On December 21 2010 13:18 5unrise wrote: I think the reason why protoss players finds PvT to be diificult is because they are comparing the PvT matchup to PvZ. PvZ is just a skewed matchup in which tosses has so many options, and ultimately just need to turtle till they can just a-move their colossi stalker armies and crush zerg unless Z plays prefectly, or go for easy early game wins off one base. In PvT, however, Terran can actually fight back, and Toss has to, to an extent, earn the win. The cruise-control victories that are so easily achieved against zerg cannot be replicated against terran, so protoss complains that T is too strong. From what I can see, it is Terran who are at a disadvantage in this matchup, since toss can just stay alive for 10 minutes and then have a massive tech advantage in the form of storms. The fact that Toss complains about T early game is non-sensical, especially given how many stupid allins and ridiculous lategame composition toss has against zerg
On December 23 2010 12:33 AspenY wrote: I would say that marines are underused in this matchup, upgraded combat marines with ghosts can be quite effective (not just cost effective).
On December 22 2010 08:49 Effen wrote: I think its pretty simple. The matchup is just flawed in Protoss' favor.
Take oGcMC for example. Lets say he is the best PvT player on the planet. He claims a 95% win percentage over all Terrans. This is the problem.
Look at other individuals who are the very best at their craft. Tiger Woods would never win anywhere close to 95% of his match play golf matches if playing against other pros. Michael Jordan would never win 95% of his 1 on 1's vs other pros. Loda in his prime from DotA would never win 95% of solo mids.
My point is, even tho MC is great and this is not intended to take anything away from him, but if someone is able to obtain a 95% win percentage over the other best players in the world, then the problem is with the underlying contest being significantly favored to that individuals way.
There is simply no way that the game can be considered balanced when one player is able to achieve a 95% win rate vs the other best players in the world. Tiger would have to have completely illegal clubs and magnetic golf balls attracted to the hole. Jordan would have to get four points a basket. Loda would have to get free treads to achieve 95% win rate.
The matchup is inherently flawed. All of our discussion won't achieve much unless we are talking about how to nerf protoss a bit or how to buff terran a bit to solve the problem. Changing up unit comps or build orders simply isnt the answer.
People have acheived over 95% winrate before. Best exmaple, Federer. 2005 and 2006 he had a 95% winrate overall year (93% in 2004 which i think is close enough). Or you can look at his US open and wimbledon winrate, Over 13 years he has over 90 % winrate on each of them. Nadal has a 97% winrate in french open over 6 years. So it is doable even in a game that's been played for years and years and even when only competing agaisnt top of the top pros who make it in to these grand slam tournaments. And obviously tennis isn't favored towards one person or another. So it seems your argument is quite flawed.
On December 22 2010 08:49 Effen wrote: I think its pretty simple. The matchup is just flawed in Protoss' favor.
Take oGcMC for example. Lets say he is the best PvT player on the planet. He claims a 95% win percentage over all Terrans. This is the problem.
Look at other individuals who are the very best at their craft. Tiger Woods would never win anywhere close to 95% of his match play golf matches if playing against other pros. Michael Jordan would never win 95% of his 1 on 1's vs other pros. Loda in his prime from DotA would never win 95% of solo mids.
My point is, even tho MC is great and this is not intended to take anything away from him, but if someone is able to obtain a 95% win percentage over the other best players in the world, then the problem is with the underlying contest being significantly favored to that individuals way.
There is simply no way that the game can be considered balanced when one player is able to achieve a 95% win rate vs the other best players in the world. Tiger would have to have completely illegal clubs and magnetic golf balls attracted to the hole. Jordan would have to get four points a basket. Loda would have to get free treads to achieve 95% win rate.
The matchup is inherently flawed. All of our discussion won't achieve much unless we are talking about how to nerf protoss a bit or how to buff terran a bit to solve the problem. Changing up unit comps or build orders simply isnt the answer.
I agree 100%. A new build order or unit combo is not the answer, only a balance patch from Blizzard can mend this match-up. Terran have already tried every realistic strategy and unit combo, there is no solution.
On December 22 2010 08:49 Effen wrote: I think its pretty simple. The matchup is just flawed in Protoss' favor.
Take oGcMC for example. Lets say he is the best PvT player on the planet. He claims a 95% win percentage over all Terrans. This is the problem.
