EPTOn September 09 2011 05:34 Pandain wrote:
Most patch changes have not been about "imbalance" but rather about increasing the game dynamic. For example archons were buffed not because of any imbalance, but because archons didn't have a role. Most changes have been about expirimenting with new styles/units. Some, yes, have been "timing" oriented, as in stim changes and nexus health.
Yeah I'm a strong believe in waiting things out. I loved when fungal growth was a projectile(so sad when changed.) At the end I finally believed 5 rax reaper was imbalanced and also pre-infestor that void ray collusus was as well.
[/b]Show nested quote +
On September 09 2011 05:30 Olinim wrote:
By your logic, are there any patches that should have gone through? Has there ever been a point where a strat was demonstrated to be unbeatable with supposed perfect play? 5 rax reaper...maybe. Your view simply isn't realistic, and blizzard disagrees with you since apparently they do think bunker rushes are op, considering the nerf. Hopefully they will not take a page from your book of insanity and look further into the absolute nonsense that is the 1/1/1 :/. This simply isn't fair to protoss players, the results, the games, and the opinions of other pros show that.
On September 09 2011 05:23 Pandain wrote:
You said nothing with that. You said loaded statements, didn't back them up, and just say that instead of having to play better that your race is weak and ___ is OP.
Um I would much rather trust Flash vs Jaedong than Flash vs Yellow as a analysis of tvz balance. And if you don't think that the highest level of play, where it comes down to true balance and macro and micro, and despite me showing you that MC would have held the 1-1-1 you continue to say its imbalanced. Say to me right now that MC couldn't have held that. Say it.
Say to me that MC made the right move going for a stupid phoenix blink build.
Say to me that MC shouldn't be required to play perfectly against a cheesing PUMA
And as for ladder? Who uses that as a balance proof. Protoss play custom games, not ladder.
Almost "all in code s are terran" exaggeration and misleading.
I think that overall terran players are better than protoss players. I've backed it up with proof. You just say what I say in sarcastic tones.
The point is that no plat player with whatever strategy could beat a pro gamer. Your underestimating the skill cheese takes and while its harder to stop it you should stop complainning and just play better. Because its a 100% win if you do react perfectly, contrary to the cheeser who has to hope you make a mistake. That's the risk with cheese. It's gimmicky.
And as for Puma, he lost in code a because he's playing amazing players in the hardest qualifier in the world. Donraegu, DONRAEGU, couldn't make it to code a without MLG help.
And they may not have even played perfect against them. After all, a gold player can beat a silver player without either being perfect. Puma and DRG simply played worse in those games.
And I will never, EVER agree with anyone who says that because the skill level of today is too low that something should be nerfed. When this game is existing years from now, they will play at levels we will be in shock of. We should only balance the game at levels possible(or reachable, as clearly shown by me.)
I agree on the first part entirely. The author, treehugger, however stated that because "inca and san" weren't doing as well as "nestea, losira, july" that it shows that protoss is "truly" underpowered while zerg isn't.
I think it might be. But I think its foolhardy to say it is.
Edit: Sorry about bold quotes everywhere, the hanging screwed everything up.
On September 09 2011 05:04 Olinim wrote:
You are just incessantly nitpicking protoss players play as if it's possible to play perfect. If you are actually realistic you can look at 1/1/1 and the state of protoss and admit they are too weak, even if you want them to play like God to beat a simple all in. Why would anyone play protoss when they can switch to terran and win easily with a simple all in, which according to you is perfectly fair and balanced?
On September 09 2011 04:59 Pandain wrote:
Huk had the ability to make round of 4(even finals) if he was constantly training and not moving around, and even constantly traveling he still managed to make it to round of 8 where he got defeated by none other than MVP. JYP has shown signs of brilliance, as well as sage, and I'm very interested to see where they progress.
On September 09 2011 04:55 Cloud9157 wrote:
"Protoss player's aren't dominating in GSL, because they don't have that "spark".
Such bull shit.
"That spark"? What the hell is that even supposed to mean? Protoss has been limited for a few GSLs now. Frankly, I think there has been 2 Protoss that reached the RO4 in the past few GSLs. Alicia and HongUn both got there within my recent memory. MC? Has been nowhere to be found for a few months. Huk? Has improved vastly, but still can't make it past RO8. Puzzle? A potential dark horse for GSL, can't let him out of your sight, but still went out in RO16.
On September 09 2011 04:45 Pandain wrote:
There have been 5 bonjwas with broodwar. Boxer, Nada, Iloveoov, Savior, and Flash.
Four terrans and one zerg. People knew that the player was OP, not the race, because they played flawless. When I see Nestea play, he makes few if no mistakes. And he constantly improves. When I see MVP play, I see a clear understanding of the matchup, solid macro, and awe-inspiring micro.
I used to see that with MC. But look at my post, see his flaws, and you can tell that the issues he faced was simply not playing as well.
Protoss players aren't dominating in GSL because they don't have that "spark." And the mid tier ones, like Violet, for instance, are dominating instead of protoss counter parts because up and down matches came just as the 1-1-1 awful strength was discvoered so they were knocked out. Just like how back in the day zergs got marine scv allined(nestea even lost to rain), and so you saw few amounts of zergs.
For something to be imbalanced, show me a game where the cheeser won and the losing player couldn't have. Simple.
On September 09 2011 04:40 Olinim wrote:
What has to happen for you to considered it to be imbalanced? Protoss winrates and and code s representation are at an all time low. The best protoss in the world dropped to code a, and hes the only protoss above a 50 percent winrate(not counting puzzle cuz his games are majority iccup weeklys). If absolutely no protoss can play at the level of even mid tier code s terrans and zergs, that means there is a fucking problem with the race. Or is there some force that only makes inferior sc2 players pick protoss?
On September 09 2011 04:34 Pandain wrote:
Uh what is this. I think tree hugger you have either been raging while laddering too long(a dangerous combination) or visiting the battlenet forums.
MC should've held a 1-1-1 against one of the top 3 terrans in the world. Yes, he should've. But he didn't. And not because of imbalance, but because he didn't play perfectly. And when playing against cheeses or allins, you hvae to react correctly, even if it means playing harder than your opponet(see marine splitting vs banelings.)
