On September 20 2015 01:45 shabby wrote: Wow, TB looks so much older. Haven't seem him in a while, must be stressful working in esports. Good to have him back
On September 20 2015 01:45 shabby wrote: Wow, TB looks so much older. Haven't seem him in a while, must be stressful working in esports. Good to have him back
On September 20 2015 01:45 shabby wrote: Wow, TB looks so much older. Haven't seem him in a while, must be stressful working in esports. Good to have him back
He was never looking that youthful. But now it must be bad for his career.
On September 20 2015 01:45 shabby wrote: Wow, TB looks so much older. Haven't seem him in a while, must be stressful working in esports. Good to have him back
He was never looking that youthful. But now it must be bad for his career.
How? His videos only require audio and most casting too
On September 20 2015 01:45 shabby wrote: Wow, TB looks so much older. Haven't seem him in a while, must be stressful working in esports. Good to have him back
He was never looking that youthful. But now it must be bad for his career.
How? His videos only require audio and most casting too
It limits his options. Some casters/celebrities keep that 'older brother' look for much longer.
On September 20 2015 01:45 shabby wrote: Wow, TB looks so much older. Haven't seem him in a while, must be stressful working in esports. Good to have him back
On September 20 2015 02:09 royalroadweed wrote: That was awful from Huk and MC. How do you crumble with your multitasking when 2 players are in control?
They probably messed up because there was 2 of them.
On September 20 2015 02:06 Yorkie wrote: Everyone knew this was gonna be a cheesefest right? That we're paying out 30k in an event for a game nobody has figured out?
"We"? You are paying anything?
This is free entertainemt. If you dont like go watch netflix.
On September 20 2015 02:06 Yorkie wrote: Everyone knew this was gonna be a cheesefest right? That we're paying out 30k in an event for a game nobody has figured out?
"We"? You are paying anything?
This is free entertainemt. If you dont like go watch netflix.
Stupid post.
one day, I want to invite a girl over for "Starcraft and chill"
i like how they said no one would sit back on 3 bases and make a deathball and aside from HOTS style oracle harass that's basically what mc and huk are doing
I just realized if you told me in early 2011 that Huk and MC would be playing together on a team together I'd be so excited. But that was way back in the days where I liked Protoss
On September 20 2015 02:38 WrathSCII wrote: Is there any hope we see PvT Mech?... Like... Ever?
"ever"? balance tuning hasn't even started yet so anything is possible
blizzard has been balancing for 5 years now. For mech to work in tvp, protoss has to change, not terran
i'm pretty sure you can understand the difference between literally being in the middle of a balance tuning phase of a beta and mech not becoming viable in the middle of an expansion
On September 20 2015 02:37 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: In early game you could dedicate 1 player entirely to BM
now you don't know if they are "from?"-rushing you or just faking it
a new kind of meta
best counter to from rush is "I korea. I play game. many cheese. you gg" and then go greedy as fuck
I don't reply and let them tilt as my overlord scouts the proxy 2gate
On September 20 2015 02:41 brickrd wrote: i like how they said no one would sit back on 3 bases and make a deathball and aside from HOTS style oracle harass that's basically what mc and huk are doing
On September 20 2015 02:38 WrathSCII wrote: Is there any hope we see PvT Mech?... Like... Ever?
"ever"? balance tuning hasn't even started yet so anything is possible
blizzard has been balancing for 5 years now. For mech to work in tvp, protoss has to change, not terran
i'm pretty sure you can understand the difference between literally being in the middle of a balance tuning phase of a beta and mech not becoming viable in the middle of an expansion
for blizzard there's no difference because balance patches are few and far between because they want meta to play out
On September 20 2015 02:41 brickrd wrote: i like how they said no one would sit back on 3 bases and make a deathball and aside from HOTS style oracle harass that's basically what mc and huk are doing
well they are on 2 bases now since main ran dry
yeah but they basically just poked with an oracle and an adept while making an army and then hit a big clumped up timing
you can replace colossus with adepts and it's still a deathball
You know say what you like about TB but he knows his limitations and plays to his strengths. He provides the hype and lets ToD provide the expert opinion
On September 20 2015 02:47 showstealer1829 wrote: You know say what you like about TB but he knows his limitations and plays to his strengths. He provides the hype and lets ToD provide the expert opinion
listening to TB hype I feel like it's 2011 again. All those terran wins
On September 20 2015 02:38 WrathSCII wrote: Is there any hope we see PvT Mech?... Like... Ever?
"ever"? balance tuning hasn't even started yet so anything is possible
blizzard has been balancing for 5 years now. For mech to work in tvp, protoss has to change, not terran
i'm pretty sure you can understand the difference between literally being in the middle of a balance tuning phase of a beta and mech not becoming viable in the middle of an expansion
I'm sure one could argue that being 6 months into beta with a mere 2 months away from release date, you could argue that the "middle of a balance tuning phase" has been passed.
On September 20 2015 02:38 WrathSCII wrote: Is there any hope we see PvT Mech?... Like... Ever?
"ever"? balance tuning hasn't even started yet so anything is possible
blizzard has been balancing for 5 years now. For mech to work in tvp, protoss has to change, not terran
i'm pretty sure you can understand the difference between literally being in the middle of a balance tuning phase of a beta and mech not becoming viable in the middle of an expansion
I'm sure one could argue that being 6 months into beta with a mere 2 months away from release date, you could argue that the "middle of a balance tuning phase" has been passed.
Nah they were just testing things out earlier, balance part has only just begun
On September 20 2015 02:50 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: So what happened to flying tanks? Did that delay they added nerf it hard enough that it's not worth it?
Tanks against Protoss as a no-no is too ingrained into players heads
On September 20 2015 02:38 WrathSCII wrote: Is there any hope we see PvT Mech?... Like... Ever?
"ever"? balance tuning hasn't even started yet so anything is possible
blizzard has been balancing for 5 years now. For mech to work in tvp, protoss has to change, not terran
i'm pretty sure you can understand the difference between literally being in the middle of a balance tuning phase of a beta and mech not becoming viable in the middle of an expansion
I'm sure one could argue that being 6 months into beta with a mere 2 months away from release date, you could argue that the "middle of a balance tuning phase" has been passed.
Nah they were just testing things out earlier, balance part has only just begun
I just read the community feedback from David Kim, and it would appear that you are right. I guess i am just somewhat dissappointed with the design changes, or rather lack of, considering this is supposedly a stand alone game.
Is that hard to get a viking to handle the warp prisim? And why it was buffed in the first place, what was wrong with 5 seconds warping with warp prisim?
Why warp prisim warping got buffed from 5 seconds to 2 seconds again? I know it won't do that much difference but it is retarded. We needed weaker offensive warping not stronger... Beside adepts... ugh...
On September 20 2015 03:01 royalroadweed wrote: Terran just needed to build tier 3.
Yeah just need tier 3 to counter protoss tier 1 ofc
snipe the twilight, win the game
Is this sarcasm? I'm only asking because Team BoMMA did snipe the twilight.
and the Protoss remade 2, and the Terrans could have taken a third base and built up their army in the time they were upgrading and been at a huge advantage. Instead they tried to end and got roflstomped
On September 20 2015 03:12 royalroadweed wrote: I don't like how the commentators are selling this. It was obvious that team BoMMA had the superior mechanics.
On September 20 2015 03:12 royalroadweed wrote: I don't like how the commentators are selling this. It was obvious that team BoMMA had the superior mechanics.
Maybe to you. To me Huk/MC looked better.
Huk/MC multitasking crumbled at numerous points in the series and they had generally poorer execution. Its not an opinion. Its not what it looked like to a person. Its what happened.
Haven't watched any LotV, but this tank drop seems silly. And I'm a terran player. Picking them up in siege mode is fine, but drop them unsieged. Wasn't the point of this change to make tanks more viable in the army and not make them a harass unit?
On September 20 2015 03:26 sashkata wrote: Haven't watched any LotV, but this tank drop seems silly. And I'm a terran player. Picking them up in siege mode is fine, but drop them unsieged. Wasn't the point of this change to make tanks more viable in the army and not make them a harass unit?
Seems like it's way to apm intensive for normal game. Widowmine drops would probably be way more effective
On September 20 2015 03:26 sashkata wrote: Haven't watched any LotV, but this tank drop seems silly. And I'm a terran player. Picking them up in siege mode is fine, but drop them unsieged. Wasn't the point of this change to make tanks more viable in the army and not make them a harass unit?
It may seem broken, but mostly because the game started the way it did (zergs went for an aggressive opening and they were countered 100%) and because it's played in archon mode. It's downright impossible to be this annoying with it in a normal 1v1 game.
On September 20 2015 03:26 sashkata wrote: Haven't watched any LotV, but this tank drop seems silly. And I'm a terran player. Picking them up in siege mode is fine, but drop them unsieged. Wasn't the point of this change to make tanks more viable in the army and not make them a harass unit?
It may seem broken, but mostly because the game started the way it did (zergs went for an aggressive opening and they were countered 100%) and because it's played in archon mode. It's downright impossible to be this annoying with it in a normal 1v1 game.
Zergs hardly had any aggressive openings and with this even that remote possibility is gone. Is there ever a reason not to open with a tank?
Also I think people are overestimating the difference between archon mode and a regular game on the top level.
I could be totally wrong, like I said, haven't watched any LotV, but this is the feeling I'm getting.
On September 20 2015 03:37 royalroadweed wrote: Mutas are still a thing in ZvZ? Thought vipers would have killed them off completely.
muta mirrors are much easier to come back into from what I've played (though if I can counterplay vipers sometimes, pros could do it every engagement), but muta vs roach it doesn't matter since you don't make any mutas beyond initial 9 to 11 anyway
On September 20 2015 03:12 royalroadweed wrote: I don't like how the commentators are selling this. It was obvious that team BoMMA had the superior mechanics.
Maybe to you. To me Huk/MC looked better.
Huk/MC multitasking crumbled at numerous points in the series and they had generally poorer execution. Its not an opinion. Its not what it looked like to a person. Its what happened.
On September 20 2015 03:12 royalroadweed wrote: I don't like how the commentators are selling this. It was obvious that team BoMMA had the superior mechanics.
Maybe to you. To me Huk/MC looked better.
Huk/MC multitasking crumbled at numerous points in the series and they had generally poorer execution. Its not an opinion. Its not what it looked like to a person. Its what happened.
Yeah sure.
"2 players. Still lose massive probes to mines. Cmon McHuk"
I wasn't the only one who noticed. BoMMA have better mechanics than Huk/MC. Yes. Sure.
On September 20 2015 03:37 royalroadweed wrote: Mutas are still a thing in ZvZ? Thought vipers would have killed them off completely.
muta mirrors are much easier to come back into from what I've played (though if I can counterplay vipers sometimes, pros could do it every engagement), but muta vs roach it doesn't matter since you don't make any mutas beyond initial 9 to 11 anyway
Oh in zvz I always made 20-40 before switching to broods, and I've seen drg/true/violet all do it in hots so it should be something they are experienced with.
Adepts are too strong the way they are on their own, but coupled with the warp prism they are beyond ridiculous. I do not understand why the huge pick up range is even there - it's hard to follow as an observer, doesn't look too good (in my opinion) and is impossible to prevent without anti air.
MC is constantly #1 GM in LotV and he rarely loses against Zerg. Are Adepts now OP in PvZ as well?
