Day[9] interview at WCG

On August 22 2010 07:49 brn4meplz wrote:
Starcraft isn't what it is today without Brood War(original Starcraft has an immensity of failings) Alot of things seen in current Sc1 play were introduced with the Brood War expansion. The same can be said for War3 RoC and TFT. TFT balanced alot of units and introduced some needed niche units.

I purchased SC2 knowing Full well that it would take an expansion to settle the score on balance and gameplay.

On September 12 2010 16:43 Sfydjklm wrote:
how can zergs start winning once they figure out how to open safely if zerg 200/200 is inferior to every other race by a large margin?

On September 12 2010 16:57 TedJustice wrote:

They'll figure out ways to not let their opponent get to 200/200, if that's what it takes to win. They'll also probably figure out more neat tricks like the muta magic boxing, etc. that will give them smaller edges in battles.

On September 12 2010 17:02 Damnesiac wrote:
So who do i listen to... Day[9].. hasn't won anything in sc2 really, and supposedly barely plays at all, OR players who were better than him in sc1 and are far better than him in sc2 with more knowledge. I like day9 in sc1 because he had credibility and experience to back up whatever you said. In sc2 he is just some sort of master of extrapolation with no evidence what so ever. IdrA gives solid reasoning for all his points and his predictions in every field have super accurate results. Not only that but many top level players including some terrans agree that there is imbalance. I guess I am just too demanding of people who make pretty ballsy claims when there arguement is ' We are going to see this happen then this happen and then this will happen '

On September 12 2010 17:02 Damnesiac wrote:
So who do i listen to... Day[9].. hasn't won anything in sc2 really, and supposedly barely plays at all, OR players who were better than him in sc1 and are far better than him in sc2 with more knowledge. I like day9 in sc1 because he had credibility and experience to back up whatever you said. In sc2 he is just some sort of master of extrapolation with no evidence what so ever. IdrA gives solid reasoning for all his points and his predictions in every field have super accurate results. Not only that but many top level players including some terrans agree that there is imbalance. I guess I am just too demanding of people who make pretty ballsy claims when there arguement is ' We are going to see this happen then this happen and then this will happen '

On September 12 2010 17:02 Damnesiac wrote:
So who do i listen to... Day[9].. hasn't won anything in sc2 really, and supposedly barely plays at all, OR players who were better than him in sc1 and are far better than him in sc2 with more knowledge. I like day9 in sc1 because he had credibility and experience to back up whatever you said. In sc2 he is just some sort of master of extrapolation with no evidence what so ever. IdrA gives solid reasoning for all his points and his predictions in every field have super accurate results. Not only that but many top level players including some terrans agree that there is imbalance. I guess I am just too demanding of people who make pretty ballsy claims when there arguement is ' We are going to see this happen then this happen and then this will happen '

On September 12 2010 17:03 Wargizmo wrote:


Yeah In BW a Terran 200/200 beats a Protoss 200/200 but that matchup is still pretty balanced.

I still think T is a little overpowered in Sc2 though.

On September 12 2010 17:09 Piski wrote:


I think Day9 has still a lot of credibility in SC2 too because he is just good in RTS and SC2 isn't that different from BW. Also he has just shown that he still has knowledge about the game and is widely respected by pro players.
That said I still hope he would play more just because I followed him in BW and love him x) I want to see him in tournaments and I would love to see him do well.

On September 12 2010 16:43 Sfydjklm wrote:
how can zergs start winning once they figure out how to open safely if zerg 200/200 is inferior to every other race by a large margin?
That logic actually brings a lot more concern than relief because once protoss/terran figure out good macro builds with harrassment options the imbalances will manifest themselves even worse.

And also wc3 is a horrible example of blizzard knowing how to balance a game;(

On September 12 2010 17:15 Sfydjklm wrote:

So zerg has to figure out something protoss and terrans already know about zerg?
How to not let a zerg get to 200/200.
The problem is that zerg is dominated in all aspects of the game.

On September 12 2010 17:17 ShaperofDreams wrote:

have you watched bw?

terran has the best 200\200 army ez. by a large margin. the other races have to do cutesy shit all the time.

+15 attack upgrade for siege tanks by 3\3? holy fucksickle.

On September 12 2010 17:23 Sfydjklm wrote:

have you watched BW? What exactly in SC2 is in any way similar in power to muta and swarm?

On September 12 2010 17:24 ShaperofDreams wrote:


ugh muta in sc2 as well as fg and banelings are really good.

are you real?

On September 12 2010 17:25 ShaperofDreams wrote:
do you even get how long it took in bw for ppl to clump mutas and to use dark swarm well?

On September 12 2010 17:18 _Darwin_ wrote:
So Day9 is waiting for the expansion to "create solutions to the problem."

On September 12 2010 17:21 ShaperofDreams wrote: ur disappointed that an incredibly complex strategy game isnt balanced by the first month of release?

On September 12 2010 17:09 boprandem wrote:
Day[9] for president of USA!

On September 12 2010 17:27 sirius89 wrote:
Hahahah "BAAAAM i answered the shit out of this question" made me laugh so much. xD
One of the funniest guy's on mother earth.

On September 12 2010 17:27 Sfydjklm wrote:

Yea, because people were largely less experienced with RTS and esports mechanics back then.
Its not a fair comparison.

And again if this attitude is indeed applicable what was up with all the beta zerg nerfs even though people like Jinro and Tester have shown us ways to play to even the battlefield against zerg?

On September 12 2010 17:46 ShaperofDreams wrote:

look at the games played in modern tournaments.

even winners of entire tourneys had: queens, nexi, cc's full of energy. 1 control group syndrome. unit composition flaws (aka not adding tech in late game and just repeating their midgame) People are still learning to use late game casters. and i like mutas in sc2 even more then i like them in bw.

also barely any previous pros play sc2 now, and no top pros.

how can you make any of those claims until seeing a jaedong or a flash, hell even a fire bat hero play the game. even washed up players and b-teamers dominate most "pros" right now.

On September 12 2010 17:41 Deadlyfish wrote:
I think he's right about the balance thing. Many games balance themselves out over time, unless there is a huge issue. So Blizz is right to make minor changes instead of just changing the game completely for no reason.

Also, someone said that Day9 isnt very credible in sc2, and they'd rather listen to IdrA about balance? Ever considered IdrA might be very biased, seeing as he plays Zerg? If i was a pro Zerg player i'd just say that every other race besides my own was OP, why wouldnt I? Better race = more $$.

Day9 is one of the most credible guys when it comes to balance, imo.

On September 12 2010 17:02 Damnesiac wrote:
So who do i listen to... Day[9].. hasn't won anything in sc2 really, and supposedly barely plays at all, OR players who were better than him in sc1 and are far better than him in sc2 with more knowledge. I like day9 in sc1 because he had credibility and experience to back up whatever you said. In sc2 he is just some sort of master of extrapolation with no evidence what so ever. IdrA gives solid reasoning for all his points and his predictions in every field have super accurate results. Not only that but many top level players including some terrans agree that there is imbalance. I guess I am just too demanding of people who make pretty ballsy claims when there arguement is ' We are going to see this happen then this happen and then this will happen '

On September 12 2010 18:08 Vei wrote:
day9 needs to stop thinking tvz is balanced. it's a fucking fact of numbers, the # of openers T has thanks to their unit diversity vs the # of routes zerg has is simply retarded. it's something like 9 vs 14 combat units.

On September 12 2010 17:15 Sfydjklm wrote:
The problem is that zerg is dominated in all aspects of the game.

