|
On August 19 2010 00:18 Aborash wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2010 00:08 SoFFacet wrote:On August 18 2010 23:58 hdkhang wrote:On August 18 2010 23:12 SoFFacet wrote:
I do agree that Zerg is currently too weak vs Terran in some respects. Anyways, I felt like responding to this which was edited into the OP. Doesn't this claim that Terran is only imba at higher levels mean that 99% of Zerg players complaining (not the OP but basically everyone else bandwagoning on what he says) have no basis for complaint since at their level, ZvT is still winnable? StarCraft is a sport, an eSport to be exact, but a sport nonetheless. Imagine if you played football and one team had wider goal spacing than the other, or if one team had to always play a man down regardless. Do you really want to tell me that you would be OK with this since it doesn't matter anyway unless you are competing at the tip top of the World Cup? I mean just L2P right? In high school I played a bit of football, and there are some schools that have such fantastic teams in comparison to ours that even if they gave us the advantage of having a man up on them and having their goal posts be spaced further apart, they could probably still defeat us. Think about the scenario I described above and imagine the responses you would get if the things that were mentioned in these forums were to take place on the field... doesn't look pretty now does it. You also wouldn't feel to good about yourself if you won knowing you had the upper hand the whole time. Of course my above example works only if there is a clearly defined way of determining if an imbalance exists and since this is a game with so many variables, not to mention 3 different races with vastly different abilities, it is a tough task indeed to quantify. Not so clean cut like a game of football. So rather than say anything about imbalance, let's just say that imbalance affects everyone at every level. Let's not allow this absurdity about lower level players having no right to ask for balance to perpetuate. Instead we should only discuss whether their reasoning holds merit for discussion, but obviously contain it to a smaller number of threads, and limiting this to productive posts. Can't we all just be civil about this? Don't we all just want the game to be as balanced, enjoyable to play, and rewarding as possible? I'm not denying that we want a balanced game, only musing that according to one school of thought apparently held by some notable players, the "goal" in your example is only wider for top level Terrans. Ergo unless you play against those Terrans, you don't have any basis for blaming your losses on imbalance. Just for continue with the previous sport example, and just to clarify. Are you telling that if you dont play on a major basketball league, such as NBA, you cant play 5 vs 5 and need to stick 5 vs 4 cause imbalance excels only at high levels? Does that makes any sense?
No. In the sports example, what I'm saying is that amateur players play 5v5, and top level players play 6v5. Top level players have a right to complain because their game is unfair. Amateur players do not because at their level no one knows how to properly execute the things that top level players do that make games at their level unfair.
|
On August 18 2010 23:41 Aborash wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2010 23:29 Sadistx wrote:On August 18 2010 22:23 hdkhang wrote:On August 18 2010 21:14 Sadistx wrote:On August 18 2010 19:49 TyrantPotato wrote:On August 18 2010 19:40 Sadistx wrote:
It's not banelings by themselves that are imbalanced, it's the combination of Fungal Growth (which should require research btw, being the most OP spell in the game) and banelings, which make it impossible to dodge, micro or retreat. ok. so being completely unable to attack a Terrans choke because of 2 siege tanks without spending 3x the resources while the T goes make dinner isnt OP. but a tier 2/2.5 unit that is a spellcaster using a spell that manually requires aim followed by a surge of a one use unit to combat one type of unit (well actually marines and maruder ball) being able to kill COST EFFECTIVELY is OP? 2 siege tanks added to a BIO army can incredibily reduce damage done by banelings. also positioning maruders infront of marines again hugely reduces damage done. ling/bling/infestor is our answer to bio armys. heaven forbid zerg actually have something to counter T. sorry, i feel like im jumping down peoples throats. i mean no offense. The problem is the counter is too good. It requires less micro than storming (no need to predict direction since it's instant) and deals enough damage by itself to the bio to make it cost effective even without the baneling mechanic. Your comment about siege tanks and marauders is simply not true. On creep the speed of baneling/ling is significant enough that you can only get 1 shot from the tanks and the cloud of Z units will get a surround on the bio ball no matter how well you micro. You also seem to forget FG affects every unit in the game and can be used to prevent much more expensive units from moving away until your main army can kill them essentially for free.(viking/medivac) On August 18 2010 19:54 Aborash wrote:On August 18 2010 19:40 Sadistx wrote:
It's not banelings by themselves that are imbalanced, it's the combination of Fungal Growth (which should require research btw, being the most OP spell in the game) and banelings, which make it impossible to dodge, micro or retreat. Im not sure if you are telling us that its unfair to tech to lvl 2.5 (and research Fungal Growth) to stop Tier 1 and Tier 1.5 unit combination. Did I understand you correctly? If that its correct, then can we have hydras for tier1? Battlecruisers kill hydras like no tomorrow, so its fine. Yes you can, but then protoss players would lose every game vs Z, so it's not an option. Fungal growth isn't "just" effective against tier 1 and tier 1.5, it's effective against everything (vikings medivacs banshees in particular) and it's too good, considering it's a tier 2 ability that doesn't need to be researched. It's a maelstrom that works on every unit type and deals damage and is lower tech than a DA. Yes, it's OP vs bio play. Neural parasite should be the given ability, not the fungal growth. NP is a MUCH worse spell, because it requires for the infestor to remain immobile, whereas with FG you can cast and run away, risking absolutely nothing. + Show Spoiler +
So if I am understanding you right, you complain because Zerg have a good counter to one of Terran's many viable strategies, and that is boring because you only know of one good way to defeat a Zerg opponent. Did you ever wonder why Zerg players get sick of Terran players telling them to L2P? It's annoying on more than one level since it assumes that Zerg have all this flexibility when that is not true, it also assumes that Zerg have this fantastic synergy which is also not true, it also assumes that Zerg are no UP anyway and hence don't need to make use of this so called "OP" units.
