|
On September 20 2010 04:55 Fantistic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2010 14:55 iCanada wrote:On September 18 2010 14:31 purerythem wrote:
why no idra? Because he hasn't won a tournament post release... This sickens me. IdrA is one of the most skilled players on the world if not the best. Doesn't matter how good you are, the chances of winning with Zerg are too low.
Every game I see IdrA lose, it's cause he's playing like an idiot. Also IdrA doesn't play in many tournaments; probably less than ten since release.
|
this just shows the obvious, difficulty of zerg
|
wow its so funny to see that there are still people out there ( mostly terrans ) who claim that the game is balanced and zerg players are just bad. guys the game isnt out for 2 months, the game is imbalanced and thats normal. so please dont talk garbage like "ALL GOOD PLAYAZ PLAYIN' TERRENNS KEKEK!!1"
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On September 20 2010 05:25 MythicalMage wrote:
It bears noting that there are less than ten top zergs in the world right now. So that number of wins seems fair, compared to the population.
oh brother.
|
On September 19 2010 15:05 Psyclon wrote:So from yesterday: Altitude TL Open #1: first, second, third and fourth place - Terran (SelecT, Strelock, Tarson, Drafter) Viking Cup: first, second place - Terran (MorroW, Merz) From the day before yesterday: SCV Ready: first place - Terran (MorroW) Some other tournament: first place - Terran (SjoW) Diversity is the key word 
To add more statistics:
Terrans were minority among registered in TL Open (28.3%)
In RO16 terrans were majority (50%)
I don't think there can be bigger and more solid proof that at least in NA/Europe terran is imba. And since Morrow was claiming in this very thread that he plays for the sake of challenge and not winning, the only way for him to redeem himself and not be labeled as hypocrite is to switch to some other race (zerg, preferably)~
|
On September 20 2010 05:26 MythicalMage wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2010 04:55 Fantistic wrote:On September 18 2010 14:55 iCanada wrote:On September 18 2010 14:31 purerythem wrote:
why no idra? Because he hasn't won a tournament post release... This sickens me. IdrA is one of the most skilled players on the world if not the best. Doesn't matter how good you are, the chances of winning with Zerg are too low. Every game I see IdrA lose, it's cause he's playing like an idiot. Also IdrA doesn't play in many tournaments; probably less than ten since release.
I see tons of Terran/Protoss-players playing bad but still winning....
|
|
|
On September 20 2010 05:40 kickinhead wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2010 05:26 MythicalMage wrote:On September 20 2010 04:55 Fantistic wrote:On September 18 2010 14:55 iCanada wrote:On September 18 2010 14:31 purerythem wrote:
why no idra? Because he hasn't won a tournament post release... This sickens me. IdrA is one of the most skilled players on the world if not the best. Doesn't matter how good you are, the chances of winning with Zerg are too low. Every game I see IdrA lose, it's cause he's playing like an idiot. Also IdrA doesn't play in many tournaments; probably less than ten since release. I see tons of Terran/Protoss-players playing bad but still winning....
And I see Zergs playing badly and still winning. There's never a game where I'm like "Oh he lost from imbalance." It's "Oh he mismicroed," Or "Oh he didn't macro very well" or "Oh he took a risky expansion" or "Oh he suicided his army." It's never "He played perfectly but still lost." I can't recall one, really, where "He played better than the Terran(Or Protoss) and still lost."
|
On September 18 2010 05:40 bri9and wrote:
So, posted this info on battle.net twice.. first time it got deleted (10 pages of posts), second time it got deleted after 5 pages and I get banned.. Information suppression? I'm pretty angry right now..