On September 12 2010 18:07 NonFactor wrote:


Idra doesen't strike to me as a person who would lie about stuff like this. He might say stuff in a game when hes losing, but that's just rage. While if asked stuff like this in interviews he usually gives proper responses to why and how things are wrong, you can also see some posts by Idra. Also saying that Idra would lie so his race would get buffed to make extra money is just ridicolous lol. A game with overpowered races is a game that won't last long. = Money lost in the long run.

And there is imo a huge issue, and that is the Zerg scouting, Reapers are too. And no, don't think 5 seconds will fix anything. Because the issue there isn't really the reapers. The issue is that you are forced to go Roaches, and the instant you do that, the Terran will start pumping Marauders from 5 rax, take off his SVCs and steam roll you. Incredibly hard to stop, but easy to execute from the T side. (Tech lab = Reapers and Marauders, kinda silly how easily a T can change unit compositions, but yeah...) Then you have a ball of Reapers / Marauders with stim. Or something we see more often thesedays is that they mix in Marines too. And a shit ton of SVCs. Versus like maybe 10 roaches and some lings that melt instantly.

Last game of Idra vs Morrow shows greatly another issue. How is Zerg supposed to figure out what T is doing? One Techlab doesen't mean anything, and since it's cheap, T can just throw it there for shits and giggles. These 2 are the main reasons I see Zergs losing, and why I lose myself. Since I can't figure out what T is doing, I need to either: 1. Take a blind guess and power some type of unit. 2. Tech to lair and ''prepare for everything'' but yeah, that usually ends with me getting steamrolled. For example if your going for Hydralisks and he actually went for a Bio push, it's straight GG. If you went Roaches expecting a Marine / Hellion push, but he actually went Banshees, it's usually GG. (Not maybe straight away but the economic damage you will take is great.)

I like Day9, he's my favourite caster. But frankly, his play in HDH wasn't impressive, and I doubt his play in the future will be impressive either. He just isn't that competitive. Anyone has his account name to check where does he lay in points now? Anything under 1k would be dissapointing tbh. I think Day9 just tries to stay neutral. Which is understandable, but that doesen't make him credible imo.

On September 12 2010 18:33 rocketboy77 wrote:


Don't be melodramatic.

On September 12 2010 18:35 Deadlyfish wrote:


IdrA is a bm pro zerg player, why would anyone listen to him about balance?

It doesnt matter if there is an imbalance now, useless to discuss.

Also, how is Day9 staying neutral? He is saying that the problem will fix itself and that zergs just need to try different things out, how is that neutral? Neutral would be him saying "i dunno lol".

The whine needs to stop, every zerg i play on the ladder doesnt GG, but instead goes "Terran imba, play a real race", as if that was the reason he lost.

I dont like how he asked day9 about balance either. If only the community could drop the crying and just discuss ways to actually beat 5 rax reaper or whatever. Spending your time crying in the corner isnt gonna do anything

On September 12 2010 17:29 _Darwin_ wrote:
I said:


And you said:



I'm not sure how the two relate.

To clarify: I'm not disappointed in the imbalance. I'm disappointed in Day9 refusing to acknowledge the imbalance.

I like Day9, he's my favourite caster. But frankly, his play in HDH wasn't impressive, and I doubt his play in the future will be impressive either. He just isn't that competitive. Anyone has his account name to check where does he lay in points now? Anything under 1k would be dissapointing tbh. I think Day9 just tries to stay neutral. Which is understandable, but that doesen't make him credible imo.

On September 12 2010 16:57 TedJustice wrote:

They'll figure out ways to not let their opponent get to 200/200, if that's what it takes to win. They'll also probably figure out more neat tricks like the muta magic boxing, etc. that will give them smaller edges in battles.

On September 12 2010 18:58 TheComeback wrote:
I dont understand why Day[9] isnt commentating GSL instead of tasteless. Hes about 200x more knowledgeable on the subject...

On September 12 2010 17:26 Sfydjklm wrote:

Yes all those things exist in SC2. They are however but a shadow of their former selves.

On September 12 2010 18:48 Endorsed wrote:
I think he has like a 17-4 record in platinum with a bonus pool of around 400. He doesn't play that much.

On September 12 2010 18:58 TheComeback wrote:
I dont understand why Day[9] isnt commentating GSL instead of tasteless. Hes about 200x more knowledgeable on the subject...

On September 12 2010 19:06 Wolfpox wrote:
Day9 simultaneously says that it's too early to talk about balance, and yet he says that Blizzard has to patch it and can deal with balances.

The fact that they're balancing it means that it wasn't balanced. Duh. I wish people would stop worshiping everything he says.

On September 12 2010 18:33 Kyuki wrote:

More of this... Sure I can agree that zerg doesnt have the biggest set of units to work with, but that's not really a problem if shit works.

BW is the best example in the book. Zerg has the SAME friggin "problems" in BW. You need to be good with managing your larvae, you need excellent scouting and Terran has a billion openings that they can do to mess with the zerg early/mid.
Bunker rush, BBS, 4rax allin, fast vulture, 2starport Wraith, 14 CC, all the variants of a rax-CC opening that goes into 5rax play or 4fact goliath pushes and I dont know what... There are just so many things the zerg has to account for and if you produce too many drones at any point with the wrong information on your hand (or vice versa, make too many units) you will almost ALWAYS loose.

Standard openings just doesnt appear because "that's how you do it" it's because it works as the best response to what MOST of what the opponent can throw at you, and will put you in a good position for the later stages of the game.

PvT in BW is also another good example. Early in history, Terran had to account for many many diffrent openings which made the matchup very hard - suddenly terran discovered a ways to openen safely and get good eco/punish greedy tosses, which put them in good positions later on in the game.

PvZ is also a good example. Toss dont have many openings to choose from and has to prepare for all the diffrent types of all-ins zerg can do. Lurkerdrops, doomdrops, hydra all in, ling all in, lurker ling busts and 2-hat muta (not as much all-in though..) and does all of this with almost 1 opening.
Forge-FE.

--

I think it's awesome that all these new SC2 players come here to post their opinions, but I'm getting abit sick of how they think shit is a "fact" when history tells you something totally diffrent.

Let's just wait and see how clever people can adapt and do new and diffrent things and how diffrent patches and expansions will change gameplay, because I'm sure those will happen since tuning is needed for a game like this to keep growing and be as perfect as possible.

On September 12 2010 19:03 Kyuki wrote:


And you think he plays on that account more than custom games? Jesus, the guy couldnt show his smurf account to anyone without beeing molested to death by newbies who wants to "have a word" with him.

On September 12 2010 19:06 Wolfpox wrote:
Day9 simultaneously says that it's too early to talk about balance, and yet he says that Blizzard has to patch it and can deal with balances.

The fact that they're balancing it means that it wasn't balanced. Duh. I wish people would stop worshiping everything he says.

On September 12 2010 19:14 Endorsed wrote:


He actually doesn't have a smurf account. He said that in one of his daily's. In BW he never had a account named day9 actually.

On September 12 2010 16:43 Sfydjklm wrote:
how can zergs start winning once they figure out how to open safely if zerg 200/200 is inferior to every other race by a large margin?

On September 12 2010 19:11 NonFactor wrote:


I think you are wrong. BW shouldn't be compared to SC2, not like this. Zerg is very different.

First of all, the attacks generally in BW come later then they do in SC2. One base play in BW is relatively easy to figure out since T doesen't have as many options that are viable.

And the answer to all of these openings is usually Mutalisks. Why does Jaedong go Mutalisk against T every game? Because it works every game. It doesen't matter what they do, if you get Mutalisks, you can combat against your opponent somehow. This isn't the case in SC2.

