|
Please try to keep the discussion civil. And while I can't ask everyone to write a huge essay like tree.hugger, try to write out your opinions in a substantive, well-thought way. |
On September 09 2011 05:04 Olinim wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 04:59 Pandain wrote:On September 09 2011 04:55 Cloud9157 wrote:On September 09 2011 04:45 Pandain wrote:On September 09 2011 04:40 Olinim wrote:On September 09 2011 04:34 Pandain wrote:Uh what is this. I think tree hugger you have either been raging while laddering too long(a dangerous combination) or visiting the battlenet forums. MC should've held a 1-1-1 against one of the top 3 terrans in the world. Yes, he should've. But he didn't. And not because of imbalance, but because he didn't play perfectly. And when playing against cheeses or allins, you hvae to react correctly, even if it means playing harder than your opponet(see marine splitting vs banelings.) Contrary to your article not only did he delay his charge tech unnecessarily(at least 20 seconds), he also lost many probes during a banshee harrass. And while Puma was basicaally out of resources in his main, MC still had a good amount. If MC had held that push, and he should've, he would've won. It's somewhat sad, yet in a way showing of changing times that even TL has balance complaints in its articles. When you cheese, you go for a quick win. And it may be a powerful cheese, but its a cheese nonetheless. And if you don't react correctly, you can lose. There is nothing imbalanced about that. I mean seriously you bring up previous GSL's. And you say that because players like "Inca and San" aren't performing as well as Nestea, Losira, and July, that that shows protoss is "truly" imbalanced. The truth is that Nestea, Losira, and July are a level above Inca and san. You make it sound like Puma vs MC is Nestea vs Rain. You make Puma, PUMA of all people, to be seen as a way inferior opponet to MC, that the only reason MC lost was because Puma allin'd him. That's a very misleading statement. When I get cheesed of course they only win because they cheesed me. After all, that's what happened. But just like me, MC could've held, and it saddens me that this very well written article is on news rather than general. Indeed my biggest complaint is that this article appears to be sensationalist rather than news. The quotes involved are just extreme and inherently misinforming. Against PuMa, a better BW pro but a worse SC2 player, MC rightly expected to face the Frankenstein child of Polt's old build that he lost his first GSL games against. In that three games series, MC faced the 1/1/1 twice with two different strategies, and was rendered utterly helpless in each game A funny change from being a better BW player yet a worse sc2 player. And the "certainty" to which the article asserts this just strikes the wrong chord. When MC lost his warp prism with 4 high templars in it , he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When MC wasted his whole army and delayed charge for more than 20 seconds AGAINST AN ALLIN he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When he got hit by massive emps, dropped again and again(and impressively held off a majority), made terrible strategic decisions which even YOU acknowledge, he was not being a better sc2 player. And as for utterly helpless it was because game 1 he delayed charge and hit before charge despite having the economic lead and the ability to wait. Game 3 he went for a stupid blink stalker phoenix base trade build. That said, an observer of MC's basic play would be hard pressed to find real signs of slumping. He still wins a good portion of his games, and it shouldn't be omitted that his IEM loss did indeed come in the final, after all.
There have been poor plays he's been doing, as I've shown in this post. And being an "elite" player, as you say, is not determined by winning " a good portion of his games." It comes from dominating. Nestea and MVP play on a level in which they are actively improving perfection. MC is trying to attain it. In his heyday, and even during his slumps, MC was a massive anomaly. Any casual observer of his play in the GSL could make that observation, yet statistics bear this out. MC's Korean winning percentage is 66%. The second best winning percentage from any protoss is Puzzle, who has a 62% win rate, a substantial part of it in weekly foreigner-run tournaments against vastly inferior competition. Alicia notches 54%. HongUn has a 51% win rate. San boasts the same. Look at MC's protoss contemporaries for yourself. There's no one even close to MC's winning percentages. You can't just use these games as "proof." Especially when progamers play games spread across vast spaces of time(weeks often.) When one player is doing good, he may have a sub-50% win rate(because of horrible early start, like San.) The TLPD has been shown, as of now, to be quote unquote "unreliable", at least in determining player skills. After all, I'm pretty sure Strelok, rank #2 right now, is not the #2 foreigner. You have to look at the games. And the games do not support your balance cries. in balance piles, protoss indisputably been terrible recently. Terrible, but not because of balance. The only reason that some gaping flaws in the protoss design have now been uncovered is because MC is no longer successful enough to cover them up. .... Is MC's level of play determinate of protoss balance? Even when there are clear mistakes, do we forgive them just because "he's the best protoss player. f you haven't noticed that protoss sucks against terran, and has profound cost-efficiency difficulties against zerg, it’s because you're blind. It has taken imbalance on such an appalling scale as the 1/1/1 family of builds to cast MC down, to make him look mortal and prove once and for all that protoss is absolutely trash at the highest level of competition. Stop visiting the battlenet forums. Yet he knew he could not breach PuMa's main, and retook his expo, racing for charge If by racing you mean not continuously chronoing as well as not upgrading it for >20 seconds after the twilight council finished, then I 100% agree with you. MC has been quoted on occasion as having said that, if he played terran, he'd have won five championships I think I've heard that somewhere. Something regarding stork, or Idra, or something. Or every single pro player on the planet.
After watching him out-micro his opponent at IEM and still lose, out-multitask his opponent at IEM and still lose, and then go absolutely nuts and use a strategy whose gaping flaws a platinum player could identify in the third game, I believe him. ... At least edit this out. This is so blatantly biased. If you don't feel that Puma can hold his own against MC(when he already showed he could in solid macro games at NASL,) then you need to read this. Not only that but you go from "omg MC played SO WELL AND STILL LOST" to "in game 3 he did a horrible strategy What has to happen for you to considered it to be imbalanced? Protoss winrates and and code s representation are at an all time low. The best protoss in the world dropped to code a, and hes the only protoss above a 50 percent winrate(not counting puzzle cuz his games are majority iccup weeklys). If absolutely no protoss can play at the level of even mid tier code s terrans and zergs, that means there is a fucking problem with the race. Or is there some force that only makes inferior sc2 players pick protoss? There have been 5 bonjwas with broodwar. Boxer, Nada, Iloveoov, Savior, and Flash. Four terrans and one zerg. People knew that the player was OP, not the race, because they played flawless. When I see Nestea play, he makes few if no mistakes. And he constantly improves. When I see MVP play, I see a clear understanding of the matchup, solid macro, and awe-inspiring micro. I used to see that with MC. But look at my post, see his flaws, and you can tell that the issues he faced was simply not playing as well. Protoss players aren't dominating in GSL because they don't have that "spark." And the mid tier ones, like Violet, for instance, are dominating instead of protoss counter parts because up and down matches came just as the 1-1-1 awful strength was discvoered so they were knocked out. Just like how back in the day zergs got marine scv allined(nestea even lost to rain), and so you saw few amounts of zergs.
For something to be imbalanced, show me a game where the cheeser won and the losing player couldn't have. Simple. "Protoss player's aren't dominating in GSL, because they don't have that "spark". Such bull shit. "That spark"? What the hell is that even supposed to mean? Protoss has been limited for a few GSLs now. Frankly, I think there has been 2 Protoss that reached the RO4 in the past few GSLs. Alicia and HongUn both got there within my recent memory. MC? Has been nowhere to be found for a few months. Huk? Has improved vastly, but still can't make it past RO8. Puzzle? A potential dark horse for GSL, can't let him out of your sight, but still went out in RO16. Huk had the ability to make round of 4(even finals) if he was constantly training and not moving around, and even constantly traveling he still managed to make it to round of 8 where he got defeated by none other than MVP. JYP has shown signs of brilliance, as well as sage, and I'm very interested to see where they progress. You are just incessantly nitpicking protoss players play as if it's possible to play perfect. If you are actually realistic you can look at 1/1/1 and the state of protoss and admit they are too weak, even if you want them to play like God to beat a simple all in. Why would anyone play protoss when they can switch to terran and win easily with a simple all in, which according to you is perfectly fair and balanced? [/b]
You said nothing with that. You said loaded statements, didn't back them up, and just say that instead of having to play better that your race is weak and ___ is OP.
On September 09 2011 05:04 Paladia wrote:
On September 09 2011 04:45 Pandain wrote:
On September 09 2011 04:40 Olinim wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 04:34 Pandain wrote:Uh what is this. I think tree hugger you have either been raging while laddering too long(a dangerous combination) or visiting the battlenet forums. MC should've held a 1-1-1 against one of the top 3 terrans in the world. Yes, he should've. But he didn't. And not because of imbalance, but because he didn't play perfectly. And when playing against cheeses or allins, you hvae to react correctly, even if it means playing harder than your opponet(see marine splitting vs banelings.) Contrary to your article not only did he delay his charge tech unnecessarily(at least 20 seconds), he also lost many probes during a banshee harrass. And while Puma was basicaally out of resources in his main, MC still had a good amount. If MC had held that push, and he should've, he would've won. It's somewhat sad, yet in a way showing of changing times that even TL has balance complaints in its articles. When you cheese, you go for a quick win. And it may be a powerful cheese, but its a cheese nonetheless. And if you don't react correctly, you can lose. There is nothing imbalanced about that. I mean seriously you bring up previous GSL's. And you say that because players like "Inca and San" aren't performing as well as Nestea, Losira, and July, that that shows protoss is "truly" imbalanced. The truth is that Nestea, Losira, and July are a level above Inca and san. You make it sound like Puma vs MC is Nestea vs Rain. You make Puma, PUMA of all people, to be seen as a way inferior opponet to MC, that the only reason MC lost was because Puma allin'd him. That's a very misleading statement. When I get cheesed of course they only win because they cheesed me. After all, that's what happened. But just like me, MC could've held, and it saddens me that this very well written article is on news rather than general. Indeed my biggest complaint is that this article appears to be sensationalist rather than news. The quotes involved are just extreme and inherently misinforming. Against PuMa, a better BW pro but a worse SC2 player, MC rightly expected to face the Frankenstein child of Polt's old build that he lost his first GSL games against. In that three games series, MC faced the 1/1/1 twice with two different strategies, and was rendered utterly helpless in each game A funny change from being a better BW player yet a worse sc2 player. And the "certainty" to which the article asserts this just strikes the wrong chord. When MC lost his warp prism with 4 high templars in it , he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When MC wasted his whole army and delayed charge for more than 20 seconds AGAINST AN ALLIN he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When he got hit by massive emps, dropped again and again(and impressively held off a majority), made terrible strategic decisions which even YOU acknowledge, he was not being a better sc2 player. And as for utterly helpless it was because game 1 he delayed charge and hit before charge despite having the economic lead and the ability to wait. Game 3 he went for a stupid blink stalker phoenix base trade build. That said, an observer of MC's basic play would be hard pressed to find real signs of slumping. He still wins a good portion of his games, and it shouldn't be omitted that his IEM loss did indeed come in the final, after all.
There have been poor plays he's been doing, as I've shown in this post. And being an "elite" player, as you say, is not determined by winning " a good portion of his games." It comes from dominating. Nestea and MVP play on a level in which they are actively improving perfection. MC is trying to attain it. In his heyday, and even during his slumps, MC was a massive anomaly. Any casual observer of his play in the GSL could make that observation, yet statistics bear this out. MC's Korean winning percentage is 66%. The second best winning percentage from any protoss is Puzzle, who has a 62% win rate, a substantial part of it in weekly foreigner-run tournaments against vastly inferior competition. Alicia notches 54%. HongUn has a 51% win rate. San boasts the same. Look at MC's protoss contemporaries for yourself. There's no one even close to MC's winning percentages. You can't just use these games as "proof." Especially when progamers play games spread across vast spaces of time(weeks often.) When one player is doing good, he may have a sub-50% win rate(because of horrible early start, like San.) The TLPD has been shown, as of now, to be quote unquote "unreliable", at least in determining player skills. After all, I'm pretty sure Strelok, rank #2 right now, is not the #2 foreigner. You have to look at the games. And the games do not support your balance cries. in balance piles, protoss indisputably been terrible recently. Terrible, but not because of balance. The only reason that some gaping flaws in the protoss design have now been uncovered is because MC is no longer successful enough to cover them up. .... Is MC's level of play determinate of protoss balance? Even when there are clear mistakes, do we forgive them just because "he's the best protoss player. f you haven't noticed that protoss sucks against terran, and has profound cost-efficiency difficulties against zerg, it’s because you're blind. It has taken imbalance on such an appalling scale as the 1/1/1 family of builds to cast MC down, to make him look mortal and prove once and for all that protoss is absolutely trash at the highest level of competition. Stop visiting the battlenet forums. Yet he knew he could not breach PuMa's main, and retook his expo, racing for charge If by racing you mean not continuously chronoing as well as not upgrading it for >20 seconds after the twilight council finished, then I 100% agree with you. MC has been quoted on occasion as having said that, if he played terran, he'd have won five championships I think I've heard that somewhere. Something regarding stork, or Idra, or something. Or every single pro player on the planet.
