|
On May 05 2012 03:34 Fencer710 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2012 03:31 Wrongspeedy wrote:On May 05 2012 03:18 KanoCoke wrote:On May 05 2012 03:09 Wrongspeedy wrote:On May 05 2012 03:00 KanoCoke wrote:
LOL Mech in TvP.
Raven -> feedbacked
Battlecruiser -> feedbacked
Thor -> feedbacked
Tanks -> immortal'd
Vikings -> stormed
Hellions -> lol.
I'd be ok if Thors and Battlecruisers took less damage from feedbacks. They take so long to build and take a ton of resources and space, then suddenly they just disappear due to a feedback and a few hits. I'd also be ok if the immortals didn't do absurd amounts of damage to mech in general.
I just really want to see sky/mech actually being used in TvP for once and not failing horribly due to just two units (the high templar and the immortal). Hellions are actually pretty good. Its funny you don't even acknowledge them. They are LURKERS that are super fast and don't have to burrow. Enough of them makes zealots completely useless, and thats not even mentioning their ability to harass all game long. Reminds me of Vultures in BW honestly, super underused/underappreciated unit. That eventually became thee most cost effective unit in the game. That's the thing, hellions only work on mass zealots and probes. Sure you can attempt to drop on a mineral line, but any Protoss worth mentioning has HTs, cannon and / or ground units to immediately defend against it. Also, like the vultures, they're pretty easy to kill, and in SC2, much easier (thanks to colossi and immortals). While everything in your mech army that has MP gets feedbacked all to hell and taken down quickly by immortals, colossi and stalkers, the hellions can't really do much except attempt run-bys or drops, or try to kite zealots, then stop when you realise that your main army disappeared in 10 seconds. Bio+Hellions+Vikings? My point wasn't that Hellions are some god unit. My point was they are underused, especially at lower levels of play. People just dismiss them as some crap unit, but if you mix them in with bio play you don't have to worry about Chargelot/Archon/HT/DT as much. And who cares if they are easy to kill, so is almost everything else in this game, they are easy to make and easy to make a ton of them fast. Honestly it would be more effective to add 5-10 reapers into your bio ball than 5 BFH. The hellions would get way ahead and just die to chargelots after singing their shields. Plus, Reapers actually have okay DPS against Zealots, and cost gas, not minerals.
You need to listen more, talk less. Not trying to be offensive, but you and I both have a lot more to learn than what we currently know. And even up to now Hellions are more viable in pro play than Reapers. Very few players have managed to pull off reaper play, and Hellions are 10x better than Reapers vs Zealots, and even better if you micro them. If Terran doesn't want Hellions, Protoss will gladly take them off your hands.
|
4713 Posts
On May 05 2012 03:38 Fencer710 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2012 03:37 SiroKO wrote:
Well, Terran has no cost-effective counter against broodlords/corruptors/infestors as well...
The reason no-one is complaining about TvZ is precisely that the Terran race has decent timing windows to inflict damage before that.
Blizzard argument is in fact a logical fallacy.
Assuming there's high chance for the Terran to get ahead in the mid-game, in other words a lot of BO extremly strong and either extremly hard to scout or unscoutable, then yeah for sure that would compensate their lategame disadvanatage.
Except you have to proof the existence of these BO before.
Their legitimacy.
Their chances of working depending on the Protoss build.
And this is coming from a Protoss guys...
Actually you can beat 10 infestors and 10 broodlords in the late-game with 4 thors, 10 unsieged tanks, and 20 marines in a large arc.
Actually, you aren't always playing on Entombed valley, and I'm assuming the zerg isn't a brain dead legume as well.
|
On May 05 2012 03:30 nOondn wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2012 03:21 Plansix wrote:On May 05 2012 03:15 nOondn wrote:On May 05 2012 03:03 Fencer710 wrote:On May 05 2012 02:55 nOondn wrote:On May 05 2012 02:53 S_SienZ wrote:On May 05 2012 02:51 Fencer710 wrote:On May 05 2012 02:47 Plansix wrote:On May 05 2012 02:36 Chaggi wrote:On May 05 2012 02:32 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
I don't know if that is as true as people say it is. Any two base timing push is scary if the terran works to deny information and keep the protoss on their toes. If the protoss cannot tell if you are going All-in or expanding to a third, they can't take their own third, unless they do it blindly. I don't know the exact timing, but I think it is around 100-120 supply.
