|
On May 04 2012 23:01 owlofhell wrote:Show nested quote +You suck at the matchup, yes. I don't see why this is so difficult to accept. Tonnes of (even pro) players are notoriously awful at particular matchups despite being very good at others. In March I had something like a 30% winrate in PvZ, but now it's a contender for my best matchup. It has little to do with balance. You're just doing something wrong. Me and half of the other terrans... Not so long ago i recall a poll on teamliquid "whats your worst matchup?". What do you know, even tho it was to all people, it ended up a huge whine-fest between terran and protoss, because 70% of terrans chose TvP as their wealest match-up. Well, its obviously a huge troll, all terrans decided vote for TvP just for kicks, to stir things up. Really, why people keep thinking that they now exactly the reason why things are wrong, despite having suffisent knowledge about the problem? P.S. I recently tried out protoss, just for kicks (got my hands on a guest past). I'm plat terran, never played protoss before, literally. After 4 hours of play + some research, i got to plat and growing higer and faster than my terran acc. Well, its obviously cause my hands are better suited to plat protoss.
This game isn't balanced around low leagues. If it were, the Baneling would have been nerfed against the Marine.
|
If anyone has played ZvP in BW they would know that the protoss advantage lies in the midgame. If P lets zerg go into late game successfully, it is pretty much over for the protoss. The same can be said for TvP in BW after you mass up 30-40 tanks with a max army. Ask any pro in BW to confirm this.
|
On May 04 2012 22:52 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2012 22:51 owlofhell wrote:My point is "play better." At the top pro level, Terrans beat Protoss quite consistently. On ladder, Terrans (in this thread and others) have complained that they're microing their hearts out and the Protoss is just a-moving. This is false and shouldn't be perpetuated anymore. Well, for instance here is my winrate percentages from March out of 30 respective matches: TvZ: 53% TvT: 67% TvP: 23% So you are saying that my macro and micro sucks, even tho i am able to win zerg and terran in the lategame? You suck at the matchup, yes. I don't see why this is so difficult to accept. Tonnes of (even pro) players are notoriously awful at particular matchups despite being very good at others. In March I had something like a 30% winrate in PvZ, but now it's a contender for my best matchup. It has little to do with balance. You're just doing something wrong.
A while ago, there was a poll on TL about best and worst matchups. And guess what, nearly every terran (about 70% or so) had TvP as his worst matchup. Do you really think this is just a fluke? And while ZvT seemed to be most comfortable for the major number of zerg players, most Terrans do quite well in TvZ, or at least don't feel an imbalance here. Why that? If TvZ was just imbalanced (if these Terrans would just be bad players and therefor not be able to beat the Protoss), then TvZ has to be hugely terran favored, since those bad players seem to be able to beat zerg on a regular basis, while lacking skill. But then Zerg players would see ZvT as their best/most comfortable matchup and would complain about it. But they don't, so TvZ might be pretty ok as it is right now. So Terrans seem to be not as bad as all protoss want the world to believe. But wait, what does this mean for TvP?
|
Wow it's like 25 pages of people mostly not even reading what the guy said. He didn't say, imply, or condone Terran being a mid-game focused race. He said that Terrans need to take advantage of the tools they've been given in order to come out ahead in the late game. Meaning that as Terran you can't play passive against protoss if you hope to do well in the late game. Which is a fair statement, and it's what you should be doing as Terran anyway.
This is actually a good thing for us as spectators, because it encourages Terran to be more active in the mid-game so that they enter the late game on more even footing. So we get more entertaining games. For me, TvP is the second most boring match-up right after PvP, when it goes into a macro game because it's just two players not being very active.
Short version: Blizzard just told you how to win macro games vs protoss so you don't have to rely on 1-2 base play. Be more active in the mid-game.
|
On May 04 2012 23:07 MVega wrote:
Wow it's like 25 pages of people mostly not even reading what the guy said. He didn't say, imply, or condone Terran being a mid-game focused race. He said that Terrans need to take advantage of the tools they've been given in order to come out ahead in the late game. Meaning that as Terran you can't play passive against protoss if you hope to do well in the late game. Which is a fair statement, and it's what you should be doing as Terran anyway.
