|
On December 11 2017 08:51 evilfatsh1t wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2017 00:34 Dazed. wrote:
Ladder=/=actual rankings of skill and ability.
Lots of players are known to do quite well on ladder because they play it substantially, and have a style that might work well on ladder, other people focus a bit more on scheduled practice matches, etc. Being number one on ladder doesnt make you the best player, we cant actually use it as a reference for imbalance. theyre not basing tesagi on whos rank 1 theyre basing tesagi on the fact that the highest percentile of players is dominated by terrans Except it isnt. The last starleague was dominated by zergs, not terrans. If your confused about the difference between top players and players who are on the top of the ladder, I refer you back to my post.
|
On December 10 2017 22:15 ajmbek wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2017 04:14 ProMeTheus112 wrote:
vult 100 irradiate 100, good suggestion eh^^ can terran players say yes to something like this? :D some little relevant thing like that, could be good. so hard to choose, complex to examine
(my suggestion is tank 3 supply^^ but I like vult 100 and irradiate 100, it makes sense) Tank 3 supply sounds cool. But i don't think the game needs some new balance.
yeah it feels like that doesnt it, doesn't really need new balance
new maps nice
|
On December 11 2017 09:17 Dazed. wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2017 08:51 evilfatsh1t wrote:On December 11 2017 00:34 Dazed. wrote:
Ladder=/=actual rankings of skill and ability.
Lots of players are known to do quite well on ladder because they play it substantially, and have a style that might work well on ladder, other people focus a bit more on scheduled practice matches, etc. Being number one on ladder doesnt make you the best player, we cant actually use it as a reference for imbalance. theyre not basing tesagi on whos rank 1 theyre basing tesagi on the fact that the highest percentile of players is dominated by terrans Except it isnt. The last starleague was dominated by zergs, not terrans. If your confused about the difference between top players and players who are on the top of the ladder, I refer you back to my post.
im not saying terran is imbalanced, but if you dont understand how a sample size of 100 players, all of who are within the highest percentile of starcraft players around the world is a fair argument for why people could think terran is imbalanced then youre mistaken.
you think terran players just happen to be the only players that play on ladder "substantially" or have a "style that might work well"? youre wrong on the former and the latter is basically a point for why people claim tesagi in the first place.
|
When looking at ASLs, ASL 1-4 had 40% Terrans in the best of 8, 45% in the best of 4. Yeah Flash was around, but so where Bisu & Jaedong. Also isn't there the record how like 50+ percent of major-winners in history were t?
Imo, if you had perfect AI for all 3 races - and thus apm was no limitation -Terran would clearly outperform the other 2 races and protoss surely would be the worst race.
|
On December 09 2017 04:00 Highgamer wrote:
Not laughing about you, but 50 hrs, lmao
More than scratching the surface is just not possible, not with the average that is set up by the current community of mostly very experienced players.
In relation to about 99% of the people you play in BW, that's like a blink of an eye spent on the game, so no way you're good in relation to them.
You might have gone through a dedicated mechanics-practice in that time, resulting in good macro mechanics and general unit-control.
Or you played a bunch of different maps, resulting in good enough map-knowledge to play tournaments with standard map-pools.
Or you played one matchup all the time with 1-2 build-orders, resulting in good not terrible early- to late-game play in that one matchup.
Or you played many different build-orders and styles in one matchup, resulting in good versatility in that matchup.
Or you went through in-depth replay analysis and strategy/theory-studies, resulting in good game-knowledge.
But you could never have done all that at once in 50 hours.
And even if: Still you would be lacking experience, game-sense, mental stability (in the sense of: keeping on keeping on in the face of brutal defeats/cheese etc., not getting over-confident after 1-2 wins etc.).
As others said, it also really depends on what you bring to the table in the first place. Of course an RTS-veteran could make much more happen in 50 hours than a total newbie, still BW will probably be a tough nut to crack even for good SC2 or else players after 50 hours.
edit: should be mentioned though that after 50 hours, of course you can be much better than many, certainly than anyone who didn't put in 50 hours yet but also many who played the game for years very casually.
i think you misinterpreted my post. didn't say i considered myself to be good, did i? cause i know i'm not. was just asking to get a bit more feeling to it. ;-) thanks anyway
|
Bulgaria750 Posts
On December 11 2017 19:48 molotow[eef] wrote:
When looking at ASLs, ASL 1-4 had 40% Terrans in the best of 8, 45% in the best of 4. Yeah Flash was around, but so where Bisu & Jaedong. Also isn't there the record how like 50+ percent of major-winners in history were t?