It is like in PvZ, I know that I need to put on pressure early on. Depending on the build I am doing, I need to hit at the 9 or 12 minute mark. If I go later than that, I am in a lot of trouble and will likely lose the game. I am not forced to do an all-in, but the option is there if I see an opening. I don't know, I know I don't play the match up properly and it's by far my worst. All I know is when I play Protoss, I feel like I have to be just about perfect in how I play, have drops in place and make sure everything hits or else I'll trade super ineffectively and die. I just don't know how to punish a Protoss after he makes similar mistakes. Man I was really suprised at how reasonable, and not whiney your post was, then I saw you were from South Korea ;-P I think the some current maps are really protoss favored right now. Cloud Kingdom should be vetoed by every terran, since it is basiclly 3 nearly drop proof bases. Also the rocks on the second ramp are just silly and should be removed. Protoss does not need a natural that can be defended with 2 FFs. I even question having ramps for 3rd bases. But I don't think enough terrans bring the Fear of Terran by giving away to much information. I see a lot of my opponents going 1 rax FE, but building the cc on the low ground. It really misses the true power of that build, which is that the protoss can't really know what your are doing if you wall in. The terrans I fear most are the ones who will take a gas but not mine from it, all for the sole purpose of keeping me guessing. There is a huge difference between defending a 1/1/1 and 1 gate FE into 4 rax. This is what make MKP(beyond his amazing micro), is the fact that you have no idea what he is going to do. That is far more powerful against any protoss than crazy macro. That's odd. I usually win whenever I play on CK against Protoss in the late-game. Are you using carpet EMP's on the Protoss army? That's usually the deciding factor in battles. Blizzard themselves acknowledged that PvT winrate on Cloud Kingdom is at 70%..... He is mid master terran on na with 50% win rate so his enemy not that high you know.... Low master actually, but my point still stands. I always see Pro terran players who lose in the late-game relying far, far too much on Marauders to do their dirty work - which is definitely possible - but you need perfect control to achieve that against storm/colossus, which Terran players just don't have. Instead, I go for Marine/Viking/Medivac/Ghost with few marauders and double starports, TONS of reactors, as well as ship upgrades from the armory, and I win if I defend the counter push after the ten minute timing attack with two medivacs. i do understand the unit composition as well becuase i'm a big fan of ls and do understand marine and ghost is the main DPS for Terran ,but every thing is even hard in high level you know ? you can't emp HT that easily even you have cloack they will use observer / upgrade speed ,So you require more micro than normally to snipe his observer and emp/snipehis HT ,Then i would love to see how to engage and you still got 10+ ghost left in high level play ... He is focusing on remaxing his army and dealing with the second push. Keeping your Ghosts alive is not a huge issue if you control them well, since they have 100 HP and are a priority for Medivacs to heal. Also, sniping the observer is easier if you keep your vikings close to the front. The range of vikings have close to the same range as the observer vision, which means when you scan, you will like just pick it off without doing anything. Plus you get to see the protoss army. Cloaked Ghosts + Vikings + Scan = Ghosts that an move more freely and EMP with style. In korean they always keep their observer with their army so this why it not easy to snipe observer -_-
Observer have sight range 11, Vikings have a range of 10. Unless the observer is behind the protoss's stalkers, you should be able to pick them off with a scan or 2.
|
Late game PvZ is imbalanced. If Toss doesn't do any damage and let's Zerg get 5 base/infestor/brood lord, Zerg always wins. Nerf Zerg!
|
On May 05 2012 03:17 Fencer710 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2012 03:11 Treehead wrote:On May 05 2012 01:49 Fencer710 wrote:On May 05 2012 01:45 Treehead wrote:On May 05 2012 01:16 Dontkillme wrote:
Oh so Blizzard is saying that Terran should end the game at the mid game? So 1 base or 2 base all ins all game longs? WTF. If all Terrans continue to do this, toss will figure out a way to defend our advantageous 2 base or 1 base all ins.... really thoughtful Blizzard. You didn't read what they said. 1. Some size of Colossus/gateway army trades evenly against lategame terran armies. Obviously one colossus and two stalkers will not rip apart a terran lategame army. Obviously a maxed colossus/gateway army has advantages (given a good engagement) - they also cost more to build. Logically, this means that some size of gateway/colossus army trades evenly with a lategame terran army. 2. Your job in the midgame is to make it so that they cannot sustain an army bigger than that in the lategame. Their job is to live long enough to make it to a Colossus/gateway army. Which job is more difficult changes as time progresses, and the current state is not the ultimate answer for the state of the matchup. 3. "Oh, so we have to allin?" is a strawman. That's not what anyone is saying. Though feel free to, if you want, a lot of Terran allins are very, very hard to hold - even at pro level. Stop saying you need to allin. It's ridiculous, and if you watch any pro games at all you'll find instances where a terran lets a protoss get 3 or 4 bases, but still wins the game. 4. "Terran needs to play better to come out on top" is a subjective statement. Up until very, very recently, very good Terrans could allin on 1-2 bases against protoss every match and maintain a very high winrate (some still do, just not every match). This created the perspective that certain protosses were "bad". Now, you see protosses which are "bad" beating top-level terrans. You make the logical conclusion - protoss is easier. However, your assumption here is that your initial assessment was a fair one. Some people are stronger macro players and some are better against allins - it doesn't take a genius to figue out that the allin defender will look better initially but that the macro player will look better once they are both able to hold the allins. You might not know which protosses are good and which are bad as much as you think you do. Moreover, drops and harassment seem just as hard to execute to me (who is a low-level player who plays both terran and protoss) as they are to defend. I seem to be about the same amount behind on my macro when I micro appropriately. Maybe this is just me and I have a "gift" for dropping really well - but I doubt it. Play protoss if you think it's easy. It isn't. 5. This is very recent - someone will figure out more answers in time. Like I said, not all that long ago a well-executed 1-1-1 was near impossible to hold (and it's still hard), and numerous Terran players were able to use the threat of allin-ing to their advantage (even if they didn't actually do it). Terran has won several GSLs since the last time a protoss won the finals (MC back in march - more than a year ago). The current state is not a trend at the top level yet. It's very new and very well may not need fixing (except through trying new strats). Stop making threads about this. There have been several and they all say the same thing. For better or for worse, if Terran engages while in a good concave with adequate numbers of Vikings and 10+ Ghosts that don't die immediately, he's probably going to come out ahead in the engagement. I feel like most Terran players are not taking care of their ghosts and don't get nearly enough of them or vikings, as well as whiffing most of their EMP's. In other words, Terrans are focusing too much on the MM in the late-game and not MGV (medivac ghost viking) You have some analysis. That's great. My point was not that I know what terrans should be doing, though. It was that there is a fundamental and in some cases deliberate misunderstanding of how the matchup is "supposed" to go right now if both sides play standard, and also that there is little or no patience for new disturbances in TvP to get settled. Alej posted a little ways under me, and he said relatively cose to the same thing. In the last three pages, nobody has responded to either of these posts indicating that they know what has been said in them. Maybe this thread is just where good points go to die. Yeah, the matchup is stale-- because of warpgate and how it's implemented. As is, warpgate has less c/d than a gateway takes to warp in a unit, which means there is no reason to have a gateway instead of a warpgate. There is no bad thing about warpgates for Protoss. So naturally, there are a lot of pure gateway timings and all-in's that Protoss can do to take advantage of that. 4gate is the most basic. The problem comes in when at their previous strength, they are completely OP, so naturally Blizzard nerfs the initial T1 gateway units and implements a band-aid unit called a Colossus to help the Protoss in the mid-game against Terran stim timings. All this boxes the matchup into a much more predictable path than the other matchups, since there is so little diversity, which is what I think you're talking about. (It is what you're saying, right?)
