|
On August 10 2010 06:29 kajeus wrote: I am a zerg player...
The attitude. Wow. You clearly say in your post your a TERRAN player. In any case, thanks for the hilarity of another arrogant prick personality that is all too common on these forums. I'm going to get on with the discussion at hand as quite clearly, since you can't get over your ego you are unable to see the reality of the T v Z match-up. Nothing you say further in this thread can be taken seriously. Good job.
|
On August 10 2010 06:31 SichuanPanda wrote:The attitude. Wow. You clearly say in your post your a TERRAN player. In any case, thanks for the hilarity of another arrogant prick personality that is all too common on these forums. I'm going to get on with the discussion at hand as quite clearly, since you can't get over your ego you are unable to see the reality of the T v Z match-up. Nothing you say further in this thread can be taken seriously. Good job. Umm... I think you've confused me with somebody else?
You are a mysterious man...
|
That instah change tech myth is bs.
You have limited gas , even if u drop a building like spire and u wanna swap fast to air like corruptors and even if you have 100 lavra it aint happening.
you simply cannot have 5k gas sitting like that , in pro lvls gas rarely ever pass 300+ as reserve.
So typical bs yet again to justify things that cannot . Zerg can switch almost as fast as terran or toss due to limited gas supply unless massing zerglings count as tech switching.
what zerg also cant compare to terran and toss like many said is to have a solid build , also their air units come way too late plus 3 air units after lair lol why.
you either gonna use mutas or hydras anyway let alone corruptors. Hydra den should be tier 1 , swap it with roach wareen or something and no more early banshee rush or vrays.
wont cange much cause their newest builds like massing ghosts and sniping everything that just now getting popular and will bring zerg in even harder position - check qxc vs machine latest game and ull understand.
Terran compare to zerg looks like having unlimited openings and choises , zerg old school mechanics restrict their gameplay way too much.
|
On August 09 2010 20:33 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2010 20:14 Rabiator wrote: Sure a tighter natural makes Terran harrass easier to defend, but it also makes it A LOT easier to defnd for the Terrans. They have Tanks and Hellions and bunkers to defend choke points pretty easily, so is that really an "advantage" for Zerg? Asking for tight naturals seems like caring only for the next five seconds and not for the state of play in five minutes.
If a map like LT is built with very tight naturals it is much easier for Terrans (and Protoss) to expand and defend those. But as Zerg you really need to outbase the opposition to win. A tight natural makes it harder to assault the base with ground forces, but do you think that Zerg can win an all out air war? Attacking into a Terran's natural is suicide regardless of the map. A zerg's goal is going to be to out-expand the Terran and to try and get a flank mid-map to crush the Terran push. This doesn't mean keeping him off his natural, but abusing his immobility and going up to 5-7 bases. A defensible natural is going to be far more favorable for zerg, ESPECIALLY when he's spreading out to take a 3rd, 4th, or 5th base at another natural. And the Terran cant expand like the Zerg does and secure the additional "safe" bases on his side? Since the base is EASY to defend he only needs minimal forces to defend it and can do it as well as you can. If the natural is very small - and I think some Zergs are suggesting things like that - it gets even easier for the Terran, since he can simply morph the CC there into a PF and defend it at minimal cost for maximum damage to the invading ground force. If you "throw away" half your army at the natural the Terran gets a window to advance with his army and establish map control. Seems not really a good deal for the Zerg.
Higher mobility (defensive Nydus Networks and creep highways) should make open bases 3-7 MUCH easier to defend for the Zerg than the Terran. Mobility advantage means that you can strike where the Terran defense is weak; open bases simply means it takes A LOT more time for the Terran to build his defenses there. Just look at Scrap Stations main base ... ugly spot for Terrans to defend ...
On August 09 2010 20:33 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2010 20:14 Rabiator wrote: The entrance to a base on the ground will only make a base SEEM more secure against a Terran, the harrass will come a minute later while you feel secure behind your defenses at the entrance. The Hellion harrass will be in the form of a Medivac with four Hellions (which is done already anyways and is more unpredictable). Since you dont expect it and arent defending against it this harrass will be even more deadly than what is happening now. This isn't relevant, because walling in doesn't take an additional expenditure of resources. Placing your Roach Warren and Evo Chamber at your natural don't hinder your ability to block preigniter drops. Preigniter drops will always be a threat, regardless of map. But map setups that allow you to deflect ground-based Hellion harassment give you one less thing to worry about. Hmmm ... are you suggesting that the natural is soo small that you can block the entrance with creep spread from that Hatchery? Otherwise I dont understand the suggestion, because creep at your natural is LATE and you want a Roach Warren much earlier if you want those Roaches to defend from Hellion harrass.
On August 09 2010 20:33 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2010 20:14 Rabiator wrote: 1. With Colossi and their Thermal Lance upgrade it is not only Terrans which are favored by cliffs. Kulas Ravine is a nice examplpe, because Stalkers with Blink can (ab)use those cliffs to defend / assault. If you have no meaningful cliffs the Reapers are just expensive fast Marines that dont shoot air and which require a tech lab. 2. No map will ever be "fair and balanced" for all three races, a ratio of 55% / 57% win / loss is pretty close to 50% and thus pretty close to balanced as there can be. The issue is not that 55% and 57% are bad ratios, but that the map is T>P by 55% when traditionally, it's 55% the other way. So its your "birthright" to win more than Terrans by tradition ... from Brood War?????? It cant be from Starcraft 2, because that game has been live for how long exactly? Also why cant the others have higher odds at winning now since you had your fun already?