This is actually a good thing for us as spectators, because it encourages Terran to be more active in the mid-game so that they enter the late game on more even footing. So we get more entertaining games. For me, TvP is the second most boring match-up right after PvP, when it goes into a macro game because it's just two players not being very active.
Short version: Blizzard just told you how to win macro games vs protoss so you don't have to rely on 1-2 base play. Be more active in the mid-game.
lol, Sound like every terran doesn't do that ?
|
On May 04 2012 22:29 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2012 22:22 Ccx55 wrote:On May 04 2012 21:52 mcc wrote:On May 04 2012 21:17 Ccx55 wrote:
Well, here we go again with another stupid opinion from Blizzard based off of nothing.
They're saying that they intentionally want the terran to concentrate on mid-game and protoss on late-game.
So what if the protoss wants to push mid-game? Or what if the terran wants to go mass expand? They can go f*ck themselves, then? Is that your opinion on the matter, Blizzard?
Sorry for my language, I'm just really frustrated about how Blizzard is steering this game. I say this as a Zerg player, too. And your opinion is based on something ? And what if terrans want to build broodlords, stupid Blizzard preventing them from that ? ??? Sorry, did you just get off elementary school? What you've just said is completely irrelevant. I said that Blizzard intentionally gave terran the late-game disadvantage. How the hell is that, in ANY way, me asking for Blizzard to give terran brood lords? Your logic is completely flawed. And my opinion is based on Blizzard's slow and incompetent problem-"solving". Nice of you in your righteous anger to miss the point. You said : "So what if the protoss wants to push mid-game? Or what if the terran wants to go mass expand?". This implies that you want nothing to constraint what the races can do and I took it to the absurd, but logical conclusion. The point is that there are things Blizzard decided that races should not be able to do, otherwise there is no point of having 3 races. The races should not just be different in the units they can build, but also how you are playing them in different phases of the game. They are also not saying that they gave terran lategame disadvantage. They said that if terrans do not play correctly in the midgame they will have disadvantage in the lategame. That is completely different from what you are attributing them.
Mass expand is a strategy. Brood lord is a unit. Your logic is so obviously flawed, it's difficult to see if you're being sarcastic. Are you suggesting that the only way to make protoss diversified from terran is to weaken them from early-mid pushes? Maybe for Blizzard, considering they don't seem to have any logic on the team at all.
Reduce the tank minimum range, remove the overkill of viking rockets, decrease the build time of reactors etc. would diversify and buff terran's late game.
Decrease warp gate cooldown, give cannons 7 range, decrease the research time of charge, increase sentry energy regenration etc. would diversify and buff protoss' mid game.
To make up for it, give the zerg bonuses like cheaper spine crawlers or faster roaches.
See? There are countless ways of fixing the problem. Not only the ones I suggested.
The worst possible thing in any strategy game is to limit the player's opportunities and strategies. Somewhat limited works, but not so drastically like TvP.
The first Supreme Commander is a prime example of a proper strategy game with fairly diverse factions.
|
On May 04 2012 23:05 TeeTS wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2012 22:52 Shiori wrote:On May 04 2012 22:51 owlofhell wrote:My point is "play better." At the top pro level, Terrans beat Protoss quite consistently. On ladder, Terrans (in this thread and others) have complained that they're microing their hearts out and the Protoss is just a-moving. This is false and shouldn't be perpetuated anymore. Well, for instance here is my winrate percentages from March out of 30 respective matches: TvZ: 53% TvT: 67% TvP: 23% So you are saying that my macro and micro sucks, even tho i am able to win zerg and terran in the lategame? You suck at the matchup, yes. I don't see why this is so difficult to accept. Tonnes of (even pro) players are notoriously awful at particular matchups despite being very good at others. In March I had something like a 30% winrate in PvZ, but now it's a contender for my best matchup. It has little to do with balance. You're just doing something wrong. A while ago, there was a poll on TL about best and worst matchups. And guess what, nearly every terran (about 70% or so) had TvP as his worst matchup. Do you really think this is just a fluke? And while ZvT seemed to be most comfortable for the major number of zerg players, most Terrans do quite well in TvZ, or at least don't feel an imbalance here. Why that? If TvZ was just imbalanced (if these Terrans would just be bad players and therefor not be able to beat the Protoss), then TvZ has to be hugely terran favored, since those bad players seem to be able to beat zerg on a regular basis, while lacking skill. But then Zerg players would see ZvT as their best/most comfortable matchup and would complain about it. But they don't, so TvZ might be pretty ok as it is right now. So Terrans seem to be not as bad as all protoss want the world to believe. But wait, what does this mean for TvP?
