Website Feedback
Closed Threads
IRC Chat
irc.quakenet.org #teamliquid
IRC Web ClientTeamSpeak 3 (90 users) | |
|
| m0ck July 18 2012 17:13. Posts 3240 | Profile Blog # |
On July 18 2012 16:59 Thrombozyt wrote:
Show nested quote +On July 18 2012 16:44 m0ck wrote:
On July 18 2012 16:27 Surgical_Strike wrote:
On July 18 2012 16:07 Orek wrote:
On July 18 2012 15:57 Surgical_Strike wrote:
On July 18 2012 15:36 m0ck wrote:
On July 18 2012 15:26 Orek wrote:
On July 18 2012 13:55 m0ck wrote:
On July 18 2012 13:43 TitleRug wrote:
On July 18 2012 13:39 Orek wrote:
[quote]
Where can I find the source? I am interested. Please link, thank you in advance.
http://i.imgur.com/UBrQf.pngcredit to dv0rakftw
Balance at the highest level is not the same as balance at lower levels. There is no reason to think that zerg is imbalanced based on Korean results. It's a problem. Who do we balance for? The best or the rest?
Who cares if you struggle at your, say, mid-master level play? As long as it is balanced at the highest level, nothing is wrong. Do you care if bronze is 70% Zerg win just because they can't defend 6 pool? Same thing. We balance for the best, not for the rest. At least, that's how I see it. Zerg seems to be OP based on the stats in this image. Can't conclude everything based on this alone, but 24 Zerg wins vs 11 T/P wins speak a lot. I am not saying this because I play T or P. I play Zerg, yet this stats shows Zerg is OP.
When I'm saying 'the best', I'm being even more elitist than that. I'm thinking the highest level in Korea, where, based on results, there is no reason to think that zerg is overpowered. It's basically an old problem - for whatever reason Korean terrans are a lot stronger than their foreign brethren. GomTvT and all that jazz. By trying to handle the issue of dominating terrans in Korea by using the nerf(and sometimes buff)-bat, terrans outside of Korea have suffered. But it is not obvious what to do about it.
Where are you getting that the best of the best terrans in korea are doing fine?? I keep reading zergs saying that tvz is balanced at the top... and even some terrans seem to be repeating it. From what i see, at the very top level of starcraft 2 gaming... zerg is enjoying around a 65 percent win percentage .... which if you really think about it... is unacceptable
There was a stats on all match-ups I saw a couple weeks ago where TvZ in Korea was close to 50% while it was so much less outside Korea. I can't find it now, but I think many are referring to that stats. Link is appreciated if anyone can find it.
well i have not seen that stat... but since he was speaking of the elite and mentioned "gomtvt" ill give you this stat which is basically all the gom games after the queen patch up untill a few days back when 1.44 dropped http://www.gomtv.net/records/index.gom?searchType=3&race=Z&vsrace=T&season=0&leaguetype=0&leagueid=0&gamever=1.4.3%282%29&mapid=0
But now the balance changes of 1.4.4 have broken the game the other way around and terrans are up 10-1 in maps since the patch ^^ Are you arguing, that terrans in Korea are currently struggling?
So together the GSL records show a 74/54 record of maps in favor of Zerg. Which is a 57.8% ZvT rate. In series, the score is 50/31 in favor of Zerg which translates to a 61.7% chance to advance. I would also argue, that 'the best' that 'Blizzard should balance for' should include also the western pro-gaming scene. The top 4 of at least monthly events (the daily/weekly can include some weaker player with a great grid) should possess sufficient skill and mechanics to make a reliable balancing ground. Also it it probably impossible to balance for just the top koreans simply because your sample size for statistics will be WAY too low and too volatile.
I think it is fair to say that the patch had an immediate negative effect on terrans. However, I think it's also fair to say that terrans currently are doing better again.
As for TSL qualification from Korea:
3P, 4T, 4Z
|
|
|
 wcr.4fun Belgium. July 18 2012 18:43. Posts 685 | Profile # |
On July 18 2012 12:27 Reborn8u wrote:
I've been saying for over a year, that when zergs started to actually micro at the level that top toss, and terran players have been since almost release, that zerg would seem unstoppable. Up until just the last few months I've been watching the "best" zerg players in the world not even micro back infestors after the energy was used,letting them die pointlessly. Not target firing things like sentries. Not abusing burrow (with trapping units, delaying expansions ect). Now these are all quite common and they make PvZ a nightmare for toss. When that infestor count stays high, or your 3rd gets delayed because of a burrowed ling, or your 2 base gate all in at zergs 3rd gets stopped because of roach burrow.
I agree completely with the fact that (most) top zergs actually have 'horrible' unit control (compared to terran/protoss). But have you bothered watching through their point of view? Zerg macro is more intense than protoss' or terran's imo. Zergs have more bases. Zergs have creep spread, overlord spread and inject larvae. Especially when defending, zerg's units come from 3 different places and most often when the attack is going on very close to a zerg base, you can see how hard it is to coordinate those units. Protoss just warp in, in the exact position they want. Nobody really cares about chronoboost.
Terrans mule mechanic is easier than inject larvae and also more forgiving, even if they get supplyblocked they can throw down supply. Unit production of terran is probably the same as for zerg (mechanically intense).
