|
On June 15 2010 16:09 Ghostcom wrote:
And I hope a mod doesn't because we are plenty of people who actually support it with proper argumentation, so if anything I hope a mod would EMP the 2 of you who are moving further and further OT...
That's not fair  . He completely dodged* my arguments and I was quoting his response to someone else when I initially responded to him. This thread isn't off topic b/c of my posting. The fact that this thread is still open speaks volumes to about the mods tolerance and respect for free speech.
I think the thread should be closed b/c the last few pages of posting make it really apparent the discussion has reached a dead end and this thread won't go quietly into the TL forum graveyard without a helping hand. Regardless I'll remove myself from further posting in this thread in the hopes of realizing it's eventual demise.
* lol
|
On June 15 2010 11:17 D3lta wrote:
Alright i admit information as outdated as I posted may be somewhat less than absolute prof. But level with me a second here. You really think the mu win ratios have changed radically in 1 1/2 months? I remember quite clearly several references to blizzard stating the PvT match had changed to like 52% P to 48% T, fairly recently, I simply having problems finding it (there's only so much effort im willing to put into this.) The point is the game appears to be extremely balanced PvT. its something like 70% win rate in ZvT on the asia realm alone that has been "bar far" the most radically stacked percentage that blizzard has seen.
And even then it is quite clear that it isn't because Z is too powerful vs T (many posts suggest the opposite), given the win ratio's were fairly average on all other gateways.
don't you think if there was some radical shift toward T dominating P, it would be fairly big news? The"mech crisis" that has taken place since the reported high discrepancies in Asia realm, has had little - if any- effect on the win ratios ZvT in asia. I would be willing to bet a quite a few Benjamin's that the win ratio's for PvT are within 5% of each other, and I doubt for all the cynicism displayed here, there would be anyone willing to take the bet.
If the mu is proven to be quite balanced. Than logically, IF EMP is overpowered, so is a non-emp'ed Protoss army. Otherwise how could Protoss possibly get close to a 50% win ratio vs Terran?
Yes, I do think the mu ratios changed a good amount in 1 1/2 months. Terrans went from 3-4 rax openings into 1/1/1 and other extremely different openers in that 1 1/2. That's a huge, huge change. So yes, the mu ratios did change.
Unless you can show me a link or quote where the Blizzard gave stats after patch 10, I'm going assume all your stats are utter bullshit. I've been keeping up with dev statements pretty closely and I'm pretty darn sure they haven't released any stats after the patch 10 one; simply because people probably overreacted to those released stats.
When they say "dominating" they don't mean 70% winrate. It's somethign closer to 55-45 or w/e. The largest discrepancy in win ratios to date was a Zerg blanket 60% winrate in the Asia servers, but that was many, many, many patches ago.
Please don't abuse stats. The have feelings too.
|
On June 15 2010 12:59 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2010 05:51 Ghostcom wrote:
day[9] #135 is pretty filled with the replays.. My favorite part was Huk getting roflstomped even after having splitted his army up, doing a zeal flank and even manages to get a couple of FF off. Yeah, the third game in the set (HuK vs BratOK #1) shows just how brutal EMP can be. The biggest lesson to take from it is that, as when fighting hydras, protoss simply can't afford to sit on pure gateway units for too long. At some point, toss has to jump to his tier 3 AoE units: colossi or templar.
The thing that really stood out for me in that day9 135 was the DT rush. HuK timed it extremely well, no raven out for awhile. CC only can typically scan once (unless T scout and saves energy), so he knew that, he brought in DT 1 at a time to bait a scan. Under any other build, that terran player would be seriously hurting.. but because of the early ghosts, bratOK EMP huk in the face repeatedly.. to get time for his raven to pop.
EMP is already so freaken good, wtf does it need to decloak as well?
|
Well people really misread my Lurker statement, I was simply drawing a comparison between the argument that EMP requires much less APM to use then to counter is invalid because if the game devolves into a player needing to only have 1 more APM then their opponent to win nobody will play it. I simply used the lurker reference to show that there were cases in BW that required more APM from one player to defend/mitigate a tactic from the other player. Instead I think I set a record for most posts in a row quoting the same post. Regardless, the APM requirements weren’t the same for each race in BW and they won’t be the same for SC2 so just suck it up and get over it.
