|
On April 01 2011 03:15 Rob28 wrote:
Forgive me if I'm wrong on this, but generally one race will be favoured over another in any matchup. I believe this was the case in BW, where terran was strong vs zerg, protoss good vs terran, and zerg was better against toss. Sort of a rock-paper-scissors thing. It created the balance I think everyone enjoyed.
I suspect that people think the same applies to SC2, yet are unaware that the roles seem to have reversed a bit (T>P>Z>T). Like I said, I could be wrong, but indicators show a lot of zergs QQing over Toss, and a lot of toss QQing over Terran. (Terran of course have nothing to complain about because IMO there's still a bit that needs to be fixed about the terran race, so they choose arbitrary things like forcefields to cry over). Anywhoo, that's a bit of generalization, but I hope you know where I'm coming from on this.
To me it just seems as though Protoss have a natural advantage over zerg styles of play. I'm not complaining, I play as toss. I just think it's an interesting thought...
Protoss just generates more QQ because they simply demolish 200 vs 200 usually, as they should since they cost like twice as much and twice as long to get to that point. So it looks imba when it's really not as evidenced by long aggregate of win/loss statistics, tournament wins, etc where other races are represented quite respectively. Game is pretty damn balanced looking at numbers. No obvious imba like, "this strat is impossible to defeat" such as early buffed VRs were. And yes Zerg is crazy to let Toss turtle when Zerg has macro advantage and 4000K resources in the bank and should lose every time like IdrA G1.
|
On April 07 2011 06:50 tdt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2011 03:15 Rob28 wrote:
Forgive me if I'm wrong on this, but generally one race will be favoured over another in any matchup. I believe this was the case in BW, where terran was strong vs zerg, protoss good vs terran, and zerg was better against toss. Sort of a rock-paper-scissors thing. It created the balance I think everyone enjoyed.
I suspect that people think the same applies to SC2, yet are unaware that the roles seem to have reversed a bit (T>P>Z>T). Like I said, I could be wrong, but indicators show a lot of zergs QQing over Toss, and a lot of toss QQing over Terran. (Terran of course have nothing to complain about because IMO there's still a bit that needs to be fixed about the terran race, so they choose arbitrary things like forcefields to cry over). Anywhoo, that's a bit of generalization, but I hope you know where I'm coming from on this.
To me it just seems as though Protoss have a natural advantage over zerg styles of play. I'm not complaining, I play as toss. I just think it's an interesting thought... Protoss just generates more QQ because they simply demolish 200 vs 200 usually, as they should since they cost like twice as much and twice as long to get to that point. So it looks imba when it's really not as evidenced by long aggregate of win/loss statistics, tournament wins, etc where other races are represented quite respectively. Game is pretty damn balanced looking at numbers. No obvious imba like, "this strat is impossible to defeat" such as early buffed VRs were. And yes Zerg is crazy to let Toss turtle when Zerg has macro advantage and 4000K resources in the bank and should lose every time like IdrA G1.
Remember TSL 3 Ret vs Naniwa
Ret was 70 Supply ahead and dropped like crazy and still lost 
well he didnt play perfectly but still
|
On April 07 2011 07:06 Sclol wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2011 06:50 tdt wrote:On April 01 2011 03:15 Rob28 wrote:
Forgive me if I'm wrong on this, but generally one race will be favoured over another in any matchup. I believe this was the case in BW, where terran was strong vs zerg, protoss good vs terran, and zerg was better against toss. Sort of a rock-paper-scissors thing. It created the balance I think everyone enjoyed.
I suspect that people think the same applies to SC2, yet are unaware that the roles seem to have reversed a bit (T>P>Z>T). Like I said, I could be wrong, but indicators show a lot of zergs QQing over Toss, and a lot of toss QQing over Terran. (Terran of course have nothing to complain about because IMO there's still a bit that needs to be fixed about the terran race, so they choose arbitrary things like forcefields to cry over). Anywhoo, that's a bit of generalization, but I hope you know where I'm coming from on this.
To me it just seems as though Protoss have a natural advantage over zerg styles of play. I'm not complaining, I play as toss. I just think it's an interesting thought... Protoss just generates more QQ because they simply demolish 200 vs 200 usually, as they should since they cost like twice as much and twice as long to get to that point. So it looks imba when it's really not as evidenced by long aggregate of win/loss statistics, tournament wins, etc where other races are represented quite respectively. Game is pretty damn balanced looking at numbers. No obvious imba like, "this strat is impossible to defeat" such as early buffed VRs were. And yes Zerg is crazy to let Toss turtle when Zerg has macro advantage and 4000K resources in the bank and should lose every time like IdrA G1. Remember TSL 3 Ret vs Naniwa Ret was 70 Supply ahead and dropped like crazy and still lost well he didnt play perfectly but still
ret also was 200/200 on roaches against blink stalker + immortal...pretty good
|
top level PvZ has shown us time and again that in order to beat a protoss the zerg has to pull out every trick in the book while the toss can decide to 4 gate n FF ramp or sit back and macro to void colossus...doesnt seem right. Watching one of the most skilled zergs in the world lose to a player of much less caliber is very frustrating. I doubt cruncher would even qualify for code b in korea while Idra held code s. Every game against a protoss is an uphill battle even when they are a league below me. at this stage of the game protoss is ridiculously hard to beat and its taking the fun out of laddering and watching tournaments like MLG TSL and GSL. If only zerg could two base ultras or broods then take a third to become unstoppable...
|
On April 07 2011 07:34 Disarm22 wrote:
Protoss is ridiculously hard to beat and its taking the fun out of laddering and watching tournaments .
Balance whine is taking the fun out every forum and every chat channel.
|
On April 07 2011 06:50 tdt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2011 03:15 Rob28 wrote:
Forgive me if I'm wrong on this, but generally one race will be favoured over another in any matchup. I believe this was the case in BW, where terran was strong vs zerg, protoss good vs terran, and zerg was better against toss. Sort of a rock-paper-scissors thing. It created the balance I think everyone enjoyed.
I suspect that people think the same applies to SC2, yet are unaware that the roles seem to have reversed a bit (T>P>Z>T). Like I said, I could be wrong, but indicators show a lot of zergs QQing over Toss, and a lot of toss QQing over Terran. (Terran of course have nothing to complain about because IMO there's still a bit that needs to be fixed about the terran race, so they choose arbitrary things like forcefields to cry over). Anywhoo, that's a bit of generalization, but I hope you know where I'm coming from on this.
To me it just seems as though Protoss have a natural advantage over zerg styles of play. I'm not complaining, I play as toss. I just think it's an interesting thought... Protoss just generates more QQ because they simply demolish 200 vs 200 usually, as they should since they cost like twice as much and twice as long to get to that point. So it looks imba when it's really not as evidenced by long aggregate of win/loss statistics, tournament wins, etc where other races are represented quite respectively. Game is pretty damn balanced looking at numbers. No obvious imba like, "this strat is impossible to defeat" such as early buffed VRs were. And yes Zerg is crazy to let Toss turtle when Zerg has macro advantage and 4000K resources in the bank and should lose every time like IdrA G1.
"Protoss just generates more QQ because they simply demolish 200 vs 200 usually, as they should since they cost like twice as much and twice as long to get to that point."
So by you standars whenever a zerg hits 200/200, the toss is at 100/200?
I highly doubt that.
The toss 200 dont take that much longer to get to, and all you have to do is turtle in your base until your there, and that is what pisses most people off i guess.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