At least, that's how I see it.Last edit: 2012-07-18 18:44:17 |
|
|
| Big J Austria. July 18 2012 19:21. Posts 5017 | Profile Blog # |
On July 18 2012 12:21 Heavenlee wrote:
Show nested quote +On July 18 2012 12:17 Big J wrote:
On July 18 2012 10:57 Heavenlee wrote:
On July 18 2012 10:50 Big J wrote:
On July 18 2012 09:11 Heavenlee wrote:
On July 18 2012 08:59 wcr.4fun wrote:
On July 18 2012 08:55 Wombat_NI wrote:
On July 18 2012 08:51 wcr.4fun wrote:
On July 18 2012 07:58 TeamBreezy wrote:
On July 18 2012 07:30 Big J wrote:
[quote]
You mean it's retarded that Protoss can't take a third good enough, due to roaches? Yes it is!
You mean it's retarded that Zerg is forced to go 3bases superearly to not get outmacroed by a FFE build but on the flipside can only hold 50% of the Protoss allins, because this greedy strategy makes it very hard to actually hold them?
And don't come with "Zerg has to fuck up to not defend the allin". After all it's Protoss that have the possibility to "FF better" as well a lot of the times (which is not easy, but a lot of times it also comes down simply to FFs).
you know why Protoss' started to FFE in the first place?? Because zerg's were taking an extra base regardless. Being down 2 bases to 3 is better than 1 base to 2. Zerg's only get 33 percent more income than protoss 3 bases to 2, where as Zerg's double Protoss' income 2 bases to 1. This is called meta game. Adapting to what works best against common zergs. If zerg's didn't expo 3 bases they would have more units therefore hold off Protoss All-in's even easier. What am i saying, 3 base Zerg's hold off any Protoss 2 base all-ins 85 percent of the time so nvm. You know it takes a lot of sentries to FF, and which they have no dps. The big difference, Zerg's can lose the 3rd base, re-expand and win the game. Protoss fail all-in is automatically lose.
No; try taking a third against 3 gate expand.
That'd be kinda dumb though, there's no need for the superfast 3rd which is a response to an FFE to pump out your economy when you're racing a relatively uneconomic opener
I understand that. He was saying 'zergs can take third regardless what P is doing', but that's not true at all. I understand 3 gate expand came before 1 gate expand, but I never played during the time that 1 gate expand was popular so can't comment on that. But I know for sure that zergs weren't taking thirds versus 3 gate expand. I just had an issue with saying 'Z can take third regardless of what P is doing.'
We see Stephano do the same opener every time---a surge of lings and maybe a few roaches for map control, then he is completely safe to do whatever he wants and god forbid the toss attempts to take a quick third or apply any light pressure. He is either safe to expand, drone, tech, or all three at once, while maintaining the possibility of denying the protoss third while going up to four base. We even see zergs have learned to be greedier than before in some cases, such as Ret v Puzzle on Cloud Kingdom where he held off a two base all-in while taking his fourth instead of a macro hatch, and teching up to infestors. Some toss are now doing 1 gate expands because zergs don't recall how to handle them, but after a couple games of practice and looking back a bit they will---make speed on your zerglings and delay your third and prevent them from ever taking an expansion. Again, the zerg will have an economic advantage if they play properly. Either way the zerg will have an economic advantage going into the midgame. Just because in the past zergs suicided a ton, didn't understand timings or scouting patterns, etc. and made the win ratio even or sometimes even toss favored when a new all-in came out, does not make them currently balanced.
Yeah, we get it. Zerg players are too dumb to defend allins and it's not Stephano outclassing his opponents at NASL, but rather just abusing Zerg imbaness. When 2months ago all the whine was about Terrans "not having a chance in TvP" and "having to rely on allins and drops", it was just Protoss players being too dumb to defend them. And yeah, Stephano did the same opener in the NASL finals against Alicia (who btw played horrible). Guess what... MC won two GSL's by basically using 1 build for PvT and PvZ (6gate), and one build for PvP (4gate). Maybe the way stephano does is not really figuered out yet? Or maybe you just have to be on even level with him to win (MC took two games of him and has beaten him several times before).
Did you even read anything I said? I said they were too dumb to defend allins which is true. Look at how they defended gateway all-ins in the past and lost all the time, compared to how they almost never lose to them now. Compare how people were recently losing to immortal/sentry all-in and then the better players began to figure out how the engage, and then it made it easier to hold. So yes, they were too "dumb" to defend all-ins, that seriously just can't be argued if you watch this game. Provide proof that Stephano outclassed his opponents instead of taking advantage of zerg being favored at the moment. Can you? No, there is no objective way to prove that he had better timings, map awareness, build orders, etc. or that his build is just a panacea. And I can't prove he didn't outclass his opponents. But we can look at every other game in the state of PvZ and how zerg always seems to magically have an advantage, then it becomes likely that that "outclassing" is because when both play a standard game the zerg has the advantage---since you kind of see them winning everything, zergs that were considered nobodies in the past taking games off great players of both protoss and terran, etc.
Yeah, we look at those PvZs and see a "magical advantage" of 50% winrate. I don't care what advantages you see, but apparently the game is about winning and if those advantages of zerg only lead to 50:50 winrate, they are not advantages in a sense of "overall better off", but just "more absolute income" or "more absolute supply", yet if Protoss combats zerg with mass T2 (blink, immortals) and the occasional Stargate or T3 Archon or Colossus units and zergs only play roaches against it, then Protoss has tech advantages they seem to emphasize on and supplyefficiency advantages that they can emphasize on and it seems to balance out.
Yes, that magical 50-50 winrate has lead to 24 zerg tournament wins to 8 protoss wins and 3 terran wins, 40 zerg final appearances to 20 protoss and 10 terran, and 64-49-26 semifinals.