Banelings? They are a one time use, compared to a siege thank, the comparison isn't even fair.
* Banelings have to get in your face to be effective, tanks have range 7 or 13 when sieged
* Banelings do a one time 20 damage with a bonus of 15 to light units, tanks do 15 and 50 sieged for as long as they are alive
* You can miss with banelings, you can't miss with tanks due to zero attack animation
* Banelings being melee don't have the high ground advantage like tanks
* Banelings can be teched to sooner thank tanks
* Unupgraded, you'd need 8 banelings to destroy 1 tank (400/200 vs 150/125) that is if you can even get to the tank
I could go on, but take note of the last point because it is something you fail to realise. Although for Zerg, banelings are their AOE damage unit and tanks are Terrans AOE damage unit, this does not mean you'd want to put one up against another. Tanks are meant to decimate large ground armies, Banelings are meant to do the same, but in a different way. If they were not one time use and just rolled around blowing up everything they touched then you could complain.
As for Fungal Growth, it is an active spell, just like EMP is an active spell. Let's compare the two shall we?
* EMP costs 75 energy, FG costs 75 energy
* EMP depletes all energy, FG does not
* EMP removes 100 shield, FG does 36 damage that does not stack
* EMP cast range of 10, FG cast range of 9
* EMP can be cast while cloaked, FG cannot be cast while burrowed
* EMP can remove cloak, FG can also remove cloak
* EMP cast by a small Ghost which can blend in with your regular army if not cloaked
* FG cast by big unsightly investor with slow move speed thus requiring more micro to move out of the way
So given the benefits of EMP vs FG can you not see why in order to balance it out you need to give FG another small advantage, that of imobilisation for 8 game seconds? Seriously think about how Protoss feel about having the EMP be such a potent weapon against their army that has a very high chance of execution and a very immediate outcome.
Also, you cannot seriously be asking for a unit that is exactly the same on both sides now can you? You are already complaining about "boring" gameplay and here you are complaining that a different race has this unit that forces you to have to "be wary of them?"
You also need to remind yourself that you also have Ravens with HSM and PDD (which acts like a semi dark swarm) and I for one would gladly take Auto-Turret over Infested Terrans. Don't forget that you have medivac for fast heal on the field of battle allowing for more agression, mobility as well as sight up a cliff.
Honestly with all these options at your disposal you would go and complain about having to snipe infestors and micro your armies?
The first part of your post you're comparing tanks to banelings, then saying they shouldn't be compared directly. The second part of your post you're comparing EMP, to FG, which isn't relevant because EMP is primarily used TvP. So you actually defeated your own argument and then brought up an irrelevant one. Once you can have a conversation with real arguments without being condescending and putting words in my mouth I'd be glad to come back to this thread.. So? You compare in this one FG with Storm, does that means that you cant have a real conversation too? Just Wondering Show nested quote +On August 18 2010 21:14 Sadistx wrote:
The problem is the counter is too good. It requires less micro than storming (no need to predict direction since it's instant) and deals enough damage by itself to the bio to make it cost effective even without the baneling mechanic. BTW, nice ninja edit.
Having to post a reply to this post since the original post has since been edited.
@Sadistx
I only ask that you take the time to properly read my post given that I took the time to properly read yours. I also did not put words into your mouth, I simply relied on loaded questions to highlight the inconsistencies in your agument. Loaded questions have a touch of condescention I will admit, but it was never the intent.