Also another thing: Sunkens. Sunkens are great at deflecting early attacks. Easy to make and don't need to ''comit'' to them till you see opponent moving out. You don't have the same luxury in SC2. Spine Crawlers suck, plain and simple. Immortals, Marauders wreck them. They take ages to build too.

In BW it's norm to build sunkens while teching to Mutas.

Maps majorly for Zerg too.

Zerg in BW can more or less always do the same BO and get away with it. 3 hatch muta or 3 hatch spire into 5 hatch hydra. Find me one BO that you can do consistently in majority of your games against T in SC2, that takes you into midgame. You can't. Since there isn't one, and maybe one will be discovered in the future, but frankly, I have my doubts. Reason? Terran can vary their builds so much off 1 base. If they would start expanding and then doing these fancy pushes, it would be more simple, but that's not the case. They can do so many army compositions and if you meet them with the wrong one, it's GG. They can easily tech up too with little risk.

Marine Tank, Marine Hellion, Marine Marauder, pure Marines. Marauder Tank, Marauder Hellion, pure Marauders. Marine Banshee, Marine Thor, BIO with Medivacs. Banshees. Drops. Blue flame hellion marines, blue flame hellion marauders. Hellion drop. Etc etc etc etc. Most of these require different techs to deal with. And most importantly. >RIGHT COMPOSITION<. T always has the advantage when it comes to composition. Tech lair when hes going bio? GG.

T makes wall-in, makes Tech lab. You think: Marauders or reapers. Hes actually has 3 raxes making at some corner of his base and soon he will roll up your ramp with 20 marines with stim, and you were making lings into Mutalisks. Another GG.

And that's another thing: Tech labs. BW didn't have those, and they are incredibly good, since they allow T to do so many unit compositions without much commitment.

They can also execute these pushes while expanding and pumping SVCs.

Anyways, enough talk, I could probably go on about this for ever, but it would be useless. It's just stupid to compare SC2 to BW, they function differently alot. The concept is the same, but that's about it.

On September 12 2010 19:15 Kyuki wrote:

I wish people wouldnt pull shit out of their asses.
IF problems arrises they can fix it, and with two new expanions there are atleast two times where they Will either just make it more kickass or add something that will solve a problem. That's what he said.

The fact that they are TUNING the game is not a indication of imbalance, but rather blizzards way of opening up new ways of playing the game, making it MORE DYNAMIC. There is a big fucking diffrence here...

Maybe there is balance problems, that's not the fucking point. Regardless if it is or not, it's too early to talk of it in definite terms, since it's just fucking stupid... Which BW was a good example of.

Chris Sigaty: Well, we're definitely going to patch. I think that's one of the things that is part of Blizzard's magic, is we continue to support the game for a long time. Obviously, we have expansions coming out, along the way, we'll be releasing patches. Some will have features in them, some will only address balance, they'll ebb and flow as far as how big they are. We have something planned probably a month or two out already with some minor features being added in there, just tweaks to things. There will also, I'm sure, be some balance reaction in there.

Dustin Browder: Yeah, absolutely. In terms of balance, we'll do whatever is necessary at the time. Obviously, we're going to continue to be as cautious as we dare, where we want make sure the community has had the chance to play with new stuff, and they get a chance to play with it, and that they are, in fact, identifying a problem for us correctly. But, the minute we know a problem is real, you know that we're convinced that it's got to be changed, we're going to try to get a patch out there as soon as is humanly possible because we don't want people playing with stuff that we know is broken. It drives us crazy as much as it does the guys playing it because we're playing with you guys every night too.

On September 12 2010 19:31 Kyuki wrote:

Another confused person. If you were around when 1-basing was the only thing that players did in BW for several years you'd know. This evolution however will be alot faster in SC2 due to how we already have the history of BW and ways to "see" what could be working or not.

How many times have jaedong lost when he did what was the most standard thing in the world; 2-hat muta to a early MM bust? Alot of times... And why is that? because it's a VERY thin line to walk when it comes to larvae management. If he makes too many lings, the mutas will do no dmg and he'll be put behind in the midgame. If he makes to few lings he might straight up die. Either case is bad. What makes mutalisks work is not the unit per se, but how it contains the terran and allow for droning which is needed to keep up economywise etc etc.
The problem is how you friggin get there in the best possible way without dying, and there are a ton of ways for terran to kill you before mutas pop if you're bad at managing your larvae.

This same thing goes for Zerg today in SC2, hatcheries still spawn larvae, queens are cheaper hatcheries, but you still make workers out of your combat unit building. You can go Muta every game vs T and it still contains the terran from moving out and force turrets etc, WHEN THEY ARE ON THE FIELD. The problem is STILL how you get to them, and there is where people are still learning.
How many drones can I get away with? Do I need a sunken? Do I need queen(s)? Lings? Roaches?

No one is saying that terran armies are not strong and versetile. They are, but the problem is not the midgame when both zerg and terran are "in it" it is how to move on from the earlygame, and that is currently a problem for zergs - but it was the SAME in BW.
Sure it's two diffrent games, but that doesnt mean you cant learn from the other game and understand that EVERYTHING isnt figured out yet.

T_T

On September 12 2010 19:27 Snippa- wrote:

Let me put it this way...
As a Zerg player, if I hit 200/200, I win. There is absolutely no question about it.
If it gets to that point in the game, there is no doubt that I will win the game.
If there are Zerg players hitting 200/200 and not winning, then they're building the wrong units and/or not getting the proper upgrades.

200/200 for Zerg is late game fyi. I will personally never have 200 supply worth of overlords without having gotten to the point where I COULD build Ultralisks and Broodlords. I would also VERY likely have at least 2 expansions by that time, possibly 3 or 4. (Not that I would be mining from every base, likely only 3 bases).
So assuming my first mix of units at 200/200 doesn't work, I could easily hit 200/200 again very quickly with a different mix. At that point in the game I could adapt far quicker to what any Terran or Protoss player is doing than they could adapt to what I'm doing.

Is it close to being balanced? I'd say about 80%. But let's drop the bullshit and get real. I love SC2 and I love Day[9], but that kid is completely lying if he doesn't admit that the game is imbalanced. It's not too early to tell, and it's not hard to see. What, a month ago was beta and everything was up for grabs, and now suddenly it's all sacred cows? Fuck that. We're still in beta as far as I'm concerned. Blizzard didn't have a "It's done when it's done" policy on this game, they just put it out at the deadline and promised to keep balancing it. And they will balance it eventually.

On September 12 2010 19:45 Wolfpox wrote:


"Tuning"? Holy shit, what kind of public relations spin talk is that supposed to be? Are you getting paid to pretend like this game is balanced or something?

Here's what BLIZZARD THEMSELVES SAY




So don't give me this, "Dude, man, they're just like, tuning it to make it EVEN MORE PLUS TIMES AWESOMER dude, there's not actually any problems at all man... it's like just all in your head and stuff." Because everybody with a brain knows that this game needs a lot of work before it will be balanced. It may not be beta, but the multiplayer won't be balanced for YEARS, after all the expansions are out.

Is it close to being balanced? I'd say about 80%. But let's drop the bullshit and get real. I love SC2 and I love Day[9], but that kid is completely lying if he doesn't admit that the game is imbalanced. It's not too early to tell, and it's not hard to see. What, a month ago was beta and everything was up for grabs, and now suddenly it's all sacred cows? Fuck that. We're still in beta as far as I'm concerned. Blizzard didn't have a "It's done when it's done" policy on this game, they just put it out at the deadline and promised to keep balancing it. And they will balance it eventually.