Yeah and that does not mean that PvZ is fucked:
PvZ is very balanced, TvP is very balanced
TvZ is currently Zerg favoredLast edit: 2012-07-18 19:32:29 |
| |
|
| Big J Austria. July 18 2012 19:32. Posts 5017 | Profile Blog # |
On July 18 2012 18:43 wcr.4fun wrote:
Show nested quote +On July 18 2012 12:27 Reborn8u wrote:
I've been saying for over a year, that when zergs started to actually micro at the level that top toss, and terran players have been since almost release, that zerg would seem unstoppable. Up until just the last few months I've been watching the "best" zerg players in the world not even micro back infestors after the energy was used,letting them die pointlessly. Not target firing things like sentries. Not abusing burrow (with trapping units, delaying expansions ect). Now these are all quite common and they make PvZ a nightmare for toss. When that infestor count stays high, or your 3rd gets delayed because of a burrowed ling, or your 2 base gate all in at zergs 3rd gets stopped because of roach burrow.
I agree completely with the fact that (most) top zergs actually have 'horrible' unit control (compared to terran/protoss). But have you bothered watching through their point of view? Zerg macro is more intense than protoss' or terran's imo. Zergs have more bases. Zergs have creep spread, overlord spread and inject larvae. Especially when defending, zerg's units come from 3 different places and most often when the attack is going on very close to a zerg base, you can see how hard it is to coordinate those units. Protoss just warp in, in the exact position they want. Nobody really cares about chronoboost. Terrans mule mechanic is easier than inject larvae and also more forgiving, even if they get supplyblocked they can throw down supply. Unit production of terran is probably the same as for zerg (mechanically intense). At least, that's how I see it.
Look at TLOs stream and watch him microing groups of units around during combat quite hard. But when you actually juat watch the game, it could as well be just the zergling's AI that just led to better surrounds in this combat a lot of times what is left is often times that you see his overlords rally towards the open field, because he seems to make this rally point fail quite often.
Also I want to add here, that 2months ago when you read any of those PvT balance whine threads, Terrans would say that Protoss does not micro at all in neither of their MUs and at least zergs would have similar APM to Terrans while Protoss would have (how low were their ridicolous claims again?) like 80 (?) APM in Masters.
It's bullshit accusations and those arguments get quite boring.Last edit: 2012-07-18 19:43:31 |
| |
|
| Decendos Germany. July 18 2012 19:39. Posts 916 | Profile # |
On July 18 2012 19:21 Big J wrote:
Show nested quote +On July 18 2012 12:21 Heavenlee wrote:
On July 18 2012 12:17 Big J wrote:
On July 18 2012 10:57 Heavenlee wrote:
On July 18 2012 10:50 Big J wrote:
On July 18 2012 09:11 Heavenlee wrote:
On July 18 2012 08:59 wcr.4fun wrote:
On July 18 2012 08:55 Wombat_NI wrote:
On July 18 2012 08:51 wcr.4fun wrote:
On July 18 2012 07:58 TeamBreezy wrote:
[quote]
you know why Protoss' started to FFE in the first place?? Because zerg's were taking an extra base regardless. Being down 2 bases to 3 is better than 1 base to 2. Zerg's only get 33 percent more income than protoss 3 bases to 2, where as Zerg's double Protoss' income 2 bases to 1. This is called meta game. Adapting to what works best against common zergs. If zerg's didn't expo 3 bases they would have more units therefore hold off Protoss All-in's even easier. What am i saying, 3 base Zerg's hold off any Protoss 2 base all-ins 85 percent of the time so nvm. You know it takes a lot of sentries to FF, and which they have no dps.
The big difference, Zerg's can lose the 3rd base, re-expand and win the game. Protoss fail all-in is automatically lose.
No; try taking a third against 3 gate expand.
That'd be kinda dumb though, there's no need for the superfast 3rd which is a response to an FFE to pump out your economy when you're racing a relatively uneconomic opener
I understand that. He was saying 'zergs can take third regardless what P is doing', but that's not true at all. I understand 3 gate expand came before 1 gate expand, but I never played during the time that 1 gate expand was popular so can't comment on that. But I know for sure that zergs weren't taking thirds versus 3 gate expand. I just had an issue with saying 'Z can take third regardless of what P is doing.'
We see Stephano do the same opener every time---a surge of lings and maybe a few roaches for map control, then he is completely safe to do whatever he wants and god forbid the toss attempts to take a quick third or apply any light pressure. He is either safe to expand, drone, tech, or all three at once, while maintaining the possibility of denying the protoss third while going up to four base. We even see zergs have learned to be greedier than before in some cases, such as Ret v Puzzle on Cloud Kingdom where he held off a two base all-in while taking his fourth instead of a macro hatch, and teching up to infestors. Some toss are now doing 1 gate expands because zergs don't recall how to handle them, but after a couple games of practice and looking back a bit they will---make speed on your zerglings and delay your third and prevent them from ever taking an expansion. Again, the zerg will have an economic advantage if they play properly. Either way the zerg will have an economic advantage going into the midgame. Just because in the past zergs suicided a ton, didn't understand timings or scouting patterns, etc. and made the win ratio even or sometimes even toss favored when a new all-in came out, does not make them currently balanced.
Yeah, we get it. Zerg players are too dumb to defend allins and it's not Stephano outclassing his opponents at NASL, but rather just abusing Zerg imbaness. When 2months ago all the whine was about Terrans "not having a chance in TvP" and "having to rely on allins and drops", it was just Protoss players being too dumb to defend them. And yeah, Stephano did the same opener in the NASL finals against Alicia (who btw played horrible). Guess what... MC won two GSL's by basically using 1 build for PvT and PvZ (6gate), and one build for PvP (4gate). Maybe the way stephano does is not really figuered out yet? Or maybe you just have to be on even level with him to win (MC took two games of him and has beaten him several times before).
