. TvZ became zerg-favored the moment the patch hit. It took 8 more months for the zergs to utterly dominate the whole SC2 tournament scene worldwide. So I'd say that it took 8 months to fully exploit the power of the patch - although some of its effects were immediate. We are in a similar place right now - the game is balanced at the top, zergs are performing really well and improving. Meanwhile the players are whining about how unwinnable the matchup is, how difficult it is to micro vs widow mines and that it is so unfair. The dreaded hellion contain of early 2012 was just as unfair, it forced zergs to make units and it was killed with a patch. We moved on to those awful NR15 games, total zerg domination, the community ditching WoL the moment HotS came out and never looking back. Yes, it would be good to make the game somewhat less frustrating at lower levels etc. But I am not willing to sacrifice top-level balance in favor of my own ladder experience. And it seems that Blizzard thinks alike.
OR, the queen patch wasn't a big deal in the longrun once zergs got really good with infestor play and the game stabilized at a level where you simply knew all the possible timings. I know you guys love to rant over "the queen patch", but reactored hellion expand would not have been the best opening no matter what in 2013 WoL metagame & maps against people like RoRo/Life/Symbol/Leenock/Soulkey who did not even play those queen builds (hell, Life played macro games based upon 10pool contains) and had not solved 9range Fungal, 3/3 IT problems that Terrans were facing. Watch Gumiho in Ro16 this season. He was doing reactored hellion expands and going into such oldschool 2011 builds. He got destroyed by Zergs that I actually believe are under his skilllevel. It's simply stupid to assume the game would have looked completly different without that patch. The matter of the fact is, that there were a ton of coinflippy openings with hellion contains in TvZ at that time and blizzard improved the game by removing those coinflips. The matter of the fact also was, that lategame TvZ was simply Zergfavored queen patch or not, with Infestor/Broodlord countering everything unless the map was extremly antibroodlord (whirlwind, and that map was quite good for a lot of other zerg builds in the midgame) or extremly proterran (metropolis). If you preferred late 2011/early 2012 metagame I'd like you to think about it how the game looked like if it wasn't Jjakji vs Leenock and DRG vs MMA. It was some 2base Terran allin (on the ladder it was mostly marauder/hellion or marine/tank), some two base zerg allin (mostly roach/baneling) or we got just the same as after the patch, just with a later Zerg third and very unpolished 3CC builds that transitioned into some prebroodlord timing.
|
On May 11 2013 22:59 scypio wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2013 22:46 sibs wrote:On May 11 2013 22:14 Godwrath wrote:On May 11 2013 20:06 Cirqueenflex wrote:On May 11 2013 19:57 Godwrath wrote:On May 11 2013 19:54 Cirqueenflex wrote:On May 11 2013 19:49 Sissors wrote:On May 11 2013 19:26 Cirqueenflex wrote:On May 11 2013 18:41 Chocobo wrote:On May 11 2013 17:32 scypio wrote: It seems that the "free 3 base + 75 drones" build no longer works in HotS. Oh well... suck it up and L2P, just the way the pro zergs did. "Suck it up and L2P" is just as silly and tiresome as the "everything I lose to is imbalanced" whiners. It adds nothing to the conversation, it makes no claim about balance, it adds nothing to the specific situations being discussed. BTW there are a lot of players who are "learning to play" and trying to improve against these strats every day. The issue is that despite our best efforts, it doesn't lead to anything. This isn't "wahh I lost, make it easier for me". It's "I am practicing for hours and hours and still getting destroyed no matter what I try". You could specifically tell me that you're using the same bio+mine build, with the same strategy and same attack timings, for 20 games in a row and I would still lose over 2/3 of the time (assuming I play for a macro game). Like the final months of WoL where protoss would always choose one allin or another in PvZ because there's so little hope if the game goes longer than 10 minutes... that's what ZvT is like now. while the game may not be imbalanced, it still is frustrating to play (and a game should not be frustrating to play but fun instead) technically you can micro against widow mines (until terrans figure out that you can hold and aim them -.-), That is more a theoretical ability than a practical one. Why do you think even pro's rather unburrow than do that? It is a ridiculously micro intensive way to prevent them from firing and only possible really early in the game when for example a ling pokes your wall off. And aiming them is just pretty much impossible when we are talking about more than 2 mines and you don't want ridiculous overkill. no need for ridiculous overkill. As far as I know they stop shooting and start aiming once you select a new target, even if that target is out of reach. And when you tell them to attack a target that is out of reach they start to attack the closest target, which should be fine in most cases if you held them long enough to ignore the first ling poking in. So yeah, both holding and targetting is tough to control, but doing either one should be enough to get quite the advantage. And I wouldn't mind overkilling a mutalisk if the splash kills the other 10. And meanwhile, the MM splits/stutters by itself. The problem is not if it's possible, but it is just not worth it for the most part. fair point, but while in many mid game engagements it is more important to save the marines from your own widow mine shots by running away from zerglings, there are also a lot of situations where you are in the comfortable situation to be able to micro your mines (for example against an early game push with 1-2 zerglings running up your ramp trying to trigger your 2 widow mines to allow the 8 banelings to crush you; or when you lose a pack of marines mid game and the zerg army starts running through your widow mine field that is set up to protect you in case your marine push fails). Also I'm really sorry if that was the most important thing for you to take away from my huge wall of text, maybe I failed to make myself clear enough. I didn't say it's not worth it all the time, but it is highly situational as you clearly see, when engagement occurs, you will want to be microin'g your bio because there are banelings, ultras and/or infestors. It's as simple as that, there are only a few things one can do at the same time. Chocobo for example is speaking about how hard is to deal with new players with mines. That's true for oracles, banelings, hellbat drops, etc... units which require reactive or preemptive micro from your opponent you will find them to be "OP" if we try to compare it to how they work on the progamer scene. And that's a bad way to look at it because it's like trying to balance two different games. People "trying" to get better playing builds of the progamers must accept they will lose to silly stuff. It's how it is until you get better and better. If you want to win, abuse the units that expose the most your opponent's skill level weakness. In lower lower league, that's just macro On May 11 2013 22:10 sibs wrote:On May 11 2013 17:32 scypio wrote:On May 11 2013 13:57 _Search_ wrote:On May 11 2013 04:27 tuho12345 wrote:On May 11 2013 01:03 Greendotz wrote:On May 10 2013 10:04 avilo wrote: For the most part right now they made a good decision to leave everything alone. The game is near perfect balance at the moment.
...
Beyond build order openings, the game is perfectly balanced.
...
That's about it though. GJ on them on seeing how players develop the metagame further. Wow, never thought I'd see the day. I know right? From avilo?? Well all we need now is IdrA to admit it lol Of course he doesn't want anything changed. Terran is ridiculously overpowered right now. So disgusted that they're not fixing TvZ. A bit of history: it took about 8 months for the zergs to fully acknowledge the possibilities that opened for them once the queen+overlord patch kicked in. After these 8 months dominated almost every tournament in the world. Right now we are two months into HotS. The zergs won MLG, they won Dreamhack, they have half of the spots in GSL CodeS ro8. And what do they say? "Terran is overpowered". Are you serious? It takes way more time for the Z's to figure out new strategies and adapt to new micro requirements. It took 8 months for z's in WoL to adapt to a simple change affecting two units. It's dazzling how after just 2 months of HotS and great tournament results we have the "nerf T"! chant all over the place. It seems that the "free 3 base + 75 drones" build no longer works in HotS. Oh well... suck it up and L2P, just the way the pro zergs did. It's funny when people "remember" things, it actually took about a couple of months for ZvT to favor Z. http://aligulac.com/reports/ You should look at your own link. Not only it appears as favored the whole time from may on, but there is only one point where it's at a 48.9%, and that was the month of taeja and his crazy TvZ winrate. Yea? So you're agreeing with me and telling me to look at my own link again? I don't understand. TvZ became zerg-favored the moment the patch hit. It took 8 more months for the zergs to utterly dominate the whole SC2 tournament scene worldwide. So I'd say that it took 8 months to fully exploit the power of the patch - although some of its effects were immediate. We are in a similar place right now - the game is balanced at the top, zergs are performing really well and improving. Meanwhile the players are whining about how unwinnable the matchup is, how difficult it is to micro vs widow mines and that it is so unfair. The dreaded hellion contain of early 2012 was just as unfair, it forced zergs to make units and it was killed with a patch. We moved on to those awful NR15 games, total zerg domination, the community ditching WoL the moment HotS came out and never looking back. Yes, it would be good to make the game somewhat less frustrating at lower levels etc. But I am not willing to sacrifice top-level balance in favor of my own ladder experience. And it seems that Blizzard thinks alike.
Using individual perfomances and who "wins" a tournament is a really bad way to see if a race is OP or not, fruitdealer and nestea won the first 2 GSL's facing a multitude of "bad" terran player's , yes Z was OP vs T after patch 1.4.3 , that bears no meaning now though, the fact is that Zerg as a race is not performing well, and things are not looking better for Zerg in the future, things are looking a lot better for Protoss if anything.
|
On May 11 2013 23:29 sibs wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2013 22:59 scypio wrote:On May 11 2013 22:46 sibs wrote:On May 11 2013 22:14 Godwrath wrote:On May 11 2013 20:06 Cirqueenflex wrote:On May 11 2013 19:57 Godwrath wrote:On May 11 2013 19:54 Cirqueenflex wrote:On May 11 2013 19:49 Sissors wrote:On May 11 2013 19:26 Cirqueenflex wrote:On May 11 2013 18:41 Chocobo wrote: [quote]
"Suck it up and L2P" is just as silly and tiresome as the "everything I lose to is imbalanced" whiners. It adds nothing to the conversation, it makes no claim about balance, it adds nothing to the specific situations being discussed.
BTW there are a lot of players who are "learning to play" and trying to improve against these strats every day. The issue is that despite our best efforts, it doesn't lead to anything. This isn't "wahh I lost, make it easier for me". It's "I am practicing for hours and hours and still getting destroyed no matter what I try".
You could specifically tell me that you're using the same bio+mine build, with the same strategy and same attack timings, for 20 games in a row and I would still lose over 2/3 of the time (assuming I play for a macro game). Like the final months of WoL where protoss would always choose one allin or another in PvZ because there's so little hope if the game goes longer than 10 minutes... that's what ZvT is like now. while the game may not be imbalanced, it still is frustrating to play (and a game should not be frustrating to play but fun instead) technically you can micro against widow mines (until terrans figure out that you can hold and aim them -.-), That is more a theoretical ability than a practical one. Why do you think even pro's rather unburrow than do that? It is a ridiculously micro intensive way to prevent them from firing and only possible really early in the game when for example a ling pokes your wall off. And aiming them is just pretty much impossible when we are talking about more than 2 mines and you don't want ridiculous overkill. no need for ridiculous overkill. As far as I know they stop shooting and start aiming once you select a new target, even if that target is out of reach. And when you tell them to attack a target that is out of reach they start to attack the closest target, which should be fine in most cases if you held them long enough to ignore the first ling poking in. So yeah, both holding and targetting is tough to control, but doing either one should be enough to get quite the advantage. And I wouldn't mind overkilling a mutalisk if the splash kills the other 10. And meanwhile, the MM splits/stutters by itself. The problem is not if it's possible, but it is just not worth it for the most part. fair point, but while in many mid game engagements it is more important to save the marines from your own widow mine shots by running away from zerglings, there are also a lot of situations where you are in the comfortable situation to be able to micro your mines (for example against an early game push with 1-2 zerglings running up your ramp trying to trigger your 2 widow mines to allow the 8 banelings to crush you; or when you lose a pack of marines mid game and the zerg army starts running through your widow mine field that is set up to protect you in case your marine push fails). Also I'm really sorry if that was the most important thing for you to take away from my huge wall of text, maybe I failed to make myself clear enough. I didn't say it's not worth it all the time, but it is highly situational as you clearly see, when engagement occurs, you will want to be microin'g your bio because there are banelings, ultras and/or infestors. It's as simple as that, there are only a few things one can do at the same time. Chocobo for example is speaking about how hard is to deal with new players with mines. That's true for oracles, banelings, hellbat drops, etc... units which require reactive or preemptive micro from your opponent you will find them to be "OP" if we try to compare it to how they work on the progamer scene. And that's a bad way to look at it because it's like trying to balance two different games. People "trying" to get better playing builds of the progamers must accept they will lose to silly stuff. It's how it is until you get better and better. If you want to win, abuse the units that expose the most your opponent's skill level weakness. In lower lower league, that's just macro On May 11 2013 22:10 sibs wrote:On May 11 2013 17:32 scypio wrote:On May 11 2013 13:57 _Search_ wrote:On May 11 2013 04:27 tuho12345 wrote:On May 11 2013 01:03 Greendotz wrote:On May 10 2013 10:04 avilo wrote: For the most part right now they made a good decision to leave everything alone. The game is near perfect balance at the moment.
...
Beyond build order openings, the game is perfectly balanced.
...
That's about it though. GJ on them on seeing how players develop the metagame further. Wow, never thought I'd see the day. I know right? From avilo?? Well all we need now is IdrA to admit it lol Of course he doesn't want anything changed. Terran is ridiculously overpowered right now. So disgusted that they're not fixing TvZ. A bit of history: it took about 8 months for the zergs to fully acknowledge the possibilities that opened for them once the queen+overlord patch kicked in. After these 8 months dominated almost every tournament in the world. Right now we are two months into HotS. The zergs won MLG, they won Dreamhack, they have half of the spots in GSL CodeS ro8. And what do they say? "Terran is overpowered". Are you serious? It takes way more time for the Z's to figure out new strategies and adapt to new micro requirements. It took 8 months for z's in WoL to adapt to a simple change affecting two units. It's dazzling how after just 2 months of HotS and great tournament results we have the "nerf T"! chant all over the place. It seems that the "free 3 base + 75 drones" build no longer works in HotS. Oh well... suck it up and L2P, just the way the pro zergs did. It's funny when people "remember" things, it actually took about a couple of months for ZvT to favor Z. http://aligulac.com/reports/ You should look at your own link. Not only it appears as favored the whole time from may on, but there is only one point where it's at a 48.9%, and that was the month of taeja and his crazy TvZ winrate. Yea? So you're agreeing with me and telling me to look at my own link again? I don't understand. TvZ became zerg-favored the moment the patch hit. It took 8 more months for the zergs to utterly dominate the whole SC2 tournament scene worldwide. So I'd say that it took 8 months to fully exploit the power of the patch - although some of its effects were immediate. We are in a similar place right now - the game is balanced at the top, zergs are performing really well and improving. Meanwhile the players are whining about how unwinnable the matchup is, how difficult it is to micro vs widow mines and that it is so unfair. The dreaded hellion contain of early 2012 was just as unfair, it forced zergs to make units and it was killed with a patch. We moved on to those awful NR15 games, total zerg domination, the community ditching WoL the moment HotS came out and never looking back. Yes, it would be good to make the game somewhat less frustrating at lower levels etc. But I am not willing to sacrifice top-level balance in favor of my own ladder experience. And it seems that Blizzard thinks alike. Using individual perfomances and who "wins" a tournament is a really bad way to see if a race is OP or not, fruitdealer and nestea won the first 2 GSL's facing a multitude of "bad" terran player's , yes Z was OP vs T after patch 1.4.3 , that bears no meaning now though, the fact is that Zerg as a race is not performing well, and things are not looking better for Zerg in the future, things are looking a lot better for Protoss if anything.
Zergs are not performing badly. And you can hardly say it's "individual performances", when there are many good zergs around - which there are. TvZ is in an OK shape right now balancewise and the metagame could still change radically in the next month or two. We are far off from having stable gameplans at this point in time (and it shows from the huge amount of allins and damageoriented openings both sides perform, as well as how stupidly long people draw out their midgame and not transition into their lategame units - on both sides).
|
Fuck the naysayers, HotS is very very fun to watch and play for me, and I've been playing since early 2011. I like that they take things slowly.
|
On May 11 2013 23:43 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2013 23:29 sibs wrote:On May 11 2013 22:59 scypio wrote:On May 11 2013 22:46 sibs wrote:On May 11 2013 22:14 Godwrath wrote:On May 11 2013 20:06 Cirqueenflex wrote:On May 11 2013 19:57 Godwrath wrote:On May 11 2013 19:54 Cirqueenflex wrote:On May 11 2013 19:49 Sissors wrote:On May 11 2013 19:26 Cirqueenflex wrote: [quote]
while the game may not be imbalanced, it still is frustrating to play (and a game should not be frustrating to play but fun instead)
technically you can micro against widow mines (until terrans figure out that you can hold and aim them -.-), That is more a theoretical ability than a practical one. Why do you think even pro's rather unburrow than do that? It is a ridiculously micro intensive way to prevent them from firing and only possible really early in the game when for example a ling pokes your wall off. And aiming them is just pretty much impossible when we are talking about more than 2 mines and you don't want ridiculous overkill. no need for ridiculous overkill. As far as I know they stop shooting and start aiming once you select a new target, even if that target is out of reach. And when you tell them to attack a target that is out of reach they start to attack the closest target, which should be fine in most cases if you held them long enough to ignore the first ling poking in. So yeah, both holding and targetting is tough to control, but doing either one should be enough to get quite the advantage. And I wouldn't mind overkilling a mutalisk if the splash kills the other 10. And meanwhile, the MM splits/stutters by itself. The problem is not if it's possible, but it is just not worth it for the most part. fair point, but while in many mid game engagements it is more important to save the marines from your own widow mine shots by running away from zerglings, there are also a lot of situations where you are in the comfortable situation to be able to micro your mines (for example against an early game push with 1-2 zerglings running up your ramp trying to trigger your 2 widow mines to allow the 8 banelings to crush you; or when you lose a pack of marines mid game and the zerg army starts running through your widow mine field that is set up to protect you in case your marine push fails). Also I'm really sorry if that was the most important thing for you to take away from my huge wall of text, maybe I failed to make myself clear enough. I didn't say it's not worth it all the time, but it is highly situational as you clearly see, when engagement occurs, you will want to be microin'g your bio because there are banelings, ultras and/or infestors. It's as simple as that, there are only a few things one can do at the same time. Chocobo for example is speaking about how hard is to deal with new players with mines. That's true for oracles, banelings, hellbat drops, etc... units which require reactive or preemptive micro from your opponent you will find them to be "OP" if we try to compare it to how they work on the progamer scene. And that's a bad way to look at it because it's like trying to balance two different games. People "trying" to get better playing builds of the progamers must accept they will lose to silly stuff. It's how it is until you get better and better. If you want to win, abuse the units that expose the most your opponent's skill level weakness. In lower lower league, that's just macro On May 11 2013 22:10 sibs wrote:On May 11 2013 17:32 scypio wrote:On May 11 2013 13:57 _Search_ wrote:On May 11 2013 04:27 tuho12345 wrote:On May 11 2013 01:03 Greendotz wrote: [quote]
Wow, never thought I'd see the day.
I know right? From avilo?? Well all we need now is IdrA to admit it lol Of course he doesn't want anything changed. Terran is ridiculously overpowered right now. So disgusted that they're not fixing TvZ. A bit of history: it took about 8 months for the zergs to fully acknowledge the possibilities that opened for them once the queen+overlord patch kicked in. After these 8 months dominated almost every tournament in the world. Right now we are two months into HotS. The zergs won MLG, they won Dreamhack, they have half of the spots in GSL CodeS ro8. And what do they say? "Terran is overpowered". Are you serious? It takes way more time for the Z's to figure out new strategies and adapt to new micro requirements. It took 8 months for z's in WoL to adapt to a simple change affecting two units. It's dazzling how after just 2 months of HotS and great tournament results we have the "nerf T"! chant all over the place. It seems that the "free 3 base + 75 drones" build no longer works in HotS. Oh well... suck it up and L2P, just the way the pro zergs did. It's funny when people "remember" things, it actually took about a couple of months for ZvT to favor Z. http://aligulac.com/reports/ You should look at your own link. Not only it appears as favored the whole time from may on, but there is only one point where it's at a 48.9%, and that was the month of taeja and his crazy TvZ winrate. Yea? So you're agreeing with me and telling me to look at my own link again? I don't understand. TvZ became zerg-favored the moment the patch hit. It took 8 more months for the zergs to utterly dominate the whole SC2 tournament scene worldwide. So I'd say that it took 8 months to fully exploit the power of the patch - although some of its effects were immediate. We are in a similar place right now - the game is balanced at the top, zergs are performing really well and improving. Meanwhile the players are whining about how unwinnable the matchup is, how difficult it is to micro vs widow mines and that it is so unfair. The dreaded hellion contain of early 2012 was just as unfair, it forced zergs to make units and it was killed with a patch. We moved on to those awful NR15 games, total zerg domination, the community ditching WoL the moment HotS came out and never looking back. Yes, it would be good to make the game somewhat less frustrating at lower levels etc. But I am not willing to sacrifice top-level balance in favor of my own ladder experience. And it seems that Blizzard thinks alike. Using individual perfomances and who "wins" a tournament is a really bad way to see if a race is OP or not, fruitdealer and nestea won the first 2 GSL's facing a multitude of "bad" terran player's , yes Z was OP vs T after patch 1.4.3 , that bears no meaning now though, the fact is that Zerg as a race is not performing well, and things are not looking better for Zerg in the future, things are looking a lot better for Protoss if anything. Zergs are not performing badly. And you can hardly say it's "individual performances", when there are many good zergs around - which there are. TvZ is in an OK shape right now balancewise and the metagame could still change radically in the next month or two. We are far off from having stable gameplans at this point in time (and it shows from the huge amount of allins and damageoriented openings both sides perform, as well as how stupidly long people draw out their midgame and not transition into their lategame units - on both sides).
Yeah, you're on point. Just look at any major HotS tournament and you will find out, that the zergs that are doing fine in HotS are TLO, Nerchio, Vortix, Dimaga, Stephano, Soulkey, Losira, Roro, Symbol, Nestea, Revival, Suppy, Snute, moonGlade, Scarlett, Sen, Violet, Jaedong, Leenock and Life.
This is no way comparable to a single Fruitdealer in the first GSL.
|
On May 11 2013 22:18 Embir wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2013 20:20 Rainmansc wrote: I still think that hellbats should be changed in a way. Im not quite sure in which but they have to change. We all know that mines are quite strong atm but wouldn't increasing overseer detection range a bit help alot with detecting mines? Right now if you don't watch your army and every part of it the whole time, you have a big change of losing 25 lings in 1 shot. I feel that increasing overseer detection range would help a little bit with this and not really nerfing the mine directly Well, you know, same as with Terran who can for one second leave view form his army and lost it due to zerg surrond. Blizz did a good job with mines, it forces opponents to actually micro their armies.
I'd like to once again state that I believe this is pretty poor design. The natural counter to a unit should not be micro, it should be another unit. Micro is a part of the game where your decisions before the actual fight should be equally important to the fight itself. Or at least fairly close. Currently zergs use lings to counter mines for the sole reason that all other units still require a similar level of micro to be effective, and if you pull it off perfectly you only lose one zergling. While at the same time if you mess up, you still 'only' lose zerglings.
This doesnt mean widow mines are overpowered. Balance is far more complicated than simply looking at how cost effective a single unit is. Superbly micro'ed marines can wreck banelings while poorly micro'ed marines drop dead in a matter of seconds. Superbly mirco'ed zerglings can even manage to damage the opponents marines while poorly micro'ed zerglings leave nothing but a red mist against a single widow mine. This is all fine. However, fairly poorly micro'ed tanks and marauders still generally crush most well micro'ed banelings. No poorly micro'ed zerg unit crush widow mines. At best, poorly micro'ed swarm hosts and brood lords causes the well micro'ed widow mines to move. So yes, widow mines force the zerg player to micro and while they are certainly beatable with good micro, that in itself should not be the only solution.
In conclusion: micro should be a tool that can tip the scale even with a unfavourable unit composition. Poor micro should be punished but depending on both your army and what you're facing it should also sometimes be enough. When it comes to widow mines the lowest amount of micro required, more or less regardless of unit, is simply set far too high.
Ofc thats only my opinion.
|
On May 11 2013 19:24 scypio wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2013 18:41 Chocobo wrote:On May 11 2013 17:32 scypio wrote: It seems that the "free 3 base + 75 drones" build no longer works in HotS. Oh well... suck it up and L2P, just the way the pro zergs did. "Suck it up and L2P" is just as silly and tiresome as the "everything I lose to is imbalanced" whiners. It adds nothing to the conversation, it makes no claim about balance, it adds nothing to the specific situations being discussed. BTW there are a lot of players who are "learning to play" and trying to improve against these strats every day. The issue is that despite our best efforts, it doesn't lead to anything. This isn't "wahh I lost, make it easier for me". It's "I am practicing for hours and hours and still getting destroyed no matter what I try". You could specifically tell me that you're using the same bio+mine build, with the same strategy and same attack timings, for 20 games in a row and I would still lose over 2/3 of the time (assuming I play for a macro game). Like the final months of WoL where protoss would always choose one allin or another in PvZ because there's so little hope if the game goes longer than 10 minutes... that's what ZvT is like now. OK then, since I play zerg too (33% of the time) I'll give you my insight on the matchup from a (terrible) zerg perspective. First of all, the mindset "I play the macro game" is incorrect. The zerg is a reactionary race and you need to react to what your opponent is doing. I guess if toss would go for a 1-gate 3-nexus you would try to do something about it and kill the expansion. Same goes for terrans who opt for a quick 3rd cc build. You need to scout and punish that, even if that means a lot of commitment (or even all-in).
So every game I scout for a factory, and allin if I see one. That's not what I call a macro game.
This is not WoL where you could just say "I want to macro and there is nothing you can do about it". That is pretty much the problem. I'm sorry, but at this skill level (where macro/injects/etc are not an issue) a player should have an advantage if he knows 100% what the opponent is doing. When every single game is 1-2 reapers into 10-11 minute bio mine push that doesn't stop for the rest of the entire game, and I lose the overwhelming majority of the time despite knowing exactly what I will face... and all of those losses are due to mines being very cost efficient and too difficult to fight effectively... I'm going to call that a slight problem with the game. I don't know what else to call it.
|
On May 11 2013 19:03 Rabiator wrote: Banelings are far too efficient because they can be massed in a critical number and then right-clicked into a Planetary Fortress which has ZERO CHANCE to survive. 1000/500 to take out 550/150 sure sounds efficient to me. Are you really complaining that an undefended PF isn't completely safe against everything? And if you want to sack 1500 resources to kill a base, can't 10 stimmed marauders do that pretty effectively? Heck you might even get to keep them and fly away afterwards...
For Widow Mines there is no such thing as a critical number, because it is a DEFENSIVE UNIT in its method of use, i.e. you dont really trigger its attack but rather the mine triggers itself (which can be abused by smart players). [/QUOTE]
Hmm... well you can't simply mass them and be unstoppable once you have 40 of them, but when there's 8-10+ of them it starts to become a real mess trying to deal with them, as you can't suicide some units to set them off and then have a few seconds of mine-free time to engage. It definitely gets worse as terran gets more mines, up to a certain point.
|
On May 11 2013 19:26 Cirqueenflex wrote: And I don't expect the spore crawler buff to fix ZvZ at all. Yeah, maybe you need one less spore to defend your main vs mutas, but that never was the problem. The problem was to get your third up, which gets denied by the map control the player going mutas has over his opponent. Actually I think it has potential. Spread creep towards your third and make 2 extra spores at home, make an extra queen to get the creep going if you have to. Transfer the spores to the third, then put up a hatch. Maybe it's a struggle to get the third up but at least it's more possible now than it used to be.
Currently a lot of the game feels like the minigame "I wanna be the boshy" on one of the harder difficulties. While the game might be somewhat balanced and both play- and winnable, it more often is just frustrating to play, and a game should not be that frustrating to play. Hah, I know what you mean. I'd only compare dealing with mines ZvT to that, though.
It's a good thing that zerg requires more micro than it used to, and I'm not opposed to gameplay that raises the skill ceiling. But there is a limit to "how much perfectly-executed micro should it take to take to counter this unit", and mines are well over the limit of what I consider reasonable. If only the top few percent of players are capable of pulling it off, that isn't good game design imo, even if it is balanced for that top few percent.
|
On May 11 2013 19:49 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2013 18:06 Chocobo wrote: Yep. Kinda like how mines are cost efficient vs everything zerg has in the first 15-20 minutes of the game. Erhm, no. Other than broodlords, what is cost efficient against mines for zerg?
|
United States7483 Posts
Be very careful about changing TvZ even if you conclude it is imbalanced. Right now at the highest level, it's the most engaging and exciting matchup to watch. The entire matchup frequently turns into a super long push from terran trying to break zerg while zerg tries to throw the push back one time, with both players micro'ing their faces off to try to be efficient. It's incredibly interesting to watch how they try to out control one another with constant battles and counter attacks. The wrong buff to zerg or nerf to terran could ruin that kind of push and send us back to both players maxxing out before doing anything.
TBH, I think the main problem is that zergs let terrans be too greedy and don't punish it.
|
On May 12 2013 03:16 Chocobo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2013 19:49 Godwrath wrote:On May 11 2013 18:06 Chocobo wrote: Yep. Kinda like how mines are cost efficient vs everything zerg has in the first 15-20 minutes of the game. Erhm, no. Other than broodlords, what is cost efficient against mines for zerg? 1. Spore and Spine Crawlers for the early game ... (They are even good against Hellbat drops since neither of these dies easily to the "vs light" damage and the Medivac dies faster ... which prevents its reuse. Spore Crawlers are great against Phoenix and Oracle too ....) 2. Sending in Overlords to soak up the shots right before your charge ...
Just watch a few TvZ games with early harrassment and IMO it is always the "diehard oldschoolers" who try to defend against Hellbat harrassment with Zerglings who are losing the match while the ones who build static defenses seem to be fine. That might be a misperception on my part, but I would suggest you check for yourself.
The whole point of HotS seems to be "more harrassment" ... Hellbat, Oracle, Mutalisk regen, Medivac speed, Widow Mine, ... so preparing for that is a requirement and not optional now IMO (at least until everyone defends against it and there isnt a point to do it anymore ...). Better safe than sorry I'd say and even in PvP building a cannon in / near your Probes seems wise.
----
Another idea to "counter" some forms of harrassment drops: research Overlord transport capability and pick up your workers when Hellbats or Oracles come by. This might be a bit late, but it could work better than burrow, because a scan still reveals them and they can be attacked.
|
On May 12 2013 03:21 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2013 03:16 Chocobo wrote:On May 11 2013 19:49 Godwrath wrote:On May 11 2013 18:06 Chocobo wrote: Yep. Kinda like how mines are cost efficient vs everything zerg has in the first 15-20 minutes of the game. Erhm, no. Other than broodlords, what is cost efficient against mines for zerg? 1. Spore and Spine Crawlers for the early game ... (They are even good against Hellbat drops since neither of these dies easily to the "vs light" damage and the Medivac dies faster ... which prevents its reuse. Spore Crawlers are great against Phoenix and Oracle too ....) 2. Sending in Overlords to soak up the shots right before your charge ... Just watch a few TvZ games with early harrassment and IMO it is always the "diehard oldschoolers" who try to defend against Hellbat harrassment with Zerglings who are losing the match while the ones who build static defenses seem to be fine. That might be a misperception on my part, but I would suggest you check for yourself. The whole point of HotS seems to be "more harrassment" ... Hellbat, Oracle, Mutalisk regen, Medivac speed, Widow Mine, ... so preparing for that is a requirement and not optional now IMO. Also 2x +3 attack upgrade blings kill a mine(that is less than +3 armor upgrade) which I'd argue isn't that cost inefficient for a zerg(100/50 vs 75/25). It is really obnoxious when a zerg sends 2x blings ontop of a widow mine and blows it up, but terrans quite often in a hurry burry 2x next to each other, so atleast those times it is cost effective.
I see it as a great way for a zerg to keep the amount of widow mines on the field in control, rather than letting it spiral.
|
On May 12 2013 03:20 Whitewing wrote: Be very careful about changing TvZ even if you conclude it is imbalanced. Right now at the highest level, it's the most engaging and exciting matchup to watch. The entire matchup frequently turns into a super long push from terran trying to break zerg while zerg tries to throw the push back one time, with both players micro'ing their faces off to try to be efficient. It's incredibly interesting to watch how they try to out control one another with constant battles and counter attacks. The wrong buff to zerg or nerf to terran could ruin that kind of push and send us back to both players maxxing out before doing anything.
TBH, I think the main problem is that zergs let terrans be too greedy and don't punish it. I kind of agree if they opened with Hellions/Reapers etc. however, you can't always punish it, and it is a lot harder if they opened with 1-2 Siege Tanks(which some of them are doing, mind you) or Mines. It also depends on the map a lot.
|
On May 12 2013 04:48 Ramiz1989 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2013 03:20 Whitewing wrote: Be very careful about changing TvZ even if you conclude it is imbalanced. Right now at the highest level, it's the most engaging and exciting matchup to watch. The entire matchup frequently turns into a super long push from terran trying to break zerg while zerg tries to throw the push back one time, with both players micro'ing their faces off to try to be efficient. It's incredibly interesting to watch how they try to out control one another with constant battles and counter attacks. The wrong buff to zerg or nerf to terran could ruin that kind of push and send us back to both players maxxing out before doing anything.
TBH, I think the main problem is that zergs let terrans be too greedy and don't punish it. I kind of agree if they opened with Hellions/Reapers etc. however, you can't always punish it, and it is a lot harder if they opened with 1-2 Siege Tanks(which some of them are doing, mind you) or Mines. It also depends on the map a lot.
Or Idra's super greedy opener versus Polt could also be the correct response when scouting 3 cc opener.
/edit
When it comes to greed, I don't think any race can top the Zerg race.
|
United Kingdom12010 Posts
One thing that people seem to be forgetting is something that is so cost effective against mines that it effectively (not entirely and only on paper does it makes it useles) is hydras with detection (an overseer or spore). They outrange the mine.
|
On May 10 2013 04:40 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 04:15 captainwaffles wrote: And David Kim said to the masses, "the game is solid!" Terrans rejoice at the lack of nerfs, and somewhere in the world Idra's disdain of Mr.Kim grows tenfold.
Really like the no changes approach. Actually, has IdrA complained about HotS balance just yet? I haven't kept too much track, but I have watched his stream a little. I saw complaints about other players, cheesy strats, etc. but no balance complaints. Odd when Stephano is the EG player complaining about imbalance
I remember Geof discussing that Idra hated the game, complained about it a lot and insulted David Kim about it. (Was on SotG, the episode where Idra release was annouced.)
|
On May 12 2013 03:41 Zarahtra wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2013 03:21 Rabiator wrote:On May 12 2013 03:16 Chocobo wrote:On May 11 2013 19:49 Godwrath wrote:On May 11 2013 18:06 Chocobo wrote: Yep. Kinda like how mines are cost efficient vs everything zerg has in the first 15-20 minutes of the game. Erhm, no. Other than broodlords, what is cost efficient against mines for zerg? 1. Spore and Spine Crawlers for the early game ... (They are even good against Hellbat drops since neither of these dies easily to the "vs light" damage and the Medivac dies faster ... which prevents its reuse. Spore Crawlers are great against Phoenix and Oracle too ....) 2. Sending in Overlords to soak up the shots right before your charge ... Just watch a few TvZ games with early harrassment and IMO it is always the "diehard oldschoolers" who try to defend against Hellbat harrassment with Zerglings who are losing the match while the ones who build static defenses seem to be fine. That might be a misperception on my part, but I would suggest you check for yourself. The whole point of HotS seems to be "more harrassment" ... Hellbat, Oracle, Mutalisk regen, Medivac speed, Widow Mine, ... so preparing for that is a requirement and not optional now IMO. Also 2x +3 attack upgrade blings kill a mine(that is less than +3 armor upgrade) which I'd argue isn't that cost inefficient for a zerg(100/50 vs 75/25). It is really obnoxious when a zerg sends 2x blings ontop of a widow mine and blows it up, but terrans quite often in a hurry burry 2x next to each other, so atleast those times it is cost effective. I see it as a great way for a zerg to keep the amount of widow mines on the field in control, rather than letting it spiral. +3 attack is quite late game tech and you will have more efficient ways of killing the mine by then. All you need is a "sacrificial lamb" (free units are easy for Zerg to get) and you have 25 seconds (which is the same as a week in SC2 terms) to kill it.
On May 12 2013 04:51 plogamer wrote: When it comes to greed, I don't think any race can top the Zerg race. ... and they deserve to be punished for it if you play too greedily or cut too many corners.
|
On May 12 2013 02:56 Chocobo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2013 19:24 scypio wrote:On May 11 2013 18:41 Chocobo wrote:On May 11 2013 17:32 scypio wrote: It seems that the "free 3 base + 75 drones" build no longer works in HotS. Oh well... suck it up and L2P, just the way the pro zergs did. "Suck it up and L2P" is just as silly and tiresome as the "everything I lose to is imbalanced" whiners. It adds nothing to the conversation, it makes no claim about balance, it adds nothing to the specific situations being discussed. BTW there are a lot of players who are "learning to play" and trying to improve against these strats every day. The issue is that despite our best efforts, it doesn't lead to anything. This isn't "wahh I lost, make it easier for me". It's "I am practicing for hours and hours and still getting destroyed no matter what I try". You could specifically tell me that you're using the same bio+mine build, with the same strategy and same attack timings, for 20 games in a row and I would still lose over 2/3 of the time (assuming I play for a macro game). Like the final months of WoL where protoss would always choose one allin or another in PvZ because there's so little hope if the game goes longer than 10 minutes... that's what ZvT is like now. OK then, since I play zerg too (33% of the time) I'll give you my insight on the matchup from a (terrible) zerg perspective. First of all, the mindset "I play the macro game" is incorrect. The zerg is a reactionary race and you need to react to what your opponent is doing. I guess if toss would go for a 1-gate 3-nexus you would try to do something about it and kill the expansion. Same goes for terrans who opt for a quick 3rd cc build. You need to scout and punish that, even if that means a lot of commitment (or even all-in). So every game I scout for a factory, and allin if I see one. That's not what I call a macro game. Show nested quote +This is not WoL where you could just say "I want to macro and there is nothing you can do about it". That is pretty much the problem. I'm sorry, but at this skill level (where macro/injects/etc are not an issue) a player should have an advantage if he knows 100% what the opponent is doing. When every single game is 1-2 reapers into 10-11 minute bio mine push that doesn't stop for the rest of the entire game, and I lose the overwhelming majority of the time despite knowing exactly what I will face... and all of those losses are due to mines being very cost efficient and too difficult to fight effectively... I'm going to call that a slight problem with the game. I don't know what else to call it.
Spoiled by the nightmare that was 2012 Wings of Liberty you're simply not used to playing a balanced game now, because I can assure that every non-Zerg player knew that Zerg was likely going BL/infestor but that didn't stop every Zerg player who could execute it getting high masters which was evidence by the fact that masters and GM brackets on all servers suddenly being majority Zerg after the early 2012 patch (nor did it stop unheard of foreign Zergs from taking games off of 4 time GSL champions) (not surprisingly there was no complaining from you as this point in time) and mines, from the perspective of balance, are nowhere near as close to as absurdly that was infestor/BL.
Furthermore knowing what an enemy is doing doesn't exempt you from being outplayed or guarantee you a victory. So when you combine these two points you get that not only do you have a warped sense of balance, but also a warped sense of entitlement in that you think scouting your opponent means that you should win (this mindset is more or less a direct product of Zerg players from that dark time who simply had to scout and sit back to win).
|
the old zerg had it easy, now its balanced again that terrans win 55%+ of the time(at pro level, probably way more at masters), get used to it.
|
On May 11 2013 17:29 Apoptotic wrote: The spore crawler buff is only plus damage to bio, so it only affects the ZvZ matchup. Wow. That's clever.
Although I think it should be bio and medivacs. ^^
|
... really? nothing on hellbats and WM and medivac afterburners? Have you guys seen TvT's? You know something's wrong when T's do hellbat/WM/rine afterburner drops 100% of any match up and win because of them even when down significantly.
Have you seen Flash vs Innovation? I started laughing at how ridiculous those units are.
|
On May 12 2013 07:53 kamicom wrote: ... really? nothing on hellbats and WM and medivac afterburners? Have you guys seen TvT's? You know something's wrong when T's do hellbat/WM/rine afterburner drops 100% of any match up and win because of them even when down significantly.
Have you seen Flash vs Innovation? I started laughing at how ridiculous those units are. Yes. If they were giving hellbats to Protoss, these units would be as fragile as a paper aeroplane, they would have 150 extra cost in gas, and they would probably requite energy to kill workers.
And that's exactly what you get with the oracle. Inferior unit to the hellbat, but far more expensive and with an energy requirement.
|
On May 12 2013 03:41 Zarahtra wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2013 03:21 Rabiator wrote:On May 12 2013 03:16 Chocobo wrote:On May 11 2013 19:49 Godwrath wrote:On May 11 2013 18:06 Chocobo wrote: Yep. Kinda like how mines are cost efficient vs everything zerg has in the first 15-20 minutes of the game. Erhm, no. Other than broodlords, what is cost efficient against mines for zerg? 1. Spore and Spine Crawlers for the early game ... (They are even good against Hellbat drops since neither of these dies easily to the "vs light" damage and the Medivac dies faster ... which prevents its reuse. Spore Crawlers are great against Phoenix and Oracle too ....) 2. Sending in Overlords to soak up the shots right before your charge ... Just watch a few TvZ games with early harrassment and IMO it is always the "diehard oldschoolers" who try to defend against Hellbat harrassment with Zerglings who are losing the match while the ones who build static defenses seem to be fine. That might be a misperception on my part, but I would suggest you check for yourself. The whole point of HotS seems to be "more harrassment" ... Hellbat, Oracle, Mutalisk regen, Medivac speed, Widow Mine, ... so preparing for that is a requirement and not optional now IMO. Also 2x +3 attack upgrade blings kill a mine(that is less than +3 armor upgrade) which I'd argue isn't that cost inefficient for a zerg(100/50 vs 75/25). It is really obnoxious when a zerg sends 2x blings ontop of a widow mine and blows it up, but terrans quite often in a hurry burry 2x next to each other, so atleast those times it is cost effective. I see it as a great way for a zerg to keep the amount of widow mines on the field in control, rather than letting it spiral.
So, just to be clear: I don't think there is any imbalance in the matchup overall, but I do believe that ling/bling/muta (even if you manage to upgrade 3-3+cracklings, 3-0 AND even with small infestor support) can't fight against marine/medivac/mine (or hellbat/tank/marauder variations) and you have to go ultras/broodlords to win after the early 3base Terran phase. That being said, it's not good to trade banes vs mines like that. The equation goes basically like this: 1) marines > lings, mutas, roaches, hydras, queens, swarm hosts 2) marines < banelings, ultralisks, huge infestor count, huge broodlord count
Basically, all you want to do as a Terran in those engagements is kill as many banelings efficiently or in equal trades as you can before they touch marines. The rest is just a mob up.
On May 12 2013 04:51 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2013 04:48 Ramiz1989 wrote:On May 12 2013 03:20 Whitewing wrote: Be very careful about changing TvZ even if you conclude it is imbalanced. Right now at the highest level, it's the most engaging and exciting matchup to watch. The entire matchup frequently turns into a super long push from terran trying to break zerg while zerg tries to throw the push back one time, with both players micro'ing their faces off to try to be efficient. It's incredibly interesting to watch how they try to out control one another with constant battles and counter attacks. The wrong buff to zerg or nerf to terran could ruin that kind of push and send us back to both players maxxing out before doing anything.
TBH, I think the main problem is that zergs let terrans be too greedy and don't punish it. I kind of agree if they opened with Hellions/Reapers etc. however, you can't always punish it, and it is a lot harder if they opened with 1-2 Siege Tanks(which some of them are doing, mind you) or Mines. It also depends on the map a lot. Or Idra's super greedy opener versus Polt could also be the correct response when scouting 3 cc opener. /edit When it comes to greed, I don't think any race can top the Zerg race.
I disagree. When zerg is greedy, zerg gets more mining earlier but no tech at all. When Terran is greedy, they still get their full tech tree much earlier and still have the same amount of CCs, but terran only needs to defend a single entrance (compared to two for outdoor basing zerg). Both races have their ups and downs when playing greedy.
I agree with Whitewing on that matter. People should roach rush the fuck out of Terrans. Soulkey, Roro, Symbol and Kangho all have been roach rushing, baneling busting and nydusing their way into Ro8 against Terrans this GSL. Shine made it far similarily (those games against Fantasy...). Life, BBong, DRG, Hyun tried to play macrogames and got destroyed. The macro-metagame right now is very simple. Terrans build 3CCs, double ebays, a few hellions/reapers and go into mass reactored barracks+stim/shields and reactored widow mines/medivacs. Before 9-10mins, a Terran won't have any defences down apart from the hellions and a handful of widow mines/marines. On the flip side, a zerg invests into multiple queens, speed, speedlings, sometimes roaches/defenses relatively early without there even being any actual thread apart from those few hellions/reapers and just falls behind. But if you just blindly allin with roaches, a Terran often won't even have the production to react to anything you do because that build can't really produce anything that does not come from a reactored factory, before 9-10mins. And if a Terran even goes more greedy (like instead of defensive mines, even drops mines/hellbats early with this or gets his upgrades even faster or even more barracks early on, or just 4hellions), it's just a freewin, even if you just put on some semiallinish roach aggression with a third behind it, or a really late roach allin that hits at 10+mins.
|
On May 12 2013 08:11 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2013 03:41 Zarahtra wrote:On May 12 2013 03:21 Rabiator wrote:On May 12 2013 03:16 Chocobo wrote:On May 11 2013 19:49 Godwrath wrote:On May 11 2013 18:06 Chocobo wrote: Yep. Kinda like how mines are cost efficient vs everything zerg has in the first 15-20 minutes of the game. Erhm, no. Other than broodlords, what is cost efficient against mines for zerg? 1. Spore and Spine Crawlers for the early game ... (They are even good against Hellbat drops since neither of these dies easily to the "vs light" damage and the Medivac dies faster ... which prevents its reuse. Spore Crawlers are great against Phoenix and Oracle too ....) 2. Sending in Overlords to soak up the shots right before your charge ... Just watch a few TvZ games with early harrassment and IMO it is always the "diehard oldschoolers" who try to defend against Hellbat harrassment with Zerglings who are losing the match while the ones who build static defenses seem to be fine. That might be a misperception on my part, but I would suggest you check for yourself. The whole point of HotS seems to be "more harrassment" ... Hellbat, Oracle, Mutalisk regen, Medivac speed, Widow Mine, ... so preparing for that is a requirement and not optional now IMO. Also 2x +3 attack upgrade blings kill a mine(that is less than +3 armor upgrade) which I'd argue isn't that cost inefficient for a zerg(100/50 vs 75/25). It is really obnoxious when a zerg sends 2x blings ontop of a widow mine and blows it up, but terrans quite often in a hurry burry 2x next to each other, so atleast those times it is cost effective. I see it as a great way for a zerg to keep the amount of widow mines on the field in control, rather than letting it spiral. So, just to be clear: I don't think there is any imbalance in the matchup overall, but I do believe that ling/bling/muta (even if you manage to upgrade 3-3+cracklings, 3-0 AND even with small infestor support) can't fight against marine/medivac/mine (or hellbat/tank/marauder variations) and you have to go ultras/broodlords to win after the early 3base Terran phase. That being said, it's not good to trade banes vs mines like that. The equation goes basically like this: 1) marines > lings, mutas, roaches, hydras, queens, swarm hosts 2) marines < banelings, ultralisks, huge infestor count, huge broodlord count Basically, all you want to do as a Terran in those engagements is kill as many banelings efficiently or in equal trades as you can before they touch marines. The rest is just a mob up. Show nested quote +On May 12 2013 04:51 plogamer wrote:On May 12 2013 04:48 Ramiz1989 wrote:On May 12 2013 03:20 Whitewing wrote: Be very careful about changing TvZ even if you conclude it is imbalanced. Right now at the highest level, it's the most engaging and exciting matchup to watch. The entire matchup frequently turns into a super long push from terran trying to break zerg while zerg tries to throw the push back one time, with both players micro'ing their faces off to try to be efficient. It's incredibly interesting to watch how they try to out control one another with constant battles and counter attacks. The wrong buff to zerg or nerf to terran could ruin that kind of push and send us back to both players maxxing out before doing anything.
TBH, I think the main problem is that zergs let terrans be too greedy and don't punish it. I kind of agree if they opened with Hellions/Reapers etc. however, you can't always punish it, and it is a lot harder if they opened with 1-2 Siege Tanks(which some of them are doing, mind you) or Mines. It also depends on the map a lot. Or Idra's super greedy opener versus Polt could also be the correct response when scouting 3 cc opener. /edit When it comes to greed, I don't think any race can top the Zerg race. I disagree. When zerg is greedy, zerg gets more mining earlier but no tech at all. When Terran is greedy, they still get their full tech tree much earlier and still have the same amount of CCs, but terran only needs to defend a single entrance (compared to two for outdoor basing zerg). Both races have their ups and downs when playing greedy. I agree with Whitewing on that matter. People should roach rush the fuck out of Terrans. Soulkey, Roro, Symbol and Kangho all have been roach rushing, baneling busting and nydusing their way into Ro8 against Terrans this GSL. Shine made it far similarily (those games against Fantasy...). Life, BBong, DRG, Hyun tried to play macrogames and got destroyed. The macro-metagame right now is very simple. Terrans build 3CCs, double ebays, a few hellions/reapers and go into mass reactored barracks+stim/shields and reactored widow mines/medivacs. Before 9-10mins, a Terran won't have any defences down apart from the hellions and a handful of widow mines/marines. On the flip side, a zerg invests into multiple queens, speed, speedlings, sometimes roaches/defenses relatively early without there even being any actual thread apart from those few hellions/reapers and just falls behind. But if you just blindly allin with roaches, a Terran often won't even have the production to react to anything you do because that build can't really produce anything that does not come from a reactored factory, before 9-10mins. And if a Terran even goes more greedy (like instead of defensive mines, even drops mines/hellbats early with this or gets his upgrades even faster or even more barracks early on, or just 4hellions), it's just a freewin, even if you just put on some semiallinish roach aggression with a third behind it, or a really late roach allin that hits at 10+mins. The only thing I want to add to this is the fact that, while having access to the tech, Terran can't utilize it in quite the explosive nature that Zerg (and even Protoss) can, nor is it as central of a role in winning. The only upgrade/tech that plays a huge, instant role is stim, and maybe combat shields and a tank. Having a starport or being able to produce hellbats isn't going to change the game when the first unit rolls out, unlike finishing a spire or making that first colossus (with range).
|
I love how all the people defending WM's and hellbats and afterburners JUST happen to be Terran 99% of the time.. you know there's something screwy with units when mirror match ups become a joke...
|
On May 12 2013 08:53 kamicom wrote: I love how all the people defending WM's and hellbats and afterburners JUST happen to be Terran 99% of the time.. you know there's something screwy with units when mirror match ups become a joke... tbh as a terrani think blizz should remove healing from hellbats and mayb change boost to increase the dmg taken while boostin, i dont think there is an issue with wm, just need time to get used to it, same as splitting vs banelings, took ppl like months to figure out that u can actually split vs banes
|
On May 12 2013 08:11 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2013 03:41 Zarahtra wrote:On May 12 2013 03:21 Rabiator wrote:On May 12 2013 03:16 Chocobo wrote:On May 11 2013 19:49 Godwrath wrote:On May 11 2013 18:06 Chocobo wrote: Yep. Kinda like how mines are cost efficient vs everything zerg has in the first 15-20 minutes of the game. Erhm, no. Other than broodlords, what is cost efficient against mines for zerg? 1. Spore and Spine Crawlers for the early game ... (They are even good against Hellbat drops since neither of these dies easily to the "vs light" damage and the Medivac dies faster ... which prevents its reuse. Spore Crawlers are great against Phoenix and Oracle too ....) 2. Sending in Overlords to soak up the shots right before your charge ... Just watch a few TvZ games with early harrassment and IMO it is always the "diehard oldschoolers" who try to defend against Hellbat harrassment with Zerglings who are losing the match while the ones who build static defenses seem to be fine. That might be a misperception on my part, but I would suggest you check for yourself. The whole point of HotS seems to be "more harrassment" ... Hellbat, Oracle, Mutalisk regen, Medivac speed, Widow Mine, ... so preparing for that is a requirement and not optional now IMO. Also 2x +3 attack upgrade blings kill a mine(that is less than +3 armor upgrade) which I'd argue isn't that cost inefficient for a zerg(100/50 vs 75/25). It is really obnoxious when a zerg sends 2x blings ontop of a widow mine and blows it up, but terrans quite often in a hurry burry 2x next to each other, so atleast those times it is cost effective. I see it as a great way for a zerg to keep the amount of widow mines on the field in control, rather than letting it spiral. So, just to be clear: I don't think there is any imbalance in the matchup overall, but I do believe that ling/bling/muta (even if you manage to upgrade 3-3+cracklings, 3-0 AND even with small infestor support) can't fight against marine/medivac/mine (or hellbat/tank/marauder variations) and you have to go ultras/broodlords to win after the early 3base Terran phase. That being said, it's not good to trade banes vs mines like that. The equation goes basically like this: 1) marines > lings, mutas, roaches, hydras, queens, swarm hosts 2) marines < banelings, ultralisks, huge infestor count, huge broodlord count Basically, all you want to do as a Terran in those engagements is kill as many banelings efficiently or in equal trades as you can before they touch marines. The rest is just a mob up.
The point I was making, and perhaps I wasn't quite clear enough is that there is a limited production of mines going on, from 2 or so reactor'd factories. The production of blings can be much greater than that, so if you can keep those mines down, eventually you will be forcing the terran to retreat or have to have really good splits since his AoE is gone or heavily diminished, at which time you can have more blings for the actual fight.
My point focused also probably too much about +3 attack, I was more meaning at that time they'd be just about cost effective to do. 3 blings for 2 WMs comes almost equal and if you know you dmg'd the WM you are likely able to take it out with blings.
As a terran, I can atleast say i find it really frustrating when they are trading the blings like that, since in TvZ I feel a terran needs to be way more cost effective than just slightly efficient. I feel I either need to get a money VM shot before the VM dies or get more than 1 shot with it.
|
every race has reactions to be equally greedy, sometimes in different ways
99% of players just have no idea what theyre doing
|
Every "upcoming balance patch" thread turns into a balance argument thread. Don't see why we need these. Blizzard isn't going to make changes to their plans based on VoidRayRomeo's back-and-forth with FearTheReaperMan taking place on some median page in the thread.
you should also be aware that unless you're like high masters you don't have enough perspective to be making any broad claims. bigj's post was decent, though.
|
After ages of frustration against zerg in LingsofLiberty, it certainly gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling to see all this QQ in here. Doesn't stop zerg from mopping up the tournaments and doing extremely well in Code S though
|
On May 12 2013 09:39 AxionSteel wrote:After ages of frustration against zerg in LingsofLiberty, it certainly gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling to see all this QQ in here. Doesn't stop zerg from mopping up the tournaments and doing extremely well in Code S though
Okay, jesus.
This season's code S had a fuckton of zergs carrying over from WoL. Everyone knows this. Even still, the distribution going into the ro16 was virtually equal for terran and zerg, despite the disparity in the ro32.
Furthermore, all these tournaments thus far have had variables that can't detect worthwhile balance concerns for shit--whether they're koreans wiping foreign tournaments with just 1-3 decent korean terrans in them, or it's Life winning MLG.
as BigJ pointed out, it's either Zerg doing these ridiculous roach/bane all-ins or Terrans having an easier time in a macro game. If both players play standard and no silly mistakes are made, we see T with a pretty sizable macro explosion in the mid-game which, compounded with mines, makes it hard on the zerg. It's just how it is. Don't need to quote extraneous tournament or ladder statistics to see it.
|
United States7483 Posts
On May 12 2013 09:28 Let it Raine wrote: every race has reactions to be equally greedy, sometimes in different ways
99% of players just have no idea what theyre doing
Not equally greedy, greedy in completely different ways and in different magnitudes. Protoss lacks the ability to be nearly as greedy economically as either zerg or terran, and cannot really out-tech either of them if they choose to speed tech. What they can do is grow in all directions simultaneously with an emphasis on upgrades of various kinds, but it's still not quite as much as what terran can manage (terran can do the same with tech and economy and units). This is okay though, because Protoss gains more advantage from tech than terran does, so even though they can both tech rapidly, that benefits toss more. Zerg cannot really be greedy on tech and economy at the same time: the gas requirement for tech slows down drone growth specifically because of the exponential design of zerg economy.
The races are asymmetrical, by definition that means greed is not going to be equal for all races, but that's okay, so long as each player reacts appropriately. Harass units are in the game specifically because they can do damage inordinate to their cost, which compensates for a lack of economic greed in favor of tech or army powering. However, at the moment, economic greed vastly trumps tech greed from protoss, mostly because protoss lacks mineral based harassment that is cost efficient. The terran hellion is an excellently designed unit (hellbats aside) for harass because it allows the terran to sink gas into tech. The protoss has no such unit: the best he can do is heavy zealot warp-ins which is inefficient and lacks real punch: just try to chase down workers with zealots. Over the course of a long game it can be worthwhile, but only when toss gets into a position where he can afford to just throw away minerals due to the ineffectiveness of zealots in small numbers. That's why you see harassing protoss players warp in a large group of zealots at a time, rather than the 4 hellions that terrans drop. Protoss units designed for harass like phoenix or oracles cost gas, which means protoss can't use them and tech rapidly at the same time. It's telling that the zerg response to oracles or phoenix is to get a spore at each base, a couple extra queens, and drone and expand even faster.
If greed is a balance concern, the first place to look for fixing it is harassment. Greed isn't the issue in TvZ because terran harass is efficient, and because both races possess the means to punish greed with a potent direct assault. Greed isn't really an issue in PvT either because Protoss tech is more potent than Terran tech, which compensates for the lack of economic greed options. Greed is a problem in PvZ because Zerg economy does well against Protoss tech by flooding units, Zerg tech is potent (ultralisks, broodlords and vipers are all very powerful, nevermind swarm hosts or mutalisks), and Protoss has no option for keeping up with zerg economy. The oracle is a failure as a harass unit because it's too easy to defend and too expensive: you really can't afford to make more than 1 and just 1 dies reasonably easily. In PvT oracles are potent very early on if there is no widow mine or turret in the mineral line, but they quickly become entirely obsolete as a harass unit. I'm not saying oracles are underpowered or overpowered: just that their design is poor. (Actually, I think Revelation might be the best spell in the game).
This is mostly the reason most PvZ games revolve around zerg taking a super fast third base, greeding up, and protoss either hitting a 2 base all-in timing or playing ridiculously defensive until maxxed out, and then trying to kill zerg in one push. Protoss can't harass efficiently enough to make harass worthwhile. Phoenix play is the only real form of harass we see, and it's not really specifically for harass only, it's there for scouting and to deny mutalisks, the harass is a bonus (and not a particularly efficient one given the cost of the phoenix and the stargate).