Yes. Not as stupidly broken as it is vs Terran but its still pretty dumb.
Seriously? If that's the case, they clearly need to be nerfed. It's one thing if it's too strong against one race, but against 2 is just absurd.
It costs 100/25 and has 180hp, 3.5 speed and insane damage vs light, 2 supply and it can 'teleport'. Compare those stats to a roach who is only 25 cheaper but costs 1 extra supply.
MC is constantly #1 GM in LotV and he rarely loses against Zerg. Are Adepts now OP in PvZ as well?
Yes. Not as stupidly broken as it is vs Terran but its still pretty dumb.
Seriously? If that's the case, they clearly need to be nerfed. It's one thing if it's too strong against one race, but against 2 is just absurd.
It costs 100/25 and has 180hp, 3.5 speed and insane damage vs light, 2 supply and it can 'teleport'. Compare those stats to a roach who is only 25 cheaper but costs 1 extra supply.
MC is constantly #1 GM in LotV and he rarely loses against Zerg. Are Adepts now OP in PvZ as well?
Yes. Not as stupidly broken as it is vs Terran but its still pretty dumb.
Seriously? If that's the case, they clearly need to be nerfed. It's one thing if it's too strong against one race, but against 2 is just absurd.
It costs 100/25 and has 180hp, 3.5 speed and insane damage vs light, 2 supply and it can 'teleport'. Compare those stats to a roach who is only 25 cheaper but costs 1 extra supply.
The Adept is like a hydra from the dps vs light. Just double the speed Double the HP reduce the gas cost Give it a very strong ability Oh and easier tech path
On September 20 2015 05:21 Tiaraju9 wrote: To be fair MC/Huk are the only ones using the LotV units.
You mean unit.
I hate balance whining (especially since we're in the beta!), but adepts are clearly waaay overpowered for the cost. There's very little doubt in my mind that Huk / MC are going to win the entire tournament with the way the game is (not saying they are not skilled - they are, but it's not just the skill).
MC is constantly #1 GM in LotV and he rarely loses against Zerg. Are Adepts now OP in PvZ as well?
Yes. Not as stupidly broken as it is vs Terran but its still pretty dumb.
Seriously? If that's the case, they clearly need to be nerfed. It's one thing if it's too strong against one race, but against 2 is just absurd.
It costs 100/25 and has 180hp, 3.5 speed and insane damage vs light, 2 supply and it can 'teleport'. Compare those stats to a roach who is only 25 cheaper but costs 1 extra supply.
Edit: im stupid.
Yes they are. There is no 1 supply P attacking unit.
And for the record, the amount of whining in a LR thread is sickening.
Unfortunatly we don´t see new units beside adepts yet. They are simply to efficient, but you can´t blame MC/HuK, because in the end there is money on the line, right?
On September 20 2015 05:24 IceBerrY wrote: Unfortunatly we don´t see new units beside adepts yet. They are simply to efficient, but you can´t blame MC/HuK, because in the end there is money on the line, right?
I don't think anyone's blaming them, they are not responsible for balancing the game. I'd do the exact same in their shoes and so would anybody else.
On September 20 2015 05:24 IceBerrY wrote: Unfortunatly we don´t see new units beside adepts yet. They are simply to efficient, but you can´t blame MC/HuK, because in the end there is money on the line, right?
I think Masa/Violet did try a Liberator in game 1 of the series, but that didn't work out. So the new units may be tried, but probably not properly utilized yet - only seems like adepts are it atm.
On September 20 2015 05:24 IceBerrY wrote: Unfortunatly we don´t see new units beside adepts yet. They are simply to efficient, but you can´t blame MC/HuK, because in the end there is money on the line, right?
I don't think anyone's blaming them, they are not responsible for balancing the game. I'd do the exact same in their shoes and so would anybody else.
maybe without the other people should practice more thing...
On September 20 2015 05:28 Solar424 wrote: Yeah this game isn't ready for release in 2 months. There's as much broken BS now as in Day 1 of the Beta.
The game is better if it's released a bit broken because a lot of playtesters in the real game and in an actually good environment will make balance easier to fix.
I agree the complaining about Adepts is a bit much. It's Beta, and MC and Huk are utilizing a new unit really karking well against opponents without that much experience. It's natural they'd do well. It doesn't necessarily mean adepts are OP, let alone crazy OP. It's just part of what it means to have a Beta tournament.
On September 20 2015 05:28 Solar424 wrote: Yeah this game isn't ready for release in 2 months. There's as much broken BS now as in Day 1 of the Beta.
The game is better if it's released a bit broken because a lot of playtesters in the real game and in an actually good environment will make balance easier to fix.
Open Beta?
But hey, why open betas, when you just can sell open betas for 39.99 and call them "gold version"
On September 20 2015 05:28 Solar424 wrote: Yeah this game isn't ready for release in 2 months. There's as much broken BS now as in Day 1 of the Beta.
The game is better if it's released a bit broken because a lot of playtesters in the real game and in an actually good environment will make balance easier to fix.
You don't need a big playerbase to see that adepts are broken units
On September 20 2015 05:30 Captain Peabody wrote: I agree the complaining about Adepts is a bit much. It's Beta, and MC and Huk are utilizing a new unit really karking well against opponents without that much experience. It's natural they'd do well. It doesn't necessarily mean adepts are OP, let alone crazy OP. It's just part of what it means to have a Beta tournament.
it is an unit with absurd stats/cost. learning to play against something that has ridiculous stats for its price worked out really well in hots beta right?
On September 20 2015 05:28 Solar424 wrote: Yeah this game isn't ready for release in 2 months. There's as much broken BS now as in Day 1 of the Beta.
The game is better if it's released a bit broken because a lot of playtesters in the real game and in an actually good environment will make balance easier to fix.
Open Beta?
why not just release the game. people can play the campaign etc. it's not like proplay will be truly ready before wcs season 1
On September 20 2015 05:30 Captain Peabody wrote: I agree the complaining about Adepts is a bit much. It's Beta, and MC and Huk are utilizing a new unit really karking well against opponents without that much experience. It's natural they'd do well. It doesn't necessarily mean adepts are OP, let alone crazy OP. It's just part of what it means to have a Beta tournament.
Exactly. Adepts are probably OP in some way, but they are not making Huk/MC "auto" win any game.
On September 20 2015 05:28 Solar424 wrote: Yeah this game isn't ready for release in 2 months. There's as much broken BS now as in Day 1 of the Beta.
The game is better if it's released a bit broken because a lot of playtesters in the real game and in an actually good environment will make balance easier to fix.
You don't need a big playerbase to see that adepts are broken units
You don't need a big playerbase to see that it's a beta where they are testing design more than creating a fully functional game. The more something is broken, the more it will be a focus and then you get more data.
On September 20 2015 05:30 Captain Peabody wrote: I agree the complaining about Adepts is a bit much. It's Beta, and MC and Huk are utilizing a new unit really karking well against opponents without that much experience. It's natural they'd do well. It doesn't necessarily mean adepts are OP, let alone crazy OP. It's just part of what it means to have a Beta tournament.
Nah, it's like pre-nerf mass ravager. It's not just that the unit is too strong, the resulting games are uninteresting.
On September 20 2015 05:30 Captain Peabody wrote: I agree the complaining about Adepts is a bit much. It's Beta, and MC and Huk are utilizing a new unit really karking well against opponents without that much experience. It's natural they'd do well. It doesn't necessarily mean adepts are OP, let alone crazy OP. It's just part of what it means to have a Beta tournament.
Yes, that's exactly how I see it. I've been watching Huk's and MC's streams and Adept/WP harass doesn't do nearly as well on ladder as it did against Bomber/MMA and Violet/the other guy. I have a feeling that Terrans in this tournament weren't practicing LotV as much as Huk/MC have.
On September 20 2015 05:33 jalstar wrote: Everything people are saying in defense of adepts was said in defense of reapers in WoL and hellbats in HotS. It was wrong then and it's wrong now.
It is more like warhounds in hots. You did not need a large player base to see that they where totaly out of any form of balance.
On September 20 2015 05:28 Solar424 wrote: Yeah this game isn't ready for release in 2 months. There's as much broken BS now as in Day 1 of the Beta.
The game is better if it's released a bit broken because a lot of playtesters in the real game and in an actually good environment will make balance easier to fix.
You don't need a big playerbase to see that adepts are broken units
You don't need a big playerbase to see that it's a beta where they are testing design more than creating a fully functional game. The more something is broken, the more it will be a focus and then you get more data.
On September 20 2015 05:28 Solar424 wrote: Yeah this game isn't ready for release in 2 months. There's as much broken BS now as in Day 1 of the Beta.
The game is better if it's released a bit broken because a lot of playtesters in the real game and in an actually good environment will make balance easier to fix.
You don't need a big playerbase to see that adepts are broken units
You don't need a big playerbase to see that it's a beta where they are testing design more than creating a fully functional game. The more something is broken, the more it will be a focus and then you get more data.
On September 20 2015 05:28 Solar424 wrote: Yeah this game isn't ready for release in 2 months. There's as much broken BS now as in Day 1 of the Beta.
The game is better if it's released a bit broken because a lot of playtesters in the real game and in an actually good environment will make balance easier to fix.
You don't need a big playerbase to see that adepts are broken units
You don't need a big playerbase to see that it's a beta where they are testing design more than creating a fully functional game. The more something is broken, the more it will be a focus and then you get more data.
Good god, dude.
So things can just be broken because its a Beta?
Yes.
ok wasn't aware of this rule yet. powerful reasoning
On September 20 2015 05:28 Solar424 wrote: Yeah this game isn't ready for release in 2 months. There's as much broken BS now as in Day 1 of the Beta.
The game is better if it's released a bit broken because a lot of playtesters in the real game and in an actually good environment will make balance easier to fix.
You don't need a big playerbase to see that adepts are broken units
You don't need a big playerbase to see that it's a beta where they are testing design more than creating a fully functional game. The more something is broken, the more it will be a focus and then you get more data.
Good god, dude.
So things can just be broken because its a Beta?
I don't know what you expect from a beta product really.
On September 20 2015 05:28 Solar424 wrote: Yeah this game isn't ready for release in 2 months. There's as much broken BS now as in Day 1 of the Beta.
The game is better if it's released a bit broken because a lot of playtesters in the real game and in an actually good environment will make balance easier to fix.
You don't need a big playerbase to see that adepts are broken units
You don't need a big playerbase to see that it's a beta where they are testing design more than creating a fully functional game. The more something is broken, the more it will be a focus and then you get more data.
Good god, dude.
So things can just be broken because its a Beta?
Yes.
If you don't want people to actually test the game, sure
On September 20 2015 05:28 Solar424 wrote: Yeah this game isn't ready for release in 2 months. There's as much broken BS now as in Day 1 of the Beta.
The game is better if it's released a bit broken because a lot of playtesters in the real game and in an actually good environment will make balance easier to fix.
You don't need a big playerbase to see that adepts are broken units
You don't need a big playerbase to see that it's a beta where they are testing design more than creating a fully functional game. The more something is broken, the more it will be a focus and then you get more data.
Good god, dude.
So things can just be broken because its a Beta?
Yes.
ok wasn't aware of this rule yet. powerful reasoning
A beta is to try things, of course the balance is going to be bad and some units are going to be useless or OP. It's going to be fixed and we all know that. We should just enjoy games and how people are developping strategies to abuse really/OP(?) units.