After watching him out-micro his opponent at IEM and still lose, out-multitask his opponent at IEM and still lose, and then go absolutely nuts and use a strategy whose gaping flaws a platinum player could identify in the third game, I believe him. ... At least edit this out. This is so blatantly biased. If you don't feel that Puma can hold his own against MC(when he already showed he could in solid macro games at NASL,) then you need to read this. Not only that but you go from "omg MC played SO WELL AND STILL LOST" to "in game 3 he did a horrible strategy What has to happen for you to considered it to be imbalanced? Protoss winrates and and code s representation are at an all time low. The best protoss in the world dropped to code a, and hes the only protoss above a 50 percent winrate(not counting puzzle cuz his games are majority iccup weeklys). If absolutely no protoss can play at the level of even mid tier code s terrans and zergs, that means there is a fucking problem with the race. Or is there some force that only makes inferior sc2 players pick protoss? For something to be imbalanced, show me a game where the cheeser won and the losing player couldn't have. Simple. One game doesn't define balance, all games do, nor is your example even an example of overall game balance. The current stats are a result of all competitive games played by the top players. The result is that 9 out of the top 10 on the Korean ladder are Terran and that almost all in Code S are Terran. You seem to think that is somehow due to the players who pick Terran as their race has some kind of magic gene pool advantage that simply makes them much better at Starcraft. However, I think I'd rather trust the hard stats than your spaced magic terran-theory.
I don't mind the current balance myself when I play, as I am Terran. However, the Terranfest in Code S makes it very uninteresting to watch and as such I would prefer it if the game was actually balanced.
Um I would much rather trust Flash vs Jaedong than Flash vs Yellow as a analysis of tvz balance. And if you don't think that the highest level of play, where it comes down to true balance and macro and micro, and despite me showing you that MC would have held the 1-1-1 you continue to say its imbalanced. Say to me right now that MC couldn't have held that. Say it.
Say to me that MC made the right move going for a stupid phoenix blink build. Say to me that MC shouldn't be required to play perfectly against a cheesing PUMA
And as for ladder? Who uses that as a balance proof. Protoss play custom games, not ladder. Almost "all in code s are terran" exaggeration and misleading.
I think that overall terran players are better than protoss players. I've backed it up with proof. You just say what I say in sarcastic tones.
On September 09 2011 05:04 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 04:52 Pandain wrote:On September 09 2011 04:49 SeaSwift wrote:On September 09 2011 04:45 Pandain wrote:
For something to be imbalanced, show me a game where the cheeser won and the losing player couldn't have. Simple. That isn't how you decide whether something is imbalanced or not. If you have to play absolutely perfectly to beat a cheese that any platinum player could pull off it is imbalanced. Something is imbalanced if the player who played best loses, which is what I saw time and time again with MC vs Puma. Don't overexaggerate. There's a large difference between a subpar playing cheesing and a pro cheesing, just like how low level 4 gates are way less strong than high level 4 gates. Despite what you may think, they have to play perfectly with the only army that they will have. I didn't say that the 1-1-1 was a cheese any Plat player could pull off. That was an example highlighting your logical inconsistency. Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 04:52 Pandain wrote:And if you are going to be playing against Puma than fuck yes you are going to have to play absolutely perfectly. Yes, because all those players in the Code A qualifiers who prevent Puma from getting into Code A played absolutely perfectly... or not, or else surely they would be in Code S? Your logic is falling down here again. Show nested quote +Also by your reasoning here are things which are imbalanced:
Banelings(wtf is a split, targeting baneligns with tanks.) High templars( wtf I have to move away IMMEDIATELY when he storms me?) Drops(how can I react and know what he's doing in time. Damn those maruders.) 4 gate. Bunker rushes.
Some of them I disagree that they take more skill to defend than execute. 4gate has gone out of fashion like Georgian ruffs in all match-ups apart from PvP, and if you are talking about PvP then fuck yes 4gate is overpowered. About banelings/drops/bunker rushes, yes, if you want to be pedantic they are all slightly imbalanced. But because the most important level is the highest level of play, at the highest level of play the imbalance is minimal (because of the skill ceiling inherent in most cheeses) and therefore they are pretty much fine. If the highest level of play was Diamond or Platinum, yes. They would be imbalanced. Also, like to note that Blizzard thinks that Bunker rushes may be imbalanced because of the 5sec delay in the PTR which nerfs the 11/11 Barracks play, as well as most Terran tech in general (although 5 sec is minimal once you reach Starport times and so on).
The point is that no plat player with whatever strategy could beat a pro gamer. Your underestimating the skill cheese takes and while its harder to stop it you should stop complainning and just play better. Because its a 100% win if you do react perfectly, contrary to the cheeser who has to hope you make a mistake. That's the risk with cheese. It's gimmicky.
And as for Puma, he lost in code a because he's playing amazing players in the hardest qualifier in the world. Donraegu, DONRAEGU, couldn't make it to code a without MLG help.
And they may not have even played perfect against them. After all, a gold player can beat a silver player without either being perfect. Puma and DRG simply played worse in those games.
And I will never, EVER agree with anyone who says that because the skill level of today is too low that something should be nerfed. When this game is existing years from now, they will play at levels we will be in shock of. We should only balance the game at levels possible(or reachable, as clearly shown by me.)
On September 09 2011 05:08 Cloud9157 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 04:59 Pandain wrote:On September 09 2011 04:55 Cloud9157 wrote:On September 09 2011 04:45 Pandain wrote:On September 09 2011 04:40 Olinim wrote:On September 09 2011 04:34 Pandain wrote:Uh what is this. I think tree hugger you have either been raging while laddering too long(a dangerous combination) or visiting the battlenet forums. MC should've held a 1-1-1 against one of the top 3 terrans in the world. Yes, he should've. But he didn't. And not because of imbalance, but because he didn't play perfectly. And when playing against cheeses or allins, you hvae to react correctly, even if it means playing harder than your opponet(see marine splitting vs banelings.) Contrary to your article not only did he delay his charge tech unnecessarily(at least 20 seconds), he also lost many probes during a banshee harrass. And while Puma was basicaally out of resources in his main, MC still had a good amount. If MC had held that push, and he should've, he would've won. It's somewhat sad, yet in a way showing of changing times that even TL has balance complaints in its articles. When you cheese, you go for a quick win. And it may be a powerful cheese, but its a cheese nonetheless. And if you don't react correctly, you can lose. There is nothing imbalanced about that. I mean seriously you bring up previous GSL's. And you say that because players like "Inca and San" aren't performing as well as Nestea, Losira, and July, that that shows protoss is "truly" imbalanced. The truth is that Nestea, Losira, and July are a level above Inca and san. You make it sound like Puma vs MC is Nestea vs Rain. You make Puma, PUMA of all people, to be seen as a way inferior opponet to MC, that the only reason MC lost was because Puma allin'd him. That's a very misleading statement. When I get cheesed of course they only win because they cheesed me. After all, that's what happened. But just like me, MC could've held, and it saddens me that this very well written article is on news rather than general. Indeed my biggest complaint is that this article appears to be sensationalist rather than news. The quotes involved are just extreme and inherently misinforming. Against PuMa, a better BW pro but a worse SC2 player, MC rightly expected to face the Frankenstein child of Polt's old build that he lost his first GSL games against. In that three games series, MC faced the 1/1/1 twice with two different strategies, and was rendered utterly helpless in each game A funny change from being a better BW player yet a worse sc2 player. And the "certainty" to which the article asserts this just strikes the wrong chord. When MC lost his warp prism with 4 high templars in it , he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When MC wasted his whole army and delayed charge for more than 20 seconds AGAINST AN ALLIN he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When he got hit by massive emps, dropped again and again(and impressively held off a majority), made terrible strategic decisions which even YOU acknowledge, he was not being a better sc2 player. And as for utterly helpless it was because game 1 he delayed charge and hit before charge despite having the economic lead and the ability to wait. Game 3 he went for a stupid blink stalker phoenix base trade build. That said, an observer of MC's basic play would be hard pressed to find real signs of slumping. He still wins a good portion of his games, and it shouldn't be omitted that his IEM loss did indeed come in the final, after all.
There have been poor plays he's been doing, as I've shown in this post. And being an "elite" player, as you say, is not determined by winning " a good portion of his games." It comes from dominating. Nestea and MVP play on a level in which they are actively improving perfection. MC is trying to attain it. In his heyday, and even during his slumps, MC was a massive anomaly. Any casual observer of his play in the GSL could make that observation, yet statistics bear this out. MC's Korean winning percentage is 66%. The second best winning percentage from any protoss is Puzzle, who has a 62% win rate, a substantial part of it in weekly foreigner-run tournaments against vastly inferior competition. Alicia notches 54%. HongUn has a 51% win rate. San boasts the same. Look at MC's protoss contemporaries for yourself. There's no one even close to MC's winning percentages. You can't just use these games as "proof." Especially when progamers play games spread across vast spaces of time(weeks often.) When one player is doing good, he may have a sub-50% win rate(because of horrible early start, like San.) The TLPD has been shown, as of now, to be quote unquote "unreliable", at least in determining player skills. After all, I'm pretty sure Strelok, rank #2 right now, is not the #2 foreigner. You have to look at the games. And the games do not support your balance cries. in balance piles, protoss indisputably been terrible recently. Terrible, but not because of balance. The only reason that some gaping flaws in the protoss design have now been uncovered is because MC is no longer successful enough to cover them up. .... Is MC's level of play determinate of protoss balance? Even when there are clear mistakes, do we forgive them just because "he's the best protoss player.
f you haven't noticed that protoss sucks against terran, and has profound cost-efficiency difficulties against zerg, it’s because you're blind. It has taken imbalance on such an appalling scale as the 1/1/1 family of builds to cast MC down, to make him look mortal and prove once and for all that protoss is absolutely trash at the highest level of competition. Stop visiting the battlenet forums. Show nested quote + Yet he knew he could not breach PuMa's main, and retook his expo, racing for charge If by racing you mean not continuously chronoing as well as not upgrading it for >20 seconds after the twilight council finished, then I 100% agree with you. MC has been quoted on occasion as having said that, if he played terran, he'd have won five championships I think I've heard that somewhere. Something regarding stork, or Idra, or something. [b]Or every single pro player on the planet. After watching him out-micro his opponent at IEM and still lose, out-multitask his opponent at IEM and still lose, and then go absolutely nuts and use a strategy whose gaping flaws a platinum player could identify in the third game, I believe him. ... At least edit this out. This is so blatantly biased. If you don't feel that Puma can hold his own against MC(when he already showed he could in solid macro games at NASL,) then you need to read this. Not only that but you go from "omg MC played SO WELL AND STILL LOST" to "in game 3 he did a horrible strategy What has to happen for you to considered it to be imbalanced? Protoss winrates and and code s representation are at an all time low. The best protoss in the world dropped to code a, and hes the only protoss above a 50 percent winrate(not counting puzzle cuz his games are majority iccup weeklys). If absolutely no protoss can play at the level of even mid tier code s terrans and zergs, that means there is a fucking problem with the race. Or is there some force that only makes inferior sc2 players pick protoss?
There have been 5 bonjwas with broodwar. Boxer, Nada, Iloveoov, Savior, and Flash.
Four terrans and one zerg. People knew that the player was OP, not the race, because they played flawless. When I see Nestea play, he makes few if no mistakes. And he constantly improves. When I see MVP play, I see a clear understanding of the matchup, solid macro, and awe-inspiring micro.
I used to see that with MC. But look at my post, see his flaws, and you can tell that the issues he faced was simply not playing as well.
Protoss players aren't dominating in GSL because they don't have that "spark." And the mid tier ones, like Violet, for instance, are dominating instead of protoss counter parts because up and down matches came just as the 1-1-1 awful strength was discvoered so they were knocked out. Just like how back in the day zergs got marine scv allined(nestea even lost to rain), and so you saw few amounts of zergs.