That's a pretty disgusting move by Blizzard. You did nothing but post some real facts without trolling at all. They should learn to patch faster and if they are not able to do this they just have to take the criticism in their forums. Deleting posts is a very weak move Blizz...pathetic.
|
On September 20 2010 05:47 MythicalMage wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2010 05:40 kickinhead wrote:On September 20 2010 05:26 MythicalMage wrote:On September 20 2010 04:55 Fantistic wrote:On September 18 2010 14:55 iCanada wrote:On September 18 2010 14:31 purerythem wrote:
why no idra? Because he hasn't won a tournament post release... This sickens me. IdrA is one of the most skilled players on the world if not the best. Doesn't matter how good you are, the chances of winning with Zerg are too low. Every game I see IdrA lose, it's cause he's playing like an idiot. Also IdrA doesn't play in many tournaments; probably less than ten since release. I see tons of Terran/Protoss-players playing bad but still winning.... And I see Zergs playing badly and still winning. There's never a game where I'm like "Oh he lost from imbalance." It's "Oh he mismicroed," Or "Oh he didn't macro very well" or "Oh he took a risky expansion" or "Oh he suicided his army." It's never "He played perfectly but still lost." I can't recall one, really, where "He played better than the Terran(Or Protoss) and still lost."
So you are implying that there are no balance-issues?... cuz thats friggin ridiculous....
|
On September 20 2010 05:49 kickinhead wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2010 05:47 MythicalMage wrote:On September 20 2010 05:40 kickinhead wrote:On September 20 2010 05:26 MythicalMage wrote:On September 20 2010 04:55 Fantistic wrote:On September 18 2010 14:55 iCanada wrote:On September 18 2010 14:31 purerythem wrote:
why no idra? Because he hasn't won a tournament post release... This sickens me. IdrA is one of the most skilled players on the world if not the best. Doesn't matter how good you are, the chances of winning with Zerg are too low. Every game I see IdrA lose, it's cause he's playing like an idiot. Also IdrA doesn't play in many tournaments; probably less than ten since release. I see tons of Terran/Protoss-players playing bad but still winning.... And I see Zergs playing badly and still winning. There's never a game where I'm like "Oh he lost from imbalance." It's "Oh he mismicroed," Or "Oh he didn't macro very well" or "Oh he took a risky expansion" or "Oh he suicided his army." It's never "He played perfectly but still lost." I can't recall one, really, where "He played better than the Terran(Or Protoss) and still lost." So you are implying that there are no balance-issues?... cuz thats friggin ridiculous....
No it's certainly favoring Terran and Protoss, but it's NOTHING to what people think of it. And the changes in the next patch aren't fixing it NEARLY as much as the advancement of zerg strategy.
|
On September 20 2010 05:25 MythicalMage wrote:
It bears noting that there are less than ten top zergs in the world right now. So that number of wins seems fair, compared to the population.
And there are less than ten top zergs because talented and skilled players happen to choose other races (or should I say Race), of course, for some random not related to the game balance reason. MAKES SENSE
|
On September 20 2010 05:55 InRaged wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2010 05:25 MythicalMage wrote:
It bears noting that there are less than ten top zergs in the world right now. So that number of wins seems fair, compared to the population. And there are less than ten top zergs because talented and skilled players happen to choose other races (or should I say Race), of course, for some random not related to the game balance reason. MAKES SENSE
Races was appropriate. In Korea, Protoss is considered the "imba" race, moreso than Terran.
But you brought up a brilliant point. If I'm starting to play a game at the pro level, I'm certainly not going to pick the one that has even a CHANCE of being weaker. Why would I? So the mentality that Zerg is weaker is causing less players of Zerg which is causing fewer new zerg strategies and thoughts and the like, which is hurting Zerg as a whole.
|
On September 20 2010 05:59 MythicalMage wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2010 05:55 InRaged wrote:On September 20 2010 05:25 MythicalMage wrote:
It bears noting that there are less than ten top zergs in the world right now. So that number of wins seems fair, compared to the population. And there are less than ten top zergs because talented and skilled players happen to choose other races (or should I say Race), of course, for some random not related to the game balance reason. MAKES SENSE Races was appropriate. In Korea, Protoss is considered the "imba" race, moreso than Terran. But you brought up a brilliant point. If I'm starting to play a game at the pro level, I'm certainly not going to pick the one that has even a CHANCE of being weaker. Why would I? So the mentality that Zerg is weaker is causing less players of Zerg which is causing fewer new zerg strategies and thoughts and the like, which is hurting Zerg as a whole.
That is speculation, you are guessing it might be because of that but you cannor proof it - and no one other can. But here we have facts, numbers, statistics. You cannot put that beside and tell us a story of weaker tactics, loser mentality, fewer talented players or this same bla bla.