On September 20 2015 05:28 Solar424 wrote: Yeah this game isn't ready for release in 2 months. There's as much broken BS now as in Day 1 of the Beta.
The game is better if it's released a bit broken because a lot of playtesters in the real game and in an actually good environment will make balance easier to fix.
You don't need a big playerbase to see that adepts are broken units
You don't need a big playerbase to see that it's a beta where they are testing design more than creating a fully functional game. The more something is broken, the more it will be a focus and then you get more data.
Good god, dude.
So things can just be broken because its a Beta?
Yes.
If you don't want people to actually test the game, sure
Way to miss the point >_<. Making the newer units extra strong lets people 'actually test the game' much better. For example, Liberators pre-upgrade were pretty OP but because of that phase players were able to test the Liberatorar a ton.
On September 20 2015 05:28 Solar424 wrote: Yeah this game isn't ready for release in 2 months. There's as much broken BS now as in Day 1 of the Beta.
The game is better if it's released a bit broken because a lot of playtesters in the real game and in an actually good environment will make balance easier to fix.
You don't need a big playerbase to see that adepts are broken units
You don't need a big playerbase to see that it's a beta where they are testing design more than creating a fully functional game. The more something is broken, the more it will be a focus and then you get more data.
Good god, dude.
So things can just be broken because its a Beta?
I don't know what you expect from a beta product really.
I expect Blizzard to attempt to balance the game instead of waiting for the game to be released.
On September 20 2015 05:28 Solar424 wrote: Yeah this game isn't ready for release in 2 months. There's as much broken BS now as in Day 1 of the Beta.
The game is better if it's released a bit broken because a lot of playtesters in the real game and in an actually good environment will make balance easier to fix.
You don't need a big playerbase to see that adepts are broken units
You don't need a big playerbase to see that it's a beta where they are testing design more than creating a fully functional game. The more something is broken, the more it will be a focus and then you get more data.
Good god, dude.
So things can just be broken because its a Beta?
I don't know what you expect from a beta product really.
I expect Blizzard to attempt to balance the game instead of waiting for the game to be released.
It's not like they did at least 15 balance change since the beta has been launched.
On September 20 2015 05:28 Solar424 wrote: Yeah this game isn't ready for release in 2 months. There's as much broken BS now as in Day 1 of the Beta.
The game is better if it's released a bit broken because a lot of playtesters in the real game and in an actually good environment will make balance easier to fix.
You don't need a big playerbase to see that adepts are broken units
You don't need a big playerbase to see that it's a beta where they are testing design more than creating a fully functional game. The more something is broken, the more it will be a focus and then you get more data.
Good god, dude.
So things can just be broken because its a Beta?
Yes.
If you don't want people to actually test the game, sure
Way to miss the point >_<. Making the newer units extra strong lets people 'actually test the game' much better. For example, Liberators pre-upgrade were pretty OP but because of that phase players were able to test the Liberatorar a ton.
No you miss the point, it is fine to have op units for a short amount of time because of your reasoning, but when it is pretty clear that something simply is too strong and you don't do anything about it then it's basically a waste of time. But wasting time is exactly what blizzard did all beta, so i am not even surprised.
On September 20 2015 05:43 Wintex wrote: yep honestly i think you guys bitching about op units in a beta in this thread either are trolls or fukin stupid HeHE
On September 20 2015 05:28 Solar424 wrote: Yeah this game isn't ready for release in 2 months. There's as much broken BS now as in Day 1 of the Beta.
The game is better if it's released a bit broken because a lot of playtesters in the real game and in an actually good environment will make balance easier to fix.
You don't need a big playerbase to see that adepts are broken units
You don't need a big playerbase to see that it's a beta where they are testing design more than creating a fully functional game. The more something is broken, the more it will be a focus and then you get more data.
Good god, dude.
So things can just be broken because its a Beta?
Yes.
ok wasn't aware of this rule yet. powerful reasoning
A beta is to try things, of course the balance is going to be bad and some units are going to be useless or OP. It's going to be fixed and we all know that. We should just enjoy games and how people are developping strategies to abuse really/OP(?) units.
yeah this would work if adepts had been introduced 1 week ago. or if they would have been touched in the recent patches.
they are unchanged for a while, 8 out of 10 pvt games is adept rush, and they have ridiculous stats.
If you were to blank out the names I still could have told you exactly what team terran archon was. Trademark MMA multitasking followed by trademark Bomber macro.
On September 20 2015 05:54 royalroadweed wrote: Terran units are ridiculously cost efficient when you can babysit them like that in archon mode.
Yeah, looking at these TvZ archon games, one would assume that Terran is OP as hell. Well maybe it is in archon, but in 1v1 no one has the APM to micro like taht and not fall back on eco. It's the same with adepts. When Huk and MC play alone, adept harass rarely works this well as in archon.
On September 20 2015 05:28 Solar424 wrote: Yeah this game isn't ready for release in 2 months. There's as much broken BS now as in Day 1 of the Beta.
The game is better if it's released a bit broken because a lot of playtesters in the real game and in an actually good environment will make balance easier to fix.
You don't need a big playerbase to see that adepts are broken units
You don't need a big playerbase to see that it's a beta where they are testing design more than creating a fully functional game. The more something is broken, the more it will be a focus and then you get more data.
Good god, dude.
So things can just be broken because its a Beta?
Yes.
If you don't want people to actually test the game, sure
Way to miss the point >_<. Making the newer units extra strong lets people 'actually test the game' much better. For example, Liberators pre-upgrade were pretty OP but because of that phase players were able to test the Liberatorar a ton.
No you miss the point, it is fine to have op units for a short amount of time because of your reasoning, but when it is pretty clear that something simply is too strong and you don't do anything about it then it's basically a waste of time. But wasting time is exactly what blizzard did all beta, so i am not even surprised.
If you make the unit not OP enough or not OP for long enough you get the current Lurker which barely gets any use.
I think Terran is the race with the most potential if you have a perfect micro and macro. You can be cost effective everytime there is a fight if you have a godlike micro
On September 20 2015 05:59 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
On September 20 2015 05:57 Solar424 wrote: Mutas are still useless in killing things that can fight back in LotV. What a surprise.
You want mutas to beat marines...?
Expect 100/100 tier 2 units to kill basic infantry? It would be nice.
They do this in small numbers. But they can be easily massed and regen and are super fast and fly. If they could kill large groups of marines it would kill the game...Too strong flying units delete all positional gameplay
On September 20 2015 05:28 Solar424 wrote: Yeah this game isn't ready for release in 2 months. There's as much broken BS now as in Day 1 of the Beta.
The game is better if it's released a bit broken because a lot of playtesters in the real game and in an actually good environment will make balance easier to fix.
You don't need a big playerbase to see that adepts are broken units
You don't need a big playerbase to see that it's a beta where they are testing design more than creating a fully functional game. The more something is broken, the more it will be a focus and then you get more data.
Good god, dude.
So things can just be broken because its a Beta?
Yes.
If you don't want people to actually test the game, sure
Way to miss the point >_<. Making the newer units extra strong lets people 'actually test the game' much better. For example, Liberators pre-upgrade were pretty OP but because of that phase players were able to test the Liberatorar a ton.
No you miss the point, it is fine to have op units for a short amount of time because of your reasoning, but when it is pretty clear that something simply is too strong and you don't do anything about it then it's basically a waste of time. But wasting time is exactly what blizzard did all beta, so i am not even surprised.
If you make the unit not OP enough or not OP for long enough you get the current Lurker which barely gets any use.
The current Lurker is really strong, getting there is just too difficult/ takes too long
On September 20 2015 05:29 Wintex wrote: [quote] The game is better if it's released a bit broken because a lot of playtesters in the real game and in an actually good environment will make balance easier to fix.
You don't need a big playerbase to see that adepts are broken units
You don't need a big playerbase to see that it's a beta where they are testing design more than creating a fully functional game. The more something is broken, the more it will be a focus and then you get more data.
Good god, dude.
So things can just be broken because its a Beta?
Yes.
If you don't want people to actually test the game, sure
Way to miss the point >_<. Making the newer units extra strong lets people 'actually test the game' much better. For example, Liberators pre-upgrade were pretty OP but because of that phase players were able to test the Liberatorar a ton.
No you miss the point, it is fine to have op units for a short amount of time because of your reasoning, but when it is pretty clear that something simply is too strong and you don't do anything about it then it's basically a waste of time. But wasting time is exactly what blizzard did all beta, so i am not even surprised.
If you make the unit not OP enough or not OP for long enough you get the current Lurker which barely gets any use.
The current Lurker is really strong, getting there is just too difficult/ takes too long
On September 20 2015 05:29 Wintex wrote: [quote] The game is better if it's released a bit broken because a lot of playtesters in the real game and in an actually good environment will make balance easier to fix.
You don't need a big playerbase to see that adepts are broken units
You don't need a big playerbase to see that it's a beta where they are testing design more than creating a fully functional game. The more something is broken, the more it will be a focus and then you get more data.
Good god, dude.
So things can just be broken because its a Beta?
Yes.
If you don't want people to actually test the game, sure
Way to miss the point >_<. Making the newer units extra strong lets people 'actually test the game' much better. For example, Liberators pre-upgrade were pretty OP but because of that phase players were able to test the Liberatorar a ton.
No you miss the point, it is fine to have op units for a short amount of time because of your reasoning, but when it is pretty clear that something simply is too strong and you don't do anything about it then it's basically a waste of time. But wasting time is exactly what blizzard did all beta, so i am not even surprised.
If you make the unit not OP enough or not OP for long enough you get the current Lurker which barely gets any use.
The current Lurker is really strong, getting there is just too difficult/ takes too long
That is my point. It's [probably] a good unit but it's getting very little testing.
On September 20 2015 05:31 Solar424 wrote: [quote] You don't need a big playerbase to see that adepts are broken units
You don't need a big playerbase to see that it's a beta where they are testing design more than creating a fully functional game. The more something is broken, the more it will be a focus and then you get more data.
Good god, dude.
So things can just be broken because its a Beta?
Yes.
If you don't want people to actually test the game, sure
Way to miss the point >_<. Making the newer units extra strong lets people 'actually test the game' much better. For example, Liberators pre-upgrade were pretty OP but because of that phase players were able to test the Liberatorar a ton.
No you miss the point, it is fine to have op units for a short amount of time because of your reasoning, but when it is pretty clear that something simply is too strong and you don't do anything about it then it's basically a waste of time. But wasting time is exactly what blizzard did all beta, so i am not even surprised.
If you make the unit not OP enough or not OP for long enough you get the current Lurker which barely gets any use.
The current Lurker is really strong, getting there is just too difficult/ takes too long
That is my point. It's [probably] a good unit but it's getting very little testing.
In ZvP it gets quite a lot of play, no? Very strong unit, against Terran it's simply hard to get there with the mutaling style
I get the feeling that archon mode really doesn't benefit zerg as much as the other races. A lot of zerg play revolves around throwing a mass of units at the enemy without leaving much room for micro. Like, how do you micro banelings? The burden is on the terran player to split, which gets twice as easy in archon mode.
Not that this is balance whine. It just seems to be an interesting feature of the different races that perhaps some races benefit more from the extra apm.