Even if the matchup is balanced to exactly a 50-50 winrate, the way greed works here makes the matchup stale and dull.
|
|
On May 12 2013 08:50 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2013 08:11 Big J wrote:On May 12 2013 03:41 Zarahtra wrote:On May 12 2013 03:21 Rabiator wrote:On May 12 2013 03:16 Chocobo wrote:On May 11 2013 19:49 Godwrath wrote:On May 11 2013 18:06 Chocobo wrote: Yep. Kinda like how mines are cost efficient vs everything zerg has in the first 15-20 minutes of the game. Erhm, no. Other than broodlords, what is cost efficient against mines for zerg? 1. Spore and Spine Crawlers for the early game ... (They are even good against Hellbat drops since neither of these dies easily to the "vs light" damage and the Medivac dies faster ... which prevents its reuse. Spore Crawlers are great against Phoenix and Oracle too ....) 2. Sending in Overlords to soak up the shots right before your charge ... Just watch a few TvZ games with early harrassment and IMO it is always the "diehard oldschoolers" who try to defend against Hellbat harrassment with Zerglings who are losing the match while the ones who build static defenses seem to be fine. That might be a misperception on my part, but I would suggest you check for yourself. The whole point of HotS seems to be "more harrassment" ... Hellbat, Oracle, Mutalisk regen, Medivac speed, Widow Mine, ... so preparing for that is a requirement and not optional now IMO. Also 2x +3 attack upgrade blings kill a mine(that is less than +3 armor upgrade) which I'd argue isn't that cost inefficient for a zerg(100/50 vs 75/25). It is really obnoxious when a zerg sends 2x blings ontop of a widow mine and blows it up, but terrans quite often in a hurry burry 2x next to each other, so atleast those times it is cost effective. I see it as a great way for a zerg to keep the amount of widow mines on the field in control, rather than letting it spiral. So, just to be clear: I don't think there is any imbalance in the matchup overall, but I do believe that ling/bling/muta (even if you manage to upgrade 3-3+cracklings, 3-0 AND even with small infestor support) can't fight against marine/medivac/mine (or hellbat/tank/marauder variations) and you have to go ultras/broodlords to win after the early 3base Terran phase. That being said, it's not good to trade banes vs mines like that. The equation goes basically like this: 1) marines > lings, mutas, roaches, hydras, queens, swarm hosts 2) marines < banelings, ultralisks, huge infestor count, huge broodlord count Basically, all you want to do as a Terran in those engagements is kill as many banelings efficiently or in equal trades as you can before they touch marines. The rest is just a mob up. On May 12 2013 04:51 plogamer wrote:On May 12 2013 04:48 Ramiz1989 wrote:On May 12 2013 03:20 Whitewing wrote: Be very careful about changing TvZ even if you conclude it is imbalanced. Right now at the highest level, it's the most engaging and exciting matchup to watch. The entire matchup frequently turns into a super long push from terran trying to break zerg while zerg tries to throw the push back one time, with both players micro'ing their faces off to try to be efficient. It's incredibly interesting to watch how they try to out control one another with constant battles and counter attacks. The wrong buff to zerg or nerf to terran could ruin that kind of push and send us back to both players maxxing out before doing anything.
TBH, I think the main problem is that zergs let terrans be too greedy and don't punish it. I kind of agree if they opened with Hellions/Reapers etc. however, you can't always punish it, and it is a lot harder if they opened with 1-2 Siege Tanks(which some of them are doing, mind you) or Mines. It also depends on the map a lot. Or Idra's super greedy opener versus Polt could also be the correct response when scouting 3 cc opener. /edit When it comes to greed, I don't think any race can top the Zerg race. I disagree. When zerg is greedy, zerg gets more mining earlier but no tech at all. When Terran is greedy, they still get their full tech tree much earlier and still have the same amount of CCs, but terran only needs to defend a single entrance (compared to two for outdoor basing zerg). Both races have their ups and downs when playing greedy. I agree with Whitewing on that matter. People should roach rush the fuck out of Terrans. Soulkey, Roro, Symbol and Kangho all have been roach rushing, baneling busting and nydusing their way into Ro8 against Terrans this GSL. Shine made it far similarily (those games against Fantasy...). Life, BBong, DRG, Hyun tried to play macrogames and got destroyed. The macro-metagame right now is very simple. Terrans build 3CCs, double ebays, a few hellions/reapers and go into mass reactored barracks+stim/shields and reactored widow mines/medivacs. Before 9-10mins, a Terran won't have any defences down apart from the hellions and a handful of widow mines/marines. On the flip side, a zerg invests into multiple queens, speed, speedlings, sometimes roaches/defenses relatively early without there even being any actual thread apart from those few hellions/reapers and just falls behind. But if you just blindly allin with roaches, a Terran often won't even have the production to react to anything you do because that build can't really produce anything that does not come from a reactored factory, before 9-10mins. And if a Terran even goes more greedy (like instead of defensive mines, even drops mines/hellbats early with this or gets his upgrades even faster or even more barracks early on, or just 4hellions), it's just a freewin, even if you just put on some semiallinish roach aggression with a third behind it, or a really late roach allin that hits at 10+mins. The only thing I want to add to this is the fact that, while having access to the tech, Terran can't utilize it in quite the explosive nature that Zerg (and even Protoss) can, nor is it as central of a role in winning. The only upgrade/tech that plays a huge, instant role is stim, and maybe combat shields and a tank. Having a starport or being able to produce hellbats isn't going to change the game when the first unit rolls out, unlike finishing a spire or making that first colossus (with range). Errr, a lot of Terran's greatest would-be tech you get for free (ie. Siege Mode/Medivac Boost) and these are just as "explosive" as anything Zerg and Protoss have, especially the Medivac Boost.
I agree with pretty much everything Big J said except I do feel that TvZ is just slightly in favor of Terran (as most stats show) and just needs a tiny, tiny adjustment.
A lot of Terrans in this thread are saying contradictory things like "Zerg shouldn't be able to be so greedy" and "Zerg units should be cost-inefficient". It can't be both otherwise it would be terribly imbalanced. If Zerg is going to be the cost-inefficient race they need to be able to out-expand the other races. The question is: is it currently too difficult for Zerg to be as greedy as they need to be to make up for cost-inefficient midgames? I would say it's probably just a tad too difficult and is due a tiny, tiny adjustment as I already said.
|
Haa this is nice! So they say a lot of information shows that everything is nicely balanced
|
Chocobo I think you're wrong in the argument. I don't think Blizzard should balance-patch according to anything but pro play. If good but not great players have problem with something, well, that's a shame for them, but it's the players who require a patch, not the game. It's already really hard to get something decent when players aren't making too many mistakes...
Even though I think you're wrong, I find some of the counter-arguments you have received to be somewhere in between shocking and hilarious, so, there's that side too.
|
On May 12 2013 12:50 vRadiatioNv wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2013 08:50 aksfjh wrote:On May 12 2013 08:11 Big J wrote:On May 12 2013 03:41 Zarahtra wrote:On May 12 2013 03:21 Rabiator wrote:On May 12 2013 03:16 Chocobo wrote:On May 11 2013 19:49 Godwrath wrote:On May 11 2013 18:06 Chocobo wrote: Yep. Kinda like how mines are cost efficient vs everything zerg has in the first 15-20 minutes of the game. Erhm, no. Other than broodlords, what is cost efficient against mines for zerg? 1. Spore and Spine Crawlers for the early game ... (They are even good against Hellbat drops since neither of these dies easily to the "vs light" damage and the Medivac dies faster ... which prevents its reuse. Spore Crawlers are great against Phoenix and Oracle too ....) 2. Sending in Overlords to soak up the shots right before your charge ... Just watch a few TvZ games with early harrassment and IMO it is always the "diehard oldschoolers" who try to defend against Hellbat harrassment with Zerglings who are losing the match while the ones who build static defenses seem to be fine. That might be a misperception on my part, but I would suggest you check for yourself. The whole point of HotS seems to be "more harrassment" ... Hellbat, Oracle, Mutalisk regen, Medivac speed, Widow Mine, ... so preparing for that is a requirement and not optional now IMO. Also 2x +3 attack upgrade blings kill a mine(that is less than +3 armor upgrade) which I'd argue isn't that cost inefficient for a zerg(100/50 vs 75/25). It is really obnoxious when a zerg sends 2x blings ontop of a widow mine and blows it up, but terrans quite often in a hurry burry 2x next to each other, so atleast those times it is cost effective. I see it as a great way for a zerg to keep the amount of widow mines on the field in control, rather than letting it spiral. So, just to be clear: I don't think there is any imbalance in the matchup overall, but I do believe that ling/bling/muta (even if you manage to upgrade 3-3+cracklings, 3-0 AND even with small infestor support) can't fight against marine/medivac/mine (or hellbat/tank/marauder variations) and you have to go ultras/broodlords to win after the early 3base Terran phase. That being said, it's not good to trade banes vs mines like that. The equation goes basically like this: 1) marines > lings, mutas, roaches, hydras, queens, swarm hosts 2) marines < banelings, ultralisks, huge infestor count, huge broodlord count Basically, all you want to do as a Terran in those engagements is kill as many banelings efficiently or in equal trades as you can before they touch marines. The rest is just a mob up. On May 12 2013 04:51 plogamer wrote:On May 12 2013 04:48 Ramiz1989 wrote:On May 12 2013 03:20 Whitewing wrote: Be very careful about changing TvZ even if you conclude it is imbalanced. Right now at the highest level, it's the most engaging and exciting matchup to watch. The entire matchup frequently turns into a super long push from terran trying to break zerg while zerg tries to throw the push back one time, with both players micro'ing their faces off to try to be efficient. It's incredibly interesting to watch how they try to out control one another with constant battles and counter attacks. The wrong buff to zerg or nerf to terran could ruin that kind of push and send us back to both players maxxing out before doing anything.
TBH, I think the main problem is that zergs let terrans be too greedy and don't punish it. I kind of agree if they opened with Hellions/Reapers etc. however, you can't always punish it, and it is a lot harder if they opened with 1-2 Siege Tanks(which some of them are doing, mind you) or Mines. It also depends on the map a lot. Or Idra's super greedy opener versus Polt could also be the correct response when scouting 3 cc opener. /edit When it comes to greed, I don't think any race can top the Zerg race. I disagree. When zerg is greedy, zerg gets more mining earlier but no tech at all. When Terran is greedy, they still get their full tech tree much earlier and still have the same amount of CCs, but terran only needs to defend a single entrance (compared to two for outdoor basing zerg). Both races have their ups and downs when playing greedy. I agree with Whitewing on that matter. People should roach rush the fuck out of Terrans. Soulkey, Roro, Symbol and Kangho all have been roach rushing, baneling busting and nydusing their way into Ro8 against Terrans this GSL. Shine made it far similarily (those games against Fantasy...). Life, BBong, DRG, Hyun tried to play macrogames and got destroyed. The macro-metagame right now is very simple. Terrans build 3CCs, double ebays, a few hellions/reapers and go into mass reactored barracks+stim/shields and reactored widow mines/medivacs. Before 9-10mins, a Terran won't have any defences down apart from the hellions and a handful of widow mines/marines. On the flip side, a zerg invests into multiple queens, speed, speedlings, sometimes roaches/defenses relatively early without there even being any actual thread apart from those few hellions/reapers and just falls behind. But if you just blindly allin with roaches, a Terran often won't even have the production to react to anything you do because that build can't really produce anything that does not come from a reactored factory, before 9-10mins. And if a Terran even goes more greedy (like instead of defensive mines, even drops mines/hellbats early with this or gets his upgrades even faster or even more barracks early on, or just 4hellions), it's just a freewin, even if you just put on some semiallinish roach aggression with a third behind it, or a really late roach allin that hits at 10+mins. The only thing I want to add to this is the fact that, while having access to the tech, Terran can't utilize it in quite the explosive nature that Zerg (and even Protoss) can, nor is it as central of a role in winning. The only upgrade/tech that plays a huge, instant role is stim, and maybe combat shields and a tank. Having a starport or being able to produce hellbats isn't going to change the game when the first unit rolls out, unlike finishing a spire or making that first colossus (with range). Errr, a lot of Terran's greatest would-be tech you get for free (ie. Siege Mode/Medivac Boost) and these are just as "explosive" as anything Zerg and Protoss have, especially the Medivac Boost. I agree with pretty much everything Big J said except I do feel that TvZ is just slightly in favor of Terran (as most stats show) and just needs a tiny, tiny adjustment. A lot of Terrans in this thread are saying contradictory things like "Zerg shouldn't be able to be so greedy" and "Zerg units should be cost-inefficient". It can't be both otherwise it would be terribly imbalanced. If Zerg is going to be the cost-inefficient race they need to be able to out-expand the other races. The question is: is it currently too difficult for Zerg to be as greedy as they need to be to make up for cost-inefficient midgames? I would say it's probably just a tad too difficult and is due a tiny, tiny adjustment as I already said. I mentioned tanks. I'm not saying things like medivacs don't change the game when they're out, but nobody hinges on that first one or two medivacs to hold a push or overrun a player. That's the general point, that there's just not much "just in time" tech for Terran. Tech is very fluid and only sways the tide of battle, instead of swinging it drastically one way or another.
|
On May 12 2013 09:22 Killmouse wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2013 08:53 kamicom wrote: I love how all the people defending WM's and hellbats and afterburners JUST happen to be Terran 99% of the time.. you know there's something screwy with units when mirror match ups become a joke... tbh as a terrani think blizz should remove healing from hellbats and mayb change boost to increase the dmg taken while boostin, i dont think there is an issue with wm, just need time to get used to it, same as splitting vs banelings, took ppl like months to figure out that u can actually split vs banes 1. Remove healing from Hellbats is a great idea ... just as giving it to them was stupid from the get go ... 2. Letting a Medivac take more damage while boosting will NOT prevent any drops, because you are usually not attacked then (too few people build static AA in sufficient numbers AND at the edge of the base). That will only make them less likely to escape and that is kinda the opposite of what was intended by introducing the boost in the first place.
The game and especially - since the start of HotS - its harrassment mechanics have become far too effective. Sure this gives us nice games to watch on a pro level, but what about the non-pros who play for fun? They are screwed and get unsatisfactory games where they either win or lose after a few minutes and without any engagements of armies. I call that stupid + Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler +, but then there are too many people defending the "new advanced stuff" as being "improvements" over BW. They completely forget that technology would easily allow for super smart unit AI through customizable targeting preferences and unit formation (melee in the front and ranged at the back and Roaches in front of Hydras ...). These things are NOT in the game for a reason and for the same reason the "advancements" could equally not be in the game either if they are bad for the gameplay .
|
I really think they should make the oracle damage based on the current energy level. A full energy oracle would do more, and a low energy oracle less. This would make oracles a good, but not game-ending early harassment option as well as enhance late game utility by tweaking the amount of damage it could do. The unit is just so boring in its current state.
|
On May 12 2013 13:53 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2013 12:50 vRadiatioNv wrote:On May 12 2013 08:50 aksfjh wrote:On May 12 2013 08:11 Big J wrote:On May 12 2013 03:41 Zarahtra wrote:On May 12 2013 03:21 Rabiator wrote:On May 12 2013 03:16 Chocobo wrote:On May 11 2013 19:49 Godwrath wrote:On May 11 2013 18:06 Chocobo wrote: Yep. Kinda like how mines are cost efficient vs everything zerg has in the first 15-20 minutes of the game. Erhm, no. Other than broodlords, what is cost efficient against mines for zerg? 1. Spore and Spine Crawlers for the early game ... (They are even good against Hellbat drops since neither of these dies easily to the "vs light" damage and the Medivac dies faster ... which prevents its reuse. Spore Crawlers are great against Phoenix and Oracle too ....) 2. Sending in Overlords to soak up the shots right before your charge ... Just watch a few TvZ games with early harrassment and IMO it is always the "diehard oldschoolers" who try to defend against Hellbat harrassment with Zerglings who are losing the match while the ones who build static defenses seem to be fine. That might be a misperception on my part, but I would suggest you check for yourself. The whole point of HotS seems to be "more harrassment" ... Hellbat, Oracle, Mutalisk regen, Medivac speed, Widow Mine, ... so preparing for that is a requirement and not optional now IMO. Also 2x +3 attack upgrade blings kill a mine(that is less than +3 armor upgrade) which I'd argue isn't that cost inefficient for a zerg(100/50 vs 75/25). It is really obnoxious when a zerg sends 2x blings ontop of a widow mine and blows it up, but terrans quite often in a hurry burry 2x next to each other, so atleast those times it is cost effective. I see it as a great way for a zerg to keep the amount of widow mines on the field in control, rather than letting it spiral. So, just to be clear: I don't think there is any imbalance in the matchup overall, but I do believe that ling/bling/muta (even if you manage to upgrade 3-3+cracklings, 3-0 AND even with small infestor support) can't fight against marine/medivac/mine (or hellbat/tank/marauder variations) and you have to go ultras/broodlords to win after the early 3base Terran phase. That being said, it's not good to trade banes vs mines like that. The equation goes basically like this: 1) marines > lings, mutas, roaches, hydras, queens, swarm hosts 2) marines < banelings, ultralisks, huge infestor count, huge broodlord count Basically, all you want to do as a Terran in those engagements is kill as many banelings efficiently or in equal trades as you can before they touch marines. The rest is just a mob up. On May 12 2013 04:51 plogamer wrote:On May 12 2013 04:48 Ramiz1989 wrote:On May 12 2013 03:20 Whitewing wrote: Be very careful about changing TvZ even if you conclude it is imbalanced. Right now at the highest level, it's the most engaging and exciting matchup to watch. The entire matchup frequently turns into a super long push from terran trying to break zerg while zerg tries to throw the push back one time, with both players micro'ing their faces off to try to be efficient. It's incredibly interesting to watch how they try to out control one another with constant battles and counter attacks. The wrong buff to zerg or nerf to terran could ruin that kind of push and send us back to both players maxxing out before doing anything.
TBH, I think the main problem is that zergs let terrans be too greedy and don't punish it. I kind of agree if they opened with Hellions/Reapers etc. however, you can't always punish it, and it is a lot harder if they opened with 1-2 Siege Tanks(which some of them are doing, mind you) or Mines. It also depends on the map a lot. Or Idra's super greedy opener versus Polt could also be the correct response when scouting 3 cc opener. /edit When it comes to greed, I don't think any race can top the Zerg race. I disagree. When zerg is greedy, zerg gets more mining earlier but no tech at all. When Terran is greedy, they still get their full tech tree much earlier and still have the same amount of CCs, but terran only needs to defend a single entrance (compared to two for outdoor basing zerg). Both races have their ups and downs when playing greedy. I agree with Whitewing on that matter. People should roach rush the fuck out of Terrans. Soulkey, Roro, Symbol and Kangho all have been roach rushing, baneling busting and nydusing their way into Ro8 against Terrans this GSL. Shine made it far similarily (those games against Fantasy...). Life, BBong, DRG, Hyun tried to play macrogames and got destroyed. The macro-metagame right now is very simple. Terrans build 3CCs, double ebays, a few hellions/reapers and go into mass reactored barracks+stim/shields and reactored widow mines/medivacs. Before 9-10mins, a Terran won't have any defences down apart from the hellions and a handful of widow mines/marines. On the flip side, a zerg invests into multiple queens, speed, speedlings, sometimes roaches/defenses relatively early without there even being any actual thread apart from those few hellions/reapers and just falls behind. But if you just blindly allin with roaches, a Terran often won't even have the production to react to anything you do because that build can't really produce anything that does not come from a reactored factory, before 9-10mins. And if a Terran even goes more greedy (like instead of defensive mines, even drops mines/hellbats early with this or gets his upgrades even faster or even more barracks early on, or just 4hellions), it's just a freewin, even if you just put on some semiallinish roach aggression with a third behind it, or a really late roach allin that hits at 10+mins. The only thing I want to add to this is the fact that, while having access to the tech, Terran can't utilize it in quite the explosive nature that Zerg (and even Protoss) can, nor is it as central of a role in winning. The only upgrade/tech that plays a huge, instant role is stim, and maybe combat shields and a tank. Having a starport or being able to produce hellbats isn't going to change the game when the first unit rolls out, unlike finishing a spire or making that first colossus (with range). Errr, a lot of Terran's greatest would-be tech you get for free (ie. Siege Mode/Medivac Boost) and these are just as "explosive" as anything Zerg and Protoss have, especially the Medivac Boost. I agree with pretty much everything Big J said except I do feel that TvZ is just slightly in favor of Terran (as most stats show) and just needs a tiny, tiny adjustment. A lot of Terrans in this thread are saying contradictory things like "Zerg shouldn't be able to be so greedy" and "Zerg units should be cost-inefficient". It can't be both otherwise it would be terribly imbalanced. If Zerg is going to be the cost-inefficient race they need to be able to out-expand the other races. The question is: is it currently too difficult for Zerg to be as greedy as they need to be to make up for cost-inefficient midgames? I would say it's probably just a tad too difficult and is due a tiny, tiny adjustment as I already said. I mentioned tanks. I'm not saying things like medivacs don't change the game when they're out, but nobody hinges on that first one or two medivacs to hold a push or overrun a player. That's the general point, that there's just not much "just in time" tech for Terran. Tech is very fluid and only sways the tide of battle, instead of swinging it drastically one way or another. Hellbat drops are very powerful. Heck a standard 1-1 with medivacs timing is powerful as well. Marine Tank timing pushes are also very strong. I just don't see what you're getting at.
|
On May 12 2013 13:57 TGCid wrote: I really think they should make the oracle damage based on the current energy level. A full energy oracle would do more, and a low energy oracle less. This would make oracles a good, but not game-ending early harassment option as well as enhance late game utility by tweaking the amount of damage it could do. The unit is just so boring in its current state. Not a good idea IMO, because if you make the difference between max and min damage too small it wont change a thing, but if you make it too big you will make either harrassment at the lower end useless OR make it overpowered at the top end.
People simply need to learn to build static defenses when playing a Protoss or Terran to either kill or threaten away any Phoenix (static defenses cant be lifted), Oracles (static defenses are not light) and Medivacs (AA static defenses even give detection against Widow Mines). Once it doesnt make any sense anymore to do such early harrassment because people are defending properly these tactics wont be used as much anymore.
Since attacks supported by a Mothership Core are very popular atm I would think that static AA is great against that as well, especially since they all have range 7 and can "protect" a relatively large area from that unit to prevent it from giving vision up a level.
|
On May 12 2013 08:53 kamicom wrote: I love how all the people defending WM's and hellbats and afterburners JUST happen to be Terran 99% of the time.. you know there's something screwy with units when mirror match ups become a joke...
Terran mirror is light years ahead of other mirrors in terms of entertainment Based on your logic btw mutalisk should be nerfed.
|
|
I think there are some things getting mixed up in this thread. We can see some true balance complaints like: "ZvT is almost unwinnable and all the Zergs will disappear from the tourneys, ladder etc". Tournament results and the long list of the zerg players that seem to be doing fine within the current metagame say otherwise.
And than there is another set of complaints that can be summed up with a statement: "I don't like the current meta/gameplay". This is understandable - for example a coinflip is pretty balanced, but it is not a lot of fun to watch (unless it's at Dreamhack).
Let's say little Johnny doesn't like MMM-based TvP and thinks that the right way to play versus Protoss is a 4-port banshee. Pretty soon you would see Johnny posting on TL with the idea of increasing the range, damage and hp on the banshee by 50% to make his goto strategy viable.
This is exactly what the zergies do: my (WoL) strat is not working, other strats(bust) are stupid: blizzard go nerf hellbat, speedvacs and widow mines!
For me saying things like "well, the game has been out for two months, I've played 100 games on the ladder and nothing's gonna change, blizzard fix this!" seems a bit hasty. And the idea of sacrificing balance in favor of a better gameplay is flawed.
|
On May 12 2013 16:51 scypio wrote: I think there are some things getting mixed up in this thread. We can see some true balance complaints like: "ZvT is almost unwinnable and all the Zergs will disappear from the tourneys, ladder etc". Tournament results and the long list of the zerg players that seem to be doing fine within the current metagame say otherwise.
And than there is another set of complaints that can be summed up with a statement: "I don't like the current meta/gameplay". This is understandable - for example a coinflip is pretty balanced, but it is not a lot of fun to watch (unless it's at Dreamhack).
Let's say little Johnny doesn't like MMM-based TvP and thinks that the right way to play versus Protoss is a 4-port banshee. Pretty soon you would see Johnny posting on TL with the idea of increasing the range, damage and hp on the banshee by 50% to make his goto strategy viable.
This is exactly what the zergies do: my (WoL) strat is not working, other strats(bust) are stupid: blizzard go nerf hellbat, speedvacs and widow mines!
For me saying things like "well, the game has been out for two months, I've played 100 games on the ladder and nothing's gonna change, blizzard fix this!" seems a bit hasty. And the idea of sacrificing balance in favor of a better gameplay is flawed.
except its the other way around. the old WoL style roach or roach bane all ins or roach nydus allins (which symbol already did in WoL and havent changed one bit) are working if T is bad/doesnt scout/plays insanely greedy. the new stuff in midgame doesnt work: swarmhosts, faster hydras dont work AT ALL, regenerating mutas work if you outplay opponent. the guy mentioning all the macro zergs are out while all the "all in/cheesy zerg" got in ro8 is true to the most part (obv not all macro zergs game are macro and the other way around). thats what all zerg players say is stupid: if you are on equal skill AND want to play a standard macro game TvZ is imbalanced. what makes it a bit more balanced are all the all ins Z does. once T figures them out (roach nydus all in etc. is easy scoutable, so is every roach warren with 2 reaper opening), TvZ will get a lot worse. lets see how it gets fixed. its just NO FUN at all to all in every TvZ right now because you will lose most macro games.
|
On May 12 2013 12:50 vRadiatioNv wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2013 08:50 aksfjh wrote:On May 12 2013 08:11 Big J wrote:On May 12 2013 03:41 Zarahtra wrote:On May 12 2013 03:21 Rabiator wrote:On May 12 2013 03:16 Chocobo wrote:On May 11 2013 19:49 Godwrath wrote:On May 11 2013 18:06 Chocobo wrote: Yep. Kinda like how mines are cost efficient vs everything zerg has in the first 15-20 minutes of the game. Erhm, no. Other than broodlords, what is cost efficient against mines for zerg? 1. Spore and Spine Crawlers for the early game ... (They are even good against Hellbat drops since neither of these dies easily to the "vs light" damage and the Medivac dies faster ... which prevents its reuse. Spore Crawlers are great against Phoenix and Oracle too ....) 2. Sending in Overlords to soak up the shots right before your charge ... Just watch a few TvZ games with early harrassment and IMO it is always the "diehard oldschoolers" who try to defend against Hellbat harrassment with Zerglings who are losing the match while the ones who build static defenses seem to be fine. That might be a misperception on my part, but I would suggest you check for yourself. The whole point of HotS seems to be "more harrassment" ... Hellbat, Oracle, Mutalisk regen, Medivac speed, Widow Mine, ... so preparing for that is a requirement and not optional now IMO. Also 2x +3 attack upgrade blings kill a mine(that is less than +3 armor upgrade) which I'd argue isn't that cost inefficient for a zerg(100/50 vs 75/25). It is really obnoxious when a zerg sends 2x blings ontop of a widow mine and blows it up, but terrans quite often in a hurry burry 2x next to each other, so atleast those times it is cost effective. I see it as a great way for a zerg to keep the amount of widow mines on the field in control, rather than letting it spiral. So, just to be clear: I don't think there is any imbalance in the matchup overall, but I do believe that ling/bling/muta (even if you manage to upgrade 3-3+cracklings, 3-0 AND even with small infestor support) can't fight against marine/medivac/mine (or hellbat/tank/marauder variations) and you have to go ultras/broodlords to win after the early 3base Terran phase. That being said, it's not good to trade banes vs mines like that. The equation goes basically like this: 1) marines > lings, mutas, roaches, hydras, queens, swarm hosts 2) marines < banelings, ultralisks, huge infestor count, huge broodlord count Basically, all you want to do as a Terran in those engagements is kill as many banelings efficiently or in equal trades as you can before they touch marines. The rest is just a mob up. On May 12 2013 04:51 plogamer wrote:On May 12 2013 04:48 Ramiz1989 wrote:On May 12 2013 03:20 Whitewing wrote: Be very careful about changing TvZ even if you conclude it is imbalanced. Right now at the highest level, it's the most engaging and exciting matchup to watch. The entire matchup frequently turns into a super long push from terran trying to break zerg while zerg tries to throw the push back one time, with both players micro'ing their faces off to try to be efficient. It's incredibly interesting to watch how they try to out control one another with constant battles and counter attacks. The wrong buff to zerg or nerf to terran could ruin that kind of push and send us back to both players maxxing out before doing anything.
TBH, I think the main problem is that zergs let terrans be too greedy and don't punish it. I kind of agree if they opened with Hellions/Reapers etc. however, you can't always punish it, and it is a lot harder if they opened with 1-2 Siege Tanks(which some of them are doing, mind you) or Mines. It also depends on the map a lot. Or Idra's super greedy opener versus Polt could also be the correct response when scouting 3 cc opener. /edit When it comes to greed, I don't think any race can top the Zerg race. I disagree. When zerg is greedy, zerg gets more mining earlier but no tech at all. When Terran is greedy, they still get their full tech tree much earlier and still have the same amount of CCs, but terran only needs to defend a single entrance (compared to two for outdoor basing zerg). Both races have their ups and downs when playing greedy. I agree with Whitewing on that matter. People should roach rush the fuck out of Terrans. Soulkey, Roro, Symbol and Kangho all have been roach rushing, baneling busting and nydusing their way into Ro8 against Terrans this GSL. Shine made it far similarily (those games against Fantasy...). Life, BBong, DRG, Hyun tried to play macrogames and got destroyed. The macro-metagame right now is very simple. Terrans build 3CCs, double ebays, a few hellions/reapers and go into mass reactored barracks+stim/shields and reactored widow mines/medivacs. Before 9-10mins, a Terran won't have any defences down apart from the hellions and a handful of widow mines/marines. On the flip side, a zerg invests into multiple queens, speed, speedlings, sometimes roaches/defenses relatively early without there even being any actual thread apart from those few hellions/reapers and just falls behind. But if you just blindly allin with roaches, a Terran often won't even have the production to react to anything you do because that build can't really produce anything that does not come from a reactored factory, before 9-10mins. And if a Terran even goes more greedy (like instead of defensive mines, even drops mines/hellbats early with this or gets his upgrades even faster or even more barracks early on, or just 4hellions), it's just a freewin, even if you just put on some semiallinish roach aggression with a third behind it, or a really late roach allin that hits at 10+mins. The only thing I want to add to this is the fact that, while having access to the tech, Terran can't utilize it in quite the explosive nature that Zerg (and even Protoss) can, nor is it as central of a role in winning. The only upgrade/tech that plays a huge, instant role is stim, and maybe combat shields and a tank. Having a starport or being able to produce hellbats isn't going to change the game when the first unit rolls out, unlike finishing a spire or making that first colossus (with range). I agree with pretty much everything Big J said except I do feel that TvZ is just slightly in favor of Terran (as most stats show) and just needs a tiny, tiny adjustment. Most stats don't show that. Only one sets of stats shown that, which was proven again and again to lack statistical significance (when you removed WCS qualifiers it was pretty much 50/50).
And at what level do you think TvZ favors Terran? Since even the most hardcore zerg supporters here have a very hard time defending that at pro level terran would be stronger, with half the Code S RO8 for example being zerg. And at every level above silver it is kinda weird that way more people play zerg than terran if zerg would be so much weaker.
But what kind of tiny ajustments do you want to boost zerg without allowing them to dominate pro levels and become even more popular on 'normal' levels? And not to nerf terran against toss would also be nice. Oh and take into account due to their production nature zerg always needs longer to adapt to new metagames so I would also consider it a pré if zerg don't dominate the next 6 months yet again.
@Decendos, terran has never been able to go for a pure macro game against any of the other races. So why should zerg be allowed to do it?
|
On May 12 2013 17:03 Sissors wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2013 12:50 vRadiatioNv wrote:On May 12 2013 08:50 aksfjh wrote:On May 12 2013 08:11 Big J wrote:On May 12 2013 03:41 Zarahtra wrote:On May 12 2013 03:21 Rabiator wrote:On May 12 2013 03:16 Chocobo wrote:On May 11 2013 19:49 Godwrath wrote:On May 11 2013 18:06 Chocobo wrote: Yep. Kinda like how mines are cost efficient vs everything zerg has in the first 15-20 minutes of the game. Erhm, no. Other than broodlords, what is cost efficient against mines for zerg? 1. Spore and Spine Crawlers for the early game ... (They are even good against Hellbat drops since neither of these dies easily to the "vs light" damage and the Medivac dies faster ... which prevents its reuse. Spore Crawlers are great against Phoenix and Oracle too ....) 2. Sending in Overlords to soak up the shots right before your charge ... Just watch a few TvZ games with early harrassment and IMO it is always the "diehard oldschoolers" who try to defend against Hellbat harrassment with Zerglings who are losing the match while the ones who build static defenses seem to be fine. That might be a misperception on my part, but I would suggest you check for yourself. The whole point of HotS seems to be "more harrassment" ... Hellbat, Oracle, Mutalisk regen, Medivac speed, Widow Mine, ... so preparing for that is a requirement and not optional now IMO. Also 2x +3 attack upgrade blings kill a mine(that is less than +3 armor upgrade) which I'd argue isn't that cost inefficient for a zerg(100/50 vs 75/25). It is really obnoxious when a zerg sends 2x blings ontop of a widow mine and blows it up, but terrans quite often in a hurry burry 2x next to each other, so atleast those times it is cost effective. I see it as a great way for a zerg to keep the amount of widow mines on the field in control, rather than letting it spiral. So, just to be clear: I don't think there is any imbalance in the matchup overall, but I do believe that ling/bling/muta (even if you manage to upgrade 3-3+cracklings, 3-0 AND even with small infestor support) can't fight against marine/medivac/mine (or hellbat/tank/marauder variations) and you have to go ultras/broodlords to win after the early 3base Terran phase. That being said, it's not good to trade banes vs mines like that. The equation goes basically like this: 1) marines > lings, mutas, roaches, hydras, queens, swarm hosts 2) marines < banelings, ultralisks, huge infestor count, huge broodlord count Basically, all you want to do as a Terran in those engagements is kill as many banelings efficiently or in equal trades as you can before they touch marines. The rest is just a mob up. On May 12 2013 04:51 plogamer wrote:On May 12 2013 04:48 Ramiz1989 wrote:On May 12 2013 03:20 Whitewing wrote: Be very careful about changing TvZ even if you conclude it is imbalanced. Right now at the highest level, it's the most engaging and exciting matchup to watch. The entire matchup frequently turns into a super long push from terran trying to break zerg while zerg tries to throw the push back one time, with both players micro'ing their faces off to try to be efficient. It's incredibly interesting to watch how they try to out control one another with constant battles and counter attacks. The wrong buff to zerg or nerf to terran could ruin that kind of push and send us back to both players maxxing out before doing anything.
TBH, I think the main problem is that zergs let terrans be too greedy and don't punish it. I kind of agree if they opened with Hellions/Reapers etc. however, you can't always punish it, and it is a lot harder if they opened with 1-2 Siege Tanks(which some of them are doing, mind you) or Mines. It also depends on the map a lot. Or Idra's super greedy opener versus Polt could also be the correct response when scouting 3 cc opener. /edit When it comes to greed, I don't think any race can top the Zerg race. I disagree. When zerg is greedy, zerg gets more mining earlier but no tech at all. When Terran is greedy, they still get their full tech tree much earlier and still have the same amount of CCs, but terran only needs to defend a single entrance (compared to two for outdoor basing zerg). Both races have their ups and downs when playing greedy. I agree with Whitewing on that matter. People should roach rush the fuck out of Terrans. Soulkey, Roro, Symbol and Kangho all have been roach rushing, baneling busting and nydusing their way into Ro8 against Terrans this GSL. Shine made it far similarily (those games against Fantasy...). Life, BBong, DRG, Hyun tried to play macrogames and got destroyed. The macro-metagame right now is very simple. Terrans build 3CCs, double ebays, a few hellions/reapers and go into mass reactored barracks+stim/shields and reactored widow mines/medivacs. Before 9-10mins, a Terran won't have any defences down apart from the hellions and a handful of widow mines/marines. On the flip side, a zerg invests into multiple queens, speed, speedlings, sometimes roaches/defenses relatively early without there even being any actual thread apart from those few hellions/reapers and just falls behind. But if you just blindly allin with roaches, a Terran often won't even have the production to react to anything you do because that build can't really produce anything that does not come from a reactored factory, before 9-10mins. And if a Terran even goes more greedy (like instead of defensive mines, even drops mines/hellbats early with this or gets his upgrades even faster or even more barracks early on, or just 4hellions), it's just a freewin, even if you just put on some semiallinish roach aggression with a third behind it, or a really late roach allin that hits at 10+mins. The only thing I want to add to this is the fact that, while having access to the tech, Terran can't utilize it in quite the explosive nature that Zerg (and even Protoss) can, nor is it as central of a role in winning. The only upgrade/tech that plays a huge, instant role is stim, and maybe combat shields and a tank. Having a starport or being able to produce hellbats isn't going to change the game when the first unit rolls out, unlike finishing a spire or making that first colossus (with range). I agree with pretty much everything Big J said except I do feel that TvZ is just slightly in favor of Terran (as most stats show) and just needs a tiny, tiny adjustment. Most stats don't show that. Only one sets of stats shown that, which was proven again and again to lack statistical significance (when you removed WCS qualifiers it was pretty much 50/50). And at what level do you think TvZ favors Terran? Since even the most hardcore zerg supporters here have a very hard time defending that at pro level terran would be stronger, with half the Code S RO8 for example being zerg. And at every level above silver it is kinda weird that way more people play zerg than terran if zerg would be so much weaker. But what kind of tiny ajustments do you want to boost zerg without allowing them to dominate pro levels and become even more popular on 'normal' levels? And not to nerf terran against toss would also be nice. Oh and take into account due to their production nature zerg always needs longer to adapt to new metagames so I would also consider it a pré if zerg don't dominate the next 6 months yet again. @Decendos, terran has never been able to go for a pure macro game against any of the other races. So why should zerg be allowed to do it?
macro game isnt drone to 75. np if Z has a good pressure build and macros behind it like T is able to. excep Z hasnt. ever tried building 4 roaches and pressure? it doesnt work. you have to go completely all in to do any damage and build 10 roaches for example. Z has no early to early midgame harrass units like T has. thats why i am so sad about no burrow change which could fix that.
|
I have always complained since the beta that the early game for zerg feels exactly the same for the last few years of WoL. Defend and drone drone drone. The only aggression comes around lair and hive tech, the problem is that in ZvT, the lair units are still used to defend drops, you can't pull your muta too far or you will get punished by drops. and hive units are basically late game already, how can a zerg be fun to play if they can almost never put any aggression back onto the opponent?
|
On May 12 2013 17:03 Decendos wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2013 16:51 scypio wrote: I think there are some things getting mixed up in this thread. We can see some true balance complaints like: "ZvT is almost unwinnable and all the Zergs will disappear from the tourneys, ladder etc". Tournament results and the long list of the zerg players that seem to be doing fine within the current metagame say otherwise.
And than there is another set of complaints that can be summed up with a statement: "I don't like the current meta/gameplay". This is understandable - for example a coinflip is pretty balanced, but it is not a lot of fun to watch (unless it's at Dreamhack).
Let's say little Johnny doesn't like MMM-based TvP and thinks that the right way to play versus Protoss is a 4-port banshee. Pretty soon you would see Johnny posting on TL with the idea of increasing the range, damage and hp on the banshee by 50% to make his goto strategy viable.
This is exactly what the zergies do: my (WoL) strat is not working, other strats(bust) are stupid: blizzard go nerf hellbat, speedvacs and widow mines!
For me saying things like "well, the game has been out for two months, I've played 100 games on the ladder and nothing's gonna change, blizzard fix this!" seems a bit hasty. And the idea of sacrificing balance in favor of a better gameplay is flawed. except its the other way around. the old WoL style roach or roach bane all ins or roach nydus allins (which symbol already did in WoL and havent changed one bit) are working if T is bad/doesnt scout/plays insanely greedy. the new stuff in midgame doesnt work: swarmhosts, faster hydras dont work AT ALL, regenerating mutas work if you outplay opponent. the guy mentioning all the macro zergs are out while all the "all in/cheesy zerg" got in ro8 is true to the most part (obv not all macro zergs game are macro and the other way around). thats what all zerg players say is stupid: if you are on equal skill AND want to play a standard macro game TvZ is imbalanced. what makes it a bit more balanced are all the all ins Z does. once T figures them out (roach nydus all in etc. is easy scoutable, so is every roach warren with 2 reaper opening), TvZ will get a lot worse. lets see how it gets fixed. its just NO FUN at all to all in every TvZ right now because you will lose most macro games.
But why would you think that two months is enough to say that the new toys that zergs got do not work? Early all-ins for the zerg work great because they haven't changed for the last two years. Every skilled zerg knows the timings to the last second, knows how to deal a final blow if the first wave does not cut it and can play these games out without thinking,
The same goes for every single unit that terran has received in hots. Mines are new, but leapfrogging them forward is exactly the same (in terms of mechanics) like leapfrogging the tanks. And that's about it, terrans can bank on their WoL MMM(+T) control skills in every 4M game vs the zerg.
On the other hand vipers and swarm hosts did not have any counterparts in WoL, therefore the skill to control them needs to be built from the ground up. Once again: if it took that long for the zergs to figure out how to use the WoL ling/infestor/broodlord composition to the max - how come 2 months is enough to say "this stuff is worthless"?
|
On May 12 2013 17:21 scypio wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2013 17:03 Decendos wrote:On May 12 2013 16:51 scypio wrote: I think there are some things getting mixed up in this thread. We can see some true balance complaints like: "ZvT is almost unwinnable and all the Zergs will disappear from the tourneys, ladder etc". Tournament results and the long list of the zerg players that seem to be doing fine within the current metagame say otherwise.
And than there is another set of complaints that can be summed up with a statement: "I don't like the current meta/gameplay". This is understandable - for example a coinflip is pretty balanced, but it is not a lot of fun to watch (unless it's at Dreamhack).
Let's say little Johnny doesn't like MMM-based TvP and thinks that the right way to play versus Protoss is a 4-port banshee. Pretty soon you would see Johnny posting on TL with the idea of increasing the range, damage and hp on the banshee by 50% to make his goto strategy viable.
This is exactly what the zergies do: my (WoL) strat is not working, other strats(bust) are stupid: blizzard go nerf hellbat, speedvacs and widow mines!
For me saying things like "well, the game has been out for two months, I've played 100 games on the ladder and nothing's gonna change, blizzard fix this!" seems a bit hasty. And the idea of sacrificing balance in favor of a better gameplay is flawed. except its the other way around. the old WoL style roach or roach bane all ins or roach nydus allins (which symbol already did in WoL and havent changed one bit) are working if T is bad/doesnt scout/plays insanely greedy. the new stuff in midgame doesnt work: swarmhosts, faster hydras dont work AT ALL, regenerating mutas work if you outplay opponent. the guy mentioning all the macro zergs are out while all the "all in/cheesy zerg" got in ro8 is true to the most part (obv not all macro zergs game are macro and the other way around). thats what all zerg players say is stupid: if you are on equal skill AND want to play a standard macro game TvZ is imbalanced. what makes it a bit more balanced are all the all ins Z does. once T figures them out (roach nydus all in etc. is easy scoutable, so is every roach warren with 2 reaper opening), TvZ will get a lot worse. lets see how it gets fixed. its just NO FUN at all to all in every TvZ right now because you will lose most macro games. But why would you think that two months is enough to say that the new toys that zergs got do not work? Early all-ins for the zerg work great because they haven't changed for the last two years. Every skilled zerg knows the timings to the last second, knows how to deal a final blow if the first wave does not cut it and can play these games out without thinking, The same goes for every single unit that terran has received in hots. Mines are new, but leapfrogging them forward is exactly the same (in terms of mechanics) like leapfrogging the tanks. And that's about it, terrans can bank on their WoL MMM(+T) control skills in every 4M game vs the zerg. On the other hand vipers and swarm hosts did not have any counterparts in WoL, therefore the skill to control them needs to be built from the ground up. Once again: if it took that long for the zergs to figure out how to use the WoL ling/infestor/broodlord composition to the max - how come 2 months is enough to say "this stuff is worthless"? ling infestors broodlords were available because of the map change (less rush), infestor change made ling infestor available. infestor broodlord came soon after the infestor got changed
marine tank is much harder to execute than bio mine. mine has a lower attack priority and can deal with both air and land.
|
Not saying they're imbalanced but just watching ZvTs now widow mines look hella frustrating to play against, even just watching it makes me annoyed. I think the unit should have been balanced in such a way that it became a support unit for mmm tank armies rather than completely replacing the tank.
|
On May 12 2013 17:33 tomatriedes wrote: Not saying they're imbalanced but just watching ZvTs now widow mines look hella frustrating to play against, even just watching it makes me annoyed. I think the unit should have been balanced in such a way that it became a support unit for mmm tank armies rather than completely replacing the tank. I agree that it would probably better if tanks became core again in TvZ. However Blizzard would need to take a look at buffing their current form if they decided to just nerf the mines. Siege tanks are currently one of the weakest units in the game, weirdly enough, and they're only really used in TvT nowadays.
|
On May 12 2013 17:28 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2013 17:21 scypio wrote:On May 12 2013 17:03 Decendos wrote:On May 12 2013 16:51 scypio wrote: I think there are some things getting mixed up in this thread. We can see some true balance complaints like: "ZvT is almost unwinnable and all the Zergs will disappear from the tourneys, ladder etc". Tournament results and the long list of the zerg players that seem to be doing fine within the current metagame say otherwise.
And than there is another set of complaints that can be summed up with a statement: "I don't like the current meta/gameplay". This is understandable - for example a coinflip is pretty balanced, but it is not a lot of fun to watch (unless it's at Dreamhack).
Let's say little Johnny doesn't like MMM-based TvP and thinks that the right way to play versus Protoss is a 4-port banshee. Pretty soon you would see Johnny posting on TL with the idea of increasing the range, damage and hp on the banshee by 50% to make his goto strategy viable.
This is exactly what the zergies do: my (WoL) strat is not working, other strats(bust) are stupid: blizzard go nerf hellbat, speedvacs and widow mines!
For me saying things like "well, the game has been out for two months, I've played 100 games on the ladder and nothing's gonna change, blizzard fix this!" seems a bit hasty. And the idea of sacrificing balance in favor of a better gameplay is flawed. except its the other way around. the old WoL style roach or roach bane all ins or roach nydus allins (which symbol already did in WoL and havent changed one bit) are working if T is bad/doesnt scout/plays insanely greedy. the new stuff in midgame doesnt work: swarmhosts, faster hydras dont work AT ALL, regenerating mutas work if you outplay opponent. the guy mentioning all the macro zergs are out while all the "all in/cheesy zerg" got in ro8 is true to the most part (obv not all macro zergs game are macro and the other way around). thats what all zerg players say is stupid: if you are on equal skill AND want to play a standard macro game TvZ is imbalanced. what makes it a bit more balanced are all the all ins Z does. once T figures them out (roach nydus all in etc. is easy scoutable, so is every roach warren with 2 reaper opening), TvZ will get a lot worse. lets see how it gets fixed. its just NO FUN at all to all in every TvZ right now because you will lose most macro games. But why would you think that two months is enough to say that the new toys that zergs got do not work? Early all-ins for the zerg work great because they haven't changed for the last two years. Every skilled zerg knows the timings to the last second, knows how to deal a final blow if the first wave does not cut it and can play these games out without thinking, The same goes for every single unit that terran has received in hots. Mines are new, but leapfrogging them forward is exactly the same (in terms of mechanics) like leapfrogging the tanks. And that's about it, terrans can bank on their WoL MMM(+T) control skills in every 4M game vs the zerg. On the other hand vipers and swarm hosts did not have any counterparts in WoL, therefore the skill to control them needs to be built from the ground up. Once again: if it took that long for the zergs to figure out how to use the WoL ling/infestor/broodlord composition to the max - how come 2 months is enough to say "this stuff is worthless"? ling infestors broodlords were available because of the map change (less rush), infestor change made ling infestor available. infestor broodlord came soon after the infestor got changed marine tank is much harder to execute than bio mine. mine has a lower attack priority and can deal with both air and land.
Dodging the question? The transition into HotS is twice as tough for the zerg as it is for the terran: first of all, they need to learn how to deal with new situations (fighting on a minefield). Then they have totally new units they have no idea how to use (viper, swarm host).
Still, they are doing pretty good in HotS, even if they depend on WoL compositions in vs T (but with the new ultras it is not the same really...).
Do you really think that two months worth of games in such a scenario is enough to warrant a statement: "this stuff is worthless, blizzard step in"?
|
On May 12 2013 17:37 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2013 17:33 tomatriedes wrote: Not saying they're imbalanced but just watching ZvTs now widow mines look hella frustrating to play against, even just watching it makes me annoyed. I think the unit should have been balanced in such a way that it became a support unit for mmm tank armies rather than completely replacing the tank. I agree that it would probably better if tanks became core again in TvZ. However Blizzard would need to take a look at buffing their current form if they decided to just nerf the mines. Siege tanks are currently one of the weakest units in the game, weirdly enough, and they're only really used in TvT nowadays.
would really like if they make tanks more BW like: longer siege time but also more damage output. would need more skill to use (positioning, not getting catched unsieged) but also tanks would be better in all MUs (they are UP in all MUs imo).
WMs on the other hand have no weakness. they are better than tanks in pretty much every way. tanks have better range...thats it. tanks being able to shoot faster doesnt weigh that much imo since fights happen so fast tanks get off max 2 shots anyway. on the other hand WMs have no attack priority, reactored, MUCH cheaper, faster, good in drops, invisible, hit air, splash AND single target damage...right now WM is slightly OP while tanks are slighty UP which is both down to design issues (like the mentioned longer siege time for more damage and no real downside for WMs).
|
While I agree WMs are better overall than siege tanks right now, I also think you are really underestimating their better range, and sometimes the ability to shoot unsieged is also handy. And for example a fungal doesn't incapacitate it. Also compared to widow mines siege tanks only do little friendly damage.
|
On May 12 2013 17:33 tomatriedes wrote: Not saying they're imbalanced but just watching ZvTs now widow mines look hella frustrating to play against, even just watching it makes me annoyed. I think the unit should have been balanced in such a way that it became a support unit for mmm tank armies rather than completely replacing the tank. How do you make such a mine a "support unit" without copying the Spider Mine from BW? ... which would have created a storm of outrage from the BW-haters for not being innovative (for innovations sake).
Your remark is a nice and general "they should have done this instead", but the truth is that there are only so many ways in which to design units and the total number of "style options" are limited: 1. Unit type category I: infantry, mechanical, flyer 2. Unit type category II: caster, army unit, support 3. Damage delivery: melee, ranged, spell 4. Damage: single target, AoE 5. Target type: ground only, air only, both ...
The list of "general characteristics" is not that long and you have a limited number of combinations. Many things are just "flavor characteristics" such as machinegun or laser or acid spit.
The gist of it is - and I have said it before - that Blizzard is adding different stuff to be different from BW on purpose, not because the new unit design makes particular sense or is exciting. They have that urge to "show their superiority" and end up with ridiculous units ... as the Widow Mine clearly shows, but many others have shown before as well. The complete reworking of the Mothership Core and the Oracle or even the Warhound during the HotS beta is another good example of where they "do random stuff without any plan". The Widow Mine is in the game and I wouldnt expect a redesign ever ... it took them years to figure out what to do with the Thor and its energy ... and they still screwed it up.
On May 12 2013 17:54 Sissors wrote: While I agree WMs are better overall than siege tanks right now, I also think you are really underestimating their better range, and sometimes the ability to shoot unsieged is also handy. And for example a fungal doesn't incapacitate it. Also compared to widow mines siege tanks only do little friendly damage. Siege Tanks are part of the army and other units synergize with them; Widow Mines are "positional defense units" or "harrassment units" at best which cant really be "used" but are automated like static defenses.
|
On May 12 2013 17:54 Sissors wrote: While I agree WMs are better overall than siege tanks right now, I also think you are really underestimating their better range, and sometimes the ability to shoot unsieged is also handy. And for example a fungal doesn't incapacitate it. Also compared to widow mines siege tanks only do little friendly damage. I think the problem with siege tanks (and also what I like about them, as I'm not really a fan of turtling and passive play :p) is that they don't hold any position like I would assume they were supposed to. It's really easy to bust a siege tank line if you have just a bit more than the opponent. I also understand Blizzard's reasoning behind making them weak (by basically introducing a shit load of hard counters): they don't want casual players to just make tanks and sit behind a wall for a fucking hour, which is what would happen at low level of play (up to mid-range foreigner semi-pro level I would say). I dread some TvX between Goody-like Terrans and random EU pros, those could last really really long because foreigners really like to turtle and not attack if they don't have to.
In the current HotS metagame, at least every race has to attack somehow for fear of doom compositions or overwhelming greedy plays. For example, in TvZ, Zerg pressures Terran early on to try to catch greedy 3 CC play and Terrans starts attacking to delay mass mutas or hive tech. It may not be very fair to Zerg currently, because they have trouble being cost efficient against mines with their units, but at least it makes for dynamic games, which wasn't the case in the infamous WoL queen-infestor-broodlord galore metagame.
|
On May 12 2013 17:03 Sissors wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2013 12:50 vRadiatioNv wrote:On May 12 2013 08:50 aksfjh wrote:On May 12 2013 08:11 Big J wrote:On May 12 2013 03:41 Zarahtra wrote:On May 12 2013 03:21 Rabiator wrote:On May 12 2013 03:16 Chocobo wrote:On May 11 2013 19:49 Godwrath wrote:On May 11 2013 18:06 Chocobo wrote: Yep. Kinda like how mines are cost efficient vs everything zerg has in the first 15-20 minutes of the game. Erhm, no. Other than broodlords, what is cost efficient against mines for zerg? 1. Spore and Spine Crawlers for the early game ... (They are even good against Hellbat drops since neither of these dies easily to the "vs light" damage and the Medivac dies faster ... which prevents its reuse. Spore Crawlers are great against Phoenix and Oracle too ....) 2. Sending in Overlords to soak up the shots right before your charge ... Just watch a few TvZ games with early harrassment and IMO it is always the "diehard oldschoolers" who try to defend against Hellbat harrassment with Zerglings who are losing the match while the ones who build static defenses seem to be fine. That might be a misperception on my part, but I would suggest you check for yourself. The whole point of HotS seems to be "more harrassment" ... Hellbat, Oracle, Mutalisk regen, Medivac speed, Widow Mine, ... so preparing for that is a requirement and not optional now IMO. Also 2x +3 attack upgrade blings kill a mine(that is less than +3 armor upgrade) which I'd argue isn't that cost inefficient for a zerg(100/50 vs 75/25). It is really obnoxious when a zerg sends 2x blings ontop of a widow mine and blows it up, but terrans quite often in a hurry burry 2x next to each other, so atleast those times it is cost effective. I see it as a great way for a zerg to keep the amount of widow mines on the field in control, rather than letting it spiral. So, just to be clear: I don't think there is any imbalance in the matchup overall, but I do believe that ling/bling/muta (even if you manage to upgrade 3-3+cracklings, 3-0 AND even with small infestor support) can't fight against marine/medivac/mine (or hellbat/tank/marauder variations) and you have to go ultras/broodlords to win after the early 3base Terran phase. That being said, it's not good to trade banes vs mines like that. The equation goes basically like this: 1) marines > lings, mutas, roaches, hydras, queens, swarm hosts 2) marines < banelings, ultralisks, huge infestor count, huge broodlord count Basically, all you want to do as a Terran in those engagements is kill as many banelings efficiently or in equal trades as you can before they touch marines. The rest is just a mob up. On May 12 2013 04:51 plogamer wrote:On May 12 2013 04:48 Ramiz1989 wrote:On May 12 2013 03:20 Whitewing wrote: Be very careful about changing TvZ even if you conclude it is imbalanced. Right now at the highest level, it's the most engaging and exciting matchup to watch. The entire matchup frequently turns into a super long push from terran trying to break zerg while zerg tries to throw the push back one time, with both players micro'ing their faces off to try to be efficient. It's incredibly interesting to watch how they try to out control one another with constant battles and counter attacks. The wrong buff to zerg or nerf to terran could ruin that kind of push and send us back to both players maxxing out before doing anything.
TBH, I think the main problem is that zergs let terrans be too greedy and don't punish it. I kind of agree if they opened with Hellions/Reapers etc. however, you can't always punish it, and it is a lot harder if they opened with 1-2 Siege Tanks(which some of them are doing, mind you) or Mines. It also depends on the map a lot. Or Idra's super greedy opener versus Polt could also be the correct response when scouting 3 cc opener. /edit When it comes to greed, I don't think any race can top the Zerg race. I disagree. When zerg is greedy, zerg gets more mining earlier but no tech at all. When Terran is greedy, they still get their full tech tree much earlier and still have the same amount of CCs, but terran only needs to defend a single entrance (compared to two for outdoor basing zerg). Both races have their ups and downs when playing greedy. I agree with Whitewing on that matter. People should roach rush the fuck out of Terrans. Soulkey, Roro, Symbol and Kangho all have been roach rushing, baneling busting and nydusing their way into Ro8 against Terrans this GSL. Shine made it far similarily (those games against Fantasy...). Life, BBong, DRG, Hyun tried to play macrogames and got destroyed. The macro-metagame right now is very simple. Terrans build 3CCs, double ebays, a few hellions/reapers and go into mass reactored barracks+stim/shields and reactored widow mines/medivacs. Before 9-10mins, a Terran won't have any defences down apart from the hellions and a handful of widow mines/marines. On the flip side, a zerg invests into multiple queens, speed, speedlings, sometimes roaches/defenses relatively early without there even being any actual thread apart from those few hellions/reapers and just falls behind. But if you just blindly allin with roaches, a Terran often won't even have the production to react to anything you do because that build can't really produce anything that does not come from a reactored factory, before 9-10mins. And if a Terran even goes more greedy (like instead of defensive mines, even drops mines/hellbats early with this or gets his upgrades even faster or even more barracks early on, or just 4hellions), it's just a freewin, even if you just put on some semiallinish roach aggression with a third behind it, or a really late roach allin that hits at 10+mins. The only thing I want to add to this is the fact that, while having access to the tech, Terran can't utilize it in quite the explosive nature that Zerg (and even Protoss) can, nor is it as central of a role in winning. The only upgrade/tech that plays a huge, instant role is stim, and maybe combat shields and a tank. Having a starport or being able to produce hellbats isn't going to change the game when the first unit rolls out, unlike finishing a spire or making that first colossus (with range). I agree with pretty much everything Big J said except I do feel that TvZ is just slightly in favor of Terran (as most stats show) and just needs a tiny, tiny adjustment. And at what level do you think TvZ favors Terran?
I would say that TvZ is Terran favoured for non Korean pro scene. Its similiar to WoL with opposite roles. In Korea Zergs are doing ok againts Terran.
|
It also doesn't look to me like terran are dominating in WCS Europe. America is bit harder to look at since that is essentially the Korean B-team. Also for example a Dreamhack, where the non-Koreans didn't do too bad, also definately doesn't have an overrepresentation of non-Korean Terrans compared to other non-Koreans.
|
On May 12 2013 17:03 Decendos wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2013 16:51 scypio wrote: I think there are some things getting mixed up in this thread. We can see some true balance complaints like: "ZvT is almost unwinnable and all the Zergs will disappear from the tourneys, ladder etc". Tournament results and the long list of the zerg players that seem to be doing fine within the current metagame say otherwise.
And than there is another set of complaints that can be summed up with a statement: "I don't like the current meta/gameplay". This is understandable - for example a coinflip is pretty balanced, but it is not a lot of fun to watch (unless it's at Dreamhack).
Let's say little Johnny doesn't like MMM-based TvP and thinks that the right way to play versus Protoss is a 4-port banshee. Pretty soon you would see Johnny posting on TL with the idea of increasing the range, damage and hp on the banshee by 50% to make his goto strategy viable.
This is exactly what the zergies do: my (WoL) strat is not working, other strats(bust) are stupid: blizzard go nerf hellbat, speedvacs and widow mines!
For me saying things like "well, the game has been out for two months, I've played 100 games on the ladder and nothing's gonna change, blizzard fix this!" seems a bit hasty. And the idea of sacrificing balance in favor of a better gameplay is flawed. except its the other way around. the old WoL style roach or roach bane all ins or roach nydus allins (which symbol already did in WoL and havent changed one bit) are working if T is bad/doesnt scout/plays insanely greedy. the new stuff in midgame doesnt work: swarmhosts, faster hydras dont work AT ALL, regenerating mutas work if you outplay opponent. the guy mentioning all the macro zergs are out while all the "all in/cheesy zerg" got in ro8 is true to the most part (obv not all macro zergs game are macro and the other way around). thats what all zerg players say is stupid: if you are on equal skill AND want to play a standard macro game TvZ is imbalanced. what makes it a bit more balanced are all the all ins Z does. once T figures them out (roach nydus all in etc. is easy scoutable, so is every roach warren with 2 reaper opening), TvZ will get a lot worse. lets see how it gets fixed. its just NO FUN at all to all in every TvZ right now because you will lose most macro games.
You AGAIN! - Why are roach bane all ins working better in wol then in hots? Because of the siegetank? Very few terrans go siegetanks these days. Widowmines do jackshit vs well microed roaches. At least you have some allins. Do you know how many allins terrans have vs zerg? 0.
