EPT[GSL] 2012 Season 1 Code S Ro16 Group C - Page 111
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Tournaments |
|
Heavenly
2172 Posts
| ||
|
NHY
1013 Posts
Clearly T imba | ||
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?37058 Posts
On February 08 2012 20:50 keioh wrote: No, the suicidal baneling. Yeah,it was given with the game. Creepy Zergling is better imo | ||
|
andaylin
United States10830 Posts
On February 08 2012 20:51 zhurai wrote: protoss: "o y thank you" probably best against zealot+archon type mixes than the other compositions imo yeah, screw zealots :D | ||
|
-UMADIMSTYLIN-
Cuba292 Posts
| ||
|
Cereb
Denmark3388 Posts
On February 08 2012 20:49 Seeker wrote: Oh wait wait nvm. I already came up with a better on in the past: The "Creepy" Zergling haha. I like these  Angry or lonely would be good too! | ||
|
zhurai
United States5660 Posts
I guess I'm Confused Semi Random .......... .___. | ||
|
bouhko
193 Posts
On February 08 2012 20:52 NHY wrote: Oh look, pressure while taking 3rd. Clearly T imba QFT | ||
|
ChaosTerran
Austria844 Posts
On February 08 2012 20:48 Fjodorov wrote: Against zerg the terran can have 3 cc and still have complete map control with hellions untill mutas are out or some all inish roach build. As zerg its hard enough to keep up on equal bases, but 3 cc? Yeah thats terrans game to lose. Only good thing about it is that it requires alot of apm to macro and keep up with infrastructure with all those mules so it cant be to much abused in lower leagues. I know man. But that is just a completely different concept. 3cc is an economical build you are right, but that's not the point morrow was trying to make. It's perfectly fine when a race can do economical builds while maintaining map control, is it good for terran? Yes, can it be countered? yes. The point morrow was trying to make is that economical build + kill move seems imbalanced. I agree with his opinion. But it is what it is, an opinion, obviously nobody can prove it is imba or not, we will see how that will turn out in the future. But I understand what Morrow was getting at, is what I'm trying to say. | ||
|
andaylin
United States10830 Posts
| ||
|
Drazerk
United Kingdom31255 Posts
On February 08 2012 20:45 Drazerk wrote: 14:30 JJakji emps the sentries forcing a cancel on the third of parting The third of JJakji is now up Parting going for a big attack now in response 17:30 Robo bay and melee +3 for Parting armies engage with good EMPs Stroms finally go off but a stim forward kills most of partings army but an over extension kills the medivacs | ||
|
andaylin
United States10830 Posts
On February 08 2012 20:52 NHY wrote: Oh look, pressure while taking 3rd. Clearly T imba what? that third was at a normal timing, not 6 minutes, LOL | ||
|
Fragile51
Netherlands15767 Posts
| ||
|
Logros
Netherlands9913 Posts
| ||
|
Cereb
Denmark3388 Posts
| ||
|
NuclearJudas
6546 Posts
| ||
|
MVTaylor
United Kingdom2893 Posts
| ||
|
Drazerk
United Kingdom31255 Posts
On February 08 2012 20:52 zhurai wrote: I guess I'm Confused Semi Random .......... .___. Wouldn't it be laughing random as they clearly win? | ||
|
Fragile51
Netherlands15767 Posts
| ||
|
roymarthyup
1442 Posts
ive seen several interviews with dustin browder where he talks about how all the units like the carrier or marine have been tested and fine tuned in numbers by a testing group they have that uses balance testing machines and calculations to determine proper strength for cost of units and he said marines are balanced in terms of combat ability and the balance tester shows if any changes are made to the marine such as stim taking more health it would imbalance the game too much and he said the balance testing machine shows that stim isnt even actually that powerful in terms of combat effectiveness between units and people are overreacting i gotta look for that interview again i think it was at blizzcon but browder pretty much said "oh yeah the stats are like that for the stalker and marauder because thats what are tester gave it. we cant change it without making things imbalanced" and for the most part im pretty sure they use that to get the final tuning on balance numbers. For the most part, money for money, gateways and barracks both produce the same amount of units/cost per minute, and those units are equal in power to eachother. and if you look further most units seem to be balanced per cost, a stalker is barely equal to a hydra but loses to a marauder who is equal cost, but stalkers can shoot air and marauders cant so thats why the marauder is stronger. and then theres counter units like banelings to counter marines which probably have their own formula but general combat units seem to be pretty balanced alongside eachother 3rax (2reactor/1techlab) costs 600/125 and consumes 450 minerals a minute on marines and 200/50 a minute on marauders 9 marines and 2 marauders a minute. 