On September 20 2015 06:20 Fighter wrote: I get the feeling that archon mode really doesn't benefit zerg as much as the other races. A lot of zerg play revolves around throwing a mass of units at the enemy without leaving much room for micro. Like, how do you micro banelings? The burden is on the terran player to split, which gets twice as easy in archon mode.
Not that this is balance whine. It just seems to be an interesting feature of the different races that perhaps some races benefit more from the extra apm.
On September 20 2015 06:20 Fighter wrote: I get the feeling that archon mode really doesn't benefit zerg as much as the other races. A lot of zerg play revolves around throwing a mass of units at the enemy without leaving much room for micro. Like, how do you micro banelings? The burden is on the terran player to split, which gets twice as easy in archon mode.
Not that this is balance whine. It just seems to be an interesting feature of the different races that perhaps some races benefit more from the extra apm.
You can split banelings too you know
This is precisely the reason I love DRG. Dude splits banes as good as any marine split.
On September 20 2015 06:10 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
On September 20 2015 06:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Those 5-pointed stat charts are awesome... reminds me of Pokemon stats lol
What player archon would become mewtoo?
Maru/Innovation
Looks more like mega rayquaza.
I think I would prefer Maru/Dream for that. Completely unbeatable in TvZ and TvP, good enough to never reliably lose in TvT. With Innovation and Maru, Parting would still win.
On September 20 2015 06:10 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
On September 20 2015 06:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Those 5-pointed stat charts are awesome... reminds me of Pokemon stats lol
What player archon would become mewtoo?
Maru/Innovation
Looks more like mega rayquaza.
I think I would prefer Maru/Dream for that. Completely unbeatable in TvZ and TvP, good enough to never reliably lose in TvT. With Innovation and Maru, Parting would still win.
Bogus will carry Maru vs parting. He's around 50/50 vs him.
On September 20 2015 06:20 Fighter wrote: I get the feeling that archon mode really doesn't benefit zerg as much as the other races. A lot of zerg play revolves around throwing a mass of units at the enemy without leaving much room for micro. Like, how do you micro banelings? The burden is on the terran player to split, which gets twice as easy in archon mode.
Not that this is balance whine. It just seems to be an interesting feature of the different races that perhaps some races benefit more from the extra apm.
You can split banelings too you know
Sure, but what I meant is that there's MORE of a burden on the terran player. So since the game is balanced around 1v1, having twice the micro ability helps the terran player more than the zerg in that particular situation.
I think in BW, there were certain race combinations that fared much better in 2v2, right? (I don't think SC2 2v2 ever developed much of a metagame). So it might not be surprising that there might also be imbalances around archon mode.
On September 20 2015 06:10 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
On September 20 2015 06:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Those 5-pointed stat charts are awesome... reminds me of Pokemon stats lol
What player archon would become mewtoo?
Maru/Innovation
Looks more like mega rayquaza.
I think I would prefer Maru/Dream for that. Completely unbeatable in TvZ and TvP, good enough to never reliably lose in TvT. With Innovation and Maru, Parting would still win.
Dream is a bubble terran, Innovation is the real deal
On September 20 2015 06:23 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
On September 20 2015 06:20 Fighter wrote: I get the feeling that archon mode really doesn't benefit zerg as much as the other races. A lot of zerg play revolves around throwing a mass of units at the enemy without leaving much room for micro. Like, how do you micro banelings? The burden is on the terran player to split, which gets twice as easy in archon mode.
Not that this is balance whine. It just seems to be an interesting feature of the different races that perhaps some races benefit more from the extra apm.
You can split banelings too you know
Sure, but what I meant is that there's MORE of a burden on the terran player. So since the game is balanced around 1v1, having twice the micro ability helps the terran player more than the zerg in that particular situation.
I think in BW, there were certain race combinations that fared much better in 2v2, right? (I don't think SC2 2v2 ever developed much of a metagame). So it might not be surprising that there might also be imbalances around archon mode.
Just some speculation.
Yeah I agree Terran has the most micro potential generally so will probably benifit most from archon. But theres still loads of stuff to do for Zergs
Nah i agree, extra content outside of games is exactly what tournaments should do more imo.
yeah that, the SS2L vids (the last one for tomorrow finals was especially awesome), all those things are really helpful.
Yeah exactly, these videos about the people behind the nick are exactly what make a scene strong imo. It builds fan favorites, which is exactly what an esports scene needs, gameplay alone doesn't cut it
On September 20 2015 06:54 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: I like how Bomber and MMA are almost the same hight and stature. It really feels like they could merge dragon ball Z style
can you think of two players that don't necessarily look alike, but the fusion of whom would give another player ? I guess there will be some things to do with Paralyze.
On September 20 2015 06:52 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
On September 20 2015 06:50 [PkF] Wire wrote: lol that comics intro is cool
Lord Bomber going to take what is his
Lord Adept has a word to say about that
Can't really blame Huk/MC though when it's basically the only viable strat for Protoss in LotV atm.
ofc it's fine to do it. The thing is, I hope Blizzard realizes that having P being so relient on dealing damage with adepts early game may not be very sound.
On September 20 2015 07:14 [PkF] Wire wrote: Has the colo got his range back ? Did we see any colossus ?
No, it's still utter trash. Too low dps. No reason to make them instead of disruptors.
yeah I can see the problem toss seems to be facing. Adept can win games early but then it's really hard to get a good lategame army if you can't transition to carriers.
On September 20 2015 07:14 [PkF] Wire wrote: Has the colo got his range back ? Did we see any colossus ?
No, it's still utter trash. Too low dps. No reason to make them instead of disruptors.
yeah I can see the problem toss seems to be facing. Adept can win games early but then it's really hard to get a good lategame army if you can't transition to carriers.
On September 20 2015 07:14 [PkF] Wire wrote: Has the colo got his range back ? Did we see any colossus ?
No, it's still utter trash. Too low dps. No reason to make them instead of disruptors.
yeah I can see the problem toss seems to be facing. Adept can win games early but then it's really hard to get a good lategame army if you can't transition to carriers.
how good are carriers now?
Pretty good, especially against Zerg. Hard to get to though against Terran.
On September 20 2015 07:14 [PkF] Wire wrote: Has the colo got his range back ? Did we see any colossus ?
No, it's still utter trash. Too low dps. No reason to make them instead of disruptors.
yeah I can see the problem toss seems to be facing. Adept can win games early but then it's really hard to get a good lategame army if you can't transition to carriers.
"but then it's really hard to get a good lategame army if you can't transition to carriers" Never thought i'd hear that.
On September 20 2015 07:14 [PkF] Wire wrote: Has the colo got his range back ? Did we see any colossus ?
No, it's still utter trash. Too low dps. No reason to make them instead of disruptors.
yeah I can see the problem toss seems to be facing. Adept can win games early but then it's really hard to get a good lategame army if you can't transition to carriers.
how good are carriers now?
they build faster so they're more accessible. And their release interceptors ability is quite strong.
On September 20 2015 07:14 [PkF] Wire wrote: Has the colo got his range back ? Did we see any colossus ?
No, it's still utter trash. Too low dps. No reason to make them instead of disruptors.
yeah I can see the problem toss seems to be facing. Adept can win games early but then it's really hard to get a good lategame army if you can't transition to carriers.
how good are carriers now?
Last time I saw, carriers were OP as hell Did they get any nerf?
On September 20 2015 07:14 [PkF] Wire wrote: Has the colo got his range back ? Did we see any colossus ?
No, it's still utter trash. Too low dps. No reason to make them instead of disruptors.
yeah I can see the problem toss seems to be facing. Adept can win games early but then it's really hard to get a good lategame army if you can't transition to carriers.
"but then it's really hard to get a good lategame army if you can't transition to carriers" Never thought i'd hear that.
On September 20 2015 07:27 Tamagoshi wrote: I am not following LotV very closely, can someone tell if there is much difference in the meta of archon mode and normal tournaments?
No, but Adept/WP play seems more effective due to 2 players controlling the units.
I'm not sure why people think that GG was early. Two adepts were instantly killing continuous production from three rax. What exactly was Terran going to do?
On September 20 2015 07:37 brickrd wrote: the adepts were going to break the wall and there was literally absolutely no way for them to have marines out to defend
even pulling scvs to repair the depot they would lose so many workers and they were way behind already
yeah pretty much this. Hence why I was just flabbergasted because I thought the P were the ones gging
On September 20 2015 07:37 691175002 wrote: I'm not sure why people think that GG was early. Two adepts were instantly killing continuous production from three rax. What exactly was Terran going to do?
On September 20 2015 07:37 691175002 wrote: I'm not sure why people think that GG was early. Two adepts were instantly killing continuous production from three rax. What exactly was Terran going to do?
Yeah that was over the worker count would even up repairing the depot and once there's more than 2 adepts marines are going to be useless as they are right now.
On September 20 2015 07:39 Rollora wrote: not sure if adepts should be THAT strong, but not jumping to conclusions yet, waiting for the meta in about half a year
I think adepts strentgh is not well designed, they're a bit too strong early, a bit too weak later. I think that should be tuned before release.
On September 20 2015 07:39 Rollora wrote: not sure if adepts should be THAT strong, but not jumping to conclusions yet, waiting for the meta in about half a year.
with a single marauder the game would have changed
the complaint about adepts is not just wah wah balance but that it literally is killing protoss diversity by strongly encouraging all early game builds to be anchored by adepts and giving those early game builds a seamless transition to mass adept midgames as units that either kill or tank effectively against almost everything
adept openers should have a weakness that isn't an obscure ghost cheese
On September 20 2015 07:49 royalroadweed wrote: Adpets aren't that bad tbh. It the 2 second warp in, uncatchable warp prism that seem to be more of a problem.
I think both are a problem, but yeah the most urgent one is the warp prism case.
On September 20 2015 07:39 Rollora wrote: not sure if adepts should be THAT strong, but not jumping to conclusions yet, waiting for the meta in about half a year.
with a single marauder the game would have changed
a mauarder
in a gasless 3 rax rush
it was OBVIOUS they would meet Adepts, so why not make a refinery for a little gas?
On September 20 2015 07:39 Rollora wrote: not sure if adepts should be THAT strong, but not jumping to conclusions yet, waiting for the meta in about half a year.
with a single marauder the game would have changed
I dunno how meta can work around a unit with a mobility ability being so strong in a stand up fight. It does too many things too well at the minute. It scouts, it harasses, it tanks, it kills stuff, stops retreats and it can escape too. But its for sure a cool ability/unit.
On September 20 2015 07:48 [PkF] Wire wrote: I don't think there is any denying there is something wrong with adepts.
certainly against terran balance wise and also against zerg design wise (boring and forces same tech always). dunno about pvp because ive literally never seen a lotv pvp
On September 20 2015 07:48 [PkF] Wire wrote: I don't think there is any denying there is something wrong with adepts.
certainly against terran balance wise and also against zerg design wise (boring and forces same tech always). dunno about pvp because ive literally never seen a lotv pvp
On September 20 2015 07:48 [PkF] Wire wrote: I don't think there is any denying there is something wrong with adepts.
certainly against terran balance wise and also against zerg design wise (boring and forces same tech always). dunno about pvp because ive literally never seen a lotv pvp
On September 20 2015 07:39 Rollora wrote: not sure if adepts should be THAT strong, but not jumping to conclusions yet, waiting for the meta in about half a year.
with a single marauder the game would have changed
I dunno how meta can work around a unit with a mobility ability being so strong in a stand up fight. It does too many things too well at the minute. It scouts, it harasses, it tanks, it kills stuff, stops retreats and it can escape too. But its for sure a cool ability/unit.
it's far too all around atm. Tankiness + heavy light damage + mobility + scouting abilities, combined with the über warp prism... That's just nuts.
