|
On November 12 2012 16:57 zefreak wrote:
I don't have to, other people are already doing it and Blizzard is looking at fixing the problem.
My only goal is to fix your misunderstanding, although i'm beginning to think your mind is set and that I should stop caring what you think. Have fun 'watching professional games yet never seeing mass infestor counter carriers or a protoss army vortexed by a neuraled mothership' (What? Is that even possible?)
It's really hard to see carriers being countered since they are almost never used 
|
On November 12 2012 16:59 schaf wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 16:57 zefreak wrote:
I don't have to, other people are already doing it and Blizzard is looking at fixing the problem.
My only goal is to fix your misunderstanding, although i'm beginning to think your mind is set and that I should stop caring what you think. Have fun 'watching professional games yet never seeing mass infestor counter carriers or a protoss army vortexed by a neuraled mothership' (What? Is that even possible?) It's really hard to see carriers being countered since they are almost never used
I'm pretty sure everyone that cares about professional starcraft has seen that game with Curious in WCS asia, though. Or seen freaky in GSTL, or leenock with his mass infestor play..
I'm happy that Blizzard has mentioned watching Nony's carrier video and is trying to implement some of the changes though. Huge step in the right direction, wont matter if fungal still affects interceptors though.
|
On November 12 2012 16:57 zefreak wrote:
I don't have to, other people are already doing it and Blizzard is looking at fixing the problem.
My only goal is to fix your misunderstanding, although i'm beginning to think your mind is set and that I should stop caring what you think. Have fun 'watching professional games yet never seeing mass infestor counter carriers or a protoss army vortexed by a neuraled mothership' (What? Is that even possible?)
You're funny. But you're arguments are generally weak.
|
Hey it's awesome. I came here to see talk about LSC since i missed some of the games of the finals (i had to go to bed), and i have some balance talk as a bonus. Woohoo!
Bomber looked very strong this tournament, i was really thinking he would take it considering how he destroyed his opponents (I guess the same could be said about Stephano, only dropping maps in the finals). Another second place / finals for Bomber who seems to be cursed as a Kong, perhaps in an even worse way than MKP.
|
While I have no opinion on balance itself I don't think I've seen this much outcry over a single unit or ability since pre patch BFH. It didn't help that it was popular during the gom TvT era and there was nothing fun about repeatedly watching two 4 base terrans lose hundreds of scv's over the course of a game while not actually attacking each other. Then slayers ( RIP) brought their slick build using it to mlg, killed everyone of every race with it and all hell broke lose on the forums and reddit for months every time BFH were used in any matchup until blizzard nerfed it. I think anything that effects multiple matchups heavily including the mirror is going to end up causing unending frustration.
LSC2 wise I was overall happy with the tournament. My chosen player didn't win but a lot of the games were good all weekend long and there were some truly amusing moments. For all the fuss it caused cranks stalker dancing lead to some interesting conversations. Naniwa and qxc's game getting paused on account of ants was cute and qxc stating that he mannered more cc's was adorable. The shadow bracket needs to migrate to more tournaments and koreans need to do more interviews in softspoken english. Also Ganzi should dance between every set instead of having downtime.Oh and I'd never heard Tod cast before today and I really liked that.
|
On November 12 2012 17:02 WhatsInAName wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 16:57 zefreak wrote:
I don't have to, other people are already doing it and Blizzard is looking at fixing the problem.
My only goal is to fix your misunderstanding, although i'm beginning to think your mind is set and that I should stop caring what you think. Have fun 'watching professional games yet never seeing mass infestor counter carriers or a protoss army vortexed by a neuraled mothership' (What? Is that even possible?) You're funny. But you're arguments are generally weak.
I'm not surprised you think so. I'm done with this conversation. I do recommend watching GSL/GSTL if you don't, though. Watch it every night like I do and you will see just how stale infestors make the game.
|
Are there Vods out? Could anyone link then to me if they are please? I missed the bomber-crank series and the finals :/
|
|
|
On November 12 2012 16:18 zefreak wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 16:15 NightOfTheDead wrote:On November 12 2012 15:49 vthree wrote:On November 12 2012 15:38 WhatsInAName wrote:On November 12 2012 15:34 vthree wrote:On November 12 2012 15:28 WhatsInAName wrote:
Hi. I don't play sc2 much any more, but I watch a lot. I enjoy fungal as a spell. Not sure why so many people are suddenly going berserk over it. Rather silly, honestly.