Imo, if you had perfect AI for all 3 races - and thus apm was no limitation -Terran would clearly outperform the other 2 races and protoss surely would be the worst race.
That second argument certainly does not mean tesagi. Human limitation is one of the most serious balancing factors in the game, at least on a competitive level, where stuff like mind games and taxing the opponent's apm is very important. There are units and combinations of units that, without a skill cap, are immensely powerful - such as vultures, mutalisks, shuttle/reaver, carriers and so on. The game is designed in such a way because there is a skill cap, rather than striving for perfect balance in a hypothetical scenario without one. This is true for map balance also.
And ASL 3 and 4 had two zergs, a terran and a protoss in top4, so the distribution changes somewhat, though Flash remains the same powerhouse, but let's not put Flash in the tesagi argument, please. There are a lot of different opinions (balance-whine excluded) on why terran players have dominated the scene throughout competitive BW history, the most convincing argument for me being the existence of units and abilities that scale better with skill - e.g. vultures, comsats, floating buildings and the like. Amazing players have more use for these and, moreover, can develop builds and strategies to be copied by more ordinary players - the obvious protoss example being Bisu, who single-handedly skewed the balance in PvZ back in the day. Boxer, Nada, Iloveoov, Fantasy and Flash have all done that for the terran race in different matchups and in different eras. Blame the players, don't blame the race, I say.
I actually have to apologize for even entering a discussion such as this, because this forum is pretty tesagi-free and this particular thread has nothing to do with such stuff.
|
On December 12 2017 00:59 Wimpsyay wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2017 04:00 Highgamer wrote:
Not laughing about you, but 50 hrs, lmao
More than scratching the surface is just not possible, not with the average that is set up by the current community of mostly very experienced players.
In relation to about 99% of the people you play in BW, that's like a blink of an eye spent on the game, so no way you're good in relation to them.
You might have gone through a dedicated mechanics-practice in that time, resulting in good macro mechanics and general unit-control.
Or you played a bunch of different maps, resulting in good enough map-knowledge to play tournaments with standard map-pools.
Or you played one matchup all the time with 1-2 build-orders, resulting in good not terrible early- to late-game play in that one matchup.
Or you played many different build-orders and styles in one matchup, resulting in good versatility in that matchup.
Or you went through in-depth replay analysis and strategy/theory-studies, resulting in good game-knowledge.
But you could never have done all that at once in 50 hours.
And even if: Still you would be lacking experience, game-sense, mental stability (in the sense of: keeping on keeping on in the face of brutal defeats/cheese etc., not getting over-confident after 1-2 wins etc.).
As others said, it also really depends on what you bring to the table in the first place. Of course an RTS-veteran could make much more happen in 50 hours than a total newbie, still BW will probably be a tough nut to crack even for good SC2 or else players after 50 hours.
edit: should be mentioned though that after 50 hours, of course you can be much better than many, certainly than anyone who didn't put in 50 hours yet but also many who played the game for years very casually. i think you misinterpreted my post. didn't say i considered myself to be good, did i? cause i know i'm not. was just asking to get a bit more feeling to it. ;-) thanks anyway
I think you misinterpreted my post. Didn't say I considered your statement being that you're good, did I? Cause I know you're....
Jokes aside xD. That's what my first line was hinting at: Just that, judging from my personal agony experience with BW, the thought of somebody - not you necessarily - assuming that after 50 hours you could achive something that gets even close to what generally in the community "good" refers to is... making me laugh. The rest was a spontaneous excursus on what can be achieved in 50 hours, not a schooling towards you.
Actually I was just seconding your impression that more than scratching on the surface is not possible, by blabbering out half a dozen of reasons that came to my head. Not really what you asked for, admittingly, but then again I guess your post did aim for opinions like mine about the matter, no? (Quote "get a bit more feeling to it" ^^)
w/e, I didn't intend a post in such a tone like "Dude, you think you're good? Lemme tell you something about not being good (cus that's what I'm great at)".
|
On December 11 2017 16:02 evilfatsh1t wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2017 09:17 Dazed. wrote:On December 11 2017 08:51 evilfatsh1t wrote:On December 11 2017 00:34 Dazed. wrote:
Ladder=/=actual rankings of skill and ability.