Did you even read anything I said? I said they were too dumb to defend allins which is true. Look at how they defended gateway all-ins in the past and lost all the time, compared to how they almost never lose to them now. Compare how people were recently losing to immortal/sentry all-in and then the better players began to figure out how the engage, and then it made it easier to hold. So yes, they were too "dumb" to defend all-ins, that seriously just can't be argued if you watch this game. Provide proof that Stephano outclassed his opponents instead of taking advantage of zerg being favored at the moment. Can you? No, there is no objective way to prove that he had better timings, map awareness, build orders, etc. or that his build is just a panacea. And I can't prove he didn't outclass his opponents. But we can look at every other game in the state of PvZ and how zerg always seems to magically have an advantage, then it becomes likely that that "outclassing" is because when both play a standard game the zerg has the advantage---since you kind of see them winning everything, zergs that were considered nobodies in the past taking games off great players of both protoss and terran, etc.
Yeah, we look at those PvZs and see a "magical advantage" of 50% winrate. I don't care what advantages you see, but apparently the game is about winning and if those advantages of zerg only lead to 50:50 winrate, they are not advantages in a sense of "overall better off", but just "more absolute income" or "more absolute supply", yet if Protoss combats zerg with mass T2 (blink, immortals) and the occasional Stargate or T3 Archon or Colossus units and zergs only play roaches against it, then Protoss has tech advantages they seem to emphasize on and supplyefficiency advantages that they can emphasize on and it seems to balance out.
Yes, that magical 50-50 winrate has lead to 24 zerg tournament wins to 8 protoss wins and 3 terran wins, 40 zerg final appearances to 20 protoss and 10 terran, and 64-49-26 semifinals.
Yeah and that does not mean that PvZ is fucked: PvZ is very balanced, TvP is very balanced TvZ is currently Zerg favored
exactly this. it is favored but its by far too soon to tell if its imbalanced. right now there are 13 of 24 T in Code A finals. on top level they do REALLY fine so no reason to cry.
|
|
|
| Rabiator Germany. July 18 2012 21:15. Posts 3238 | Profile # |
On July 18 2012 16:59 Thrombozyt wrote:
Show nested quote +On July 18 2012 16:44 m0ck wrote:
On July 18 2012 16:27 Surgical_Strike wrote:
On July 18 2012 16:07 Orek wrote:
On July 18 2012 15:57 Surgical_Strike wrote:
On July 18 2012 15:36 m0ck wrote:
On July 18 2012 15:26 Orek wrote:
On July 18 2012 13:55 m0ck wrote:
On July 18 2012 13:43 TitleRug wrote:
On July 18 2012 13:39 Orek wrote:
[quote]
Where can I find the source? I am interested. Please link, thank you in advance.
http://i.imgur.com/UBrQf.pngcredit to dv0rakftw
Balance at the highest level is not the same as balance at lower levels. There is no reason to think that zerg is imbalanced based on Korean results. It's a problem. Who do we balance for? The best or the rest?
Who cares if you struggle at your, say, mid-master level play? As long as it is balanced at the highest level, nothing is wrong. Do you care if bronze is 70% Zerg win just because they can't defend 6 pool? Same thing. We balance for the best, not for the rest. At least, that's how I see it. Zerg seems to be OP based on the stats in this image. Can't conclude everything based on this alone, but 24 Zerg wins vs 11 T/P wins speak a lot. I am not saying this because I play T or P. I play Zerg, yet this stats shows Zerg is OP.
When I'm saying 'the best', I'm being even more elitist than that. I'm thinking the highest level in Korea, where, based on results, there is no reason to think that zerg is overpowered. It's basically an old problem - for whatever reason Korean terrans are a lot stronger than their foreign brethren. GomTvT and all that jazz. By trying to handle the issue of dominating terrans in Korea by using the nerf(and sometimes buff)-bat, terrans outside of Korea have suffered. But it is not obvious what to do about it.
Where are you getting that the best of the best terrans in korea are doing fine?? I keep reading zergs saying that tvz is balanced at the top... and even some terrans seem to be repeating it. From what i see, at the very top level of starcraft 2 gaming... zerg is enjoying around a 65 percent win percentage .... which if you really think about it... is unacceptable
There was a stats on all match-ups I saw a couple weeks ago where TvZ in Korea was close to 50% while it was so much less outside Korea. I can't find it now, but I think many are referring to that stats. Link is appreciated if anyone can find it.
well i have not seen that stat... but since he was speaking of the elite and mentioned "gomtvt" ill give you this stat which is basically all the gom games after the queen patch up untill a few days back when 1.44 dropped http://www.gomtv.net/records/index.gom?searchType=3&race=Z&vsrace=T&season=0&leaguetype=0&leagueid=0&gamever=1.4.3%282%29&mapid=0
But now the balance changes of 1.4.4 have broken the game the other way around and terrans are up 10-1 in maps since the patch ^^ Are you arguing, that terrans in Korea are currently struggling?
So together the GSL records show a 74/54 record of maps in favor of Zerg. Which is a 57.8% ZvT rate. In series, the score is 50/31 in favor of Zerg which translates to a 61.7% chance to advance. I would also argue, that 'the best' that 'Blizzard should balance for' should include also the western pro-gaming scene. The top 4 of at least monthly events (the daily/weekly can include some weaker player with a great grid) should possess sufficient skill and mechanics to make a reliable balancing ground. Also it it probably impossible to balance for just the top koreans simply because your sample size for statistics will be WAY too low and too volatile.