As to your pointing out an inconsistency in my argument, well I'm inclined to disagree. Your post speaks of counters as if they are meant to be 1:1 and then you go on to compare abilities as if they are meant to also be directly comparable. To highlight the problem with counters being 1:1 I relied on banelings and tanks to make the comparison. To highlight counters having to be comparable I relied on two spells, FG and EMP. I could have used other spells, but the point wasn't that the two are direct responses to each other, but since you claim FG to be IMBA since it is not a researched spell, I went with EMP which is also NOT a researched spell. I also used FG/EMP to keep the topic of discussion tied to TvZ matchups. If I were to use EMP vs Feedback then the comparison would look even uglier.
Imagine TvP, EMP rounds with a HSM thrown in to the mix. Both are simply "energy" based abilities, you could use them back and forth as energy permits, FG + banelings requires resources, which is why it needs to have more potency to make it a worthwhile expenditure.
Why don't you also complain about Zerg's lack of an energy depletion ability? As a race, Zerg have the fewest spell casters and yet has no real way to nullfiy their abilities other than to flat out kill them (or if you are really fancy - NP them). Cue banelings....
|
On August 19 2010 00:26 SoFFacet wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2010 00:18 Aborash wrote:On August 19 2010 00:08 SoFFacet wrote:On August 18 2010 23:58 hdkhang wrote:On August 18 2010 23:12 SoFFacet wrote:
I do agree that Zerg is currently too weak vs Terran in some respects. Anyways, I felt like responding to this which was edited into the OP. Doesn't this claim that Terran is only imba at higher levels mean that 99% of Zerg players complaining (not the OP but basically everyone else bandwagoning on what he says) have no basis for complaint since at their level, ZvT is still winnable? StarCraft is a sport, an eSport to be exact, but a sport nonetheless. Imagine if you played football and one team had wider goal spacing than the other, or if one team had to always play a man down regardless. Do you really want to tell me that you would be OK with this since it doesn't matter anyway unless you are competing at the tip top of the World Cup? I mean just L2P right? In high school I played a bit of football, and there are some schools that have such fantastic teams in comparison to ours that even if they gave us the advantage of having a man up on them and having their goal posts be spaced further apart, they could probably still defeat us. Think about the scenario I described above and imagine the responses you would get if the things that were mentioned in these forums were to take place on the field... doesn't look pretty now does it. You also wouldn't feel to good about yourself if you won knowing you had the upper hand the whole time. Of course my above example works only if there is a clearly defined way of determining if an imbalance exists and since this is a game with so many variables, not to mention 3 different races with vastly different abilities, it is a tough task indeed to quantify. Not so clean cut like a game of football. So rather than say anything about imbalance, let's just say that imbalance affects everyone at every level. Let's not allow this absurdity about lower level players having no right to ask for balance to perpetuate. Instead we should only discuss whether their reasoning holds merit for discussion, but obviously contain it to a smaller number of threads, and limiting this to productive posts. Can't we all just be civil about this? Don't we all just want the game to be as balanced, enjoyable to play, and rewarding as possible? I'm not denying that we want a balanced game, only musing that according to one school of thought apparently held by some notable players, the "goal" in your example is only wider for top level Terrans. Ergo unless you play against those Terrans, you don't have any basis for blaming your losses on imbalance. Just for continue with the previous sport example, and just to clarify. Are you telling that if you dont play on a major basketball league, such as NBA, you cant play 5 vs 5 and need to stick 5 vs 4 cause imbalance excels only at high levels? Does that makes any sense? No. In the sports example, what I'm saying is that amateur players play 5v5, and top level players play 6v5. Top level players have a right to complain because their game is unfair. Amateur players do not because at their level no one knows how to properly execute the things that top level players do that make games at their level unfair.
Lets say we have two teams, both amateurs, they each play against a bunch of other teams also amateurs and the result is that both teams performed on par, i.e. they won against the same teams and lost agains the same teams by the same margins. So this is about as even as you could possibly imagine.