That's really not what I'm saying at all.
I'm saying this:
Ignoring allins and non-"standard" play (not because that play isn't better, but because that's not what terran complaints are about), the standard style of TvP and PvT follows a pattern we know things about. Blizzard has stated these things very generically, and the Terran players posting here have misinterpreted it - a lot. Read "pressure" as "pressure" (which can mean timing attacks, harassment, contains, multipronged aggression or a number of other things) - and not as "you need to all-in every game".
Read the other points I made in my original post under this same context - not that something is wrong, but that it is misunderstood - and I think you'll see what I'm getting at.
I don't know if there's a problem or if anything needs fixing, or if different comps need to be explored. I don't know these things because I'm not that good at this game. I do know how to read a post and understand what it says and what it doesn't say. People are reacting to things that the posts there reading don't say.
Example of better reading comprehension (with walkthrough):
We do agree that if both sides take few to no losses going into the late game, protoss can have an advantage.
1. Notice they start "we agree" which means that they hear the problems you're referring to.
2. They say "if both sides take few to no losses" meaning that the next part of their statement doesn't apply if you've pressured in your TvP in any way.
3. They say "going into the late game" meaning that this statement doesn't apply until you're both on 3+ bases and you have whatever tech you want.
4. They say "protoss can have an advantage". This means they've heard that protoss has an advantage, but the use of the phrase 'can' indicates that they don't agree that it is the case in all circumstances.
The way they have phrased this implies that "protoss can have an advantage" is not necessarily true in their view, if you take away any of the earlier parts of these statements. Either, don't let them get to the lategame (i.e. end it early) OR pressure (drops, harass, the stuff I stated above) - OR do something completely nonstandard and see how it goes - because here you have no knowledge of who has the advantage.
Why? Because the point of the statement is that they're identifying what you've said that they agree with. If they could say "you're totally right, you have to allin every game and hope to play better than your opponent", they'd say that and make an argument that this still made for a good game (they could make that argument, if they wanted to).
This is how you read a sentence and takes it's meaning from it completely. This is my point. People aren't doing this. They're imagining other things and then responding to their imaginations, which is crazy.
Edit: I just realized this is kinda confusing - but essentially what I did was paraphrase what blizzard said and some general wisdom I've seen others state, and put it in some very direct terms that I think people ought to understand. My issue was that people were not reading the points being made by blizzard and other posters and understanding them as what they were. I had some specific things to say in the post, but they were all things others said stated in a way which should be more obvious. The problem, though, and the reason it needed restating, was that people weren't really reading what it said.
|
4713 Posts
Vikings have a range of 9 actually, best you double check your info first before you post it.
|
On May 05 2012 03:27 decaf wrote:
I don't quite get it. Didn't Dustin Browder state once he didn't want races to be OP at different stages of the game and now we get this?
I do believe that is what they want, but I don't see any obvious solutions to the problem right now (and neither do blizzard or they would've implemented them). Instead of messing up the overall balance that they've achieved, maintaining it as it is while fixing obvious overall imbalances seems like the best idea while waiting for HOTS. The balancing will start from scratch at that point anyway.
It is obviously poor game design that there are imbalances at different points in a game, and it makes the game less fun. However, as long as the overall balance is decent, it can still remain a competetive game.
|
On May 05 2012 03:40 Wrongspeedy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2012 03:34 Fencer710 wrote:On May 05 2012 03:31 Wrongspeedy wrote:On May 05 2012 03:18 KanoCoke wrote:On May 05 2012 03:09 Wrongspeedy wrote:On May 05 2012 03:00 KanoCoke wrote:
LOL Mech in TvP.
Raven -> feedbacked
Battlecruiser -> feedbacked
Thor -> feedbacked
Tanks -> immortal'd
Vikings -> stormed
Hellions -> lol.
I'd be ok if Thors and Battlecruisers took less damage from feedbacks. They take so long to build and take a ton of resources and space, then suddenly they just disappear due to a feedback and a few hits. I'd also be ok if the immortals didn't do absurd amounts of damage to mech in general.