On September 12 2010 19:51 Stenstyren wrote:



QFT.

Just want to add that one-base play is an effect of the players not having figured out solid openings yet and the maps being fucking retarded. In the future we will move away from one base play and players such as:



Will never be able to win a game again. Seriously, getting to 200/200 while mining of two bases and calling that good? Had this been BW or "SC2 from 3 years in the future" having two mining bases at the point where you are 200/200 would mean that you have a bad economy.

On September 12 2010 19:31 Kyuki wrote:

Another confused person. If you were around when 1-basing was the only thing that players did in BW for several years you'd know. This evolution however will be alot faster in SC2 due to how we already have the history of BW and ways to "see" what could be working or not.

How many times have jaedong lost when he did what was the most standard thing in the world; 2-hat muta to a early MM bust? Alot of times... And why is that? because it's a VERY thin line to walk when it comes to larvae management. If he makes too many lings, the mutas will do no dmg and he'll be put behind in the midgame. If he makes to few lings he might straight up die. Either case is bad. What makes mutalisks work is not the unit per se, but how it contains the terran and allow for droning which is needed to keep up economywise etc etc.
The problem is how you friggin get there in the best possible way without dying, and there are a ton of ways for terran to kill you before mutas pop if you're bad at managing your larvae.

This same thing goes for Zerg today in SC2, hatcheries still spawn larvae, queens are cheaper hatcheries, but you still make workers out of your combat unit building. You can go Muta every game vs T and it still contains the terran from moving out and force turrets etc, WHEN THEY ARE ON THE FIELD. The problem is STILL how you get to them, and there is where people are still learning.
How many drones can I get away with? Do I need a sunken? Do I need queen(s)? Lings? Roaches?

No one is saying that terran armies are not strong and versetile. They are, but the problem is not the midgame when both zerg and terran are "in it" it is how to move on from the earlygame, and that is currently a problem for zergs - but it was the SAME in BW.
Sure it's two diffrent games, but that doesnt mean you cant learn from the other game and understand that EVERYTHING isnt figured out yet.

T_T

On September 12 2010 20:09 NonFactor wrote:
Wasting my breath here I'm sure.

On September 12 2010 20:30 Malinor wrote:
Step 1: Watch Day[9] interview
Step 2: Reading comments of people saying he is wrong and delusional
Step 3: Realising that most of those people put words in his mouth that he never even said
Step 4: Checking TL-registration dates of these people (makes me wish I would have registered earlier then 2008, I would be so much cooler )
Step 5: Stop writing a well thought-out response, because it is just a waste of time. Being a dick instead.

If you guys would have been around in 1998-2000 or so, you would probably be way more careful when talking about balance in SC2. Well, at least you should be.

On September 12 2010 18:07 NonFactor wrote:

Idra doesen't strike to me as a person who would lie about stuff like this. He might say stuff in a game when hes losing, but that's just rage. While if asked stuff like this in interviews he usually gives proper responses to why and how things are wrong, you can also see some posts by Idra. Also saying that Idra would lie so his race would get buffed to make extra money is just ridicolous lol. A game with overpowered races is a game that won't last long. = Money lost in the long run.

And there is imo a huge issue, and that is the Zerg scouting, Reapers are too. And no, don't think 5 seconds will fix anything. Because the issue there isn't really the reapers. The issue is that you are forced to go Roaches, and the instant you do that, the Terran will start pumping Marauders from 5 rax, take off his SVCs and steam roll you. Incredibly hard to stop, but easy to execute from the T side. (Tech lab = Reapers and Marauders, kinda silly how easily a T can change unit compositions, but yeah...) Then you have a ball of Reapers / Marauders with stim. Or something we see more often thesedays is that they mix in Marines too. And a shit ton of SVCs. Versus like maybe 10 roaches and some lings that melt instantly.

Last game of Idra vs Morrow shows greatly another issue. How is Zerg supposed to figure out what T is doing? One Techlab doesen't mean anything, and since it's cheap, T can just throw it there for shits and giggles. These 2 are the main reasons I see Zergs losing, and why I lose myself. Since I can't figure out what T is doing, I need to either: 1. Take a blind guess and power some type of unit. 2. Tech to lair and ''prepare for everything'' but yeah, that usually ends with me getting steamrolled. For example if your going for Hydralisks and he actually went for a Bio push, it's straight GG. If you went Roaches expecting a Marine / Hellion push, but he actually went Banshees, it's usually GG. (Not maybe straight away but the economic damage you will take is great.)

I like Day9, he's my favourite caster. But frankly, his play in HDH wasn't impressive, and I doubt his play in the future will be impressive either. He just isn't that competitive. Anyone has his account name to check where does he lay in points now? Anything under 1k would be dissapointing tbh. I think Day9 just tries to stay neutral. Which is understandable, but that doesen't make him credible imo.

On September 12 2010 21:26 Bhaalgorn wrote:
It's much easier to say the game is imbalanced and you didn't have a chance of winning than admitting you made too many mistakes or were just outplayed.

On September 12 2010 21:48 HuHEN wrote:
I agree, but I just also feel we need to give feedback and try to help the game to continue to improve.

On September 12 2010 17:02 Damnesiac wrote:
So who do i listen to... Day[9].. hasn't won anything in sc2 really, and supposedly barely plays at all, OR players who were better than him in sc1 and are far better than him in sc2 with more knowledge. I like day9 in sc1 because he had credibility and experience to back up whatever you said. In sc2 he is just some sort of master of extrapolation with no evidence what so ever. IdrA gives solid reasoning for all his points and his predictions in every field have super accurate results. Not only that but many top level players including some terrans agree that there is imbalance. I guess I am just too demanding of people who make pretty ballsy claims when there arguement is ' We are going to see this happen then this happen and then this will happen '

On September 12 2010 20:37 Wolfpox wrote:
Nah, the game is new, it's just stupid to pretend that it's balanced. Do I claim to have all the answers for that? No, and not even Blizzard does.

I realize that Day[9] is trying to be politically correct by avoiding questions of balance, and is doing the "good gamer" thing of pretending like a game is balanced in order to work on strategies (since there is no point is thinking of imbalance when working on strategies) but that doesn't mean he's right if he says its too early to tell, etc.

Oh and here's some more good steps:

Step 1: Watch everything Day[9] says
Step 2: Worship his every word as sacred truth
Step 3: Repeat what he says like an unthinking robot on the forums
Step 4: Shit all over anything that doesn't regurgitate that one guy's opinion

The attitude of Day[9], and his huge pride in trying to pretend like that game doesn't need balance fixes, is what annoys me. "BOOM I ANSWERD TEH SHI OUT OF THAT QUESTION". No you didn't, you just sidestepped it and gave a formulaic non-answer. The attitude implies that patches, balances and expansions are just ways to "tune" or "improve" it, not actually fix something that's wrong. What magic wand was waved that suddenly turned the game from totally zany beta phase, to unquestionable perfect balance? Nothing. It's perfectly valid and fair to raise balance concerns UNLESS you want to discuss strategy... which is what Day[9] is exclusively doing, besides shoutcasting some stuff. So it's fine for him to ignore balance in his little dailies, but it's absurd to not even acknowledge it otherwise

On September 12 2010 17:29 _Darwin_ wrote:
I said:


And you said:



I'm not sure how the two relate.

To clarify: I'm not disappointed in the imbalance. I'm disappointed in Day9 refusing to acknowledge the imbalance.