Lots of players are known to do quite well on ladder because they play it substantially, and have a style that might work well on ladder, other people focus a bit more on scheduled practice matches, etc. Being number one on ladder doesnt make you the best player, we cant actually use it as a reference for imbalance. theyre not basing tesagi on whos rank 1 theyre basing tesagi on the fact that the highest percentile of players is dominated by terrans Except it isnt. The last starleague was dominated by zergs, not terrans. If your confused about the difference between top players and players who are on the top of the ladder, I refer you back to my post. im not saying terran is imbalanced, but if you dont understand how a sample size of 100 players, all of who are within the highest percentile of starcraft players around the world is a fair argument for why people could think terran is imbalanced then youre mistaken. I'm not mistaken, in fact, there isnt even a hundred players in the top 100, you realize that, right?
On December 11 2017 16:02 evilfatsh1t wrote:
you think terran players just happen to be the only players that play on ladder "substantially" or have a "style that might work well"? youre wrong on the former and the latter is basically a point for why people claim tesagi in the first place. I think the people who dominate ladder historically tend to be safe macro players, which is a distinct thing from a world class championship player. It is a fact that some pros dont ladder as often as others, so if you think contrarily you are mistaken, not me. Those who end up dominating the ladder are, obviously, massively a product of the ladder map pool -- we had a different combination of top players on fish five months ago, for example, than we do on the b.net ladder. Again: If you think you can look at the ladder rankings and see a genuine rank of skill and ability, you are wrong. Simple.
There is a reason we judge the best players in the world based on tournament results and not ladder results. Anyone whos played a ladder for any length of time should understand this intuitively.
|
In a replay how can I switch between players (to check hotkeys)?
Is there a way to change colors in a replay (for ex. white and peach, and I`d like some distinguishable colors)?
|
I just had an embarrassing loss to what was basically just a carrier rush. I felt like I reacted properly and got tons of Goliaths and turrets, and even got 3-3 but still lost. The only thing I feel I could have done was maybe optimize ending the game faster but I felt there was no way I could land a killing blow.
What should I do if I scan very early carrier? I'm talking 2 base literally 1 starport to start,
[Will upload replay as soon as it stops getting aborted on BWReplays]
|
I think if you scout it early, you have an advantage, if you make a power attack timing before he has say more than 2 or 3 carriers out. It's the weakness of early carrier, tanks and vults (or M&M whatever you are doing lolz) are gonna be strong until your carriers are out, and the T might deal big damage if he does well.
because you can deny a low amount of carriers and interceptors with just like a few turrets where you are attacking for example
so depending on your game state when you scan this early you could.. unsiege => move mines turrets to an area that bother the P for example
or maybe instead just move your units around in a early defensive position to take a 3rd before P with turrets o_o
|
My experience is the opposite, but it depends a lot on how you and Protoss opened up. Your timing will be much slimmer if it's, let's say, FD opening vs an early nexus of some sort (which you might scout late). Unless you are preparing a 4/5/6 factory timing from 2base already, if you start adding factories after scouting the carriers, even if you scout it early, his ground army will stall your push until carriers are out to break your contain - then you're on 2 bases (or vulnerable third that's not yet amortised), low army count and have to spam turrets (while he double expands). If you went 1rax expo vs a later nexus your chances are better, but usually Protoss expands greedily or does cheese before doing fast carriers (or does it because he's in good shape anyway).
Wikipedia says 6fact counters well or mb I just suck at pushing, but I would rather use the early intel to prepare for his carrier-play head-on: "He will have no big ground army any time soon, his economy is weaker than usual/slowed down, I need anti-air later, big Gol/Tank-army beats him head on".
What he must not achieve is lots of carriers + lots of bases.
Deny him any ninja-expos behind pylon/cannon-wall, go for fast upgrades quickly, take a third further away from him, build turrets (not too early) where gols will have problems getting to or where he'll come from first, and then threaten his natural (not yolo-suicide) with a gol-supported push before he has enough carriers to counter-attack (you have turrets + reinforcement-gols) but instead has to defend with the carriers.
Then you play it slow, deny him any easy expos. Your goals are killing interceptors (spam-a-move withs gols on the ground) and drying him out. If you keep up your expanding/macro, grab map-control and force him to trade with your growing upgraded tank/gol-army, there's not much he can do. (Theoretially speaking, obviously. In practice he might get a ninja-base up after all, or you fail to defend your 3rd from harrass, or you have a bad engagement at a cliff and loose too many goliaths for naught, or he goes for base-trade and you mess up your multi-tasking (pushing+defending, he has DTs...). It's still tough cus you have to multitask so hard and the carriers are mobile, especially on certain maps)
|
|
|
Thanks! I'm so set in my ways I didn't even consider placing my 3rd further away. Looking back I think you're right, I was greedy and got my 3rd base up really quick and had to spend so much money on more turret coverage for multiple locations when I probably could have won the game just turtling outside his nat with 6 fac and slowpushing.
|
Question about TvP at low levels.