Also, I would like to mention that balancing the game based on players that are bad opposed to the higher level players is a horrible way to do anything, especially for a game you want to be competitive (hell, look what that methodology did to WoW). Alas, this thread and the one making fun of this thread have exhausted their usefulness and it would benefit the quality of the site to close them down.
|
I don't think we misunderstood you - we Really Just followed your train of thought and explained why it was Okay for the MnM micro to be more challenging than burrowing lurkers - since you Actually benefitted from it. And that is our (or at least mine) problem with EMP. I can do all the spreading I want, but unless the terran is an idiot and EMPs my front row because he sees shields on them instead of saving his EMPs for my casters/immortals no amount of micro is going to benefit me very much.
I'm perfectly fine with different mechanical requirements for different races - as long as the invested extra actions actually make a difference. In the case of EMP I really don't see that happening. But you are right, it would probably be for the better to get a lock on the 2 threads soon.
|
On June 15 2010 16:49 Ryuu314 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2010 11:17 D3lta wrote:
Alright i admit information as outdated as I posted may be somewhat less than absolute prof. But level with me a second here. You really think the mu win ratios have changed radically in 1 1/2 months? I remember quite clearly several references to blizzard stating the PvT match had changed to like 52% P to 48% T, fairly recently, I simply having problems finding it (there's only so much effort im willing to put into this.) The point is the game appears to be extremely balanced PvT. its something like 70% win rate in ZvT on the asia realm alone that has been "bar far" the most radically stacked percentage that blizzard has seen.
And even then it is quite clear that it isn't because Z is too powerful vs T (many posts suggest the opposite), given the win ratio's were fairly average on all other gateways.
don't you think if there was some radical shift toward T dominating P, it would be fairly big news? The"mech crisis" that has taken place since the reported high discrepancies in Asia realm, has had little - if any- effect on the win ratios ZvT in asia. I would be willing to bet a quite a few Benjamin's that the win ratio's for PvT are within 5% of each other, and I doubt for all the cynicism displayed here, there would be anyone willing to take the bet.
If the mu is proven to be quite balanced. Than logically, IF EMP is overpowered, so is a non-emp'ed Protoss army. Otherwise how could Protoss possibly get close to a 50% win ratio vs Terran? Yes, I do think the mu ratios changed a good amount in 1 1/2 months. Terrans went from 3-4 rax openings into 1/1/1 and other extremely different openers in that 1 1/2. That's a huge, huge change. So yes, the mu ratios did change. Unless you can show me a link or quote where the Blizzard gave stats after patch 10, I'm going assume all your stats are utter bullshit. I've been keeping up with dev statements pretty closely and I'm pretty darn sure they haven't released any stats after the patch 10 one; simply because people probably overreacted to those released stats. When they say "dominating" they don't mean 70% winrate. It's somethign closer to 55-45 or w/e. The largest discrepancy in win ratios to date was a Zerg blanket 60% winrate in the Asia servers, but that was many, many, many patches ago. Please don't abuse stats. The have feelings too.
So basically your arguing that stats probably changed but their unlikely to be anywhere near over 55% to one side? You guys can pick apart details all you want, my point is both stats and replays that have seen to far don't implicate imbalance. I doubt -as would any intelligent betting man- that the TvP stats are way out of wack (anywhere near the z levels in asia patches ago) and most players haven't picked up on it.
If you want complaints taken seriously about EMP. I would suggest ether citing some top players supporting the idea, or providing replays with an analysis of points in time where you feel EMP is overpowered.
I simply don't have energy for the "game should be balanced for all levels of play," argument. Complaining about the ease of EMP usage vs the ability to minimize the its damage, is just another form of this.
Everything should be as easy to fight against as it is to use? I think if you really explore the implications of this, it will become apparent what a ridicules goal that is.
|
How about we take a different direction on this. Brad_OK has shown us a very potent timing push in D9D 135 using Ghosts and Marines in the early game / early-mid game. There have also been cases of EMP usage in the later stages of the game as well though I feel these are less relevant.
