|
As some of you might know, I've created threads about how Terran is overpowered in the past. Well, I've taken time to research ZvT to its full potential and I'm going to give you some good thoughts on the entire concept of ZvT.
In the past, I blamed Terran was overpowered because m&m was too powerful and cost efficient. In the past, I felt like with micro, lings melt under m&m and they can move away from lurks easily. They can move away from dark swarm simply, and the only actual spell that hurts them is plague. In the past, I've also talked about how cost efficient T is with their vulture, turret (20 damage, fast fire, cheap cost, long range), goliaths (ultimate air attacker), valkirye (ultimate air to air). In the past, I've told that bunker is extremely cheap for the amount of protection and power it gives for contains and turtle, and how even fake bunker rush is advantageous to Terran. In the past, I've blamed how there are extremely few Zergs in the top of progaming because very few Zergs are capable of ZvT since T is overpowered to the max.
Well, I don't deny these accusations I've made, I still feel same about most of them, but I've realized the main issue why ZvT is so advantageous to T. The main reason, the simple reason, and the biggest reason....is not cost efficiency (but it is a huge factor) but Terran's ability to lift off command center.
Lets look at why this is so important. In higher level of starcraft, macro is extremely important. In order to have resources and macro and build units, you need to obtain enough bases to produce enough units. This is why fast expand and multiple bases are so common. But you all probably knew this already.
Now we look at the next step. We need to realize that destroying or delaying an expansion is much more economically damaging than losing the cost of minerals it took to make that base. For example, Protoss Nexus = 400 minerals. But a Zerg player would rather spend 500 minerals worth of lings to destroy that Nexus JUST to delay that expansion and losing all the lings, disregarding the actual mineral cost that each player lost. Because the longer it takes for that expansion to start running, the more likely that the Protoss will lose a lot more than 400 minerals because he lost all that mining time + gas'ing time.
Now lets look at modern ZvT. Terran usually uses marine&medics + science vessels + tanks to fight Zergs in normal ZvT. Zergs usually use zerglings and lurkers, scourges, ultras, defilers, etc. Notice how none of these units can attack air except scourges? Hydras are very weak in ZvT, and this is why its not used. Mutalisks are not always used, and even if they are, they die off throughout the game usually.
This is why lifting off CC is so critical to Zergs, because Zergs cannot destroy the Terran base because they cannot touch the command center. What makes it worse is that SCV have more life than drones, so the second Terran realizes that he cannot defend his expansion, he will simply lift CC and move all his SCV to main safely (lings are not ranged like marines so they cannot kill line-moving scvs easily, and SCV has more life than drones)
So in this scenario, after Zerg threat is out of the area, Terran can simply put CC back into the ground, and SCVs will start working again right away. It is definately not the same for Zergs. The moment even a small size group of m&m come, your drones pop VERY fast and your hatchery cannot simply be "lifted off"
Because Z has to wait for the hatchery to rebuild and THEN drones to rebuild, he loses quite a huge amount of mining and gas time. On the other hand, it takes T literally less than 5 seconds to get his expo running again.
What makes this even worse is that if the inflow of gas for Z stops, then he is in a lot of trouble because Z army consumes the most gas usually. T on the other hand doesn't need a lot of gas so making sure the expo's are up and running are not as important as it is to Zerg. Combine that with the inability to simply "lift" hatchery while Terran can simply lift "CC" and you get a not perfectly balanced ZvT.
And we know how important getting or losing an expansion can be to your game. Even though Terrans being able to lift off production buildings is also unfair, its not as important as being able to lift off CC. The most reasonable solution to this is let T lift off his usual buildings EXCEPT the command center. This simple concept totally upsets the balance of ZvT.
You can make a difference. We know the Blizzard still cares about SC:BW so lets give them mass e-mails trying to point this out in the slim hopes that they actually might change this.
In the meantime, if you're a frustrated Zerg player, I recommend using a queen or two during your game with ensnare. Ensnare makes a big difference, and queens will let you infest that lifted off CC if it is damaged enough. If the T has bad enough reflex to let you damage half the life of his CC, he deserves a nice infestation from the queen for playing a rigged matchup.
I will only respond to people who give a decent analysis on this thread so flame me all you want, I do not care. This has to be changed, look at how Top Zergs in progaming scene are dying out
|
Terran has much less mobility than Zerg, and you fail to address the numerous advantageous Zerg has in the same sphere (defending and keeping expansions). Zerg commits a lot less to taking out a Terran expansion. This is usually due to the fact that most Terrans won't waste a group of marines to defend every expansion. At most, there will be a bunker and that's it. This allows for a lot of opportunities for Zerg to just overwhelm the expansion with as little as a group of lings and maybe a few lurkers. On the other hand, Zerg probably is the best in terms of expansion defense, with a dark swarm, which can be the equivalent or the greater than lift off, that often stalls long enough for the Zerg army to return to defend. All it requires is a defiler and a couple of lurkers (or a nydus). This would be enough to stop the entire Terran ball if needed, while Terran needs to commit a significant portion of his army to defend his expansions against a force much smaller. Arguing for a small thing like lifting off is like me arguing that Zergs should not be allowed to use their Nydus Canal any longer because it allows for too fast of a defense.
|
On November 24 2008 16:23 nevake wrote:
Terran has much less mobility than Zerg, and you fail to address the numerous advantageous Zerg has in the same sphere (defending and keeping expansions). Zerg commits a lot less to taking out a Terran expansion. This is usually due to the fact that most Terrans won't waste a group of marines to defend every expansion. At most, there will be a bunker and that's it. This allows for a lot of opportunities for Zerg to just overwhelm the expansion with as little as a group of lings and maybe a few lurkers. On the other hand, Zerg probably is the best in terms of expansion defense, with a dark swarm, which can be the equivalent or the greater than lift off, that often stalls long enough for the Zerg army to return to defend. All it requires is a defiler and a couple of lurkers (or a nydus). This would be enough to stop the entire Terran ball if needed, while Terran needs to commit a significant portion of his army to defend his expansions against a force much smaller. Arguing for a small thing like lifting off is like me arguing that Zergs should not be allowed to use their Nydus Canal any longer because it allows for too fast of a defense.
Great feedback, (I also appreciate your youtube account uploading videos!)
There are some things I have to argue about: I think Terrans commit alot less to defend than Zergs will. Each sunken = 175 minerals. 1 bunker = 100 minerals. A few sunkens will not stop a decent sized m&m army while 2 bunkers + a tank WILL stop a decent sized lurker/ling army. To further talk about this issue, because Zergs need to have more expansions than Terrans do, its only natural that Terrans have fewer expansions, which equals less units spent to defend because there are less expansions.