On August 09 2010 20:33 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2010 20:14 Rabiator wrote: This is actually the real solution to the "Zerg problem": LARGER MAPS. Both Protoss and Terran armies have one disadvantage: relatively slow moving armies. It isnt true for all the units, but Colossi, Immortals, Thors and Siege Tanks all move very slowly, but if the Zerg can not outmaneuver these armies due to the relatively small size of the maps the Zerg speed is not an advantage. So we need larger maps with the same terrain features. It wont matter that the Terran has set up a defensive siege Tank position somewhere, you simply run around it and attack his base. It's also worth noting that I don't see enough defensive nydus usage. Large maps will favor Zergs and to a lesser extent Protoss because of their ability to move units via warp gate/nydus worm. Terran has no comparable mobility options, meaning they have a much harder time both attacking and defending when expansions are more spread out. Yes, I have said exactly that, but as much as I am missing defensive / offensive Nydus networks from all the games I watch, I am not seeing Terrans who advance and then build a fortified position from which to strike at the enemy to stay safe due to long reinforcement distances. Both seem to be signs that maps are simply too small to bother with them.
On August 09 2010 20:33 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2010 20:14 Rabiator wrote: Making a base "immune" to Reaper harrass basically eliminates that unit from the game. It isnt as bad for Stalker with Blink, but these units were designed with the assault capability in mind and it should not be negated with map design. I didn't intend for the base to be immune, but compare Blistering Sands to Lost Temple. On Blistering there are a few places to cover with regard to reaper harassment, and it's still viable, but it's also defensible once you can cover those spots. LT's ledges take it to an extreme--it's simply impossible to cover such a large area of ledge terrain. Reducing the places where a Reaper can get into the base to two rather small ones (there is none to actually jump into your natural on Blistering Sands) isnt making you immune, but it still makes it childs play and dumbed down to just watching two tiny spots. Thats what I would call "almost immune". You have no flexibility as Terran there for the use of the Reaper special ability and its about as "fair" as a narrow path on Incineration Zone is for a Horde army to cross where the Terran has some siege Tanks positioned on the far end. Sure you can get lucky, but jumping up and down is part of the micro of the unit and two tiny spots to do that leaves you with no room to do it.
|
On August 10 2010 06:34 kajeus wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2010 06:31 SichuanPanda wrote:On August 10 2010 06:29 kajeus wrote: I am a zerg player... The attitude. Wow. You clearly say in your post your a TERRAN player. In any case, thanks for the hilarity of another arrogant prick personality that is all too common on these forums. I'm going to get on with the discussion at hand as quite clearly, since you can't get over your ego you are unable to see the reality of the T v Z match-up. Nothing you say further in this thread can be taken seriously. Good job. Umm... I think you've confused me with somebody else? You are a mysterious man...
It appears you are correct O_o. My apologies sir. My comments still stand, just directed at the intended person.
|
Also about the bases thing , its ridiculus how fast few steamed mm kill zerg buildings , whereas in comparison zerg units take like forever to kill a terran building.
O plus terran building can lift so u need air as well and mutas and ruptors kill terran buildings in like slow motion
|
On August 10 2010 06:17 Apolo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2010 06:01 cmos543 wrote:On August 10 2010 05:48 Apolo wrote:On August 10 2010 05:17 Toxigen wrote: To all those disagreeing with IdrA out there, I'd like you to address his argument for a second:
If Zergs are beating Terrans at high level, it doesn't prove that ZvT is balanced. The other variable is player skill. This means one of two things must be true: 1. Player skill is equal, so if Zerg is winning close to 50%, the races are balanced. 2. Player skill is unequal, so if Zerg is winning close to 50%, the races are imbalanced.
He's also saying that he knows for a fact that Terran players, largely, are often newer to the game compared to Protoss and Zerg players in Korea. His proof stems from his knowledge and experience of those players both in SC1 and SC2. Also, these players were no-names previous to phase 2 (i.e., before mech buffs and roach/infestor nerfs).
These new, no-name, and (in some cases) non-professionals are defeating professional Zergs in tournaments. For #1 above to be true, the following must also be true: These Terrans are just as skilled as professionals without the practice, knowledge and coaching that those professionals have (i.e., they're simply way more talented than those Zerg & Protoss players). Furthermore, despite playing in phase 1, their skill and talent with the race didn't kick-in until phase 2 and release.
The question becomes: does this sound plausible to you? I agree. I'd like also to add that the statistics can't be taken from the whole population of players in SC2, otherwise results are going to get unreliable. This is because i saw someone analyzing some statistics where the whole population was considered, and that's pretty much useless. Being balanced at bronze level doesn't mean being balanced at the top. Because of that, if the average of winnings is 50-50 throughout all levels, would mean nothing but that the average is 50-50. It could be 60-40 for the bottom and 40-60 for the top skill level and 50-50 inbetween, or the inverse, or more extreme values. I find it very strange that old BW protoss and zerg players are struggling with terran gamers from other RTSes at top tournament levels. That and that i rarely see a terran top player complaining about imbalance of zerg or protoss, while the reverse is so much more common. Anyway, it's blizzard's game to balance. If they don't they're the ones to lose. This whole premise has a simple fallacy that I would like to point out, its so large that I'm very surprised that you don't realize it when its blatantly staring you and IdrA in the face. STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE, I mean what heck man. Have you been to highschool? Have IdrA play 50 games against this lessor player and see how the overall win percentages are. You take the 2 games he has played against someone and extrapolate it into way more then it should be without even a single thought. Jesus this is just sad. Well actually i had a chair of statistics at college, which was far more complicated than all highschool classes put together. What you said is a straw man because i didn't mention Idra at all or his 2 games. I based what i said on more than just him. Why did Artosis complain about terran mech, why Idra complained about even more than mech? Why did Whitera and Huk complain about marauders? Why did Tester said Terran was the best race? Why haven't i seen a top terran player complain about zerg or protoss in the last month or two? Why is it that Protoss is by far the most popular race at lower levels, and then the top 100 of diamond Terran takes that place?(1) Why is it that most tournament winnings and runner ups are Terran?(2) I can't comment on the win ratios of the leagues because the B.net system messes up with win ratios directly by trying to make everyone 50-50. And at the top it's even more different. I'll have to think more about that. (1) http://sc2ranks.com/stats/all/1/100(2) there's a post somehwere in this thread that has a big list of tournaments and their respective winners, and most without a doubt are terran. "To all those disagreeing with IdrA out there, I'd like you to address his argument for a second" "I agree."