- Swarmhosts don't work? Because you tried it 2 times? Let me guess, you were one of those whiners in WOL who claimed ultralisks were bad, right? Then stephano showed you how to STOMP terrans with them, and then you became quiet. What about trying swarmhosts? Or do you need stephano to make you a nice presentation of it? Everytime a genius zerg tried swarmhost against me, I lost (high master level). But keep thinking they don't work, just like ultras didnt work, right?
- Hydras don't work? In WOL we had SLOW hydras, and stephano was DESTROYING code S terrans (!!!!!!!) with roach hydra compositions. That was during those times when 1) hydras were SLOW, and 2) terrans went TANKS instead of mines (and lets be honnest, mines are not so effective against roaches). Now you got FAST hydras and terrans going for 0 tanks. I also saw stephano demolish terrans with roach hydra in HOTS. So again, hydras don't work?
- Where is the infestor? The missile fungal isn't a big nerf, so why did the unit disapear?
- I remember seeing top zergs destroying terrans in macro games. Ofcourse there were a few allins (an allin, something a terran can't do against zerg, so be happy you can), but a lot of games were pure and fun macrogames.
This is WOL all over again. Zergs complaining > after more then a year zergs finally starting to understand the game > zergs destroying everyone. I'm 100% sure that zvt will change completely, with swarmhosts, vipers, hydras and ultras being the key units.You will actually laugh with the builds that are used now. It's time for zergs to play HOTS, and not the WOL ling bling muta style. When they do that, and things still don't work, then I suggest to look at the viper.
|
On May 12 2013 17:46 scypio wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2013 17:28 ETisME wrote:On May 12 2013 17:21 scypio wrote:On May 12 2013 17:03 Decendos wrote:On May 12 2013 16:51 scypio wrote: I think there are some things getting mixed up in this thread. We can see some true balance complaints like: "ZvT is almost unwinnable and all the Zergs will disappear from the tourneys, ladder etc". Tournament results and the long list of the zerg players that seem to be doing fine within the current metagame say otherwise.
And than there is another set of complaints that can be summed up with a statement: "I don't like the current meta/gameplay". This is understandable - for example a coinflip is pretty balanced, but it is not a lot of fun to watch (unless it's at Dreamhack).
Let's say little Johnny doesn't like MMM-based TvP and thinks that the right way to play versus Protoss is a 4-port banshee. Pretty soon you would see Johnny posting on TL with the idea of increasing the range, damage and hp on the banshee by 50% to make his goto strategy viable.
This is exactly what the zergies do: my (WoL) strat is not working, other strats(bust) are stupid: blizzard go nerf hellbat, speedvacs and widow mines!
For me saying things like "well, the game has been out for two months, I've played 100 games on the ladder and nothing's gonna change, blizzard fix this!" seems a bit hasty. And the idea of sacrificing balance in favor of a better gameplay is flawed. except its the other way around. the old WoL style roach or roach bane all ins or roach nydus allins (which symbol already did in WoL and havent changed one bit) are working if T is bad/doesnt scout/plays insanely greedy. the new stuff in midgame doesnt work: swarmhosts, faster hydras dont work AT ALL, regenerating mutas work if you outplay opponent. the guy mentioning all the macro zergs are out while all the "all in/cheesy zerg" got in ro8 is true to the most part (obv not all macro zergs game are macro and the other way around). thats what all zerg players say is stupid: if you are on equal skill AND want to play a standard macro game TvZ is imbalanced. what makes it a bit more balanced are all the all ins Z does. once T figures them out (roach nydus all in etc. is easy scoutable, so is every roach warren with 2 reaper opening), TvZ will get a lot worse. lets see how it gets fixed. its just NO FUN at all to all in every TvZ right now because you will lose most macro games. But why would you think that two months is enough to say that the new toys that zergs got do not work? Early all-ins for the zerg work great because they haven't changed for the last two years. Every skilled zerg knows the timings to the last second, knows how to deal a final blow if the first wave does not cut it and can play these games out without thinking, The same goes for every single unit that terran has received in hots. Mines are new, but leapfrogging them forward is exactly the same (in terms of mechanics) like leapfrogging the tanks. And that's about it, terrans can bank on their WoL MMM(+T) control skills in every 4M game vs the zerg. On the other hand vipers and swarm hosts did not have any counterparts in WoL, therefore the skill to control them needs to be built from the ground up. Once again: if it took that long for the zergs to figure out how to use the WoL ling/infestor/broodlord composition to the max - how come 2 months is enough to say "this stuff is worthless"? ling infestors broodlords were available because of the map change (less rush), infestor change made ling infestor available. infestor broodlord came soon after the infestor got changed marine tank is much harder to execute than bio mine. mine has a lower attack priority and can deal with both air and land. Dodging the question? The transition into HotS is twice as tough for the zerg as it is for the terran: first of all, they need to learn how to deal with new situations (fighting on a minefield). Then they have totally new units they have no idea how to use (viper, swarm host). Still, they are doing pretty good in HotS, even if they depend on WoL compositions in vs T (but with the new ultras it is not the same really...). Do you really think that two months worth of games in such a scenario is enough to warrant a statement: "this stuff is worthless, blizzard step in"? I didn't dodge any question, you seem to think zerg took very long to go into broodlord infestor because one day they all woke up and notice how strong it is and I am merely telling you why that was the case, which was mostly due to blizzard's changes to map and unit. to answer your question: I can also say something like Terran has the new units and they haven't even get close to max-ing their potential, such as targetting with mines. I do think two months is worth stepping in but it's because I feel speedmedivac is a huge problem and causing a stagnate growth in metagame, ZvT is almost completely the same everywhere. There is only one tool to defend against all these speedmedivac, which is muta. We can't even use the new units because how mobile drops are and viper is less efficient than infestors atm
|
Russian Federation4295 Posts
This is WOL all over again. Zergs complaining > after more then a year zergs finally starting to understand the game > zergs destroying everyone. I'm 100% sure that zvt will change completely, with swarmhosts, vipers, hydras and ultras being the key units.You will actually laugh with the builds that are used now. It's time for zergs to play HOTS, and not the WOL ling bling muta style. When they do that, and things still don't work, then I suggest to look at the viper. Good words, but the problem is that if you don't have mutalisk, Terran can outdrop you by Speedivacs, which can transport not only marine/marauder, but also other strong things, like mech with tanks
|
On May 12 2013 19:48 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2013 17:46 scypio wrote:On May 12 2013 17:28 ETisME wrote:On May 12 2013 17:21 scypio wrote:On May 12 2013 17:03 Decendos wrote:On May 12 2013 16:51 scypio wrote: I think there are some things getting mixed up in this thread. We can see some true balance complaints like: "ZvT is almost unwinnable and all the Zergs will disappear from the tourneys, ladder etc". Tournament results and the long list of the zerg players that seem to be doing fine within the current metagame say otherwise.
And than there is another set of complaints that can be summed up with a statement: "I don't like the current meta/gameplay". This is understandable - for example a coinflip is pretty balanced, but it is not a lot of fun to watch (unless it's at Dreamhack).
Let's say little Johnny doesn't like MMM-based TvP and thinks that the right way to play versus Protoss is a 4-port banshee. Pretty soon you would see Johnny posting on TL with the idea of increasing the range, damage and hp on the banshee by 50% to make his goto strategy viable.
This is exactly what the zergies do: my (WoL) strat is not working, other strats(bust) are stupid: blizzard go nerf hellbat, speedvacs and widow mines!
For me saying things like "well, the game has been out for two months, I've played 100 games on the ladder and nothing's gonna change, blizzard fix this!" seems a bit hasty. And the idea of sacrificing balance in favor of a better gameplay is flawed. except its the other way around. the old WoL style roach or roach bane all ins or roach nydus allins (which symbol already did in WoL and havent changed one bit) are working if T is bad/doesnt scout/plays insanely greedy. the new stuff in midgame doesnt work: swarmhosts, faster hydras dont work AT ALL, regenerating mutas work if you outplay opponent. the guy mentioning all the macro zergs are out while all the "all in/cheesy zerg" got in ro8 is true to the most part (obv not all macro zergs game are macro and the other way around). thats what all zerg players say is stupid: if you are on equal skill AND want to play a standard macro game TvZ is imbalanced. what makes it a bit more balanced are all the all ins Z does. once T figures them out (roach nydus all in etc. is easy scoutable, so is every roach warren with 2 reaper opening), TvZ will get a lot worse. lets see how it gets fixed. its just NO FUN at all to all in every TvZ right now because you will lose most macro games. But why would you think that two months is enough to say that the new toys that zergs got do not work? Early all-ins for the zerg work great because they haven't changed for the last two years. Every skilled zerg knows the timings to the last second, knows how to deal a final blow if the first wave does not cut it and can play these games out without thinking, The same goes for every single unit that terran has received in hots. Mines are new, but leapfrogging them forward is exactly the same (in terms of mechanics) like leapfrogging the tanks. And that's about it, terrans can bank on their WoL MMM(+T) control skills in every 4M game vs the zerg. On the other hand vipers and swarm hosts did not have any counterparts in WoL, therefore the skill to control them needs to be built from the ground up. Once again: if it took that long for the zergs to figure out how to use the WoL ling/infestor/broodlord composition to the max - how come 2 months is enough to say "this stuff is worthless"? ling infestors broodlords were available because of the map change (less rush), infestor change made ling infestor available. infestor broodlord came soon after the infestor got changed marine tank is much harder to execute than bio mine. mine has a lower attack priority and can deal with both air and land. Dodging the question? The transition into HotS is twice as tough for the zerg as it is for the terran: first of all, they need to learn how to deal with new situations (fighting on a minefield). Then they have totally new units they have no idea how to use (viper, swarm host). Still, they are doing pretty good in HotS, even if they depend on WoL compositions in vs T (but with the new ultras it is not the same really...). Do you really think that two months worth of games in such a scenario is enough to warrant a statement: "this stuff is worthless, blizzard step in"? I can also say something like Terran has the new units and they haven't even get close to max-ing their potential, such as targetting with mines. I do think two months is worth stepping in but it's because I feel speedmedivac is a huge problem and causing a stagnate growth in metagame, ZvT is almost completely the same everywhere. Well luckily even the other zergs don't try to claim Terran is too strong in Code S, and that is also the only place where manually targetting mines might have a role, and even there I strongly doubt it. Well outside the case where you got 2 widow mines as defense against an all-in and a ling poke tries to set them off. But thats not targeting, it is preventing them from firing.
|
On May 12 2013 19:48 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2013 17:46 scypio wrote:On May 12 2013 17:28 ETisME wrote:On May 12 2013 17:21 scypio wrote:On May 12 2013 17:03 Decendos wrote:On May 12 2013 16:51 scypio wrote: I think there are some things getting mixed up in this thread. We can see some true balance complaints like: "ZvT is almost unwinnable and all the Zergs will disappear from the tourneys, ladder etc". Tournament results and the long list of the zerg players that seem to be doing fine within the current metagame say otherwise.
And than there is another set of complaints that can be summed up with a statement: "I don't like the current meta/gameplay". This is understandable - for example a coinflip is pretty balanced, but it is not a lot of fun to watch (unless it's at Dreamhack).
Let's say little Johnny doesn't like MMM-based TvP and thinks that the right way to play versus Protoss is a 4-port banshee. Pretty soon you would see Johnny posting on TL with the idea of increasing the range, damage and hp on the banshee by 50% to make his goto strategy viable.
This is exactly what the zergies do: my (WoL) strat is not working, other strats(bust) are stupid: blizzard go nerf hellbat, speedvacs and widow mines!
For me saying things like "well, the game has been out for two months, I've played 100 games on the ladder and nothing's gonna change, blizzard fix this!" seems a bit hasty. And the idea of sacrificing balance in favor of a better gameplay is flawed. except its the other way around. the old WoL style roach or roach bane all ins or roach nydus allins (which symbol already did in WoL and havent changed one bit) are working if T is bad/doesnt scout/plays insanely greedy. the new stuff in midgame doesnt work: swarmhosts, faster hydras dont work AT ALL, regenerating mutas work if you outplay opponent. the guy mentioning all the macro zergs are out while all the "all in/cheesy zerg" got in ro8 is true to the most part (obv not all macro zergs game are macro and the other way around). thats what all zerg players say is stupid: if you are on equal skill AND want to play a standard macro game TvZ is imbalanced. what makes it a bit more balanced are all the all ins Z does. once T figures them out (roach nydus all in etc. is easy scoutable, so is every roach warren with 2 reaper opening), TvZ will get a lot worse. lets see how it gets fixed. its just NO FUN at all to all in every TvZ right now because you will lose most macro games. But why would you think that two months is enough to say that the new toys that zergs got do not work? Early all-ins for the zerg work great because they haven't changed for the last two years. Every skilled zerg knows the timings to the last second, knows how to deal a final blow if the first wave does not cut it and can play these games out without thinking, The same goes for every single unit that terran has received in hots. Mines are new, but leapfrogging them forward is exactly the same (in terms of mechanics) like leapfrogging the tanks. And that's about it, terrans can bank on their WoL MMM(+T) control skills in every 4M game vs the zerg. On the other hand vipers and swarm hosts did not have any counterparts in WoL, therefore the skill to control them needs to be built from the ground up. Once again: if it took that long for the zergs to figure out how to use the WoL ling/infestor/broodlord composition to the max - how come 2 months is enough to say "this stuff is worthless"? ling infestors broodlords were available because of the map change (less rush), infestor change made ling infestor available. infestor broodlord came soon after the infestor got changed marine tank is much harder to execute than bio mine. mine has a lower attack priority and can deal with both air and land. Dodging the question? The transition into HotS is twice as tough for the zerg as it is for the terran: first of all, they need to learn how to deal with new situations (fighting on a minefield). Then they have totally new units they have no idea how to use (viper, swarm host). Still, they are doing pretty good in HotS, even if they depend on WoL compositions in vs T (but with the new ultras it is not the same really...). Do you really think that two months worth of games in such a scenario is enough to warrant a statement: "this stuff is worthless, blizzard step in"? I didn't dodge any question, you seem to think zerg took very long to go into broodlord infestor because one day they all woke up and notice how strong it is and I am merely telling you why that was the case, which was mostly due to blizzard's changes to map and unit. to answer your question: I can also say something like Terran has the new units and they haven't even get close to max-ing their potential, such as targetting with mines. I do think two months is worth stepping in but it's because I feel speedmedivac is a huge problem and causing a stagnate growth in metagame, ZvT is almost completely the same everywhere. There is only one tool to defend against all these speedmedivac, which is muta. We can't even use the new units because how mobile drops are and viper is less efficient than infestors atm
You can say that, but you need to consider that the new units that terran has require the same skillset the old ones needed. Therefore the terrans do have a head start, while the zergs need to catch-up.
It's not that you can't use new units, you just fall back to the things that worked (and work) because you're used to winning. Now is the time to try new compositions, learn how to use them, achieve proficiency with them. This is what Stephano did on numerous occasions in WoL and he seems to be doing it again in HotS.
You say that two months is enough... ok, that's your opinion. I take a look at these four facts: 1. Pro zergs are doing fine in America, Korea and Europe. 2. Two months is not enough time to achieve proficiency with the new units the zergs got. 3. The terrans had a head start in the matchup, as their new units do not require new mechanics or thinking. 4. Pro-level TvZ is spectacular and action-packed.
Therefore I disagree with you. "ZvT is now tough" or "ZvT is in stagnation (after two months...)" does not cut it for me.
|
On May 12 2013 03:21 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2013 03:16 Chocobo wrote:On May 11 2013 19:49 Godwrath wrote:On May 11 2013 18:06 Chocobo wrote: Yep. Kinda like how mines are cost efficient vs everything zerg has in the first 15-20 minutes of the game. Erhm, no. Other than broodlords, what is cost efficient against mines for zerg? 1. Spore and Spine Crawlers for the early game ... (They are even good against Hellbat drops since neither of these dies easily to the "vs light" damage and the Medivac dies faster ... which prevents its reuse. Spore Crawlers are great against Phoenix and Oracle too ....) I don't see too many terrans bury their mines inside of spinecrawler range. And if the only time I can take an engagement is when I'm near spinecrawlers... that's kind of a problem.
2. Sending in Overlords to soak up the shots right before your charge ... This can work if it's just a few units with a couple of mines... in the later game half the ovies will die before setting off mines, and only half the mines will still be active if you charge afterwards.
Just watch a few TvZ games with early harrassment and IMO it is always the "diehard oldschoolers" who try to defend against Hellbat harrassment with Zerglings who are losing the match while the ones who build static defenses seem to be fine. That might be a misperception on my part, but I would suggest you check for yourself. I go out of my way to do everything possible not to die to bio mine every single game. More static defense, going heavier ling/bane with only a few mutas, going infestor ling bane, trying swarmhosts... believe me, I am not stubbornly trying to play WoL style and crying when I can't make it work. I have literally tried everything I can think of over and over and all of it fails due to being cost inefficient.
The only thing that doesn't get straight up destroyed by mine-focused gameplay is roach hydra... which so far loses every single time to a terran smart enough to say "oh look, roach hydra, I'll stop mines and go heavy bio", and bio tears that army apart. Blinding cloud isn't that good, they can just retreat for a few seconds then come right back. If I could somehow transition into infestor broodlord maybe it could work, but roach hydra is so gas intensive the transition takes forever and doesn't really work.
The whole point of HotS seems to be "more harrassment" ... Hellbat, Oracle, Mutalisk regen, Medivac speed, Widow Mine, ... so preparing for that is a requirement and not optional now IMO (at least until everyone defends against it and there isnt a point to do it anymore ...).
And meanwhile terran doesn't have to deal with any harrassment threats. No reapers jumping in their base before they have any offensive units out, no runbys to worry about.
The game just requires so much more mistake-free play from zerg at this skill level. If terran plays a safe and careful game with biomines, I don't know what you could possibly lose to except for an allin.
|
On May 12 2013 05:13 DemigodcelpH wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2013 02:56 Chocobo wrote:On May 11 2013 19:24 scypio wrote:On May 11 2013 18:41 Chocobo wrote:On May 11 2013 17:32 scypio wrote: It seems that the "free 3 base + 75 drones" build no longer works in HotS. Oh well... suck it up and L2P, just the way the pro zergs did. "Suck it up and L2P" is just as silly and tiresome as the "everything I lose to is imbalanced" whiners. It adds nothing to the conversation, it makes no claim about balance, it adds nothing to the specific situations being discussed. BTW there are a lot of players who are "learning to play" and trying to improve against these strats every day. The issue is that despite our best efforts, it doesn't lead to anything. This isn't "wahh I lost, make it easier for me". It's "I am practicing for hours and hours and still getting destroyed no matter what I try". You could specifically tell me that you're using the same bio+mine build, with the same strategy and same attack timings, for 20 games in a row and I would still lose over 2/3 of the time (assuming I play for a macro game). Like the final months of WoL where protoss would always choose one allin or another in PvZ because there's so little hope if the game goes longer than 10 minutes... that's what ZvT is like now. OK then, since I play zerg too (33% of the time) I'll give you my insight on the matchup from a (terrible) zerg perspective. First of all, the mindset "I play the macro game" is incorrect. The zerg is a reactionary race and you need to react to what your opponent is doing. I guess if toss would go for a 1-gate 3-nexus you would try to do something about it and kill the expansion. Same goes for terrans who opt for a quick 3rd cc build. You need to scout and punish that, even if that means a lot of commitment (or even all-in). So every game I scout for a factory, and allin if I see one. That's not what I call a macro game. This is not WoL where you could just say "I want to macro and there is nothing you can do about it". That is pretty much the problem. I'm sorry, but at this skill level (where macro/injects/etc are not an issue) a player should have an advantage if he knows 100% what the opponent is doing. When every single game is 1-2 reapers into 10-11 minute bio mine push that doesn't stop for the rest of the entire game, and I lose the overwhelming majority of the time despite knowing exactly what I will face... and all of those losses are due to mines being very cost efficient and too difficult to fight effectively... I'm going to call that a slight problem with the game. I don't know what else to call it. Spoiled by the nightmare that was 2012 Wings of Liberty you're simply not used to playing a balanced game now, because I can assure that every non-Zerg player knew that Zerg was likely going BL/infestor but that didn't stop every Zerg player who could execute it getting high masters WoL has nothing to do with this, unless your argument is "zerg was OP for a while, and now it's only right that they should be trash for a while" which is a statement I disagree with.
Furthermore knowing what an enemy is doing doesn't exempt you from being outplayed or guarantee you a victory. It certainly shouldn't guarantee a victory... but if you know exactly what is coming and still can't stop it the majority of the time, I think that makes a statement about the game.
|
On May 12 2013 09:39 AxionSteel wrote:After ages of frustration against zerg in LingsofLiberty, it certainly gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling to see all this QQ in here. Doesn't stop zerg from mopping up the tournaments and doing extremely well in Code S though I don't know any zergs who are complaining about balance at the pro level. The problem is that the skill required to play effectively in ZvT is too high for the vast majority of active players. This wouldn't be a problem if it affected both races equally, but it only affects zerg.
It's nothing like other situations where it's like "yes, banelings are strong, you have to split your army up when you see them coming, or you have to protect yourself with tanks". Those are reasonable challenges that most players can learn to pull off. The skill and precision requires to deal with mines effectively is not. It requires so much effort, and is very punishing for any mistakes. Few diamond and masters players have the skill to ever be able to pull it off.
So even though it's completely fair at the pro level, there's a problem for much of the ladder.
|
On May 12 2013 13:28 Nebuchad wrote: Chocobo I think you're wrong in the argument. I don't think Blizzard should balance-patch according to anything but pro play. If good but not great players have problem with something, well, that's a shame for them, but it's the players who require a patch, not the game. It's already really hard to get something decent when players aren't making too many mistakes...
Balance at the pro level should absolutely be the highest priority. Honestly I can't think of any great solutions that would make mines more counterable in diamond/masters league without making them too counterable by pros.
Maybe have them visible if they're burrowed on creep? Maybe increase the burrow time? After all, there's a reason siege tanks can't instantly enter and exit siege mode.
Really I just think that cloaked reusable mid-range mines are just not a well designed unit for a game like this, where one race is short on units that can attack the mine from outside of the mine's range, -and- also has a clunky detection system.
|
On May 12 2013 20:48 scypio wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2013 19:48 ETisME wrote:On May 12 2013 17:46 scypio:On May 12 2013 17:28 ETisME wrote:On May 12 2013 17:21 scypio wrote:On May 12 2013 17:03 Decendos wrote:On May 12 2013 16:51 scypio wrote: I think there are some things getting mixed up in this thread. We can see some true balance complaints like: "ZvT is almost unwinnable and all the Zergs will disappear from the tourneys, ladder etc". Tournament results and the long list of the zerg players that seem to be doing fine within the current metagame say otherwise.
And than there is another set of complaints that can be summed up with a statement: "I don't like the current meta/gameplay". This is understandable - for example a coinflip is pretty balanced, but it is not a lot of fun to watch (unless it's at Dreamhack).
Let's say little Johnny doesn't like MMM-based TvP and thinks that the right way to play versus Protoss is a 4-port banshee. Pretty soon you would see Johnny posting on TL with the idea of increasing the range, damage and hp on the banshee by 50% to make his goto strategy viable.
This is exactly what the zergies do: my (WoL) strat is not working, other strats(bust) are stupid: blizzard go nerf hellbat, speedvacs and widow mines!
For me saying things like "well, the game has been out for two months, I've played 100 games on the ladder and nothing's gonna change, blizzard fix this!" seems a bit hasty. And the idea of sacrificing balance in favor of a better gameplay is flawed. except its the other way around. the old WoL style roach or roach bane all ins or roach nydus allins (which symbol already did in WoL and havent changed one bit) are working if T is bad/doesnt scout/plays insanely greedy. the new stuff in midgame doesnt work: swarmhosts, faster hydras dont work AT ALL, regenerating mutas work if you outplay opponent. the guy mentioning all the macro zergs are out while all the "all in/cheesy zerg" got in ro8 is true to the most part (obv not all macro zergs game are macro and the other way around). thats what all zerg players say is stupid: if you are on equal skill AND want to play a standard macro game TvZ is imbalanced. what makes it a bit more balanced are all the all ins Z does. once T figures them out (roach nydus all in etc. is easy scoutable, so is every roach warren with 2 reaper opening), TvZ will get a lot worse. lets see how it gets fixed. its just NO FUN at all to all in every TvZ right now because you will lose most macro games. But why would you think that two months is enough to say that the new toys that zergs got do not work? Early all-ins for the zerg work great because they haven't changed for the last two years. Every skilled zerg knows the timings to the last second, knows how to deal a final blow if the first wave does not cut it and can play these games out without thinking, The same goes for every single unit that terran has received in hots. Mines are new, but leapfrogging them forward is exactly the same (in terms of mechanics) like leapfrogging the tanks. And that's about it, terrans can bank on their WoL MMM(+T) control skills in every 4M game vs the zerg. On the other hand vipers and swarm hosts did not have any counterparts in WoL, therefore the skill to control them needs to be built from the ground up. Once again: if it took that long for the zergs to figure out how to use the WoL ling/infestor/broodlord composition to the max - how come 2 months is enough to say "this stuff is worthless"? ling infestors broodlords were available because of the map change (less rush), infestor change made ling infestor available. infestor broodlord came soon after the infestor got changed marine tank is much harder to execute than bio mine. mine has a lower attack priority and can deal with both air and land. Dodging the question? The transition into HotS is twice as tough for the zerg as it is for the terran: first of all, they need to learn how to deal with new situations (fighting on a minefield). Then they have totally new units they have no idea how to use (viper, swarm host). Still, they are doing pretty good in HotS, even if they depend on WoL compositions in vs T (but with the new ultras it is not the same really...). Do you really think that two months worth of games in such a scenario is enough to warrant a statement: "this stuff is worthless, blizzard step in"? I didn't dodge any question, you seem to think zerg took very long to go into broodlord infestor because one day they all woke up and notice how strong it is and I am merely telling you why that was the case, which was mostly due to blizzard's changes to map and unit. to answer your question: I can also say something like Terran has the new units and they haven't even get close to max-ing their potential, such as targetting with mines. I do think two months is worth stepping in but it's because I feel speedmedivac is a huge problem and causing a stagnate growth in metagame, ZvT is almost completely the same everywhere. There is only one tool to defend against all these speedmedivac, which is muta. We can't even use the new units because how mobile drops are and viper is less efficient than infestors atm You can say that, but you need to consider that the new units that terran has require the same skillset the old ones needed. Therefore the terrans do have a head start, while the zergs need to catch-up. It's not that you can't use new units, you just fall back to the things that worked (and work) because you're used to winning. Now is the time to try new compositions, learn how to use them, achieve proficiency with them. This is what Stephano did on numerous occasions in WoL and he seems to be doing it again in HotS. You say that two months is enough... ok, that's your opinion. I take a look at these four facts: 1. Pro zergs are doing fine in America, Korea and Europe. 2. Two months is not enough time to achieve proficiency with the new units the zergs got. 3. The terrans had a head start in the matchup, as their new units do not require new mechanics or thinking. 4. Pro-level TvZ is spectacular and action-packed. Therefore I disagree with you. "ZvT is now tough" or "ZvT is in stagnation (after two months...)" does not cut it for me. Ask yourself how many top top level terran has Stephano successfully beat with roach hydra. The problem doesn't always mean the solution must come from another unit composition. The medivac is forcing muta to defend drops, zerg doesn't have a lot of other options to choose from. You can't micro ling roach swarm host viper to kill drops Pro Zerg ain't doing all that good in korea considering gstl and how many zerg really qualify into ro8 from that huge zerg list.
Pro level TvZ is purely bio mine and drop defense, 0 diversity. Where's mech and other varieties of Zerg unit composition? At least in wol we had mech, ling muta, ling infestor, ling infestor ultra into bl, or straight into bl infestor style What I liked about tvz is how diverse it is. Tank leapfrog, drop to pull zerg army out of position etc Right now it is almost non stop powerful drops and drops and push with small groups of units. I feel there is just less depth but more mechanics to the game which really puts me off
|
On May 12 2013 22:43 Chocobo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2013 09:39 AxionSteel wrote:After ages of frustration against zerg in LingsofLiberty, it certainly gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling to see all this QQ in here. Doesn't stop zerg from mopping up the tournaments and doing extremely well in Code S though I don't know any zergs who are complaining about balance at the pro level. The problem is that the skill required to play effectively in ZvT is too high for the vast majority of active players. This wouldn't be a problem if it affected both races equally, but it only affects zerg. It's nothing like other situations where it's like "yes, banelings are strong, you have to split your army up when you see them coming, or you have to protect yourself with tanks". Those are reasonable challenges that most players can learn to pull off. The skill and precision requires to deal with mines effectively is not. It requires so much effort, and is very punishing for any mistakes. Few diamond and masters players have the skill to ever be able to pull it off. So even though it's completely fair at the pro level, there's a problem for much of the ladder. This post highlights a unreasonable fatalistic stance: It is hard. I can't do it right now therefore only a few people can do it and all the others (including me) can't ever learn it.
Zerg bias at its finest.
|
On May 12 2013 22:43 Chocobo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2013 09:39 AxionSteel wrote:After ages of frustration against zerg in LingsofLiberty, it certainly gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling to see all this QQ in here. Doesn't stop zerg from mopping up the tournaments and doing extremely well in Code S though I don't know any zergs who are complaining about balance at the pro level. The problem is that the skill required to play effectively in ZvT is too high for the vast majority of active players. This wouldn't be a problem if it affected both races equally, but it only affects zerg. It's nothing like other situations where it's like "yes, banelings are strong, you have to split your army up when you see them coming, or you have to protect yourself with tanks". Those are reasonable challenges that most players can learn to pull off. The skill and precision requires to deal with mines effectively is not. It requires so much effort, and is very punishing for any mistakes. Few diamond and masters players have the skill to ever be able to pull it off. So even though it's completely fair at the pro level, there's a problem for much of the ladder.
This is totally subjective. My zvt is way way better than my tvz. I feel like I'm playing on a knifes edge in tvz. Additionally, terrans tend to rank lower on the ladder (http://www.sc2ranks.com/stats/league/all/1/all). Terran is over represented in bronze/silver and under represented higher. I would argue this means terran takes more skill to reach a competent level, because at the non pro level they rank significantly lower on ladder on average. Personally I'm very good at injecting so I find zerg macro easier, dealing with mines/drops can be a bitch though.
Different races have different micro requirements, for example lategame tvp is similarly harder to play than pvt in my opinion, like how you feel about zvt.
If you think mines should be changed because they are aggravating to play against, that's a whole different story. I really don't think the skill requirement is as imbalanced as you suggest between zerg and terran.
|
I don't know any zergs who are complaining about balance at the pro level. The problem is that the skill required to play effectively in ZvT is too high for the vast majority of active players. This wouldn't be a problem if it affected both races equally, but it only affects zerg.
Sorry, but as long as the amount of Zerg player does not drop drastically in Top Diamond/master+ level. This statement will be very subjective.
And, even if it's true. I''l say : Good thing !!! I'm gonna switch to Zerg for good, the same way i switched to Terran when pro-zerg patches get into the game. As long as it does not affect Pro level like it does in Wol-super-Zerg-era, i'm okay with that.
I can't play a lot right now, but when I offrace Zerg my ZvT winrate hasn't drop. It's harder to win, but highly manageable. And i haven't really tried the new units yet. But i've never played mass infestor-style in Wol, so maybe it's because i'm used to attack and multitask consistently...
|
On May 12 2013 22:53 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2013 20:48 scypio wrote:On May 12 2013 19:48 ETisME wrote:On May 12 2013 17:46 scypio:On May 12 2013 17:28 ETisME wrote:On May 12 2013 17:21 scypio wrote:On May 12 2013 17:03 Decendos wrote:On May 12 2013 16:51 scypio wrote: I think there are some things getting mixed up in this thread. We can see some true balance complaints like: "ZvT is almost unwinnable and all the Zergs will disappear from the tourneys, ladder etc". Tournament results and the long list of the zerg players that seem to be doing fine within the current metagame say otherwise.
And than there is another set of complaints that can be summed up with a statement: "I don't like the current meta/gameplay". This is understandable - for example a coinflip is pretty balanced, but it is not a lot of fun to watch (unless it's at Dreamhack).
Let's say little Johnny doesn't like MMM-based TvP and thinks that the right way to play versus Protoss is a 4-port banshee. Pretty soon you would see Johnny posting on TL with the idea of increasing the range, damage and hp on the banshee by 50% to make his goto strategy viable.
This is exactly what the zergies do: my (WoL) strat is not working, other strats(bust) are stupid: blizzard go nerf hellbat, speedvacs and widow mines!
For me saying things like "well, the game has been out for two months, I've played 100 games on the ladder and nothing's gonna change, blizzard fix this!" seems a bit hasty. And the idea of sacrificing balance in favor of a better gameplay is flawed. except its the other way around. the old WoL style roach or roach bane all ins or roach nydus allins (which symbol already did in WoL and havent changed one bit) are working if T is bad/doesnt scout/plays insanely greedy. the new stuff in midgame doesnt work: swarmhosts, faster hydras dont work AT ALL, regenerating mutas work if you outplay opponent. the guy mentioning all the macro zergs are out while all the "all in/cheesy zerg" got in ro8 is true to the most part (obv not all macro zergs game are macro and the other way around). thats what all zerg players say is stupid: if you are on equal skill AND want to play a standard macro game TvZ is imbalanced. what makes it a bit more balanced are all the all ins Z does. once T figures them out (roach nydus all in etc. is easy scoutable, so is every roach warren with 2 reaper opening), TvZ will get a lot worse. lets see how it gets fixed. its just NO FUN at all to all in every TvZ right now because you will lose most macro games. But why would you think that two months is enough to say that the new toys that zergs got do not work? Early all-ins for the zerg work great because they haven't changed for the last two years. Every skilled zerg knows the timings to the last second, knows how to deal a final blow if the first wave does not cut it and can play these games out without thinking, The same goes for every single unit that terran has received in hots. Mines are new, but leapfrogging them forward is exactly the same (in terms of mechanics) like leapfrogging the tanks. And that's about it, terrans can bank on their WoL MMM(+T) control skills in every 4M game vs the zerg. On the other hand vipers and swarm hosts did not have any counterparts in WoL, therefore the skill to control them needs to be built from the ground up. Once again: if it took that long for the zergs to figure out how to use the WoL ling/infestor/broodlord composition to the max - how come 2 months is enough to say "this stuff is worthless"? ling infestors broodlords were available because of the map change (less rush), infestor change made ling infestor available. infestor broodlord came soon after the infestor got changed marine tank is much harder to execute than bio mine. mine has a lower attack priority and can deal with both air and land. Dodging the question? The transition into HotS is twice as tough for the zerg as it is for the terran: first of all, they need to learn how to deal with new situations (fighting on a minefield). Then they have totally new units they have no idea how to use (viper, swarm host). Still, they are doing pretty good in HotS, even if they depend on WoL compositions in vs T (but with the new ultras it is not the same really...). Do you really think that two months worth of games in such a scenario is enough to warrant a statement: "this stuff is worthless, blizzard step in"? I didn't dodge any question, you seem to think zerg took very long to go into broodlord infestor because one day they all woke up and notice how strong it is and I am merely telling you why that was the case, which was mostly due to blizzard's changes to map and unit. to answer your question: I can also say something like Terran has the new units and they haven't even get close to max-ing their potential, such as targetting with mines. I do think two months is worth stepping in but it's because I feel speedmedivac is a huge problem and causing a stagnate growth in metagame, ZvT is almost completely the same everywhere. There is only one tool to defend against all these speedmedivac, which is muta. We can't even use the new units because how mobile drops are and viper is less efficient than infestors atm You can say that, but you need to consider that the new units that terran has require the same skillset the old ones needed. Therefore the terrans do have a head start, while the zergs need to catch-up. It's not that you can't use new units, you just fall back to the things that worked (and work) because you're used to winning. Now is the time to try new compositions, learn how to use them, achieve proficiency with them. This is what Stephano did on numerous occasions in WoL and he seems to be doing it again in HotS. You say that two months is enough... ok, that's your opinion. I take a look at these four facts: 1. Pro zergs are doing fine in America, Korea and Europe. 2. Two months is not enough time to achieve proficiency with the new units the zergs got. 3. The terrans had a head start in the matchup, as their new units do not require new mechanics or thinking. 4. Pro-level TvZ is spectacular and action-packed. Therefore I disagree with you. "ZvT is now tough" or "ZvT is in stagnation (after two months...)" does not cut it for me. Ask yourself how many top top level terran has Stephano successfully beat with roach hydra. The problem doesn't always mean the solution must come from another unit composition. The medivac is forcing muta to defend drops, zerg doesn't have a lot of other options to choose from. You can't micro ling roach swarm host viper to kill drops Pro Zerg ain't doing all that good in korea considering gstl and how many zerg really qualify into ro8 from that huge zerg list. Pro level TvZ is purely bio mine and drop defense, 0 diversity. Where's mech and other varieties of Zerg unit composition? At least in wol we had mech, ling muta, ling infestor, ling infestor ultra into bl, or straight into bl infestor style
Yes, and pro level TvP has been MMMVG vs gateway+colo like forever. I watch a lot of starcraft and I didn't get tired watching TvP or TvZ throughout these two months. Also, you forgot to mention the aggressive (all-in) options the zerg has vs terran.
You're fed up with bio-mine and a neverending battle - well, I'm not even thou ZvT is probably my worst matchup on the ladder. I've watched 2/2 major tournaments we've had since HotS launch and I want more, especially because those ugly zergs won both of them.
|
On May 12 2013 22:59 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2013 22:43 Chocobo wrote:On May 12 2013 09:39 AxionSteel wrote:After ages of frustration against zerg in LingsofLiberty, it certainly gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling to see all this QQ in here. Doesn't stop zerg from mopping up the tournaments and doing extremely well in Code S though I don't know any zergs who are complaining about balance at the pro level. The problem is that the skill required to play effectively in ZvT is too high for the vast majority of active players. This wouldn't be a problem if it affected both races equally, but it only affects zerg. It's nothing like other situations where it's like "yes, banelings are strong, you have to split your army up when you see them coming, or you have to protect yourself with tanks". Those are reasonable challenges that most players can learn to pull off. The skill and precision requires to deal with mines effectively is not. It requires so much effort, and is very punishing for any mistakes. Few diamond and masters players have the skill to ever be able to pull it off. So even though it's completely fair at the pro level, there's a problem for much of the ladder. This post highlights a unreasonable fatalistic stance: It is hard. I can't do it right now therefore only a few people can do it and all the others (including me) can't ever learn it. Zerg bias at its finest. The deliberate ignorance of facts in here is starting to rival Fox News. It is simply a fact that it is significantly more difficult to engage a bio mine army in a cost efficient way than it is to split your marines when banelings come rolling in, or cast feedback on medivacs, or whatever.
|
On May 12 2013 23:10 scypio wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2013 22:53 ETisME wrote:On May 12 2013 20:48 scypio wrote:On May 12 2013 19:48 ETisME wrote:On May 12 2013 17:46 scypio:On May 12 2013 17:28 ETisME wrote:On May 12 2013 17:21 scypio wrote:On May 12 2013 17:03 Decendos wrote:On May 12 2013 16:51 scypio wrote: I think there are some things getting mixed up in this thread. We can see some true balance complaints like: "ZvT is almost unwinnable and all the Zergs will disappear from the tourneys, ladder etc". Tournament results and the long list of the zerg players that seem to be doing fine within the current metagame say otherwise.
And than there is another set of complaints that can be summed up with a statement: "I don't like the current meta/gameplay". This is understandable - for example a coinflip is pretty balanced, but it is not a lot of fun to watch (unless it's at Dreamhack).
Let's say little Johnny doesn't like MMM-based TvP and thinks that the right way to play versus Protoss is a 4-port banshee. Pretty soon you would see Johnny posting on TL with the idea of increasing the range, damage and hp on the banshee by 50% to make his goto strategy viable.
This is exactly what the zergies do: my (WoL) strat is not working, other strats(bust) are stupid: blizzard go nerf hellbat, speedvacs and widow mines!
For me saying things like "well, the game has been out for two months, I've played 100 games on the ladder and nothing's gonna change, blizzard fix this!" seems a bit hasty. And the idea of sacrificing balance in favor of a better gameplay is flawed. except its the other way around. the old WoL style roach or roach bane all ins or roach nydus allins (which symbol already did in WoL and havent changed one bit) are working if T is bad/doesnt scout/plays insanely greedy. the new stuff in midgame doesnt work: swarmhosts, faster hydras dont work AT ALL, regenerating mutas work if you outplay opponent. the guy mentioning all the macro zergs are out while all the "all in/cheesy zerg" got in ro8 is true to the most part (obv not all macro zergs game are macro and the other way around). thats what all zerg players say is stupid: if you are on equal skill AND want to play a standard macro game TvZ is imbalanced. what makes it a bit more balanced are all the all ins Z does. once T figures them out (roach nydus all in etc. is easy scoutable, so is every roach warren with 2 reaper opening), TvZ will get a lot worse. lets see how it gets fixed. its just NO FUN at all to all in every TvZ right now because you will lose most macro games. But why would you think that two months is enough to say that the new toys that zergs got do not work? Early all-ins for the zerg work great because they haven't changed for the last two years. Every skilled zerg knows the timings to the last second, knows how to deal a final blow if the first wave does not cut it and can play these games out without thinking, The same goes for every single unit that terran has received in hots. Mines are new, but leapfrogging them forward is exactly the same (in terms of mechanics) like leapfrogging the tanks. And that's about it, terrans can bank on their WoL MMM(+T) control skills in every 4M game vs the zerg. On the other hand vipers and swarm hosts did not have any counterparts in WoL, therefore the skill to control them needs to be built from the ground up. Once again: if it took that long for the zergs to figure out how to use the WoL ling/infestor/broodlord composition to the max - how come 2 months is enough to say "this stuff is worthless"? ling infestors broodlords were available because of the map change (less rush), infestor change made ling infestor available. infestor broodlord came soon after the infestor got changed marine tank is much harder to execute than bio mine. mine has a lower attack priority and can deal with both air and land. Dodging the question? The transition into HotS is twice as tough for the zerg as it is for the terran: first of all, they need to learn how to deal with new situations (fighting on a minefield). Then they have totally new units they have no idea how to use (viper, swarm host). Still, they are doing pretty good in HotS, even if they depend on WoL compositions in vs T (but with the new ultras it is not the same really...). Do you really think that two months worth of games in such a scenario is enough to warrant a statement: "this stuff is worthless, blizzard step in"? I didn't dodge any question, you seem to think zerg took very long to go into broodlord infestor because one day they all woke up and notice how strong it is and I am merely telling you why that was the case, which was mostly due to blizzard's changes to map and unit. to answer your question: I can also say something like Terran has the new units and they haven't even get close to max-ing their potential, such as targetting with mines. I do think two months is worth stepping in but it's because I feel speedmedivac is a huge problem and causing a stagnate growth in metagame, ZvT is almost completely the same everywhere. There is only one tool to defend against all these speedmedivac, which is muta. We can't even use the new units because how mobile drops are and viper is less efficient than infestors atm You can say that, but you need to consider that the new units that terran has require the same skillset the old ones needed. Therefore the terrans do have a head start, while the zergs need to catch-up. It's not that you can't use new units, you just fall back to the things that worked (and work) because you're used to winning. Now is the time to try new compositions, learn how to use them, achieve proficiency with them. This is what Stephano did on numerous occasions in WoL and he seems to be doing it again in HotS. You say that two months is enough... ok, that's your opinion. I take a look at these four facts: 1. Pro zergs are doing fine in America, Korea and Europe. 2. Two months is not enough time to achieve proficiency with the new units the zergs got. 3. The terrans had a head start in the matchup, as their new units do not require new mechanics or thinking. 4. Pro-level TvZ is spectacular and action-packed. Therefore I disagree with you. "ZvT is now tough" or "ZvT is in stagnation (after two months...)" does not cut it for me. Ask yourself how many top top level terran has Stephano successfully beat with roach hydra. The problem doesn't always mean the solution must come from another unit composition. The medivac is forcing muta to defend drops, zerg doesn't have a lot of other options to choose from. You can't micro ling roach swarm host viper to kill drops Pro Zerg ain't doing all that good in korea considering gstl and how many zerg really qualify into ro8 from that huge zerg list. Pro level TvZ is purely bio mine and drop defense, 0 diversity. Where's mech and other varieties of Zerg unit composition? At least in wol we had mech, ling muta, ling infestor, ling infestor ultra into bl, or straight into bl infestor style Yes, and pro level TvP has been MMMVG vs gateway+colo like forever. I watch a lot of starcraft and I didn't get tired watching TvP or TvZ throughout these two months. Also, you forgot to mention the aggressive (all-in) options the zerg has vs terran. You're fed up with bio-mine and a neverending battle - well, I'm not even thou ZvT is probably my worst matchup on the ladder. I've watched 2/2 major tournaments we've had since HotS launch and I want more, especially because those ugly zergs won both of them. I play random and so I am not as biased as most people think. TvZ is fun because you can put on the aggression but zvt is a headbanging frustrating with the constant drop defense. There's no more careful timed drop, siege tank leapfrog movement. There is only raw mechanic battles which ducks to watch if you are into the strategy part. tvp being bio only viable had always been a flaw, that's why blizzard wants more factory units in tvp, especially mech being viable during early stage of HOTS development plan You might now be bored, but the game will last another 4 to 5 years minimal if lotv takes as long as hots to develop. I seriously would be disappointed if tvp remains bio only for lotv expansion.
|
On May 12 2013 22:43 Chocobo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2013 09:39 AxionSteel wrote:After ages of frustration against zerg in LingsofLiberty, it certainly gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling to see all this QQ in here. Doesn't stop zerg from mopping up the tournaments and doing extremely well in Code S though I don't know any zergs who are complaining about balance at the pro level. The problem is that the skill required to play effectively in ZvT is too high for the vast majority of active players. This wouldn't be a problem if it affected both races equally, but it only affects zerg. It's nothing like other situations where it's like "yes, banelings are strong, you have to split your army up when you see them coming, or you have to protect yourself with tanks". Those are reasonable challenges that most players can learn to pull off. The skill and precision requires to deal with mines effectively is not. It requires so much effort, and is very punishing for any mistakes. Few diamond and masters players have the skill to ever be able to pull it off. So even though it's completely fair at the pro level, there's a problem for much of the ladder. That's an assertion that it's difficult to prove or disprove, but looking at the only statistics I have, it's also difficult to take it seriously. Zerg remains significantly overrepresented in GM and Masters (aka. 'below pro level') almost everywhere.
Maybe some Zergs are just struggling because dealing with bio/mine requires a different skill-set from WoL-style Zerg play, and it isn't a skill-set that plays to their particular strengths. If I recall, people like Ret have made similar points in the past.
Overall NA ladder: 30.76% Zerg, 29.39% Terran. GM NA ladder: 37.5% Zerg, 29.5% Terran Masters NA ladder: 36.73% Zerg, 29.62% Terran
Overall EU ladder: 30.5% Zerg, 29.99% Terran. GM EU ladder: 37% Zerg, 27.5% Terran Masters EU ladder: 35.34% Zerg, 29.59% Terran
Overall KR ladder: 27.3% Zerg, 30.85% Terran. GM KR ladder: 33.67% Zerg, 30.15% Terran Masters KR ladder: 30.92% Zerg, 33.83% Terran
[source]
|
On May 12 2013 22:32 Chocobo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2013 05:13 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 12 2013 02:56 Chocobo wrote:On May 11 2013 19:24 scypio wrote:On May 11 2013 18:41 Chocobo wrote:On May 11 2013 17:32 scypio wrote: It seems that the "free 3 base + 75 drones" build no longer works in HotS. Oh well... suck it up and L2P, just the way the pro zergs did. "Suck it up and L2P" is just as silly and tiresome as the "everything I lose to is imbalanced" whiners. It adds nothing to the conversation, it makes no claim about balance, it adds nothing to the specific situations being discussed. BTW there are a lot of players who are "learning to play" and trying to improve against these strats every day. The issue is that despite our best efforts, it doesn't lead to anything. This isn't "wahh I lost, make it easier for me". It's "I am practicing for hours and hours and still getting destroyed no matter what I try". You could specifically tell me that you're using the same bio+mine build, with the same strategy and same attack timings, for 20 games in a row and I would still lose over 2/3 of the time (assuming I play for a macro game). Like the final months of WoL where protoss would always choose one allin or another in PvZ because there's so little hope if the game goes longer than 10 minutes... that's what ZvT is like now. OK then, since I play zerg too (33% of the time) I'll give you my insight on the matchup from a (terrible) zerg perspective. First of all, the mindset "I play the macro game" is incorrect. The zerg is a reactionary race and you need to react to what your opponent is doing. I guess if toss would go for a 1-gate 3-nexus you would try to do something about it and kill the expansion. Same goes for terrans who opt for a quick 3rd cc build. You need to scout and punish that, even if that means a lot of commitment (or even all-in). So every game I scout for a factory, and allin if I see one. That's not what I call a macro game. This is not WoL where you could just say "I want to macro and there is nothing you can do about it". That is pretty much the problem. I'm sorry, but at this skill level (where macro/injects/etc are not an issue) a player should have an advantage if he knows 100% what the opponent is doing. When every single game is 1-2 reapers into 10-11 minute bio mine push that doesn't stop for the rest of the entire game, and I lose the overwhelming majority of the time despite knowing exactly what I will face... and all of those losses are due to mines being very cost efficient and too difficult to fight effectively... I'm going to call that a slight problem with the game. I don't know what else to call it. Spoiled by the nightmare that was 2012 Wings of Liberty you're simply not used to playing a balanced game now, because I can assure that every non-Zerg player knew that Zerg was likely going BL/infestor but that didn't stop every Zerg player who could execute it getting high masters WoL has nothing to do with this, unless your argument is "zerg was OP for a while, and now it's only right that they should be trash for a while" which is a statement I disagree with.
It has everything to do with this, as it's direct evidence to your double-standard and entitled form of thinking. Now that the game is balanced for both players, because of your double-standard, you perceive it as imbalance.
On May 12 2013 05:13 DemigodcelpH wrote:Spoiled by the nightmare that was 2012 Wings of Liberty you're simply not used to playing a balanced game now, because I can assure that every non-Zerg player knew that Zerg was likely going BL/infestor but that didn't stop every Zerg player who could execute it getting high masters which was evidence by the fact that masters and GM brackets on all servers suddenly being majority Zerg after the early 2012 patch (nor did it stop unheard of foreign Zergs from taking games off of 4 time GSL champions) (not surprisingly there was no complaining from you as this point in time) and mines, from the perspective of balance, are nowhere near as close to as absurdly that was infestor/BL.
Re-quoting the post from before: why were you not complaining during this period of time? From this we can make the inference that you complain based on how well you are doing which is totally subjective and not a proper reason to complain. Zerg is still overrepresented in the higher leagues globally (but not the lower leagues) (as well as doing well in all major tournaments and competition), and just because you happen to be getting outplayed in ZvT doesn't mean you can cry about it and act like a victim. It's not Zerg. It's not Terran.
It's you not accepting that you're being outplayed because of some entitlement complex that likely stemmed from how long Blizzard let WoL run out of control balance-wise during 2012.
On May 12 2013 22:32 Chocobo wrote:Show nested quote +Furthermore knowing what an enemy is doing doesn't exempt you from being outplayed or guarantee you a victory. It certainly shouldn't guarantee a victory... but if you know exactly what is coming and still can't stop it the majority of the time, I think that makes a statement about the game.
Can't stop what? Terran from making a composition? You're simply not used to being outplayed because you subconsciously relate being allowed to drone to meaning that you should win when this is false.
|
On May 12 2013 23:18 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2013 23:10 scypio wrote:On May 12 2013 22:53 ETisME wrote:On May 12 2013 20:48 scypio wrote:On May 12 2013 19:48 ETisME wrote:On May 12 2013 17:46 scypio:On May 12 2013 17:28 ETisME wrote:On May 12 2013 17:21 scypio wrote:On May 12 2013 17:03 Decendos wrote:On May 12 2013 16:51 scypio wrote: I think there are some things getting mixed up in this thread. We can see some true balance complaints like: "ZvT is almost unwinnable and all the Zergs will disappear from the tourneys, ladder etc". Tournament results and the long list of the zerg players that seem to be doing fine within the current metagame say otherwise.
And than there is another set of complaints that can be summed up with a statement: "I don't like the current meta/gameplay". This is understandable - for example a coinflip is pretty balanced, but it is not a lot of fun to watch (unless it's at Dreamhack).
Let's say little Johnny doesn't like MMM-based TvP and thinks that the right way to play versus Protoss is a 4-port banshee. Pretty soon you would see Johnny posting on TL with the idea of increasing the range, damage and hp on the banshee by 50% to make his goto strategy viable.
This is exactly what the zergies do: my (WoL) strat is not working, other strats(bust) are stupid: blizzard go nerf hellbat, speedvacs and widow mines!
For me saying things like "well, the game has been out for two months, I've played 100 games on the ladder and nothing's gonna change, blizzard fix this!" seems a bit hasty. And the idea of sacrificing balance in favor of a better gameplay is flawed. except its the other way around. the old WoL style roach or roach bane all ins or roach nydus allins (which symbol already did in WoL and havent changed one bit) are working if T is bad/doesnt scout/plays insanely greedy. the new stuff in midgame doesnt work: swarmhosts, faster hydras dont work AT ALL, regenerating mutas work if you outplay opponent. the guy mentioning all the macro zergs are out while all the "all in/cheesy zerg" got in ro8 is true to the most part (obv not all macro zergs game are macro and the other way around). thats what all zerg players say is stupid: if you are on equal skill AND want to play a standard macro game TvZ is imbalanced. what makes it a bit more balanced are all the all ins Z does. once T figures them out (roach nydus all in etc. is easy scoutable, so is every roach warren with 2 reaper opening), TvZ will get a lot worse. lets see how it gets fixed. its just NO FUN at all to all in every TvZ right now because you will lose most macro games. But why would you think that two months is enough to say that the new toys that zergs got do not work? Early all-ins for the zerg work great because they haven't changed for the last two years. Every skilled zerg knows the timings to the last second, knows how to deal a final blow if the first wave does not cut it and can play these games out without thinking, The same goes for every single unit that terran has received in hots. Mines are new, but leapfrogging them forward is exactly the same (in terms of mechanics) like leapfrogging the tanks. And that's about it, terrans can bank on their WoL MMM(+T) control skills in every 4M game vs the zerg. On the other hand vipers and swarm hosts did not have any counterparts in WoL, therefore the skill to control them needs to be built from the ground up. Once again: if it took that long for the zergs to figure out how to use the WoL ling/infestor/broodlord composition to the max - how come 2 months is enough to say "this stuff is worthless"? ling infestors broodlords were available because of the map change (less rush), infestor change made ling infestor available. infestor broodlord came soon after the infestor got changed marine tank is much harder to execute than bio mine. mine has a lower attack priority and can deal with both air and land. Dodging the question? The transition into HotS is twice as tough for the zerg as it is for the terran: first of all, they need to learn how to deal with new situations (fighting on a minefield). Then they have totally new units they have no idea how to use (viper, swarm host). Still, they are doing pretty good in HotS, even if they depend on WoL compositions in vs T (but with the new ultras it is not the same really...). Do you really think that two months worth of games in such a scenario is enough to warrant a statement: "this stuff is worthless, blizzard step in"? I didn't dodge any question, you seem to think zerg took very long to go into broodlord infestor because one day they all woke up and notice how strong it is and I am merely telling you why that was the case, which was mostly due to blizzard's changes to map and unit. to answer your question: I can also say something like Terran has the new units and they haven't even get close to max-ing their potential, such as targetting with mines. I do think two months is worth stepping in but it's because I feel speedmedivac is a huge problem and causing a stagnate growth in metagame, ZvT is almost completely the same everywhere. There is only one tool to defend against all these speedmedivac, which is muta. We can't even use the new units because how mobile drops are and viper is less efficient than infestors atm You can say that, but you need to consider that the new units that terran has require the same skillset the old ones needed. Therefore the terrans do have a head start, while the zergs need to catch-up. It's not that you can't use new units, you just fall back to the things that worked (and work) because you're used to winning. Now is the time to try new compositions, learn how to use them, achieve proficiency with them. This is what Stephano did on numerous occasions in WoL and he seems to be doing it again in HotS. You say that two months is enough... ok, that's your opinion. I take a look at these four facts: 1. Pro zergs are doing fine in America, Korea and Europe. 2. Two months is not enough time to achieve proficiency with the new units the zergs got. 3. The terrans had a head start in the matchup, as their new units do not require new mechanics or thinking. 4. Pro-level TvZ is spectacular and action-packed. Therefore I disagree with you. "ZvT is now tough" or "ZvT is in stagnation (after two months...)" does not cut it for me. Ask yourself how many top top level terran has Stephano successfully beat with roach hydra. The problem doesn't always mean the solution must come from another unit composition. The medivac is forcing muta to defend drops, zerg doesn't have a lot of other options to choose from. You can't micro ling roach swarm host viper to kill drops Pro Zerg ain't doing all that good in korea considering gstl and how many zerg really qualify into ro8 from that huge zerg list. Pro level TvZ is purely bio mine and drop defense, 0 diversity. Where's mech and other varieties of Zerg unit composition? At least in wol we had mech, ling muta, ling infestor, ling infestor ultra into bl, or straight into bl infestor style Yes, and pro level TvP has been MMMVG vs gateway+colo like forever. I watch a lot of starcraft and I didn't get tired watching TvP or TvZ throughout these two months. Also, you forgot to mention the aggressive (all-in) options the zerg has vs terran. You're fed up with bio-mine and a neverending battle - well, I'm not even thou ZvT is probably my worst matchup on the ladder. I've watched 2/2 major tournaments we've had since HotS launch and I want more, especially because those ugly zergs won both of them. I play random and so I am not as biased as most people think. TvZ is fun because you can put on the aggression but zvt is a headbanging frustrating with the constant drop defense. There's no more careful timed drop, siege tank leapfrog movement. There is only raw mechanic battles which ducks to watch if you are into the strategy part. tvp being bio only viable had always been a flaw, that's why blizzard wants more factory units in tvp, especially mech being viable during early stage of HOTS development plan You might now be bored, but the game will last another 4 to 5 years minimal if lotv takes as long as hots to develop. I seriously would be disappointed if tvp remains bio only for lotv expansion.
Well, I play random too. As far as siege tanks go, I didn't like them all that much in WoL as the outcome of the games often felt very random. Terran decides to move, unsieges, zerg pounces and it's GG. I've seen far too many games that ended up like this. I like the mines a little more.
And no, I'm not bored - not with TvZ at least. I think this matchup needs some more time to evolve. Two months is a ridiculously low amount of time to state that nothing is gonna change here.