Contrary to your article not only did he delay his charge tech unnecessarily(at least 20 seconds), he also lost many probes during a banshee harrass. And while Puma was basicaally out of resources in his main, MC still had a good amount. If MC had held that push, and he should've, he would've won. It's somewhat sad, yet in a way showing of changing times that even TL has balance complaints in its articles. When you cheese, you go for a quick win. And it may be a powerful cheese, but its a cheese nonetheless. And if you don't react correctly, you can lose. There is nothing imbalanced about that.
I mean seriously you bring up previous GSL's. And you say that because players like "Inca and San" aren't performing as well as Nestea, Losira, and July, that that shows protoss is "truly" imbalanced. The truth is that Nestea, Losira, and July are a level above Inca and san.
You make it sound like Puma vs MC is Nestea vs Rain. You make Puma, PUMA of all people, to be seen as a way inferior opponet to MC, that the only reason MC lost was because Puma allin'd him. That's a very misleading statement. When I get cheesed of course they only win because they cheesed me. After all, that's what happened. But just like me, MC could've held, and it saddens me that this very well written article is on news rather than general.
Indeed my biggest complaint is that this article appears to be sensationalist rather than news. The quotes involved are just extreme and inherently misinforming.
A funny change from being a better BW player yet a worse sc2 player. And the "certainty" to which the article asserts this just strikes the wrong chord. When MC lost his warp prism with 4 high templars in it , he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When MC wasted his whole army and delayed charge for more than 20 seconds AGAINST AN ALLIN he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When he got hit by massive emps, dropped again and again(and impressively held off a majority), made terrible strategic decisions which even YOU acknowledge, he was not being a better sc2 player.
And as for utterly helpless it was because game 1 he delayed charge and hit before charge despite having the economic lead and the ability to wait. Game 3 he went for a stupid blink stalker phoenix base trade build.
There have been poor plays he's been doing, as I've shown in this post. And being an "elite" player, as you say, is not determined by winning " a good portion of his games." It comes from dominating. Nestea and MVP play on a level in which they are actively improving perfection. MC is trying to attain it.
You can't just use these games as "proof." Especially when progamers play games spread across vast spaces of time(weeks often.) When one player is doing good, he may have a sub-50% win rate(because of horrible early start, like San.) The TLPD has been shown, as of now, to be quote unquote "unreliable", at least in determining player skills. After all, I'm pretty sure Strelok, rank #2 right now, is not the #2 foreigner. You have to look at the games. And the games do not support your balance cries.
Terrible, but not because of balance.
....
Is MC's level of play determinate of protoss balance? Even when there are clear mistakes, do we forgive them just because "he's the best protoss player.
Stop visiting the battlenet forums.
If by racing you mean not continuously chronoing as well as not upgrading it for >20 seconds after the twilight council finished, then I 100% agree with you.
I think I've heard that somewhere. Something regarding stork, or Idra, or something. Or every single pro player on the planet.
...
At least edit this out. This is so blatantly biased. If you don't feel that Puma can hold his own against MC(when he already showed he could in solid macro games at NASL,) then you need to read this. Not only that but you go from "omg MC played SO WELL AND STILL LOST" to "in game 3 he did a horrible strategy
Uh what is this. I think tree hugger you have either been raging while laddering too long(a dangerous combination) or visiting the battlenet forums.
MC should've held a 1-1-1 against one of the top 3 terrans in the world. Yes, he should've. But he didn't. And not because of imbalance, but because he didn't play perfectly. And when playing against cheeses or allins, you hvae to react correctly, even if it means playing harder than your opponet(see marine splitting vs banelings.)
Contrary to your article not only did he delay his charge tech unnecessarily(at least 20 seconds), he also lost many probes during a banshee harrass. And while Puma was basicaally out of resources in his main, MC still had a good amount. If MC had held that push, and he should've, he would've won. It's somewhat sad, yet in a way showing of changing times that even TL has balance complaints in its articles. When you cheese, you go for a quick win. And it may be a powerful cheese, but its a cheese nonetheless. And if you don't react correctly, you can lose. There is nothing imbalanced about that.
I mean seriously you bring up previous GSL's. And you say that because players like "Inca and San" aren't performing as well as Nestea, Losira, and July, that that shows protoss is "truly" imbalanced. The truth is that Nestea, Losira, and July are a level above Inca and san.
You make it sound like Puma vs MC is Nestea vs Rain. You make Puma, PUMA of all people, to be seen as a way inferior opponet to MC, that the only reason MC lost was because Puma allin'd him. That's a very misleading statement. When I get cheesed of course they only win because they cheesed me. After all, that's what happened. But just like me, MC could've held, and it saddens me that this very well written article is on news rather than general.
Indeed my biggest complaint is that this article appears to be sensationalist rather than news. The quotes involved are just extreme and inherently misinforming.
Against PuMa, a better BW pro but a worse SC2 player, MC rightly expected to face the Frankenstein child of Polt's old build that he lost his first GSL games against. In that three games series, MC faced the 1/1/1 twice with two different strategies, and was rendered utterly helpless in each game
A funny change from being a better BW player yet a worse sc2 player. And the "certainty" to which the article asserts this just strikes the wrong chord. When MC lost his warp prism with 4 high templars in it , he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When MC wasted his whole army and delayed charge for more than 20 seconds AGAINST AN ALLIN he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When he got hit by massive emps, dropped again and again(and impressively held off a majority), made terrible strategic decisions which even YOU acknowledge, he was not being a better sc2 player.
And as for utterly helpless it was because game 1 he delayed charge and hit before charge despite having the economic lead and the ability to wait. Game 3 he went for a stupid blink stalker phoenix base trade build.
That said, an observer of MC's basic play would be hard pressed to find real signs of slumping. He still wins a good portion of his games, and it shouldn't be omitted that his IEM loss did indeed come in the final, after all.
There have been poor plays he's been doing, as I've shown in this post. And being an "elite" player, as you say, is not determined by winning " a good portion of his games." It comes from dominating. Nestea and MVP play on a level in which they are actively improving perfection. MC is trying to attain it.
In his heyday, and even during his slumps, MC was a massive anomaly. Any casual observer of his play in the GSL could make that observation, yet statistics bear this out. MC's Korean winning percentage is 66%. The second best winning percentage from any protoss is Puzzle, who has a 62% win rate, a substantial part of it in weekly foreigner-run tournaments against vastly inferior competition. Alicia notches 54%. HongUn has a 51% win rate. San boasts the same. Look at MC's protoss contemporaries for yourself. There's no one even close to MC's winning percentages.