A big problem is that any late game Zerg with good economy will have the upper hand simply because it is much easier for him to reproduce his army. This *might* be made up for by better micro or smarter planning or aggressive all-over-attacks, but those are things which only really top pros can manage. Thus Zerg is actually the easy-mode race at this time (after a certain point in the game), because their macroing just requires regular inject timings through all bases (easy to do once you learned it and the same for all strategies and matchups) and then they are free to produced and - most importantly - reproduce anything that suits their fancy. For the other two races it is much harder to manage the right number of production facilities and addons and such. This is a general problem and makes the races behave differently hard on different levels of play. It should be changed ... |
| | If you cant say what you're meaning, you can never mean what you're saying. |
|
|
| Kimozabi Denmark. July 18 2012 22:13. Posts 10 | Profile # |
For the other two races it is much harder to manage the right number of production facilities and addons and such. This is a general problem and makes the races behave differently hard on different levels of play. It should be changed ...
But that has been zerg design since StarCraft, has it not? Changing that would seem like changing the core of the game to me.
Also, zergs always have the "worker vs. attacking unit" thing to think about, while P and T can just make attackers with abandon.Last edit: 2012-07-18 22:20:08 |
| |
|
| Dephy Lithuania. July 18 2012 22:22. Posts 163 | Profile # |
On July 18 2012 22:13 Kimozabi wrote:
Show nested quote +For the other two races it is much harder to manage the right number of production facilities and addons and such. This is a general problem and makes the races behave differently hard on different levels of play. It should be changed ...
But that has been zerg design since StarCraft, has it not? Changing that would seem like changing the core of the game to me. Also, zergs always have the "worker vs. attacking unit" thing to think about, while P and T can just make attackers with abandon.
the problem is they get to much larva, reducing larva count would fix that |
|
|
| Bagi July 18 2012 22:31. Posts 5910 | Profile # |
Someone should make a poll or something, on player impressions on the last patch. Was game balance better before or after the patch?
I can't imagine anyone saying it was better pre-patch. The queen buff was an utter failure by Blizzards part, and the worst part is that it seems they're too occupied with HOTS to even care. |
| |
|
| Qibla Australia. July 18 2012 22:33. Posts 341 | Profile # |
I think the OP needs an update.
I'm only a Diamond scrub, but I just played a game where I 1 rax fast expanded, and the protoss sent his first zealot, killed 4 marines, that I was trying to micro like crazy, (and forgot all about building my follow up barracks and gas), and then the scv building the bunker. and I lose the game to the stalker that he follows up with. 2 units.
It takes 0% risk for the protoss to do this, but takes immense concentration and skill from the Terran to hold it off. I know it can be held off, but it's not balanced in terms of difficulty to execute. |
| | Are you calling moi a dipshit? |
|
|
| Bashion Cook Islands. July 18 2012 22:52. Posts 2495 | Profile # |
On July 18 2012 22:33 Qibla wrote:
I think the OP needs an update.
I'm only a Diamond scrub, but I just played a game where I 1 rax fast expanded, and the protoss sent his first zealot, killed 4 marines, that I was trying to micro like crazy, (and forgot all about building my follow up barracks and gas), and then the scv building the bunker. and I lose the game to the stalker that he follows up with. 2 units.
It takes 0% risk for the protoss to do this, but takes immense concentration and skill from the Terran to hold it off. I know it can be held off, but it's not balanced in terms of difficulty to execute.
If you lost 4 marines to a single zealot, its your fault, not the game's.
|
| | I've got moves like Jagger |  |
|
|
| Shiori July 18 2012 22:59. Posts 2816 | Profile Blog # |
On July 18 2012 19:32 Big J wrote:
Show nested quote +On July 18 2012 18:43 wcr.4fun wrote:
On July 18 2012 12:27 Reborn8u wrote:
I've been saying for over a year, that when zergs started to actually micro at the level that top toss, and terran players have been since almost release, that zerg would seem unstoppable. Up until just the last few months I've been watching the "best" zerg players in the world not even micro back infestors after the energy was used,letting them die pointlessly. Not target firing things like sentries. Not abusing burrow (with trapping units, delaying expansions ect). Now these are all quite common and they make PvZ a nightmare for toss. When that infestor count stays high, or your 3rd gets delayed because of a burrowed ling, or your 2 base gate all in at zergs 3rd gets stopped because of roach burrow.
I agree completely with the fact that (most) top zergs actually have 'horrible' unit control (compared to terran/protoss). But have you bothered watching through their point of view? Zerg macro is more intense than protoss' or terran's imo. Zergs have more bases. Zergs have creep spread, overlord spread and inject larvae. Especially when defending, zerg's units come from 3 different places and most often when the attack is going on very close to a zerg base, you can see how hard it is to coordinate those units. Protoss just warp in, in the exact position they want. Nobody really cares about chronoboost. Terrans mule mechanic is easier than inject larvae and also more forgiving, even if they get supplyblocked they can throw down supply. Unit production of terran is probably the same as for zerg (mechanically intense). At least, that's how I see it.
Look at TLOs stream and watch him microing groups of units around during combat quite hard. But when you actually juat watch the game, it could as well be just the zergling's AI that just led to better surrounds in this combat a lot of times what is left is often times that you see his overlords rally towards the open field, because he seems to make this rally point fail quite often. Also I want to add here, that 2months ago when you read any of those PvT balance whine threads, Terrans would say that Protoss does not micro at all in neither of their MUs and at least zergs would have similar APM to Terrans while Protoss would have (how low were their ridicolous claims again?) like 80 (?) APM in Masters. It's bullshit accusations and those arguments get quite boring.
but the Terrans had and still have a point. TvP is actually extremely difficult sub-high Masters because you sumply don't have the APM to do perfect army control and macro at the same time. At the highest level, TvP is balanced because everyone is extremely good and extremely fast, which means that decent army control is a given. The difference in P/TvZ is that there aren't even theoretical strategies that Toss/Terran players can do to get reliably even with Zerg.