Balance isn't the only reason that people could find a particular matchup hard.
|
On May 04 2012 23:01 owlofhell wrote:Show nested quote +You suck at the matchup, yes. I don't see why this is so difficult to accept. Tonnes of (even pro) players are notoriously awful at particular matchups despite being very good at others. In March I had something like a 30% winrate in PvZ, but now it's a contender for my best matchup. It has little to do with balance. You're just doing something wrong. Me and half of the other terrans... Not so long ago i recall a poll on teamliquid "whats your worst matchup?". What do you know, even tho it was to all people, it ended up a huge whine-fest between terran and protoss, because 70% of terrans chose TvP as their wealest match-up. Well, its obviously a huge troll, all terrans decided vote for TvP just for kicks, to stir things up. Really, why people keep thinking that they now exactly the reason why things are wrong, despite having suffisent knowledge about the problem? P.S. I recently tried out protoss, just for kicks (got my hands on a guest past). I'm plat terran, never played protoss before, literally. After 4 hours of play + some research, i got to plat and growing higer and faster than my terran acc. Well, its obviously cause my hands are better suited to plat protoss.
I was tempted to report you for this post instead of quoting it since the buttons were so close together. You're platinum, congrats. I'm Diamond and I am not qualified to judge the game balance except that logically for asymetrical design I believe some imbalances must exist at varios points in the game, otherwise it can't be asymetrical. That being said, perhaps your PLAY STYLE is more suited towards Toss. I know my playstyle is, I do very well with them, worse with T and Z. I play random on an alt-account and sometimes the game lines up with my playstyle with the off-races and I look good, but more often than not my limited capacity with them overwhelms me. But when I get BM'd by a platinum Toss I can roll them most cases in a 1v1 as Terran, so I sincerely believe timing, macro, and knowledge of your opponents capabilities would be a much better use of your energy than complaining about late game maxed out Toss. Matter of fact the platinum Toss I run up against on my alt account really can't handle timing attacks or pressure most of the time.
|
This game isn't balanced around low leagues. If it were, the Baneling would have been nerfed against the Marine.
So, i was right. Feels good to see that your opponent admitted defeat ;D
On a sidenote, a good small nerf for P will be to restrict amount of units that you are available to warp in off one pylon to X (arou 4-6 i think) for 20-30 seconds (less that warp cycle). That way it won't hinder any early agression from P, while forcing P to warp lategame reinforcments (infamous 20 zealots) somewhere in other place. Of course, just more proxies could be thrown, but that means more targets for T. Because really, when P warps 20 zealots, i make 20 marines, 5 marauders and maybe few ghosts in late-game (yes i have >15 rax usually). Problem is, zealots are RIGHT THERE, together, why my reinforcmetns slowly making their way to battlefiled.
Tho why im saying that, noone cares about it anyway. Oh well, better go play some more PvT, even if it demands more skill from me, i WILL beat it!
|
Typical lategame armies:
Zerg: T2, T3, AOE
Protoss: T2, T3, AOE
Terran: squishy T1 units, no AOE except maybe some EMPs
Terran response: "We can't win lategame!"
|
On May 04 2012 23:14 owlofhell wrote:Show nested quote +
This game isn't balanced around low leagues. If it were, the Baneling would have been nerfed against the Marine.
So, i was right. Feels good to see that your opponent admitted defeat ;D On a sidenote, a good small nerf for P will be to restrict amount of units that you are available to warp in off one pylon to X (arou 4-6 i think) for 20-30 seconds (less that warp cycle). That way it won't hinder any early agression from P, while forcing P to warp lategame reinforcments (infamous 20 zealots) somewhere in other place. Of course, just more proxies could be thrown, but that means more targets for T. Because really, when P warps 20 zealots, i make 20 marines, 5 marauders and maybe few ghosts in late-game (yes i have >15 rax usually). Problem is, zealots are RIGHT THERE, together, why my reinforcmetns slowly making their way to battlefiled. Tho why im saying that, noone cares about it anyway. Oh well, better go play some more PvT, even if it demands more skill from me, i WILL beat it!