I propose we begin devising and practicing Terran openings and build orders similar to Brad_OK's to flood the second phase of the Beta. In theory, if a change really does need to be made this will show by the lack of the Protoss's ability to create a response to every Terran opening in a similar fashion. Alternatively, if there is an unfound solution (Possibly Zealot Sentry + Hallucination -> +1 armor -> Charge -> HT - possibly not) then it will surface in time as Protoss struggle to compete with our well timed and practiced push.
This methodology worked against mass marauder (pick one) and early reaper openings (fast stalker) and also spawned the immortal build time change (3-4 gate immortal push) that were extremely popular earlier in the beta.
One final solution is to simply blame the Roach.
|
I'm going to go with the roach option at this point. Though I would really like to see all terrans incoorporate the ghost for part 2 of the beta.
|
I will most certainly be doing it. I love opening Reactor marines in non-mirror match ups since it can defend so well from pretty much any kind of aggression so transitioning into a Brad_OK style timing push shouldn't be too difficult for me to get down.
When I get home tonight I might try to compare the time his push arrives with a couple different protoss openings and see how the timings match up. I really think a fast hallucination once the ghost academy is scouted should help mitigate the effects of such an early EMP. Curious how the timings will sync up though.
|
So Terran Players... answer me this question:
In what situation is it NOT a good idea to build Ghosts against Protoss....? What unit composition or build could the Protoss use that would make you bypass Ghosts in a standard game? What situation would you say that building a Ghost or two would not be worth their investment?
Every unit has a situation in which a unit is a very bad idea, against all races.
Heavy Air investment... maybe? Void Rays still get eaten alive by vikings even with a single ghost. They stack up pretty well. EMPing Carriers is a lot of heavy damage, and it removed the energy of Mothership and Phoenix (not to mention the shield damage)... so I dunno. Ghost Academy is DIRT cheap, so it is really not a huge issue of money, although Ghosts themselves are a little bit of an investment...
So when is making a specific unit against Protoss a bad idea?
HT: Chargelots, Other HT, Carriers
Sentry: Heavy Air, Colossi, Chargelots
Infestor: HT, Heavy Air
Ghosts: uhhhh...
Really, there isn't much reason not to build one, because EVERY unit combination the Protoss can use is made SIGNIFICANTLY weaker by the use of Ghosts.
Many people don't seem to know this, but Ghosts aren't Light. HT was changed to Light early in Beta... it seemed only natural that Ghosts would follow suit... but for some reason they didn't. This means that it takes a decently large amount of Phoenix to counter them. Also you can EMP while you are Grav Beamed, hitting all the attacking Phoenix.
And for those saying that you can't compare Ghosts and HT because they are separated by 1.5 Tiers... I am afraid I do not see your logic... In the SC2 you play, once you reach T3, do all earlier tiers disappear? Are you suddenly unable to build Ghosts when Protoss players build a Templar Archives? While HT and Ghosts don't emerge in the same tier, HT and Ghosts will always be on a battlefield at the same time, because HT emerge AFTER ghosts. This means that they are comparable units.
Also: in the PvT build, Ghosts and HT are both used in similar ways. Anti-Caster and Heavy AOE damage. There are of course differences... But really there are similar in function.
So yes, HT and Ghost are comparable. That is my argument anyway.
Now, I see the argument that you cannot compare early game use of Ghosts and late game use of Ghosts. But the fact remains, that Ghosts are obscenely powerful at all points of the game.
Early game: they can swamp an army in very few EMPs, doing strong damage to Stalkers and making Sentries just about useless. Ghosts also have a good amount of HP, believe it or not. They are not fragile in any way and are in fact stronger than Sentries.
Mid Game: they are better than HT in just about every way. EMP is very easy to use, does its damage instantly and is available earlier. Ghosts are slightly more expensive, but require very very little research (Mobeus is cheaper and quicker than Khaydarin). Storm may not even be ready by this point, but Mobeus may well be. Ghosts have an attack that does heavy damage to light (Sentries, Templar and Zealots), and keeps them out of the front lines. Remember that Ghosts require significantly less Micro to use than HT, because they have long range abilities, blend in well with the army, and a long range attack that prevents them from running into front lines on an attack move.