You can't just use these games as "proof." Especially when progamers play games spread across vast spaces of time(weeks often.) When one player is doing good, he may have a sub-50% win rate(because of horrible early start, like San.) The TLPD has been shown, as of now, to be quote unquote "unreliable", at least in determining player skills. After all, I'm pretty sure Strelok, rank #2 right now, is not the #2 foreigner. You have to look at the games. And the games do not support your balance cries.
in balance piles, protoss indisputably been terrible recently.
Terrible, but not because of balance.
The only reason that some gaping flaws in the protoss design have now been uncovered is because MC is no longer successful enough to cover them up.
....
Is MC's level of play determinate of protoss balance? Even when there are clear mistakes, do we forgive them just because "he's the best protoss player.
f you haven't noticed that protoss sucks against terran, and has profound cost-efficiency difficulties against zerg, it’s because you're blind. It has taken imbalance on such an appalling scale as the 1/1/1 family of builds to cast MC down, to make him look mortal and prove once and for all that protoss is absolutely trash at the highest level of competition.
Stop visiting the battlenet forums.
Yet he knew he could not breach PuMa's main, and retook his expo, racing for charge
If by racing you mean not continuously chronoing as well as not upgrading it for >20 seconds after the twilight council finished, then I 100% agree with you.
MC has been quoted on occasion as having said that, if he played terran, he'd have won five championships
I think I've heard that somewhere. Something regarding stork, or Idra, or something. Or every single pro player on the planet.
After watching him out-micro his opponent at IEM and still lose, out-multitask his opponent at IEM and still lose, and then go absolutely nuts and use a strategy whose gaping flaws a platinum player could identify in the third game, I believe him.
...
At least edit this out. This is so blatantly biased. If you don't feel that Puma can hold his own against MC(when he already showed he could in solid macro games at NASL,) then you need to read this. Not only that but you go from "omg MC played SO WELL AND STILL LOST" to "in game 3 he did a horrible strategy
What has to happen for you to considered it to be imbalanced? Protoss winrates and and code s representation are at an all time low. The best protoss in the world dropped to code a, and hes the only protoss above a 50 percent winrate(not counting puzzle cuz his games are majority iccup weeklys). If absolutely no protoss can play at the level of even mid tier code s terrans and zergs, that means there is a fucking problem with the race. Or is there some force that only makes inferior sc2 players pick protoss?
There have been 5 bonjwas with broodwar. Boxer, Nada, Iloveoov, Savior, and Flash.
Four terrans and one zerg. People knew that the player was OP, not the race, because they played flawless. When I see Nestea play, he makes few if no mistakes. And he constantly improves. When I see MVP play, I see a clear understanding of the matchup, solid macro, and awe-inspiring micro.
I used to see that with MC. But look at my post, see his flaws, and you can tell that the issues he faced was simply not playing as well.
Protoss players aren't dominating in GSL because they don't have that "spark." And the mid tier ones, like Violet, for instance, are dominating instead of protoss counter parts because up and down matches came just as the 1-1-1 awful strength was discvoered so they were knocked out. Just like how back in the day zergs got marine scv allined(nestea even lost to rain), and so you saw few amounts of zergs.
For something to be imbalanced, show me a game where the cheeser won and the losing player couldn't have. Simple.
"Protoss player's aren't dominating in GSL, because they don't have that "spark".
Such bull shit.
"That spark"? What the hell is that even supposed to mean? Protoss has been limited for a few GSLs now. Frankly, I think there has been 2 Protoss that reached the RO4 in the past few GSLs. Alicia and HongUn both got there within my recent memory. MC? Has been nowhere to be found for a few months. Huk? Has improved vastly, but still can't make it past RO8. Puzzle? A potential dark horse for GSL, can't let him out of your sight, but still went out in RO16.
Huk had the ability to make round of 4(even finals) if he was constantly training and not moving around, and even constantly traveling he still managed to make it to round of 8 where he got defeated by none other than MVP. JYP has shown signs of brilliance, as well as sage, and I'm very interested to see where they progress.
You are just incessantly nitpicking protoss players play as if it's possible to play perfect. If you are actually realistic you can look at 1/1/1 and the state of protoss and admit they are too weak, even if you want them to play like God to beat a simple all in. Why would anyone play protoss when they can switch to terran and win easily with a simple all in, which according to you is perfectly fair and balanced?
You said nothing with that. You said loaded statements, didn't back them up, and just say that instead of having to play better that your race is weak and ___ is OP.
On September 09 2011 05:04 Paladia wrote:
One game doesn't define balance, all games do, nor is your example even an example of overall game balance. The current stats are a result of all competitive games played by the top players. The result is that 9 out of the top 10 on the Korean ladder are Terran and that almost all in Code S are Terran. You seem to think that is somehow due to the players who pick Terran as their race has some kind of magic gene pool advantage that simply makes them much better at Starcraft. However, I think I'd rather trust the hard stats than your spaced magic terran-theory.
I don't mind the current balance myself when I play, as I am Terran. However, the Terranfest in Code S makes it very uninteresting to watch and as such I would prefer it if the game was actually balanced.
On September 09 2011 04:45 Pandain wrote:
For something to be imbalanced, show me a game where the cheeser won and the losing player couldn't have. Simple.
On September 09 2011 04:40 Olinim wrote:
What has to happen for you to considered it to be imbalanced? Protoss winrates and and code s representation are at an all time low. The best protoss in the world dropped to code a, and hes the only protoss above a 50 percent winrate(not counting puzzle cuz his games are majority iccup weeklys). If absolutely no protoss can play at the level of even mid tier code s terrans and zergs, that means there is a fucking problem with the race. Or is there some force that only makes inferior sc2 players pick protoss?
Show nested quote +
On September 09 2011 04:34 Pandain wrote:
Uh what is this. I think tree hugger you have either been raging while laddering too long(a dangerous combination) or visiting the battlenet forums.
MC should've held a 1-1-1 against one of the top 3 terrans in the world. Yes, he should've. But he didn't. And not because of imbalance, but because he didn't play perfectly. And when playing against cheeses or allins, you hvae to react correctly, even if it means playing harder than your opponet(see marine splitting vs banelings.)