On September 13 2010 00:05 HalfAmazing wrote:
Balance only affects players. Day[9] is a caster. He really doesn't care, as long as games are interesting and entertaining.

What I have noticed in all these times listening and watching Day9 is that he tries to be "politically correct". Plus, he doesn't have to acknowledge as he openly states that he has the most trouble with all his zerg matchups (ironic because he was a zerg player in BW). Not only that, but also the tournaments results, the ladder ranking, the statistics, the constant complains from zerg/protoss, and finally blizzard path notes all point to the imbalance.

On September 12 2010 23:26 GoSu] wrote:


I assume that you didn't play Starcraft/Broodwar when it first came out, if at all. The only thing they changed in Broodwar was, iirc, adding the Wraith, and fixing bugs/exploits.
People didn't know what to do at first, and thought that certain strategies were OP, but now, ten years later, nearly nobody questions balance.

Similarly, in SC2, people were saying that Thors are way too strong against Mutalisks. A few weeks later, the 'magic box' technique is formed, and Thors are no longer too strong against Mutalisks.

On September 13 2010 00:05 HalfAmazing wrote:
Balance only affects players. Day[9] is a caster. He really doesn't care, as long as games are interesting and entertaining.

On September 13 2010 01:03 MorroW wrote:

lol...
he wants a balanced game just as much as the players i think. whats the fun in commentating if u have to take imbalance into consideration each time a race wins over another rather than giving it to the players

day9 is awesome and i think i have to absolutely agree with his answers. wc3 tft was alot less balanced than sc1 so by that u could draw the conclusion that sc2 wont be very balanced at all but i hope thats not gonna be the case

bringing in new units is not only gonna make the game more interesting and fun, it also has great potential to fix some problems just like he says

personally i think the game is lacking more of enjoyment factor than balance tho. thats why im alot more excited for the expansions with new cool stuff rather than these little stat changes

On September 13 2010 02:27 kidijs wrote:


OK THIS ISN'T FUNNY BUT YOUR POST MADE ME THINK OF SOMETHING LIKE THIS:

On September 13 2010 02:39 Iatrik wrote:
Day[9] > all.

The best three players in the world (right now) are Tester,Cool and Idra.
2 Zergs and 1 Protoss.
Get it?
Just because 1.000.000 Noobs are whining, doesn't mean the game is imbalanced.
As long as two top players with even skill are even in odds, the game is fine.

On September 12 2010 18:08 Vei wrote:
day9 needs to stop thinking tvz is balanced. it's a fucking fact of numbers, the # of openers T has thanks to their unit diversity vs the # of routes zerg has is simply retarded. it's something like 9 vs 14 combat units.

On September 12 2010 16:43 Sfydjklm wrote:
how can zergs start winning once they figure out how to open safely if zerg 200/200 is inferior to every other race by a large margin?
That logic actually brings a lot more concern than relief because once protoss/terran figure out good macro builds with harrassment options the imbalances will manifest themselves even worse.

And also wc3 is a horrible example of blizzard knowing how to balance a game;(

I have thoughts regarding that too, which are probably obvious to you too but you ignore them, however if that is the case answer my question. How were zerg nerfs warranted but terran nerfs arent.
It was fairly balanced in the beta before zerg got nerfed to shit with only Dimaga soundly dominating and most protoss terran taking the morrow approach of "imma macro like a madman for 2k games, screw harassing zerg"
Meh.

Balance only affects players. Day[9] is a caster. He really doesn't care, as long as games are interesting and entertaining.

And also wc3 is a horrible example of blizzard knowing how to balance a game;(

So who do i listen to... Day[9].. hasn't won anything in sc2 really, and supposedly barely plays at all, OR players who were better than him in sc1 and are far better than him in sc2 with more knowledge. I like day9 in sc1 because he had credibility and experience to back up whatever you said. In sc2 he is just some sort of master of extrapolation with no evidence what so ever. IdrA gives solid reasoning for all his points and his predictions in every field have super accurate results. Not only that but many top level players including some terrans agree that there is imbalance. I guess I am just too demanding of people who make pretty ballsy claims when there arguement is ' We are going to see this happen then this happen and then this will happen '

Not only that but many top level players including some terrans agree that there is imbalance.

The problem with whiners who call imbalance so vehemently seems to be that they won't try to come up with new BOs to counter T. All they do is cry.

On September 12 2010 20:37 Wolfpox wrote:
Nah, the game is new, it's just stupid to pretend that it's balanced. Do I claim to have all the answers for that? No, and not even Blizzard does.

I realize that Day[9] is trying to be politically correct by avoiding questions of balance, and is doing the "good gamer" thing of pretending like a game is balanced in order to work on strategies (since there is no point is thinking of imbalance when working on strategies) but that doesn't mean he's right if he says its too early to tell, etc.

Oh and here's some more good steps:

Step 1: Watch everything Day[9] says
Step 2: Worship his every word as sacred truth
Step 3: Repeat what he says like an unthinking robot on the forums
Step 4: Shit all over anything that doesn't regurgitate that one guy's opinion

The attitude of Day[9], and his huge pride in trying to pretend like that game doesn't need balance fixes, is what annoys me. "BOOM I ANSWERD TEH SHI OUT OF THAT QUESTION". No you didn't, you just sidestepped it and gave a formulaic non-answer. The attitude implies that patches, balances and expansions are just ways to "tune" or "improve" it, not actually fix something that's wrong. What magic wand was waved that suddenly turned the game from totally zany beta phase, to unquestionable perfect balance? Nothing. It's perfectly valid and fair to raise balance concerns UNLESS you want to discuss strategy... which is what Day[9] is exclusively doing, besides shoutcasting some stuff. So it's fine for him to ignore balance in his little dailies, but it's absurd to not even acknowledge it otherwise

On September 13 2010 04:04 Pedo.Bear wrote:
just out of curiosity... are there any old links to pro starcraft1 games? not bw lol

would be fun to watch without bw units haha

On September 12 2010 16:43 Sfydjklm wrote:
how can zergs start winning once they figure out how to open safely if zerg 200/200 is inferior to every other race by a large margin?
That logic actually brings a lot more concern than relief because once protoss/terran figure out good macro builds with harrassment options the imbalances will manifest themselves even worse.

And also wc3 is a horrible example of blizzard knowing how to balance a game;(

On September 12 2010 19:31 Kyuki wrote:


Will never be able to win a game again. Seriously, getting to 200/200 while mining of two bases and calling that good? Had this been BW or "SC2 from 3 years in the future" having two mining bases at the point where you are 200/200 would mean that you have a bad economy.

On September 13 2010 02:30 DarkspearTribe wrote:
wat

On September 13 2010 04:44 Ballistixz wrote:
i agree with what he said about the expansions. blizz has heart of the swarm and legacy of the void to fix this game up. thats 2 or 3 years for blizz to get this game right. if the game is not fixed by the time legacy of the void comes out then everyone can quit SC2 because it never will be fixed.


but i do have to dissagree with what he said about protoss being the strongest... who the hell is saying toss is stronger then terran right now? if any good terran knows how to incorporate ghosts into there army mix against toss then there should be no way in hell those words should be uttered out of anyones mouth. not even day9s.

toss stronger then terrans indeed. that was a nice troll there day9 lol.

On September 13 2010 04:44 Ballistixz wrote:but i do have to dissagree with what he said about protoss being the strongest... who the hell is saying toss is stronger then terran right now?