How did he admit defeat? He simply said that you suck at the game so your opinion shouldn't count.
On May 04 2012 23:17 jdsowa wrote:
Typical lategame armies:
Zerg: T2, T3, AOE
Protoss: T2, T3, AOE
Terran: squishy T1 units, no AOE except maybe some EMPs
Terran response: "We can't win lategame!"
Please, oh mighty Starcraft master, explain what army composition Terran should be using instead of bio. Please explain what units we should add to get this mysterious AoE.
|
Terran still has the better mobility and a cheaper army. Stimmed marauders eat buildings like waffles and it's not even funny. Try hitting a planetary with 8 zealots and try to accomplish the same. It's all about using the right tools you are given. That's why it's a strategy game. Obviously hitting a maxed out tier 3 protoss head on might not be the best ideas. Weaken his economy and eventually the toss will crumble.
Not to mention that some terrans just stim attack into a retreating toss and eat a few storms in the process. Mass marauder/medivac/ghost is still pretty darn good against a maxed tier 3 toss army.
I find the MU pretty balanced, might even give terran a mid game advantage, which they should capitalize on, or not complain at all. So yeah Blizz are right not to address the current state of TvP.
|
On May 04 2012 23:14 owlofhell wrote:Show nested quote +
This game isn't balanced around low leagues. If it were, the Baneling would have been nerfed against the Marine.
So, i was right. Feels good to see that your opponent admitted defeat ;D On a sidenote, a good small nerf for P will be to restrict amount of units that you are available to warp in off one pylon to X (arou 4-6 i think) for 20-30 seconds (less that warp cycle). That way it won't hinder any early agression from P, while forcing P to warp lategame reinforcments (infamous 20 zealots) somewhere in other place. Of course, just more proxies could be thrown, but that means more targets for T. Because really, when P warps 20 zealots, i make 20 marines, 5 marauders and maybe few ghosts in late-game (yes i have >15 rax usually). Problem is, zealots are RIGHT THERE, together, why my reinforcmetns slowly making their way to battlefiled. Tho why im saying that, noone cares about it anyway. Oh well, better go play some more PvT, even if it demands more skill from me, i WILL beat it!
I think that giving Pylons a small amount of Energy is a much more elegant solution, and have a pylon spend between 1 and 10 energy to warp in a single unit, and spawn with about 25 energy.
|
On May 04 2012 23:20 Fencer710 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2012 23:14 owlofhell wrote:
This game isn't balanced around low leagues. If it were, the Baneling would have been nerfed against the Marine.
So, i was right. Feels good to see that your opponent admitted defeat ;D On a sidenote, a good small nerf for P will be to restrict amount of units that you are available to warp in off one pylon to X (arou 4-6 i think) for 20-30 seconds (less that warp cycle). That way it won't hinder any early agression from P, while forcing P to warp lategame reinforcments (infamous 20 zealots) somewhere in other place. Of course, just more proxies could be thrown, but that means more targets for T. Because really, when P warps 20 zealots, i make 20 marines, 5 marauders and maybe few ghosts in late-game (yes i have >15 rax usually). Problem is, zealots are RIGHT THERE, together, why my reinforcmetns slowly making their way to battlefiled. Tho why im saying that, noone cares about it anyway. Oh well, better go play some more PvT, even if it demands more skill from me, i WILL beat it! I think that giving Pylons a small amount of Energy is a much more elegant solution, and have a pylon spend between 1 and 10 energy to warp in a single unit, and spawn with about 25 energy.
They'll just build 2/3+ pylons next to each other. It's not like you're starving for minerals, generally, late game.
|
On May 04 2012 23:20 Inex wrote:
Terran still has the better mobility and a cheaper army. Stimmed marauders eat buildings like waffles and it's not even funny. Try hitting a planetary with 8 zealots and try to accomplish the same. It's all about using the right tools you are given. That's why it's a strategy game. Obviously hitting a maxed out tier 3 protoss head on might not be the best ideas. Weaken his economy and eventually the toss will crumble.