Who knows why the Terrans don't complain, does this automatically mean that there is an imbalance because they are not complaining? I really don't see what concrete evidence you are basing your argument on except for the top 100 which doesn't even support your argument, so far its just been here-say. Even if Terrans are winning the majority of Tournaments, which ones are included? You don't even account for statistical deviation or even attempt. Yes Terrans could be winning 48 out of 50 tournaments but what if no good zergs were in those tournaments(IdrA doesn't feel its worth his time to enter many of the smaller touraments)? Also many tournaments are one round until the semi finals, which makes it harder to get an accurate picture of whats really going on. Maybe someone not so good could get lucky and take a game off of IdrA, knocking him out. But in reality has a very slim chance of beating him in a BO3, especially after he has seen what type of player they are.
|
On August 10 2010 06:40 cmos543 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2010 06:17 Apolo wrote:On August 10 2010 06:01 cmos543 wrote:On August 10 2010 05:48 Apolo wrote:On August 10 2010 05:17 Toxigen wrote: To all those disagreeing with IdrA out there, I'd like you to address his argument for a second:
If Zergs are beating Terrans at high level, it doesn't prove that ZvT is balanced. The other variable is player skill. This means one of two things must be true: 1. Player skill is equal, so if Zerg is winning close to 50%, the races are balanced. 2. Player skill is unequal, so if Zerg is winning close to 50%, the races are imbalanced.
He's also saying that he knows for a fact that Terran players, largely, are often newer to the game compared to Protoss and Zerg players in Korea. His proof stems from his knowledge and experience of those players both in SC1 and SC2. Also, these players were no-names previous to phase 2 (i.e., before mech buffs and roach/infestor nerfs).
These new, no-name, and (in some cases) non-professionals are defeating professional Zergs in tournaments. For #1 above to be true, the following must also be true: These Terrans are just as skilled as professionals without the practice, knowledge and coaching that those professionals have (i.e., they're simply way more talented than those Zerg & Protoss players). Furthermore, despite playing in phase 1, their skill and talent with the race didn't kick-in until phase 2 and release.
The question becomes: does this sound plausible to you? I agree. I'd like also to add that the statistics can't be taken from the whole population of players in SC2, otherwise results are going to get unreliable. This is because i saw someone analyzing some statistics where the whole population was considered, and that's pretty much useless. Being balanced at bronze level doesn't mean being balanced at the top. Because of that, if the average of winnings is 50-50 throughout all levels, would mean nothing but that the average is 50-50. It could be 60-40 for the bottom and 40-60 for the top skill level and 50-50 inbetween, or the inverse, or more extreme values. I find it very strange that old BW protoss and zerg players are struggling with terran gamers from other RTSes at top tournament levels. That and that i rarely see a terran top player complaining about imbalance of zerg or protoss, while the reverse is so much more common. Anyway, it's blizzard's game to balance. If they don't they're the ones to lose. This whole premise has a simple fallacy that I would like to point out, its so large that I'm very surprised that you don't realize it when its blatantly staring you and IdrA in the face. STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE, I mean what heck man. Have you been to highschool? Have IdrA play 50 games against this lessor player and see how the overall win percentages are. You take the 2 games he has played against someone and extrapolate it into way more then it should be without even a single thought. Jesus this is just sad. Well actually i had a chair of statistics at college, which was far more complicated than all highschool classes put together. What you said is a straw man because i didn't mention Idra at all or his 2 games. I based what i said on more than just him. Why did Artosis complain about terran mech, why Idra complained about even more than mech? Why did Whitera and Huk complain about marauders? Why did Tester said Terran was the best race? Why haven't i seen a top terran player complain about zerg or protoss in the last month or two? Why is it that Protoss is by far the most popular race at lower levels, and then the top 100 of diamond Terran takes that place?(1) Why is it that most tournament winnings and runner ups are Terran?(2) I can't comment on the win ratios of the leagues because the B.net system messes up with win ratios directly by trying to make everyone 50-50. And at the top it's even more different. I'll have to think more about that. (1) http://sc2ranks.com/stats/all/1/100(2) there's a post somehwere in this thread that has a big list of tournaments and their respective winners, and most without a doubt are terran. "To all those disagreeing with IdrA out there, I'd like you to address his argument for a second" "I agree." Who knows why the Terrans don't complain, does this automatically mean that there is an imbalance because they are not complaining? I really don't see what concrete evidence you are basing your argument on except for the top 100 which doesn't even support your argument, so far its just been here-say. Even if Terrans are winning the majority of Tournaments, which ones are included? You don't even account for statistical deviation or even attempt. Yes Terrans could be winning 48 out of 50 tournaments but what if no good zergs were in those tournaments(IdrA doesn't feel its worth his time to enter many of the smaller touraments)? Also many tournaments are one round until the semi finals, which makes it harder to get an accurate picture of whats really going on. Maybe someone not so good could get lucky and take a game off of IdrA, knocking him out. But in reality has a very slim chance of beating him in a BO3, especially after he has seen what type of player they are.
Both of you have forgotten the real argument altogether and now debating the semantics of statistical analysis. This is unnecessary and totally off topic from what this thread is about. Its really quite simple, at any given level of the T v Z match-up there is imbalances, and there are not nearly all one sided (as in Terran > Zerg imbalance, there is some Zerg > Terran imbalance in some cases). This is a fact that we all need to accept in order to properly discuss and balance the game. You two on the other hand arguing about who's better at statistics, and both refusing to accept there is two way imbalances in the MU are holding back the discussion on a whole. Please stop.
|
Just a quick thing: Anybody in here who's constantly asking for statistical evidence: There is probably only that Blizzard statistic (which showed a greater than +1% in favour of terran btw, but those stats are from end of phase 1 or something? too old) because nobody is going to do the work and browse through a ton of websites (tournament sites, ladder etc.) just to compile a few numbers about a thing which is blatantly obvious anyways. If you're so hung up on statistical evidence then go ahead an proof that Terran is NOT imba at the moment, as you're in the minority group and most people agree that Terran is imbalanced.