You can tell the matchup isn't imbalanced (TvP) because there were and still are top pros who are consistently winning with varied strategies in the matchup. There are lots of Terrans who have excellent TvP (MKP etc) and a lot of Protoss who have great PvT (Parting, Squirtle) but almost nobody who is good at PvZ or TvZ in the sense that they can be expected to crush less mechanically skilled players. People used to always point to MC/Hero as examples of players with strong PvZ. Well, Stephano obliterated them, and Stephano's mechanics are significantly weaker than either of theirs. Not trying to take away from his play in general, since he's done a lot to innovate on the Zerg side of things, but as a mechanical player, he's nothing special. He's not bad by any means, but he wins because of his strategies and reactions, not because he outmicros his opponents. So yeah, there aren't actually any good PvZ players who can macro against any half-decent Zerg (MC almost lost to Ret in a macro game until Ret messed up) and expect to win in the same way that MKP/Parting can expect to outmacro virtually any P/T respectively most of the time. On the TvZ side of things, there simply aren't any strong TvZ players. People like to point to Byun because he 3-0d Nestea, but, quite frankly, Nestea played like utter shit. Byun played well, but against a stronger opponent I'm unconvinced he'd do as well (and he later lost to DRG in the OSL).Last edit: 2012-07-18 23:12:18 |
|
|
| dNa Germany. July 18 2012 22:59. Posts 287 | Profile Blog # |
On July 18 2012 22:52 Bashion wrote:
Show nested quote +On July 18 2012 22:33 Qibla wrote:
I think the OP needs an update.
I'm only a Diamond scrub, but I just played a game where I 1 rax fast expanded, and the protoss sent his first zealot, killed 4 marines, that I was trying to micro like crazy, (and forgot all about building my follow up barracks and gas), and then the scv building the bunker. and I lose the game to the stalker that he follows up with. 2 units.
It takes 0% risk for the protoss to do this, but takes immense concentration and skill from the Terran to hold it off. I know it can be held off, but it's not balanced in terms of difficulty to execute.
If you lost 4 marines to a single zealot, its your fault, not the game's.
agreed ... 2 zealots vs 4 marines would be understandable, but 1? stop trying to micro like crazy and just do it! #couragewolf |
| | "a pitchfork is for hay. a trident is for killing bitches." -djwheat |  |
|
|
| Bagi July 18 2012 23:02. Posts 5910 | Profile # |
On July 18 2012 22:33 Qibla wrote:
I think the OP needs an update.
I'm only a Diamond scrub, but I just played a game where I 1 rax fast expanded, and the protoss sent his first zealot, killed 4 marines, that I was trying to micro like crazy, (and forgot all about building my follow up barracks and gas), and then the scv building the bunker. and I lose the game to the stalker that he follows up with. 2 units.
It takes 0% risk for the protoss to do this, but takes immense concentration and skill from the Terran to hold it off. I know it can be held off, but it's not balanced in terms of difficulty to execute.
Here's how to hold if off: always spread your first 3-4 marines in a line at your ramp, and once the zealot arrives, move back the marine he tries to attack. If he doesn't run away he'll be lucky to kill a single marine.
It's literally one of the easiest micro tasks in the game, not one that takes "immense concentration and skill". You just have to be aware how to position your first marines. |
| |
|
| Orek July 18 2012 23:13. Posts 1391 | Profile # |
This 1 zealot vs 4 marines discussion is making me crazy.
It is hardly a balance discussion. Let's move on.
It should be asked in SC2 Strategy Forum with [H] tag. |
|
|
| Chaggi Korea (South). July 18 2012 23:15. Posts 1087 | Profile # |
On July 18 2012 22:59 Shiori wrote:
Show nested quote +On July 18 2012 19:32 Big J wrote:
On July 18 2012 18:43 wcr.4fun wrote:
On July 18 2012 12:27 Reborn8u wrote:
I've been saying for over a year, that when zergs started to actually micro at the level that top toss, and terran players have been since almost release, that zerg would seem unstoppable. Up until just the last few months I've been watching the "best" zerg players in the world not even micro back infestors after the energy was used,letting them die pointlessly. Not target firing things like sentries. Not abusing burrow (with trapping units, delaying expansions ect). Now these are all quite common and they make PvZ a nightmare for toss. When that infestor count stays high, or your 3rd gets delayed because of a burrowed ling, or your 2 base gate all in at zergs 3rd gets stopped because of roach burrow.
I agree completely with the fact that (most) top zergs actually have 'horrible' unit control (compared to terran/protoss). But have you bothered watching through their point of view? Zerg macro is more intense than protoss' or terran's imo. Zergs have more bases. Zergs have creep spread, overlord spread and inject larvae. Especially when defending, zerg's units come from 3 different places and most often when the attack is going on very close to a zerg base, you can see how hard it is to coordinate those units. Protoss just warp in, in the exact position they want. Nobody really cares about chronoboost. Terrans mule mechanic is easier than inject larvae and also more forgiving, even if they get supplyblocked they can throw down supply. Unit production of terran is probably the same as for zerg (mechanically intense). At least, that's how I see it.