On September 12 2010 17:41 Deadlyfish wrote:
Also, someone said that Day9 isnt very credible in sc2, and they'd rather listen to IdrA about balance? Ever considered IdrA might be very biased, seeing as he plays Zerg? If i was a pro Zerg player i'd just say that every other race besides my own was OP, why wouldnt I? Better race = more $$.

On September 12 2010 18:35 Deadlyfish wrote:

The whine needs to stop, every zerg i play on the ladder doesnt GG, but instead goes "Terran imba, play a real race", as if that was the reason he lost.

On September 13 2010 05:11 GhoSt[shield] wrote:


Watch this interview with IdrA. He explicitly states that when anything he feels is imbalanced in the game, regardless of which race he is playing, he will point it out. So its not about some personal bias simply to make the game easier for him to win tournaments with his race, it is about the long-term solution to have a truly balanced and enjoyable game.

IdrA fanclub interview

but i do have to dissagree with what he said about protoss being the strongest... who the hell is saying toss is stronger then terran right now?

On September 13 2010 05:11 GhoSt[shield] wrote:


Watch this interview with IdrA. He explicitly states that when anything he feels is imbalanced in the game, regardless of which race he is playing, he will point it out. So its not about some personal bias simply to make the game easier for him to win tournaments with his race, it is about the long-term solution to have a truly balanced and enjoyable game.

IdrA fanclub interview

On September 12 2010 19:47 Seraph.yongweihua wrote:
These Idra fan boys who claim Idra would never say anything anything is balanced or imbalanced if it wasn't seem to forget in the beta he claimed roaches were fine and was pissed about the roach nerf.

Yes, he now admits that roaches were too OP and did need some type of nerfing, but at the time he complained because his favourite unit compo, roach hydra, was being nerfed.

On September 13 2010 06:00 Half wrote:

We should also note that while Idra feels that Zerg is underpowered he doesn't make any claims on why, only that some change is warranted, and commenting on issues with the Matchup.

Also Idra and many other prominent zerg feel that PvZ is more imbalanced then TvZ

On September 13 2010 04:44 Ballistixz wrote:
i agree with what he said about the expansions. blizz has heart of the swarm and legacy of the void to fix this game up. thats 2 or 3 years for blizz to get this game right. if the game is not fixed by the time legacy of the void comes out then everyone can quit SC2 because it never will be fixed.


but i do have to dissagree with what he said about protoss being the strongest... who the hell is saying toss is stronger then terran right now? if any good terran knows how to incorporate ghosts into there army mix against toss then there should be no way in hell those words should be uttered out of anyones mouth. not even day9s.

toss stronger then terrans indeed. that was a nice troll there day9 lol.

On September 13 2010 06:25 SubtleArt wrote:


What's your point? Protoss has templars which storm and feedback ghosts and medivacs. It all comes down to who micros better, who gets their spells of the fastest, and who positions their units better. Isn't this what people want??????????????????????????????????????????? I thought we WANTEd micro rather than having every fight almost be predetermined by the amount of units and their composition. Are people like you ever happy? Oh right, Sc2 noobs....guess I have to adjust expectations.

On September 12 2010 17:02 Damnesiac wrote:
So who do i listen to... Day[9].. hasn't won anything in sc2 really, and supposedly barely plays at all, OR players who were better than him in sc1 and are far better than him in sc2 with more knowledge. I like day9 in sc1 because he had credibility and experience to back up whatever you said. In sc2 he is just some sort of master of extrapolation with no evidence what so ever. IdrA gives solid reasoning for all his points and his predictions in every field have super accurate results. Not only that but many top level players including some terrans agree that there is imbalance. I guess I am just too demanding of people who make pretty ballsy claims when there arguement is ' We are going to see this happen then this happen and then this will happen '

On September 13 2010 06:33 vol_ wrote:


Someone correct me if i'm wrong but i swear Day said in one of his dailies he was very highly ranked on his secret laddering account. I THINK he said like top 15 in the world but don't quote me on that.

On September 13 2010 06:36 _Darwin_ wrote:


Lol day9 is not top 15 in the world. Not top 200 in the world. Maybe top 15 in his NA diamond division >>

On September 13 2010 06:25 SubtleArt wrote:


What's your point? Protoss has templars which storm and feedback ghosts and medivacs. It all comes down to who micros better, who gets their spells of the fastest, and who positions their units better. Isn't this what people want??????????????????????????????????????????? I thought we WANTEd micro rather than having every fight almost be predetermined by the amount of units and their composition. Are people like you ever happy? Oh right, Sc2 noobs....guess I have to adjust expectations.

On September 13 2010 06:21 _Darwin_ wrote:


IdrA has made many claims as to why the ZvT MU is imba.

IdrA has never said that PvZ is more imba than TvZ. Where the hell are you getting this stuff?

On September 13 2010 07:00 Ballistixz wrote:



u mad bro?

emp is a AoE insta cast skill with a pretty decent range. u can get 5+ templars with one emp. feed back cannot compare. u need to indivually select each ghost and u will have to decide on rather to feed back or to storm. in that amount of time 1 ghost can fuck over every single Templar u have.

in other words, terrans dont have to micro. they press w/e the fucking hotkey is for emp and click on a group units/temps. anyone can do it. with feed back you have to manually select each ghost and that can be hard if the ghosts are cloaked and you better have a damn high APM.

also feed back in general is not as good as storm, so most protosses opt for just storming a army rather then taking the wasted time to find ghost and feed backing them in a army.

so if it all comes down to "who gets there spells off faster" terran will come ahead every time against toss. like i said emp=insta cast+AoE. and the AoE isnt at all small. usually u can get a entire toss army emped with just 2 emps. and as for storm? well, im zerg and i can easily dodge storms with hydras OFF creep. so how easily do u think stimmed marines/marauders will dodge storms?

/end of conversation.

On September 13 2010 07:09 Terrakin wrote:

That doesn't make sense, 2 emps sure could get like 10 templars(if in ball), but saying it can get an entire toss army is just stupid. And storms are amazing against marines, not so much marauders.

On September 13 2010 07:00 Ballistixz wrote:



u mad bro?

emp is a AoE insta cast skill with a pretty decent range. u can get 5+ templars with one emp. feed back cannot compare. u need to indivually select each ghost and u will have to decide on rather to feed back or to storm. in that amount of time 1 ghost can fuck over every single Templar u have.

in other words, terrans dont have to micro. they press w/e the fucking hotkey is for emp and click on a group units/temps. anyone can do it. with feed back you have to manually select each ghost and that can be hard if the ghosts are cloaked and you better have a damn high APM.

also feed back in general is not as good as storm, so most protosses opt for just storming a army rather then taking the wasted time to find ghost and feed backing them in a army.

so if it all comes down to "who gets there spells off faster" terran will come ahead every time against toss. like i said emp=insta cast+AoE. and the AoE isnt at all small. usually u can get a entire toss army emped with just 2 emps. and as for storm? well, im zerg and i can easily dodge storms with hydras OFF creep. so how easily do u think stimmed marines/marauders will dodge storms?

/end of conversation.

IdrA has made many claims as to why the ZvT MU is imba.

On September 13 2010 08:14 SubtleArt wrote:


nu i iz not mad broooooooo. Just emphasizing it by bolding because I find it really weird how much people complain about everything, no matter what.

Also, your argument is completely shortsighted. Theres plenty of ways for protoss to minimize EMP damage, like not having every single unit in 1 control group, dispersing HT throughout your army, preemptively feedbacking ghosts, sending an observer ahead of your army to check for cloaked ghosts, etc etc.
I think EMP can compare pretty well to Storm in its nature (point + click and you do damage). And lol you really think protoss has it rough because they have to "manually select each ghost"? Wow, that's such a high level of micro. Ever played brood war?