Contrary to your article not only did he delay his charge tech unnecessarily(at least 20 seconds), he also lost many probes during a banshee harrass. And while Puma was basicaally out of resources in his main, MC still had a good amount. If MC had held that push, and he should've, he would've won. It's somewhat sad, yet in a way showing of changing times that even TL has balance complaints in its articles. When you cheese, you go for a quick win. And it may be a powerful cheese, but its a cheese nonetheless. And if you don't react correctly, you can lose. There is nothing imbalanced about that.
I mean seriously you bring up previous GSL's. And you say that because players like "Inca and San" aren't performing as well as Nestea, Losira, and July, that that shows protoss is "truly" imbalanced. The truth is that Nestea, Losira, and July are a level above Inca and san.
You make it sound like Puma vs MC is Nestea vs Rain. You make Puma, PUMA of all people, to be seen as a way inferior opponet to MC, that the only reason MC lost was because Puma allin'd him. That's a very misleading statement. When I get cheesed of course they only win because they cheesed me. After all, that's what happened. But just like me, MC could've held, and it saddens me that this very well written article is on news rather than general.
Indeed my biggest complaint is that this article appears to be sensationalist rather than news. The quotes involved are just extreme and inherently misinforming.
A funny change from being a better BW player yet a worse sc2 player. And the "certainty" to which the article asserts this just strikes the wrong chord. When MC lost his warp prism with 4 high templars in it , he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When MC wasted his whole army and delayed charge for more than 20 seconds AGAINST AN ALLIN he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When he got hit by massive emps, dropped again and again(and impressively held off a majority), made terrible strategic decisions which even YOU acknowledge, he was not being a better sc2 player.
And as for utterly helpless it was because game 1 he delayed charge and hit before charge despite having the economic lead and the ability to wait. Game 3 he went for a stupid blink stalker phoenix base trade build.
There have been poor plays he's been doing, as I've shown in this post. And being an "elite" player, as you say, is not determined by winning " a good portion of his games." It comes from dominating. Nestea and MVP play on a level in which they are actively improving perfection. MC is trying to attain it.
You can't just use these games as "proof." Especially when progamers play games spread across vast spaces of time(weeks often.) When one player is doing good, he may have a sub-50% win rate(because of horrible early start, like San.) The TLPD has been shown, as of now, to be quote unquote "unreliable", at least in determining player skills. After all, I'm pretty sure Strelok, rank #2 right now, is not the #2 foreigner. You have to look at the games. And the games do not support your balance cries.
Terrible, but not because of balance.
....
Is MC's level of play determinate of protoss balance? Even when there are clear mistakes, do we forgive them just because "he's the best protoss player.
Stop visiting the battlenet forums.
If by racing you mean not continuously chronoing as well as not upgrading it for >20 seconds after the twilight council finished, then I 100% agree with you.
I think I've heard that somewhere. Something regarding stork, or Idra, or something. Or every single pro player on the planet.
...
At least edit this out. This is so blatantly biased. If you don't feel that Puma can hold his own against MC(when he already showed he could in solid macro games at NASL,) then you need to read this. Not only that but you go from "omg MC played SO WELL AND STILL LOST" to "in game 3 he did a horrible strategy
Uh what is this. I think tree hugger you have either been raging while laddering too long(a dangerous combination) or visiting the battlenet forums.
MC should've held a 1-1-1 against one of the top 3 terrans in the world. Yes, he should've. But he didn't. And not because of imbalance, but because he didn't play perfectly. And when playing against cheeses or allins, you hvae to react correctly, even if it means playing harder than your opponet(see marine splitting vs banelings.)
Contrary to your article not only did he delay his charge tech unnecessarily(at least 20 seconds), he also lost many probes during a banshee harrass. And while Puma was basicaally out of resources in his main, MC still had a good amount. If MC had held that push, and he should've, he would've won. It's somewhat sad, yet in a way showing of changing times that even TL has balance complaints in its articles. When you cheese, you go for a quick win. And it may be a powerful cheese, but its a cheese nonetheless. And if you don't react correctly, you can lose. There is nothing imbalanced about that.
I mean seriously you bring up previous GSL's. And you say that because players like "Inca and San" aren't performing as well as Nestea, Losira, and July, that that shows protoss is "truly" imbalanced. The truth is that Nestea, Losira, and July are a level above Inca and san.
You make it sound like Puma vs MC is Nestea vs Rain. You make Puma, PUMA of all people, to be seen as a way inferior opponet to MC, that the only reason MC lost was because Puma allin'd him. That's a very misleading statement. When I get cheesed of course they only win because they cheesed me. After all, that's what happened. But just like me, MC could've held, and it saddens me that this very well written article is on news rather than general.
Indeed my biggest complaint is that this article appears to be sensationalist rather than news. The quotes involved are just extreme and inherently misinforming.
Against PuMa, a better BW pro but a worse SC2 player, MC rightly expected to face the Frankenstein child of Polt's old build that he lost his first GSL games against. In that three games series, MC faced the 1/1/1 twice with two different strategies, and was rendered utterly helpless in each game
A funny change from being a better BW player yet a worse sc2 player. And the "certainty" to which the article asserts this just strikes the wrong chord. When MC lost his warp prism with 4 high templars in it , he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When MC wasted his whole army and delayed charge for more than 20 seconds AGAINST AN ALLIN he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When he got hit by massive emps, dropped again and again(and impressively held off a majority), made terrible strategic decisions which even YOU acknowledge, he was not being a better sc2 player.
And as for utterly helpless it was because game 1 he delayed charge and hit before charge despite having the economic lead and the ability to wait. Game 3 he went for a stupid blink stalker phoenix base trade build.
That said, an observer of MC's basic play would be hard pressed to find real signs of slumping. He still wins a good portion of his games, and it shouldn't be omitted that his IEM loss did indeed come in the final, after all.
There have been poor plays he's been doing, as I've shown in this post. And being an "elite" player, as you say, is not determined by winning " a good portion of his games." It comes from dominating. Nestea and MVP play on a level in which they are actively improving perfection. MC is trying to attain it.
