Here's a list of all tournament winners since SC2 was released at the end of July. I've included all of the high level tournaments listed on the Team Liquid and Gosu Gamers tournament results pages (all Zotac, Go4SC2, GosuCoaching, Craft, OpenWolf and Viking cups, as well as all major LANs, invitationals and even a few smaller cups featuring high level players). If you think you should be on the list but aren't, or have won more than is indicated below then post a reply linking to the tournaments you've placed top 2 in and I'll update the OP.
Only tournament winners are listed, with 2nd place finishes used to seperate players with the same number of wins. Obviously a gold medal indicates a first place finish and silver a 2nd.
Also, it's worth noting that due to the small number of Asian tournaments since release (that I'm aware of), there are very few Asian players in the list (only TheStC and Tester).
On September 14 2010 01:23 Melt wrote: Wow, thats really nice, great work.
The List really shows that they are far away from a balanced game.
Someone should make sure Blizzard sees this.
Hope this was sarcastic, if you really think that the stat shows anything at all on the balance I dont know what to say.
(im not debating if there is a balance problem or not here, but that stats without knowing the amount of players of each race doesnt prove nothing at all)
On September 14 2010 01:27 Crazyeyes wrote: Wait, IdrA isn't up there. I'm sure he's won at least one event. O_o
Since release? I'm not so sure, he's only played a few things one of them being IEM which he came in 2nd (although I guess that 2nd would be up there?)
lol stats are funny... especially when you pick and choose only 2 zergs to put in your data.. Idra has a more than 1 gold medal.. and you admitted to one in the king of beta, but he isn't on the list.
On September 14 2010 01:34 starhunk wrote: lol stats are funny... especially when you pick and choose only 2 zergs to put in your data.. Idra has a more than 1 gold medal.. and you admitted to one in the king of beta, but he isn't on the list.
why are so many terran player take a statistics like this as a personal insult.
It clearly shows an imbalance towards terran there is just no way to argue that. No one is saying that terran's are less skilled or anything but with the tools they are given they are just ahead and that's a clear fact. There are only a few tournaments with not at least two to three terrans in the semi-finals.
Great job with he list the only thing I would add is not all touraments are created equal. Idra's 2nd place in IEM means more to me then some someones random win in some $100 weekly. A really good stat would be a money list similar to what the PGA tour does.
to starhunk and other complaining about a lack of IdrA. Look at the title. Winners sinse RELEASE. King of beta obviously does not qualify as it was over before the release.
Just so you know for one of the number 27s it is iefnaij (capitalized though) not Lefnaij. It is his name backwards ( Jianfei) (Link to his broodwar page). Also damn that is a lot of terrans on that list and hardly any Zergs.
EDIT: Ah someone beat to the name part. Didn't see it as it was posted while I was typing this.
meaning: In SC/BW the maps were almost the only factor for how balanced a match up was. Im not sure that the case in SC 2 right now. In SC/BW I never accepted Z>P or P>T because it just depended on the maps the games were played on 99 %..
In SC 2 I have a feeling all the maps are very similiar but maybe the game is just very new after all and we no shit yet.. ;D
It's only post-release tournaments, which I stated in the OP, so Idra's King of the Beta win isn't in there, nor are any other beta results.
I was originally going to include players with only 2nd place finishes but I would have had to add another 20+ names (of which Idra was one, due to his 2nd at IEM) and I ran out of steam. Maybe I'll update it when I have time.
On September 14 2010 01:35 Haplo_33 wrote: to starhunk and other complaining about a lack of IdrA. Look at the title. Winners sinse RELEASE. King of beta obviously does not qualify as it was over before the release.
You have to forgive that most people have the reading comprehension of a Goldfish with no eyes.
Morrow is beastly and the statistics are pretty sad. As a random player my win % with terran is just so much higher then with the other races and I don't think I'm any better at playing them.
On September 14 2010 01:23 Melt wrote: Wow, thats really nice, great work.
The List really shows that they are far away from a balanced game.
Someone should make sure Blizzard sees this.
Hope this was sarcastic, if you really think that the stat shows anything at all on the balance I dont know what to say.
(im not debating if there is a balance problem or not here, but that stats without knowing the amount of players of each race doesnt prove nothing at all)
Actually it shows a ton about balance, and it is more so a determining factor than the amount of players playing each race. Especially because we already know the global numbers, anyways. And Zerg is around ~20% played I believe. If you want to get to "out of that 20%, very few make it to the high ranks in the first place to participate in such tournies," then you're already finding yourself back at a balance discussion.
On September 14 2010 01:35 Haplo_33 wrote: to starhunk and other complaining about a lack of IdrA. Look at the title. Winners sinse RELEASE. King of beta obviously does not qualify as it was over before the release.
You have to forgive that most people have the reading comprehension of a Goldfish with no eyes.
More like oysters with no eyes... they (mostly Terran players lol) have sturdy defensive exteriors and then when they open their mouths bullshit starts spewing out left and right.
Go figure.
I think the stats are a bit funny, and I did at least smile when I saw the race breakdown. Idk if that's a clear imbalance but I think something needs to change on the mapmaking front or Zerg needs more appeal at higher levels? I'm sure good players just aren't interested in Zerg... this has close to nothing to do with imbalance.
On September 14 2010 01:35 PaD wrote: I'm just going to say that the majority of good players play terran, only a small amount of good players play zerg. I wont deny theres an imbalance.
This is comparable to the terran domination in SC BW when there were alot of terrans until Chojja, july, savior came.
You have to ask yourself why there are more famous Terran Players. It's partly because there are more Terrans or Protoss in general, and because success makes you famous, and Terrans have more success, because there are imbalances.
I myself can think of more Zerg Players that i rate as highly skilled than Terrans or Toss... but that doesnt mean that they win (it just hurts more to see them loose :D).
It's just impossible to not see the imbalances.. and they aren't small at all... they are HUGE.
Top players would probably be interested in them if they didn't suck.
The very top (<0.01%) have this natural aversion to shifting towards whatever will garner them the most success and consistency.
I'm sure a lot of those top guys have played all of the races to death and just eventually settled on whichever one they felt most comfortable with.
Lo and behold, most of them like the safety and consistency of having powerful, cheap units and absurd levels of defense that can keep you in the game with ease if you're falling behind.
Fucking blizzard needs to release the patch soon or there won't be any pros playing zerg at all. It just isn't practical at high levels when you can go win tournies as a relative nobody with terran...
On September 14 2010 01:45 Bibdy wrote: I'm sure a lot of those top guys have played all of the races to death and just eventually settled on whichever one they felt most comfortable with.
Best example is TLO! He used to play random and i quite enjoyed his Zerg play, but than he switched to Terran only.
After reading this thread, everyone who denies that Zerg is too weak can do nothing but shut up forever. And the good players are only playing terran argument is kinda false, just look at the fact how many players are very competitive with their terran but haven't shown any good skill before SC 2.
As a Zerg player, I must say I'm not necessarily surprised by these results. I still believe that Zerg is lacking something and that tweaking numbers will not fix all of our issues. Unless that number is the roach supply cost.... (trying hard not to rage)
Anyways, I'm really excited for the upcoming changes regardless of the fact that I don't think they will make that much of an impact in most areas of play.
I'd be more interested in a "Total Winnings" ($$$) list. Some guys play in lots of small events that don't reward much while others only play in a few big events that reward more.
Getting 2nd or 3rd place at a major LAN event carries a lot more prestige and reward than winning 10 small weekly online events, but if you win lots of small events then it may be more profitable than getting 8th at a major event.
Everyone screaming about Idra, but has he really won anything ? I mean he is a great player but I think he got unlucky in most of the tournaments. All I remember are a few show matches, qualifications and IEM second place, and one silver is apparently excluded from the list.
On September 14 2010 01:23 Melt wrote: Wow, thats really nice, great work.
The List really shows that they are far away from a balanced game.
Someone should make sure Blizzard sees this.
Hope this was sarcastic, if you really think that the stat shows anything at all on the balance I dont know what to say.
(im not debating if there is a balance problem or not here, but that stats without knowing the amount of players of each race doesnt prove nothing at all)
It does not if you just look at the statistics, but it does if you use simple logic...
Pro/Semipro-Players want to win, so they'll often choose the race which seems to be the best.
Better players per race ---> more wins per race More wins per race ---> better players per race
AND
Better race ---> more wins per race Better race ---> better players per race (just because more players means a higher chance of better players)
If you look at those statistics and say that theres nothing to worry about with the balance, you're just trying to convince you/others of sth. that apparently isn't true at all.
You know its time for balance changes when semifinals and up are mostly TvT with a few TvP.
You would think that when there are so few zergs on the top, atleast they would be better at ZvT and ZvP since they (allmost)never get to play mirrors.
I think the most obvious balance issues are: Protoss: warpgates power ( no travel time for reinforcements) when pushing zergs early.
Terran: You have to account for 5-6 completely different openings every fucking game that will crush you if you dont know its coming with very limited scouting options. Also wall off and bunkers completely shut down any sort of harassment or attack zerg can do before muta for NO investment in defence. They also have the 3 best harassment units in the game that can end the game with some easy drone kills.
Last im just gonna say that in todays GSL Gerrard vs Clide you can see how retarded it is. Gerrard stopped Clides harass in game 2 without losing anything. He took down dropship in the end with 4 hellions in it. This failed harass for clide that could have killed every single drone didnt seem to set him back at all. When he pushed out he completely crushed gerrard easy since zerg made some tiny micro misstakes and didnt land too many banelings on the marines. My point is, terran can make stupid ammount of misstakes and still win. If zerg makes one misstake, its usually GG.
After that I checked Gosugamers.net and added the tournament results that weren't listed on TL, as long as they featured multiple high level players.
If I wanted to include beta results (or prize money) I'd have had to individually sift through 100 different tournament pages, which would have taken hours, which really wasn't something I felt like doing. If anyone wants to compile a list of beta tournament results (or prize earnings) then feel free.
As for not including players with 0 tournament wins, as I said, I was originally planning to but there were like 30 players with only 2nd place finishes and adding them all would have taken too much time and made the list too long. I might come back to that later, though.
When JULYZERG looses games to some random Toss/Terrans on the Ladder although he played ten times better and quits without a "gg", u know sth's wrong with the balance! ^^'
I think you also need to include the % of race entry to make this more meaningful. example: if 75% terran entries gave 75% terran winners, then it's pretty "balanced".
Reapers... annihilate you if not prepared... Banshees (cloaked or uncloaked): insta-lose you the game if not prepared (two come in and pick off one queen, or take out like 10 drones before you can do anything to counter it). Reactor hellions: easiest to deal with IF scouted but retardedly strong if not scouted. Quick thor push w/ scvs: impossible to stop with only speedlings, which sucks if you dind't go roaches. Incredibly hard either way Reaper --> Marauder tech switch with requiring the opposite counter Bunker rush in mineral line --> prevents most FE builds if scouted (unlike BW where you needed to 8rax or 10rax proxy for a bunker rush, you can do a normal standard build and still have plenty of time to bunker rush). Bunkers at ramp with reapers... not to mention you can salvage the bunkers...
Zerg:
Roach all-in: impossible not to see if scanned Baneling bust: impossible not to see if scanned, build an extra two depots on your walloff and you're protected at no cost to you, or a bunker which you can salvage anwways, or just go reaper play and once your wall falls your 5+ reapers >> bling bust. Not to mention reapers give you unlimited scouting.
OP should definitely make another list after patch 1.1 comes out. I really want to see how the patch changes things... although I'm afraid it won't make these stats 33% wins for every race..
I think you also need to include the % of race entry to make this more meaningful. example: if 75% terran entries gave 75% terran winners, then it's pretty "balanced".
True, but that would still mean another thing: that people just don't want to play Zerg (because it's not as fun to play).
Thanks a lot for this OP. I was thinking about doing the same but you beat me to it.
Hopefully this thread will shut up the noob terran trolls who make up ridiculous claims like 'zerg has won the most tournaments' or 'zerg players are actually the most dominant at the pro level'.
I think you also need to include the % of race entry to make this more meaningful. example: if 75% terran entries gave 75% terran winners, then it's pretty "balanced". [/QUOTE]
Not really, since there has to be a reason 75% of of the entries are Terran. A race can only be "popular" to a certain extent. When it should be ~33% (excluding random), anything beyond a margin of error of 10% pts starts to get sketchy (10% is off the top of my head)
I think you also need to include the % of race entry to make this more meaningful. example: if 75% terran entries gave 75% terran winners, then it's pretty "balanced".
Not really, since there has to be a reason 75% of of the entries are Terran.
I respectfully disagree. Just because there's a lot of players chose Terran, it doesn't necessary mean it is OP or anything.
Not really, since there has to be a reason 75% of of the entries are Terran. A race can only be "popular" to a certain extent. When it should be ~33% (excluding random), anything beyond a margin of error of 10% pts starts to get sketchy (10% is off the top of my head)
Exactly, it's not like top-players choose their race at random with exactly 33% chance of choosing one of the 3.
I think you also need to include the % of race entry to make this more meaningful. example: if 75% terran entries gave 75% terran winners, then it's pretty "balanced".
Not really, since there has to be a reason 75% of of the entries are Terran.
I respectfully disagree. Just because there's a lot of players chose Terran, it doesn't necessary mean it is OP or anything. [/QUOTE]
Percentage of players entering doesn't really mean much since most players aren't at a level to experience major imbalance.
Statistics can and usually are good indicators of balance. In SF3 3S, Ken, Chun Li, and Yun dominate tournaments, in SSBM, fox, falco, shiek and marth are on top. In CS, m4, ak, and awp have the highest kill ratios. In chess, certain openings have higher win percentages and white has a slightly higher win ratio.
Balance has everything to do with how well humans do in realistic situations with the tools they are given. You can sit there and theorycraft on how certain things are underused/understudied, have unlocked potential, etc. But in the end, it's results that matter. You can argue that zerg has the strongest macro mechanic and blah blah blah, but that's irrelevant if humans can't perfect that mechanic. Obviously balance needs to be put into context. In SSBM, fox is known to be the best character with "perfect play," but that is unnachievable, so Marth and shieks simplicity and easy to reach potential makes them better characters, even though they technically aren't.
Statistics outweigh exceptions and "theory."
Personally, the maps are the biggest problem, followed by the fact that Zerg's early game is very weak. The naturals are so huge that sunkens are almost worthless on certain maps, especially when there are numerous backdoors to bypass those sunkens. Sunkesna t certain naturals can be outmaneuvered in a way where nomatter how they're lined up, attacks from certain angles negate their effectivenenss.
Terran can keep the zerg blind, turning the match into a guessing game. I've seen a terran block without any addons, hide his marines, faking a 1-1-1 build and instead doing a marine+scv allin. Likewise, I've seen T go dual rax and then banshee rush while hes pumping out marines. Forcing me to drop sunkens and make lings, just to get crushed by 2-3 cloaked banshees. All the while, T is safely macroing up and pulling ahead of the Zerg. Z can play perfectly, countering every move and macroing up, but still have an uphill battle against a Terran that f's up royally.
Zergs midgame and endgame is quite good, and banelings may be in need of a nerf in the future, once Zerg's early problems are solved. T and P's strength comes from the fact that they can get away with anything and still pull out ahead.
I respectfully disagree. Just because there's a lot of players chose Terran, it doesn't necessary mean it is OP or anything.
Yes it does, because the numbers entering the tourny arn't just a representation of total players by race, it's a representation of how many top level players are that race. A terran who is of the skill level to do decent in these tournies is objectively a lot less skilled then a zerg who can do the same.
I think you also need to include the % of race entry to make this more meaningful. example: if 75% terran entries gave 75% terran winners, then it's pretty "balanced".
Not really, since there has to be a reason 75% of of the entries are Terran.
I respectfully disagree. Just because there's a lot of players chose Terran, it doesn't necessary mean it is OP or anything.
Percentage of players entering doesn't really mean much since most players aren't at a level to experience major imbalance.
...
Obviously meant percentage of players entering tournaments.
I think you also need to include the % of race entry to make this more meaningful. example: if 75% terran entries gave 75% terran winners, then it's pretty "balanced". [/QUOTE]
If that many pros are choosing to play terran and not zerg that indicates a problem in itself.
I think you also need to include the % of race entry to make this more meaningful. example: if 75% terran entries gave 75% terran winners, then it's pretty "balanced".
Not really, since there has to be a reason 75% of of the entries are Terran.
I respectfully disagree. Just because there's a lot of players chose Terran, it doesn't necessary mean it is OP or anything.
Just based purely on the numbers it is obvious zerg is underrepresented in tournament wins anyway. For tournament wins by race, 4/74 is just about a 5% win rate for zerg. A random look at a sample weekly tourney shows about 25% of its players as zerg. ]
Besides, it is a daunting task to compile race entry percentages considering tournaments like go4sc2 field pools of 512 players.
I think you also need to include the % of race entry to make this more meaningful. example: if 75% terran entries gave 75% terran winners, then it's pretty "balanced".
If that many pros are choosing to play terran and not zerg that indicates a problem in itself.[/QUOTE] What you're saying, while technically true, is wrong. It's the equivalent of saying "just because this die has rolled a 6 150/200 times doesn't NECESSARILY mean it's a biased die". This could be true, but you'd have to be pretty dense and biased to think that you don't have strong evidence that the die is not a fair one.
I think you also need to include the % of race entry to make this more meaningful. example: if 75% terran entries gave 75% terran winners, then it's pretty "balanced".
Not really, since there has to be a reason 75% of of the entries are Terran.
I respectfully disagree. Just because there's a lot of players chose Terran, it doesn't necessary mean it is OP or anything.
Yes it does, because the numbers entering the tourny arn't just a representation of total players by race, it's a representation of how many top level players are that race. A terran who is of the skill level to do decent in these tournies is objectively a lot less skilled then a zerg who can do the same.
I understand what you are saying, "Top players don't just pick a race at random". However, it is not a certainty. My point is that by including a % of race entry, it would eliminate such uncertainty in the numbers and provide a much better picture of the top level playing field.
I respectfully disagree. Just because there's a lot of players chose Terran, it doesn't necessary mean it is OP or anything.
Actually, it does mean that. Yeah you said 'necessary' but if that would prevent your comment from being countered by anything and dont make the post. These huge differences aren't because most people thing terran is the most fun to play, pro's HAVE to make good results and thus have to switch, also some people get annoying by playing zerg and switch and if you have no clue about what race to pick, why would you pick the weaker one?
On September 14 2010 02:31 epicdoom wrote: is there any way to get the total tournament stats before release? It seems like not very many terrans were winning tournaments during beta.
Here's the racial breakdown for the starleague winners since 2007:
P - 3 wins Z - 10 wins T - 7 wins
Does that mean broodwar is imbalanced? No. There are just a lot of factors that are going to result in uneven racial distributions among tournament winners even if everything is totally fair. Tournament wins are arguably the most important consequence of game balance, but are also pretty much useless in determining game balance.
On September 14 2010 02:31 epicdoom wrote: is there any way to get the total tournament stats before release? It seems like not very many terrans were winning tournaments during beta.
I respectfully disagree. Just because there's a lot of players chose Terran, it doesn't necessary mean it is OP or anything.
Actually, it does mean that.
No it doesn't mean it's OP. If blizzard released heart of the swarm before wings of liberty, I guarantee that we would see more zergs than terrans.
I highly doubt that. Protoss appeals the most to almost every casual user, especially after BW where they were undoubtedly the most popular amongst casuals. Campaign has little to do with it. Anyways anyone I talk to on the ladder as protoss (I don't know any zergs) that suck, (aka bronze or below) all gave up on Protoss because "I don't know how to counter marauders." My roommate recently switched to Zerg because he couldn't beat MMM in PvT, although he was disappointed when he had the same result ZvT. He has diminished into a retard player tho that 7 pools everygame.
On September 14 2010 02:31 epicdoom wrote: is there any way to get the total tournament stats before release? It seems like not very many terrans were winning tournaments during beta.
On September 14 2010 02:31 epicdoom wrote: is there any way to get the total tournament stats before release? It seems like not very many terrans were winning tournaments during beta.
I respectfully disagree. Just because there's a lot of players chose Terran, it doesn't necessary mean it is OP or anything.
Actually, it does mean that.
No it doesn't mean it's OP. If blizzard released heart of the swarm before wings of liberty, I guarantee that we would see more zergs than terrans.
So because the first campaign features terran, that means all the top pros decided to pick terran? I really doubt players like morrow were like "oh hey, I learned sooo much from playing campaign as terran that I'm just going to stick with this race". And you really shouldn't guarantee random BS that you can't prove and can't actually guarantee.
On September 14 2010 02:35 Fantistic wrote: This thread is starting to look awfully familiar. Funny reading all the Terran comments trying to justify these ridiculously imbalanced statistics.
sorry, zerg player here.
Just trying to suggest that these data alone is not enough to prove that terran is OP.
On September 14 2010 02:31 epicdoom wrote: is there any way to get the total tournament stats before release? It seems like not very many terrans were winning tournaments during beta.
Just counted up the totals from the liquipedia beta tournament results page. This isn't a complete list and is missing a lot of tournaments but here are the results:
On September 14 2010 02:31 epicdoom wrote: is there any way to get the total tournament stats before release? It seems like not very many terrans were winning tournaments during beta.
I respectfully disagree. Just because there's a lot of players chose Terran, it doesn't necessary mean it is OP or anything.
Actually, it does mean that.
No it doesn't mean it's OP. If blizzard released heart of the swarm before wings of liberty, I guarantee that we would see more zergs than terrans.
people who play the game seriously arent gonna give a damn about what the race in the campaign is. Your reasoning only explains why theres lots of Terrans in bronze/silver/gold/platinum league. Look at all the ex sc1 pro gamers and what race they picked (it was rarely Terran.) OK, that's all the imba discussion I'll do for this month
Anyways, very nice OP, nice to see some straight facts and to see who's doing well. Didn't know Morrow was that dominating, nice though Of course it has a lot to do with how many tourneys they participate in, impressive nonetheless. Nice to see Socke as #2 Protoss as well.
I think you also need to include the % of race entry to make this more meaningful. example: if 75% terran entries gave 75% terran winners, then it's pretty "balanced".
If that many pros are choosing to play terran and not zerg that indicates a problem in itself.[/QUOTE]
Think of the reason why pros are picking Terran over Zerg. Think of the reason why Zergs are not being invited to or qualifying for these tournaments.
On September 14 2010 02:01 phuzi0n wrote: I'd be more interested in a "Total Winnings" ($$$) list. Some guys play in lots of small events that don't reward much while others only play in a few big events that reward more.
Getting 2nd or 3rd place at a major LAN event carries a lot more prestige and reward than winning 10 small weekly online events, but if you win lots of small events then it may be more profitable than getting 8th at a major event.
I also think this would a good addition to this list. In most cases, the larger the prize pool brings the best competition out so using total winnings gives more value than only tournament wins by itself.
If cool had played in all those tournaments, I guess he would have won them all. Not sure if raw data like that can be used to draw realistic conclusions, but I'm not sure.
Oh and another thing, most of these terran players are devoting a huge chunko f their practice time to TvT, thats my impression anyway, might not actually be the case.
it boosts my self esteem every time I see someone who knows absolutely nothing about elementary statistics make some conclusion with insufficient evidence
On September 14 2010 02:59 HuHEN wrote: Oh and another thing, most of these terran players are devoting a huge chunko f their practice time to TvT, thats my impression anyway, might not actually be the case.
Every race has to spend more time preparing for Terran, they just have the most amount of viable strategies/units.
On September 14 2010 02:59 HuHEN wrote: Oh and another thing, most of these terran players are devoting a huge chunko f their practice time to TvT, thats my impression anyway, might not actually be the case.
You are right. During Take's homestorycup, after Socke played against Ret they interviewed Socke and he said something about how weird and unusual it felt to play against a zerg because he hadn't really practiced PvZ lately and mostly focused on PvT. MorroW has also on several occasions said that he's dedicating most of his practice to TvT's.
The top players are focusing on learning to beat terran, which makes sense.
That's a little disconcerting aswell, Terrans and Protoss are mostly getting practice in against T and P, while Z's are devoting all there time practicing to beat T and P and yet T and P are seemingly favoured in the matchup.
I know others have mentioned it, but I will reiterate -
I would suggest adding (in spoiler tags) the name and dates (month/year would be sufficient if you can't get exact days) of every tournament that was included in the sample you took to create these numbers. SC Center exists because there are numerous tournaments and competitions every day, so it would help to see which ones are being included and which ones are being left out.
I do not mean to attack the idea of the thread or claim that it is invalid because it may not encompass every single paying tournament that has happened thus far. I simply think it would help the validity of the post.
On September 14 2010 03:02 GGTeMpLaR wrote: I love threads like this
it boosts my self esteem every time I see someone who knows absolutely nothing about elementary statistics make some conclusion with insufficient evidence
I'm sure there's even more evidence scattered around various forums.
the amount of evidence supporting a zerg and/or terran imbalance is staggering. where the hell are you getting the idea that there's 'insufficient evidence'?
On September 14 2010 02:01 phuzi0n wrote: I'd be more interested in a "Total Winnings" ($$$) list. Some guys play in lots of small events that don't reward much while others only play in a few big events that reward more.
Getting 2nd or 3rd place at a major LAN event carries a lot more prestige and reward than winning 10 small weekly online events, but if you win lots of small events then it may be more profitable than getting 8th at a major event.
I bet Morrow would be up there at the top, but it would be nice to see this.
Finally, proof to show why I'll always support the progamer which does NOT play terran. Go Go zerg/protoss players.
For some reason Terran players (regardless of skill) never seem to impress me. Its like watching an adult wrestle a child. It may be funny but not impressive. Furthermore, I just dont like the current theme in videogames. From Halo to crysis to SC2, theres always this big badass human which tears things up. Why cant there be some cool alien hero protagonists?
When the game finally reaches a level where balance is near perfect then only will I actually look further than a players' race to see if I should cheer for them lol.
On September 14 2010 02:36 GagnarTheUnruly wrote: Here's the racial breakdown for the starleague winners since 2007:
P - 3 wins Z - 10 wins T - 7 wins
Does that mean broodwar is imbalanced? No. There are just a lot of factors that are going to result in uneven racial distributions among tournament winners even if everything is totally fair. Tournament wins are arguably the most important consequence of game balance, but are also pretty much useless in determining game balance.
10 : 7 : 3 is a hell of a lot different than 24 : 11 : 2
Exactly: if they'd use the Nydus Worm properly, there would be ONLY Zerg's winning Tournaments! AND Korean Zergs use Nydus Worm, that's why Zerg wins EVERYTHING in Korea!
On September 14 2010 03:16 Toboe wrote: I know others have mentioned it, but I will reiterate -
I would suggest adding (in spoiler tags) the name and dates (month/year would be sufficient if you can't get exact days) of every tournament that was included in the sample you took to create these numbers. SC Center exists because there are numerous tournaments and competitions every day, so it would help to see which ones are being included and which ones are being left out.
I do not mean to attack the idea of the thread or claim that it is invalid because it may not encompass every single paying tournament that has happened thus far. I simply think it would help the validity of the post.
I'm going out soon so now time to do it now, though I might when I get back.
Basically, all I did was take the results from this page:
And added the results from the Openwolf, Gosucoaching, Fisher, Icarus, SC2tv.ru and LSGamer cups and then the 2 WTA tournaments and the GOMtv Star2gether Siege from Korea.
The other tournaments on there were either already included in the Team Liquid list or were small amateur tournaments lacking any high level players. In that sense there's an element of subjectivity to what is and isn't included but if anyone can provide any high level tournament results I'm missing I'll be happy to add them to the OP.
Speaking of which, I just realised I forgot to add the US Craft Cup results, which I'll do now.
really bad list to gauge player's skill, but interesting list regardless as just something to note w/o much weight. doesn't really mean anything at all since koreans don't participate in majority of those tournys that foreigners keep track of.
Exactly: if they'd use the Nydus Worm properly, there would be ONLY Zerg's winning Tournaments! AND Korean Zergs use Nydus Worm, that's why Zerg wins EVERYTHING in Korea!
Why do ppl keep saying this? Zerg is not dominating Korea , terran is.
What I find most depressing about this is that zerg players come in here and say "hey look at how many terrans and protoss are on the top". Sorry what? Terran has twice the ammount of wins over protoss aswell and that matchup is also skewed in favour of terran. Unfortunately none of the key PvT issues are being dealt with in the patch. Instead they nerf out early defense. Well guess what, reapers isn't the problem early vs terran, marines and marauders are. I'm guessing 9rax marauder is going to dominate protosses until blizzard patches again.
It's what I hate most about the terran vs zerg imba. It overshadows the fact that protosses are struggling against good TvP players aswell. Like 90% of the good PvT builds are all ins. They need to change the dynamic of that matchup aswell. Either that or change the maps so that a protoss can fast expand easier.
Exactly: if they'd use the Nydus Worm properly, there would be ONLY Zerg's winning Tournaments! AND Korean Zergs use Nydus Worm, that's why Zerg wins EVERYTHING in Korea!
Why do ppl keep saying this? Zerg is not dominating Korea , terran is.
Exactly: if they'd use the Nydus Worm properly, there would be ONLY Zerg's winning Tournaments! AND Korean Zergs use Nydus Worm, that's why Zerg wins EVERYTHING in Korea!
Why do ppl keep saying this? Zerg is not dominating Korea , terran is.
People do keep saying this, but these guys are being sarcastic.
im a terran player and the lack of zerg victories makes my mouth taste bad. it kind of sucks playing an overpowered race because I don't feel I deserve my wins...
its just ridiculous how I can start every game and not be afraid of anything from zergs... sure he'll eventually go muta's and ultra's but I can pressure him with a number of things before then.
On September 14 2010 02:36 GagnarTheUnruly wrote: Here's the racial breakdown for the starleague winners since 2007:
P - 3 wins Z - 10 wins T - 7 wins
Does that mean broodwar is imbalanced? No. There are just a lot of factors that are going to result in uneven racial distributions among tournament winners even if everything is totally fair. Tournament wins are arguably the most important consequence of game balance, but are also pretty much useless in determining game balance.
Dude, Brood War is not balanced. Sure, it's very balanced compared to other games but the individual match ups are not balanced, the maps will always favor one race more than the other and... it's impossible for a game to be perfectly balanced. When players become as good as Brood War gamers are today then balance will decide a lot of games.
Exactly: if they'd use the Nydus Worm properly, there would be ONLY Zerg's winning Tournaments! AND Korean Zergs use Nydus Worm, that's why Zerg wins EVERYTHING in Korea!
Why do ppl keep saying this? Zerg is not dominating Korea , terran is.
People do keep saying this, but these guys are being sarcastic.
I was being sarcastic, but most of ppl saying that really mean it... Besides, Terran isn't really dominating as much as here in Korea. Most players even think P is the strongest race atm (ppl like Tester, JangMinChul (IrOn), etc.)
Interesting, Its a real shame about the underrepresntation of the other two races at the moment and I really think Blizz aren't looking at the real problems in their recent prepatch statement. Well bandaid or not, lets hope it sorts this onesidedness out for as fun as TvT is to watch there is a limit to my interest in it.
Exactly: if they'd use the Nydus Worm properly, there would be ONLY Zerg's winning Tournaments! AND Korean Zergs use Nydus Worm, that's why Zerg wins EVERYTHING in Korea!
Why do ppl keep saying this? Zerg is not dominating Korea , terran is.
People do keep saying this, but these guys are being sarcastic.
I was being sarcastic, but most of ppl saying that really mean it... Besides, Terran isn't really dominating as much as here in Korea. Most players even think P is the strongest race atm (ppl like Tester, JangMinChul (IrOn), etc.)
Its building up, I cant wait till toss is getting the shit nerfed out of it once again. (BTW terran is dominating protoss in GOM so far)
On September 14 2010 03:56 Backpack wrote: So tournament win statistics after 1.5 months is how we are going to determine balance?
*sigh*
In combination with a lot of other similar statistics lately, I don't see how we can not discuss the state of Zerg. And Terran. And as an effect of that, all races.
Exactly: if they'd use the Nydus Worm properly, there would be ONLY Zerg's winning Tournaments! AND Korean Zergs use Nydus Worm, that's why Zerg wins EVERYTHING in Korea!
Why do ppl keep saying this? Zerg is not dominating Korea , terran is.
People do keep saying this, but these guys are being sarcastic.
I was being sarcastic, but most of ppl saying that really mean it... Besides, Terran isn't really dominating as much as here in Korea. Most players even think P is the strongest race atm (ppl like Tester, JangMinChul (IrOn), etc.)
Its building up, I cant wait till toss is getting the shit nerfed out of it once again. (BTW terran is dominating protoss in GOM so far)
Nearly every win T had over P was cuz of a very early or pretty early timing-attack and they do that cuz they don't wann get into the lategame vs a good Toss.
If it hasn't been done already, someone should repost this on the battle.net forums. Increase the chances of someone at blizzard actually noticing. While they obviously realise that something isn't right, as the patch notes would indicate.... It seems to me that they underestimate the magnitude of the problem overall, and how protoss is also struggling. The patch notes as they are will probably hurt protoss more than terran, and only help zerg against reaper rushes and early/midgame timing pushes. Not really going to fix these tourney trends.
I think you also need to include the % of race entry to make this more meaningful. example: if 75% terran entries gave 75% terran winners, then it's pretty "balanced".
Finally someone with at least a minimum amount of knowledge how to look at statistics without a blind eye.
If there are only a handful of Zerg in each tournament the number of Zerg winners has to be lower than the rest and the "we are so underpowered" propaganda from the Zerg has quite a lot of people not even start playing the race because they think it is too hard. Everyone likes to win and its not a good idea to play a race which is branded with a big sign of "LOSER" by the loudest propaganda across all forums.
Sure there are hardships for the Zerg race, but these arent caused by other races being overpowered, but rather by the map design and their currently too small size.
I think you also need to include the % of race entry to make this more meaningful. example: if 75% terran entries gave 75% terran winners, then it's pretty "balanced".
Finally someone with at least a minimum amount of knowledge how to look at statistics without a blind eye.
If there are only a handful of Zerg in each tournament the number of Zerg winners has to be lower than the rest and the "we are so underpowered" propaganda from the Zerg has quite a lot of people not even start playing the race because they think it is too hard. Everyone likes to win and its not a good idea to play a race which is branded with a big sign of "LOSER" by the loudest propaganda across all forums.
Sure there are hardships for the Zerg race, but these arent caused by other races being overpowered, but rather by the map design and their currently too small size.
Exactly: if they'd use the Nydus Worm properly, there would be ONLY Zerg's winning Tournaments! AND Korean Zergs use Nydus Worm, that's why Zerg wins EVERYTHING in Korea!
Why do ppl keep saying this? Zerg is not dominating Korea , terran is.
People do keep saying this, but these guys are being sarcastic.
I was being sarcastic, but most of ppl saying that really mean it... Besides, Terran isn't really dominating as much as here in Korea. Most players even think P is the strongest race atm (ppl like Tester, JangMinChul (IrOn), etc.)
Its building up, I cant wait till toss is getting the shit nerfed out of it once again. (BTW terran is dominating protoss in GOM so far)
Nearly every win T had over P was cuz of a very early or pretty early timing-attack and they do that cuz they don't wann get into the lategame vs a good Toss.
Well it obviously works pretty well if tons of Terrans are winning tournaments.
There's a difference between "You can't beat Protoss if the game goes beyond 10 minutes" and "You can guarantee a win if you attack the Protoss before 10 minutes".
I think you also need to include the % of race entry to make this more meaningful. example: if 75% terran entries gave 75% terran winners, then it's pretty "balanced".
Finally someone with at least a minimum amount of knowledge how to look at statistics without a blind eye.
If there are only a handful of Zerg in each tournament the number of Zerg winners has to be lower than the rest and the "we are so underpowered" propaganda from the Zerg has quite a lot of people not even start playing the race because they think it is too hard. Everyone likes to win and its not a good idea to play a race which is branded with a big sign of "LOSER" by the loudest propaganda across all forums.
Sure there are hardships for the Zerg race, but these arent caused by other races being overpowered, but rather by the map design and their currently too small size.
blizzard doesnt want only two races winning tournaments for the entire game life. so all of you in this thread with statistics hard-ons should at least mix some common sense into the equation.
the maps being small may be PART of the equation but also on large maps zerg need creep to not get utterly decimated in big battles. the map structure itself and lack of viable static defense really hurts zerg among numerous other things that are discussed often on this site
also -> German terran player claiming propaganda, what a surprise...
On September 14 2010 03:56 Backpack wrote: So tournament win statistics after 1.5 months is how we are going to determine balance?
*sigh*
In combination with a lot of other similar statistics lately, I don't see how we can not discuss the state of Zerg. And Terran. And as an effect of that, all races.
The game is brand new and people are already spending more time discussing balance than playing.
I think it is relevant though bibdy, it possible that if tosses learn to hold off early pushes they will become too strong in PvT, at this stage though, terrans are still winning, and winning alot.
People should also realize that dimaga and idra are definately way better than their results show. It's not fair to say zerg is fine when idra succeeds decently, when I see his playing being way more flawless than 90% of other "pros" currently. He wins because he plays close to perfectly while opponent doesn't.
I'm not seeing the upcoming patch changing this anywhere close to 1:1:1. Complete change of map pool could do miracles for balance tho. Metalo is really the only fair map out of pool now that nobody really has a reason to whine about. I think scrap is good in that aspect also, but suppose I could be biased about it. Rest just have TERRAN marked all over em, and I don't understand why don't they just hire some sc1 proleague map makers to fill the hole. Maps are "fun" but it doesn't make sense why they all have to benefit terran.
On September 14 2010 04:29 HuHEN wrote: I think it is relevant though bibdy, it possible that if tosses learn to hold off early pushes they will become too strong in PvT, at this stage though, terrans are still winning, and winning alot.
Of course, but which problem do you solve first? If none of the games last long enough to reach that "Impossible to win against Protoss after 10 minutes" scenario, how can you prove its not just hearsay and rumour?
And you have to look at the games where Protoss do win these long games and find out how long the game actually was and why it got that far. Did the Protoss actually fend off the early attack, or did the Terran play passively and set himself up for the eventual failure? Did the Terran spend the rest of the match throwing bio balls against Psi Storm (you definitely see that all-too often) or did he throw everything and the kitchen sink at the guy and still get crushed?
i can't hear the whole "the maps are imbalanced" thing. You CANT say "the maps are imbalanced" or "the game is imbalanced" because BOTH are tools to balance the races. In my opinion "maps that suit Zerg more" is the same as a Zerg buff via patch...
On September 14 2010 03:56 Backpack wrote: So tournament win statistics after 1.5 months is how we are going to determine balance?
*sigh*
In combination with a lot of other similar statistics lately, I don't see how we can not discuss the state of Zerg. And Terran. And as an effect of that, all races.
The game is brand new and people are already spending more time discussing balance than playing.
God these posts piss me off. No, I would assume a great majority people are not spending more time discussing balance. In fact, if players are anything like me, it would be a mere fraction, and I frequent these forums more than most people.
I go and play ~4 hrs every other day, then I spend maybe 20 minutes actually writing up posts each time? Sure, I may spend more time browsing the forums, but there's some people actually enjoy discussing balance, as surprising as that might be to you. Many people browse TL in between games, when they aren't in the mood for a game, when they are waiting for someone, when they are work (aka me right now), etc. People need to stop bitching about "people should play more QQ less," because it's 10x worse than the people actually whining.
I think you also need to include the % of race entry to make this more meaningful. example: if 75% terran entries gave 75% terran winners, then it's pretty "balanced".
Finally someone with at least a minimum amount of knowledge how to look at statistics without a blind eye.
If there are only a handful of Zerg in each tournament the number of Zerg winners has to be lower than the rest and the "we are so underpowered" propaganda from the Zerg has quite a lot of people not even start playing the race because they think it is too hard. Everyone likes to win and its not a good idea to play a race which is branded with a big sign of "LOSER" by the loudest propaganda across all forums.
Sure there are hardships for the Zerg race, but these arent caused by other races being overpowered, but rather by the map design and their currently too small size.
Have you bought the game yet or are you still basing your opinions on VODs and user streams? You're the last person that should be criticizing anyone in these threads.
OP, would it be possible to add entries in tournaments by race as well? So we could draw any conclusion other than that there are many terrans winning tournaments..
Community: Can you talk a little bit about the balance of SC2?
Blizzard:Sure, so we feel the balance between races is good right now, every race is close to 50% win ratio on the ladders.
Community: But don't you see that the imbalance amongst tournaments and top players, isn't that what you should be balancing for anyway? Blizzard: We really like to look at statistics when we balance the game, so according to our metrics, its looking good.
Community: Could you answer the question directly instead? Blizzard: + Show Spoiler +
I think you also need to include the % of race entry to make this more meaningful. example: if 75% terran entries gave 75% terran winners, then it's pretty "balanced".
Finally someone with at least a minimum amount of knowledge how to look at statistics without a blind eye.
If there are only a handful of Zerg in each tournament the number of Zerg winners has to be lower than the rest and the "we are so underpowered" propaganda from the Zerg has quite a lot of people not even start playing the race because they think it is too hard. Everyone likes to win and its not a good idea to play a race which is branded with a big sign of "LOSER" by the loudest propaganda across all forums.
Sure there are hardships for the Zerg race, but these arent caused by other races being overpowered, but rather by the map design and their currently too small size.
Don't you think you might be the one looking at these statistic with a blind eye, your theory is ridiculous, pro players will pick zerg less because there's negative propaganda going around the race ?
No realy, top players pick the race with with they believe they'll obtain the best results, those statistics lean (strongly) toward terrans and if you think otherwise you're the one not looking at them straight.
OT, NJ MorroW, you're the one tearing it up there.
On September 14 2010 03:56 Backpack wrote: So tournament win statistics after 1.5 months is how we are going to determine balance?
*sigh*
In combination with a lot of other similar statistics lately, I don't see how we can not discuss the state of Zerg. And Terran. And as an effect of that, all races.
The game is brand new and people are already spending more time discussing balance than playing.
God these posts piss me off. No, I would assume a great majority people are not spending more time discussing balance. In fact, if players are anything like me, it would be a mere fraction, and I frequent these forums more than most people.
I go and play ~4 hrs every other day, then I spend maybe 20 minutes actually writing up posts each time? Sure, I may spend more time browsing the forums, but there's some people actually enjoy discussing balance, as surprising as that might be to you. Many people browse TL in between games, when they aren't in the mood for a game, when they are waiting for someone, when they are work (aka me right now), etc. People need to stop bitching about "people should play more QQ less," because it's 10x worse than the people actually whining.
Overreact much?
I can see why you dislike people who share my opinion but we aren't the ones who are plaguing the main page of every forum with countless "balance discussions" AKA zerg tears. Im just sick of every thread on TL either blatantly whining or (in the case of this thread) posting some random statistic that hints at imbalance and then everyone goes crazy over it.
I think you also need to include the % of race entry to make this more meaningful. example: if 75% terran entries gave 75% terran winners, then it's pretty "balanced".
Finally someone with at least a minimum amount of knowledge how to look at statistics without a blind eye.
If there are only a handful of Zerg in each tournament the number of Zerg winners has to be lower than the rest and the "we are so underpowered" propaganda from the Zerg has quite a lot of people not even start playing the race because they think it is too hard. .
Actually that is terrible logic. The amount of a specific race within the bracket has no weight on who wins. There could be 95% Protoss and a split of 5% between Terran and Zerg but if Terran and Zerg win it doesn't state that those 2 races are overpowered just because there are less than them. Same goes if Protoss win it doesn't mean there would be balance. That issue is more an issue of WHY there are more players playing a race more than other. This could include balance but it has far too many factors to pinpoint on any sole issue.
So really people asking for entry really aren't thinking about this logically
On September 14 2010 04:39 Arakash wrote: i can't hear the whole "the maps are imbalanced" thing. You CANT say "the maps are imbalanced" or "the game is imbalanced" because BOTH are tools to balance the races. In my opinion "maps that suit Zerg more" is the same as a Zerg buff via patch...
Finally someone who gets it. Maps and racial stats are intertwined in making the fragile thing that is balance. I also love these self-proclaimed terran statistic experts. What about you calculating the likelihood of finding 5% zerg tournament wins given 25% zerg, 30% protoss, 45% terran contestants if the races had equal chances of winning against each other?
On September 14 2010 03:56 Backpack wrote: So tournament win statistics after 1.5 months is how we are going to determine balance?
*sigh*
In combination with a lot of other similar statistics lately, I don't see how we can not discuss the state of Zerg. And Terran. And as an effect of that, all races.
The game is brand new and people are already spending more time discussing balance than playing.
God these posts piss me off. No, I would assume a great majority people are not spending more time discussing balance. In fact, if players are anything like me, it would be a mere fraction, and I frequent these forums more than most people.
I go and play ~4 hrs every other day, then I spend maybe 20 minutes actually writing up posts each time? Sure, I may spend more time browsing the forums, but there's some people actually enjoy discussing balance, as surprising as that might be to you. Many people browse TL in between games, when they aren't in the mood for a game, when they are waiting for someone, when they are work (aka me right now), etc. People need to stop bitching about "people should play more QQ less," because it's 10x worse than the people actually whining.
Overreact much?
I can see why you dislike people who share my opinion but we aren't the ones who are plaguing the main page of every forum with countless "balance discussions" AKA zerg tears. Im just sick of every thread on TL either blatantly whining or (in the case of this thread) posting some random statistic that hints at imbalance and then everyone goes crazy over it.
I would say the forums are plagued almost equally with people whining about the people whining about imbalance. Maybe not quite as much, but it's incredibly noticable. The only difference is one side is at least complaining about the game, and something relevant, and provides information in their whining posts. The otherside just whines...
On September 14 2010 03:56 Backpack wrote: So tournament win statistics after 1.5 months is how we are going to determine balance?
*sigh*
In combination with a lot of other similar statistics lately, I don't see how we can not discuss the state of Zerg. And Terran. And as an effect of that, all races.
The game is brand new and people are already spending more time discussing balance than playing.
God these posts piss me off. No, I would assume a great majority people are not spending more time discussing balance. In fact, if players are anything like me, it would be a mere fraction, and I frequent these forums more than most people.
I go and play ~4 hrs every other day, then I spend maybe 20 minutes actually writing up posts each time? Sure, I may spend more time browsing the forums, but there's some people actually enjoy discussing balance, as surprising as that might be to you. Many people browse TL in between games, when they aren't in the mood for a game, when they are waiting for someone, when they are work (aka me right now), etc. People need to stop bitching about "people should play more QQ less," because it's 10x worse than the people actually whining.
Overreact much?
I can see why you dislike people who share my opinion but we aren't the ones who are plaguing the main page of every forum with countless "balance discussions" AKA zerg tears. Im just sick of every thread on TL either blatantly whining or (in the case of this thread) posting some random statistic that hints at imbalance and then everyone goes crazy over it.
Random statistic that hints at imbalance ?
Those statistics are very interesting, not bias and pertinent, as for the OP, he never wrote anything about imbalances, he just posted raw data.
The fact it's turning into an other 'imbalance thread' is because some parts of the stats are just burning wrong...