Dark swarm can hold off a m&m army IF Zerg has enough ground support units, and Vessel will simply irradiate the defiler anyway so the length of the dark swarm = how safe Zerg base will be. Furthermore, Dark swarm+ defiler is a not viable until hive, and we know how much more damaging losing a base is in early/mid game than compared to late game. Swarm definately is not greater than lift off.
I have already explained that lifting off IS a small thing but it is the root of how the expansions are destroyed/saved. That analogy definately doesnt work. How about you telling me losing expansions and keeping expansions are a small thing in Starcraft?
But I appreciate you pointing out possibility I missed. Yes Zerg is more mobile BUT what good is mobility if you can't touch their base/expansion and they can touch your base/expansion?
|
I have two things to say. First, I this thread doesn't belong in the strategy forum. Second, your premise that T>>Z is inaccurate. According to the TLPD, out of all TvZ's played, Terran wins 53.85% of the time (with 2800+ games played). That doesn't strike me as quite the unfair matchup that you portray.
edit: By not belonging in the strategy forum, I mean in the broodwar forum. Or the closed thread 'forum'. I also think your title is wildly inaccurate. Judging by the title, one would expect something insightful, which we have not received. I find your 'analysis' highly suspect.
|
where do you get those matchup percentages? i can only get them by maps only.
|
Great analysis, I agree with most of the issues you put up there. Expansions ARE a huge deal , especially in modern day SC and lifting off CC is the root of saving expansions in ZvT.
@CDRdude Does 53.85% sound perfectly balanced to you or does it sound slightly in favor of Terran? Because "perfectly balanced" should be 50.00%
|
dude if you think thats imba... just think about SaviOr style, just read carefully and look into it deep ok?
1) Nydus Canal
2) Plague/Swarm
3) Crack lings/Ultras
|
On November 24 2008 16:10 F13 wrote:
As some of you might know, I've created threads about how Terran is overpowered in the past. Well, I've taken time to research ZvT to its full potential and I'm going to give you some good thoughts on the entire concept of ZvT.
In the past, I blamed Terran was overpowered because m&m was too powerful and cost efficient. In the past, I felt like with micro, lings melt under m&m and they can move away from lurks easily. They can move away from dark swarm simply, and the only actual spell that hurts them is plague. In the past, I've also talked about how cost efficient T is with their vulture, turret (20 damage, fast fire, cheap cost, long range), goliaths (ultimate air attacker), valkirye (ultimate air to air). In the past, I've told that bunker is extremely cheap for the amount of protection and power it gives for contains and turtle, and how even fake bunker rush is advantageous to Terran. In the past, I've blamed how there are extremely few Zergs in the top of progaming because very few Zergs are capable of ZvT since T is overpowered to the max.
Well, I don't deny these accusations I've made, I still feel same about most of them, but I've realized the main issue why ZvT is so advantageous to T. The main reason, the simple reason, and the biggest reason....is not cost efficiency (but it is a huge factor) but Terran's ability to lift off command center.
Lets look at why this is so important. In higher level of starcraft, macro is extremely important. In order to have resources and macro and build units, you need to obtain enough bases to produce enough units. This is why fast expand and multiple bases are so common. But you all probably knew this already.
Now we look at the next step. We need to realize that destroying or delaying an expansion is much more economically damaging than losing the cost of minerals it took to make that base. For example, Protoss Nexus = 400 minerals. But a Zerg player would rather spend 500 minerals worth of lings to destroy that Nexus JUST to delay that expansion and losing all the lings, disregarding the actual mineral cost that each player lost. Because the longer it takes for that expansion to start running, the more likely that the Protoss will lose a lot more than 400 minerals because he lost all that mining time + gas'ing time.
Now lets look at modern ZvT. Terran usually uses marine&medics + science vessels + tanks to fight Zergs in normal ZvT. Zergs usually use zerglings and lurkers, scourges, ultras, defilers, etc. Notice how none of these units can attack air except scourges? Hydras are very weak in ZvT, and this is why its not used. Mutalisks are not always used, and even if they are, they die off throughout the game usually.
This is why lifting off CC is so critical to Zergs, because Zergs cannot destroy the Terran base because they cannot touch the command center. What makes it worse is that SCV have more life than drones, so the second Terran realizes that he cannot defend his expansion, he will simply lift CC and move all his SCV to main safely (lings are not ranged like marines so they cannot kill line-moving scvs easily, and SCV has more life than drones)
So in this scenario, after Zerg threat is out of the area, Terran can simply put CC back into the ground, and SCVs will start working again right away. It is definately not the same for Zergs. The moment even a small size group of m&m come, your drones pop VERY fast and your hatchery cannot simply be "lifted off"
Because Z has to wait for the hatchery to rebuild and THEN drones to rebuild, he loses quite a huge amount of mining and gas time. On the other hand, it takes T literally less than 5 seconds to get his expo running again.
What makes this even worse is that if the inflow of gas for Z stops, then he is in a lot of trouble because Z army consumes the most gas usually. T on the other hand doesn't need a lot of gas so making sure the expo's are up and running are not as important as it is to Zerg. Combine that with the inability to simply "lift" hatchery while Terran can simply lift "CC" and you get a not perfectly balanced ZvT.
And we know how important getting or losing an expansion can be to your game. Even though Terrans being able to lift off production buildings is also unfair, its not as important as being able to lift off CC. The most reasonable solution to this is let T lift off his usual buildings EXCEPT the command center. This simple concept totally upsets the balance of ZvT.
You can make a difference. We know the Blizzard still cares about SC:BW so lets give them mass e-mails trying to point this out in the slim hopes that they actually might change this.
In the meantime, if you're a frustrated Zerg player, I recommend using a queen or two during your game with ensnare. Ensnare makes a big difference, and queens will let you infest that lifted off CC if it is damaged enough. If the T has bad enough reflex to let you damage half the life of his CC, he deserves a nice infestation from the queen for playing a rigged matchup.
I will only respond to people who give a decent analysis on this thread so flame me all you want, I do not care. This has to be changed, look at how Top Zergs in progaming scene are dying out
If you having that much of a problem, build one queen. 100/100 and infest a lifted cc. That simple.
Or just have 5-6 muta hanging around, and if the terran lifts an injured CC have those muta come in quickly and snipe it down to infested health.
I just don't get how this is such a big deal?
|
On November 24 2008 16:45 InfeSteD wrote:
dude if you think thats imba... just think about SaviOr style, just read carefully and look into it deep ok?