Did you know, that the infestor hasn't been changed since patch 1.4.0, which was in September of 2011. In fact, over a year ago. I'm wondering, in fact, why the community is such in a rage all of a sudden when, in fact, the infestor hasn't changed in a year. Hmm. Because it is 2-3x easier to go straight from ling to infestors now that you have the 4-6 queen builds and overlord speed? It is like if they buff mules to give 540 minerals over its life time. You will just see mass marine builds be OP eventhough the marine itself has not been change. Changes in the meta game can make certain units OP. Ghost snipe were also not nerfed until pretty late because that meta had not be uncovered. 2-3x easier ------------> hmmm. Rethink cause and effect. Are you implying that previously, terran had to do damange in the very early game to hault the ease of going to ling infestor? Also, the queen change was made very long time ago. Explain why just now, people are begging for a nerf. Because it took a while for the meta game to shift? And also some time for other races to see if they can re-adjust? Yes, if you did the same build that zergs are doing now with prepatch queens, hellion runbys would deny creep (they just kite the queens). Which makes the 9 - 9:30 minute tank marine push much more powerful. Zergs had to make a lot of gas units (banes, muta, roach, etc) to defend. They also needed to make spines which slowed their eco. If they didn't, they just died so no infestors. It is like asking why Mvp didn't use mass ghosts in GSL Jan 2011. The meta game just wasn't at the point. But when he did it at Blizzcon, GSL Aug, it was nerfed because it was deemed OP (and it was). The ghosts itself did not change. Maps also play a role. Maps which hard to defend thirds also make teching straight to infestors much harder. Player's skill level as well. One of the reasons muta/ling/bane is not as effective as say the Nestea era is that terrans have gotten much better at defend it with their marine micro. It is true, however, not only MVP used mass ghosts. They were counter to everything zerg had Broods, Infestors, Ultras, Mutas. Now it is being the same with fungal. Or is it? The zerg are on the rise only recently. Season 2 GSL Ro8 had 0 zergs. That was May. Seems like they began to play better. That and some scouting changes and early defense. However, metagame does not shift in one month. Nor should it. There were many threads - saying what approach should blizz take, and a lot of pros said let the maps balance it out, until it clear. Is it clear now? i dont know. It seems so. However, Infestor is really core unit for zerg as it stands, it glues together everything zerg has for late game. Ultras without infestors ? Sucks. Broodlords without infestors? Pretty huge risk investment. Banelings without infestors at 200 opponents supply? Not so good. However, before nerfing infestor into the ground they should consider buffing unused units. Raven needs BIG buff. Reaper could use some utility buff. Carriers should be buffed really good. If that doesnt solve anything about late game, blizz should say - fuck this, nerf em. I would rather they nerf infestor and buff other zerg units if necessary. Let's face it, infestors don't exactly lend themselves towards the kind of play we expect from zerg (multi-front aggression, runbys, backstabs, multitasking). Infestors promote deathball play, and thats what is so frustrating with zerg right now.
I can imagine Infestors being nerfed in some way but I can't imagine buffing other Zerg units to compensate. I think it's too late in WoL to do any major design changes, so any balance changes will just weaken already existing compositions rather than force the creation and use of new compositions. I imagine that with whatever nerf Infestors might get, mass Infestors will still be rather powerful, just less powerful enough to make certain engagements and win-rates more fair.
That being said, I think most of the more important changes will happen in HotS since Blizzard will have much more flexibility in changing unit design with the addition of new units, especially a second offensive Zerg spell caster in the form of the Viper. And the fact that it's an expansion pack still in beta will allow them a lot of room for radical experimentation, which I think will happen considering how David Kim said that they're looking to redesign certain units like the Void Ray and Raven. I think it will be in HotS, not WoL, where we will see core Infestor spells like Fungal be completely redesigned rather than just have their numbers tweaked.
|
As a Terran player, my biggest frustration in the TVZ match up is how it feels that you just end up getting rolled whenever you lose, regardless of how well you may have been playing prior. Terran has all the tools to win (and can look dominant) if they play somewhat perfectly. Making a few minor mistakes at any point creates the snowball effect to the inevitable steamroll.
Zerg on the other hand seems to have a variety of aggressive openings they can do that don't seem to effect there position in the game.
Zerg can make many mistakes such as: sloppy engagements, losing workers and having less supply! But when the dust settles they can easily make up the lost ground with the Infestor.
One mistake with controlling a terran army and bam, zergs rolled your army with seemingly little effort, and they are back in the game. Where a Terran has a much harder time to even just trade cost efficiently with zerg. Chances of a comeback are slim to none (when put in a similar "behind" situation) unless the zerg player makes giant glaring mistakes, like A moving infestors to there death. Terran game changing mistakes could include : Not pre splitting EVERYTHING before a battle, not focus firing banelings with tanks, not scouting a quick tech switch by zerg and just not microing everything in the battle enough to be somewhat cost efficent.