With a better distribution we'd just all be happy to see who's the top player getting the best results.
On September 14 2010 05:01 Senx wrote: Community: Can you talk a little bit about the balance of SC2?
Blizzard:Sure, so we feel the balance between races is good right now, every race is close to 50% win ratio on the ladders.
Community: But don't you see that the imbalance amongst tournaments and top players, isn't that what you should be balancing for anyway? Blizzard: We really like to look at statistics when we balance the game, so according to our metrics, its looking good.
Community: Could you answer the question directly instead? Blizzard: + Show Spoiler +
blizzard said so often that they balance the races in regards of the win% of the races, they should better look at this then at their pathetic ladder rankings TT
this man is making the zerg race look so balanced. (I didn't took check or cool because they make the zerg race look VERY overpowered)
What I mean is, I'm not a great player, just average, perhaps a little better average if I took time to play a lot. But I never, ever felt that I lost because something is op. I can always find what I did wrong, what mistakes I made, that cost me the game. Terran maybe op, but I think the sc2 community is not very mature, and a lot of people see imbalance too much. There is certainly imbalance in sc2, but I'm sure that even without imbalance, there would be whine nerf X threads.
this man is making the zerg race look so balanced. (I didn't took check or cool because they make the zerg race look VERY overpowered)
What I mean is, I'm not a great player, just average, perhaps a little better average if I took time to play a lot. But I never, ever felt that I lost because something is op. I can always find what I did wrong, what mistakes I made, that cost me the game. Terran maybe op, but I think the sc2 community is not very mature, and a lot of people see imbalance too much. There is certainly imbalance in sc2, but I'm sure that even without imbalance, there would be whine nerf X threads.
So balancing is made just to stop ppl from whining?
On September 14 2010 05:15 MrCon wrote: Terran maybe op, but I think the sc2 community is not very mature, and a lot of people see imbalance too much. There is certainly imbalance in sc2, but I'm sure that even without imbalance, there would be whine nerf X threads.
I'm pretty sure that you're 100% right... but for those that cares about balance in an "E-SPORT" game and care about the game itself... it does matter.
I personaly have no fun at all when I see other races just a+move in my base and I can't do shiet till I get my T3 units. Man I just got back to BW for the lulz... and well... I've been playing it for 3 days now since I enjoy it more. Balance just seems to be right and every races seems to be on the same level of difficulty.
Guess I'll come back when patch 1.1 hit the selves :D
You can't use a fucking win% matchmaking system designed to match people up with people of equal skill as evidence. If anything the top 10/200 etc being dominated by t/z is the only relevant information if you want to use ladder stats.
And what was the winnings supposed to prove? That a pro BW player living in korea playing more then anyone can manage to win a couple tournaments?
SC2ranks win% just shows that blizzards amm works pretty well.
Winning twice weekly tournaments with $50 price pools means so little. Total earnings mean a lot more, and as you can see, they are quite balanced.
Wha'? What does the total winnings have to do with it? That's just putting more emphasis and weight on one competition than another. If a Terran won a single $500,000 contest and a Protoss won FIVE HUNDRED separate $1,000 contests, it would be balanced? I don't follow the logic.
On September 14 2010 03:02 GGTeMpLaR wrote: I love threads like this
it boosts my self esteem every time I see someone who knows absolutely nothing about elementary statistics make some conclusion with insufficient evidence
Me too. Like when someone concludes that the data presented here can be explained away by imagining the existence of further data which would also be exceedingly unlikely if the races were in fact balanced, namely that a highly disproportionate number of top players make a balance-unrelated choice to play Terran in contests where money is at stake.
You just have to love it when people obsessivly try to interprete data in way that terran and zerg are balanced. I mean we are coming to the point that it is pretty much a fact that terran are either OP or at least tons more fun to play in comparision to zerg. (Or people simply hate the zerg graphics and don't want to admit it.)
Protip: if somebody does this IRL to you, just make outrageous stuff up and watch him find a way to twist and warp your claim until it fits in his worldview. :D
I don't know if you were being serious, but ladder stats don't reflect play at the highest level at all. These stats might not be perfect, as not all tournaments were created equal as far as contestant quality goes, and matchup/map statistics are ignored, but they are going in the right direction. Ladder stats aren't useful for anything other than ladder analysis. Once you get a good number of high level tournaments to analyze, then things like matchup statistics will become useful enough that you can draw conclusions about balance.
Also winnings stats? Really? Whoever wins the GSL will automatically put his race in the top spot with an insurmountable lead. I don't know what winnings stats say about anything.
On September 14 2010 05:44 sjschmidt93 wrote: Yeah... I'm pretty sure Morrow is the best in the world. Certainly the best foreigner, only IdrA could be second.
Foreigners in Korea will always be better than those outside it because they play much better players on average, whereas MorroW racking up lower-skill cups doesn't even equate.
To be honest, I believe that the main reason Zerg hasn't been doing well is based on the map pool. (Most of the maps have been analyzed by players far greater than I'll ever be, with pretty much similar opinions between them. This has been rather evident when watching the GSL, and which maps Zerg tend to thumb down.)
I would like to see the results of something like this a few months after a new map pack comes out. Cheers for the number crunching though, it makes interesting reading.
On September 14 2010 05:44 sjschmidt93 wrote: Yeah... I'm pretty sure Morrow is the best in the world. Certainly the best foreigner, only IdrA could be second.
Foreigners in Korea will always be better than those outside it because they play much better players on average, whereas MorroW racking up lower-skill cups doesn't even equate.
On September 14 2010 06:02 Garaman wrote: loooooooooooooooooooooooool =) not to mention, the most recent european tounrey, i think 90% of the participants are terran too
Cool, Terran is the most common race, thanks for those great statistics.
Also, As many others have mentioned, It's know about where you win, it's what you win. There is a reason why alot of players don't bother with the 50$ tourney with 512 players.
On September 14 2010 06:02 Garaman wrote: loooooooooooooooooooooooool =) not to mention, the most recent european tounrey, i think 90% of the participants are terran too
Cool, Terran is the most common race, thanks for those great statistics.
Also, As many others have mentioned, It's know about where you win, it's what you win. There is a reason why alot of players don't bother with the 50$ tourney with 512 players.
There's obviously a reason why Terran is the most played race, sheesh. And care to elaborate how it's relevant whether or not players bother with $50 tournies? It's not as if any of the names in there aren't considered top tier caliber atm.
There are way more reasons for these numbers to be illegitimate in terms of balance than for the ones that prompted this thread.
1. The matchmaking system obscures the mu win percentages. The zerg opponents are drawn from the much smaller pool of zergs that can compete with high level Terrans (and, to a lesser extend, Protoss). The fact that your numbers are close to 50% says something positive about the effectiveness of the matchmaking system, not of overall game balance.
2. Because of the smaller ammount of zergs in the overall player pool, zergs have (on average) played many more ZvTs and ZvPs than the other races play PvZs and TvZs. In other words, Protoss and Terran play more mirrors when matched randomly, making Zergs more experienced vs their counterpart in non-mirror matchups. We should be seeing this translate into an advantage for zerg players. We haven't.
3. Although Zerg is underrepresented in Diamond (23.78% of players as opposed to 30.69% for Terran and 35.50% for Protoss), they are overrepresented on Teamliquid (http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=150273), the premier competitive Starcraft community. It it wasn't obvious already that the average tler is of a much higher calibre than the average sc2 player, other tl polls have confirmed that more of us are in Diamond than any other league (wheras only 5% of the population as a whole is). Again, this should skew the competitive scene towards Zerg dominance. This hasn't happened.
Many top players have attested to the underpowered nature of zerg. There are, of course, some who disagree, but actions and results speak louder than words. Very few choose to play zerg and even less win. If you, or any other Terrans are still skeptical about Zerg being underpowered, I suggest you play them yourself and see how far you can get on the ladder. I will absolutely admit that no single statistic is enough to declare imbalance; it takes a combination of indicators, the most important of which you can merely feel from playing a lot of games at a high level.
the problem with that is the assumption that x diamond zerg user has some knowledge of making drones & doesn't just baneling bust or roach rush or get lucky with a stupid one-base spire every game. 99% of the losses I see zergs complain about on this forum have been easily attributable to poor macro rather than ANYTHING that points to imbalance.
When talking about BALANCE, the benchmark is perfection. Whether something is "harder" or "easier" is completely irrelevant.
On September 14 2010 06:18 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: When talking about BALANCE, the benchmark is perfection. Whether something is "harder" or "easier" is completely irrelevant.
I don't think that's fair. If something is balanced for Flash and Jaedong only, but is 75:25 at top diamond levels, don't you think there's a problem?
Although the skillsets are difference, I still think every race should take a similar amount of subjective skill / effort / whatever you want to call it.
On September 14 2010 06:18 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: the problem with that is the assumption that x diamond zerg user has some knowledge of making drones & doesn't just baneling bust or roach rush or get lucky with a stupid one-base spire every game. 99% of the losses I see zergs complain about on this forum have been easily attributable to poor macro rather than ANYTHING that points to imbalance.
When talking about BALANCE, the benchmark is perfection. Whether something is "harder" or "easier" is completely irrelevant.
Only to an extent. I disagree with perfection. For example, say Terran's macro mechanic stayed as is, but Zerg's macro mechanic now suddenly required Zerg to inject larvae every 5s or the larvae would shrivel up and die before it pops out (Queen may need to nourish larvae, w/e). Perfect macro wouldn't affect the balance of the game at all, but there's such an unrealistic expectation from any player, including Jaedong, to be able to go back to the hatchery and inject larvae every 5s, especially during a battle. If you miss one inject you suddenly fall behind. If Terran only has to do it every 50 energy, and then can also use excess energy if it went over, you wouldn't say there's any balance issue? Of course an extreme for Zerg but the macro mechanic already plays this out to an extent.
Blizzard has already stated that they intend to balance the game at all levels of play and that they'll use statistics to determine which matchups need tuning. That's why there's a balance patch coming. I'm not sure what people are still arguing about. The game is imbalanced. It's a fact.
On September 14 2010 06:18 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: When talking about BALANCE, the benchmark is perfection. Whether something is "harder" or "easier" is completely irrelevant.
I don't think that's fair. If something is balanced for Flash and Jaedong only, but is 75:25 at top diamond levels, don't you think there's a problem?
Although the skillsets are difference, I still think every race should take a similar amount of subjective skill / effort / whatever you want to call it.
Sort of. If something is merely "too difficult", there needs to be a streamlining process created that doesn't tip balance at the top level. That's a much more drastic and complicated change than if something is straight imbalanced. It's a step that should be taken after all other proposed imbalance have been eliminated, which is why the benchmark is perfection. I just want people to take what they read, and even their own game experience, with a grain of salt before they claim anything is actually imbalanced.
I agree that in a perfect world, with a perfectly balanced game, there should be very little variation in the effort necessary to perform these tasks. However, with Brood War as an example, perceptions of balance change drastically as the median skill level rises. It's dangerous to muck with balance simply because there seems to be a lot of Terrans in Diamond.
On September 14 2010 06:18 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: the problem with that is the assumption that x diamond zerg user has some knowledge of making drones & doesn't just baneling bust or roach rush or get lucky with a stupid one-base spire every game. 99% of the losses I see zergs complain about on this forum have been easily attributable to poor macro rather than ANYTHING that points to imbalance.
When talking about BALANCE, the benchmark is perfection. Whether something is "harder" or "easier" is completely irrelevant.
Only to an extent. I disagree with perfection. For example, say Terran's macro mechanic stayed as is, but Zerg's macro mechanic now suddenly required Zerg to inject larvae every 5s or the larvae would shrivel up and die before it pops out (Queen may need to nourish larvae, w/e). Perfect macro wouldn't affect the balance of the game at all, but there's such an unrealistic expectation from any player, including Jaedong, to be able to go back to the hatchery and inject larvae every 5s, especially during a battle. If you miss one inject you suddenly fall behind. If Terran only has to do it every 50 energy, and then can also use excess energy if it went over, you wouldn't say there's any balance issue? Of course an extreme for Zerg but the macro mechanic already plays this out to an extent.
Agreed, and that's a good example, but surely you can see how changing something as broad-reaching as a macro mechanic will force gigantic changes in gameplay for everyone, initiated because something is "too hard". It's still a competitive game, you know?
To explain that a bit: something like allowing Zerg players to stack vomits on a hatchery if they miss a few (similar to how P and T's energy-based macro mechanics work) seems like it wouldn't affect the 'top level' because a perfect player doesn't miss barfs, and it seems like a change that would more or less 'bring zerg up to par' for lesser players. However, such a drastic change to the mechanic would make Zerg play completely differently. They'd be hella broken! Yet, this is something I've seen suggested on these forums and the lack of utility of the queen in this regard compared to MULEs or Chrono Boost is heavily complained about here.
On September 14 2010 06:29 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: It's dangerous to muck with balance simply because there seems to be a lot of Terrans in Diamond.
Nah, not if you do it just a little and don't do it just because there are many terrans in diamond, like the situation is now. Patch 1.1 doesn't change a lot balance wise and it doesn't really matter if we don't got total balance all the time since during the next 3 years we will see a ton of changes to the game from the expansions alone. Also patches might give Blizzard more information on how the game should be fixed with the expansions allowing them to make a better job. Identifying what is missing for each race that can't be fixed in a minor balance patch is pivotal for making good expansions.
On September 14 2010 06:31 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: To explain that a bit: something like allowing Zerg players to stack vomits on a hatchery if they miss a few (similar to how P and T's energy-based macro mechanics work) seems like it wouldn't affect the 'top level' because a perfect player doesn't miss barfs
Um, that would allow zerg to build 3 queens for his first hatch and then get 22 larvae per minute, not really comparable at all to what he said. What would work though would be to allow queens to stack larvae spawns on hatcheries like queue's, so if you had 100 energy you could put larvae for 3 minutes at once, that would make the macro mechanic more forgiving without imbalancing the game at higher levels at all. For the same reason as you don't queue units you shouldn't queue larvae since that energy would be better used for things like creep tumors but it would still be useful for new players.
On September 14 2010 06:18 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: When talking about BALANCE, the benchmark is perfection. Whether something is "harder" or "easier" is completely irrelevant.
I don't think that's fair. If something is balanced for Flash and Jaedong only, but is 75:25 at top diamond levels, don't you think there's a problem?
Although the skillsets are difference, I still think every race should take a similar amount of subjective skill / effort / whatever you want to call it.
Sort of. If something is merely "too difficult", there needs to be a streamlining process created that doesn't tip balance at the top level. That's a much more drastic and complicated change than if something is straight imbalanced. It's a step that should be taken after all other proposed imbalance have been eliminated, which is why the benchmark is perfection. I just want people to take what they read, and even their own game experience, with a grain of salt before they claim anything is actually imbalanced.
I agree that in a perfect world, with a perfectly balanced game, there should be very little variation in the effort necessary to perform these tasks. However, with Brood War as an example, perceptions of balance change drastically as the median skill level rises. It's dangerous to muck with balance simply because there seems to be a lot of Terrans in Diamond.
On September 14 2010 06:29 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: It's dangerous to muck with balance simply because there seems to be a lot of Terrans in Diamond.
Nah, not if you do it just a little and don't do it just because there are many terrans in diamond, like the situation is now. Patch 1.1 doesn't change a lot balance wise and it doesn't really matter if we don't got total balance all the time since during the next 3 years we will see a ton of changes to the game from the expansions alone. Also patches might give Blizzard more information on how the game should be fixed with the expansions allowing them to make a better job. Identifying what is missing for each race that can't be fixed in a minor balance patch is pivotal for making good expansions.
On September 14 2010 06:31 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: To explain that a bit: something like allowing Zerg players to stack vomits on a hatchery if they miss a few (similar to how P and T's energy-based macro mechanics work) seems like it wouldn't affect the 'top level' because a perfect player doesn't miss barfs
Um, that would allow zerg to build 3 queens for his first hatch and then get 22 larvae per minute, not really comparable at all to what he said.
I don't understand the first part of your post, you said "don't do it just because there are many terrans in diamond" and I said "It's dangerous to muck with balance simply because there seems to be a lot of Terrans in Diamond". Where is the disagreement?
Yes, I realize its not a comparable example -_- Read his post, he says there's a problem in that Terran can just MULE at 67 energy instead of 50 and not really lose anything, whereas a Zerg missing a barf can be totally critical. The problem with that assessment is that the larva barf mechanic is far more complicated than a brief mineral boost, and allows far greater customization of economy, IE, when you get yer queens, HOW MANY (this should be a huge talking point for Zerg players and strangely it isn't!), when you barf, if you spread creep & how often, etc etc. You have to realize that while there is certainly a lot that can go wrong in all that, it's not necessarily a balance issue, and the incessant griping of Zerg players who have little to no concept of how to actually play with this mechanic is being blown way out of proportion (relevant to this thread). This is why you need to benchmark against perfection (IE, a Zerg player who properly uses these mechanics to solve various issues that arise in-game) and examine it from that perspective. It's also why blanket comparisons like "Terran's MULE vs the Queen" and attempting to 'keep them in line with each other' doesn't work. The Queen is far more complex than the MULE, and needs to be dealt with accordingly, which is once again where the perfect player comes in.
On September 14 2010 06:18 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: the problem with that is the assumption that x diamond zerg user has some knowledge of making drones & doesn't just baneling bust or roach rush or get lucky with a stupid one-base spire every game. 99% of the losses I see zergs complain about on this forum have been easily attributable to poor macro rather than ANYTHING that points to imbalance.
When talking about BALANCE, the benchmark is perfection. Whether something is "harder" or "easier" is completely irrelevant.
Only to an extent. I disagree with perfection. For example, say Terran's macro mechanic stayed as is, but Zerg's macro mechanic now suddenly required Zerg to inject larvae every 5s or the larvae would shrivel up and die before it pops out (Queen may need to nourish larvae, w/e). Perfect macro wouldn't affect the balance of the game at all, but there's such an unrealistic expectation from any player, including Jaedong, to be able to go back to the hatchery and inject larvae every 5s, especially during a battle. If you miss one inject you suddenly fall behind. If Terran only has to do it every 50 energy, and then can also use excess energy if it went over, you wouldn't say there's any balance issue? Of course an extreme for Zerg but the macro mechanic already plays this out to an extent.
Agreed, and that's a good example, but surely you can see how changing something as broad-reaching as a macro mechanic will force gigantic changes in gameplay for everyone, initiated because something is "too hard". It's still a competitive game, you know?
To explain that a bit: something like allowing Zerg players to stack vomits on a hatchery if they miss a few (similar to how P and T's energy-based macro mechanics work) seems like it wouldn't affect the 'top level' because a perfect player doesn't miss barfs, and it seems like a change that would more or less 'bring zerg up to par' for lesser players. However, such a drastic change to the mechanic would make Zerg play completely differently. They'd be hella broken! Yet, this is something I've seen suggested on these forums and the lack of utility of the queen in this regard compared to MULEs or Chrono Boost is heavily complained about here.
Or instead of making Zerg macro easier, we could just add a cooldown to mule calldown of equivalent time it takes to regenerate 50 energy, or even 25 energy. Wouldn't affect scan or supply cooldown, or balance for any pro terran player who doesn't miss mules. You could still drop 3 mules at once if you have three orbitals. Same thing with chrono, although it might actually hurt balance because it's often better to have warpgates in sync, and leaving 100 energy means you can chrono all 4 at once (although technically you'd have better results doing it individually, it'd be infinitely harder mechanically).
PS. I know you weren't necessarily proposing anything, it was my chance to throw in a balance suggestion since it's a related topic :o .
Nobody knows the real reason why there are so many Terrans out there, whether most people pick Terran or because the expansion is about Terran or whether it is the easiest to play or the strongest, or maybe people just like the look of them. Probably a combination of these.
But surely we can all agree that watching so many Terrans is boring? I would like each race to have equal representative in competitive match, plus TvT is rather uninteresting. Blizzard should equalize the game.
On September 14 2010 01:35 MaGic~PhiL wrote: Terra is a bit better than the other races but I dont know how much the maps influence balance right now..
But the numbers are pretty sick
So... Did you actually shorten the word terraN to terra? or was it a typo o_O?
[B]On September 14 2010 06:48 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:
I don't understand the first part of your post, you said "don't do it just because there are many terrans in diamond" and I said "It's dangerous to muck with balance simply because there seems to be a lot of Terrans in Diamond". Where is the disagreement?
Yes, I realize its not a comparable example -_- Read his post, he says there's a problem in that Terran can just MULE at 67 energy instead of 50 and not really lose anything, whereas a Zerg missing a barf can be totally critical. The problem with that assessment is that the larva barf mechanic is far more complicated than a brief mineral boost, and allows far greater customization of economy, IE, when you get yer queens, HOW MANY (this should be a huge talking point for Zerg players and strangely it isn't!), when you barf, if you spread creep & how often, etc etc. You have to realize that while there is certainly a lot that can go wrong in all that, it's not necessarily a balance issue, and the incessant griping of Zerg players who have little to no concept of how to actually play with this mechanic is being blown way out of proportion (relevant to this thread). This is why you need to benchmark against perfection (IE, a Zerg player who properly uses these mechanics to solve various issues that arise in-game) and examine it from that perspective. It's also why blanket comparisons like "Terran's MULE vs the Queen" and attempting to 'keep them in line with each other' doesn't work. The Queen is far more complex than the MULE, and needs to be dealt with accordingly, which is once again where the perfect player comes in.
(See the bold part for my focus)
With all due respect, good sir, your logic is flawed. If you're benchmarking the game against perfection, then it wouldn't matter if Zerg players could stack larva or not because they would still be streaming out of hatcheries at the same rate, regardless of which mechanic was in play. If we're benchmarking against perfection, then you must allow larva barfs to stack because that's where the balance is taking place - at perfect larva production.
On a more substantive level, there are much, much more interesting things to balance the game around than punishing a Zerg for slight missteps on macro. Zerg already requires twice as many bases as it's opponent to maintain economic parity, so that in and of itself is enough to provide a competitive and more interesting challenge.
Zerg larva production is a poorly conceived, and altogether uninteresting mechanic. It challenges and punishes Zerg players in all of the WRONG ways.
On September 14 2010 01:45 Khol wrote: this shows how bad zergs outside of korea really are. :D
because those korean zergs are doing SO much better right? I mean 3 have qualifed in the top 32 for GSL, with 2 more still waiting to play, so at BEST 5 of 32 will be zerg in GSL the most prestigious korean (or otherwise) tournament in the world.
Stop talking out of your ass as if Korean zergs are somehow 'owning.'
On September 14 2010 06:29 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: It's dangerous to muck with balance simply because there seems to be a lot of Terrans in Diamond.
Nah, not if you do it just a little and don't do it just because there are many terrans in diamond, like the situation is now. Patch 1.1 doesn't change a lot balance wise and it doesn't really matter if we don't got total balance all the time since during the next 3 years we will see a ton of changes to the game from the expansions alone. Also patches might give Blizzard more information on how the game should be fixed with the expansions allowing them to make a better job. Identifying what is missing for each race that can't be fixed in a minor balance patch is pivotal for making good expansions.
On September 14 2010 06:31 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: To explain that a bit: something like allowing Zerg players to stack vomits on a hatchery if they miss a few (similar to how P and T's energy-based macro mechanics work) seems like it wouldn't affect the 'top level' because a perfect player doesn't miss barfs
Um, that would allow zerg to build 3 queens for his first hatch and then get 22 larvae per minute, not really comparable at all to what he said.
I don't understand the first part of your post, you said "don't do it just because there are many terrans in diamond" and I said "It's dangerous to muck with balance simply because there seems to be a lot of Terrans in Diamond". Where is the disagreement?
Yes, I realize its not a comparable example -_- Read his post, he says there's a problem in that Terran can just MULE at 67 energy instead of 50 and not really lose anything, whereas a Zerg missing a barf can be totally critical. The problem with that assessment is that the larva barf mechanic is far more complicated than a brief mineral boost, and allows far greater customization of economy, IE, when you get yer queens, HOW MANY (this should be a huge talking point for Zerg players and strangely it isn't!), when you barf, if you spread creep & how often, etc etc. You have to realize that while there is certainly a lot that can go wrong in all that, it's not necessarily a balance issue, and the incessant griping of Zerg players who have little to no concept of how to actually play with this mechanic is being blown way out of proportion (relevant to this thread). This is why you need to benchmark against perfection (IE, a Zerg player who properly uses these mechanics to solve various issues that arise in-game) and examine it from that perspective. It's also why blanket comparisons like "Terran's MULE vs the Queen" and attempting to 'keep them in line with each other' doesn't work. The Queen is far more complex than the MULE, and needs to be dealt with accordingly, which is once again where the perfect player comes in.
But in reality you need to compare it to supply calldown and scan as well. There's complexity there as wel. In fact, many people would say "knowing when to scan, when to mule," is much more complex than thinking "ok, creep tumor first time, inject permanently after that."
Perfection is very hard to achieve when the matchup involves such a high degree of guessing for zerg. Even when you scout a certain tech path from the terran, you still cannot be sure what is coming. Yesterday for example (one out of a thousand examples), I scouted a very fast tech starport tech lab switch from brat_ok in a tournament game, and I began making spore crawlers and queens while massing drones. I was sure I was going to come out far ahead. What happens next? He only uses the starport to build 1 banshee. Switches his strat around instantly, builds 1 medivac and 1 thor, drops it on my cliff, completely shuts down mining and easily takes out my expansion hatchery.
There is no way a zerg can account for all these possibilities at the same time. Every terran is unique. Every terran has got their own specialized (and often retarded) transition. Banshee doesn't have to mean banshee. 2 rax doesn't have to mean aggressive infantry build. It might as well mean a nonsensical delayed 2 or 1 port banshee with cloak.
You have all these idiot terrans scoring easy instant wins vs zergs everywhere, because even if you scout their production buildings, half of the time you've still got no fucking clue what they're doing. You scout a barrack constantly producing marines and a starport without addons? Maybe he'll use it for 1 viking and then medivacs. Maybe he'll use it for a fast medivac dropping 8 marines straight into your base. Maybe he's the kind of terran that built another rax in his base and waits for 2 medivacs before dropping you. Maybe he's the kind of retarded terran that waits for so long, that eventually you start making drones again, and in flies 3medivacs fully loaded with units. Sometimes they make a medivac and don't even use it for anything, they just expand and pretend it's a logical strategy.
You make drones and go for the early spire vs the 1 medivac 8 marine drop? You'll take sick damage. You start making units too late vs the 2 medivac drop and even hint at making the spire? You die. You start making units too early vs the 3 medivac drop instead of making the spire, and then suddenly think the coast is clear and proceed into making a round of drones because the drop never seems to come? You die.
You make too many units vs the nonsensical terran that went a 1-1-1 build into an 11-minute mark expand with medivacs and lots of marines before expanding but didn't even drop you ? You die from mining 600 less minerals per minute every subsequent minute.
Even when watching Sen's stream - who I consider to be 20x better than me and a complete monster ZvT - you see him losing instantly to noob terrans after overdroning vs a 3rax or 2rax/hellion all-in, or making too many units vs a faked aggression into fast expand build, or upgrading ling speed before lair and subsequently dying to 2port banshee without even having a fighting chance.
The main reason you see so many zergs getting eliminated so early, is because you have to have sick amount of LUCK to beat 5-6 terrans in a row. It doesn't matter how good and how skilled you are. Beating that many terrans in a row will require more luck than it will require skill.
The point is, there is too much of an element of randomness for zerg in the matchup depending on which tech path they opt for. And it cannot be fixed by simply "scouting better". The difference in win rate from playing a terran ranked #60 as opposed to a terran ranked #5 isn't that great. There's still the ~20% of games where you instantly lose due to a build order/tech path loss, no matter how good/bad your terran opponent is.
Then there are the truly good terrans. The ones of equal skill to you. The ones who'll win at least 50% of the games that reach beyond the "zerg guesses wrong instantly loses" phase.
The win ratio against those terrans won't ever be 50% for zergs. Much like the scrub terrans, the good terrans too will instantly win about ~20% of their games on pure build order errors from zerg. If they win half of the rest of games that puts them at 60% vs the zergs.
For a good terran facing a scrub zerg. There's perhaps a 1% chance of a build order loss. Again, number pulled out of my ass, but I should really think it's single digit, and amongst the lower single digits. You don't see morrow, brat_ok or demuslim losing to scrub zergs, EVER.
TvP, they might lose a higher percentage of games against no name protosses. But not nearly as high as zergs vs terran and protoss.
So what you end up with (poker analogy) is top zergs having to fight their way through 5-6 top pocket pair vs lower pocket pair preflop all-ins without getting drawn out one single time! And of course a couple of other key hands that actually reach the flop, turn and river (normal games where the zerg had some influence on the outcome and didn't instantly lose).
This post was written as a rant from start from finish. Forgive me if it's very incoherent.
On September 14 2010 06:29 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: It's dangerous to muck with balance simply because there seems to be a lot of Terrans in Diamond.
Nah, not if you do it just a little and don't do it just because there are many terrans in diamond, like the situation is now. Patch 1.1 doesn't change a lot balance wise and it doesn't really matter if we don't got total balance all the time since during the next 3 years we will see a ton of changes to the game from the expansions alone. Also patches might give Blizzard more information on how the game should be fixed with the expansions allowing them to make a better job. Identifying what is missing for each race that can't be fixed in a minor balance patch is pivotal for making good expansions.
On September 14 2010 06:31 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: To explain that a bit: something like allowing Zerg players to stack vomits on a hatchery if they miss a few (similar to how P and T's energy-based macro mechanics work) seems like it wouldn't affect the 'top level' because a perfect player doesn't miss barfs
Um, that would allow zerg to build 3 queens for his first hatch and then get 22 larvae per minute, not really comparable at all to what he said.
I don't understand the first part of your post, you said "don't do it just because there are many terrans in diamond" and I said "It's dangerous to muck with balance simply because there seems to be a lot of Terrans in Diamond". Where is the disagreement?
Yes, I realize its not a comparable example -_- Read his post, he says there's a problem in that Terran can just MULE at 67 energy instead of 50 and not really lose anything, whereas a Zerg missing a barf can be totally critical. The problem with that assessment is that the larva barf mechanic is far more complicated than a brief mineral boost, and allows far greater customization of economy, IE, when you get yer queens, HOW MANY (this should be a huge talking point for Zerg players and strangely it isn't!), when you barf, if you spread creep & how often, etc etc. You have to realize that while there is certainly a lot that can go wrong in all that, it's not necessarily a balance issue, and the incessant griping of Zerg players who have little to no concept of how to actually play with this mechanic is being blown way out of proportion (relevant to this thread). This is why you need to benchmark against perfection (IE, a Zerg player who properly uses these mechanics to solve various issues that arise in-game) and examine it from that perspective. It's also why blanket comparisons like "Terran's MULE vs the Queen" and attempting to 'keep them in line with each other' doesn't work. The Queen is far more complex than the MULE, and needs to be dealt with accordingly, which is once again where the perfect player comes in.
But in reality you need to compare it to supply calldown and scan as well. There's complexity there as wel. In fact, many people would say "knowing when to scan, when to mule," is much more complex than thinking "ok, creep tumor first time, inject permanently after that."
Are you trying to convince yourself of this or have you never played zerg in starcraft 2 ? Jesus christ.
Perfection is very hard to achieve when the matchup involves such a high degree of guessing for zerg. Even when you scout a certain tech path from the terran, you still cannot be sure what is coming. Yesterday for example (one out of a thousand examples), I scouted a very fast tech starport tech lab switch from brat_ok in a tournament game, and I began making spore crawlers and queens while massing drones. I was sure I was going to come out far ahead. What happens next? He only uses the starport to build 1 banshee. Switches his strat around instantly, builds 1 medivac and 1 thor, drops it on my cliff, completely shuts down mining and easily takes out my expansion hatchery.
There is no way a zerg can account for all these possibilities at the same time. Every terran is unique. Every terran has got their own specialized (and often retarded) transition. Banshee doesn't have to mean banshee. 2 rax doesn't have to mean aggressive infantry build. It might as well mean a nonsensical delayed 2 or 1 port banshee with cloak.
You have all these idiot terrans scoring easy instant wins vs zergs everywhere, because even if you scout their production buildings, half of the time you've still got no fucking clue what they're doing. You scout a barrack constantly producing marines and a starport without addons? Maybe he'll use it for 1 viking and then medivacs. Maybe he'll use it for a fast medivac dropping 8 marines straight into your base. Maybe he's the kind of terran that built another rax in his base and waits for 2 medivacs before dropping you. Maybe he's the kind of retarded terran that waits for so long, that eventually you start making drones again, and in flies 3medivacs fully loaded with units. Sometimes they make a medivac and don't even use it for anything, they just expand and pretend it's a logical strategy.
You make drones and go for the early spire vs the 1 medivac 8 marine drop? You'll take sick damage. You start making units too late vs the 2 medivac drop and even hint at making the spire? You die. You start making units too early vs the 3 medivac drop instead of making the spire, and then suddenly think the coast is clear and proceed into making a round of drones because the drop never seems to come? You die.
You make too many units vs the nonsensical terran that went a 1-1-1 build into an 11-minute mark expand with medivacs and lots of marines before expanding but didn't even drop you ? You die from mining 600 less minerals per minute every subsequent minute.
Even when watching Sen's stream - who I consider to be 20x better than me and a complete monster ZvT - you see him losing instantly to noob terrans after overdroning vs a 3rax or 2rax/hellion all-in, or making too many units vs a faked aggression into fast expand build, or upgrading ling speed before lair and subsequently dying to 2port banshee without even having a fighting chance.
The main reason you see so many zergs getting eliminated so early, is because you have to have sick amount of LUCK to beat 5-6 terrans in a row. It doesn't matter how good and how skilled you are. Beating that many terrans in a row will require more luck than it will require skill.
The point is, there is too much of an element of randomness for zerg in the matchup depending on which tech path they opt for. And it cannot be fixed by simply "scouting better". The difference in win rate from playing a terran ranked #60 as opposed to a terran ranked #5 isn't that great. There's still the ~20% of games where you instantly lose due to a build order/tech path loss, no matter how good/bad your terran opponent is.
Then there are the truly good terrans. The ones of equal skill to you. The ones who'll win at least 50% of the games that reach beyond the "zerg guesses wrong instantly loses" phase.
The win ratio against those terrans won't ever be 50% for zergs. Much like the scrub terrans, the good terrans too will instantly win about ~20% of their games on pure build order errors from zerg. If they win half of the rest of games that puts them at 60% vs the zergs.
For a good terran facing a scrub zerg. There's perhaps a 1% chance of a build order loss. Again, number pulled out of my ass, but I should really think it's single digit, and amongst the lower single digits. You don't see morrow, brat_ok or demuslim losing to scrub zergs, EVER.
TvP, they might lose a higher percentage of games against no name protosses. But not nearly as high as zergs vs terran and protoss.
So what you end up with (poker analogy) is top zergs having to fight their way through 5-6 top pocket pair vs lower pocket pair preflop all-ins without getting drawn out one single time! And of course a couple of other key hands that actually reach the flop, turn and river (normal games where the zerg had some influence on the outcome and didn't instantly lose).
This post was written as a rant from start from finish. Forgive me if it's very incoherent.
Really great post, while a rant and random %'s still reiterates a lot of the problems TvZ. Thanks.
On September 14 2010 06:29 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: It's dangerous to muck with balance simply because there seems to be a lot of Terrans in Diamond.
Nah, not if you do it just a little and don't do it just because there are many terrans in diamond, like the situation is now. Patch 1.1 doesn't change a lot balance wise and it doesn't really matter if we don't got total balance all the time since during the next 3 years we will see a ton of changes to the game from the expansions alone. Also patches might give Blizzard more information on how the game should be fixed with the expansions allowing them to make a better job. Identifying what is missing for each race that can't be fixed in a minor balance patch is pivotal for making good expansions.
On September 14 2010 06:31 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: To explain that a bit: something like allowing Zerg players to stack vomits on a hatchery if they miss a few (similar to how P and T's energy-based macro mechanics work) seems like it wouldn't affect the 'top level' because a perfect player doesn't miss barfs
Um, that would allow zerg to build 3 queens for his first hatch and then get 22 larvae per minute, not really comparable at all to what he said.
I don't understand the first part of your post, you said "don't do it just because there are many terrans in diamond" and I said "It's dangerous to muck with balance simply because there seems to be a lot of Terrans in Diamond". Where is the disagreement?
Yes, I realize its not a comparable example -_- Read his post, he says there's a problem in that Terran can just MULE at 67 energy instead of 50 and not really lose anything, whereas a Zerg missing a barf can be totally critical. The problem with that assessment is that the larva barf mechanic is far more complicated than a brief mineral boost, and allows far greater customization of economy, IE, when you get yer queens, HOW MANY (this should be a huge talking point for Zerg players and strangely it isn't!), when you barf, if you spread creep & how often, etc etc. You have to realize that while there is certainly a lot that can go wrong in all that, it's not necessarily a balance issue, and the incessant griping of Zerg players who have little to no concept of how to actually play with this mechanic is being blown way out of proportion (relevant to this thread). This is why you need to benchmark against perfection (IE, a Zerg player who properly uses these mechanics to solve various issues that arise in-game) and examine it from that perspective. It's also why blanket comparisons like "Terran's MULE vs the Queen" and attempting to 'keep them in line with each other' doesn't work. The Queen is far more complex than the MULE, and needs to be dealt with accordingly, which is once again where the perfect player comes in.
But in reality you need to compare it to supply calldown and scan as well. There's complexity there as wel. In fact, many people would say "knowing when to scan, when to mule," is much more complex than thinking "ok, creep tumor first time, inject permanently after that."
Are you trying to convince yourself of this or have you never played zerg in starcraft 2 ? Jesus christ.
Perfection is very hard to achieve when the matchup involves such a high degree of guessing for zerg. Even when you scout a certain tech path from the terran, you still cannot be sure what is coming. Yesterday for example (one out of a thousand examples), I scouted a very fast tech starport tech lab switch from brat_ok in a tournament game, and I began making spore crawlers and queens while massing drones. I was sure I was going to come out far ahead. What happens next? He only uses the starport to build 1 banshee. Switches his strat around instantly, builds 1 medivac and 1 thor, drops it on my cliff, completely shuts down mining and easily takes out my expansion hatchery.
There is no way a zerg can account for all these possibilities at the same time. Every terran is unique. Every terran has got their own specialized (and often retarded) transition. Banshee doesn't have to mean banshee. 2 rax doesn't have to mean aggressive infantry build. It might as well mean a nonsensical delayed 2 or 1 port banshee with cloak.
You have all these idiot terrans scoring easy instant wins vs zergs everywhere, because even if you scout their production buildings, half of the time you've still got no fucking clue what they're doing. You scout a barrack constantly producing marines and a starport without addons? Maybe he'll use it for 1 viking and then medivacs. Maybe he'll use it for a fast medivac dropping 8 marines straight into your base. Maybe he's the kind of terran that built another rax in his base and waits for 2 medivacs before dropping you. Maybe he's the kind of retarded terran that waits for so long, that eventually you start making drones again, and in flies 3medivacs fully loaded with units. Sometimes they make a medivac and don't even use it for anything, they just expand and pretend it's a logical strategy.
You make drones and go for the early spire vs the 1 medivac 8 marine drop? You'll take sick damage. You start making units too late vs the 2 medivac drop and even hint at making the spire? You die. You start making units too early vs the 3 medivac drop instead of making the spire, and then suddenly think the coast is clear and proceed into making a round of drones because the drop never seems to come? You die.
You make too many units vs the nonsensical terran that went a 1-1-1 build into an 11-minute mark expand with medivacs and lots of marines before expanding but didn't even drop you ? You die from mining 600 less minerals per minute every subsequent minute.
Even when watching Sen's stream - who I consider to be 20x better than me and a complete monster ZvT - you see him losing instantly to noob terrans after overdroning vs a 3rax or 2rax/hellion all-in, or making too many units vs a faked aggression into fast expand build, or upgrading ling speed before lair and subsequently dying to 2port banshee without even having a fighting chance.
The main reason you see so many zergs getting eliminated so early, is because you have to have sick amount of LUCK to beat 5-6 terrans in a row. It doesn't matter how good and how skilled you are. Beating that many terrans in a row will require more luck than it will require skill.
The point is, there is too much of an element of randomness for zerg in the matchup depending on which tech path they opt for. And it cannot be fixed by simply "scouting better". The difference in win rate from playing a terran ranked #60 as opposed to a terran ranked #5 isn't that great. There's still the ~20% of games where you instantly lose due to a build order/tech path loss, no matter how good/bad your terran opponent is.
Then there are the truly good terrans. The ones of equal skill to you. The ones who'll win at least 50% of the games that reach beyond the "zerg guesses wrong instantly loses" phase.
The win ratio against those terrans won't ever be 50% for zergs. Much like the scrub terrans, the good terrans too will instantly win about ~20% of their games on pure build order errors from zerg. If they win half of the rest of games that puts them at 60% vs the zergs.
For a good terran facing a scrub zerg. There's perhaps a 1% chance of a build order loss. Again, number pulled out of my ass, but I should really think it's single digit, and amongst the lower single digits. You don't see morrow, brat_ok or demuslim losing to scrub zergs, EVER.
TvP, they might lose a higher percentage of games against no name protosses. But not nearly as high as zergs vs terran and protoss.
So what you end up with (poker analogy) is top zergs having to fight their way through 5-6 top pocket pair vs lower pocket pair preflop all-ins without getting drawn out one single time! And of course a couple of other key hands that actually reach the flop, turn and river (normal games where the zerg had some influence on the outcome and didn't instantly lose).
This post was written as a rant from start from finish. Forgive me if it's very incoherent.
I think it was very coherent and worth the read.
The only think I'd like you to take the time to think is how could that change ? It seem to me like the problem you're describing is deeper than a 5 second additionnal reaper build time.
Every now and then terrans will tell you that the scouting answer is to sacc. an ovie or even two (ovie pincer, whoever came up with this idea) at a very low food count, which is very weakening for a zerg to do. Just to hope you get the general idea of what the T is doing behind his walls.
Ive read your other thread and your suggestions, but none of them (I think) address this issue.
Perfection is very hard to achieve when the matchup involves such a high degree of guessing for zerg. Even when you scout a certain tech path from the terran, you still cannot be sure what is coming. Yesterday for example (one out of a thousand examples), I scouted a very fast tech starport tech lab switch from brat_ok in a tournament game, and I began making spore crawlers and queens while massing drones. I was sure I was going to come out far ahead. What happens next? He only uses the starport to build 1 banshee. Switches his strat around instantly, builds 1 medivac and 1 thor, drops it on my cliff, completely shuts down mining and easily takes out my expansion hatchery.
There is no way a zerg can account for all these possibilities at the same time. Every terran is unique. Every terran has got their own specialized (and often retarded) transition. Banshee doesn't have to mean banshee. 2 rax doesn't have to mean aggressive infantry build. It might as well mean a nonsensical delayed 2 or 1 port banshee with cloak.
You have all these idiot terrans scoring easy instant wins vs zergs everywhere, because even if you scout their production buildings, half of the time you've still got no fucking clue what they're doing. You scout a barrack constantly producing marines and a starport without addons? Maybe he'll use it for 1 viking and then medivacs. Maybe he'll use it for a fast medivac dropping 8 marines straight into your base. Maybe he's the kind of terran that built another rax in his base and waits for 2 medivacs before dropping you. Maybe he's the kind of retarded terran that waits for so long, that eventually you start making drones again, and in flies 3medivacs fully loaded with units. Sometimes they make a medivac and don't even use it for anything, they just expand and pretend it's a logical strategy.
You make drones and go for the early spire vs the 1 medivac 8 marine drop? You'll take sick damage. You start making units too late vs the 2 medivac drop and even hint at making the spire? You die. You start making units too early vs the 3 medivac drop instead of making the spire, and then suddenly think the coast is clear and proceed into making a round of drones because the drop never seems to come? You die.
You make too many units vs the nonsensical terran that went a 1-1-1 build into an 11-minute mark expand with medivacs and lots of marines before expanding but didn't even drop you ? You die from mining 600 less minerals per minute every subsequent minute.
Even when watching Sen's stream - who I consider to be 20x better than me and a complete monster ZvT - you see him losing instantly to noob terrans after overdroning vs a 3rax or 2rax/hellion all-in, or making too many units vs a faked aggression into fast expand build, or upgrading ling speed before lair and subsequently dying to 2port banshee without even having a fighting chance.
The main reason you see so many zergs getting eliminated so early, is because you have to have sick amount of LUCK to beat 5-6 terrans in a row. It doesn't matter how good and how skilled you are. Beating that many terrans in a row will require more luck than it will require skill.
The point is, there is too much of an element of randomness for zerg in the matchup depending on which tech path they opt for. And it cannot be fixed by simply "scouting better". The difference in win rate from playing a terran ranked #60 as opposed to a terran ranked #5 isn't that great. There's still the ~20% of games where you instantly lose due to a build order/tech path loss, no matter how good/bad your terran opponent is.
Then there are the truly good terrans. The ones of equal skill to you. The ones who'll win at least 50% of the games that reach beyond the "zerg guesses wrong instantly loses" phase.
The win ratio against those terrans won't ever be 50% for zergs. Much like the scrub terrans, the good terrans too will instantly win about ~20% of their games on pure build order errors from zerg. If they win half of the rest of games that puts them at 60% vs the zergs.
For a good terran facing a scrub zerg. There's perhaps a 1% chance of a build order loss. Again, number pulled out of my ass, but I should really think it's single digit, and amongst the lower single digits. You don't see morrow, brat_ok or demuslim losing to scrub zergs, EVER.
TvP, they might lose a higher percentage of games against no name protosses. But not nearly as high as zergs vs terran and protoss.
So what you end up with (poker analogy) is top zergs having to fight their way through 5-6 top pocket pair vs lower pocket pair preflop all-ins without getting drawn out one single time! And of course a couple of other key hands that actually reach the flop, turn and river (normal games where the zerg had some influence on the outcome and didn't instantly lose).
This post was written as a rant from start from finish. Forgive me if it's very incoherent.
Very good read, pretty much summarizes one of the major faults in the ZvT matchup. What is most interesting to me is that these issues have existed since the beta was first out, BUT Zergs were still winning their fair share of tournaments in early beta regardless of the inherent randomness of the matchup. Even though any top level Z could just randomly drop a game to any T, the sheer power of late game Z could carry them through to tournament wins. Whether this was because people hadn't developed the other races enough, and Z was just figured out faster since there are less units/combinations, I can't say for certain though. And then came the nerfs... and more nerfs, followed by more nerfs.
So ideally in order to balance the matchup, you'd have to fix these underlying guessing issues, BUT if you gave Zergs enough actual buffs (especially in the early-mid game) they might still be able to overcome this even with their flaws.
Perfection is very hard to achieve when the matchup involves such a high degree of guessing for zerg. Even when you scout a certain tech path from the terran, you still cannot be sure what is coming. Yesterday for example (one out of a thousand examples), I scouted a very fast tech starport tech lab switch from brat_ok in a tournament game, and I began making spore crawlers and queens while massing drones. I was sure I was going to come out far ahead. What happens next? He only uses the starport to build 1 banshee. Switches his strat around instantly, builds 1 medivac and 1 thor, drops it on my cliff, completely shuts down mining and easily takes out my expansion hatchery.