You will fail btw, for reasons many others have pointed out.
|
On August 10 2010 06:23 kajeus wrote:I'm ignoring the first part of your post because it's hearsay... Sorry... Show nested quote +On August 10 2010 06:17 Apolo wrote:On August 10 2010 06:01 cmos543 wrote:On August 10 2010 05:48 Apolo wrote:On August 10 2010 05:17 Toxigen wrote: To all those disagreeing with IdrA out there, I'd like you to address his argument for a second:
If Zergs are beating Terrans at high level, it doesn't prove that ZvT is balanced. The other variable is player skill. This means one of two things must be true: 1. Player skill is equal, so if Zerg is winning close to 50%, the races are balanced. 2. Player skill is unequal, so if Zerg is winning close to 50%, the races are imbalanced.
He's also saying that he knows for a fact that Terran players, largely, are often newer to the game compared to Protoss and Zerg players in Korea. His proof stems from his knowledge and experience of those players both in SC1 and SC2. Also, these players were no-names previous to phase 2 (i.e., before mech buffs and roach/infestor nerfs).
These new, no-name, and (in some cases) non-professionals are defeating professional Zergs in tournaments. For #1 above to be true, the following must also be true: These Terrans are just as skilled as professionals without the practice, knowledge and coaching that those professionals have (i.e., they're simply way more talented than those Zerg & Protoss players). Furthermore, despite playing in phase 1, their skill and talent with the race didn't kick-in until phase 2 and release.
The question becomes: does this sound plausible to you? I agree. I'd like also to add that the statistics can't be taken from the whole population of players in SC2, otherwise results are going to get unreliable. This is because i saw someone analyzing some statistics where the whole population was considered, and that's pretty much useless. Being balanced at bronze level doesn't mean being balanced at the top. Because of that, if the average of winnings is 50-50 throughout all levels, would mean nothing but that the average is 50-50. It could be 60-40 for the bottom and 40-60 for the top skill level and 50-50 inbetween, or the inverse, or more extreme values. I find it very strange that old BW protoss and zerg players are struggling with terran gamers from other RTSes at top tournament levels. That and that i rarely see a terran top player complaining about imbalance of zerg or protoss, while the reverse is so much more common. Anyway, it's blizzard's game to balance. If they don't they're the ones to lose. This whole premise has a simple fallacy that I would like to point out, its so large that I'm very surprised that you don't realize it when its blatantly staring you and IdrA in the face. STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE, I mean what heck man. Have you been to highschool? Have IdrA play 50 games against this lessor player and see how the overall win percentages are. You take the 2 games he has played against someone and extrapolate it into way more then it should be without even a single thought. Jesus this is just sad. hy is it that Protoss is by far the most popular race at lower levels, and then the top 100 of diamond Terran takes that place?(1) Why is it that most tournament winnings and runner ups are Terran?(2) (1) http://sc2ranks.com/stats/all/1/100 Check out the "top 500": http://sc2ranks.com/stats/all/1/500Moreover, this "top 100" business is a bit silly -- we should really be controlling for region, because those people are playing each other. The top of the Russian ladder isn't really relevant to our discussion, imo. By the way, it seems that approximately equal numbers play terran and protoss worldwide. 35.68% are protoss and 35.35% are terran. Show nested quote + (2) there's a post somehwere in this thread that has a big list of tournaments and their respective winners, and most without a doubt are terran.
I'm gonna need you to quote that post and compare the distribution of winners and runners up with the distribution of entrants.
The post is here, i was able to find it:
On August 04 2010 07:04 cuppatea wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2010 06:40 PanzerKing wrote:On August 04 2010 06:31 hyouro wrote:On August 04 2010 06:22 PanzerKing wrote:On August 04 2010 06:16 st3roids wrote: so the argument is wait till every top terran owns every zerg player and then we see , thats just great.
In king of the beta were two terran in finals and if u compare tester and idra vs qxc and itr theres no comparison rly terms of player accomplisments yet 2 terran in the finals with zerg almost barely making it .