Bottom line is, as terran player, its frustrating and disheartening to lose a long even macro game in an instant to what seems like easily executable tactics by a zerg player. Its feeling like the entire burden of micro is on us to make the units "balanced". Is it balanced? Probably. Is it a fair match up in TVZ? My opinion is no. Whats yours?
|
On November 12 2012 16:12 WhatsInAName wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 15:59 schaf wrote:my summary: + good players + good games + good casters! + introduction of the SHADOW BRACKET (I love these things!) + qxc yelling at the guy who is eating chicken wings for him + most koreans speaking english on stage interviews (it's just 100x better than translated standard PR blabla) + crowd + ... (your turn, I ran out of things :/ ) - technical issues (wtf guys) - qxc not winning the whole thing  - extended series (meh...) - horrible use of downtime between games: mostly there were just splash screens with or without music, no info when the next games starts and so on... - ... hm tbc I agree with most of your assessment. About extended series: Defend your attitude. They seems perfectly logical. Double Elimination tournament means every must be defeated twice. Everyone. This means everyone gets a second chance. Everyone. Why then would the shining player from the upper bracket be DENIED this when every single other person in the tournament has been granted this. That's simply not fair, is it. In fact, out of ALL of the players in the tournament, the one player with an unblemished score should be paraded/celebrated for his accomplishment, not punished. Now when MLG takes it one step further with the continuity of series, well, that's stretching it too far in my opinion. But I kind of think it makes more sense than PUNISHING the person who should be COMPLIMENTED.
I really don't like how LSC did their extended series. It seems unfair. If LSC used MLG's format, Bomber would have won 4-3. Makes no sense to me that Stephano wins with a 4-4.
|
On November 12 2012 16:07 zefreak wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 15:59 vthree wrote:On November 12 2012 15:52 WhatsInAName wrote:On November 12 2012 15:44 zefreak wrote:On November 12 2012 15:38 WhatsInAName wrote:On November 12 2012 15:34 vthree wrote:On November 12 2012 15:28 WhatsInAName wrote:
Hi. I don't play sc2 much any more, but I watch a lot. I enjoy fungal as a spell. Not sure why so many people are suddenly going berserk over it. Rather silly, honestly.
Did you know, that the infestor hasn't been changed since patch 1.4.0, which was in September of 2011. In fact, over a year ago. I'm wondering, in fact, why the community is such in a rage all of a sudden when, in fact, the infestor hasn't changed in a year. Hmm. Because it is 2-3x easier to go straight from ling to infestors now that you have the 4-6 queen builds and overlord speed? It is like if they buff mules to give 540 minerals over its life time. You will just see mass marine builds be OP eventhough the marine itself has not been change. Changes in the meta game can make certain units OP. Ghost snipe were also not nerfed until pretty late because that meta had not be uncovered. 2-3x easier ------------> hmmm. Rethink cause and effect. Are you implying that previously, terran had to do damange in the very early game to hault the ease of going to ling infestor? Also, the queen change was made very long time ago. Explain why just now, people are begging for a nerf. You are just being difficult. People have been asking for a nerf for a while now, but as zerg players master infestor-broodlord engagements and through experience see just how much army they can cut while teching hard, people are being louder and louder about it. Previously, terran COULD do damage in the very early game if a zerg was greedy. Now, its much easier to defend early aggression vs terran. Even Idra admits this. You realize that many professional zerg players, including some of the best in the world, think the infestor is a problem. They just want viable options that don't rely on it, because without infestor zerg is much weaker. That doesn't mean there isn't a problem. Difficult ----> I don't think so. I'm skeptical about players making calls on balance. It's a conflict of interest. As someone else said a few posts back, the issue is much larger and in fact may not involve infestors at all (or perhaps it has everything to do with infestors). Zerg's have been 15 hatching since day one. So maybe this is greedy, but I don't think so since zerg typically must have more bases than the other races from the get-go. I think Terrans have been more greedy as of late with usually 3 cc builds in seemingly the first few minutes of the game. Nevertheless, Zerg has it's bag of punishes as well. And everyone has a conflict of interest. You can be a Stephano fan and feel zerg is fine. Or I can be a Bomber fan and think it is not. It is almost impossible to find a neutral person who is knowledgable enough to make balance calls. But even zergs pros have been saying there is a problem with BL/infestors. And I don't think they enjoy HAVING to go that composition to win. Hard to be a Stephano fan and feel zerg is fine when he says himself that he always thought Zerg was the strongest race and that it is waaay imbalanced
You're clearly not a Stephano fan. Most of what he says is tongue in cheek.