For something to be imbalanced, show me a game where the cheeser won and the losing player couldn't have. Simple. "Protoss player's aren't dominating in GSL, because they don't have that "spark". Such bull shit. "That spark"? What the hell is that even supposed to mean? Protoss has been limited for a few GSLs now. Frankly, I think there has been 2 Protoss that reached the RO4 in the past few GSLs. Alicia and HongUn both got there within my recent memory. MC? Has been nowhere to be found for a few months. Huk? Has improved vastly, but still can't make it past RO8. Puzzle? A potential dark horse for GSL, can't let him out of your sight, but still went out in RO16. Huk had the ability to make round of 4(even finals) if he was constantly training and not moving around, and even constantly traveling he still managed to make it to round of 8 where he got defeated by none other than MVP. JYP has shown signs of brilliance, as well as sage, and I'm very interested to see where they progress. On a more general level, the spark if the ability to play perfectly on a constant basis. I see that with Losira, MVP, and Nestea. I don't see that with players like Inca. Really? Inca? Inca is a cheesy player that only has solid PvP. When he faced Nestea, I didn't cheer him on once, because he was embarrassing towards Protoss. And you still don't think balance could be influencing the ability of Protoss players? I agree on the first part entirely. The author, treehugger, however stated that because "inca and san" weren't doing as well as "nestea, losira, july" that it shows that protoss is "truly" underpowered while zerg isn't.
I think it might be. But I think its foolhardy to say it is.
Edit: Sorry about bold quotes everywhere, the hanging screwed everything up.
|
On September 09 2011 05:18 Agnosthar wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 04:58 Olinim wrote:On September 09 2011 04:55 Agnosthar wrote: Whilst the article documents the slump of MC, and to some extent, the topic of game balance is mandatory for a fully encompassing review. In my opinion it strayed too far from a reasoned discussion detailing how MC has been under-performing and the likely causes of this, into an overly aggressive balance whine: "If you haven't noticed that protoss sucks against terran, and has profound cost-efficiency difficulties against zerg, it’s because you're blind." Rather than illustrating specific situations in which Protoss are currently struggling against Terran, such as when dealing with 1-1-1 builds, the author absurdly announces that Protoss as a whole suck against Terran. Labelling those of us who aren't yet ready to reach that conclusion as blind. The author attempts to use the series between MC and PuMa at IEM Cologne as further evidence of Terran imbalance. The only thing more glaring than the prejudiced review, petulantly labelling PuMa's army as the 'terran imba-ball', was the absence of any mention of game 2 between the players in the write up. Clearly this game would have undermined the notion that MC outplayed everybody and still lost, something the author tried so hard to make us believe.
On a more general level, I think the article is an extreme exaggeration of where Protoss is at. It should be mentioned that Protoss took two of the top 3 spots at Cologne. Despite what the author would claim, I find it highly contentious to call MC a superior player to PuMa.
Although it is correct to draw a large amount of inference from GSL code S regarding the state of Protoss, it is still wrong to ignore other tournament results. The author is of the opinion that Protoss doesn't have a fighting chance in the big tournaments. How does this opinion hold when looking outside of Korea? The winner of IPL season 2 was White Ra, who didn't drop a game until the winners bracket final, incidentally to another Protoss. Admittedly, these tournament games were broadcasted well after the games were played. Huk won Homestory and Dreamhack fairly recently, to my knowledge there haven't been any balance changes since those tournaments.
I tentatively suggest that too much weight is being placed on GSL results when making deductions concerning balance. Mainly due to the volatility of the GSL format and the bottleneck players wanting to gain entry to code S must overcome. The champion of code S is potentially 4 games away from dropping to code A, and one simply has to look at the amount of players arguably superior to some of those in code S who consistently fail to gain entry. Instead, I argue that when walking the razor thin tightrope between success and failure in the GSL, dealing with nerves and who makes the least mistakes in their play are the major determinants of success, or lack of, not balance. Because as soon as they faced korean terrans the toss got destroyed? IPL doesnt count for balance because White-ra didnt beat any high level koreans. He would go to korea and get stomped. What question are you even answering? I wasn't trying to argue White Ra winning IPL 2 meant Protoss was balanced. I referenced IPL as something to consider in response to the author's claim Protoss didn't have a fighting chance in big tournaments, irrespective of nationality. As a general rule, if you find yourself responding to a page long post with 2 lines then you're probably oversimplifying. "I tentatively suggest that too much weight is being placed on GSL results when making deductions concerning balance." "It's still wrong to ignore other tournament results." I just don't think thats true and generally it's completely fine to ignore other tournament results, especially when there are no koreans in it:/. Forgive me if you weren't suggesting that IPL2 has relevance regarding balance.
|
On September 09 2011 05:23 Pandain wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 05:04 Olinim wrote:On September 09 2011 04:59 Pandain wrote:On September 09 2011 04:55 Cloud9157 wrote:On September 09 2011 04:45 Pandain wrote:On September 09 2011 04:40 Olinim wrote:On September 09 2011 04:34 Pandain wrote:Uh what is this. I think tree hugger you have either been raging while laddering too long(a dangerous combination) or visiting the battlenet forums. MC should've held a 1-1-1 against one of the top 3 terrans in the world. Yes, he should've. But he didn't. And not because of imbalance, but because he didn't play perfectly. And when playing against cheeses or allins, you hvae to react correctly, even if it means playing harder than your opponet(see marine splitting vs banelings.) Contrary to your article not only did he delay his charge tech unnecessarily(at least 20 seconds), he also lost many probes during a banshee harrass. And while Puma was basicaally out of resources in his main, MC still had a good amount. If MC had held that push, and he should've, he would've won. It's somewhat sad, yet in a way showing of changing times that even TL has balance complaints in its articles. When you cheese, you go for a quick win. And it may be a powerful cheese, but its a cheese nonetheless. And if you don't react correctly, you can lose. There is nothing imbalanced about that. I mean seriously you bring up previous GSL's. And you say that because players like "Inca and San" aren't performing as well as Nestea, Losira, and July, that that shows protoss is "truly" imbalanced. The truth is that Nestea, Losira, and July are a level above Inca and san. You make it sound like Puma vs MC is Nestea vs Rain. You make Puma, PUMA of all people, to be seen as a way inferior opponet to MC, that the only reason MC lost was because Puma allin'd him. That's a very misleading statement. When I get cheesed of course they only win because they cheesed me. After all, that's what happened. But just like me, MC could've held, and it saddens me that this very well written article is on news rather than general. Indeed my biggest complaint is that this article appears to be sensationalist rather than news. The quotes involved are just extreme and inherently misinforming. Against PuMa, a better BW pro but a worse SC2 player, MC rightly expected to face the Frankenstein child of Polt's old build that he lost his first GSL games against. In that three games series, MC faced the 1/1/1 twice with two different strategies, and was rendered utterly helpless in each game A funny change from being a better BW player yet a worse sc2 player. And the "certainty" to which the article asserts this just strikes the wrong chord. When MC lost his warp prism with 4 high templars in it , he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When MC wasted his whole army and delayed charge for more than 20 seconds AGAINST AN ALLIN he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When he got hit by massive emps, dropped again and again(and impressively held off a majority), made terrible strategic decisions which even YOU acknowledge, he was not being a better sc2 player. And as for utterly helpless it was because game 1 he delayed charge and hit before charge despite having the economic lead and the ability to wait. Game 3 he went for a stupid blink stalker phoenix base trade build. That said, an observer of MC's basic play would be hard pressed to find real signs of slumping. He still wins a good portion of his games, and it shouldn't be omitted that his IEM loss did indeed come in the final, after all.
There have been poor plays he's been doing, as I've shown in this post. And being an "elite" player, as you say, is not determined by winning " a good portion of his games." It comes from dominating. Nestea and MVP play on a level in which they are actively improving perfection. MC is trying to attain it. In his heyday, and even during his slumps, MC was a massive anomaly. Any casual observer of his play in the GSL could make that observation, yet statistics bear this out. MC's Korean winning percentage is 66%. The second best winning percentage from any protoss is Puzzle, who has a 62% win rate, a substantial part of it in weekly foreigner-run tournaments against vastly inferior competition. Alicia notches 54%. HongUn has a 51% win rate. San boasts the same. Look at MC's protoss contemporaries for yourself. There's no one even close to MC's winning percentages. You can't just use these games as "proof." Especially when progamers play games spread across vast spaces of time(weeks often.) When one player is doing good, he may have a sub-50% win rate(because of horrible early start, like San.) The TLPD has been shown, as of now, to be quote unquote "unreliable", at least in determining player skills. After all, I'm pretty sure Strelok, rank #2 right now, is not the #2 foreigner. You have to look at the games. And the games do not support your balance cries. in balance piles, protoss indisputably been terrible recently. Terrible, but not because of balance. The only reason that some gaping flaws in the protoss design have now been uncovered is because MC is no longer successful enough to cover them up. .... Is MC's level of play determinate of protoss balance? Even when there are clear mistakes, do we forgive them just because "he's the best protoss player. f you haven't noticed that protoss sucks against terran, and has profound cost-efficiency difficulties against zerg, it’s because you're blind. It has taken imbalance on such an appalling scale as the 1/1/1 family of builds to cast MC down, to make him look mortal and prove once and for all that protoss is absolutely trash at the highest level of competition. Stop visiting the battlenet forums. Yet he knew he could not breach PuMa's main, and retook his expo, racing for charge If by racing you mean not continuously chronoing as well as not upgrading it for >20 seconds after the twilight council finished, then I 100% agree with you. MC has been quoted on occasion as having said that, if he played terran, he'd have won five championships I think I've heard that somewhere. Something regarding stork, or Idra, or something. Or every single pro player on the planet.
After watching him out-micro his opponent at IEM and still lose, out-multitask his opponent at IEM and still lose, and then go absolutely nuts and use a strategy whose gaping flaws a platinum player could identify in the third game, I believe him. ... At least edit this out. This is so blatantly biased. If you don't feel that Puma can hold his own against MC(when he already showed he could in solid macro games at NASL,) then you need to read this. Not only that but you go from "omg MC played SO WELL AND STILL LOST" to "in game 3 he did a horrible strategy What has to happen for you to considered it to be imbalanced? Protoss winrates and and code s representation are at an all time low. The best protoss in the world dropped to code a, and hes the only protoss above a 50 percent winrate(not counting puzzle cuz his games are majority iccup weeklys). If absolutely no protoss can play at the level of even mid tier code s terrans and zergs, that means there is a fucking problem with the race. Or is there some force that only makes inferior sc2 players pick protoss? There have been 5 bonjwas with broodwar. Boxer, Nada, Iloveoov, Savior, and Flash. Four terrans and one zerg. People knew that the player was OP, not the race, because they played flawless. When I see Nestea play, he makes few if no mistakes. And he constantly improves. When I see MVP play, I see a clear understanding of the matchup, solid macro, and awe-inspiring micro. I used to see that with MC. But look at my post, see his flaws, and you can tell that the issues he faced was simply not playing as well. Protoss players aren't dominating in GSL because they don't have that "spark." And the mid tier ones, like Violet, for instance, are dominating instead of protoss counter parts because up and down matches came just as the 1-1-1 awful strength was discvoered so they were knocked out. Just like how back in the day zergs got marine scv allined(nestea even lost to rain), and so you saw few amounts of zergs.