also in the idra vs silver thing , i mean srsly in metalopolis replay at about 8:50 ,
classic 1 base terran having thor and siege tanks and helions and marines vs 2 base zerg with few banelings and 3 static defences and more mineral supply for terran i mean rofl , it just isnt a comparison here yet some still argue . Uh yeah, Idra lost because his micro was terrible. Maybe you should go watch the part where he rallied two free mutas into the T army, or where he walked his lings in before his mutas so that they were wiped out while doing no damage and the marines were free to shoot the mutas. Or you could look at how half-ass his muta spread was. And really, 2-base zerg vs. 1-base T? You're throwing that out as a sign that Idra should have won? By that measure, every zerg should win every game, because almost nobody plays one-base zerg. You think QXC isn't a top player? Now I know you have no idea what you're talking about. Have you not seen him play? Since you're only familiar with the KOTB tournament, did you miss the part where he completely demolished IntoTheRainbow, another top-level player? Reallyl, you have no argument except "Idra is a god and if he ever loses, despite playing badly, it means that Zerg are broken and T is overpowered and need nerfs. Ignore the fact that Zerg continues to win tournaments, like the KOTB tournament and the 173173 SC2 World Cup." Can you please just keep quiet with the 173173 tournament...IT IS FUCKING OLD AS HELL. On to another thing that annoys me, KOTB was played just after phase 2 started. Which means all of them were rusty since they haven't played for the entire break. Now besides that fact, 1 tournament doesn't mean shit anyways. Please take a look at all the cups that has been played recently. I think you can make something out of that instead of a single tournament. Or do you have another flawed opinion about this? You're making excuses instead of contesting the main point. Z continue to win tournaments played at the highest level of skill. Come show me some evidence that T dominates Z at the highest level of skill, all else equal, and you'll have a coherent argument. Otherwise, the problem is just bad Zerg players who don't want to admit it. Recent tournaments (from phase 2 onwards): IEM qualifyer - Won by Silver (Terran), who 2-0'd Idra along the way. IOL LAN - Top 4 all Terran (Sjow, Morrow, Jinro, Merz). Craftcup #10 - 6 Terran in the top 8, won by Strelok (T) over Jimpo (T) in the final. GosuCoaching #6 - Won by Drewbie (T), with Silver (T) 3rd/4th. Go4SC2 #25 - 2 Terran in the top 3 (Cloud 1st/2nd, final hasn't been played yet afaik, Tarson 3rd). Go4SC2 #24 - 2 Terran in the top 3 (Salens 2nd, Lucifron 3rd). Go4SC2 #23 - Strelok (T) 1st, Goody (T) 4th. Go4SC2 #22 - Morrow (T) 1st, And3ad (T) 2nd. Zotac #16 - 3 Terran in the top 4, Demuslim (T) over Jimpo (T) in the final. WTA #1 - ThesTc (T) 1st, Hannibal (T) 3rd. Chinese Domination Challenge - Won by Loner (T), without dropping a map. KOTB - QXC (T) and IntoTheRainbow (T) 3rd/4th. The only tournaments since phase 2 I can recall that weren't won by Terran were Go4SC2 #24, which had 2 Terran in the top 3 and KOTB, which had 2 Terran in the top 4. It's not as if there are just 1 or 2 supremely skilled Terrans dominating these tournaments either, there have been dozens of different T players progressing to the latter stages of competitions recently. Just look at the GosuGamer rankings, which are based on recent results and have 23 Terran in the top 40, compared to 9 Protoss and 8 Zerg.
|
On August 10 2010 06:44 heishe wrote: Just a quick thing: Anybody in here who's constantly asking for statistical evidence: There is probably only that Blizzard statistic (which showed a greater than +1% in favour of terran btw, but those stats are from end of phase 1 or something? too old) because nobody is going to do the work and browse through a ton of websites (tournament sites, ladder etc.) just to compile a few numbers about a thing which is blatantly obvious anyways. If you're so hung up on statistical evidence then go ahead an proof that Terran is NOT imba at the moment, as you're in the minority group and most people agree that Terran is imbalanced.
Exactly. Thank you. Just like a court case the burden of proof should be on the person going against the accepted norm (being that generally Terran > Zerg, sure there is always exceptions but that is the trend as of late). Come up with stats proving Terran isn't > Zerg before you go off on a tangent about how 'you need hard stats to prove there is an imbalance'. No all you need to do is watch a dozen or so high level T v Z replays to see that in most cases the Terran simply a-moves through the Zerg army. Only VERY VERY good Zerg players can turn the battle otherwise (i.e IdrA since the people above keep seeming to define the ENTIRE T v Z MU on his play alone).
|
On August 10 2010 05:45 cmos543 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 10 2010 04:09 Kigari wrote: Honestly I'm a terran player that barely if ever uses mules (only when i'm critically low on mineral flow).
The upside ? You can't hide. With 2 bases it's literally like a maphack. Yeah sure you'll skip racking minerals faster than you can spend them but what does it matter when you can constantly see and adapt to the opponents strategy ?
Some players go flippin' nuts when you scan them repeatedly and start screaming about imba and QQ and OP scan and "pr0s use mules not scan". :D Good players hide their tech buildings where you would not scan, but you know hes gotta be spending that gas somewhere if he only has speedlings and a lair which gives you the same information as seeing a spire almost. For some reason I always think that many zerg players are doing it wrong, I'm not a zerg player but I figure that they should pretty much always build a couple of tech structures that are on separate paths early game. Speedlings shut down early harass from a Terran and hydras placed well pretty much shut down all harass altogether, because of the creep speed bonus it seems that it would be relatively simple to keep ahead in expansions with smaller first response forces directly at the xpos and a larger centralized force able to help reinforce any location if needed in the early game. So, you see the Terran going mech, the terran will be sitting in his base turtling, that means you should be just outside of the range of his tanks making him slow walk his tanks all the way to your natural or one of your expansions when he decides to push. To often a zerg player will just let me walk right up to their nat and siege uncontested. With the time you bought and your economic advantage (which you should have) you should be able to get ultras, broodlords, or infestors depending on the composition of his army. If he is hellion heavy you will want to trade your lings in for roaches, if he is tank heavy you will want to trade your hydras for mutas or lings and roaches if he is thor heavy less mutas. If he has a perfect balance you can try to skew his forces by killing off one type then countering whats left or try to stall for your heavy hitters. Say he has only a few hellions a lot of tanks and maybe 4 thors Ultra ling should roflstomp this composition as long as you hit him unsieged and let an ultra take the first tank hit for your lings to close in (if he is siege walking). This is assuming that you don't have to go through a choke to get to him and that you you get at least a decent flank. What I'm trying to say is that I don't think zergs really take advantage of the fact that they can switch 100% of their production to producing one unit. It seems like they can hand tailor their army to counter whatever the terran is doing if they can just stall him long enough to let it build (1 min). And I also think that zerg should be harassing the Terrans economy when the Terran is pushing. I think what a lot of zerg players don't realize is that Terran players turtle up because they are scared, and Terrans wont get turrets if they don't think you are getting mutas they wont get units to counter units that you don't have in the midgame when harass loses viability. You can use this to skew his army one way then produce many of the units that counter the skew when he actually begins his push. I scout mass hydraling and I will be really tank heavy with hellions, I might only produce one thor, If I haven't seen a spire and I see evo chambers up i might not even produce one. Lets say you have been saving up until I pushed or saw that I would be ready to make a move, then bam it appears out of nowhere to me, but 15 mutas roflstomp my army just when i siege at your nat and at the same time 5 roflestomp my economy at my base, but this rarely happens in my games and I wonder why. I think zergs reveal their tech switches to soon. I always wonder why in huge econ games when the zerg is closed to max and has extra money lying around he doesn't produce every tech building because that makes so much sense to me. Like in Idras game vs Tester on scrap station (i realize its zvp but same concept), why the hell doesn't he have a spire? Is its cost really that high? Especially when he has the implied econ to max and be sitting on money for a long time (which is when you should start building every tech structure) Zerg seems like it can be so versatile because of this, especially if a Terran goes for heavy harassment that fails and sets his own economy behind. Almost every Terran tries to harass and i think it all can be defended against with minimal losses from the zerg. Zergs always complain about how hard it is to scout, yet I never see them burrow a ling outside of my natural, or other places where they would want to keep an eye on, in fact i rarely see burrow at all (unless its for some all in roach cheese thats easy to counter), odd to me since it can be so useful. They complain so much about having to sac an overlord to scout, when its actually cheaper then a scan for the early and mid game. Hell, you can sac 3 overlords and still be almost even with what the Terran lost from a mule. Not to mention that terrans need mules just to be able to keep up with the zerg. One thing I would really like to see zergs do is harass mineral lines with fungal growth, this rarely ever happens though. Even if you let the terran walk all the way up to your nat and you went for mass hydraling and had no hidden mutas, you could still fight it off with minimal loses by doing ling drops on the sieged tanks, I have yet to see a zerg do this even in high level games that I have watched .