Look at other individuals who are the very best at their craft. Tiger Woods would never win anywhere close to 95% of his match play golf matches if playing against other pros. Michael Jordan would never win 95% of his 1 on 1's vs other pros. Loda in his prime from DotA would never win 95% of solo mids.
My point is, even tho MC is great and this is not intended to take anything away from him, but if someone is able to obtain a 95% win percentage over the other best players in the world, then the problem is with the underlying contest being significantly favored to that individuals way.
There is simply no way that the game can be considered balanced when one player is able to achieve a 95% win rate vs the other best players in the world. Tiger would have to have completely illegal clubs and magnetic golf balls attracted to the hole. Jordan would have to get four points a basket. Loda would have to get free treads to achieve 95% win rate.
The matchup is inherently flawed. All of our discussion won't achieve much unless we are talking about how to nerf protoss a bit or how to buff terran a bit to solve the problem. Changing up unit comps or build orders simply isnt the answer.
I agree 100%. A new build order or unit combo is not the answer, only a balance patch from Blizzard can mend this match-up. Terran have already tried every realistic strategy and unit combo, there is no solution.
I posted that ppl have acheived over 95% winrate above, and also since i've been following starcraft for quite some times, i remember ChoJJa having a 90% winrate against toss in 2003 (well technically it was 90% but everyone in Korea back then said it was bascially 90% because 2 of the games he lost were in island maps, which is no longer used because it's impossible for zerg. Yes i am a Korean who used to live there back then). But it's not like since then there were any patches to broodwar. But look at things now, it seems to be okay doesn't it? Back then toss used to cry a lot and toss had worse records than any of the 3 races now.
I've seen these replays and although they appeared to play well, they failed to react to MaNa's build. MaNa went templar tech in pretty much every game, which means he has chargelots, which means he wrecks tank based play. However, if the terrans had gone for a more thor heavy play, i believe they would have steamrolled MaNa. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Painuser is the only player i've seen who understands how TvP works. You cant stick on tier one, and hope to last for the long haul. Both players failed to react to templar based play, which is not that hard to beat. Don't complain about storm being imba. Protoss is so fragile getting it its ridiculous.
On December 25 2010 04:19 drgonzhere wrote: I've seen these replays and although they appeared to play well, they failed to react to MaNa's build. MaNa went templar tech in pretty much every game, which means he has chargelots, which means he wrecks tank based play. However, if the terrans had gone for a more thor heavy play, i believe they would have steamrolled MaNa. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Painuser is the only player i've seen who understands how TvP works. You cant stick on tier one, and hope to last for the long haul. Both players failed to react to templar based play, which is not that hard to beat. Don't complain about storm being imba. Protoss is so fragile getting it its ridiculous.
I agree with what he said. It seems the usual mass rauder rine viking ghost build just doesn't cut it anymore against the best tosses. Watching MC's style vs terran in the recent GSL made me cringe as a terran player. He pretty much exploited every weakness terran has to the fullest with his toss style of play.
On December 25 2010 04:19 drgonzhere wrote: I've seen these replays and although they appeared to play well, they failed to react to MaNa's build. MaNa went templar tech in pretty much every game, which means he has chargelots, which means he wrecks tank based play. However, if the terrans had gone for a more thor heavy play, i believe they would have steamrolled MaNa. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Painuser is the only player i've seen who understands how TvP works. You cant stick on tier one, and hope to last for the long haul. Both players failed to react to templar based play, which is not that hard to beat. Don't complain about storm being imba. Protoss is so fragile getting it its ridiculous.
You are mistaken - charglots hardcounter thor based play as well. All the terran high end mech units because worse and worse as the game goes on. Air units are good, but not sufficient to base an army on. This is why you see top terrans sticking to bio+air even in the lategame. It's because it is the most superior option available.
Additionally, as much as I like Painuser, we've only seen his "style" in A SINGLE GAME at ONE mlg. It's not like he's dominating toss left, right, and center with his style. If it was so good, everybody would be doing it.