In his heyday, and even during his slumps, MC was a massive anomaly. Any casual observer of his play in the GSL could make that observation, yet statistics bear this out. MC's Korean winning percentage is 66%. The second best winning percentage from any protoss is Puzzle, who has a 62% win rate, a substantial part of it in weekly foreigner-run tournaments against vastly inferior competition. Alicia notches 54%. HongUn has a 51% win rate. San boasts the same. Look at MC's protoss contemporaries for yourself. There's no one even close to MC's winning percentages.
You can't just use these games as "proof." Especially when progamers play games spread across vast spaces of time(weeks often.) When one player is doing good, he may have a sub-50% win rate(because of horrible early start, like San.) The TLPD has been shown, as of now, to be quote unquote "unreliable", at least in determining player skills. After all, I'm pretty sure Strelok, rank #2 right now, is not the #2 foreigner. You have to look at the games. And the games do not support your balance cries.
in balance piles, protoss indisputably been terrible recently.
Terrible, but not because of balance.
The only reason that some gaping flaws in the protoss design have now been uncovered is because MC is no longer successful enough to cover them up.
....
Is MC's level of play determinate of protoss balance? Even when there are clear mistakes, do we forgive them just because "he's the best protoss player.
f you haven't noticed that protoss sucks against terran, and has profound cost-efficiency difficulties against zerg, it’s because you're blind. It has taken imbalance on such an appalling scale as the 1/1/1 family of builds to cast MC down, to make him look mortal and prove once and for all that protoss is absolutely trash at the highest level of competition.
Stop visiting the battlenet forums.
Yet he knew he could not breach PuMa's main, and retook his expo, racing for charge
If by racing you mean not continuously chronoing as well as not upgrading it for >20 seconds after the twilight council finished, then I 100% agree with you.
MC has been quoted on occasion as having said that, if he played terran, he'd have won five championships
I think I've heard that somewhere. Something regarding stork, or Idra, or something. Or every single pro player on the planet.
After watching him out-micro his opponent at IEM and still lose, out-multitask his opponent at IEM and still lose, and then go absolutely nuts and use a strategy whose gaping flaws a platinum player could identify in the third game, I believe him.
...
At least edit this out. This is so blatantly biased. If you don't feel that Puma can hold his own against MC(when he already showed he could in solid macro games at NASL,) then you need to read this. Not only that but you go from "omg MC played SO WELL AND STILL LOST" to "in game 3 he did a horrible strategy
What has to happen for you to considered it to be imbalanced? Protoss winrates and and code s representation are at an all time low. The best protoss in the world dropped to code a, and hes the only protoss above a 50 percent winrate(not counting puzzle cuz his games are majority iccup weeklys). If absolutely no protoss can play at the level of even mid tier code s terrans and zergs, that means there is a fucking problem with the race. Or is there some force that only makes inferior sc2 players pick protoss?
For something to be imbalanced, show me a game where the cheeser won and the losing player couldn't have. Simple.
One game doesn't define balance, all games do, nor is your example even an example of overall game balance. The current stats are a result of all competitive games played by the top players. The result is that 9 out of the top 10 on the Korean ladder are Terran and that almost all in Code S are Terran. You seem to think that is somehow due to the players who pick Terran as their race has some kind of magic gene pool advantage that simply makes them much better at Starcraft. However, I think I'd rather trust the hard stats than your spaced magic terran-theory.
I don't mind the current balance myself when I play, as I am Terran. However, the Terranfest in Code S makes it very uninteresting to watch and as such I would prefer it if the game was actually balanced.
Um I would much rather trust Flash vs Jaedong than Flash vs Yellow as a analysis of tvz balance. And if you don't think that the highest level of play, where it comes down to true balance and macro and micro, and despite me showing you that MC would have held the 1-1-1 you continue to say its imbalanced. Say to me right now that MC couldn't have held that. Say it.
Say to me that MC made the right move going for a stupid phoenix blink build.
Say to me that MC shouldn't be required to play perfectly against a cheesing PUMA
And as for ladder? Who uses that as a balance proof. Protoss play custom games, not ladder.
Almost "all in code s are terran" exaggeration and misleading.
I think that overall terran players are better than protoss players. I've backed it up with proof. You just say what I say in sarcastic tones.
On September 09 2011 05:04 SeaSwift wrote:
I didn't say that the 1-1-1 was a cheese any Plat player could pull off. That was an example highlighting your logical inconsistency.
Yes, because all those players in the Code A qualifiers who prevent Puma from getting into Code A played absolutely perfectly... or not, or else surely they would be in Code S? Your logic is falling down here again.
Some of them I disagree that they take more skill to defend than execute. 4gate has gone out of fashion like Georgian ruffs in all match-ups apart from PvP, and if you are talking about PvP then fuck yes 4gate is overpowered.
About banelings/drops/bunker rushes, yes, if you want to be pedantic they are all slightly imbalanced. But because the most important level is the highest level of play, at the highest level of play the imbalance is minimal (because of the skill ceiling inherent in most cheeses) and therefore they are pretty much fine. If the highest level of play was Diamond or Platinum, yes. They would be imbalanced.
Also, like to note that Blizzard thinks that Bunker rushes may be imbalanced because of the 5sec delay in the PTR which nerfs the 11/11 Barracks play, as well as most Terran tech in general (although 5 sec is minimal once you reach Starport times and so on).
Show nested quote +
On September 09 2011 04:52 Pandain wrote:
Don't overexaggerate. There's a large difference between a subpar playing cheesing and a pro cheesing, just like how low level 4 gates are way less strong than high level 4 gates. Despite what you may think, they have to play perfectly with the only army that they will have.
On September 09 2011 04:49 SeaSwift wrote:
That isn't how you decide whether something is imbalanced or not. If you have to play absolutely perfectly to beat a cheese that any platinum player could pull off it is imbalanced. Something is imbalanced if the player who played best loses, which is what I saw time and time again with MC vs Puma.
On September 09 2011 04:45 Pandain wrote:
For something to be imbalanced, show me a game where the cheeser won and the losing player couldn't have. Simple.
For something to be imbalanced, show me a game where the cheeser won and the losing player couldn't have. Simple.
That isn't how you decide whether something is imbalanced or not. If you have to play absolutely perfectly to beat a cheese that any platinum player could pull off it is imbalanced. Something is imbalanced if the player who played best loses, which is what I saw time and time again with MC vs Puma.
Don't overexaggerate. There's a large difference between a subpar playing cheesing and a pro cheesing, just like how low level 4 gates are way less strong than high level 4 gates. Despite what you may think, they have to play perfectly with the only army that they will have.