1) Nydus Canal
2) Plague/Swarm
3) Crack lings/Ultras
Ok all these things you pointed out are only viable in late game where hive tech kicks in. From what i've noticed, Terrans usually finish off the Zerg in mid game recent zvt games and last time I checked, you always had early/mid games but sometimes you could play a game where you didnt have to play late game. And what about them? go more in depth about them please
I'm also saying that CC lift is not THE reason why T>Z in TvZ but a major contributing factor. Combine that with Terran cost effectiveness and you will see how it can be rather not perfectly balanced
|
On November 24 2008 16:43 TheFlashyOne wrote:
where do you get those matchup percentages? i can only get them by maps only.
I got them from this thread.
On November 24 2008 16:44 Februarys wrote:
@CDRdude Does 53.85% sound perfectly balanced to you or does it sound slightly in favor of Terran? Because "perfectly balanced" should be 50.00%
I never claimed it was perfect. But it's a lot better than what the OP is saying, that the big scary terrans are being mean to us.
edit: To the guy two posts above me, with the huge quote and like 2 lines of text: Read his post next time, thanks.
|
On November 24 2008 16:44 Februarys wrote:
Great analysis, I agree with most of the issues you put up there. Expansions ARE a huge deal , especially in modern day SC and lifting off CC is the root of saving expansions in ZvT.
@CDRdude Does 53.85% sound perfectly balanced to you or does it sound slightly in favor of Terran? Because "perfectly balanced" should be 50.00%
Ohh noes! a 3.85% deviation over 2800+ games. Not imba.
Is chess a balanced game?
-Yes
Does white win more (statistically) than black?
-Yes
What is the percentage of win ratio? (53-56%)
In all actuality draws are the most common form of a chess game completion.
SO about that 3.85%, if its good enough for chess, it's good enough for SC
|
On November 24 2008 16:48 Misrah wrote:
If you having that much of a problem, build one queen. 100/100 and infest a lifted cc. That simple.
Or just have 5-6 muta hanging around, and if the terran lifts an injured CC have those muta come in quickly and snipe it down to infested health.
I just don't get how this is such a big deal?
Queens cannot infest a CC without it becoming halfway damaged. A T with good reflex will never let CC get that much damaged to infest it in the 1st place unless he makes a mistake and forgets about it.
I assure you, 5-6 mutas cannot damage it fast enough until turrets or marines kill them, and theoretically T player will not let CC get injured because they can simply react fast and lift off so your theory goes out the window
|
On November 24 2008 16:52 Misrah wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2008 16:44 Februarys wrote:
Great analysis, I agree with most of the issues you put up there. Expansions ARE a huge deal , especially in modern day SC and lifting off CC is the root of saving expansions in ZvT.
@CDRdude Does 53.85% sound perfectly balanced to you or does it sound slightly in favor of Terran? Because "perfectly balanced" should be 50.00% Ohh noes! a 3.85% deviation over 2800+ games. Not imba. Is chess a balanced game? -Yes Does white win more (statistically) than black? -Yes What is the percentage of win ratio? (53-56%) In all actuality draws are the most common form of a chess game completion. SO about that 3.85%, if its good enough for chess, it's good enough for SC
You need to factor in how modern ZvT has changed throughout the many years.
You cannot compare chess to SC, period
|
On November 24 2008 16:53 F13 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2008 16:48 Misrah wrote:
If you having that much of a problem, build one queen. 100/100 and infest a lifted cc. That simple.
Or just have 5-6 muta hanging around, and if the terran lifts an injured CC have those muta come in quickly and snipe it down to infested health.
I just don't get how this is such a big deal?
Queens cannot infest a CC without it becoming halfway damaged. A T with good reflex will never let CC get that much damaged to infest it in the 1st place unless he makes a mistake and forgets about it. I assure you, 5-6 mutas cannot damage it fast enough until turrets or marines kill them, and theoretically T player will not let CC get injured because they can simply react fast and lift off so your theory goes out the window
I have one question:
On November 24 2008 16:10 F13 wrote:
In the meantime, if you're a frustrated Zerg player, I recommend using a queen or two during your game with ensnare. Ensnare makes a big difference, and queens will let you infest that lifted off CC if it is damaged enough. If the T has bad enough reflex to let you damage half the life of his CC, he deserves a nice infestation from the queen for playing a rigged matchup.
Why are you disagreeing with yourself?
|
On November 24 2008 16:53 F13 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2008 16:48 Misrah wrote:
If you having that much of a problem, build one queen. 100/100 and infest a lifted cc. That simple.
Or just have 5-6 muta hanging around, and if the terran lifts an injured CC have those muta come in quickly and snipe it down to infested health.
I just don't get how this is such a big deal?
Queens cannot infest a CC without it becoming halfway damaged. A T with good reflex will never let CC get that much damaged to infest it in the 1st place unless he makes a mistake and forgets about it. I assure you, 5-6 mutas cannot damage it fast enough until turrets or marines kill them, and theoretically T player will not let CC get injured because they can simply react fast and lift off so your theory goes out the window
Ahh ok, in that case, if people are going to have insane and unlimited apm- then sure.
I have been in many games where the T does one of the following
1. Not Lift
2. Lift to late
3. Lift, brings in his army and then "secures" the expo.
If T does 1.
I win
If T does 2.
I win
If T does 3.
I win. Because if he is going to park is slow and immobile army over his expo, to finish my muta or what not, he just allows me to expand, or take the map. So woo hoo.
Either way, if T is lifting and running his SCV, he is losing mining time, gas time, and (from what you say) will run his army over there and kill my 12-24 cracklings- i come out on top. Economicaly, and map control wise.
|
On November 24 2008 16:56 CDRdude wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2008 16:53 F13 wrote:On November 24 2008 16:48 Misrah wrote:
If you having that much of a problem, build one queen. 100/100 and infest a lifted cc. That simple.
Or just have 5-6 muta hanging around, and if the terran lifts an injured CC have those muta come in quickly and snipe it down to infested health.
I just don't get how this is such a big deal?
Queens cannot infest a CC without it becoming halfway damaged. A T with good reflex will never let CC get that much damaged to infest it in the 1st place unless he makes a mistake and forgets about it. I assure you, 5-6 mutas cannot damage it fast enough until turrets or marines kill them, and theoretically T player will not let CC get injured because they can simply react fast and lift off so your theory goes out the window I have one question: Show nested quote +On November 24 2008 16:10 F13 wrote:
In the meantime, if you're a frustrated Zerg player, I recommend using a queen or two during your game with ensnare. Ensnare makes a big difference, and queens will let you infest that lifted off CC if it is damaged enough. If the T has bad enough reflex to let you damage half the life of his CC, he deserves a nice infestation from the queen for playing a rigged matchup. Why are you disagreeing with yourself?