We pit these two teams against each other, but in this intance one of those teams is now playing one man short. If that team were to then blame their loss on player defecit, you would go so far as to say that they don't have that right to be upset since they could just go and L2P like the pros do and beat the other amateur team? Actually, I don't even know why I phrase it as a question since it is blatantly obvious that it is exactly what you are saying.
|
On August 19 2010 00:26 SoFFacet wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2010 00:18 Aborash wrote:On August 19 2010 00:08 SoFFacet wrote:On August 18 2010 23:58 hdkhang wrote:On August 18 2010 23:12 SoFFacet wrote:
I do agree that Zerg is currently too weak vs Terran in some respects. Anyways, I felt like responding to this which was edited into the OP. Doesn't this claim that Terran is only imba at higher levels mean that 99% of Zerg players complaining (not the OP but basically everyone else bandwagoning on what he says) have no basis for complaint since at their level, ZvT is still winnable? StarCraft is a sport, an eSport to be exact, but a sport nonetheless. Imagine if you played football and one team had wider goal spacing than the other, or if one team had to always play a man down regardless. Do you really want to tell me that you would be OK with this since it doesn't matter anyway unless you are competing at the tip top of the World Cup? I mean just L2P right? In high school I played a bit of football, and there are some schools that have such fantastic teams in comparison to ours that even if they gave us the advantage of having a man up on them and having their goal posts be spaced further apart, they could probably still defeat us. Think about the scenario I described above and imagine the responses you would get if the things that were mentioned in these forums were to take place on the field... doesn't look pretty now does it. You also wouldn't feel to good about yourself if you won knowing you had the upper hand the whole time. Of course my above example works only if there is a clearly defined way of determining if an imbalance exists and since this is a game with so many variables, not to mention 3 different races with vastly different abilities, it is a tough task indeed to quantify. Not so clean cut like a game of football. So rather than say anything about imbalance, let's just say that imbalance affects everyone at every level. Let's not allow this absurdity about lower level players having no right to ask for balance to perpetuate. Instead we should only discuss whether their reasoning holds merit for discussion, but obviously contain it to a smaller number of threads, and limiting this to productive posts. Can't we all just be civil about this? Don't we all just want the game to be as balanced, enjoyable to play, and rewarding as possible? I'm not denying that we want a balanced game, only musing that according to one school of thought apparently held by some notable players, the "goal" in your example is only wider for top level Terrans. Ergo unless you play against those Terrans, you don't have any basis for blaming your losses on imbalance. Just for continue with the previous sport example, and just to clarify. Are you telling that if you dont play on a major basketball league, such as NBA, you cant play 5 vs 5 and need to stick 5 vs 4 cause imbalance excels only at high levels? Does that makes any sense? No. In the sports example, what I'm saying is that amateur players play 5v5, and top level players play 6v5. Top level players have a right to complain because their game is unfair. Amateur players do not because at their level no one knows how to properly execute the things that top level players do that make games at their level unfair.
You've more or less jumped the shark analogy here.
|
Stegosaur
Netherlands1231 Posts
People agree that maps with many cliffs on them favour Terran, since they can put siege tanks on there.
Now what happens when a bad player gets cliffdropped? 9 out of 10 times he'll lose not just some workers but his entire expansion will be flattened, compared to a pro who might be fast enough to just lose 6 workers and perhaps save his base by dropping stuff on top of the tanks or sending mutalisks.
See how the lowlevel player noticed the imbalance way more?
|
On August 19 2010 00:26 SoFFacet wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2010 00:18 Aborash wrote:On August 19 2010 00:08 SoFFacet wrote:On August 18 2010 23:58 hdkhang wrote:On August 18 2010 23:12 SoFFacet wrote:
I do agree that Zerg is currently too weak vs Terran in some respects. Anyways, I felt like responding to this which was edited into the OP. Doesn't this claim that Terran is only imba at higher levels mean that 99% of Zerg players complaining (not the OP but basically everyone else bandwagoning on what he says) have no basis for complaint since at their level, ZvT is still winnable? StarCraft is a sport, an eSport to be exact, but a sport nonetheless. Imagine if you played football and one team had wider goal spacing than the other, or if one team had to always play a man down regardless. Do you really want to tell me that you would be OK with this since it doesn't matter anyway unless you are competing at the tip top of the World Cup? I mean just L2P right? In high school I played a bit of football, and there are some schools that have such fantastic teams in comparison to ours that even if they gave us the advantage of having a man up on them and having their goal posts be spaced further apart, they could probably still defeat us. Think about the scenario I described above and imagine the responses you would get if the things that were mentioned in these forums were to take place on the field... doesn't look pretty now does it. You also wouldn't feel to good about yourself if you won knowing you had the upper hand the whole time. Of course my above example works only if there is a clearly defined way of determining if an imbalance exists and since this is a game with so many variables, not to mention 3 different races with vastly different abilities, it is a tough task indeed to quantify. Not so clean cut like a game of football. So rather than say anything about imbalance, let's just say that imbalance affects everyone at every level. Let's not allow this absurdity about lower level players having no right to ask for balance to perpetuate. Instead we should only discuss whether their reasoning holds merit for discussion, but obviously contain it to a smaller number of threads, and limiting this to productive posts. Can't we all just be civil about this? Don't we all just want the game to be as balanced, enjoyable to play, and rewarding as possible? I'm not denying that we want a balanced game, only musing that according to one school of thought apparently held by some notable players, the "goal" in your example is only wider for top level Terrans. Ergo unless you play against those Terrans, you don't have any basis for blaming your losses on imbalance. Just for continue with the previous sport example, and just to clarify. Are you telling that if you dont play on a major basketball league, such as NBA, you cant play 5 vs 5 and need to stick 5 vs 4 cause imbalance excels only at high levels? Does that makes any sense? No. In the sports example, what I'm saying is that amateur players play 5v5, and top level players play 6v5. Top level players have a right to complain because their game is unfair. Amateur players do not because at their level no one knows how to properly execute the things that top level players do that make games at their level unfair.