While I appreciate your constructive feedback I think that it's ultimately off. The big thing is that you assume you don't see X,Y & Z for no reason whatsoever, but it doesn't take into account other factors. It's especially problematic because a lot of it is based on perception against players that may be playing completely different than other players. A lot of the things you suggest are things many Zerg players try all the time, but they're also things that have issues or problems. Throwing down multiple buildings sounds nice in theory, but in practice it means your gas is incredibly strained and important upgrades have to be skipped. Same with burrow, people love burrow abstractly, but in practice it's tough to justify the gas for it until much later.
For example in your scouting section you mention burrow and overlord drop. Gas wise you're looking at 400 gas to get the necessary things to make both of those happen. Then you go on to mention fungal growth on mineral lines which is 100 gas for the pit, 150 for each infestor, and another 150 if you want pathogen glands so that you don't have to build up energy before being able to cast anything with the infestor. And remember NONE of these gas expenditures gives you an army strong enough to actually fight a Terran push, they help for various reasons (like with positioning), but you still need enough units to actually survive the push. Also note that something like OL drop is a long research time so pushes can even come between when you start the research and when it finishes.
Likewise with skewing compositions. I can bounce between roaches and lings no problem, or even lings, blings, and roaches. Later on Hydras can be another unit to mix in. Still all of those units are very general purpose (except blings) so it's not like the skew is THAT effective. There's nothing in those possible transitions that means you have to abandon factories for barracks or barracks for factories. All you need to do is change what units are being produced by those buildings which is pretty much just what happens.
Muta vs. Not-Muta is a devastating transition, but it still has problems. The time it takes for Spire + mutas is longer than the time it takes to do any sort of reaction to mutas. So a Terran players ends up with a significant amount of time to spot and react to the spire before it's a problem. Considering that mutas + spire is SO gas heavy AND the Zerg player needs to surge ahead with a bunch of mutas for them to be effective (trickling them in doesn't work because by time you get 6-8+ to cause real damage the first 3-4 will have prompted anti-muta measures). Saving up gas for this 'surge' of mutas can be very very risky. So as a result just switching to mutas on a whim is completely infeasible, it needs to be well planned and executed for it to work. In your 'example' you mention 20 mutas. That's 2000/2000, how the hell does Zerg stockpile 2k gas against you without getting noticing or running over him? It just doesn't happen.
So again thanks for the effort, but I really don't think you have any insight into how Zerg can feasibly play. You definitely highlight the things zerg wants to work towards, but it's all stuff all zerg players want. It's also stuff that zerg players have an immense trouble of actually being able to get effectively.
|
On August 10 2010 06:44 SichuanPanda wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2010 06:40 cmos543 wrote:On August 10 2010 06:17 Apolo wrote:On August 10 2010 06:01 cmos543 wrote:On August 10 2010 05:48 Apolo wrote:On August 10 2010 05:17 Toxigen wrote: To all those disagreeing with IdrA out there, I'd like you to address his argument for a second:
If Zergs are beating Terrans at high level, it doesn't prove that ZvT is balanced. The other variable is player skill. This means one of two things must be true: 1. Player skill is equal, so if Zerg is winning close to 50%, the races are balanced. 2. Player skill is unequal, so if Zerg is winning close to 50%, the races are imbalanced.
He's also saying that he knows for a fact that Terran players, largely, are often newer to the game compared to Protoss and Zerg players in Korea. His proof stems from his knowledge and experience of those players both in SC1 and SC2. Also, these players were no-names previous to phase 2 (i.e., before mech buffs and roach/infestor nerfs).
These new, no-name, and (in some cases) non-professionals are defeating professional Zergs in tournaments. For #1 above to be true, the following must also be true: These Terrans are just as skilled as professionals without the practice, knowledge and coaching that those professionals have (i.e., they're simply way more talented than those Zerg & Protoss players). Furthermore, despite playing in phase 1, their skill and talent with the race didn't kick-in until phase 2 and release.