Not to mention that some terrans just stim attack into a retreating toss and eat a few storms in the process. Mass marauder/medivac/ghost is still pretty darn good against a maxed tier 3 toss army.
I find the MU pretty balanced, might even give terran a mid game advantage, which they should capitalize on, or not complain at all.
You really want a lot of Marines against a lot of Chargelots, though. You can kite the Zealots to death while avoiding the Colossus and using EMP's on the Archons and HT's.
|
On May 04 2012 23:11 Ccx55 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2012 22:29 mcc wrote:On May 04 2012 22:22 Ccx55 wrote:On May 04 2012 21:52 mcc wrote:On May 04 2012 21:17 Ccx55 wrote:
Well, here we go again with another stupid opinion from Blizzard based off of nothing.
They're saying that they intentionally want the terran to concentrate on mid-game and protoss on late-game.
So what if the protoss wants to push mid-game? Or what if the terran wants to go mass expand? They can go f*ck themselves, then? Is that your opinion on the matter, Blizzard?
Sorry for my language, I'm just really frustrated about how Blizzard is steering this game. I say this as a Zerg player, too. And your opinion is based on something ? And what if terrans want to build broodlords, stupid Blizzard preventing them from that ? ??? Sorry, did you just get off elementary school? What you've just said is completely irrelevant. I said that Blizzard intentionally gave terran the late-game disadvantage. How the hell is that, in ANY way, me asking for Blizzard to give terran brood lords? Your logic is completely flawed. And my opinion is based on Blizzard's slow and incompetent problem-"solving". Nice of you in your righteous anger to miss the point. You said : "So what if the protoss wants to push mid-game? Or what if the terran wants to go mass expand?". This implies that you want nothing to constraint what the races can do and I took it to the absurd, but logical conclusion. The point is that there are things Blizzard decided that races should not be able to do, otherwise there is no point of having 3 races. The races should not just be different in the units they can build, but also how you are playing them in different phases of the game. They are also not saying that they gave terran lategame disadvantage. They said that if terrans do not play correctly in the midgame they will have disadvantage in the lategame. That is completely different from what you are attributing them. Mass expand is a strategy. Brood lord is a unit. Your logic is so obviously flawed, it's difficult to see if you're being sarcastic. Are you suggesting that the only way to make protoss diversified from terran is to weaken them from early-mid pushes? Maybe for Blizzard, considering they don't seem to have any logic on the team at all. Reduce the tank minimum range, remove the overkill of viking rockets, decrease the build time of reactors etc. would diversify and buff terran's late game. Decrease warp gate cooldown, give cannons 7 range, decrease the research time of charge, increase sentry energy regenration etc. would diversify and buff protoss' mid game. To make up for it, give the zerg bonuses like cheaper spine crawlers or faster roaches. See? There are countless ways of fixing the problem. Not only the ones I suggested. The worst possible thing in any strategy game is to limit the player's opportunities and strategies. Somewhat limited works, but not so drastically like TvP. The first Supreme Commander is a prime example of a proper strategy game with fairly diverse factions.
So ? Not all strategies should be viable. 5 nexus before gate is not viable and I would say it is a good thing ?
This of course has nothing to do with your rant against the Blizzard statement. They were talking balance, you are talking general game design. Are you saying they should completely rework WoL in a minor patch before HoTS ? Because all your proposed changes seem like an easy fix only in your head.
|
This is actually a good thing for us as spectators, because it encourages Terran to be more active in the mid-game so that they enter the late game on more even footing.
Dont you think its way harder to be active on map, risking your army while keeping up on macro and upgrades, just to stay even? (And still maybe lose everything to a storm?!)
|
I love everything they imply with this post by Blizzard.
- Terran has better harassment tools than Protoss
- Terran has stronger pressure tools than Protoss
- Terran has significantly stronger midgame than Protoss
- Terran doesn't have to invest too much to use these tools (i.e. become "all-in")
Thank you Blizzard for sharing your view on the matter. Now please read what the community think about this being balanced.
|
On May 04 2012 23:17 jdsowa wrote:
Typical lategame armies:
Zerg: T2, T3, AOE
Protoss: T2, T3, AOE
Terran: squishy T1 units, no AOE except maybe some EMPs
Terran response: "We can't win lategame!"