There is no way a zerg can account for all these possibilities at the same time. Every terran is unique. Every terran has got their own specialized (and often retarded) transition. Banshee doesn't have to mean banshee. 2 rax doesn't have to mean aggressive infantry build. It might as well mean a nonsensical delayed 2 or 1 port banshee with cloak.
You have all these idiot terrans scoring easy instant wins vs zergs everywhere, because even if you scout their production buildings, half of the time you've still got no fucking clue what they're doing. You scout a barrack constantly producing marines and a starport without addons? Maybe he'll use it for 1 viking and then medivacs. Maybe he'll use it for a fast medivac dropping 8 marines straight into your base. Maybe he's the kind of terran that built another rax in his base and waits for 2 medivacs before dropping you. Maybe he's the kind of retarded terran that waits for so long, that eventually you start making drones again, and in flies 3medivacs fully loaded with units. Sometimes they make a medivac and don't even use it for anything, they just expand and pretend it's a logical strategy.
You make drones and go for the early spire vs the 1 medivac 8 marine drop? You'll take sick damage. You start making units too late vs the 2 medivac drop and even hint at making the spire? You die. You start making units too early vs the 3 medivac drop instead of making the spire, and then suddenly think the coast is clear and proceed into making a round of drones because the drop never seems to come? You die.
You make too many units vs the nonsensical terran that went a 1-1-1 build into an 11-minute mark expand with medivacs and lots of marines before expanding but didn't even drop you ? You die from mining 600 less minerals per minute every subsequent minute.
Even when watching Sen's stream - who I consider to be 20x better than me and a complete monster ZvT - you see him losing instantly to noob terrans after overdroning vs a 3rax or 2rax/hellion all-in, or making too many units vs a faked aggression into fast expand build, or upgrading ling speed before lair and subsequently dying to 2port banshee without even having a fighting chance.
The main reason you see so many zergs getting eliminated so early, is because you have to have sick amount of LUCK to beat 5-6 terrans in a row. It doesn't matter how good and how skilled you are. Beating that many terrans in a row will require more luck than it will require skill.
The point is, there is too much of an element of randomness for zerg in the matchup depending on which tech path they opt for. And it cannot be fixed by simply "scouting better". The difference in win rate from playing a terran ranked #60 as opposed to a terran ranked #5 isn't that great. There's still the ~20% of games where you instantly lose due to a build order/tech path loss, no matter how good/bad your terran opponent is.
Then there are the truly good terrans. The ones of equal skill to you. The ones who'll win at least 50% of the games that reach beyond the "zerg guesses wrong instantly loses" phase.
The win ratio against those terrans won't ever be 50% for zergs. Much like the scrub terrans, the good terrans too will instantly win about ~20% of their games on pure build order errors from zerg. If they win half of the rest of games that puts them at 60% vs the zergs.
For a good terran facing a scrub zerg. There's perhaps a 1% chance of a build order loss. Again, number pulled out of my ass, but I should really think it's single digit, and amongst the lower single digits. You don't see morrow, brat_ok or demuslim losing to scrub zergs, EVER.
TvP, they might lose a higher percentage of games against no name protosses. But not nearly as high as zergs vs terran and protoss.
So what you end up with (poker analogy) is top zergs having to fight their way through 5-6 top pocket pair vs lower pocket pair preflop all-ins without getting drawn out one single time! And of course a couple of other key hands that actually reach the flop, turn and river (normal games where the zerg had some influence on the outcome and didn't instantly lose).
This post was written as a rant from start from finish. Forgive me if it's very incoherent.
I think it was very coherent and worth the read.
The only think I'd like you to take the time to think is how could that change ? It seem to me like the problem you're describing is deeper than a 5 second additionnal reaper build time.
Every now and then terrans will tell you that the scouting answer is to sacc. an ovie or even two (ovie pincer, whoever came up with this idea) at a very low food count, which is very weakening for a zerg to do. Just to hope you get the general idea of what the T is doing behind his walls.
Ive read your other thread and your suggestions, but none of them (I think) address this issue.
What about making overseer require evo chamber instead of lair. Zergs would be able to scout and delay tech/units with that overseer spell earlier.
On September 14 2010 01:45 Bibdy wrote: I'm sure a lot of those top guys have played all of the races to death and just eventually settled on whichever one they felt most comfortable with.
Best example is TLO! He used to play random and i quite enjoyed his Zerg play, but than he switched to Terran only.
You do know that's because he was doing a lot worse with Protoss, than with Terran or Zerg. But yeah I liked his Zerg play a lot too. He'd prob be still random if his P matched his T and Z.
The OP, as well as this whole discussion about Zerg imbalance reminds me of something the philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer said -
"All truth passes through three stages. First it is ridiculed. Secondly, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
We are going to look back on this whole saga which is unfolding and be like "Balance was pretty messed up back then, anyone who said otherwise must have been smoking something crazy, it's so obvious. Thank god Blizzard patches their games!"
Idra has won the King of the Beta tourney and second place in IEM and i think some others. Personally the statistics look nice and are some what true. But i do believe bias has led to some tourneys being included for terrans and less looked for zerg. Of course this is going to happen when your trying to prove a point but I think it would be a little bit less drastic but still showing how zergs are lacking.
Why are people saying theres only 3 Zergs in the GSL.. I count 5.. and a very strong lineup of Zergs it is too.. Cool, Check, IdrA, JookToJung and oGSTheWinD. Hoping Check goes all the way too. Love his aggressive style.
Perfection is very hard to achieve when the matchup involves such a high degree of guessing for zerg. Even when you scout a certain tech path from the terran, you still cannot be sure what is coming. Yesterday for example (one out of a thousand examples), I scouted a very fast tech starport tech lab switch from brat_ok in a tournament game, and I began making spore crawlers and queens while massing drones. I was sure I was going to come out far ahead. What happens next? He only uses the starport to build 1 banshee. Switches his strat around instantly, builds 1 medivac and 1 thor, drops it on my cliff, completely shuts down mining and easily takes out my expansion hatchery.
There is no way a zerg can account for all these possibilities at the same time. Every terran is unique. Every terran has got their own specialized (and often retarded) transition. Banshee doesn't have to mean banshee. 2 rax doesn't have to mean aggressive infantry build. It might as well mean a nonsensical delayed 2 or 1 port banshee with cloak.
You have all these idiot terrans scoring easy instant wins vs zergs everywhere, because even if you scout their production buildings, half of the time you've still got no fucking clue what they're doing. You scout a barrack constantly producing marines and a starport without addons? Maybe he'll use it for 1 viking and then medivacs. Maybe he'll use it for a fast medivac dropping 8 marines straight into your base. Maybe he's the kind of terran that built another rax in his base and waits for 2 medivacs before dropping you. Maybe he's the kind of retarded terran that waits for so long, that eventually you start making drones again, and in flies 3medivacs fully loaded with units. Sometimes they make a medivac and don't even use it for anything, they just expand and pretend it's a logical strategy.
You make drones and go for the early spire vs the 1 medivac 8 marine drop? You'll take sick damage. You start making units too late vs the 2 medivac drop and even hint at making the spire? You die. You start making units too early vs the 3 medivac drop instead of making the spire, and then suddenly think the coast is clear and proceed into making a round of drones because the drop never seems to come? You die.
You make too many units vs the nonsensical terran that went a 1-1-1 build into an 11-minute mark expand with medivacs and lots of marines before expanding but didn't even drop you ? You die from mining 600 less minerals per minute every subsequent minute.
Even when watching Sen's stream - who I consider to be 20x better than me and a complete monster ZvT - you see him losing instantly to noob terrans after overdroning vs a 3rax or 2rax/hellion all-in, or making too many units vs a faked aggression into fast expand build, or upgrading ling speed before lair and subsequently dying to 2port banshee without even having a fighting chance.
The main reason you see so many zergs getting eliminated so early, is because you have to have sick amount of LUCK to beat 5-6 terrans in a row. It doesn't matter how good and how skilled you are. Beating that many terrans in a row will require more luck than it will require skill.
The point is, there is too much of an element of randomness for zerg in the matchup depending on which tech path they opt for. And it cannot be fixed by simply "scouting better". The difference in win rate from playing a terran ranked #60 as opposed to a terran ranked #5 isn't that great. There's still the ~20% of games where you instantly lose due to a build order/tech path loss, no matter how good/bad your terran opponent is.
Then there are the truly good terrans. The ones of equal skill to you. The ones who'll win at least 50% of the games that reach beyond the "zerg guesses wrong instantly loses" phase.
The win ratio against those terrans won't ever be 50% for zergs. Much like the scrub terrans, the good terrans too will instantly win about ~20% of their games on pure build order errors from zerg. If they win half of the rest of games that puts them at 60% vs the zergs.
For a good terran facing a scrub zerg. There's perhaps a 1% chance of a build order loss. Again, number pulled out of my ass, but I should really think it's single digit, and amongst the lower single digits. You don't see morrow, brat_ok or demuslim losing to scrub zergs, EVER.
TvP, they might lose a higher percentage of games against no name protosses. But not nearly as high as zergs vs terran and protoss.
So what you end up with (poker analogy) is top zergs having to fight their way through 5-6 top pocket pair vs lower pocket pair preflop all-ins without getting drawn out one single time! And of course a couple of other key hands that actually reach the flop, turn and river (normal games where the zerg had some influence on the outcome and didn't instantly lose).
This post was written as a rant from start from finish. Forgive me if it's very incoherent.
I think it was very coherent and worth the read.
The only think I'd like you to take the time to think is how could that change ? It seem to me like the problem you're describing is deeper than a 5 second additionnal reaper build time.
Every now and then terrans will tell you that the scouting answer is to sacc. an ovie or even two (ovie pincer, whoever came up with this idea) at a very low food count, which is very weakening for a zerg to do. Just to hope you get the general idea of what the T is doing behind his walls.
Ive read your other thread and your suggestions, but none of them (I think) address this issue.
What about making overseer require evo chamber instead of lair. Zergs would be able to scout and delay tech/units with that overseer spell earlier.
if we could make queen and lair at the same time... we also need ling speed, so, to get lair done, we need 200 gas. reduce ling speed to 50/50, could also reduce ov speed to 50/50 and then we can scout properly early game. lair/hive should be independent of any hatchery upgrade like ov speed, queen, overlord drop, burrow.
tbh, I don't even like to discuss game balancing, because it is frustrating. there is nothing we can do about it. I tried using blizzard forums, but no one answered. it's like an old company ruled by rednecks that threat their costumers as enemies, no communication at all. they said they are reading the forums and then comes up with +5 seconds to reapers.
The saddest thing is that ZvT is completely broken and only true zerg players knows that. it's not a matter of nerffing some terran units, it's way more complex than that. it is the entire zerg system, mechanics, etc.
On September 14 2010 07:18 LaLuSh wrote: Perfection is very hard to achieve when the matchup involves such a high degree of guessing for zerg. Even when you scout a certain tech path from the terran, you still cannot be sure what is coming. Yesterday for example (one out of a thousand examples), I scouted a very fast tech starport tech lab switch from brat_ok in a tournament game, and I began making spore crawlers and queens while massing drones. I was sure I was going to come out far ahead. What happens next? He only uses the starport to build 1 banshee. Switches his strat around instantly, builds 1 medivac and 1 thor, drops it on my cliff, completely shuts down mining and easily takes out my expansion hatchery.
There is no way a zerg can account for all these possibilities at the same time. Every terran is unique. Every terran has got their own specialized (and often retarded) transition. Banshee doesn't have to mean banshee. 2 rax doesn't have to mean aggressive infantry build. It might as well mean a nonsensical delayed 2 or 1 port banshee with cloak.
You have all these idiot terrans scoring easy instant wins vs zergs everywhere, because even if you scout their production buildings, half of the time you've still got no fucking clue what they're doing. You scout a barrack constantly producing marines and a starport without addons? Maybe he'll use it for 1 viking and then medivacs. Maybe he'll use it for a fast medivac dropping 8 marines straight into your base. Maybe he's the kind of terran that built another rax in his base and waits for 2 medivacs before dropping you. Maybe he's the kind of retarded terran that waits for so long, that eventually you start making drones again, and in flies 3medivacs fully loaded with units. Sometimes they make a medivac and don't even use it for anything, they just expand and pretend it's a logical strategy.
You make drones and go for the early spire vs the 1 medivac 8 marine drop? You'll take sick damage. You start making units too late vs the 2 medivac drop and even hint at making the spire? You die. You start making units too early vs the 3 medivac drop instead of making the spire, and then suddenly think the coast is clear and proceed into making a round of drones because the drop never seems to come? You die.
You make too many units vs the nonsensical terran that went a 1-1-1 build into an 11-minute mark expand with medivacs and lots of marines before expanding but didn't even drop you ? You die from mining 600 less minerals per minute every subsequent minute.
Even when watching Sen's stream - who I consider to be 20x better than me and a complete monster ZvT - you see him losing instantly to noob terrans after overdroning vs a 3rax or 2rax/hellion all-in, or making too many units vs a faked aggression into fast expand build, or upgrading ling speed before lair and subsequently dying to 2port banshee without even having a fighting chance.
The main reason you see so many zergs getting eliminated so early, is because you have to have sick amount of LUCK to beat 5-6 terrans in a row. It doesn't matter how good and how skilled you are. Beating that many terrans in a row will require more luck than it will require skill.
The point is, there is too much of an element of randomness for zerg in the matchup depending on which tech path they opt for. And it cannot be fixed by simply "scouting better". The difference in win rate from playing a terran ranked #60 as opposed to a terran ranked #5 isn't that great. There's still the ~20% of games where you instantly lose due to a build order/tech path loss, no matter how good/bad your terran opponent is.
Then there are the truly good terrans. The ones of equal skill to you. The ones who'll win at least 50% of the games that reach beyond the "zerg guesses wrong instantly loses" phase.
The win ratio against those terrans won't ever be 50% for zergs. Much like the scrub terrans, the good terrans too will instantly win about ~20% of their games on pure build order errors from zerg. If they win half of the rest of games that puts them at 60% vs the zergs.
For a good terran facing a scrub zerg. There's perhaps a 1% chance of a build order loss. Again, number pulled out of my ass, but I should really think it's single digit, and amongst the lower single digits. You don't see morrow, brat_ok or demuslim losing to scrub zergs, EVER.
TvP, they might lose a higher percentage of games against no name protosses. But not nearly as high as zergs vs terran and protoss.
So what you end up with (poker analogy) is top zergs having to fight their way through 5-6 top pocket pair vs lower pocket pair preflop all-ins without getting drawn out one single time! And of course a couple of other key hands that actually reach the flop, turn and river (normal games where the zerg had some influence on the outcome and didn't instantly lose).
This post was written as a rant from start from finish. Forgive me if it's very incoherent.
good post, sums up entirely what I view as the current problem as well - I don't feel that the Zerg lacks the tools necessary adapt, i think they lack the tools necessary to gain that information in the first place. Slow overlords were fine for a game like Brood War, which had far more rigid build commitments and far more telling signs. Zerg really needs an option pre-lair to scout better, because being shoehorned into fast lair isn't a good option either.
I want it to be clear this is something i feel is a weakness of zerg that needs to be addressed. It's important to make that clarification or things like 'look how many terrans win these bumblefuck tournaments' look like they have more weight than they should
(For anyone who cares, the fix I have in mind is moving overlord speed to hatchery but it requires spawning pool. pool timing very important! ^_^)
On September 14 2010 07:18 LaLuSh wrote: Perfection is very hard to achieve when the matchup involves such a high degree of guessing for zerg. Even when you scout a certain tech path from the terran, you still cannot be sure what is coming. Yesterday for example (one out of a thousand examples), I scouted a very fast tech starport tech lab switch from brat_ok in a tournament game, and I began making spore crawlers and queens while massing drones. I was sure I was going to come out far ahead. What happens next? He only uses the starport to build 1 banshee. Switches his strat around instantly, builds 1 medivac and 1 thor, drops it on my cliff, completely shuts down mining and easily takes out my expansion hatchery.
There is no way a zerg can account for all these possibilities at the same time. Every terran is unique. Every terran has got their own specialized (and often retarded) transition. Banshee doesn't have to mean banshee. 2 rax doesn't have to mean aggressive infantry build. It might as well mean a nonsensical delayed 2 or 1 port banshee with cloak.
You have all these idiot terrans scoring easy instant wins vs zergs everywhere, because even if you scout their production buildings, half of the time you've still got no fucking clue what they're doing. You scout a barrack constantly producing marines and a starport without addons? Maybe he'll use it for 1 viking and then medivacs. Maybe he'll use it for a fast medivac dropping 8 marines straight into your base. Maybe he's the kind of terran that built another rax in his base and waits for 2 medivacs before dropping you. Maybe he's the kind of retarded terran that waits for so long, that eventually you start making drones again, and in flies 3medivacs fully loaded with units. Sometimes they make a medivac and don't even use it for anything, they just expand and pretend it's a logical strategy.
You make drones and go for the early spire vs the 1 medivac 8 marine drop? You'll take sick damage. You start making units too late vs the 2 medivac drop and even hint at making the spire? You die. You start making units too early vs the 3 medivac drop instead of making the spire, and then suddenly think the coast is clear and proceed into making a round of drones because the drop never seems to come? You die.
You make too many units vs the nonsensical terran that went a 1-1-1 build into an 11-minute mark expand with medivacs and lots of marines before expanding but didn't even drop you ? You die from mining 600 less minerals per minute every subsequent minute.
Even when watching Sen's stream - who I consider to be 20x better than me and a complete monster ZvT - you see him losing instantly to noob terrans after overdroning vs a 3rax or 2rax/hellion all-in, or making too many units vs a faked aggression into fast expand build, or upgrading ling speed before lair and subsequently dying to 2port banshee without even having a fighting chance.
The main reason you see so many zergs getting eliminated so early, is because you have to have sick amount of LUCK to beat 5-6 terrans in a row. It doesn't matter how good and how skilled you are. Beating that many terrans in a row will require more luck than it will require skill.
The point is, there is too much of an element of randomness for zerg in the matchup depending on which tech path they opt for. And it cannot be fixed by simply "scouting better". The difference in win rate from playing a terran ranked #60 as opposed to a terran ranked #5 isn't that great. There's still the ~20% of games where you instantly lose due to a build order/tech path loss, no matter how good/bad your terran opponent is.
Then there are the truly good terrans. The ones of equal skill to you. The ones who'll win at least 50% of the games that reach beyond the "zerg guesses wrong instantly loses" phase.
The win ratio against those terrans won't ever be 50% for zergs. Much like the scrub terrans, the good terrans too will instantly win about ~20% of their games on pure build order errors from zerg. If they win half of the rest of games that puts them at 60% vs the zergs.
For a good terran facing a scrub zerg. There's perhaps a 1% chance of a build order loss. Again, number pulled out of my ass, but I should really think it's single digit, and amongst the lower single digits. You don't see morrow, brat_ok or demuslim losing to scrub zergs, EVER.
TvP, they might lose a higher percentage of games against no name protosses. But not nearly as high as zergs vs terran and protoss.
So what you end up with (poker analogy) is top zergs having to fight their way through 5-6 top pocket pair vs lower pocket pair preflop all-ins without getting drawn out one single time! And of course a couple of other key hands that actually reach the flop, turn and river (normal games where the zerg had some influence on the outcome and didn't instantly lose).
This post was written as a rant from start from finish. Forgive me if it's very incoherent.
This post articulatess exactly what makes ZvT so difficult (aside from the underlying issues between how strong a ridiculous variety of units/unit compositions are and how much zergs struggle with dealing with all of it. then there's other things like how effective planetary fortress/turrets are, how insanely good mules are, etc)
seems kinda misleading being outside of korea and all. whatever nice work!
edit: by all i mean: - no number of zerg entrants relative to zerg winners - only counts tournaments outside of korea - what half said and the other guy about percentages - morrow is imba!
I still think terran is imba by the way. Just not to the degree of the OP.
I think you also need to include the % of race entry to make this more meaningful. example: if 75% terran entries gave 75% terran winners, then it's pretty "balanced".
This....this data is completely meaningless unless you factor in the amount of entrants for each race. I'm sure it still would support the hypothesis "Zerg is underpowered", but not nearly to the degree the OP implies.
I think you also need to include the % of race entry to make this more meaningful. example: if 75% terran entries gave 75% terran winners, then it's pretty "balanced".
This....this data is completely meaningless unless you factor in the amount of entrants for each race. I'm sure it still would support the hypothesis "Zerg is underpowered", but not nearly to the degree the OP implies.
That being said Z needs a buff ofc, but how?
You have to ask your self WHY 75% of the ppl are playing terran if that was the case.
I think you also need to include the % of race entry to make this more meaningful. example: if 75% terran entries gave 75% terran winners, then it's pretty "balanced".
This....this data is completely meaningless unless you factor in the amount of entrants for each race. I'm sure it still would support the hypothesis "Zerg is underpowered", but not nearly to the degree the OP implies.
That being said Z needs a buff ofc, but how?
You have to ask your self WHY 75% of the ppl are playing terran if that was the case.
Because they think it gives them the best chance to compete. Key word. Think.
Perfection is very hard to achieve when the matchup involves such a high degree of guessing for zerg. Even when you scout a certain tech path from the terran, you still cannot be sure what is coming. Yesterday for example (one out of a thousand examples), I scouted a very fast tech starport tech lab switch from brat_ok in a tournament game, and I began making spore crawlers and queens while massing drones. I was sure I was going to come out far ahead. What happens next? He only uses the starport to build 1 banshee. Switches his strat around instantly, builds 1 medivac and 1 thor, drops it on my cliff, completely shuts down mining and easily takes out my expansion hatchery.
There is no way a zerg can account for all these possibilities at the same time. Every terran is unique. Every terran has got their own specialized (and often retarded) transition. Banshee doesn't have to mean banshee. 2 rax doesn't have to mean aggressive infantry build. It might as well mean a nonsensical delayed 2 or 1 port banshee with cloak.
You have all these idiot terrans scoring easy instant wins vs zergs everywhere, because even if you scout their production buildings, half of the time you've still got no fucking clue what they're doing. You scout a barrack constantly producing marines and a starport without addons? Maybe he'll use it for 1 viking and then medivacs. Maybe he'll use it for a fast medivac dropping 8 marines straight into your base. Maybe he's the kind of terran that built another rax in his base and waits for 2 medivacs before dropping you. Maybe he's the kind of retarded terran that waits for so long, that eventually you start making drones again, and in flies 3medivacs fully loaded with units. Sometimes they make a medivac and don't even use it for anything, they just expand and pretend it's a logical strategy.
You make drones and go for the early spire vs the 1 medivac 8 marine drop? You'll take sick damage. You start making units too late vs the 2 medivac drop and even hint at making the spire? You die. You start making units too early vs the 3 medivac drop instead of making the spire, and then suddenly think the coast is clear and proceed into making a round of drones because the drop never seems to come? You die.
You make too many units vs the nonsensical terran that went a 1-1-1 build into an 11-minute mark expand with medivacs and lots of marines before expanding but didn't even drop you ? You die from mining 600 less minerals per minute every subsequent minute.
Even when watching Sen's stream - who I consider to be 20x better than me and a complete monster ZvT - you see him losing instantly to noob terrans after overdroning vs a 3rax or 2rax/hellion all-in, or making too many units vs a faked aggression into fast expand build, or upgrading ling speed before lair and subsequently dying to 2port banshee without even having a fighting chance.
The main reason you see so many zergs getting eliminated so early, is because you have to have sick amount of LUCK to beat 5-6 terrans in a row. It doesn't matter how good and how skilled you are. Beating that many terrans in a row will require more luck than it will require skill.
The point is, there is too much of an element of randomness for zerg in the matchup depending on which tech path they opt for. And it cannot be fixed by simply "scouting better". The difference in win rate from playing a terran ranked #60 as opposed to a terran ranked #5 isn't that great. There's still the ~20% of games where you instantly lose due to a build order/tech path loss, no matter how good/bad your terran opponent is.
Then there are the truly good terrans. The ones of equal skill to you. The ones who'll win at least 50% of the games that reach beyond the "zerg guesses wrong instantly loses" phase.
The win ratio against those terrans won't ever be 50% for zergs. Much like the scrub terrans, the good terrans too will instantly win about ~20% of their games on pure build order errors from zerg. If they win half of the rest of games that puts them at 60% vs the zergs.
For a good terran facing a scrub zerg. There's perhaps a 1% chance of a build order loss. Again, number pulled out of my ass, but I should really think it's single digit, and amongst the lower single digits. You don't see morrow, brat_ok or demuslim losing to scrub zergs, EVER.
TvP, they might lose a higher percentage of games against no name protosses. But not nearly as high as zergs vs terran and protoss.
So what you end up with (poker analogy) is top zergs having to fight their way through 5-6 top pocket pair vs lower pocket pair preflop all-ins without getting drawn out one single time! And of course a couple of other key hands that actually reach the flop, turn and river (normal games where the zerg had some influence on the outcome and didn't instantly lose).
This post was written as a rant from start from finish. Forgive me if it's very incoherent.
I think it was very coherent and worth the read.
The only think I'd like you to take the time to think is how could that change ? It seem to me like the problem you're describing is deeper than a 5 second additionnal reaper build time.
Every now and then terrans will tell you that the scouting answer is to sacc. an ovie or even two (ovie pincer, whoever came up with this idea) at a very low food count, which is very weakening for a zerg to do. Just to hope you get the general idea of what the T is doing behind his walls.
Ive read your other thread and your suggestions, but none of them (I think) address this issue.
I personally think the macro mechanics are to blame for most of what's "wrong" in SC2. You often hear korean bw-coaches dismiss SC2 by saying "it is too fast paced", which is somewhat of a strange remark seeing how fast paced of a game BW is considered to be, but nonetheless I agree with them. The macro mechanics make you reach saturation on one base so fast that there's not enough of a discrepancy between a "normal" build and an "all-in" build. You're simply not forced to enough of an economic trade off for cheesing or opting for an aggressive build.
In SC1, going 4gate would actually mean something significant. Scouting someone going 4gate was significant. You'd have to sacrifice economy and saturation to even do a 4gate. In SC2, saturation on 1base is reached so fast, rushes are boosted so much, attack timings are so fast forwarded, that it forces everyone into conformity. There don't exist no fast shuttle (warp prism) drops with reaver (colossus) no more, because if you are to choose such a tech path, you'll have 8 zealots, 10 stalkers, and 4 sentries knocking at your doorstep by the 6th minute in the game. There is simply no way in hell you can defend that with 1colossus 3 stalker and 1 zealot and 1 sentry or whatever low unit number composition you'll have after spending so much on tech.
Macro mechanics are like the fourth race of Starcraft. At least as much detail that was spent on balancing the races by Blizzard should have been spent on balancing the macro mechanics. They need to have a reasonable strength level. One that allows for a wider strategic diversity, rather than forcing everyone to "at least make 3 gate every game or else I'll die".
It's for the exact same reason that DT rush is a rock paper scissors build in SC2. While TT1 might have made that thread advocating DT play in PvP out of good reasons, I don't think he or anyone else really understood why DT play is so bad in SC2. In SC1, if you wanted to have observers out in time to defend against DTs, you'd have to sacrifice building more gateways for a quicker robo. In SC2, everything's boosted to such a degree you can easily have 3-4 gates and still get the robo up in time to defend DTs.
What you end up with is a situation where if the DT rush fails (i.e. if the opponent went for any strategy involving detection at all). He'll have about 12 more units participating in the counterattack against your base than in the analogous situation in Broodwar. As such there exists no transition from opening DTs. Either you win the game instantly, or you lose horribly to the counterattack. There is no inbetween. Even if they were to buff DTs by lowering the build time for the dark shrine, it would have no other effect than making DT openings instantly win a higher percentage of the time. It would still instantly lose the rest of the time where the other protoss opted for fast enough detection.
This is a perfect example in my opinion, of balance changes being unable to introduce strategic diversity to the game. And this is what Blizzard have been dabbling with all beta long. They've been nerfing the crap out of pretty much everything, because shit just kept dying too fast and too easily against other shit produced in bulk.
I'm not arguing for the macro mechanics to be removed though. It's a unique aspect of SC2 that distinguishes it from SC1 and introduces a whole new aspect of play. It should definitely stay in game. But for the HotS beta test, they seriously need to consider rebalancing macro mechanics. I'll eventually post a thread about it as I usually do, when I'm finished theorycrafting around the subject. Though, I don't feel as if I've got a good enough solution to present as of yet.
Right now I'm leaning towards suggesting a scaling method of sorts for macro mechanics. 2larva per inject on tier 1, 3 on tier 2 (lair tech) etc. Same sort of scaling effect for chrono boost and MULE. In order to slow down the early game somewhat. In my mind it makes sense, as it would remove alot of the random elements in the game and give players a proper chance to actually adapt to scouting information, as opposed to being hit by a 4warpgate all-in merely ~40 seconds after scouting it.
I think the game would benefit greatly from having technical strategies like warp prism colossus drops with gravitic drive upgrades become viable. And they would, as long as Blizzard just slows down the early game somewhat. As long as teching becomes a viable game path as opposed to everyone having to conform to the "Gotta produce as much shit as possible off of 1base as fast as humanly possible"-syndrome that's plaguing the game and will continue to plague it as long as the macro mechanics are designed the way they are and are as strong as they are right now.
No small unit tweak balance changes are ever going to change that you're going to have to defend a 4warp gate all-in in 90% of your games vsP on the ladder. Small unit tweaks aren't magically going to introduce more "strategic diversity" in SC2, as long as players aren't given enough time to adapt to scouting information.
Current state of zerg is pretty much: Either start the necessary upgrade/building before scouting or run the very real risk that the upgrade/building you started after scouting won't be complete by the time you get all-inned/cliff dropped/cloak bansheed/whatever. The "you just gotta learn to scout better"-horde on TL are really annoying in this aspect. By the time you scout it, half of the time there isn't enough time to adapt anyway!
All Blizzard's balance changes have achieved thus far when it comes to zerg is either making them die faster/easier or sustain more damage early game, or making them survive easier early game and thus automatically be broken against Protoss mid and lategame.
And in my opinion macro mechanics are more to blame for any of this than any unit being over- or underpowered.
On September 14 2010 07:36 teamsolid wrote: Very good read, pretty much summarizes one of the major faults in the ZvT matchup. What is most interesting to me is that these issues have existed since the beta was first out, BUT Zergs were still winning their fair share of tournaments in early beta regardless of the inherent randomness of the matchup. Even though any top level Z could just randomly drop a game to any T, the sheer power of late game Z could carry them through to tournament wins. Whether this was because people hadn't developed the other races enough, and Z was just figured out faster since there are less units/combinations, I can't say for certain though. And then came the nerfs... and more nerfs, followed by more nerfs.
So ideally in order to balance the matchup, you'd have to fix these underlying guessing issues, BUT if you gave Zergs enough actual buffs (especially in the early-mid game) they might still be able to overcome this even with their flaws.
Zerg was better off in beta because they had 2 armor roaches that cost 1 supply, which meant terran had to actually worry about dying early and a maxed zerg army was a lot scarier.
LaLuSh's posts are a joy to read. You've articulated a feeling I've had since early on: builds are limited due to the rapidity at which things can happen. Scouting, more often than not, has to happen well before the threat is even reasonable(i.e., you need to see the Stargate warping in otherwise the Voids will be in your base so damn fast).
On September 14 2010 08:05 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: I want it to be clear this is something i feel is a weakness of zerg that needs to be addressed. It's important to make that clarification or things like 'look how many terrans win these bumblefuck tournaments' look like they have more weight than they should
(For anyone who cares, the fix I have in mind is moving overlord speed to hatchery but it requires spawning pool. pool timing very important! ^_^)
Actually, changing overlord speed to that time, could probably work. It would increase the survivability of the early scouting (which past the early game, sacking overlords does not gain much info because of all the ranged units.) And if you had to sack ovies, you'd at least get some decent info out of it.
I don't really see how it would unbalance it other ways as losing ovies hurts supply and SC2 allows people to go air much more often.
On September 14 2010 08:43 LaLuSh wrote: It's for the exact same reason that DT rush is a rock paper scissors build in SC2. While TT1 might have made that thread advocating DT play in PvP out of good reasons, I don't think he or anyone else really understood why DT play is so bad in SC2. In SC1, if you wanted to have observers out in time to defend against DTs, you'd have to sacrifice building more gateways for a quicker robo. In SC2, everything's boosted to such a degree you can easily have 3-4 gates and still get the robo up in time to defend DTs.
What you end up with is a situation where if the DT rush fails (i.e. if the opponent went for any strategy involving detection at all). He'll have about 12 more units participating in the counterattack against your base than in the analogous situation in Broodwar. As such there exists no transition from opening DTs. Either you win the game instantly, or you lose horribly to the counterattack. There is no inbetween. Even if they were to buff DTs by lowering the build time for the dark shrine, it would have no other effect than making DT openings instantly win a higher percentage of the time. It would still instantly lose the rest of the time where the other protoss opted for fast enough detection.
The problems are Thermal Lance Colossi and Blink Stalkers. In BW, at the moment when Reavers can get on offense, the DT player can have enough Psionic Storm to repel the attack. That is not possible against Colossi in SC2. Even if Psionic Storm is available in time, it is not powerful enough against Colossi to matter. And there is nothing like Blink Stalkers in BW but in SC2 they make Photon Cannons useless. The only thing that is somewhat similar is the elevator strategy where one Shuttle moves an entire army into the opponent's main base but of course a Warp Prism is even better than a Shuttle so the SC2 DT strategy is more difficult there as well.
Economy isn't an issue in the analogy. The issue is when each build can get things and how effective those things are against each other. If SC2 reverted to SC:BW's mining AI and Chrono Boost was removed, DT's would still be ineffective in PvP.
@ LaLush, great follow up post regarding macro mechanics. I was reading your first post and thinking: "Well, I wonder what he suggests to fix it? We can't get rid of them.."
The scaling idea is interesting, not because its scaling, but because you came up with the idea based upon the objective. The objective needs to be: slow down the early game a little, not a lot, but a little. Just enough such that IF you play very very aggressive, then your economy would be distinguishably inferior to someone who didn't.
A very insightful objective and one that I feel should be examined more closely.
Is it dissapointing that SC2 isent balanced at the moment?
No, its a new game, we knew this would happen, chances of Blizzard getting it just right at the start are slim to none, it needs work, BW needed work too
Is it dissapointing that all these Terran players are winning and topping rankings everywhere?
No, you cant blame the players for anything, they all put alot of effort into their builds and strats, they are just doing the best they can with the tools given to them.
Is it dissapointing that the SC2 community has gained some "WoW arena" esque players who are only interested in protecting their own playstyle while insulting others in the process and trying to defend something which...lets face it, cant be defended anymore?
Yes.
There is a clear cut problem in the game currently, this was predicted by many people on TL in beta aswell as many pro players such as Tester that Terran would dominate. than US has in the top etc
This....this data is completely meaningless unless you factor in the amount of entrants for each race. I'm sure it still would support the hypothesis "Zerg is underpowered", but not nearly to the degree the OP implies.
False, players in these tournaments usually need to qualify. Nobody is going to make a tournament of say 24 players and include top 8 of each race thus inviting some Zerg ranked 49th or something just to fill the Z number out.
The point of the tournament is to invite the top players, because that is what will make the games the most exciting, nobody wants to watch Select stomp some 95th Zerg in a blow out match, they (and i even) rather watch him in a close TvT game
Perfection is very hard to achieve when the matchup involves such a high degree of guessing for zerg. Even when you scout a certain tech path from the terran, you still cannot be sure what is coming. Yesterday for example (one out of a thousand examples), I scouted a very fast tech starport tech lab switch from brat_ok in a tournament game, and I began making spore crawlers and queens while massing drones. I was sure I was going to come out far ahead. What happens next? He only uses the starport to build 1 banshee. Switches his strat around instantly, builds 1 medivac and 1 thor, drops it on my cliff, completely shuts down mining and easily takes out my expansion hatchery.
There is no way a zerg can account for all these possibilities at the same time. Every terran is unique. Every terran has got their own specialized (and often retarded) transition. Banshee doesn't have to mean banshee. 2 rax doesn't have to mean aggressive infantry build. It might as well mean a nonsensical delayed 2 or 1 port banshee with cloak.
You have all these idiot terrans scoring easy instant wins vs zergs everywhere, because even if you scout their production buildings, half of the time you've still got no fucking clue what they're doing. You scout a barrack constantly producing marines and a starport without addons? Maybe he'll use it for 1 viking and then medivacs. Maybe he'll use it for a fast medivac dropping 8 marines straight into your base. Maybe he's the kind of terran that built another rax in his base and waits for 2 medivacs before dropping you. Maybe he's the kind of retarded terran that waits for so long, that eventually you start making drones again, and in flies 3medivacs fully loaded with units. Sometimes they make a medivac and don't even use it for anything, they just expand and pretend it's a logical strategy.
You make drones and go for the early spire vs the 1 medivac 8 marine drop? You'll take sick damage. You start making units too late vs the 2 medivac drop and even hint at making the spire? You die. You start making units too early vs the 3 medivac drop instead of making the spire, and then suddenly think the coast is clear and proceed into making a round of drones because the drop never seems to come? You die.
You make too many units vs the nonsensical terran that went a 1-1-1 build into an 11-minute mark expand with medivacs and lots of marines before expanding but didn't even drop you ? You die from mining 600 less minerals per minute every subsequent minute.
Even when watching Sen's stream - who I consider to be 20x better than me and a complete monster ZvT - you see him losing instantly to noob terrans after overdroning vs a 3rax or 2rax/hellion all-in, or making too many units vs a faked aggression into fast expand build, or upgrading ling speed before lair and subsequently dying to 2port banshee without even having a fighting chance.
The main reason you see so many zergs getting eliminated so early, is because you have to have sick amount of LUCK to beat 5-6 terrans in a row. It doesn't matter how good and how skilled you are. Beating that many terrans in a row will require more luck than it will require skill.
The point is, there is too much of an element of randomness for zerg in the matchup depending on which tech path they opt for. And it cannot be fixed by simply "scouting better". The difference in win rate from playing a terran ranked #60 as opposed to a terran ranked #5 isn't that great. There's still the ~20% of games where you instantly lose due to a build order/tech path loss, no matter how good/bad your terran opponent is.
Then there are the truly good terrans. The ones of equal skill to you. The ones who'll win at least 50% of the games that reach beyond the "zerg guesses wrong instantly loses" phase.
The win ratio against those terrans won't ever be 50% for zergs. Much like the scrub terrans, the good terrans too will instantly win about ~20% of their games on pure build order errors from zerg. If they win half of the rest of games that puts them at 60% vs the zergs.
For a good terran facing a scrub zerg. There's perhaps a 1% chance of a build order loss. Again, number pulled out of my ass, but I should really think it's single digit, and amongst the lower single digits. You don't see morrow, brat_ok or demuslim losing to scrub zergs, EVER.
TvP, they might lose a higher percentage of games against no name protosses. But not nearly as high as zergs vs terran and protoss.
So what you end up with (poker analogy) is top zergs having to fight their way through 5-6 top pocket pair vs lower pocket pair preflop all-ins without getting drawn out one single time! And of course a couple of other key hands that actually reach the flop, turn and river (normal games where the zerg had some influence on the outcome and didn't instantly lose).
This post was written as a rant from start from finish. Forgive me if it's very incoherent.
It's actually super-coherent, and I completely agree .
Blizzard said that one of the challenges they fear in adding new units in expansion packs is that players will have too many options and it'll become too hard to tell what a player's doing based on scouting information.
As it is, it feels like Terrans are already there . So much of what you said in that post hit home with me, because I make errors in judgment like that all the time. At the IEM, even Morrow was surprised that Tarson could get Banshees so quickly after getting Hellions early on.
I would really like to see Terrans need to make more of commitment to pursue certain tech paths. Zerg could really use more telling signs of certain tech =/.
I have to say though, Idra is by far the best Zerg I have seen in StarCraft 2. He always seems to know exactly what Terran is doing, even based on extremely limited scouting information. The amount of gamesense it takes to do that just boggles my mind. That's the kind of thing that you can only do when you play with the kind of regimen that Idra does. Unfortunately, not every Zerg can have that kind of time, and even Idra, who makes Zerg look overpowered, feels that it's unfair on Zergs that they should have to work so hard to beat a Terran who may not even have as much experience or skill as the Zerg they're fighting against =/.
Probably 70-80% of the ZvT problems are covered by two things: the 2 supply roach and 12s neural parasite. 2 supply roach means zerg can't field a solid earlygame army, so there's no viable 1base "assault" build - baneling bust is allin and stopped by mere simcity, 5RR can be stopped by a bunker. 1 supply roach allowed zerg to actually field a solid earlygame army that could punish super-cutesy harass builds, but you just can't do that anymore. Roach was never op at 1 supply and it needs to be reverted before zerg stands a chance.
Second is NP, which was zerg's only cost-effective thor counter. Take that out, thor is ridiculously effective against essentially all zerg units. NP needs to be infinite (or have at minimum a 30 second real-time duration).
Also echoing that lalush's post is dead-on, as usual.
On September 14 2010 08:43 LaLuSh wrote: It's for the exact same reason that DT rush is a rock paper scissors build in SC2. While TT1 might have made that thread advocating DT play in PvP out of good reasons, I don't think he or anyone else really understood why DT play is so bad in SC2. In SC1, if you wanted to have observers out in time to defend against DTs, you'd have to sacrifice building more gateways for a quicker robo. In SC2, everything's boosted to such a degree you can easily have 3-4 gates and still get the robo up in time to defend DTs.
What you end up with is a situation where if the DT rush fails (i.e. if the opponent went for any strategy involving detection at all). He'll have about 12 more units participating in the counterattack against your base than in the analogous situation in Broodwar. As such there exists no transition from opening DTs. Either you win the game instantly, or you lose horribly to the counterattack. There is no inbetween. Even if they were to buff DTs by lowering the build time for the dark shrine, it would have no other effect than making DT openings instantly win a higher percentage of the time. It would still instantly lose the rest of the time where the other protoss opted for fast enough detection.
The problems are Thermal Lance Colossi and Blink Stalkers. In BW, at the moment when Reavers can get on offense, the DT player can have enough Psionic Storm to repel the attack. That is not possible against Colossi in SC2. Even if Psionic Storm is available in time, it is not powerful enough against Colossi to matter. And there is nothing like Blink Stalkers in BW but in SC2 they make Photon Cannons useless. The only thing that is somewhat similar is the elevator strategy where one Shuttle moves an entire army into the opponent's main base but of course a Warp Prism is even better than a Shuttle so the SC2 DT strategy is more difficult there as well.
Economy isn't an issue in the analogy. The issue is when each build can get things and how effective those things are against each other. If SC2 reverted to SC:BW's mining AI and Chrono Boost was removed, DT's would still be ineffective in PvP.
Well, while I agree with the basic premise of what you wrote (thermal lance colossi and blink stalker being harder to defend against than their bw counterparts), I do ask you to reconsider if economy truly isn't an issue in the analogy. 1 Colossus isn't to much use if you haven't got alot of units to protect it.
A weaker chrono boost early game would delay reaching saturation greatly. It would potentially cut into probe production if you wanted to get up the robotics in time. It would lower the amount of gateways you could support. I'm pretty sure it would delay the timing of the colossus, robotics support bay and thermal lance upgrade (If colossus was counted as tier 2, or whatever arbitrary value we assign to determine the strength of chrono boost in different stages of the game, weakened chrono boost would DIRECTLY cut into the timings, not only economically).
Think about it for a second. You'd have to churn out a robotics facility (150 minerals 100 gas). Then an observer instantly (50 minerals 100 gas) plus a robotics support bay (200 minerals 200 gas). Then a colossus (300 minerals 200 gas) PLUS the thermal lance upgrade (200 minerals 200 gas). With a weakened economy and chrono boost!
I think the cut in economy would significantly delay the timing for colossus, maybe even to such an extent that the DT-rushing player would have enough time for his expansion to kick in and enable him to outproduce the other P. While I can't really argue your main point that thermal colossi is just simply too strong against any normal composition, I still think the change would allow for the chance of greater strategic diversity. 1 Colossus isn't of much use if it hasn't got many units supporting it. And even if it turns out to be too strong (which by the way I think alot of units will turn out to be if you're gonna make such a major change to the game), the unit could be nerfed or changed.
Although I can really see your point on maps like Kulas and Steppes, where you could just stand from far aback with the colossus and stop the other protoss from mining his expo.
On September 14 2010 08:05 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: good post, sums up entirely what I view as the current problem as well - I don't feel that the Zerg lacks the tools necessary adapt, i think they lack the tools necessary to gain that information in the first place. Slow overlords were fine for a game like Brood War, which had far more rigid build commitments and far more telling signs. Zerg really needs an option pre-lair to scout better, because being shoehorned into fast lair isn't a good option either.
I want it to be clear this is something i feel is a weakness of zerg that needs to be addressed. It's important to make that clarification or things like 'look how many terrans win these bumblefuck tournaments' look like they have more weight than they should
(For anyone who cares, the fix I have in mind is moving overlord speed to hatchery but it requires spawning pool. pool timing very important! ^_^)
I think the BW-SC2 comparison goes a bit further than just overlord speed. I've always believed the issue lies in the game design itself.
Concepts like cheap T1 antiair unit, the amount of resourcing available to the player (1 gas spire yesplz) gave zerg such a breadth of freedom to go about their game with little worry. But now things like reactor, techlab, instead of having to build additional buildings that require a massive investment in time and resources, and units that do huge additional damage instead of reduced damaged, put an extreme amount of pressure on a severely hampered race.
Wow... how much more proof do ppl need that Zerg is UP??? lol.. this is just sad.
Anyone who says no good players play Z is just a fool. You have to consider there r so many reasons for stats like this to occur over and over and over again.
On September 14 2010 09:31 StupidFatHobbit wrote: Roach was never op at 1 supply and it needs to be reverted before zerg stands a chance. .
It was.
Ever seen replays back in the days that the roach was 1 supply in ZvP?
The whole MU was in the lategame basicly:
200/200 roaches, safe up larva, rally everything to the battle, start making roaches.
Altough the current state of the roach 2food/1armor isn't perfect, I feel that it's less of an issue then if we would still have the 1 supply roach.
And yes, I agree with lalush, giving X unit +X stats or -X stats isn't gonna balance sc2, it might bring the actual numbers on the winrates a bit better, but in the end you just end up with "flawed MU's" imo.
And I don't want to be in a situation 2 months from now here it is.
Race X wins if he does X at 15mins in the game, but it's okay because race Y can do Z before that and win the game.
And then MU's coming down to something silly like that.
Or just general Bo wins, and rock-paper-scissor's type of play.