L O L insert facepalm
|
on the 53.85% point...it can be a bigger deal when you're talking about a series. if matches are independent, in a BO3, T>Z by p^2+2*p^2*(1-p) = 55.8%, in a BO5, T>Z by 57.2%.
in chess you get to switch sides in a series, right? then it doesn't matter, as much.
on the OP, nevake says it right, there are numerous advantages/disadv on both sides that you don't talk about here.
|
Hong Kong20321 Posts
On November 24 2008 16:55 F13 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2008 16:52 Misrah wrote:On November 24 2008 16:44 Februarys wrote:
Great analysis, I agree with most of the issues you put up there. Expansions ARE a huge deal , especially in modern day SC and lifting off CC is the root of saving expansions in ZvT.
@CDRdude Does 53.85% sound perfectly balanced to you or does it sound slightly in favor of Terran? Because "perfectly balanced" should be 50.00% Ohh noes! a 3.85% deviation over 2800+ games. Not imba. Is chess a balanced game? -Yes Does white win more (statistically) than black? -Yes What is the percentage of win ratio? (53-56%) In all actuality draws are the most common form of a chess game completion. SO about that 3.85%, if its good enough for chess, it's good enough for SC You need to factor in how modern ZvT has changed throughout the many years. You cannot compare chess to SC, I'm comparing the balance issues between the game of SC itself, you're comparing the type of race of players that play chess.
LOL TYPE OF RACE OF PLAYERS THAT PLAY CHESS
I ROFLED HAAHAHAH
sorry
|
On November 24 2008 16:56 Misrah wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2008 16:53 F13 wrote:On November 24 2008 16:48 Misrah wrote:
If you having that much of a problem, build one queen. 100/100 and infest a lifted cc. That simple.
Or just have 5-6 muta hanging around, and if the terran lifts an injured CC have those muta come in quickly and snipe it down to infested health.
I just don't get how this is such a big deal?
Queens cannot infest a CC without it becoming halfway damaged. A T with good reflex will never let CC get that much damaged to infest it in the 1st place unless he makes a mistake and forgets about it. I assure you, 5-6 mutas cannot damage it fast enough until turrets or marines kill them, and theoretically T player will not let CC get injured because they can simply react fast and lift off so your theory goes out the window Ahh ok, in that case, if people are going to have insane and unlimited apm- then sure. I have been in many games where the T does one of the following 1. Not Lift 2. Lift to late 3. Lift, brings in his army and then "secures" the expo. If T does 1. I win If T does 2. I win If T does 3. I win. Because if he is going to park is slow and immobile army over his expo, to finish my muta or what not, he just allows me to expand, or take the map. So woo hoo. Either way, if T is lifting and running his SCV, he is losing mining time, gas time, and (from what you say) will run his army over there and kill my 12-24 cracklings- i come out on top. Economicaly, and map control wise.
Of course you've been in many games where T forgets to lift, you're a freaking D player with lower apm than me, what do you expect? Yes, I saw your replays on your 'zerg on coke' thread. I'm talking about the Progaming scene, please read my post ENTIRELY before you quote my long post and throw in two stupid lines which I've already explained in the post. And even in pro scenes, there are times when Terran forgets to lift.
But that is Terran's own fault for doing so, its his negligance. He is given the full possibility to let his CC stay unharmed through his actions. However, the Zerg does not have a choice whether he is reactive or not. I'm saying that Terran HAS the power to let his cc not become damaged enough for queen to kick in, I'm not arguing whether he will or not.
Thanks.
|
On November 24 2008 17:01 mjh wrote:
on the 53.85% point...it can be a bigger deal when you're talking about a series. if matches are independent, in a BO3, T>Z by p^2+2*p^2*(1-p) = 55.8%, in a BO5, T>Z by 57.2%.
in chess you get to switch sides in a series, right? then it doesn't matter, as much.
on the OP, nevake says it right, there are numerous advantages/disadv on both sides that you don't talk about here.
True in chess you switch sides, in starcraft you switch maps. So depending on the map pool, the 3.85/7.2% err in statistical balance can be countered.
Really I think that we are splitting hairs here, just me.
|
On November 24 2008 16:56 CDRdude wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2008 16:53 F13 wrote:On November 24 2008 16:48 Misrah wrote:
If you having that much of a problem, build one queen. 100/100 and infest a lifted cc. That simple.
Or just have 5-6 muta hanging around, and if the terran lifts an injured CC have those muta come in quickly and snipe it down to infested health.
I just don't get how this is such a big deal?
Queens cannot infest a CC without it becoming halfway damaged. A T with good reflex will never let CC get that much damaged to infest it in the 1st place unless he makes a mistake and forgets about it. I assure you, 5-6 mutas cannot damage it fast enough until turrets or marines kill them, and theoretically T player will not let CC get injured because they can simply react fast and lift off so your theory goes out the window I have one question: Show nested quote +On November 24 2008 16:10 F13 wrote:
In the meantime, if you're a frustrated Zerg player, I recommend using a queen or two during your game with ensnare. Ensnare makes a big difference, and queens will let you infest that lifted off CC if it is damaged enough. If the T has bad enough reflex to let you damage half the life of his CC, he deserves a nice infestation from the queen for playing a rigged matchup. Why are you disagreeing with yourself?
Its not disagreeing, I'm recommending that they have queens ready INCASE the terran player makes a mistake by letting his CC get injured (and you being prepared to take advantage of his mistake)
|
Hong Kong20321 Posts
also i dont think lifting cc /saving cc is like instawin for T
check saviro vs flash on blue storm out
2 hatch mmuta into guardian rapes flash for like 10 mins out of 15 mins of the game? flash loses cc once too IIRC but then he still manages to win in the end so i wouldn't say CCs are winning or losing factors? ~_~
|
On November 24 2008 17:02 F13 wrote:
...
you're a freaking D player with lower apm than me, what do you expect?
...
Thanks.
Dude, are you trying to get banned? Posting this thread in the strategy forum, Chill's forum, and then saying crap like this. You're theorycrafting, he's theorycrafting, which has very little to do with iCCup rank.
|
On November 24 2008 17:02 F13 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2008 16:56 Misrah wrote:On November 24 2008 16:53 F13 wrote:On November 24 2008 16:48 Misrah wrote:
If you having that much of a problem, build one queen. 100/100 and infest a lifted cc. That simple.