I just really want to see sky/mech actually being used in TvP for once and not failing horribly due to just two units (the high templar and the immortal). Hellions are actually pretty good. Its funny you don't even acknowledge them. They are LURKERS that are super fast and don't have to burrow. Enough of them makes zealots completely useless, and thats not even mentioning their ability to harass all game long. Reminds me of Vultures in BW honestly, super underused/underappreciated unit. That eventually became thee most cost effective unit in the game. That's the thing, hellions only work on mass zealots and probes. Sure you can attempt to drop on a mineral line, but any Protoss worth mentioning has HTs, cannon and / or ground units to immediately defend against it. Also, like the vultures, they're pretty easy to kill, and in SC2, much easier (thanks to colossi and immortals). While everything in your mech army that has MP gets feedbacked all to hell and taken down quickly by immortals, colossi and stalkers, the hellions can't really do much except attempt run-bys or drops, or try to kite zealots, then stop when you realise that your main army disappeared in 10 seconds. Bio+Hellions+Vikings? My point wasn't that Hellions are some god unit. My point was they are underused, especially at lower levels of play. People just dismiss them as some crap unit, but if you mix them in with bio play you don't have to worry about Chargelot/Archon/HT/DT as much. And who cares if they are easy to kill, so is almost everything else in this game, they are easy to make and easy to make a ton of them fast. Honestly it would be more effective to add 5-10 reapers into your bio ball than 5 BFH. The hellions would get way ahead and just die to chargelots after singing their shields. Plus, Reapers actually have okay DPS against Zealots, and cost gas, not minerals. You need to listen more, talk less. Not trying to be offensive, but you and I both have a lot more to learn than what we currently know. And even up to now Hellions are more viable in pro play than Reapers. Very few players have managed to pull off reaper play, and Hellions are 10x better than Reapers vs Zealots, and even better if you micro them. If Terran doesn't want Hellions, Protoss will gladly take them off your hands.
I'm talking about mixing in a couple of reapers for a ton more DPS in maxed armies, similar to what you're talking about. The problem with hellions is that they are upgraded from an entirely different path, and since the BFH nerf, actually don't do nearly as much damage against zealots as they need to. A pair of reapers do 12 damage per attack each against a zealot when both sides are fully upgraded, plus they attack a little less than twice as fast as a Hellion. a Hellion with BFH does 19 damage, 16 against Zealot health when both sides have fully upgraded bio, and attacks half as fast BUT has splash damage. The problem is that the Hellion is inferior because of a few things:
Zealots barely clump, so the Hellion will get maybe 3-4 zealots per shot, a couple more if it's lucky.
Hellions are made of paper against Protoss. Colossus, Chargelot damage, Storm, all do insane amounts of damage. Hellions are on an entirely different tech path than Bio, so naturally you won't be getting any upgrades, which means they die to everything Protoss.
Last, they take up your most important resource: Minerals. Two marines will literally be a better investment than a hellion due to these things, and for the supply, Reapers are amazing compared to Hellions.
So by this logic, Reapers are better than Hellions.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On May 05 2012 03:43 Treehead wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2012 03:17 Fencer710 wrote:On May 05 2012 03:11 Treehead wrote:On May 05 2012 01:49 Fencer710 wrote:On May 05 2012 01:45 Treehead wrote:On May 05 2012 01:16 Dontkillme wrote:
Oh so Blizzard is saying that Terran should end the game at the mid game? So 1 base or 2 base all ins all game longs? WTF. If all Terrans continue to do this, toss will figure out a way to defend our advantageous 2 base or 1 base all ins.... really thoughtful Blizzard. You didn't read what they said. 1. Some size of Colossus/gateway army trades evenly against lategame terran armies. Obviously one colossus and two stalkers will not rip apart a terran lategame army. Obviously a maxed colossus/gateway army has advantages (given a good engagement) - they also cost more to build. Logically, this means that some size of gateway/colossus army trades evenly with a lategame terran army. 2. Your job in the midgame is to make it so that they cannot sustain an army bigger than that in the lategame. Their job is to live long enough to make it to a Colossus/gateway army. Which job is more difficult changes as time progresses, and the current state is not the ultimate answer for the state of the matchup. 3. "Oh, so we have to allin?" is a strawman. That's not what anyone is saying. Though feel free to, if you want, a lot of Terran allins are very, very hard to hold - even at pro level. Stop saying you need to allin. It's ridiculous, and if you watch any pro games at all you'll find instances where a terran lets a protoss get 3 or 4 bases, but still wins the game. 4. "Terran needs to play better to come out on top" is a subjective statement. Up until very, very recently, very good Terrans could allin on 1-2 bases against protoss every match and maintain a very high winrate (some still do, just not every match). This created the perspective that certain protosses were "bad". Now, you see protosses which are "bad" beating top-level terrans. You make the logical conclusion - protoss is easier. However, your assumption here is that your initial assessment was a fair one. Some people are stronger macro players and some are better against allins - it doesn't take a genius to figue out that the allin defender will look better initially but that the macro player will look better once they are both able to hold the allins. You might not know which protosses are good and which are bad as much as you think you do. Moreover, drops and harassment seem just as hard to execute to me (who is a low-level player who plays both terran and protoss) as they are to defend. I seem to be about the same amount behind on my macro when I micro appropriately. Maybe this is just me and I have a "gift" for dropping really well - but I doubt it. Play protoss if you think it's easy. It isn't. 5. This is very recent - someone will figure out more answers in time. Like I said, not all that long ago a well-executed 1-1-1 was near impossible to hold (and it's still hard), and numerous Terran players were able to use the threat of allin-ing to their advantage (even if they didn't actually do it). Terran has won several GSLs since the last time a protoss won the finals (MC back in march - more than a year ago). The current state is not a trend at the top level yet. It's very