Atleast with the current stance of blizzard on balance changes that is what I see the game going to, but ye, what do I know, I could be completely wrong.
edit:
And what I mean with the last paragraph is that blizzard just wants the game to be played in a certain manner, look at the type of maps that they have put out, and they are fine with that. Look at the balance changes done troughout the beta, they aren't just willing to take a step back and maybe have a look at the overall race mechanics and how those work out and realize that most of the problems stem from that.
Pretty much just speculation whether colossus would still be too strong or not. Depends on what the other player can accomplish and get away with in the same amount of time (imo could get away with more than if chrono boost was kept as powerful as it is now).
I think you also need to include the % of race entry to make this more meaningful. example: if 75% terran entries gave 75% terran winners, then it's pretty "balanced".
This....this data is completely meaningless unless you factor in the amount of entrants for each race. I'm sure it still would support the hypothesis "Zerg is underpowered", but not nearly to the degree the OP implies.
That being said Z needs a buff ofc, but how?
This has been said in previous discussions on same topic.
The % that plays zerg compared to terran and toss is around the same for platinum and below. However terrans is usually one league above where they are supposed to be, thats why you see so many terrans on top of diamond and less in platinum. Same goes for tournaments, in alot of the tournaments, you have no name terrans going into semi finals and even finals, but you never see any other zerg then dimaga getting high.
You cant say that the data is meaningless because there are less zergs in the tournaments. There is a reason there is less zergs, and that is because they are really weak, and also harder to play.
By the logic of people who deny any form of the "evidence" we see by both top 200 ladder and tournament wins, they obviously think players like dimaga/slush/sheth/haypro/madfrog etcetc is worse players then the random terran names that started rising after beta.
Its absurd, and everyone who thinks terran is fine and these statistics dont show anything cus there are less zergs..., is either newb terrans who cant win with their OP race or retarded.
Interesting thought about the macro mechanics LaLush.
I believe, though, that scaling can exist under the current infrastructure of the game for T and P. Simply put, because their macro mechanics are based on number of bases, the more the bases increase so the power of the macro mechanic increases at a linear rate. I'm not an expert of game design, but nerfing MULE and Chrono while implementing your suggested inject larvae nerf would create the same effect across all races based on this fact, unless I'm missing something.
The only other potential problem is that inject also scales with hatcheries, but it's the only macro mechanic that requires an external unit--the queen, and the only race with a definable tier system to base it off of.
I think you also need to include the % of race entry to make this more meaningful. example: if 75% terran entries gave 75% terran winners, then it's pretty "balanced".
This....this data is completely meaningless unless you factor in the amount of entrants for each race. I'm sure it still would support the hypothesis "Zerg is underpowered", but not nearly to the degree the OP implies.
I really like the idea of tiers for macro mechanics along with tiers for tech. You could have 2/3/4 Larva, 16.5%/33%/50% Chronoboost at Nexus/Twilight-Robo-Stargate/Templar-RoboSupport-FBeacon, and 90/180/270 mineral MULEs at Barracks/Factory/Starport--just as a rough outline
I think you also need to include the % of race entry to make this more meaningful. example: if 75% terran entries gave 75% terran winners, then it's pretty "balanced".
This....this data is completely meaningless unless you factor in the amount of entrants for each race. I'm sure it still would support the hypothesis "Zerg is underpowered", but not nearly to the degree the OP implies.
That being said Z needs a buff ofc, but how?
This has been said in previous discussions on same topic.
The % that plays zerg compared to terran and toss is around the same for platinum and below. However terrans is usually one league above where they are supposed to be, thats why you see so many terrans on top of diamond and less in platinum. Same goes for tournaments, in alot of the tournaments, you have no name terrans going into semi finals and even finals, but you never see any other zerg then dimaga getting high.
You cant say that the data is meaningless because there are less zergs in the tournaments. There is a reason there is less zergs, and that is because they are really weak, and also harder to play.
By the logic of people who deny any form of the "evidence" we see by both top 200 ladder and tournament wins, they obviously think players like dimaga/slush/sheth/haypro/madfrog etcetc is worse players then the random terran names that started rising after beta.
Its absurd, and everyone who thinks terran is fine and these statistics dont show anything cus there are less zergs..., is either newb terrans who cant win with their OP race or retarded.
I remember at the beginning of the beta. When zerg players were winning every single tournament.
I think the argument went something along the lines of: "There simply are more better and famous players choosing zerg than terran and protoss in the transition to sc2".
I don't think general race distribution at lower levels (even including statistics for diamond league race distrubition) affects the amount of zergs/protosses/terrans at the absolute top level too much. If the races are balanced, there'll pretty much always be a pretty even amount of players choosing each race at the absolute top level.
I think you could argue the same thing about BW. There being way more protosses than any other race on iccup. But that didn't really affect the race distribution at the absolute top levels at all.
On September 14 2010 09:31 StupidFatHobbit wrote: Roach was never op at 1 supply and it needs to be reverted before zerg stands a chance. .
It was.
Watch this game-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwLsmi9VE2U If zerg was OP it was only slightly so. I mean who besides dimaga ever made Z look OP? noone. We basically got all these nerfs cause of 1 guy out there.
Generally what happens is when ppl feel their favorite race is too weak they do one of two things: 1) switch to a different race or 2) stop playing as much and wait for a new patch that will hopefully balance things. Clearly a good % of Z players have switched or stop playing as much since they feel there is no point or they will just ruin their win %'s from what it really should be. At this point something seriously has to be done, Z players r so sick of the unreliability of the race and so many freakin nerfs.
Anyone who says otherwise is clearly Terran or slow.
On September 14 2010 10:06 FlamingTurd wrote: Generally what happens is when ppl feel their favorite race is too weak they do one of two things: 1) switch to a different race or 2) stop playing as much and wait for a new patch that will hopefully balance things. Clearly a good % of Z players have switched or stop playing as much since they feel there is no point or they will just ruin their win %'s from what it really should be. At this point something seriously has to be done, Z players r so sick of the unreliability of the race and so many freakin nerfs.
Anyone who says otherwise is clearly Terran or slow.
I just play at 6am in the morning when the matchups are more favourable -_-
On September 14 2010 08:15 Raiznhell wrote: this clearly shows that MorroW is OP not terran
ah thank you, im happy i could find at least 1 comment like this on 14 pages its annoying me so much that everyone talk so much about imbalance
we have no zerg players in general. who used to win as zerg when zerg was OP? like dimaga, who else ? haypro and zpux? i cant even name any other zergs that were on top of their game... we simply have few zergs participating in each tour and i think thats a bigger factor than the actual imbalance
i almost wanna switch to zerg just to show it is possible, its not a coincidence dimaga is by far best zerg atm, he simply has alot more skills than the other zergs. i pity these lower level players that blame their losses on imbalance when dimaga still manages to win. we have 30 terrans who can fight nicely on the top in tvt but who can compete in zvz? the skill gap is huge there and so few players...
On September 14 2010 10:26 theqat wrote: I would love to see MorroW play Zerg for a while. It would certainly impart some perspective
Also Dimaga doesn't really manage to win anymore. He's going nowhere in most tournaments, just like other Zergs
it would be fun but wouldnt prove shit. on top of it new patch is coming out and im sure things will change soon, i just wish ppl wouldnt be so blindly throwing the imba anytime they see a terran win. u take like strelok utterly outplaying some random underdog zerg and ppl start saying its imba, wtf seriously? -.- he is just better and this is my point in the foreigner scene we simply have tons more terrans that are better on the top
if im offending ppl then fine, i dont care. u cry too much, try as much as dimaga then u can complain. he knows what he talk about but most player say everything is imba all the time
On September 14 2010 08:15 Raiznhell wrote: this clearly shows that MorroW is OP not terran
ah thank you, im happy i could find at least 1 comment like this on 14 pages its annoying me so much that everyone talk so much about imbalance
we have no zerg players in general. who used to win as zerg when zerg was OP? like dimaga, who else ? haypro and zpux? i cant even name any other zergs that were on top of their game... we simply have few zergs participating in each tour and i think thats a bigger factor than the actual imbalance
i almost wanna switch to zerg just to show it is possible, its not a coincidence dimaga is by far best zerg atm, he simply has alot more skills than the other zergs. i pity these lower level players that blame their losses on imbalance when dimaga still manages to win. we have 30 terrans who can fight nicely on the top in tvt but who can compete in zvz? the skill gap is huge there and so few players...
Have you even played Zerg? I'd like to see you try. You'd get an unbelievable amount of respect from everyone if you would be successful. But, I guarantee you'll win nothing.
On September 14 2010 08:15 Raiznhell wrote: this clearly shows that MorroW is OP not terran
ah thank you, im happy i could find at least 1 comment like this on 14 pages its annoying me so much that everyone talk so much about imbalance
we have no zerg players in general. who used to win as zerg when zerg was OP? like dimaga, who else ? haypro and zpux? i cant even name any other zergs that were on top of their game... we simply have few zergs participating in each tour and i think thats a bigger factor than the actual imbalance
i almost wanna switch to zerg just to show it is possible, its not a coincidence dimaga is by far best zerg atm, he simply has alot more skills than the other zergs. i pity these lower level players that blame their losses on imbalance when dimaga still manages to win. we have 30 terrans who can fight nicely on the top in tvt but who can compete in zvz? the skill gap is huge there and so few players...
Have you even played Zerg? I'd like to see you try. You'd get an unbelievable amount of respect from everyone if you would be successful. But, I guarantee you'll win nothing.
have you played 6 hours a day for all beta and release? no? ok maybe thats the problem. this many top terrans has done on our list but how many zerg foreigners has practiced as hard as us?
terran is fucking OP but these tournament results cant give zerg more wins because we dont have any zergs to win any tournaments except dimaga, idra doesnt play these
On September 14 2010 08:15 Raiznhell wrote: this clearly shows that MorroW is OP not terran
ah thank you, im happy i could find at least 1 comment like this on 14 pages its annoying me so much that everyone talk so much about imbalance
we have no zerg players in general. who used to win as zerg when zerg was OP? like dimaga, who else ? haypro and zpux? i cant even name any other zergs that were on top of their game... we simply have few zergs participating in each tour and i think thats a bigger factor than the actual imbalance
i almost wanna switch to zerg just to show it is possible, its not a coincidence dimaga is by far best zerg atm, he simply has alot more skills than the other zergs. i pity these lower level players that blame their losses on imbalance when dimaga still manages to win. we have 30 terrans who can fight nicely on the top in tvt but who can compete in zvz? the skill gap is huge there and so few players...
Have you even played Zerg? I'd like to see you try. You'd get an unbelievable amount of respect from everyone if you would be successful. But, I guarantee you'll win nothing.
have you played 6 hours a day for all beta and release? no? ok maybe thats the problem. this many top terrans has done on our list but how many zerg foreigners has practiced as hard as us?
terran is fucking OP but these tournament results cant give zerg more wins because we dont have any zergs to win any tournaments except dimaga, idra doesnt play these
On September 14 2010 08:15 Raiznhell wrote: this clearly shows that MorroW is OP not terran
ah thank you, im happy i could find at least 1 comment like this on 14 pages its annoying me so much that everyone talk so much about imbalance
we have no zerg players in general. who used to win as zerg when zerg was OP? like dimaga, who else ? haypro and zpux? i cant even name any other zergs that were on top of their game... we simply have few zergs participating in each tour and i think thats a bigger factor than the actual imbalance
i almost wanna switch to zerg just to show it is possible, its not a coincidence dimaga is by far best zerg atm, he simply has alot more skills than the other zergs. i pity these lower level players that blame their losses on imbalance when dimaga still manages to win. we have 30 terrans who can fight nicely on the top in tvt but who can compete in zvz? the skill gap is huge there and so few players...
Have you even played Zerg? I'd like to see you try. You'd get an unbelievable amount of respect from everyone if you would be successful. But, I guarantee you'll win nothing.
have you played 6 hours a day for all beta and release? no? ok maybe thats the problem. this many top terrans has done on our list but how many zerg foreigners has practiced as hard as us?
terran is fucking OP but these tournament results cant give zerg more wins because we dont have any zergs to win any tournaments except dimaga, idra doesnt play these
You didn't answer my question. How much Zerg have you played?
On September 14 2010 08:15 Raiznhell wrote: this clearly shows that MorroW is OP not terran
ah thank you, im happy i could find at least 1 comment like this on 14 pages its annoying me so much that everyone talk so much about imbalance
we have no zerg players in general. who used to win as zerg when zerg was OP? like dimaga, who else ? haypro and zpux? i cant even name any other zergs that were on top of their game... we simply have few zergs participating in each tour and i think thats a bigger factor than the actual imbalance
i almost wanna switch to zerg just to show it is possible, its not a coincidence dimaga is by far best zerg atm, he simply has alot more skills than the other zergs. i pity these lower level players that blame their losses on imbalance when dimaga still manages to win. we have 30 terrans who can fight nicely on the top in tvt but who can compete in zvz? the skill gap is huge there and so few players...
Isnt it kind of suspicious that there's so few zergs ?
Also Lalush wrote a prety good post about why zergs struggles in tournies (see random build you didnt prepare = loose part of his post).
On September 14 2010 08:15 Raiznhell wrote: this clearly shows that MorroW is OP not terran
ah thank you, im happy i could find at least 1 comment like this on 14 pages its annoying me so much that everyone talk so much about imbalance
we have no zerg players in general. who used to win as zerg when zerg was OP? like dimaga, who else ? haypro and zpux? i cant even name any other zergs that were on top of their game... we simply have few zergs participating in each tour and i think thats a bigger factor than the actual imbalance
i almost wanna switch to zerg just to show it is possible, its not a coincidence dimaga is by far best zerg atm, he simply has alot more skills than the other zergs. i pity these lower level players that blame their losses on imbalance when dimaga still manages to win. we have 30 terrans who can fight nicely on the top in tvt but who can compete in zvz? the skill gap is huge there and so few players...
Have you even played Zerg? I'd like to see you try. You'd get an unbelievable amount of respect from everyone if you would be successful. But, I guarantee you'll win nothing.
have you played 6 hours a day for all beta and release? no? ok maybe thats the problem. this many top terrans has done on our list but how many zerg foreigners has practiced as hard as us?
terran is fucking OP but these tournament results cant give zerg more wins because we dont have any zergs to win any tournaments except dimaga, idra doesnt play these
Marrow your awesome, truly a beast.
But Implying that zerg is underrepresented in tournaments because they are not putting in the "time" or are just less skilled in general is almost insulting(:D).
On September 14 2010 08:15 Raiznhell wrote: this clearly shows that MorroW is OP not terran
ah thank you, im happy i could find at least 1 comment like this on 14 pages its annoying me so much that everyone talk so much about imbalance
we have no zerg players in general. who used to win as zerg when zerg was OP? like dimaga, who else ? haypro and zpux? i cant even name any other zergs that were on top of their game... we simply have few zergs participating in each tour and i think thats a bigger factor than the actual imbalance
i almost wanna switch to zerg just to show it is possible, its not a coincidence dimaga is by far best zerg atm, he simply has alot more skills than the other zergs. i pity these lower level players that blame their losses on imbalance when dimaga still manages to win. we have 30 terrans who can fight nicely on the top in tvt but who can compete in zvz? the skill gap is huge there and so few players...
Have you even played Zerg? I'd like to see you try. You'd get an unbelievable amount of respect from everyone if you would be successful. But, I guarantee you'll win nothing.
have you played 6 hours a day for all beta and release? no? ok maybe thats the problem. this many top terrans has done on our list but how many zerg foreigners has practiced as hard as us?
terran is fucking OP but these tournament results cant give zerg more wins because we dont have any zergs to win any tournaments except dimaga, idra doesnt play these
Marrow your awesome, truly a beast.
But Implying that zerg is underrepresented in tournaments because they are not putting in the "time" or are just less skilled in general is almost insulating.
<3
Yeah i kno rite like when Marrow says that i'm like wow it feels warm and stuff like insulation cuz it's so rude
I don't understand how anyone can possibly think that zerg is ok after seeing stats like this. Quite clearly players will pick whichever options gives them the best tools and chance to win with for tournaments, especially when money is at stake.
The way I see it is more that zerg is underpowered rather than terran OP, because as a random player myself I quite like the tools that terran has. You can see a lot of effort was put into giving terran heaps of options, flexibility, all the units and skills work well together as whole and it is a very nicely rounded race. P feels more similar to T, has some decent options too but you do notice that it's like missing the icing on the cake in some ways (still plenty of awesome options, but T just seems to have a few slightly easier options). Then Z, poor little zergies. You just feel exposed and helpless playing as zerg, as if you're waiting for the opponent to make a mistake rather than having the option to find an opening for yourself. Zerg feels like it doesn't have the same amount of options, and the options you do have take so long to get to, while the enemy can see exactly what tech you are going for. It's all been said before, so no need to go on here.
morrow says it right in his post, terran is fucking op
don't know why it needs to be discussed further or why he doesn't see the connection between that and the tournament results. If Zerg were playable, more people would play Zerg and win with Zerg. It's that simple. They just aren't playable
On September 14 2010 08:15 Raiznhell wrote: this clearly shows that MorroW is OP not terran
ah thank you, im happy i could find at least 1 comment like this on 14 pages its annoying me so much that everyone talk so much about imbalance
we have no zerg players in general. who used to win as zerg when zerg was OP? like dimaga, who else ? haypro and zpux? i cant even name any other zergs that were on top of their game... we simply have few zergs participating in each tour and i think thats a bigger factor than the actual imbalance
i almost wanna switch to zerg just to show it is possible, its not a coincidence dimaga is by far best zerg atm, he simply has alot more skills than the other zergs. i pity these lower level players that blame their losses on imbalance when dimaga still manages to win. we have 30 terrans who can fight nicely on the top in tvt but who can compete in zvz? the skill gap is huge there and so few players...
Have you even played Zerg? I'd like to see you try. You'd get an unbelievable amount of respect from everyone if you would be successful. But, I guarantee you'll win nothing.
have you played 6 hours a day for all beta and release? no? ok maybe thats the problem. this many top terrans has done on our list but how many zerg foreigners has practiced as hard as us?
terran is fucking OP but these tournament results cant give zerg more wins because we dont have any zergs to win any tournaments except dimaga, idra doesnt play these
Slush, Sheth, Machine, Sen, Idra, Haypro, Artosis, Catz, Lalush
All of them particpated in a lot of tournaments and won quite a few in beta. You can't possibly say they're all worse than the dozens of random Terrans who just came out nowhere after release and started winning left and right.
From the list of Terran winners, the only players I can truly respect for their skills are: Morrow, Sjow, Strelok, Brat_OK, TLO, DeMusliM
Perfection is very hard to achieve when the matchup involves such a high degree of guessing for zerg. Even when you scout a certain tech path from the terran, you still cannot be sure what is coming. Yesterday for example (one out of a thousand examples), I scouted a very fast tech starport tech lab switch from brat_ok in a tournament game, and I began making spore crawlers and queens while massing drones. I was sure I was going to come out far ahead. What happens next? He only uses the starport to build 1 banshee. Switches his strat around instantly, builds 1 medivac and 1 thor, drops it on my cliff, completely shuts down mining and easily takes out my expansion hatchery.
There is no way a zerg can account for all these possibilities at the same time. Every terran is unique. Every terran has got their own specialized (and often retarded) transition. Banshee doesn't have to mean banshee. 2 rax doesn't have to mean aggressive infantry build. It might as well mean a nonsensical delayed 2 or 1 port banshee with cloak.
You have all these idiot terrans scoring easy instant wins vs zergs everywhere, because even if you scout their production buildings, half of the time you've still got no fucking clue what they're doing. You scout a barrack constantly producing marines and a starport without addons? Maybe he'll use it for 1 viking and then medivacs. Maybe he'll use it for a fast medivac dropping 8 marines straight into your base. Maybe he's the kind of terran that built another rax in his base and waits for 2 medivacs before dropping you. Maybe he's the kind of retarded terran that waits for so long, that eventually you start making drones again, and in flies 3medivacs fully loaded with units. Sometimes they make a medivac and don't even use it for anything, they just expand and pretend it's a logical strategy.
You make drones and go for the early spire vs the 1 medivac 8 marine drop? You'll take sick damage. You start making units too late vs the 2 medivac drop and even hint at making the spire? You die. You start making units too early vs the 3 medivac drop instead of making the spire, and then suddenly think the coast is clear and proceed into making a round of drones because the drop never seems to come? You die.
You make too many units vs the nonsensical terran that went a 1-1-1 build into an 11-minute mark expand with medivacs and lots of marines before expanding but didn't even drop you ? You die from mining 600 less minerals per minute every subsequent minute.
Even when watching Sen's stream - who I consider to be 20x better than me and a complete monster ZvT - you see him losing instantly to noob terrans after overdroning vs a 3rax or 2rax/hellion all-in, or making too many units vs a faked aggression into fast expand build, or upgrading ling speed before lair and subsequently dying to 2port banshee without even having a fighting chance.
The main reason you see so many zergs getting eliminated so early, is because you have to have sick amount of LUCK to beat 5-6 terrans in a row. It doesn't matter how good and how skilled you are. Beating that many terrans in a row will require more luck than it will require skill.
The point is, there is too much of an element of randomness for zerg in the matchup depending on which tech path they opt for. And it cannot be fixed by simply "scouting better". The difference in win rate from playing a terran ranked #60 as opposed to a terran ranked #5 isn't that great. There's still the ~20% of games where you instantly lose due to a build order/tech path loss, no matter how good/bad your terran opponent is.
Then there are the truly good terrans. The ones of equal skill to you. The ones who'll win at least 50% of the games that reach beyond the "zerg guesses wrong instantly loses" phase.
The win ratio against those terrans won't ever be 50% for zergs. Much like the scrub terrans, the good terrans too will instantly win about ~20% of their games on pure build order errors from zerg. If they win half of the rest of games that puts them at 60% vs the zergs.
For a good terran facing a scrub zerg. There's perhaps a 1% chance of a build order loss. Again, number pulled out of my ass, but I should really think it's single digit, and amongst the lower single digits. You don't see morrow, brat_ok or demuslim losing to scrub zergs, EVER.
TvP, they might lose a higher percentage of games against no name protosses. But not nearly as high as zergs vs terran and protoss.
So what you end up with (poker analogy) is top zergs having to fight their way through 5-6 top pocket pair vs lower pocket pair preflop all-ins without getting drawn out one single time! And of course a couple of other key hands that actually reach the flop, turn and river (normal games where the zerg had some influence on the outcome and didn't instantly lose).
This post was written as a rant from start from finish. Forgive me if it's very incoherent.
The only think I'd like you to take the time to think is how could that change ? It seem to me like the problem you're describing is deeper than a 5 second additionnal reaper build time.
Every now and then terrans will tell you that the scouting answer is to sacc. an ovie or even two (ovie pincer, whoever came up with this idea) at a very low food count, which is very weakening for a zerg to do. Just to hope you get the general idea of what the T is doing behind his walls.
Ive read your other thread and your suggestions, but none of them (I think) address this issue.
I personally think the macro mechanics are to blame for most of what's "wrong" in SC2. You often hear korean bw-coaches dismiss SC2 by saying "it is too fast paced", which is somewhat of a strange remark seeing how fast paced of a game BW is considered to be, but nonetheless I agree with them. The macro mechanics make you reach saturation on one base so fast that there's not enough of a discrepancy between a "normal" build and an "all-in" build. You're simply not forced to enough of an economic trade off for cheesing or opting for an aggressive build.
In SC1, going 4gate would actually mean something significant. Scouting someone going 4gate was significant. You'd have to sacrifice economy and saturation to even do a 4gate. In SC2, saturation on 1base is reached so fast, rushes are boosted so much, attack timings are so fast forwarded, that it forces everyone into conformity. There don't exist no fast shuttle (warp prism) drops with reaver (colossus) no more, because if you are to choose such a tech path, you'll have 8 zealots, 10 stalkers, and 4 sentries knocking at your doorstep by the 6th minute in the game. There is simply no way in hell you can defend that with 1colossus 3 stalker and 1 zealot and 1 sentry or whatever low unit number composition you'll have after spending so much on tech.
Macro mechanics are like the fourth race of Starcraft. At least as much detail that was spent on balancing the races by Blizzard should have been spent on balancing the macro mechanics. They need to have a reasonable strength level. One that allows for a wider strategic diversity, rather than forcing everyone to "at least make 3 gate every game or else I'll die".
It's for the exact same reason that DT rush is a rock paper scissors build in SC2. While TT1 might have made that thread advocating DT play in PvP out of good reasons, I don't think he or anyone else really understood why DT play is so bad in SC2. In SC1, if you wanted to have observers out in time to defend against DTs, you'd have to sacrifice building more gateways for a quicker robo. In SC2, everything's boosted to such a degree you can easily have 3-4 gates and still get the robo up in time to defend DTs.
What you end up with is a situation where if the DT rush fails (i.e. if the opponent went for any strategy involving detection at all). He'll have about 12 more units participating in the counterattack against your base than in the analogous situation in Broodwar. As such there exists no transition from opening DTs. Either you win the game instantly, or you lose horribly to the counterattack. There is no inbetween. Even if they were to buff DTs by lowering the build time for the dark shrine, it would have no other effect than making DT openings instantly win a higher percentage of the time. It would still instantly lose the rest of the time where the other protoss opted for fast enough detection.
This is a perfect example in my opinion, of balance changes being unable to introduce strategic diversity to the game. And this is what Blizzard have been dabbling with all beta long. They've been nerfing the crap out of pretty much everything, because shit just kept dying too fast and too easily against other shit produced in bulk.
I'm not arguing for the macro mechanics to be removed though. It's a unique aspect of SC2 that distinguishes it from SC1 and introduces a whole new aspect of play. It should definitely stay in game. But for the HotS beta test, they seriously need to consider rebalancing macro mechanics. I'll eventually post a thread about it as I usually do, when I'm finished theorycrafting around the subject. Though, I don't feel as if I've got a good enough solution to present as of yet.
Right now I'm leaning towards suggesting a scaling method of sorts for macro mechanics. 2larva per inject on tier 1, 3 on tier 2 (lair tech) etc. Same sort of scaling effect for chrono boost and MULE. In order to slow down the early game somewhat. In my mind it makes sense, as it would remove alot of the random elements in the game and give players a proper chance to actually adapt to scouting information, as opposed to being hit by a 4warpgate all-in merely ~40 seconds after scouting it.
I think the game would benefit greatly from having technical strategies like warp prism colossus drops with gravitic drive upgrades become viable. And they would, as long as Blizzard just slows down the early game somewhat. As long as teching becomes a viable game path as opposed to everyone having to conform to the "Gotta produce as much shit as possible off of 1base as fast as humanly possible"-syndrome that's plaguing the game and will continue to plague it as long as the macro mechanics are designed the way they are and are as strong as they are right now.
No small unit tweak balance changes are ever going to change that you're going to have to defend a 4warp gate all-in in 90% of your games vsP on the ladder. Small unit tweaks aren't magically going to introduce more "strategic diversity" in SC2, as long as players aren't given enough time to adapt to scouting information.
Current state of zerg is pretty much: Either start the necessary upgrade/building before scouting or run the very real risk that the upgrade/building you started after scouting won't be complete by the time you get all-inned/cliff dropped/cloak bansheed/whatever. The "you just gotta learn to scout better"-horde on TL are really annoying in this aspect. By the time you scout it, half of the time there isn't enough time to adapt anyway!
All Blizzard's balance changes have achieved thus far when it comes to zerg is either making them die faster/easier or sustain more damage early game, or making them survive easier early game and thus automatically be broken against Protoss mid and lategame.
And in my opinion macro mechanics are more to blame for any of this than any unit being over- or underpowered.
Even though you make some compelling arguments about the pace of the game and changes that may improve overall balance, Blizzard will never change the game so drastically.
Within the core game play/mechanics we have now, tweaking numbers is really the best Blizz can do until expansion packs are released.
Until then, the general skill level of zerg players will unfortunately have to be far greater than toss/terran players in order to compete.
You'd have to admit though, it's pretty odd that only 2 people were able to use Zerg to win tournaments since release. It'd be a lot different if the spread was more like 40/40/20 but the numbers here are ridiculously acute. I don't mean that in an inflammatory way or anything, though.
Here's to hoping that these numbers change in the future! ^^
Zerg is really the most "fun" race. You swarm enemies, you slowly contaminate the map with creep, you can hide units with burrow and set up ambushes. Infestors can mind control enemies and brood lords are like flying siege tanks.
There are a lot of people that want to play zerg. There are a lot of people that try to play zerg competitively. Unfortunately, for all the potential coolness of the race, it falls short due to the much-whined about balance issues currently dogging the tournament scene.
Don't feel the need to defend yourself or Terran here Morrow, you're a great player. It just doesn't seem likely that you would be as successful playing as zerg, despite having your skill level. Also, have you been watching the GSL? There are 5 zergs out of 13 that have played remaining in the round of 32 and one of them played a ZvZ match. Watching even the Korean pros play as zerg isn't very inspiring with the way they still get crushed by an MMM+tanks build that casual players see in ladder every day. The reason for racial imbalance in tournament wins isn't because Terran is the cool-guy race -- they're just the ones that can win.
Perfection is very hard to achieve when the matchup involves such a high degree of guessing for zerg. Even when you scout a certain tech path from the terran, you still cannot be sure what is coming. Yesterday for example (one out of a thousand examples), I scouted a very fast tech starport tech lab switch from brat_ok in a tournament game, and I began making spore crawlers and queens while massing drones. I was sure I was going to come out far ahead. What happens next? He only uses the starport to build 1 banshee. Switches his strat around instantly, builds 1 medivac and 1 thor, drops it on my cliff, completely shuts down mining and easily takes out my expansion hatchery.
There is no way a zerg can account for all these possibilities at the same time. Every terran is unique. Every terran has got their own specialized (and often retarded) transition. Banshee doesn't have to mean banshee. 2 rax doesn't have to mean aggressive infantry build. It might as well mean a nonsensical delayed 2 or 1 port banshee with cloak.
You have all these idiot terrans scoring easy instant wins vs zergs everywhere, because even if you scout their production buildings, half of the time you've still got no fucking clue what they're doing. You scout a barrack constantly producing marines and a starport without addons? Maybe he'll use it for 1 viking and then medivacs. Maybe he'll use it for a fast medivac dropping 8 marines straight into your base. Maybe he's the kind of terran that built another rax in his base and waits for 2 medivacs before dropping you. Maybe he's the kind of retarded terran that waits for so long, that eventually you start making drones again, and in flies 3medivacs fully loaded with units. Sometimes they make a medivac and don't even use it for anything, they just expand and pretend it's a logical strategy.
You make drones and go for the early spire vs the 1 medivac 8 marine drop? You'll take sick damage. You start making units too late vs the 2 medivac drop and even hint at making the spire? You die. You start making units too early vs the 3 medivac drop instead of making the spire, and then suddenly think the coast is clear and proceed into making a round of drones because the drop never seems to come? You die.
You make too many units vs the nonsensical terran that went a 1-1-1 build into an 11-minute mark expand with medivacs and lots of marines before expanding but didn't even drop you ? You die from mining 600 less minerals per minute every subsequent minute.
Even when watching Sen's stream - who I consider to be 20x better than me and a complete monster ZvT - you see him losing instantly to noob terrans after overdroning vs a 3rax or 2rax/hellion all-in, or making too many units vs a faked aggression into fast expand build, or upgrading ling speed before lair and subsequently dying to 2port banshee without even having a fighting chance.
The main reason you see so many zergs getting eliminated so early, is because you have to have sick amount of LUCK to beat 5-6 terrans in a row. It doesn't matter how good and how skilled you are. Beating that many terrans in a row will require more luck than it will require skill.
The point is, there is too much of an element of randomness for zerg in the matchup depending on which tech path they opt for. And it cannot be fixed by simply "scouting better". The difference in win rate from playing a terran ranked #60 as opposed to a terran ranked #5 isn't that great. There's still the ~20% of games where you instantly lose due to a build order/tech path loss, no matter how good/bad your terran opponent is.
Then there are the truly good terrans. The ones of equal skill to you. The ones who'll win at least 50% of the games that reach beyond the "zerg guesses wrong instantly loses" phase.
The win ratio against those terrans won't ever be 50% for zergs. Much like the scrub terrans, the good terrans too will instantly win about ~20% of their games on pure build order errors from zerg. If they win half of the rest of games that puts them at 60% vs the zergs.
For a good terran facing a scrub zerg. There's perhaps a 1% chance of a build order loss. Again, number pulled out of my ass, but I should really think it's single digit, and amongst the lower single digits. You don't see morrow, brat_ok or demuslim losing to scrub zergs, EVER.
TvP, they might lose a higher percentage of games against no name protosses. But not nearly as high as zergs vs terran and protoss.
So what you end up with (poker analogy) is top zergs having to fight their way through 5-6 top pocket pair vs lower pocket pair preflop all-ins without getting drawn out one single time! And of course a couple of other key hands that actually reach the flop, turn and river (normal games where the zerg had some influence on the outcome and didn't instantly lose).
This post was written as a rant from start from finish. Forgive me if it's very incoherent.
The only think I'd like you to take the time to think is how could that change ? It seem to me like the problem you're describing is deeper than a 5 second additionnal reaper build time.
Every now and then terrans will tell you that the scouting answer is to sacc. an ovie or even two (ovie pincer, whoever came up with this idea) at a very low food count, which is very weakening for a zerg to do. Just to hope you get the general idea of what the T is doing behind his walls.
Ive read your other thread and your suggestions, but none of them (I think) address this issue.
I personally think the macro mechanics are to blame for most of what's "wrong" in SC2. You often hear korean bw-coaches dismiss SC2 by saying "it is too fast paced", which is somewhat of a strange remark seeing how fast paced of a game BW is considered to be, but nonetheless I agree with them. The macro mechanics make you reach saturation on one base so fast that there's not enough of a discrepancy between a "normal" build and an "all-in" build. You're simply not forced to enough of an economic trade off for cheesing or opting for an aggressive build.
In SC1, going 4gate would actually mean something significant. Scouting someone going 4gate was significant. You'd have to sacrifice economy and saturation to even do a 4gate. In SC2, saturation on 1base is reached so fast, rushes are boosted so much, attack timings are so fast forwarded, that it forces everyone into conformity. There don't exist no fast shuttle (warp prism) drops with reaver (colossus) no more, because if you are to choose such a tech path, you'll have 8 zealots, 10 stalkers, and 4 sentries knocking at your doorstep by the 6th minute in the game. There is simply no way in hell you can defend that with 1colossus 3 stalker and 1 zealot and 1 sentry or whatever low unit number composition you'll have after spending so much on tech.
Macro mechanics are like the fourth race of Starcraft. At least as much detail that was spent on balancing the races by Blizzard should have been spent on balancing the macro mechanics. They need to have a reasonable strength level. One that allows for a wider strategic diversity, rather than forcing everyone to "at least make 3 gate every game or else I'll die".
It's for the exact same reason that DT rush is a rock paper scissors build in SC2. While TT1 might have made that thread advocating DT play in PvP out of good reasons, I don't think he or anyone else really understood why DT play is so bad in SC2. In SC1, if you wanted to have observers out in time to defend against DTs, you'd have to sacrifice building more gateways for a quicker robo. In SC2, everything's boosted to such a degree you can easily have 3-4 gates and still get the robo up in time to defend DTs.
What you end up with is a situation where if the DT rush fails (i.e. if the opponent went for any strategy involving detection at all). He'll have about 12 more units participating in the counterattack against your base than in the analogous situation in Broodwar. As such there exists no transition from opening DTs. Either you win the game instantly, or you lose horribly to the counterattack. There is no inbetween. Even if they were to buff DTs by lowering the build time for the dark shrine, it would have no other effect than making DT openings instantly win a higher percentage of the time. It would still instantly lose the rest of the time where the other protoss opted for fast enough detection.
This is a perfect example in my opinion, of balance changes being unable to introduce strategic diversity to the game. And this is what Blizzard have been dabbling with all beta long. They've been nerfing the crap out of pretty much everything, because shit just kept dying too fast and too easily against other shit produced in bulk.
I'm not arguing for the macro mechanics to be removed though. It's a unique aspect of SC2 that distinguishes it from SC1 and introduces a whole new aspect of play. It should definitely stay in game. But for the HotS beta test, they seriously need to consider rebalancing macro mechanics. I'll eventually post a thread about it as I usually do, when I'm finished theorycrafting around the subject. Though, I don't feel as if I've got a good enough solution to present as of yet.
Right now I'm leaning towards suggesting a scaling method of sorts for macro mechanics. 2larva per inject on tier 1, 3 on tier 2 (lair tech) etc. Same sort of scaling effect for chrono boost and MULE. In order to slow down the early game somewhat. In my mind it makes sense, as it would remove alot of the random elements in the game and give players a proper chance to actually adapt to scouting information, as opposed to being hit by a 4warpgate all-in merely ~40 seconds after scouting it.
I think the game would benefit greatly from having technical strategies like warp prism colossus drops with gravitic drive upgrades become viable. And they would, as long as Blizzard just slows down the early game somewhat. As long as teching becomes a viable game path as opposed to everyone having to conform to the "Gotta produce as much shit as possible off of 1base as fast as humanly possible"-syndrome that's plaguing the game and will continue to plague it as long as the macro mechanics are designed the way they are and are as strong as they are right now.
No small unit tweak balance changes are ever going to change that you're going to have to defend a 4warp gate all-in in 90% of your games vsP on the ladder. Small unit tweaks aren't magically going to introduce more "strategic diversity" in SC2, as long as players aren't given enough time to adapt to scouting information.
Current state of zerg is pretty much: Either start the necessary upgrade/building before scouting or run the very real risk that the upgrade/building you started after scouting won't be complete by the time you get all-inned/cliff dropped/cloak bansheed/whatever. The "you just gotta learn to scout better"-horde on TL are really annoying in this aspect. By the time you scout it, half of the time there isn't enough time to adapt anyway!
All Blizzard's balance changes have achieved thus far when it comes to zerg is either making them die faster/easier or sustain more damage early game, or making them survive easier early game and thus automatically be broken against Protoss mid and lategame.
And in my opinion macro mechanics are more to blame for any of this than any unit being over- or underpowered.
Even though you make some compelling arguments about the pace of the game and changes that may improve overall balance, Blizzard will never change the game so drastically.
Within the core game play/mechanics we have now, tweaking numbers is really the best Blizz can do until expansion packs are released.
Until then, the general skill level of zerg players will unfortunately have to be far greater than toss/terran players in order to compete.
Yea the original post even included a line: "For the HotS beta test". This could never be introduced in a normal patch.
On September 14 2010 10:26 theqat wrote: I would love to see MorroW play Zerg for a while. It would certainly impart some perspective
Also Dimaga doesn't really manage to win anymore. He's going nowhere in most tournaments, just like other Zergs
it would be fun but wouldnt prove shit. on top of it new patch is coming out and im sure things will change soon, i just wish ppl wouldnt be so blindly throwing the imba anytime they see a terran win. u take like strelok utterly outplaying some random underdog zerg and ppl start saying its imba, wtf seriously? -.- he is just better and this is my point in the foreigner scene we simply have tons more terrans that are better on the top
if im offending ppl then fine, i dont care. u cry too much, try as much as dimaga then u can complain. he knows what he talk about but most player say everything is imba all the time
quiet a different song from all the "baneling OP" you and strelok sang during the beta. It's only imba if it's hard for you, eh?
Terran is definitely more OP than Zerg is UP, if that makes any sense. Terran needs to be nerfed to the ground, and Z and P needs some tweaks here and there. Either way, it'll be a long way until the game is fully balanced.
damn i never knew there were so many sc2 tours, i guess they add up with the zotac + go4sc2 cups.. its kinda unfortunate that the us server still doesnt have big weekly tours like the eu server (apart from the wolf cup)
Also, for those who are making the baseless argument that Z is fine in Korea, just look at the GSL results.
So far, out of 13 Z, only 5 have advanced into Ro32. On top of that, 4/5 of those Z qualified through either ZvP or ZvZ. Only Idra who completely outmatched his T opponent got through a ZvT. In all other cases, whenever a Z met a T opponent, they were eliminated.
On September 14 2010 08:15 Raiznhell wrote: this clearly shows that MorroW is OP not terran
ah thank you, im happy i could find at least 1 comment like this on 14 pages its annoying me so much that everyone talk so much about imbalance
we have no zerg players in general. who used to win as zerg when zerg was OP? like dimaga, who else ? haypro and zpux? i cant even name any other zergs that were on top of their game... we simply have few zergs participating in each tour and i think thats a bigger factor than the actual imbalance
i almost wanna switch to zerg just to show it is possible, its not a coincidence dimaga is by far best zerg atm, he simply has alot more skills than the other zergs. i pity these lower level players that blame their losses on imbalance when dimaga still manages to win. we have 30 terrans who can fight nicely on the top in tvt but who can compete in zvz? the skill gap is huge there and so few players...
Have you even played Zerg? I'd like to see you try. You'd get an unbelievable amount of respect from everyone if you would be successful. But, I guarantee you'll win nothing.
have you played 6 hours a day for all beta and release? no? ok maybe thats the problem. this many top terrans has done on our list but how many zerg foreigners has practiced as hard as us?
terran is fucking OP but these tournament results cant give zerg more wins because we dont have any zergs to win any tournaments except dimaga, idra doesnt play these
On September 14 2010 08:15 Raiznhell wrote: this clearly shows that MorroW is OP not terran
ah thank you, im happy i could find at least 1 comment like this on 14 pages its annoying me so much that everyone talk so much about imbalance
we have no zerg players in general. who used to win as zerg when zerg was OP? like dimaga, who else ? haypro and zpux? i cant even name any other zergs that were on top of their game... we simply have few zergs participating in each tour and i think thats a bigger factor than the actual imbalance
i almost wanna switch to zerg just to show it is possible, its not a coincidence dimaga is by far best zerg atm, he simply has alot more skills than the other zergs. i pity these lower level players that blame their losses on imbalance when dimaga still manages to win. we have 30 terrans who can fight nicely on the top in tvt but who can compete in zvz? the skill gap is huge there and so few players...
Have you even played Zerg? I'd like to see you try. You'd get an unbelievable amount of respect from everyone if you would be successful. But, I guarantee you'll win nothing.
have you played 6 hours a day for all beta and release? no? ok maybe thats the problem. this many top terrans has done on our list but how many zerg foreigners has practiced as hard as us?
terran is fucking OP but these tournament results cant give zerg more wins because we dont have any zergs to win any tournaments except dimaga, idra doesnt play these
On September 14 2010 11:12 teamsolid wrote: Also, for those who are making the baseless argument that Z is fine in Korea, just look at the GSL results.
So far, out of 13 Z, only 5 have advanced into Ro32. On top of that, 4/5 of those Z qualified through either ZvP or ZvZ. Only Idra who completely outmatched his T opponent got through a ZvT. In all other cases, whenever a Z met a T opponent, they were eliminated.
Can someone confirm this? If someone can, I will be a very happy man.
And for all the people who say "of course terran has more wins, there are more of them!", I'm pretty confident there aren't so many of them that they dominate tourneys like this, and the argument of "more people play terran b/c of single player" doesn't not work on pros. However, if someone can give me legit numbers (w/ source), I'd be glad to tear apart my own argument.
I have to agree with Morrow. Name me some zergs which are on same level as Dimaga or Idra IN ZVZ (!). None? Great.
Now remember all these TvTs u watched in go4scs and ZOTACs? Yeah the ones u all complain about. Tarson winning with Cloud. Morrow losing to Demuslim. Strelok winning with SjoW. I could go on. There is at least 30 names which can easily compete with eachother, when it comes to T.
All that shows, is that there is more good T players atm.
Tbh, i have not yet seen a single zerg apart from Idra (not even dimaga), with macro so perfect like morrows. There is tons of queing going on. Mineral floats etc, all the time. While the Ts (especially morrow) have perfect thought-out builds with 0 quening going on, perfect expansion and depot timings etc.
I have yet to see a zerg buildorder as refined as morrows 5 rax reaper or his TvP 2rax FE. For me, this is the main reason the zerg lose, not imbalance.
On September 14 2010 11:12 teamsolid wrote: Also, for those who are making the baseless argument that Z is fine in Korea, just look at the GSL results.
So far, out of 13 Z, only 5 have advanced into Ro32. On top of that, 4/5 of those Z qualified through either ZvP or ZvZ. Only Idra who completely outmatched his T opponent got through a ZvT. In all other cases, whenever a Z met a T opponent, they were eliminated.
Can someone confirm this? If someone can, I will be a very happy man.
On September 14 2010 11:23 Gomas wrote: I have to agree with Morrow. Name me some zergs which are on same level as Dimaga or Idra IN ZVZ (!). None? Great.
Now remember all these TvTs u watched in go4scs and ZOTACs? Yeah the ones u all complain about. Tarson winning with Cloud. Morrow losing to Demuslim. Strelok winning with SjoW. I could go on. There is at least 30 names which can easily compete with eachother, when it comes to T.
All that shows, is that there is more good T players atm.
Tbh, i have not yet seen a single zerg apart from Idra (not even dimaga), with macro so perfect like morrows. There is tons of queing going on. Mineral floats etc, all the time. While the Ts (especially morrow) have perfect thought-out builds with 0 quening going on, perfect expansion and depot timings etc.
I have yet to see a zerg buildorder as refined as morrows 5 rax reaper or his TvP 2rax FE. For me, this is the main reason the zerg lose, not imbalance.
You have no clue how zerg works. To put it short and concise- zerg cant have perfect BOs because their BOs rely on their opponents unscoutable strategies.
On September 14 2010 11:23 Gomas wrote: I have to agree with Morrow. Name me some zergs which are on same level as Dimaga or Idra IN ZVZ (!). None? Great.
Now remember all these TvTs u watched in go4scs and ZOTACs? Yeah the ones u all complain about. Tarson winning with Cloud. Morrow losing to Demuslim. Strelok winning with SjoW. I could go on. There is at least 30 names which can easily compete with eachother, when it comes to T.
All that shows, is that there is more good T players atm.
Tbh, i have not yet seen a single zerg apart from Idra (not even dimaga), with macro so perfect like morrows. There is tons of queing going on. Mineral floats etc, all the time. While the Ts (especially morrow) have perfect thought-out builds with 0 quening going on, perfect expansion and depot timings etc.
I have yet to see a zerg buildorder as refined as morrows 5 rax reaper or his TvP 2rax FE. For me, this is the main reason the zerg lose, not imbalance.
How many ZvZs did you see to base that upon ?
Dont you think most Zs also try to focus more on ZvT ZvP, just by looking at the statistics it looks to me like the odds you'll play T or P are nearly 9/10
On September 14 2010 11:23 Gomas wrote: I have to agree with Morrow. Name me some zergs which are on same level as Dimaga or Idra IN ZVZ (!). None? Great.
Now remember all these TvTs u watched in go4scs and ZOTACs? Yeah the ones u all complain about. Tarson winning with Cloud. Morrow losing to Demuslim. Strelok winning with SjoW. I could go on. There is at least 30 names which can easily compete with eachother, when it comes to T.
All that shows, is that there is more good T players atm.
Tbh, i have not yet seen a single zerg apart from Idra (not even dimaga), with macro so perfect like morrows. There is tons of queing going on. Mineral floats etc, all the time. While the Ts (especially morrow) have perfect thought-out builds with 0 quening going on, perfect expansion and depot timings etc.