Late game: Ghosts are closer to the power of HT at this point, because HT have increased in power, while Ghosts have had a sort of plateau early-mid game, since Mobeus and Cloak can already be finished by this point. As more units become available, and the armies get larger, the power of the Ghost begins to stand out, as it can hit more units with each EMP. Concaves get very difficult (read: virtually impossible) to perform without clumping your units. Immortals, Sentries and HT are all Hard Countered by EMP, while every other unit takes large damage. Phoenix and Motherships are also heavily damaged by the loss of their energy, DT and Observers can also be destroyed by EMP without the need for a Scan.
|
On June 16 2010 13:29 Zanez.smarty wrote:
So Terran Players... answer me this question:
In what situation is it NOT a good idea to build Ghosts against Protoss....? What unit composition or build could the Protoss use that would make you bypass Ghosts in a standard game? What situation would you say that building a Ghost or two would not be worth their investment?
When the Toss is going for mass zealots and/or collossi.
1. A huge delay to your vikings will mean someone who goes for 1 base collossi attack will roll over you.
2. Marines + Ghosts will lose to chargelots + sentry shield (if they activate before attacking)
Note: I don't personally know if anything is OP or not and will not state my opinion about that. Just answering your question.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On June 16 2010 13:29 Zanez.smarty wrote:
So Terran Players... answer me this question:
In what situation is it NOT a good idea to build Ghosts against Protoss....? What unit composition or build could the Protoss use that would make you bypass Ghosts in a standard game? What situation would you say that building a Ghost or two would not be worth their investment?
Every unit has a situation in which a unit is a very bad idea, against all races.
Heavy Air investment... maybe? Void Rays still get eaten alive by vikings even with a single ghost. They stack up pretty well. EMPing Carriers is a lot of heavy damage, and it removed the energy of Mothership and Phoenix (not to mention the shield damage)... so I dunno. Ghost Academy is DIRT cheap, so it is really not a huge issue of money, although Ghosts themselves are a little bit of an investment...
So when is making a specific unit against Protoss a bad idea?
HT: Chargelots, Other HT, Carriers
Sentry: Heavy Air, Colossi, Chargelots
Infestor: HT, Heavy Air
Ghosts: uhhhh...
Really, there isn't much reason not to build one, because EVERY unit combination the Protoss can use is made SIGNIFICANTLY weaker by the use of Ghosts.
Many people don't seem to know this, but Ghosts aren't Light. HT was changed to Light early in Beta... it seemed only natural that Ghosts would follow suit... but for some reason they didn't. This means that it takes a decently large amount of Phoenix to counter them. Also you can EMP while you are Grav Beamed, hitting all the attacking Phoenix.
And for those saying that you can't compare Ghosts and HT because they are separated by 1.5 Tiers... I am afraid I do not see your logic... In the SC2 you play, once you reach T3, do all earlier tiers disappear? Are you suddenly unable to build Ghosts when Protoss players build a Templar Archives? While HT and Ghosts don't emerge in the same tier, HT and Ghosts will always be on a battlefield at the same time, because HT emerge AFTER ghosts. This means that they are comparable units.
Also: in the PvT build, Ghosts and HT are both used in similar ways. Anti-Caster and Heavy AOE damage. There are of course differences... But really there are similar in function.
So yes, HT and Ghost are comparable. That is my argument anyway.
Now, I see the argument that you cannot compare early game use of Ghosts and late game use of Ghosts. But the fact remains, that Ghosts are obscenely powerful at all points of the game.
Early game: they can swamp an army in very few EMPs, doing strong damage to Stalkers and making Sentries just about useless. Ghosts also have a good amount of HP, believe it or not. They are not fragile in any way and are in fact stronger than Sentries.
Mid Game: they are better than HT in just about every way. EMP is very easy to use, does its damage instantly and is available earlier. Ghosts are slightly more expensive, but require very very little research (Mobeus is cheaper and quicker than Khaydarin). Storm may not even be ready by this point, but Mobeus may well be. Ghosts have an attack that does heavy damage to light (Sentries, Templar and Zealots), and keeps them out of the front lines. Remember that Ghosts require significantly less Micro to use than HT, because they have long range abilities, blend in well with the army, and a long range attack that prevents them from running into front lines on an attack move.