Look at TLOs stream and watch him microing groups of units around during combat quite hard. But when you actually juat watch the game, it could as well be just the zergling's AI that just led to better surrounds in this combat a lot of times what is left is often times that you see his overlords rally towards the open field, because he seems to make this rally point fail quite often. Also I want to add here, that 2months ago when you read any of those PvT balance whine threads, Terrans would say that Protoss does not micro at all in neither of their MUs and at least zergs would have similar APM to Terrans while Protoss would have (how low were their ridicolous claims again?) like 80 (?) APM in Masters. It's bullshit accusations and those arguments get quite boring.
but the Terrans had and still have a point. TvP is actually extremely difficult sub-high Masters because you sumply don't have the APM to do perfect army control and macro at the same time. At the highest level, TvP is balanced because everyone is extremely good and extremely fast, which means that decent army control is a given. The difference in P/TvZ is that there aren't even theoretical strategies that Toss/Terran players can do to get reliably even with Zerg. You can tell the matchup isn't imbalanced (TvP) because there were and still are top pros who are consistently winning with varied strategies in the matchup. There are lots of Terrans who have excellent TvP (MKP etc) and a lot of Protoss who have great PvT (Parting, Squirtle) but almost nobody who is good at PvZ or TvZ in the sense that they can be expected to crush less mechanically skilled players. People used to always point to MC/Hero as examples of players with strong PvZ. Well, Stephano obliterated them, and Stephano's mechanics are significantly weaker than either of theirs. Not trying to take away from his play in general, since he's done a lot to innovate on the Zerg side of things, but as a mechanical player, he's nothing special. He's not bad by any means, but he wins because of his strategies and reactions, not because he outmicros his opponents. So yeah, there aren't actually any good PvZ players who can macro against any half-decent Zerg (MC almost lost to Ret in a macro game until Ret messed up) and expect to win in the same way that MKP/Parting can expect to outmacro virtually any P/T respectively most of the time. On the TvZ side of things, there simply aren't any strong TvZ players. People like to point to Byun because he 3-0d Nestea, but, quite frankly, Nestea played like utter shit. Byun played well, but against a stronger opponent I'm unconvinced he'd do as well (and he later lost to DRG in the OSL).
TvZ used to be MMA's domain.
Sigh
I miss his TvZ's so much |
| | University of Michigan '10 Alumni |  |
|
|
| n0ise July 18 2012 23:16. Posts 2803 | Profile # |
On July 18 2012 18:43 wcr.4fun wrote:
Show nested quote +On July 18 2012 12:27 Reborn8u wrote:
I've been saying for over a year, that when zergs started to actually micro at the level that top toss, and terran players have been since almost release, that zerg would seem unstoppable. Up until just the last few months I've been watching the "best" zerg players in the world not even micro back infestors after the energy was used,letting them die pointlessly. Not target firing things like sentries. Not abusing burrow (with trapping units, delaying expansions ect). Now these are all quite common and they make PvZ a nightmare for toss. When that infestor count stays high, or your 3rd gets delayed because of a burrowed ling, or your 2 base gate all in at zergs 3rd gets stopped because of roach burrow.
I agree completely with the fact that (most) top zergs actually have 'horrible' unit control (compared to terran/protoss). But have you bothered watching through their point of view? Zerg macro is more intense than protoss' or terran's imo. Zergs have more bases. Zergs have creep spread, overlord spread and inject larvae. Especially when defending, zerg's units come from 3 different places and most often when the attack is going on very close to a zerg base, you can see how hard it is to coordinate those units. Protoss just warp in, in the exact position they want. Nobody really cares about chronoboost. Terrans mule mechanic is easier than inject larvae and also more forgiving, even if they get supplyblocked they can throw down supply. Unit production of terran is probably the same as for zerg (mechanically intense). At least, that's how I see it.
Don't necesarily disagree, but injecting is a completely mechanical skill, so with enough practice, everyone will/does eventually get it (close to) perfect - like making workers while pushing/defending. It still shouldn't let you get away with silly stuff and give straightup better macro just because it's arguably harder. Also, I'll probably boost the ranking of most zergs by 20 for saying this, but... just build another hatch?! When/If you know you're floating.
On July 18 2012 23:02 Bagi wrote:
Show nested quote +On July 18 2012 22:33 Qibla wrote:
I think the OP needs an update.
I'm only a Diamond scrub, but I just played a game where I 1 rax fast expanded, and the protoss sent his first zealot, killed 4 marines, that I was trying to micro like crazy, (and forgot all about building my follow up barracks and gas), and then the scv building the bunker. and I lose the game to the stalker that he follows up with. 2 units.
It takes 0% risk for the protoss to do this, but takes immense concentration and skill from the Terran to hold it off. I know it can be held off, but it's not balanced in terms of difficulty to execute.
Here's how to hold if off: always spread your first 3-4 marines in a line at your ramp, and once the zealot arrives, move back the marine he tries to attack. If he doesn't run away he'll be lucky to kill a single marine. It's literally one of the easiest micro tasks in the game, not one that takes "immense concentration and skill". You just have to be aware how to position your first marines.
OT - It does take some practice, also probably shouldn't focus on 1raxFEing if he's in diamond and struggling with this - there's easier way to improve your basics.
|
|
|
| Shiori July 18 2012 23:19. Posts 2816 | Profile Blog # |
On July 18 2012 23:15 Chaggi wrote:
Show nested quote +On July 18 2012 22:59 Shiori wrote:
On July 18 2012 19:32 Big J wrote:
On July 18 2012 18:43 wcr.4fun wrote:
On July 18 2012 12:27 Reborn8u wrote:
I've been saying for over a year, that when zergs started to actually micro at the level that top toss, and terran players have been since almost release, that zerg would seem unstoppable. Up until just the last few months I've been watching the "best" zerg players in the world not even micro back infestors after the energy was used,letting them die pointlessly. Not target firing things like sentries. Not abusing burrow (with trapping units, delaying expansions ect). Now these are all quite common and they make PvZ a nightmare for toss. When that infestor count stays high, or your 3rd gets delayed because of a burrowed ling, or your 2 base gate all in at zergs 3rd gets stopped because of roach burrow.