And I'd love some more ingame diversity - but how exactly would you achieve it?
|
The only really interesting thing here is....When is this getting implemented!!! I need this change right now!
|
On May 12 2013 23:30 DemigodcelpH wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2013 22:32 Chocobo wrote:On May 12 2013 05:13 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 12 2013 02:56 Chocobo wrote:On May 11 2013 19:24 scypio wrote:On May 11 2013 18:41 Chocobo wrote:On May 11 2013 17:32 scypio wrote: It seems that the "free 3 base + 75 drones" build no longer works in HotS. Oh well... suck it up and L2P, just the way the pro zergs did. "Suck it up and L2P" is just as silly and tiresome as the "everything I lose to is imbalanced" whiners. It adds nothing to the conversation, it makes no claim about balance, it adds nothing to the specific situations being discussed. BTW there are a lot of players who are "learning to play" and trying to improve against these strats every day. The issue is that despite our best efforts, it doesn't lead to anything. This isn't "wahh I lost, make it easier for me". It's "I am practicing for hours and hours and still getting destroyed no matter what I try". You could specifically tell me that you're using the same bio+mine build, with the same strategy and same attack timings, for 20 games in a row and I would still lose over 2/3 of the time (assuming I play for a macro game). Like the final months of WoL where protoss would always choose one allin or another in PvZ because there's so little hope if the game goes longer than 10 minutes... that's what ZvT is like now. OK then, since I play zerg too (33% of the time) I'll give you my insight on the matchup from a (terrible) zerg perspective. First of all, the mindset "I play the macro game" is incorrect. The zerg is a reactionary race and you need to react to what your opponent is doing. I guess if toss would go for a 1-gate 3-nexus you would try to do something about it and kill the expansion. Same goes for terrans who opt for a quick 3rd cc build. You need to scout and punish that, even if that means a lot of commitment (or even all-in). So every game I scout for a factory, and allin if I see one. That's not what I call a macro game. This is not WoL where you could just say "I want to macro and there is nothing you can do about it". That is pretty much the problem. I'm sorry, but at this skill level (where macro/injects/etc are not an issue) a player should have an advantage if he knows 100% what the opponent is doing. When every single game is 1-2 reapers into 10-11 minute bio mine push that doesn't stop for the rest of the entire game, and I lose the overwhelming majority of the time despite knowing exactly what I will face... and all of those losses are due to mines being very cost efficient and too difficult to fight effectively... I'm going to call that a slight problem with the game. I don't know what else to call it. Spoiled by the nightmare that was 2012 Wings of Liberty you're simply not used to playing a balanced game now, because I can assure that every non-Zerg player knew that Zerg was likely going BL/infestor but that didn't stop every Zerg player who could execute it getting high masters WoL has nothing to do with this, unless your argument is "zerg was OP for a while, and now it's only right that they should be trash for a while" which is a statement I disagree with. It has everything to do with this, as it's direct evidence to your double-standard and entitled form of thinking. Now that the game is balanced for both players, because of your double-standard, you perceive it as imbalance. Standard strawman argument.
On May 12 2013 05:13 DemigodcelpH wrote:Spoiled by the nightmare that was 2012 Wings of Liberty you're simply not used to playing a balanced game now, because I can assure that every non-Zerg player knew that Zerg was likely going BL/infestor but that didn't stop every Zerg player who could execute it getting high masters which was evidence by the fact that masters and GM brackets on all servers suddenly being majority Zerg after the early 2012 patch (nor did it stop unheard of foreign Zergs from taking games off of 4 time GSL champions) (not surprisingly there was no complaining from you as this point in time) and mines, from the perspective of balance, are nowhere near as close to as absurdly that was infestor/BL.
Re-quoting the post from before: why were you not complaining during this period of time?
I was. Not as loudly I suppose, since my own personal experience wasn't being ruined. I agreed with those who said infestor/BL is OP.
I don't believe infestor/BL was completely game-ruining since the early and mid game were fairly balanced, it was only when zerg got a critical mass of expensive units that things got bad. Unfortunately this is not the case now.
On May 12 2013 22:32 Chocobo wrote:Show nested quote +Furthermore knowing what an enemy is doing doesn't exempt you from being outplayed or guarantee you a victory. It certainly shouldn't guarantee a victory... but if you know exactly what is coming and still can't stop it the majority of the time, I think that makes a statement about the game.
Can't stop what? Terran from making a composition? You're simply not used to being outplayed because you subconsciously relate being allowed to drone to meaning that you should win when this is false.
One strawman after another after another. Did I say I should be allowed to easy take 4 bases and 8 gas and 80 drones? Did I say zerg should be able to prevent terran from teching to factory? I don't know where you are getting this stuff.
The "it" that I can't stop is the assault by bio + mines.
Let me put it this way. Suppose I tell you before the game starts that I'm going for a baneling bust. Are you going to win? Almost every time. Suppose I tell you I'm going infestor/ling/bane into eventual ultras. Are you going to win? Probably over 50% of the time, with the help of money saved on turrets and knowing what you're up against. Roach hydra? You'll win the majority time with pure bio with plenty of marauders.
Knowing exactly what you're going to be facing several minutes ahead of time should be an advantage, as you'll be able to prepare for it with the units that best counter what you're facing and you'll be ready to use tactics that defeat it, as well as make sure not to use any strats that lose to it.
When you have all of this going for you and still lose the majority of the time, something is wrong.
|
On May 12 2013 23:20 Dzerzhinsky wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2013 22:43 Chocobo wrote:On May 12 2013 09:39 AxionSteel wrote:After ages of frustration against zerg in LingsofLiberty, it certainly gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling to see all this QQ in here. Doesn't stop zerg from mopping up the tournaments and doing extremely well in Code S though I don't know any zergs who are complaining about balance at the pro level. The problem is that the skill required to play effectively in ZvT is too high for the vast majority of active players. This wouldn't be a problem if it affected both races equally, but it only affects zerg. It's nothing like other situations where it's like "yes, banelings are strong, you have to split your army up when you see them coming, or you have to protect yourself with tanks". Those are reasonable challenges that most players can learn to pull off. The skill and precision requires to deal with mines effectively is not. It requires so much effort, and is very punishing for any mistakes. Few diamond and masters players have the skill to ever be able to pull it off. So even though it's completely fair at the pro level, there's a problem for much of the ladder. That's an assertion that it's difficult to prove or disprove, but looking at the only statistics I have, it's also difficult to take it seriously. Zerg remains significantly overrepresented in GM and Masters (aka. 'below pro level') almost everywhere. I don't think those numbers prove much, there are too many factors involved. The ladder population was pretty zerg-heavy before HotS was released and maybe few people have bothered to switch races yet, for example. I'd really be interested in seeing the winrate for each race matchup at different skill levels, specifically the games where more than 2 mines were produced... too bad we don't have access to those numbers.
BTW I am referring more to platinum through masters players, I think GM zergs are capable of dealing with mines about as well as the pros. I don't know exactly where the line is for "you must be this skilled to pass", I just know it's over the heads of the vast majority of players.
|
Knowing exactly what you're going to be facing several minutes ahead of time should be an advantage, as you'll be able to prepare for it with the units that best counter what you're facing and you'll be ready to use tactics that defeat it, as well as make sure not to use any strats that lose to it.
This is simply false.
If i tell you i'm gonna 2 Raxing you/4 gate/Bling bust, etc... You're right. Any All-in should be harder to pull off. And cheese should be auto-win right.
If you're going for a macro game and say the composition you're aiming for. You should not be in an advantage. I don't think anybody have said 'TvP is always MMM, T should loose cuz i know it even before the game is started' or 'PvZ is always Ling/infestor with few roachs, so P should win etc...'
|
On May 12 2013 19:37 Snowbear wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2013 17:03 Decendos wrote:On May 12 2013 16:51 scypio wrote: I think there are some things getting mixed up in this thread. We can see some true balance complaints like: "ZvT is almost unwinnable and all the Zergs will disappear from the tourneys, ladder etc". Tournament results and the long list of the zerg players that seem to be doing fine within the current metagame say otherwise.
And than there is another set of complaints that can be summed up with a statement: "I don't like the current meta/gameplay". This is understandable - for example a coinflip is pretty balanced, but it is not a lot of fun to watch (unless it's at Dreamhack).
Let's say little Johnny doesn't like MMM-based TvP and thinks that the right way to play versus Protoss is a 4-port banshee. Pretty soon you would see Johnny posting on TL with the idea of increasing the range, damage and hp on the banshee by 50% to make his goto strategy viable.
This is exactly what the zergies do: my (WoL) strat is not working, other strats(bust) are stupid: blizzard go nerf hellbat, speedvacs and widow mines!
For me saying things like "well, the game has been out for two months, I've played 100 games on the ladder and nothing's gonna change, blizzard fix this!" seems a bit hasty. And the idea of sacrificing balance in favor of a better gameplay is flawed. except its the other way around. the old WoL style roach or roach bane all ins or roach nydus allins (which symbol already did in WoL and havent changed one bit) are working if T is bad/doesnt scout/plays insanely greedy. the new stuff in midgame doesnt work: swarmhosts, faster hydras dont work AT ALL, regenerating mutas work if you outplay opponent. the guy mentioning all the macro zergs are out while all the "all in/cheesy zerg" got in ro8 is true to the most part (obv not all macro zergs game are macro and the other way around). thats what all zerg players say is stupid: if you are on equal skill AND want to play a standard macro game TvZ is imbalanced. what makes it a bit more balanced are all the all ins Z does. once T figures them out (roach nydus all in etc. is easy scoutable, so is every roach warren with 2 reaper opening), TvZ will get a lot worse. lets see how it gets fixed. its just NO FUN at all to all in every TvZ right now because you will lose most macro games. You AGAIN! - Why are roach bane all ins working better in wol then in hots? Because of the siegetank? Very few terrans go siegetanks these days. Widowmines do jackshit vs well microed roaches. At least you have some allins. Do you know how many allins terrans have vs zerg? 0. - Swarmhosts don't work? Because you tried it 2 times? Let me guess, you were one of those whiners in WOL who claimed ultralisks were bad, right? Then stephano showed you how to STOMP terrans with them, and then you became quiet. What about trying swarmhosts? Or do you need stephano to make you a nice presentation of it? Everytime a genius zerg tried swarmhost against me, I lost (high master level). But keep thinking they don't work, just like ultras didnt work, right? - Hydras don't work? In WOL we had SLOW hydras, and stephano was DESTROYING code S terrans (!!!!!!!) with roach hydra compositions. That was during those times when 1) hydras were SLOW, and 2) terrans went TANKS instead of mines (and lets be honnest, mines are not so effective against roaches). Now you got FAST hydras and terrans going for 0 tanks. I also saw stephano demolish terrans with roach hydra in HOTS. So again, hydras don't work? - Where is the infestor? The missile fungal isn't a big nerf, so why did the unit disapear? - I remember seeing top zergs destroying terrans in macro games. Ofcourse there were a few allins (an allin, something a terran can't do against zerg, so be happy you can), but a lot of games were pure and fun macrogames. This is WOL all over again. Zergs complaining > after more then a year zergs finally starting to understand the game > zergs destroying everyone. I'm 100% sure that zvt will change completely, with swarmhosts, vipers, hydras and ultras being the key units.You will actually laugh with the builds that are used now. It's time for zergs to play HOTS, and not the WOL ling bling muta style. When they do that, and things still don't work, then I suggest to look at the viper.
you seem to have some personal problem with me. next time PM please if you want to talk and dont mess up threads.
if you are some master mind that has the solutions to the high level ZvT problem for zergs feel free to post them. i have no problem being wrong but all you say is "try hydras, SHs and infestors" without giving any pro level replays/VODs or your own BOs/replays where it actually works. so please post the replays where you go reaper into factory into MMMM and your opponents go SHs, hydras or infestor and they win. would be awesome to see.
|
i really hate zvp at the moment. There are very little aggressive options for a zerg up till the moment muts come or the protoss is too greedy trying to take 3rd with no units. While the protoss has so many options.
|
On May 13 2013 00:19 MTAC wrote:Show nested quote +Knowing exactly what you're going to be facing several minutes ahead of time should be an advantage, as you'll be able to prepare for it with the units that best counter what you're facing and you'll be ready to use tactics that defeat it, as well as make sure not to use any strats that lose to it. This is simply false. If i tell you i'm gonna 2 Raxing you/4 gate/Bling bust, etc... You're right. Any All-in should be harder to pull off. And cheese should be auto-win right. If you're going for a macro game and say the composition you're aiming for. You should not be in an advantage. I don't think anybody have said 'TvP is always MMM, T should loose cuz i know it even before the game is started' or 'PvZ is always Ling/infestor with few roachs, so P should win etc...'
I did not say that every macro game would be an auto-win if you know your opponent's unit composition. Of course that isn't true.
|
On May 13 2013 00:15 Chocobo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2013 23:20 Dzerzhinsky wrote:On May 12 2013 22:43 Chocobo wrote:On May 12 2013 09:39 AxionSteel wrote:After ages of frustration against zerg in LingsofLiberty, it certainly gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling to see all this QQ in here. Doesn't stop zerg from mopping up the tournaments and doing extremely well in Code S though I don't know any zergs who are complaining about balance at the pro level. The problem is that the skill required to play effectively in ZvT is too high for the vast majority of active players. This wouldn't be a problem if it affected both races equally, but it only affects zerg. It's nothing like other situations where it's like "yes, banelings are strong, you have to split your army up when you see them coming, or you have to protect yourself with tanks". Those are reasonable challenges that most players can learn to pull off. The skill and precision requires to deal with mines effectively is not. It requires so much effort, and is very punishing for any mistakes. Few diamond and masters players have the skill to ever be able to pull it off. So even though it's completely fair at the pro level, there's a problem for much of the ladder. That's an assertion that it's difficult to prove or disprove, but looking at the only statistics I have, it's also difficult to take it seriously. Zerg remains significantly overrepresented in GM and Masters (aka. 'below pro level') almost everywhere. I don't think those numbers prove much, there are too many factors involved. The ladder population was pretty zerg-heavy before HotS was released and maybe few people have bothered to switch races yet, for example. I'd really be interested in seeing the winrate for each race matchup at different skill levels, specifically the games where more than 2 mines were produced... too bad we don't have access to those numbers. BTW I am referring more to platinum through masters players, I think GM zergs are capable of dealing with mines about as well as the pros. I don't know exactly where the line is for "you must be this skilled to pass", I just know it's over the heads of the vast majority of players.
"Ladder data is showing no sign of imbalance at any skill level." - Dayvie http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/8796589934#1
What are you actually suggesting? Nerfing mines to make it easier at lower levels? Or just an acknowledgement that its hard to play against mines? ZvT certainly does have a greater micro requirement than it did in WoL.
|
On May 12 2013 17:03 Sissors wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2013 12:50 vRadiatioNv wrote:On May 12 2013 08:50 aksfjh wrote:On May 12 2013 08:11 Big J wrote:On May 12 2013 03:41 Zarahtra wrote:On May 12 2013 03:21 Rabiator wrote:On May 12 2013 03:16 Chocobo wrote:On May 11 2013 19:49 Godwrath wrote:On May 11 2013 18:06 Chocobo wrote: Yep. Kinda like how mines are cost efficient vs everything zerg has in the first 15-20 minutes of the game. Erhm, no. Other than broodlords, what is cost efficient against mines for zerg? 1. Spore and Spine Crawlers for the early game ... (They are even good against Hellbat drops since neither of these dies easily to the "vs light" damage and the Medivac dies faster ... which prevents its reuse. Spore Crawlers are great against Phoenix and Oracle too ....) 2. Sending in Overlords to soak up the shots right before your charge ... Just watch a few TvZ games with early harrassment and IMO it is always the "diehard oldschoolers" who try to defend against Hellbat harrassment with Zerglings who are losing the match while the ones who build static defenses seem to be fine. That might be a misperception on my part, but I would suggest you check for yourself. The whole point of HotS seems to be "more harrassment" ... Hellbat, Oracle, Mutalisk regen, Medivac speed, Widow Mine, ... so preparing for that is a requirement and not optional now IMO. Also 2x +3 attack upgrade blings kill a mine(that is less than +3 armor upgrade) which I'd argue isn't that cost inefficient for a zerg(100/50 vs 75/25). It is really obnoxious when a zerg sends 2x blings ontop of a widow mine and blows it up, but terrans quite often in a hurry burry 2x next to each other, so atleast those times it is cost effective. I see it as a great way for a zerg to keep the amount of widow mines on the field in control, rather than letting it spiral. So, just to be clear: I don't think there is any imbalance in the matchup overall, but I do believe that ling/bling/muta (even if you manage to upgrade 3-3+cracklings, 3-0 AND even with small infestor support) can't fight against marine/medivac/mine (or hellbat/tank/marauder variations) and you have to go ultras/broodlords to win after the early 3base Terran phase. That being said, it's not good to trade banes vs mines like that. The equation goes basically like this: 1) marines > lings, mutas, roaches, hydras, queens, swarm hosts 2) marines < banelings, ultralisks, huge infestor count, huge broodlord count Basically, all you want to do as a Terran in those engagements is kill as many banelings efficiently or in equal trades as you can before they touch marines. The rest is just a mob up. On May 12 2013 04:51 plogamer wrote:On May 12 2013 04:48 Ramiz1989 wrote:On May 12 2013 03:20 Whitewing wrote: Be very careful about changing TvZ even if you conclude it is imbalanced. Right now at the highest level, it's the most engaging and exciting matchup to watch. The entire matchup frequently turns into a super long push from terran trying to break zerg while zerg tries to throw the push back one time, with both players micro'ing their faces off to try to be efficient. It's incredibly interesting to watch how they try to out control one another with constant battles and counter attacks. The wrong buff to zerg or nerf to terran could ruin that kind of push and send us back to both players maxxing out before doing anything.
TBH, I think the main problem is that zergs let terrans be too greedy and don't punish it. I kind of agree if they opened with Hellions/Reapers etc. however, you can't always punish it, and it is a lot harder if they opened with 1-2 Siege Tanks(which some of them are doing, mind you) or Mines. It also depends on the map a lot. Or Idra's super greedy opener versus Polt could also be the correct response when scouting 3 cc opener. /edit When it comes to greed, I don't think any race can top the Zerg race. I disagree. When zerg is greedy, zerg gets more mining earlier but no tech at all. When Terran is greedy, they still get their full tech tree much earlier and still have the same amount of CCs, but terran only needs to defend a single entrance (compared to two for outdoor basing zerg). Both races have their ups and downs when playing greedy. I agree with Whitewing on that matter. People should roach rush the fuck out of Terrans. Soulkey, Roro, Symbol and Kangho all have been roach rushing, baneling busting and nydusing their way into Ro8 against Terrans this GSL. Shine made it far similarily (those games against Fantasy...). Life, BBong, DRG, Hyun tried to play macrogames and got destroyed. The macro-metagame right now is very simple. Terrans build 3CCs, double ebays, a few hellions/reapers and go into mass reactored barracks+stim/shields and reactored widow mines/medivacs. Before 9-10mins, a Terran won't have any defences down apart from the hellions and a handful of widow mines/marines. On the flip side, a zerg invests into multiple queens, speed, speedlings, sometimes roaches/defenses relatively early without there even being any actual thread apart from those few hellions/reapers and just falls behind. But if you just blindly allin with roaches, a Terran often won't even have the production to react to anything you do because that build can't really produce anything that does not come from a reactored factory, before 9-10mins. And if a Terran even goes more greedy (like instead of defensive mines, even drops mines/hellbats early with this or gets his upgrades even faster or even more barracks early on, or just 4hellions), it's just a freewin, even if you just put on some semiallinish roach aggression with a third behind it, or a really late roach allin that hits at 10+mins. The only thing I want to add to this is the fact that, while having access to the tech, Terran can't utilize it in quite the explosive nature that Zerg (and even Protoss) can, nor is it as central of a role in winning. The only upgrade/tech that plays a huge, instant role is stim, and maybe combat shields and a tank. Having a starport or being able to produce hellbats isn't going to change the game when the first unit rolls out, unlike finishing a spire or making that first colossus (with range). I agree with pretty much everything Big J said except I do feel that TvZ is just slightly in favor of Terran (as most stats show) and just needs a tiny, tiny adjustment. Most stats don't show that. Only one sets of stats shown that, which was proven again and again to lack statistical significance (when you removed WCS qualifiers it was pretty much 50/50). And at what level do you think TvZ favors Terran? Since even the most hardcore zerg supporters here have a very hard time defending that at pro level terran would be stronger, with half the Code S RO8 for example being zerg. And at every level above silver it is kinda weird that way more people play zerg than terran if zerg would be so much weaker. But what kind of tiny ajustments do you want to boost zerg without allowing them to dominate pro levels and become even more popular on 'normal' levels? And not to nerf terran against toss would also be nice. Oh and take into account due to their production nature zerg always needs longer to adapt to new metagames so I would also consider it a pré if zerg don't dominate the next 6 months yet again. @Decendos, terran has never been able to go for a pure macro game against any of the other races. So why should zerg be allowed to do it? I've seen many different statistics posted on this site and very few of them don't show Terran being favored over Zerg. Most seem to be ~54-56% which is extremely close of course.
I think Terran is probably slightly favored at all levels but it's harder to see in lower level stats because the lower leagues are so volatile. At the pro level Life and many other pro players (including many Terrans) claim and Zerg is slightly underpowered. As for "half of Code S being Zerg" let's face it, Terran has a smaller player pool than the other races for whatever reason so there were bound to be more Zergs in the GSL.
I disagree with people saying it takes Zerg so much longer to adapt especially in the case of HoTS where Zerg didn't receive many new units or adjustments. It is much easier for Zerg to use Ling/Muta since they have been since WoL whereas Terran received huge changes. It's going to take Terran longer to figure out how best to utilize Medivacs, Hellbats, Mines, and Ravens and also how many of each of these units they should have in their compositions. For example, I've seen Bio + Mine and Bio + Hellbats but very rarely do I see Bio + Mines + Hellbats. Terrans are still figuring out what works best. It's much easier for Zerg to learn what works vs Hellbats or what works vs Mines than it is for Terran to learn exactly how many of each they should have for the perfect composition. I feel Terrans will only get better whereas Zergs may not since they don't have as much to learn.
As for small changes, I think a good start would be to make Mines visible on the minimap before they go off. Multipronged aggression is nearly impossible right now with mines on the map because you must have your screen on your units to avoid them (Overseers aren't the answer either since they are slower than lings and mutas). At least if they appeared on the minimap you would have a chance of reacting and pulling your units back. Correct me if I'm wrong but Spider Mines in BW would unburrow before they attacked so not only can you see them on the minimap before they go off but you can actually attack them as well. You should at least be able to see Widow Mines on the minimap before they go off imo. I don't think this would be a huge nerf or anything since it would take absurd reflexes to notice and pull units back fast enough to avoid mines.
|
On May 13 2013 01:03 vRadiatioNv wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2013 17:03 Sissors wrote:On May 12 2013 12:50 vRadiatioNv wrote:On May 12 2013 08:50 aksfjh wrote:On May 12 2013 08:11 Big J wrote:On May 12 2013 03:41 Zarahtra wrote:On May 12 2013 03:21 Rabiator wrote:On May 12 2013 03:16 Chocobo wrote:On May 11 2013 19:49 Godwrath wrote:On May 11 2013 18:06 Chocobo wrote: Yep. Kinda like how mines are cost efficient vs everything zerg has in the first 15-20 minutes of the game. Erhm, no. Other than broodlords, what is cost efficient against mines for zerg? 1. Spore and Spine Crawlers for the early game ... (They are even good against Hellbat drops since neither of these dies easily to the "vs light" damage and the Medivac dies faster ... which prevents its reuse. Spore Crawlers are great against Phoenix and Oracle too ....) 2. Sending in Overlords to soak up the shots right before your charge ... Just watch a few TvZ games with early harrassment and IMO it is always the "diehard oldschoolers" who try to defend against Hellbat harrassment with Zerglings who are losing the match while the ones who build static defenses seem to be fine. That might be a misperception on my part, but I would suggest you check for yourself. The whole point of HotS seems to be "more harrassment" ... Hellbat, Oracle, Mutalisk regen, Medivac speed, Widow Mine, ... so preparing for that is a requirement and not optional now IMO. Also 2x +3 attack upgrade blings kill a mine(that is less than +3 armor upgrade) which I'd argue isn't that cost inefficient for a zerg(100/50 vs 75/25). It is really obnoxious when a zerg sends 2x blings ontop of a widow mine and blows it up, but terrans quite often in a hurry burry 2x next to each other, so atleast those times it is cost effective. I see it as a great way for a zerg to keep the amount of widow mines on the field in control, rather than letting it spiral. So, just to be clear: I don't think there is any imbalance in the matchup overall, but I do believe that ling/bling/muta (even if you manage to upgrade 3-3+cracklings, 3-0 AND even with small infestor support) can't fight against marine/medivac/mine (or hellbat/tank/marauder variations) and you have to go ultras/broodlords to win after the early 3base Terran phase. That being said, it's not good to trade banes vs mines like that. The equation goes basically like this: 1) marines > lings, mutas, roaches, hydras, queens, swarm hosts 2) marines < banelings, ultralisks, huge infestor count, huge broodlord count Basically, all you want to do as a Terran in those engagements is kill as many banelings efficiently or in equal trades as you can before they touch marines. The rest is just a mob up. On May 12 2013 04:51 plogamer wrote:On May 12 2013 04:48 Ramiz1989 wrote:On May 12 2013 03:20 Whitewing wrote: Be very careful about changing TvZ even if you conclude it is imbalanced. Right now at the highest level, it's the most engaging and exciting matchup to watch. The entire matchup frequently turns into a super long push from terran trying to break zerg while zerg tries to throw the push back one time, with both players micro'ing their faces off to try to be efficient. It's incredibly interesting to watch how they try to out control one another with constant battles and counter attacks. The wrong buff to zerg or nerf to terran could ruin that kind of push and send us back to both players maxxing out before doing anything.
TBH, I think the main problem is that zergs let terrans be too greedy and don't punish it. I kind of agree if they opened with Hellions/Reapers etc. however, you can't always punish it, and it is a lot harder if they opened with 1-2 Siege Tanks(which some of them are doing, mind you) or Mines. It also depends on the map a lot. Or Idra's super greedy opener versus Polt could also be the correct response when scouting 3 cc opener. /edit When it comes to greed, I don't think any race can top the Zerg race. I disagree. When zerg is greedy, zerg gets more mining earlier but no tech at all. When Terran is greedy, they still get their full tech tree much earlier and still have the same amount of CCs, but terran only needs to defend a single entrance (compared to two for outdoor basing zerg). Both races have their ups and downs when playing greedy. I agree with Whitewing on that matter. People should roach rush the fuck out of Terrans. Soulkey, Roro, Symbol and Kangho all have been roach rushing, baneling busting and nydusing their way into Ro8 against Terrans this GSL. Shine made it far similarily (those games against Fantasy...). Life, BBong, DRG, Hyun tried to play macrogames and got destroyed. The macro-metagame right now is very simple. Terrans build 3CCs, double ebays, a few hellions/reapers and go into mass reactored barracks+stim/shields and reactored widow mines/medivacs. Before 9-10mins, a Terran won't have any defences down apart from the hellions and a handful of widow mines/marines. On the flip side, a zerg invests into multiple queens, speed, speedlings, sometimes roaches/defenses relatively early without there even being any actual thread apart from those few hellions/reapers and just falls behind. But if you just blindly allin with roaches, a Terran often won't even have the production to react to anything you do because that build can't really produce anything that does not come from a reactored factory, before 9-10mins. And if a Terran even goes more greedy (like instead of defensive mines, even drops mines/hellbats early with this or gets his upgrades even faster or even more barracks early on, or just 4hellions), it's just a freewin, even if you just put on some semiallinish roach aggression with a third behind it, or a really late roach allin that hits at 10+mins. The only thing I want to add to this is the fact that, while having access to the tech, Terran can't utilize it in quite the explosive nature that Zerg (and even Protoss) can, nor is it as central of a role in winning. The only upgrade/tech that plays a huge, instant role is stim, and maybe combat shields and a tank. Having a starport or being able to produce hellbats isn't going to change the game when the first unit rolls out, unlike finishing a spire or making that first colossus (with range). I agree with pretty much everything Big J said except I do feel that TvZ is just slightly in favor of Terran (as most stats show) and just needs a tiny, tiny adjustment. Most stats don't show that. Only one sets of stats shown that, which was proven again and again to lack statistical significance (when you removed WCS qualifiers it was pretty much 50/50). And at what level do you think TvZ favors Terran? Since even the most hardcore zerg supporters here have a very hard time defending that at pro level terran would be stronger, with half the Code S RO8 for example being zerg. And at every level above silver it is kinda weird that way more people play zerg than terran if zerg would be so much weaker. But what kind of tiny ajustments do you want to boost zerg without allowing them to dominate pro levels and become even more popular on 'normal' levels? And not to nerf terran against toss would also be nice. Oh and take into account due to their production nature zerg always needs longer to adapt to new metagames so I would also consider it a pré if zerg don't dominate the next 6 months yet again. @Decendos, terran has never been able to go for a pure macro game against any of the other races. So why should zerg be allowed to do it? I've seen many different statistics posted on this site and very few of them don't show Terran being favored over Zerg. Most seem to be ~54-56% which is extremely close of course. I think Terran is probably slightly favored at all levels but it's harder to see in lower level stats because the lower leagues are so volatile. At the pro level Life and many other pro players (including many Terrans) claim and Zerg is slightly underpowered. As for "half of Code S being Zerg" let's face it, Terran has a smaller player pool than the other races for whatever reason so there were bound to be more Zergs in the GSL.
Lets face it, you just made it up. Zerg has smallest player base especially in Korea
I disagree with people saying it takes Zerg so much longer to adapt especially in the case of HoTS where Zerg didn't receive many new units or adjustments. It is much easier for Zerg to use Ling/Muta since they have been since WoL whereas Terran received huge changes. It's going to take Terran longer to figure out how best to utilize Medivacs, Hellbats, Mines, and Ravens and also how many of each of these units they should have in their compositions. For example, I've seen Bio + Mine and Bio + Hellbats but very rarely do I see Bio + Mines + Hellbats. Terrans are still figuring out what works best. It's much easier for Zerg to learn what works vs Hellbats or what works vs Mines than it is for Terran to learn exactly how many of each they should have for the perfect composition. I feel Terrans will only get better whereas Zergs may not since they don't have as much to learn.
Last year of Wol ZvT looked : 3 fast bases, 15th minutes hive, infestors + ultra/bl. TvZ looked mass bio + eventual tanks. Now ZvT looks totally different, TvZ looks similiar with mines instead of tanks.
|
Terran, compared to Zerg, is globally underrepresented in Master's league by 5%. Not surprisingly this doesn't exist in lower leagues, and with Zerg doing how it is in tournaments combined with Zerg continuing the dominate the upper ladder leagues even 2 months after the release I can assure you that Terran is not favored at any level.
What you're experiencing is simply shock value that Zergs need unit control now after two years of not having to do virtually any micro.
On May 13 2013 01:11 keglu wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2013 01:03 vRadiatioNv wrote:On May 12 2013 17:03 Sissors wrote:On May 12 2013 12:50 vRadiatioNv wrote:On May 12 2013 08:50 aksfjh wrote:On May 12 2013 08:11 Big J wrote:On May 12 2013 03:41 Zarahtra wrote:On May 12 2013 03:21 Rabiator wrote:On May 12 2013 03:16 Chocobo wrote:On May 11 2013 19:49 Godwrath wrote: [quote]
Erhm, no. Other than broodlords, what is cost efficient against mines for zerg? 1. Spore and Spine Crawlers for the early game ... (They are even good against Hellbat drops since neither of these dies easily to the "vs light" damage and the Medivac dies faster ... which prevents its reuse. Spore Crawlers are great against Phoenix and Oracle too ....) 2. Sending in Overlords to soak up the shots right before your charge ... Just watch a few TvZ games with early harrassment and IMO it is always the "diehard oldschoolers" who try to defend against Hellbat harrassment with Zerglings who are losing the match while the ones who build static defenses seem to be fine. That might be a misperception on my part, but I would suggest you check for yourself. The whole point of HotS seems to be "more harrassment" ... Hellbat, Oracle, Mutalisk regen, Medivac speed, Widow Mine, ... so preparing for that is a requirement and not optional now IMO. Also 2x +3 attack upgrade blings kill a mine(that is less than +3 armor upgrade) which I'd argue isn't that cost inefficient for a zerg(100/50 vs 75/25). It is really obnoxious when a zerg sends 2x blings ontop of a widow mine and blows it up, but terrans quite often in a hurry burry 2x next to each other, so atleast those times it is cost effective. I see it as a great way for a zerg to keep the amount of widow mines on the field in control, rather than letting it spiral. So, just to be clear: I don't think there is any imbalance in the matchup overall, but I do believe that ling/bling/muta (even if you manage to upgrade 3-3+cracklings, 3-0 AND even with small infestor support) can't fight against marine/medivac/mine (or hellbat/tank/marauder variations) and you have to go ultras/broodlords to win after the early 3base Terran phase. That being said, it's not good to trade banes vs mines like that. The equation goes basically like this: 1) marines > lings, mutas, roaches, hydras, queens, swarm hosts 2) marines < banelings, ultralisks, huge infestor count, huge broodlord count Basically, all you want to do as a Terran in those engagements is kill as many banelings efficiently or in equal trades as you can before they touch marines. The rest is just a mob up. On May 12 2013 04:51 plogamer wrote:On May 12 2013 04:48 Ramiz1989 wrote:On May 12 2013 03:20 Whitewing wrote: Be very careful about changing TvZ even if you conclude it is imbalanced. Right now at the highest level, it's the most engaging and exciting matchup to watch. The entire matchup frequently turns into a super long push from terran trying to break zerg while zerg tries to throw the push back one time, with both players micro'ing their faces off to try to be efficient. It's incredibly interesting to watch how they try to out control one another with constant battles and counter attacks. The wrong buff to zerg or nerf to terran could ruin that kind of push and send us back to both players maxxing out before doing anything.
TBH, I think the main problem is that zergs let terrans be too greedy and don't punish it. I kind of agree if they opened with Hellions/Reapers etc. however, you can't always punish it, and it is a lot harder if they opened with 1-2 Siege Tanks(which some of them are doing, mind you) or Mines. It also depends on the map a lot. Or Idra's super greedy opener versus Polt could also be the correct response when scouting 3 cc opener. /edit When it comes to greed, I don't think any race can top the Zerg race. I disagree. When zerg is greedy, zerg gets more mining earlier but no tech at all. When Terran is greedy, they still get their full tech tree much earlier and still have the same amount of CCs, but terran only needs to defend a single entrance (compared to two for outdoor basing zerg). Both races have their ups and downs when playing greedy. I agree with Whitewing on that matter. People should roach rush the fuck out of Terrans. Soulkey, Roro, Symbol and Kangho all have been roach rushing, baneling busting and nydusing their way into Ro8 against Terrans this GSL. Shine made it far similarily (those games against Fantasy...). Life, BBong, DRG, Hyun tried to play macrogames and got destroyed. The macro-metagame right now is very simple. Terrans build 3CCs, double ebays, a few hellions/reapers and go into mass reactored barracks+stim/shields and reactored widow mines/medivacs. Before 9-10mins, a Terran won't have any defences down apart from the hellions and a handful of widow mines/marines. On the flip side, a zerg invests into multiple queens, speed, speedlings, sometimes roaches/defenses relatively early without there even being any actual thread apart from those few hellions/reapers and just falls behind. But if you just blindly allin with roaches, a Terran often won't even have the production to react to anything you do because that build can't really produce anything that does not come from a reactored factory, before 9-10mins. And if a Terran even goes more greedy (like instead of defensive mines, even drops mines/hellbats early with this or gets his upgrades even faster or even more barracks early on, or just 4hellions), it's just a freewin, even if you just put on some semiallinish roach aggression with a third behind it, or a really late roach allin that hits at 10+mins. The only thing I want to add to this is the fact that, while having access to the tech, Terran can't utilize it in quite the explosive nature that Zerg (and even Protoss) can, nor is it as central of a role in winning. The only upgrade/tech that plays a huge, instant role is stim, and maybe combat shields and a tank. Having a starport or being able to produce hellbats isn't going to change the game when the first unit rolls out, unlike finishing a spire or making that first colossus (with range). I agree with pretty much everything Big J said except I do feel that TvZ is just slightly in favor of Terran (as most stats show) and just needs a tiny, tiny adjustment. Most stats don't show that. Only one sets of stats shown that, which was proven again and again to lack statistical significance (when you removed WCS qualifiers it was pretty much 50/50). And at what level do you think TvZ favors Terran? Since even the most hardcore zerg supporters here have a very hard time defending that at pro level terran would be stronger, with half the Code S RO8 for example being zerg. And at every level above silver it is kinda weird that way more people play zerg than terran if zerg would be so much weaker. But what kind of tiny ajustments do you want to boost zerg without allowing them to dominate pro levels and become even more popular on 'normal' levels? And not to nerf terran against toss would also be nice. Oh and take into account due to their production nature zerg always needs longer to adapt to new metagames so I would also consider it a pré if zerg don't dominate the next 6 months yet again. @Decendos, terran has never been able to go for a pure macro game against any of the other races. So why should zerg be allowed to do it? I've seen many different statistics posted on this site and very few of them don't show Terran being favored over Zerg. Most seem to be ~54-56% which is extremely close of course. I think Terran is probably slightly favored at all levels but it's harder to see in lower level stats because the lower leagues are so volatile. At the pro level Life and many other pro players (including many Terrans) claim and Zerg is slightly underpowered. As for "half of Code S being Zerg" let's face it, Terran has a smaller player pool than the other races for whatever reason so there were bound to be more Zergs in the GSL. Lets face it, you just made it up. Zerg has smallest player base especially in Korea
I believe he did as well. You're arguing with someone who publicly supported the queen patch.
|
On May 13 2013 01:03 vRadiatioNv wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2013 17:03 Sissors wrote:On May 12 2013 12:50 vRadiatioNv wrote:On May 12 2013 08:50 aksfjh wrote:On May 12 2013 08:11 Big J wrote:On May 12 2013 03:41 Zarahtra wrote:On May 12 2013 03:21 Rabiator wrote:On May 12 2013 03:16 Chocobo wrote:On May 11 2013 19:49 Godwrath wrote:On May 11 2013 18:06 Chocobo wrote: Yep. Kinda like how mines are cost efficient vs everything zerg has in the first 15-20 minutes of the game. Erhm, no. Other than broodlords, what is cost efficient against mines for zerg? 1. Spore and Spine Crawlers for the early game ... (They are even good against Hellbat drops since neither of these dies easily to the "vs light" damage and the Medivac dies faster ... which prevents its reuse. Spore Crawlers are great against Phoenix and Oracle too ....) 2. Sending in Overlords to soak up the shots right before your charge ... Just watch a few TvZ games with early harrassment and IMO it is always the "diehard oldschoolers" who try to defend against Hellbat harrassment with Zerglings who are losing the match while the ones who build static defenses seem to be fine. That might be a misperception on my part, but I would suggest you check for yourself. The whole point of HotS seems to be "more harrassment" ... Hellbat, Oracle, Mutalisk regen, Medivac speed, Widow Mine, ... so preparing for that is a requirement and not optional now IMO. Also 2x +3 attack upgrade blings kill a mine(that is less than +3 armor upgrade) which I'd argue isn't that cost inefficient for a zerg(100/50 vs 75/25). It is really obnoxious when a zerg sends 2x blings ontop of a widow mine and blows it up, but terrans quite often in a hurry burry 2x next to each other, so atleast those times it is cost effective. I see it as a great way for a zerg to keep the amount of widow mines on the field in control, rather than letting it spiral. So, just to be clear: I don't think there is any imbalance in the matchup overall, but I do believe that ling/bling/muta (even if you manage to upgrade 3-3+cracklings, 3-0 AND even with small infestor support) can't fight against marine/medivac/mine (or hellbat/tank/marauder variations) and you have to go ultras/broodlords to win after the early 3base Terran phase. That being said, it's not good to trade banes vs mines like that. The equation goes basically like this: 1) marines > lings, mutas, roaches, hydras, queens, swarm hosts 2) marines < banelings, ultralisks, huge infestor count, huge broodlord count Basically, all you want to do as a Terran in those engagements is kill as many banelings efficiently or in equal trades as you can before they touch marines. The rest is just a mob up. On May 12 2013 04:51 plogamer wrote:On May 12 2013 04:48 Ramiz1989 wrote:On May 12 2013 03:20 Whitewing wrote: Be very careful about changing TvZ even if you conclude it is imbalanced. Right now at the highest level, it's the most engaging and exciting matchup to watch. The entire matchup frequently turns into a super long push from terran trying to break zerg while zerg tries to throw the push back one time, with both players micro'ing their faces off to try to be efficient. It's incredibly interesting to watch how they try to out control one another with constant battles and counter attacks. The wrong buff to zerg or nerf to terran could ruin that kind of push and send us back to both players maxxing out before doing anything.
TBH, I think the main problem is that zergs let terrans be too greedy and don't punish it. I kind of agree if they opened with Hellions/Reapers etc. however, you can't always punish it, and it is a lot harder if they opened with 1-2 Siege Tanks(which some of them are doing, mind you) or Mines. It also depends on the map a lot. Or Idra's super greedy opener versus Polt could also be the correct response when scouting 3 cc opener. /edit When it comes to greed, I don't think any race can top the Zerg race. I disagree. When zerg is greedy, zerg gets more mining earlier but no tech at all. When Terran is greedy, they still get their full tech tree much earlier and still have the same amount of CCs, but terran only needs to defend a single entrance (compared to two for outdoor basing zerg). Both races have their ups and downs when playing greedy. I agree with Whitewing on that matter. People should roach rush the fuck out of Terrans. Soulkey, Roro, Symbol and Kangho all have been roach rushing, baneling busting and nydusing their way into Ro8 against Terrans this GSL. Shine made it far similarily (those games against Fantasy...). Life, BBong, DRG, Hyun tried to play macrogames and got destroyed. The macro-metagame right now is very simple. Terrans build 3CCs, double ebays, a few hellions/reapers and go into mass reactored barracks+stim/shields and reactored widow mines/medivacs. Before 9-10mins, a Terran won't have any defences down apart from the hellions and a handful of widow mines/marines. On the flip side, a zerg invests into multiple queens, speed, speedlings, sometimes roaches/defenses relatively early without there even being any actual thread apart from those few hellions/reapers and just falls behind. But if you just blindly allin with roaches, a Terran often won't even have the production to react to anything you do because that build can't really produce anything that does not come from a reactored factory, before 9-10mins. And if a Terran even goes more greedy (like instead of defensive mines, even drops mines/hellbats early with this or gets his upgrades even faster or even more barracks early on, or just 4hellions), it's just a freewin, even if you just put on some semiallinish roach aggression with a third behind it, or a really late roach allin that hits at 10+mins. The only thing I want to add to this is the fact that, while having access to the tech, Terran can't utilize it in quite the explosive nature that Zerg (and even Protoss) can, nor is it as central of a role in winning. The only upgrade/tech that plays a huge, instant role is stim, and maybe combat shields and a tank. Having a starport or being able to produce hellbats isn't going to change the game when the first unit rolls out, unlike finishing a spire or making that first colossus (with range). I agree with pretty much everything Big J said except I do feel that TvZ is just slightly in favor of Terran (as most stats show) and just needs a tiny, tiny adjustment. Most stats don't show that. Only one sets of stats shown that, which was proven again and again to lack statistical significance (when you removed WCS qualifiers it was pretty much 50/50). And at what level do you think TvZ favors Terran? Since even the most hardcore zerg supporters here have a very hard time defending that at pro level terran would be stronger, with half the Code S RO8 for example being zerg. And at every level above silver it is kinda weird that way more people play zerg than terran if zerg would be so much weaker. But what kind of tiny ajustments do you want to boost zerg without allowing them to dominate pro levels and become even more popular on 'normal' levels? And not to nerf terran against toss would also be nice. Oh and take into account due to their production nature zerg always needs longer to adapt to new metagames so I would also consider it a pré if zerg don't dominate the next 6 months yet again. @Decendos, terran has never been able to go for a pure macro game against any of the other races. So why should zerg be allowed to do it? I've seen many different statistics posted on this site and very few of them don't show Terran being favored over Zerg. Most seem to be ~54-56% which is extremely close of course. I think Terran is probably slightly favored at all levels but it's harder to see in lower level stats because the lower leagues are so volatile. At the pro level Life and many other pro players (including many Terrans) claim and Zerg is slightly underpowered. As for "half of Code S being Zerg" let's face it, Terran has a smaller player pool than the other races for whatever reason so there were bound to be more Zergs in the GSL. I disagree with people saying it takes Zerg so much longer to adapt especially in the case of HoTS where Zerg didn't receive many new units or adjustments. It is much easier for Zerg to use Ling/Muta since they have been since WoL whereas Terran received huge changes. It's going to take Terran longer to figure out how best to utilize Medivacs, Hellbats, Mines, and Ravens and also how many of each of these units they should have in their compositions. For example, I've seen Bio + Mine and Bio + Hellbats but very rarely do I see Bio + Mines + Hellbats. Terrans are still figuring out what works best. It's much easier for Zerg to learn what works vs Hellbats or what works vs Mines than it is for Terran to learn exactly how many of each they should have for the perfect composition. I feel Terrans will only get better whereas Zergs may not since they don't have as much to learn. As for small changes, I think a good start would be to make Mines visible on the minimap before they go off. Multipronged aggression is nearly impossible right now with mines on the map because you must have your screen on your units to avoid them (Overseers aren't the answer either since they are slower than lings and mutas). At least if they appeared on the minimap you would have a chance of reacting and pulling your units back. Correct me if I'm wrong but Spider Mines in BW would unburrow before they attacked so not only can you see them on the minimap before they go off but you can actually attack them as well. You should at least be able to see Widow Mines on the minimap before they go off imo. I don't think this would be a huge nerf or anything since it would take absurd reflexes to notice and pull units back fast enough to avoid mines.
Actually Terran is pretty well represented, they are plentiful in bronze/silver which makes up about half the player base -- proof http://www.sc2ranks.com/stats/league/all/1/all If you take into account how many there are in bronze/silver and how there are fewer higher up, it ends up about even.
I believe the reason people think it will take zerg longer to adapt is because they have less early game unit changes. Firstly you have to see a cheese/build, then you have to learn how to defend it. Terran got changes that come earlier in the game, ie reapers, mines, hellbats, faster siege, where as zergs changes generally come later, ultra buff, swarm hosts, vipers, muta buff. Early game units are likely to get figured out before later game units, since all games go through the early game, but not all make the late game. Ravens are the exception here.
|
All the progamers I've heard, said that Hellbats are bad.
|
As a TvZ "spectator" (i play P), I wouldn't mind if blizzard adjusted things around creep/positioning. For example, if mines happen to be too strong (so far I really can't tell), a change like : "burrow time doubled on creep" would make things quite interesting regarding positioning, creep spread, decision making on when to engage or not, etc.
I'd like them to approach balance this way, using the races differences, rather than just buffing/nerfing damage/speed/cost of units.
|
On May 13 2013 02:32 eXdeath wrote: As a TvZ "spectator" (i play P), I wouldn't mind if blizzard adjusted things around creep/positioning. For example, if mines happen to be too strong (so far I really can't tell), a change like : "burrow time doubled on creep" would make things quite interesting regarding positioning, creep spread, decision making on when to engage or not, etc.
I'd like them to approach balance this way, using the races differences, rather than just buffing/nerfing damage/speed/cost of units. I don't like it because it makes the ruleset of the game very complex.
|
On May 12 2013 23:16 Chocobo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2013 22:59 Hryul wrote:On May 12 2013 22:43 Chocobo wrote:On May 12 2013 09:39 AxionSteel wrote:After ages of frustration against zerg in LingsofLiberty, it certainly gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling to see all this QQ in here. Doesn't stop zerg from mopping up the tournaments and doing extremely well in Code S though I don't know any zergs who are complaining about balance at the pro level. The problem is that the skill required to play effectively in ZvT is too high for the vast majority of active players. This wouldn't be a problem if it affected both races equally, but it only affects zerg. It's nothing like other situations where it's like "yes, banelings are strong, you have to split your army up when you see them coming, or you have to protect yourself with tanks". Those are reasonable challenges that most players can learn to pull off. The skill and precision requires to deal with mines effectively is not. It requires so much effort, and is very punishing for any mistakes. Few diamond and masters players have the skill to ever be able to pull it off. So even though it's completely fair at the pro level, there's a problem for much of the ladder. This post highlights a unreasonable fatalistic stance: It is hard. I can't do it right now therefore only a few people can do it and all the others (including me) can't ever learn it. Zerg bias at its finest. The deliberate ignorance of facts in here is starting to rival Fox News. It is simply a fact that it is significantly more difficult to engage a bio mine army in a cost efficient way than it is to split your marines when banelings come rolling in, or cast feedback on medivacs, or whatever. Completely missing the point. You just claim that it is an unreasonable effort to learn how to engage mines and then base your whole arguments on this assumption. It doesn't strengthen your argument by drawing wild comparisons to Fox News.
And instead of taking the challenge you fight a war on the tl forums for a nerf of mines. This is a slippery slope especially since it's unclear if there really is a problem with mines. (Opposed to bl/inf into ultra switches)
At the moment you are arguing that Blizzard should balance the game not only for the pros (where TvZ might be slightly T favored) but also to your personal gaming experience.
E:On May 13 2013 03:07 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2013 02:32 eXdeath wrote: As a TvZ "spectator" (i play P), I wouldn't mind if blizzard adjusted things around creep/positioning. For example, if mines happen to be too strong (so far I really can't tell), a change like : "burrow time doubled on creep" would make things quite interesting regarding positioning, creep spread, decision making on when to engage or not, etc.
I'd like them to approach balance this way, using the races differences, rather than just buffing/nerfing damage/speed/cost of units. I don't like it because it makes the ruleset of the game very complex. It's also a bit of a doubleedged sword. One of the great advantages of mines over tanks is that T actually can move on creep w/o the need to wait until the creep recedes. Otherwise we might turn back to WoL TvZ. And I'm sure not only Scarlett would be able to pull off some crazy creepspreads if it would give the Z such an advantage.
|
While we are discussing the ideas behind current state of TvZ the toss soul train just rolled through the WCS EU Challanger qualifiers:
Sneaky bastards!
|
On May 13 2013 02:32 eXdeath wrote: As a TvZ "spectator" (i play P), I wouldn't mind if blizzard adjusted things around creep/positioning. For example, if mines happen to be too strong (so far I really can't tell), a change like : "burrow time doubled on creep" would make things quite interesting regarding positioning, creep spread, decision making on when to engage or not, etc.
I'd like them to approach balance this way, using the races differences, rather than just buffing/nerfing damage/speed/cost of units. I don't think zerg needs even more advantage on creep than it already has. Speed plus the vision already are really, really good.
|
On May 13 2013 02:05 Nirel wrote: All the progamers I've heard, said that Hellbats are bad.
They are a unit with obvious flaws design. The thing is it is not overpowered, just a boring unit, pretty much like colossi.
|
On May 13 2013 01:03 vRadiatioNv wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2013 17:03 Sissors wrote:On May 12 2013 12:50 vRadiatioNv wrote:On May 12 2013 08:50 aksfjh wrote:On May 12 2013 08:11 Big J wrote:On May 12 2013 03:41 Zarahtra wrote:On May 12 2013 03:21 Rabiator wrote:On May 12 2013 03:16 Chocobo wrote:On May 11 2013 19:49 Godwrath wrote:On May 11 2013 18:06 Chocobo wrote: Yep. Kinda like how mines are cost efficient vs everything zerg has in the first 15-20 minutes of the game. Erhm, no. Other than broodlords, what is cost efficient against mines for zerg? 1. Spore and Spine Crawlers for the early game ... (They are even good against Hellbat drops since neither of these dies easily to the "vs light" damage and the Medivac dies faster ... which prevents its reuse. Spore Crawlers are great against Phoenix and Oracle too ....) 2. Sending in Overlords to soak up the shots right before your charge ... Just watch a few TvZ games with early harrassment and IMO it is always the "diehard oldschoolers" who try to defend against Hellbat harrassment with Zerglings who are losing the match while the ones who build static defenses seem to be fine. That might be a misperception on my part, but I would suggest you check for yourself. The whole point of HotS seems to be "more harrassment" ... Hellbat, Oracle, Mutalisk regen, Medivac speed, Widow Mine, ... so preparing for that is a requirement and not optional now IMO. Also 2x +3 attack upgrade blings kill a mine(that is less than +3 armor upgrade) which I'd argue isn't that cost inefficient for a zerg(100/50 vs 75/25). It is really obnoxious when a zerg sends 2x blings ontop of a widow mine and blows it up, but terrans quite often in a hurry burry 2x next to each other, so atleast those times it is cost effective. I see it as a great way for a zerg to keep the amount of widow mines on the field in control, rather than letting it spiral. So, just to be clear: I don't think there is any imbalance in the matchup overall, but I do believe that ling/bling/muta (even if you manage to upgrade 3-3+cracklings, 3-0 AND even with small infestor support) can't fight against marine/medivac/mine (or hellbat/tank/marauder variations) and you have to go ultras/broodlords to win after the early 3base Terran phase. That being said, it's not good to trade banes vs mines like that. The equation goes basically like this: 1) marines > lings, mutas, roaches, hydras, queens, swarm hosts 2) marines < banelings, ultralisks, huge infestor count, huge broodlord count Basically, all you want to do as a Terran in those engagements is kill as many banelings efficiently or in equal trades as you can before they touch marines. The rest is just a mob up. On May 12 2013 04:51 plogamer wrote:On May 12 2013 04:48 Ramiz1989 wrote:On May 12 2013 03:20 Whitewing wrote: Be very careful about changing TvZ even if you conclude it is imbalanced. Right now at the highest level, it's the most engaging and exciting matchup to watch. The entire matchup frequently turns into a super long push from terran trying to break zerg while zerg tries to throw the push back one time, with both players micro'ing their faces off to try to be efficient. It's incredibly interesting to watch how they try to out control one another with constant battles and counter attacks. The wrong buff to zerg or nerf to terran could ruin that kind of push and send us back to both players maxxing out before doing anything.
TBH, I think the main problem is that zergs let terrans be too greedy and don't punish it. I kind of agree if they opened with Hellions/Reapers etc. however, you can't always punish it, and it is a lot harder if they opened with 1-2 Siege Tanks(which some of them are doing, mind you) or Mines. It also depends on the map a lot. Or Idra's super greedy opener versus Polt could also be the correct response when scouting 3 cc opener. /edit When it comes to greed, I don't think any race can top the Zerg race. I disagree. When zerg is greedy, zerg gets more mining earlier but no tech at all. When Terran is greedy, they still get their full tech tree much earlier and still have the same amount of CCs, but terran only needs to defend a single entrance (compared to two for outdoor basing zerg). Both races have their ups and downs when playing greedy. I agree with Whitewing on that matter. People should roach rush the fuck out of Terrans. Soulkey, Roro, Symbol and Kangho all have been roach rushing, baneling busting and nydusing their way into Ro8 against Terrans this GSL. Shine made it far similarily (those games against Fantasy...). Life, BBong, DRG, Hyun tried to play macrogames and got destroyed. The macro-metagame right now is very simple. Terrans build 3CCs, double ebays, a few hellions/reapers and go into mass reactored barracks+stim/shields and reactored widow mines/medivacs. Before 9-10mins, a Terran won't have any defences down apart from the hellions and a handful of widow mines/marines. On the flip side, a zerg invests into multiple queens, speed, speedlings, sometimes roaches/defenses relatively early without there even being any actual thread apart from those few hellions/reapers and just falls behind. But if you just blindly allin with roaches, a Terran often won't even have the production to react to anything you do because that build can't really produce anything that does not come from a reactored factory, before 9-10mins. And if a Terran even goes more greedy (like instead of defensive mines, even drops mines/hellbats early with this or gets his upgrades even faster or even more barracks early on, or just 4hellions), it's just a freewin, even if you just put on some semiallinish roach aggression with a third behind it, or a really late roach allin that hits at 10+mins. The only thing I want to add to this is the fact that, while having access to the tech, Terran can't utilize it in quite the explosive nature that Zerg (and even Protoss) can, nor is it as central of a role in winning. The only upgrade/tech that plays a huge, instant role is stim, and maybe combat shields and a tank. Having a starport or being able to produce hellbats isn't going to change the game when the first unit rolls out, unlike finishing a spire or making that first colossus (with range). I agree with pretty much everything Big J said except I do feel that TvZ is just slightly in favor of Terran (as most stats show) and just needs a tiny, tiny adjustment. Most stats don't show that. Only one sets of stats shown that, which was proven again and again to lack statistical significance (when you removed WCS qualifiers it was pretty much 50/50). And at what level do you think TvZ favors Terran? Since even the most hardcore zerg supporters here have a very hard time defending that at pro level terran would be stronger, with half the Code S RO8 for example being zerg. And at every level above silver it is kinda weird that way more people play zerg than terran if zerg would be so much weaker. But what kind of tiny ajustments do you want to boost zerg without allowing them to dominate pro levels and become even more popular on 'normal' levels? And not to nerf terran against toss would also be nice. Oh and take into account due to their production nature zerg always needs longer to adapt to new metagames so I would also consider it a pré if zerg don't dominate the next 6 months yet again. @Decendos, terran has never been able to go for a pure macro game against any of the other races. So why should zerg be allowed to do it? I've seen many different statistics posted on this site and very few of them don't show Terran being favored over Zerg. Most seem to be ~54-56% which is extremely close of course. Most seem to be 54-56% because they are all based on the exactly the same spreadsheet only they made different graphs with it. And that again is the spreadsheet where deleting the WCS qualifiers puts it back to pretty much 50/50 (actually 51/49 in favor of terran), which proofs that it lacked statistical significance.
I think Terran is probably slightly favored at all levels but it's harder to see in lower level stats because the lower leagues are so volatile. At the pro level Life and many other pro players (including many Terrans) claim and Zerg is slightly underpowered. As for "half of Code S being Zerg" let's face it, Terran has a smaller player pool than the other races for whatever reason so there were bound to be more Zergs in the GSL. Come on even many of those who want terran nerfed here don't try to claim that terran is favored at pro level. There is literally nothing indicating that would be the case.
I disagree with people saying it takes Zerg so much longer to adapt especially in the case of HoTS where Zerg didn't receive many new units or adjustments. It is much easier for Zerg to use Ling/Muta since they have been since WoL whereas Terran received huge changes. Well zerg also has to adapt how to use ling/muta against mines, that is pretty much what this entire topic is about. Just a-moving isn't the best idea anymore. And the basic idea of terran isn't really anything shocking, bio play was also around in WoL, now only mines were added. If it was just TvZ I would agree that terran got quite a bit of adjustment to do, but since bio was the standard in TvP most players are pretty used to it.
The difference is that zerg is inherently a reactive race, unless they go all-in, where even the most hardcore zerg supporter here doesn't claim they are struggling. As example, lets say TvP. With changes in the metagame I need to know roughly when Oracles can come so I am prepared for it, and when I need to start worrying about DTs. Then also a bit when to roughly start making vikings, but thats it, as non-pro I really don't need to know that very accurate.
Meanwhile zerg playstyle is pretty much pure droning as long as possible, and then switching to pure making army. In an all-in (although imo generally it isn't an all-in, just an early game push, but thats another discussion) thats fairly easy: mass drones till X-supply, then mass roaches for example. But if you want to go for a longer game you really need to know based on what you scout when to exactly switch from droning to army production. This means zerg take longer to adjust to new metagames, and why zerg more than other races can highly optimize their builds, but it also takes longer before they are optimized.
|
United Kingdom14103 Posts
On May 13 2013 04:46 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2013 02:05 Nirel wrote: All the progamers I've heard, said that Hellbats are bad. They are a unit with obvious flaws design. The thing is it is not overpowered, just a boring unit, pretty much like colossi.
I prefer hellbats to colossi :/ Colossi are more boring than corruptors ...
|
I've seen quite a few examples where a terran flat out lost the game after walking over a pair of burrowed banelings with his entire army. It has happened on pro levels and I've done it several times myself, its pretty frustrating. Widow mines are fairly similar, although a bit worse still. One can compare it to when a zerg tries to lure you into his burrowed banelings with his muta harass, but instead of just harassing, its his main army trying to kill you. And instead of shooting at him from a distance as he moves back, he's shooting on you while you try to get into range.
So you make a mistake and you're dead. Frustrating, but next game you'll remember to scan ahead, its pretty obvious he's trying to trick you into attacking anyway. Sadly you dont have a scan. How about a raven? Very useful, until it dies that is. But dont worry, I got this, MORE RAVENS! Sweet, but eventually they died as well. For some reason that also supply capped you. Sorry about that .
Now it is extremely annoying to lose game after game from nothing else than a small mistake. While one can argue that its obviously a huge mistake as you otherwise wouldnt lose the game from that alone, when it comes to actual mechanics, its a pretty small mistake to make. Its like this: even the pros dont always only stim a small part of their marines ahead to chase away those pesky mutalisks. The harass never stops and that one time you stim your entire army instead there's ALWAYS banelings burrowed blowing up all of your marines. That, on top of an already frustrating situation, takes away so much enjoyment from the game.
Balance may ofc permit this, especially on the highest levels where mistakes are already minimal. For the rest of us however, its really not fun. I want to lose to people with better mechanics than me. I dont want to lose because my opponent moves back and forth with his army until I make a mistake which is then automatically punished. That being said I have lost against people with better mechanics than me as well as against people with worse. Against skilled people I just die "harder" after accidentally exploding my army on his mines. In many cases I would have died anyway, but really, it rarely goes that far.