Or just have 5-6 muta hanging around, and if the terran lifts an injured CC have those muta come in quickly and snipe it down to infested health.
I just don't get how this is such a big deal?
Queens cannot infest a CC without it becoming halfway damaged. A T with good reflex will never let CC get that much damaged to infest it in the 1st place unless he makes a mistake and forgets about it. I assure you, 5-6 mutas cannot damage it fast enough until turrets or marines kill them, and theoretically T player will not let CC get injured because they can simply react fast and lift off so your theory goes out the window Ahh ok, in that case, if people are going to have insane and unlimited apm- then sure. I have been in many games where the T does one of the following 1. Not Lift 2. Lift to late 3. Lift, brings in his army and then "secures" the expo. If T does 1. I win If T does 2. I win If T does 3. I win. Because if he is going to park is slow and immobile army over his expo, to finish my muta or what not, he just allows me to expand, or take the map. So woo hoo. Either way, if T is lifting and running his SCV, he is losing mining time, gas time, and (from what you say) will run his army over there and kill my 12-24 cracklings- i come out on top. Economicaly, and map control wise. Of course you've been in many games where T forgets to lift, you're a freaking D player with lower apm than me, what do you expect? Yes, I saw your replays on your 'zerg on coke' thread. I'm talking about the Progaming scene, please read my post ENTIRELY before you quote my long post and throw in two stupid lines which I've already explained in the post. And even in pro scenes, there are times when Terran forgets to lift.
But that is Terran's own fault for doing so, its his negligance. He is given the full possibility to let his CC stay unharmed through his actions. However, the Zerg does not have a choice whether he is reactive or not. I'm saying that Terran HAS the power to let his cc not become damaged enough for queen to kick in, I'm not arguing whether he will or not. Thanks.
Ahh (well about the replays, that is what i look like after not playing SC for 2+ weeks because of computer problems.) If you wish i can send you a few games i have played tonight, with a week or two of practice, to try and get back in form. (just let me know)
However i digress- You have just admitted that terrans at the pro scene do forget to lift. Do you know why? APM constraints. Technically, if APM was unlimited, terran would be the best race to play. If you could micro like a god, and macro every single unit- you would be unstoppable. Sadly this is not possible with human hands. So, once again- a choice is made. Lift the CC or do something else?
So once again, its a choice- with consequences. I don't understand where this huge imbalance comes into play?
If you really really hate CC's that much, get some scourge. /thread
|
wow to misrah for being an idiot. How about you stop asking questions thats already been answered? Facepalm to you for bringing up the retarded analogy that talks about the race of the chess players
To OP: I think cost effectiveness factors in a lot more than you think, especially when Terran can compete with a 2 base Z with only 1 base
|
crying about zvt is pointless.. compared to zvp (take note of what race is actually winning everything !! Protoss !!) but zvt is not that hard.. getting to late game is also pritty simple with decent muta micro. I think once u get mutas you can take a 3rd base (if a ramp put 2 lurkers on it) and safe 3rd gas which is all zerg needs to win a zvt 3 gas defiler/ling/lurk.
|
On November 24 2008 16:32 F13 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2008 16:23 nevake wrote:
Terran has much less mobility than Zerg, and you fail to address the numerous advantageous Zerg has in the same sphere (defending and keeping expansions). Zerg commits a lot less to taking out a Terran expansion. This is usually due to the fact that most Terrans won't waste a group of marines to defend every expansion. At most, there will be a bunker and that's it. This allows for a lot of opportunities for Zerg to just overwhelm the expansion with as little as a group of lings and maybe a few lurkers. On the other hand, Zerg probably is the best in terms of expansion defense, with a dark swarm, which can be the equivalent or the greater than lift off, that often stalls long enough for the Zerg army to return to defend. All it requires is a defiler and a couple of lurkers (or a nydus). This would be enough to stop the entire Terran ball if needed, while Terran needs to commit a significant portion of his army to defend his expansions against a force much smaller. Arguing for a small thing like lifting off is like me arguing that Zergs should not be allowed to use their Nydus Canal any longer because it allows for too fast of a defense. Great feedback, (I also appreciate your youtube account uploading videos!) There are some things I have to argue about: I think Terrans commit alot less to defend than Zergs will. Each sunken = 175 minerals. 1 bunker = 100 minerals. A few sunkens will not stop a decent sized m&m army while 2 bunkers + a tank WILL stop a decent sized lurker/ling army. To further talk about this issue, because Zergs need to have more expansions than Terrans do, its only natural that Terrans have fewer expansions, which equals less units spent to defend because there are less expansions. Dark swarm can hold off a m&m army IF Zerg has enough ground support units, and Vessel will simply irradiate the defiler anyway so the length of the dark swarm = how safe Zerg base will be. Furthermore, Dark swarm+ defiler is a not viable until hive, and we know how much more damaging losing a base is in early/mid game than compared to late game. Swarm definately is not greater than lift off. I have already explained that lifting off IS a small thing but it is the root of how the expansions are destroyed/saved. That analogy definately doesnt work. How about you telling me losing expansions and keeping expansions are a small thing in Starcraft? But I appreciate you pointing out possibility I missed. Yes Zerg is more mobile BUT what good is mobility if you can't touch their base/expansion and they can touch your base/expansion?
Most of the time, Terrans need all of their units to fight and reinforce because of how strong marines are in large numbers. Your deduction that because Terrans have less expansions that they need fewer units to defend doesn't work out because how often do you see a group of lings waiting at an expansion to defend it all game? It's always the Terran that is forced provide a little more to defend because they don't have the ability to instantly get units from their main to an expansion so easily. Zerg just needs a defiler to stall for the swarm ultra ling army to come back or simply come out of the nydus.
As mentioned before, Zerg needs only stall, and dark swarm does that very well. If you are talking about mid game, then Terran usually does not go past his natural during that stage, thus negating any large advantage lifting off has. Usually, if a Terran is forced to lift off his natural, then he's screwed no matter what (or they are trading bases), in which case letting him reland it later when there won't be a later is pointless. The Zerg 3rd expansion mid game is supposed to be the safe expansion. It won't be in any kind of danger until the Terran comes out with his initial push, and by that stage, Zerg losing that expansion most likely means that he also lost his army, which would be the end of the game regardless. I was assuming you meant late-game when there is a need to defend a large number of expansions.
I don't think I ever disagreed that expansions are important in starcraft, however, the ability to lift off is not something that makes Terran expansion impenetrable or blatantly biased. It's part of the game. If everything were the same, it wouldn't be starcraft. Each race has advantages and disadvantages that theoretically are supposed to even out.