I didn't say that the 1-1-1 was a cheese any Plat player could pull off. That was an example highlighting your logical inconsistency.
Show nested quote +
On September 09 2011 04:52 Pandain wrote:And if you are going to be playing against Puma than fuck yes you are going to have to play absolutely perfectly.
Yes, because all those players in the Code A qualifiers who prevent Puma from getting into Code A played absolutely perfectly... or not, or else surely they would be in Code S? Your logic is falling down here again.
Show nested quote +
Also by your reasoning here are things which are imbalanced:
Banelings(wtf is a split, targeting baneligns with tanks.)
High templars( wtf I have to move away IMMEDIATELY when he storms me?)
Drops(how can I react and know what he's doing in time. Damn those maruders.)
4 gate.
Bunker rushes.
Banelings(wtf is a split, targeting baneligns with tanks.)
High templars( wtf I have to move away IMMEDIATELY when he storms me?)
Drops(how can I react and know what he's doing in time. Damn those maruders.)
4 gate.
Bunker rushes.
Some of them I disagree that they take more skill to defend than execute. 4gate has gone out of fashion like Georgian ruffs in all match-ups apart from PvP, and if you are talking about PvP then fuck yes 4gate is overpowered.
About banelings/drops/bunker rushes, yes, if you want to be pedantic they are all slightly imbalanced. But because the most important level is the highest level of play, at the highest level of play the imbalance is minimal (because of the skill ceiling inherent in most cheeses) and therefore they are pretty much fine. If the highest level of play was Diamond or Platinum, yes. They would be imbalanced.
Also, like to note that Blizzard thinks that Bunker rushes may be imbalanced because of the 5sec delay in the PTR which nerfs the 11/11 Barracks play, as well as most Terran tech in general (although 5 sec is minimal once you reach Starport times and so on).
The point is that no plat player with whatever strategy could beat a pro gamer. Your underestimating the skill cheese takes and while its harder to stop it you should stop complainning and just play better. Because its a 100% win if you do react perfectly, contrary to the cheeser who has to hope you make a mistake. That's the risk with cheese. It's gimmicky.
And as for Puma, he lost in code a because he's playing amazing players in the hardest qualifier in the world. Donraegu, DONRAEGU, couldn't make it to code a without MLG help.
And they may not have even played perfect against them. After all, a gold player can beat a silver player without either being perfect. Puma and DRG simply played worse in those games.
And I will never, EVER agree with anyone who says that because the skill level of today is too low that something should be nerfed. When this game is existing years from now, they will play at levels we will be in shock of. We should only balance the game at levels possible(or reachable, as clearly shown by me.)
On September 09 2011 05:08 Cloud9157 wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 09 2011 04:59 Pandain wrote:
On September 09 2011 04:55 Cloud9157 wrote:
On September 09 2011 04:45 Pandain wrote:
On September 09 2011 04:40 Olinim wrote:
On September 09 2011 04:34 Pandain wrote:
Uh what is this. I think tree hugger you have either been raging while laddering too long(a dangerous combination) or visiting the battlenet forums.
MC should've held a 1-1-1 against one of the top 3 terrans in the world. Yes, he should've. But he didn't. And not because of imbalance, but because he didn't play perfectly. And when playing against cheeses or allins, you hvae to react correctly, even if it means playing harder than your opponet(see marine splitting vs banelings.)
Contrary to your article not only did he delay his charge tech unnecessarily(at least 20 seconds), he also lost many probes during a banshee harrass. And while Puma was basicaally out of resources in his main, MC still had a good amount. If MC had held that push, and he should've, he would've won. It's somewhat sad, yet in a way showing of changing times that even TL has balance complaints in its articles. When you cheese, you go for a quick win. And it may be a powerful cheese, but its a cheese nonetheless. And if you don't react correctly, you can lose. There is nothing imbalanced about that.
I mean seriously you bring up previous GSL's. And you say that because players like "Inca and San" aren't performing as well as Nestea, Losira, and July, that that shows protoss is "truly" imbalanced. The truth is that Nestea, Losira, and July are a level above Inca and san.
You make it sound like Puma vs MC is Nestea vs Rain. You make Puma, PUMA of all people, to be seen as a way inferior opponet to MC, that the only reason MC lost was because Puma allin'd him. That's a very misleading statement. When I get cheesed of course they only win because they cheesed me. After all, that's what happened. But just like me, MC could've held, and it saddens me that this very well written article is on news rather than general.
Indeed my biggest complaint is that this article appears to be sensationalist rather than news. The quotes involved are just extreme and inherently misinforming.
A funny change from being a better BW player yet a worse sc2 player. And the "certainty" to which the article asserts this just strikes the wrong chord. When MC lost his warp prism with 4 high templars in it , he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When MC wasted his whole army and delayed charge for more than 20 seconds AGAINST AN ALLIN he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When he got hit by massive emps, dropped again and again(and impressively held off a majority), made terrible strategic decisions which even YOU acknowledge, he was not being a better sc2 player.
And as for utterly helpless it was because game 1 he delayed charge and hit before charge despite having the economic lead and the ability to wait. Game 3 he went for a stupid blink stalker phoenix base trade build.
There have been poor plays he's been doing, as I've shown in this post. And being an "elite" player, as you say, is not determined by winning " a good portion of his games." It comes from dominating. Nestea and MVP play on a level in which they are actively improving perfection. MC is trying to attain it.
You can't just use these games as "proof." Especially when progamers play games spread across vast spaces of time(weeks often.) When one player is doing good, he may have a sub-50% win rate(because of horrible early start, like San.) The TLPD has been shown, as of now, to be quote unquote "unreliable", at least in determining player skills. After all, I'm pretty sure Strelok, rank #2 right now, is not the #2 foreigner. You have to look at the games. And the games do not support your balance cries.
Terrible, but not because of balance.
....
Is MC's level of play determinate of protoss balance? Even when there are clear mistakes, do we forgive them just because "he's the best protoss player.
Uh what is this. I think tree hugger you have either been raging while laddering too long(a dangerous combination) or visiting the battlenet forums.
MC should've held a 1-1-1 against one of the top 3 terrans in the world. Yes, he should've. But he didn't. And not because of imbalance, but because he didn't play perfectly. And when playing against cheeses or allins, you hvae to react correctly, even if it means playing harder than your opponet(see marine splitting vs banelings.)