If things are balanced or not can be discussed endlessly. The way widow mines are designed is however pretty stupid, regardless of balance.
|
On May 10 2013 04:56 DoNuTs84 wrote: Gratz Terrans. You won. Hope you continue to be happy with your dropplay freewins
User was warned for this post
There is something called static defense, build spines and spores. quit complaining and learn how to play.
|
This is a great change to be honest. the game is still by far in its infancy and large changes shouldn't be made this early on.
Also what happened to the philosophy of balancing races via new maps? Not complaining, just seems like it could be a easier way to make very subtle changes (though admittedly it would take more work to make things small)
|
United Kingdom12010 Posts
On May 13 2013 09:14 Pazuzu wrote: This is a great change to be honest. the game is still by far in its infancy and large changes shouldn't be made this early on.
Also what happened to the philosophy of balancing races via new maps? Not complaining, just seems like it could be a easier way to make very subtle changes (though admittedly it would take more work to make things small)
Thankfully proleague is trying new maps each season but just recently it feels that GSL outside of maybe red city and DMZ (for GSTL) don't seem to want to switch up their map pool with any super interesting maps and WCS EU has a relatively supser standard pool too with some maps that shouldn't be there like Daybreak.
God all the games on daybreak PvZ in HoTS I've seen have been so bad, infact pretty much every game I've seen on it has been. Can't wait for next season when hopefully it'll be switched up.
|
On May 13 2013 04:46 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2013 02:05 Nirel wrote: All the progamers I've heard, said that Hellbats are bad. They are a unit with obvious flaws design. The thing is it is not overpowered, just a boring unit, pretty much like colossi.
Hellbats do OP dps for cost. You can throw them away into mineral lines and basically never NOT get your money's worth. You only have to kill 4 probes to pay for them, and due to lost mining time you don't even have to kill 4 to pay for them. Very rarely will they ever do less damage than that, and you always have the chance to do devastating damage with a single drop.
The unit was designed to help terrans against mass chargelot, which is why they are a slower shorter range version of the hellion that is tankier and does a splash damage radius that is more effective against units in melee range. The mistake blizzard made was making the hellbat do 281% dps to non-light of its hellion counter part, making it do great dps to everything. It also does over 200% dps to light of a blue-flame hellion, making it completely shred light units like workers. The unit does way too much aoe dps for a 100 mineral 2 supply unit that can be reactored out. Sure it requires an armory, but Terran gets an armory every game anyway for +2/+2 and +3/+3 upgrades, whether they make any hellbats or not. The thing needs a dps nerf badly.
Smart Terrans should be hellbat dropping all game, and throwing them into their composition against Toss so they can laugh at chargelots. Once the mineral dump chargelots are gone in PvT, there is just a gas expensive fragile army left over that can be run over.
|
On May 13 2013 04:46 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2013 02:05 Nirel wrote: All the progamers I've heard, said that Hellbats are bad. They are a unit with obvious flaws design. The thing is it is not overpowered, just a boring unit, pretty much like colossi. Is "boring" the new thing to say when we don't like an unit but have can't have no real argument against it?
Hellbats are fine. A slow, heavy-hitting melee unit that forces micro from your opponent to deal with them cost effectively. Terran players deserve a unit they can pretty much just a-move with.
|
On May 13 2013 09:25 Zanzabarr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2013 04:46 Godwrath wrote:On May 13 2013 02:05 Nirel wrote: All the progamers I've heard, said that Hellbats are bad. They are a unit with obvious flaws design. The thing is it is not overpowered, just a boring unit, pretty much like colossi. Hellbats do OP dps for cost. You can throw them away into mineral lines and basically never NOT get your money's worth. You only have to kill 4 probes to pay for them, and due to lost mining time you don't even have to kill 4 to pay for them. Very rarely will they ever do less damage than that, and you always have the chance to do devastating damage with a single drop. The unit was designed to help terrans against mass chargelot, which is why they are a slower shorter range version of the hellion that is tankier and does a splash damage radius that is more effective against units in melee range. The mistake blizzard made was making the hellbat do 281% dps to non-light of its hellion counter part, making it do great dps to everything. It also does over 200% dps to light of a blue-flame hellion, making it completely shred light units like workers. The unit does way too much aoe dps for a 100 mineral 2 supply unit that can be reactored out. Sure it requires an armory, but Terran gets an armory every game anyway for +2/+2 and +3/+3 upgrades, whether they make any hellbats or not. The thing needs a dps nerf badly. Smart Terrans should be hellbat dropping all game, and throwing them into their composition against Toss so they can laugh at chargelots. Once the mineral dump chargelots are gone in PvT, there is just a gas expensive fragile army left over that can be run over.
I 100% agree with this post.
At the moment, hellbats are ridiculous for their cost.
|
Using ladder as an objective measure of anything is completely absurd. I don't even know if the game is imbalanced, but that's about as stupid Bud Selig saying "The average record in Major League Baseball is about 500, so our disciplinary and officiating policies must be solid"
And Hellbats are fucking stupid.
|
On May 13 2013 09:26 Bagi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2013 04:46 Godwrath wrote:On May 13 2013 02:05 Nirel wrote: All the progamers I've heard, said that Hellbats are bad. They are a unit with obvious flaws design. The thing is it is not overpowered, just a boring unit, pretty much like colossi. Is "boring" the new thing to say when we don't like an unit but have can't have no real argument against it? Hellbats are fine. A slow, heavy-hitting melee unit that forces micro from your opponent to deal with them cost effectively. Terran players deserve a unit they can pretty much just a-move with.
The problem with them is that you can't really micro against them. As a zerg, Widow mines for example are extremely annoying, but you know that you can atleast micro against them. If you're getting hellbat-dropped, there's no real micro to be done other than try to focus down the medivac asap and just have your units in position. If a streaight up fight, there isn't really any specific micro against hellbats, other than to not engage them.
And honestly, I don't know why not more terrans abuse hellbat-drops or just mix in a few hellbats overall since they make lings completely useless.
|
Terrans in code S destroying Protoss and Zergs with hellbat drops? Can link some vods please?
|
OK I haven't read all 25 pages of this thread, but does anyone know why Blizzard isn't considering buffing hydralisks instead of spores? This change is really frustrating because I think the game would be much better with a hydra buff. I think it would be best if they buffed the movement speed upgrade so that it also buffed speed on creep.
- I see a lot of discussion in this thread about ZvT balance. I have no idea if the matchup is balanced overall, but I do think that roach/hydra style is underpowered. It is also INCREDIBLY fun to play. I do it all the time on ladder (even though I think it's worse than ling/bane/muta) because it's so enjoyable. But a competent terran will just rip you apart with drops, and unless you can get an absurdly strong econ to put static D everywhere (while still making enough units to trade effectively against bio) then you will simply lose. I think the matchup would be much improved if roach/hydra was more viable, and I hardly think that buffing hydra speed on creep would make roach/hydra in anyway overpowered. But it would make dealing with drops a lot easier.
- I think it would do a much better job of fixing ZvZ than the spore change. The spore change is the worst idea I can think of. I absolutely love muta v muta, I think it's tons of fun, but after the first spore change it's already gotten boring. I expect the next spore change will only make it more boring. It's so much more difficult to be aggressive that a lot of the time both players are just incredibly defensive and macro up, instead of playing a really fun style where there's lots of micro and multitasking trying to attack with mutas, lings somewhere else, etc. This happens much less often after the first spore change, simply because spores deter mutas so well. But if hydralisks were faster on creep, then they could do a much better job of defending against muta harass. They could also split better against banelings so the roach/hydra player could trade more efficiently vs the muta player.
- I don't think it would particularly affect ZvP a huge amount. It would make it easier to split hydras against skytoss/templar, which I think is a good thing, as that style is ridiculously easy to play from the protoss perspective and quite a bit harder for the zerg. So giving the zerg a bit of help there I think would make the game better.
Anyway, that's just the opinion of a high master zerg player. I'm mostly worried that ZvZ will get even more boring, and I think making hydras more viable against terran would make that matchup even more fun to watch.
|
On May 13 2013 09:25 Zanzabarr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2013 04:46 Godwrath wrote:On May 13 2013 02:05 Nirel wrote: All the progamers I've heard, said that Hellbats are bad. They are a unit with obvious flaws design. The thing is it is not overpowered, just a boring unit, pretty much like colossi. Hellbats do OP dps for cost. You can throw them away into mineral lines and basically never NOT get your money's worth. You only have to kill 4 probes to pay for them, and due to lost mining time you don't even have to kill 4 to pay for them. Very rarely will they ever do less damage than that, and you always have the chance to do devastating damage with a single drop. The unit was designed to help terrans against mass chargelot, which is why they are a slower shorter range version of the hellion that is tankier and does a splash damage radius that is more effective against units in melee range. The mistake blizzard made was making the hellbat do 281% dps to non-light of its hellion counter part, making it do great dps to everything. It also does over 200% dps to light of a blue-flame hellion, making it completely shred light units like workers. The unit does way too much aoe dps for a 100 mineral 2 supply unit that can be reactored out. Sure it requires an armory, but Terran gets an armory every game anyway for +2/+2 and +3/+3 upgrades, whether they make any hellbats or not. The thing needs a dps nerf badly. Smart Terrans should be hellbat dropping all game, and throwing them into their composition against Toss so they can laugh at chargelots. Once the mineral dump chargelots are gone in PvT, there is just a gas expensive fragile army left over that can be run over.
Extreme Protoss bias, and it sounds like you're a bit bitter over losing to drops. Try building static defense.
Aside from killer works, which normal hellions are already better at, Zealots are more effective as general purpose unit because of charge and speed while hellbats can die before doing anything because of 2 range and slow movement speed.
On May 13 2013 09:25 Zanzabarr wrote: there is just a gas expensive fragile army
I assure you no Protoss unit is "fragile" considering Protoss units tend to have the best cost:life ratios in the game.
|
I wonder whats in store for us
|
On May 13 2013 11:34 DemigodcelpH wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2013 09:25 Zanzabarr wrote:On May 13 2013 04:46 Godwrath wrote:On May 13 2013 02:05 Nirel wrote: All the progamers I've heard, said that Hellbats are bad. They are a unit with obvious flaws design. The thing is it is not overpowered, just a boring unit, pretty much like colossi. Hellbats do OP dps for cost. You can throw them away into mineral lines and basically never NOT get your money's worth. You only have to kill 4 probes to pay for them, and due to lost mining time you don't even have to kill 4 to pay for them. Very rarely will they ever do less damage than that, and you always have the chance to do devastating damage with a single drop. The unit was designed to help terrans against mass chargelot, which is why they are a slower shorter range version of the hellion that is tankier and does a splash damage radius that is more effective against units in melee range. The mistake blizzard made was making the hellbat do 281% dps to non-light of its hellion counter part, making it do great dps to everything. It also does over 200% dps to light of a blue-flame hellion, making it completely shred light units like workers. The unit does way too much aoe dps for a 100 mineral 2 supply unit that can be reactored out. Sure it requires an armory, but Terran gets an armory every game anyway for +2/+2 and +3/+3 upgrades, whether they make any hellbats or not. The thing needs a dps nerf badly. Smart Terrans should be hellbat dropping all game, and throwing them into their composition against Toss so they can laugh at chargelots. Once the mineral dump chargelots are gone in PvT, there is just a gas expensive fragile army left over that can be run over. Extreme Protoss bias, and it sounds like you're a bit bitter over losing to drops. Try building static defense. Aside from killer works, which normal hellions are already better at, Zealots are more effective as general purpose unit because of charge and speed while hellbats can die before doing anything because of 2 range and slow movement speed. Show nested quote +On May 13 2013 09:25 Zanzabarr wrote: there is just a gas expensive fragile army I assure you no Protoss unit is "fragile" considering Protoss units have the best cost:life ratios in the game.
Lol do you even play this game? You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. My opinion is based on facts, math, and watching a lot of high level starcraft where I've seen plenty of hellbat abuse already. The numbers don't lie. I'm talking in terms of context of the matchup when I talk about zealots and hellbats. The hellbats don't need to move fast because the zealots have to come to them, and when they do, they get demolished. Once that happens, the fragile expensive protoss army gets run over.
Best cost:life ratios in the game? What game are you playing? You should do some research before you open your mouth. Zealots and tempest are the only thing protoss has that have lots of life for cost, and even then, it's not by much (hellbat has 135 and does more dps, and has splash. Roach is 75/25 and has 145). How is that relevant when the fragile toss army I am referring to is the stuff that isn't zealots?
Hellbats are so stupidly cost effective right now, Terrans should be using them. Some high level terrans have already stated that they almost try not to use them because they know they have to be nerfed and will be nerfed. Static defense? Like I've already stated, hellbats are so cost effective, you can drop them to their death and they'll still be worth it. I could have two cannons in the mineral line at each base, and you'd still be able to zoom in with a medivac, drop them, not lose the medivac, and have the hellbats do massive damage before dying. Even Terrans complain of OP hellbats in TvT.
|
On May 13 2013 11:34 DemigodcelpH wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2013 09:25 Zanzabarr wrote:On May 13 2013 04:46 Godwrath wrote:On May 13 2013 02:05 Nirel wrote: All the progamers I've heard, said that Hellbats are bad. They are a unit with obvious flaws design. The thing is it is not overpowered, just a boring unit, pretty much like colossi. Hellbats do OP dps for cost. You can throw them away into mineral lines and basically never NOT get your money's worth. You only have to kill 4 probes to pay for them, and due to lost mining time you don't even have to kill 4 to pay for them. Very rarely will they ever do less damage than that, and you always have the chance to do devastating damage with a single drop. The unit was designed to help terrans against mass chargelot, which is why they are a slower shorter range version of the hellion that is tankier and does a splash damage radius that is more effective against units in melee range. The mistake blizzard made was making the hellbat do 281% dps to non-light of its hellion counter part, making it do great dps to everything. It also does over 200% dps to light of a blue-flame hellion, making it completely shred light units like workers. The unit does way too much aoe dps for a 100 mineral 2 supply unit that can be reactored out. Sure it requires an armory, but Terran gets an armory every game anyway for +2/+2 and +3/+3 upgrades, whether they make any hellbats or not. The thing needs a dps nerf badly. Smart Terrans should be hellbat dropping all game, and throwing them into their composition against Toss so they can laugh at chargelots. Once the mineral dump chargelots are gone in PvT, there is just a gas expensive fragile army left over that can be run over. Extreme Protoss bias, and it sounds like you're a bit bitter over losing to drops. Try building static defense. Aside from killer works, which normal hellions are already better at, Zealots are more effective as general purpose unit because of charge and speed while hellbats can die before doing anything because of 2 range and slow movement speed. Show nested quote +On May 13 2013 09:25 Zanzabarr wrote: there is just a gas expensive fragile army I assure you no Protoss unit is "fragile" considering Protoss units have the best cost:life ratios in the game.
You don't understand this game.
|
On May 13 2013 05:15 Sissors wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2013 01:03 vRadiatioNv wrote:On May 12 2013 17:03 Sissors wrote:On May 12 2013 12:50 vRadiatioNv wrote:On May 12 2013 08:50 aksfjh wrote:On May 12 2013 08:11 Big J wrote:On May 12 2013 03:41 Zarahtra wrote:On May 12 2013 03:21 Rabiator wrote:On May 12 2013 03:16 Chocobo wrote:On May 11 2013 19:49 Godwrath wrote: [quote]
Erhm, no. Other than broodlords, what is cost efficient against mines for zerg? 1. Spore and Spine Crawlers for the early game ... (They are even good against Hellbat drops since neither of these dies easily to the "vs light" damage and the Medivac dies faster ... which prevents its reuse. Spore Crawlers are great against Phoenix and Oracle too ....) 2. Sending in Overlords to soak up the shots right before your charge ... Just watch a few TvZ games with early harrassment and IMO it is always the "diehard oldschoolers" who try to defend against Hellbat harrassment with Zerglings who are losing the match while the ones who build static defenses seem to be fine. That might be a misperception on my part, but I would suggest you check for yourself. The whole point of HotS seems to be "more harrassment" ... Hellbat, Oracle, Mutalisk regen, Medivac speed, Widow Mine, ... so preparing for that is a requirement and not optional now IMO. Also 2x +3 attack upgrade blings kill a mine(that is less than +3 armor upgrade) which I'd argue isn't that cost inefficient for a zerg(100/50 vs 75/25). It is really obnoxious when a zerg sends 2x blings ontop of a widow mine and blows it up, but terrans quite often in a hurry burry 2x next to each other, so atleast those times it is cost effective. I see it as a great way for a zerg to keep the amount of widow mines on the field in control, rather than letting it spiral. So, just to be clear: I don't think there is any imbalance in the matchup overall, but I do believe that ling/bling/muta (even if you manage to upgrade 3-3+cracklings, 3-0 AND even with small infestor support) can't fight against marine/medivac/mine (or hellbat/tank/marauder variations) and you have to go ultras/broodlords to win after the early 3base Terran phase. That being said, it's not good to trade banes vs mines like that. The equation goes basically like this: 1) marines > lings, mutas, roaches, hydras, queens, swarm hosts 2) marines < banelings, ultralisks, huge infestor count, huge broodlord count Basically, all you want to do as a Terran in those engagements is kill as many banelings efficiently or in equal trades as you can before they touch marines. The rest is just a mob up. On May 12 2013 04:51 plogamer wrote:On May 12 2013 04:48 Ramiz1989 wrote:On May 12 2013 03:20 Whitewing wrote: Be very careful about changing TvZ even if you conclude it is imbalanced. Right now at the highest level, it's the most engaging and exciting matchup to watch. The entire matchup frequently turns into a super long push from terran trying to break zerg while zerg tries to throw the push back one time, with both players micro'ing their faces off to try to be efficient. It's incredibly interesting to watch how they try to out control one another with constant battles and counter attacks. The wrong buff to zerg or nerf to terran could ruin that kind of push and send us back to both players maxxing out before doing anything.
TBH, I think the main problem is that zergs let terrans be too greedy and don't punish it. I kind of agree if they opened with Hellions/Reapers etc. however, you can't always punish it, and it is a lot harder if they opened with 1-2 Siege Tanks(which some of them are doing, mind you) or Mines. It also depends on the map a lot. Or Idra's super greedy opener versus Polt could also be the correct response when scouting 3 cc opener. /edit When it comes to greed, I don't think any race can top the Zerg race. I disagree. When zerg is greedy, zerg gets more mining earlier but no tech at all. When Terran is greedy, they still get their full tech tree much earlier and still have the same amount of CCs, but terran only needs to defend a single entrance (compared to two for outdoor basing zerg). Both races have their ups and downs when playing greedy. I agree with Whitewing on that matter. People should roach rush the fuck out of Terrans. Soulkey, Roro, Symbol and Kangho all have been roach rushing, baneling busting and nydusing their way into Ro8 against Terrans this GSL. Shine made it far similarily (those games against Fantasy...). Life, BBong, DRG, Hyun tried to play macrogames and got destroyed. The macro-metagame right now is very simple. Terrans build 3CCs, double ebays, a few hellions/reapers and go into mass reactored barracks+stim/shields and reactored widow mines/medivacs. Before 9-10mins, a Terran won't have any defences down apart from the hellions and a handful of widow mines/marines. On the flip side, a zerg invests into multiple queens, speed, speedlings, sometimes roaches/defenses relatively early without there even being any actual thread apart from those few hellions/reapers and just falls behind. But if you just blindly allin with roaches, a Terran often won't even have the production to react to anything you do because that build can't really produce anything that does not come from a reactored factory, before 9-10mins. And if a Terran even goes more greedy (like instead of defensive mines, even drops mines/hellbats early with this or gets his upgrades even faster or even more barracks early on, or just 4hellions), it's just a freewin, even if you just put on some semiallinish roach aggression with a third behind it, or a really late roach allin that hits at 10+mins. The only thing I want to add to this is the fact that, while having access to the tech, Terran can't utilize it in quite the explosive nature that Zerg (and even Protoss) can, nor is it as central of a role in winning. The only upgrade/tech that plays a huge, instant role is stim, and maybe combat shields and a tank. Having a starport or being able to produce hellbats isn't going to change the game when the first unit rolls out, unlike finishing a spire or making that first colossus (with range). I agree with pretty much everything Big J said except I do feel that TvZ is just slightly in favor of Terran (as most stats show) and just needs a tiny, tiny adjustment. Most stats don't show that. Only one sets of stats shown that, which was proven again and again to lack statistical significance (when you removed WCS qualifiers it was pretty much 50/50). And at what level do you think TvZ favors Terran? Since even the most hardcore zerg supporters here have a very hard time defending that at pro level terran would be stronger, with half the Code S RO8 for example being zerg. And at every level above silver it is kinda weird that way more people play zerg than terran if zerg would be so much weaker. But what kind of tiny ajustments do you want to boost zerg without allowing them to dominate pro levels and become even more popular on 'normal' levels? And not to nerf terran against toss would also be nice. Oh and take into account due to their production nature zerg always needs longer to adapt to new metagames so I would also consider it a pré if zerg don't dominate the next 6 months yet again. @Decendos, terran has never been able to go for a pure macro game against any of the other races. So why should zerg be allowed to do it? I've seen many different statistics posted on this site and very few of them don't show Terran being favored over Zerg. Most seem to be ~54-56% which is extremely close of course. Most seem to be 54-56% because they are all based on the exactly the same spreadsheet only they made different graphs with it. And that again is the spreadsheet where deleting the WCS qualifiers puts it back to pretty much 50/50 (actually 51/49 in favor of terran), which proofs that it lacked statistical significance. Show nested quote +I think Terran is probably slightly favored at all levels but it's harder to see in lower level stats because the lower leagues are so volatile. At the pro level Life and many other pro players (including many Terrans) claim and Zerg is slightly underpowered. As for "half of Code S being Zerg" let's face it, Terran has a smaller player pool than the other races for whatever reason so there were bound to be more Zergs in the GSL. Come on even many of those who want terran nerfed here don't try to claim that terran is favored at pro level. There is literally nothing indicating that would be the case. Show nested quote +I disagree with people saying it takes Zerg so much longer to adapt especially in the case of HoTS where Zerg didn't receive many new units or adjustments. It is much easier for Zerg to use Ling/Muta since they have been since WoL whereas Terran received huge changes. Well zerg also has to adapt how to use ling/muta against mines, that is pretty much what this entire topic is about. Just a-moving isn't the best idea anymore. And the basic idea of terran isn't really anything shocking, bio play was also around in WoL, now only mines were added. If it was just TvZ I would agree that terran got quite a bit of adjustment to do, but since bio was the standard in TvP most players are pretty used to it. The difference is that zerg is inherently a reactive race, unless they go all-in, where even the most hardcore zerg supporter here doesn't claim they are struggling. As example, lets say TvP. With changes in the metagame I need to know roughly when Oracles can come so I am prepared for it, and when I need to start worrying about DTs. Then also a bit when to roughly start making vikings, but thats it, as non-pro I really don't need to know that very accurate. Meanwhile zerg playstyle is pretty much pure droning as long as possible, and then switching to pure making army. In an all-in (although imo generally it isn't an all-in, just an early game push, but thats another discussion) thats fairly easy: mass drones till X-supply, then mass roaches for example. But if you want to go for a longer game you really need to know based on what you scout when to exactly switch from droning to army production. This means zerg take longer to adjust to new metagames, and why zerg more than other races can highly optimize their builds, but it also takes longer before they are optimized. No, I have seen different spreadsheets by different users using different data samples, not to mention aligulac. I don't take them too seriously, I just notice Terran is slightly favored usually.
As for people taking issue with what I said about Terran player pool, I was obviously talking about Code S level Terrans. There haven't been very many recently and many of them are still adjusting to HoTS. How can we expect them all to make Ro8 GSL in the very first season (not saying that GSL will be heavily Terran favored, just saying I expect some Code S Terrans that already got knocked out to perform better next season).
What you say about Zerg playstyle and being reactive is pretty much true for everyone. There are builds and timings each race can do and each other race has to be prepared for. You are either attacking or expanding/teching depending on what the other player is doing; this is true for everyone. Zerg has to decide when to build drones or cut drones, Terrans and Protoss also have to decide when to cut probe and SCV production when they are doing certain timing pushes (or defending pushes) as well. You haven't said anything that's not also true for the other races lol. The fact is, Zergs already know how to deal with and kill Mines/Hellbats/Medivacs, what they don't know yet is how much Terrans can improve their control of these units and improve their compositions in general. From what I am seeing and experiencing it just seems that there are optimal compositions of Mines/Hellbats/Medivacs/Marines which, when controlled properly, should be nearly unbeatable for Zerg in the midgame. I have yet to see Terrans reach a balance with their production of these units and their control of the new units is not perfect. I feel Ling/Bling/Muta can only get Zerg so far but Terrans still have room for improvement. We'll see what happens.
I still would like to see more room for Zerg aggression (especially multipronged stuff similar to what Terran can do easily now) in the midgame. The way Mines currently function just make this so risky. You can't have your screen on focused on 2 armies in 2 different places at the same time obviously...
|
On May 13 2013 09:26 Bagi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2013 04:46 Godwrath wrote:On May 13 2013 02:05 Nirel wrote: All the progamers I've heard, said that Hellbats are bad. They are a unit with obvious flaws design. The thing is it is not overpowered, just a boring unit, pretty much like colossi. Is "boring" the new thing to say when we don't like an unit but have can't have no real argument against it? Hellbats are fine. A slow, heavy-hitting melee unit that forces micro from your opponent to deal with them cost effectively. Terran players deserve a unit they can pretty much just a-move with. I don't understand your point. You think the introduction of a-move units is a good thing, just because a race doesn't already have one? I would argue that introducing a boring unit to the game is bad no matter which race gets it. The hellbat is thought of as a boring unit because the full extent of the micro you can do with it is essentially focus firing nearby units and loading and unloading it from medivacs. That seems like a "real argument" to me.
As a counterexample, consider the widow mine. You can unburrow it to prevent it from firing, keep switching between targets to keep it from firing, load and unload it from medivacs, focus fire particular units, and you need to position them well to maximize their effectiveness and prevent wasted shots. That is definitely not a boring unit.
|
On May 13 2013 11:25 glad. wrote: OK I haven't read all 25 pages of this thread, but does anyone know why Blizzard isn't considering buffing hydralisks instead of spores? This change is really frustrating because I think the game would be much better with a hydra buff. I think it would be best if they buffed the movement speed upgrade so that it also buffed speed on creep.
I completely agree. I don't like the spore change for zvz- it encourages the not muta player to turtle in his base, whereas hydras allow him to move out. In a perfect world I imagine using hydras against mutas would be somewhat similar to terran muta defense- spores to slow them down and hydras to take out the mutas.
|
On May 13 2013 11:25 glad. wrote: OK I haven't read all 25 pages of this thread, but does anyone know why Blizzard isn't considering buffing hydralisks instead of spores? This change is really frustrating because I think the game would be much better with a hydra buff. I think it would be best if they buffed the movement speed upgrade so that it also buffed speed on creep. Why would they need to buff the "machinegun Hydras" in any way? If you want them against Mutalisks JUST BUILD SOME ... they are good enough already.
|
I wonder what would happen if Hellbats cost a small amount of gas to make and transform. Like a Z can invest resources to turn a zergling into a more powerful baneling. It certainly would address the problem of the hyper-costeffectiveness of Hellbats seeing as how they won't be just throwing away minerals anymore.
|
On May 13 2013 14:08 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2013 11:25 glad. wrote: OK I haven't read all 25 pages of this thread, but does anyone know why Blizzard isn't considering buffing hydralisks instead of spores? This change is really frustrating because I think the game would be much better with a hydra buff. I think it would be best if they buffed the movement speed upgrade so that it also buffed speed on creep. Why would they need to buff the "machinegun Hydras" in any way? If you want them against Mutalisks JUST BUILD SOME ... they are good enough already.
I hope this is sarcasm. Go roach/hydra against muta and you might as well gg right there.
|
On May 13 2013 12:33 Zanzabarr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2013 11:34 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 13 2013 09:25 Zanzabarr wrote:On May 13 2013 04:46 Godwrath wrote:On May 13 2013 02:05 Nirel wrote: All the progamers I've heard, said that Hellbats are bad. They are a unit with obvious flaws design. The thing is it is not overpowered, just a boring unit, pretty much like colossi. Hellbats do OP dps for cost. You can throw them away into mineral lines and basically never NOT get your money's worth. You only have to kill 4 probes to pay for them, and due to lost mining time you don't even have to kill 4 to pay for them. Very rarely will they ever do less damage than that, and you always have the chance to do devastating damage with a single drop. The unit was designed to help terrans against mass chargelot, which is why they are a slower shorter range version of the hellion that is tankier and does a splash damage radius that is more effective against units in melee range. The mistake blizzard made was making the hellbat do 281% dps to non-light of its hellion counter part, making it do great dps to everything. It also does over 200% dps to light of a blue-flame hellion, making it completely shred light units like workers. The unit does way too much aoe dps for a 100 mineral 2 supply unit that can be reactored out. Sure it requires an armory, but Terran gets an armory every game anyway for +2/+2 and +3/+3 upgrades, whether they make any hellbats or not. The thing needs a dps nerf badly. Smart Terrans should be hellbat dropping all game, and throwing them into their composition against Toss so they can laugh at chargelots. Once the mineral dump chargelots are gone in PvT, there is just a gas expensive fragile army left over that can be run over. Extreme Protoss bias, and it sounds like you're a bit bitter over losing to drops. Try building static defense. Aside from killer works, which normal hellions are already better at, Zealots are more effective as general purpose unit because of charge and speed while hellbats can die before doing anything because of 2 range and slow movement speed. On May 13 2013 09:25 Zanzabarr wrote: there is just a gas expensive fragile army I assure you no Protoss unit is "fragile" considering Protoss units have the best cost:life ratios in the game. Lol do you even play this game? You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. My opinion is based on facts, math, and watching a lot of high level starcraft where I've seen plenty of hellbat abuse already. The numbers don't lie. I'm talking in terms of context of the matchup when I talk about zealots and hellbats. The hellbats don't need to move fast because the zealots have to come to them, and when they do, they get demolished. Once that happens, the fragile expensive protoss army gets run over. Best cost:life ratios in the game? What game are you playing? You should do some research before you open your mouth. Zealots and tempest are the only thing protoss has that have lots of life for cost, and even then, it's not by much (hellbat has 135 and does more dps, and has splash. Roach is 75/25 and has 145). How is that relevant when the fragile toss army I am referring to is the stuff that isn't zealots? Hellbats are so stupidly cost effective right now, Terrans should be using them. Some high level terrans have already stated that they almost try not to use them because they know they have to be nerfed and will be nerfed. Static defense? Like I've already stated, hellbats are so cost effective, you can drop them to their death and they'll still be worth it. I could have two cannons in the mineral line at each base, and you'd still be able to zoom in with a medivac, drop them, not lose the medivac, and have the hellbats do massive damage before dying. Even Terrans complain of OP hellbats in TvT.
Ironically you cite no "fact", and then transition into more ad hominem which is more or less all I need to know that you, unfortunately, have no argument aside from your unfounded balance whine combined with no rebuttal to my main point. Regular hellions are better at wiping mineral lines than Hellbats, so if you're losing workers to Hellbats then it's because of your own negligence as you would lose even more to normal hellions; furthermore with 2 range and extremely slow movement speed Hellbats are also extremely kitable in direct engagements (while being less "tanky" than the Zealot and the Roach) which means that, combining these two points, if you're losing to them you're simply getting outplayed.
I understand getting outplayed is frustrating, but you're not as good as you think. Balance is not your issue.
|
On May 13 2013 14:38 blade55555 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2013 14:08 Rabiator wrote:On May 13 2013 11:25 glad. wrote: OK I haven't read all 25 pages of this thread, but does anyone know why Blizzard isn't considering buffing hydralisks instead of spores? This change is really frustrating because I think the game would be much better with a hydra buff. I think it would be best if they buffed the movement speed upgrade so that it also buffed speed on creep. Why would they need to buff the "machinegun Hydras" in any way? If you want them against Mutalisks JUST BUILD SOME ... they are good enough already. I hope this is sarcasm. Go roach/hydra against muta and you might as well gg right there. The question is DEFENSE againt Mutalisks and you bring in Roaches?
1. Get Spore Crawlers at your bases. 2. Research burrow. 3. Get Hydralisks in sufficient numbers to defend your bases against any form of Mutalisk harrassment and set a trap by placing your Hydralisks burrowed at a suspiciously light defended base ...
4. While you are at it get burrowed movement for your Roaches to attack and/or hide from Mutalisks out on the field.
In any case there is zero need to buff Hydralisks in any way.
|
On May 13 2013 12:58 vRadiatioNv wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2013 05:15 Sissors wrote:On May 13 2013 01:03 vRadiatioNv wrote:On May 12 2013 17:03 Sissors wrote:On May 12 2013 12:50 vRadiatioNv wrote:On May 12 2013 08:50 aksfjh wrote:On May 12 2013 08:11 Big J wrote:On May 12 2013 03:41 Zarahtra wrote:On May 12 2013 03:21 Rabiator wrote:On May 12 2013 03:16 Chocobo wrote: [quote] Other than broodlords, what is cost efficient against mines for zerg? 1. Spore and Spine Crawlers for the early game ... (They are even good against Hellbat drops since neither of these dies easily to the "vs light" damage and the Medivac dies faster ... which prevents its reuse. Spore Crawlers are great against Phoenix and Oracle too ....) 2. Sending in Overlords to soak up the shots right before your charge ... Just watch a few TvZ games with early harrassment and IMO it is always the "diehard oldschoolers" who try to defend against Hellbat harrassment with Zerglings who are losing the match while the ones who build static defenses seem to be fine. That might be a misperception on my part, but I would suggest you check for yourself. The whole point of HotS seems to be "more harrassment" ... Hellbat, Oracle, Mutalisk regen, Medivac speed, Widow Mine, ... so preparing for that is a requirement and not optional now IMO. Also 2x +3 attack upgrade blings kill a mine(that is less than +3 armor upgrade) which I'd argue isn't that cost inefficient for a zerg(100/50 vs 75/25). It is really obnoxious when a zerg sends 2x blings ontop of a widow mine and blows it up, but terrans quite often in a hurry burry 2x next to each other, so atleast those times it is cost effective. I see it as a great way for a zerg to keep the amount of widow mines on the field in control, rather than letting it spiral. So, just to be clear: I don't think there is any imbalance in the matchup overall, but I do believe that ling/bling/muta (even if you manage to upgrade 3-3+cracklings, 3-0 AND even with small infestor support) can't fight against marine/medivac/mine (or hellbat/tank/marauder variations) and you have to go ultras/broodlords to win after the early 3base Terran phase. That being said, it's not good to trade banes vs mines like that. The equation goes basically like this: 1) marines > lings, mutas, roaches, hydras, queens, swarm hosts 2) marines < banelings, ultralisks, huge infestor count, huge broodlord count Basically, all you want to do as a Terran in those engagements is kill as many banelings efficiently or in equal trades as you can before they touch marines. The rest is just a mob up. On May 12 2013 04:51 plogamer wrote:On May 12 2013 04:48 Ramiz1989 wrote:On May 12 2013 03:20 Whitewing wrote: Be very careful about changing TvZ even if you conclude it is imbalanced. Right now at the highest level, it's the most engaging and exciting matchup to watch. The entire matchup frequently turns into a super long push from terran trying to break zerg while zerg tries to throw the push back one time, with both players micro'ing their faces off to try to be efficient. It's incredibly interesting to watch how they try to out control one another with constant battles and counter attacks. The wrong buff to zerg or nerf to terran could ruin that kind of push and send us back to both players maxxing out before doing anything.
TBH, I think the main problem is that zergs let terrans be too greedy and don't punish it. I kind of agree if they opened with Hellions/Reapers etc. however, you can't always punish it, and it is a lot harder if they opened with 1-2 Siege Tanks(which some of them are doing, mind you) or Mines. It also depends on the map a lot. Or Idra's super greedy opener versus Polt could also be the correct response when scouting 3 cc opener. /edit When it comes to greed, I don't think any race can top the Zerg race. I disagree. When zerg is greedy, zerg gets more mining earlier but no tech at all. When Terran is greedy, they still get their full tech tree much earlier and still have the same amount of CCs, but terran only needs to defend a single entrance (compared to two for outdoor basing zerg). Both races have their ups and downs when playing greedy. I agree with Whitewing on that matter. People should roach rush the fuck out of Terrans. Soulkey, Roro, Symbol and Kangho all have been roach rushing, baneling busting and nydusing their way into Ro8 against Terrans this GSL. Shine made it far similarily (those games against Fantasy...). Life, BBong, DRG, Hyun tried to play macrogames and got destroyed. The macro-metagame right now is very simple. Terrans build 3CCs, double ebays, a few hellions/reapers and go into mass reactored barracks+stim/shields and reactored widow mines/medivacs. Before 9-10mins, a Terran won't have any defences down apart from the hellions and a handful of widow mines/marines. On the flip side, a zerg invests into multiple queens, speed, speedlings, sometimes roaches/defenses relatively early without there even being any actual thread apart from those few hellions/reapers and just falls behind. But if you just blindly allin with roaches, a Terran often won't even have the production to react to anything you do because that build can't really produce anything that does not come from a reactored factory, before 9-10mins. And if a Terran even goes more greedy (like instead of defensive mines, even drops mines/hellbats early with this or gets his upgrades even faster or even more barracks early on, or just 4hellions), it's just a freewin, even if you just put on some semiallinish roach aggression with a third behind it, or a really late roach allin that hits at 10+mins. The only thing I want to add to this is the fact that, while having access to the tech, Terran can't utilize it in quite the explosive nature that Zerg (and even Protoss) can, nor is it as central of a role in winning. The only upgrade/tech that plays a huge, instant role is stim, and maybe combat shields and a tank. Having a starport or being able to produce hellbats isn't going to change the game when the first unit rolls out, unlike finishing a spire or making that first colossus (with range). I agree with pretty much everything Big J said except I do feel that TvZ is just slightly in favor of Terran (as most stats show) and just needs a tiny, tiny adjustment. Most stats don't show that. Only one sets of stats shown that, which was proven again and again to lack statistical significance (when you removed WCS qualifiers it was pretty much 50/50). And at what level do you think TvZ favors Terran? Since even the most hardcore zerg supporters here have a very hard time defending that at pro level terran would be stronger, with half the Code S RO8 for example being zerg. And at every level above silver it is kinda weird that way more people play zerg than terran if zerg would be so much weaker. But what kind of tiny ajustments do you want to boost zerg without allowing them to dominate pro levels and become even more popular on 'normal' levels? And not to nerf terran against toss would also be nice. Oh and take into account due to their production nature zerg always needs longer to adapt to new metagames so I would also consider it a pré if zerg don't dominate the next 6 months yet again. @Decendos, terran has never been able to go for a pure macro game against any of the other races. So why should zerg be allowed to do it? I've seen many different statistics posted on this site and very few of them don't show Terran being favored over Zerg. Most seem to be ~54-56% which is extremely close of course. Most seem to be 54-56% because they are all based on the exactly the same spreadsheet only they made different graphs with it. And that again is the spreadsheet where deleting the WCS qualifiers puts it back to pretty much 50/50 (actually 51/49 in favor of terran), which proofs that it lacked statistical significance. I think Terran is probably slightly favored at all levels but it's harder to see in lower level stats because the lower leagues are so volatile. At the pro level Life and many other pro players (including many Terrans) claim and Zerg is slightly underpowered. As for "half of Code S being Zerg" let's face it, Terran has a smaller player pool than the other races for whatever reason so there were bound to be more Zergs in the GSL. Come on even many of those who want terran nerfed here don't try to claim that terran is favored at pro level. There is literally nothing indicating that would be the case. I disagree with people saying it takes Zerg so much longer to adapt especially in the case of HoTS where Zerg didn't receive many new units or adjustments. It is much easier for Zerg to use Ling/Muta since they have been since WoL whereas Terran received huge changes. Well zerg also has to adapt how to use ling/muta against mines, that is pretty much what this entire topic is about. Just a-moving isn't the best idea anymore. And the basic idea of terran isn't really anything shocking, bio play was also around in WoL, now only mines were added. If it was just TvZ I would agree that terran got quite a bit of adjustment to do, but since bio was the standard in TvP most players are pretty used to it. The difference is that zerg is inherently a reactive race, unless they go all-in, where even the most hardcore zerg supporter here doesn't claim they are struggling. As example, lets say TvP. With changes in the metagame I need to know roughly when Oracles can come so I am prepared for it, and when I need to start worrying about DTs. Then also a bit when to roughly start making vikings, but thats it, as non-pro I really don't need to know that very accurate. Meanwhile zerg playstyle is pretty much pure droning as long as possible, and then switching to pure making army. In an all-in (although imo generally it isn't an all-in, just an early game push, but thats another discussion) thats fairly easy: mass drones till X-supply, then mass roaches for example. But if you want to go for a longer game you really need to know based on what you scout when to exactly switch from droning to army production. This means zerg take longer to adjust to new metagames, and why zerg more than other races can highly optimize their builds, but it also takes longer before they are optimized. What you say about Zerg playstyle and being reactive is pretty much true for everyone. There are builds and timings each race can do and each other race has to be prepared for. You are either attacking or expanding/teching depending on what the other player is doing; this is true for everyone. Zerg has to decide when to build drones or cut drones, Terrans and Protoss also have to decide when to cut probe and SCV production when they are doing certain timing pushes (or defending pushes) as well. Sorry but this makes just no sense. Sure in some timing pushes you got to cut probes/SCVs, but then when you do it that barely results in more military units, which is why it isn't done that often. When a zerg cuts drone production it results in an enormous spike in military production, that is completely uncomparable.
And reading this page I again wonder how it comes the Code S RO8 has only 2 terrans, considering we only have to do hellbat drops. They are always cost effective, so just send out 5 and every terran wins! Sadly it doesn't work that way, but it is nice to keep thinking it. Also @ not being able to micro against hellbats. That possibly explains alot that people die horribly to them, you have to micro against them.
|
On May 13 2013 15:25 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2013 14:38 blade55555 wrote:On May 13 2013 14:08 Rabiator wrote:On May 13 2013 11:25 glad. wrote: OK I haven't read all 25 pages of this thread, but does anyone know why Blizzard isn't considering buffing hydralisks instead of spores? This change is really frustrating because I think the game would be much better with a hydra buff. I think it would be best if they buffed the movement speed upgrade so that it also buffed speed on creep. Why would they need to buff the "machinegun Hydras" in any way? If you want them against Mutalisks JUST BUILD SOME ... they are good enough already. I hope this is sarcasm. Go roach/hydra against muta and you might as well gg right there. The question is DEFENSE againt Mutalisks and you bring in Roaches? 1. Get Spore Crawlers at your bases. 2. Research burrow. 3. Get Hydralisks in sufficient numbers to defend your bases against any form of Mutalisk harrassment and set a trap by placing your Hydralisks burrowed at a suspiciously light defended base ... 4. While you are at it get burrowed movement for your Roaches to attack and/or hide from Mutalisks out on the field. In any case there is zero need to buff Hydralisks in any way. Do you play zvz at decent level? What you say is very gimmicky and will get destroyed by any high masters/gm.
|
I'm so so sick of ZvZ
Just make fungal instant again in ZvZ , sounds stupid ur being different for 1 match up .... But honestly , I miss concaves and real engagements ..... We have to watch pro ZvZ ..... Ends 1 way 90% of the time .... Some muta war .... So so boring ...
|
i guess this change is a nerf against Leenock
|
I agree. Instant fungal would make ZvZ so much better and really not effect other matchups that much. A little, for sure, but not brokenly so. Terran and Protoss both have much better army compositions in HotS to the point that infestors with instafungal are really not that scary anymore, especially considering the damage nerf compared to WoL. ZvP, Protoss can lol infestor broodlord compositions. For ZvT, It takes like 17 fungals to kill medivacs and that's rarely seen indeed with the speed boost. So bio only styles might be a little weaker to infestors, but with hellbats, free siege for tanks and widow mines being what they are, I'm not sure terran would be underpowered vs zerg.
|
On May 13 2013 14:44 DemigodcelpH wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2013 12:33 Zanzabarr wrote:On May 13 2013 11:34 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 13 2013 09:25 Zanzabarr wrote:On May 13 2013 04:46 Godwrath wrote:On May 13 2013 02:05 Nirel wrote: All the progamers I've heard, said that Hellbats are bad. They are a unit with obvious flaws design. The thing is it is not overpowered, just a boring unit, pretty much like colossi. Hellbats do OP dps for cost. You can throw them away into mineral lines and basically never NOT get your money's worth. You only have to kill 4 probes to pay for them, and due to lost mining time you don't even have to kill 4 to pay for them. Very rarely will they ever do less damage than that, and you always have the chance to do devastating damage with a single drop. The unit was designed to help terrans against mass chargelot, which is why they are a slower shorter range version of the hellion that is tankier and does a splash damage radius that is more effective against units in melee range. The mistake blizzard made was making the hellbat do 281% dps to non-light of its hellion counter part, making it do great dps to everything. It also does over 200% dps to light of a blue-flame hellion, making it completely shred light units like workers. The unit does way too much aoe dps for a 100 mineral 2 supply unit that can be reactored out. Sure it requires an armory, but Terran gets an armory every game anyway for +2/+2 and +3/+3 upgrades, whether they make any hellbats or not. The thing needs a dps nerf badly. Smart Terrans should be hellbat dropping all game, and throwing them into their composition against Toss so they can laugh at chargelots. Once the mineral dump chargelots are gone in PvT, there is just a gas expensive fragile army left over that can be run over. Extreme Protoss bias, and it sounds like you're a bit bitter over losing to drops. Try building static defense. Aside from killer works, which normal hellions are already better at, Zealots are more effective as general purpose unit because of charge and speed while hellbats can die before doing anything because of 2 range and slow movement speed. On May 13 2013 09:25 Zanzabarr wrote: there is just a gas expensive fragile army I assure you no Protoss unit is "fragile" considering Protoss units have the best cost:life ratios in the game. Lol do you even play this game? You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. My opinion is based on facts, math, and watching a lot of high level starcraft where I've seen plenty of hellbat abuse already. The numbers don't lie. I'm talking in terms of context of the matchup when I talk about zealots and hellbats. The hellbats don't need to move fast because the zealots have to come to them, and when they do, they get demolished. Once that happens, the fragile expensive protoss army gets run over. Best cost:life ratios in the game? What game are you playing? You should do some research before you open your mouth. Zealots and tempest are the only thing protoss has that have lots of life for cost, and even then, it's not by much (hellbat has 135 and does more dps, and has splash. Roach is 75/25 and has 145). How is that relevant when the fragile toss army I am referring to is the stuff that isn't zealots? Hellbats are so stupidly cost effective right now, Terrans should be using them. Some high level terrans have already stated that they almost try not to use them because they know they have to be nerfed and will be nerfed. Static defense? Like I've already stated, hellbats are so cost effective, you can drop them to their death and they'll still be worth it. I could have two cannons in the mineral line at each base, and you'd still be able to zoom in with a medivac, drop them, not lose the medivac, and have the hellbats do massive damage before dying. Even Terrans complain of OP hellbats in TvT. Ironically you cite no "fact", and then transition into more ad hominem which is more or less all I need to know that you, unfortunately, have no argument aside from your unfounded balance whine combined with no rebuttal to my main point. Regular hellions are better at wiping mineral lines than Hellbats, so if you're losing workers to Hellbats then it's because of your own negligence as you would lose even more to normal hellions; furthermore with 2 range and extremely slow movement speed Hellbats are also extremely kitable in direct engagements (while being less "tanky" than the Zealot and the Roach) which means that, combining these two points, if you're losing to them you're simply getting outplayed. I understand getting outplayed is frustrating, but you're not as good as you think. Balance is not your issue.
Again, you don't play this game, do you. Perhaps you play at a really low level? Try watching some Starcraft 2 games. Hellbats have conal splash, do more dps, are tankier than hellions, and most of all, can be healed by medivacs. Hellbats are much harder to kill because of this, and this allows them the time to ravage your mineral line. Not only this, they do WAY more damage to non-light, unlike hellions which tickle light and can be handled by non-light units quite easily. Again, do you not play this game? You clearly don't understand how it is played. You realize the entire protoss ground army besides the stalker and chargelot move the same speed or slower than a hellbat, right? And chargelots are melee range.... and no, lots of stalkers in PvT is not good at all, unless you are trying to 1 base blink all in a gasless expand.
Why do you keep trying to pin the balance discussion on my play? It's not some secret that hellbats are OP for cost that only I know about . When top Terran players admit hellbats are OP and how they are really lame in TvT as well, how does that have anything to do with me? It doesn't. From a spectator point of view, I've already seen many TvT games where each Terran just repeatedly hellbat dropped each other over and over, and man, is that ever a terrible viewing experience. It's like the muta vs muta wars in ZvZ atm but worse because Hellbats are so expendable. Flash seems to think Hellbats are pretty OP, why else is his TvT strategy to multi-prong drop hellbats all game long. You come off as a bad Terran player that doesn't really even play the game... I can't explain in... your comments are so out of touch with the game. Wait, I know.... you are just blindlly defending everything to do with your race, hoping to qualm the obvious needs for balance adjustments. How original?
I barely ever face Hellbat drops or Hellbats in compositions on ladder, because a lot of Terrans on NA don't abuse them enough. Once they become more used, especially later in the game, blizzard will eventually wake up and nerf them. It's inevitable, but it would be nice if it was sooner rather than later.
|
Maybe PvZ would get away with it. Non-instant fungal was mainly good for blink stalkers, but I guess toss air, and especially tempests, deals with the broodlords.
However TvZ would be walk in the park for zerg once they get infestors out. Right now I already think zerg would do alot better if they start using infestors again. But with instafungal they will melt away. And the mech alternative hasn't become better with vipers.
@Zanzabar, I am masters terran on EU and don't have any issues defending hellbat drops on my level. Sure sometimes I die to them, just like sometimes I died to hellion drops. It is just a matter of investing a bit in defense. And you nicely describe the toss problem, they don't like making units that aren't optimal in their deathball.
Even with those super OP hellbats that easily wins every game for terrans since they are always devastating terran isn't better than other races. So which boosts do you propose to compensate for your nerfs?
Edit: Once in a while I spice things up by doing hellbat drops myself, but must my opponents can also deal with them fine.
|
On May 13 2013 15:31 Sissors wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2013 12:58 vRadiatioNv wrote:On May 13 2013 05:15 Sissors wrote:On May 13 2013 01:03 vRadiatioNv wrote:On May 12 2013 17:03 Sissors wrote:On May 12 2013 12:50 vRadiatioNv wrote:On May 12 2013 08:50 aksfjh wrote:On May 12 2013 08:11 Big J wrote:On May 12 2013 03:41 Zarahtra wrote:On May 12 2013 03:21 Rabiator wrote: [quote] 1. Spore and Spine Crawlers for the early game ... (They are even good against Hellbat drops since neither of these dies easily to the "vs light" damage and the Medivac dies faster ... which prevents its reuse. Spore Crawlers are great against Phoenix and Oracle too ....) 2. Sending in Overlords to soak up the shots right before your charge ...
Just watch a few TvZ games with early harrassment and IMO it is always the "diehard oldschoolers" who try to defend against Hellbat harrassment with Zerglings who are losing the match while the ones who build static defenses seem to be fine. That might be a misperception on my part, but I would suggest you check for yourself.
The whole point of HotS seems to be "more harrassment" ... Hellbat, Oracle, Mutalisk regen, Medivac speed, Widow Mine, ... so preparing for that is a requirement and not optional now IMO. Also 2x +3 attack upgrade blings kill a mine(that is less than +3 armor upgrade) which I'd argue isn't that cost inefficient for a zerg(100/50 vs 75/25). It is really obnoxious when a zerg sends 2x blings ontop of a widow mine and blows it up, but terrans quite often in a hurry burry 2x next to each other, so atleast those times it is cost effective. I see it as a great way for a zerg to keep the amount of widow mines on the field in control, rather than letting it spiral. So, just to be clear: I don't think there is any imbalance in the matchup overall, but I do believe that ling/bling/muta (even if you manage to upgrade 3-3+cracklings, 3-0 AND even with small infestor support) can't fight against marine/medivac/mine (or hellbat/tank/marauder variations) and you have to go ultras/broodlords to win after the early 3base Terran phase. That being said, it's not good to trade banes vs mines like that. The equation goes basically like this: 1) marines > lings, mutas, roaches, hydras, queens, swarm hosts 2) marines < banelings, ultralisks, huge infestor count, huge broodlord count Basically, all you want to do as a Terran in those engagements is kill as many banelings efficiently or in equal trades as you can before they touch marines. The rest is just a mob up. On May 12 2013 04:51 plogamer wrote:On May 12 2013 04:48 Ramiz1989 wrote: [quote] I kind of agree if they opened with Hellions/Reapers etc. however, you can't always punish it, and it is a lot harder if they opened with 1-2 Siege Tanks(which some of them are doing, mind you) or Mines. It also depends on the map a lot. Or Idra's super greedy opener versus Polt could also be the correct response when scouting 3 cc opener. /edit When it comes to greed, I don't think any race can top the Zerg race. I disagree. When zerg is greedy, zerg gets more mining earlier but no tech at all. When Terran is greedy, they still get their full tech tree much earlier and still have the same amount of CCs, but terran only needs to defend a single entrance (compared to two for outdoor basing zerg). Both races have their ups and downs when playing greedy. I agree with Whitewing on that matter. People should roach rush the fuck out of Terrans. Soulkey, Roro, Symbol and Kangho all have been roach rushing, baneling busting and nydusing their way into Ro8 against Terrans this GSL. Shine made it far similarily (those games against Fantasy...). Life, BBong, DRG, Hyun tried to play macrogames and got destroyed. The macro-metagame right now is very simple. Terrans build 3CCs, double ebays, a few hellions/reapers and go into mass reactored barracks+stim/shields and reactored widow mines/medivacs. Before 9-10mins, a Terran won't have any defences down apart from the hellions and a handful of widow mines/marines. On the flip side, a zerg invests into multiple queens, speed, speedlings, sometimes roaches/defenses relatively early without there even being any actual thread apart from those few hellions/reapers and just falls behind. But if you just blindly allin with roaches, a Terran often won't even have the production to react to anything you do because that build can't really produce anything that does not come from a reactored factory, before 9-10mins. And if a Terran even goes more greedy (like instead of defensive mines, even drops mines/hellbats early with this or gets his upgrades even faster or even more barracks early on, or just 4hellions), it's just a freewin, even if you just put on some semiallinish roach aggression with a third behind it, or a really late roach allin that hits at 10+mins. The only thing I want to add to this is the fact that, while having access to the tech, Terran can't utilize it in quite the explosive nature that Zerg (and even Protoss) can, nor is it as central of a role in winning. The only upgrade/tech that plays a huge, instant role is stim, and maybe combat shields and a tank. Having a starport or being able to produce hellbats isn't going to change the game when the first unit rolls out, unlike finishing a spire or making that first colossus (with range). I agree with pretty much everything Big J said except I do feel that TvZ is just slightly in favor of Terran (as most stats show) and just needs a tiny, tiny adjustment. Most stats don't show that. Only one sets of stats shown that, which was proven again and again to lack statistical significance (when you removed WCS qualifiers it was pretty much 50/50). And at what level do you think TvZ favors Terran? Since even the most hardcore zerg supporters here have a very hard time defending that at pro level terran would be stronger, with half the Code S RO8 for example being zerg. And at every level above silver it is kinda weird that way more people play zerg than terran if zerg would be so much weaker. But what kind of tiny ajustments do you want to boost zerg without allowing them to dominate pro levels and become even more popular on 'normal' levels? And not to nerf terran against toss would also be nice. Oh and take into account due to their production nature zerg always needs longer to adapt to new metagames so I would also consider it a pré if zerg don't dominate the next 6 months yet again. @Decendos, terran has never been able to go for a pure macro game against any of the other races. So why should zerg be allowed to do it? I've seen many different statistics posted on this site and very few of them don't show Terran being favored over Zerg. Most seem to be ~54-56% which is extremely close of course. Most seem to be 54-56% because they are all based on the exactly the same spreadsheet only they made different graphs with it. And that again is the spreadsheet where deleting the WCS qualifiers puts it back to pretty much 50/50 (actually 51/49 in favor of terran), which proofs that it lacked statistical significance. I think Terran is probably slightly favored at all levels but it's harder to see in lower level stats because the lower leagues are so volatile. At the pro level Life and many other pro players (including many Terrans) claim and Zerg is slightly underpowered. As for "half of Code S being Zerg" let's face it, Terran has a smaller player pool than the other races for whatever reason so there were bound to be more Zergs in the GSL. Come on even many of those who want terran nerfed here don't try to claim that terran is favored at pro level. There is literally nothing indicating that would be the case. I disagree with people saying it takes Zerg so much longer to adapt especially in the case of HoTS where Zerg didn't receive many new units or adjustments. It is much easier for Zerg to use Ling/Muta since they have been since WoL whereas Terran received huge changes. Well zerg also has to adapt how to use ling/muta against mines, that is pretty much what this entire topic is about. Just a-moving isn't the best idea anymore. And the basic idea of terran isn't really anything shocking, bio play was also around in WoL, now only mines were added. If it was just TvZ I would agree that terran got quite a bit of adjustment to do, but since bio was the standard in TvP most players are pretty used to it. The difference is that zerg is inherently a reactive race, unless they go all-in, where even the most hardcore zerg supporter here doesn't claim they are struggling. As example, lets say TvP. With changes in the metagame I need to know roughly when Oracles can come so I am prepared for it, and when I need to start worrying about DTs. Then also a bit when to roughly start making vikings, but thats it, as non-pro I really don't need to know that very accurate. Meanwhile zerg playstyle is pretty much pure droning as long as possible, and then switching to pure making army. In an all-in (although imo generally it isn't an all-in, just an early game push, but thats another discussion) thats fairly easy: mass drones till X-supply, then mass roaches for example. But if you want to go for a longer game you really need to know based on what you scout when to exactly switch from droning to army production. This means zerg take longer to adjust to new metagames, and why zerg more than other races can highly optimize their builds, but it also takes longer before they are optimized. What you say about Zerg playstyle and being reactive is pretty much true for everyone. There are builds and timings each race can do and each other race has to be prepared for. You are either attacking or expanding/teching depending on what the other player is doing; this is true for everyone. Zerg has to decide when to build drones or cut drones, Terrans and Protoss also have to decide when to cut probe and SCV production when they are doing certain timing pushes (or defending pushes) as well. Sorry but this makes just no sense. Sure in some timing pushes you got to cut probes/SCVs, but then when you do it that barely results in more military units, which is why it isn't done that often. When a zerg cuts drone production it results in an enormous spike in military production, that is completely uncomparable.
It's not about "how many workers do I cut". It's straight up about "what do I do". If a Terran does a reaper-->hellion opening with 3CCs in TvZ, he must play extremly reactive. He has nothing on the field that can actually defend an attack. The only way to play is to get the scouting information by scouting the front and/or suciding units/scanning and then react by building the right units - more hellions/mines against more zerglings, tanks/mines against banelings, tanks/marauders/banshees against roaches. The same is true for Protoss, who has to react to a bio opening with a turtlesplash midgame, or against zerg where he absolutly needs to adjust his composition to roaches, hydras, mutas or swarm hosts. Reactive play is inherently given in developed, strategic games. If you don't play reactive, a good opponent will always beat you.
|
On May 13 2013 16:41 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2013 15:31 Sissors wrote:On May 13 2013 12:58 vRadiatioNv wrote:On May 13 2013 05:15 Sissors wrote:On May 13 2013 01:03 vRadiatioNv wrote:On May 12 2013 17:03 Sissors wrote:On May 12 2013 12:50 vRadiatioNv wrote:On May 12 2013 08:50 aksfjh wrote:On May 12 2013 08:11 Big J wrote:On May 12 2013 03:41 Zarahtra wrote: [quote] Also 2x +3 attack upgrade blings kill a mine(that is less than +3 armor upgrade) which I'd argue isn't that cost inefficient for a zerg(100/50 vs 75/25). It is really obnoxious when a zerg sends 2x blings ontop of a widow mine and blows it up, but terrans quite often in a hurry burry 2x next to each other, so atleast those times it is cost effective.