I don't disagree that Terran is slightly favored versus Zerg either, but the root cause isn't because Zerglings can't shoot air and Hatcheries can't lift off.
|
Hong Kong20321 Posts
On November 24 2008 17:09 Februarys wrote:
wow to misrah for being an idiot. How about you stop asking questions thats already been answered? Facepalm to you for bringing up the retarded analogy that talks about the race of the chess players
To OP: I think cost effectiveness factors in a lot more than you think, especially when Terran can compete with a 2 base Z with only 1 base
wtf he wasn't talking about the race (ethnicity) of the chess players he was talking about the colour of the pieces that they get to use white or black wtf wtf -0-
|
On November 24 2008 17:09 Lz wrote:
crying about zvt is pointless.. compared to zvp (take note of what race is actually winning everything !! Protoss !!) but zvt is not that hard.. getting to late game is also pritty simple with decent muta micro. I think once u get mutas you can take a 3rd base (if a ramp put 2 lurkers on it) and safe 3rd gas which is all zerg needs to win a zvt 3 gas defiler/ling/lurk.
Thankyou. Lz someone understands.
F13 there are just too many variables to think about here. A zerg can secure an expo (on a ramp) with 3 lurks and a hand full of lings. NO amount of M&M is going to break that. Then once late game rolls around, swarm and nydus.
Basically Z mobility > T mobility.
Cracklings have the highest DPS in the game (minus nukes) So sending them to an expo, is well worth having the T lift, run scv's, and his super slow army to go and save it.
|
On November 24 2008 17:12 alffla wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2008 17:09 Februarys wrote:
wow to misrah for being an idiot. How about you stop asking questions thats already been answered? Facepalm to you for bringing up the retarded analogy that talks about the race of the chess players
To OP: I think cost effectiveness factors in a lot more than you think, especially when Terran can compete with a 2 base Z with only 1 base wtf he wasn't talking about the race (ethnicity) of the chess players he was talking about the colour of the pieces that they get to use white or black wtf wtf -0-
lol, I guess I misunderstood. I apologize for thinking it in a different manner
I guess it makes more sense now
|
hahaha the OP is fucking clueless.
|
You are taking one part of the game and calling it imbalanced.
The game on the whole is balanced.
I could argue in the same way that 1 lurker makes zerg imbalanced because it can theoretically kill all your opponents units if they don't have detection.
If you say they bring detection
I will say I kill detection, that is how you are arguing, and all your arguments come out.
For example, in your OP, you state that when zerg's lose a hatch they lose mining time which is bad. But when you cc lifts you are magically still mining and it has only cost you 5 seconds in mining time?
Or where the zerg rebuilds a hatch but waits for that hatch to finish before making drones from his other hatch to bring over. What is this a D- ranked zerg?
You start the post with Macro is very important..yada yada, and later A Terran maintaining a mining base giving him mineral/gas intake is not important. At the pro level terran is simply so overpowered that they don't need to mine from their expansions to win.
When you advocate using queens for ensnare, please do not say not to use them for infesting, by your own advice you would have queens anyways. If the terran is elsewhere, say killing one of your expansions, then you bring in your army to attack, he runs scvs and lifts. Oh noes, you have gained nothing (according to you). But since you would have a queen anyways (according to you) then you can ensnare the running scvs and they will all die to lings even with 60 health. Then you bring in your leftover mutas and damage it until your queen can infest. This will not take as long as you think unless you are playing someone infinitly fast, in which case having them lift their cc should already be considered a win. You state the turrents from a undefended lifted CC would kill all your mutas... What exactly are your lings doing since they can't attack a CC?
In other arguments, you that 2 bunks and a tank will stop a decent sized zerg army. Fine, you spend 850/100 on defense and I'll take 2 more expos which will let me get to hive tech and get dark swarm giving me an un-killable base for 40 seconds for 50 minerals. This is just a point you would say, but I would counter that terran being more cost effective on defense doesn't make them better, it makes them different. The whole POINT of the terran race is that they have good defense.
Since you are big on creating scenarios where your argument comes out on top, let me give you one of mine where the zerg does.
Lets say its a standard game, 3 hatch muta vs 1 rax fe
Your muta harras has been fairly efficient, you didn't own his scv line, but you picked off a handful of marines and scvs building turrets. His mnm ball moves out for your third after muta harrass is nullified (but you still have 4). Oh no, he has stepped on hold lurkers, you win.
Same scenario, but he avoids your lurkers and gets to the third. He will kill it, but you have countered attacked his main, forcing him to lift his cc. Ha, you fool you lost a base and all he lost was a few marines and a bunker guarding his nat. But with the lurkers you had on hold position you put them at his natural so his army can't return to save his base allowing your mutas to kill it as it floats very slowly to his base. You've won again eventually.
Or you've 5 pooled, even if he lifts his CC you've won.
The point is, constructing a scenario does not work. If you have forced the CC to lift then you have effectively stopped his expansion from mining, bring in your army and you can keep him from landing. Trading 1 zerg base for 1 terran base is generally in the favor of zerg.
But what if his army is stronger than yours? Then you lost the game to something else and not the terran lifting his cc.
What you need to realize is that lifting a CC does not win you the game, in fact if you have to lift your cc it is a + for the zerg. Its not as hard of a hit as losing the CC, but keep it lifted for a minute and he's lost over 400 minerals of mining time and you can rebuild your hatch already. Yes, lifting a CC and saving it is better than losing a CC,but is lifting a cc and losing your mnm at his base killing his drones and he saves his hatch at 15 life more cost efficient? Comparing two races that are built to be different, but asking they suffer the same consequences of leaving a base undefended is silly.
I'm tired and its not typed up very eloquently, but I think I've wasted enough time on your misguided notions of SC or your trolling. I saw your post on youtube for the + Show Spoiler + game and felt that blaming cc's lifting off for losing needed some bashing.
But hey, if 99% of the population tells you you're wrong, just say you'll ignore them and feel good about yourself. It takes a brave man to challenge the world.
|
United States10774 Posts
Lol I think Februarys wins the "most misunderstood posts" award of 2008
|
United States2186 Posts
On November 24 2008 16:55 F13 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2008 16:52 Misrah wrote:On November 24 2008 16:44 Februarys wrote:
Great analysis, I agree with most of the issues you put up there. Expansions ARE a huge deal , especially in modern day SC and lifting off CC is the root of saving expansions in ZvT.