I have yet to see a zerg buildorder as refined as morrows 5 rax reaper or his TvP 2rax FE. For me, this is the main reason the zerg lose, not imbalance.
You have no clue how zerg works. To put it short and concise- zerg cant have perfect BOs because their BOs rely on their opponents unscoutable strategies.
First of all, they are scoutable. Even two sacrificed overlords is less than 1 scan.
Secondly, the builds I mentioned, work against nearly EVERYTHING, because they are so refined. (and don't tell me that because T is imba -.-) If, zerg took the time to refine their play, they would also find that u can just beat the unscoutable strategies by having a solid all-round startegy which relies on macro, not counters.
On September 14 2010 11:23 Gomas wrote: I have to agree with Morrow. Name me some zergs which are on same level as Dimaga or Idra IN ZVZ (!). None? Great.
Now remember all these TvTs u watched in go4scs and ZOTACs? Yeah the ones u all complain about. Tarson winning with Cloud. Morrow losing to Demuslim. Strelok winning with SjoW. I could go on. There is at least 30 names which can easily compete with eachother, when it comes to T.
All that shows, is that there is more good T players atm.
Tbh, i have not yet seen a single zerg apart from Idra (not even dimaga), with macro so perfect like morrows. There is tons of queing going on. Mineral floats etc, all the time. While the Ts (especially morrow) have perfect thought-out builds with 0 quening going on, perfect expansion and depot timings etc.
I have yet to see a zerg buildorder as refined as morrows 5 rax reaper or his TvP 2rax FE. For me, this is the main reason the zerg lose, not imbalance.
You have no clue how zerg works. To put it short and concise- zerg cant have perfect BOs because their BOs rely on their opponents unscoutable strategies.
First of all, they are scoutable. Even two sacrificed overlords is less than 1 scan.
Secondly, the builds I mentioned, work against nearly EVERYTHING, because they are so refined. (and don't tell me that because T is imba -.-) If, zerg took the time to refine their play, they would also find that u can just beat the unscoutable strategies by having a solid all-round startegy which relies on macro, not counters.
You have no idea how zerg works at all. Go read lalush's posts.
"refine their play" that's a good one. Terran excusecraft for being op is fucking hilarious. Have fun with nothing but Terran at the top of the ladder and nothing but TvTournaments.
On September 14 2010 11:23 Gomas wrote: I have to agree with Morrow. Name me some zergs which are on same level as Dimaga or Idra IN ZVZ (!). None? Great.
Now remember all these TvTs u watched in go4scs and ZOTACs? Yeah the ones u all complain about. Tarson winning with Cloud. Morrow losing to Demuslim. Strelok winning with SjoW. I could go on. There is at least 30 names which can easily compete with eachother, when it comes to T.
All that shows, is that there is more good T players atm.
Tbh, i have not yet seen a single zerg apart from Idra (not even dimaga), with macro so perfect like morrows. There is tons of queing going on. Mineral floats etc, all the time. While the Ts (especially morrow) have perfect thought-out builds with 0 quening going on, perfect expansion and depot timings etc.
I have yet to see a zerg buildorder as refined as morrows 5 rax reaper or his TvP 2rax FE. For me, this is the main reason the zerg lose, not imbalance.
5 rax reaper... so difficult and refined morrow was able to learn it in one hour.
Odds are if there were 30 good zerg players and 2 good terran players at the highest levels that zerg would be imbalanced...
On September 14 2010 11:23 Gomas wrote: I have to agree with Morrow. Name me some zergs which are on same level as Dimaga or Idra IN ZVZ (!). None? Great.
Now remember all these TvTs u watched in go4scs and ZOTACs? Yeah the ones u all complain about. Tarson winning with Cloud. Morrow losing to Demuslim. Strelok winning with SjoW. I could go on. There is at least 30 names which can easily compete with eachother, when it comes to T.
All that shows, is that there is more good T players atm.
Tbh, i have not yet seen a single zerg apart from Idra (not even dimaga), with macro so perfect like morrows. There is tons of queing going on. Mineral floats etc, all the time. While the Ts (especially morrow) have perfect thought-out builds with 0 quening going on, perfect expansion and depot timings etc.
I have yet to see a zerg buildorder as refined as morrows 5 rax reaper or his TvP 2rax FE. For me, this is the main reason the zerg lose, not imbalance.
You have no clue how zerg works. To put it short and concise- zerg cant have perfect BOs because their BOs rely on their opponents unscoutable strategies.
First of all, they are scoutable. Even two sacrificed overlords is less than 1 scan.
Two sacrificed overlords is less than 1 scan? wut? Overlords require larva, production time, and give supply (meaning you lose it when they die). Scans are free.
On April 11 2010 20:20 MorroW wrote: well the sad part is that exactly that @Art_of_Kill forces terran to be the offender against zerg and toss while they always just have to defend. because once u strike 200 psi and both have many expoes, zerg can remkae 50 roaches in 30 seconnds and toss can warpin units in 5 second while terran must build their units
in sc1 terran 200 psi was stronger than toss 200 psi but toss rebuilt faster, so after a battle toss had to rebuild and then wipe out terran
but in sc2 terran 200 psi is weaker and they rebuild alot slower in comparison to production facilities costs
thats why i hope they do something about this because in theory zerg and toss never has to attack the terran because they know they have an easy ride later game. so they can put larva max to half and that wouldnt change alot except for later game where u actually stop make units as z
its very shallow match up if u know lategame terran always lose. maybe u can balance it and say ok terran have to attack and that is balanced, sure but its not so interesting if we always see terran be the attacker. all races should be able to camp, timing attack and be somewhat equal in the late game, but its not like that at all with sc2
On April 14 2010 23:06 MorroW wrote: i agree with every single thing OP said
and sorry i dont have any advise for u, i dont know a safe way to fe anymore. in patch5 and before i could rax fe then 6-7 i could marauder fe and now i cant fe. i cant do anything and ive tried everything just like u
its not really just the early game, later game i feel like toss can simply get far better economy because his units r very cost effective
and lategame is just ridiculous, if u reach that toss always wins
the only way terran has been able to win this entire beta stage is through early game, as we r getting worse bio and stronger mech we are now in a position where we lose against everything rather than everything being viable.
demuslim is one of the best terrans in the world and if he comes here and says this, its not just that he has been winning because he been spoiled wins by imba. terran has been worst race and we r getting changes but demuslim were one of few terrans who fought the odds of the mus. if u dont understand the level of play i suggest u to just agree with what he says and if u disagree i suggest u to be silent and accept ur the one whos missing something, not demuslim
On April 14 2010 17:19 3D.Strelok wrote: In TvP now it's like that: if you perfectly know what protoss does ( maphack is on) you stay on 50% chances to win. It turns onto who is better. And if you miss what protoss does you have almost no chances to win. I really want to think it's not imbalance but thing that terran didn't find counters yet.
u cant really know what toss is doing early game, if u spend 50 on a scan to see what his doing (assuming he built every single tech building near the nexus including with gateways) sure u know what he do, but u cant stop it because u just lost ur mule. if u dont scan u end up in a scenario where either u get a game rolling ur toss rolls over u because he countered ur build and u had no idea whats coming. simply think its ignorant to say its a 50% chance to win in a mu and this is if u know what toss is doing, a good toss wont let u know that and remember toss ALWAYS knows what ur doing. they r the ones with maphack not us so ur scenario is very unrealistic
On April 14 2010 23:15 Gretorp wrote: in my experience, tvp has now become very very very boring. you go 4 rax to keep up with the protoss and stay on one base the entire game. tech appropriately such that you don't die to protoss tech since mass immortals and mass collossus are dealt with in 2 different gas/mineral routes(ghost and vikings). don't expand till you're about to run out of minerals, lift CC and expo when minerals start to run out. at end yo uwill still be on either 4 or 5 rax, a factory not producing anything, and a starport, interchanging its add on with the rax. if you go to expo anywhere during this phase, you lose positioning which you desperately need, and you are behind in units.
I've tried going mech pretty aggressively for the past week, and it is very hard to control gas when going mech. then i ran into a warp prism + 2 immortal and lol'ed at my defending tanks. and by lol'ed i mean QQed
if u r 1base vs 1base he can make dts and force u to turn back, force u to build turrets and force u to waste at least 1 scan. u cant afford this on 1base and u cant get a raven either, u also cant really contain a toss with a turret and u cant assume hes going dt and get turrets every game. on top of that you also cant scout it. and as ur paying for all this shit just to survive he can expand and hes in a great shape. 1base vs 1base toss is stronger, its the truth
On April 15 2010 02:01 DeMusliM wrote: I can tell we just had a huge influx of protoss players join this thread and fail to see the point.
A terran HAS to make a heavy tier 1-1.5 army just to survive the gateway push - with bunkers the whole lot, pumping every resource he has into this. Meanwhile the protoss can easily expo and out resource the terran - this is the problem - that the terran cannot survive early without getting some kinda force together, while the protoss can can tech even, while pumping out 4 warpgates and immortals while the terrans later tech units make little difference - (Immortals counter all ground terran has, and HT's counter anything that counters the immortal - see the problem late game?).
And i'm not even talking about late game, the problem for terrans right now is surviving the early game without being too far behind mid-late. People who fail to see this are enjoying the easy life of 4 warpgate rushing terrans and winning with relative ease. I spoke with several top protoss players on Europe who all agreed that the MU right now is very heavily favoured towards the protoss - and the only way they lose is if they make a big mistake micro/macro wise or don't scout (pretty hard not to scout with a obs!).
On April 15 2010 01:44 deo.deo wrote: haha, cant wait until the koreans really bite into the game. all those little whine threads will be shaken up completely.
as it is now im pretty sure sc2 wont last in korea, why? koreans love hard games and sc2 doesnt qualify for that afaik :x
On April 15 2010 01:54 Prozen wrote: Have you guys tried going 4 Rax no gas/addons FE? You build only marines and you FE while you build about 3 bunkers to defend your nat. It's been very successful for me lately, haven't lost with it yet. (Top 10 Plat Protosses). The problem with the build though is that you HAVE to make sure the Protoss is going Immortals, otherwise he can just go Collosi and rape your army rofl. It doesn't work too well on maps with two chokepoints sadly, but it worked well fro me on maps like Steppes of War.
this is basically how i was playing before patch 6 was out, it even raped colosus then the sad part atm is that it doesnt work now, sentry -2 dmg along with immortal and zea meatshield fucking hard rape this build or they can make fast colosus which also rape it. they can even go mass zea sentry and rape it too :/
On April 17 2010 09:26 MorroW wrote: the goal is just to create a build that survives and puts up a good fight against anything toss does. just like siege expo in sc1.
if u stop a massgateway u will be ahead and win the game, its a simple thought
the proper way how a rts game should be is that a counter to a safe expo is to expo urself to catch up rather than having a bunch of "C&C db style rock paper scissor" hard counters
im not sure if my build or any tvp build for that matter can defend all cheese yet by "scout and respond rule" but i know its the best so far, since everything else has been failing terribly lately. just watch my reps vs nightend where i desperately tried to play my old 1rax fe xd
so if it now happens to be that u can counter cheese with this build, it doesnt mean pvt is impossible. it just means ur not gonna win easily by going same 1robo3warpgate every game. hopefully this is the first step to counter fe with fe rather than counter fe with rush. if both fe i guess it will turn out to be anyones game. but if terran cant fe then terran cant win because stuff like dts or sentry with force field are just so strong 1base vs 1base that they can let u expand while terran is locked in (5sentry 2immortal and 3 zealot is never ever gonna let u down the ramp). thats why its so important that we need a fe build thats safe against all cheese
im not gonna release any reps and its best if i dont talk about this any more for now because im still not sure how good it is really. but i can imagine it being really strong and ive never lost with it where i executed it correctly yet (im low rating tho). but ill keep u guys posted of my build works or not (as in straight up play, not luck based. not as in win or lose... "without meta game abuse" as nony would say :>)
LOL. Only reason I couldn't find more zerg whine is because morrow's post history mysteriously stops in around mid april. All the zerg whining took place in March and early April. Then roach armor and supply got nerfed along with 2x nerf of hydras and a bunch of other things.
I only had to check 3 threads to find whine similar to zergs' whine though.
I distinctly remember morrow doing lots of crying instead of just "playing the game", as is usually morrow's advice to zerg players nowadays.
Protoss 1base vs Terran 1base is imbalanced =) You can't go raven ^^ "Need ways to FE safely". hahaha. Guess what, zerg needs ways to FE safely too!
On September 14 2010 11:23 Gomas wrote: I have to agree with Morrow. Name me some zergs which are on same level as Dimaga or Idra IN ZVZ (!). None? Great.
Now remember all these TvTs u watched in go4scs and ZOTACs? Yeah the ones u all complain about. Tarson winning with Cloud. Morrow losing to Demuslim. Strelok winning with SjoW. I could go on. There is at least 30 names which can easily compete with eachother, when it comes to T.
All that shows, is that there is more good T players atm.
Tbh, i have not yet seen a single zerg apart from Idra (not even dimaga), with macro so perfect like morrows. There is tons of queing going on. Mineral floats etc, all the time. While the Ts (especially morrow) have perfect thought-out builds with 0 quening going on, perfect expansion and depot timings etc.
I have yet to see a zerg buildorder as refined as morrows 5 rax reaper or his TvP 2rax FE. For me, this is the main reason the zerg lose, not imbalance.
You have no clue how zerg works. To put it short and concise- zerg cant have perfect BOs because their BOs rely on their opponents unscoutable strategies.
First of all, they are scoutable. Even two sacrificed overlords is less than 1 scan.
Secondly, the builds I mentioned, work against nearly EVERYTHING, because they are so refined. (and don't tell me that because T is imba -.-) If, zerg took the time to refine their play, they would also find that u can just beat the unscoutable strategies by having a solid all-round startegy which relies on macro, not counters.
On September 14 2010 07:18 LaLuSh wrote: Perfection is very hard to achieve when the matchup involves such a high degree of guessing for zerg. Even when you scout a certain tech path from the terran, you still cannot be sure what is coming. Yesterday for example (one out of a thousand examples), I scouted a very fast tech starport tech lab switch from brat_ok in a tournament game, and I began making spore crawlers and queens while massing drones. I was sure I was going to come out far ahead. What happens next? He only uses the starport to build 1 banshee. Switches his strat around instantly, builds 1 medivac and 1 thor, drops it on my cliff, completely shuts down mining and easily takes out my expansion hatchery.
There is no way a zerg can account for all these possibilities at the same time. Every terran is unique. Every terran has got their own specialized (and often retarded) transition. Banshee doesn't have to mean banshee. 2 rax doesn't have to mean aggressive infantry build. It might as well mean a nonsensical delayed 2 or 1 port banshee with cloak.
You have all these idiot terrans scoring easy instant wins vs zergs everywhere, because even if you scout their production buildings, half of the time you've still got no fucking clue what they're doing. You scout a barrack constantly producing marines and a starport without addons? Maybe he'll use it for 1 viking and then medivacs. Maybe he'll use it for a fast medivac dropping 8 marines straight into your base. Maybe he's the kind of terran that built another rax in his base and waits for 2 medivacs before dropping you. Maybe he's the kind of retarded terran that waits for so long, that eventually you start making drones again, and in flies 3medivacs fully loaded with units. Sometimes they make a medivac and don't even use it for anything, they just expand and pretend it's a logical strategy.
You make drones and go for the early spire vs the 1 medivac 8 marine drop? You'll take sick damage. You start making units too late vs the 2 medivac drop and even hint at making the spire? You die. You start making units too early vs the 3 medivac drop instead of making the spire, and then suddenly think the coast is clear and proceed into making a round of drones because the drop never seems to come? You die.
You make too many units vs the nonsensical terran that went a 1-1-1 build into an 11-minute mark expand with medivacs and lots of marines before expanding but didn't even drop you ? You die from mining 600 less minerals per minute every subsequent minute.
Even when watching Sen's stream - who I consider to be 20x better than me and a complete monster ZvT - you see him losing instantly to noob terrans after overdroning vs a 3rax or 2rax/hellion all-in, or making too many units vs a faked aggression into fast expand build, or upgrading ling speed before lair and subsequently dying to 2port banshee without even having a fighting chance.
The main reason you see so many zergs getting eliminated so early, is because you have to have sick amount of LUCK to beat 5-6 terrans in a row. It doesn't matter how good and how skilled you are. Beating that many terrans in a row will require more luck than it will require skill.
The point is, there is too much of an element of randomness for zerg in the matchup depending on which tech path they opt for. And it cannot be fixed by simply "scouting better". The difference in win rate from playing a terran ranked #60 as opposed to a terran ranked #5 isn't that great. There's still the ~20% of games where you instantly lose due to a build order/tech path loss, no matter how good/bad your terran opponent is.
Then there are the truly good terrans. The ones of equal skill to you. The ones who'll win at least 50% of the games that reach beyond the "zerg guesses wrong instantly loses" phase.
The win ratio against those terrans won't ever be 50% for zergs. Much like the scrub terrans, the good terrans too will instantly win about ~20% of their games on pure build order errors from zerg. If they win half of the rest of games that puts them at 60% vs the zergs.
For a good terran facing a scrub zerg. There's perhaps a 1% chance of a build order loss. Again, number pulled out of my ass, but I should really think it's single digit, and amongst the lower single digits. You don't see morrow, brat_ok or demuslim losing to scrub zergs, EVER.
TvP, they might lose a higher percentage of games against no name protosses. But not nearly as high as zergs vs terran and protoss.
So what you end up with (poker analogy) is top zergs having to fight their way through 5-6 top pocket pair vs lower pocket pair preflop all-ins without getting drawn out one single time! And of course a couple of other key hands that actually reach the flop, turn and river (normal games where the zerg had some influence on the outcome and didn't instantly lose).
This post was written as a rant from start from finish. Forgive me if it's very incoherent.
On September 14 2010 11:23 Gomas wrote: I have to agree with Morrow. Name me some zergs which are on same level as Dimaga or Idra IN ZVZ (!). None? Great.
Now remember all these TvTs u watched in go4scs and ZOTACs? Yeah the ones u all complain about. Tarson winning with Cloud. Morrow losing to Demuslim. Strelok winning with SjoW. I could go on. There is at least 30 names which can easily compete with eachother, when it comes to T.
All that shows, is that there is more good T players atm.
Tbh, i have not yet seen a single zerg apart from Idra (not even dimaga), with macro so perfect like morrows. There is tons of queing going on. Mineral floats etc, all the time. While the Ts (especially morrow) have perfect thought-out builds with 0 quening going on, perfect expansion and depot timings etc.
I have yet to see a zerg buildorder as refined as morrows 5 rax reaper or his TvP 2rax FE. For me, this is the main reason the zerg lose, not imbalance.
You have no clue how zerg works. To put it short and concise- zerg cant have perfect BOs because their BOs rely on their opponents unscoutable strategies.
First of all, they are scoutable. Even two sacrificed overlords is less than 1 scan.
Secondly, the builds I mentioned, work against nearly EVERYTHING, because they are so refined. (and don't tell me that because T is imba -.-) If, zerg took the time to refine their play, they would also find that u can just beat the unscoutable strategies by having a solid all-round startegy which relies on macro, not counters.
I'll be another guy quoting all this just to rage a bit
The builds you mentio do work against nearly everything. This is because it FORCES the zerg player to react accordingly. There is literally nothing a zerg player can do outside of a 6-7 pool that forces a terran player to change his mind about what he's doing. Fast reapers dictate the flow of the game.
Reapers force roaches. Follow up with Marauders and win, simple as that.
On September 14 2010 11:23 Gomas wrote: I have to agree with Morrow. Name me some zergs which are on same level as Dimaga or Idra IN ZVZ (!). None? Great.
Now remember all these TvTs u watched in go4scs and ZOTACs? Yeah the ones u all complain about. Tarson winning with Cloud. Morrow losing to Demuslim. Strelok winning with SjoW. I could go on. There is at least 30 names which can easily compete with eachother, when it comes to T.
All that shows, is that there is more good T players atm.
Tbh, i have not yet seen a single zerg apart from Idra (not even dimaga), with macro so perfect like morrows. There is tons of queing going on. Mineral floats etc, all the time. While the Ts (especially morrow) have perfect thought-out builds with 0 quening going on, perfect expansion and depot timings etc.
I have yet to see a zerg buildorder as refined as morrows 5 rax reaper or his TvP 2rax FE. For me, this is the main reason the zerg lose, not imbalance.
You have no clue how zerg works. To put it short and concise- zerg cant have perfect BOs because their BOs rely on their opponents unscoutable strategies.
First of all, they are scoutable. Even two sacrificed overlords is less than 1 scan.
Secondly, the builds I mentioned, work against nearly EVERYTHING, because they are so refined. (and don't tell me that because T is imba -.-) If, zerg took the time to refine their play, they would also find that u can just beat the unscoutable strategies by having a solid all-round startegy which relies on macro, not counters.
What do you mean dont tell you that it is because T is imba? Dont tell you that the sky is blue or water is wet either? it_IS_ because T is imba. We have ex-progamers like Zergbong with thousands of games under their belt since the release alone falling to no-name random terrans in GSL and youre telling me zerg arent trying hard enough? You must be mentally challenged.
LOL. Only reason I couldn't find more zerg whine is because morrow's post history mysteriously stops in around mid april. All the zerg whining took place in March and early April. Then roach armor and supply got nerfed along with 2x nerf of hydras and a bunch of other things.
I only had to check 3 threads to find whine similar to zergs' whine though.
I distinctly remember morrow doing lots of crying instead of just "playing the game", as is usually morrow's advice to zerg players nowadays.
Protoss 1base vs Terran 1base is imbalanced =) You can't go raven ^^ "Need ways to FE safely". hahaha. Guess what, zerg needs ways to FE safely too!
I say it time and time again, but people like Jinro used ghost play for example to get on even footing with the zerg while Morrow just practiced FE for 5 thousand or so games until constant zerg nerfs made it work. Now that guy tells me to be inventive? No sir, screw you.
Edit: MorroW will go the way he did in every other game he's played, a big name at the start, and then a year or two later after a meta-game shift and balance patches he'll disappear. I will give him one thing though he's great at finding glaring imbalances in games and exploiting them. A certain company would be wise to have him as an in-house balance tester.
On September 14 2010 11:23 Gomas wrote: I have to agree with Morrow. Name me some zergs which are on same level as Dimaga or Idra IN ZVZ (!). None? Great.
Now remember all these TvTs u watched in go4scs and ZOTACs? Yeah the ones u all complain about. Tarson winning with Cloud. Morrow losing to Demuslim. Strelok winning with SjoW. I could go on. There is at least 30 names which can easily compete with eachother, when it comes to T.
All that shows, is that there is more good T players atm.
Tbh, i have not yet seen a single zerg apart from Idra (not even dimaga), with macro so perfect like morrows. There is tons of queing going on. Mineral floats etc, all the time. While the Ts (especially morrow) have perfect thought-out builds with 0 quening going on, perfect expansion and depot timings etc.
I have yet to see a zerg buildorder as refined as morrows 5 rax reaper or his TvP 2rax FE. For me, this is the main reason the zerg lose, not imbalance.
You have no clue how zerg works. To put it short and concise- zerg cant have perfect BOs because their BOs rely on their opponents unscoutable strategies.
First of all, they are scoutable. Even two sacrificed overlords is less than 1 scan.
Secondly, the builds I mentioned, work against nearly EVERYTHING, because they are so refined. (and don't tell me that because T is imba -.-) If, zerg took the time to refine their play, they would also find that u can just beat the unscoutable strategies by having a solid all-round startegy which relies on macro, not counters.
Yeah, Terran builds work against everything because they can completely change through swapping some building addons around. You don't have to make A DIFFERENT BUILDING FOR EVERY UNIT.
Also, good luck with those "perfect T BOs" if you were in the following situation:
You can make 6 units. You have to choose between SCVs and army. You have no idea what your opponent is doing, what army comp he is going, if he is macro'ing up or rushing. You have to change your "perfect refined BO" according to what your opponent is doing constantly.
Thats what happens every game you play as Zerg.
Can we get LaLush in here to tell this clown how wrong he is please?
On September 14 2010 11:39 Sfydjklm wrote: You must be mentally challenged.
Now that guy tells me to be inventive? No sir, screw you.
U should chill
Lalush's whole post revolves around the problem with countering different T strategies.
I wanna assure u, that from the terran perspective zerg also has many possible and hard to scout startegies. In 99% percent of the cases, zerglings give u full control of the map, and the Ts scouting is reduced to scans. Scans are easily counterable by spreading buildings.
The problem of techswitching (or whatever u wanna call what lalush stated) is there with every race. And even more so with zerg. Because they have one production facility. So, for example, I could scan a baneling nest, roach warren and spire. So you could either produce 100 mutalisks, or 100 banelings.Do i make marines?;d And the tech buildings cost u less then terran production buildings. In addition, u are not constrained by the number of production facilities u have, because u have 1 for all units.
Therefore I think lalush is wrong in stating that zerg relies on scouting and luck more than other races.
Anyway, this is just theory, and I don't really wanna argue, cause you're taking it too seriously.
Now that guy tells me to be inventive? No sir, screw you.
U should chill
Lalush's whole post revolves around the problem with countering different T strategies.
I wanna assure u, that from the terran perspective zerg also has many possible and hard to scout startegies. In 99% percent of the cases, zerglings give u full control of the map, and the Ts scouting is reduced to scans. Scans are easily counterable by spreading buildings.
The problem of techswitching (or whatever u wanna call what lalush stated) is there with every race. And even more so with zerg. Because they have one production facility. So, for example, I could scan a baneling nest, roach warren and spire. So you could either produce 100 mutalisks, or 100 banelings.Do i make marines?;d And the tech buildings cost u less then terran production buildings. In addition, u are not constrained by the number of production facilities u have, because u have 1 for all units.
Therefore I think lalush is wrong in stating that zerg relies on scouting and luck more than other races.
Anyway, this is just theory, and I don't really wanna argue, cause you're taking it too seriously.
Morrow is a beast. End of story :D
Don't terran use reapers/hellions/banshee/meds to scout ?
What kind of 'hard to scout strategies' are you talking about ?
On September 14 2010 01:20 cuppatea wrote: Tournament wins by race:
- 51 - 22 - 4
Tournament winners by race:
- 22 - 12 - 2
just look at this honestly.
ignoring all preconceptions of imbalance. if someone completely ignorant of sc2 at all. and just saw these as results. it is OBVOIUS THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG.
if you didnt know what T P Z was. and all you were told is that they are the types of winners for something. you would come to the conclusions that T must be the best to choose if you wanna win.
simple. not needing pages of justification. just simple facts. 2 winners out of 36. TWO!!!!!!!!! that is like 5-10% WITH ONLY THREE OPTIONS!
you all can spend ages argueing what they mean. or just show the results to a child. their honest innocence allows them to explain what they see, HOW THEY SEE IT. and infact i showed my lil sis these results. you want to know what she said.
"T must be really really good must be the best, is this the olimpics?"
PS lalush. post your posts in this thread on blizz forums. blizz has to act, sc2 will die as an E-sport if the next time we poll all the tournie results and there is still this kinda of difference in the races.
Now that guy tells me to be inventive? No sir, screw you.
U should chill
Lalush's whole post revolves around the problem with countering different T strategies.
I wanna assure u, that from the terran perspective zerg also has many possible and hard to scout startegies. In 99% percent of the cases, zerglings give u full control of the map, and the Ts scouting is reduced to scans. Scans are easily counterable by spreading buildings.
The problem of techswitching (or whatever u wanna call what lalush stated) is there with every race. And even more so with zerg. Because they have one production facility. So, for example, I could scan a baneling nest, roach warren and spire. So you could either produce 100 mutalisks, or 100 banelings.Do i make marines?;d And the tech buildings cost u less then terran production buildings. In addition, u are not constrained by the number of production facilities u have, because u have 1 for all units.
Therefore I think lalush is wrong in stating that zerg relies on scouting and luck more than other races.
Anyway, this is just theory, and I don't really wanna argue, cause you're taking it too seriously.
Morrow is a beast. End of story :D
We can only spread buildings at T2 when we get overlord creep. Unless of course you include creep tumours, which you can't.
Because using tumors to spread creep to far corners of ur base just to hide tech is retarded, and takes too long anyway.
You, on the other hand, can build wherever you like. Like when you build that proxy reaper rax. Or that bunker in our natural. Or you know, how you can wall-off.
Nevermind the fact that a single reaper is godly at scouting, as well as hellions.
On September 14 2010 01:20 cuppatea wrote: Tournament wins by race:
- 51 - 22 - 4
Tournament winners by race:
- 22 - 12 - 2
just look at this honestly.
ignoring all preconceptions of imbalance. if someone completely ignorant of sc2 at all. and just saw these as results. it is OBVOIUS THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG.
if you didnt know what T P Z was. and all you were told is that they are the types of winners for something. you would come to the conclusions that T must be the best to choose if you wanna win.
simple. not needing pages of justification. just simple facts. 2 winners out of 36. TWO!!!!!!!!! that is like 5-10% WITH ONLY THREE OPTIONS!
you all can spend ages argueing what they mean. or just show the results to a child. their honest innocence allows them to explain what they see, HOW THEY SEE IT. and infact i showed my lil sis these results. you want to know what she said.
"T must be really really good must be the best, is this the olimpics?"
PS lalush. post your posts in this thread on blizz forums. blizz has to act, sc2 will die as an E-sport if the next time we poll all the tournie results and there is still this kinda of difference in the races.
I actually really like this post and agree with it. Removing all our knowledge of the game entirely, just looking at this entirely at face value, with those kinds of discrepancies its impossible to argue that SOMETHING is amiss. It's just TOO much of a discrepancy.
On September 14 2010 11:39 Sfydjklm wrote: You must be mentally challenged.
Now that guy tells me to be inventive? No sir, screw you.
U should chill
Lalush's whole post revolves around the problem with countering different T strategies.
I wanna assure u, that from the terran perspective zerg also has many possible and hard to scout startegies. In 99% percent of the cases, zerglings give u full control of the map, and the Ts scouting is reduced to scans. Scans are easily counterable by spreading buildings.
The problem of techswitching (or whatever u wanna call what lalush stated) is there with every race. And even more so with zerg. Because they have one production facility. So, for example, I could scan a baneling nest, roach warren and spire. So you could either produce 100 mutalisks, or 100 banelings.Do i make marines?;d And the tech buildings cost u less then terran production buildings. In addition, u are not constrained by the number of production facilities u have, because u have 1 for all units.
Therefore I think lalush is wrong in stating that zerg relies on scouting and luck more than other races.
Anyway, this is just theory, and I don't really wanna argue, cause you're taking it too seriously.
Morrow is a beast. End of story :D
We can only spread buildings at T2 when we get overlord creep. Unless of course you include creep tumours, which you can't.
Because using tumors to spread creep to far corners of ur base just to hide tech is retarded, and takes too long anyway.
You, on the other hand, can build wherever you like. Like when you build that proxy reaper rax. Or that bunker in our natural. Or you know, how you can wall-off.
To everyone saying that T is hard to scout - I completely agree.
On September 14 2010 11:39 Sfydjklm wrote: You must be mentally challenged.
Now that guy tells me to be inventive? No sir, screw you.
U should chill
Lalush's whole post revolves around the problem with countering different T strategies.
I wanna assure u, that from the terran perspective zerg also has many possible and hard to scout startegies. In 99% percent of the cases, zerglings give u full control of the map, and the Ts scouting is reduced to scans. Scans are easily counterable by spreading buildings.
The problem of techswitching (or whatever u wanna call what lalush stated) is there with every race. And even more so with zerg. Because they have one production facility. So, for example, I could scan a baneling nest, roach warren and spire. So you could either produce 100 mutalisks, or 100 banelings.Do i make marines?;d And the tech buildings cost u less then terran production buildings. In addition, u are not constrained by the number of production facilities u have, because u have 1 for all units.
Therefore I think lalush is wrong in stating that zerg relies on scouting and luck more than other races.
Anyway, this is just theory, and I don't really wanna argue, cause you're taking it too seriously.
Morrow is a beast. End of story :D
We can only spread buildings at T2 when we get overlord creep. Unless of course you include creep tumours, which you can't.
Because using tumors to spread creep to far corners of ur base just to hide tech is retarded, and takes too long anyway.
You, on the other hand, can build wherever you like. Like when you build that proxy reaper rax. Or that bunker in our natural. Or you know, how you can wall-off.
To everyone saying that T is hard to scout - I completely agree.
Now that guy tells me to be inventive? No sir, screw you.
U should chill
Lalush's whole post revolves around the problem with countering different T strategies.
I wanna assure u, that from the terran perspective zerg also has many possible and hard to scout startegies. In 99% percent of the cases, zerglings give u full control of the map, and the Ts scouting is reduced to scans. Scans are easily counterable by spreading buildings.
The problem of techswitching (or whatever u wanna call what lalush stated) is there with every race. And even more so with zerg. Because they have one production facility. So, for example, I could scan a baneling nest, roach warren and spire. So you could either produce 100 mutalisks, or 100 banelings.Do i make marines?;d And the tech buildings cost u less then terran production buildings. In addition, u are not constrained by the number of production facilities u have, because u have 1 for all units.
Therefore I think lalush is wrong in stating that zerg relies on scouting and luck more than other races.
Anyway, this is just theory, and I don't really wanna argue, cause you're taking it too seriously.
Morrow is a beast. End of story :D
No i shouldnt chill this forum is plagued by gold level idiots who argue about balance without getting banned. You are so wrong with every single point you make i cant argue with you. It's like arguing about complex equations with a toddler who just learned how to count to ten. it's painful to say the least.
On September 14 2010 11:39 Sfydjklm wrote: You must be mentally challenged.
Now that guy tells me to be inventive? No sir, screw you.
U should chill
Lalush's whole post revolves around the problem with countering different T strategies.
I wanna assure u, that from the terran perspective zerg also has many possible and hard to scout startegies. In 99% percent of the cases, zerglings give u full control of the map, and the Ts scouting is reduced to scans. Scans are easily counterable by spreading buildings.
The problem of techswitching (or whatever u wanna call what lalush stated) is there with every race. And even more so with zerg. Because they have one production facility. So, for example, I could scan a baneling nest, roach warren and spire. So you could either produce 100 mutalisks, or 100 banelings.Do i make marines?;d And the tech buildings cost u less then terran production buildings. In addition, u are not constrained by the number of production facilities u have, because u have 1 for all units.
Therefore I think lalush is wrong in stating that zerg relies on scouting and luck more than other races.
Anyway, this is just theory, and I don't really wanna argue, cause you're taking it too seriously.
Morrow is a beast. End of story :D
We can only spread buildings at T2 when we get overlord creep. Unless of course you include creep tumours, which you can't.
Because using tumors to spread creep to far corners of ur base just to hide tech is retarded, and takes too long anyway.
You, on the other hand, can build wherever you like. Like when you build that proxy reaper rax. Or that bunker in our natural. Or you know, how you can wall-off.
To everyone saying that T is hard to scout - I completely agree.
I'm just saying zerg is equally hard to scout.
What do you base this on? When terran can wall and snipe overlords with their most basic unit, jump in reapers, scan, or float in a building for a definite scout.
On September 14 2010 11:39 Sfydjklm wrote: You must be mentally challenged.
Now that guy tells me to be inventive? No sir, screw you.
U should chill
Lalush's whole post revolves around the problem with countering different T strategies.
I wanna assure u, that from the terran perspective zerg also has many possible and hard to scout startegies. In 99% percent of the cases, zerglings give u full control of the map, and the Ts scouting is reduced to scans. Scans are easily counterable by spreading buildings.
The problem of techswitching (or whatever u wanna call what lalush stated) is there with every race. And even more so with zerg. Because they have one production facility. So, for example, I could scan a baneling nest, roach warren and spire. So you could either produce 100 mutalisks, or 100 banelings.Do i make marines?;d And the tech buildings cost u less then terran production buildings. In addition, u are not constrained by the number of production facilities u have, because u have 1 for all units.
Therefore I think lalush is wrong in stating that zerg relies on scouting and luck more than other races.
Anyway, this is just theory, and I don't really wanna argue, cause you're taking it too seriously.
Morrow is a beast. End of story :D
Don't terran use reapers/hellions/banshee/meds to scout ?
What kind of 'hard to scout strategies' are you talking about ?
Add in the factory or 150 mineral rax (which is just as fast and much, much stronger than an overlord) that they can use to scout if they somuch as feel like using it.
On September 14 2010 11:39 Sfydjklm wrote: You must be mentally challenged.
Now that guy tells me to be inventive? No sir, screw you.
U should chill
Lalush's whole post revolves around the problem with countering different T strategies.
I wanna assure u, that from the terran perspective zerg also has many possible and hard to scout startegies. In 99% percent of the cases, zerglings give u full control of the map, and the Ts scouting is reduced to scans. Scans are easily counterable by spreading buildings.
The problem of techswitching (or whatever u wanna call what lalush stated) is there with every race. And even more so with zerg. Because they have one production facility. So, for example, I could scan a baneling nest, roach warren and spire. So you could either produce 100 mutalisks, or 100 banelings.Do i make marines?;d And the tech buildings cost u less then terran production buildings. In addition, u are not constrained by the number of production facilities u have, because u have 1 for all units.
Therefore I think lalush is wrong in stating that zerg relies on scouting and luck more than other races.
Anyway, this is just theory, and I don't really wanna argue, cause you're taking it too seriously.
Morrow is a beast. End of story :D
We can only spread buildings at T2 when we get overlord creep. Unless of course you include creep tumours, which you can't.
Because using tumors to spread creep to far corners of ur base just to hide tech is retarded, and takes too long anyway.
You, on the other hand, can build wherever you like. Like when you build that proxy reaper rax. Or that bunker in our natural. Or you know, how you can wall-off.
To everyone saying that T is hard to scout - I completely agree.
I'm just saying zerg is equally hard to scout.
There is only ONE building that you "need" to scout. That is the lair/hive which cannot be hidden.
You scan and see only a hatch = all-in, better wall-in well and bunker up for the incoming roach bust/baneling bust. You scan and see lair = build a few turrets in mineral line for incoming muta harass + maybe make a thor or two. Even if he didn't make any mutas, thors are still great units and turrets are not very expensive. You scan and see hive morphing or already done = push out and kill him now
Besides that, just keep a tab on his army composition with the reapers/hellions/banshees/drops and keep on building your money mix while taking expos. Of course any decent Terran already knows this, and I'm really just wasting my time here replying to this retarded post.
On September 14 2010 12:02 CScythe wrote: Guys relax, the game isn't imbalanced. Zerg just need to learn2play. Also, buff Marauders.
People who legitimately think this need to close their mouths and open their eyes, the more people who refuse to accept there are imbalances the longer its going to take to eliminate them. I understand you were joking (or at least God I hope so) as you actually said BUFF Marauders which is totally laff. In any case the longer people keep dropping the 'L2P nub' excuse in regards to Terran (mostly), or whatever race was imbalanced at the given time of said balance discussion the longer it will take to achieve proper balance. Stop holding the game back people, please.
Exactly: if they'd use the Nydus Worm properly, there would be ONLY Zerg's winning Tournaments! AND Korean Zergs use Nydus Worm, that's why Zerg wins EVERYTHING in Korea!
On September 14 2010 01:23 Melt wrote: Wow, thats really nice, great work.
The List really shows that they are far away from a balanced game.
Someone should make sure Blizzard sees this.
Hope this was sarcastic, if you really think that the stat shows anything at all on the balance I dont know what to say.
(im not debating if there is a balance problem or not here, but that stats without knowing the amount of players of each race doesnt prove nothing at all)
We do know the amount of players of each race. And it's not balanced that there are two zergs in this list.
On September 14 2010 01:23 Melt wrote: Wow, thats really nice, great work.
The List really shows that they are far away from a balanced game.
Someone should make sure Blizzard sees this.
Hope this was sarcastic, if you really think that the stat shows anything at all on the balance I dont know what to say.
(im not debating if there is a balance problem or not here, but that stats without knowing the amount of players of each race doesnt prove nothing at all)
We do know the amount of players of each race. And it's not balanced that there are two zergs in this list.
Well I'd say its safe to assume many of the T players in that list would not be T provided it wasn't the strongest the of the three races.
Now that guy tells me to be inventive? No sir, screw you.
U should chill
Lalush's whole post revolves around the problem with countering different T strategies.
I wanna assure u, that from the terran perspective zerg also has many possible and hard to scout startegies. In 99% percent of the cases, zerglings give u full control of the map, and the Ts scouting is reduced to scans. Scans are easily counterable by spreading buildings.
The problem of techswitching (or whatever u wanna call what lalush stated) is there with every race. And even more so with zerg. Because they have one production facility. So, for example, I could scan a baneling nest, roach warren and spire. So you could either produce 100 mutalisks, or 100 banelings.Do i make marines?;d And the tech buildings cost u less then terran production buildings. In addition, u are not constrained by the number of production facilities u have, because u have 1 for all units.
Therefore I think lalush is wrong in stating that zerg relies on scouting and luck more than other races.
Anyway, this is just theory, and I don't really wanna argue, cause you're taking it too seriously.
Morrow is a beast. End of story :D
If you scout a barrack with a tech lab (you won't be able to scout much more until T2) you don't know if the T is producing marines, marauders or reapers. And you don't know if the T is producing hellions, tanks or thors. And you don't know if he is producing medivacs, vikings, banshees or ravens. Since you won't be able to scout more than the wall-off barrack until T2 if the T player just places marines to spot overlords. A scan can see exactly which tech buildings there are even in T1 (where you won't tech to roaches AND banelings because then you are dead). But think about this:
A barrack (proxy barrack for floating and scouting) has 5x the HP of an ovie and moves twice as fast. It costs 150 minerals instead of an overlord's 100 minerals. Is that balanced scouting? (I'm talking about T1)
I'm waiting for the devs to get so sick of these thread arguments that they sticky a thread that is called "Terran OP thread," which will be the only place in all of TL where complaining about terran (even tho the complaints are justified it gets old) is allowed without getting warned/banned.
I'm not really following the SC2 scene yet, so I have no idea how this actually reflects the balance of the game, but damn; T is dominating really hard.
On September 14 2010 01:23 Melt wrote: Wow, thats really nice, great work.
The List really shows that they are far away from a balanced game.
Someone should make sure Blizzard sees this.
Hope this was sarcastic, if you really think that the stat shows anything at all on the balance I dont know what to say.
(im not debating if there is a balance problem or not here, but that stats without knowing the amount of players of each race doesnt prove nothing at all)
We do know the amount of players of each race. And it's not balanced that there are two zergs in this list.
Well I'd say its safe to assume many of the T players in that list would not be T provided it wasn't the strongest the of the three races.
Or rather, they just wouldn't be on the list in the first place
On September 14 2010 12:25 TitleRug wrote: Why bother with these statistics when a patch is coming out this month? This won't matter a few days from now.
Because the patch won't really change anything for zerg in the MU they struggle most. (imo)
The reaper build-time okay, but it was never really about the speed that reapers came into play, if I was doing this for ZvT I would have lengthened the time for the reaper speed, since that does matter to zerg.
The siege tank nerf? the moment tanks have +1 they will still/always oneshot blings/lings like they used to do. It only makes a difference for hydra's, but there are other reasons why this unit doesn't get used a lot (blueflame hellions/thors/creep/movement speed).
And then a slight nerf to ultra dmg.
I don't see in what way it is really gonna improve this mu, except for maybe very early tank/marine pushes becoming less common or delayed (to get +1).
I mean, I can get that the changes are bigger for ZvP, depending on how 2 gate timings will work out and the zealot change buildtime, but I just dont' see how this patch will actually change things in ZvT.
On September 14 2010 12:25 TitleRug wrote: Why bother with these statistics when a patch is coming out this month? This won't matter a few days from now.
Because the patch won't really change anything for zerg in the MU they struggle most. (imo)
The reaper build-time okay, but it was never really about the speed that reapers came into play, if I was doing this for ZvT I would have lengthened the time for the reaper speed, since that does matter to zerg.
The siege tank nerf? the moment tanks have +1 they will still/always oneshot blings/lings like they used to do. It only makes a difference for hydra's, but there are other reasons why this unit doesn't get used a lot (blueflame hellions/thors/creep/movement speed).
And then a slight nerf to ultra dmg.
I don't see in what way it is really gonna improve this mu, except for maybe very early tank/marine pushes becoming less common or delayed (to get +1).
I mean, I can get that the changes are bigger for ZvP, depending on how 2 gate timings will work out and the zealot change buildtime, but I just dont' see how this patch will actually change things in ZvT.
What I'm saying is we won't know if zerg will stay UP until the patch happens and we get new statistics. Who knows.. nerfing siege tanks might actualy swing the favors.
edit: to avoid double posting I agree with this as well
On September 14 2010 12:35 Sfydjklm wrote: i can only hope the patch is delayed because they are implementing more changed that they originally disclosed. Otherwise it will be protoss time for me i think. I cant wait another 6 months for a proper zerg buff/terran nerf.
and this
On September 14 2010 12:39 Bull-Demon wrote: They gave a list of the changes but it isn't necessarily everything they were planning to change. In fact I'm quite positive they said there are other changes in store (probably very minor however) that could help zerg out.
I think it lies in the zerg early game. Terran gets away with a lot of shit since you can't punish with ling/roaches through their wall. Not without going allin anyways.
i can only hope the patch is delayed because they are implementing more changed that they originally disclosed. Otherwise it will be protoss time for me i think. I cant wait another 6 months for a proper zerg buff/terran nerf.
They gave a list of the changes but it isn't necessarily everything they were planning to change. In fact I'm quite positive they said there are other changes in store (probably very minor however) that could help zerg out.
I think it lies in the zerg early game. Terran gets away with a lot of shit since you can't punish with ling/roaches through their wall. Not without going allin anyways.
The quotes lalush brought up from the early stage of the beta are really unmasking for the "so good" terran players. The euro terrans are not better then the zergs thats for sure, but they win tourneys because of their race and dont want to lose that advantage.
They only have to struggle in TvT and even there its far from a skilled game, otherwise demuslim couldnt win more in his one month sc2 career then in his entire wc3 pro career, where he was a mediocre player which never won a single tournament as far as i know, that shows how random and replacable the most terrans tournament winners are.
On September 14 2010 08:15 Raiznhell wrote: this clearly shows that MorroW is OP not terran
ah thank you, im happy i could find at least 1 comment like this on 14 pages its annoying me so much that everyone talk so much about imbalance
we have no zerg players in general. who used to win as zerg when zerg was OP? like dimaga, who else ? haypro and zpux? i cant even name any other zergs that were on top of their game... we simply have few zergs participating in each tour and i think thats a bigger factor than the actual imbalance
i almost wanna switch to zerg just to show it is possible, its not a coincidence dimaga is by far best zerg atm, he simply has alot more skills than the other zergs. i pity these lower level players that blame their losses on imbalance when dimaga still manages to win. we have 30 terrans who can fight nicely on the top in tvt but who can compete in zvz? the skill gap is huge there and so few players...