I see it as a great way for a zerg to keep the amount of widow mines on the field in control, rather than letting it spiral. So, just to be clear: I don't think there is any imbalance in the matchup overall, but I do believe that ling/bling/muta (even if you manage to upgrade 3-3+cracklings, 3-0 AND even with small infestor support) can't fight against marine/medivac/mine (or hellbat/tank/marauder variations) and you have to go ultras/broodlords to win after the early 3base Terran phase. That being said, it's not good to trade banes vs mines like that. The equation goes basically like this: 1) marines > lings, mutas, roaches, hydras, queens, swarm hosts 2) marines < banelings, ultralisks, huge infestor count, huge broodlord count Basically, all you want to do as a Terran in those engagements is kill as many banelings efficiently or in equal trades as you can before they touch marines. The rest is just a mob up. On May 12 2013 04:51 plogamer wrote: [quote]
Or Idra's super greedy opener versus Polt could also be the correct response when scouting 3 cc opener.
/edit
When it comes to greed, I don't think any race can top the Zerg race. I disagree. When zerg is greedy, zerg gets more mining earlier but no tech at all. When Terran is greedy, they still get their full tech tree much earlier and still have the same amount of CCs, but terran only needs to defend a single entrance (compared to two for outdoor basing zerg). Both races have their ups and downs when playing greedy. I agree with Whitewing on that matter. People should roach rush the fuck out of Terrans. Soulkey, Roro, Symbol and Kangho all have been roach rushing, baneling busting and nydusing their way into Ro8 against Terrans this GSL. Shine made it far similarily (those games against Fantasy...). Life, BBong, DRG, Hyun tried to play macrogames and got destroyed. The macro-metagame right now is very simple. Terrans build 3CCs, double ebays, a few hellions/reapers and go into mass reactored barracks+stim/shields and reactored widow mines/medivacs. Before 9-10mins, a Terran won't have any defences down apart from the hellions and a handful of widow mines/marines. On the flip side, a zerg invests into multiple queens, speed, speedlings, sometimes roaches/defenses relatively early without there even being any actual thread apart from those few hellions/reapers and just falls behind. But if you just blindly allin with roaches, a Terran often won't even have the production to react to anything you do because that build can't really produce anything that does not come from a reactored factory, before 9-10mins. And if a Terran even goes more greedy (like instead of defensive mines, even drops mines/hellbats early with this or gets his upgrades even faster or even more barracks early on, or just 4hellions), it's just a freewin, even if you just put on some semiallinish roach aggression with a third behind it, or a really late roach allin that hits at 10+mins. The only thing I want to add to this is the fact that, while having access to the tech, Terran can't utilize it in quite the explosive nature that Zerg (and even Protoss) can, nor is it as central of a role in winning. The only upgrade/tech that plays a huge, instant role is stim, and maybe combat shields and a tank. Having a starport or being able to produce hellbats isn't going to change the game when the first unit rolls out, unlike finishing a spire or making that first colossus (with range). I agree with pretty much everything Big J said except I do feel that TvZ is just slightly in favor of Terran (as most stats show) and just needs a tiny, tiny adjustment. Most stats don't show that. Only one sets of stats shown that, which was proven again and again to lack statistical significance (when you removed WCS qualifiers it was pretty much 50/50). And at what level do you think TvZ favors Terran? Since even the most hardcore zerg supporters here have a very hard time defending that at pro level terran would be stronger, with half the Code S RO8 for example being zerg. And at every level above silver it is kinda weird that way more people play zerg than terran if zerg would be so much weaker. But what kind of tiny ajustments do you want to boost zerg without allowing them to dominate pro levels and become even more popular on 'normal' levels? And not to nerf terran against toss would also be nice. Oh and take into account due to their production nature zerg always needs longer to adapt to new metagames so I would also consider it a pré if zerg don't dominate the next 6 months yet again. @Decendos, terran has never been able to go for a pure macro game against any of the other races. So why should zerg be allowed to do it? I've seen many different statistics posted on this site and very few of them don't show Terran being favored over Zerg. Most seem to be ~54-56% which is extremely close of course. Most seem to be 54-56% because they are all based on the exactly the same spreadsheet only they made different graphs with it. And that again is the spreadsheet where deleting the WCS qualifiers puts it back to pretty much 50/50 (actually 51/49 in favor of terran), which proofs that it lacked statistical significance. I think Terran is probably slightly favored at all levels but it's harder to see in lower level stats because the lower leagues are so volatile. At the pro level Life and many other pro players (including many Terrans) claim and Zerg is slightly underpowered. As for "half of Code S being Zerg" let's face it, Terran has a smaller player pool than the other races for whatever reason so there were bound to be more Zergs in the GSL. Come on even many of those who want terran nerfed here don't try to claim that terran is favored at pro level. There is literally nothing indicating that would be the case. I disagree with people saying it takes Zerg so much longer to adapt especially in the case of HoTS where Zerg didn't receive many new units or adjustments. It is much easier for Zerg to use Ling/Muta since they have been since WoL whereas Terran received huge changes. Well zerg also has to adapt how to use ling/muta against mines, that is pretty much what this entire topic is about. Just a-moving isn't the best idea anymore. And the basic idea of terran isn't really anything shocking, bio play was also around in WoL, now only mines were added. If it was just TvZ I would agree that terran got quite a bit of adjustment to do, but since bio was the standard in TvP most players are pretty used to it. The difference is that zerg is inherently a reactive race, unless they go all-in, where even the most hardcore zerg supporter here doesn't claim they are struggling. As example, lets say TvP. With changes in the metagame I need to know roughly when Oracles can come so I am prepared for it, and when I need to start worrying about DTs. Then also a bit when to roughly start making vikings, but thats it, as non-pro I really don't need to know that very accurate. Meanwhile zerg playstyle is pretty much pure droning as long as possible, and then switching to pure making army. In an all-in (although imo generally it isn't an all-in, just an early game push, but thats another discussion) thats fairly easy: mass drones till X-supply, then mass roaches for example. But if you want to go for a longer game you really need to know based on what you scout when to exactly switch from droning to army production. This means zerg take longer to adjust to new metagames, and why zerg more than other races can highly optimize their builds, but it also takes longer before they are optimized. What you say about Zerg playstyle and being reactive is pretty much true for everyone. There are builds and timings each race can do and each other race has to be prepared for. You are either attacking or expanding/teching depending on what the other player is doing; this is true for everyone. Zerg has to decide when to build drones or cut drones, Terrans and Protoss also have to decide when to cut probe and SCV production when they are doing certain timing pushes (or defending pushes) as well. Sorry but this makes just no sense. Sure in some timing pushes you got to cut probes/SCVs, but then when you do it that barely results in more military units, which is why it isn't done that often. When a zerg cuts drone production it results in an enormous spike in military production, that is completely uncomparable. It's not about "how many workers do I cut". It's straight up about "what do I do". If a Terran does a reaper-->hellion opening with 3CCs in TvZ, he must play extremly reactive. He has nothing on the field that can actually defend an attack. The only way to play is to get the scouting information by scouting the front and/or suciding units/scanning and then react by building the right units - more hellions/mines against more zerglings, tanks/mines against banelings, tanks/marauders/banshees against roaches. The same is true for Protoss, who has to react to a bio opening with a turtlesplash midgame, or against zerg where he absolutly needs to adjust his composition to roaches, hydras, mutas or swarm hosts. Reactive play is inherently given in developed, strategic games. If you don't play reactive, a good opponent will always beat you. Besides that you completely ignore my point, that for zerg it is way more important to get used to enemies timings due to their production nature, reactive play definately is not always the case. Often it is a good idea to force the enemy to react to your play, not the other way around. And if you do for example a proxy oracle opening you really aren't reacting to anything the enemy does.
|
On May 13 2013 16:41 Sissors wrote: Maybe PvZ would get away with it. Non-instant fungal was mainly good for blink stalkers, but I guess toss air, and especially tempests, deals with the broodlords.
However TvZ would be walk in the park for zerg once they get infestors out. Right now I already think zerg would do alot better if they start using infestors again. But with instafungal they will melt away. And the mech alternative hasn't become better with vipers.
@Zanzabar, I am masters terran on EU and don't have any issues defending hellbat drops on my level. Sure sometimes I die to them, just like sometimes I died to hellion drops. It is just a matter of investing a bit in defense. And you nicely describe the toss problem, they don't like making units that aren't optimal in their deathball.
Even with those super OP hellbats that easily wins every game for terrans since they are always devastating terran isn't better than other races. So which boosts do you propose to compensate for your nerfs?
Edit: Once in a while I spice things up by doing hellbat drops myself, but must my opponents can also deal with them fine.
I don't doubt Terran can deal with them a lot easier than a toss can. Stim marine marauder handles hellbats and medivacs just fine. The DPS of terran bio is much higher and can kill these drops before they have the opportunity to do damage. Stimmed marine marauder is also much more mobile. Also, missle turrets are 100 minerals and do 27 dps as opposed to the 16 of a 150 mineral cannon, which makes aiding in disposing of the medivac dropping and healing much easier and cheaper.
|
I think they should give a bigger damage bonus against Biological unit types to the Spore Crawler and increase its cost. You had to build an Evolution Chamber in WoL to be able to make Spore Crawlers, which means a better utility for it. On the other hand, most of the contemporary strategies for ZvP and ZvT already consist on going early Evolution Chambers, so I am not really certain if that would be a big deal.
|
On May 13 2013 16:50 Sissors wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2013 16:41 Big J wrote:On May 13 2013 15:31 Sissors wrote:On May 13 2013 12:58 vRadiatioNv wrote:On May 13 2013 05:15 Sissors wrote:On May 13 2013 01:03 vRadiatioNv wrote:On May 12 2013 17:03 Sissors wrote:On May 12 2013 12:50 vRadiatioNv wrote:On May 12 2013 08:50 aksfjh wrote:On May 12 2013 08:11 Big J wrote: [quote]
So, just to be clear: I don't think there is any imbalance in the matchup overall, but I do believe that ling/bling/muta (even if you manage to upgrade 3-3+cracklings, 3-0 AND even with small infestor support) can't fight against marine/medivac/mine (or hellbat/tank/marauder variations) and you have to go ultras/broodlords to win after the early 3base Terran phase. That being said, it's not good to trade banes vs mines like that. The equation goes basically like this: 1) marines > lings, mutas, roaches, hydras, queens, swarm hosts 2) marines < banelings, ultralisks, huge infestor count, huge broodlord count
Basically, all you want to do as a Terran in those engagements is kill as many banelings efficiently or in equal trades as you can before they touch marines. The rest is just a mob up.
[quote]
I disagree. When zerg is greedy, zerg gets more mining earlier but no tech at all. When Terran is greedy, they still get their full tech tree much earlier and still have the same amount of CCs, but terran only needs to defend a single entrance (compared to two for outdoor basing zerg). Both races have their ups and downs when playing greedy.
I agree with Whitewing on that matter. People should roach rush the fuck out of Terrans. Soulkey, Roro, Symbol and Kangho all have been roach rushing, baneling busting and nydusing their way into Ro8 against Terrans this GSL. Shine made it far similarily (those games against Fantasy...). Life, BBong, DRG, Hyun tried to play macrogames and got destroyed. The macro-metagame right now is very simple. Terrans build 3CCs, double ebays, a few hellions/reapers and go into mass reactored barracks+stim/shields and reactored widow mines/medivacs. Before 9-10mins, a Terran won't have any defences down apart from the hellions and a handful of widow mines/marines. On the flip side, a zerg invests into multiple queens, speed, speedlings, sometimes roaches/defenses relatively early without there even being any actual thread apart from those few hellions/reapers and just falls behind. But if you just blindly allin with roaches, a Terran often won't even have the production to react to anything you do because that build can't really produce anything that does not come from a reactored factory, before 9-10mins. And if a Terran even goes more greedy (like instead of defensive mines, even drops mines/hellbats early with this or gets his upgrades even faster or even more barracks early on, or just 4hellions), it's just a freewin, even if you just put on some semiallinish roach aggression with a third behind it, or a really late roach allin that hits at 10+mins. The only thing I want to add to this is the fact that, while having access to the tech, Terran can't utilize it in quite the explosive nature that Zerg (and even Protoss) can, nor is it as central of a role in winning. The only upgrade/tech that plays a huge, instant role is stim, and maybe combat shields and a tank. Having a starport or being able to produce hellbats isn't going to change the game when the first unit rolls out, unlike finishing a spire or making that first colossus (with range). I agree with pretty much everything Big J said except I do feel that TvZ is just slightly in favor of Terran (as most stats show) and just needs a tiny, tiny adjustment. Most stats don't show that. Only one sets of stats shown that, which was proven again and again to lack statistical significance (when you removed WCS qualifiers it was pretty much 50/50). And at what level do you think TvZ favors Terran? Since even the most hardcore zerg supporters here have a very hard time defending that at pro level terran would be stronger, with half the Code S RO8 for example being zerg. And at every level above silver it is kinda weird that way more people play zerg than terran if zerg would be so much weaker. But what kind of tiny ajustments do you want to boost zerg without allowing them to dominate pro levels and become even more popular on 'normal' levels? And not to nerf terran against toss would also be nice. Oh and take into account due to their production nature zerg always needs longer to adapt to new metagames so I would also consider it a pré if zerg don't dominate the next 6 months yet again. @Decendos, terran has never been able to go for a pure macro game against any of the other races. So why should zerg be allowed to do it? I've seen many different statistics posted on this site and very few of them don't show Terran being favored over Zerg. Most seem to be ~54-56% which is extremely close of course. Most seem to be 54-56% because they are all based on the exactly the same spreadsheet only they made different graphs with it. And that again is the spreadsheet where deleting the WCS qualifiers puts it back to pretty much 50/50 (actually 51/49 in favor of terran), which proofs that it lacked statistical significance. I think Terran is probably slightly favored at all levels but it's harder to see in lower level stats because the lower leagues are so volatile. At the pro level Life and many other pro players (including many Terrans) claim and Zerg is slightly underpowered. As for "half of Code S being Zerg" let's face it, Terran has a smaller player pool than the other races for whatever reason so there were bound to be more Zergs in the GSL. Come on even many of those who want terran nerfed here don't try to claim that terran is favored at pro level. There is literally nothing indicating that would be the case. I disagree with people saying it takes Zerg so much longer to adapt especially in the case of HoTS where Zerg didn't receive many new units or adjustments. It is much easier for Zerg to use Ling/Muta since they have been since WoL whereas Terran received huge changes. Well zerg also has to adapt how to use ling/muta against mines, that is pretty much what this entire topic is about. Just a-moving isn't the best idea anymore. And the basic idea of terran isn't really anything shocking, bio play was also around in WoL, now only mines were added. If it was just TvZ I would agree that terran got quite a bit of adjustment to do, but since bio was the standard in TvP most players are pretty used to it. The difference is that zerg is inherently a reactive race, unless they go all-in, where even the most hardcore zerg supporter here doesn't claim they are struggling. As example, lets say TvP. With changes in the metagame I need to know roughly when Oracles can come so I am prepared for it, and when I need to start worrying about DTs. Then also a bit when to roughly start making vikings, but thats it, as non-pro I really don't need to know that very accurate. Meanwhile zerg playstyle is pretty much pure droning as long as possible, and then switching to pure making army. In an all-in (although imo generally it isn't an all-in, just an early game push, but thats another discussion) thats fairly easy: mass drones till X-supply, then mass roaches for example. But if you want to go for a longer game you really need to know based on what you scout when to exactly switch from droning to army production. This means zerg take longer to adjust to new metagames, and why zerg more than other races can highly optimize their builds, but it also takes longer before they are optimized. What you say about Zerg playstyle and being reactive is pretty much true for everyone. There are builds and timings each race can do and each other race has to be prepared for. You are either attacking or expanding/teching depending on what the other player is doing; this is true for everyone. Zerg has to decide when to build drones or cut drones, Terrans and Protoss also have to decide when to cut probe and SCV production when they are doing certain timing pushes (or defending pushes) as well. Sorry but this makes just no sense. Sure in some timing pushes you got to cut probes/SCVs, but then when you do it that barely results in more military units, which is why it isn't done that often. When a zerg cuts drone production it results in an enormous spike in military production, that is completely uncomparable. It's not about "how many workers do I cut". It's straight up about "what do I do". If a Terran does a reaper-->hellion opening with 3CCs in TvZ, he must play extremly reactive. He has nothing on the field that can actually defend an attack. The only way to play is to get the scouting information by scouting the front and/or suciding units/scanning and then react by building the right units - more hellions/mines against more zerglings, tanks/mines against banelings, tanks/marauders/banshees against roaches. The same is true for Protoss, who has to react to a bio opening with a turtlesplash midgame, or against zerg where he absolutly needs to adjust his composition to roaches, hydras, mutas or swarm hosts. Reactive play is inherently given in developed, strategic games. If you don't play reactive, a good opponent will always beat you. Besides that you completely ignore my point, that for zerg it is way more important to get used to enemies timings due to their production nature, reactive play definately is not always the case. Often it is a good idea to force the enemy to react to your play, not the other way around. And if you do for example a proxy oracle opening you really aren't reacting to anything the enemy does.
Why is it more important? Watch Life and others that emulate his playstyle. You get an early speed nearly no matter what and then you build a lot of zerglings, nearly no matter what. If your opponent attacks you have speedzerglings to defend, if your opponent does not attack, he has either invested into units that you pinned in his base or he hasn't invested into units and you do damage. You can try to play such playstyles that completly force what the opponent is doing. WoL ZvP and TvP were both of such kind, where you often could press an opponent into his base all game long and the only thing he was allowed to do was to play like one big allin/timing. Similar gameplay is still possible in ZvP and you can still try to play that way at least early on in TvZ (mostly by taking mapcontrol and destroying hellions). I'd even go so far to say that due to zergs mapcontrol nature and by their huge capability to switch production, it's more often than not the opponents burden to react properly. And I believe a lot of whining against mines/drop in TvZ currently comes from the fact that playing zerg does not feel so much like playing zerg, as you can't roam the map easily and as the Terran does this very zergy "rally until one of use dies" play him/herself. And generally, you can't/don't postpone your whole production to the point where you see an opponent move out. Yes, producing the right things at the right time is a huge part of zerg gameplay. Terrans have to move out at the right time and drop at the right time and I can easily come up with enemies moves that completly mess with what you'd probably call "nonreactive standard moveouts" (like medivac moutout in TvP, hellions in TvZ) and where you absolutly should react to what your opponent is doing by not even trying to go for those builds. Again: reaction=/=building something. If you drop because you scouted certain techs that are bad against drops, that's reactionary play. If you take a base, because your opponent does not mass units currently, you are reacting to what he does...
|
Vatican City State431 Posts
I guess PvProleague will continue indefinitely. How can someone say with a straight face that SkyToss is balanced? The end game was the problem in WOL and is continuing to be in HOTS also. Kim didn't learn anything.
|
On May 13 2013 16:39 Zanzabarr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2013 14:44 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 13 2013 12:33 Zanzabarr wrote:On May 13 2013 11:34 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 13 2013 09:25 Zanzabarr wrote:On May 13 2013 04:46 Godwrath wrote:On May 13 2013 02:05 Nirel wrote: All the progamers I've heard, said that Hellbats are bad. They are a unit with obvious flaws design. The thing is it is not overpowered, just a boring unit, pretty much like colossi. Hellbats do OP dps for cost. You can throw them away into mineral lines and basically never NOT get your money's worth. You only have to kill 4 probes to pay for them, and due to lost mining time you don't even have to kill 4 to pay for them. Very rarely will they ever do less damage than that, and you always have the chance to do devastating damage with a single drop. The unit was designed to help terrans against mass chargelot, which is why they are a slower shorter range version of the hellion that is tankier and does a splash damage radius that is more effective against units in melee range. The mistake blizzard made was making the hellbat do 281% dps to non-light of its hellion counter part, making it do great dps to everything. It also does over 200% dps to light of a blue-flame hellion, making it completely shred light units like workers. The unit does way too much aoe dps for a 100 mineral 2 supply unit that can be reactored out. Sure it requires an armory, but Terran gets an armory every game anyway for +2/+2 and +3/+3 upgrades, whether they make any hellbats or not. The thing needs a dps nerf badly. Smart Terrans should be hellbat dropping all game, and throwing them into their composition against Toss so they can laugh at chargelots. Once the mineral dump chargelots are gone in PvT, there is just a gas expensive fragile army left over that can be run over. Extreme Protoss bias, and it sounds like you're a bit bitter over losing to drops. Try building static defense. Aside from killer works, which normal hellions are already better at, Zealots are more effective as general purpose unit because of charge and speed while hellbats can die before doing anything because of 2 range and slow movement speed. On May 13 2013 09:25 Zanzabarr wrote: there is just a gas expensive fragile army I assure you no Protoss unit is "fragile" considering Protoss units have the best cost:life ratios in the game. Lol do you even play this game? You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. My opinion is based on facts, math, and watching a lot of high level starcraft where I've seen plenty of hellbat abuse already. The numbers don't lie. I'm talking in terms of context of the matchup when I talk about zealots and hellbats. The hellbats don't need to move fast because the zealots have to come to them, and when they do, they get demolished. Once that happens, the fragile expensive protoss army gets run over. Best cost:life ratios in the game? What game are you playing? You should do some research before you open your mouth. Zealots and tempest are the only thing protoss has that have lots of life for cost, and even then, it's not by much (hellbat has 135 and does more dps, and has splash. Roach is 75/25 and has 145). How is that relevant when the fragile toss army I am referring to is the stuff that isn't zealots? Hellbats are so stupidly cost effective right now, Terrans should be using them. Some high level terrans have already stated that they almost try not to use them because they know they have to be nerfed and will be nerfed. Static defense? Like I've already stated, hellbats are so cost effective, you can drop them to their death and they'll still be worth it. I could have two cannons in the mineral line at each base, and you'd still be able to zoom in with a medivac, drop them, not lose the medivac, and have the hellbats do massive damage before dying. Even Terrans complain of OP hellbats in TvT. Ironically you cite no "fact", and then transition into more ad hominem which is more or less all I need to know that you, unfortunately, have no argument aside from your unfounded balance whine combined with no rebuttal to my main point. Regular hellions are better at wiping mineral lines than Hellbats, so if you're losing workers to Hellbats then it's because of your own negligence as you would lose even more to normal hellions; furthermore with 2 range and extremely slow movement speed Hellbats are also extremely kitable in direct engagements (while being less "tanky" than the Zealot and the Roach) which means that, combining these two points, if you're losing to them you're simply getting outplayed. I understand getting outplayed is frustrating, but you're not as good as you think. Balance is not your issue. Again, you don't play this game, do you. Perhaps you play at a really low level? Try watching some Starcraft 2 games. Hellbats have conal splash, do more dps, are tankier than hellions, and most of all, can be healed by medivacs. Hellbats are much harder to kill because of this, and this allows them the time to ravage your mineral line. Not only this, they do WAY more damage to non-light, unlike hellions which tickle light and can be handled by non-light units quite easily. Again, do you not play this game? You clearly don't understand how it is played. You realize the entire protoss ground army besides the stalker and chargelot move the same speed or slower than a hellbat, right? And chargelots are melee range.... and no, lots of stalkers in PvT is not good at all, unless you are trying to 1 base blink all in a gasless expand. Why do you keep trying to pin the balance discussion on my play? It's not some secret that hellbats are OP for cost that only I know about . When top Terran players admit hellbats are OP and how they are really lame in TvT as well, how does that have anything to do with me? It doesn't. From a spectator point of view, I've already seen many TvT games where each Terran just repeatedly hellbat dropped each other over and over, and man, is that ever a terrible viewing experience. It's like the muta vs muta wars in ZvZ atm but worse because Hellbats are so expendable. Flash seems to think Hellbats are pretty OP, why else is his TvT strategy to multi-prong drop hellbats all game long. You come off as a bad Terran player that doesn't really even play the game... I can't explain in... your comments are so out of touch with the game. Wait, I know.... you are just blindlly defending everything to do with your race, hoping to qualm the obvious needs for balance adjustments. How original? I barely ever face Hellbat drops or Hellbats in compositions on ladder, because a lot of Terrans on NA don't abuse them enough. Once they become more used, especially later in the game, blizzard will eventually wake up and nerf them. It's inevitable, but it would be nice if it was sooner rather than later.
Hellbat drops in TvT are really easy to hold, and I'm 100% sure they will disappear soon. If you know how to counter them (hellion marine viking with micro) you just roflstomp the opponent who does them.
In TvP and TvZ a hellbat nerf would be a disaster. Unless they nerf the cargospace again to 1 hellbat for 1 medivac. But a damage / range nerf to the hellbat would be really sad. TvP mech would become even more dead. TvZ would be MMMM only. Now we can chose between MMM tank or MMM mine or MMM hellbat. I like it that way.
|
On May 13 2013 17:14 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2013 16:50 Sissors wrote:On May 13 2013 16:41 Big J wrote:On May 13 2013 15:31 Sissors wrote:On May 13 2013 12:58 vRadiatioNv wrote:On May 13 2013 05:15 Sissors wrote:On May 13 2013 01:03 vRadiatioNv wrote:On May 12 2013 17:03 Sissors wrote:On May 12 2013 12:50 vRadiatioNv wrote:On May 12 2013 08:50 aksfjh wrote: [quote] The only thing I want to add to this is the fact that, while having access to the tech, Terran can't utilize it in quite the explosive nature that Zerg (and even Protoss) can, nor is it as central of a role in winning. The only upgrade/tech that plays a huge, instant role is stim, and maybe combat shields and a tank. Having a starport or being able to produce hellbats isn't going to change the game when the first unit rolls out, unlike finishing a spire or making that first colossus (with range). I agree with pretty much everything Big J said except I do feel that TvZ is just slightly in favor of Terran (as most stats show) and just needs a tiny, tiny adjustment. Most stats don't show that. Only one sets of stats shown that, which was proven again and again to lack statistical significance (when you removed WCS qualifiers it was pretty much 50/50). And at what level do you think TvZ favors Terran? Since even the most hardcore zerg supporters here have a very hard time defending that at pro level terran would be stronger, with half the Code S RO8 for example being zerg. And at every level above silver it is kinda weird that way more people play zerg than terran if zerg would be so much weaker. But what kind of tiny ajustments do you want to boost zerg without allowing them to dominate pro levels and become even more popular on 'normal' levels? And not to nerf terran against toss would also be nice. Oh and take into account due to their production nature zerg always needs longer to adapt to new metagames so I would also consider it a pré if zerg don't dominate the next 6 months yet again. @Decendos, terran has never been able to go for a pure macro game against any of the other races. So why should zerg be allowed to do it? I've seen many different statistics posted on this site and very few of them don't show Terran being favored over Zerg. Most seem to be ~54-56% which is extremely close of course. Most seem to be 54-56% because they are all based on the exactly the same spreadsheet only they made different graphs with it. And that again is the spreadsheet where deleting the WCS qualifiers puts it back to pretty much 50/50 (actually 51/49 in favor of terran), which proofs that it lacked statistical significance. I think Terran is probably slightly favored at all levels but it's harder to see in lower level stats because the lower leagues are so volatile. At the pro level Life and many other pro players (including many Terrans) claim and Zerg is slightly underpowered. As for "half of Code S being Zerg" let's face it, Terran has a smaller player pool than the other races for whatever reason so there were bound to be more Zergs in the GSL. Come on even many of those who want terran nerfed here don't try to claim that terran is favored at pro level. There is literally nothing indicating that would be the case. I disagree with people saying it takes Zerg so much longer to adapt especially in the case of HoTS where Zerg didn't receive many new units or adjustments. It is much easier for Zerg to use Ling/Muta since they have been since WoL whereas Terran received huge changes. Well zerg also has to adapt how to use ling/muta against mines, that is pretty much what this entire topic is about. Just a-moving isn't the best idea anymore. And the basic idea of terran isn't really anything shocking, bio play was also around in WoL, now only mines were added. If it was just TvZ I would agree that terran got quite a bit of adjustment to do, but since bio was the standard in TvP most players are pretty used to it. The difference is that zerg is inherently a reactive race, unless they go all-in, where even the most hardcore zerg supporter here doesn't claim they are struggling. As example, lets say TvP. With changes in the metagame I need to know roughly when Oracles can come so I am prepared for it, and when I need to start worrying about DTs. Then also a bit when to roughly start making vikings, but thats it, as non-pro I really don't need to know that very accurate. Meanwhile zerg playstyle is pretty much pure droning as long as possible, and then switching to pure making army. In an all-in (although imo generally it isn't an all-in, just an early game push, but thats another discussion) thats fairly easy: mass drones till X-supply, then mass roaches for example. But if you want to go for a longer game you really need to know based on what you scout when to exactly switch from droning to army production. This means zerg take longer to adjust to new metagames, and why zerg more than other races can highly optimize their builds, but it also takes longer before they are optimized. What you say about Zerg playstyle and being reactive is pretty much true for everyone. There are builds and timings each race can do and each other race has to be prepared for. You are either attacking or expanding/teching depending on what the other player is doing; this is true for everyone. Zerg has to decide when to build drones or cut drones, Terrans and Protoss also have to decide when to cut probe and SCV production when they are doing certain timing pushes (or defending pushes) as well. Sorry but this makes just no sense. Sure in some timing pushes you got to cut probes/SCVs, but then when you do it that barely results in more military units, which is why it isn't done that often. When a zerg cuts drone production it results in an enormous spike in military production, that is completely uncomparable. It's not about "how many workers do I cut". It's straight up about "what do I do". If a Terran does a reaper-->hellion opening with 3CCs in TvZ, he must play extremly reactive. He has nothing on the field that can actually defend an attack. The only way to play is to get the scouting information by scouting the front and/or suciding units/scanning and then react by building the right units - more hellions/mines against more zerglings, tanks/mines against banelings, tanks/marauders/banshees against roaches. The same is true for Protoss, who has to react to a bio opening with a turtlesplash midgame, or against zerg where he absolutly needs to adjust his composition to roaches, hydras, mutas or swarm hosts. Reactive play is inherently given in developed, strategic games. If you don't play reactive, a good opponent will always beat you. Besides that you completely ignore my point, that for zerg it is way more important to get used to enemies timings due to their production nature, reactive play definately is not always the case. Often it is a good idea to force the enemy to react to your play, not the other way around. And if you do for example a proxy oracle opening you really aren't reacting to anything the enemy does. And generally, you can't/don't postpone your whole production to the point where you see an opponent move out. And now you say yourself exactly why zerg requires more time to adapt to a new metagame, you can't postpone production until your opponent moves out, then you are too late. You postpone it till a little bit before he moves out, and that simply takes time before zerg know how long they postpone it.
Sure everyone always has to react to what an enemy does, but for zerg it is simply alot more important to know when an enemy will probably move out, depending on his build. Yes all races have it, but not all races have it to the level of zerg.
If I look in a TvZ to the army supply, my supply will continiously increase, I need to use those production facilities. So for me it really is not a big deal if zerg attacks a bit earlier than I expected. I have a bit less then, and he has a bit less because he attacks earlier. However now look at the zerg army supply. Generally it is close to zero, with only some lings and queens, while my army supply is way more. But right before I move out zerg switches to military production and suddenly his army supply spikes, and he can defend my attack even though a minute before that I literally had 3-4 times the army supply he had.
Automatically that also means that any error in the zergs estimation of when I will attack can be devastating, if he thinks I would attack a minute later he is outnumbered 3-4 to 1 in army units. Then they proceed complaining about terran being OP and that I am a noob.
And yeah later in the game that becomes less important since then zerg doesn't have to decide as much between drones and army. And of course it isn't only zerg who needs to know roughly what the opponent does, and yes also early game a zerg makes some army units. But you also have for example the same against toss immortal-all-ins. In the beginning all zerg had auto-loss against it, while now they do quite reasonable against it. And that isn't because of some fancy micro tricks, since zerg defense against immortal all-in is pretty much outnumbering the toss enough, it is largely because they now better know how long to drone and when to mass army.
|
On May 13 2013 15:37 Tuczniak wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2013 15:25 Rabiator wrote:On May 13 2013 14:38 blade55555 wrote:On May 13 2013 14:08 Rabiator wrote:On May 13 2013 11:25 glad. wrote: OK I haven't read all 25 pages of this thread, but does anyone know why Blizzard isn't considering buffing hydralisks instead of spores? This change is really frustrating because I think the game would be much better with a hydra buff. I think it would be best if they buffed the movement speed upgrade so that it also buffed speed on creep. Why would they need to buff the "machinegun Hydras" in any way? If you want them against Mutalisks JUST BUILD SOME ... they are good enough already. I hope this is sarcasm. Go roach/hydra against muta and you might as well gg right there. The question is DEFENSE againt Mutalisks and you bring in Roaches? 1. Get Spore Crawlers at your bases. 2. Research burrow. 3. Get Hydralisks in sufficient numbers to defend your bases against any form of Mutalisk harrassment and set a trap by placing your Hydralisks burrowed at a suspiciously light defended base ... 4. While you are at it get burrowed movement for your Roaches to attack and/or hide from Mutalisks out on the field. In any case there is zero need to buff Hydralisks in any way. Do you play zvz at decent level? What you say is very gimmicky and will get destroyed by any high masters/gm. No one ever researches burrow and uses it in defense, so I doubt your assessment is as automatically true as you make it sound. You can get two Hydralisks for every Mutalisk (when you take the gas into account only) and they have a higher dps too per unit; another reason why I think your "that doesnt work" answer isnt that clear as you think.
In any case there seems to be a problem with one unit: the MUTALISK ... It would be a silly choice to BUFF another unit, which then affects other units / matchups as well. The smart choice it to nerf the Mutalisk ... and we are back at my "buffing the Hydralisk is completely unnecessary.
|
On May 13 2013 18:17 Snowbear wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2013 16:39 Zanzabarr wrote:On May 13 2013 14:44 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 13 2013 12:33 Zanzabarr wrote:On May 13 2013 11:34 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 13 2013 09:25 Zanzabarr wrote:On May 13 2013 04:46 Godwrath wrote:On May 13 2013 02:05 Nirel wrote: All the progamers I've heard, said that Hellbats are bad. They are a unit with obvious flaws design. The thing is it is not overpowered, just a boring unit, pretty much like colossi. Hellbats do OP dps for cost. You can throw them away into mineral lines and basically never NOT get your money's worth. You only have to kill 4 probes to pay for them, and due to lost mining time you don't even have to kill 4 to pay for them. Very rarely will they ever do less damage than that, and you always have the chance to do devastating damage with a single drop. The unit was designed to help terrans against mass chargelot, which is why they are a slower shorter range version of the hellion that is tankier and does a splash damage radius that is more effective against units in melee range. The mistake blizzard made was making the hellbat do 281% dps to non-light of its hellion counter part, making it do great dps to everything. It also does over 200% dps to light of a blue-flame hellion, making it completely shred light units like workers. The unit does way too much aoe dps for a 100 mineral 2 supply unit that can be reactored out. Sure it requires an armory, but Terran gets an armory every game anyway for +2/+2 and +3/+3 upgrades, whether they make any hellbats or not. The thing needs a dps nerf badly. Smart Terrans should be hellbat dropping all game, and throwing them into their composition against Toss so they can laugh at chargelots. Once the mineral dump chargelots are gone in PvT, there is just a gas expensive fragile army left over that can be run over. Extreme Protoss bias, and it sounds like you're a bit bitter over losing to drops. Try building static defense. Aside from killer works, which normal hellions are already better at, Zealots are more effective as general purpose unit because of charge and speed while hellbats can die before doing anything because of 2 range and slow movement speed. On May 13 2013 09:25 Zanzabarr wrote: there is just a gas expensive fragile army I assure you no Protoss unit is "fragile" considering Protoss units have the best cost:life ratios in the game. Lol do you even play this game? You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. My opinion is based on facts, math, and watching a lot of high level starcraft where I've seen plenty of hellbat abuse already. The numbers don't lie. I'm talking in terms of context of the matchup when I talk about zealots and hellbats. The hellbats don't need to move fast because the zealots have to come to them, and when they do, they get demolished. Once that happens, the fragile expensive protoss army gets run over. Best cost:life ratios in the game? What game are you playing? You should do some research before you open your mouth. Zealots and tempest are the only thing protoss has that have lots of life for cost, and even then, it's not by much (hellbat has 135 and does more dps, and has splash. Roach is 75/25 and has 145). How is that relevant when the fragile toss army I am referring to is the stuff that isn't zealots? Hellbats are so stupidly cost effective right now, Terrans should be using them. Some high level terrans have already stated that they almost try not to use them because they know they have to be nerfed and will be nerfed. Static defense? Like I've already stated, hellbats are so cost effective, you can drop them to their death and they'll still be worth it. I could have two cannons in the mineral line at each base, and you'd still be able to zoom in with a medivac, drop them, not lose the medivac, and have the hellbats do massive damage before dying. Even Terrans complain of OP hellbats in TvT. Ironically you cite no "fact", and then transition into more ad hominem which is more or less all I need to know that you, unfortunately, have no argument aside from your unfounded balance whine combined with no rebuttal to my main point. Regular hellions are better at wiping mineral lines than Hellbats, so if you're losing workers to Hellbats then it's because of your own negligence as you would lose even more to normal hellions; furthermore with 2 range and extremely slow movement speed Hellbats are also extremely kitable in direct engagements (while being less "tanky" than the Zealot and the Roach) which means that, combining these two points, if you're losing to them you're simply getting outplayed. I understand getting outplayed is frustrating, but you're not as good as you think. Balance is not your issue. Again, you don't play this game, do you. Perhaps you play at a really low level? Try watching some Starcraft 2 games. Hellbats have conal splash, do more dps, are tankier than hellions, and most of all, can be healed by medivacs. Hellbats are much harder to kill because of this, and this allows them the time to ravage your mineral line. Not only this, they do WAY more damage to non-light, unlike hellions which tickle light and can be handled by non-light units quite easily. Again, do you not play this game? You clearly don't understand how it is played. You realize the entire protoss ground army besides the stalker and chargelot move the same speed or slower than a hellbat, right? And chargelots are melee range.... and no, lots of stalkers in PvT is not good at all, unless you are trying to 1 base blink all in a gasless expand. Why do you keep trying to pin the balance discussion on my play? It's not some secret that hellbats are OP for cost that only I know about . When top Terran players admit hellbats are OP and how they are really lame in TvT as well, how does that have anything to do with me? It doesn't. From a spectator point of view, I've already seen many TvT games where each Terran just repeatedly hellbat dropped each other over and over, and man, is that ever a terrible viewing experience. It's like the muta vs muta wars in ZvZ atm but worse because Hellbats are so expendable. Flash seems to think Hellbats are pretty OP, why else is his TvT strategy to multi-prong drop hellbats all game long. You come off as a bad Terran player that doesn't really even play the game... I can't explain in... your comments are so out of touch with the game. Wait, I know.... you are just blindlly defending everything to do with your race, hoping to qualm the obvious needs for balance adjustments. How original? I barely ever face Hellbat drops or Hellbats in compositions on ladder, because a lot of Terrans on NA don't abuse them enough. Once they become more used, especially later in the game, blizzard will eventually wake up and nerf them. It's inevitable, but it would be nice if it was sooner rather than later. Hellbat drops in TvT are really easy to hold, and I'm 100% sure they will disappear soon. If you know how to counter them (hellion marine viking with micro) you just roflstomp the opponent who does them. In TvP and TvZ a hellbat nerf would be a disaster. Unless they nerf the cargospace again to 1 hellbat for 1 medivac. But a damage / range nerf to the hellbat would be really sad. TvP mech would become even more dead. TvZ would be MMMM only. Now we can chose between MMM tank or MMM mine or MMM hellbat. I like it that way.
Personally I'm waiting for terrans to start mixing in blueflame hellions with their hellbat drops and mech styles. Two medivacs filled with 2 hellbats and 4 blueflame hellions would be kinda crazy. At the same time you wouldnt really need many more hellbats than you have medivacs when going mech either. The increased mobility from hellions would most likely be far better after a certain number. The damage and range of a hellbat is also not the problem, they're just so god damn tanky. Unlike hellions, they can still kill quite a lot of workers while being shot at before they die or get picked up and boosted out. Even if you have a part of your army ready, you still have to pull your workers or expect quite a lot of them falling.
Rather than disappearing, I expect terrans to start using hellbat drops even when going bio. In a solid macrogame, a few un-upgraded hellbat drops here and there is a pretty small investment to make with a huge potential for damage. In combination with pressure from the front its even harder to handle. The "right amount" of units to defend the drop is simply unable to handle it in a time efficient manner.
|
They just need to nerf the mutalisk regen, which was an unnecessary buff to begin with. The speed is enough. Without the ridiculous muta regen it would help a lot.
|
China6282 Posts
How about removing Hellbat's bonus damage vs light and making blue flame work on Hellbats too which adds the +15 vs light bonus back? TL;DR: Hellbat: 15 damage, blue flame Hellbat: 15 + 15 vs light. Hellions remain unchanged.
|
In any case there seems to be a problem with one unit: the MUTALISK ... It would be a silly choice to BUFF another unit, which then affects other units / matchups as well. The smart choice it to nerf the Mutalisk ... and we are back at my "buffing the Hydralisk is completely unnecessary.
So basically buffing the hydralisk would affect the other match up but nerfing the mutas would not ? Interesting.
IMO they should just go with increased attack to air only for hydras. Wouldn't affect ZvT and could help against air toss aswell.
Overall the spore buff just show they have no idea what current ZvZ is about. When you start attacking into spores you have most likely already won.
|
On May 13 2013 16:39 Zanzabarr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2013 14:44 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 13 2013 12:33 Zanzabarr wrote:On May 13 2013 11:34 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 13 2013 09:25 Zanzabarr wrote:On May 13 2013 04:46 Godwrath wrote:On May 13 2013 02:05 Nirel wrote: All the progamers I've heard, said that Hellbats are bad. They are a unit with obvious flaws design. The thing is it is not overpowered, just a boring unit, pretty much like colossi. Hellbats do OP dps for cost. You can throw them away into mineral lines and basically never NOT get your money's worth. You only have to kill 4 probes to pay for them, and due to lost mining time you don't even have to kill 4 to pay for them. Very rarely will they ever do less damage than that, and you always have the chance to do devastating damage with a single drop. The unit was designed to help terrans against mass chargelot, which is why they are a slower shorter range version of the hellion that is tankier and does a splash damage radius that is more effective against units in melee range. The mistake blizzard made was making the hellbat do 281% dps to non-light of its hellion counter part, making it do great dps to everything. It also does over 200% dps to light of a blue-flame hellion, making it completely shred light units like workers. The unit does way too much aoe dps for a 100 mineral 2 supply unit that can be reactored out. Sure it requires an armory, but Terran gets an armory every game anyway for +2/+2 and +3/+3 upgrades, whether they make any hellbats or not. The thing needs a dps nerf badly. Smart Terrans should be hellbat dropping all game, and throwing them into their composition against Toss so they can laugh at chargelots. Once the mineral dump chargelots are gone in PvT, there is just a gas expensive fragile army left over that can be run over. Extreme Protoss bias, and it sounds like you're a bit bitter over losing to drops. Try building static defense. Aside from killer works, which normal hellions are already better at, Zealots are more effective as general purpose unit because of charge and speed while hellbats can die before doing anything because of 2 range and slow movement speed. On May 13 2013 09:25 Zanzabarr wrote: there is just a gas expensive fragile army I assure you no Protoss unit is "fragile" considering Protoss units have the best cost:life ratios in the game. Lol do you even play this game? You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. My opinion is based on facts, math, and watching a lot of high level starcraft where I've seen plenty of hellbat abuse already. The numbers don't lie. I'm talking in terms of context of the matchup when I talk about zealots and hellbats. The hellbats don't need to move fast because the zealots have to come to them, and when they do, they get demolished. Once that happens, the fragile expensive protoss army gets run over. Best cost:life ratios in the game? What game are you playing? You should do some research before you open your mouth. Zealots and tempest are the only thing protoss has that have lots of life for cost, and even then, it's not by much (hellbat has 135 and does more dps, and has splash. Roach is 75/25 and has 145). How is that relevant when the fragile toss army I am referring to is the stuff that isn't zealots? Hellbats are so stupidly cost effective right now, Terrans should be using them. Some high level terrans have already stated that they almost try not to use them because they know they have to be nerfed and will be nerfed. Static defense? Like I've already stated, hellbats are so cost effective, you can drop them to their death and they'll still be worth it. I could have two cannons in the mineral line at each base, and you'd still be able to zoom in with a medivac, drop them, not lose the medivac, and have the hellbats do massive damage before dying. Even Terrans complain of OP hellbats in TvT. Ironically you cite no "fact", and then transition into more ad hominem which is more or less all I need to know that you, unfortunately, have no argument aside from your unfounded balance whine combined with no rebuttal to my main point. Regular hellions are better at wiping mineral lines than Hellbats, so if you're losing workers to Hellbats then it's because of your own negligence as you would lose even more to normal hellions; furthermore with 2 range and extremely slow movement speed Hellbats are also extremely kitable in direct engagements (while being less "tanky" than the Zealot and the Roach) which means that, combining these two points, if you're losing to them you're simply getting outplayed. I understand getting outplayed is frustrating, but you're not as good as you think. Balance is not your issue. Again, you don't play this game, do you. Perhaps you play at a really low level? Try watching some Starcraft 2 games. Hellbats have conal splash, do more dps, are tankier than hellions, and most of all, can be healed by medivacs. Hellbats are much harder to kill because of this, and this allows them the time to ravage your mineral line. Not only this, they do WAY more damage to non-light, unlike hellions which tickle light and can be handled by non-light units quite easily. Again, do you not play this game? You clearly don't understand how it is played. You realize the entire protoss ground army besides the stalker and chargelot move the same speed or slower than a hellbat, right? And chargelots are melee range.... and no, lots of stalkers in PvT is not good at all, unless you are trying to 1 base blink all in a gasless expand. Why do you keep trying to pin the balance discussion on my play? It's not some secret that hellbats are OP for cost that only I know about . When top Terran players admit hellbats are OP and how they are really lame in TvT as well, how does that have anything to do with me? It doesn't. From a spectator point of view, I've already seen many TvT games where each Terran just repeatedly hellbat dropped each other over and over, and man, is that ever a terrible viewing experience. It's like the muta vs muta wars in ZvZ atm but worse because Hellbats are so expendable. Flash seems to think Hellbats are pretty OP, why else is his TvT strategy to multi-prong drop hellbats all game long. You come off as a bad Terran player that doesn't really even play the game... I can't explain in... your comments are so out of touch with the game. Wait, I know.... you are just blindlly defending everything to do with your race, hoping to qualm the obvious needs for balance adjustments. How original? I barely ever face Hellbat drops or Hellbats in compositions on ladder, because a lot of Terrans on NA don't abuse them enough. Once they become more used, especially later in the game, blizzard will eventually wake up and nerf them. It's inevitable, but it would be nice if it was sooner rather than later.
The only one "who doesn't play this game" or "is low level" is someone doesn't understand the basic fact that normal hellions are better at clearing minerals lines than Hellbats because, not only can they chase workers which hellbats can't, but also if workers run they line up. If you're losing all of your workers to Hellbats you're getting outplayed because normal hellions would do just as much damage or more, and do it faster; this means you're simply riding the placebo train and likely trying to justify areas where you lack. If you're losing to Hellbats in direct engagements when they are slow 2 range units then you're also getting outplayed. Period.
Stop trying to take the high ground and pin your losses on balance, because not only do you have zero reasonable proof, but your logic isn't remotely consistent or valid and consists of unsourced claims (he said she said), bias, and anecdotes. I'm sorry, but you're going to have to accept reality.
If you want some advise for the next time you attempt this try coming back with replays or something that has actual statistical significance like the below:
|
On May 13 2013 18:59 Zanzabarr wrote: They just need to nerf the mutalisk regen, which was an unnecessary buff to begin with. The speed is enough. Without the ridiculous muta regen it would help a lot. I'm uncertain in the least how they exoect the unit to be a harass unit and a combat unit. The only unit I can think of that it actually works for is the hellbat and the reason for that is moreso the medivac than the hellbat itself. TvZ is fine for bio, but all the other MUs look somewhat stupid due to the muta.
I liked their thinking of harass units in HotS, emphasis is to keep them always able to go in again(reaper/muta heal and oracle energy/revelation), but if the unit is suppose to be a combat unit too, well I think they need to rethink that.
As an example TvT, reapers are really strong early game(until soft counters come out in numbers). Well if there was nothing that countered reapers well enough, TvT would just be mass reaper like ZvZ is now mass muta. You can't really go the harass unit route while having it as a really viable combat unit too(well just give 1 race/style the means to truly counter it).
|
On May 13 2013 18:17 Snowbear wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2013 16:39 Zanzabarr wrote:On May 13 2013 14:44 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 13 2013 12:33 Zanzabarr wrote:On May 13 2013 11:34 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 13 2013 09:25 Zanzabarr wrote:On May 13 2013 04:46 Godwrath wrote:On May 13 2013 02:05 Nirel wrote: All the progamers I've heard, said that Hellbats are bad. They are a unit with obvious flaws design. The thing is it is not overpowered, just a boring unit, pretty much like colossi. Hellbats do OP dps for cost. You can throw them away into mineral lines and basically never NOT get your money's worth. You only have to kill 4 probes to pay for them, and due to lost mining time you don't even have to kill 4 to pay for them. Very rarely will they ever do less damage than that, and you always have the chance to do devastating damage with a single drop. The unit was designed to help terrans against mass chargelot, which is why they are a slower shorter range version of the hellion that is tankier and does a splash damage radius that is more effective against units in melee range. The mistake blizzard made was making the hellbat do 281% dps to non-light of its hellion counter part, making it do great dps to everything. It also does over 200% dps to light of a blue-flame hellion, making it completely shred light units like workers. The unit does way too much aoe dps for a 100 mineral 2 supply unit that can be reactored out. Sure it requires an armory, but Terran gets an armory every game anyway for +2/+2 and +3/+3 upgrades, whether they make any hellbats or not. The thing needs a dps nerf badly. Smart Terrans should be hellbat dropping all game, and throwing them into their composition against Toss so they can laugh at chargelots. Once the mineral dump chargelots are gone in PvT, there is just a gas expensive fragile army left over that can be run over. Extreme Protoss bias, and it sounds like you're a bit bitter over losing to drops. Try building static defense. Aside from killer works, which normal hellions are already better at, Zealots are more effective as general purpose unit because of charge and speed while hellbats can die before doing anything because of 2 range and slow movement speed. On May 13 2013 09:25 Zanzabarr wrote: there is just a gas expensive fragile army I assure you no Protoss unit is "fragile" considering Protoss units have the best cost:life ratios in the game. Lol do you even play this game? You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. My opinion is based on facts, math, and watching a lot of high level starcraft where I've seen plenty of hellbat abuse already. The numbers don't lie. I'm talking in terms of context of the matchup when I talk about zealots and hellbats. The hellbats don't need to move fast because the zealots have to come to them, and when they do, they get demolished. Once that happens, the fragile expensive protoss army gets run over. Best cost:life ratios in the game? What game are you playing? You should do some research before you open your mouth. Zealots and tempest are the only thing protoss has that have lots of life for cost, and even then, it's not by much (hellbat has 135 and does more dps, and has splash. Roach is 75/25 and has 145). How is that relevant when the fragile toss army I am referring to is the stuff that isn't zealots? Hellbats are so stupidly cost effective right now, Terrans should be using them. Some high level terrans have already stated that they almost try not to use them because they know they have to be nerfed and will be nerfed. Static defense? Like I've already stated, hellbats are so cost effective, you can drop them to their death and they'll still be worth it. I could have two cannons in the mineral line at each base, and you'd still be able to zoom in with a medivac, drop them, not lose the medivac, and have the hellbats do massive damage before dying. Even Terrans complain of OP hellbats in TvT. Ironically you cite no "fact", and then transition into more ad hominem which is more or less all I need to know that you, unfortunately, have no argument aside from your unfounded balance whine combined with no rebuttal to my main point. Regular hellions are better at wiping mineral lines than Hellbats, so if you're losing workers to Hellbats then it's because of your own negligence as you would lose even more to normal hellions; furthermore with 2 range and extremely slow movement speed Hellbats are also extremely kitable in direct engagements (while being less "tanky" than the Zealot and the Roach) which means that, combining these two points, if you're losing to them you're simply getting outplayed. I understand getting outplayed is frustrating, but you're not as good as you think. Balance is not your issue. Again, you don't play this game, do you. Perhaps you play at a really low level? Try watching some Starcraft 2 games. Hellbats have conal splash, do more dps, are tankier than hellions, and most of all, can be healed by medivacs. Hellbats are much harder to kill because of this, and this allows them the time to ravage your mineral line. Not only this, they do WAY more damage to non-light, unlike hellions which tickle light and can be handled by non-light units quite easily. Again, do you not play this game? You clearly don't understand how it is played. You realize the entire protoss ground army besides the stalker and chargelot move the same speed or slower than a hellbat, right? And chargelots are melee range.... and no, lots of stalkers in PvT is not good at all, unless you are trying to 1 base blink all in a gasless expand. Why do you keep trying to pin the balance discussion on my play? It's not some secret that hellbats are OP for cost that only I know about . When top Terran players admit hellbats are OP and how they are really lame in TvT as well, how does that have anything to do with me? It doesn't. From a spectator point of view, I've already seen many TvT games where each Terran just repeatedly hellbat dropped each other over and over, and man, is that ever a terrible viewing experience. It's like the muta vs muta wars in ZvZ atm but worse because Hellbats are so expendable. Flash seems to think Hellbats are pretty OP, why else is his TvT strategy to multi-prong drop hellbats all game long. You come off as a bad Terran player that doesn't really even play the game... I can't explain in... your comments are so out of touch with the game. Wait, I know.... you are just blindlly defending everything to do with your race, hoping to qualm the obvious needs for balance adjustments. How original? I barely ever face Hellbat drops or Hellbats in compositions on ladder, because a lot of Terrans on NA don't abuse them enough. Once they become more used, especially later in the game, blizzard will eventually wake up and nerf them. It's inevitable, but it would be nice if it was sooner rather than later. Hellbat drops in TvT are really easy to hold, and I'm 100% sure they will disappear soon. If you know how to counter them (hellion marine viking with micro) you just roflstomp the opponent who does them. In TvP and TvZ a hellbat nerf would be a disaster. Unless they nerf the cargospace again to 1 hellbat for 1 medivac. But a damage / range nerf to the hellbat would be really sad. TvP mech would become even more dead. TvZ would be MMMM only. Now we can chose between MMM tank or MMM mine or MMM hellbat. I like it that way.
Well said. My experience with handling Hellbat drops even when playing against T as P/Z tends to be the same.
|
On May 13 2013 18:36 Sissors wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2013 17:14 Big J wrote:On May 13 2013 16:50 Sissors wrote:On May 13 2013 16:41 Big J wrote:On May 13 2013 15:31 Sissors wrote:On May 13 2013 12:58 vRadiatioNv wrote:On May 13 2013 05:15 Sissors wrote:On May 13 2013 01:03 vRadiatioNv wrote:On May 12 2013 17:03 Sissors wrote:On May 12 2013 12:50 vRadiatioNv wrote: [quote]
I agree with pretty much everything Big J said except I do feel that TvZ is just slightly in favor of Terran (as most stats show) and just needs a tiny, tiny adjustment.
Most stats don't show that. Only one sets of stats shown that, which was proven again and again to lack statistical significance (when you removed WCS qualifiers it was pretty much 50/50). And at what level do you think TvZ favors Terran? Since even the most hardcore zerg supporters here have a very hard time defending that at pro level terran would be stronger, with half the Code S RO8 for example being zerg. And at every level above silver it is kinda weird that way more people play zerg than terran if zerg would be so much weaker. But what kind of tiny ajustments do you want to boost zerg without allowing them to dominate pro levels and become even more popular on 'normal' levels? And not to nerf terran against toss would also be nice. Oh and take into account due to their production nature zerg always needs longer to adapt to new metagames so I would also consider it a pré if zerg don't dominate the next 6 months yet again. @Decendos, terran has never been able to go for a pure macro game against any of the other races. So why should zerg be allowed to do it? I've seen many different statistics posted on this site and very few of them don't show Terran being favored over Zerg. Most seem to be ~54-56% which is extremely close of course. Most seem to be 54-56% because they are all based on the exactly the same spreadsheet only they made different graphs with it. And that again is the spreadsheet where deleting the WCS qualifiers puts it back to pretty much 50/50 (actually 51/49 in favor of terran), which proofs that it lacked statistical significance. I think Terran is probably slightly favored at all levels but it's harder to see in lower level stats because the lower leagues are so volatile. At the pro level Life and many other pro players (including many Terrans) claim and Zerg is slightly underpowered. As for "half of Code S being Zerg" let's face it, Terran has a smaller player pool than the other races for whatever reason so there were bound to be more Zergs in the GSL. Come on even many of those who want terran nerfed here don't try to claim that terran is favored at pro level. There is literally nothing indicating that would be the case. I disagree with people saying it takes Zerg so much longer to adapt especially in the case of HoTS where Zerg didn't receive many new units or adjustments. It is much easier for Zerg to use Ling/Muta since they have been since WoL whereas Terran received huge changes. Well zerg also has to adapt how to use ling/muta against mines, that is pretty much what this entire topic is about. Just a-moving isn't the best idea anymore. And the basic idea of terran isn't really anything shocking, bio play was also around in WoL, now only mines were added. If it was just TvZ I would agree that terran got quite a bit of adjustment to do, but since bio was the standard in TvP most players are pretty used to it. The difference is that zerg is inherently a reactive race, unless they go all-in, where even the most hardcore zerg supporter here doesn't claim they are struggling. As example, lets say TvP. With changes in the metagame I need to know roughly when Oracles can come so I am prepared for it, and when I need to start worrying about DTs. Then also a bit when to roughly start making vikings, but thats it, as non-pro I really don't need to know that very accurate. Meanwhile zerg playstyle is pretty much pure droning as long as possible, and then switching to pure making army. In an all-in (although imo generally it isn't an all-in, just an early game push, but thats another discussion) thats fairly easy: mass drones till X-supply, then mass roaches for example. But if you want to go for a longer game you really need to know based on what you scout when to exactly switch from droning to army production. This means zerg take longer to adjust to new metagames, and why zerg more than other races can highly optimize their builds, but it also takes longer before they are optimized. What you say about Zerg playstyle and being reactive is pretty much true for everyone. There are builds and timings each race can do and each other race has to be prepared for. You are either attacking or expanding/teching depending on what the other player is doing; this is true for everyone. Zerg has to decide when to build drones or cut drones, Terrans and Protoss also have to decide when to cut probe and SCV production when they are doing certain timing pushes (or defending pushes) as well. Sorry but this makes just no sense. Sure in some timing pushes you got to cut probes/SCVs, but then when you do it that barely results in more military units, which is why it isn't done that often. When a zerg cuts drone production it results in an enormous spike in military production, that is completely uncomparable. It's not about "how many workers do I cut". It's straight up about "what do I do". If a Terran does a reaper-->hellion opening with 3CCs in TvZ, he must play extremly reactive. He has nothing on the field that can actually defend an attack. The only way to play is to get the scouting information by scouting the front and/or suciding units/scanning and then react by building the right units - more hellions/mines against more zerglings, tanks/mines against banelings, tanks/marauders/banshees against roaches. The same is true for Protoss, who has to react to a bio opening with a turtlesplash midgame, or against zerg where he absolutly needs to adjust his composition to roaches, hydras, mutas or swarm hosts. Reactive play is inherently given in developed, strategic games. If you don't play reactive, a good opponent will always beat you. Besides that you completely ignore my point, that for zerg it is way more important to get used to enemies timings due to their production nature, reactive play definately is not always the case. Often it is a good idea to force the enemy to react to your play, not the other way around. And if you do for example a proxy oracle opening you really aren't reacting to anything the enemy does. And generally, you can't/don't postpone your whole production to the point where you see an opponent move out. And now you say yourself exactly why zerg requires more time to adapt to a new metagame, you can't postpone production until your opponent moves out, then you are too late. You postpone it till a little bit before he moves out, and that simply takes time before zerg know how long they postpone it. Sure everyone always has to react to what an enemy does, but for zerg it is simply alot more important to know when an enemy will probably move out, depending on his build. Yes all races have it, but not all races have it to the level of zerg. If I look in a TvZ to the army supply, my supply will continiously increase, I need to use those production facilities. So for me it really is not a big deal if zerg attacks a bit earlier than I expected. I have a bit less then, and he has a bit less because he attacks earlier. However now look at the zerg army supply. Generally it is close to zero, with only some lings and queens, while my army supply is way more. But right before I move out zerg switches to military production and suddenly his army supply spikes, and he can defend my attack even though a minute before that I literally had 3-4 times the army supply he had. Automatically that also means that any error in the zergs estimation of when I will attack can be devastating, if he thinks I would attack a minute later he is outnumbered 3-4 to 1 in army units. Then they proceed complaining about terran being OP and that I am a noob. And yeah later in the game that becomes less important since then zerg doesn't have to decide as much between drones and army. And of course it isn't only zerg who needs to know roughly what the opponent does, and yes also early game a zerg makes some army units. But you also have for example the same against toss immortal-all-ins. In the beginning all zerg had auto-loss against it, while now they do quite reasonable against it. And that isn't because of some fancy micro tricks, since zerg defense against immortal all-in is pretty much outnumbering the toss enough, it is largely because they now better know how long to drone and when to mass army.