Actualy you are saying that if top players and amateurs plays 5 vs 6, only top players have the right to complain.
To be honest, imbalance still imbalance at high and at low levels. So people at high, and at low levels as well, got the right to complain, why not? Cause at low levels people cant abuse properly of imbalances? That doesnt make sense imho.
For example if you rise marine life from 45 to 60 life points, a top player can kill with his amazing micro 20 zerlings with 8 marines. But a low level attack+click guy can kill more zerlings too.
|
Meh, I give up. If you want to use loaded questions to sidetrack the argument to falsely twist my points, it's your choice, but I'm out. It seems the zerg side is simply not interested in having a fair discussion.
I already stated my arguments and the fungal/baneling dynamic, but if you disagree, I can't magically make your mind rational and it's entirely your choice :/
|
On August 19 2010 00:42 Sadistx wrote:
Meh, I give up. If you want to use loaded questions to sidetrack the argument to falsely twist my points, it's your choice, but I'm out. It seems the zerg side is simply not interested in having a fair discussion.
I already stated my arguments and the fungal/baneling dynamic, but if you disagree, I can't magically make your mind rational and it's entirely your choice :/
We agree that fungal/baneling kill marine+marauders.
But you dont understand that to reach infestors you need to tech to lvl 2 lair + infestation pit. At that time terran can have tanks too, and Siege tanks brutaly rape, lings+banelings+infestors.
Just make some maths and tell me what comes first, 4 tanks or 4 infestors.
|
hey zergs,
<irony mode>
you are not inferior to terrans, you can BE terrans!
1. neural parasite an scv
2. build a command center
3. start over and win!
</irony mode>
|
totally agree with you post masterasia....as a zerg, i find it very hard to effectively play on my level (high platinum), but when i tried terran, it was way easier than zerg to play. Not saying Terran is overpowered, but they just got everything : /
|
On August 19 2010 00:42 Sadistx wrote:
Meh, I give up. If you want to use loaded questions to sidetrack the argument to falsely twist my points, it's your choice, but I'm out. It seems the zerg side is simply not interested in having a fair discussion.
I already stated my arguments and the fungal/baneling dynamic, but if you disagree, I can't magically make your mind rational and it's entirely your choice :/
I don't think you understand what loaded questions are or at the very least their purpose, and more specifically, the reason for their employment in crafting a response to your position.
You need to see past all that and realise they were not the counter to your argument. I already provided my opinion as to why your argument does not make sense in my mind and provided examples to prop up my stance. I also did so in a rational way and as such, I believe I am entitled to my opinion, as well as the belief that my "mind is a rational one and does not require you to magically make it so".
BTW, you do realise how hypocritical your post is right? Every little thing you have complained about regarding my responses you have been guilty of in your responses... I might add that my unintentional condescention as a mechanism for simplifying my point is far less aggressive than your implication that I am of insufficient intelligence to be able to have a rational mind magically implanted into me by you "the one with the superior rational mind". Do you think maybe I should have a sulk about it instead of perhaps exploring the possibility that your posts have merit? Or maybe I should just insinuate that anyone who disagrees with me is simply not interested in having a "fair" discussion.
|
On August 19 2010 00:25 Aborash wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2010 00:15 Toosneaky wrote:
People keep referring back to these sites with the average win % with all the races to argue that everything is balanced (t).
How does one explain every single race in every single league including random across all leagues have higher then 50% win rate? wtf is that? Am I missing something? For every win there should be a loser, should these sites not have their % equal out to 50? I might be tired but, can someone enlighten me? Yes, let me try to enlight you. That only prove that game is perfectly balance, only if: 1st- every three games, 1 you play against Terran, 1 against Protoss, and 1 against Zerg. 2nd- If all your games are played against same level people. 1st one can be easyly tracked, as you can review your history, and clearly see that urent facing a 33,33% against Terran, 33,33% against Protoss, and 33,33% against Zerg. 2nd one is easy to track it too, did you see in the loading screen words like "Sightly Favored" , or "Favored" ? Then you arent facing same lvl skill people. Are you agree?