On December 25 2010 02:45 TossNub wrote: People have acheived over 95% winrate before. Best exmaple, Federer. 2005 and 2006 he had a 95% winrate overall year (93% in 2004 which i think is close enough). Or you can look at his US open and wimbledon winrate, Over 13 years he has over 90 % winrate on each of them. Nadal has a 97% winrate in french open over 6 years. So it is doable even in a game that's been played for years and years and even when only competing agaisnt top of the top pros who make it in to these grand slam tournaments. And obviously tennis isn't favored towards one person or another. So it seems your argument is quite flawed.
I assume MC is talking about customs, ladder & the GSL. Pro tennis records, on the other hand, come almost entirely from single-elimination tournaments. There you can't have more than 1 loss per tourney whereas you can have up to 7 wins. So...
Federer has a bad tournament, he's 0-1. He has a good tournament and he's 7-0. The numbers will always skew heavily toward wins for the best players.
If Federer (or anyone else) were playing ladder matches and/or round-robin leagues in addition to tournaments 95% wouldn't be realistic.
If MC's at 95% he's really got Protoss and everything else figured out. Whether or not it's the Protoss turn to be OP, I have no idea. I'm waiting to see what happens next month.
In case anyone hasn't listened to this, check out 11:20 - 13:05. Browder & Cooper were all over the early Terran/late Protoss issue at Blizzcon. I wonder what their latest take is.
sorry for offtopic, but isnt this a balance thread? not that i mind, but i really thought any comment on balance or imbalance is not allowed on these forums. well maybe hopefully it changed.
TvP is such bs. It's either win by mm or contain at P natural w siege/bunkers by the 15-20 minute mark, or straight up wait for your death. Whatever counter you can pull out your ass (rebuilding infrastructure and such) in, say, 5 minutes, P will hard counter your counter in 2 warp cycles and piss all over you.
i only watched one rep, but i think the other two were played in a similar fashion. servyoa (?) just couldnt fight the templars, in the last fight he had one ghost and 2000 overgas in the first he got 3 ghosts feedbacked by one lonely templar, he could have just scanned and sniped/emped the ht. there are 3 counters to templars. and by counters i mean units that dont melt in 3 secs. thors battlecruisers and maybe tanks, but those are kinda special. thors and battlecruisers are just aoe proof. if you have enough of them, the protoss cant just storm you to death. right now thors and bcs have no freaking costeffective counter. voids are kinda nice, but you know what a starport can also produce. if you dont like those three, get ghosts. they require some micro, but srsly not more than feedback and spreading. emp has more range than feedback check liquipedia on this before you comment. IF YOUR GHOSTS GET FEEDBACKED ITS YOUR OWN FUCKING FAULT. in some way, this is even proven. we all know, that templars rape the shit out of a terran bio army, so why are people building collossi? they certainly arent stronger, because if collossi were even stronger than hts there would be over 40%protoss in top 200 and not 8terrans in top 10 of korea. if there is no appropriate response to templars, why isnt every protoss playing a ht strat? if you cant find any relief in any of those options, quit the game. you cant win with pure mmm vs templars.
On December 29 2010 20:51 ensis wrote:IF YOUR GHOSTS GET FEEDBACKED ITS YOUR OWN FUCKING FAULT.
In the same fashion i could say "if your templars get emp'd it's your own damn fault". EMP isn't a counter to HTs anymore than feedback is to ghosts. It's just a matter of who hits first. Although ghosts might have the advantage due to cloak and +1 range, HTs don't die to emp, ghosts can die to feedback. EMP'd templars can still morph to archons, while a feedbacked ghosts is either dead or an expensive marine.
Ghosts are a way for terran to deal with templars, they are NOT a counter, much less a hard counter. The only units that could be considered a counter to templars (as they don't die to storm or feedback) are the thor and maybe the bc (since they still have a shitton of hp after feedback) and the siege tank (although they still die pretty fast to storm and can't move out).
And yeah ...
On December 29 2010 20:51 ensis wrote:right now thors and bcs have no freaking costeffective counter. voids are kinda nice, but you know what a starport can also produce.
I'm not entirely sure about bcs but thors die to pretty much everything besides sentries and stalkers. 4 zealots kill one thor, 1 void ray kills a thor, that's not cost effective for you ? Also notice that voids do pretty well against ALL of the units that might be considered a counter to HTs (thor, bc, tank).
idk if bcs are the answer to TvP lategame. Although they do pretty well in a decicive battle, any decent protoss will abuse your laughable mobility all day.
EPT