I agree completely with the fact that (most) top zergs actually have 'horrible' unit control (compared to terran/protoss). But have you bothered watching through their point of view? Zerg macro is more intense than protoss' or terran's imo. Zergs have more bases. Zergs have creep spread, overlord spread and inject larvae. Especially when defending, zerg's units come from 3 different places and most often when the attack is going on very close to a zerg base, you can see how hard it is to coordinate those units. Protoss just warp in, in the exact position they want. Nobody really cares about chronoboost. Terrans mule mechanic is easier than inject larvae and also more forgiving, even if they get supplyblocked they can throw down supply. Unit production of terran is probably the same as for zerg (mechanically intense). At least, that's how I see it.
Look at TLOs stream and watch him microing groups of units around during combat quite hard. But when you actually juat watch the game, it could as well be just the zergling's AI that just led to better surrounds in this combat a lot of times what is left is often times that you see his overlords rally towards the open field, because he seems to make this rally point fail quite often. Also I want to add here, that 2months ago when you read any of those PvT balance whine threads, Terrans would say that Protoss does not micro at all in neither of their MUs and at least zergs would have similar APM to Terrans while Protoss would have (how low were their ridicolous claims again?) like 80 (?) APM in Masters. It's bullshit accusations and those arguments get quite boring.
but the Terrans had and still have a point. TvP is actually extremely difficult sub-high Masters because you sumply don't have the APM to do perfect army control and macro at the same time. At the highest level, TvP is balanced because everyone is extremely good and extremely fast, which means that decent army control is a given. The difference in P/TvZ is that there aren't even theoretical strategies that Toss/Terran players can do to get reliably even with Zerg. You can tell the matchup isn't imbalanced (TvP) because there were and still are top pros who are consistently winning with varied strategies in the matchup. There are lots of Terrans who have excellent TvP (MKP etc) and a lot of Protoss who have great PvT (Parting, Squirtle) but almost nobody who is good at PvZ or TvZ in the sense that they can be expected to crush less mechanically skilled players. People used to always point to MC/Hero as examples of players with strong PvZ. Well, Stephano obliterated them, and Stephano's mechanics are significantly weaker than either of theirs. Not trying to take away from his play in general, since he's done a lot to innovate on the Zerg side of things, but as a mechanical player, he's nothing special. He's not bad by any means, but he wins because of his strategies and reactions, not because he outmicros his opponents. So yeah, there aren't actually any good PvZ players who can macro against any half-decent Zerg (MC almost lost to Ret in a macro game until Ret messed up) and expect to win in the same way that MKP/Parting can expect to outmacro virtually any P/T respectively most of the time. On the TvZ side of things, there simply aren't any strong TvZ players. People like to point to Byun because he 3-0d Nestea, but, quite frankly, Nestea played like utter shit. Byun played well, but against a stronger opponent I'm unconvinced he'd do as well (and he later lost to DRG in the OSL).
TvZ used to be MMA's domain. Sigh I miss his TvZ's so much
Yeah, he was an example of a player who won sheerly by out-multitasking his opponents. It was very BW esque to see someone eschew clever strategies in favour of simply outplaying his opponents so hard that they couldn't handle it. I don't know why people don't want this back, because it's awesome. Seeing people just build order counter and react to each other isn't exciting because everything in this game is very clear cut in that regard.
One thing I'd like to point out is that metagame shifts don't occur overnight and shouldn't cause once-amazing players to drop off completely. If they do cause this to occur, it means the metagame has "shifted" in such a way so as to close off a wide range of strategies. In the case of MMA, multitasking to win is no longer viable, not because Zerg players have gotten better at defending it with their own multitasking, but because their builds are so greedy and so simultaneously safe that they don't need to worry about being dropped as much. Any time the metagame shits in a direction of less strategy, they game suffers. For example, there's basically 1 way to take a third base in PvZ, and it's with Immortal/Sentry. This sucks because it means that any Protoss who wants to macro basically has to open fast Robo and a lot of Sentries. Every other tech path is restricted to the later phases of the game. Since Protoss tech isn't linear like Zerg's, this is a big deal, because the opponent can easily know what the Protos player can build and how long it will take him to get other tech out.
Last edit: 2012-07-18 23:21:06 |
|
|
| Stark13 July 18 2012 23:31. Posts 1 | Profile # |
Last edit: 2012-07-19 02:34:30 |
|
|
| iky43210 United States. July 18 2012 23:34. Posts 1952 | Profile Blog # |
sc2 is reasonably "balanced". Some people are just too dramatic
It was way more "balanced" pre-patch, but even in this sad state of terran, people will turn around like always
quotes since sc2 balance is different from broodwar, as it is more like a tuck-of-war
Also I have been playing around with whale's 5 reaper opening, and it seem to have alot of potential (at least for now). Currently have a problem with transitioning, but I can see this working out well to stop those crazy fast expand, force roaches/lings productions, and stop creep expandLast edit: 2012-07-18 23:38:51 |
|
|
| Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 100 200 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 300 400 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 Next | |
|
|
|
| |
|
Sidebar Settings...
|
Store