It seems odd that you keep mentioning Dimaga when he was so adamant about Terran being better.
I do not just play Starcraft 2 for fun, it is my JOB. The image and the popularity of the team depend on my results, and so I must do whatever is necessary to make my team the best. Unfortunately, in the present balance situation regarding Zerg, I cannot achieve good results for my team. Blizzard's inaction only further fuels the fire.
Because of these reasons, unless there is at least an announcement of the new patch after GOM TV Global Starcraft II League and IEM Global Challenge Gamescom, I am going to switch from my precious Zerg to the more successful Terran.
He had a change of heart after he had a good performance in the IEM, but even monster Zergs like him know that something is wrong.
Imbalance issues aside, there absolutely needs to be more incentive to play Zerg. I love watching SC2, probably even more than I like playing it, and seeing results like this just makes me sad :[ watching 15 TvT's in a tournament is not fun, or entertaining. This is so so bad for the e-sports scene. If heavy Terran tournaments keep happening then fewer and fewer people are going to be watching, which means less sponsors.
Make the zerg race more fun to play, make them more competitive with the other races if that's what it takes, but with the recent trend I fear for the appeal of SC2 to viewers. Check this thread out http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=150965. It's a rather small sample size due to not many people voting, but Zerg seems to be the most fun to watch, and Terran the least favorite.
On September 14 2010 11:23 Gomas wrote: I have to agree with Morrow. Name me some zergs which are on same level as Dimaga or Idra IN ZVZ (!). None? Great.
Now remember all these TvTs u watched in go4scs and ZOTACs? Yeah the ones u all complain about. Tarson winning with Cloud. Morrow losing to Demuslim. Strelok winning with SjoW. I could go on. There is at least 30 names which can easily compete with eachother, when it comes to T.
All that shows, is that there is more good T players atm.
Tbh, i have not yet seen a single zerg apart from Idra (not even dimaga), with macro so perfect like morrows. There is tons of queing going on. Mineral floats etc, all the time. While the Ts (especially morrow) have perfect thought-out builds with 0 quening going on, perfect expansion and depot timings etc.
I have yet to see a zerg buildorder as refined as morrows 5 rax reaper or his TvP 2rax FE. For me, this is the main reason the zerg lose, not imbalance.
Your post reeks of Bronze level logic.
Your first sentence effectively discredit all notable names such as Sen, Sheth, LaLush, Day9 (not sure if he still plays Z), JooktuJong, all the OgS Zerg players, and a few more I can't remember (oh and MadFrog). Alot of these guys had backgrounds in Sc:BW or were well-regarded in other RTS. Now, let's be honest, who's heard of Silver before he/she caused Idra to rage in the IEM? Looking at the list, there are heaps of T names I don't recognize (who the hell is MuRdeR?) Fits perfectly the point of having Random no-name T players taking down known Z/P players.
I am very interested in who these 30 T names that can compete with each other are. The fact you referenced 30 known T names is a problem in itself. Not disrespecting Morrow, but please show me a replay where Morrow makes ZERO macro mistakes. It's not possible.
There is also a rumour (I have not seen source) that Morrow was taught the 5rax reapers by Dimaga, a Z player, within 1hr.
The fact that Zerg has no build-order 'as refined as morrows" is a source of imbalance itself. The fact is, Zerg CAN"T have a perfectly refined BO past when to get hatch/pool. It is noobie Bronze non-Zerg players like you that gets me on edge, coming in here bashing down on Idra or any Top Zerg player for not having a refined build. What the fuck do you think he does with his time in korea? Play WoW?
TLDR: this is a rage post against a bronze noobie who dares say that Zerg players don't try hard enough to 'refine their Build Orders".
EDIT: http://www.sc2ranks.com/eu/291211/Gomas is that you Gomas? My apologies, you're actually silver. not bad. now get to diamond b4 you attempt to bash on Idra and co.
On September 14 2010 03:56 Backpack wrote: So tournament win statistics after 1.5 months is how we are going to determine balance?
*sigh*
so are you claiming that tournament win statistics is not a valid method of determining balance
or
are you claiming that 1.5 months is not long enough to determine balance?
Cause really, either claim is pretty ludicrous. Is there some other better way to see which players are top? Is there some magical time limit we have to wait before balance is magically unveiled to us?
On September 14 2010 11:23 Gomas wrote: I have yet to see a zerg buildorder as refined as morrows 5 rax reaper or his TvP 2rax FE. For me, this is the main reason the zerg lose, not imbalance.
dont you think that there is something wrong with starcraft 2 when building one unit is enough to beat world-class-players like idra? could you explain "refining" 5 rax reaper?
On September 14 2010 08:15 Raiznhell wrote: this clearly shows that MorroW is OP not terran
ah thank you, im happy i could find at least 1 comment like this on 14 pages its annoying me so much that everyone talk so much about imbalance
we have no zerg players in general. who used to win as zerg when zerg was OP? like dimaga, who else ? haypro and zpux? i cant even name any other zergs that were on top of their game... we simply have few zergs participating in each tour and i think thats a bigger factor than the actual imbalance
i almost wanna switch to zerg just to show it is possible, its not a coincidence dimaga is by far best zerg atm, he simply has alot more skills than the other zergs. i pity these lower level players that blame their losses on imbalance when dimaga still manages to win. we have 30 terrans who can fight nicely on the top in tvt but who can compete in zvz? the skill gap is huge there and so few players...
I know srsly these zergs are clearly inferior to us terrans. I went on bnet today and got rank 1 with 180-0 cuz im so skilled. It seems as if zerg attracts those of lesser abilities because no1 plays it and they are terrible. Since these whiners are such an nuisance ill teach zerg how to play. 1. pick zerg 2. constantly send overlords into terrans base im talking about 3 at a time every minute, because its cheaper than scan right? 3. nydus in the back of his base AND in the natural AT THE SAME TIME ( yes zerg was designed by M night Shyamalan ) 4. win. + Show Spoiler +
I am so glad you cleared everything up for us. Because you decide not care about imbalance and just play the game. Except ofcourse when the game was in beta, but that game was zergcraft anyways amirite?
Ah i love my profile quote it pretty much sums up everything
On September 14 2010 11:23 Gomas wrote: I have to agree with Morrow. Name me some zergs which are on same level as Dimaga or Idra IN ZVZ (!). None? Great.
Now remember all these TvTs u watched in go4scs and ZOTACs? Yeah the ones u all complain about. Tarson winning with Cloud. Morrow losing to Demuslim. Strelok winning with SjoW. I could go on. There is at least 30 names which can easily compete with eachother, when it comes to T.
All that shows, is that there is more good T players atm.
Tbh, i have not yet seen a single zerg apart from Idra (not even dimaga), with macro so perfect like morrows. There is tons of queing going on. Mineral floats etc, all the time. While the Ts (especially morrow) have perfect thought-out builds with 0 quening going on, perfect expansion and depot timings etc.
I have yet to see a zerg buildorder as refined as morrows 5 rax reaper or his TvP 2rax FE. For me, this is the main reason the zerg lose, not imbalance.
Your post reeks of Bronze level logic.
Your first sentence effectively discredit all notable names such as Sen, Sheth, LaLush, Day9 (not sure if he still plays Z), JooktuJong, all the OgS Zerg players, and a few more I can't remember (oh and MadFrog). Alot of these guys had backgrounds in Sc:BW or were well-regarded in other RTS. Now, let's be honest, who's heard of Silver before he/she caused Idra to rage in the IEM? Looking at the list, there are heaps of T names I don't recognize (who the hell is MuRdeR?) Fits perfectly the point of having Random no-name T players taking down known Z/P players.
I am very interested in who these 30 T names that can compete with each other are. The fact you referenced 30 known T names is a problem in itself. Not disrespecting Morrow, but please show me a replay where Morrow makes ZERO macro mistakes. It's not possible.
There is also a rumour (I have not seen source) that Morrow was taught the 5rax reapers by Dimaga, a Z player, within 1hr.
The fact that Zerg has no build-order 'as refined as morrows" is a source of imbalance itself. The fact is, Zerg CAN"T have a perfectly refined BO past when to get hatch/pool. It is noobie Bronze non-Zerg players like you that gets me on edge, coming in here bashing down on Idra or any Top Zerg player for not having a refined build. What the fuck do you think he does with his time in korea? Play WoW?
TLDR: this is a rage post against a bronze noobie who dares say that Zerg players don't try hard enough to 'refine their Build Orders".
EDIT: http://www.sc2ranks.com/eu/291211/Gomas is that you Gomas? My apologies, you're actually silver. not bad. now get to diamond b4 you attempt to bash on Idra and co.
MurDeR is a quite beastly Terran player who used to play War3 iirc. And I'm fairly certain that the story of Dimaga teaching MorroW the 5Rax Reaper build is MorroW himself as I think he mentioned it in an interview a few days after IEM.
On September 14 2010 10:22 MorroW wrote: i almost wanna switch to zerg just to show it is possible, its not a coincidence dimaga is by far best zerg atm, he simply has alot more skills than the other zergs. i pity these lower level players that blame their losses on imbalance when dimaga still manages to win. we have 30 terrans who can fight nicely on the top in tvt but who can compete in zvz? the skill gap is huge there and so few players...
DO IT. Make all the zerg tears stop. Or maybe you are too scared to cause you know you wont do as well as zerg....
On September 14 2010 11:23 Gomas wrote: I have to agree with Morrow. Name me some zergs which are on same level as Dimaga or Idra IN ZVZ (!). None? Great.
Now remember all these TvTs u watched in go4scs and ZOTACs? Yeah the ones u all complain about. Tarson winning with Cloud. Morrow losing to Demuslim. Strelok winning with SjoW. I could go on. There is at least 30 names which can easily compete with eachother, when it comes to T.
All that shows, is that there is more good T players atm.
Tbh, i have not yet seen a single zerg apart from Idra (not even dimaga), with macro so perfect like morrows. There is tons of queing going on. Mineral floats etc, all the time. While the Ts (especially morrow) have perfect thought-out builds with 0 quening going on, perfect expansion and depot timings etc.
I have yet to see a zerg buildorder as refined as morrows 5 rax reaper or his TvP 2rax FE. For me, this is the main reason the zerg lose, not imbalance.
Your post reeks of Bronze level logic.
Your first sentence effectively discredit all notable names such as Sen, Sheth, LaLush, Day9 (not sure if he still plays Z), JooktuJong, all the OgS Zerg players, and a few more I can't remember (oh and MadFrog). Alot of these guys had backgrounds in Sc:BW or were well-regarded in other RTS. Now, let's be honest, who's heard of Silver before he/she caused Idra to rage in the IEM? Looking at the list, there are heaps of T names I don't recognize (who the hell is MuRdeR?) Fits perfectly the point of having Random no-name T players taking down known Z/P players.
I am very interested in who these 30 T names that can compete with each other are. The fact you referenced 30 known T names is a problem in itself. Not disrespecting Morrow, but please show me a replay where Morrow makes ZERO macro mistakes. It's not possible.
There is also a rumour (I have not seen source) that Morrow was taught the 5rax reapers by Dimaga, a Z player, within 1hr.
The fact that Zerg has no build-order 'as refined as morrows" is a source of imbalance itself. The fact is, Zerg CAN"T have a perfectly refined BO past when to get hatch/pool. It is noobie Bronze non-Zerg players like you that gets me on edge, coming in here bashing down on Idra or any Top Zerg player for not having a refined build. What the fuck do you think he does with his time in korea? Play WoW?
TLDR: this is a rage post against a bronze noobie who dares say that Zerg players don't try hard enough to 'refine their Build Orders".
EDIT: http://www.sc2ranks.com/eu/291211/Gomas is that you Gomas? My apologies, you're actually silver. not bad. now get to diamond b4 you attempt to bash on Idra and co.
MurDeR is a quite beastly Terran player who used to play War3 iirc. And I'm fairly certain that the story of Dimaga teaching MorroW the 5Rax Reaper build is MorroW himself as I think he mentioned it in an interview a few days after IEM.
Ahh ic, ty, just that I've never seen any VoDs of him on Youtube. I'm not even sure which tournament he won. Only war3 players I know are Grubby, Madfrog, Moon and Sky.
On April 11 2010 20:20 MorroW wrote: well the sad part is that exactly that @Art_of_Kill forces terran to be the offender against zerg and toss while they always just have to defend. because once u strike 200 psi and both have many expoes, zerg can remkae 50 roaches in 30 seconnds and toss can warpin units in 5 second while terran must build their units
in sc1 terran 200 psi was stronger than toss 200 psi but toss rebuilt faster, so after a battle toss had to rebuild and then wipe out terran
but in sc2 terran 200 psi is weaker and they rebuild alot slower in comparison to production facilities costs
thats why i hope they do something about this because in theory zerg and toss never has to attack the terran because they know they have an easy ride later game. so they can put larva max to half and that wouldnt change alot except for later game where u actually stop make units as z
its very shallow match up if u know lategame terran always lose. maybe u can balance it and say ok terran have to attack and that is balanced, sure but its not so interesting if we always see terran be the attacker. all races should be able to camp, timing attack and be somewhat equal in the late game, but its not like that at all with sc2
On April 14 2010 23:06 MorroW wrote: i agree with every single thing OP said
and sorry i dont have any advise for u, i dont know a safe way to fe anymore. in patch5 and before i could rax fe then 6-7 i could marauder fe and now i cant fe. i cant do anything and ive tried everything just like u
its not really just the early game, later game i feel like toss can simply get far better economy because his units r very cost effective
and lategame is just ridiculous, if u reach that toss always wins
the only way terran has been able to win this entire beta stage is through early game, as we r getting worse bio and stronger mech we are now in a position where we lose against everything rather than everything being viable.
demuslim is one of the best terrans in the world and if he comes here and says this, its not just that he has been winning because he been spoiled wins by imba. terran has been worst race and we r getting changes but demuslim were one of few terrans who fought the odds of the mus. if u dont understand the level of play i suggest u to just agree with what he says and if u disagree i suggest u to be silent and accept ur the one whos missing something, not demuslim
On April 14 2010 17:19 3D.Strelok wrote: In TvP now it's like that: if you perfectly know what protoss does ( maphack is on) you stay on 50% chances to win. It turns onto who is better. And if you miss what protoss does you have almost no chances to win. I really want to think it's not imbalance but thing that terran didn't find counters yet.
u cant really know what toss is doing early game, if u spend 50 on a scan to see what his doing (assuming he built every single tech building near the nexus including with gateways) sure u know what he do, but u cant stop it because u just lost ur mule. if u dont scan u end up in a scenario where either u get a game rolling ur toss rolls over u because he countered ur build and u had no idea whats coming. simply think its ignorant to say its a 50% chance to win in a mu and this is if u know what toss is doing, a good toss wont let u know that and remember toss ALWAYS knows what ur doing. they r the ones with maphack not us so ur scenario is very unrealistic
On April 14 2010 23:15 Gretorp wrote: in my experience, tvp has now become very very very boring. you go 4 rax to keep up with the protoss and stay on one base the entire game. tech appropriately such that you don't die to protoss tech since mass immortals and mass collossus are dealt with in 2 different gas/mineral routes(ghost and vikings). don't expand till you're about to run out of minerals, lift CC and expo when minerals start to run out. at end yo uwill still be on either 4 or 5 rax, a factory not producing anything, and a starport, interchanging its add on with the rax. if you go to expo anywhere during this phase, you lose positioning which you desperately need, and you are behind in units.
I've tried going mech pretty aggressively for the past week, and it is very hard to control gas when going mech. then i ran into a warp prism + 2 immortal and lol'ed at my defending tanks. and by lol'ed i mean QQed
if u r 1base vs 1base he can make dts and force u to turn back, force u to build turrets and force u to waste at least 1 scan. u cant afford this on 1base and u cant get a raven either, u also cant really contain a toss with a turret and u cant assume hes going dt and get turrets every game. on top of that you also cant scout it. and as ur paying for all this shit just to survive he can expand and hes in a great shape. 1base vs 1base toss is stronger, its the truth
On April 15 2010 02:01 DeMusliM wrote: I can tell we just had a huge influx of protoss players join this thread and fail to see the point.
A terran HAS to make a heavy tier 1-1.5 army just to survive the gateway push - with bunkers the whole lot, pumping every resource he has into this. Meanwhile the protoss can easily expo and out resource the terran - this is the problem - that the terran cannot survive early without getting some kinda force together, while the protoss can can tech even, while pumping out 4 warpgates and immortals while the terrans later tech units make little difference - (Immortals counter all ground terran has, and HT's counter anything that counters the immortal - see the problem late game?).
And i'm not even talking about late game, the problem for terrans right now is surviving the early game without being too far behind mid-late. People who fail to see this are enjoying the easy life of 4 warpgate rushing terrans and winning with relative ease. I spoke with several top protoss players on Europe who all agreed that the MU right now is very heavily favoured towards the protoss - and the only way they lose is if they make a big mistake micro/macro wise or don't scout (pretty hard not to scout with a obs!).
On April 15 2010 01:44 deo.deo wrote: haha, cant wait until the koreans really bite into the game. all those little whine threads will be shaken up completely.
as it is now im pretty sure sc2 wont last in korea, why? koreans love hard games and sc2 doesnt qualify for that afaik :x
On April 15 2010 01:54 Prozen wrote: Have you guys tried going 4 Rax no gas/addons FE? You build only marines and you FE while you build about 3 bunkers to defend your nat. It's been very successful for me lately, haven't lost with it yet. (Top 10 Plat Protosses). The problem with the build though is that you HAVE to make sure the Protoss is going Immortals, otherwise he can just go Collosi and rape your army rofl. It doesn't work too well on maps with two chokepoints sadly, but it worked well fro me on maps like Steppes of War.
this is basically how i was playing before patch 6 was out, it even raped colosus then the sad part atm is that it doesnt work now, sentry -2 dmg along with immortal and zea meatshield fucking hard rape this build or they can make fast colosus which also rape it. they can even go mass zea sentry and rape it too :/
On April 17 2010 09:26 MorroW wrote: the goal is just to create a build that survives and puts up a good fight against anything toss does. just like siege expo in sc1.
if u stop a massgateway u will be ahead and win the game, its a simple thought
the proper way how a rts game should be is that a counter to a safe expo is to expo urself to catch up rather than having a bunch of "C&C db style rock paper scissor" hard counters
im not sure if my build or any tvp build for that matter can defend all cheese yet by "scout and respond rule" but i know its the best so far, since everything else has been failing terribly lately. just watch my reps vs nightend where i desperately tried to play my old 1rax fe xd
so if it now happens to be that u can counter cheese with this build, it doesnt mean pvt is impossible. it just means ur not gonna win easily by going same 1robo3warpgate every game. hopefully this is the first step to counter fe with fe rather than counter fe with rush. if both fe i guess it will turn out to be anyones game. but if terran cant fe then terran cant win because stuff like dts or sentry with force field are just so strong 1base vs 1base that they can let u expand while terran is locked in (5sentry 2immortal and 3 zealot is never ever gonna let u down the ramp). thats why its so important that we need a fe build thats safe against all cheese
im not gonna release any reps and its best if i dont talk about this any more for now because im still not sure how good it is really. but i can imagine it being really strong and ive never lost with it where i executed it correctly yet (im low rating tho). but ill keep u guys posted of my build works or not (as in straight up play, not luck based. not as in win or lose... "without meta game abuse" as nony would say :>)
LOL. Only reason I couldn't find more zerg whine is because morrow's post history mysteriously stops in around mid april. All the zerg whining took place in March and early April. Then roach armor and supply got nerfed along with 2x nerf of hydras and a bunch of other things.
I only had to check 3 threads to find whine similar to zergs' whine though.
I distinctly remember morrow doing lots of crying instead of just "playing the game", as is usually morrow's advice to zerg players nowadays.
Protoss 1base vs Terran 1base is imbalanced =) You can't go raven ^^ "Need ways to FE safely". hahaha. Guess what, zerg needs ways to FE safely too!
On September 14 2010 08:15 Raiznhell wrote: this clearly shows that MorroW is OP not terran
ah thank you, im happy i could find at least 1 comment like this on 14 pages its annoying me so much that everyone talk so much about imbalance
we have no zerg players in general. who used to win as zerg when zerg was OP? like dimaga, who else ? haypro and zpux? i cant even name any other zergs that were on top of their game... we simply have few zergs participating in each tour and i think thats a bigger factor than the actual imbalance
i almost wanna switch to zerg just to show it is possible, its not a coincidence dimaga is by far best zerg atm, he simply has alot more skills than the other zergs. i pity these lower level players that blame their losses on imbalance when dimaga still manages to win. we have 30 terrans who can fight nicely on the top in tvt but who can compete in zvz? the skill gap is huge there and so few players...
you completely missed the point. no one claimed that those wins are only because of the imbalance, but the fact that one skilled zerg can still lose to a random mid level terran is what makes terran getting so many tourney wins.
you are underestimating all zerg players. lol
do you really think that there are only Terran players playing like 6 hours a day?
On September 14 2010 11:39 Sfydjklm wrote: You must be mentally challenged.
Now that guy tells me to be inventive? No sir, screw you.
U should chill
Lalush's whole post revolves around the problem with countering different T strategies.
I wanna assure u, that from the terran perspective zerg also has many possible and hard to scout startegies. In 99% percent of the cases, zerglings give u full control of the map, and the Ts scouting is reduced to scans. Scans are easily counterable by spreading buildings.
The problem of techswitching (or whatever u wanna call what lalush stated) is there with every race. And even more so with zerg. Because they have one production facility. So, for example, I could scan a baneling nest, roach warren and spire. So you could either produce 100 mutalisks, or 100 banelings.Do i make marines?;d And the tech buildings cost u less then terran production buildings. In addition, u are not constrained by the number of production facilities u have, because u have 1 for all units.
Therefore I think lalush is wrong in stating that zerg relies on scouting and luck more than other races.
Anyway, this is just theory, and I don't really wanna argue, cause you're taking it too seriously.
Morrow is a beast. End of story :D
We can only spread buildings at T2 when we get overlord creep. Unless of course you include creep tumours, which you can't.
Because using tumors to spread creep to far corners of ur base just to hide tech is retarded, and takes too long anyway.
You, on the other hand, can build wherever you like. Like when you build that proxy reaper rax. Or that bunker in our natural. Or you know, how you can wall-off.
To everyone saying that T is hard to scout - I completely agree.
I'm just saying zerg is equally hard to scout.
Think about what you're posting. Are you a troll or a fool? I can't tell anymore.
The Stats are really showing that something is wrong and Blizzard tries to adjust it this month. The Problem (or is it a good thing) is that blizzard really takes his time to release patches and fixes "wierd" stuff and not the obvious things. We will have to see what comes out of this.
On September 14 2010 11:23 Gomas wrote: I have to agree with Morrow. Name me some zergs which are on same level as Dimaga or Idra IN ZVZ (!). None? Great.
Now remember all these TvTs u watched in go4scs and ZOTACs? Yeah the ones u all complain about. Tarson winning with Cloud. Morrow losing to Demuslim. Strelok winning with SjoW. I could go on. There is at least 30 names which can easily compete with eachother, when it comes to T.
All that shows, is that there is more good T players atm.
Tbh, i have not yet seen a single zerg apart from Idra (not even dimaga), with macro so perfect like morrows. There is tons of queing going on. Mineral floats etc, all the time. While the Ts (especially morrow) have perfect thought-out builds with 0 quening going on, perfect expansion and depot timings etc.
I have yet to see a zerg buildorder as refined as morrows 5 rax reaper or his TvP 2rax FE. For me, this is the main reason the zerg lose, not imbalance.
Your post reeks of Bronze level logic.
Your first sentence effectively discredit all notable names such as Sen, Sheth, LaLush, Day9 (not sure if he still plays Z), JooktuJong, all the OgS Zerg players, and a few more I can't remember (oh and MadFrog). Alot of these guys had backgrounds in Sc:BW or were well-regarded in other RTS. Now, let's be honest, who's heard of Silver before he/she caused Idra to rage in the IEM? Looking at the list, there are heaps of T names I don't recognize (who the hell is MuRdeR?) Fits perfectly the point of having Random no-name T players taking down known Z/P players.
I am very interested in who these 30 T names that can compete with each other are. The fact you referenced 30 known T names is a problem in itself. Not disrespecting Morrow, but please show me a replay where Morrow makes ZERO macro mistakes. It's not possible.
There is also a rumour (I have not seen source) that Morrow was taught the 5rax reapers by Dimaga, a Z player, within 1hr.
The fact that Zerg has no build-order 'as refined as morrows" is a source of imbalance itself. The fact is, Zerg CAN"T have a perfectly refined BO past when to get hatch/pool. It is noobie Bronze non-Zerg players like you that gets me on edge, coming in here bashing down on Idra or any Top Zerg player for not having a refined build. What the fuck do you think he does with his time in korea? Play WoW?
TLDR: this is a rage post against a bronze noobie who dares say that Zerg players don't try hard enough to 'refine their Build Orders".
EDIT: http://www.sc2ranks.com/eu/291211/Gomas is that you Gomas? My apologies, you're actually silver. not bad. now get to diamond b4 you attempt to bash on Idra and co.
MurDeR is a quite beastly Terran player who used to play War3 iirc. And I'm fairly certain that the story of Dimaga teaching MorroW the 5Rax Reaper build is MorroW himself as I think he mentioned it in an interview a few days after IEM.
Ahh ic, ty, just that I've never seen any VoDs of him on Youtube. I'm not even sure which tournament he won. Only war3 players I know are Grubby, Madfrog, Moon and Sky.
Tournaments he's won are the first 2 undeniably gamer tournaments (75$ for first place in both I believe). He won a US craftcup, qualified in his group for the IEM. He's won a couple other 50$ tournaments but they were small ones not huge or anything. He won the third (might be 2nd) Fisher tournament. He's actually won quiet a few tournaments just alot of them aren't like huge or anything he never was able to register for the global gamers one for example sadly due to the beta being down for signups and his computer decided to break as I think he would have qualified easy.
But yeah he was a semi pro in wc3 before the game like died from what I know. He has been a solid terran player sense phase 1 of the beta. He streams and used to be pretty popular before he stopped streaming for awhile .
Wait a minute man. Are there seriously people who still argue that the situation is fine when you have 51 terran tournament wins opposed to 4 zerg tournament wins. No, you cannot possibly convince anyone (and I don't even know how can you convince yourself) that the situation is fine and there are just not many skilled zerg players. Also its funny to see that the only people thinking its fine are terran players.
I m not reading this thread's comments as i know it only contains rabid terran jerks's rage about how these stats have no significance and the game is balanced. Good job OP on collecting all this data, i was looking forwrd to sg like this
Guys, isnt it obvious that the ratio of skilled Terran players to skilled Zerg players is 51-4? Anyone who took the required elementary statistics class could tell you that.
On September 14 2010 05:01 Senx wrote: Community: Can you talk a little bit about the balance of SC2?
Blizzard:Sure, so we feel the balance between races is good right now, every race is close to 50% win ratio on the ladders.
Community: But don't you see that the imbalance amongst tournaments and top players, isn't that what you should be balancing for anyway? Blizzard: We really like to look at statistics when we balance the game, so according to our metrics, its looking good.
Community: Could you answer the question directly instead? Blizzard: + Show Spoiler +
Do you have a source for this? This didn't really happen did it? Of course every player has 50%... even if all zergs were in bronze league and the other leagues were made of exclusively P and T all players would still have 50%... Match making mandates it... so how is that relevant?
EDIT: I realize now it was a sarcastic fictitious post. Apologies.
I'm not sure if anyone's going to read this, but these are the reasons these data may not mean a ton, and why large disparities in racial win rates are probably the rule rather than the exception when looked at over short periods of time:
Only a small number of players have a high probability of winning a tournament (and they have race loyalty) -- what this means is that even if races are evenly distributed among top players (more on that below), they aren't likely to be evenly distributed among winning players. It's statistically much more likely that one race will dominate the top dozen or so players than that the races will be evenly distributed among those players. That means wins will appear race-biased even if everything is balanced.
There is also evidence that players are intentionally steering clear of zerg. I think this is the big problem Blizzard has to face. Of course, the fact that there aren't many zerg players means that there aren't going to be a lot of zerg wins.
My point here is just that there are strong reasons to think that these data aren't very trustworthy, and that maybe people should stop talking about them. I don't think it would be possible to demonstrate mathematically that the distribution of wins is different from what you would expect given the problems I discuss above. Even if the stats were done, interpretation would be difficult.
As far as the underrepresentation of zerg, there are a few non-mutually exclusive possible causes I can think of:
1) Zerg is weak (we already know that if this is a problem, it's only an early-mid game problem. Zerg lategame is very powerful.
2) Zerg play is underdeveloped, making zerg appear weak, when really we just need to learn how to use them and what builds are safe. I have much respect for the current SC2 progamers, but the level of play is NOT the same as the level of play in BW e.g. -- we still have a lot to learn about build orders and there are still underused units
3) People feel like zerg is weak, when it's not
4) The bias is due to factors unrelated to the strength or apparent strength of zerg (i.e. due to random sampling of a small sample size).
Note that 2) and 3) are going to feedback into themselves, increasing the bias. Honestly, I think a little bit of all of this stuff is probably going on, but the real people who know are Blizzard, and they are already doing something about it. Until then my opinion is just that people should play the game and enjoy it, and pros should do whatever it takes to win, including switching races if it comes to it (and some players do seem to feel it's necessary).
On September 14 2010 15:54 Jimmy Raynor wrote: Wait a minute man. Are there seriously people who still argue that the situation is fine when you have 51 terran tournament wins opposed to 4 zerg tournament wins. No, you cannot possibly convince anyone (and I don't even know how can you convince yourself) that the situation is fine and there are just not many skilled zerg players. Also its funny to see that the only people thinking its fine are terran players.
Yeah man. Like i said only the good players choose terran. And now they have extended their ego into saying 'i should play zerg and win everything, to stop the whining' - Morrow but we know no1 will do that ofcourse lol.
I respect IdrA and testers opinions because they have been right. Around patch like 9 tester said terran would be unbeatable. Every weak it seems a zerg or protoss falls through the cracks and an amateur terran takes their spot. I am really not sure what Blizzard has been doing this whole time. They are making like 3 small changes and possibly addign chat channels... How many people do they have working for them. There are some obvious changes that should have been made already but still no action. No1 ever uses carriers for half a year... and STILL no buff or change or anything. I don't see why they cant buff it until it finds a role in the game, then if its imba nerf it.. but atleast people will use it. Anyways i digest Terrans OP
On September 14 2010 08:15 Raiznhell wrote: this clearly shows that MorroW is OP not terran
ah thank you, im happy i could find at least 1 comment like this on 14 pages its annoying me so much that everyone talk so much about imbalance
we have no zerg players in general. who used to win as zerg when zerg was OP? like dimaga, who else ? haypro and zpux? i cant even name any other zergs that were on top of their game... we simply have few zergs participating in each tour and i think thats a bigger factor than the actual imbalance
i almost wanna switch to zerg just to show it is possible, its not a coincidence dimaga is by far best zerg atm, he simply has alot more skills than the other zergs. i pity these lower level players that blame their losses on imbalance when dimaga still manages to win. we have 30 terrans who can fight nicely on the top in tvt but who can compete in zvz? the skill gap is huge there and so few players...
what a dumb post, do you even comprehend the state of zvz, how can you compare it to tvt is beyond me. not to mention that im getting really tired of people abusing dimaga's name so much, when he himself considers the matchup broken, he is just not so vocal about it, cause he'd be instantly labeled a whiner by muppets like you. I'd happily see you switch to zerg and get pummeled, just so you understand the problem, before you try to address it. Gogo, amuse me, switch to Z.
On September 14 2010 08:15 Raiznhell wrote: this clearly shows that MorroW is OP not terran
ah thank you, im happy i could find at least 1 comment like this on 14 pages its annoying me so much that everyone talk so much about imbalance
we have no zerg players in general. who used to win as zerg when zerg was OP? like dimaga, who else ? haypro and zpux? i cant even name any other zergs that were on top of their game... we simply have few zergs participating in each tour and i think thats a bigger factor than the actual imbalance
i almost wanna switch to zerg just to show it is possible, its not a coincidence dimaga is by far best zerg atm, he simply has alot more skills than the other zergs. i pity these lower level players that blame their losses on imbalance when dimaga still manages to win. we have 30 terrans who can fight nicely on the top in tvt but who can compete in zvz? the skill gap is huge there and so few players...
youd be gold league if you played zerg not just as a switch, if youd been playing zerg since the beginning youd still be gold right now if you honestly think that you and 90% of the other terrans who are currently doing well deserve to win tournaments you're a joke.
On September 14 2010 16:34 GagnarTheUnruly wrote: I'm not sure if anyone's going to read this, but these are the reasons these data may not mean a ton, and why large disparities in racial win rates are probably the rule rather than the exception when looked at over short periods of time:
Only a small number of players have a high probability of winning a tournament (and they have race loyalty) -- what this means is that even if races are evenly distributed among top players (more on that below), they aren't likely to be evenly distributed among winning players. It's statistically much more likely that one race will dominate the top dozen or so players than that the races will be evenly distributed among those players. That means wins will appear race-biased even if everything is balanced.
There is also evidence that players are intentionally steering clear of zerg. I think this is the big problem Blizzard has to face. Of course, the fact that there aren't many zerg players means that there aren't going to be a lot of zerg wins.
My point here is just that there are strong reasons to think that these data aren't very trustworthy, and that maybe people should stop talking about them. I don't think it would be possible to demonstrate mathematically that the distribution of wins is different from what you would expect given the problems I discuss above. Even if the stats were done, interpretation would be difficult.
As far as the underrepresentation of zerg, there are a few non-mutually exclusive possible causes I can think of:
1) Zerg is weak (we already know that if this is a problem, it's only an early-mid game problem. Zerg lategame is very powerful.
2) Zerg play is underdeveloped, making zerg appear weak, when really we just need to learn how to use them and what builds are safe. I have much respect for the current SC2 progamers, but the level of play is NOT the same as the level of play in BW e.g. -- we still have a lot to learn about build orders and there are still underused units
3) People feel like zerg is weak, when it's not
4) The bias is due to factors unrelated to the strength or apparent strength of zerg (i.e. due to random sampling of a small sample size).
Note that 2) and 3) are going to feedback into themselves, increasing the bias. Honestly, I think a little bit of all of this stuff is probably going on, but the real people who know are Blizzard, and they are already doing something about it. Until then my opinion is just that people should play the game and enjoy it, and pros should do whatever it takes to win, including switching races if it comes to it (and some players do seem to feel it's necessary).
This is a brilliant post, but I think most of the intellectuals reading the thread understand and acknowledge all of those things. However, Occam's Razor sort of leads one to believe that the most PROBABLE is reason 1. But admittedly, this is not proof.
The only real issue at hand is that zerg isn't winning. This is fact. "Why" is a much more difficult question to answer.
I would argue that the "why" doesn't matter as much as this question: "does blizzard really care a great deal about tournament finishes?"
On September 14 2010 08:15 Raiznhell wrote: this clearly shows that MorroW is OP not terran
ah thank you, im happy i could find at least 1 comment like this on 14 pages its annoying me so much that everyone talk so much about imbalance
we have no zerg players in general. who used to win as zerg when zerg was OP? like dimaga, who else ? haypro and zpux? i cant even name any other zergs that were on top of their game... we simply have few zergs participating in each tour and i think thats a bigger factor than the actual imbalance
i almost wanna switch to zerg just to show it is possible, its not a coincidence dimaga is by far best zerg atm, he simply has alot more skills than the other zergs. i pity these lower level players that blame their losses on imbalance when dimaga still manages to win. we have 30 terrans who can fight nicely on the top in tvt but who can compete in zvz? the skill gap is huge there and so few players...
youd be gold league if you played zerg not just as a switch, if youd been playing zerg since the beginning youd still be gold right now if you honestly think that you and 90% of the other terrans who are currently doing well deserve to win tournaments you're a joke.
Give it to him idrA!
For the Swarm!
I think I have a mancrush on you IdrA! And I'm talking about the dirty kind of mancrush...
On September 14 2010 08:15 Raiznhell wrote: this clearly shows that MorroW is OP not terran
ah thank you, im happy i could find at least 1 comment like this on 14 pages its annoying me so much that everyone talk so much about imbalance
we have no zerg players in general. who used to win as zerg when zerg was OP? like dimaga, who else ? haypro and zpux? i cant even name any other zergs that were on top of their game... we simply have few zergs participating in each tour and i think thats a bigger factor than the actual imbalance
i almost wanna switch to zerg just to show it is possible, its not a coincidence dimaga is by far best zerg atm, he simply has alot more skills than the other zergs. i pity these lower level players that blame their losses on imbalance when dimaga still manages to win. we have 30 terrans who can fight nicely on the top in tvt but who can compete in zvz? the skill gap is huge there and so few players...
youd be gold league if you played zerg not just as a switch, if youd been playing zerg since the beginning youd still be gold right now if you honestly think that you and 90% of the other terrans who are currently doing well deserve to win tournaments you're a joke.
I thought this was incredibly pretentious till I saw who wrote it. RIVALRY STARTING??!
On September 14 2010 08:15 Raiznhell wrote: this clearly shows that MorroW is OP not terran
ah thank you, im happy i could find at least 1 comment like this on 14 pages its annoying me so much that everyone talk so much about imbalance
we have no zerg players in general. who used to win as zerg when zerg was OP? like dimaga, who else ? haypro and zpux? i cant even name any other zergs that were on top of their game... we simply have few zergs participating in each tour and i think thats a bigger factor than the actual imbalance
i almost wanna switch to zerg just to show it is possible, its not a coincidence dimaga is by far best zerg atm, he simply has alot more skills than the other zergs. i pity these lower level players that blame their losses on imbalance when dimaga still manages to win. we have 30 terrans who can fight nicely on the top in tvt but who can compete in zvz? the skill gap is huge there and so few players...
youd be gold league if you played zerg not just as a switch, if youd been playing zerg since the beginning youd still be gold right now if you honestly think that you and 90% of the other terrans who are currently doing well deserve to win tournaments you're a joke.
I thought this was incredibly pretentious till I saw who wrote it. RIVALRY STARTINGCONTINUING??!
entertaining read but hardly anything new for a zerg player with 2 exceptions. Lalush seems to understand the problems with the current mechanics as his post aren't of the "nerf marauders to 30hp" cathegory. The other thing that really suprised me was Morrow hypocrisy, well easy money are easy money...
On September 14 2010 08:15 Raiznhell wrote: this clearly shows that MorroW is OP not terran
ah thank you, im happy i could find at least 1 comment like this on 14 pages its annoying me so much that everyone talk so much about imbalance
we have no zerg players in general. who used to win as zerg when zerg was OP? like dimaga, who else ? haypro and zpux? i cant even name any other zergs that were on top of their game... we simply have few zergs participating in each tour and i think thats a bigger factor than the actual imbalance
i almost wanna switch to zerg just to show it is possible, its not a coincidence dimaga is by far best zerg atm, he simply has alot more skills than the other zergs. i pity these lower level players that blame their losses on imbalance when dimaga still manages to win. we have 30 terrans who can fight nicely on the top in tvt but who can compete in zvz? the skill gap is huge there and so few players...
youd be gold league if you played zerg not just as a switch, if youd been playing zerg since the beginning youd still be gold right now if you honestly think that you and 90% of the other terrans who are currently doing well deserve to win tournaments you're a joke.
So I switch from terran to zerg. In 1.5 weeks Im as good zerg as I was terran, judging by the "world rank" graph on sc2 ranks (1100 points diamond). Anecdotal evidence is good amirite? Tbh I think most good terrans could do equally as well as zerg, obviously the argument will never be settled so all there is left to do is flame like you are a mid 20 basement nerd.
On September 14 2010 08:15 Raiznhell wrote: this clearly shows that MorroW is OP not terran
ah thank you, im happy i could find at least 1 comment like this on 14 pages its annoying me so much that everyone talk so much about imbalance
we have no zerg players in general. who used to win as zerg when zerg was OP? like dimaga, who else ? haypro and zpux? i cant even name any other zergs that were on top of their game... we simply have few zergs participating in each tour and i think thats a bigger factor than the actual imbalance
i almost wanna switch to zerg just to show it is possible, its not a coincidence dimaga is by far best zerg atm, he simply has alot more skills than the other zergs. i pity these lower level players that blame their losses on imbalance when dimaga still manages to win. we have 30 terrans who can fight nicely on the top in tvt but who can compete in zvz? the skill gap is huge there and so few players...
youd be gold league if you played zerg not just as a switch, if youd been playing zerg since the beginning youd still be gold right now if you honestly think that you and 90% of the other terrans who are currently doing well deserve to win tournaments you're a joke.
On September 14 2010 16:34 GagnarTheUnruly wrote: I'm not sure if anyone's going to read this, but these are the reasons these data may not mean a ton, and why large disparities in racial win rates are probably the rule rather than the exception when looked at over short periods of time:
Only a small number of players have a high probability of winning a tournament (and they have race loyalty) -- what this means is that even if races are evenly distributed among top players (more on that below), they aren't likely to be evenly distributed among winning players. It's statistically much more likely that one race will dominate the top dozen or so players than that the races will be evenly distributed among those players. That means wins will appear race-biased even if everything is balanced.
There is also evidence that players are intentionally steering clear of zerg. I think this is the big problem Blizzard has to face. Of course, the fact that there aren't many zerg players means that there aren't going to be a lot of zerg wins.
My point here is just that there are strong reasons to think that these data aren't very trustworthy, and that maybe people should stop talking about them. I don't think it would be possible to demonstrate mathematically that the distribution of wins is different from what you would expect given the problems I discuss above. Even if the stats were done, interpretation would be difficult.
As far as the underrepresentation of zerg, there are a few non-mutually exclusive possible causes I can think of:
1) Zerg is weak (we already know that if this is a problem, it's only an early-mid game problem. Zerg lategame is very powerful.
2) Zerg play is underdeveloped, making zerg appear weak, when really we just need to learn how to use them and what builds are safe. I have much respect for the current SC2 progamers, but the level of play is NOT the same as the level of play in BW e.g. -- we still have a lot to learn about build orders and there are still underused units
3) People feel like zerg is weak, when it's not
4) The bias is due to factors unrelated to the strength or apparent strength of zerg (i.e. due to random sampling of a small sample size).
Note that 2) and 3) are going to feedback into themselves, increasing the bias. Honestly, I think a little bit of all of this stuff is probably going on, but the real people who know are Blizzard, and they are already doing something about it. Until then my opinion is just that people should play the game and enjoy it, and pros should do whatever it takes to win, including switching races if it comes to it (and some players do seem to feel it's necessary).
This is a brilliant post, but I think most of the intellectuals reading the thread understand and acknowledge all of those things. However, Occam's Razor sort of leads one to believe that the most PROBABLE is reason 1. But admittedly, this is not proof.
The only real issue at hand is that zerg isn't winning. This is fact. "Why" is a much more difficult question to answer.
I would argue that the "why" doesn't matter as much as this question: "does blizzard really care a great deal about tournament finishes?"
yeah, all of what he said is completely true, however, that is only so if we look at pure data. anybody who plays zerg and anybody who doesn't play zerg and watches tvz games where the terran actually uses his brain doesn't need to have a phd to see that zerg is completely broken.
and anybody who has any clue about zerg whatsoever would stop saying things like :" it's possible that zerg play is underdeveloped". no it's not. unlike the other races we don't have that many possible openings, and everything that's possible has been tried out already. zerg early game play (early game is the zerg's problem) is about as developed as it will be one year from now (disregarding any balance patches which may switch things up, of course), I'd bet all of my worldly belongings on it in a heartbeat.
against protoss too btw. way too weak early game, way too strong late game.
and then concerning his speech about probability: yeah, it's pretty likely that a race is dominating, however, not to an extent that out of a large amount of people, only one or two zerg can keep up with the competition. also protoss is pretty underrepresented compared to terran. what we see in the OP is way out of range of normal variance, especially since it's been going on for a long time now (a few months is not a short timespan, not with that many people playing sc2 competitively).
I'm sorry dude, but there's just no point in bringing up these pseudo-reasonable points anymore. Zerg is fucked, that's as much of a fact as it can get. And only the most ignorant of people (or copper players) can even begin to say that it might be otherwise.
btw: sorry for saying "we" constantly. In my heart I'm still zerg despite having switched to protoss a while ago.
On April 11 2010 20:20 MorroW wrote: well the sad part is that exactly that @Art_of_Kill forces terran to be the offender against zerg and toss while they always just have to defend. because once u strike 200 psi and both have many expoes, zerg can remkae 50 roaches in 30 seconnds and toss can warpin units in 5 second while terran must build their units
in sc1 terran 200 psi was stronger than toss 200 psi but toss rebuilt faster, so after a battle toss had to rebuild and then wipe out terran
but in sc2 terran 200 psi is weaker and they rebuild alot slower in comparison to production facilities costs
thats why i hope they do something about this because in theory zerg and toss never has to attack the terran because they know they have an easy ride later game. so they can put larva max to half and that wouldnt change alot except for later game where u actually stop make units as z
its very shallow match up if u know lategame terran always lose. maybe u can balance it and say ok terran have to attack and that is balanced, sure but its not so interesting if we always see terran be the attacker. all races should be able to camp, timing attack and be somewhat equal in the late game, but its not like that at all with sc2
On April 14 2010 23:06 MorroW wrote: i agree with every single thing OP said
and sorry i dont have any advise for u, i dont know a safe way to fe anymore. in patch5 and before i could rax fe then 6-7 i could marauder fe and now i cant fe. i cant do anything and ive tried everything just like u
its not really just the early game, later game i feel like toss can simply get far better economy because his units r very cost effective
and lategame is just ridiculous, if u reach that toss always wins
the only way terran has been able to win this entire beta stage is through early game, as we r getting worse bio and stronger mech we are now in a position where we lose against everything rather than everything being viable.
demuslim is one of the best terrans in the world and if he comes here and says this, its not just that he has been winning because he been spoiled wins by imba. terran has been worst race and we r getting changes but demuslim were one of few terrans who fought the odds of the mus. if u dont understand the level of play i suggest u to just agree with what he says and if u disagree i suggest u to be silent and accept ur the one whos missing something, not demuslim
On April 14 2010 17:19 3D.Strelok wrote: In TvP now it's like that: if you perfectly know what protoss does ( maphack is on) you stay on 50% chances to win. It turns onto who is better. And if you miss what protoss does you have almost no chances to win. I really want to think it's not imbalance but thing that terran didn't find counters yet.
u cant really know what toss is doing early game, if u spend 50 on a scan to see what his doing (assuming he built every single tech building near the nexus including with gateways) sure u know what he do, but u cant stop it because u just lost ur mule. if u dont scan u end up in a scenario where either u get a game rolling ur toss rolls over u because he countered ur build and u had no idea whats coming. simply think its ignorant to say its a 50% chance to win in a mu and this is if u know what toss is doing, a good toss wont let u know that and remember toss ALWAYS knows what ur doing. they r the ones with maphack not us so ur scenario is very unrealistic
On April 14 2010 23:15 Gretorp wrote: in my experience, tvp has now become very very very boring. you go 4 rax to keep up with the protoss and stay on one base the entire game. tech appropriately such that you don't die to protoss tech since mass immortals and mass collossus are dealt with in 2 different gas/mineral routes(ghost and vikings). don't expand till you're about to run out of minerals, lift CC and expo when minerals start to run out. at end yo uwill still be on either 4 or 5 rax, a factory not producing anything, and a starport, interchanging its add on with the rax. if you go to expo anywhere during this phase, you lose positioning which you desperately need, and you are behind in units.