I havent a solution, but the numbers are clearly showing that something is wrong.
|
On September 20 2010 06:07 frasersuperstar wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2010 05:59 MythicalMage wrote:On September 20 2010 05:55 InRaged wrote:On September 20 2010 05:25 MythicalMage wrote:
It bears noting that there are less than ten top zergs in the world right now. So that number of wins seems fair, compared to the population. And there are less than ten top zergs because talented and skilled players happen to choose other races (or should I say Race), of course, for some random not related to the game balance reason. MAKES SENSE Races was appropriate. In Korea, Protoss is considered the "imba" race, moreso than Terran. But you brought up a brilliant point. If I'm starting to play a game at the pro level, I'm certainly not going to pick the one that has even a CHANCE of being weaker. Why would I? So the mentality that Zerg is weaker is causing less players of Zerg which is causing fewer new zerg strategies and thoughts and the like, which is hurting Zerg as a whole. That is speculation, you are guessing it might be because of that but you cannor proof it - and no one other can. But here we have facts, numbers, statistics. You cannot put that beside and tell us a story of weaker tactics, loser mentality, fewer talented players or this same bla bla. I havent a solution, but the numbers are clearly showing that something is wrong.
Sure. I'm just saying a lot of it is the MENTALITY that Zerg is weaker.
You can't legitimately tell me that you, going to play a game at a high level, are going to pick what's thought to be the weakest race.
|
On September 17 2010 21:02 dekwaz wrote:
Wow coolest thread I've ever read, so cool I would like to throw in my own two cents. Just from a 'noobs' point of view.
Background info before any flames: Played RTS for a while in SC1 but went awol for god how many years, didn't play in beta, started in bronze(SEA), researched,practiced, played, got bumped to silver in a newly created division (Happiest SC2 day so far, pathetic but still)
I appreciated the 'balance' of SC1 from afar - Any game that spawns pro leagues, weekly tournaments, televised events all over the world gets my thumbs up. It was basically unheard of.
When I came back for SC2 naturally I played Terran - because of the campaign and looked like kinda 'safe'. Then the campaign introduce me to Protoss, I was hooked. So I chose to play Protoss as my main.
For a game to be 'balanced' between races, it should mean that races should be balanced in all departments, meaning that similar leveled players with different races should be able to compete against each other as equals. That means with similar armies noob vs noob should be able to enjoy the game and have a fair fight.
You can see I'm comparing noobs. That means that noobs constantly supply blocking themselves, forgetting to build workers, etc. should still be able to meet on equal terms.
Terran's problem right now is that the options for attack, harrass and defense are too numerous.
Look I've heard it all before, scout scout scout. I've gotten better but in PvT, I HAVE to open gate-core because of the threat of fast reaper. I've scouted my opponents wall off with 2 depots and a rax+tech lab. So what next, reaper or marauder? Then play blind for a couple of minutes because there's no telling what's going on behind the block off. Until I get observer or until his army rushes me. Maybe he even tech switched and I got the counters wrong.
Terrans have many options to scout with scan being the most depressing for other races. P and Z have two ways to scout or detect, 1 mobile 1 static. Scan is instant with no threat to the terran at all. So say noobs are playing against each other. The terran doesn't scout (after confirming the location of his opponent or they're playing on a 1v1 map) and uses the 1-1-1 build with wall off. Then he justs remembers to scout and boom, throws down a scan. Cool, the Z has a Roach Warren should I banshee or marauder? Forgive me if I got the counters wrong, like I said I'm a noob also.
What I'm trying to say is from my example the Terran race can screw up, but they can better adapt to the situation than the other two races. This is no way a post to devalue or knock any of the Terran players skills or achievements, but sometimes it's like bringing a short sword to a battle against a sword (I'm not using a knife as an example here because it's too extreme it's not that imba folks).
At first I thought that this only occurred in the lower leagues and that the level of play in the diamonds and pros would be different. I'm not saying the OP's data is concrete and we should blindly believe it but wow.