That's simply not true. Good zergs continously spend their money and larva. After bases are saturated, they produce units all the time until they max out. What you describe may be a low level syndrom but has little to do with progaming reality. Sorry, but there are simply no progames where "a zerg is behind in supply and when he gets attacked he is suddenly ahead" (unless it's some cheesy early game attack where the opponent cut a base and upgrades and workers and now you have to cut something as well to defend it). There may be differences in what you produce (is my ultra den finished and do I have the time to build the ultras I'm waiting for, or do I have to spend my money on banelings again to hold this attack) but that's it in a macro setup.
|
On May 13 2013 18:57 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2013 15:37 Tuczniak wrote:On May 13 2013 15:25 Rabiator wrote:On May 13 2013 14:38 blade55555 wrote:On May 13 2013 14:08 Rabiator wrote:On May 13 2013 11:25 glad. wrote: OK I haven't read all 25 pages of this thread, but does anyone know why Blizzard isn't considering buffing hydralisks instead of spores? This change is really frustrating because I think the game would be much better with a hydra buff. I think it would be best if they buffed the movement speed upgrade so that it also buffed speed on creep. Why would they need to buff the "machinegun Hydras" in any way? If you want them against Mutalisks JUST BUILD SOME ... they are good enough already. I hope this is sarcasm. Go roach/hydra against muta and you might as well gg right there. The question is DEFENSE againt Mutalisks and you bring in Roaches? 1. Get Spore Crawlers at your bases. 2. Research burrow. 3. Get Hydralisks in sufficient numbers to defend your bases against any form of Mutalisk harrassment and set a trap by placing your Hydralisks burrowed at a suspiciously light defended base ... 4. While you are at it get burrowed movement for your Roaches to attack and/or hide from Mutalisks out on the field. In any case there is zero need to buff Hydralisks in any way. Do you play zvz at decent level? What you say is very gimmicky and will get destroyed by any high masters/gm. No one ever researches burrow and uses it in defense, so I doubt your assessment is as automatically true as you make it sound. You can get two Hydralisks for every Mutalisk (when you take the gas into account only) and they have a higher dps too per unit; another reason why I think your "that doesnt work" answer isnt that clear as you think. In any case there seems to be a problem with one unit: the MUTALISK ... It would be a silly choice to BUFF another unit, which then affects other units / matchups as well. The smart choice it to nerf the Mutalisk ... and we are back at my "buffing the Hydralisk is completely unnecessary.
You don't get 2hydras per muta. You get 2hydras for muta and 4zerglings. Guess which unit is an amazing hydralisk counter... So yeah, you need roaches or banelings to go with your hydras. But if you go banes, your opponent can trade banes for banes+hydras or pick off banes with mutas first and you lose again.
You simply don't grasp the problems that people have against muta/ling in ZvZ (on the current patch, not the announced one). Burrow your hydras all you want, I'm gonna attack 3bases at once with my zerglings and swoop my hydras in where I need them. You don't have marine+medivac and/or mines which are good against both, the mutalisk and the zergling. And you don't have walls that prevent runbys if you play a slow army. You just get overrun at multiple fronts at once, but your split roach/hydra forces get torn apart by the mutalisk and the zergling alike and sporecrawlers/queens fall to zerglings long before they can really significantly damage mutalisks. You are getting flooded and outexpanded at once.
|
United States7483 Posts
On May 13 2013 19:22 DemigodcelpH wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2013 16:39 Zanzabarr wrote:On May 13 2013 14:44 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 13 2013 12:33 Zanzabarr wrote:On May 13 2013 11:34 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 13 2013 09:25 Zanzabarr wrote:On May 13 2013 04:46 Godwrath wrote:On May 13 2013 02:05 Nirel wrote: All the progamers I've heard, said that Hellbats are bad. They are a unit with obvious flaws design. The thing is it is not overpowered, just a boring unit, pretty much like colossi. Hellbats do OP dps for cost. You can throw them away into mineral lines and basically never NOT get your money's worth. You only have to kill 4 probes to pay for them, and due to lost mining time you don't even have to kill 4 to pay for them. Very rarely will they ever do less damage than that, and you always have the chance to do devastating damage with a single drop. The unit was designed to help terrans against mass chargelot, which is why they are a slower shorter range version of the hellion that is tankier and does a splash damage radius that is more effective against units in melee range. The mistake blizzard made was making the hellbat do 281% dps to non-light of its hellion counter part, making it do great dps to everything. It also does over 200% dps to light of a blue-flame hellion, making it completely shred light units like workers. The unit does way too much aoe dps for a 100 mineral 2 supply unit that can be reactored out. Sure it requires an armory, but Terran gets an armory every game anyway for +2/+2 and +3/+3 upgrades, whether they make any hellbats or not. The thing needs a dps nerf badly. Smart Terrans should be hellbat dropping all game, and throwing them into their composition against Toss so they can laugh at chargelots. Once the mineral dump chargelots are gone in PvT, there is just a gas expensive fragile army left over that can be run over. Extreme Protoss bias, and it sounds like you're a bit bitter over losing to drops. Try building static defense. Aside from killer works, which normal hellions are already better at, Zealots are more effective as general purpose unit because of charge and speed while hellbats can die before doing anything because of 2 range and slow movement speed. On May 13 2013 09:25 Zanzabarr wrote: there is just a gas expensive fragile army I assure you no Protoss unit is "fragile" considering Protoss units have the best cost:life ratios in the game. Lol do you even play this game? You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. My opinion is based on facts, math, and watching a lot of high level starcraft where I've seen plenty of hellbat abuse already. The numbers don't lie. I'm talking in terms of context of the matchup when I talk about zealots and hellbats. The hellbats don't need to move fast because the zealots have to come to them, and when they do, they get demolished. Once that happens, the fragile expensive protoss army gets run over. Best cost:life ratios in the game? What game are you playing? You should do some research before you open your mouth. Zealots and tempest are the only thing protoss has that have lots of life for cost, and even then, it's not by much (hellbat has 135 and does more dps, and has splash. Roach is 75/25 and has 145). How is that relevant when the fragile toss army I am referring to is the stuff that isn't zealots? Hellbats are so stupidly cost effective right now, Terrans should be using them. Some high level terrans have already stated that they almost try not to use them because they know they have to be nerfed and will be nerfed. Static defense? Like I've already stated, hellbats are so cost effective, you can drop them to their death and they'll still be worth it. I could have two cannons in the mineral line at each base, and you'd still be able to zoom in with a medivac, drop them, not lose the medivac, and have the hellbats do massive damage before dying. Even Terrans complain of OP hellbats in TvT. Ironically you cite no "fact", and then transition into more ad hominem which is more or less all I need to know that you, unfortunately, have no argument aside from your unfounded balance whine combined with no rebuttal to my main point. Regular hellions are better at wiping mineral lines than Hellbats, so if you're losing workers to Hellbats then it's because of your own negligence as you would lose even more to normal hellions; furthermore with 2 range and extremely slow movement speed Hellbats are also extremely kitable in direct engagements (while being less "tanky" than the Zealot and the Roach) which means that, combining these two points, if you're losing to them you're simply getting outplayed. I understand getting outplayed is frustrating, but you're not as good as you think. Balance is not your issue. Again, you don't play this game, do you. Perhaps you play at a really low level? Try watching some Starcraft 2 games. Hellbats have conal splash, do more dps, are tankier than hellions, and most of all, can be healed by medivacs. Hellbats are much harder to kill because of this, and this allows them the time to ravage your mineral line. Not only this, they do WAY more damage to non-light, unlike hellions which tickle light and can be handled by non-light units quite easily. Again, do you not play this game? You clearly don't understand how it is played. You realize the entire protoss ground army besides the stalker and chargelot move the same speed or slower than a hellbat, right? And chargelots are melee range.... and no, lots of stalkers in PvT is not good at all, unless you are trying to 1 base blink all in a gasless expand. Why do you keep trying to pin the balance discussion on my play? It's not some secret that hellbats are OP for cost that only I know about . When top Terran players admit hellbats are OP and how they are really lame in TvT as well, how does that have anything to do with me? It doesn't. From a spectator point of view, I've already seen many TvT games where each Terran just repeatedly hellbat dropped each other over and over, and man, is that ever a terrible viewing experience. It's like the muta vs muta wars in ZvZ atm but worse because Hellbats are so expendable. Flash seems to think Hellbats are pretty OP, why else is his TvT strategy to multi-prong drop hellbats all game long. You come off as a bad Terran player that doesn't really even play the game... I can't explain in... your comments are so out of touch with the game. Wait, I know.... you are just blindlly defending everything to do with your race, hoping to qualm the obvious needs for balance adjustments. How original? I barely ever face Hellbat drops or Hellbats in compositions on ladder, because a lot of Terrans on NA don't abuse them enough. Once they become more used, especially later in the game, blizzard will eventually wake up and nerf them. It's inevitable, but it would be nice if it was sooner rather than later. The only one "who doesn't play this game" or "is low level" is someone doesn't understand the basic fact that normal hellions are better at clearing minerals lines than Hellbats because, not only can they chase workers which hellbats can't, but also if workers run they line up. If you're losing all of your workers to Hellbats you're getting outplayed because normal hellions would do just as much damage or more, and do it faster; this means you're simply riding the placebo train and likely trying to justify areas where you lack. If you're losing to Hellbats in direct engagements when they are slow 2 range units then you're also getting outplayed. Period. Stop trying to take the high ground and pin your losses on balance, because not only do you have zero reasonable proof, but your logic isn't remotely consistent or valid and consists of unsourced claims (he said she said), bias, and anecdotes. I'm sorry, but you're going to have to accept reality. If you want some advise for the next time you attempt this try coming back with replays or something that has actual statistical significance like the below:
Sorry man, but with medivac speed boost and micro, hellbats are just as good as chasing down workers as hellions, and they heal and do better splash and single target damage, meaning they can stick around longer and fight defenders far more effectively while killing just as many workers. That's why you see pros do hellbat drops far more often than hellion drops.
|
On May 13 2013 03:13 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2013 23:16 Chocobo wrote:On May 12 2013 22:59 Hryul wrote:On May 12 2013 22:43 Chocobo wrote:On May 12 2013 09:39 AxionSteel wrote:After ages of frustration against zerg in LingsofLiberty, it certainly gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling to see all this QQ in here. Doesn't stop zerg from mopping up the tournaments and doing extremely well in Code S though I don't know any zergs who are complaining about balance at the pro level. The problem is that the skill required to play effectively in ZvT is too high for the vast majority of active players. This wouldn't be a problem if it affected both races equally, but it only affects zerg. It's nothing like other situations where it's like "yes, banelings are strong, you have to split your army up when you see them coming, or you have to protect yourself with tanks". Those are reasonable challenges that most players can learn to pull off. The skill and precision requires to deal with mines effectively is not. It requires so much effort, and is very punishing for any mistakes. Few diamond and masters players have the skill to ever be able to pull it off. So even though it's completely fair at the pro level, there's a problem for much of the ladder. This post highlights a unreasonable fatalistic stance: It is hard. I can't do it right now therefore only a few people can do it and all the others (including me) can't ever learn it. Zerg bias at its finest. The deliberate ignorance of facts in here is starting to rival Fox News. It is simply a fact that it is significantly more difficult to engage a bio mine army in a cost efficient way than it is to split your marines when banelings come rolling in, or cast feedback on medivacs, or whatever. Completely missing the point. You just claim that it is an unreasonable effort to learn how to engage mines and then base your whole arguments on this assumption. It doesn't strengthen your argument by drawing wild comparisons to Fox News. And instead of taking the challenge you fight a war on the tl forums for a nerf of mines. Why is there an assumption that no one is trying to counter mines? Everyone seems to think zergs are trying to play WoL style and crying when it doesn't work, and refusing to adapt and learn.
HotS has been out for a while now, and the beta's been going longer than that. If months and months of doing your best to try anything and everything to deal with mines leads to no results... how else can you feel? I do not have the skill and control of Life and Stephano and I never will.
Instead of "stop crying and deal with it", why not try discussing the gameplay? Why is it that other strats are dealth with by "make ___ to counter it" or "when the engagement hits, do ___" while the counter to mines is "make this, and some of these, and carefully suicide single units, and make sure you never do that, and..."
That's what the issue is all about. The way that zerg deals with mines is a very challenging micro-intensive process and is very unforgiving of mistakes. This is not in line with how the rest of the game works.
At the moment you are arguing that Blizzard should balance the game not only for the pros (where TvZ might be slightly T favored) but also to your personal gaming experience. The pro level is most important, but it would be nice if it's a good gameplay experience for non-pros too, wouldn't you agree?
On May 13 2013 00:46 FirstGear wrote: What are you actually suggesting? Nerfing mines to make it easier at lower levels? Or just an acknowledgement that its hard to play against mines? ZvT certainly does have a greater micro requirement than it did in WoL. Some kind of change to mines that makes them less difficult for players to deal with, without ruining them at the pro level (which is important). Maybe a longer burrow time, since so many people use it as a siege tank replacement. Maybe have them become visible for 1 second after firing. I dunno, just throwing some ideas out.
|
On May 13 2013 21:36 Chocobo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2013 03:13 Hryul wrote:On May 12 2013 23:16 Chocobo wrote:On May 12 2013 22:59 Hryul wrote:On May 12 2013 22:43 Chocobo wrote:On May 12 2013 09:39 AxionSteel wrote:After ages of frustration against zerg in LingsofLiberty, it certainly gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling to see all this QQ in here. Doesn't stop zerg from mopping up the tournaments and doing extremely well in Code S though I don't know any zergs who are complaining about balance at the pro level. The problem is that the skill required to play effectively in ZvT is too high for the vast majority of active players. This wouldn't be a problem if it affected both races equally, but it only affects zerg. It's nothing like other situations where it's like "yes, banelings are strong, you have to split your army up when you see them coming, or you have to protect yourself with tanks". Those are reasonable challenges that most players can learn to pull off. The skill and precision requires to deal with mines effectively is not. It requires so much effort, and is very punishing for any mistakes. Few diamond and masters players have the skill to ever be able to pull it off. So even though it's completely fair at the pro level, there's a problem for much of the ladder. This post highlights a unreasonable fatalistic stance: It is hard. I can't do it right now therefore only a few people can do it and all the others (including me) can't ever learn it. Zerg bias at its finest. The deliberate ignorance of facts in here is starting to rival Fox News. It is simply a fact that it is significantly more difficult to engage a bio mine army in a cost efficient way than it is to split your marines when banelings come rolling in, or cast feedback on medivacs, or whatever. Completely missing the point. You just claim that it is an unreasonable effort to learn how to engage mines and then base your whole arguments on this assumption. It doesn't strengthen your argument by drawing wild comparisons to Fox News. And instead of taking the challenge you fight a war on the tl forums for a nerf of mines. Why is there an assumption that no one is trying to counter mines? Everyone seems to think zergs are trying to play WoL style and crying when it doesn't work, and refusing to adapt and learn. HotS has been out for a while now, and the beta's been going longer than that. If months and months of doing your best to try anything and everything to deal with mines leads to no results... how else can you feel? I do not have the skill and control of Life and Stephano and I never will. Instead of "stop crying and deal with it", why not try discussing the gameplay? Why is it that other strats are dealth with by "make ___ to counter it" or "when the engagement hits, do ___" while the counter to mines is "make this, and some of these, and carefully suicide single units, and make sure you never do that, and..." That's what the issue is all about. The way that zerg deals with mines is a very challenging micro-intensive process and is very unforgiving of mistakes. This is not in line with how the rest of the game works. Show nested quote +At the moment you are arguing that Blizzard should balance the game not only for the pros (where TvZ might be slightly T favored) but also to your personal gaming experience. The pro level is most important, but it would be nice if it's a good gameplay experience for non-pros too, wouldn't you agree? Show nested quote +On May 13 2013 00:46 FirstGear wrote: What are you actually suggesting? Nerfing mines to make it easier at lower levels? Or just an acknowledgement that its hard to play against mines? ZvT certainly does have a greater micro requirement than it did in WoL. Some kind of change to mines that makes them less difficult for players to deal with, without ruining them at the pro level (which is important). Maybe a longer burrow time, since so many people use it as a siege tank replacement. Maybe have them become visible for 1 second after firing. I dunno, just throwing some ideas out.
last i saw infestors are pretty good against mines, you throw out infested terrans to bait them. also make overseers. lots of overseers. so you always have an overseer handy to deal with a mine.
|
On May 13 2013 11:25 glad. wrote: OK I haven't read all 25 pages of this thread, but does anyone know why Blizzard isn't considering buffing hydralisks instead of spores? This change is really frustrating because I think the game would be much better with a hydra buff. I think it would be best if they buffed the movement speed upgrade so that it also buffed speed on creep.
- I see a lot of discussion in this thread about ZvT balance. I have no idea if the matchup is balanced overall, but I do think that roach/hydra style is underpowered. It is also INCREDIBLY fun to play. I do it all the time on ladder (even though I think it's worse than ling/bane/muta) because it's so enjoyable. But a competent terran will just rip you apart with drops, and unless you can get an absurdly strong econ to put static D everywhere (while still making enough units to trade effectively against bio) then you will simply lose. I think the matchup would be much improved if roach/hydra was more viable, and I hardly think that buffing hydra speed on creep would make roach/hydra in anyway overpowered. But it would make dealing with drops a lot easier. Interesting... I think this isn't a bad idea at all. No one has ever complained about hydras being too strong... why not try out making them super fast on creep? It could potentially help ZvZ as well, if hydras could chase down mutas the way that stimmed marines do. There could be potential problems though, like opponents being unable to retreat in a game where creep covers half the map.
|
On May 13 2013 18:06 p14c wrote: I guess PvProleague will continue indefinitely. How can someone say with a straight face that SkyToss is balanced? The end game was the problem in WOL and is continuing to be in HOTS also. Kim didn't learn anything.
Zergs have been making good progress vs protoss air. It isn't the flying units alone that are so deadly- it's the combination of air + colossus or air + psi storm. Get some swarmhosts so that those are out of the equation, and suddenly corruptor/infestor/viper becomes cost efficient if you play it well.
|
On May 13 2013 21:47 Chocobo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2013 18:06 p14c wrote: I guess PvProleague will continue indefinitely. How can someone say with a straight face that SkyToss is balanced? The end game was the problem in WOL and is continuing to be in HOTS also. Kim didn't learn anything. Zergs have been making good progress vs protoss air. It isn't the flying units alone that are so deadly- it's the combination of air + colossus or air + psi storm. Get some swarmhosts so that those are out of the equation, and suddenly corruptor/infestor/viper becomes cost efficient if you play it well.
Yeah, for all the complaining about Skytoss, every time I see PvZ get into a split map situation, it's the Protoss who has to harass and run around sniping bases, because it's impossible to effectively engage a mass Swarm Host defensive position with static defense and corrupters/vipers.
|
Reduce Muta HP. Easiest solution, this spore crawler nonsense won't change anything at all until Blizzard wake up from their dream world, where a superb harassing unit is also a superior fighting unit.
|
On May 13 2013 21:36 Chocobo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2013 03:13 Hryul wrote:On May 12 2013 23:16 Chocobo wrote:On May 12 2013 22:59 Hryul wrote:On May 12 2013 22:43 Chocobo wrote:On May 12 2013 09:39 AxionSteel wrote:After ages of frustration against zerg in LingsofLiberty, it certainly gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling to see all this QQ in here. Doesn't stop zerg from mopping up the tournaments and doing extremely well in Code S though I don't know any zergs who are complaining about balance at the pro level. The problem is that the skill required to play effectively in ZvT is too high for the vast majority of active players. This wouldn't be a problem if it affected both races equally, but it only affects zerg. It's nothing like other situations where it's like "yes, banelings are strong, you have to split your army up when you see them coming, or you have to protect yourself with tanks". Those are reasonable challenges that most players can learn to pull off. The skill and precision requires to deal with mines effectively is not. It requires so much effort, and is very punishing for any mistakes. Few diamond and masters players have the skill to ever be able to pull it off. So even though it's completely fair at the pro level, there's a problem for much of the ladder. This post highlights a unreasonable fatalistic stance: It is hard. I can't do it right now therefore only a few people can do it and all the others (including me) can't ever learn it. Zerg bias at its finest. The deliberate ignorance of facts in here is starting to rival Fox News. It is simply a fact that it is significantly more difficult to engage a bio mine army in a cost efficient way than it is to split your marines when banelings come rolling in, or cast feedback on medivacs, or whatever. Completely missing the point. You just claim that it is an unreasonable effort to learn how to engage mines and then base your whole arguments on this assumption. It doesn't strengthen your argument by drawing wild comparisons to Fox News. And instead of taking the challenge you fight a war on the tl forums for a nerf of mines. Why is there an assumption that no one is trying to counter mines? Everyone seems to think zergs are trying to play WoL style and crying when it doesn't work, and refusing to adapt and learn. HotS has been out for a while now, and the beta's been going longer than that. If months and months of doing your best to try anything and everything to deal with mines leads to no results... how else can you feel? I do not have the skill and control of Life and Stephano and I never will. Instead of "stop crying and deal with it", why not try discussing the gameplay? Why is it that other strats are dealth with by "make ___ to counter it" or "when the engagement hits, do ___" while the counter to mines is "make this, and some of these, and carefully suicide single units, and make sure you never do that, and..." That's what the issue is all about. The way that zerg deals with mines is a very challenging micro-intensive process and is very unforgiving of mistakes. This is not in line with how the rest of the game works. Show nested quote +At the moment you are arguing that Blizzard should balance the game not only for the pros (where TvZ might be slightly T favored) but also to your personal gaming experience. The pro level is most important, but it would be nice if it's a good gameplay experience for non-pros too, wouldn't you agree? Show nested quote +On May 13 2013 00:46 FirstGear wrote: What are you actually suggesting? Nerfing mines to make it easier at lower levels? Or just an acknowledgement that its hard to play against mines? ZvT certainly does have a greater micro requirement than it did in WoL. Some kind of change to mines that makes them less difficult for players to deal with, without ruining them at the pro level (which is important). Maybe a longer burrow time, since so many people use it as a siege tank replacement. Maybe have them become visible for 1 second after firing. I dunno, just throwing some ideas out. You are twisting my posts. Where do I say that no one tries to counter mines? I doubted your claim that it takes unreasonable effort to learn how to counter mines.
You are also not discussing gameplay i.e. how to counter mines but you want mines nerfed because you can't handle them.
And this is all you are arguing: there is a "skill cap" for handling mines and you don't want to be below it. Guess what: the same is true for marine splitting vs banes, EMPing protoss armys or fighting 2gate proxys.
|
On May 13 2013 20:09 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2013 18:57 Rabiator wrote:On May 13 2013 15:37 Tuczniak wrote:On May 13 2013 15:25 Rabiator wrote:On May 13 2013 14:38 blade55555 wrote:On May 13 2013 14:08 Rabiator wrote:On May 13 2013 11:25 glad. wrote: OK I haven't read all 25 pages of this thread, but does anyone know why Blizzard isn't considering buffing hydralisks instead of spores? This change is really frustrating because I think the game would be much better with a hydra buff. I think it would be best if they buffed the movement speed upgrade so that it also buffed speed on creep. Why would they need to buff the "machinegun Hydras" in any way? If you want them against Mutalisks JUST BUILD SOME ... they are good enough already. I hope this is sarcasm. Go roach/hydra against muta and you might as well gg right there. The question is DEFENSE againt Mutalisks and you bring in Roaches? 1. Get Spore Crawlers at your bases. 2. Research burrow. 3. Get Hydralisks in sufficient numbers to defend your bases against any form of Mutalisk harrassment and set a trap by placing your Hydralisks burrowed at a suspiciously light defended base ... 4. While you are at it get burrowed movement for your Roaches to attack and/or hide from Mutalisks out on the field. In any case there is zero need to buff Hydralisks in any way. Do you play zvz at decent level? What you say is very gimmicky and will get destroyed by any high masters/gm. No one ever researches burrow and uses it in defense, so I doubt your assessment is as automatically true as you make it sound. You can get two Hydralisks for every Mutalisk (when you take the gas into account only) and they have a higher dps too per unit; another reason why I think your "that doesnt work" answer isnt that clear as you think. In any case there seems to be a problem with one unit: the MUTALISK ... It would be a silly choice to BUFF another unit, which then affects other units / matchups as well. The smart choice it to nerf the Mutalisk ... and we are back at my "buffing the Hydralisk is completely unnecessary. You don't get 2hydras per muta. You get 2hydras for muta and 4zerglings. Guess which unit is an amazing hydralisk counter... So yeah, you need roaches or banelings to go with your hydras. But if you go banes, your opponent can trade banes for banes+hydras or pick off banes with mutas first and you lose again. You simply don't grasp the problems that people have against muta/ling in ZvZ (on the current patch, not the announced one). Burrow your hydras all you want, I'm gonna attack 3bases at once with my zerglings and swoop my hydras in where I need them. You don't have marine+medivac and/or mines which are good against both, the mutalisk and the zergling. And you don't have walls that prevent runbys if you play a slow army. You just get overrun at multiple fronts at once, but your split roach/hydra forces get torn apart by the mutalisk and the zergling alike and sporecrawlers/queens fall to zerglings long before they can really significantly damage mutalisks. You are getting flooded and outexpanded at once. Oh, so I dont have walls? Who said that? Just because people usually dont do that doesnt mean it wouldnt work.
Again we are at "there is no need to BUFF the Hydralisk but rather one to NERF the Mutalisk". That is the thing you can clearly see without any playing experience yourself because buffing one unit in a balanced environment will make it overpowered against most of the other stuff and consequently trigger the need to buff more units ... in a chain of endless buffing until the units deal 560 damage and have 7000 hit points ...
Buffing does not work ... and the perfect example is the Mutalisk. It got a buff with HotS and became wayyy too good.
|
Vatican City State431 Posts
On May 13 2013 22:12 Toadvine wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2013 21:47 Chocobo wrote:On May 13 2013 18:06 p14c wrote: I guess PvProleague will continue indefinitely. How can someone say with a straight face that SkyToss is balanced? The end game was the problem in WOL and is continuing to be in HOTS also. Kim didn't learn anything. Zergs have been making good progress vs protoss air. It isn't the flying units alone that are so deadly- it's the combination of air + colossus or air + psi storm. Get some swarmhosts so that those are out of the equation, and suddenly corruptor/infestor/viper becomes cost efficient if you play it well. Yeah, for all the complaining about Skytoss, every time I see PvZ get into a split map situation, it's the Protoss who has to harass and run around sniping bases, because it's impossible to effectively engage a mass Swarm Host defensive position with static defense and corrupters/vipers. Getting Swarm Hosts against SkyToss is the most stupid thing I ever heard. Bisu demolished 2 Code S zergs, EG-TL zergs were also demolished by Skytoss today, Flash air battlecruisers were demolished by Parting's skytoss (it wasn't even a close fight) and I could continue with examples all day long. Code S will soon get filled with Kespa Protoses mark my word! In Proleague the team with the most good Protoses wins always.
|
On May 13 2013 21:36 Chocobo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2013 03:13 Hryul wrote:On May 12 2013 23:16 Chocobo wrote:On May 12 2013 22:59 Hryul wrote:On May 12 2013 22:43 Chocobo wrote:On May 12 2013 09:39 AxionSteel wrote:After ages of frustration against zerg in LingsofLiberty, it certainly gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling to see all this QQ in here. Doesn't stop zerg from mopping up the tournaments and doing extremely well in Code S though I don't know any zergs who are complaining about balance at the pro level. The problem is that the skill required to play effectively in ZvT is too high for the vast majority of active players. This wouldn't be a problem if it affected both races equally, but it only affects zerg. It's nothing like other situations where it's like "yes, banelings are strong, you have to split your army up when you see them coming, or you have to protect yourself with tanks". Those are reasonable challenges that most players can learn to pull off. The skill and precision requires to deal with mines effectively is not. It requires so much effort, and is very punishing for any mistakes. Few diamond and masters players have the skill to ever be able to pull it off. So even though it's completely fair at the pro level, there's a problem for much of the ladder. This post highlights a unreasonable fatalistic stance: It is hard. I can't do it right now therefore only a few people can do it and all the others (including me) can't ever learn it. Zerg bias at its finest. The deliberate ignorance of facts in here is starting to rival Fox News. It is simply a fact that it is significantly more difficult to engage a bio mine army in a cost efficient way than it is to split your marines when banelings come rolling in, or cast feedback on medivacs, or whatever. Completely missing the point. You just claim that it is an unreasonable effort to learn how to engage mines and then base your whole arguments on this assumption. It doesn't strengthen your argument by drawing wild comparisons to Fox News. And instead of taking the challenge you fight a war on the tl forums for a nerf of mines. Why is there an assumption that no one is trying to counter mines? Everyone seems to think zergs are trying to play WoL style and crying when it doesn't work, and refusing to adapt and learn. HotS has been out for a while now, and the beta's been going longer than that. If months and months of doing your best to try anything and everything to deal with mines leads to no results... how else can you feel? I do not have the skill and control of Life and Stephano and I never will. Instead of "stop crying and deal with it", why not try discussing the gameplay? Why is it that other strats are dealth with by "make ___ to counter it" or "when the engagement hits, do ___" while the counter to mines is "make this, and some of these, and carefully suicide single units, and make sure you never do that, and..." That's what the issue is all about. The way that zerg deals with mines is a very challenging micro-intensive process and is very unforgiving of mistakes. This is not in line with how the rest of the game works. Show nested quote +At the moment you are arguing that Blizzard should balance the game not only for the pros (where TvZ might be slightly T favored) but also to your personal gaming experience. The pro level is most important, but it would be nice if it's a good gameplay experience for non-pros too, wouldn't you agree? Show nested quote +On May 13 2013 00:46 FirstGear wrote: What are you actually suggesting? Nerfing mines to make it easier at lower levels? Or just an acknowledgement that its hard to play against mines? ZvT certainly does have a greater micro requirement than it did in WoL. Some kind of change to mines that makes them less difficult for players to deal with, without ruining them at the pro level (which is important). Maybe a longer burrow time, since so many people use it as a siege tank replacement. Maybe have them become visible for 1 second after firing. I dunno, just throwing some ideas out.
This has however been reversed for Terran in the whole WoL. Split vs Banelings and Instant Fungals. Kite vs Ultras. Split like a crazy with all your vikings to not get chain fungaled. Always scout around you to not get chain fungaled. Etc. etc. etc.
Vs Toss:
Controll MMM, Vikings and Ghosts, Kite, EMP, Do not sacrifice the vikings.
I can promise you, low level terrans aint having an easier time dealing with any of those situations than Zerg is having to deal with some widow mines...
But if you actually are having problems dealing with Widow Mines in Gold for an example, lets say your opponents spams 30 of them. A easy way is to make 20 Swarm Hosts and suddenly you dont have to worry about micro at all.
|
|
On May 13 2013 22:18 TigerKarl wrote: Reduce Muta HP. Easiest solution, this spore crawler nonsense won't change anything at all until Blizzard wake up from their dream world, where a superb harassing unit is also a superior fighting unit.
A reduction in Muta HP does influence all match ups. They only want to change ZvZ. Here A spore buff will help, altough opinions differ how much it will help. Spores are usually built against mutas later on they do not work that well, but in the initial stages a buff to them would allow the defending players more options (getting mutas later or incorporating other units).
|
On May 13 2013 22:18 TigerKarl wrote: Reduce Muta HP. Easiest solution, this spore crawler nonsense won't change anything at all until Blizzard wake up from their dream world, where a superb harassing unit is also a superior fighting unit.
That would make them garbage in ZvT and ZvP that's the stupidest solution I've seen.
People need to wake up from their dream world where they think they have any clue how to balance anything. Nothing wrong with discussing it, but most people go "listen guys I got THE answer it's so EZ...just nerf/buff x without any regard for any other match up and it's fixed see. Blizzard L2P GG hahahaah"
You're daft in the head if you think it's that simple or the game would be perfectly balanced already.
|
In 415 or so HoTS games, my race ratios are pretty solidified:
I'm Zerg high-Diamond player.
vs. Zerg: 60% vs. Protoss: 50% vs. Terran: 40%
If we just use this season to look at more recent games, The Zerg win-percentrage for me has gone up and the Terran one has lowered (the longer this expansion goes on, the worse I've been doing against Terran and the better I've been doing against Zerg, which is keeping my overall win-rate fairly constant).
I've reached a point where I've played enough games for this to be a large enough sample size for me. I don't anticipate any significant changes unless my strategies change or there are balance patches. I would be interested to know how other players with at least a few hundred games played are fairing, especially Zergs. I tend to check my opponents ratios and have yet to find a Zerg with a win-rate over 50% against Terran.
|
Im mid-high master eu and with 310 games i have
ZvZ = 54% ZvT = 56% ZvP = 54%
ZvT is actuly my favorite match up and this season with 13 games its 69%. Hellbats can be annoying though and luckily terrans forgot they can make tanks.
|
On May 14 2013 00:19 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2013 20:09 Big J wrote:On May 13 2013 18:57 Rabiator wrote:On May 13 2013 15:37 Tuczniak wrote:On May 13 2013 15:25 Rabiator wrote:On May 13 2013 14:38 blade55555 wrote:On May 13 2013 14:08 Rabiator wrote:On May 13 2013 11:25 glad. wrote: OK I haven't read all 25 pages of this thread, but does anyone know why Blizzard isn't considering buffing hydralisks instead of spores? This change is really frustrating because I think the game would be much better with a hydra buff. I think it would be best if they buffed the movement speed upgrade so that it also buffed speed on creep. Why would they need to buff the "machinegun Hydras" in any way? If you want them against Mutalisks JUST BUILD SOME ... they are good enough already. I hope this is sarcasm. Go roach/hydra against muta and you might as well gg right there. The question is DEFENSE againt Mutalisks and you bring in Roaches? 1. Get Spore Crawlers at your bases. 2. Research burrow. 3. Get Hydralisks in sufficient numbers to defend your bases against any form of Mutalisk harrassment and set a trap by placing your Hydralisks burrowed at a suspiciously light defended base ... 4. While you are at it get burrowed movement for your Roaches to attack and/or hide from Mutalisks out on the field. In any case there is zero need to buff Hydralisks in any way. Do you play zvz at decent level? What you say is very gimmicky and will get destroyed by any high masters/gm. No one ever researches burrow and uses it in defense, so I doubt your assessment is as automatically true as you make it sound. You can get two Hydralisks for every Mutalisk (when you take the gas into account only) and they have a higher dps too per unit; another reason why I think your "that doesnt work" answer isnt that clear as you think. In any case there seems to be a problem with one unit: the MUTALISK ... It would be a silly choice to BUFF another unit, which then affects other units / matchups as well. The smart choice it to nerf the Mutalisk ... and we are back at my "buffing the Hydralisk is completely unnecessary. You don't get 2hydras per muta. You get 2hydras for muta and 4zerglings. Guess which unit is an amazing hydralisk counter... So yeah, you need roaches or banelings to go with your hydras. But if you go banes, your opponent can trade banes for banes+hydras or pick off banes with mutas first and you lose again. You simply don't grasp the problems that people have against muta/ling in ZvZ (on the current patch, not the announced one). Burrow your hydras all you want, I'm gonna attack 3bases at once with my zerglings and swoop my hydras in where I need them. You don't have marine+medivac and/or mines which are good against both, the mutalisk and the zergling. And you don't have walls that prevent runbys if you play a slow army. You just get overrun at multiple fronts at once, but your split roach/hydra forces get torn apart by the mutalisk and the zergling alike and sporecrawlers/queens fall to zerglings long before they can really significantly damage mutalisks. You are getting flooded and outexpanded at once. Oh, so I dont have walls? Who said that? Just because people usually dont do that doesnt mean it wouldnt work. Again we are at "there is no need to BUFF the Hydralisk but rather one to NERF the Mutalisk". That is the thing you can clearly see without any playing experience yourself because buffing one unit in a balanced environment will make it overpowered against most of the other stuff and consequently trigger the need to buff more units ... in a chain of endless buffing until the units deal 560 damage and have 7000 hit points ... Buffing does not work ... and the perfect example is the Mutalisk. It got a buff with HotS and became wayyy too good. People have experimented with it. And complete walls have turned out to be notviable on most map.
I don't say "we need to buff the hydralisk". I'm saying that hydralisks as they are are not the answer to mutalisk play, no matter how hard you hope that your opponent will fly directly over your one location of burrowed hydras without zergling support.
The mutalisk got too good in exactly one matchup. And that is because the infestor - the WoL mutalisk counter - got nerfed very hard against everything and is hardly playable in the midgame in HotS ZvZ, mutalisks or not. Yes, straight up buffing often works out. You can go through all the matchups and have a good look at all the buffs that were applied. Muta ZvZ seems to be the only real problematic one up to now.
And funny sidefact. You said that "buffing one unit in a balanced environment will make it overpowered against most of the other stuff ". So I take it that you think WoL 1.5.4 was a balanced enviroment. Gonna keep that one for any future discussion when topics like BL/Infestor or the queen patch come up again.
|
On May 14 2013 02:06 SacredCoconut wrote: Im mid-high master eu and with 310 games i have
ZvZ = 54% ZvT = 56% ZvP = 54%
ZvT is actuly my favorite match up and this season with 13 games its 69%. Hellbats can be annoying though and luckily terrans forgot they can make tanks.
Wow, that's an incredibly consistant track record.
|
High Masters Terran, 309 game sample size
TvP- 49% TvT- 62% TvZ- 52%
TvP I've been working on some mech play (hellbat / tank based) so my winrate there is artificially low (in my opinion anyway) since I have a lot of losses that are simply learning reactions to different types of Protoss timing attacks with different production than I'm used to. Win rate this season is 55%
TvT is really easy for me, lots of free wins vs Hellbat drops and my decision making and drop defense is pretty solid giving me a pretty big advantage in this matchup, I play primarily mech (with blue flame hellions rather than hellbats) and lose primarily to 2 base timings, A vulnerability in my build which I think I've mostly fixed, win rate in TvT this season is up to 67%.
In TvZ I tend to win primarily by getting pretty big advantages in the later stages of mid game with heavy drop play (I play M4), most of my losses come from either 1-1 speedroach timings (with or without nydus) which I struggle to hold even when I scout, heavy baneling aggression before mutas doing too much damage or heavy ling / bling / muta mid games with lots of spines / spores for drop defense and 4+ bases before going into hive tech. Current win rate this season is 64% as I've gotten a lot better at holding the weird 10-13 minute aggressive timings and less and less Zerg players seem to be attempting macro play.
|
On May 14 2013 03:11 Pursuit_ wrote: In TvZ I tend to win primarily by getting pretty big advantages in the later stages of mid game with heavy drop play (I play M4), most of my losses come from either 1-1 speedroach timings (with or without nydus) which I struggle to hold even when I scout, heavy baneling aggression before mutas doing too much damage or heavy ling / bling / muta mid games with lots of spines / spores for drop defense and 4+ bases before going into hive tech. Current win rate this season is 64% as I've gotten a lot better at holding the weird 10-13 minute aggressive timings and less and less Zerg players seem to be attempting macro play.
Interesting to read. I've found 1-1 speedroach to work well vs. Terrans, in either winning the game or giving myself a series advantage. Of course, it only works well if the Terran is opening the standard Reaper into Hellion.
To me that's just a simple tactic and not really a reflection of the meta game though. Right now Terran wants Reapers early for scouting and then Hellions right after to keep map control once Speedlings are out, but if Terran goes Hellion regardless of scouting Roaches, they deserve to die to the 1-1 timing to be honest, haha.
|
I dont have a problem in ZvZ since I all-in to prevent Muta's, but the spore-crawler change is needed.
|
On May 14 2013 03:17 Graven wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 03:11 Pursuit_ wrote: In TvZ I tend to win primarily by getting pretty big advantages in the later stages of mid game with heavy drop play (I play M4), most of my losses come from either 1-1 speedroach timings (with or without nydus) which I struggle to hold even when I scout, heavy baneling aggression before mutas doing too much damage or heavy ling / bling / muta mid games with lots of spines / spores for drop defense and 4+ bases before going into hive tech. Current win rate this season is 64% as I've gotten a lot better at holding the weird 10-13 minute aggressive timings and less and less Zerg players seem to be attempting macro play. Interesting to read. I've found 1-1 speedroach to work well vs. Terrans, in either winning the game or giving myself a series advantage. Of course, it only works well if the Terran is opening the standard Reaper into Hellion. To me that's just a simple tactic and not really a reflection of the meta game though. Right now Terran wants Reapers early for scouting and then Hellions right after to keep map control once Speedlings are out, but if Terran goes Hellion regardless of scouting Roaches, they deserve to die to the 1-1 timing to be honest, haha.
I open CC first into reactor hellion into 3 CC, and my standard reaction to scouting a 1-1 speedroach timing is bunkers + tanks. The problem is I rarely seem to scout it in time to have a critical mass of ~3 tanks out, and when I do I feel like it takes too long to reassert map control and take my third if the Zerg doesn't suicide his roaches into my natural. I've been holding more consistently lately though so I'm sure I'll figure it out soon ^^
Really I think ling / bling / muta with some static defense into 4+ base before hive is the best answer for Zerg atm, watching Soulkey's game vs Innovation in Proleague really made me feel like Zerg just needs more time to figure out the metagame. I've also seen quite a few roach hydra games in Proleague and it usually seems to work, but I think it's mostly just the off timings catching Terran's off guard.
|
On May 14 2013 03:17 Graven wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 03:11 Pursuit_ wrote: In TvZ I tend to win primarily by getting pretty big advantages in the later stages of mid game with heavy drop play (I play M4), most of my losses come from either 1-1 speedroach timings (with or without nydus) which I struggle to hold even when I scout, heavy baneling aggression before mutas doing too much damage or heavy ling / bling / muta mid games with lots of spines / spores for drop defense and 4+ bases before going into hive tech. Current win rate this season is 64% as I've gotten a lot better at holding the weird 10-13 minute aggressive timings and less and less Zerg players seem to be attempting macro play. Interesting to read. I've found 1-1 speedroach to work well vs. Terrans, in either winning the game or giving myself a series advantage. Of course, it only works well if the Terran is opening the standard Reaper into Hellion. To me that's just a simple tactic and not really a reflection of the meta game though. Right now Terran wants Reapers early for scouting and then Hellions right after to keep map control once Speedlings are out, but if Terran goes Hellion regardless of scouting Roaches, they deserve to die to the 1-1 timing to be honest, haha.
Something like this happened yesterday in final game between Polt and Hyun on Kespa Neo Planet S. The series was tied 2-2, Polt went for (surprise, surprise ) 4M + fast 3rd CC.
Hyun sees this, takes his third and fourth at the same time and just stays on ling bling for like forever. The game goes on for 30 minutes, constant battles all over the map, raiding expansions with drops, runbys, sniping and baiting mines, flanking, sniping expansions etc. All this time both players hover around 100 supply and not a single deathball was formed.
+ Show Spoiler +
This was one of the better TvZs I have watched, but I guess some guys may not like it since it was clearly tough for the zerg.
|
On May 10 2013 05:07 sibs wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 05:04 RogerChillingworth wrote: TvZ is still terran favored, i don't care what anyone says. Other match-ups are better--can go either way--and really map dependent, but non-retarded Terrans will still make zerg look silly. stats fail to illustrate the full picture, i'm afraid. Hmm, TvZ was 55% WR for T in march, 56% in April.It's not terrible but yea, TvZ does favor T atm. PvT seems to be favoring protoss pretty hard for the past 2 weeks or so as well, but thats early to suggest any problems. Edit: You can clearly see the terrans are very happy about no changes, they're kinda expecting a nerf hehe.
I just want to agree with everything here.
|
On May 14 2013 00:32 p14c wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2013 22:12 Toadvine wrote:On May 13 2013 21:47 Chocobo wrote:On May 13 2013 18:06 p14c wrote: I guess PvProleague will continue indefinitely. How can someone say with a straight face that SkyToss is balanced? The end game was the problem in WOL and is continuing to be in HOTS also. Kim didn't learn anything. Zergs have been making good progress vs protoss air. It isn't the flying units alone that are so deadly- it's the combination of air + colossus or air + psi storm. Get some swarmhosts so that those are out of the equation, and suddenly corruptor/infestor/viper becomes cost efficient if you play it well. Yeah, for all the complaining about Skytoss, every time I see PvZ get into a split map situation, it's the Protoss who has to harass and run around sniping bases, because it's impossible to effectively engage a mass Swarm Host defensive position with static defense and corrupters/vipers. Getting Swarm Hosts against SkyToss is the most stupid thing I ever heard. Bisu demolished 2 Code S zergs, EG-TL zergs were also demolished by Skytoss today, Flash air battlecruisers were demolished by Parting's skytoss (it wasn't even a close fight) and I could continue with examples all day long. Code S will soon get filled with Kespa Protoses mark my word! In Proleague the team with the most good Protoses wins always.
I don't get posts like this. Either you think I'm stupid and won't watch those vods, or you have your own special definition of Skytoss. Opening with multiple Void Rays, going up to about 10, and then transitioning into a normal ground army, is not Skytoss, Skytoss is having most of your maxed army consist of air units, and typically not just Void Rays.
Also, Roro (vs Bisu), Revival and Snute got rolled because they clearly weren't familiar with the style (1 Stargate into fast third into more Stargates and multiple VRs). Roro tried an early attack with Roaches, which accomplished absolutely nothing, and he was left on 3 base vs a 3 base Protoss with superior tech, at which point he would've lost against literally any unit comp. Revival won the game with a good roach/ling attack, and proceeded to throw it away in a series of mind-boggling decisions. And Snute seemed to have forgotten that Infested Terrans were nerfed, and played like it was still WoL and IT spam owned all Protoss air.
When people say Skytoss, they usually mean it as a lategame army. You're complaining about an opening that looks very fragile and likely dies to a variety of timing attacks. Revival actually had the right idea and ended up in a good position despite executing his attack poorly.
And what the hell are you on about BCs? Those are bad against Protoss not because of Skytoss or whatever, but because of Feedback. And they will continue to be bad as long as they have energy. And Skytoss isn't even particularly good against bio with Vikings.
|
On May 14 2013 02:06 SacredCoconut wrote: Im mid-high master eu and with 310 games i have
ZvZ = 54% ZvT = 56% ZvP = 54%
ZvT is actuly my favorite match up and this season with 13 games its 69%. Hellbats can be annoying though and luckily terrans forgot they can make tanks.
HotS ZvT is also one of my favorite matchups now. As it's very balanced I think, more or less, the only people who are complaining right now are people who only played Zerg, and played during the heavily heavily imbalanced in favor of Zerg part of 2012.
|
On May 12 2013 17:03 Decendos wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2013 16:51 scypio wrote: I think there are some things getting mixed up in this thread. We can see some true balance complaints like: "ZvT is almost unwinnable and all the Zergs will disappear from the tourneys, ladder etc". Tournament results and the long list of the zerg players that seem to be doing fine within the current metagame say otherwise.
And than there is another set of complaints that can be summed up with a statement: "I don't like the current meta/gameplay". This is understandable - for example a coinflip is pretty balanced, but it is not a lot of fun to watch (unless it's at Dreamhack).
Let's say little Johnny doesn't like MMM-based TvP and thinks that the right way to play versus Protoss is a 4-port banshee. Pretty soon you would see Johnny posting on TL with the idea of increasing the range, damage and hp on the banshee by 50% to make his goto strategy viable.
This is exactly what the zergies do: my (WoL) strat is not working, other strats(bust) are stupid: blizzard go nerf hellbat, speedvacs and widow mines!
For me saying things like "well, the game has been out for two months, I've played 100 games on the ladder and nothing's gonna change, blizzard fix this!" seems a bit hasty. And the idea of sacrificing balance in favor of a better gameplay is flawed. except its the other way around. the old WoL style roach or roach bane all ins or roach nydus allins (which symbol already did in WoL and havent changed one bit) are working if T is bad/doesnt scout/plays insanely greedy. the new stuff in midgame doesnt work: swarmhosts, faster hydras dont work AT ALL, regenerating mutas work if you outplay opponent. the guy mentioning all the macro zergs are out while all the "all in/cheesy zerg" got in ro8 is true to the most part (obv not all macro zergs game are macro and the other way around). thats what all zerg players say is stupid: if you are on equal skill AND want to play a standard macro game TvZ is imbalanced. what makes it a bit more balanced are all the all ins Z does. once T figures them out (roach nydus all in etc. is easy scoutable, so is every roach warren with 2 reaper opening), TvZ will get a lot worse. lets see how it gets fixed. its just NO FUN at all to all in every TvZ right now because you will lose most macro games.
Makes absolutely no sense. This is pure theory crafting and conjecture that you are trying to pass off as fact.
Also, I lold hard at this bit.
regenerating mutas work if you outplay opponent.
As should ANY strat.
|
except its the other way around. the old WoL style roach or roach bane all ins or roach nydus allins (which symbol already did in WoL and havent changed one bit) are working if T is bad/doesnt scout/plays insanely greedy. the new stuff in midgame doesnt work: swarmhosts, faster hydras dont work AT ALL, regenerating mutas work if you outplay opponent. the guy mentioning all the macro zergs are out while all the "all in/cheesy zerg" got in ro8 is true to the most part (obv not all macro zergs game are macro and the other way around). thats what all zerg players say is stupid: if you are on equal skill AND want to play a standard macro game TvZ is imbalanced. what makes it a bit more balanced are all the all ins Z does. once T figures them out (roach nydus all in etc. is easy scoutable, so is every roach warren with 2 reaper opening), TvZ will get a lot worse. lets see how it gets fixed. its just NO FUN at all to all in every TvZ right now because you will lose most macro games.
Talking about equal skill made me laugh. I guess you didnt watch any games of Wings of Liberty where players like JonnyRecco (no offense) could go head to head with top tier Code S terrans who practice 15 hours a day.
|
|
On May 14 2013 06:20 Emzeeshady wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 06:10 ( bush wrote: except its the other way around. the old WoL style roach or roach bane all ins or roach nydus allins (which symbol already did in WoL and havent changed one bit) are working if T is bad/doesnt scout/plays insanely greedy. the new stuff in midgame doesnt work: swarmhosts, faster hydras dont work AT ALL, regenerating mutas work if you outplay opponent. the guy mentioning all the macro zergs are out while all the "all in/cheesy zerg" got in ro8 is true to the most part (obv not all macro zergs game are macro and the other way around). thats what all zerg players say is stupid: if you are on equal skill AND want to play a standard macro game TvZ is imbalanced. what makes it a bit more balanced are all the all ins Z does. once T figures them out (roach nydus all in etc. is easy scoutable, so is every roach warren with 2 reaper opening), TvZ will get a lot worse. lets see how it gets fixed. its just NO FUN at all to all in every TvZ right now because you will lose most macro games.
Talking about equal skill made me laugh. I guess you didnt watch any games of Wings of Liberty where players like JonnyRecco (no offense) could go head to head with top tier Code S terrans who practice 15 hours a day. Except this never happened. I only remember one series where he almost beat Keen and Keen is far from a top tier Korean. JRecco also got crushed by many foreigners of other races during this time.
Reading comprehension: players like JonnyRecco, ie. relatively nameless foreign zergs suddenly beating Code S Terrans after the queen buff.
Also, JonnyRecco crushing many foreigners during that time is relevant how? ZvX was broken, and ZvZ was based on either A) ling/bling coinflip, B) who got the better fungal.
ZvZ is still looking poor, thus the spore buff against mutas. Maybe we'll see some changes to that mirror matchup thanks for that.
|
|
I'm top 30GM on NA server.. with-- 147 games
zvp 73% zvt 39% zvz 57%
I don't play muta in zvz either.. so this spore buff will help me :D
|
On May 13 2013 23:02 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2013 21:36 Chocobo wrote:On May 13 2013 03:13 Hryul wrote:On May 12 2013 23:16 Chocobo wrote:On May 12 2013 22:59 Hryul wrote:On May 12 2013 22:43 Chocobo wrote:On May 12 2013 09:39 AxionSteel wrote:After ages of frustration against zerg in LingsofLiberty, it certainly gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling to see all this QQ in here. Doesn't stop zerg from mopping up the tournaments and doing extremely well in Code S though I don't know any zergs who are complaining about balance at the pro level. The problem is that the skill required to play effectively in ZvT is too high for the vast majority of active players. This wouldn't be a problem if it affected both races equally, but it only affects zerg. It's nothing like other situations where it's like "yes, banelings are strong, you have to split your army up when you see them coming, or you have to protect yourself with tanks". Those are reasonable challenges that most players can learn to pull off. The skill and precision requires to deal with mines effectively is not. It requires so much effort, and is very punishing for any mistakes. Few diamond and masters players have the skill to ever be able to pull it off. So even though it's completely fair at the pro level, there's a problem for much of the ladder. This post highlights a unreasonable fatalistic stance: It is hard. I can't do it right now therefore only a few people can do it and all the others (including me) can't ever learn it. Zerg bias at its finest. The deliberate ignorance of facts in here is starting to rival Fox News. It is simply a fact that it is significantly more difficult to engage a bio mine army in a cost efficient way than it is to split your marines when banelings come rolling in, or cast feedback on medivacs, or whatever. Completely missing the point. You just claim that it is an unreasonable effort to learn how to engage mines and then base your whole arguments on this assumption. It doesn't strengthen your argument by drawing wild comparisons to Fox News. And instead of taking the challenge you fight a war on the tl forums for a nerf of mines. Why is there an assumption that no one is trying to counter mines? Everyone seems to think zergs are trying to play WoL style and crying when it doesn't work, and refusing to adapt and learn. HotS has been out for a while now, and the beta's been going longer than that. If months and months of doing your best to try anything and everything to deal with mines leads to no results... how else can you feel? I do not have the skill and control of Life and Stephano and I never will. Instead of "stop crying and deal with it", why not try discussing the gameplay? Why is it that other strats are dealth with by "make ___ to counter it" or "when the engagement hits, do ___" while the counter to mines is "make this, and some of these, and carefully suicide single units, and make sure you never do that, and..." That's what the issue is all about. The way that zerg deals with mines is a very challenging micro-intensive process and is very unforgiving of mistakes. This is not in line with how the rest of the game works. At the moment you are arguing that Blizzard should balance the game not only for the pros (where TvZ might be slightly T favored) but also to your personal gaming experience. The pro level is most important, but it would be nice if it's a good gameplay experience for non-pros too, wouldn't you agree? On May 13 2013 00:46 FirstGear wrote: What are you actually suggesting? Nerfing mines to make it easier at lower levels? Or just an acknowledgement that its hard to play against mines? ZvT certainly does have a greater micro requirement than it did in WoL. Some kind of change to mines that makes them less difficult for players to deal with, without ruining them at the pro level (which is important). Maybe a longer burrow time, since so many people use it as a siege tank replacement. Maybe have them become visible for 1 second after firing. I dunno, just throwing some ideas out. You are twisting my posts. Where do I say that no one tries to counter mines? I doubted your claim that it takes unreasonable effort to learn how to counter mines.
You said "And instead of taking the challenge you fight a war on the tl forums for a nerf of mines", which means you believe I refuse to learn how to engage mines and that I call for nerfs instead of practicing at the game. I didn't twist anything.
You are also not discussing gameplay i.e. how to counter mines but you want mines nerfed because you can't handle them. I am the one who is consistently discussing the gameplay options you have, how the situation is different from other challenging situations in the game, etc. You and others are repeating a variation of "L2P" without discussing the gameplay involved.
And this is all you are arguing: there is a "skill cap" for handling mines and you don't want to be below it. That is correct. I think someone who has been playing Starcraft since 1998 and who currently practices ZvT (and countering mines specifically) at least an hour a day should be able to have SOME success in stopping bio mine, instead of having a 30% winrate vs terran. (most of those wins coming vs non-mine users)
If you think it's perfectly fine for the skill requirement to play effectively against (and I'm not even talking about hard countering) a very simple strategy to be so high that only the top 1% of players can pull it off occasionally... then I simply disagree with you. Bottom line.
Guess what: the same is true for marine splitting vs banes, EMPing protoss armys or fighting 2gate proxys. Have I not made this point abundantly clear yet? It is the entire basis for my argument. The skill, speed, and precision required to deal with mines effectively and mistake-free is far and away above the skill required to split marines or land EMPs. It is not a trick you can figure out with a couple hours of practice.
Do you play Street Fighter? Suppose there's a new one with three characters. The anti-air special move for Char1 is a dragon punch motion. The anti-air special move for Char2 is a half circle motion. For Char3 it's Right-Left-Down-Left, hold the Jab button, half circle forward and release the button. Which one of those characters is going to have problems dealing with jumping attacks?
|
On May 14 2013 07:00 Chocobo wrote: Why is there an assumption that no one is trying to counter mines? Everyone seems to think zergs are trying to play WoL style and crying when it doesn't work, and refusing to adapt and learn.
HotS has been out for a while now, and the beta's been going longer than that. If months and months of doing your best to try anything and everything to deal with mines leads to no results... how else can you feel? I do not have the skill and control of Life and Stephano and I never will.
Instead of "stop crying and deal with it", why not try discussing the gameplay? Why is it that other strats are dealth with by "make ___ to counter it" or "when the engagement hits, do ___" while the counter to mines is "make this, and some of these, and carefully suicide single units, and make sure you never do that, and..."
That's what the issue is all about. The way that zerg deals with mines is a very challenging micro-intensive process and is very unforgiving of mistakes. This is not in line with how the rest of the game works.
Well, I've watched some more Zerg gameplay over the last couple of days as I followed Hyun's (successful) runs through Gigabyte Proleague Qualifier and Go4Sc2 April finals.
Hyun did face 4M along the way and responded in a way that seems right for me (and apparently wrong for you) - by aggression. He never hesitated to use lings, banes, roaches and nyduses to engage his enemies to prevent them from making a problematic amount of mines.
You are reluctant to these kind of things and prefer macro zerg style - that's great! Play your hear out! But do not cry about imbalance just because you don't like the effective strategies.
Personally, I learned something from watching Hyun and I'll try to roach bust 'em terrans into oblivion.
|
On May 14 2013 07:21 scypio wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 07:00 Chocobo wrote: Why is there an assumption that no one is trying to counter mines? Everyone seems to think zergs are trying to play WoL style and crying when it doesn't work, and refusing to adapt and learn.
HotS has been out for a while now, and the beta's been going longer than that. If months and months of doing your best to try anything and everything to deal with mines leads to no results... how else can you feel? I do not have the skill and control of Life and Stephano and I never will.
Instead of "stop crying and deal with it", why not try discussing the gameplay? Why is it that other strats are dealth with by "make ___ to counter it" or "when the engagement hits, do ___" while the counter to mines is "make this, and some of these, and carefully suicide single units, and make sure you never do that, and..."
That's what the issue is all about. The way that zerg deals with mines is a very challenging micro-intensive process and is very unforgiving of mistakes. This is not in line with how the rest of the game works.
Well, I've watched some more Zerg gameplay over the last couple of days as I followed Hyun's (successful) runs through Gigabyte Proleague Qualifier and Go4Sc2 April finals. Hyun did face 4M along the way and responded in a way that seems right for me (and apparently wrong for you) - by aggression. He never hesitated to use lings, banes, roaches and nyduses to engage his enemies to prevent them from making a problematic amount of mines. You are reluctant to these kind of things and prefer macro zerg style - that's great! Play your hear out! But do not cry about imbalance just because you don't like the effective strategies. Personally, I learned something from watching Hyun and I'll try to roach bust 'em terrans into oblivion.