For something to be imbalanced, show me a game where the cheeser won and the losing player couldn't have. Simple. "Protoss player's aren't dominating in GSL, because they don't have that "spark". Such bull shit. "That spark"? What the hell is that even supposed to mean? Protoss has been limited for a few GSLs now. Frankly, I think there has been 2 Protoss that reached the RO4 in the past few GSLs. Alicia and HongUn both got there within my recent memory. MC? Has been nowhere to be found for a few months. Huk? Has improved vastly, but still can't make it past RO8. Puzzle? A potential dark horse for GSL, can't let him out of your sight, but still went out in RO16. Huk had the ability to make round of 4(even finals) if he was constantly training and not moving around, and even constantly traveling he still managed to make it to round of 8 where he got defeated by none other than MVP. JYP has shown signs of brilliance, as well as sage, and I'm very interested to see where they progress. You are just incessantly nitpicking protoss players play as if it's possible to play perfect. If you are actually realistic you can look at 1/1/1 and the state of protoss and admit they are too weak, even if you want them to play like God to beat a simple all in. Why would anyone play protoss when they can switch to terran and win easily with a simple all in, which according to you is perfectly fair and balanced? You said nothing with that. You said loaded statements, didn't back them up, and just say that instead of having to play better that your race is weak and ___ is OP. Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 05:04 Paladia wrote:
On September 09 2011 04:45 Pandain wrote:
On September 09 2011 04:40 Olinim wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 04:34 Pandain wrote:Uh what is this. I think tree hugger you have either been raging while laddering too long(a dangerous combination) or visiting the battlenet forums. MC should've held a 1-1-1 against one of the top 3 terrans in the world. Yes, he should've. But he didn't. And not because of imbalance, but because he didn't play perfectly. And when playing against cheeses or allins, you hvae to react correctly, even if it means playing harder than your opponet(see marine splitting vs banelings.) Contrary to your article not only did he delay his charge tech unnecessarily(at least 20 seconds), he also lost many probes during a banshee harrass. And while Puma was basicaally out of resources in his main, MC still had a good amount. If MC had held that push, and he should've, he would've won. It's somewhat sad, yet in a way showing of changing times that even TL has balance complaints in its articles. When you cheese, you go for a quick win. And it may be a powerful cheese, but its a cheese nonetheless. And if you don't react correctly, you can lose. There is nothing imbalanced about that. I mean seriously you bring up previous GSL's. And you say that because players like "Inca and San" aren't performing as well as Nestea, Losira, and July, that that shows protoss is "truly" imbalanced. The truth is that Nestea, Losira, and July are a level above Inca and san. You make it sound like Puma vs MC is Nestea vs Rain. You make Puma, PUMA of all people, to be seen as a way inferior opponet to MC, that the only reason MC lost was because Puma allin'd him. That's a very misleading statement. When I get cheesed of course they only win because they cheesed me. After all, that's what happened. But just like me, MC could've held, and it saddens me that this very well written article is on news rather than general. Indeed my biggest complaint is that this article appears to be sensationalist rather than news. The quotes involved are just extreme and inherently misinforming. Against PuMa, a better BW pro but a worse SC2 player, MC rightly expected to face the Frankenstein child of Polt's old build that he lost his first GSL games against. In that three games series, MC faced the 1/1/1 twice with two different strategies, and was rendered utterly helpless in each game A funny change from being a better BW player yet a worse sc2 player. And the "certainty" to which the article asserts this just strikes the wrong chord. When MC lost his warp prism with 4 high templars in it , he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When MC wasted his whole army and delayed charge for more than 20 seconds AGAINST AN ALLIN he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When he got hit by massive emps, dropped again and again(and impressively held off a majority), made terrible strategic decisions which even YOU acknowledge, he was not being a better sc2 player. And as for utterly helpless it was because game 1 he delayed charge and hit before charge despite having the economic lead and the ability to wait. Game 3 he went for a stupid blink stalker phoenix base trade build. That said, an observer of MC's basic play would be hard pressed to find real signs of slumping. He still wins a good portion of his games, and it shouldn't be omitted that his IEM loss did indeed come in the final, after all.
There have been poor plays he's been doing, as I've shown in this post. And being an "elite" player, as you say, is not determined by winning " a good portion of his games." It comes from dominating. Nestea and MVP play on a level in which they are actively improving perfection. MC is trying to attain it. In his heyday, and even during his slumps, MC was a massive anomaly. Any casual observer of his play in the GSL could make that observation, yet statistics bear this out. MC's Korean winning percentage is 66%. The second best winning percentage from any protoss is Puzzle, who has a 62% win rate, a substantial part of it in weekly foreigner-run tournaments against vastly inferior competition. Alicia notches 54%. HongUn has a 51% win rate. San boasts the same. Look at MC's protoss contemporaries for yourself. There's no one even close to MC's winning percentages. You can't just use these games as "proof." Especially when progamers play games spread across vast spaces of time(weeks often.) When one player is doing good, he may have a sub-50% win rate(because of horrible early start, like San.) The TLPD has been shown, as of now, to be quote unquote "unreliable", at least in determining player skills. After all, I'm pretty sure Strelok, rank #2 right now, is not the #2 foreigner. You have to look at the games. And the games do not support your balance cries. in balance piles, protoss indisputably been terrible recently. Terrible, but not because of balance. The only reason that some gaping flaws in the protoss design have now been uncovered is because MC is no longer successful enough to cover them up. .... Is MC's level of play determinate of protoss balance? Even when there are clear mistakes, do we forgive them just because "he's the best protoss player. f you haven't noticed that protoss sucks against terran, and has profound cost-efficiency difficulties against zerg, it’s because you're blind. It has taken imbalance on such an appalling scale as the 1/1/1 family of builds to cast MC down, to make him look mortal and prove once and for all that protoss is absolutely trash at the highest level of competition. Stop visiting the battlenet forums. Yet he knew he could not breach PuMa's main, and retook his expo, racing for charge If by racing you mean not continuously chronoing as well as not upgrading it for >20 seconds after the twilight council finished, then I 100% agree with you. MC has been quoted on occasion as having said that, if he played terran, he'd have won five championships I think I've heard that somewhere. Something regarding stork, or Idra, or something. Or every single pro player on the planet.
After watching him out-micro his opponent at IEM and still lose, out-multitask his opponent at IEM and still lose, and then go absolutely nuts and use a strategy whose gaping flaws a platinum player could identify in the third game, I believe him. ... At least edit this out. This is so blatantly biased. If you don't feel that Puma can hold his own against MC(when he already showed he could in solid macro games at NASL,) then you need to read this. Not only that but you go from "omg MC played SO WELL AND STILL LOST" to "in game 3 he did a horrible strategy What has to happen for you to considered it to be imbalanced? Protoss winrates and and code s representation are at an all time low. The best protoss in the world dropped to code a, and hes the only protoss above a 50 percent winrate(not counting puzzle cuz his games are majority iccup weeklys). If absolutely no protoss can play at the level of even mid tier code s terrans and zergs, that means there is a fucking problem with the race. Or is there some force that only makes inferior sc2 players pick protoss? For something to be imbalanced, show me a game where the cheeser won and the losing player couldn't have. Simple. One game doesn't define balance, all games do, nor is your example even an example of overall game balance. The current stats are a result of all competitive games played by the top players. The result is that 9 out of the top 10 on the Korean ladder are Terran and that almost all in Code S are Terran. You seem to think that is somehow due to the players who pick Terran as their race has some kind of magic gene pool advantage that simply makes them much better at Starcraft. However, I think I'd rather trust the hard stats than your spaced magic terran-theory.
I don't mind the current balance myself when I play, as I am Terran. However, the Terranfest in Code S makes it very uninteresting to watch and as such I would prefer it if the game was actually balanced. Um I would much rather trust Flash vs Jaedong than Flash vs Yellow as a analysis of tvz balance. And if you don't think that the highest level of play, where it comes down to true balance and macro and micro, and despite me showing you that MC would have held the 1-1-1 you continue to say its imbalanced. Say to me right now that MC couldn't have held that. Say it.
Say to me that MC made the right move going for a stupid phoenix blink build. Say to me that MC shouldn't be required to play perfectly against a cheesing PUMA
And as for ladder? Who uses that as a balance proof. Protoss play custom games, not ladder. Almost "all in code s are terran" exaggeration and misleading.
I think that overall terran players are better than protoss players. I've backed it up with proof. You just say what I say in sarcastic tones.
On September 09 2011 05:04 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 04:52 Pandain wrote:On September 09 2011 04:49 SeaSwift wrote:On September 09 2011 04:45 Pandain wrote:
For something to be imbalanced, show me a game where the cheeser won and the losing player couldn't have. Simple. That isn't how you decide whether something is imbalanced or not. If you have to play absolutely perfectly to beat a cheese that any platinum player could pull off it is imbalanced. Something is imbalanced if the player who played best loses, which is what I saw time and time again with MC vs Puma. Don't overexaggerate. There's a large difference between a subpar playing cheesing and a pro cheesing, just like how low level 4 gates are way less strong than high level 4 gates. Despite what you may think, they have to play perfectly with the only army that they will have. I didn't say that the 1-1-1 was a cheese any Plat player could pull off. That was an example highlighting your logical inconsistency. Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 04:52 Pandain wrote:And if you are going to be playing against Puma than fuck yes you are going to have to play absolutely perfectly. Yes, because all those players in the Code A qualifiers who prevent Puma from getting into Code A played absolutely perfectly... or not, or else surely they would be in Code S? Your logic is falling down here again. Show nested quote +Also by your reasoning here are things which are imbalanced:
Banelings(wtf is a split, targeting baneligns with tanks.) High templars( wtf I have to move away IMMEDIATELY when he storms me?) Drops(how can I react and know what he's doing in time. Damn those maruders.) 4 gate. Bunker rushes.
Some of them I disagree that they take more skill to defend than execute. 4gate has gone out of fashion like Georgian ruffs in all match-ups apart from PvP, and if you are talking about PvP then fuck yes 4gate is overpowered. About banelings/drops/bunker rushes, yes, if you want to be pedantic they are all slightly imbalanced. But because the most important level is the highest level of play, at the highest level of play the imbalance is minimal (because of the skill ceiling inherent in most cheeses) and therefore they are pretty much fine. If the highest level of play was Diamond or Platinum, yes. They would be imbalanced. Also, like to note that Blizzard thinks that Bunker rushes may be imbalanced because of the 5sec delay in the PTR which nerfs the 11/11 Barracks play, as well as most Terran tech in general (although 5 sec is minimal once you reach Starport times and so on).
The point is that no plat player with whatever strategy could beat a pro gamer. Your underestimating the skill cheese takes and while its harder to stop it you should stop complainning and just play better. Because its a 100% win if you do react perfectly, contrary to the cheeser who has to hope you make a mistake. That's the risk with cheese. It's gimmicky.
And as for Puma, he lost in code a because he's playing amazing players in the hardest qualifier in the world. Donraegu, DONRAEGU, couldn't make it to code a without MLG help.
And they may not have even played perfect against them. After all, a gold player can beat a silver player without either being perfect. Puma and DRG simply played worse in those games.
And I will never, EVER agree with anyone who says that because the skill level of today is too low that something should be nerfed. When this game is existing years from now, they will play at levels we will be in shock of. We should only balance the game at levels possible(or reachable, as clearly shown by me.)
On September 09 2011 05:08 Cloud9157 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 04:59 Pandain wrote:On September 09 2011 04:55 Cloud9157 wrote:On September 09 2011 04:45 Pandain wrote:On September 09 2011 04:40 Olinim wrote:On September 09 2011 04:34 Pandain wrote:Uh what is this. I think tree hugger you have either been raging while laddering too long(a dangerous combination) or visiting the battlenet forums. MC should've held a 1-1-1 against one of the top 3 terrans in the world. Yes, he should've. But he didn't. And not because of imbalance, but because he didn't play perfectly. And when playing against cheeses or allins, you hvae to react correctly, even if it means playing harder than your opponet(see marine splitting vs banelings.) Contrary to your article not only did he delay his charge tech unnecessarily(at least 20 seconds), he also lost many probes during a banshee harrass. And while Puma was basicaally out of resources in his main, MC still had a good amount. If MC had held that push, and he should've, he would've won. It's somewhat sad, yet in a way showing of changing times that even TL has balance complaints in its articles. When you cheese, you go for a quick win. And it may be a powerful cheese, but its a cheese nonetheless. And if you don't react correctly, you can lose. There is nothing imbalanced about that. I mean seriously you bring up previous GSL's. And you say that because players like "Inca and San" aren't performing as well as Nestea, Losira, and July, that that shows protoss is "truly" imbalanced. The truth is that Nestea, Losira, and July are a level above Inca and san. You make it sound like Puma vs MC is Nestea vs Rain. You make Puma, PUMA of all people, to be seen as a way inferior opponet to MC, that the only reason MC lost was because Puma allin'd him. That's a very misleading statement. When I get cheesed of course they only win because they cheesed me. After all, that's what happened. But just like me, MC could've held, and it saddens me that this very well written article is on news rather than general. Indeed my biggest complaint is that this article appears to be sensationalist rather than news. The quotes involved are just extreme and inherently misinforming. Against PuMa, a better BW pro but a worse SC2 player, MC rightly expected to face the Frankenstein child of Polt's old build that he lost his first GSL games against. In that three games series, MC faced the 1/1/1 twice with two different strategies, and was rendered utterly helpless in each game A funny change from being a better BW player yet a worse sc2 player. And the "certainty" to which the article asserts this just strikes the wrong chord. When MC lost his warp prism with 4 high templars in it , he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When MC wasted his whole army and delayed charge for more than 20 seconds AGAINST AN ALLIN he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When he got hit by massive emps, dropped again and again(and impressively held off a majority), made terrible strategic decisions which even YOU acknowledge, he was not being a better sc2 player. And as for utterly helpless it was because game 1 he delayed charge and hit before charge despite having the economic lead and the ability to wait. Game 3 he went for a stupid blink stalker phoenix base trade build. That said, an observer of MC's basic play would be hard pressed to find real signs of slumping. He still wins a good portion of his games, and it shouldn't be omitted that his IEM loss did indeed come in the final, after all.