Slightly favored and favored don't actually mean that people are of a different skill level than you. Those are determined by comparing their hidden rating to your normal rating, I believe, and because almost everybody has a hidden rating higher than their normal rating because almost everybody slowly improves, it's expected that almost everybody you play will be slightly favored or favored. They'll also probably see you as favored or slightly favored unless you're on a losing streak or your rating is dipping for some other reason.
Also, no, you don't have to play 33% of each race for it to prove whether or not the game is balanced. If the game is well balanced, each race should have approximately 50% win rate regardless of what mixture of opponents they play.
|
On August 18 2010 12:00 terranghost wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2010 11:09 kingcomrade wrote:
It's a shame that a single thor can counter something like half a dozen mutas or more, and they grow exponentially in strength. For antiair honestly three thors can handle any amount of mutas I believe your statement should be edited a bit. A thor will beat 12 un spread mutas if it has a bit of backup or will beat completely clutter group of 12 mutas (mabye) 4 spread mutas beat a thor. If the thor has turrets behind him but not neccacerially right next to him well the mutas take damage from more things if they attempt to surround. So on and so forth.
The problem is not individual Thors, though. It's mostly the exponential growth of their power. I wrote some stuff on page 37-ish that talks about this in more detail.
|
While I do agree that Zerg needs to be addressed, your points is ridiculously partial and objective.
|
On August 19 2010 00:36 hdkhang wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2010 00:26 SoFFacet wrote:On August 19 2010 00:18 Aborash wrote:On August 19 2010 00:08 SoFFacet wrote:On August 18 2010 23:58 hdkhang wrote:On August 18 2010 23:12 SoFFacet wrote:
I do agree that Zerg is currently too weak vs Terran in some respects. Anyways, I felt like responding to this which was edited into the OP. Doesn't this claim that Terran is only imba at higher levels mean that 99% of Zerg players complaining (not the OP but basically everyone else bandwagoning on what he says) have no basis for complaint since at their level, ZvT is still winnable? StarCraft is a sport, an eSport to be exact, but a sport nonetheless. Imagine if you played football and one team had wider goal spacing than the other, or if one team had to always play a man down regardless. Do you really want to tell me that you would be OK with this since it doesn't matter anyway unless you are competing at the tip top of the World Cup? I mean just L2P right? In high school I played a bit of football, and there are some schools that have such fantastic teams in comparison to ours that even if they gave us the advantage of having a man up on them and having their goal posts be spaced further apart, they could probably still defeat us. Think about the scenario I described above and imagine the responses you would get if the things that were mentioned in these forums were to take place on the field... doesn't look pretty now does it. You also wouldn't feel to good about yourself if you won knowing you had the upper hand the whole time. Of course my above example works only if there is a clearly defined way of determining if an imbalance exists and since this is a game with so many variables, not to mention 3 different races with vastly different abilities, it is a tough task indeed to quantify. Not so clean cut like a game of football. So rather than say anything about imbalance, let's just say that imbalance affects everyone at every level. Let's not allow this absurdity about lower level players having no right to ask for balance to perpetuate. Instead we should only discuss whether their reasoning holds merit for discussion, but obviously contain it to a smaller number of threads, and limiting this to productive posts. Can't we all just be civil about this? Don't we all just want the game to be as balanced, enjoyable to play, and rewarding as possible? I'm not denying that we want a balanced game, only musing that according to one school of thought apparently held by some notable players, the "goal" in your example is only wider for top level Terrans. Ergo unless you play against those Terrans, you don't have any basis for blaming your losses on imbalance. Just for continue with the previous sport example, and just to clarify. Are you telling that if you dont play on a major basketball league, such as NBA, you cant play 5 vs 5 and need to stick 5 vs 4 cause imbalance excels only at high levels? Does that makes any sense? No. In the sports example, what I'm saying is that amateur players play 5v5, and top level players play 6v5. Top level players have a right to complain because their game is unfair. Amateur players do not because at their level no one knows how to properly execute the things that top level players do that make games at their level unfair. Lets say we have two teams, both amateurs, they each play against a bunch of other teams also amateurs and the result is that both teams performed on par, i.e. they won against the same teams and lost agains the same teams by the same margins. So this is about as even as you could possibly imagine. We pit these two teams against each other, but in this intance one of those teams is now playing one man short. If that team were to then blame their loss on player defecit, you would go so far as to say that they don't have that right to be upset since they could just go and L2P like the pros do and beat the other amateur team? Actually, I don't even know why I phrase it as a question since it is blatantly obvious that it is exactly what you are saying.