The question becomes: does this sound plausible to you? I agree. I'd like also to add that the statistics can't be taken from the whole population of players in SC2, otherwise results are going to get unreliable. This is because i saw someone analyzing some statistics where the whole population was considered, and that's pretty much useless. Being balanced at bronze level doesn't mean being balanced at the top. Because of that, if the average of winnings is 50-50 throughout all levels, would mean nothing but that the average is 50-50. It could be 60-40 for the bottom and 40-60 for the top skill level and 50-50 inbetween, or the inverse, or more extreme values. I find it very strange that old BW protoss and zerg players are struggling with terran gamers from other RTSes at top tournament levels. That and that i rarely see a terran top player complaining about imbalance of zerg or protoss, while the reverse is so much more common. Anyway, it's blizzard's game to balance. If they don't they're the ones to lose. This whole premise has a simple fallacy that I would like to point out, its so large that I'm very surprised that you don't realize it when its blatantly staring you and IdrA in the face. STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE, I mean what heck man. Have you been to highschool? Have IdrA play 50 games against this lessor player and see how the overall win percentages are. You take the 2 games he has played against someone and extrapolate it into way more then it should be without even a single thought. Jesus this is just sad. Well actually i had a chair of statistics at college, which was far more complicated than all highschool classes put together. What you said is a straw man because i didn't mention Idra at all or his 2 games. I based what i said on more than just him. Why did Artosis complain about terran mech, why Idra complained about even more than mech? Why did Whitera and Huk complain about marauders? Why did Tester said Terran was the best race? Why haven't i seen a top terran player complain about zerg or protoss in the last month or two? Why is it that Protoss is by far the most popular race at lower levels, and then the top 100 of diamond Terran takes that place?(1) Why is it that most tournament winnings and runner ups are Terran?(2) I can't comment on the win ratios of the leagues because the B.net system messes up with win ratios directly by trying to make everyone 50-50. And at the top it's even more different. I'll have to think more about that. (1) http://sc2ranks.com/stats/all/1/100(2) there's a post somehwere in this thread that has a big list of tournaments and their respective winners, and most without a doubt are terran. "To all those disagreeing with IdrA out there, I'd like you to address his argument for a second" "I agree." Who knows why the Terrans don't complain, does this automatically mean that there is an imbalance because they are not complaining? I really don't see what concrete evidence you are basing your argument on except for the top 100 which doesn't even support your argument, so far its just been here-say. Even if Terrans are winning the majority of Tournaments, which ones are included? You don't even account for statistical deviation or even attempt. Yes Terrans could be winning 48 out of 50 tournaments but what if no good zergs were in those tournaments(IdrA doesn't feel its worth his time to enter many of the smaller touraments)? Also many tournaments are one round until the semi finals, which makes it harder to get an accurate picture of whats really going on. Maybe someone not so good could get lucky and take a game off of IdrA, knocking him out. But in reality has a very slim chance of beating him in a BO3, especially after he has seen what type of player they are. Both of you have forgotten the real argument altogether and now debating the semantics of statistical analysis. This is unnecessary and totally off topic from what this thread is about. Its really quite simple, at any given level of the T v Z match-up there is imbalances, and there are not nearly all one sided (as in Terran > Zerg imbalance, there is some Zerg > Terran imbalance in some cases). This is a fact that we all need to accept in order to properly discuss and balance the game. You two on the other hand arguing about who's better at statistics, and both refusing to accept there is two way imbalances in the MU are holding back the discussion on a whole. Please stop.
Heres something to think about that needs to be said.
IdrA is not the only progamer, there are Terran progamers that have even more "advantages" then he does as they can speak Korean and get the full benefit of Korean practice partners. If Terran is so overpowered shouldn't their win ratios reflect that? The Top Korean (I think its into the rainbow but I'm not sure) right now has a win ratio of 66.15 % Idra's is 87.33%. And among Koreans Terran's win ratios look slightly worse from a quick glance. This is the information you should be using, not players that aren't on the same schedule as he is.
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
intotherainbow didnt play much during beta as far as i know
idra has played more practice games of sc2 than anyone on the planet, his 87%+ win rate on ladder is really very meaningless to a balance discussion.
|
I really believe a huge issues in this match up is that Zerg no longer has air dominance, and therefore, lose a lot of map control. Sure, zerglings are really fast and all, but they're also a lot weaker to their BW counterpart. And they evaporate even quicker with all the improved AoE in the game.
In BW, mutas were hard to use correctly, but great at its job. Harassing constantly by taking advantage of the moving shot/stacking, but not too powerful by making their range and damage limited, plus it's still fragile enough units that a single mishap can kill the entire harass.
In SC2, it's the complete opposite. If you knew mutas were coming, it was so easy to stop. Turrets, thors, even marines now will pick them apart since moving shot and stacking doesn't exist anymore. Pumping out a few vikings with their ridiculous 9 range will really put a halt to the harass because their just getting free hits. You have to go hit their vikings that are probably hiding beneath marines, turrets, or a thor. And why not make vikings? Great unit for picking off overlords. Terran unit composition just seems to flow together just well when facing Zerg.
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
zerglings aren't a lot weaker than they were in bw. a lot of powerful zerg builds involve ensuring safety with large groups of speedlings. with the advent of creep tumors & improved pathing AI, lings are far stronger relative to bw when it's just zerglings on the field.
|
On August 10 2010 06:55 cmos543 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2010 06:44 SichuanPanda wrote:On August 10 2010 06:40 cmos543 wrote:On August 10 2010 06:17 Apolo wrote:On August 10 2010 06:01 cmos543 wrote:On August 10 2010 05:48 Apolo wrote:On August 10 2010 05:17 Toxigen wrote: To all those disagreeing with IdrA out there, I'd like you to address his argument for a second:
If Zergs are beating Terrans at high level, it doesn't prove that ZvT is balanced. The other variable is player skill. This means one of two things must be true: 1. Player skill is equal, so if Zerg is winning close to 50%, the races are balanced. 2. Player skill is unequal, so if Zerg is winning close to 50%, the races are imbalanced.
He's also saying that he knows for a fact that Terran players, largely, are often newer to the game compared to Protoss and Zerg players in Korea. His proof stems from his knowledge and experience of those players both in SC1 and SC2. Also, these players were no-names previous to phase 2 (i.e., before mech buffs and roach/infestor nerfs).
These new, no-name, and (in some cases) non-professionals are defeating professional Zergs in tournaments. For #1 above to be true, the following must also be true: These Terrans are just as skilled as professionals without the practice, knowledge and coaching that those professionals have (i.e., they're simply way more talented than those Zerg & Protoss players). Furthermore, despite playing in phase 1, their skill and talent with the race didn't kick-in until phase 2 and release.