There have been poor plays he's been doing, as I've shown in this post. And being an "elite" player, as you say, is not determined by winning " a good portion of his games." It comes from dominating. Nestea and MVP play on a level in which they are actively improving perfection. MC is trying to attain it. In his heyday, and even during his slumps, MC was a massive anomaly. Any casual observer of his play in the GSL could make that observation, yet statistics bear this out. MC's Korean winning percentage is 66%. The second best winning percentage from any protoss is Puzzle, who has a 62% win rate, a substantial part of it in weekly foreigner-run tournaments against vastly inferior competition. Alicia notches 54%. HongUn has a 51% win rate. San boasts the same. Look at MC's protoss contemporaries for yourself. There's no one even close to MC's winning percentages. You can't just use these games as "proof." Especially when progamers play games spread across vast spaces of time(weeks often.) When one player is doing good, he may have a sub-50% win rate(because of horrible early start, like San.) The TLPD has been shown, as of now, to be quote unquote "unreliable", at least in determining player skills. After all, I'm pretty sure Strelok, rank #2 right now, is not the #2 foreigner. You have to look at the games. And the games do not support your balance cries. in balance piles, protoss indisputably been terrible recently. Terrible, but not because of balance. The only reason that some gaping flaws in the protoss design have now been uncovered is because MC is no longer successful enough to cover them up. .... Is MC's level of play determinate of protoss balance? Even when there are clear mistakes, do we forgive them just because "he's the best protoss player. Show nested quote +f you haven't noticed that protoss sucks against terran, and has profound cost-efficiency difficulties against zerg, it’s because you're blind. It has taken imbalance on such an appalling scale as the 1/1/1 family of builds to cast MC down, to make him look mortal and prove once and for all that protoss is absolutely trash at the highest level of competition. Stop visiting the battlenet forums. Yet he knew he could not breach PuMa's main, and retook his expo, racing for charge If by racing you mean not continuously chronoing as well as not upgrading it for >20 seconds after the twilight council finished, then I 100% agree with you. MC has been quoted on occasion as having said that, if he played terran, he'd have won five championships I think I've heard that somewhere. Something regarding stork, or Idra, or something. [b]Or every single pro player on the planet. After watching him out-micro his opponent at IEM and still lose, out-multitask his opponent at IEM and still lose, and then go absolutely nuts and use a strategy whose gaping flaws a platinum player could identify in the third game, I believe him. ... At least edit this out. This is so blatantly biased. If you don't feel that Puma can hold his own against MC(when he already showed he could in solid macro games at NASL,) then you need to read this. Not only that but you go from "omg MC played SO WELL AND STILL LOST" to "in game 3 he did a horrible strategy What has to happen for you to considered it to be imbalanced? Protoss winrates and and code s representation are at an all time low. The best protoss in the world dropped to code a, and hes the only protoss above a 50 percent winrate(not counting puzzle cuz his games are majority iccup weeklys). If absolutely no protoss can play at the level of even mid tier code s terrans and zergs, that means there is a fucking problem with the race. Or is there some force that only makes inferior sc2 players pick protoss?
There have been 5 bonjwas with broodwar. Boxer, Nada, Iloveoov, Savior, and Flash.
Four terrans and one zerg. People knew that the player was OP, not the race, because they played flawless. When I see Nestea play, he makes few if no mistakes. And he constantly improves. When I see MVP play, I see a clear understanding of the matchup, solid macro, and awe-inspiring micro.
I used to see that with MC. But look at my post, see his flaws, and you can tell that the issues he faced was simply not playing as well.
Protoss players aren't dominating in GSL because they don't have that "spark." And the mid tier ones, like Violet, for instance, are dominating instead of protoss counter parts because up and down matches came just as the 1-1-1 awful strength was discvoered so they were knocked out. Just like how back in the day zergs got marine scv allined(nestea even lost to rain), and so you saw few amounts of zergs.
For something to be imbalanced, show me a game where the cheeser won and the losing player couldn't have. Simple. "Protoss player's aren't dominating in GSL, because they don't have that "spark". Such bull shit. "That spark"? What the hell is that even supposed to mean? Protoss has been limited for a few GSLs now. Frankly, I think there has been 2 Protoss that reached the RO4 in the past few GSLs. Alicia and HongUn both got there within my recent memory. MC? Has been nowhere to be found for a few months. Huk? Has improved vastly, but still can't make it past RO8. Puzzle? A potential dark horse for GSL, can't let him out of your sight, but still went out in RO16. Huk had the ability to make round of 4(even finals) if he was constantly training and not moving around, and even constantly traveling he still managed to make it to round of 8 where he got defeated by none other than MVP. JYP has shown signs of brilliance, as well as sage, and I'm very interested to see where they progress. On a more general level, the spark if the ability to play perfectly on a constant basis. I see that with Losira, MVP, and Nestea. I don't see that with players like Inca. Really? Inca? Inca is a cheesy player that only has solid PvP. When he faced Nestea, I didn't cheer him on once, because he was embarrassing towards Protoss. And you still don't think balance could be influencing the ability of Protoss players? I agree on the first part entirely. The author, treehugger, however stated that because "inca and san" weren't doing as well as "nestea, losira, july" that it shows that protoss is "truly" underpowered while zerg isn't. I think it might be. But I think its foolhardy to say it is. Edit: Sorry about bold quotes everywhere, the hanging screwed everything up. [/b] By your logic, are there any patches that should have gone through? Has there ever been a point where a strat was demonstrated to be unbeatable with supposed perfect play? 5 rax reaper...maybe. Your view simply isn't realistic, and blizzard disagrees with you since apparently they do think bunker rushes are op, considering the nerf. Hopefully they will not take a page from your book of insanity and look further into the absolute nonsense that is the 1/1/1 :/. This simply isn't fair to protoss players, the results, the games, and the opinions of other pros show that. And yes MC shouldn't have to play perfectly to beat Puma's sloppy 1/1/1 on XNC that he didn't even do very well, because NO ONE plays perfectly.
|
On September 09 2011 05:30 Olinim wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 05:23 Pandain wrote:On September 09 2011 05:04 Olinim wrote:On September 09 2011 04:59 Pandain wrote:On September 09 2011 04:55 Cloud9157 wrote:On September 09 2011 04:45 Pandain wrote:On September 09 2011 04:40 Olinim wrote:On September 09 2011 04:34 Pandain wrote:Uh what is this. I think tree hugger you have either been raging while laddering too long(a dangerous combination) or visiting the battlenet forums. MC should've held a 1-1-1 against one of the top 3 terrans in the world. Yes, he should've. But he didn't. And not because of imbalance, but because he didn't play perfectly. And when playing against cheeses or allins, you hvae to react correctly, even if it means playing harder than your opponet(see marine splitting vs banelings.) Contrary to your article not only did he delay his charge tech unnecessarily(at least 20 seconds), he also lost many probes during a banshee harrass. And while Puma was basicaally out of resources in his main, MC still had a good amount. If MC had held that push, and he should've, he would've won. It's somewhat sad, yet in a way showing of changing times that even TL has balance complaints in its articles. When you cheese, you go for a quick win. And it may be a powerful cheese, but its a cheese nonetheless. And if you don't react correctly, you can lose. There is nothing imbalanced about that. I mean seriously you bring up previous GSL's. And you say that because players like "Inca and San" aren't performing as well as Nestea, Losira, and July, that that shows protoss is "truly" imbalanced. The truth is that Nestea, Losira, and July are a level above Inca and san. You make it sound like Puma vs MC is Nestea vs Rain. You make Puma, PUMA of all people, to be seen as a way inferior opponet to MC, that the only reason MC lost was because Puma allin'd him. That's a very misleading statement. When I get cheesed of course they only win because they cheesed me. After all, that's what happened. But just like me, MC could've held, and it saddens me that this very well written article is on news rather than general. Indeed my biggest complaint is that this article appears to be sensationalist rather than news. The quotes involved are just extreme and inherently misinforming. Against PuMa, a better BW pro but a worse SC2 player, MC rightly expected to face the Frankenstein child of Polt's old build that he lost his first GSL games against. In that three games series, MC faced the 1/1/1 twice with two different strategies, and was rendered utterly helpless in each game A funny change from being a better BW player yet a worse sc2 player. And the "certainty" to which the article asserts this just strikes the wrong chord. When MC lost his warp prism with 4 high templars in it , he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When MC wasted his whole army and delayed charge for more than 20 seconds AGAINST AN ALLIN he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When he got hit by massive emps, dropped again and again(and impressively held off a majority), made terrible strategic decisions which even YOU acknowledge, he was not being a better sc2 player. And as for utterly helpless it was because game 1 he delayed charge and hit before charge despite having the economic lead and the ability to wait. Game 3 he went for a stupid blink stalker phoenix base trade build. That said, an observer of MC's basic play would be hard pressed to find real signs of slumping. He still wins a good portion of his games, and it shouldn't be omitted that his IEM loss did indeed come in the final, after all.
There have been poor plays he's been doing, as I've shown in this post. And being an "elite" player, as you say, is not determined by winning " a good portion of his games." It comes from dominating. Nestea and MVP play on a level in which they are actively improving perfection. MC is trying to attain it. In his heyday, and even during his slumps, MC was a massive anomaly. Any casual observer of his play in the GSL could make that observation, yet statistics bear this out. MC's Korean winning percentage is 66%. The second best winning percentage from any protoss is Puzzle, who has a 62% win rate, a substantial part of it in weekly foreigner-run tournaments against vastly inferior competition. Alicia notches 54%. HongUn has a 51% win rate. San boasts the same. Look at MC's protoss contemporaries for yourself. There's no one even close to MC's winning percentages. You can't just use these games as "proof." Especially when progamers play games spread across vast spaces of time(weeks often.) When one player is doing good, he may have a sub-50% win rate(because of horrible early start, like San.) The TLPD has been shown, as of now, to be quote unquote "unreliable", at least in determining player skills. After all, I'm pretty sure Strelok, rank #2 right now, is not the #2 foreigner. You have to look at the games. And the games do not support your balance cries. in balance piles, protoss indisputably been terrible recently. Terrible, but not because of balance. The only reason that some gaping flaws in the protoss design have now been uncovered is because MC is no longer successful enough to cover them up. .... Is MC's level of play determinate of protoss balance? Even when there are clear mistakes, do we forgive them just because "he's the best protoss player. f you haven't noticed that protoss sucks against terran, and has profound cost-efficiency difficulties against zerg, it’s because you're blind. It has taken imbalance on such an appalling scale as the 1/1/1 family of builds to cast MC down, to make him look mortal and prove once and for all that protoss is absolutely trash at the highest level of competition. Stop visiting the battlenet forums. Yet he knew he could not breach PuMa's main, and retook his expo, racing for charge If by racing you mean not continuously chronoing as well as not upgrading it for >20 seconds after the twilight council finished, then I 100% agree with you. MC has been quoted on occasion as having said that, if he played terran, he'd have won five championships I think I've heard that somewhere. Something regarding stork, or Idra, or something. Or every single pro player on the planet.