On September 20 2015 07:39 Rollora wrote: not sure if adepts should be THAT strong, but not jumping to conclusions yet, waiting for the meta in about half a year.
with a single marauder the game would have changed
a mauarder
in a gasless 3 rax rush
it was OBVIOUS they would meet Adepts, so why not make a refinery for a little gas?
the barracks they had at home weren't even done and if they skipped the second cc to get them sooner they would have been hilariously hilariously behind in economy
On September 20 2015 07:48 [PkF] Wire wrote: I don't think there is any denying there is something wrong with adepts.
certainly against terran balance wise and also against zerg design wise (boring and forces same tech always). dunno about pvp because ive literally never seen a lotv pvp
it's even worse in pvp
Adepts wars into Disruptor wars I would imagine?
adepts into adepts. Into adepts. And into (surprise) more adepts.
Bomber/MMA played so aggressive this series. I would've much rather them play a more passive, defensive style. LotV Protoss is only strong in the early part of the game, yet they kept trying to force wins in the part of the game where adepts are so so good. Easier said than done of course, but i reckon a defensive style with liberators and ghosts would've been really effective.
On September 20 2015 07:51 Rollora wrote: Is this the first time Huk won something in SC2?
... you too could go to liquipedia
and read that he won 3 premier tournaments
you know, typing and asking questions where the answer is already at your hand, is so much easier because I then can be lazy and let others do the work. And I wasn't really serious with my question.
On September 20 2015 07:52 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
On September 20 2015 07:51 Rollora wrote: Is this the first time Huk won something in SC2?
... you too could go to liquipedia
and read that he won 3 premier tournaments
To be fair it's been a long time since huk won something. He might not even have been around the scene then.
Basically that was my question: I haven't been following huk all the time, I know he had his results where he got really far, but I honestly didn't remember him actually WINNING in sc2 on premier tournaments.
On September 20 2015 07:53 blooblooblahblah wrote: Bomber/MMA played so aggressive this series. I would've much rather them play a more passive, defensive style. LotV Protoss is only strong in the early part of the game, yet they kept trying to force wins in the part of the game where adepts are so so good. Easier said than done of course, but i reckon a defensive style with liberators and ghosts would've been really effective.
I kinda agree, T seems to have to be aiming for lategame atm.
On September 20 2015 07:53 blooblooblahblah wrote: Bomber/MMA played so aggressive this series. I would've much rather them play a more passive, defensive style. LotV Protoss is only strong in the early part of the game, yet they kept trying to force wins in the part of the game where adepts are so so good. Easier said than done of course, but i reckon a defensive style with liberators and ghosts would've been really effective.
I kinda agree, T seems to have to be aiming for lategame atm.
I guess it's a bit of counter-intuitive to a lot of HotS TvP play where terran has to get things done in the mid game. Atm, I think the it's the Protoss that needs to do a lot of damage, otherwise they just lack an army to really compete in late game. Bomber/MMA seemed to play like they're were on a timer, but in reality it was the other way around. And because they kept splitting their army up, the adepts were so cost-efficient against small amounts of bio that can't dps them down quick enough.
On September 20 2015 07:53 blooblooblahblah wrote: Bomber/MMA played so aggressive this series. I would've much rather them play a more passive, defensive style. LotV Protoss is only strong in the early part of the game, yet they kept trying to force wins in the part of the game where adepts are so so good. Easier said than done of course, but i reckon a defensive style with liberators and ghosts would've been really effective.
I kinda agree, T seems to have to be aiming for lategame atm.
I guess it's a bit of counter-intuitive to a lot of HotS TvP play where terran has to get things done in the mid game. Atm, I think the it's the Protoss that needs to do a lot of damage, otherwise they just lack an army to really compete in late game. Bomber/MMA seemed to play like they're were on a timer, but in reality it was the other way around. And because they kept splitting their army up, the adepts were so cost-efficient against small amounts of bio that can't dps them down quick enough.
I think that's right, I don't really see how T can mount up an army that can deal with some bio with maybe liberator or ghost support.
On September 20 2015 08:00 The_Red_Viper wrote: Is it just me or is the average game length of lotv games way below hots games atm? I don't like that :/
It is when terrans play like those dudes. Super aggressive HOTS style.
Game length was way longer before they added mules back.
On September 20 2015 08:00 The_Red_Viper wrote: Is it just me or is the average game length of lotv games way below hots games atm? I don't like that :/
it will go up as the meta stabilizes, aggression becomes less reliable, and top players telegraph the perfect level of "safe greed", same as any expansion
i'm happy with games bring a bit faster, though, which of course they will be with the faster early game. no one needs to see worker micro
For its flaws (and the metagame sketchiness), I enjoyed this tournament a lot. Red Bull always put on good shows. I'll see you all for the SSL finals in 9 hours
On September 20 2015 08:00 The_Red_Viper wrote: Is it just me or is the average game length of lotv games way below hots games atm? I don't like that :/
I think the T playing so cheesy played a huge role in that. But yeah, the game just doesn't look very stable.
On September 20 2015 08:02 Zealously wrote: For its flaws (and the metagame sketchiness), I enjoyed this tournament a lot. Red Bull always put on good shows. I'll see you all for the SSL finals in 9 hours
This is stupid. BZ you really have ruined this otherwise awesome archon tournament.
I just don't see Huk and MC use any special build or strategy. They pretty much rely on adepts. As others have said from a single unit perspective adepts are already out of hand. It is better than the zealot even without its special ability... how does that even make sense? And enough is said about its cost-effectiveness.
Also conceptually it is just wrong to have a unit that is good at harassing (demolishing even) the mineral line to be tanky. This pretty much makes walling off the only option. And then of course with 2 sec warp-ins th warp prism can easily win the game, especially when moving out.
Even from the fun perspective I think the design fails. The fun comes from diversity of play, not from how single unit performs. Sure the adept ability is interesting in itself, but it can only be interesting for maybe 2-3 games, if we are seeing it every game. Same if we are going to see tank drops every game.
On September 20 2015 07:53 blooblooblahblah wrote: Bomber/MMA played so aggressive this series. I would've much rather them play a more passive, defensive style. LotV Protoss is only strong in the early part of the game, yet they kept trying to force wins in the part of the game where adepts are so so good. Easier said than done of course, but i reckon a defensive style with liberators and ghosts would've been really effective.
I kinda agree, T seems to have to be aiming for lategame atm.
I guess it's a bit of counter-intuitive to a lot of HotS TvP play where terran has to get things done in the mid game. Atm, I think the it's the Protoss that needs to do a lot of damage, otherwise they just lack an army to really compete in late game. Bomber/MMA seemed to play like they're were on a timer, but in reality it was the other way around. And because they kept splitting their army up, the adepts were so cost-efficient against small amounts of bio that can't dps them down quick enough.
I agree 100%. The onesidedness of the games was due to "user error", for lack of a better term. MMA/Bomber kept committing suicide in the early game, instead of defending and making liberators. Liberators are the reason why P try to end it early and why T is favoured in the mid/late game. The roles have reversed since HotS.
On September 20 2015 08:02 Zealously wrote: For its flaws (and the metagame sketchiness), I enjoyed this tournament a lot. Red Bull always put on good shows. I'll see you all for the SSL finals in 9 hours
On September 20 2015 07:52 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
On September 20 2015 07:51 Rollora wrote: Is this the first time Huk won something in SC2?
... you too could go to liquipedia
and read that he won 3 premier tournaments
you know, typing and asking questions where the answer is already at your hand, is so much easier because I then can be lazy and let others do the work. And I wasn't really serious with my question.
Sounds like a pretty rude way to see things. But whatever floats your boat
On September 20 2015 08:02 Zealously wrote: For its flaws (and the metagame sketchiness), I enjoyed this tournament a lot. Red Bull always put on good shows. I'll see you all for the SSL finals in 9 hours
yeah same, ByuL dual leagues hype !
I actually think this will happen
it definitely can, the harder matches are coming. If he can beat herO (hard) and Dear (maybe even harder) I don't see a T resisting his momentum.
On September 20 2015 07:59 blooblooblahblah wrote:
On September 20 2015 07:54 [PkF] Wire wrote:
On September 20 2015 07:53 blooblooblahblah wrote: Bomber/MMA played so aggressive this series. I would've much rather them play a more passive, defensive style. LotV Protoss is only strong in the early part of the game, yet they kept trying to force wins in the part of the game where adepts are so so good. Easier said than done of course, but i reckon a defensive style with liberators and ghosts would've been really effective.
I kinda agree, T seems to have to be aiming for lategame atm.
I guess it's a bit of counter-intuitive to a lot of HotS TvP play where terran has to get things done in the mid game. Atm, I think the it's the Protoss that needs to do a lot of damage, otherwise they just lack an army to really compete in late game. Bomber/MMA seemed to play like they're were on a timer, but in reality it was the other way around. And because they kept splitting their army up, the adepts were so cost-efficient against small amounts of bio that can't dps them down quick enough.
I agree 100%. The onesidedness of the games was due to "user error", for lack of a better term. MMA/Bomber kept committing suicide in the early game, instead of defending and making liberators. Liberators are the reason why P try to end it early and why T is favoured in the mid/late game. The roles have reversed since HotS.
In that case, terran could use a unit that has an ability where that click their CC it gains the ability to hit ground and air units at 13 range that lasts for 20 seconds.
On September 20 2015 07:59 blooblooblahblah wrote:
On September 20 2015 07:54 [PkF] Wire wrote:
On September 20 2015 07:53 blooblooblahblah wrote: Bomber/MMA played so aggressive this series. I would've much rather them play a more passive, defensive style. LotV Protoss is only strong in the early part of the game, yet they kept trying to force wins in the part of the game where adepts are so so good. Easier said than done of course, but i reckon a defensive style with liberators and ghosts would've been really effective.
I kinda agree, T seems to have to be aiming for lategame atm.
I guess it's a bit of counter-intuitive to a lot of HotS TvP play where terran has to get things done in the mid game. Atm, I think the it's the Protoss that needs to do a lot of damage, otherwise they just lack an army to really compete in late game. Bomber/MMA seemed to play like they're were on a timer, but in reality it was the other way around. And because they kept splitting their army up, the adepts were so cost-efficient against small amounts of bio that can't dps them down quick enough.
I agree 100%. The onesidedness of the games was due to "user error", for lack of a better term. MMA/Bomber kept committing suicide in the early game, instead of defending and making liberators. Liberators are the reason why P try to end it early and why T is favoured in the mid/late game. The roles have reversed since HotS.
the thing is, people have been complaining about that design for ages, so I don't think we should build on that.
On September 20 2015 08:02 Zealously wrote: For its flaws (and the metagame sketchiness), I enjoyed this tournament a lot. Red Bull always put on good shows. I'll see you all for the SSL finals in 9 hours
yeah same, ByuL dual leagues hype !
I actually think this will happen
I hope not. I hope Maru wins and gains the Korean triple crown OSL, S2SL and GSL.