That analogy makes no sense. My entire point has been that, according to the point of view that was edited into the OP, specifically that the game is "different" at the top, only top Zerg are really disadvantaged. Only top Terran know how to properly use their advantage, yet Zerg of all levels blame imbalance for every loss.
On August 19 2010 00:41 Aborash wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2010 00:26 SoFFacet wrote:On August 19 2010 00:18 Aborash wrote:On August 19 2010 00:08 SoFFacet wrote:On August 18 2010 23:58 hdkhang wrote:On August 18 2010 23:12 SoFFacet wrote:
I do agree that Zerg is currently too weak vs Terran in some respects. Anyways, I felt like responding to this which was edited into the OP. Doesn't this claim that Terran is only imba at higher levels mean that 99% of Zerg players complaining (not the OP but basically everyone else bandwagoning on what he says) have no basis for complaint since at their level, ZvT is still winnable? StarCraft is a sport, an eSport to be exact, but a sport nonetheless. Imagine if you played football and one team had wider goal spacing than the other, or if one team had to always play a man down regardless. Do you really want to tell me that you would be OK with this since it doesn't matter anyway unless you are competing at the tip top of the World Cup? I mean just L2P right? In high school I played a bit of football, and there are some schools that have such fantastic teams in comparison to ours that even if they gave us the advantage of having a man up on them and having their goal posts be spaced further apart, they could probably still defeat us. Think about the scenario I described above and imagine the responses you would get if the things that were mentioned in these forums were to take place on the field... doesn't look pretty now does it. You also wouldn't feel to good about yourself if you won knowing you had the upper hand the whole time. Of course my above example works only if there is a clearly defined way of determining if an imbalance exists and since this is a game with so many variables, not to mention 3 different races with vastly different abilities, it is a tough task indeed to quantify. Not so clean cut like a game of football. So rather than say anything about imbalance, let's just say that imbalance affects everyone at every level. Let's not allow this absurdity about lower level players having no right to ask for balance to perpetuate. Instead we should only discuss whether their reasoning holds merit for discussion, but obviously contain it to a smaller number of threads, and limiting this to productive posts. Can't we all just be civil about this? Don't we all just want the game to be as balanced, enjoyable to play, and rewarding as possible? I'm not denying that we want a balanced game, only musing that according to one school of thought apparently held by some notable players, the "goal" in your example is only wider for top level Terrans. Ergo unless you play against those Terrans, you don't have any basis for blaming your losses on imbalance. Just for continue with the previous sport example, and just to clarify. Are you telling that if you dont play on a major basketball league, such as NBA, you cant play 5 vs 5 and need to stick 5 vs 4 cause imbalance excels only at high levels? Does that makes any sense? No. In the sports example, what I'm saying is that amateur players play 5v5, and top level players play 6v5. Top level players have a right to complain because their game is unfair. Amateur players do not because at their level no one knows how to properly execute the things that top level players do that make games at their level unfair. Actualy you are saying that if top players and amateurs plays 5 vs 6, only top players have the right to complain. To be honest, imbalance still imbalance at high and at low levels. So people at high, and at low levels as well, got the right to complain, why not? Cause at low levels people cant abuse properly of imbalances? That doesnt make sense imho. For example if you rise marine life from 45 to 60 life points, a top player can kill with his amazing micro 20 zerlings with 8 marines. But a low level attack+click guy can kill more zerlings too.
Again, no. My entire point has been built off of the statement that was edited into the OP, which is that the game is different at the top level. Obviously the numbers are not different - qxc's Marine has exactly as much health as your Marine. But top Terrans know how to do things that Zerg can't cope with, things that low level players are either unaware or incapable of.
|
On August 18 2010 18:48 LightYears wrote:To OP: Do you realize how freaking ridiculous your points? IdrA that I also found funny along the critics to him, now I think is more of a man than Dimaga. He plays Z 'with teeth', and doesn't he also play for a team? What are we, insta-fast learners and Z and P are retards? You mean Dimaga changes, race and the rest is im sure innacurate of Zergs dropping. Oh, now T abuse how? They didn't nerf tanks in beta, maybe? Are you serious? Zerg fe-s like all the time, whine about Terran expands? Lool. Yes yes list all units of Terran. What does zerg have? Nothing, right. Moblility.YES. Hellions are counter to the masses of zerglings that you can ABUSE. Terran needed to have a counter unit. You have upgrade of zergling too, you know. You just say how heavily zerg loses, for terran tha's nothing raaaight, when zerg produces units faster. The armies could have an army order rather than a ball of meat, I agree with that. One word: Bullshit The whole post is one big pile of junk comments, claiming that Zerg is owned in every way, brutally, Zerg cant do a thing, every single thing terran does is imba, OP, GG. If Blizzard had to listen to such like you, then terran wouldnt exist at all. Have some manner and know where to stop with your 'Everything of terran is OP, everything of zerg is too weak' damn it.