Late game: Ghosts are closer to the power of HT at this point, because HT have increased in power, while Ghosts have had a sort of plateau early-mid game, since Mobeus and Cloak can already be finished by this point. As more units become available, and the armies get larger, the power of the Ghost begins to stand out, as it can hit more units with each EMP. Concaves get very difficult (read: virtually impossible) to perform without clumping your units. Immortals, Sentries and HT are all Hard Countered by EMP, while every other unit takes large damage. Phoenix and Motherships are also heavily damaged by the loss of their energy, DT and Observers can also be destroyed by EMP without the need for a Scan.
This is all true, but I think Ghosts are actually far better than HTs late game. It requires getting the cloak upgrade and moving out/microing/scouting, but it's all worth it to not get stormed to hell. Then it's just a matter of 1at'ing your way to the victory screen. Since EMP removes Storm energy, the Protoss will often be caught with pants down and no energy, with army dead before he can even warp in HT's, Khaydarin or not.
|
On June 16 2010 13:57 link0 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2010 13:29 Zanez.smarty wrote:
So Terran Players... answer me this question:
In what situation is it NOT a good idea to build Ghosts against Protoss....? What unit composition or build could the Protoss use that would make you bypass Ghosts in a standard game? What situation would you say that building a Ghost or two would not be worth their investment? When the Toss is going for mass zealots and/or collossi. 1. A huge delay to your vikings will mean someone who goes for 1 base collossi attack will roll over you. 2. Marines + Ghosts will lose to chargelots + sentry shield (if they activate before attacking) Note: I don't personally know if anything is OP or not and will not state my opinion about that. Just answering your question.
A single Ghost will back up Marauders nicely when fighting Zealots, since they do heavy damage to light. Early game, it is not the best idea, because of the cost required for Ghosts. You don't use Marines to fight Zealots well. Not to mention Zealots only do PARTICULARLY well vs Marines after Charge, an armor upgrade and a GS. GS is not an issue with Ghosts. Once charge is in the picture, Stim is in the picture, in which case Marines can do just fine vs Zealots (unless they have GS up... hey look! Ghosts ARE a good idea when fighting Zealots now!)
Colossi take 4 shots to kill ghosts, while a quick EMP hit and run softens up the Colossi nicely meaning the Vikings don't need to go through nearly as many shield points before they can actually start doing damage.
Now, I am not saying to get a LARGE number of ghosts, because frankly, that would be silly... They are too expensive to invest too much. Saying that a single ghost when fighting Colossi is a bad idea, is... well wrong. With the same 150/150 that the ghost costs you could get 2 Vikings maybe? Not equal to 100 HP for each colossi. Also, they counter the Immortals that almost invariably come with Colossi.
|
You are completely ignoring the point of my post.
1. GS go up before entering battle. EMP does not stop GS in any way. Zealots with GS slaughters stimmed marines even without an armor upgrade. Charge makes it even more one sided. Wait, are you suggesting mass marauder against mass chargelot+few sentries? What?
2. I said collossi, not immortals. Why would a Toss build immortals against marine/ghost? My point was that you won't have vikings when collossi are out because you went for ghosts.
These are just my counters for the Gretorp/BratOK's marine/ghost timing rush. I of course agree that getting ghosts EVENTUALLY is never a bad thing.
|
On June 16 2010 14:36 link0 wrote:
You are completely ignoring the point of my post.
1. GS go up before entering battle. EMP does not stop GS in any way. Zealots with GS slaughters stimmed marines even without an armor upgrade. Charge makes it even more one sided. Wait, are you suggesting mass marauder against mass chargelot+few sentries? What?
2. I said collossi, not immortals. Why would a Toss build immortals against marine/ghost? My point was that you won't have vikings when collossi are out because you went for ghosts.
These are just my counters for the Gretorp/BratOK's marine/ghost timing rush. I of course agree that getting ghosts EVENTUALLY is never a bad thing.
I am not ignoring the point of your post. I am simply stating that it is not a bad idea to get Ghosts at some point during a standard game. Rushing to Ghosts is a dumb plan obviously, as is making a large amount of them. It only takes 1... After 1 or 2, their effectivness diminishes, as EMP doesnt stack.