|
On November 12 2012 17:25 NAPoleonSC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 16:12 WhatsInAName wrote:On November 12 2012 15:59 schaf wrote:my summary: + good players + good games + good casters! + introduction of the SHADOW BRACKET (I love these things!) + qxc yelling at the guy who is eating chicken wings for him + most koreans speaking english on stage interviews (it's just 100x better than translated standard PR blabla) + crowd + ... (your turn, I ran out of things :/ ) - technical issues (wtf guys) - qxc not winning the whole thing - extended series (meh...) - horrible use of downtime between games: mostly there were just splash screens with or without music, no info when the next games starts and so on... - ... hm tbc I agree with most of your assessment. About extended series: Defend your attitude. They seems perfectly logical. Double Elimination tournament means every must be defeated twice. Everyone. This means everyone gets a second chance. Everyone. Why then would the shining player from the upper bracket be DENIED this when every single other person in the tournament has been granted this. That's simply not fair, is it. In fact, out of ALL of the players in the tournament, the one player with an unblemished score should be paraded/celebrated for his accomplishment, not punished. Now when MLG takes it one step further with the continuity of series, well, that's stretching it too far in my opinion. But I kind of think it makes more sense than PUNISHING the person who should be COMPLIMENTED. I really don't like how LSC did their extended series. It seems unfair. If LSC used MLG's format, Bomber would have won 4-3. Makes no sense to me that Stephano wins with a 4-4.
It makes sense to me. Stephano had dropped no series (or any games) before reaching the grand finals, which Bomber had not. There's nothing wrong with him advantaged somehow for that, no?
|
On November 12 2012 17:20 SeAK wrote:
As a Terran player, my biggest frustration in the TVZ match up is how it feels that you just end up getting rolled whenever you lose, regardless of how well you may have been playing prior. Terran has all the tools to win (and can look dominant) if they play somewhat perfectly. Making a few minor mistakes at any point creates the snowball effect to the inevitable steamroll.
Zerg on the other hand seems to have a variety of aggressive openings they can do that don't seem to effect there position in the game.
Zerg can make many mistakes such as: sloppy engagements, losing workers and having less supply! But when the dust settles they can easily make up the lost ground with the Infestor.
One mistake with controlling a terran army and bam, zergs rolled your army with seemingly little effort, and they are back in the game. Where a Terran has a much harder time to even just trade cost efficiently with zerg. Chances of a comeback are slim to none (when put in a similar "behind" situation) unless the zerg player makes giant glaring mistakes, like A moving infestors to there death. Terran game changing mistakes could include : Not pre splitting EVERYTHING before a battle, not focus firing banelings with tanks, not scouting a quick tech switch by zerg and just not microing everything in the battle enough to be somewhat cost efficent.
Bottom line is, as terran player, its frustrating and disheartening to lose a long even macro game in an instant to what seems like easily executable tactics by a zerg player. Its feeling like the entire burden of micro is on us to make the units "balanced". Is it balanced? Probably. Is it a fair match up in TVZ? My opinion is no. Whats yours?
100% agree
I also feel and I am sure I read someone state that in a best of 3 terran has a good chance but the higher the best of the less chance there is coming out the victor due to the nature of the game unless your enermy is clueless to what to do vs your build play style you cannot play the same 5 games in a row as Terren zerg is more about little tweats
|
are there any vods from the finals?
|
|
|
On November 12 2012 17:42 lightertripod wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 17:20 SeAK wrote:
As a Terran player, my biggest frustration in the TVZ match up is how it feels that you just end up getting rolled whenever you lose, regardless of how well you may have been playing prior. Terran has all the tools to win (and can look dominant) if they play somewhat perfectly. Making a few minor mistakes at any point creates the snowball effect to the inevitable steamroll.
Zerg on the other hand seems to have a variety of aggressive openings they can do that don't seem to effect there position in the game.
Zerg can make many mistakes such as: sloppy engagements, losing workers and having less supply! But when the dust settles they can easily make up the lost ground with the Infestor.
One mistake with controlling a terran army and bam, zergs rolled your army with seemingly little effort, and they are back in the game. Where a Terran has a much harder time to even just trade cost efficiently with zerg. Chances of a comeback are slim to none (when put in a similar "behind" situation) unless the zerg player makes giant glaring mistakes, like A moving infestors to there death. Terran game changing mistakes could include : Not pre splitting EVERYTHING before a battle, not focus firing banelings with tanks, not scouting a quick tech switch by zerg and just not microing everything in the battle enough to be somewhat cost efficent.