Finally your "storm > feedback" argument is stupidly shortsighted. What if 2 feedbacks result in 2 ghosts being unable to drain the shields of half your army and the energy of one or 2 of your templars? I think this benefit far outweighs the damage a single storm would do.

As for your "i can dodge" argument...well storm casts so fast that its impossible to fully dodge it. That and don't dismiss a protoss who actually knows how to spread his storms well. Even when you do react well you've still taken a lot of damage, and often forced Terran to waste time moving rather than shooting, and forcing him away from the favorable position he had his units in (like breaking a Terran's concave). You see theres more to this game than "this does damage, this does more damage, this stops that from doing damage". Maybe if you weren't a noob or weren't so close minded you'd understand.

Don't worry though, im not bad bro. Emotion is pretty hard to detect on the internet so refrain from making knee jerk assumptions, bro.

/commence conversation

On September 13 2010 11:01 Ballistixz wrote:


this post made me realize how much u do not know.

stop trying to get around the fact that emp is a skill that INSTANTLY reduces 100 shields/takes away energy/makes immortals harden shield worthless. shields pretty much account for part of a toss HP. and for most toss units that means half there health is instantly gone.

compare that to storm that does 80 dmg over a period of time that u can easily maneuver out of. you said it yourself, a toss cant just throw a storm and call it a day. they need to carefully place there storms and need to throw down multiple storms for it to take effect. terran on the other hand only need to click a fucking button and point and the dmg is INSTANTLY dealt.

oh ya and lets not forget that storm has a shorter AoE radius then EMP.

so yes, you are still wrong. ghosts in a army easily cripple a toss if used well just like my argument suggests. more so then storm or feed back against terran. especially since most of the time medivacs are going to be low on energy and ghosts will get off emps before temps can get off a feed back on them since last time i checked, emp has a larger skill range them feed back on top of it being a aoe.

you are also ignoring the fact that feed back costs energy. if u use feed back then that templar will be unable to storm for awhile unless u saved up some energy on it before hand. but if u wait to have enought energy to feed back and storm then u delay pushes. and if ur warping in temps with the amulet upgrade u will only just barely have enought for ONE storm. so watch what happens if you try to feed back and waste energy that you could have otherwise used for a extra storm.

On September 12 2010 17:02 Damnesiac wrote:
So who do i listen to... Day[9].. hasn't won anything in sc2 really, and supposedly barely plays at all, OR players who were better than him in sc1 and are far better than him in sc2 with more knowledge. I like day9 in sc1 because he had credibility and experience to back up whatever you said. In sc2 he is just some sort of master of extrapolation with no evidence what so ever. IdrA gives solid reasoning for all his points and his predictions in every field have super accurate results. Not only that but many top level players including some terrans agree that there is imbalance. I guess I am just too demanding of people who make pretty ballsy claims when there arguement is ' We are going to see this happen then this happen and then this will happen '

On September 13 2010 03:54 ThE_ShiZ wrote:

Only reason idra is winning is because half the T's ive seen arent even that good, just your average diamond terrans.

On September 13 2010 21:15 attackfighter wrote:


high templar are cheaper than ghosts and you can warp them in anywhere on the map, so despite what you think it's much easier for the toss to spam storm than it is for the ghosts to neutralize them (especially if the toss puts a modicum of effort into splitting the templars apart...).

storm is also deadlier since terran units clump up more, have lower health and have to expend an additional 10 health on stimming and running. Even if you do dodge a storm, most of the marines will die and the remaining units will drain medivac energy for healing. And if you mix force field in and feedback the medivacs suddenly you're doing tons more damage that the terrans not going to be able to heal.

another thing to note is that protoss only has to micro their casters to win a battle. it benefits them if they target fire, but it's not going to kill a player if he's not skilled enough to do so properly. compare that to terran, who has to carefully dispense stims, kite zealots, dodge storms, focus fire robo bay units and keep medivacs from suiciding, and suddenly you find a lot more difficulty on the Terran side of micro.

I play random quite a lot, and I find protoss caster micro sooo much easier to execute than the clunky and unforgiving terran micro. I am of course a mediocre player, 700 point Diamond in SC2 and D- in Brood War, so by no means do my experiences reflect an imbalance between the races. What they do show is that players like me (99% of the game's userbase probably) will likely find toss easier to win with than terran, in TvP atleast. Asides from my own experiences, it's interesting to note that in Korea toss is considered the easiest race, and that toss is generally played more both on ladder and in tournaments - these reinforce my own opinions

What they do show is that players like me (99% of the game's userbase probably) will likely find toss easier to win with than terran, in TvP atleast

On September 12 2010 17:02 Damnesiac wrote:
So who do i listen to... Day[9].. hasn't won anything in sc2 really, and supposedly barely plays at all, OR players who were better than him in sc1 and are far better than him in sc2 with more knowledge. I like day9 in sc1 because he had credibility and experience to back up whatever you said. In sc2 he is just some sort of master of extrapolation with no evidence what so ever. IdrA gives solid reasoning for all his points and his predictions in every field have super accurate results. Not only that but many top level players including some terrans agree that there is imbalance. I guess I am just too demanding of people who make pretty ballsy claims when there arguement is ' We are going to see this happen then this happen and then this will happen '

On September 13 2010 22:34 Yeld wrote:
To all those claiming that Day9 is an idiot for not talking about the same imbalances people like Idra like to point out:
I am a huge Idra fan and I think the balance issues he sees might be quite real. STILL the answer Day9 gave in that interview stems from the only mindset that will help you improve and enjoy the game. Even if there are imbalances, complaining about them will only lessen your enjoyment of the game and nothing else. However, taking the tools given to you and learning to use them in the best way possible is fun, challanging and ultimately rewarding.

This is the type of zerg QQ that is the most deplorable.

On September 14 2010 02:13 Ballistixz wrote:first off yes, a templar is cheaper then a ghost as a unit on its own. but you are forgetting all the tech u need to even make a templar useful. ghost only need the ghost academy. thats a measly 150 minerals and 50 gas. after that ghosts come with emp right out the box. no need to research it or anything else. so the total investment for a ghost with emp is 300 minerals and 200 gas.

lets look at templars with storm. you need 400 minerals and 550 gas for a templar with storm. and if you try to make any kind of timing push with the templars u might need the amulet, so add 150 minerals and 150 gas to that. see how expensive that is now? and guess what, a ghosts moebius reactor is CHEAPER THEN the templars amulet as well even tho they both give THE EXACT SAME EFFECT. so in the long run a templar is much much more expensive then a ghost. most terrans will easily have ghosts out before the toss have templar and storm tech out for any kind of timing push.

also you keep saying how you need to micro with force fields, feed back, storm placement, etc but u find that easier then terrans EMPing? i dont get it.

ghosts: press the EMP button, click on the army, profit.