After watching him out-micro his opponent at IEM and still lose, out-multitask his opponent at IEM and still lose, and then go absolutely nuts and use a strategy whose gaping flaws a platinum player could identify in the third game, I believe him. ... At least edit this out. This is so blatantly biased. If you don't feel that Puma can hold his own against MC(when he already showed he could in solid macro games at NASL,) then you need to read this. Not only that but you go from "omg MC played SO WELL AND STILL LOST" to "in game 3 he did a horrible strategy What has to happen for you to considered it to be imbalanced? Protoss winrates and and code s representation are at an all time low. The best protoss in the world dropped to code a, and hes the only protoss above a 50 percent winrate(not counting puzzle cuz his games are majority iccup weeklys). If absolutely no protoss can play at the level of even mid tier code s terrans and zergs, that means there is a fucking problem with the race. Or is there some force that only makes inferior sc2 players pick protoss? There have been 5 bonjwas with broodwar. Boxer, Nada, Iloveoov, Savior, and Flash. Four terrans and one zerg. People knew that the player was OP, not the race, because they played flawless. When I see Nestea play, he makes few if no mistakes. And he constantly improves. When I see MVP play, I see a clear understanding of the matchup, solid macro, and awe-inspiring micro. I used to see that with MC. But look at my post, see his flaws, and you can tell that the issues he faced was simply not playing as well. Protoss players aren't dominating in GSL because they don't have that "spark." And the mid tier ones, like Violet, for instance, are dominating instead of protoss counter parts because up and down matches came just as the 1-1-1 awful strength was discvoered so they were knocked out. Just like how back in the day zergs got marine scv allined(nestea even lost to rain), and so you saw few amounts of zergs.
For something to be imbalanced, show me a game where the cheeser won and the losing player couldn't have. Simple. "Protoss player's aren't dominating in GSL, because they don't have that "spark". Such bull shit. "That spark"? What the hell is that even supposed to mean? Protoss has been limited for a few GSLs now. Frankly, I think there has been 2 Protoss that reached the RO4 in the past few GSLs. Alicia and HongUn both got there within my recent memory. MC? Has been nowhere to be found for a few months. Huk? Has improved vastly, but still can't make it past RO8. Puzzle? A potential dark horse for GSL, can't let him out of your sight, but still went out in RO16. Huk had the ability to make round of 4(even finals) if he was constantly training and not moving around, and even constantly traveling he still managed to make it to round of 8 where he got defeated by none other than MVP. JYP has shown signs of brilliance, as well as sage, and I'm very interested to see where they progress. You are just incessantly nitpicking protoss players play as if it's possible to play perfect. If you are actually realistic you can look at 1/1/1 and the state of protoss and admit they are too weak, even if you want them to play like God to beat a simple all in. Why would anyone play protoss when they can switch to terran and win easily with a simple all in, which according to you is perfectly fair and balanced? You said nothing with that. You said loaded statements, didn't back them up, and just say that instead of having to play better that your race is weak and ___ is OP. On September 09 2011 05:04 Paladia wrote:
On September 09 2011 04:45 Pandain wrote:
On September 09 2011 04:40 Olinim wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 04:34 Pandain wrote:Uh what is this. I think tree hugger you have either been raging while laddering too long(a dangerous combination) or visiting the battlenet forums. MC should've held a 1-1-1 against one of the top 3 terrans in the world. Yes, he should've. But he didn't. And not because of imbalance, but because he didn't play perfectly. And when playing against cheeses or allins, you hvae to react correctly, even if it means playing harder than your opponet(see marine splitting vs banelings.) Contrary to your article not only did he delay his charge tech unnecessarily(at least 20 seconds), he also lost many probes during a banshee harrass. And while Puma was basicaally out of resources in his main, MC still had a good amount. If MC had held that push, and he should've, he would've won. It's somewhat sad, yet in a way showing of changing times that even TL has balance complaints in its articles. When you cheese, you go for a quick win. And it may be a powerful cheese, but its a cheese nonetheless. And if you don't react correctly, you can lose. There is nothing imbalanced about that. I mean seriously you bring up previous GSL's. And you say that because players like "Inca and San" aren't performing as well as Nestea, Losira, and July, that that shows protoss is "truly" imbalanced. The truth is that Nestea, Losira, and July are a level above Inca and san. You make it sound like Puma vs MC is Nestea vs Rain. You make Puma, PUMA of all people, to be seen as a way inferior opponet to MC, that the only reason MC lost was because Puma allin'd him. That's a very misleading statement. When I get cheesed of course they only win because they cheesed me. After all, that's what happened. But just like me, MC could've held, and it saddens me that this very well written article is on news rather than general. Indeed my biggest complaint is that this article appears to be sensationalist rather than news. The quotes involved are just extreme and inherently misinforming. Against PuMa, a better BW pro but a worse SC2 player, MC rightly expected to face the Frankenstein child of Polt's old build that he lost his first GSL games against. In that three games series, MC faced the 1/1/1 twice with two different strategies, and was rendered utterly helpless in each game A funny change from being a better BW player yet a worse sc2 player. And the "certainty" to which the article asserts this just strikes the wrong chord. When MC lost his warp prism with 4 high templars in it , he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When MC wasted his whole army and delayed charge for more than 20 seconds AGAINST AN ALLIN he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When he got hit by massive emps, dropped again and again(and impressively held off a majority), made terrible strategic decisions which even YOU acknowledge, he was not being a better sc2 player. And as for utterly helpless it was because game 1 he delayed charge and hit before charge despite having the economic lead and the ability to wait. Game 3 he went for a stupid blink stalker phoenix base trade build. That said, an observer of MC's basic play would be hard pressed to find real signs of slumping. He still wins a good portion of his games, and it shouldn't be omitted that his IEM loss did indeed come in the final, after all.
There have been poor plays he's been doing, as I've shown in this post. And being an "elite" player, as you say, is not determined by winning " a good portion of his games." It comes from dominating. Nestea and MVP play on a level in which they are actively improving perfection. MC is trying to attain it. In his heyday, and even during his slumps, MC was a massive anomaly. Any casual observer of his play in the GSL could make that observation, yet statistics bear this out. MC's Korean winning percentage is 66%. The second best winning percentage from any protoss is Puzzle, who has a 62% win rate, a substantial part of it in weekly foreigner-run tournaments against vastly inferior competition. Alicia notches 54%. HongUn has a 51% win rate. San boasts the same. Look at MC's protoss contemporaries for yourself. There's no one even close to MC's winning percentages. You can't just use these games as "proof." Especially when progamers play games spread across vast spaces of time(weeks often.) When one player is doing good, he may have a sub-50% win rate(because of horrible early start, like San.) The TLPD has been shown, as of now, to be quote unquote "unreliable", at least in determining player skills. After all, I'm pretty sure Strelok, rank #2 right now, is not the #2 foreigner. You have to look at the games. And the games do not support your balance cries. in balance piles, protoss indisputably been terrible recently. Terrible, but not because of balance. The only reason that some gaping flaws in the protoss design have now been uncovered is because MC is no longer successful enough to cover them up. .... Is MC's level of play determinate of protoss balance? Even when there are clear mistakes, do we forgive them just because "he's the best protoss player. f you haven't noticed that protoss sucks against terran, and has profound cost-efficiency difficulties against zerg, it’s because you're blind. It has taken imbalance on such an appalling scale as the 1/1/1 family of builds to cast MC down, to make him look mortal and prove once and for all that protoss is absolutely trash at the highest level of competition. Stop visiting the battlenet forums. Yet he knew he could not breach PuMa's main, and retook his expo, racing for charge If by racing you mean not continuously chronoing as well as not upgrading it for >20 seconds after the twilight council finished, then I 100% agree with you. MC has been quoted on occasion as having said that, if he played terran, he'd have won five championships I think I've heard that somewhere. Something regarding stork, or Idra, or something. Or every single pro player on the planet.
After watching him out-micro his opponent at IEM and still lose, out-multitask his opponent at IEM and still lose, and then go absolutely nuts and use a strategy whose gaping flaws a platinum player could identify in the third game, I believe him. ... At least edit this out. This is so blatantly biased. If you don't feel that Puma can hold his own against MC(when he already showed he could in solid macro games at NASL,) then you need to read this. Not only that but you go from "omg MC played SO WELL AND STILL LOST" to "in game 3 he did a horrible strategy What has to happen for you to considered it to be imbalanced? Protoss winrates and and code s representation are at an all time low. The best protoss in the world dropped to code a, and hes the only protoss above a 50 percent winrate(not counting puzzle cuz his games are majority iccup weeklys). If absolutely no protoss can play at the level of even mid tier code s terrans and zergs, that means there is a fucking problem with the race. Or is there some force that only makes inferior sc2 players pick protoss? For something to be imbalanced, show me a game where the cheeser won and the losing player couldn't have. Simple. One game doesn't define balance, all games do, nor is your example even an example of overall game balance. The current stats are a result of all competitive games played by the top players. The result is that 9 out of the top 10 on the Korean ladder are Terran and that almost all in Code S are Terran. You seem to think that is somehow due to the players who pick Terran as their race has some kind of magic gene pool advantage that simply makes them much better at Starcraft. However, I think I'd rather trust the hard stats than your spaced magic terran-theory.
I don't mind the current balance myself when I play, as I am Terran. However, the Terranfest in Code S makes it very uninteresting to watch and as such I would prefer it if the game was actually balanced. Um I would much rather trust Flash vs Jaedong than Flash vs Yellow as a analysis of tvz balance. And if you don't think that the highest level of play, where it comes down to true balance and macro and micro, and despite me showing you that MC would have held the 1-1-1 you continue to say its imbalanced. Say to me right now that MC couldn't have held that. Say it.
Say to me that MC made the right move going for a stupid phoenix blink build. Say to me that MC shouldn't be required to play perfectly against a cheesing PUMA
And as for ladder? Who uses that as a balance proof. Protoss play custom games, not ladder. Almost "all in code s are terran" exaggeration and misleading.
I think that overall terran players are better than protoss players. I've backed it up with proof. You just say what I say in sarcastic tones.
On September 09 2011 05:04 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 04:52 Pandain wrote:On September 09 2011 04:49 SeaSwift wrote:On September 09 2011 04:45 Pandain wrote:
For something to be imbalanced, show me a game where the cheeser won and the losing player couldn't have. Simple. That isn't how you decide whether something is imbalanced or not. If you have to play absolutely perfectly to beat a cheese that any platinum player could pull off it is imbalanced. Something is imbalanced if the player who played best loses, which is what I saw time and time again with MC vs Puma. Don't overexaggerate. There's a large difference between a subpar playing cheesing and a pro cheesing, just like how low level 4 gates are way less strong than high level 4 gates. Despite what you may think, they have to play perfectly with the only army that they will have. I didn't say that the 1-1-1 was a cheese any Plat player could pull off. That was an example highlighting your logical inconsistency. Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 04:52 Pandain wrote:And if you are going to be playing against Puma than fuck yes you are going to have to play absolutely perfectly. Yes, because all those players in the Code A qualifiers who prevent Puma from getting into Code A played absolutely perfectly... or not, or else surely they would be in Code S? Your logic is falling down here again. Show nested quote +Also by your reasoning here are things which are imbalanced:
Banelings(wtf is a split, targeting baneligns with tanks.) High templars( wtf I have to move away IMMEDIATELY when he storms me?) Drops(how can I react and know what he's doing in time. Damn those maruders.) 4 gate. Bunker rushes.
Some of them I disagree that they take more skill to defend than execute. 4gate has gone out of fashion like Georgian ruffs in all match-ups apart from PvP, and if you are talking about PvP then fuck yes 4gate is overpowered. About banelings/drops/bunker rushes, yes, if you want to be pedantic they are all slightly imbalanced. But because the most important level is the highest level of play, at the highest level of play the imbalance is minimal (because of the skill ceiling inherent in most cheeses) and therefore they are pretty much fine. If the highest level of play was Diamond or Platinum, yes. They would be imbalanced. Also, like to note that Blizzard thinks that Bunker rushes may be imbalanced because of the 5sec delay in the PTR which nerfs the 11/11 Barracks play, as well as most Terran tech in general (although 5 sec is minimal once you reach Starport times and so on).
The point is that no plat player with whatever strategy could beat a pro gamer. Your underestimating the skill cheese takes and while its harder to stop it you should stop complainning and just play better. Because its a 100% win if you do react perfectly, contrary to the cheeser who has to hope you make a mistake. That's the risk with cheese. It's gimmicky.
And as for Puma, he lost in code a because he's playing amazing players in the hardest qualifier in the world. Donraegu, DONRAEGU, couldn't make it to code a without MLG help.
And they may not have even played perfect against them. After all, a gold player can beat a silver player without either being perfect. Puma and DRG simply played worse in those games.
And I will never, EVER agree with anyone who says that because the skill level of today is too low that something should be nerfed. When this game is existing years from now, they will play at levels we will be in shock of. We should only balance the game at levels possible(or reachable, as clearly shown by me.)