new and very well may not need fixing (except through trying new strats). Stop making threads about this. There have been several and they all say the same thing. For better or for worse, if Terran engages while in a good concave with adequate numbers of Vikings and 10+ Ghosts that don't die immediately, he's probably going to come out ahead in the engagement. I feel like most Terran players are not taking care of their ghosts and don't get nearly enough of them or vikings, as well as whiffing most of their EMP's. In other words, Terrans are focusing too much on the MM in the late-game and not MGV (medivac ghost viking) You have some analysis. That's great. My point was not that I know what terrans should be doing, though. It was that there is a fundamental and in some cases deliberate misunderstanding of how the matchup is "supposed" to go right now if both sides play standard, and also that there is little or no patience for new disturbances in TvP to get settled. Alej posted a little ways under me, and he said relatively cose to the same thing. In the last three pages, nobody has responded to either of these posts indicating that they know what has been said in them. Maybe this thread is just where good points go to die. Yeah, the matchup is stale-- because of warpgate and how it's implemented. As is, warpgate has less c/d than a gateway takes to warp in a unit, which means there is no reason to have a gateway instead of a warpgate. There is no bad thing about warpgates for Protoss. So naturally, there are a lot of pure gateway timings and all-in's that Protoss can do to take advantage of that. 4gate is the most basic. The problem comes in when at their previous strength, they are completely OP, so naturally Blizzard nerfs the initial T1 gateway units and implements a band-aid unit called a Colossus to help the Protoss in the mid-game against Terran stim timings. All this boxes the matchup into a much more predictable path than the other matchups, since there is so little diversity, which is what I think you're talking about. (It is what you're saying, right?) That's really not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying this: Ignoring allins and non-"standard" play (not because that play isn't better, but because that's not what terran complaints are about), the standard style of TvP and PvT follows a pattern we know things about. Blizzard has stated these things very generically, and the Terran players posting here have misinterpreted it - a lot. Read "pressure" as "pressure" (which can mean timing attacks, harassment, contains, multipronged aggression or a number of other things) - and not as "you need to all-in every game". Read the other points I made in my original post under this same context - not that something is wrong, but that it is misunderstood - and I think you'll see what I'm getting at. I don't know if there's a problem or if anything needs fixing, or if different comps need to be explored. I don't know these things because I'm not that good at this game. I do know how to read a post and understand what it says and what it doesn't say. People are reacting to things that the posts there reading don't say. Example of better reading comprehension (with walkthrough): Show nested quote +We do agree that if both sides take few to no losses going into the late game, protoss can have an advantage. 1. Notice they start "we agree" which means that they hear the problems you're referring to. 2. They say "if both sides take few to no losses" meaning that the next part of their statement doesn't apply if you've pressured in your TvP in any way. 3. They say "going into the late game" meaning that this statement doesn't apply until you're both on 3+ bases and you have whatever tech you want. 4. They say "protoss can have an advantage". This means they've heard that protoss has an advantage, but the use of the phrase 'can' indicates that they don't agree that it is the case in all circumstances. The way they have phrased this implies that "protoss can have an advantage" is not necessarily true in their view, if you take away any of the earlier parts of these statements. Either, don't let them get to the lategame (i.e. end it early) OR pressure (drops, harass, the stuff I stated above) - OR do something completely nonstandard and see how it goes - because here you have no knowledge of who has the advantage. Why? Because the point of the statement is that they're identifying what you've said that they agree with. If they could say "you're totally right, you have to allin every game and hope to play better than your opponent", they'd say that and make an argument that this still made for a good game (they could make that argument, if they wanted to). This is how you read a sentence and takes it's meaning from it completely. This is my point. People aren't doing this. They're imagining other things and then responding to their imaginations, which is crazy.
|
On May 05 2012 01:33 Ccx55 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2012 00:34 mcc wrote:On May 04 2012 23:35 Ccx55 wrote:On May 04 2012 23:26 mcc wrote: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. I know that balance is part of game design, but you are not talking balance. Balance (as used in this thread) is very specific issue of winrates. At the broadest it is an issue of winrates in different phases of the game. You are talking about diversity, this does not necessarily have anything to do with balancing the game and until you prove otherwise I see no reason to think it does. So my two questions remain. 1) How is what you talking about in any way related to the Blizzard statement ? In your last sentence you even directly say that you actually have nothing to say to the statement in the OP, you are just in general venting your frustration with SC2 design. 2) Why is this statement of yours "One race should not have the advantage over any other race in this sense." true ? Other than you saying so and how is it related to balance ? It might, but I doubt you have any compelling arguments on the latter and only vague instinctive ones on the former. You've gotten the idea of "balance" wrong. You say balance has only to do with winrates, which is completely false. Consider a scenario for once, where you pit 100 terrans vs 100 protoss. all protoss players opt for late-game play, and 50 terrans opt for 3rax or some other early pressure. If all the terrans with 3rax win, and all the others lose, the win rate will be exactly 50%. Does this mean the game is balanced? Absolutely not. It means protoss have no chance versus early pressure, and terrans have no chance versus late game protoss. See? Win rate percentage is only partly relevant to balance, it is not a representation of balance as a whole. Oh, and, don't put words into my mouth. I said Blizzard are stupid for constructing SC2 in such an imbalanced way in the first place, and that has everything to do with the first statement.