Templar: press the storm button, use force fields so they will have a harder time dodging the storm, have multiple storms out so u can place "perfect" storms rather then crap storms that are easily dodgeble(oh and lets not forget that storm has a short cool down, emp does not. so you will need extra templar to get off back to back storms where as terrans dont need that many ghosts for emp). all the while making sure your entire clump of templars AND ur army stays safe from the emp itself.

that is heavy micro compared to what the terran has to do. and if you call "kiting" micro then you should go back to playing those small time MMOs to where u hit and run mobs with your slow down skill to lvl up...

protoss are alot more micro intensive with there casters and units then terran is. if a terran can stim up and 1 A to victory then they just kite all day with marauders and do Shift click drops from one base to the next.

also i really would love to know whats so unforgiving about terran micro. and dont say "cuz i get my medivacs fedbacked". unless you really want to feed back 10-20 medivacts that are usually on half health or lower anyway cuz of the healing anyway. so good job, u wasted 50 energy to do 20 dmg to a unit, but hey u might get lucky and reduce its health to half. better yet, good luck even TRYING to feed back them in the first place since terrans usually have medivacts on top or behind there army, making feed backing useless and near impossible against medivacs anyway. but go ahead. try to do it and let ur temps get sniped off like a tard.

you ppl toss aroud the feed back idea as if its plausible but i bet none of you actually tried it against a competent terran. not to mention how fucking short of a range feed back has in the first place. and why the fuck would u try to do that at all? its a MUCH better idea to feed back point defense drones or ravens. something i never see toss do because there to busy trying to be cute jack offs. "herp derrp, most of my stalkers atks are useless now because of the defense drone so ima go ahead and continue feed backing and storming medivacs and run my stalkers away"

no reason to waste feedback on something like a medivact that u most likely wont get to without dying rather then a PDD. but ppl like u would of course rather feed back medivacts and reduce there health to half (forget the fact that scvs can repair right?) and let something like PDD fuck you over in the end. but im done with the feed backing rant.

but i have no idea why im arguing with a person that made up a sentence like this in there post.


ya, i would LOVE to know where u got that 99% statistic from.

This is the type of zerg QQ that is the most deplorable.

On September 14 2010 07:43 Half wrote:
Hai guys, instead of comparing Ghosts versus HTs which is entirely futile because certain people can't get past there victimization complexes, lets pretend what would happen if Ghosts didn't exist.


HTs get storm.

Bio dies.

The end.

On September 14 2010 07:45 ltortoise wrote:


...What?

I don't generally use ghosts in TvP, even when Templars are in play, because I don't feel that ghosts are an effective counter at all... It's way too reactive, since the toss chooses when and where to engage with templar, and almost always will get those key storms off.

I counter storm just by having lots of stuff

On September 14 2010 07:47 Half wrote:


Why wouldn't you invest 150/150 to possibly neutralize his entire Tier 3 portion of his army? I mean, I usually skip ghosts early/mid game too, it isn't nearly effective enough against normal units to warrant the wierd tech path and cost, but by lategame, its almost a "why not" unit...

On September 14 2010 07:53 ltortoise wrote:


Even off 2 base, 150 gas is a fucking metric shit ton of gas. I could be spending that gas on more +attack/armor upgrades, more medivacs, or start adding tanks, get the pre-igniter upgrade....

All of which are, in my personal opinion, far more multi-purpose and guaranteed to pull their weight. A ghost is not. I cast it's EMP, does the Protoss retreat? Do I hit the Templars?

It's a gamble, and usually a gamble on how bad the Protoss is. All the other uses of gas I mentioned are not a gamble, and are consistently helpful every single time. If the Protoss is worth a damn, they can easily force a situation where each templar costs an entire EMP to neutralize, and I don't consider that worth it, since templars have a dual purpose (archon morph) and ghosts do not, except as some dps to chargelots I suppose.

EMP'ing a large chunk of their army? Sure, it's helpful if it happens, but again against a competent toss it really never should. People spread their stuff out.

On September 14 2010 07:48 HuHEN wrote:
How does all PvT discussion always descend into a discussion about HTs and ghosts, there are so many other factors effecting the matchup.

On September 14 2010 09:39 attackfighter wrote:


You're not going to need that many medivacs and you won't need vikings either if he's going heavy on templars (as opposed to collusus). That leaves factory units, which aren't very good in TvP imo, as they slow your army down a ton and don't do too much damage. I have a hard time in TvP tho, so maybe my opinions on whats good and not aren't valid

That's a one time investment of 400 resources... building 4 ghosts costs 400 more resources than 4 HT, and in a typical game you're going to be getting a lot more than that. you've also failed to address the warp in mechanic, which allows the protoss to regenerate their storms almost instantly

I've already covered why Terran micro is unforgiving (lack of it will leave your army in the red, casters without energy and half your units trapped behind forcefields so they can't escape).

I don't see why you think kitings any easier than spell casting, essentially both just require a few clicks. And I wasn't saying Terran was harder due to kiting, it was kiting in conjunction with the spell casting and other army management skills that they require.

I highlighted the word 'probably' so you'd be able to tell that I didn't actually get that statistic from anywhere. It's likely accurate though, since the vast majority of players aren't even in diamond and those that are mostly hover around the mid/low level.

On September 15 2010 01:06 adius wrote:
I think what Day9 gets that 99% of forum posters miss is that Blizzard OWNS the game, and nobody balances games by reading internet forums and tallying up "x is op" posts, or even tallying up "x is op and i am an idra/morrow tier player" posts. That would be dumb.

ThereFORE, your only reasonable choices are to change races if you're zerg, stop playing the game, or work hard to improve your mechanics and expand your understanding of the game with the goal of smashing 95% of players regardless of imbalance, and smashing the rest of them after things eventually get tweaked. Any of these choices are equally sensible as long as you're not just playing a race because everyone says it's OP, but whining on forums about balance is the biggest waste of time imaginable and if I ran TL I would pretty much ban it entirely.

On September 15 2010 04:40 attackfighter wrote:


It becomes even more pointless to complain about imbalance once you realise that the ladder system gives you a 50% win-rate no matter what. "oh no my race is so weak, yet I win the same amount of games as the supposedly OP race!"

On September 14 2010 07:53 ltortoise wrote:
EMP'ing a large chunk of their army? Sure, it's helpful if it happens, but again against a competent toss it really never should. People spread their stuff out.

On September 15 2010 06:55 Dayling wrote:

Yes, Terran, Protoss and Zerg have the same win/loss ratios...
http://img839.imageshack.us/img839/9784/racediamond.png

Edit: Link was weird. Also, if you don't understand the graph, ask me.

On September 15 2010 07:29 attackfighter wrote:


That graph says it's for race distribution, meaning it shows how many diamond players play each race. Doesn't have anything to do with win statistics, and if you're arguing that the ladder doesn't match you up so you have a 50% win ratio you're an idiot.

On September 15 2010 07:50 Dayling wrote:


Well if you actually studied the graph you might realize that it is about race distribution, the percentage of each race at different point intervals. And since points are directly related to your wins... you see what I'm getting at.

On September 15 2010 06:57 Half wrote:


Because you have ghosts.

See just because you can't instantly neutralize like 1000/1000 worth of casters (which is pretty unlikely against any half decent toss) doesn't mean they have no value in your army.

You'er attempting to argue that Ghosts have little place in TvP anyway because it is largely ineffectual against half decent protoss who are good at spreading units out and feedbacking with the aid of obs's, and then you simultaneously point towards meta game developments in your favor that only exist because ghosts do.

On September 12 2010 17:02 Damnesiac wrote:
So who do i listen to... Day[9].. hasn't won anything in sc2 really, and supposedly barely plays at all, OR players who were better than him in sc1 and are far better than him in sc2 with more knowledge. I like day9 in sc1 because he had credibility and experience to back up whatever you said. In sc2 he is just some sort of master of extrapolation with no evidence what so ever. IdrA gives solid reasoning for all his points and his predictions in every field have super accurate results. Not only that but many top level players including some terrans agree that there is imbalance. I guess I am just too demanding of people who make pretty ballsy claims when there arguement is ' We are going to see this happen then this happen and then this will happen '