On September 20 2015 08:02 Zealously wrote: For its flaws (and the metagame sketchiness), I enjoyed this tournament a lot. Red Bull always put on good shows. I'll see you all for the SSL finals in 9 hours
yeah same, ByuL dual leagues hype !
I actually think this will happen
I hope not. I hope Maru wins and gains the Korean triple crown OSL, S2SL and GSL.
Dear doing it again and getting Blizzcon would be quite crazy too, though unlikely.
On September 20 2015 07:59 blooblooblahblah wrote:
On September 20 2015 07:54 [PkF] Wire wrote:
On September 20 2015 07:53 blooblooblahblah wrote: Bomber/MMA played so aggressive this series. I would've much rather them play a more passive, defensive style. LotV Protoss is only strong in the early part of the game, yet they kept trying to force wins in the part of the game where adepts are so so good. Easier said than done of course, but i reckon a defensive style with liberators and ghosts would've been really effective.
I kinda agree, T seems to have to be aiming for lategame atm.
I guess it's a bit of counter-intuitive to a lot of HotS TvP play where terran has to get things done in the mid game. Atm, I think the it's the Protoss that needs to do a lot of damage, otherwise they just lack an army to really compete in late game. Bomber/MMA seemed to play like they're were on a timer, but in reality it was the other way around. And because they kept splitting their army up, the adepts were so cost-efficient against small amounts of bio that can't dps them down quick enough.
I agree 100%. The onesidedness of the games was due to "user error", for lack of a better term. MMA/Bomber kept committing suicide in the early game, instead of defending and making liberators. Liberators are the reason why P try to end it early and why T is favoured in the mid/late game. The roles have reversed since HotS.
oh yeah who doesn't like making liberators after committing a stupid amount of resources (tech lab -> research -> switch off to reactor so there's enough liberators to cover the base) while the protoss just takes a 3rd base freely
On September 20 2015 07:59 blooblooblahblah wrote:
On September 20 2015 07:54 [PkF] Wire wrote:
On September 20 2015 07:53 blooblooblahblah wrote: Bomber/MMA played so aggressive this series. I would've much rather them play a more passive, defensive style. LotV Protoss is only strong in the early part of the game, yet they kept trying to force wins in the part of the game where adepts are so so good. Easier said than done of course, but i reckon a defensive style with liberators and ghosts would've been really effective.
I kinda agree, T seems to have to be aiming for lategame atm.
I guess it's a bit of counter-intuitive to a lot of HotS TvP play where terran has to get things done in the mid game. Atm, I think the it's the Protoss that needs to do a lot of damage, otherwise they just lack an army to really compete in late game. Bomber/MMA seemed to play like they're were on a timer, but in reality it was the other way around. And because they kept splitting their army up, the adepts were so cost-efficient against small amounts of bio that can't dps them down quick enough.
I agree 100%. The onesidedness of the games was due to "user error", for lack of a better term. MMA/Bomber kept committing suicide in the early game, instead of defending and making liberators. Liberators are the reason why P try to end it early and why T is favoured in the mid/late game. The roles have reversed since HotS.
In that case, terran could use a unit that has an ability where that click their CC it gains the ability to hit ground and air units at 13 range that lasts for 20 seconds.
That is not needed, because, as I've said several times in the thread, if the Terran just stays in his base (just like how P has to in HotS), and defends, it is really hard for the P to do damage, let alone end the game. However, if you do non stop drops trying to do damage to P, you are bound to lose to Adepts, which are really great at shredding workers and dispatching small amounts of marines.
On September 20 2015 08:02 Zealously wrote: For its flaws (and the metagame sketchiness), I enjoyed this tournament a lot. Red Bull always put on good shows. I'll see you all for the SSL finals in 9 hours
yeah same, ByuL dual leagues hype !
I actually think this will happen
I hope not. I hope Maru wins and gains the Korean triple crown OSL, S2SL and GSL.
Dear doing it again and getting Blizzcon would be quite crazy too, though unlikely.
That would indeed be crazy. In a perfect world Dear wins GSL, wins Blizzcon, joins a foreign team then promptly slumps for 2 years before winning blizzcon again.
On September 20 2015 08:11 cheekymonkey wrote: What is up with the probes jumping from widow mine shots? Looks ridiculous. is this some "cool" new animation in LotV?
that's not a widow mine, that's a reaper mine. And yeah it looks stupid.
On September 20 2015 07:59 blooblooblahblah wrote:
On September 20 2015 07:54 [PkF] Wire wrote:
On September 20 2015 07:53 blooblooblahblah wrote: Bomber/MMA played so aggressive this series. I would've much rather them play a more passive, defensive style. LotV Protoss is only strong in the early part of the game, yet they kept trying to force wins in the part of the game where adepts are so so good. Easier said than done of course, but i reckon a defensive style with liberators and ghosts would've been really effective.
I kinda agree, T seems to have to be aiming for lategame atm.
I guess it's a bit of counter-intuitive to a lot of HotS TvP play where terran has to get things done in the mid game. Atm, I think the it's the Protoss that needs to do a lot of damage, otherwise they just lack an army to really compete in late game. Bomber/MMA seemed to play like they're were on a timer, but in reality it was the other way around. And because they kept splitting their army up, the adepts were so cost-efficient against small amounts of bio that can't dps them down quick enough.
I agree 100%. The onesidedness of the games was due to "user error", for lack of a better term. MMA/Bomber kept committing suicide in the early game, instead of defending and making liberators. Liberators are the reason why P try to end it early and why T is favoured in the mid/late game. The roles have reversed since HotS.
the thing is, people have been complaining about that design for ages, so I don't think we should build on that.
On September 20 2015 08:02 Zealously wrote: For its flaws (and the metagame sketchiness), I enjoyed this tournament a lot. Red Bull always put on good shows. I'll see you all for the SSL finals in 9 hours
yeah same, ByuL dual leagues hype !
I actually think this will happen
I hope not. I hope Maru wins and gains the Korean triple crown OSL, S2SL and GSL.
Dear doing it again and getting Blizzcon would be quite crazy too, though unlikely.
That would indeed be crazy. In a perfect world Dear wins GSL, wins Blizzcon, joins a foreign team then promptly slumps for 2 years again.
On September 20 2015 07:59 blooblooblahblah wrote:
On September 20 2015 07:54 [PkF] Wire wrote:
On September 20 2015 07:53 blooblooblahblah wrote: Bomber/MMA played so aggressive this series. I would've much rather them play a more passive, defensive style. LotV Protoss is only strong in the early part of the game, yet they kept trying to force wins in the part of the game where adepts are so so good. Easier said than done of course, but i reckon a defensive style with liberators and ghosts would've been really effective.
I kinda agree, T seems to have to be aiming for lategame atm.
I guess it's a bit of counter-intuitive to a lot of HotS TvP play where terran has to get things done in the mid game. Atm, I think the it's the Protoss that needs to do a lot of damage, otherwise they just lack an army to really compete in late game. Bomber/MMA seemed to play like they're were on a timer, but in reality it was the other way around. And because they kept splitting their army up, the adepts were so cost-efficient against small amounts of bio that can't dps them down quick enough.
I agree 100%. The onesidedness of the games was due to "user error", for lack of a better term. MMA/Bomber kept committing suicide in the early game, instead of defending and making liberators. Liberators are the reason why P try to end it early and why T is favoured in the mid/late game. The roles have reversed since HotS.
oh yeah who doesn't like making liberators after committing a stupid amount of resources (tech lab -> research -> switch off to reactor so there's enough liberators to cover the base) while the protoss just takes a 3rd base freely
ok
Before the research change, it was viable. Not so much anymore.
On September 20 2015 07:59 blooblooblahblah wrote:
On September 20 2015 07:54 [PkF] Wire wrote:
On September 20 2015 07:53 blooblooblahblah wrote: Bomber/MMA played so aggressive this series. I would've much rather them play a more passive, defensive style. LotV Protoss is only strong in the early part of the game, yet they kept trying to force wins in the part of the game where adepts are so so good. Easier said than done of course, but i reckon a defensive style with liberators and ghosts would've been really effective.
I kinda agree, T seems to have to be aiming for lategame atm.
I guess it's a bit of counter-intuitive to a lot of HotS TvP play where terran has to get things done in the mid game. Atm, I think the it's the Protoss that needs to do a lot of damage, otherwise they just lack an army to really compete in late game. Bomber/MMA seemed to play like they're were on a timer, but in reality it was the other way around. And because they kept splitting their army up, the adepts were so cost-efficient against small amounts of bio that can't dps them down quick enough.
I agree 100%. The onesidedness of the games was due to "user error", for lack of a better term. MMA/Bomber kept committing suicide in the early game, instead of defending and making liberators. Liberators are the reason why P try to end it early and why T is favoured in the mid/late game. The roles have reversed since HotS.
oh yeah who doesn't like making liberators after committing a stupid amount of resources (tech lab -> research -> switch off to reactor so there's enough liberators to cover the base) while the protoss just takes a 3rd base freely
ok
You don't have to rush them out, but in any case, that's exactly what I would've liked them to do. Let the protoss take the 3rd base, who cares? My point was that Bomber/MMA could afford to be defensive and even economically behind as long as they didn't die, because Huk/MC still wouldn't been able to create an army that could defeat a defensive terran (unless they planned to go carriers, but very unlikely). By taking a third base, Huk/MC would've resigned themselves to a longer game, and that should've been exactly what Bomber/MMA would've wanted.
Just to clarify, I think Bomber and MMA are great players. But strategically I did not like their play today. Huk/MC abused one of Protoss' only strengths in LotV. So I think Bomber and MMA would've been excused if they abused some of terrans power in LotV, rather than basically play HotS.
On September 20 2015 08:00 The_Red_Viper wrote: Is it just me or is the average game length of lotv games way below hots games atm? I don't like that :/
well that was the obvious result when blizzard started to make the eco changes
On September 20 2015 07:39 Rollora wrote: not sure if adepts should be THAT strong, but not jumping to conclusions yet, waiting for the meta in about half a year.
with a single marauder the game would have changed
a mauarder
in a gasless 3 rax rush
it was OBVIOUS they would meet Adepts, so why not make a refinery for a little gas?
Marauders ain't too hot about light adepts with their natural 1 armor and marauder's 2 attacks.
you are basically saying there is no counter to Adepts for terran, or at least there is no possible cheese for terran vs Toss anymore, when proxy rax is off the plate
On September 20 2015 07:39 Rollora wrote: not sure if adepts should be THAT strong, but not jumping to conclusions yet, waiting for the meta in about half a year.
with a single marauder the game would have changed
a mauarder
in a gasless 3 rax rush
it was OBVIOUS they would meet Adepts, so why not make a refinery for a little gas?
Marauders ain't too hot about light adepts with their natural 1 armor and marauder's 2 attacks.
you are basically saying there is no counter to Adepts for terran, or at least there is no possible cheese for terran vs Toss anymore, when proxy rax is off the plate
Proxy rax is not off the plate, but has to be executed better. If I recall correctly Puck and his archon partner were defeated like that in one of the games in this tournament.
On September 20 2015 07:39 Rollora wrote: not sure if adepts should be THAT strong, but not jumping to conclusions yet, waiting for the meta in about half a year.
with a single marauder the game would have changed
a mauarder
in a gasless 3 rax rush
it was OBVIOUS they would meet Adepts, so why not make a refinery for a little gas?