I hoped I would not need to explain to you indepth what balance is. In the end it is purely about winrates, but of course there are assumptions about skill of the players we use. So to spell it out for you : It is about winrates between equally skilled players using the best strategy possible in the game. By strategy I mean it in terms of games theory, so 1-rax expo is not a strategy. Vector of pairs (probability, build) is a strategy. As the number of games those two players play goes (limit) to infinity game is balanced if the winrate is 50%. You can use slight approximation, that game is balanced when in n games between equally skilled players each of them wins close to n/2 games if n is big enough. There are other possible ways to look at what balance is, but all of them have to do with winrates in relation to skill of the players. Your statements still have nothing to do with balance. And no your complaints about SC2 that you presented are not about balance, everything you said was about other aspects of game design.
On May 05 2012 01:33 Ccx55 wrote:
I love how you ask me a question, then directly afterwards you state "this might be true, but I doubt you can explain it well"(paraphrased). So you agree that I might be correct, but you believe I cannot explain it well enough? Then why are you arguing about a topic we both agree on?
And please don't tell me you believe certain races should have clear advantages over others. That's like giving Protoss an aimbot hack and terran a speed hack, in counter strike terms. If I want to play macro, I'm practically forced to either play defensive protoss or play a very agressive terran. If I want neither, I will be absolutely crushed by my opponent in most cases. How is this not unfair and limiting my playstyle?
Do you not see a difference between "It is certainly true" (your statement) and "It might be true" (my statement). My statement means that it might be true or might not be true and there is no way to tell right now. And no I do not believe that the only problem is that you cannot "explain it well", my point is that you have no evidence or proof to create compelling argument. My point is that you are stating as fact something that you only hypothesize.
And I AM saying that I see no inherent problem with races having advantages (which is basically always a fact if you have more than one race anyway). The only problem with those advantages would be if they caused the game to become imabalanced to a significant degree. And there is no evidence that it is the case.
|
On May 05 2012 02:33 Djagulingu wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2012 01:57 Talin wrote:On May 05 2012 01:56 Djagulingu wrote:
Unless all races have equal chances in all stages of the game That is never going to happen unless there is only one race. And even with just one race in the game, there might be dominant strategies that force the game to play out one way or the other. Coming from BW, I know that it is not "never going to happen". TvP is P favored in BW as well, but comparing BW TvP with SC2 counterpart, SC2 TvP makes BW TvP look more balanced than SC2 ZvZ.
How so ? Are there actually any long term numbers on SC2 TvP showing it is imbalanced one way and that imbalance is unrelated to metagame ?
|
imo every race should go through a "phase" of rebuilding
just like Protoss did before they actually figured out what the heck is 1/1/1, those early pushes and finally excelling in late game stages
|
On May 05 2012 03:41 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2012 03:30 nOondn wrote:On May 05 2012 03:21 Plansix wrote:On May 05 2012 03:15 nOondn wrote:On May 05 2012 03:03 Fencer710 wrote:On May 05 2012 02:55 nOondn wrote:On May 05 2012 02:53 S_SienZ wrote:On May 05 2012 02:51 Fencer710 wrote:On May 05 2012 02:47 Plansix wrote:On May 05 2012 02:36 Chaggi wrote:
[quote]
I don't know, I know I don't play the match up properly and it's by far my worst. All I know is when I play Protoss, I feel like I have to be just about perfect in how I play, have drops in place and make sure everything hits or else I'll trade super ineffectively and die. I just don't know how to punish a Protoss after he makes similar mistakes. Man I was really suprised at how reasonable, and not whiney your post was, then I saw you were from South Korea ;-P I think the some current maps are really protoss favored right now. Cloud Kingdom should be vetoed by every terran, since it is basiclly 3 nearly drop proof bases. Also the rocks on the second ramp are just silly and should be removed. Protoss does not need a natural that can be defended with 2 FFs. I even question having ramps for 3rd bases. But I don't think enough terrans bring the Fear of Terran by giving away to much information. I see a lot of my opponents going 1 rax FE, but building the cc on the low ground. It really misses the true power of that build, which is that the protoss can't really know what your are doing if you wall in. The terrans I fear most are the ones who will take a gas but not mine from it, all for the sole purpose of keeping me guessing. There is a huge difference between defending a 1/1/1 and 1 gate FE into 4 rax. This is what make MKP(beyond his amazing micro), is the fact that you have no idea what he is going to do. That is far more powerful against any protoss than crazy macro. That's odd. I usually win whenever I play on CK against Protoss in the late-game. Are you using carpet EMP's on the Protoss army? That's usually the deciding factor in battles. Blizzard themselves acknowledged that PvT winrate on Cloud Kingdom is at 70%..... He is mid master terran on na with 50% win rate so his enemy not that high you know.... Low master actually, but my point still stands. I always see Pro terran players who lose in the late-game relying far, far too much on Marauders to do their dirty work - which is definitely possible - but you need perfect control to achieve that against storm/colossus, which Terran players just don't have. Instead, I go for Marine/Viking/Medivac/Ghost with few marauders and double starports, TONS of reactors, as well as ship upgrades from the armory, and I win if I defend the counter push after the ten minute timing attack with two medivacs. i do understand the unit composition as well becuase i'm a big fan of ls and do understand marine and ghost is the main DPS for Terran ,but every thing is even hard in high level you know ? you can't emp HT that easily even you have cloack they will use observer / upgrade speed ,So you require more micro than normally to snipe his observer and emp/snipehis HT ,Then i would love to see how to engage and you still got 10+ ghost left in high level play ... He is focusing on remaxing his army and dealing with the second push. Keeping your Ghosts alive is not a huge issue if you control them well, since they have 100 HP and are a priority for Medivacs to heal. Also, sniping the observer is easier if you keep your vikings close to the front. The range of vikings have close to the same range as the observer vision, which means when you scan, you will like just pick it off without doing anything. Plus you get to see the protoss army. Cloaked Ghosts + Vikings + Scan = Ghosts that an move more freely and EMP with style. In korean they always keep their observer with their army so this why it not easy to snipe observer -_- Observer have sight range 11, Vikings have a range of 10. Unless the observer is behind the protoss's stalkers, you should be able to pick them off with a scan or 2.