Contrary to your article not only did he delay his charge tech unnecessarily(at least 20 seconds), he also lost many probes during a banshee harrass. And while Puma was basicaally out of resources in his main, MC still had a good amount. If MC had held that push, and he should've, he would've won. It's somewhat sad, yet in a way showing of changing times that even TL has balance complaints in its articles. When you cheese, you go for a quick win. And it may be a powerful cheese, but its a cheese nonetheless. And if you don't react correctly, you can lose. There is nothing imbalanced about that.
I mean seriously you bring up previous GSL's. And you say that because players like "Inca and San" aren't performing as well as Nestea, Losira, and July, that that shows protoss is "truly" imbalanced. The truth is that Nestea, Losira, and July are a level above Inca and san.
You make it sound like Puma vs MC is Nestea vs Rain. You make Puma, PUMA of all people, to be seen as a way inferior opponet to MC, that the only reason MC lost was because Puma allin'd him. That's a very misleading statement. When I get cheesed of course they only win because they cheesed me. After all, that's what happened. But just like me, MC could've held, and it saddens me that this very well written article is on news rather than general.
Indeed my biggest complaint is that this article appears to be sensationalist rather than news. The quotes involved are just extreme and inherently misinforming.
Against PuMa, a better BW pro but a worse SC2 player, MC rightly expected to face the Frankenstein child of Polt's old build that he lost his first GSL games against. In that three games series, MC faced the 1/1/1 twice with two different strategies, and was rendered utterly helpless in each game
A funny change from being a better BW player yet a worse sc2 player. And the "certainty" to which the article asserts this just strikes the wrong chord. When MC lost his warp prism with 4 high templars in it , he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When MC wasted his whole army and delayed charge for more than 20 seconds AGAINST AN ALLIN he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When he got hit by massive emps, dropped again and again(and impressively held off a majority), made terrible strategic decisions which even YOU acknowledge, he was not being a better sc2 player.
And as for utterly helpless it was because game 1 he delayed charge and hit before charge despite having the economic lead and the ability to wait. Game 3 he went for a stupid blink stalker phoenix base trade build.
That said, an observer of MC's basic play would be hard pressed to find real signs of slumping. He still wins a good portion of his games, and it shouldn't be omitted that his IEM loss did indeed come in the final, after all.
There have been poor plays he's been doing, as I've shown in this post. And being an "elite" player, as you say, is not determined by winning " a good portion of his games." It comes from dominating. Nestea and MVP play on a level in which they are actively improving perfection. MC is trying to attain it.
In his heyday, and even during his slumps, MC was a massive anomaly. Any casual observer of his play in the GSL could make that observation, yet statistics bear this out. MC's Korean winning percentage is 66%. The second best winning percentage from any protoss is Puzzle, who has a 62% win rate, a substantial part of it in weekly foreigner-run tournaments against vastly inferior competition. Alicia notches 54%. HongUn has a 51% win rate. San boasts the same. Look at MC's protoss contemporaries for yourself. There's no one even close to MC's winning percentages.
You can't just use these games as "proof." Especially when progamers play games spread across vast spaces of time(weeks often.) When one player is doing good, he may have a sub-50% win rate(because of horrible early start, like San.) The TLPD has been shown, as of now, to be quote unquote "unreliable", at least in determining player skills. After all, I'm pretty sure Strelok, rank #2 right now, is not the #2 foreigner. You have to look at the games. And the games do not support your balance cries.
in balance piles, protoss indisputably been terrible recently.
Terrible, but not because of balance.
The only reason that some gaping flaws in the protoss design have now been uncovered is because MC is no longer successful enough to cover them up.
....
Is MC's level of play determinate of protoss balance? Even when there are clear mistakes, do we forgive them just because "he's the best protoss player.
f you haven't noticed that protoss sucks against terran, and has profound cost-efficiency difficulties against zerg, it’s because you're blind. It has taken imbalance on such an appalling scale as the 1/1/1 family of builds to cast MC down, to make him look mortal and prove once and for all that protoss is absolutely trash at the highest level of competition.
Stop visiting the battlenet forums.
Inca is a cheesy player that only has solid PvP. When he faced Nestea, I didn't cheer him on once, because he was embarrassing towards Protoss.
And you still don't think balance could be influencing the ability of Protoss players?
Stop visiting the battlenet forums.
Yet he knew he could not breach PuMa's main, and retook his expo, racing for charge
If by racing you mean not continuously chronoing as well as not upgrading it for >20 seconds after the twilight council finished, then I 100% agree with you.
Huk had the ability to make round of 4(even finals) if he was constantly training and not moving around, and even constantly traveling he still managed to make it to round of 8 where he got defeated by none other than MVP. JYP has shown signs of brilliance, as well as sage, and I'm very interested to see where they progress.
On a more general level, the spark if the ability to play perfectly on a constant basis. I see that with Losira, MVP, and Nestea. I don't see that with players like Inca. Really? Inca?
If by racing you mean not continuously chronoing as well as not upgrading it for >20 seconds after the twilight council finished, then I 100% agree with you.
MC has been quoted on occasion as having said that, if he played terran, he'd have won five championships
I think I've heard that somewhere. Something regarding stork, or Idra, or something. [b]Or every single pro player on the planet.
"Protoss player's aren't dominating in GSL, because they don't have that "spark".
Such bull shit.
"That spark"? What the hell is that even supposed to mean? Protoss has been limited for a few GSLs now. Frankly, I think there has been 2 Protoss that reached the RO4 in the past few GSLs. Alicia and HongUn both got there within my recent memory. MC? Has been nowhere to be found for a few months. Huk? Has improved vastly, but still can't make it past RO8. Puzzle? A potential dark horse for GSL, can't let him out of your sight, but still went out in RO16.
I think I've heard that somewhere. Something regarding stork, or Idra, or something. [b]Or every single pro player on the planet.
After watching him out-micro his opponent at IEM and still lose, out-multitask his opponent at IEM and still lose, and then go absolutely nuts and use a strategy whose gaping flaws a platinum player could identify in the third game, I believe him.
...