Marauders ain't too hot about light adepts with their natural 1 armor and marauder's 2 attacks.
you are basically saying there is no counter to Adepts for terran, or at least there is no possible cheese for terran vs Toss anymore, when proxy rax is off the plate
Proxy rax is not off the plate, but has to be executed better. If I recall correctly Puck and his archon partner were defeated like that in one of the games in this tournament.
"to be executed better". you are kidding. Proxy Rax is already one of the "hardest" cheeses there is, actually it has such a low chance of winning that it isn't used anymore at all. Only chance the T has is, when the toss is going nexus first and doesn't have mothersipcore out early enough. It works vs Zerg from time to time, but that is a differen't matter. In order to work again, we have to ask Blizzard, if they could reiterate an old joke: bunker build time change
On September 20 2015 09:06 juicyjames wrote: Any recommended matches?
Well since LOTV is new, Archon mode is new, the casting was good... I'd say you can watch any game and be entertained. I watched the very first game (HUK/MC vs MMA/Bomber) which was cool and I'd say better then the finals. Personal opinion. The finals felt kinda anticlimatic - for finals.
On September 20 2015 07:59 blooblooblahblah wrote:
On September 20 2015 07:54 [PkF] Wire wrote:
On September 20 2015 07:53 blooblooblahblah wrote: Bomber/MMA played so aggressive this series. I would've much rather them play a more passive, defensive style. LotV Protoss is only strong in the early part of the game, yet they kept trying to force wins in the part of the game where adepts are so so good. Easier said than done of course, but i reckon a defensive style with liberators and ghosts would've been really effective.
I kinda agree, T seems to have to be aiming for lategame atm.
I guess it's a bit of counter-intuitive to a lot of HotS TvP play where terran has to get things done in the mid game. Atm, I think the it's the Protoss that needs to do a lot of damage, otherwise they just lack an army to really compete in late game. Bomber/MMA seemed to play like they're were on a timer, but in reality it was the other way around. And because they kept splitting their army up, the adepts were so cost-efficient against small amounts of bio that can't dps them down quick enough.
I agree 100%. The onesidedness of the games was due to "user error", for lack of a better term. MMA/Bomber kept committing suicide in the early game, instead of defending and making liberators. Liberators are the reason why P try to end it early and why T is favoured in the mid/late game. The roles have reversed since HotS.
oh yeah who doesn't like making liberators after committing a stupid amount of resources (tech lab -> research -> switch off to reactor so there's enough liberators to cover the base) while the protoss just takes a 3rd base freely
ok
You don't have to rush them out, but in any case, that's exactly what I would've liked them to do. Let the protoss take the 3rd base, who cares? My point was that Bomber/MMA could afford to be defensive and even economically behind as long as they didn't die, because Huk/MC still wouldn't been able to create an army that could defeat a defensive terran (unless they planned to go carriers, but very unlikely). By taking a third base, Huk/MC would've resigned themselves to a longer game, and that should've been exactly what Bomber/MMA would've wanted.
Just to clarify, I think Bomber and MMA are great players. But strategically I did not like their play today. Huk/MC abused one of Protoss' only strengths in LotV. So I think Bomber and MMA would've been excused if they abused some of terrans power in LotV, rather than basically play HotS.
You can't just let the Protoss sit freely. It's like TvP or TvZ now, the strength of the Terran army is in the mid game, but there's a reason why people open up aggressively, cause Terran bio scales poorly if you don't do damage to the opponent. Getting a virtually free 3rd base is death.
On September 20 2015 08:26 blooblooblahblah wrote:
On September 20 2015 08:10 Chaggi wrote:
On September 20 2015 08:04 CheddarToss wrote:
On September 20 2015 07:59 blooblooblahblah wrote:
On September 20 2015 07:54 [PkF] Wire wrote:
On September 20 2015 07:53 blooblooblahblah wrote: Bomber/MMA played so aggressive this series. I would've much rather them play a more passive, defensive style. LotV Protoss is only strong in the early part of the game, yet they kept trying to force wins in the part of the game where adepts are so so good. Easier said than done of course, but i reckon a defensive style with liberators and ghosts would've been really effective.
I kinda agree, T seems to have to be aiming for lategame atm.
I guess it's a bit of counter-intuitive to a lot of HotS TvP play where terran has to get things done in the mid game. Atm, I think the it's the Protoss that needs to do a lot of damage, otherwise they just lack an army to really compete in late game. Bomber/MMA seemed to play like they're were on a timer, but in reality it was the other way around. And because they kept splitting their army up, the adepts were so cost-efficient against small amounts of bio that can't dps them down quick enough.
I agree 100%. The onesidedness of the games was due to "user error", for lack of a better term. MMA/Bomber kept committing suicide in the early game, instead of defending and making liberators. Liberators are the reason why P try to end it early and why T is favoured in the mid/late game. The roles have reversed since HotS.
oh yeah who doesn't like making liberators after committing a stupid amount of resources (tech lab -> research -> switch off to reactor so there's enough liberators to cover the base) while the protoss just takes a 3rd base freely
ok
You don't have to rush them out, but in any case, that's exactly what I would've liked them to do. Let the protoss take the 3rd base, who cares? My point was that Bomber/MMA could afford to be defensive and even economically behind as long as they didn't die, because Huk/MC still wouldn't been able to create an army that could defeat a defensive terran (unless they planned to go carriers, but very unlikely). By taking a third base, Huk/MC would've resigned themselves to a longer game, and that should've been exactly what Bomber/MMA would've wanted.
Just to clarify, I think Bomber and MMA are great players. But strategically I did not like their play today. Huk/MC abused one of Protoss' only strengths in LotV. So I think Bomber and MMA would've been excused if they abused some of terrans power in LotV, rather than basically play HotS.
You can't just let the Protoss sit freely. It's like TvP or TvZ now, the strength of the Terran army is in the mid game, but there's a reason why people open up aggressively, cause Terran bio scales poorly if you don't do damage to the opponent. Getting a virtually free 3rd base is death.
What? On the contrary, bio with liberators scales amazingly well. I wish my Protoss comps would scale that well. Adepts, for example, are useless later in the game. That's why people switch to tried and tested chargelots.
Third bases drop around 3 to 7 minutes ingame, the natural is basically free for all races. Terran midgame army (MMM-ghost-liberator) is extremely strong.
From the terrans i saw today, they seemed to be playing entirely HOTS style super aggro with little else thrown in. That was confusing to me because almost nobody plays like that on master-GM ladder so i can't comment much on it
On September 20 2015 08:26 blooblooblahblah wrote:
On September 20 2015 08:10 Chaggi wrote:
On September 20 2015 08:04 CheddarToss wrote:
On September 20 2015 07:59 blooblooblahblah wrote:
On September 20 2015 07:54 [PkF] Wire wrote:
On September 20 2015 07:53 blooblooblahblah wrote: Bomber/MMA played so aggressive this series. I would've much rather them play a more passive, defensive style. LotV Protoss is only strong in the early part of the game, yet they kept trying to force wins in the part of the game where adepts are so so good. Easier said than done of course, but i reckon a defensive style with liberators and ghosts would've been really effective.
I kinda agree, T seems to have to be aiming for lategame atm.
I guess it's a bit of counter-intuitive to a lot of HotS TvP play where terran has to get things done in the mid game. Atm, I think the it's the Protoss that needs to do a lot of damage, otherwise they just lack an army to really compete in late game. Bomber/MMA seemed to play like they're were on a timer, but in reality it was the other way around. And because they kept splitting their army up, the adepts were so cost-efficient against small amounts of bio that can't dps them down quick enough.
I agree 100%. The onesidedness of the games was due to "user error", for lack of a better term. MMA/Bomber kept committing suicide in the early game, instead of defending and making liberators. Liberators are the reason why P try to end it early and why T is favoured in the mid/late game. The roles have reversed since HotS.
oh yeah who doesn't like making liberators after committing a stupid amount of resources (tech lab -> research -> switch off to reactor so there's enough liberators to cover the base) while the protoss just takes a 3rd base freely
ok
You don't have to rush them out, but in any case, that's exactly what I would've liked them to do. Let the protoss take the 3rd base, who cares? My point was that Bomber/MMA could afford to be defensive and even economically behind as long as they didn't die, because Huk/MC still wouldn't been able to create an army that could defeat a defensive terran (unless they planned to go carriers, but very unlikely). By taking a third base, Huk/MC would've resigned themselves to a longer game, and that should've been exactly what Bomber/MMA would've wanted.
Just to clarify, I think Bomber and MMA are great players. But strategically I did not like their play today. Huk/MC abused one of Protoss' only strengths in LotV. So I think Bomber and MMA would've been excused if they abused some of terrans power in LotV, rather than basically play HotS.
You can't just let the Protoss sit freely. It's like TvP or TvZ now, the strength of the Terran army is in the mid game, but there's a reason why people open up aggressively, cause Terran bio scales poorly if you don't do damage to the opponent. Getting a virtually free 3rd base is death.
My point is that it's not like TvP or TvZ now, it's the exact opposite. Terran doesn't have to go mass suicidal in the mid game, because the terran army fares much better against Protoss later on than it does in HotS. On the contrary, Protoss is arguably stronger in the early-mid game because of the adepts, but that strength falls off very quickly. Hence, I was suggesting that playing defensive would've resulted in a much different series, and we would've gotten to see how weak Protoss actually is in the late game PvT.
On September 20 2015 08:26 blooblooblahblah wrote:
On September 20 2015 08:10 Chaggi wrote:
On September 20 2015 08:04 CheddarToss wrote:
On September 20 2015 07:59 blooblooblahblah wrote:
On September 20 2015 07:54 [PkF] Wire wrote:
On September 20 2015 07:53 blooblooblahblah wrote: Bomber/MMA played so aggressive this series. I would've much rather them play a more passive, defensive style. LotV Protoss is only strong in the early part of the game, yet they kept trying to force wins in the part of the game where adepts are so so good. Easier said than done of course, but i reckon a defensive style with liberators and ghosts would've been really effective.
I kinda agree, T seems to have to be aiming for lategame atm.
I guess it's a bit of counter-intuitive to a lot of HotS TvP play where terran has to get things done in the mid game. Atm, I think the it's the Protoss that needs to do a lot of damage, otherwise they just lack an army to really compete in late game. Bomber/MMA seemed to play like they're were on a timer, but in reality it was the other way around. And because they kept splitting their army up, the adepts were so cost-efficient against small amounts of bio that can't dps them down quick enough.
I agree 100%. The onesidedness of the games was due to "user error", for lack of a better term. MMA/Bomber kept committing suicide in the early game, instead of defending and making liberators. Liberators are the reason why P try to end it early and why T is favoured in the mid/late game. The roles have reversed since HotS.
oh yeah who doesn't like making liberators after committing a stupid amount of resources (tech lab -> research -> switch off to reactor so there's enough liberators to cover the base) while the protoss just takes a 3rd base freely
ok
You don't have to rush them out, but in any case, that's exactly what I would've liked them to do. Let the protoss take the 3rd base, who cares? My point was that Bomber/MMA could afford to be defensive and even economically behind as long as they didn't die, because Huk/MC still wouldn't been able to create an army that could defeat a defensive terran (unless they planned to go carriers, but very unlikely). By taking a third base, Huk/MC would've resigned themselves to a longer game, and that should've been exactly what Bomber/MMA would've wanted.