Vikings have a range of 9 afaik,and i don't have problem in how to engagement at all i just wonder how to engage and still got 10 ghost left as Fencer said ...
|
While I rarely comment on balance because most of it is trivial, the fact that blizzard has openly admitted that TvP forces Terran to push the midgame and by default be weaker in a straight up lategate and then does not want to fix it but would rather have T as an early-mid game focused race is upsetting. Starcraft historically has always valued the macro game, from both a player and viewer perspective. No one wants to watch 1base/2base allins and I would say at least a good part of the player base wants to play long games, myself included.
Blizzard did not say anything about all inning. Each race has their own tools to be used differently. If you have a hammer, but want to use it as a wrench, then you're doing something wrong. You can still macro, but maybe NO RUSH 20 min isn't a great idea. Would you play against Zerg with zero aggression before the late game? I sure as hell wouldn't want to let them drone up to 90, but up a bunch of spines and get a sweet infestor broodlord army.
Point is, just play your race and use its tools. Drop, harass, push. None of that says all in, that none of that says you have to end the game. You can get into the late game, mine out the map, whatever. All it says is don't be too passive.
|
4713 Posts
On May 05 2012 03:55 Azurues wrote:
imo every race should go through a "phase" of rebuilding
just like Protoss did before they actually figured out what the heck is 1/1/1, those early pushes and finally excelling in late game stages
And people should learn that protoss alone didn't "figure out" the 1/1/1, a combination of map pool changes and nerfs/buffs over the course of time contributed to this.
|
The next time I play a Protoss player on the ladder and I 3 rax all in and pull SCVs, I'm make sure to direct their assuredly coming in-game rage to the blizzard post listened in the op.
|
On May 05 2012 04:02 zEnVy wrote:
The next time I play a Protoss player on the ladder and I 3 rax all in and pull SCVs, I'm make sure to direct their assuredly coming in-game rage to the blizzard post listened in the op.
Terrible mindset, IMO.
Are you another standard my-race-is-up-because-nerf Terran?
|
On May 05 2012 03:31 Wrongspeedy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2012 03:18 KanoCoke wrote:On May 05 2012 03:09 Wrongspeedy wrote:On May 05 2012 03:00 KanoCoke wrote:
LOL Mech in TvP.
Raven -> feedbacked
Battlecruiser -> feedbacked
Thor -> feedbacked
Tanks -> immortal'd
Vikings -> stormed
Hellions -> lol.
I'd be ok if Thors and Battlecruisers took less damage from feedbacks. They take so long to build and take a ton of resources and space, then suddenly they just disappear due to a feedback and a few hits. I'd also be ok if the immortals didn't do absurd amounts of damage to mech in general.
I just really want to see sky/mech actually being used in TvP for once and not failing horribly due to just two units (the high templar and the immortal). Hellions are actually pretty good. Its funny you don't even acknowledge them. They are LURKERS that are super fast and don't have to burrow. Enough of them makes zealots completely useless, and thats not even mentioning their ability to harass all game long. Reminds me of Vultures in BW honestly, super underused/underappreciated unit. That eventually became thee most cost effective unit in the game. That's the thing, hellions only work on mass zealots and probes. Sure you can attempt to drop on a mineral line, but any Protoss worth mentioning has HTs, cannon and / or ground units to immediately defend against it. Also, like the vultures, they're pretty easy to kill, and in SC2, much easier (thanks to colossi and immortals). While everything in your mech army that has MP gets feedbacked all to hell and taken down quickly by immortals, colossi and stalkers, the hellions can't really do much except attempt run-bys or drops, or try to kite zealots, then stop when you realise that your main army disappeared in 10 seconds. Bio+Hellions+Vikings? My point wasn't that Hellions are some god unit. My point was they are underused, especially at lower levels of play. People just dismiss them as some crap unit, but if you mix them in with bio play you don't have to worry about Chargelot/Archon/HT/DT as much. And who cares if they are easy to kill, so is almost everything else in this game, they are cheap to make and easy to make a ton of them fast.
If you hadn't noticed, I started my post implying full-on mech TvP. Then again Bio, even with hellion support gets shredded by colossi archon HT with chargelot support and warp-ins, and depending on how good the protoss is with their unit control, they probably wouldn't even lose a colossus (thanks to positional storming, flanking and outmaneuvering).
Reactor hellions are hard to hide, and once discovered by a probe scout or observer, easily countered, and contribute nothing to the battlefield when they aren't facing chargelots or probes. And even if they are indeed facing chargelots, there's more than just chargelots usually, and players either need to have good micro (kiting with at least 2 different control groups, one for the hellions, the other for the MM) or have to retreat and scatter them in different directions to ensure that some survive. They're underused simply because they don't have a good function besides harassment, and because for the supply and cost of one hellion, you can get either an absurdly powerful marauder or two quick marines (in other words, hellions are costly mineral-wise).