The question becomes: does this sound plausible to you? I agree. I'd like also to add that the statistics can't be taken from the whole population of players in SC2, otherwise results are going to get unreliable. This is because i saw someone analyzing some statistics where the whole population was considered, and that's pretty much useless. Being balanced at bronze level doesn't mean being balanced at the top. Because of that, if the average of winnings is 50-50 throughout all levels, would mean nothing but that the average is 50-50. It could be 60-40 for the bottom and 40-60 for the top skill level and 50-50 inbetween, or the inverse, or more extreme values. I find it very strange that old BW protoss and zerg players are struggling with terran gamers from other RTSes at top tournament levels. That and that i rarely see a terran top player complaining about imbalance of zerg or protoss, while the reverse is so much more common. Anyway, it's blizzard's game to balance. If they don't they're the ones to lose. This whole premise has a simple fallacy that I would like to point out, its so large that I'm very surprised that you don't realize it when its blatantly staring you and IdrA in the face. STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE, I mean what heck man. Have you been to highschool? Have IdrA play 50 games against this lessor player and see how the overall win percentages are. You take the 2 games he has played against someone and extrapolate it into way more then it should be without even a single thought. Jesus this is just sad. Well actually i had a chair of statistics at college, which was far more complicated than all highschool classes put together. What you said is a straw man because i didn't mention Idra at all or his 2 games. I based what i said on more than just him. Why did Artosis complain about terran mech, why Idra complained about even more than mech? Why did Whitera and Huk complain about marauders? Why did Tester said Terran was the best race? Why haven't i seen a top terran player complain about zerg or protoss in the last month or two? Why is it that Protoss is by far the most popular race at lower levels, and then the top 100 of diamond Terran takes that place?(1) Why is it that most tournament winnings and runner ups are Terran?(2) I can't comment on the win ratios of the leagues because the B.net system messes up with win ratios directly by trying to make everyone 50-50. And at the top it's even more different. I'll have to think more about that. (1) http://sc2ranks.com/stats/all/1/100(2) there's a post somehwere in this thread that has a big list of tournaments and their respective winners, and most without a doubt are terran. "To all those disagreeing with IdrA out there, I'd like you to address his argument for a second" "I agree." Who knows why the Terrans don't complain, does this automatically mean that there is an imbalance because they are not complaining? I really don't see what concrete evidence you are basing your argument on except for the top 100 which doesn't even support your argument, so far its just been here-say. Even if Terrans are winning the majority of Tournaments, which ones are included? You don't even account for statistical deviation or even attempt. Yes Terrans could be winning 48 out of 50 tournaments but what if no good zergs were in those tournaments(IdrA doesn't feel its worth his time to enter many of the smaller touraments)? Also many tournaments are one round until the semi finals, which makes it harder to get an accurate picture of whats really going on. Maybe someone not so good could get lucky and take a game off of IdrA, knocking him out. But in reality has a very slim chance of beating him in a BO3, especially after he has seen what type of player they are. Both of you have forgotten the real argument altogether and now debating the semantics of statistical analysis. This is unnecessary and totally off topic from what this thread is about. Its really quite simple, at any given level of the T v Z match-up there is imbalances, and there are not nearly all one sided (as in Terran > Zerg imbalance, there is some Zerg > Terran imbalance in some cases). This is a fact that we all need to accept in order to properly discuss and balance the game. You two on the other hand arguing about who's better at statistics, and both refusing to accept there is two way imbalances in the MU are holding back the discussion on a whole. Please stop. Heres something to think about that needs to be said. IdrA is not the only progamer, there are Terran progamers that have even more "advantages" then he does as they can speak Korean and get the full benefit of Korean practice partners. If Terran is so overpowered shouldn't their win ratios reflect that? The Top Korean (I think its into the rainbow but I'm not sure) right now has a win ratio of 66.15 % Idra's is 87.33%. And among Koreans Terran's win ratios look slightly worse from a quick glance. This is the information you should be using, not players that aren't on the same schedule as he is.
Stop. Using. IdrA. To. Define. An. Entire. MU. He's a very rare and exceptionally skilled Zerg player that doesn't come around too often. You cannot use his play and his play alone as evidence to Zerg being better. Stop doing it. Everyone here thinks your foolish for doing so, why do you continue? By your logic BW Terran is OP because Flash has an 80 something % win ratio. Clearly that is not the case.
|
On August 03 2010 04:05 koppik wrote:
A thor AA range nerf is definitely warranted, though. They don't do a lot of damage to non-light as it is, though, as long as you remember to make sure your air army doesn't stack (with the move command).
but.... when the hell do you build thors (assuming you're getting them for AA) against anything BESIDES mutas.... Think about that.
aka, Thors ARE the anti-muta, ya it's cool terran has a "counter" to mutas, but cmon.... 10 range? LOLWUT?!?
|
Mutas are so weak vs anything , i wonder why some even bother to dicuss about them
they getting owned from marines , turrets , thors , vikings , stalkers , guardian shield , phoenixes , vrays , carriers , almost every unit that hit air owns mutas still some even bother bah
o and if u only build thors vs mutas ... wel u deserve to claim zerg are fine
|
On August 10 2010 06:58 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: intotherainbow didnt play much during beta as far as i know
idra has played more practice games of sc2 than anyone on the planet, his 87%+ win rate on ladder is really very meaningless to a balance discussion.
So are you saying that we should just keep comparing IdrA to people in the US server? If Idra's ladder games are meaningless then why does he ladder at all? Why doesnt he just play Koreans in practice games? Why is he even in the US servers when he lives in Korea?
I think whats really lacking in this discussion is opening up the field to the data from the Koreans under the assumption that there are at least some that are on par with IdrA that are not zerg, thereby eliminating the variable of skill from the discussion and simplifying the terms.
|
|
|
|