@CDRdude Does 53.85% sound perfectly balanced to you or does it sound slightly in favor of Terran? Because "perfectly balanced" should be 50.00% Ohh noes! a 3.85% deviation over 2800+ games. Not imba. Is chess a balanced game? -Yes Does white win more (statistically) than black? -Yes What is the percentage of win ratio? (53-56%) In all actuality draws are the most common form of a chess game completion. SO about that 3.85%, if its good enough for chess, it's good enough for SC You need to factor in how modern ZvT has changed throughout the many years. You cannot compare chess to SC, period
Threads like these suck, and your analysis isn't deep at all.
Matchup balance has always rested on the strategical developments of each race. Before Nada and oov, TvP was an absolute nightmare. From the period of the oov revolution to Gorush, no Zerg had developed the tools necessary to deal with the oov revolution in TvZ (besides July vs oov only). And it wasn't until Savior's uprising before the matchup was firmly put back in the hands of Zerg for over a year. But post Savior, ZvT has lacked innovators. Jaedong has shown one way with 2 hatch muta versus the super fast expansions, but that is only a band-aid, almost an all-in, and has been more than canceled out by the strength of the oov vulture valkyrie build that is always a possibility. Otherwise, Jaedong's ZvT dominance from the late 07 to early/mid 08 has been from his own raw ability, not matchup revolutions, and his sucking right now is also due to his decreasing raw ability since the triple series versus Flash in early 08. If you want to improve ZvT, screw making up worthless rubbish about how lifting cc's makes the matchup imbalanced or equally dumb things like petitioning blizzard.
But look at it this way. If iloveoov hadn't come around when he did, ZvT imbalance would've been in the 60's in favor of Zerg because Terran would've had no way to deal with the 3 hatch stacked muta harass that came out. This singlehandedly destroyed the effectiveness of the 1 base build outside of all-ins or gimmicks (sparks rush, Iris vs Savior game 4 HitchHiker vulture vessel rush). But because for whatever reason, Terran has been blessed with the best and smartest innovators (only Savior can compare to Boxer and oov, with rA and Flash not all too far away but clearly a distant 4th/5th). Nada/Jaedong/Bisu are all very similar players, but Nada dominating so much more was simply because he came earlier. All the non-genius Terrans have been so successful because they relied on these innovations that were developed by the brightest Terran minds. Zerg's Savior came late, and rA was never consistent enough and sadly didn't push his matchup revolutions as much as he did his wide variety of gimmicks and surprises.
It's just how people said ZvP was so imbalanced just a few years ago. The reality was is that besides rA protoss players were rather dumb and lacking innovation in PvZ (or were like Daezang and didn't have the ability to implement their innovation fully). The PvZ equalization, or superiority even, from 07 onwards, is not the result of a Blizzard patch. It actually wasn't a new strategy either, because rA had been doing forge FE for a long time (with no success against Savior), and dt/sair was only used for a temporary period, and really only super successful because Bisu has had the best mechanics of Protoss ever. But with Bisu's success, forge FE became the standard, nearly the only build to use, and the Protoss energy resurged.
Bisu was able to take the innovations of rA and Daezang, add his own slight alterations, and smack Savior and every other Zerg silly with the best set of PvZ mechanics ever. From that point on, there were no more cries of 'ZvP imba' that had flooded the forums to the point where people wanted to ban them all together. This is how you change Starcraft. So if you want to be useful and not just wasting our time, think of something good to transform the matchup.
|
@F13:
You're saying "if the terran makes mistake and doesn't lift his cc punish him". I am ok with that.
You also say zerg hatcheries are most vulnerable in mid game. I am ok with that too.
What you don't say though is that if the zerg makes the mistake to leave his hatchery undefended in mid game he deserves to get punished.
All the time I see replays ZvT where the zerg gets his third gas while harassing with mutas. In the mean time he moves two hydralisks to the third gas expansion, morhps them to lurkers and burrows them. No matter if they are on the choke or near the hatchery. Zerg also makes 2-3 sunkens there if there is no choke. So there you have it - impenetrable defense line for the Terran mid game MnM army. For the cost of 2-3 sunkens (around 300 minerals) and 2 lurkers (200 minerals and 250 gas) total of 500 minerals and 250 gas. Terran can make like 8 marines (400 minerals) and a few medics which can only get fucked at this defense until tanks come around.
Besides if the terran is allowed by the zerg the spare MnM to leave base to be aggressive AND at the same time defend vs mutalisks, then fuck, there is something very wrong with the zerg's macro.
All in all I really think you post some of THE most retarded, shallow and one sided analyses without seeing the whole picture of the game and how the metagame flows. If the terran makes mistake fuck him. Well yes, if the zerg makes one - oh shit i can't lift hatchery crap terran is imba. Ask a zerg then if 10 irradiating vessels + 50 3/3 marines + 10 medics not IMBA...
It's just the way of the game - terran is less mobile so in general he must wait to gather a rather significant army to attack. Zerg can afford to be more aggressive early, to deny scouting and tech differently. It's just the game. Get over it. Or quit. But don't bitch around cause,Jesus, you annoy the shit out of people here. Or at least don't bitch without stats of thousand games to prove your point. Even in those Protoss happy times the top 10 in KeSPA's November Starcraft Rankings have 3 zergs and... WHAT? 2 terrans?? Impossible! Can't those guys lift ccs?!? It's an easy to execute mechanic and a major contributor to a game winning plan. Dude, it's here, stated by F13. Must be true then...
TvZ is not ugly imbalanced. Nor is any other matchup. In modern progaming it's about map imbalances. And who's having a better day and has practiced more for the event.
Crap I am so pissed...
|
Zurich15317 Posts
Normally I would say this just gotta be a joke but you really seem to be serious about your supposed TvZ imbalance.
To back up your claims, can you link a number of games please where lifting the CC won Terran the game? It has to be a game where the CC lifting was determining, meaning that not lifting CC would have won the game for Zerg or made it at least even.
|
you're that faggot who whined about bunker rushes in that shitty thread
i hate fuckers like you
learn sc or fuck off, dont whine and try to get blizz to rebalance, the fuck?
god you suck
kill yourself
|
Hong Kong20321 Posts
|
|
|
I remember a game of mym.ghost vs some korean where ghost lost his cc but had a large mnm army and just raped the zerg. It was in the Tl net database. Can be seen here
Not lifted cc, cc dies. Terran still wins. How did the universe not implode?
|
hahaha I laughed so hard at those thread names.. yep, he's a little bitch allright!
|
As some of you might know, I've created threads about how Terran is overpowered in the past. Well, I've taken time to research how Terran is made of win in every aspect and Blizzard should shoot themselves for making such an imbalanced game.