This is SO incredibly uninformed and stupid im not quite sure what to think.
As Jim said - please oh god of SC2 tell the Terran players what to do to use their T2, T3, AOE army to combat Z/P late game.
Go on just try and come up with an answer that isn't complete bs. Dare you
|
On May 04 2012 23:26 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2012 23:11 Ccx55 wrote:On May 04 2012 22:29 mcc wrote:On May 04 2012 22:22 Ccx55 wrote:On May 04 2012 21:52 mcc wrote:On May 04 2012 21:17 Ccx55 wrote:
Well, here we go again with another stupid opinion from Blizzard based off of nothing.
They're saying that they intentionally want the terran to concentrate on mid-game and protoss on late-game.
So what if the protoss wants to push mid-game? Or what if the terran wants to go mass expand? They can go f*ck themselves, then? Is that your opinion on the matter, Blizzard?
Sorry for my language, I'm just really frustrated about how Blizzard is steering this game. I say this as a Zerg player, too. And your opinion is based on something ? And what if terrans want to build broodlords, stupid Blizzard preventing them from that ? ??? Sorry, did you just get off elementary school? What you've just said is completely irrelevant. I said that Blizzard intentionally gave terran the late-game disadvantage. How the hell is that, in ANY way, me asking for Blizzard to give terran brood lords? Your logic is completely flawed. And my opinion is based on Blizzard's slow and incompetent problem-"solving". Nice of you in your righteous anger to miss the point. You said : "So what if the protoss wants to push mid-game? Or what if the terran wants to go mass expand?". This implies that you want nothing to constraint what the races can do and I took it to the absurd, but logical conclusion. The point is that there are things Blizzard decided that races should not be able to do, otherwise there is no point of having 3 races. The races should not just be different in the units they can build, but also how you are playing them in different phases of the game. They are also not saying that they gave terran lategame disadvantage. They said that if terrans do not play correctly in the midgame they will have disadvantage in the lategame. That is completely different from what you are attributing them. Mass expand is a strategy. Brood lord is a unit. Your logic is so obviously flawed, it's difficult to see if you're being sarcastic. Are you suggesting that the only way to make protoss diversified from terran is to weaken them from early-mid pushes? Maybe for Blizzard, considering they don't seem to have any logic on the team at all. Reduce the tank minimum range, remove the overkill of viking rockets, decrease the build time of reactors etc. would diversify and buff terran's late game. Decrease warp gate cooldown, give cannons 7 range, decrease the research time of charge, increase sentry energy regenration etc. would diversify and buff protoss' mid game. To make up for it, give the zerg bonuses like cheaper spine crawlers or faster roaches. See? There are countless ways of fixing the problem. Not only the ones I suggested. The worst possible thing in any strategy game is to limit the player's opportunities and strategies. Somewhat limited works, but not so drastically like TvP. The first Supreme Commander is a prime example of a proper strategy game with fairly diverse factions. So ? Not all strategies should be viable. 5 nexus before gate is not viable and I would say it is a good thing ? This of course has nothing to do with your rant against the Blizzard statement. They were talking balance, you are talking general game design. Are you saying they should completely rework WoL in a minor patch before HoTS ? Because all your proposed changes seem like an easy fix only in your head.
Game design != balance
Balance = game design
Yes, I speak game design. I speak specifically about balance within game design. They are not separate, balance is only a sub-category.
And I'm not talking about specific strategies, as you should be well aware of. I get the feeling you're starting to desperately scramble for counter-arguments, seeing as how there aren't many left.
An "early game" strategy from protoss such as zealot rush or 4gate is definitely not viable vs a terran who wants to put pressure on.
A "mid game" strategy such as 3 gate robo or zealot-archon will not work either vs a 3rax or 2rax pressure. The only hope you have is for the terran to make mistakes.
A "late game" strategy such as 1-gate expand is much more viable, and the protoss cannot lose if the first attack is defended succesfully.
See, don't see the strategies as individual "5 nexus FE", but rather as mid, early or late strategies. One race should not have the advantage over any other race in this sense. A race does not have to gain advantage in order to be diverse. Blizzard should understand this. I'm not calling this an easy fix. I'm saying it was stupid of Blizzard to construct the game like this in the first place without much thought process behind it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