At least edit this out. This is so blatantly biased. If you don't feel that Puma can hold his own against MC(when he already showed he could in solid macro games at NASL,) then you need to read this. Not only that but you go from "omg MC played SO WELL AND STILL LOST" to "in game 3 he did a horrible strategy
What has to happen for you to considered it to be imbalanced? Protoss winrates and and code s representation are at an all time low. The best protoss in the world dropped to code a, and hes the only protoss above a 50 percent winrate(not counting puzzle cuz his games are majority iccup weeklys). If absolutely no protoss can play at the level of even mid tier code s terrans and zergs, that means there is a fucking problem with the race. Or is there some force that only makes inferior sc2 players pick protoss?
There have been 5 bonjwas with broodwar. Boxer, Nada, Iloveoov, Savior, and Flash.
Four terrans and one zerg. People knew that the player was OP, not the race, because they played flawless. When I see Nestea play, he makes few if no mistakes. And he constantly improves. When I see MVP play, I see a clear understanding of the matchup, solid macro, and awe-inspiring micro.
I used to see that with MC. But look at my post, see his flaws, and you can tell that the issues he faced was simply not playing as well.
Protoss players aren't dominating in GSL because they don't have that "spark." And the mid tier ones, like Violet, for instance, are dominating instead of protoss counter parts because up and down matches came just as the 1-1-1 awful strength was discvoered so they were knocked out. Just like how back in the day zergs got marine scv allined(nestea even lost to rain), and so you saw few amounts of zergs.
For something to be imbalanced, show me a game where the cheeser won and the losing player couldn't have. Simple.
...
At least edit this out. This is so blatantly biased. If you don't feel that Puma can hold his own against MC(when he already showed he could in solid macro games at NASL,) then you need to read this. Not only that but you go from "omg MC played SO WELL AND STILL LOST" to "in game 3 he did a horrible strategy
What has to happen for you to considered it to be imbalanced? Protoss winrates and and code s representation are at an all time low. The best protoss in the world dropped to code a, and hes the only protoss above a 50 percent winrate(not counting puzzle cuz his games are majority iccup weeklys). If absolutely no protoss can play at the level of even mid tier code s terrans and zergs, that means there is a fucking problem with the race. Or is there some force that only makes inferior sc2 players pick protoss?
There have been 5 bonjwas with broodwar. Boxer, Nada, Iloveoov, Savior, and Flash.
Four terrans and one zerg. People knew that the player was OP, not the race, because they played flawless. When I see Nestea play, he makes few if no mistakes. And he constantly improves. When I see MVP play, I see a clear understanding of the matchup, solid macro, and awe-inspiring micro.
I used to see that with MC. But look at my post, see his flaws, and you can tell that the issues he faced was simply not playing as well.
Protoss players aren't dominating in GSL because they don't have that "spark." And the mid tier ones, like Violet, for instance, are dominating instead of protoss counter parts because up and down matches came just as the 1-1-1 awful strength was discvoered so they were knocked out. Just like how back in the day zergs got marine scv allined(nestea even lost to rain), and so you saw few amounts of zergs.
For something to be imbalanced, show me a game where the cheeser won and the losing player couldn't have. Simple.
"Protoss player's aren't dominating in GSL, because they don't have that "spark".
Such bull shit.
"That spark"? What the hell is that even supposed to mean? Protoss has been limited for a few GSLs now. Frankly, I think there has been 2 Protoss that reached the RO4 in the past few GSLs. Alicia and HongUn both got there within my recent memory. MC? Has been nowhere to be found for a few months. Huk? Has improved vastly, but still can't make it past RO8. Puzzle? A potential dark horse for GSL, can't let him out of your sight, but still went out in RO16.
Huk had the ability to make round of 4(even finals) if he was constantly training and not moving around, and even constantly traveling he still managed to make it to round of 8 where he got defeated by none other than MVP. JYP has shown signs of brilliance, as well as sage, and I'm very interested to see where they progress.
On a more general level, the spark if the ability to play perfectly on a constant basis. I see that with Losira, MVP, and Nestea. I don't see that with players like Inca. Really? Inca?
Inca is a cheesy player that only has solid PvP. When he faced Nestea, I didn't cheer him on once, because he was embarrassing towards Protoss.
And you still don't think balance could be influencing the ability of Protoss players?
I agree on the first part entirely. The author, treehugger, however stated that because "inca and san" weren't doing as well as "nestea, losira, july" that it shows that protoss is "truly" underpowered while zerg isn't.
I think it might be. But I think its foolhardy to say it is.
Edit: Sorry about bold quotes everywhere, the hanging screwed everything up.
By your logic, are there any patches that should have gone through? Has there ever been a point where a strat was demonstrated to be unbeatable with supposed perfect play? 5 rax reaper...maybe. Your view simply isn't realistic, and blizzard disagrees with you since apparently they do think bunker rushes are op, considering the nerf. Hopefully they will not take a page from your book of insanity and look further into the absolute nonsense that is the 1/1/1 :/. This simply isn't fair to protoss players, the results, the games, and the opinions of other pros show that.
Most patch changes have not been about "imbalance" but rather about increasing the game dynamic. For example archons were buffed not because of any imbalance, but because archons didn't have a role. Most changes have been about expirimenting with new styles/units. Some, yes, have been "timing" oriented, as in stim changes and nexus health.
Yeah I'm a strong believe in waiting things out. I loved when fungal growth was a projectile(so sad when changed.) At the end I finally believed 5 rax reaper was imbalanced and also pre-infestor that void ray collusus was as well.
Oh... that's surprising.
The two things you've found to be imbalanced just happened to affect your race.
It is interesting to note though, that even during the 5 rax reaper and void ray/colossus periods the win rates for zerg never actually dropped as low as protoss winrates are now.
But you of course attribute this to the assumption that terran players are just superior to the shitty protoss and zerg players out there. Like nestea, who manages to keep winrates at 92% vs zerg, 86% vs protoss but only 58% vs terrans. Clearly he's only good against these shitty p and z players that lack the 'spark' (lol) of the korean terrans.
Not even korean terran players think like this. And even if it were true, that somehow no good player chose to play protoss, then that would still be a huge problem for the game. If no good players chose that race then it will never be competitive and we're suddenly stuck with a 2 race game in the pro-scene. And when I say 2 race, I mean mostly one race, but with a few zerg players here and there. If every good player for whatever reason chooses to play terran then the game doesn't have a future as an esport, even if it is perfectly balanced.