I am not reluctant to try anything that can deal with bio mine. I have been trying everything I possibly can do to beat bio mine. Again it's this situation of "someone is struggling? must mean they lost a few games and are sad about it, and that they refuse to adapt and learn" which is completely untrue. I'd have to be completely retarded to make an issue about this if that were the case.
I'll have to look for Hyun's games and see what he did, thanks for letting me know to look for those. But also I need to again clarify - the game is balanced at pro levels, and many pro zergs are dealing with mines just fine because they have the high level of skill and speed required to deal with mines. Mere diamond and masters zergs don't meet the skill requirements, which is the problem.
|
On May 13 2013 19:22 DemigodcelpH wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2013 16:39 Zanzabarr wrote:On May 13 2013 14:44 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 13 2013 12:33 Zanzabarr wrote:On May 13 2013 11:34 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 13 2013 09:25 Zanzabarr wrote:On May 13 2013 04:46 Godwrath wrote:On May 13 2013 02:05 Nirel wrote: All the progamers I've heard, said that Hellbats are bad. They are a unit with obvious flaws design. The thing is it is not overpowered, just a boring unit, pretty much like colossi. Hellbats do OP dps for cost. You can throw them away into mineral lines and basically never NOT get your money's worth. You only have to kill 4 probes to pay for them, and due to lost mining time you don't even have to kill 4 to pay for them. Very rarely will they ever do less damage than that, and you always have the chance to do devastating damage with a single drop. The unit was designed to help terrans against mass chargelot, which is why they are a slower shorter range version of the hellion that is tankier and does a splash damage radius that is more effective against units in melee range. The mistake blizzard made was making the hellbat do 281% dps to non-light of its hellion counter part, making it do great dps to everything. It also does over 200% dps to light of a blue-flame hellion, making it completely shred light units like workers. The unit does way too much aoe dps for a 100 mineral 2 supply unit that can be reactored out. Sure it requires an armory, but Terran gets an armory every game anyway for +2/+2 and +3/+3 upgrades, whether they make any hellbats or not. The thing needs a dps nerf badly. Smart Terrans should be hellbat dropping all game, and throwing them into their composition against Toss so they can laugh at chargelots. Once the mineral dump chargelots are gone in PvT, there is just a gas expensive fragile army left over that can be run over. Extreme Protoss bias, and it sounds like you're a bit bitter over losing to drops. Try building static defense. Aside from killer works, which normal hellions are already better at, Zealots are more effective as general purpose unit because of charge and speed while hellbats can die before doing anything because of 2 range and slow movement speed. On May 13 2013 09:25 Zanzabarr wrote: there is just a gas expensive fragile army I assure you no Protoss unit is "fragile" considering Protoss units have the best cost:life ratios in the game. Lol do you even play this game? You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. My opinion is based on facts, math, and watching a lot of high level starcraft where I've seen plenty of hellbat abuse already. The numbers don't lie. I'm talking in terms of context of the matchup when I talk about zealots and hellbats. The hellbats don't need to move fast because the zealots have to come to them, and when they do, they get demolished. Once that happens, the fragile expensive protoss army gets run over. Best cost:life ratios in the game? What game are you playing? You should do some research before you open your mouth. Zealots and tempest are the only thing protoss has that have lots of life for cost, and even then, it's not by much (hellbat has 135 and does more dps, and has splash. Roach is 75/25 and has 145). How is that relevant when the fragile toss army I am referring to is the stuff that isn't zealots? Hellbats are so stupidly cost effective right now, Terrans should be using them. Some high level terrans have already stated that they almost try not to use them because they know they have to be nerfed and will be nerfed. Static defense? Like I've already stated, hellbats are so cost effective, you can drop them to their death and they'll still be worth it. I could have two cannons in the mineral line at each base, and you'd still be able to zoom in with a medivac, drop them, not lose the medivac, and have the hellbats do massive damage before dying. Even Terrans complain of OP hellbats in TvT. Ironically you cite no "fact", and then transition into more ad hominem which is more or less all I need to know that you, unfortunately, have no argument aside from your unfounded balance whine combined with no rebuttal to my main point. Regular hellions are better at wiping mineral lines than Hellbats, so if you're losing workers to Hellbats then it's because of your own negligence as you would lose even more to normal hellions; furthermore with 2 range and extremely slow movement speed Hellbats are also extremely kitable in direct engagements (while being less "tanky" than the Zealot and the Roach) which means that, combining these two points, if you're losing to them you're simply getting outplayed. I understand getting outplayed is frustrating, but you're not as good as you think. Balance is not your issue. Again, you don't play this game, do you. Perhaps you play at a really low level? Try watching some Starcraft 2 games. Hellbats have conal splash, do more dps, are tankier than hellions, and most of all, can be healed by medivacs. Hellbats are much harder to kill because of this, and this allows them the time to ravage your mineral line. Not only this, they do WAY more damage to non-light, unlike hellions which tickle light and can be handled by non-light units quite easily. Again, do you not play this game? You clearly don't understand how it is played. You realize the entire protoss ground army besides the stalker and chargelot move the same speed or slower than a hellbat, right? And chargelots are melee range.... and no, lots of stalkers in PvT is not good at all, unless you are trying to 1 base blink all in a gasless expand. Why do you keep trying to pin the balance discussion on my play? It's not some secret that hellbats are OP for cost that only I know about . When top Terran players admit hellbats are OP and how they are really lame in TvT as well, how does that have anything to do with me? It doesn't. From a spectator point of view, I've already seen many TvT games where each Terran just repeatedly hellbat dropped each other over and over, and man, is that ever a terrible viewing experience. It's like the muta vs muta wars in ZvZ atm but worse because Hellbats are so expendable. Flash seems to think Hellbats are pretty OP, why else is his TvT strategy to multi-prong drop hellbats all game long. You come off as a bad Terran player that doesn't really even play the game... I can't explain in... your comments are so out of touch with the game. Wait, I know.... you are just blindlly defending everything to do with your race, hoping to qualm the obvious needs for balance adjustments. How original? I barely ever face Hellbat drops or Hellbats in compositions on ladder, because a lot of Terrans on NA don't abuse them enough. Once they become more used, especially later in the game, blizzard will eventually wake up and nerf them. It's inevitable, but it would be nice if it was sooner rather than later. The only one "who doesn't play this game" or "is low level" is someone doesn't understand the basic fact that normal hellions are better at clearing minerals lines than Hellbats because, not only can they chase workers which hellbats can't, but also if workers run they line up. If you're losing all of your workers to Hellbats you're getting outplayed because normal hellions would do just as much damage or more, and do it faster; this means you're simply riding the placebo train and likely trying to justify areas where you lack. If you're losing to Hellbats in direct engagements when they are slow 2 range units then you're also getting outplayed. Period. Stop trying to take the high ground and pin your losses on balance, because not only do you have zero reasonable proof, but your logic isn't remotely consistent or valid and consists of unsourced claims (he said she said), bias, and anecdotes. I'm sorry, but you're going to have to accept reality. If you want some advise for the next time you attempt this try coming back with replays or something that has actual statistical significance like the below:
Oh Terran, such a thinly veiled blind defense of your own race. Guess what else can chase workers? hellbats dropped from speed medivacs. Guess what has way more hp and is healed by medivacs? Hellbats. Talking to you is becoming pointless, because it doesn't seem like you have much cognition going up between those ears of yours. Who said anything about losing all workers? Hellbats only need to kill a few to be worth it. I'm talking from a pro game perspective, not my own, poor fool. TY in last nights proleague seems to realize Hellbats are good, He used hellbat drops every game, and was one match away from a reverse all-kill. Flash is using them lots. You are the one with no evidence or proof, and is just blindly defending your race.
User was warned for this post
|
On May 13 2013 20:24 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2013 19:22 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 13 2013 16:39 Zanzabarr wrote:On May 13 2013 14:44 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 13 2013 12:33 Zanzabarr wrote:On May 13 2013 11:34 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 13 2013 09:25 Zanzabarr wrote:On May 13 2013 04:46 Godwrath wrote:On May 13 2013 02:05 Nirel wrote: All the progamers I've heard, said that Hellbats are bad. They are a unit with obvious flaws design. The thing is it is not overpowered, just a boring unit, pretty much like colossi. Hellbats do OP dps for cost. You can throw them away into mineral lines and basically never NOT get your money's worth. You only have to kill 4 probes to pay for them, and due to lost mining time you don't even have to kill 4 to pay for them. Very rarely will they ever do less damage than that, and you always have the chance to do devastating damage with a single drop. The unit was designed to help terrans against mass chargelot, which is why they are a slower shorter range version of the hellion that is tankier and does a splash damage radius that is more effective against units in melee range. The mistake blizzard made was making the hellbat do 281% dps to non-light of its hellion counter part, making it do great dps to everything. It also does over 200% dps to light of a blue-flame hellion, making it completely shred light units like workers. The unit does way too much aoe dps for a 100 mineral 2 supply unit that can be reactored out. Sure it requires an armory, but Terran gets an armory every game anyway for +2/+2 and +3/+3 upgrades, whether they make any hellbats or not. The thing needs a dps nerf badly. Smart Terrans should be hellbat dropping all game, and throwing them into their composition against Toss so they can laugh at chargelots. Once the mineral dump chargelots are gone in PvT, there is just a gas expensive fragile army left over that can be run over. Extreme Protoss bias, and it sounds like you're a bit bitter over losing to drops. Try building static defense. Aside from killer works, which normal hellions are already better at, Zealots are more effective as general purpose unit because of charge and speed while hellbats can die before doing anything because of 2 range and slow movement speed. On May 13 2013 09:25 Zanzabarr wrote: there is just a gas expensive fragile army I assure you no Protoss unit is "fragile" considering Protoss units have the best cost:life ratios in the game. Lol do you even play this game? You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. My opinion is based on facts, math, and watching a lot of high level starcraft where I've seen plenty of hellbat abuse already. The numbers don't lie. I'm talking in terms of context of the matchup when I talk about zealots and hellbats. The hellbats don't need to move fast because the zealots have to come to them, and when they do, they get demolished. Once that happens, the fragile expensive protoss army gets run over. Best cost:life ratios in the game? What game are you playing? You should do some research before you open your mouth. Zealots and tempest are the only thing protoss has that have lots of life for cost, and even then, it's not by much (hellbat has 135 and does more dps, and has splash. Roach is 75/25 and has 145). How is that relevant when the fragile toss army I am referring to is the stuff that isn't zealots? Hellbats are so stupidly cost effective right now, Terrans should be using them. Some high level terrans have already stated that they almost try not to use them because they know they have to be nerfed and will be nerfed. Static defense? Like I've already stated, hellbats are so cost effective, you can drop them to their death and they'll still be worth it. I could have two cannons in the mineral line at each base, and you'd still be able to zoom in with a medivac, drop them, not lose the medivac, and have the hellbats do massive damage before dying. Even Terrans complain of OP hellbats in TvT. Ironically you cite no "fact", and then transition into more ad hominem which is more or less all I need to know that you, unfortunately, have no argument aside from your unfounded balance whine combined with no rebuttal to my main point. Regular hellions are better at wiping mineral lines than Hellbats, so if you're losing workers to Hellbats then it's because of your own negligence as you would lose even more to normal hellions; furthermore with 2 range and extremely slow movement speed Hellbats are also extremely kitable in direct engagements (while being less "tanky" than the Zealot and the Roach) which means that, combining these two points, if you're losing to them you're simply getting outplayed. I understand getting outplayed is frustrating, but you're not as good as you think. Balance is not your issue. Again, you don't play this game, do you. Perhaps you play at a really low level? Try watching some Starcraft 2 games. Hellbats have conal splash, do more dps, are tankier than hellions, and most of all, can be healed by medivacs. Hellbats are much harder to kill because of this, and this allows them the time to ravage your mineral line. Not only this, they do WAY more damage to non-light, unlike hellions which tickle light and can be handled by non-light units quite easily. Again, do you not play this game? You clearly don't understand how it is played. You realize the entire protoss ground army besides the stalker and chargelot move the same speed or slower than a hellbat, right? And chargelots are melee range.... and no, lots of stalkers in PvT is not good at all, unless you are trying to 1 base blink all in a gasless expand. Why do you keep trying to pin the balance discussion on my play? It's not some secret that hellbats are OP for cost that only I know about . When top Terran players admit hellbats are OP and how they are really lame in TvT as well, how does that have anything to do with me? It doesn't. From a spectator point of view, I've already seen many TvT games where each Terran just repeatedly hellbat dropped each other over and over, and man, is that ever a terrible viewing experience. It's like the muta vs muta wars in ZvZ atm but worse because Hellbats are so expendable. Flash seems to think Hellbats are pretty OP, why else is his TvT strategy to multi-prong drop hellbats all game long. You come off as a bad Terran player that doesn't really even play the game... I can't explain in... your comments are so out of touch with the game. Wait, I know.... you are just blindlly defending everything to do with your race, hoping to qualm the obvious needs for balance adjustments. How original? I barely ever face Hellbat drops or Hellbats in compositions on ladder, because a lot of Terrans on NA don't abuse them enough. Once they become more used, especially later in the game, blizzard will eventually wake up and nerf them. It's inevitable, but it would be nice if it was sooner rather than later. The only one "who doesn't play this game" or "is low level" is someone doesn't understand the basic fact that normal hellions are better at clearing minerals lines than Hellbats because, not only can they chase workers which hellbats can't, but also if workers run they line up. If you're losing all of your workers to Hellbats you're getting outplayed because normal hellions would do just as much damage or more, and do it faster; this means you're simply riding the placebo train and likely trying to justify areas where you lack. If you're losing to Hellbats in direct engagements when they are slow 2 range units then you're also getting outplayed. Period. Stop trying to take the high ground and pin your losses on balance, because not only do you have zero reasonable proof, but your logic isn't remotely consistent or valid and consists of unsourced claims (he said she said), bias, and anecdotes. I'm sorry, but you're going to have to accept reality. If you want some advise for the next time you attempt this try coming back with replays or something that has actual statistical significance like the below: Sorry man, but with medivac speed boost and micro, hellbats are just as good as chasing down workers as hellions, and they heal and do better splash and single target damage, meaning they can stick around longer and fight defenders far more effectively while killing just as many workers. That's why you see pros do hellbat drops far more often than hellion drops.
Hard to talk any sense into this blind Terran defender. That Demigod guy is a moron.
|
On May 13 2013 09:25 Zanzabarr wrote:
Hellbats do OP dps for cost. You can throw them away into mineral lines and basically never NOT get your money's worth. You only have to kill 4 probes to pay for them, and due to lost mining time you don't even have to kill 4 to pay for them. Very rarely will they ever do less damage than that, and you always have the chance to do devastating damage with a single drop.
The unit was designed to help terrans against mass chargelot, which is why they are a slower shorter range version of the hellion that is tankier and does a splash damage radius that is more effective against units in melee range. The mistake blizzard made was making the hellbat do 281% dps to non-light of its hellion counter part, making it do great dps to everything. It also does over 200% dps to light of a blue-flame hellion, making it completely shred light units like workers. The unit does way too much aoe dps for a 100 mineral 2 supply unit that can be reactored out. Sure it requires an armory, but Terran gets an armory every game anyway for +2/+2 and +3/+3 upgrades, whether they make any hellbats or not. The thing needs a dps nerf badly.
Smart Terrans should be hellbat dropping all game, and throwing them into their composition against Toss so they can laugh at chargelots. Once the mineral dump chargelots are gone in PvT, there is just a gas expensive fragile army left over that can be run over.
On May 13 2013 11:34 DemigodcelpH wrote:Extreme Protoss bias, and it sounds like you're a bit bitter over losing to drops. Try building static defense. Aside from killer works, which normal hellions are already better at, Zealots are more effective as general purpose unit because of charge and speed while hellbats can die before doing anything because of 2 range and slow movement speed. Show nested quote +On May 13 2013 09:25 Zanzabarr wrote: there is just a gas expensive fragile army I assure you no Protoss unit is "fragile" considering Protoss units have the best cost:life ratios in the game.
On May 13 2013 12:35 Sabu113 wrote: You don't understand this game.
No, no he doesn't. Anyone who claims no protoss unit is "fragile" and that they all have amazing cost:life ratios can basically be ignored from then on. No game knowledge what so ever
|
On May 14 2013 07:00 Chocobo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2013 23:02 Hryul wrote:On May 13 2013 21:36 Chocobo wrote:On May 13 2013 03:13 Hryul wrote:On May 12 2013 23:16 Chocobo wrote:On May 12 2013 22:59 Hryul wrote:On May 12 2013 22:43 Chocobo wrote:On May 12 2013 09:39 AxionSteel wrote:After ages of frustration against zerg in LingsofLiberty, it certainly gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling to see all this QQ in here. Doesn't stop zerg from mopping up the tournaments and doing extremely well in Code S though I don't know any zergs who are complaining about balance at the pro level. The problem is that the skill required to play effectively in ZvT is too high for the vast majority of active players. This wouldn't be a problem if it affected both races equally, but it only affects zerg. It's nothing like other situations where it's like "yes, banelings are strong, you have to split your army up when you see them coming, or you have to protect yourself with tanks". Those are reasonable challenges that most players can learn to pull off. The skill and precision requires to deal with mines effectively is not. It requires so much effort, and is very punishing for any mistakes. Few diamond and masters players have the skill to ever be able to pull it off. So even though it's completely fair at the pro level, there's a problem for much of the ladder. This post highlights a unreasonable fatalistic stance: It is hard. I can't do it right now therefore only a few people can do it and all the others (including me) can't ever learn it. Zerg bias at its finest. The deliberate ignorance of facts in here is starting to rival Fox News. It is simply a fact that it is significantly more difficult to engage a bio mine army in a cost efficient way than it is to split your marines when banelings come rolling in, or cast feedback on medivacs, or whatever. Completely missing the point. You just claim that it is an unreasonable effort to learn how to engage mines and then base your whole arguments on this assumption. It doesn't strengthen your argument by drawing wild comparisons to Fox News. And instead of taking the challenge you fight a war on the tl forums for a nerf of mines. Why is there an assumption that no one is trying to counter mines? Everyone seems to think zergs are trying to play WoL style and crying when it doesn't work, and refusing to adapt and learn. HotS has been out for a while now, and the beta's been going longer than that. If months and months of doing your best to try anything and everything to deal with mines leads to no results... how else can you feel? I do not have the skill and control of Life and Stephano and I never will. Instead of "stop crying and deal with it", why not try discussing the gameplay? Why is it that other strats are dealth with by "make ___ to counter it" or "when the engagement hits, do ___" while the counter to mines is "make this, and some of these, and carefully suicide single units, and make sure you never do that, and..." That's what the issue is all about. The way that zerg deals with mines is a very challenging micro-intensive process and is very unforgiving of mistakes. This is not in line with how the rest of the game works. At the moment you are arguing that Blizzard should balance the game not only for the pros (where TvZ might be slightly T favored) but also to your personal gaming experience. The pro level is most important, but it would be nice if it's a good gameplay experience for non-pros too, wouldn't you agree? On May 13 2013 00:46 FirstGear wrote: What are you actually suggesting? Nerfing mines to make it easier at lower levels? Or just an acknowledgement that its hard to play against mines? ZvT certainly does have a greater micro requirement than it did in WoL. Some kind of change to mines that makes them less difficult for players to deal with, without ruining them at the pro level (which is important). Maybe a longer burrow time, since so many people use it as a siege tank replacement. Maybe have them become visible for 1 second after firing. I dunno, just throwing some ideas out. You are twisting my posts. Where do I say that no one tries to counter mines? I doubted your claim that it takes unreasonable effort to learn how to counter mines. You said "And instead of taking the challenge you fight a war on the tl forums for a nerf of mines", which means you believe I refuse to learn how to engage mines and that I call for nerfs instead of practicing at the game. I didn't twist anything. You twisted because you set yourself for all Zergs. Now you are hopping back to the first person view. do you even realize this?
On May 14 2013 07:00 Chocobo wrote:Show nested quote +You are also not discussing gameplay i.e. how to counter mines but you want mines nerfed because you can't handle them. I am the one who is consistently discussing the gameplay options you have, how the situation is different from other challenging situations in the game, etc. You and others are repeating a variation of "L2P" without discussing the gameplay involved. Show nested quote +And this is all you are arguing: there is a "skill cap" for handling mines and you don't want to be below it. That is correct. I think someone who has been playing Starcraft since 1998 and who currently practices ZvT (and countering mines specifically) at least an hour a day should be able to have SOME success in stopping bio mine, instead of having a 30% winrate vs terran. (most of those wins coming vs non-mine users) If you think it's perfectly fine for the skill requirement to play effectively against (and I'm not even talking about hard countering) a very simple strategy to be so high that only the top 1% of players can pull it off occasionally... then I simply disagree with you. Bottom line. Show nested quote +Guess what: the same is true for marine splitting vs banes, EMPing protoss armys or fighting 2gate proxys. Have I not made this point abundantly clear yet? It is the entire basis for my argument. The skill, speed, and precision required to deal with mines effectively and mistake-free is far and away above the skill required to split marines or land EMPs. It is not a trick you can figure out with a couple hours of practice. Do you play Street Fighter? Suppose there's a new one with three characters. The anti-air special move for Char1 is a dragon punch motion. The anti-air special move for Char2 is a half circle motion. For Char3 it's Right-Left-Down-Left, hold the Jab button, half circle forward and release the button. Which one of those characters is going to have problems dealing with jumping attacks? I'm sorry but your recent post history contains a bunch of posts in this thread, and Game of Thrones discussion. Your postings in the "balance thread" are about the swarm host (and the abomination) and your latest posts in the strategy forum is about countering bunker contain on Neo Planet S. This doesn't seem like you are discussing gameplay options vs widow mines.
Instead you are here and demand changes to the widow mine. the 1998 comment makes me feel like you are entitled to success if you put in enough hours of practice - because you are a veteran. Seems like it is something new at least.
Also: this is a threat about the upcoming patch. So we are here to say that/why we like/dislike the upcoming patch. And most of the time we give arguments supporting our stance. Your PoV is supported by your personal ladder experience. If you want help with your problem with mines why aren't you in the Strategy forum?
|
Make the Hellbat heal be an upgrade instead of being there from the start.
|
On May 14 2013 06:30 Emzeeshady wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 06:24 plogamer wrote:On May 14 2013 06:20 Emzeeshady wrote:On May 14 2013 06:10 ( bush wrote: except its the other way around. the old WoL style roach or roach bane all ins or roach nydus allins (which symbol already did in WoL and havent changed one bit) are working if T is bad/doesnt scout/plays insanely greedy. the new stuff in midgame doesnt work: swarmhosts, faster hydras dont work AT ALL, regenerating mutas work if you outplay opponent. the guy mentioning all the macro zergs are out while all the "all in/cheesy zerg" got in ro8 is true to the most part (obv not all macro zergs game are macro and the other way around). thats what all zerg players say is stupid: if you are on equal skill AND want to play a standard macro game TvZ is imbalanced. what makes it a bit more balanced are all the all ins Z does. once T figures them out (roach nydus all in etc. is easy scoutable, so is every roach warren with 2 reaper opening), TvZ will get a lot worse. lets see how it gets fixed. its just NO FUN at all to all in every TvZ right now because you will lose most macro games.
Talking about equal skill made me laugh. I guess you didnt watch any games of Wings of Liberty where players like JonnyRecco (no offense) could go head to head with top tier Code S terrans who practice 15 hours a day. Except this never happened. I only remember one series where he almost beat Keen and Keen is far from a top tier Korean. JRecco also got crushed by many foreigners of other races during this time. Reading comprehension: players like JonnyRecco, ie. relatively nameless foreign zergs suddenly beating Code S Terrans after the queen buff. Also, JonnyRecco crushing many foreigners during that time is relevant how? ZvX was broken, and ZvZ was based on either A) ling/bling coinflip, B) who got the better fungal. ZvZ is still looking poor, thus the spore buff against mutas. Maybe we'll see some changes to that mirror matchup thanks for that. Funny how you point out reading comprehension when you read my paragraph wrong. I said he got crushed BY them. I will actually concede ZvT was horribly broken back then. PvZ was actually very balanced (I would go as far as saying Protoss favoured for a little bit).
lol, true say
We do agree on the more important things though~
/edit
Seriously, people arguing about hellbat drops are ridiculous. Top level players know how to deal with it. It looked OP in ... TvT, until Terrans themselves began to get anti-air like turrets to shut down the medivacs and then pick off the hellbats.
Nothing indicates to me that protoss or zergs are unable to defend against it the same way.
I'll keep an eye on more top level games to see how this tactic plays out. But people are prematurely reacting to hellbat drops effectiveness when so many players are not getting basic defenses.
Terrans have to get turrets against Z cuz of mutas. Terrans have to get turrets against P cuz of oracles. I think it's only fair that Terrans can also threaten and force out similar defenses out of their opponents.
|
On May 14 2013 08:05 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 06:30 Emzeeshady wrote:On May 14 2013 06:24 plogamer wrote:On May 14 2013 06:20 Emzeeshady wrote:On May 14 2013 06:10 ( bush wrote: except its the other way around. the old WoL style roach or roach bane all ins or roach nydus allins (which symbol already did in WoL and havent changed one bit) are working if T is bad/doesnt scout/plays insanely greedy. the new stuff in midgame doesnt work: swarmhosts, faster hydras dont work AT ALL, regenerating mutas work if you outplay opponent. the guy mentioning all the macro zergs are out while all the "all in/cheesy zerg" got in ro8 is true to the most part (obv not all macro zergs game are macro and the other way around). thats what all zerg players say is stupid: if you are on equal skill AND want to play a standard macro game TvZ is imbalanced. what makes it a bit more balanced are all the all ins Z does. once T figures them out (roach nydus all in etc. is easy scoutable, so is every roach warren with 2 reaper opening), TvZ will get a lot worse. lets see how it gets fixed. its just NO FUN at all to all in every TvZ right now because you will lose most macro games.
Talking about equal skill made me laugh. I guess you didnt watch any games of Wings of Liberty where players like JonnyRecco (no offense) could go head to head with top tier Code S terrans who practice 15 hours a day. Except this never happened. I only remember one series where he almost beat Keen and Keen is far from a top tier Korean. JRecco also got crushed by many foreigners of other races during this time. Reading comprehension: players like JonnyRecco, ie. relatively nameless foreign zergs suddenly beating Code S Terrans after the queen buff. Also, JonnyRecco crushing many foreigners during that time is relevant how? ZvX was broken, and ZvZ was based on either A) ling/bling coinflip, B) who got the better fungal. ZvZ is still looking poor, thus the spore buff against mutas. Maybe we'll see some changes to that mirror matchup thanks for that. Funny how you point out reading comprehension when you read my paragraph wrong. I said he got crushed BY them. I will actually concede ZvT was horribly broken back then. PvZ was actually very balanced (I would go as far as saying Protoss favoured for a little bit). lol, true say We do agree on the more important things though~ /edit Seriously, people arguing about hellbat drops are ridiculous. Top level players know how to deal with it. It looked OP in ... TvT, until Terrans themselves began to get anti-air like turrets to shut down the medivacs and then pick off the hellbats. Nothing indicates to me that protoss or zergs are unable to defend against it the same way. I'll keep an eye on more top level games to see how this tactic plays out. But people are prematurely reacting to hellbat drops effectiveness when so many players are not getting basic defenses. Terrans have to get turrets against Z cuz of mutas. Terrans have to get turrets against P cuz of oracles. I think it's only fair that Terrans can also threaten and force out similar defenses out of their opponents.
At the risk of sounding whiny, a lot of Terran players don't realize just how good missile turrets are. I don't think it's imbalanced, but it is certainly a fact.
Missile Turret: 27.9 DPS vs air, 100 minerals Spore Crawler: 17.4 DPS vs air, 125 minerals Photon Cannon: 16 DPS vs air or ground, 150 minerals
Now I realize that Zerg and Protoss have Queens and warp-ins respectively to help augment their defense, but I don't really think "just get more static D" is a good solution if you're not a terran player. You need some, but honestly it's expensive and just not that good a lot of the time.
|
On May 14 2013 07:46 Zanzabarr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2013 20:24 Whitewing wrote:On May 13 2013 19:22 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 13 2013 16:39 Zanzabarr wrote:On May 13 2013 14:44 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 13 2013 12:33 Zanzabarr wrote:On May 13 2013 11:34 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 13 2013 09:25 Zanzabarr wrote:On May 13 2013 04:46 Godwrath wrote:On May 13 2013 02:05 Nirel wrote: All the progamers I've heard, said that Hellbats are bad. They are a unit with obvious flaws design. The thing is it is not overpowered, just a boring unit, pretty much like colossi. Hellbats do OP dps for cost. You can throw them away into mineral lines and basically never NOT get your money's worth. You only have to kill 4 probes to pay for them, and due to lost mining time you don't even have to kill 4 to pay for them. Very rarely will they ever do less damage than that, and you always have the chance to do devastating damage with a single drop. The unit was designed to help terrans against mass chargelot, which is why they are a slower shorter range version of the hellion that is tankier and does a splash damage radius that is more effective against units in melee range. The mistake blizzard made was making the hellbat do 281% dps to non-light of its hellion counter part, making it do great dps to everything. It also does over 200% dps to light of a blue-flame hellion, making it completely shred light units like workers. The unit does way too much aoe dps for a 100 mineral 2 supply unit that can be reactored out. Sure it requires an armory, but Terran gets an armory every game anyway for +2/+2 and +3/+3 upgrades, whether they make any hellbats or not. The thing needs a dps nerf badly. Smart Terrans should be hellbat dropping all game, and throwing them into their composition against Toss so they can laugh at chargelots. Once the mineral dump chargelots are gone in PvT, there is just a gas expensive fragile army left over that can be run over. Extreme Protoss bias, and it sounds like you're a bit bitter over losing to drops. Try building static defense. Aside from killer works, which normal hellions are already better at, Zealots are more effective as general purpose unit because of charge and speed while hellbats can die before doing anything because of 2 range and slow movement speed. On May 13 2013 09:25 Zanzabarr wrote: there is just a gas expensive fragile army I assure you no Protoss unit is "fragile" considering Protoss units have the best cost:life ratios in the game. Lol do you even play this game? You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. My opinion is based on facts, math, and watching a lot of high level starcraft where I've seen plenty of hellbat abuse already. The numbers don't lie. I'm talking in terms of context of the matchup when I talk about zealots and hellbats. The hellbats don't need to move fast because the zealots have to come to them, and when they do, they get demolished. Once that happens, the fragile expensive protoss army gets run over. Best cost:life ratios in the game? What game are you playing? You should do some research before you open your mouth. Zealots and tempest are the only thing protoss has that have lots of life for cost, and even then, it's not by much (hellbat has 135 and does more dps, and has splash. Roach is 75/25 and has 145). How is that relevant when the fragile toss army I am referring to is the stuff that isn't zealots? Hellbats are so stupidly cost effective right now, Terrans should be using them. Some high level terrans have already stated that they almost try not to use them because they know they have to be nerfed and will be nerfed. Static defense? Like I've already stated, hellbats are so cost effective, you can drop them to their death and they'll still be worth it. I could have two cannons in the mineral line at each base, and you'd still be able to zoom in with a medivac, drop them, not lose the medivac, and have the hellbats do massive damage before dying. Even Terrans complain of OP hellbats in TvT. Ironically you cite no "fact", and then transition into more ad hominem which is more or less all I need to know that you, unfortunately, have no argument aside from your unfounded balance whine combined with no rebuttal to my main point. Regular hellions are better at wiping mineral lines than Hellbats, so if you're losing workers to Hellbats then it's because of your own negligence as you would lose even more to normal hellions; furthermore with 2 range and extremely slow movement speed Hellbats are also extremely kitable in direct engagements (while being less "tanky" than the Zealot and the Roach) which means that, combining these two points, if you're losing to them you're simply getting outplayed. I understand getting outplayed is frustrating, but you're not as good as you think. Balance is not your issue. Again, you don't play this game, do you. Perhaps you play at a really low level? Try watching some Starcraft 2 games. Hellbats have conal splash, do more dps, are tankier than hellions, and most of all, can be healed by medivacs. Hellbats are much harder to kill because of this, and this allows them the time to ravage your mineral line. Not only this, they do WAY more damage to non-light, unlike hellions which tickle light and can be handled by non-light units quite easily. Again, do you not play this game? You clearly don't understand how it is played. You realize the entire protoss ground army besides the stalker and chargelot move the same speed or slower than a hellbat, right? And chargelots are melee range.... and no, lots of stalkers in PvT is not good at all, unless you are trying to 1 base blink all in a gasless expand. Why do you keep trying to pin the balance discussion on my play? It's not some secret that hellbats are OP for cost that only I know about . When top Terran players admit hellbats are OP and how they are really lame in TvT as well, how does that have anything to do with me? It doesn't. From a spectator point of view, I've already seen many TvT games where each Terran just repeatedly hellbat dropped each other over and over, and man, is that ever a terrible viewing experience. It's like the muta vs muta wars in ZvZ atm but worse because Hellbats are so expendable. Flash seems to think Hellbats are pretty OP, why else is his TvT strategy to multi-prong drop hellbats all game long. You come off as a bad Terran player that doesn't really even play the game... I can't explain in... your comments are so out of touch with the game. Wait, I know.... you are just blindlly defending everything to do with your race, hoping to qualm the obvious needs for balance adjustments. How original? I barely ever face Hellbat drops or Hellbats in compositions on ladder, because a lot of Terrans on NA don't abuse them enough. Once they become more used, especially later in the game, blizzard will eventually wake up and nerf them. It's inevitable, but it would be nice if it was sooner rather than later. The only one "who doesn't play this game" or "is low level" is someone doesn't understand the basic fact that normal hellions are better at clearing minerals lines than Hellbats because, not only can they chase workers which hellbats can't, but also if workers run they line up. If you're losing all of your workers to Hellbats you're getting outplayed because normal hellions would do just as much damage or more, and do it faster; this means you're simply riding the placebo train and likely trying to justify areas where you lack. If you're losing to Hellbats in direct engagements when they are slow 2 range units then you're also getting outplayed. Period. Stop trying to take the high ground and pin your losses on balance, because not only do you have zero reasonable proof, but your logic isn't remotely consistent or valid and consists of unsourced claims (he said she said), bias, and anecdotes. I'm sorry, but you're going to have to accept reality. If you want some advise for the next time you attempt this try coming back with replays or something that has actual statistical significance like the below: Sorry man, but with medivac speed boost and micro, hellbats are just as good as chasing down workers as hellions, and they heal and do better splash and single target damage, meaning they can stick around longer and fight defenders far more effectively while killing just as many workers. That's why you see pros do hellbat drops far more often than hellion drops. Hard to talk any sense into this blind Terran defender. That Demigod guy is a moron.
+ Show Spoiler +1.) Ad hominem - check. 2.) Raging because he lost the argument - check. 3.) Warned by mods - check.
Poor fellow. As my actual points have yet to be responded to I will move on to other matters.
On May 14 2013 08:36 TrickyGilligan wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 08:05 plogamer wrote:On May 14 2013 06:30 Emzeeshady wrote:On May 14 2013 06:24 plogamer wrote:On May 14 2013 06:20 Emzeeshady wrote:On May 14 2013 06:10 ( bush wrote: except its the other way around. the old WoL style roach or roach bane all ins or roach nydus allins (which symbol already did in WoL and havent changed one bit) are working if T is bad/doesnt scout/plays insanely greedy. the new stuff in midgame doesnt work: swarmhosts, faster hydras dont work AT ALL, regenerating mutas work if you outplay opponent. the guy mentioning all the macro zergs are out while all the "all in/cheesy zerg" got in ro8 is true to the most part (obv not all macro zergs game are macro and the other way around). thats what all zerg players say is stupid: if you are on equal skill AND want to play a standard macro game TvZ is imbalanced. what makes it a bit more balanced are all the all ins Z does. once T figures them out (roach nydus all in etc. is easy scoutable, so is every roach warren with 2 reaper opening), TvZ will get a lot worse. lets see how it gets fixed. its just NO FUN at all to all in every TvZ right now because you will lose most macro games.
Talking about equal skill made me laugh. I guess you didnt watch any games of Wings of Liberty where players like JonnyRecco (no offense) could go head to head with top tier Code S terrans who practice 15 hours a day. Except this never happened. I only remember one series where he almost beat Keen and Keen is far from a top tier Korean. JRecco also got crushed by many foreigners of other races during this time. Reading comprehension: players like JonnyRecco, ie. relatively nameless foreign zergs suddenly beating Code S Terrans after the queen buff. Also, JonnyRecco crushing many foreigners during that time is relevant how? ZvX was broken, and ZvZ was based on either A) ling/bling coinflip, B) who got the better fungal. ZvZ is still looking poor, thus the spore buff against mutas. Maybe we'll see some changes to that mirror matchup thanks for that. Funny how you point out reading comprehension when you read my paragraph wrong. I said he got crushed BY them. I will actually concede ZvT was horribly broken back then. PvZ was actually very balanced (I would go as far as saying Protoss favoured for a little bit). lol, true say We do agree on the more important things though~ /edit Seriously, people arguing about hellbat drops are ridiculous. Top level players know how to deal with it. It looked OP in ... TvT, until Terrans themselves began to get anti-air like turrets to shut down the medivacs and then pick off the hellbats. Nothing indicates to me that protoss or zergs are unable to defend against it the same way. I'll keep an eye on more top level games to see how this tactic plays out. But people are prematurely reacting to hellbat drops effectiveness when so many players are not getting basic defenses. Terrans have to get turrets against Z cuz of mutas. Terrans have to get turrets against P cuz of oracles. I think it's only fair that Terrans can also threaten and force out similar defenses out of their opponents. At the risk of sounding whiny, a lot of Terran players don't realize just how good missile turrets are. I don't think it's imbalanced, but it is certainly a fact. Missile Turret: 27.9 DPS vs air, 100 minerals Spore Crawler: 17.4 DPS vs air, 125 minerals Photon Cannon: 16 DPS vs air or ground, 150 minerals Now I realize that Zerg and Protoss have Queens and warp-ins respectively to help augment their defense, but I don't really think "just get more static D" is a good solution if you're not a terran player. You need some, but honestly it's expensive and just not that good a lot of the time.
Spore Crawler life: 400 Photon Cannon life: 150 + 150 (300) Missle Turret Life: 250
This means you need a lower critical mass of units to effectively one-shot turrets which of course drops DPS to 0; I'm not commenting on your actual argument (in the context of defending drops this might suggest that Terran is more vulnerable to flyers and less to aerial runbys, however I believe this is augmented to be even when you consider that canons/spines will attack whatever unloads from a drop while Terran has no gasless static defence for the natural and main), but when you make a comparison it bests to paint the entire picture.
|
On May 14 2013 08:59 DemigodcelpH wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 07:46 Zanzabarr wrote:On May 13 2013 20:24 Whitewing wrote:On May 13 2013 19:22 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 13 2013 16:39 Zanzabarr wrote:On May 13 2013 14:44 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 13 2013 12:33 Zanzabarr wrote:On May 13 2013 11:34 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 13 2013 09:25 Zanzabarr wrote:On May 13 2013 04:46 Godwrath wrote: [quote]
They are a unit with obvious flaws design. The thing is it is not overpowered, just a boring unit, pretty much like colossi. Hellbats do OP dps for cost. You can throw them away into mineral lines and basically never NOT get your money's worth. You only have to kill 4 probes to pay for them, and due to lost mining time you don't even have to kill 4 to pay for them. Very rarely will they ever do less damage than that, and you always have the chance to do devastating damage with a single drop. The unit was designed to help terrans against mass chargelot, which is why they are a slower shorter range version of the hellion that is tankier and does a splash damage radius that is more effective against units in melee range. The mistake blizzard made was making the hellbat do 281% dps to non-light of its hellion counter part, making it do great dps to everything. It also does over 200% dps to light of a blue-flame hellion, making it completely shred light units like workers. The unit does way too much aoe dps for a 100 mineral 2 supply unit that can be reactored out. Sure it requires an armory, but Terran gets an armory every game anyway for +2/+2 and +3/+3 upgrades, whether they make any hellbats or not. The thing needs a dps nerf badly. Smart Terrans should be hellbat dropping all game, and throwing them into their composition against Toss so they can laugh at chargelots. Once the mineral dump chargelots are gone in PvT, there is just a gas expensive fragile army left over that can be run over. Extreme Protoss bias, and it sounds like you're a bit bitter over losing to drops. Try building static defense. Aside from killer works, which normal hellions are already better at, Zealots are more effective as general purpose unit because of charge and speed while hellbats can die before doing anything because of 2 range and slow movement speed. On May 13 2013 09:25 Zanzabarr wrote: there is just a gas expensive fragile army I assure you no Protoss unit is "fragile" considering Protoss units have the best cost:life ratios in the game. Lol do you even play this game? You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. My opinion is based on facts, math, and watching a lot of high level starcraft where I've seen plenty of hellbat abuse already. The numbers don't lie. I'm talking in terms of context of the matchup when I talk about zealots and hellbats. The hellbats don't need to move fast because the zealots have to come to them, and when they do, they get demolished. Once that happens, the fragile expensive protoss army gets run over. Best cost:life ratios in the game? What game are you playing? You should do some research before you open your mouth. Zealots and tempest are the only thing protoss has that have lots of life for cost, and even then, it's not by much (hellbat has 135 and does more dps, and has splash. Roach is 75/25 and has 145). How is that relevant when the fragile toss army I am referring to is the stuff that isn't zealots? Hellbats are so stupidly cost effective right now, Terrans should be using them. Some high level terrans have already stated that they almost try not to use them because they know they have to be nerfed and will be nerfed. Static defense? Like I've already stated, hellbats are so cost effective, you can drop them to their death and they'll still be worth it. I could have two cannons in the mineral line at each base, and you'd still be able to zoom in with a medivac, drop them, not lose the medivac, and have the hellbats do massive damage before dying. Even Terrans complain of OP hellbats in TvT. Ironically you cite no "fact", and then transition into more ad hominem which is more or less all I need to know that you, unfortunately, have no argument aside from your unfounded balance whine combined with no rebuttal to my main point. Regular hellions are better at wiping mineral lines than Hellbats, so if you're losing workers to Hellbats then it's because of your own negligence as you would lose even more to normal hellions; furthermore with 2 range and extremely slow movement speed Hellbats are also extremely kitable in direct engagements (while being less "tanky" than the Zealot and the Roach) which means that, combining these two points, if you're losing to them you're simply getting outplayed. I understand getting outplayed is frustrating, but you're not as good as you think. Balance is not your issue. Again, you don't play this game, do you. Perhaps you play at a really low level? Try watching some Starcraft 2 games. Hellbats have conal splash, do more dps, are tankier than hellions, and most of all, can be healed by medivacs. Hellbats are much harder to kill because of this, and this allows them the time to ravage your mineral line. Not only this, they do WAY more damage to non-light, unlike hellions which tickle light and can be handled by non-light units quite easily. Again, do you not play this game? You clearly don't understand how it is played. You realize the entire protoss ground army besides the stalker and chargelot move the same speed or slower than a hellbat, right? And chargelots are melee range.... and no, lots of stalkers in PvT is not good at all, unless you are trying to 1 base blink all in a gasless expand. Why do you keep trying to pin the balance discussion on my play? It's not some secret that hellbats are OP for cost that only I know about . When top Terran players admit hellbats are OP and how they are really lame in TvT as well, how does that have anything to do with me? It doesn't. From a spectator point of view, I've already seen many TvT games where each Terran just repeatedly hellbat dropped each other over and over, and man, is that ever a terrible viewing experience. It's like the muta vs muta wars in ZvZ atm but worse because Hellbats are so expendable. Flash seems to think Hellbats are pretty OP, why else is his TvT strategy to multi-prong drop hellbats all game long. You come off as a bad Terran player that doesn't really even play the game... I can't explain in... your comments are so out of touch with the game. Wait, I know.... you are just blindlly defending everything to do with your race, hoping to qualm the obvious needs for balance adjustments. How original? I barely ever face Hellbat drops or Hellbats in compositions on ladder, because a lot of Terrans on NA don't abuse them enough. Once they become more used, especially later in the game, blizzard will eventually wake up and nerf them. It's inevitable, but it would be nice if it was sooner rather than later. The only one "who doesn't play this game" or "is low level" is someone doesn't understand the basic fact that normal hellions are better at clearing minerals lines than Hellbats because, not only can they chase workers which hellbats can't, but also if workers run they line up. If you're losing all of your workers to Hellbats you're getting outplayed because normal hellions would do just as much damage or more, and do it faster; this means you're simply riding the placebo train and likely trying to justify areas where you lack. If you're losing to Hellbats in direct engagements when they are slow 2 range units then you're also getting outplayed. Period. Stop trying to take the high ground and pin your losses on balance, because not only do you have zero reasonable proof, but your logic isn't remotely consistent or valid and consists of unsourced claims (he said she said), bias, and anecdotes. I'm sorry, but you're going to have to accept reality. If you want some advise for the next time you attempt this try coming back with replays or something that has actual statistical significance like the below: Sorry man, but with medivac speed boost and micro, hellbats are just as good as chasing down workers as hellions, and they heal and do better splash and single target damage, meaning they can stick around longer and fight defenders far more effectively while killing just as many workers. That's why you see pros do hellbat drops far more often than hellion drops. Hard to talk any sense into this blind Terran defender. That Demigod guy is a moron. + Show Spoiler +1.) Ad hominem - check. 2.) Raging because he lost the argument - check. 3.) Warned by mods - check.
Poor fellow. As my actual points have yet to be responded to I will move on to other matters. Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 08:36 TrickyGilligan wrote:On May 14 2013 08:05 plogamer wrote:On May 14 2013 06:30 Emzeeshady wrote:On May 14 2013 06:24 plogamer wrote:On May 14 2013 06:20 Emzeeshady wrote:On May 14 2013 06:10 ( bush wrote: except its the other way around. the old WoL style roach or roach bane all ins or roach nydus allins (which symbol already did in WoL and havent changed one bit) are working if T is bad/doesnt scout/plays insanely greedy. the new stuff in midgame doesnt work: swarmhosts, faster hydras dont work AT ALL, regenerating mutas work if you outplay opponent. the guy mentioning all the macro zergs are out while all the "all in/cheesy zerg" got in ro8 is true to the most part (obv not all macro zergs game are macro and the other way around). thats what all zerg players say is stupid: if you are on equal skill AND want to play a standard macro game TvZ is imbalanced. what makes it a bit more balanced are all the all ins Z does. once T figures them out (roach nydus all in etc. is easy scoutable, so is every roach warren with 2 reaper opening), TvZ will get a lot worse. lets see how it gets fixed. its just NO FUN at all to all in every TvZ right now because you will lose most macro games.
Talking about equal skill made me laugh. I guess you didnt watch any games of Wings of Liberty where players like JonnyRecco (no offense) could go head to head with top tier Code S terrans who practice 15 hours a day. Except this never happened. I only remember one series where he almost beat Keen and Keen is far from a top tier Korean. JRecco also got crushed by many foreigners of other races during this time. Reading comprehension: players like JonnyRecco, ie. relatively nameless foreign zergs suddenly beating Code S Terrans after the queen buff. Also, JonnyRecco crushing many foreigners during that time is relevant how? ZvX was broken, and ZvZ was based on either A) ling/bling coinflip, B) who got the better fungal. ZvZ is still looking poor, thus the spore buff against mutas. Maybe we'll see some changes to that mirror matchup thanks for that. Funny how you point out reading comprehension when you read my paragraph wrong. I said he got crushed BY them. I will actually concede ZvT was horribly broken back then. PvZ was actually very balanced (I would go as far as saying Protoss favoured for a little bit). lol, true say We do agree on the more important things though~ /edit Seriously, people arguing about hellbat drops are ridiculous. Top level players know how to deal with it. It looked OP in ... TvT, until Terrans themselves began to get anti-air like turrets to shut down the medivacs and then pick off the hellbats. Nothing indicates to me that protoss or zergs are unable to defend against it the same way. I'll keep an eye on more top level games to see how this tactic plays out. But people are prematurely reacting to hellbat drops effectiveness when so many players are not getting basic defenses. Terrans have to get turrets against Z cuz of mutas. Terrans have to get turrets against P cuz of oracles. I think it's only fair that Terrans can also threaten and force out similar defenses out of their opponents. At the risk of sounding whiny, a lot of Terran players don't realize just how good missile turrets are. I don't think it's imbalanced, but it is certainly a fact. Missile Turret: 27.9 DPS vs air, 100 minerals Spore Crawler: 17.4 DPS vs air, 125 minerals Photon Cannon: 16 DPS vs air or ground, 150 minerals Now I realize that Zerg and Protoss have Queens and warp-ins respectively to help augment their defense, but I don't really think "just get more static D" is a good solution if you're not a terran player. You need some, but honestly it's expensive and just not that good a lot of the time. Spore Crawler life: 400 Photon Cannon life: 150 + 150 (300) Missle Turret Life: 250 This means you need a lower critical mass of units to effectively one-shot turrets which of course drops DPS to 0; I'm not commenting on your actual argument, but when you make a comparison it bests to paint the entire picture as when you leave out details like this it wreaks bias.
For hellbat defense, it would be preferable have more dps rather than more hp.
But, those defenses are not just for hellbats. Good terrans will do bio-drops as well, and there, the extra hp will shine.
|
On May 14 2013 09:03 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 08:59 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 14 2013 07:46 Zanzabarr wrote:On May 13 2013 20:24 Whitewing wrote:On May 13 2013 19:22 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 13 2013 16:39 Zanzabarr wrote:On May 13 2013 14:44 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 13 2013 12:33 Zanzabarr wrote:On May 13 2013 11:34 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 13 2013 09:25 Zanzabarr wrote: [quote]
Hellbats do OP dps for cost. You can throw them away into mineral lines and basically never NOT get your money's worth. You only have to kill 4 probes to pay for them, and due to lost mining time you don't even have to kill 4 to pay for them. Very rarely will they ever do less damage than that, and you always have the chance to do devastating damage with a single drop.
The unit was designed to help terrans against mass chargelot, which is why they are a slower shorter range version of the hellion that is tankier and does a splash damage radius that is more effective against units in melee range. The mistake blizzard made was making the hellbat do 281% dps to non-light of its hellion counter part, making it do great dps to everything. It also does over 200% dps to light of a blue-flame hellion, making it completely shred light units like workers. The unit does way too much aoe dps for a 100 mineral 2 supply unit that can be reactored out. Sure it requires an armory, but Terran gets an armory every game anyway for +2/+2 and +3/+3 upgrades, whether they make any hellbats or not. The thing needs a dps nerf badly.
Smart Terrans should be hellbat dropping all game, and throwing them into their composition against Toss so they can laugh at chargelots. Once the mineral dump chargelots are gone in PvT, there is just a gas expensive fragile army left over that can be run over.
Extreme Protoss bias, and it sounds like you're a bit bitter over losing to drops. Try building static defense. Aside from killer works, which normal hellions are already better at, Zealots are more effective as general purpose unit because of charge and speed while hellbats can die before doing anything because of 2 range and slow movement speed. On May 13 2013 09:25 Zanzabarr wrote: there is just a gas expensive fragile army I assure you no Protoss unit is "fragile" considering Protoss units have the best cost:life ratios in the game. Lol do you even play this game? You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. My opinion is based on facts, math, and watching a lot of high level starcraft where I've seen plenty of hellbat abuse already. The numbers don't lie. I'm talking in terms of context of the matchup when I talk about zealots and hellbats. The hellbats don't need to move fast because the zealots have to come to them, and when they do, they get demolished. Once that happens, the fragile expensive protoss army gets run over. Best cost:life ratios in the game? What game are you playing? You should do some research before you open your mouth. Zealots and tempest are the only thing protoss has that have lots of life for cost, and even then, it's not by much (hellbat has 135 and does more dps, and has splash. Roach is 75/25 and has 145). How is that relevant when the fragile toss army I am referring to is the stuff that isn't zealots? Hellbats are so stupidly cost effective right now, Terrans should be using them. Some high level terrans have already stated that they almost try not to use them because they know they have to be nerfed and will be nerfed. Static defense? Like I've already stated, hellbats are so cost effective, you can drop them to their death and they'll still be worth it. I could have two cannons in the mineral line at each base, and you'd still be able to zoom in with a medivac, drop them, not lose the medivac, and have the hellbats do massive damage before dying. Even Terrans complain of OP hellbats in TvT. Ironically you cite no "fact", and then transition into more ad hominem which is more or less all I need to know that you, unfortunately, have no argument aside from your unfounded balance whine combined with no rebuttal to my main point. Regular hellions are better at wiping mineral lines than Hellbats, so if you're losing workers to Hellbats then it's because of your own negligence as you would lose even more to normal hellions; furthermore with 2 range and extremely slow movement speed Hellbats are also extremely kitable in direct engagements (while being less "tanky" than the Zealot and the Roach) which means that, combining these two points, if you're losing to them you're simply getting outplayed. I understand getting outplayed is frustrating, but you're not as good as you think. Balance is not your issue. Again, you don't play this game, do you. Perhaps you play at a really low level? Try watching some Starcraft 2 games. Hellbats have conal splash, do more dps, are tankier than hellions, and most of all, can be healed by medivacs. Hellbats are much harder to kill because of this, and this allows them the time to ravage your mineral line. Not only this, they do WAY more damage to non-light, unlike hellions which tickle light and can be handled by non-light units quite easily. Again, do you not play this game? You clearly don't understand how it is played. You realize the entire protoss ground army besides the stalker and chargelot move the same speed or slower than a hellbat, right? And chargelots are melee range.... and no, lots of stalkers in PvT is not good at all, unless you are trying to 1 base blink all in a gasless expand. Why do you keep trying to pin the balance discussion on my play? It's not some secret that hellbats are OP for cost that only I know about . When top Terran players admit hellbats are OP and how they are really lame in TvT as well, how does that have anything to do with me? It doesn't. From a spectator point of view, I've already seen many TvT games where each Terran just repeatedly hellbat dropped each other over and over, and man, is that ever a terrible viewing experience. It's like the muta vs muta wars in ZvZ atm but worse because Hellbats are so expendable. Flash seems to think Hellbats are pretty OP, why else is his TvT strategy to multi-prong drop hellbats all game long. You come off as a bad Terran player that doesn't really even play the game... I can't explain in... your comments are so out of touch with the game. Wait, I know.... you are just blindlly defending everything to do with your race, hoping to qualm the obvious needs for balance adjustments. How original? I barely ever face Hellbat drops or Hellbats in compositions on ladder, because a lot of Terrans on NA don't abuse them enough. Once they become more used, especially later in the game, blizzard will eventually wake up and nerf them. It's inevitable, but it would be nice if it was sooner rather than later. The only one "who doesn't play this game" or "is low level" is someone doesn't understand the basic fact that normal hellions are better at clearing minerals lines than Hellbats because, not only can they chase workers which hellbats can't, but also if workers run they line up. If you're losing all of your workers to Hellbats you're getting outplayed because normal hellions would do just as much damage or more, and do it faster; this means you're simply riding the placebo train and likely trying to justify areas where you lack. If you're losing to Hellbats in direct engagements when they are slow 2 range units then you're also getting outplayed. Period. Stop trying to take the high ground and pin your losses on balance, because not only do you have zero reasonable proof, but your logic isn't remotely consistent or valid and consists of unsourced claims (he said she said), bias, and anecdotes. I'm sorry, but you're going to have to accept reality. If you want some advise for the next time you attempt this try coming back with replays or something that has actual statistical significance like the below: Sorry man, but with medivac speed boost and micro, hellbats are just as good as chasing down workers as hellions, and they heal and do better splash and single target damage, meaning they can stick around longer and fight defenders far more effectively while killing just as many workers. That's why you see pros do hellbat drops far more often than hellion drops. Hard to talk any sense into this blind Terran defender. That Demigod guy is a moron. + Show Spoiler +1.) Ad hominem - check. 2.) Raging because he lost the argument - check. 3.) Warned by mods - check.
Poor fellow. As my actual points have yet to be responded to I will move on to other matters. On May 14 2013 08:36 TrickyGilligan wrote:On May 14 2013 08:05 plogamer wrote:On May 14 2013 06:30 Emzeeshady wrote:On May 14 2013 06:24 plogamer wrote:On May 14 2013 06:20 Emzeeshady wrote:On May 14 2013 06:10 ( bush wrote: except its the other way around. the old WoL style roach or roach bane all ins or roach nydus allins (which symbol already did in WoL and havent changed one bit) are working if T is bad/doesnt scout/plays insanely greedy. the new stuff in midgame doesnt work: swarmhosts, faster hydras dont work AT ALL, regenerating mutas work if you outplay opponent. the guy mentioning all the macro zergs are out while all the "all in/cheesy zerg" got in ro8 is true to the most part (obv not all macro zergs game are macro and the other way around). thats what all zerg players say is stupid: if you are on equal skill AND want to play a standard macro game TvZ is imbalanced. what makes it a bit more balanced are all the all ins Z does. once T figures them out (roach nydus all in etc. is easy scoutable, so is every roach warren with 2 reaper opening), TvZ will get a lot worse. lets see how it gets fixed. its just NO FUN at all to all in every TvZ right now because you will lose most macro games.
Talking about equal skill made me laugh. I guess you didnt watch any games of Wings of Liberty where players like JonnyRecco (no offense) could go head to head with top tier Code S terrans who practice 15 hours a day. Except this never happened. I only remember one series where he almost beat Keen and Keen is far from a top tier Korean. JRecco also got crushed by many foreigners of other races during this time. Reading comprehension: players like JonnyRecco, ie. relatively nameless foreign zergs suddenly beating Code S Terrans after the queen buff. Also, JonnyRecco crushing many foreigners during that time is relevant how? ZvX was broken, and ZvZ was based on either A) ling/bling coinflip, B) who got the better fungal. ZvZ is still looking poor, thus the spore buff against mutas. Maybe we'll see some changes to that mirror matchup thanks for that. Funny how you point out reading comprehension when you read my paragraph wrong. I said he got crushed BY them. I will actually concede ZvT was horribly broken back then. PvZ was actually very balanced (I would go as far as saying Protoss favoured for a little bit). lol, true say We do agree on the more important things though~ /edit Seriously, people arguing about hellbat drops are ridiculous. Top level players know how to deal with it. It looked OP in ... TvT, until Terrans themselves began to get anti-air like turrets to shut down the medivacs and then pick off the hellbats. Nothing indicates to me that protoss or zergs are unable to defend against it the same way. I'll keep an eye on more top level games to see how this tactic plays out. But people are prematurely reacting to hellbat drops effectiveness when so many players are not getting basic defenses. Terrans have to get turrets against Z cuz of mutas. Terrans have to get turrets against P cuz of oracles. I think it's only fair that Terrans can also threaten and force out similar defenses out of their opponents. At the risk of sounding whiny, a lot of Terran players don't realize just how good missile turrets are. I don't think it's imbalanced, but it is certainly a fact. Missile Turret: 27.9 DPS vs air, 100 minerals Spore Crawler: 17.4 DPS vs air, 125 minerals Photon Cannon: 16 DPS vs air or ground, 150 minerals Now I realize that Zerg and Protoss have Queens and warp-ins respectively to help augment their defense, but I don't really think "just get more static D" is a good solution if you're not a terran player. You need some, but honestly it's expensive and just not that good a lot of the time. Spore Crawler life: 400 Photon Cannon life: 150 + 150 (300) Missle Turret Life: 250 This means you need a lower critical mass of units to effectively one-shot turrets which of course drops DPS to 0; I'm not commenting on your actual argument, but when you make a comparison it bests to paint the entire picture as when you leave out details like this it wreaks bias. For hellbat defense, it would be preferable have more dps rather than more hp. But, those defenses are not just for hellbats. Good terrans will do bio-drops as well, and there, the extra hp will shine.
That is true, however in the context of defending drops this might suggest that Terran is more vulnerable to flyers and less to aerial runbys, however I believe this is augmented to be even when you consider that canons/spines will attack whatever unloads from a drop while Terran has no gasless+supplyless static defence for the natural and main.
I'm not making a comment on his argument though. I was just pointing out those details.
|
Katowice25012 Posts
This thread is going off the rails so for now just discuss the actual patch here.
We can argue about proposed changes later if they make another update.
|
|
|
|