It's underused because people prefer more reliable units that will both work as harassment-type units and also can bolster the main army up exponentially when up against a mixed composition (which is usually the case in TvP).
Back to my point regarding mech though, for SC2's TvP, full-mech is currently impossible thanks to immortals and high templars. If mech units got buffed against certain spells and such, or immortals and high templar feedbacks got nerfed, we'd be seeing a LOT of interesting TvP matches.
|
On May 05 2012 03:41 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2012 03:30 nOondn wrote:On May 05 2012 03:21 Plansix wrote:On May 05 2012 03:15 nOondn wrote:On May 05 2012 03:03 Fencer710 wrote:On May 05 2012 02:55 nOondn wrote:On May 05 2012 02:53 S_SienZ wrote:On May 05 2012 02:51 Fencer710 wrote:On May 05 2012 02:47 Plansix wrote:On May 05 2012 02:36 Chaggi wrote:
[quote]
I don't know, I know I don't play the match up properly and it's by far my worst. All I know is when I play Protoss, I feel like I have to be just about perfect in how I play, have drops in place and make sure everything hits or else I'll trade super ineffectively and die. I just don't know how to punish a Protoss after he makes similar mistakes. Man I was really suprised at how reasonable, and not whiney your post was, then I saw you were from South Korea ;-P I think the some current maps are really protoss favored right now. Cloud Kingdom should be vetoed by every terran, since it is basiclly 3 nearly drop proof bases. Also the rocks on the second ramp are just silly and should be removed. Protoss does not need a natural that can be defended with 2 FFs. I even question having ramps for 3rd bases. But I don't think enough terrans bring the Fear of Terran by giving away to much information. I see a lot of my opponents going 1 rax FE, but building the cc on the low ground. It really misses the true power of that build, which is that the protoss can't really know what your are doing if you wall in. The terrans I fear most are the ones who will take a gas but not mine from it, all for the sole purpose of keeping me guessing. There is a huge difference between defending a 1/1/1 and 1 gate FE into 4 rax. This is what make MKP(beyond his amazing micro), is the fact that you have no idea what he is going to do. That is far more powerful against any protoss than crazy macro. That's odd. I usually win whenever I play on CK against Protoss in the late-game. Are you using carpet EMP's on the Protoss army? That's usually the deciding factor in battles. Blizzard themselves acknowledged that PvT winrate on Cloud Kingdom is at 70%..... He is mid master terran on na with 50% win rate so his enemy not that high you know.... Low master actually, but my point still stands. I always see Pro terran players who lose in the late-game relying far, far too much on Marauders to do their dirty work - which is definitely possible - but you need perfect control to achieve that against storm/colossus, which Terran players just don't have. Instead, I go for Marine/Viking/Medivac/Ghost with few marauders and double starports, TONS of reactors, as well as ship upgrades from the armory, and I win if I defend the counter push after the ten minute timing attack with two medivacs. i do understand the unit composition as well becuase i'm a big fan of ls and do understand marine and ghost is the main DPS for Terran ,but every thing is even hard in high level you know ? you can't emp HT that easily even you have cloack they will use observer / upgrade speed ,So you require more micro than normally to snipe his observer and emp/snipehis HT ,Then i would love to see how to engage and you still got 10+ ghost left in high level play ... He is focusing on remaxing his army and dealing with the second push. Keeping your Ghosts alive is not a huge issue if you control them well, since they have 100 HP and are a priority for Medivacs to heal. Also, sniping the observer is easier if you keep your vikings close to the front. The range of vikings have close to the same range as the observer vision, which means when you scan, you will like just pick it off without doing anything. Plus you get to see the protoss army. Cloaked Ghosts + Vikings + Scan = Ghosts that an move more freely and EMP with style. In korean they always keep their observer with their army so this why it not easy to snipe observer -_- Observer have sight range 11, Vikings have a range of 10. Unless the observer is behind the protoss's stalkers, you should be able to pick them off with a scan or 2.
How is it possible that this game has been out for over two fucking years and SO MANY PEOPLE still don't know the basic stats on the god damn units??
|
On May 05 2012 03:57 corose wrote:Show nested quote +While I rarely comment on balance because most of it is trivial, the fact that blizzard has openly admitted that TvP forces Terran to push the midgame and by default be weaker in a straight up lategate and then does not want to fix it but would rather have T as an early-mid game focused race is upsetting. Starcraft historically has always valued the macro game, from both a player and viewer perspective. No one wants to watch 1base/2base allins and I would say at least a good part of the player base wants to play long games, myself included. Blizzard did not say anything about all inning. Each race has their own tools to be used differently. If you have a hammer, but want to use it as a wrench, then you're doing something wrong. You can still macro, but maybe NO RUSH 20 min isn't a great idea. Would you play against Zerg with zero aggression before the late game? I sure as hell wouldn't want to let them drone up to 90, but up a bunch of spines and get a sweet infestor broodlord army. Point is, just play your race and use its tools. Drop, harass, push. None of that says all in, that none of that says you have to end the game. You can get into the late game, mine out the map, whatever. All it says is don't be too passive.
You're basically saying that terrans just suck and that GSL level Protoss players are just much better than their zerg/terran counterparts because they don't "use it's tools".
I've seen way too many games at the pro level where a protoss can just turtle on two base and make an unkillable army that terran/zerg can't stop.
You have any idea how hard it is to harass a protoss player who just masses units and sits inside their base? Not only is their whole army about 5-10 seconds away from any point in their base I can drop, they can even just warp in units right in my face.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