+ Show Spoiler [deep analysis] +On May 01 2008 06:13 {88}iNcontroL wrote:WHAT DO YOU KNOW ABOUT KOREAN MAPS KID? JESUS TRY THE HARD LIFE OF A ZERG. WE DONT HAVE FUCKING MAP CROSSING ARCLITE CANNONS, EVERYTHING CANNOT BE REPAIRS, WE DONT HAVE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION LIKE SPIDER MINES AND WE CERTAINLY AS FUCK DONT HAVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS CAUSE ANY GAME THAT HAS THAT SUCKS LIKE COMMAND AND CONQUER 3. ALSO, WE DONT HAVE FLYING BUILDINGS OR MOTHERFUCKING DEFENSIVE STRUCTURES THAT SHOOT AIR AND GROUND AND CAN BE REPAIRED AND COST 100$ FUCKING MINERALS. OUR WORKERS DIE WHEN THE WIND BLOWS TOO HARD AND SURE AS FUCK DONT HAVE FUSION CUTTERS. WAIT? YOU HAVE GOLIATHS THAT SHOOT ACROSS THE MAP AT AIR UNITS AND CAN BE REPAIRED AND ARE CHEAP? JESUS WHO MADE THIS GAME. JESUS I WISH I HAD 5-6 of THE ALL TIME BEST PLAYERS TO MODEL MY GAME AFTER. WAIT? WERENT THEY ALL FUCKING TERRAN? WE HAVE NADA, BOXER, OOV, FLASH, MIDAS and XELLOS ALL KICKING ASS FOR YEARS AT A TIME WHILE WE GET FUCKING FAT ASS JULY WHO SUCKS NOW, YELLOW WHO ALWAYS FUCKING SUCKED BUT NOBODY KNEW FOR A BIT AND WE FINALLY GOT SAVIOR BUT THEN THEY DRESSED HIM LIKE HITLER SO HE SUCKED AND NOW WE HAVE JAEDONG BUT THAT KID CANT FIGURE OUT THE NEW KOREAN MAPS THAT DONT MATTER. JESUS FUCK IT MUST BE NICE TO HAVE PLAYERS THAT SPAN DECADES AND DOMINATE THE ENTIRE TIME. GIMME SOME OF THAT PLEASE. HEY WHAT ABOUT BUILDINGS DO YOU LOSE A SCV EACH TIME YOU MAKE ONE? NO. WHAT THE FUCK? WHAT DO YOU MEAN YOU CAN ACTUALLY TELL THEM TO RETURN TO MINING AFTER THEY ARE DONE BUILDING? I THOUGHT THAT AUTO MINING GARBAGE WAS FOR HACKERS OR BAD GAMES. TERRAN'S CAN DO IT? FUCK THAT SOUNDS LIKE A SWEET DEAL. EACH TIME WE (zerg) HAVE TO BUILD WE TELL ONE OF OUR SACRED MINERS "HEY FUCK YOU TIME TO DIE" AND THEY DO. THEN WE GET A FUCKING BUILDING. WHICH, HALF THE TIME ISNT ENOUGH: WE HAVE TO PAY MOREE FUCKING MONEY TO GET IT TO DO SOME SHIT LIKE DICK THE GROUND OR SPRAY PISS IN THE AIR. Show nested quote +On May 01 2008 00:36 NonY[rC] wrote:
To paraphrase Grandmaster Artosis, the entirety of Terran strategy for every matchup can be summarized as waiting to get enough tanks to kill an entire army in one volley. Even the short-sighted and simple Terran players can recognize such a great imbalance. But I have to admit, having the fastest unit in the game on only the 2nd tier of tech with a short build time, that can shoot fragmentation grenades capable of vaporizing all peons, zerglings, zealots, defilers, and high and dark templar in seconds, and can even shoot these grenades backwards without losing acceleration, AND can shit out three mini-nukes that burrow into the ground only to pop out at the perfect time and seek out an enemy unit at an inescapable speed, gives siege tanks and their arclite cannons quite a run for their money.
Ah, how could I forget their cost? Let's make a list of units (excluding peons) that are cheaper than vultures:
--Zergling
--Marine
That was easy. WHEN YOU SELECT RANDOM, WHAT GAME SCREEN DO YOU GET IN BETWEEN? ANY GUESSERS? THAT'S RIGHT: TERRAN. EVEN THE FUCKING GAME KNOWS WHAT YOU SHOULD OBVIOUSLY HAVE CHOSEN WHEN YOU FORGOT TO SELECT TERRAN AND GOT RANDOM. FUCKING INSANE BIAS.
|
intrigue
Washington, D.C9933 Posts
i tried responding seriously in your other thread only to be completely ignored. all i'm going to say here is that again this is just ridiculous, and i can't believe this thread is still open. do you even play the game? if this is a troll post, yeah it is very well done and i fell for it again.
also, please stop replying to this thread with your other smurf account, it's pathetic.
On November 24 2008 16:44 Februarys wrote:
Great analysis, I agree with most of the issues you put up there. Expansions ARE a huge deal , especially in modern day SC and lifting off CC is the root of saving expansions in ZvT.
LOL
|
|
|
Dude, you complain too much.
+ Show Spoiler +Februarys was just banned by zatic. That account was created on 2008-02-02 05:14:49 and had 259 posts. Reason: Hahaha F13, good one: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=82796#6F13 was just Temp banned for 2 weeks by Hot_Bid. That account was created on 2008-04-01 14:00:07 and had 38 posts. Reason: Don't create threads and then use alternate accounts to praise yourself.
Lol.
|
Omg how pathetic is that, smurfing only to support a statement everyone else finds retarded.
|
CA10824 Posts
lol what kind of person supports their own post on a smurf account LOL
|
Russian Federation386 Posts
This thread is pure LOL ^^
|
Calgary25969 Posts
|
Zurich15317 Posts
On March 01 2010 17:02 F13 wrote on Youtube:
are you kidding? Only people who haven't played SC1 for over 5 years and watched professional SC1 for 4 years say stuff like "SC1 is perfectly balanced"
SC1 balance is rock/paper/scissors: T > Z > P > T
But if you have analyzed the meta game for as long as I have, you start to realize that at professional level, its actually T >>> Z > P = T, meaning SC1 was never perfectly balanced
SC2 has the potential to be more balanced than its predecessor, its just up to Blizzard
Still out there on his mission.
|
Calgary25969 Posts
Ah, sooner or later insanity catches up to the insane. They can hold the floodgates closed for awhile, but never forever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