I play against my friend fairly often and he always puts up a ton of photon cannons at his expansions outside his main and nat, sometimes before even transferring workers. Enough that even with tanks I can't kill off his cannons quick enough before his army arrives and its a full on fight, it makes harass and drop play basically pointless.
He uses this to eventually tech or arbiters for recall and carriers to beat me.
How do I break expos with like 10+ cannons, or what should my mindset be when I see that happening?
|
If you keep your army out of range of the cannons and siege them down with tanks, they should never be able to "take active part" in the battles you fight.
That means your friend is investing a lot of money into useless things and your army should always be big enough to handle his army - given that your macro is functional and you're not way behind economically by default.
Depending on how fast your friend starts the arbiter/carrier-tech, there should always be a phase in the game where you can make a push that he cannot hold with his relatively weak army. Study your replays to see when that phase is (it should be when you and him are close to even supplies, because normally Protoss is 20-40 supply ahead in the mid-game, but not if he drowns thousands of minerals into cannons).
That said, on low level where both players lack speed, building cannons can work better than it should because it's easier to build the cannons than to leap-frog tanks to kill them (imo).
|
On December 14 2017 14:04 Iankill wrote:
Question about TvP at low levels.
I play against my friend fairly often and he always puts up a ton of photon cannons at his expansions outside his main and nat, sometimes before even transferring workers. Enough that even with tanks I can't kill off his cannons quick enough before his army arrives and its a full on fight, it makes harass and drop play basically pointless.
He uses this to eventually tech or arbiters for recall and carriers to beat me.
How do I break expos with like 10+ cannons, or what should my mindset be when I see that happening?
Be happy he's wasting all his money on cannons instead of something useful. If he spends 1000 minerals to deter harassment, the damage is already done. You can just macro and push to kill him.
|
On December 14 2017 14:04 Iankill wrote:
Question about TvP at low levels.
I play against my friend fairly often and he always puts up a ton of photon cannons at his expansions outside his main and nat, sometimes before even transferring workers. Enough that even with tanks I can't kill off his cannons quick enough before his army arrives and its a full on fight, it makes harass and drop play basically pointless.
He uses this to eventually tech or arbiters for recall and carriers to beat me.
How do I break expos with like 10+ cannons, or what should my mindset be when I see that happening?
Cannons are least useful in PvT, imo. Just a couple per expo, so that terran can't simply run by with vultures and murder your probes.
Cannon rush, maybe. Other than that, just use your tanks, they have greater range and tear cannons apart easily.
+ he wasted a lot of money into static defence, this is generally a bad move, as he gives up map control. Take advantage of it. Expand, even more than once, make scvs, build factories, turrets around your main.
Four cannons is 600$$, this is crazy. It's a command centre and a factory, in minerals. And you say, he spams them
|
I think didn't explain myself well enough. I know conceptually that to beat him i should just out macro him because he'll be behind in minerals or just kill the cannons with tanks.
The problem comes about in that there are so many cannons that without committing a good chunk of tanks i can't get through them before his army shows up even then i still might get trapped.
The way i normally beat him is when he goes for arbiter play he'll give up map control and as long as i keep the recalls out of my production i can beat him.
He's not an optimal player but is really good at making units even if they're the wrong ones. Like he'll open with a 2gate zealot rush to contain me while he FEs.
My normal tvp is a fd using tanks and early marines fyi pressure. Doesn't work as well when he has 10 zealots
|
On December 15 2017 00:55 Iankill wrote:
I think didn't explain myself well enough. I know conceptually that to beat him i should just out macro him because he'll be behind in minerals or just kill the cannons with tanks.
The problem comes about in that there are so many cannons that without committing a good chunk of tanks i can't get through them before his army shows up even then i still might get trapped.
The way i normally beat him is when he goes for arbiter play he'll give up map control and as long as i keep the recalls out of my production i can beat him.
He's not an optimal player but is really good at making units even if they're the wrong ones. Like he'll open with a 2gate zealot rush to contain me while he FEs.
My normal tvp is a fd using tanks and early marines fyi pressure. Doesn't work as well when he has 10 zealots
make a separate thread with replays and your own analysis, i think that will help a lot more than the back and forth so far
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