I've tried going mech pretty aggressively for the past week, and it is very hard to control gas when going mech. then i ran into a warp prism + 2 immortal and lol'ed at my defending tanks. and by lol'ed i mean QQed
if u r 1base vs 1base he can make dts and force u to turn back, force u to build turrets and force u to waste at least 1 scan. u cant afford this on 1base and u cant get a raven either, u also cant really contain a toss with a turret and u cant assume hes going dt and get turrets every game. on top of that you also cant scout it. and as ur paying for all this shit just to survive he can expand and hes in a great shape. 1base vs 1base toss is stronger, its the truth
On April 15 2010 02:01 DeMusliM wrote: I can tell we just had a huge influx of protoss players join this thread and fail to see the point.
A terran HAS to make a heavy tier 1-1.5 army just to survive the gateway push - with bunkers the whole lot, pumping every resource he has into this. Meanwhile the protoss can easily expo and out resource the terran - this is the problem - that the terran cannot survive early without getting some kinda force together, while the protoss can can tech even, while pumping out 4 warpgates and immortals while the terrans later tech units make little difference - (Immortals counter all ground terran has, and HT's counter anything that counters the immortal - see the problem late game?).
And i'm not even talking about late game, the problem for terrans right now is surviving the early game without being too far behind mid-late. People who fail to see this are enjoying the easy life of 4 warpgate rushing terrans and winning with relative ease. I spoke with several top protoss players on Europe who all agreed that the MU right now is very heavily favoured towards the protoss - and the only way they lose is if they make a big mistake micro/macro wise or don't scout (pretty hard not to scout with a obs!).
On April 15 2010 01:44 deo.deo wrote: haha, cant wait until the koreans really bite into the game. all those little whine threads will be shaken up completely.
as it is now im pretty sure sc2 wont last in korea, why? koreans love hard games and sc2 doesnt qualify for that afaik :x
On April 15 2010 01:54 Prozen wrote: Have you guys tried going 4 Rax no gas/addons FE? You build only marines and you FE while you build about 3 bunkers to defend your nat. It's been very successful for me lately, haven't lost with it yet. (Top 10 Plat Protosses). The problem with the build though is that you HAVE to make sure the Protoss is going Immortals, otherwise he can just go Collosi and rape your army rofl. It doesn't work too well on maps with two chokepoints sadly, but it worked well fro me on maps like Steppes of War.
this is basically how i was playing before patch 6 was out, it even raped colosus then the sad part atm is that it doesnt work now, sentry -2 dmg along with immortal and zea meatshield fucking hard rape this build or they can make fast colosus which also rape it. they can even go mass zea sentry and rape it too :/
On April 17 2010 09:26 MorroW wrote: the goal is just to create a build that survives and puts up a good fight against anything toss does. just like siege expo in sc1.
if u stop a massgateway u will be ahead and win the game, its a simple thought
the proper way how a rts game should be is that a counter to a safe expo is to expo urself to catch up rather than having a bunch of "C&C db style rock paper scissor" hard counters
im not sure if my build or any tvp build for that matter can defend all cheese yet by "scout and respond rule" but i know its the best so far, since everything else has been failing terribly lately. just watch my reps vs nightend where i desperately tried to play my old 1rax fe xd
so if it now happens to be that u can counter cheese with this build, it doesnt mean pvt is impossible. it just means ur not gonna win easily by going same 1robo3warpgate every game. hopefully this is the first step to counter fe with fe rather than counter fe with rush. if both fe i guess it will turn out to be anyones game. but if terran cant fe then terran cant win because stuff like dts or sentry with force field are just so strong 1base vs 1base that they can let u expand while terran is locked in (5sentry 2immortal and 3 zealot is never ever gonna let u down the ramp). thats why its so important that we need a fe build thats safe against all cheese
im not gonna release any reps and its best if i dont talk about this any more for now because im still not sure how good it is really. but i can imagine it being really strong and ive never lost with it where i executed it correctly yet (im low rating tho). but ill keep u guys posted of my build works or not (as in straight up play, not luck based. not as in win or lose... "without meta game abuse" as nony would say :>)
LOL. Only reason I couldn't find more zerg whine is because morrow's post history mysteriously stops in around mid april. All the zerg whining took place in March and early April. Then roach armor and supply got nerfed along with 2x nerf of hydras and a bunch of other things.
I only had to check 3 threads to find whine similar to zergs' whine though.
I distinctly remember morrow doing lots of crying instead of just "playing the game", as is usually morrow's advice to zerg players nowadays.
Protoss 1base vs Terran 1base is imbalanced =) You can't go raven ^^ "Need ways to FE safely". hahaha. Guess what, zerg needs ways to FE safely too!
i played more than fucking anyone in the 1st phase in europe afaik your full of bullshit
and as soon as terran got op i said terran was op and as soon as toss was op (which they were like 1 week at some point of time in beta) i said they were op. uve been saying zerg is bad since day 1 and u been saying pvt is imba in broodwar back when i raped you
good job at digging up old posts, detective medal right there
Haypro inactive for 1-2 months afaik. when he did play he did great Zpux just like haypro, went inactive, didnt see zpux play for months in a tour orly hes been active like in phase 1 of beta, then inactive and coming back and forth moman i dont know how much he plays. i guess i can give u this one. he deserved more wins madrow not playing 6 hours a day thats for sure darkforce ill give u this one aswell, he fights hard to improve madfrog madfrog jumped in like what? in start of release? he fights hard now and deserve more wins but still he has not as much games or activity like i asked for daboo who? sorry i dont know everyone so aby same with this guy horror ive seen horror play terran and toss in sc2, u sure hes zerg user? Mondragon (when he plays) "when he plays" my question was which zerg users are as active as the top terrans which play hours every day, i think u misunderstood what i was talking about lalush have no idea how much u play, didnt see u in a bracket as of late and never saw u in ladder
On September 14 2010 11:45 SichuanPanda wrote: Win by race Terran - 51. Need i say more.....
Edit: MorroW will go the way he did in every other game he's played, a big name at the start, and then a year or two later after a meta-game shift and balance patches he'll disappear. I will give him one thing though he's great at finding glaring imbalances in games and exploiting them. A certain company would be wise to have him as an in-house balance tester.
why the hell would u think id dissapear? last time i checked exploiting the game and using my race to the fullest is the best thing u can fucking do, so thank you man. its not about impressing ppl with cutsey builds, if 5rax reaper works then thats what im gonna do id been highest up in the tvt level of play in foreigner scene and innovating most new styles. good job at talking bullshit lol. i wont be gone after the game is balanced thats for sure, the reason i played t in sc1 is because there is no harder thing than that. i play for the challenge not win some tournaments i want the game to get balanced and ive been telling everyone that i want the new balance patch to come so ppl can stop complain so damn much about everything do u think its fun to win with 5rax reaper over and over? new patch please tt
On April 11 2010 20:20 MorroW wrote: well the sad part is that exactly that @Art_of_Kill forces terran to be the offender against zerg and toss while they always just have to defend. because once u strike 200 psi and both have many expoes, zerg can remkae 50 roaches in 30 seconnds and toss can warpin units in 5 second while terran must build their units
in sc1 terran 200 psi was stronger than toss 200 psi but toss rebuilt faster, so after a battle toss had to rebuild and then wipe out terran
but in sc2 terran 200 psi is weaker and they rebuild alot slower in comparison to production facilities costs
thats why i hope they do something about this because in theory zerg and toss never has to attack the terran because they know they have an easy ride later game. so they can put larva max to half and that wouldnt change alot except for later game where u actually stop make units as z
its very shallow match up if u know lategame terran always lose. maybe u can balance it and say ok terran have to attack and that is balanced, sure but its not so interesting if we always see terran be the attacker. all races should be able to camp, timing attack and be somewhat equal in the late game, but its not like that at all with sc2
On April 14 2010 23:06 MorroW wrote: i agree with every single thing OP said
and sorry i dont have any advise for u, i dont know a safe way to fe anymore. in patch5 and before i could rax fe then 6-7 i could marauder fe and now i cant fe. i cant do anything and ive tried everything just like u
its not really just the early game, later game i feel like toss can simply get far better economy because his units r very cost effective
and lategame is just ridiculous, if u reach that toss always wins
the only way terran has been able to win this entire beta stage is through early game, as we r getting worse bio and stronger mech we are now in a position where we lose against everything rather than everything being viable.
demuslim is one of the best terrans in the world and if he comes here and says this, its not just that he has been winning because he been spoiled wins by imba. terran has been worst race and we r getting changes but demuslim were one of few terrans who fought the odds of the mus. if u dont understand the level of play i suggest u to just agree with what he says and if u disagree i suggest u to be silent and accept ur the one whos missing something, not demuslim
On April 14 2010 17:19 3D.Strelok wrote: In TvP now it's like that: if you perfectly know what protoss does ( maphack is on) you stay on 50% chances to win. It turns onto who is better. And if you miss what protoss does you have almost no chances to win. I really want to think it's not imbalance but thing that terran didn't find counters yet.
u cant really know what toss is doing early game, if u spend 50 on a scan to see what his doing (assuming he built every single tech building near the nexus including with gateways) sure u know what he do, but u cant stop it because u just lost ur mule. if u dont scan u end up in a scenario where either u get a game rolling ur toss rolls over u because he countered ur build and u had no idea whats coming. simply think its ignorant to say its a 50% chance to win in a mu and this is if u know what toss is doing, a good toss wont let u know that and remember toss ALWAYS knows what ur doing. they r the ones with maphack not us so ur scenario is very unrealistic
On April 14 2010 23:21 MorroW wrote:
On April 14 2010 23:15 Gretorp wrote: in my experience, tvp has now become very very very boring. you go 4 rax to keep up with the protoss and stay on one base the entire game. tech appropriately such that you don't die to protoss tech since mass immortals and mass collossus are dealt with in 2 different gas/mineral routes(ghost and vikings). don't expand till you're about to run out of minerals, lift CC and expo when minerals start to run out. at end yo uwill still be on either 4 or 5 rax, a factory not producing anything, and a starport, interchanging its add on with the rax. if you go to expo anywhere during this phase, you lose positioning which you desperately need, and you are behind in units.
I've tried going mech pretty aggressively for the past week, and it is very hard to control gas when going mech. then i ran into a warp prism + 2 immortal and lol'ed at my defending tanks. and by lol'ed i mean QQed
if u r 1base vs 1base he can make dts and force u to turn back, force u to build turrets and force u to waste at least 1 scan. u cant afford this on 1base and u cant get a raven either, u also cant really contain a toss with a turret and u cant assume hes going dt and get turrets every game. on top of that you also cant scout it. and as ur paying for all this shit just to survive he can expand and hes in a great shape. 1base vs 1base toss is stronger, its the truth
On April 15 2010 02:01 DeMusliM wrote: I can tell we just had a huge influx of protoss players join this thread and fail to see the point.
A terran HAS to make a heavy tier 1-1.5 army just to survive the gateway push - with bunkers the whole lot, pumping every resource he has into this. Meanwhile the protoss can easily expo and out resource the terran - this is the problem - that the terran cannot survive early without getting some kinda force together, while the protoss can can tech even, while pumping out 4 warpgates and immortals while the terrans later tech units make little difference - (Immortals counter all ground terran has, and HT's counter anything that counters the immortal - see the problem late game?).
And i'm not even talking about late game, the problem for terrans right now is surviving the early game without being too far behind mid-late. People who fail to see this are enjoying the easy life of 4 warpgate rushing terrans and winning with relative ease. I spoke with several top protoss players on Europe who all agreed that the MU right now is very heavily favoured towards the protoss - and the only way they lose is if they make a big mistake micro/macro wise or don't scout (pretty hard not to scout with a obs!).
On April 15 2010 02:02 MorroW wrote:
On April 15 2010 01:44 deo.deo wrote: haha, cant wait until the koreans really bite into the game. all those little whine threads will be shaken up completely.
as it is now im pretty sure sc2 wont last in korea, why? koreans love hard games and sc2 doesnt qualify for that afaik :x
On April 15 2010 01:54 Prozen wrote: Have you guys tried going 4 Rax no gas/addons FE? You build only marines and you FE while you build about 3 bunkers to defend your nat. It's been very successful for me lately, haven't lost with it yet. (Top 10 Plat Protosses). The problem with the build though is that you HAVE to make sure the Protoss is going Immortals, otherwise he can just go Collosi and rape your army rofl. It doesn't work too well on maps with two chokepoints sadly, but it worked well fro me on maps like Steppes of War.
this is basically how i was playing before patch 6 was out, it even raped colosus then the sad part atm is that it doesnt work now, sentry -2 dmg along with immortal and zea meatshield fucking hard rape this build or they can make fast colosus which also rape it. they can even go mass zea sentry and rape it too :/
On April 17 2010 09:26 MorroW wrote: the goal is just to create a build that survives and puts up a good fight against anything toss does. just like siege expo in sc1.
if u stop a massgateway u will be ahead and win the game, its a simple thought
the proper way how a rts game should be is that a counter to a safe expo is to expo urself to catch up rather than having a bunch of "C&C db style rock paper scissor" hard counters
im not sure if my build or any tvp build for that matter can defend all cheese yet by "scout and respond rule" but i know its the best so far, since everything else has been failing terribly lately. just watch my reps vs nightend where i desperately tried to play my old 1rax fe xd
so if it now happens to be that u can counter cheese with this build, it doesnt mean pvt is impossible. it just means ur not gonna win easily by going same 1robo3warpgate every game. hopefully this is the first step to counter fe with fe rather than counter fe with rush. if both fe i guess it will turn out to be anyones game. but if terran cant fe then terran cant win because stuff like dts or sentry with force field are just so strong 1base vs 1base that they can let u expand while terran is locked in (5sentry 2immortal and 3 zealot is never ever gonna let u down the ramp). thats why its so important that we need a fe build thats safe against all cheese
im not gonna release any reps and its best if i dont talk about this any more for now because im still not sure how good it is really. but i can imagine it being really strong and ive never lost with it where i executed it correctly yet (im low rating tho). but ill keep u guys posted of my build works or not (as in straight up play, not luck based. not as in win or lose... "without meta game abuse" as nony would say :>)
LOL. Only reason I couldn't find more zerg whine is because morrow's post history mysteriously stops in around mid april. All the zerg whining took place in March and early April. Then roach armor and supply got nerfed along with 2x nerf of hydras and a bunch of other things.
I only had to check 3 threads to find whine similar to zergs' whine though.
I distinctly remember morrow doing lots of crying instead of just "playing the game", as is usually morrow's advice to zerg players nowadays.
Protoss 1base vs Terran 1base is imbalanced =) You can't go raven ^^ "Need ways to FE safely". hahaha. Guess what, zerg needs ways to FE safely too!
i played more than fucking anyone in the 1st phase in europe afaik your full of bullshit
and as soon as terran got op i said terran was op and as soon as toss was op (which they were like 1 week at some point of time in beta) i said they were op. uve been saying zerg is bad since day 1 and u been saying pvt is imba in broodwar back when i raped you
good job at digging up old posts, detective medal right there
gotta give points to morrow here. he's been one of the few terrans who actually realize what's going on and said it out loud, as opposed to the other terrans who are all like :"I don't know" or " I don't know except for a few maps where terran is overpowered".
Although the stats are pretty depressing, you can't argue against the fact that the skill level of the players playing the races do heavily favor what's going on here. If I asked someone to name 3 top zerg players, in the U.S/EU, it'd be pretty hard for them to do.
1- you can find gold level whine / gold level "learn to play" 2- you can find pro level whine / pro level "learn to play" 3- you can find nonames / pronames 4- you can find deep-quality game analysis offers suggestions / you can find comments on the analysis that are written without having the analysis read 5- you can find good players KO's good players for good 6- you can find hypocrisy at its finest.
and the list goes on. I love this thread.
PS: lalush, I love you. for the analysis of the situation instead of pure whine. and I think for the first time I've collected some terran tears in my life when you quoted posts from history
On September 14 2010 08:15 Raiznhell wrote: this clearly shows that MorroW is OP not terran
ah thank you, im happy i could find at least 1 comment like this on 14 pages its annoying me so much that everyone talk so much about imbalance
we have no zerg players in general. who used to win as zerg when zerg was OP? like dimaga, who else ? haypro and zpux? i cant even name any other zergs that were on top of their game... we simply have few zergs participating in each tour and i think thats a bigger factor than the actual imbalance
i almost wanna switch to zerg just to show it is possible, its not a coincidence dimaga is by far best zerg atm, he simply has alot more skills than the other zergs. i pity these lower level players that blame their losses on imbalance when dimaga still manages to win. we have 30 terrans who can fight nicely on the top in tvt but who can compete in zvz? the skill gap is huge there and so few players...
youd be gold league if you played zerg not just as a switch, if youd been playing zerg since the beginning youd still be gold right now if you honestly think that you and 90% of the other terrans who are currently doing well deserve to win tournaments you're a joke.
Well a good indicator also could be that even Dimaga (who is usually considered as the Zerg skill beast in the foreigner world) has not been really able to win much recently. 0-2 vs Hasuobs, 0-2 vs. WhiteRa (both in Take´s Cup), 1-2 vs Tarson in the Zotac quarter finals, 3-4 vs Kiwikaki, 1-3 vs TLO in the SCcastCup and so forth. I mean he plays about three or four Tourneys per week but usually he just reaches the quarter-/semi-finals. Sen (who is also commonly used as a reference for a Zerg that overcomes the imbalance) lost to Bratok in the Go4sc2 Quarterfinals aswell Madfrog as a Progamer (thus I assume he plays a lot) did not even qualify for IEM (losing to Aures) in the Euroqualifier whereas 5 Swedish Terrans succeeded. Of course Morrow is a gifted player and so is Sjow, but are players like Merz or Jimpo that much superior to the likes of Haypro, Lalush or Madfrog? Of course the statistics could have looked a bit better if Mondragon would play 6 hours a day, if Ret would not have retired for a few months or if Kolll would be active (btw. Morrow, do you know if Kolll intends to play SC2 seriously in the forseeable future?) but the same argument can be applied for the other races too, a player líke Androide would be easily another top-Terran etc.
On September 14 2010 08:15 Raiznhell wrote: this clearly shows that MorroW is OP not terran
ah thank you, im happy i could find at least 1 comment like this on 14 pages its annoying me so much that everyone talk so much about imbalance
we have no zerg players in general. who used to win as zerg when zerg was OP? like dimaga, who else ? haypro and zpux? i cant even name any other zergs that were on top of their game... we simply have few zergs participating in each tour and i think thats a bigger factor than the actual imbalance
i almost wanna switch to zerg just to show it is possible, its not a coincidence dimaga is by far best zerg atm, he simply has alot more skills than the other zergs. i pity these lower level players that blame their losses on imbalance when dimaga still manages to win. we have 30 terrans who can fight nicely on the top in tvt but who can compete in zvz? the skill gap is huge there and so few players...
It seems odd that you keep mentioning Dimaga when he was so adamant about Terran being better.
I do not just play Starcraft 2 for fun, it is my JOB. The image and the popularity of the team depend on my results, and so I must do whatever is necessary to make my team the best. Unfortunately, in the present balance situation regarding Zerg, I cannot achieve good results for my team. Blizzard's inaction only further fuels the fire.
Because of these reasons, unless there is at least an announcement of the new patch after GOM TV Global Starcraft II League and IEM Global Challenge Gamescom, I am going to switch from my precious Zerg to the more successful Terran.
He had a change of heart after he had a good performance in the IEM, but even monster Zergs like him know that something is wrong.
Many people will agree with the assessment that "something is wrong", but the big question is: What is wrong? Is it the units, the macro mechanics or the maps? With the next patch Blizzard is fiddling around with the first, but I have a feeling that those changes wont help "fixing the problem".
Lets look at what they are changing: 1. Zealots, Reapers (and Warp Gates) get their build time (cooldown) adjusted to "fix" rushes. Could you achieve the same thing with different methods? Yes. Simply increasing the size of the maps to increase scouting & rush distances. Especially the Protoss changes wont matter in late game, because you simply build one additional Warp Gate to get the same productivity. That is a small delay in the beginning, but will end with the same amount of units. The same is true for Reapers, since they are very very very rarely used past the beginning of a game. 2. Siege Tank damage is partially given a bonus type and reduced against non-armored. Will that change the often-whined-about TvZ? Not really, because Zerglings and Banelings still get one-shotted and once the Zerg has Hydras out the Terran will probably have a lot of tanks anyway. Roaches and Ultralisks are armored, so nothing changes for them.
So what is the real problem? The map size. The really good exaggeration for this was Incineration Zone. That map was sooo imbalanced even Blizzard had to take it out of the mappool. Sadly it also shows the direction in which Blizzard intends to go with maps: small and action packed. This doesnt work for Zerg, who need some time to develop their resources first before they can devote enough resources to producing an army. At that time however the Zealots and Reapers are already harrassing their base and so the Zerg is screwed from the get go and this cascades down into a lot of disadvantages. A lot of good Zerg players show us that once they get their economy any matchup is fine and they can win, but getting there is frigging hard. So the thing which Blizzard needs to change is NOT the units, but the map size to give Zerg just enough time to prepare.
On September 14 2010 12:58 Tachion wrote: Imbalance issues aside, there absolutely needs to be more incentive to play Zerg. I love watching SC2, probably even more than I like playing it, and seeing results like this just makes me sad :[ watching 15 TvT's in a tournament is not fun, or entertaining. This is so so bad for the e-sports scene. If heavy Terran tournaments keep happening then fewer and fewer people are going to be watching, which means less sponsors.
Make the zerg race more fun to play, make them more competitive with the other races if that's what it takes, but with the recent trend I fear for the appeal of SC2 to viewers. Check this thread out http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=150965. It's a rather small sample size due to not many people voting, but Zerg seems to be the most fun to watch, and Terran the least favorite.
Lets face it ... most people like to watch Zerg for two reasons: a. Banelings afford good entertainment when they blow up lots of stuff in green acid (bigger explosions sell more tickets for a movie very often) and b. Zerg players tend to be the "Drama Queens" with lots of rages about imbalance.
Just look above at how IdrA is attacking another player directly in this thread again instead of arguing the point. Artosis is another favorite, who even kinda brags about raging when he loses during the GOM casts. So these two have become "fan favorites" just like lots of people are buying tabloid papers for the big scandal headlines and they dont really care if what is said contains any truths. That isnt a good reason to be a fan of someone IMO. Raging when you lose is only acceptable in one condition: When you rage about yourself doing stupid mistakes. In any other case its bad manners or even a case for a psychiatrist.
Madfrog didn't jump. He was playing during the beta with a different nickname. Just to clarify.
For idrA saying "gold league" he doesn't actually mean gold league. He is trying to make a point. That's his way. May be a bad way but that's who he is.
and I've seen idra pointing the issue in a detailed way many times in his interviews (written&spoken)
Yes he is a tempered one, but I disagree with idea of him "not pointing the issues only attacking other players" , since beta he was the one who spoke the most about the issues -either real or unreal issues-
Morrow is like one of the few to publicly admit that a race is imbalanced in any patch whether it's his own or others :p
Everyone should admit it like MorroW when their race is imbalanced and yes Protoss was also imbalanced (in Beta don't know about Zerg haven't played that long in Beta 4/5 months) but currently it seems Terran is just the easier race TO WIN. I wonder what kind of effect 1.1 will have overall in all leagues but as of right now Terran simply has it easier than the rest due to the dynamic builds it has.
Zerg has few options so far to counter the dynamic builds T has but hopefully we get some new innovative builds soon that can open up new possibliities for the zerg so it can actually be more exciting overall in matchups (and for PvP).
Oh my god you kids need to shut it. Even if everyone acknowledges imbalance and terrans jump over their own shadows for it, we would still be in the same situation as we are right now!
Is anyone of you doing any balance changes? No? Then stop poisoning your mind and TeamLiquid with it and take that list for what it fucking is. The list is only as meaningful as the tournaments behind it.
On September 14 2010 08:15 Raiznhell wrote: this clearly shows that MorroW is OP not terran
ah thank you, im happy i could find at least 1 comment like this on 14 pages its annoying me so much that everyone talk so much about imbalance
we have no zerg players in general. who used to win as zerg when zerg was OP? like dimaga, who else ? haypro and zpux? i cant even name any other zergs that were on top of their game... we simply have few zergs participating in each tour and i think thats a bigger factor than the actual imbalance
i almost wanna switch to zerg just to show it is possible, its not a coincidence dimaga is by far best zerg atm, he simply has alot more skills than the other zergs. i pity these lower level players that blame their losses on imbalance when dimaga still manages to win. we have 30 terrans who can fight nicely on the top in tvt but who can compete in zvz? the skill gap is huge there and so few players...
youd be gold league if you played zerg not just as a switch, if youd been playing zerg since the beginning youd still be gold right now if you honestly think that you and 90% of the other terrans who are currently doing well deserve to win tournaments you're a joke.
On September 14 2010 08:15 Raiznhell wrote: this clearly shows that MorroW is OP not terran
ah thank you, im happy i could find at least 1 comment like this on 14 pages its annoying me so much that everyone talk so much about imbalance
we have no zerg players in general. who used to win as zerg when zerg was OP? like dimaga, who else ? haypro and zpux? i cant even name any other zergs that were on top of their game... we simply have few zergs participating in each tour and i think thats a bigger factor than the actual imbalance
i almost wanna switch to zerg just to show it is possible, its not a coincidence dimaga is by far best zerg atm, he simply has alot more skills than the other zergs. i pity these lower level players that blame their losses on imbalance when dimaga still manages to win. we have 30 terrans who can fight nicely on the top in tvt but who can compete in zvz? the skill gap is huge there and so few players...
youd be gold league if you played zerg not just as a switch, if youd been playing zerg since the beginning youd still be gold right now if you honestly think that you and 90% of the other terrans who are currently doing well deserve to win tournaments you're a joke.
and so the idralisk has spoken!
but i would love to see a rematch of IEM final. where the Idralisk players terran. and the Morrownator plays zerg.
back on topic, well actually the topic has been hijacked by morrow and idra so ima just look forward to that lovely arguement
On September 14 2010 17:09 berzerger wrote: this thread is incredible in many aspects
1- you can find gold level whine / gold level "learn to play" 2- you can find pro level whine / pro level "learn to play" 3- you can find nonames / pronames 4- you can find deep-quality game analysis offers suggestions / you can find commentors on the analysis without even fully reading it 5- you can find good players KO's good players for good 6- you can find hypocrisy at its finest.
and the list goes on. I love this thread.
PS: lalush, I love you. for the analysis of the situation instead of pure whine. and I think for the first time I've collected some terran tears in my life when you quoted posts from history
Couldn't have said it better. This is one of the best thread's I've read on TL in years, usually there're one or two decent posts and thread of mediocrity. This is a thread of win with some sporadic mediocrity thrown in for good measure.
youd be gold league if you played zerg not just as a switch, if youd been playing zerg since the beginning youd still be gold right now if you honestly think that you and 90% of the other terrans who are currently doing well deserve to win tournaments you're a joke.
xD
Really it's almost sickening when people try to defend Terran in it's current state. MorroW or not. You REALLY, REALLY see no problems with mules? Ha... it's laughable. Should I bring up the Demuslim game from TakE's recent Homestory cup?
Demuslim comes back from a 30 to 4 SCV deficit with the power of mules, or something close to those numbers. This should be impossible in high level play. Mules are retarded, end of story.
First and foremost MULES need a damn cooldown. You forgot to cast it? Oh no worries, just drop two...
What they hell were they thinking? You should have to be on top of your energy, just like Zerg do. I can't inject my hatchery twice so why can terran drop mules like candy? Chronoboost can be casted twice, but at this this can involve some sort of strategy, not some mindless mule dropping.
The main problem is clearly having to cut drones to survive early game. Also, sometimes people look at supplies and note the zerg is 110ish, while the Terran is 90. Working as intended??? No, 40++ Of that zerg supply is useless drones/queens, while the Terran has a moving ball of death ready to drop motha fucking bombs. Zerg is supposed to have overwhelming units, when logically late game their army is the smallest, and the most fragile.
On September 14 2010 08:15 Raiznhell wrote: this clearly shows that MorroW is OP not terran
ah thank you, im happy i could find at least 1 comment like this on 14 pages its annoying me so much that everyone talk so much about imbalance
we have no zerg players in general. who used to win as zerg when zerg was OP? like dimaga, who else ? haypro and zpux? i cant even name any other zergs that were on top of their game... we simply have few zergs participating in each tour and i think thats a bigger factor than the actual imbalance
i almost wanna switch to zerg just to show it is possible, its not a coincidence dimaga is by far best zerg atm, he simply has alot more skills than the other zergs. i pity these lower level players that blame their losses on imbalance when dimaga still manages to win. we have 30 terrans who can fight nicely on the top in tvt but who can compete in zvz? the skill gap is huge there and so few players...
youd be gold league if you played zerg not just as a switch, if youd been playing zerg since the beginning youd still be gold right now if you honestly think that you and 90% of the other terrans who are currently doing well deserve to win tournaments you're a joke.
On September 14 2010 16:34 GagnarTheUnruly wrote: I'm not sure if anyone's going to read this, but these are the reasons these data may not mean a ton, and why large disparities in racial win rates are probably the rule rather than the exception when looked at over short periods of time:
Only a small number of players have a high probability of winning a tournament (and they have race loyalty) -- what this means is that even if races are evenly distributed among top players (more on that below), they aren't likely to be evenly distributed among winning players. It's statistically much more likely that one race will dominate the top dozen or so players than that the races will be evenly distributed among those players. That means wins will appear race-biased even if everything is balanced.
There is also evidence that players are intentionally steering clear of zerg. I think this is the big problem Blizzard has to face. Of course, the fact that there aren't many zerg players means that there aren't going to be a lot of zerg wins.
My point here is just that there are strong reasons to think that these data aren't very trustworthy, and that maybe people should stop talking about them. I don't think it would be possible to demonstrate mathematically that the distribution of wins is different from what you would expect given the problems I discuss above. Even if the stats were done, interpretation would be difficult.
As far as the underrepresentation of zerg, there are a few non-mutually exclusive possible causes I can think of:
1) Zerg is weak (we already know that if this is a problem, it's only an early-mid game problem. Zerg lategame is very powerful.
2) Zerg play is underdeveloped, making zerg appear weak, when really we just need to learn how to use them and what builds are safe. I have much respect for the current SC2 progamers, but the level of play is NOT the same as the level of play in BW e.g. -- we still have a lot to learn about build orders and there are still underused units
3) People feel like zerg is weak, when it's not
4) The bias is due to factors unrelated to the strength or apparent strength of zerg (i.e. due to random sampling of a small sample size).
Note that 2) and 3) are going to feedback into themselves, increasing the bias. Honestly, I think a little bit of all of this stuff is probably going on, but the real people who know are Blizzard, and they are already doing something about it. Until then my opinion is just that people should play the game and enjoy it, and pros should do whatever it takes to win, including switching races if it comes to it (and some players do seem to feel it's necessary).
This is a brilliant post, but I think most of the intellectuals reading the thread understand and acknowledge all of those things. However, Occam's Razor sort of leads one to believe that the most PROBABLE is reason 1. But admittedly, this is not proof.
The only real issue at hand is that zerg isn't winning. This is fact. "Why" is a much more difficult question to answer.
I would argue that the "why" doesn't matter as much as this question: "does blizzard really care a great deal about tournament finishes?"
and anybody who has any clue about zerg whatsoever would stop saying things like :" it's possible that zerg play is underdeveloped". no it's not. unlike the other races we don't have that many possible openings, and everything that's possible has been tried out already. zerg early game play (early game is the zerg's problem) is about as developed as it will be one year from now (disregarding any balance patches which may switch things up, of course), I'd bet all of my worldly belongings on it in a heartbeat.
Yeah, I think that's a really good point. The second part, actually, not the first part! I think it's pretty much a given that things are still underdeveloped for ALL the races -- I mean, we still have a lot to learn about this game -- but certainly you're right that for the first 5 min. there are only so many options, and we probably have had time to explore all of those.
I'm sorry dude, but there's just no point in bringing up these pseudo-reasonable points anymore. Zerg is fucked, that's as much of a fact as it can get. And only the most ignorant of people (or copper players) can even begin to say that it might be otherwise.
Here's the point: We see a pattern, but there are a LOT of reasons that pattern could exist. People should at least be aware of the alternative hypotheses before jumping on the 'Terran is IMBA bandwagon.' And I gues more to the point, I think we should rely on reason rather than statistics or anecdotes to determine whether terran is balanced, because the statistics are hard to interpret and because anecdotal evidence can be misleading and can lead to circular thinking and closed minds.
Looking past the pro-caliber nerd rage in this post, I think the IEM tournament is a good illustration of the phenomenon. IdrA knew what MorroW was doing and couldn't stop it, and he's obviously one of the best SC2 zerg in the world. I remember someone remarking that Dimaga could stopped the 5 rax reaper. If it turns out that that build really is unstoppable, then it's pretty easy to recognize that there is a problem. I don't fault MorroW for doing it, although I can see why IdrA would be frustrated... but if there's a problem then Blizzard needs to fix it either with unit changes or a new map. If, however, the build can be countered, then we can just file it away under a laundry list of super powerful all-ins that only work if they take the opponent off guard, and we can move on to the next problem.
But I think what's really helpful are posts like the one Lalush made. I remember the first time I saw a 1-1-1 build and I thought -- there's no way this is gonna work, and then it did. And that's why the matchup is broken. Terran can literally do whatever they want. Protoss is screwed if they try to get that much tech that quickly, and zerg never has that kind of flexibility.
On September 14 2010 08:15 Raiznhell wrote: this clearly shows that MorroW is OP not terran
ah thank you, im happy i could find at least 1 comment like this on 14 pages its annoying me so much that everyone talk so much about imbalance
we have no zerg players in general. who used to win as zerg when zerg was OP? like dimaga, who else ? haypro and zpux? i cant even name any other zergs that were on top of their game... we simply have few zergs participating in each tour and i think thats a bigger factor than the actual imbalance
i almost wanna switch to zerg just to show it is possible, its not a coincidence dimaga is by far best zerg atm, he simply has alot more skills than the other zergs. i pity these lower level players that blame their losses on imbalance when dimaga still manages to win. we have 30 terrans who can fight nicely on the top in tvt but who can compete in zvz? the skill gap is huge there and so few players...
youd be gold league if you played zerg not just as a switch, if youd been playing zerg since the beginning youd still be gold right now if you honestly think that you and 90% of the other terrans who are currently doing well deserve to win tournaments you're a joke.
LOL FUCK YEAHHH. He keeps saying he deserves to be the best cuz he plays 6 hours a day rofl!. If all it took was 6 hours a day then idra or checkprime would be the best players by far. 6 hours is all you need for terran probably cuz you only need to practice tvt. I am a big fanny of yours IdrA when game is balance be sure to not let them win any money, then tell them how to play terran!
On September 14 2010 08:15 Raiznhell wrote: this clearly shows that MorroW is OP not terran
ah thank you, im happy i could find at least 1 comment like this on 14 pages its annoying me so much that everyone talk so much about imbalance
we have no zerg players in general. who used to win as zerg when zerg was OP? like dimaga, who else ? haypro and zpux? i cant even name any other zergs that were on top of their game... we simply have few zergs participating in each tour and i think thats a bigger factor than the actual imbalance
i almost wanna switch to zerg just to show it is possible, its not a coincidence dimaga is by far best zerg atm, he simply has alot more skills than the other zergs. i pity these lower level players that blame their losses on imbalance when dimaga still manages to win. we have 30 terrans who can fight nicely on the top in tvt but who can compete in zvz? the skill gap is huge there and so few players...
youd be gold league if you played zerg not just as a switch, if youd been playing zerg since the beginning youd still be gold right now if you honestly think that you and 90% of the other terrans who are currently doing well deserve to win tournaments you're a joke.
Although "gold" is an exaggeration, IdrA's right.
Although I don't agree with Morrows post, Idra's was completely wrong. He would be better than gold (I would know since I am in gold as zerg). But if any terran deserves to win competitions, whom other than Morrow? He wouldn't win as many, but still plenty imo.
its not a coincidence dimaga is by far best zerg atm, he simply has alot more skills than the other zergs.
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Really, it's amazing that a well known player like yourself would say something that blatantly wrong. Dimaga, the best Zerg player by far? Just about everyone recognizes that IdrA and Cool are superior. To say that they aren't even close to Dimaga is nuts.
On September 14 2010 17:24 Jayson X wrote: Oh my god you kids need to shut it. Even if everyone acknowledges imbalance and terrans jump over their own shadows for it, we would still be in the same situation as we are right now!
Is anyone of you doing any balance changes? No? Then stop poisoning your mind and TeamLiquid with it and take that list for what it fucking is. The list is only as meaningful as the tournaments behind it.
if noone whines and rages, Blizzard won't change anything. They are incapable of making good changes and quite frankly, good games, if there wasn't a community that's constantly raging.
Look at the following evidence:
- At first, SC2 looked like a vacation in Candyland and some designs like the Tank just looked ridiculous --> ppl raged, so blizzard changed it. - Ppl thought SC2 is gonna be too easy to macro with MBS and auto-mining, so ppl raged, whined and some even made suggestions --> that's how the macro-abilities like Chrono-boost were born; they were suggestions of the community! - Ppl are raging about lack of chat-channels --> Blizz already announced they're gonna implement them in the future - Almost all changes in SC2 of the past were made cuz the ppl who wanted them raged the most.
And it's the same thing with balance-changes: Blizzard doesn't have a clue how to balance this game and they wouldn't even acknowledge that there are problems if the community wouldn't rage beyond any boundaries of what's right and wrong...
well i prefer someone like idra who just says its freaking imbalanced and that it should be fixed asap over some guy like madfrog who gets asked at the iem if he thinks its imblanced and he just says, he doesnt want to whine. this is just poor. i mean, its not like me and you coming home playing some rounds of starcraft. its their job. its like your boss says you have to do the same job and bring the same results as your colleages but with way worse equipment.
On September 14 2010 17:46 ensis wrote: well i prefer someone like idra who just says its freaking imbalanced and that it should be fixed asap over some guy like madfrog who gets asked at the iem if he thinks its imblanced and he just says, he doesnt want to whine. this is just poor. i mean, its not like me and you coming home playing some rounds of starcraft. its their job. its like your boss says you have to do the same job and bring the same results as your colleages but with way worse equipment.
Some ppl just don't have as huge balls as IdrA! ^^'
its not a coincidence dimaga is by far best zerg atm, he simply has alot more skills than the other zergs.
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Really, it's amazing that a well known player like yourself would say something that blatantly wrong. Dimaga, the best Zerg player by far? Just about everyone recognizes that IdrA and Cool are superior. To say that they aren't even close to Dimaga is nuts.
I think he means compared to foreign zergs... and he's absolutely right. He 's the only zerg with results to show for it in the foreign scene.
I just replied because the I found the 'you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about' part is funny.
I mean, it's assumed he meant non korean zergs since there's no koreans in this NA/EU list.
On September 14 2010 17:46 ensis wrote: well i prefer someone like idra who just says its freaking imbalanced and that it should be fixed asap over some guy like madfrog who gets asked at the iem if he thinks its imblanced and he just says, he doesnt want to whine. this is just poor. i mean, its not like me and you coming home playing some rounds of starcraft. its their job. its like your boss says you have to do the same job and bring the same results as your colleages but with way worse equipment.
the problem lies not in madfrog, but the community. very few top players choose to speak their minds, because if they do, they're labeled as whiners by all the muppets. if players of morrows caliber have the nerve to say that stats in this topic are so low for zerg, because there are no good zerg players, then how the fuck can you expect the rest to think objectively, or should I rather say - think at fucking all.
On September 14 2010 17:23 shannn wrote: Morrow is like one of the few to publicly admit that a race is imbalanced in any patch whether it's his own or others :p
Saying that the race is imbalanced is not exactly true, because the "other matchup" (PvT) is actually fine atm. So the race in its current form is NOT IMBALANCED. Look elsewhere for the cause of the problems which Zerg have.
Hint: Do Zerg get screwed by very early harrass which hampers their economic development? If the answer is 'yes' then the solution might be to get a simple delay before the first engagement. Just make the maps bigger so the scouting and rush distances increase ... or why do you think Scrap Station is so much a Zerg map?
On September 14 2010 17:46 ensis wrote: well i prefer someone like idra who just says its freaking imbalanced and that it should be fixed asap over some guy like madfrog who gets asked at the iem if he thinks its imblanced and he just says, he doesnt want to whine. this is just poor. i mean, its not like me and you coming home playing some rounds of starcraft. its their job. its like your boss says you have to do the same job and bring the same results as your colleages but with way worse equipment.
the problem lies not in madfrog, but the community. very few players choose to speak their minds, because if they do, they're labeled as whiners by all the muppets. if players of morrows caliber have the nerve to say that stats in this topic are so low for zerg, because there are no good zerg players, then how the fuck can you expect the rest to think objectively, or should I rather say - think at fucking all.
Are you saying people can't make up their own minds and just think whatever the top players think? And I've seen plenty of top players say the game is imbalanced (including Morrow). I don't agree with everything Morrow said, but atm it's quite possible we have fewer good zerg players (relative to the amount playing zerg) as a contributing factor.
On September 14 2010 08:15 Raiznhell wrote: this clearly shows that MorroW is OP not terran
ah thank you, im happy i could find at least 1 comment like this on 14 pages its annoying me so much that everyone talk so much about imbalance
we have no zerg players in general. who used to win as zerg when zerg was OP? like dimaga, who else ? haypro and zpux? i cant even name any other zergs that were on top of their game... we simply have few zergs participating in each tour and i think thats a bigger factor than the actual imbalance
i almost wanna switch to zerg just to show it is possible, its not a coincidence dimaga is by far best zerg atm, he simply has alot more skills than the other zergs. i pity these lower level players that blame their losses on imbalance when dimaga still manages to win. we have 30 terrans who can fight nicely on the top in tvt but who can compete in zvz? the skill gap is huge there and so few players...
youd be gold league if you played zerg not just as a switch, if youd been playing zerg since the beginning youd still be gold right now if you honestly think that you and 90% of the other terrans who are currently doing well deserve to win tournaments you're a joke.
Maybe if you played P or T you'd actually win something
People blaming their losses on anything but themselves are really annoying. When i lose vs Terran i only get angry at myself for not playing properly. Blaming the game for your losses isnt going to get you anywhere.
Well Rabiator it is too simple to just blame the maps for everything. First you cannot abandon every small map from the pool just in order to help the zerg player out and there are also a lot of issues in TvP (e.g. Marauderdrops) even though Protoss does quite ok vs Terra nowadays.
On September 14 2010 08:15 Raiznhell wrote: this clearly shows that MorroW is OP not terran
ah thank you, im happy i could find at least 1 comment like this on 14 pages its annoying me so much that everyone talk so much about imbalance
we have no zerg players in general. who used to win as zerg when zerg was OP? like dimaga, who else ? haypro and zpux? i cant even name any other zergs that were on top of their game... we simply have few zergs participating in each tour and i think thats a bigger factor than the actual imbalance
i almost wanna switch to zerg just to show it is possible, its not a coincidence dimaga is by far best zerg atm, he simply has alot more skills than the other zergs. i pity these lower level players that blame their losses on imbalance when dimaga still manages to win. we have 30 terrans who can fight nicely on the top in tvt but who can compete in zvz? the skill gap is huge there and so few players...
youd be gold league if you played zerg not just as a switch, if youd been playing zerg since the beginning youd still be gold right now if you honestly think that you and 90% of the other terrans who are currently doing well deserve to win tournaments you're a joke.
btw no offence, but using dimaga as an example of no imbalance is pretty bad. I mean, if it wasn't for him, there would be only one zerg winner out of 74 tournaments.
1/74 = 1.35%
but oh wait, because there's dimaga that gets multiplied to 5.5%
On September 14 2010 17:55 me_viet wrote: who wants to see match between Idra/LaLush as Terran and Morrow as Zerg?
Poll: Iddra as T vs Morrow as Z showmatch?
YES!!!! (8)
100%
NO!!! (0)
0%
I want to see LaLush as T instead~!!!! (0)
0%
8 total votes
Your vote: Iddra as T vs Morrow as Z showmatch?
(Vote): YES!!!! (Vote): NO!!! (Vote): I want to see LaLush as T instead~!!!!
That won't prove anything. Stop trying to derail the thread by shit stirring.
Well, it was Morrow's offer first (no disrespect again). Then some no-names call him out on that. Then Idra himself called the bluff(?)
I'm not shit-stirring, they all did it themselves. Don't you remember the Combat-ex vs Chill? Just a grudge match. I remember the premises back then was because Combat was win-farming and is supposedly higher than he's supposed to be. Chill called him out.
This is nearly the same with morrow claiming he can perform nearly the same as Zerg (as a Zerg player I resent that, but i respect him for his T play) and then Idra called him out on it.
I'm hoping it'll be something comes along with epic commentaries etc.
its not a coincidence dimaga is by far best zerg atm, he simply has alot more skills than the other zergs.
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Really, it's amazing that a well known player like yourself would say something that blatantly wrong. Dimaga, the best Zerg player by far? Just about everyone recognizes that IdrA and Cool are superior. To say that they aren't even close to Dimaga is nuts.
I think he means compared to foreign zergs... and he's absolutely right. He 's the only zerg with results to show for it in the foreign scene.
I just replied because the I found the 'you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about' part is funny.
I mean, it's assumed he meant non korean zergs since there's no koreans in this NA/EU list.
That isn't what he said. If he meant it, then he should have said that. And it certainly isn't implied since Koreans are included in the list. There's nothing "funny" about it, what I said is completely accurate. Anyone who thinks Dimaga is the best Zerg player, and especially "by far", has no clue what they're talking about. Also, IdrA is a foreigner. It doesn't matter whether you go to Korea, join a pro team or anything. If you are not Korean then you are a foreigner.
It's incredible that someone would use Dimaga as an example of why Zerg isn't weak. Dimaga is the perfect example of just the opposite. He used desperate all-in strategies during Day9's tournament because he thought the game was so imbalanced that he wouldn't be able to win more standard games. Then he entertains the thought of switching to Terran because of how weak Zerg is.
On September 14 2010 08:43 LaLuSh wrote: It's for the exact same reason that DT rush is a rock paper scissors build in SC2. While TT1 might have made that thread advocating DT play in PvP out of good reasons, I don't think he or anyone else really understood why DT play is so bad in SC2. In SC1, if you wanted to have observers out in time to defend against DTs, you'd have to sacrifice building more gateways for a quicker robo. In SC2, everything's boosted to such a degree you can easily have 3-4 gates and still get the robo up in time to defend DTs.