13food a minute. total cost 650/50 add on 150/150 for combat shields and conc shells eventually 4gate costs 600 and consumes 200/0 a min on zealots, 100/200 a min on sentries, 250/100 a min on stalkers 12food a minute, total cost 550/300 add on 200/50 for warpgate upgrade + cybercore roughly equal in cost, raxes and gateways provide roughly equal production/minute and strength/minute of produced units. there is racial difference in that terran spends much less gas than the protoss on his units. is this an advantage or disadvantage, who really knows. terran as a race has mules for more mineral income at full saturation... and thus must plan his strategies accordingly different from the toss because gas isnt as important for him in the early game but regardless, my point is roughly they are equal in strength in terms of cost/production when massed up the gateway units start to overpower the rax units with forcefields. hopefully the terran can get 1-2 thors or tanks or medivacs to counter critical mass forcefields before its too late. problem is getting medivacs means you skipped a production facility (factory) and are basically making yourself 2 production facilities short just to get some medivacs trying to counter the forcefield mass simply put, parting spent all his money on tier1 production with zero tech and attacked the terran who spent all his money on tech so you cannot expect parting who does a 8gate attack with zero tech and an extra 400 mineral nexus to not completely destroy a terran who only gets like 3raxes while getting double ebays for upgrades, and factory for tech reasons only (making no tanks or combat units from the factory along the way) so by the time partings push hits the terran has one medivac to show from his factory+starport what do terrans want? forcefield to be nerfed? really think about what your saying and look at the numbers. gateways and raxes and gateway units and rax units are pretty balanced towards eachother. i doubt anything is going to change and i doubt any real imbalance exists, parting just spent his money more wisely. rax units are stronger in the first two waves (23food vs 23food) but then after that the gateway units are stronger with forcefield spamming. so terran is stronger early, toss stronger late. Ideally, if the game was really balanced, the proper counter to the 8gate of parting with zero tech would be a 5rax+factory with zero tech or 4rax+factory+starport with zero tech ASSUMING the forcefield counter came from the factory (also remember a armory for thors counts as production and it is not "wasted tech" because you produce 6food a minute from a factory with that armory, while a gateway only produces roughly 3 food a minute so costwise your getting production for your money). Getting medivacs while skipping the factory for production is cost-for-cost a balance flaw if thats the only way to beat it, because blizzards basically saying terran has to throw away money for nothing and sacrifice production to beat production? it makes no sense. if the starport is used for medivacs AND the factory is used, then that makes sense, and maybe thats the answer. but only getting medivacs and skipping the factory if thats the only answer is a design flaw in the game i will concede that is strange if thats the case so theres one argument where terrans might have a point, and thats in the fact that by the third wave protoss gateway units is too strong over rax units, and if no viable forcefield counter can be gotten by the terran in time to battle against a 8gate vs 5rax+factory or 4rax+factory+starport scenario then theres a problem. Blizzard seems to think thors or siegetanks are the temporary counter to help defend against these pushes, since thats the only viable tech path available to terran, if it truly does not serve as an answer to forcefields then that would actually be a legit balance concern. Honestly as protoss i would be fine if bunkers had a on-use ability that instantly shot out a pulse that crushed all forcefields in a 600aoe around it but it had a 120 second cooldown. The only legitimate balance concern i can see really is in forcefields, and in whether or not terran truly has a viable counter to forcefields in these 2base/3base 8gate+zero tech scenarios | ||
| ||
Parting
JJakji