On September 09 2011 05:08 Cloud9157 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 04:59 Pandain wrote:On September 09 2011 04:55 Cloud9157 wrote:On September 09 2011 04:45 Pandain wrote:On September 09 2011 04:40 Olinim wrote:On September 09 2011 04:34 Pandain wrote:Uh what is this. I think tree hugger you have either been raging while laddering too long(a dangerous combination) or visiting the battlenet forums. MC should've held a 1-1-1 against one of the top 3 terrans in the world. Yes, he should've. But he didn't. And not because of imbalance, but because he didn't play perfectly. And when playing against cheeses or allins, you hvae to react correctly, even if it means playing harder than your opponet(see marine splitting vs banelings.) Contrary to your article not only did he delay his charge tech unnecessarily(at least 20 seconds), he also lost many probes during a banshee harrass. And while Puma was basicaally out of resources in his main, MC still had a good amount. If MC had held that push, and he should've, he would've won. It's somewhat sad, yet in a way showing of changing times that even TL has balance complaints in its articles. When you cheese, you go for a quick win. And it may be a powerful cheese, but its a cheese nonetheless. And if you don't react correctly, you can lose. There is nothing imbalanced about that. I mean seriously you bring up previous GSL's. And you say that because players like "Inca and San" aren't performing as well as Nestea, Losira, and July, that that shows protoss is "truly" imbalanced. The truth is that Nestea, Losira, and July are a level above Inca and san. You make it sound like Puma vs MC is Nestea vs Rain. You make Puma, PUMA of all people, to be seen as a way inferior opponet to MC, that the only reason MC lost was because Puma allin'd him. That's a very misleading statement. When I get cheesed of course they only win because they cheesed me. After all, that's what happened. But just like me, MC could've held, and it saddens me that this very well written article is on news rather than general. Indeed my biggest complaint is that this article appears to be sensationalist rather than news. The quotes involved are just extreme and inherently misinforming. Against PuMa, a better BW pro but a worse SC2 player, MC rightly expected to face the Frankenstein child of Polt's old build that he lost his first GSL games against. In that three games series, MC faced the 1/1/1 twice with two different strategies, and was rendered utterly helpless in each game A funny change from being a better BW player yet a worse sc2 player. And the "certainty" to which the article asserts this just strikes the wrong chord. When MC lost his warp prism with 4 high templars in it , he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When MC wasted his whole army and delayed charge for more than 20 seconds AGAINST AN ALLIN he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When he got hit by massive emps, dropped again and again(and impressively held off a majority), made terrible strategic decisions which even YOU acknowledge, he was not being a better sc2 player. And as for utterly helpless it was because game 1 he delayed charge and hit before charge despite having the economic lead and the ability to wait. Game 3 he went for a stupid blink stalker phoenix base trade build. That said, an observer of MC's basic play would be hard pressed to find real signs of slumping. He still wins a good portion of his games, and it shouldn't be omitted that his IEM loss did indeed come in the final, after all.
There have been poor plays he's been doing, as I've shown in this post. And being an "elite" player, as you say, is not determined by winning " a good portion of his games." It comes from dominating. Nestea and MVP play on a level in which they are actively improving perfection. MC is trying to attain it. In his heyday, and even during his slumps, MC was a massive anomaly. Any casual observer of his play in the GSL could make that observation, yet statistics bear this out. MC's Korean winning percentage is 66%. The second best winning percentage from any protoss is Puzzle, who has a 62% win rate, a substantial part of it in weekly foreigner-run tournaments against vastly inferior competition. Alicia notches 54%. HongUn has a 51% win rate. San boasts the same. Look at MC's protoss contemporaries for yourself. There's no one even close to MC's winning percentages. You can't just use these games as "proof." Especially when progamers play games spread across vast spaces of time(weeks often.) When one player is doing good, he may have a sub-50% win rate(because of horrible early start, like San.) The TLPD has been shown, as of now, to be quote unquote "unreliable", at least in determining player skills. After all, I'm pretty sure Strelok, rank #2 right now, is not the #2 foreigner. You have to look at the games. And the games do not support your balance cries. in balance piles, protoss indisputably been terrible recently. Terrible, but not because of balance. The only reason that some gaping flaws in the protoss design have now been uncovered is because MC is no longer successful enough to cover them up. .... Is MC's level of play determinate of protoss balance? Even when there are clear mistakes, do we forgive them just because "he's the best protoss player. f you haven't noticed that protoss sucks against terran, and has profound cost-efficiency difficulties against zerg, it’s because you're blind. It has taken imbalance on such an appalling scale as the 1/1/1 family of builds to cast MC down, to make him look mortal and prove once and for all that protoss is absolutely trash at the highest level of competition. Stop visiting the battlenet forums. Yet he knew he could not breach PuMa's main, and retook his expo, racing for charge If by racing you mean not continuously chronoing as well as not upgrading it for >20 seconds after the twilight council finished, then I 100% agree with you. MC has been quoted on occasion as having said that, if he played terran, he'd have won five championships I think I've heard that somewhere. Something regarding stork, or Idra, or something. [b]Or every single pro player on the planet. After watching him out-micro his opponent at IEM and still lose, out-multitask his opponent at IEM and still lose, and then go absolutely nuts and use a strategy whose gaping flaws a platinum player could identify in the third game, I believe him. ... At least edit this out. This is so blatantly biased. If you don't feel that Puma can hold his own against MC(when he already showed he could in solid macro games at NASL,) then you need to read this. Not only that but you go from "omg MC played SO WELL AND STILL LOST" to "in game 3 he did a horrible strategy What has to happen for you to considered it to be imbalanced? Protoss winrates and and code s representation are at an all time low. The best protoss in the world dropped to code a, and hes the only protoss above a 50 percent winrate(not counting puzzle cuz his games are majority iccup weeklys). If absolutely no protoss can play at the level of even mid tier code s terrans and zergs, that means there is a fucking problem with the race. Or is there some force that only makes inferior sc2 players pick protoss?
There have been 5 bonjwas with broodwar. Boxer, Nada, Iloveoov, Savior, and Flash.
Four terrans and one zerg. People knew that the player was OP, not the race, because they played flawless. When I see Nestea play, he makes few if no mistakes. And he constantly improves. When I see MVP play, I see a clear understanding of the matchup, solid macro, and awe-inspiring micro.
I used to see that with MC. But look at my post, see his flaws, and you can tell that the issues he faced was simply not playing as well.
Protoss players aren't dominating in GSL because they don't have that "spark." And the mid tier ones, like Violet, for instance, are dominating instead of protoss counter parts because up and down matches came just as the 1-1-1 awful strength was discvoered so they were knocked out. Just like how back in the day zergs got marine scv allined(nestea even lost to rain), and so you saw few amounts of zergs.
For something to be imbalanced, show me a game where the cheeser won and the losing player couldn't have. Simple. "Protoss player's aren't dominating in GSL, because they don't have that "spark". Such bull shit. "That spark"? What the hell is that even supposed to mean? Protoss has been limited for a few GSLs now. Frankly, I think there has been 2 Protoss that reached the RO4 in the past few GSLs. Alicia and HongUn both got there within my recent memory. MC? Has been nowhere to be found for a few months. Huk? Has improved vastly, but still can't make it past RO8. Puzzle? A potential dark horse for GSL, can't let him out of your sight, but still went out in RO16. Huk had the ability to make round of 4(even finals) if he was constantly training and not moving around, and even constantly traveling he still managed to make it to round of 8 where he got defeated by none other than MVP. JYP has shown signs of brilliance, as well as sage, and I'm very interested to see where they progress. On a more general level, the spark if the ability to play perfectly on a constant basis. I see that with Losira, MVP, and Nestea. I don't see that with players like Inca. Really? Inca? Inca is a cheesy player that only has solid PvP. When he faced Nestea, I didn't cheer him on once, because he was embarrassing towards Protoss. And you still don't think balance could be influencing the ability of Protoss players? I agree on the first part entirely. The author, treehugger, however stated that because "inca and san" weren't doing as well as "nestea, losira, july" that it shows that protoss is "truly" underpowered while zerg isn't. I think it might be. But I think its foolhardy to say it is. Edit: Sorry about bold quotes everywhere, the hanging screwed everything up. By your logic, are there any patches that should have gone through? Has there ever been a point where a strat was demonstrated to be unbeatable with supposed perfect play? 5 rax reaper...maybe. Your view simply isn't realistic, and blizzard disagrees with you since apparently they do think bunker rushes are op, considering the nerf. Hopefully they will not take a page from your book of insanity and look further into the absolute nonsense that is the 1/1/1 :/. This simply isn't fair to protoss players, the results, the games, and the opinions of other pros show that. [/b]
Most patch changes have not been about "imbalance" but rather about increasing the game dynamic. For example archons were buffed not because of any imbalance, but because archons didn't have a role. Most changes have been about expirimenting with new styles/units. Some, yes, have been "timing" oriented, as in stim changes and nexus health.
Yeah I'm a strong believe in waiting things out. I loved when fungal growth was a projectile(so sad when changed.) At the end I finally believed 5 rax reaper was imbalanced and also pre-infestor that void ray collusus was as well.
|
Switzerland2892 Posts
The point is that no plat player with whatever strategy could beat a pro gamer. Your underestimating the skill cheese takes and while its harder to stop it you should stop complainning and just play better. Because its a 100% win if you do react perfectly, contrary to the cheeser who has to hope you make a mistake. That's the risk with cheese. It's gimmicky.
Here is the biggest problem with the 1/1/1. To beat it, you don't have to react perfectly, you have to hope that your opponent will execute it terribly. And it still even works sometimes.
|
On September 09 2011 05:35 pPingu wrote:Show nested quote +The point is that no plat player with whatever strategy could beat a pro gamer. Your underestimating the skill cheese takes and while its harder to stop it you should stop complainning and just play better. Because its a 100% win if you do react perfectly, contrary to the cheeser who has to hope you make a mistake. That's the risk with cheese. It's gimmicky. Here is the biggest problem with the 1/1/1. To beat it, you don't have to react perfectly, you have to hope that your opponent will execute it terribly. And it still even works.
To reiterate, look at puma vs MC. A well done 1-1-1 against an even better defense. When the final allin came, MC wasted his army and delayed charge too long. What's imbalanced about that?
|
On September 09 2011 05:37 Pandain wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 05:35 pPingu wrote:The point is that no plat player with whatever strategy could beat a pro gamer. Your underestimating the skill cheese takes and while its harder to stop it you should stop complainning and just play better. Because its a 100% win if you do react perfectly, contrary to the cheeser who has to hope you make a mistake. That's the risk with cheese. It's gimmicky. Here is the biggest problem with the 1/1/1. To beat it, you don't have to react perfectly, you have to hope that your opponent will execute it terribly. And it still even works. To reiterate, look at puma vs MC. A well done 1-1-1 against an even better defense. When the final allin came, MC wasted his army and delayed charge too long. What's imbalanced about that? I believe that Puzzle managed to beat Puma's 1/1/1 build in the IPL. I haven't been able to find the game yet, but I do think that might be of some interest to you.
|
On September 09 2011 05:37 Pandain wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 05:35 pPingu wrote:The point is that no plat player with whatever strategy could beat a pro gamer. Your underestimating the skill cheese takes and while its harder to stop it you should stop complainning and just play better. Because its a 100% win if you do react perfectly, contrary to the cheeser who has to hope you make a mistake. That's the risk with cheese. It's gimmicky. Here is the biggest problem with the 1/1/1. To beat it, you don't have to react perfectly, you have to hope that your opponent will execute it terribly. And it still even works. To reiterate, look at puma vs MC. A well done 1-1-1 against an even better defense. When the final allin came, MC wasted his army and delayed charge too long. What's imbalanced about that? The fact that a terran can pull half of their scvs lose their army, remake it and stomp a protoss far ahead in probes for 5 mins. MC probably would have lost with charge also, the last battle was one sided. And why voidray colossus but not 1/1/1...zvp was still relatively even in winrates if a zerg played perfectly he would definitely win, not to mention it was a lategame composition :/
|
It just floors me to see how much people must love talking about balance to see such long winded statements like the ones in this thread. Its worse then all the times when religion gets talked about in a thread. At least then theres actually sources to manipulate.
|
Switzerland2892 Posts
On September 09 2011 05:39 babylon wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 05:37 Pandain wrote:On September 09 2011 05:35 pPingu wrote:The point is that no plat player with whatever strategy could beat a pro gamer. Your underestimating the skill cheese takes and while its harder to stop it you should stop complainning and just play better. Because its a 100% win if you do react perfectly, contrary to the cheeser who has to hope you make a mistake. That's the risk with cheese. It's gimmicky. Here is the biggest problem with the 1/1/1. To beat it, you don't have to react perfectly, you have to hope that your opponent will execute it terribly. And it still even works. To reiterate, look at puma vs MC. A well done 1-1-1 against an even better defense. When the final allin came, MC wasted his army and delayed charge too long. What's imbalanced about that? I believe that Puzzle managed to beat Puma's 1/1/1 build in the IPL. I haven't been able to find the game yet, but I do think that might be of some interest to you.