Just to clarify, I think Bomber and MMA are great players. But strategically I did not like their play today. Huk/MC abused one of Protoss' only strengths in LotV. So I think Bomber and MMA would've been excused if they abused some of terrans power in LotV, rather than basically play HotS.
You can't just let the Protoss sit freely. It's like TvP or TvZ now, the strength of the Terran army is in the mid game, but there's a reason why people open up aggressively, cause Terran bio scales poorly if you don't do damage to the opponent. Getting a virtually free 3rd base is death.
My point is that it's not like TvP or TvZ now, it's the exact opposite. Terran doesn't have to go mass suicidal in the mid game, because the terran army fares much better against Protoss later on than it does in HotS. On the contrary, Protoss is arguably stronger in the early-mid game because of the adepts, but that strength falls off very quickly. Hence, I was suggesting that playing defensive would've resulted in a much different series, and we would've gotten to see how weak Protoss actually is in the late game PvT.
1000% true
You can't just let the Protoss sit freely. It's like TvP or TvZ now, the strength of the Terran army is in the mid game, but there's a reason why people open up aggressively, cause Terran bio scales poorly if you don't do damage to the opponent. Getting a virtually free 3rd base is death.
This comment makes perfect sense in WOL and HOTS but is pretty meaningless for Legacy. Terran actually gets way stronger now when they can take a third and afford to mix in ghosts and liberators.
oh yeah who doesn't like making liberators after committing a stupid amount of resources (tech lab -> research -> switch off to reactor so there's enough liberators to cover the base) while the protoss just takes a 3rd base freely
You don't have to rush them out, but in any case, that's exactly what I would've liked them to do. Let the protoss take the 3rd base, who cares? My point was that Bomber/MMA could afford to be defensive and even economically behind as long as they didn't die, because Huk/MC still wouldn't been able to create an army that could defeat a defensive terran (unless they planned to go carriers, but very unlikely). By taking a third base, Huk/MC would've resigned themselves to a longer game, and that should've been exactly what Bomber/MMA would've wanted.
Just to clarify, I think Bomber and MMA are great players. But strategically I did not like their play today. Huk/MC abused one of Protoss' only strengths in LotV. So I think Bomber and MMA would've been excused if they abused some of terrans power in LotV, rather than basically play HotS.
This is not true though, as we see in the 3rd game (?) in their first series, Huk/MC goes early 3rd and get 11/12 gates while Bomber/MMA stayed at 2 bases. Then they got overrun by adepts/stalkers/sentries/immortals.
Also defensive coordination is a lot harder than offensive. 2 players defend at the same time is a waste of apm when you need to gather all your forces in one place.
Even if we suppose this meta is actually balanced, i.e., Terran can get good results by turtling and not taking damage, is that what Blizzard desires in the first place?
I still think the design of adept itself is paradoxical. A strong harass unit that is also tanky really encourages turtling for the other side. In addition if it is also strong anti-harass (like it kills a few marines really fast) then there are really not many option for the other side other than turtle.
The core problem is that unlike the other two races, the stalker is too "standard" for the core ranged unit. In terran, marine has good dps but is more squishy whereas the marauder is tanky but cannot attack air; In zerg roach is tanky and hydra is squishy but with higher dps. In protoss they have more functional units such as immortal and sentry, and stalker is just middle in the road. medium dps and medium tankiness (for early to mid game). If one wants to add another complementary core unit it is very hard to create something that naturally leads to a mixture like the other two races. So they did this in a bruteful way by making adept tankier and strong against light units. The result is that yeah in the mid game protoss will start to have mix stalkers and adepts, but it made them really strong in the early game.
Even if we suppose this meta is actually balanced, i.e., Terran can get good results by turtling and not taking damage, is that what Blizzard desires in the first place?
I still think the design of adept itself is paradoxical. A strong harass unit that is also tanky really encourages turtling for the other side. In addition if it is also strong anti-harass (like it kills a few marines really fast) then there are really not many option for the other side other than turtle.
I agree that it may not be ideal but ideal is pretty hard. I don't think it is worse than HOTS since HOTS is quite simply the reverse: non gimmicky PvT is basically the toss turtling against terran harass until high tech kicks in. Arguably, the current design could be better than HOTS as unlike HOTS protoss LOTV terran won't (hopefully) be turtling for a death ball but for a critical mass of bio, after which they can then start counter-dropping, which may result in a mid-late of two-sided dropping and defending and lots of great multitasking. It's mostly speculation imo until abusive players like huk/MC get more practiced opponents to fence with. This is just the beginning
I still think the design of adept itself is paradoxical. A strong harass unit that is also tanky really encourages turtling for the other side. In addition if it is also strong anti-harass (like it kills a few marines really fast) then there are really not many option for the other side other than turtle.
That's what the game has been about for 5 years though - one side either doing hard all ins or sitting back and turtling for 15 minutes. Only difference is now terran has stronger mid-lategame and protoss stronger early game.
and stalker is just middle in the road. medium dps and medium tankiness (for early to mid game
Stalker is very low DPS, probably the lowest damage standard unit in the game. Less DPS than sentries vs light, less DPS than marines too even though they cost 125/50 instead of 50/0. They do mediocre damage even with their bonus to armored which is balanced by support units, versatility, movespeed, decent scaling + blink etc.
Stalker was never about doing damage (especially vs light) and i'm really happy to see alternatives to the "build stalkers or die" protoss game due to simply not having any other unit capable of engaging basic ranged units even in the early game.
oh yeah who doesn't like making liberators after committing a stupid amount of resources (tech lab -> research -> switch off to reactor so there's enough liberators to cover the base) while the protoss just takes a 3rd base freely
You don't have to rush them out, but in any case, that's exactly what I would've liked them to do. Let the protoss take the 3rd base, who cares? My point was that Bomber/MMA could afford to be defensive and even economically behind as long as they didn't die, because Huk/MC still wouldn't been able to create an army that could defeat a defensive terran (unless they planned to go carriers, but very unlikely). By taking a third base, Huk/MC would've resigned themselves to a longer game, and that should've been exactly what Bomber/MMA would've wanted.
Just to clarify, I think Bomber and MMA are great players. But strategically I did not like their play today. Huk/MC abused one of Protoss' only strengths in LotV. So I think Bomber and MMA would've been excused if they abused some of terrans power in LotV, rather than basically play HotS.
This is not true though, as we see in the 3rd game (?) in their first series, Huk/MC goes early 3rd and get 11/12 gates while Bomber/MMA stayed at 2 bases. Then they got overrun by adepts/stalkers/sentries/immortals.
Also defensive coordination is a lot harder than offensive. 2 players defend at the same time is a waste of apm when you need to gather all your forces in one place.
Even if we suppose this meta is actually balanced, i.e., Terran can get good results by turtling and not taking damage, is that what Blizzard desires in the first place?
I still think the design of adept itself is paradoxical. A strong harass unit that is also tanky really encourages turtling for the other side. In addition if it is also strong anti-harass (like it kills a few marines really fast) then there are really not many option for the other side other than turtle.
The core problem is that unlike the other two races, the stalker is too "standard" for the core ranged unit. In terran, marine has good dps but is more squishy whereas the marauder is tanky but cannot attack air; In zerg roach is tanky and hydra is squishy but with higher dps. In protoss they have more functional units such as immortal and sentry, and stalker is just middle in the road. medium dps and medium tankiness (for early to mid game). If one wants to add another complementary core unit it is very hard to create something that naturally leads to a mixture like the other two races. So they did this in a bruteful way by making adept tankier and strong against light units. The result is that yeah in the mid game protoss will start to have mix stalkers and adepts, but it made them really strong in the early game.
How is that paradoxical? Bio is good in a straight up fight and also really tanky when used as part of a drop, thanks to the amazing healing ability of the medivac.
The core problem of the Protoss race, as you've said yourself at the end of the post, is that the race didn't have a well rounded, massable unit, but instead a lot of one-dimensional hard-counter units. That is why Protoss was always forced to go all-in, because Protoss harass was always too weak and coinflippy and the army weaker the more stretched out it is. For the first time Protoss can actually hurt the opponent, without doing an all-in or a gimmicky build. And that is really good for the game.
Stalker does okay damage. That is why you can see so many +2 stalker timings. On paper it does not look high, but it is more burst oriented comparing to marines which makes it a lot stronger in kiting or dodging situations. It is pretty massable and a mass stalker strategy works fine well into mid game. Wtih high tier unit support it works all game long. It does not do less damage to light comparing to sentry.
bio units are not that tanky in drops. A single medivac offers strong healing that offset about 2 stalkers. However, 1. enemy can burst down marines 1 by 1 such that it does not have a chance to be healed; 2. drops comes down 1 by 1 so a few stalkers can already shot down a drop ship if in position; 3. the use of stim pack on the group already off-set the healing for 5 seconds or so. You can say they are tanky when they reach a critical mass (w/o AOE from the other side) but each unit is certainly not that tanky.
Adepts, however, are already tanky and of high damage in small numbers. Even tough BZ tries to compare them to Marauders, but the problem is mass marauders is not really a thing vs. low-mid tier units. Unlike in current LotV it seems mass adepts is good vs. everything, due to its dual harass and tank role.
Stalker does okay damage. That is why you can see so many +2 stalker timings
Those timings are completely worthless without chronoboost, blink, warpgate and sentries. It's not strong because of stalkers anti-light damage at all.
Adepts, however, are already tanky and of high damage in small numbers. Even tough BZ tries to compare them to Marauders, but the problem is mass marauders is not really a thing vs. low-mid tier units. Unlike in current LotV it seems mass adepts is good vs. everything, due to its dual harass and tank role.
Marauders are fairly decent especially mixed into bio armies, they have good DPS when stimmed and don't die as easily as marines. They shut down armored units very quickly. Less use for them since Colossi got pretty much removed from the game, they were good at flanking or leaping forward and killing them and also straight 100% marine wasn't very viable because it was too vulnerable to burst AOE while marauders added meat and consistency to the army. They've been used in every matchup regularly for the last 5 years, they're not bad units. They're worse in legacy because of the changes but the design of the marauder is roughly ok.
"mass" adept isn't good. It was never good since they changed the upgrade at least. Two thirds of the adept health is shields (which means it gets removed by EMP) and if you take 100 supply of adept against 70 supply of marine/marauder/medivac/ghost you will horribly horribly die. They cannot shoot liberators which are very strong when mixed into bio armies too.
Bio outscales straight adept play if protoss does nothing else - even just stim and medivac spam is enough but the ghosts and/or liberators make it a joke. I don't know how people can even have this discussion saying that adept spam beats terran armies in mid-lategame..
nobody is playing adept spam 50 adepts in the midgame vs terrans who have any idea how to play, adepts are strongest when you have very small armies on both sides (in the early game or when harassing or defending harass)
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/z5UN30h.png)
![[image loading]](http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/images2/thumb/3/30/Writers_Icon.png/15px-Writers_Icon.png){kind=icon}
![[image loading]](http://s.gr-assets.com/assets/icons/twitter_icon-7d4a7be5917c6c8e687413669d687b1c.jpg){kind=icon}
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/hwMZ3HA.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/bv8Kw.png)
Bomber & 
HuK & 
viOLet & ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/WdLE8.png)
??
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/osxLRUh.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/EsaOsiw.jpg)
gg! 
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/mirror/smilies/frown.gif)