Lets move away from the noobs to the pros. Pros are paid for playing and winning and entertaining. Repeat, paid. Some are using gaming as their sole purpose of income. So it makes sense that pros would choose the option that would give them the most chance to win. I don't know Dimaga (did I spell it wrong?) but I think he once said that he was thinking of switching races because gaming was his way of life and he was afraid of losing sponsors (you can correct this for me if I got it wrong)?
If this game was truly balanced I think the proportion of race for contestants in pro tournaments would be roughly equal. I may have missed data on the contestants but from the data of the winners, the statistics are pretty sad, especially for Zerg. Even Protoss numbers pale in comparison to Terrans. Please do not flame to say that Terran players are better. Remember that these are pros that we are talking about, those who practice and compete way more than the normal person. So I would say their actions skills and knowledge would be about the same. So why don't pros gravitate to Zerg more? I think in SC1 the race of the winners were more evenly balanced than this. Remember that the higher number of race selected the more likely you'll get that race as a winner.
There is something wrong currently with this game and I do hope that Blizzard does balance this out a little, though I am really confused, for such a long wait and beta period they still got some things wrong.
I for one think that victory achieved when playing against a similarly skilled player and with balanced tools (races) is the most satisfying. Winning with both a skill and instrument advantage is the least. So if anyone truly takes pride in what they do, they would WANT to say that yeah I went up against a good Zerg (or Protoss) there was no handicap, and I beat him.
Borrowing a phrase that I really like "Success without honor is an unseasoned dish; it will satisfy your hunger, but it won't taste good" Not saying that Terrans have no honor but wouldn't you like to mop the floor with your opponent with him not having any excuses?
Fix the game somehow, I think SC2 has the potential to be better than SC1. That's my opinion, thank you.
I agree that there is obviously a problem at the pro level. But the small advantages that Terran has are magnified at the highest level of play. At the lower levels, these imbalances are not significant enough to blame losses on. Scans are awesome, but they cost 300 minerals and are not nearly as good as observors at spotting tech, especially if you spread it out or hide your spire for example. Overlords give you great vision and lings can hold watch towers more cost effectively than any other race. Mutas and speedlings give unparalleled map control and let you mass expand. With larva you can tech switch incredibly fast while your opponent is still trying to counter the wrong unit comp. I'm not complaining that any of these factors are imba, I just think these are pretty sweet advantages that make me like Zerg. There are other advantages for terran that make them good, and they are proving to be imbalanced by the very very good players that can abuse them. But it is very unlikely that your average player is losing any games to these imbalances, and suggesting that they are just lets them make excuses rather than get better.
A great example is the proliferation of threads in the strategy forum by zergs claiming that their replay is proof of imba Terran, they totally outplayed this scrub and lost anyway and there is nothing they could have done, when it is pretty clear from the replay that they had inferior economies and pop count, with stockpiled minerals and larva, and made bad decisions like a-moving into a fortified position or massing roaches against marauders. This is true at least up to 1000-1200 diamond and probably a little further. The better player will usually win. The important thing is to watch the replay and see what you could have done better and learn from that.
Good OP, there is clearly a problem at the pro level. But i'm glad blizzard is taking their time in patching it. However, if they are really censoring this kind of data in their official forums that is very very troubling indeed. I would like to know more if there is anything more to know so far.
Also, I <3 drewbie
|
tbh its more a design flaw then a balance one
|
On September 20 2010 06:11 in7e.sCream wrote:
why something tells me that the zerg tournament wins dropped dramatically after making roach cost 2 supply?
That's actually where a lot of this imbalance mentality/talk came from. It was a BIG change and for a long time Zerg literally did not make roaches. Now they're starting to realize that it's still a vital unit to a lot of styles of play, and those are important to Zerg being powerful. I still think it was a good change, if for no reason other than the lack of variety. You almost never saw mutalisks and rarely infestors and the like when the Roach was literally the only unit you had to make unless he made air.
|
cause it was the only massable unit except the zergling wich is pretty weak compared to other T1
|
On September 20 2010 06:17 in7e.sCream wrote:
cause it was the only massable unit except the zergling wich is pretty weak compared to other T1
You can mass any unit, depending on your definition of mass. It was the only unit that you could make 100 of other than zerglings, if that's what you mean. But you can legitimately make 20+ mutas, which I consider a mass, or 50+ zerglings which I also consider a mass.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