Bottom line is, as terran player, its frustrating and disheartening to lose a long even macro game in an instant to what seems like easily executable tactics by a zerg player. Its feeling like the entire burden of micro is on us to make the units "balanced". Is it balanced? Probably. Is it a fair match up in TVZ? My opinion is no. Whats yours?
100% agree I also feel and I am sure I read someone state that in a best of 3 terran has a good chance but the higher the best of the less chance there is coming out the victor due to the nature of the game unless your enermy is clueless to what to do vs your build play style you cannot play the same 5 games in a row as Terren zerg is more about little tweats
It's because terran uses positionnal play (tanks) where zerg is the one who have to destroys the terran position.
When terran plays bio this is not this way that game is played at all.
|
On November 12 2012 17:41 iaguz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 17:25 NAPoleonSC wrote:On November 12 2012 16:12 WhatsInAName wrote:On November 12 2012 15:59 schaf wrote:my summary: + good players + good games + good casters! + introduction of the SHADOW BRACKET (I love these things!) + qxc yelling at the guy who is eating chicken wings for him + most koreans speaking english on stage interviews (it's just 100x better than translated standard PR blabla) + crowd + ... (your turn, I ran out of things :/ ) - technical issues (wtf guys) - qxc not winning the whole thing - extended series (meh...) - horrible use of downtime between games: mostly there were just splash screens with or without music, no info when the next games starts and so on... - ... hm tbc I agree with most of your assessment. About extended series: Defend your attitude. They seems perfectly logical. Double Elimination tournament means every must be defeated twice. Everyone. This means everyone gets a second chance. Everyone. Why then would the shining player from the upper bracket be DENIED this when every single other person in the tournament has been granted this. That's simply not fair, is it. In fact, out of ALL of the players in the tournament, the one player with an unblemished score should be paraded/celebrated for his accomplishment, not punished. Now when MLG takes it one step further with the continuity of series, well, that's stretching it too far in my opinion. But I kind of think it makes more sense than PUNISHING the person who should be COMPLIMENTED. I really don't like how LSC did their extended series. It seems unfair. If LSC used MLG's format, Bomber would have won 4-3. Makes no sense to me that Stephano wins with a 4-4. It makes sense to me. Stephano had dropped no series (or any games) before reaching the grand finals, which Bomber had not. There's nothing wrong with him advantaged somehow for that, no?
Of course there shouldn't be. I still think that a Bo3 (Instead of Bo5) would have sufficed with that. Like WCS yaknow.
|
Thanks a lot! Had to sleep and miss the finals as it was almost sunrise here 
|
On November 12 2012 17:25 NAPoleonSC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 16:12 WhatsInAName wrote:On November 12 2012 15:59 schaf wrote:my summary: + good players + good games + good casters! + introduction of the SHADOW BRACKET (I love these things!) + qxc yelling at the guy who is eating chicken wings for him + most koreans speaking english on stage interviews (it's just 100x better than translated standard PR blabla) + crowd + ... (your turn, I ran out of things :/ ) - technical issues (wtf guys) - qxc not winning the whole thing - extended series (meh...) - horrible use of downtime between games: mostly there were just splash screens with or without music, no info when the next games starts and so on... - ... hm tbc I agree with most of your assessment. About extended series: Defend your attitude. They seems perfectly logical. Double Elimination tournament means every must be defeated twice. Everyone. This means everyone gets a second chance. Everyone. Why then would the shining player from the upper bracket be DENIED this when every single other person in the tournament has been granted this. That's simply not fair, is it. In fact, out of ALL of the players in the tournament, the one player with an unblemished score should be paraded/celebrated for his accomplishment, not punished. Now when MLG takes it one step further with the continuity of series, well, that's stretching it too far in my opinion. But I kind of think it makes more sense than PUNISHING the person who should be COMPLIMENTED. I really don't like how LSC did their extended series. It seems unfair. If LSC used MLG's format, Bomber would have won 4-3. Makes no sense to me that Stephano wins with a 4-4.
To clarify more:
It's double elimination. Everyone get's a second shot with a best of three. Everyone. Now everyone got theirs in the loser's bracket. Except Stephano, he got his in the final. How would it be fair to deny Stephano the same treatment everyone else got. Yes, They are technically 4-4. But it is all about winning the right games at the right time.
Perhaps you could view the tournament as: Every person who loses 2 Best of X series is out of the tournament. Stephano was the only player who didn't lose two best of X series, so he wins.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