Well I don't know your race exactly but I assume you are terran. If you like we can play a game to see whether my points stand. Me as Terran, you as Zerg.
I will admit your points are completely right if I can't do one of those:
1 Fast expand and get a better eco than zerg in a long time period.
2 Outmacro - I will have 4 expansions earlier than the zerg. (if you do not die before that)
3 I will tell your my openning hence you don't need to guess, which may increases the uncertainty.
FYI, I only played 5 Terran games in my sc2 life.
|
On August 18 2010 23:12 SoFFacet wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2010 11:03 Saracen wrote:
This guy is a good player. Even if you don't like what he's saying or disagree with it, at least respect him because he's significantly better than anyone else who's posted in this thread so far. The problem is exactly what MasterAsia stated in the OP: at lower levels, he can still win ZvT no problem. But once he players better and better players, it becomes harder and harder to win. At the moment, there doesn't exist a single top Zerg player who thinks TvZ is "fine." People like Sheth can hardly take any games off of their Terran teammates in practice, even versus ghost/hellion/marauder strategies. Do you really think that's because Qxc/drewbie/CauthonLuck are just so much better than Sheth? You can argue all you like about the matchup in your mid-level 500 point Diamond ranks, but the truth is it's really different at the top. I do agree that Zerg is currently too weak vs Terran in some respects. Anyways, I felt like responding to this which was edited into the OP. Doesn't this claim that Terran is only imba at higher levels mean that 99% of Zerg players complaining (not the OP but basically everyone else bandwagoning on what he says) have no basis for complaint since at their level, ZvT is still winnable? EDIT Also I was curious about the mention of Ghosts in the OP, and he subsequently stated that he is getting nuked on a regular basis. I was just wondering on what build/composition enables a Terran to do this? I've never done or seen it before. Is there a replay demonstrating it?
Well the nuke is not the point. Sometimes they nuke sometimes they don't. It doesn't matter nuke or not as long as they have ghosts I think.
Before Tier 3, ghosts are most good against every Zerg unit unless you go heavy on roaches. So yes, I was defeated by ghosts in a regular basis sebsequently. Totally not because of nuke, just sometimes they nuke me because I built too many spin crawlers in early defence.
|
Let's do an analogy thats actually fair here that captures when people wrongfully claim that only top tier players have a right to whine. If you have two people competing at a sport none of them trained for, the one with the genetics for said sport will win. The other person can chose to start training to beat the genetically favored person - but once this person starts training he will keep beating the disadvantaged person given equal training. At one point training levels out and cannot do anymore for either party, and we are left with the genetically favored person winning if they both perform to the best of their abilities.
In real life we can take the example of a European 100m sprint runner vs one from Jamaica, scientists have tried to uncover any variance in the training that could explain the phenomena but are left with just a genetics.
So in relation to what we are discussing here, if terrans are favored in the MU - a zerg can keep beating terrans with less training all the way up the ladder. The disadvantage is there but can be overcome with training. At some point individual training peaks, and the other players catches up to you with the slight edge of an advantage he has had all along.
To conclude, the disadvantage in the matchup would be there all along but you can only objectively conclude there is a disadvantage if it is experienced in a level of play where individual skill cannot improve any further to nullify it.
|
On August 19 2010 00:42 Sadistx wrote:
Meh, I give up. If you want to use loaded questions to sidetrack the argument to falsely twist my points, it's your choice, but I'm out. It seems the zerg side is simply not interested in having a fair discussion.
I already stated my arguments and the fungal/baneling dynamic, but if you disagree, I can't magically make your mind rational and it's entirely your choice :/
oh i see so people who don't agree with you are obviously "irrational" right?? yea your obviously into having fair discussions..
|
I hope these concerns are read by blizzard and this post linked on Battle.net. Very informative, very true. I'm a Terran player now and I would rather play Zerg, but everytime I face Terran, I get steam rolled by pretty much every concern listed. I've always thought that if you give Hydras the speed increase from BW, increase the range of roaches by one, and reduce morphing time from Hatch>Lair>Hive, then things might be a bit more balanced. Perhaps an extra buff from Meta Boost to Zerglings? Maybe increase HP by 5. That wouldn't be too OP IMO, but as the mode mentioned, my opinion may be skewed because I'm just a silver level player.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