It wasn't a 1/1/1, he had 3 rax and a factory. He got supply blocked at the begining because he didn't do any bunker at the top of his ramp to defend stalker harass. And puzzle won because for some reason puma thought it would be a good idea to kill a pylon with his whole army and wait to let puzzle get his collossi. And puzzle only barely could win this game.
|
Fun read! Whenever I think balance, I always compare w BW since that is the ultimate closest to balance game. There are super-players for each race, anyone race can take games off even the top super players.
Just some thoughts:
Protoss - Colossi replaced reaver kind of and is same tech tree (robo bay). Warp Prism/Mothership is poor replacement for arbiter. They should make the warp prism more like the arbiter (it has to be tanky enough to warp in/teleport units). Zealot Stalker is not too diff from Zealot Dragoon n Blink is fantastic. Imho, immortals should be cheaper and faster zealot immortal timings should be a viable build. They need to bring back the corsair, so protoss gas can be invested into gateway, templar n robo tech. If not they'll die to mutas/banshee/wraiths.
Stim marauders are too good against Protoss tier 1, combined w medivac n their high HP is insane. Imagine ultras w a few medivacs, they would never die. Kiting was not so easy in BW n speedlots were scary mofos. Marauders should not be able to stim. Their purpose is for tanking/range/slow occasionally.
Roach replacing hydra and baneling replacing lurker aoe kind of works within the theme of Zerg of swarming but not having dark swarm is so against the theme. Fungal growth should be cast by overseer n not do dmg (like the old flying zerg queen - lair tech), infestor should be hive tech and give them dark swarm! It'd be a beautiful fight vs blink stalkers n the crazy cost efficient marines. Also need to bring back scourge to counter corsairs.
Even if not much change happens, it may take sometime but it is challenges like this that make players revolutionary. Terran - Boxer for his micro (dropship, vultures), iloveoov for his monster macro Zerg - July micro zerg (crazy mutas) and Savior macro zerg culminating into Jaedong (both) Protoss - Bisu (sair-DT)
Simple way to nerf the 1/1/1 build? Make banshee build time longer. Cloak is not the issue, wraiths cloaked then as well but it took a lot of investment for cloaked wraiths to do dmg unlike one cloak banshee. Or maps just be always bigger like Taldarim so less 1-base all-in builds are viable n focus more on the mid-game onwards. Bomber proxy raxing in the middle is still viable every now n then.
|
On September 09 2011 05:42 pPingu wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 05:39 babylon wrote:On September 09 2011 05:37 Pandain wrote:On September 09 2011 05:35 pPingu wrote:The point is that no plat player with whatever strategy could beat a pro gamer. Your underestimating the skill cheese takes and while its harder to stop it you should stop complainning and just play better. Because its a 100% win if you do react perfectly, contrary to the cheeser who has to hope you make a mistake. That's the risk with cheese. It's gimmicky. Here is the biggest problem with the 1/1/1. To beat it, you don't have to react perfectly, you have to hope that your opponent will execute it terribly. And it still even works. To reiterate, look at puma vs MC. A well done 1-1-1 against an even better defense. When the final allin came, MC wasted his army and delayed charge too long. What's imbalanced about that? I believe that Puzzle managed to beat Puma's 1/1/1 build in the IPL. I haven't been able to find the game yet, but I do think that might be of some interest to you. It wasn't a 1/1/1, he had 3 rax and a factory. He got supply blocked at the begining because he didn't do any bunker at the top of his ramp to defend stalker harass. And puzzle won because for some reason puma thought it would be a good idea to kill a pylon with his whole army and wait to let puzzle get his collossi. And puzzle only barely could win this game.
Yes, yes yes!
Was such sloppy play from Puma and Puzzle still barely held on for dear life....
|
On September 09 2011 05:40 Olinim wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 05:37 Pandain wrote:On September 09 2011 05:35 pPingu wrote:The point is that no plat player with whatever strategy could beat a pro gamer. Your underestimating the skill cheese takes and while its harder to stop it you should stop complainning and just play better. Because its a 100% win if you do react perfectly, contrary to the cheeser who has to hope you make a mistake. That's the risk with cheese. It's gimmicky. Here is the biggest problem with the 1/1/1. To beat it, you don't have to react perfectly, you have to hope that your opponent will execute it terribly. And it still even works. To reiterate, look at puma vs MC. A well done 1-1-1 against an even better defense. When the final allin came, MC wasted his army and delayed charge too long. What's imbalanced about that? The fact that a terran can pull half of their scvs lose their army, remake it and stomp a protoss far ahead in probes for 5 mins. MC probably would have lost with charge also, the last battle was one sided.
So now your saying that because its possible for terran to still win with a final allin with half of his minerals GONE from his main that its imbalanced? And no he would have won. One handed. So many zealots died because they couldn't attack.
And don't say "wtf why would we play perfect." Getting charge when the twilight actually finishes is not the definition of perfect. It's just good play.
|
On September 09 2011 05:42 pPingu wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 05:39 babylon wrote:On September 09 2011 05:37 Pandain wrote:On September 09 2011 05:35 pPingu wrote:The point is that no plat player with whatever strategy could beat a pro gamer. Your underestimating the skill cheese takes and while its harder to stop it you should stop complainning and just play better. Because its a 100% win if you do react perfectly, contrary to the cheeser who has to hope you make a mistake. That's the risk with cheese. It's gimmicky. Here is the biggest problem with the 1/1/1. To beat it, you don't have to react perfectly, you have to hope that your opponent will execute it terribly. And it still even works. To reiterate, look at puma vs MC. A well done 1-1-1 against an even better defense. When the final allin came, MC wasted his army and delayed charge too long. What's imbalanced about that? I believe that Puzzle managed to beat Puma's 1/1/1 build in the IPL. I haven't been able to find the game yet, but I do think that might be of some interest to you. It wasn't a 1/1/1, he had 3 rax and a factory. He got supply blocked at the begining because he didn't do any bunker at the top of his ramp to defend stalker harass. And puzzle won because for some reason puma thought it would be a good idea to kill a pylon with his whole army and wait to let puzzle get his collossi. And puzzle only barely could win this game. Could you link me to the VODs? I haven't watched the games yet, but going by the discussion in the thread, it seems that Puzzle held a 1/1/1 off with a Nexus.
|
scv/marine/tank/banshee/raven is no joke. i havnt played in awhile and after hearing about this 1/1/1 fuzz i tried it out and i've been undefeated against protoss as far as i can remember, even on large maps.
i'm a random player, no bias from me. just sayin. i can't help but think players like mvp don't 1/1/1 much out of respect.
scv/marine/tank/banshee/raven 1/1/1 is not just hard to stop, the main point is its easy to transition into something else while doing maximum damage even against the well prepared.
1.4 will help though. immortal range increase with prism hp increase will help immortal/zealot bombs. sentry GS will reduce splash damage.
|
Just remember MVP went to code A as well...MC will rise again!
|
On September 09 2011 05:45 Pandain wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 05:40 Olinim wrote:On September 09 2011 05:37 Pandain wrote:On September 09 2011 05:35 pPingu wrote:The point is that no plat player with whatever strategy could beat a pro gamer. Your underestimating the skill cheese takes and while its harder to stop it you should stop complainning and just play better. Because its a 100% win if you do react perfectly, contrary to the cheeser who has to hope you make a mistake. That's the risk with cheese. It's gimmicky. Here is the biggest problem with the 1/1/1. To beat it, you don't have to react perfectly, you have to hope that your opponent will execute it terribly. And it still even works. To reiterate, look at puma vs MC. A well done 1-1-1 against an even better defense. When the final allin came, MC wasted his army and delayed charge too long. What's imbalanced about that? The fact that a terran can pull half of their scvs lose their army, remake it and stomp a protoss far ahead in probes for 5 mins. MC probably would have lost with charge also, the last battle was one sided. So now your saying that because its possible for terran to still win with a final allin with half of his minerals GONE from his main that its imbalanced? And no he would have won. One handed. So many zealots died because they couldn't attack. And don't say "wtf why would we play perfect." Getting charge when the twilight actually finishes is not the definition of perfect. It's just good play. Lol...ok you just keep hoping protoss players evolve into Gods to even out the matchup and I'll realize that soon blizzard will have no choice to nerf 1/1/1 or buff toss when there are no protoss left in code S. Also tell me why 5 rax reaper and deathball are so much more op than 1/1/1?
|
I'm sure it's already been mentioned, but at it's core, I feel Protoss' most glaring weakness is it's inflexibility. While just about every terran unit is useful in some capacity, and in fact, can be used to deal with most protoss and zerg compositions, (even if not ideally, at least with proper micro and multi-task, able to compete), protoss does not have the same luxury.
When I play protoss now, I feel fairly helpless against other races.
It's not a joke, the game has evolved to the point where right now, protoss is suffering in professional play. Can innovation save them? It really doesn't seem like it--protoss are very restricted in terms of what they need to build and when. The necessity of observers discourages Stargate play, and the expense of dark templars leaves that tech branch to be cheesy, and very similar to other "all-ins".
High templar's previous ability to keep a protoss player spread out over the entire map has been eliminated with the removal of khaydarin amulet. It seems that protoss is destined to be an immobile race, which is very painful to deal with.
The latest round of buffs is a decent step, but I personally doubt it'll change that much. Immortal range will be nice, but if anything, it'll have the largest effect on PvP. The blink nerf seems unnecessary, and warp prisms seem to beg for speed, not for additional health. Well, speed AND health, if anything.
Protoss right now feels so inflexible and immobile. If that remains the case, as players get better multitask and better micro, they'll be able to take advantage of terran and zerg more and more, with their increased mobility, while protoss will be left behind.
We'll see, I suppose.
|
They call MC the ‘Protoss President,’ but you can't be President of a country that doesn't exist.
Wow. This is a though one to swallow, a bit excessive the MC article imo, but apart from that covers IEM nicely.
|
On September 09 2011 05:45 Pandain wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 05:40 Olinim wrote:On September 09 2011 05:37 Pandain wrote:On September 09 2011 05:35 pPingu wrote:The point is that no plat player with whatever strategy could beat a pro gamer. Your underestimating the skill cheese takes and while its harder to stop it you should stop complainning and just play better. Because its a 100% win if you do react perfectly, contrary to the cheeser who has to hope you make a mistake. That's the risk with cheese. It's gimmicky. Here is the biggest problem with the 1/1/1. To beat it, you don't have to react perfectly, you have to hope that your opponent will execute it terribly. And it still even works. To reiterate, look at puma vs MC. A well done 1-1-1 against an even better defense. When the final allin came, MC wasted his army and delayed charge too long. What's imbalanced about that? The fact that a terran can pull half of their scvs lose their army, remake it and stomp a protoss far ahead in probes for 5 mins. MC probably would have lost with charge also, the last battle was one sided. So now your saying that because its possible for terran to still win with a final allin with half of his minerals GONE from his main that its imbalanced? And no he would have won. One handed. So many zealots died because they couldn't attack. And don't say "wtf why would we play perfect." Getting charge when the twilight actually finishes is not the definition of perfect. It's just good play. Stop posting in bold, it doesn't make your dick bigger.
Regarding that game 1, let me ask you: 1) Do you think the better player won? 2) Who made more mistakes, Puma losing half his workers and his whole army the first push, or MC who apparently didn't satisfy your definition of "just good play" by delaying charge right after TC finished. 3) Which player have you seen hold a determined 1-1-1 from a Korean Terran without the Terran fucking it up (tired of all this theorycrafting, give me an example because I'm lost).
I'm asking #2 because no one is playing perfectly and for me personally I don't dislike Terran players (in fact, I love watching MVP and Thorzain play) but I do not like seeing people getting punished for (relatively) small mistakes and I think it makes for horrible spectator experience.
|
|
|
|