1. If they GS, run away, wait for it to wear off. If we are talking early game, then he won't have charge. If we are talking mid game, then the cost of Ghosts is not a huge issue for you. Zealots don't slaughter stimmed marines if the Terran player has even the simplest concept of micro. When Charge comes into the picture, that changes. But at this time, he either has next to no Zealots, or you are in mid game, by which Ghosts are not an issue. Marauders do just fine against Zealots w.o charge as well.
By the time charge comes into the picture, a large force of Marauder (concuss) and Marine (stim) should be on the field. You need to eat an early GS, but after the first one, he has no more, since u EMPd his sentries to prevent force field. Right?
Now admittedly in this scenario, no Ghosts are not the best idea ever. But they are not a BAD idea. This could be the ONLY situation in which Ghosts are not 100% devastating, but merely very powerful. Zealots (chargelots especially) benefit ENORMOUSLY from Sentries. So what happens when we emerge into the mid-late game to fight Zealot/Sentry/HT? Well... Ghosts counter everything there except Zealots. You are right, Ghosts are a bad idea against heavy Zealot forces... But to assume that those Zealots will not be backed up by other units is ridiculous. So I am afraid I cannot concede this point.
2. Colossi and Immortals both come from Robo facility. And no, i am not suggesting you build immortals against Marine Ghost. Are you suggesting you make marine Ghost against Colossi?
Ghost and their tech are cheap enough for you to get them alongside vikings. Ghosts can accompany any tech, because they only require a rax-tech in order to make. This is a path leading to any and every build. Bio, Air or Mech. Ghosts work well in any of these. In this way, Immortals can come out VS mech on the way to Colossi. The fact is, Ghosts do not significantly get in your way of getting Vikings out. Especially considering the Reactor pumps Vikings out super fast.
So why is it a bad idea to get Ghosts against Colossi? Mech + Viking absolutely annihalate Colossus builds... but since Immortals will always accompany Cols in this match up, their effectiveness is magnified intensely by the presence of a ghost.
|
lol strategy guide turns into a pitiful argument, I think all of the strategies are quite unique except for the immortals...
|
for the sake of comparison:
-ghost emp round has a radius of 2 that deals 100 dmg t shields and drains energy instantly
-ht storm has a radius of 1.5 and does 80 dmg over 4 seconds
im not saying storm is underpowered but EMP knockin off 100 health to all the units right off the bat of any engagement in addition to barring sentry and ht micro is pretty amazing.
from a design standpoint i personally think emp is retarded why would blizzard make a t2 unit that starts with a silver bullet vs protoss. i mean a lot of different things are good in crtain matchups but this ability is intentionally to screw protoss. i think this is a mistake in design. i think emp at the very least should require a 100/100 research.
edit:fixed paragraph 2 so it would make sense
|
On June 16 2010 13:57 link0 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2010 13:29 Zanez.smarty wrote:
So Terran Players... answer me this question:
In what situation is it NOT a good idea to build Ghosts against Protoss....? What unit composition or build could the Protoss use that would make you bypass Ghosts in a standard game? What situation would you say that building a Ghost or two would not be worth their investment? When the Toss is going for mass zealots and/or collossi.
Could work. Someone needs to test the timing on either Charge research with a healthy amount of zealots or Colossus with Thermal Lances (which makes them, you know, useful) to see if either of these things come out in time to repel (and hopefully roll over) brad_OK's timing push.
On an unrelated note: Didn't Storm do way more damage in Brood War? And it was in a larger radius. I wonder why they weakened it. I try to use templar tech as much as possible in my games (because I'm bored of robo tech), and while it doesn't feel incredibly weak, it does feel weaker than Colossi, and serves a similar function while being much more micro intensive. I hear people say HT's are harder to counter than Colossi, but that could be because for months, every Protoss player went with Colossi, and now the counters are really well known.
|
Storm is weaker because SC2 AI pathing is extremely good, your units will all form into a ball. So any AoE effect is automatically so much better.
I'll be surprised if EMP remained as it is now for long.
|
On June 16 2010 21:34 SilverforceX wrote:
Storm is weaker because SC2 AI pathing is extremely good, your units will all form into a ball. So any AoE effect is automatically so much better.
I'll be surprised if EMP remained as it is now for long.
Well that's odd, I was under the impression that Storm is an AoE effect. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