What you end up with is a situation where if the DT rush fails (i.e. if the opponent went for any strategy involving detection at all). He'll have about 12 more units participating in the counterattack against your base than in the analogous situation in Broodwar. As such there exists no transition from opening DTs. Either you win the game instantly, or you lose horribly to the counterattack. There is no inbetween. Even if they were to buff DTs by lowering the build time for the dark shrine, it would have no other effect than making DT openings instantly win a higher percentage of the time. It would still instantly lose the rest of the time where the other protoss opted for fast enough detection.
The problems are Thermal Lance Colossi and Blink Stalkers. In BW, at the moment when Reavers can get on offense, the DT player can have enough Psionic Storm to repel the attack. That is not possible against Colossi in SC2. Even if Psionic Storm is available in time, it is not powerful enough against Colossi to matter. And there is nothing like Blink Stalkers in BW but in SC2 they make Photon Cannons useless. The only thing that is somewhat similar is the elevator strategy where one Shuttle moves an entire army into the opponent's main base but of course a Warp Prism is even better than a Shuttle so the SC2 DT strategy is more difficult there as well.
Economy isn't an issue in the analogy. The issue is when each build can get things and how effective those things are against each other. If SC2 reverted to SC:BW's mining AI and Chrono Boost was removed, DT's would still be ineffective in PvP.
Well Blink IS on the way to DTs. Can you defend the Colossus push with blink stalkers? probably not =/. I used to try some builds like that, but I have only had success with blink against poorly micro'ing colossus-going players, so I switched up my PvP up and I go 2 gate-stargate, but that seems like a very non-macro style, and I still often-times long to find that magical build that could turn PvP into BW-style macro-war but I think at least with the current map pool it may be impossible, but even if it is, I don't know if I'd like that given how much colossi rape everything.
On September 14 2010 17:46 ensis wrote: well i prefer someone like idra who just says its freaking imbalanced and that it should be fixed asap over some guy like madfrog who gets asked at the iem if he thinks its imblanced and he just says, he doesnt want to whine. this is just poor. i mean, its not like me and you coming home playing some rounds of starcraft. its their job. its like your boss says you have to do the same job and bring the same results as your colleages but with way worse equipment.
the problem lies not in madfrog, but the community. very few players choose to speak their minds, because if they do, they're labeled as whiners by all the muppets. if players of morrows caliber have the nerve to say that stats in this topic are so low for zerg, because there are no good zerg players, then how the fuck can you expect the rest to think objectively, or should I rather say - think at fucking all.
Are you saying people can't make up their own minds and just think whatever the top players think? And I've seen plenty of top players say the game is imbalanced (including Morrow). I don't agree with everything Morrow said, but atm it's quite possible we have fewer good zerg players (relative to the amount playing zerg) as a contributing factor.
Of course that the majority of people can't think for themselves, but that's beside the point. What I meant is that a top zerg player doesn't want to speak his mind about imbalance when asked a direct question, because he'll be labeled as a whiner, no matter how constructive he is. That simple fact blocks any kind of fruitful discussion on the subject, because too few people who might have something worthwhile to say choose to join it. In result we are left with average or just plain bad players speaking out of their asses, which even further diminishes how people feel about discussing the said subject.
its not a coincidence dimaga is by far best zerg atm, he simply has alot more skills than the other zergs.
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Really, it's amazing that a well known player like yourself would say something that blatantly wrong. Dimaga, the best Zerg player by far? Just about everyone recognizes that IdrA and Cool are superior. To say that they aren't even close to Dimaga is nuts.
I think he means compared to foreign zergs... and he's absolutely right. He 's the only zerg with results to show for it in the foreign scene.
I just replied because the I found the 'you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about' part is funny.
I mean, it's assumed he meant non korean zergs since there's no koreans in this NA/EU list.
That isn't what he said. If he meant it, then he should have said that. And it certainly isn't implied since Koreans are included in the list. There's nothing "funny" about it, what I said is completely accurate. Anyone who thinks Dimaga is the best Zerg player, and especially "by far", has no clue what they're talking about. Also, IdrA is a foreigner. It doesn't matter whether you go to Korea, join a pro team or anything. If you are not Korean then you are a foreigner.
It's incredible that someone would use Dimaga as an example of why Zerg isn't weak. Dimaga is the perfect example of just the opposite. He used desperate all-in strategies during Day9's tournament because he thought the game was so imbalanced that he wouldn't be able to win more standard games. Then he entertains the thought of switching to Terran because of how weak Zerg is.
Oh I forget, this is the internet. Everything must be stated obviously, or else dumb people wont understand.
On September 14 2010 08:15 Raiznhell wrote: this clearly shows that MorroW is OP not terran
ah thank you, im happy i could find at least 1 comment like this on 14 pages its annoying me so much that everyone talk so much about imbalance
we have no zerg players in general. who used to win as zerg when zerg was OP? like dimaga, who else ? haypro and zpux? i cant even name any other zergs that were on top of their game... we simply have few zergs participating in each tour and i think thats a bigger factor than the actual imbalance
i almost wanna switch to zerg just to show it is possible, its not a coincidence dimaga is by far best zerg atm, he simply has alot more skills than the other zergs. i pity these lower level players that blame their losses on imbalance when dimaga still manages to win. we have 30 terrans who can fight nicely on the top in tvt but who can compete in zvz? the skill gap is huge there and so few players...
Have you even played Zerg? I'd like to see you try. You'd get an unbelievable amount of respect from everyone if you would be successful. But, I guarantee you'll win nothing.
have you played 6 hours a day for all beta and release? no? ok maybe thats the problem. this many top terrans has done on our list but how many zerg foreigners has practiced as hard as us?
terran is fucking OP but these tournament results cant give zerg more wins because we dont have any zergs to win any tournaments except dimaga, idra doesnt play these
There are atleast 5-7 eu/na zergs that would be on the same level or better then silver(110 apm), drewbie, sjow , naama, Kawaiirice, lastshadow, cauthonluck, etcetcetc, painuser, thorzain....
They just cant win a tournament tho, cause as lalush said, getting past 5-6 terrans in a tourny is not possible.
On September 14 2010 08:15 Raiznhell wrote: this clearly shows that MorroW is OP not terran
ah thank you, im happy i could find at least 1 comment like this on 14 pages its annoying me so much that everyone talk so much about imbalance
we have no zerg players in general. who used to win as zerg when zerg was OP? like dimaga, who else ? haypro and zpux? i cant even name any other zergs that were on top of their game... we simply have few zergs participating in each tour and i think thats a bigger factor than the actual imbalance
i almost wanna switch to zerg just to show it is possible, its not a coincidence dimaga is by far best zerg atm, he simply has alot more skills than the other zergs. i pity these lower level players that blame their losses on imbalance when dimaga still manages to win. we have 30 terrans who can fight nicely on the top in tvt but who can compete in zvz? the skill gap is huge there and so few players...
youd be gold league if you played zerg not just as a switch, if youd been playing zerg since the beginning youd still be gold right now if you honestly think that you and 90% of the other terrans who are currently doing well deserve to win tournaments you're a joke.
People blaming their losses on anything but themselves are really annoying.
So you're annoyed by people blaming losses caused by imbalance on imbalance? That sounds more like a personal problem to me.
When i lose vs Terran i only get angry at myself for not playing properly.
What a prince.
Blaming the game for your losses isnt going to get you anywhere.
its not a coincidence dimaga is by far best zerg atm, he simply has alot more skills than the other zergs.
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Really, it's amazing that a well known player like yourself would say something that blatantly wrong. Dimaga, the best Zerg player by far? Just about everyone recognizes that IdrA and Cool are superior. To say that they aren't even close to Dimaga is nuts.
I think he means compared to foreign zergs... and he's absolutely right. He 's the only zerg with results to show for it in the foreign scene.
I just replied because the I found the 'you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about' part is funny.
I mean, it's assumed he meant non korean zergs since there's no koreans in this NA/EU list.
That isn't what he said. If he meant it, then he should have said that. And it certainly isn't implied since Koreans are included in the list. There's nothing "funny" about it, what I said is completely accurate. Anyone who thinks Dimaga is the best Zerg player, and especially "by far", has no clue what they're talking about. Also, IdrA is a foreigner. It doesn't matter whether you go to Korea, join a pro team or anything. If you are not Korean then you are a foreigner.
It's incredible that someone would use Dimaga as an example of why Zerg isn't weak. Dimaga is the perfect example of just the opposite. He used desperate all-in strategies during Day9's tournament because he thought the game was so imbalanced that he wouldn't be able to win more standard games. Then he entertains the thought of switching to Terran because of how weak Zerg is.
Oh I forget, this is the internet. Everything must be stated obviously, or else dumb people wont understand.
You're the one who is being dumb about this. As I told you, he didn't say it and it isn't implied because Koreans are included in the list. And IdrA is a foreigner who is better than Dimaga.
ok and one last time for all those saying pvt is balanced. it is not. the reason but is a quite complex one. lets take a marine-banshee build for example. lets assume you really want to be safe. you need like 2 obs every important spot. because viking + scan = dead observer = dead eco. then you need antiair. you either go stalkers, canons or phoenices. stalkers arent very mobile, canons do a good job, but yeah , think the word wast STATIC. the best counter is phoenices cause they also can compete with vikings. but, you need a starport and they are gasheavy. so, that was at least 200-300 gas for obs. but, wtf? there pops out a raven. lets assume your obs survived the raven. well, perhaps is he going for cloaked banshees afterwards. better let my defense up, damn cannot check his frigging army with that raven. but no banshees came, he only had ravens + marines and steamrolled you. because you had to fight with half your army. i hope you know where im getting. you can win vs. a terran, if you know exactly what comes when. and another thing that keeps pvt up is storm. storm is cool, because if you have like 10 storms, it doesnt matter how much supply he has, it just doesnt matter, as long as you can forcefield him or he just doestn move. by the time, terran uses all tricks given. he is not harrassable due to sensor and turret. he has some pretty strong army, bio is only defeatable with mass-destruction and the sickest harrassment possibilities ever. the problem is just, terran is so hard to scout with observers. turrets
edit: above is only ONE example, there are quite a few more. and i want to point out again. it takes skill, to execute a proper terran build, it takes multitasking to drop and macro (though terran has the easiest macro by far) and bio is not unbeatable but beating good ghost micro is almost impossible. you can defeat a terran, but i think the trend of protoss doing all in 1 base plays shows that midgame is just too cruel, even for pros. there is a reason why huk is said to only play some massunit cheeses and he wins most of toss.
On September 14 2010 11:23 Gomas wrote: I have to agree with Morrow. Name me some zergs which are on same level as Dimaga or Idra IN ZVZ (!). None? Great.
Now remember all these TvTs u watched in go4scs and ZOTACs? Yeah the ones u all complain about. Tarson winning with Cloud. Morrow losing to Demuslim. Strelok winning with SjoW. I could go on. There is at least 30 names which can easily compete with eachother, when it comes to T.
All that shows, is that there is more good T players atm.
Tbh, i have not yet seen a single zerg apart from Idra (not even dimaga), with macro so perfect like morrows. There is tons of queing going on. Mineral floats etc, all the time. While the Ts (especially morrow) have perfect thought-out builds with 0 quening going on, perfect expansion and depot timings etc.
I have yet to see a zerg buildorder as refined as morrows 5 rax reaper or his TvP 2rax FE. For me, this is the main reason the zerg lose, not imbalance.
Wrong judgement. We don't see much ZvZ because almost all zergs get eliminated by terrans and protoss players in early stages. Only few survive till quarter finals. Whereas there are many terrans advancing to quarters hence more chance of seeing TvT.
Wow, interesting thread. I never really liked Idra's attitude, but I just lost a ton of respect for Morrow. These stats say a lot, 5 rax reaper requires micro, but it's not some deep strategy. Abuse the imba while you can Morrow. Idra fighting...
its not a coincidence dimaga is by far best zerg atm, he simply has alot more skills than the other zergs.
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Really, it's amazing that a well known player like yourself would say something that blatantly wrong. Dimaga, the best Zerg player by far? Just about everyone recognizes that IdrA and Cool are superior. To say that they aren't even close to Dimaga is nuts.
I think he means compared to foreign zergs... and he's absolutely right. He 's the only zerg with results to show for it in the foreign scene.
I just replied because the I found the 'you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about' part is funny.
I mean, it's assumed he meant non korean zergs since there's no koreans in this NA/EU list.
That isn't what he said. If he meant it, then he should have said that. And it certainly isn't implied since Koreans are included in the list. There's nothing "funny" about it, what I said is completely accurate. Anyone who thinks Dimaga is the best Zerg player, and especially "by far", has no clue what they're talking about. Also, IdrA is a foreigner. It doesn't matter whether you go to Korea, join a pro team or anything. If you are not Korean then you are a foreigner.
It's incredible that someone would use Dimaga as an example of why Zerg isn't weak. Dimaga is the perfect example of just the opposite. He used desperate all-in strategies during Day9's tournament because he thought the game was so imbalanced that he wouldn't be able to win more standard games. Then he entertains the thought of switching to Terran because of how weak Zerg is.
Oh I forget, this is the internet. Everything must be stated obviously, or else dumb people wont understand.
You're the one who is being dumb about this. As I told you, he didn't say it and it isn't implied because Koreans are included in the list. And IdrA is a foreigner who is better than Dimaga.
I can't believe you're keeping up with this. This list obviously includes every Korean tournament, and Koreans are crappy because out of 84 tournaments, Tester only won one.
And Dimaga is obviously the best zerg player in the world, he obviously won 3 gold medals. Obvious.
If the main reason zerg might be doing bad is that people avoid it due to how abusable it is/less attractive than the other races then blizzard needs to change zerg, and if that change is balance wise then so be it. I'm pretty sure blizzard has said having 20-25% or w/e playing zerg is not what they want.
On September 14 2010 18:34 JamieDukes wrote: Ret's been playing for only a few weeks and he aleady looks better than alot of these Zergs that people seem to think should be winning tournaments.
one more excellent zerg-player won't balance the game though...
On September 14 2010 18:53 TreK wrote: i play terran, working as intended, move along
Most of you just skip to the end without reading any pages first, you should just head back to page 13 and read the comments by Lalush. (Specifically the post in the spoiler below) I really just don't understand how anyone can disagree with that and go on to say that everything is fine. His posts describe the issue perfectly.
Perfection is very hard to achieve when the matchup involves such a high degree of guessing for zerg. Even when you scout a certain tech path from the terran, you still cannot be sure what is coming. Yesterday for example (one out of a thousand examples), I scouted a very fast tech starport tech lab switch from brat_ok in a tournament game, and I began making spore crawlers and queens while massing drones. I was sure I was going to come out far ahead. What happens next? He only uses the starport to build 1 banshee. Switches his strat around instantly, builds 1 medivac and 1 thor, drops it on my cliff, completely shuts down mining and easily takes out my expansion hatchery.
There is no way a zerg can account for all these possibilities at the same time. Every terran is unique. Every terran has got their own specialized (and often retarded) transition. Banshee doesn't have to mean banshee. 2 rax doesn't have to mean aggressive infantry build. It might as well mean a nonsensical delayed 2 or 1 port banshee with cloak.
You have all these idiot terrans scoring easy instant wins vs zergs everywhere, because even if you scout their production buildings, half of the time you've still got no fucking clue what they're doing. You scout a barrack constantly producing marines and a starport without addons? Maybe he'll use it for 1 viking and then medivacs. Maybe he'll use it for a fast medivac dropping 8 marines straight into your base. Maybe he's the kind of terran that built another rax in his base and waits for 2 medivacs before dropping you. Maybe he's the kind of retarded terran that waits for so long, that eventually you start making drones again, and in flies 3medivacs fully loaded with units. Sometimes they make a medivac and don't even use it for anything, they just expand and pretend it's a logical strategy.
You make drones and go for the early spire vs the 1 medivac 8 marine drop? You'll take sick damage. You start making units too late vs the 2 medivac drop and even hint at making the spire? You die. You start making units too early vs the 3 medivac drop instead of making the spire, and then suddenly think the coast is clear and proceed into making a round of drones because the drop never seems to come? You die.
You make too many units vs the nonsensical terran that went a 1-1-1 build into an 11-minute mark expand with medivacs and lots of marines before expanding but didn't even drop you ? You die from mining 600 less minerals per minute every subsequent minute.
Even when watching Sen's stream - who I consider to be 20x better than me and a complete monster ZvT - you see him losing instantly to noob terrans after overdroning vs a 3rax or 2rax/hellion all-in, or making too many units vs a faked aggression into fast expand build, or upgrading ling speed before lair and subsequently dying to 2port banshee without even having a fighting chance.
The main reason you see so many zergs getting eliminated so early, is because you have to have sick amount of LUCK to beat 5-6 terrans in a row. It doesn't matter how good and how skilled you are. Beating that many terrans in a row will require more luck than it will require skill.
The point is, there is too much of an element of randomness for zerg in the matchup depending on which tech path they opt for. And it cannot be fixed by simply "scouting better". The difference in win rate from playing a terran ranked #60 as opposed to a terran ranked #5 isn't that great. There's still the ~20% of games where you instantly lose due to a build order/tech path loss, no matter how good/bad your terran opponent is.
Then there are the truly good terrans. The ones of equal skill to you. The ones who'll win at least 50% of the games that reach beyond the "zerg guesses wrong instantly loses" phase.
The win ratio against those terrans won't ever be 50% for zergs. Much like the scrub terrans, the good terrans too will instantly win about ~20% of their games on pure build order errors from zerg. If they win half of the rest of games that puts them at 60% vs the zergs.
For a good terran facing a scrub zerg. There's perhaps a 1% chance of a build order loss. Again, number pulled out of my ass, but I should really think it's single digit, and amongst the lower single digits. You don't see morrow, brat_ok or demuslim losing to scrub zergs, EVER.
TvP, they might lose a higher percentage of games against no name protosses. But not nearly as high as zergs vs terran and protoss.
So what you end up with (poker analogy) is top zergs having to fight their way through 5-6 top pocket pair vs lower pocket pair preflop all-ins without getting drawn out one single time! And of course a couple of other key hands that actually reach the flop, turn and river (normal games where the zerg had some influence on the outcome and didn't instantly lose).
This post was written as a rant from start from finish. Forgive me if it's very incoherent.
On September 14 2010 12:58 Tachion wrote: Imbalance issues aside, there absolutely needs to be more incentive to play Zerg. I love watching SC2, probably even more than I like playing it, and seeing results like this just makes me sad :[ watching 15 TvT's in a tournament is not fun, or entertaining. This is so so bad for the e-sports scene. If heavy Terran tournaments keep happening then fewer and fewer people are going to be watching, which means less sponsors.
Make the zerg race more fun to play, make them more competitive with the other races if that's what it takes, but with the recent trend I fear for the appeal of SC2 to viewers. Check this thread out http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=150965. It's a rather small sample size due to not many people voting, but Zerg seems to be the most fun to watch, and Terran the least favorite.
Lets face it ... most people like to watch Zerg for two reasons: a. Banelings afford good entertainment when they blow up lots of stuff in green acid (bigger explosions sell more tickets for a movie very often) and b. Zerg players tend to be the "Drama Queens" with lots of rages about imbalance.
Just look above at how IdrA is attacking another player directly in this thread again instead of arguing the point. Artosis is another favorite, who even kinda brags about raging when he loses during the GOM casts. So these two have become "fan favorites" just like lots of people are buying tabloid papers for the big scandal headlines and they dont really care if what is said contains any truths. That isnt a good reason to be a fan of someone IMO. Raging when you lose is only acceptable in one condition: When you rage about yourself doing stupid mistakes. In any other case its bad manners or even a case for a psychiatrist.
Oh come on. People are crazy about watching Zerg's like Check, Sen, Cool, & Dimaga. They don't rage, and it goes much further than just seeing them use banelings. Even if Idra didn't rage, I'm confident that people would still like to see him play. Why? Because Zerg has very few high level players(ones who get results) to look up to. As for why Terrans and Protoss like to watch Zergs play I couldn't tell you.
Sen's stream got posted in the morning on TL, and by the afternoon he had near 2k viewers, more than any other stream I've seen on TL. Considering that so few players play Zerg, there is something about these high level zergs that really attracts people of all races.
if god descended upon the earth and said terran is a little imba the terran players would just resond in the same way they do to any threads similar to this one.
"pfffffftt that bitch needs to L2P" "sweet sweet zerg tears" "u mad?"
or any other retarded internet lingo that makes you guys the badasses that you are.
its not a coincidence dimaga is by far best zerg atm, he simply has alot more skills than the other zergs.
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Really, it's amazing that a well known player like yourself would say something that blatantly wrong. Dimaga, the best Zerg player by far? Just about everyone recognizes that IdrA and Cool are superior. To say that they aren't even close to Dimaga is nuts.
I think he means compared to foreign zergs... and he's absolutely right. He 's the only zerg with results to show for it in the foreign scene.
I just replied because the I found the 'you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about' part is funny.
I mean, it's assumed he meant non korean zergs since there's no koreans in this NA/EU list.
That isn't what he said. If he meant it, then he should have said that. And it certainly isn't implied since Koreans are included in the list. There's nothing "funny" about it, what I said is completely accurate. Anyone who thinks Dimaga is the best Zerg player, and especially "by far", has no clue what they're talking about. Also, IdrA is a foreigner. It doesn't matter whether you go to Korea, join a pro team or anything. If you are not Korean then you are a foreigner.
It's incredible that someone would use Dimaga as an example of why Zerg isn't weak. Dimaga is the perfect example of just the opposite. He used desperate all-in strategies during Day9's tournament because he thought the game was so imbalanced that he wouldn't be able to win more standard games. Then he entertains the thought of switching to Terran because of how weak Zerg is.
Oh I forget, this is the internet. Everything must be stated obviously, or else dumb people wont understand.
You're the one who is being dumb about this. As I told you, he didn't say it and it isn't implied because Koreans are included in the list. And IdrA is a foreigner who is better than Dimaga.
I can't believe you're keeping up with this. This list obviously includes every Korean tournament, and Koreans are crappy because out of 84 tournaments, Tester only won one.
And Dimaga is obviously the best zerg player in the world, he obviously won 3 gold medals. Obvious.
1st: Thanks OP for the effort, nice and informative post!
2nd: Its mid september now, where is the patch?
3rd: Adding to Lalushs point: Ive seen a game in some not-so-important tournament where Morrow lost on Scrap Station vs some not-so-good Protoss, because he was able to pull some proxy pylon stuff off with a little trickery. It rarely happens, but ive also seen him drop a game vs that Italian protoss (capoch?) on blistering, which of course is imba. Sorry if i dont credit those 2 protoss players enough, but they certainly arent on the top of the list in the OP either. I have never seen this happen vs a Zerg though.
On September 14 2010 08:15 Raiznhell wrote: this clearly shows that MorroW is OP not terran
ah thank you, im happy i could find at least 1 comment like this on 14 pages its annoying me so much that everyone talk so much about imbalance
we have no zerg players in general. who used to win as zerg when zerg was OP? like dimaga, who else ? haypro and zpux? i cant even name any other zergs that were on top of their game... we simply have few zergs participating in each tour and i think thats a bigger factor than the actual imbalance
i almost wanna switch to zerg just to show it is possible, its not a coincidence dimaga is by far best zerg atm, he simply has alot more skills than the other zergs. i pity these lower level players that blame their losses on imbalance when dimaga still manages to win. we have 30 terrans who can fight nicely on the top in tvt but who can compete in zvz? the skill gap is huge there and so few players...
youd be gold league if you played zerg not just as a switch, if youd been playing zerg since the beginning youd still be gold right now if you honestly think that you and 90% of the other terrans who are currently doing well deserve to win tournaments you're a joke.
People blaming their losses on anything but themselves are really annoying.
So you're annoyed by people blaming losses caused by imbalance on imbalance? That sounds more like a personal problem to me.
Dimaga hasn't won anything since earlier days of beta when game wasn't in the state it's in now (few patches ago). Same goes for Haypro. Morrow your claims about their not being enough zergs practicing hard is totally silly
Maybe the reason why there are so many good terran players is that its the easiest race to play, its certainly the easiest to macro with (you can essentially click your control groups and build all the units you need while still microing, the same is true for zerg but zerg NEED to return home to spawn larva). Not to mention cued up drops and attacks, the easiest and most effective harrass that any race can perform.
On September 14 2010 19:23 HuHEN wrote: Maybe the reason why there are so many good terran players is that its the easiest race to play, its certainly the easiest to macro with (you can essentially click your control groups and build all the units you need while still microing, the same is true for zerg but zerg NEED to return home to spawn larva). Not to mention cued up drops and attacks, the easiest and most effective harrass that any race can perform.
Whats stopping zerg players from que dropping multiple locations?
On September 14 2010 19:23 HuHEN wrote: Maybe the reason why there are so many good terran players is that its the easiest race to play, its certainly the easiest to macro with (you can essentially click your control groups and build all the units you need while still microing, the same is true for zerg but zerg NEED to return home to spawn larva). Not to mention cued up drops and attacks, the easiest and most effective harrass that any race can perform.
Whats stopping zerg players from que dropping multiple locations?
People need to stop saying/implying that MorroW wins so much because he plays Terran and not because he is awesome... Flawless macro and sweet sweet micro, a player like that will win a lot no matter what race he plays.
Sure, there are some issues with Zerg, especially what Lalush pointed out but I am fully convinced that Zerg players will figure it out and even out the scores soon. Maybe it's not that Terran is OP, maybe it is just faster to learn...?
There are obviously some amazing Zerg players out there like Idra, Cool, Dimaga, Sen etc so it will be fine. Even though the Zerg I think will take a huge leap (har har) in tournament wins soon is MadFrog. I see him play now and his macro is down right dire at times, getting supply blocked, stops making units at like 80 food (War 3 habit..?) etc. And still wins because he tries stuff very few other do, much like TLO did in beta and still do.
all those arguments about mirror. pfff everyone can win a mirror, and only because youre good vs. zerg and protoss, by abusing shit, that doesnt mean, youre good in tvt where your marauders have to fight against marauders.
and flawless macro is not very hard to do as terran. as zerg you have to us larva inject every dunno seconds and as protoss you need to jump to a pylon to build gateway units. both require to jump away from battle. and missing one larva can be devastating i think. and the difference between, chrono, larva and mule is that you cannot stack chrono or larva, but you can call down 8 mules at a time. and you can just rebuild units while fighting. so talk about macro.
On September 14 2010 19:23 HuHEN wrote: Maybe the reason why there are so many good terran players is that its the easiest race to play, its certainly the easiest to macro with (you can essentially click your control groups and build all the units you need while still microing, the same is true for zerg but zerg NEED to return home to spawn larva). Not to mention cued up drops and attacks, the easiest and most effective harrass that any race can perform.
Whats stopping zerg players from que dropping multiple locations?
first you need speed upgrade then you need load upgrade thats 300/300.
I would actually love to see someone like haypro/lalush/darkforce/madfrog/slush/catz etc switch over and win a tournament as terran. That would shut up terrans once and for all.
playing Terran feels like you have a more complete choice in options. You can choose so many different strategies and they all are viable. The amount of "pure power" of terran, in terms of all around great units, strategies, and viable "gimmicks" give it so much power that
Blizzard can't balance it without fundamentally changing the game. Give zerg 2-3 more units, move hydra tech around etc. The actual balance of the game is just off in terms of TvZ. The unit relation and how they are good give Terran just more good options against Z.
Fundamentally, they could let zerg somehow "scout" terran so they can counter one of the 10 amazingly powerful and viable builds, or switch around zerg to have "survivability" early with faster access to hydras or something.
I can't wait to see what they do, but I doubt 5s extra build time will fix a fundamental imbalance.
On September 14 2010 19:40 Ajsbear wrote: People need to stop saying/implying that MorroW wins so much because he plays Terran and not because he is awesome... Flawless macro and sweet sweet micro, a player like that will win a lot no matter what race he plays.
Sure, there are some issues with Zerg, especially what Lalush pointed out but I am fully convinced that Zerg players will figure it out and even out the scores soon. Maybe it's not that Terran is OP, maybe it is just faster to learn...?
There are obviously some amazing Zerg players out there like Idra, Cool, Dimaga, Sen etc so it will be fine. Even though the Zerg I think will take a huge leap (har har) in tournament wins soon is MadFrog. I see him play now and his macro is down right dire at times, getting supply blocked, stops making units at like 80 food (War 3 habit..?) etc. And still wins because he tries stuff very few other do, much like TLO did in beta and still do.
I dont think morrow wins just because he is terran I think he is so dominant because he is a combination of very good/the strongest race.
I just wanna mention, even if there are less people playing Zerg (it was around 26% I think) There should be at least a 20% of Zerg tourney wins, statisticly
On September 14 2010 17:55 me_viet wrote: who wants to see match between Idra/LaLush as Terran and Morrow as Zerg?
There's no point, because there is literally no way Morrow could win, under any circumstances. It's just not in this realm of reality.
I would take it even further, and say that I even think idra could take Morrow in TvT if you gave him few days to practice.
Could be wrong, but its totally possible
Lol you are delusional. Are you seriously saying that Idra would be able to beat the worlds best terrans with a few days practice, people that have been practiced TvT heavily for months now? Also Idra's playing style does not suit terran good at all, so he would have to change a lot of the fundamentals that he uses as zerg. As much as you people believe it, he isn't God. It seems like some people believe that just because terran is op, no terran deserves to win. But if you agree that Morrow is one of the best terrans currently, there is no reason he wouldn't win tournaments and compete with the best protoss and zergs if everything was perfectly balanced.
this is probably the best thread I've ever read here at TL. It's so much fun looking through the posts and picking out players races based on what they're saying.
On September 14 2010 19:48 ch4ppi wrote: I just wanna mention, even if there are less people playing Zerg (it was around 26% I think) There should be at least a 20% of Zerg tourney wins, statisticly
Its just pretty pretty obvious whats up
Not really
look at idra in SC1 and foreign tournaments for a time, was Terran imbalanced then?
Also A lot of SC2 torunaments are best of 1 for a large portion of the tournament. This can greatly skew it, as terran has very solid build orders and access to a lot of cheese. If a race has problems countering cheese (zerg scouting lol) it will be reflected in these tournaments with many best of 1 matches.
IEM also had Zerg 2nd, Zerg 3rd, and no protoss to speak of.
More troubling than any balance is how "reactive" zerg has to be. Terran can oppress the hell out of zerg and force them into playing however terran wants (with mech/banshee/reaper in particular). Just in general it's not good for a race to have to defend every game for 10 minutes unable to exert any pressure (good wall ins prevent pretty much all early Z pressure).
On September 14 2010 17:55 me_viet wrote: who wants to see match between Idra/LaLush as Terran and Morrow as Zerg?
There's no point, because there is literally no way Morrow could win, under any circumstances. It's just not in this realm of reality.
I would take it even further, and say that I even think idra could take Morrow in TvT if you gave him few days to practice.
Could be wrong, but its totally possible
Lol you are delusional. Are you seriously saying that Idra would be able to beat the worlds best terrans with a few days practice, people that have been practiced TvT heavily for months now? Also Idra's playing style does not suit terran good at all, so he would have to change a lot of the fundamentals that he uses as zerg. As much as you people believe it, he isn't God.
In a week he for sure could, actually. He won't do it though because of GSL but after this GSL I wouldnt be too surprised if IdrA switched to T. Patch won't change much...
On September 14 2010 17:55 me_viet wrote: who wants to see match between Idra/LaLush as Terran and Morrow as Zerg?
There's no point, because there is literally no way Morrow could win, under any circumstances. It's just not in this realm of reality.
I would take it even further, and say that I even think idra could take Morrow in TvT if you gave him few days to practice.
Could be wrong, but its totally possible
Lol you are delusional. Are you seriously saying that Idra would be able to beat the worlds best terrans with a few days practice, people that have been practiced TvT heavily for months now? Also Idra's playing style does not suit terran good at all, so he would have to change a lot of the fundamentals that he uses as zerg. As much as you people believe it, he isn't God.
In a week he for sure could, actually. He won't do it though because of GSL but after this GSL I wouldnt be too surprised if IdrA switched to T. Patch won't change anything, and IdrA will be out of GSL when he runs into a good terran and its gonna piss him off
If the patch completely revamps zerg maybe people would switch to it who liked it in SC1. But I agree there seems to be some deep rooted problems with zerg in SC2, in terms of just some glaring / fundamental flaws that can't be fixed by tweaking some numbers.
The unit matchups between terran and zerg are just messed up.
Baneling and Marines Banshee attacks (just in general banshee is like wraith souped up on crack and mutas/hydras are weak in this game) Planetary Fortress Marauders in general Medivac utility..
In the end the matchups just favor Terran a heck of a lot, and I don't know if it's possible to alter some small numbers and make the matchup good/fixed.
It almost feels like zerg is behind an expansion, and terran is playing with more units available. Blizzard will be figuring out zerg for a long time I think.
On September 14 2010 17:55 me_viet wrote: who wants to see match between Idra/LaLush as Terran and Morrow as Zerg?
There's no point, because there is literally no way Morrow could win, under any circumstances. It's just not in this realm of reality.
I would take it even further, and say that I even think idra could take Morrow in TvT if you gave him few days to practice.
Could be wrong, but its totally possible
Lol you are delusional. Are you seriously saying that Idra would be able to beat the worlds best terrans with a few days practice, people that have been practiced TvT heavily for months now? Also Idra's playing style does not suit terran good at all, so he would have to change a lot of the fundamentals that he uses as zerg. As much as you people believe it, he isn't God.
In a week he for sure could, actually. He won't do it though because of GSL but after this GSL I wouldnt be too surprised if IdrA switched to T. Patch won't change anything, and IdrA will be out of GSL when he runs into a good terran and its gonna piss him off
Well, I think it would take more than a week for him to suddenly beat the best terrans consistently. But I hope he does, it would be interesting to see. I'm always open to be wrong. And it is nice when players do things rather than just talk.
On September 14 2010 17:55 me_viet wrote: who wants to see match between Idra/LaLush as Terran and Morrow as Zerg?
There's no point, because there is literally no way Morrow could win, under any circumstances. It's just not in this realm of reality.
I would take it even further, and say that I even think idra could take Morrow in TvT if you gave him few days to practice.
Could be wrong, but its totally possible
Lol you are delusional. Are you seriously saying that Idra would be able to beat the worlds best terrans with a few days practice, people that have been practiced TvT heavily for months now? Also Idra's playing style does not suit terran good at all, so he would have to change a lot of the fundamentals that he uses as zerg. As much as you people believe it, he isn't God.
In a week he for sure could, actually. He won't do it though because of GSL but after this GSL I wouldnt be too surprised if IdrA switched to T. Patch won't change much...
I dont think IdrA can get any better than he is right now, even if he switches race. IdrA likes heavy macro, no cheese and very defensive the first 10-20 mins of the game, so Terran wouldnt fit him very well. Zerg and IdrA is the perfect match.
I think Dimaga could play terran quite well though, but not enough to beat the top ones, i think that would require alot more practice.
On September 14 2010 17:55 me_viet wrote: who wants to see match between Idra/LaLush as Terran and Morrow as Zerg?
There's no point, because there is literally no way Morrow could win, under any circumstances. It's just not in this realm of reality.
I would take it even further, and say that I even think idra could take Morrow in TvT if you gave him few days to practice.
Could be wrong, but its totally possible
Lol you are delusional. Are you seriously saying that Idra would be able to beat the worlds best terrans with a few days practice, people that have been practiced TvT heavily for months now? Also Idra's playing style does not suit terran good at all, so he would have to change a lot of the fundamentals that he uses as zerg. As much as you people believe it, he isn't God.
In a week he for sure could, actually. He won't do it though because of GSL but after this GSL I wouldnt be too surprised if IdrA switched to T. Patch won't change much...
Even you?! Come on, dont be ridiculous, noone can just switch race and beat the best players in mirrors a week after -.-
I hope IdrA switches, so we can see what happens! Sadly, chances of that are very small...
On September 14 2010 17:55 me_viet wrote: who wants to see match between Idra/LaLush as Terran and Morrow as Zerg?
There's no point, because there is literally no way Morrow could win, under any circumstances. It's just not in this realm of reality.
I would take it even further, and say that I even think idra could take Morrow in TvT if you gave him few days to practice.
Could be wrong, but its totally possible
Lol you are delusional. Are you seriously saying that Idra would be able to beat the worlds best terrans with a few days practice, people that have been practiced TvT heavily for months now? Also Idra's playing style does not suit terran good at all, so he would have to change a lot of the fundamentals that he uses as zerg. As much as you people believe it, he isn't God.
In a week he for sure could, actually. He won't do it though because of GSL but after this GSL I wouldnt be too surprised if IdrA switched to T. Patch won't change much...
I dont think IdrA can get any better than he is right now, even if he switches race. IdrA likes heavy macro, no cheese and very defensive the first 10-20 mins of the game, so Terran wouldnt fit him very well. Zerg and IdrA is the perfect match.
I think Dimaga could play terran quite well though, but not enough to beat the top ones, i think that would require alot more practice.
actually that's pretty much how you have to play zerg unless Terran gets greedy and doesn't wall. Pretty much any aggressive play by Zerg early relies on Terran playing greedy (not walling). It's true though that a lot of terran don't wall so it can work, it just is not reliable in any way.
Really list a decent aggressive play that zerg can do in SC2 with any reliability in ZvT. There is no muta harass in SC2, missile turrets basically nullify them, roaches can be outranged by proper building placement, lings.... wall ins. They have no options besides going a crazy all in and hoping the opponent hasn't learned barracks/factory wall ins.
It's very obvious to any Terran how dominate / easy to understand the matchup is, because you can literally force zerg into a maximum of like 2-3 choices. Know how many options zerg has if you go five rax reaper? It takes about 20 games played to see pretty much everything zerg can possibly do. Anyone that plays terran, unless retarded, understands TvZ better than any other matchup.
On September 14 2010 17:55 me_viet wrote: who wants to see match between Idra/LaLush as Terran and Morrow as Zerg?
There's no point, because there is literally no way Morrow could win, under any circumstances. It's just not in this realm of reality.
I would take it even further, and say that I even think idra could take Morrow in TvT if you gave him few days to practice.
Could be wrong, but its totally possible
Lol you are delusional. Are you seriously saying that Idra would be able to beat the worlds best terrans with a few days practice, people that have been practiced TvT heavily for months now? Also Idra's playing style does not suit terran good at all, so he would have to change a lot of the fundamentals that he uses as zerg. As much as you people believe it, he isn't God.
In a week he for sure could, actually. He won't do it though because of GSL but after this GSL I wouldnt be too surprised if IdrA switched to T. Patch won't change much...
Even you?! Come on, dont be ridiculous, noone can just switch race and beat the best players in mirrors a week after -.-
I hope IdrA switches, so we can see what happens! Sadly, chances of that are very small...
You know that he used to be Terran in BW right? I don't think it's that hard to transition from BW Terran to sc2 Terran with the knowledge of T's strong points from a Zerg point of view. So a week or so is probably realistic since he did beat some BW progamers after several days worth of practicing. In his state doing that for sc2 with a race he's already very familiar with isn't too unthinkable
On September 14 2010 17:55 me_viet wrote: who wants to see match between Idra/LaLush as Terran and Morrow as Zerg?
There's no point, because there is literally no way Morrow could win, under any circumstances. It's just not in this realm of reality.
I would take it even further, and say that I even think idra could take Morrow in TvT if you gave him few days to practice.
Could be wrong, but its totally possible
Lol you are delusional. Are you seriously saying that Idra would be able to beat the worlds best terrans with a few days practice, people that have been practiced TvT heavily for months now? Also Idra's playing style does not suit terran good at all, so he would have to change a lot of the fundamentals that he uses as zerg. As much as you people believe it, he isn't God.
In a week he for sure could, actually. He won't do it though because of GSL but after this GSL I wouldnt be too surprised if IdrA switched to T. Patch won't change much...
I dont think IdrA can get any better than he is right now, even if he switches race. IdrA likes heavy macro, no cheese and very defensive the first 10-20 mins of the game, so Terran wouldnt fit him very well. Zerg and IdrA is the perfect match.
I think Dimaga could play terran quite well though, but not enough to beat the top ones, i think that would require alot more practice.
actually that's pretty much how you have to play zerg unless Terran gets greedy and doesn't wall. Pretty much any aggressive play by Zerg early relies on Terran playing greedy (not walling). It's true though that a lot of terran don't wall so it can work, it just is not reliable in any way.
Really list a decent aggressive play that zerg can do in SC2 with any reliability in ZvT. There is no muta harass in SC2, missile turrets basically nullify them, roaches can be outranged by proper building placement, lings.... wall ins. They have no options besides going a crazy all in and hoping the opponent hasn't learned barracks/factory wall ins.
It's very obvious to any Terran how dominate / easy to understand the matchup is, because you can literally force zerg into a maximum of like 2-3 choices. Know how many options zerg has if you go five rax reaper? It takes about 20 games played to see pretty much everything zerg can possibly do. Anyone that plays terran, unless retarded, understands TvZ better than any other matchup.
Alot of the Korean zergs are very aggresive and i've seen alot of cool 1 base builds. I've never seen IdrA win a game that was less than 20mins long i think, it's really rare. But who knows, maybe he could get good at doing 1 base builds and cheesing abit.
I really wish people could deal with this issue without resorting to forms of BM. All zerg players are not lazy, they are not bad. It's not lack of nydus worms, 'creativity' or staying at tier 1 too long, or because Zerg players are 'slower to learn their race'. These are really just insults directed at zerg players, intended or not.
Zerg don't well in tournaments, as Lalush has said because you need to get lucky. There are so many ways to insta-lose at zerg that making your way through an entire tournament field is very, very difficult for most mortals. This is a very difficult point to argue against, without resorting to the above forms of BM.
That said, this doesn't mean that MorroW isn't a fantastic player, and deserve his wins. He's played the game Blizzard gave us to the best of his ability, and has achieved some great things, you can't blame a person for playing a game well. The problem is with the game itself, and the fact it doesn't allow zerg players to shine (or fail) as it does the other races.
Zerg players aren't complaining because they want Terran players to all be miserable, (okay well maybe some are, but they shouldn't) but rather because they want what all of us want - a balanced game where every match up is interesting and enjoyable, both for the players and spectators.
High-level players need to be allowed to voice their feelings on the state of the game, as without this Blizzard has little direction for further balance patches, and SC2 like all games needs further balance patches, and we'll probably see them for the next six years.
On September 14 2010 17:55 me_viet wrote: who wants to see match between Idra/LaLush as Terran and Morrow as Zerg?
There's no point, because there is literally no way Morrow could win, under any circumstances. It's just not in this realm of reality.
I would take it even further, and say that I even think idra could take Morrow in TvT if you gave him few days to practice.
Could be wrong, but its totally possible
Lol you are delusional. Are you seriously saying that Idra would be able to beat the worlds best terrans with a few days practice, people that have been practiced TvT heavily for months now? Also Idra's playing style does not suit terran good at all, so he would have to change a lot of the fundamentals that he uses as zerg. As much as you people believe it, he isn't God.
In a week he for sure could, actually. He won't do it though because of GSL but after this GSL I wouldnt be too surprised if IdrA switched to T. Patch won't change much...
I dont think IdrA can get any better than he is right now, even if he switches race. IdrA likes heavy macro, no cheese and very defensive the first 10-20 mins of the game, so Terran wouldnt fit him very well. Zerg and IdrA is the perfect match.
I think Dimaga could play terran quite well though, but not enough to beat the top ones, i think that would require alot more practice.
actually that's pretty much how you have to play zerg unless Terran gets greedy and doesn't wall. Pretty much any aggressive play by Zerg early relies on Terran playing greedy (not walling). It's true though that a lot of terran don't wall so it can work, it just is not reliable in any way.
Really list a decent aggressive play that zerg can do in SC2 with any reliability in ZvT. There is no muta harass in SC2, missile turrets basically nullify them, roaches can be outranged by proper building placement, lings.... wall ins. They have no options besides going a crazy all in and hoping the opponent hasn't learned barracks/factory wall ins.
It's very obvious to any Terran how dominate / easy to understand the matchup is, because you can literally force zerg into a maximum of like 2-3 choices. Know how many options zerg has if you go five rax reaper? It takes about 20 games played to see pretty much everything zerg can possibly do. Anyone that plays terran, unless retarded, understands TvZ better than any other matchup.
Alot of the Korean zergs are very aggresive and i've seen alot of cool 1 base builds. I've never seen IdrA win a game that was less than 20mins long i think, it's really rare. But who knows, maybe he could get good at doing 1 base builds and cheesing abit.
?
Zenio's game today going 1 base muta, opponent made no turrets or a single anti air unit. Not to mention he could have died anytime to proper reaper pressure.
Zergling - Melee Baneling - try busting down a barracks Roach - Too short of range to shoot past any decent wall Muta - missile turrets
every aggressive zerg attack can be easily countered with proper walling, not to mention try being aggressive versus a 5 rax reaper pressure... I'm about 99% sure any aggressive/army orientated zerg is easily and cost effectively countered with proper sim city, and terran can easily build a CC in base and float it when needed.
There is nothing close to as effective as 5 rax reaper for Zerg, allowing intense pressure and a stockpiling of minerals, not to mention with micro counters every single possible unit zerg can have until post lair.
On September 14 2010 17:55 me_viet wrote: who wants to see match between Idra/LaLush as Terran and Morrow as Zerg?
There's no point, because there is literally no way Morrow could win, under any circumstances. It's just not in this realm of reality.
I would take it even further, and say that I even think idra could take Morrow in TvT if you gave him few days to practice.
Could be wrong, but its totally possible
Lol you are delusional. Are you seriously saying that Idra would be able to beat the worlds best terrans with a few days practice, people that have been practiced TvT heavily for months now? Also Idra's playing style does not suit terran good at all, so he would have to change a lot of the fundamentals that he uses as zerg. As much as you people believe it, he isn't God.
In a week he for sure could, actually. He won't do it though because of GSL but after this GSL I wouldnt be too surprised if IdrA switched to T. Patch won't change much...
Even you?! Come on, dont be ridiculous, noone can just switch race and beat the best players in mirrors a week after -.-
I hope IdrA switches, so we can see what happens! Sadly, chances of that are very small...
?!?! Idra has played plenty of terran throughout beta not to mention 8 years of terran in SC:BW I don't think he would have any problems at all if he massed games as terrans for a week or so, infact i'd believe he'd be the best TvZ and TvP player in the world real fast, TvT not sure but up there
@Ret: If you`re reading and posting in the thread anyway could you give us your opinion about a) the current state of balance and b) some reasons why Zerg has so much problems especially in tourneys?
lalush whines that he got cliffdropped on temple cause he saw a starport with addon which couldnt be a tankdrop when he was going massqueen , spore and god knows what tech.
But i agree that zerg has some problems atm, imo creep is too defensive, and larger and better maps are very much needed , maybe if zerg could keep their speed everywhere (speedlings needs nerfed then tho) and instead regen or something else on creep,
Too many expansions closeby for terran to camp aswell imo, soem fixes to that would change alot i think, and remove temple ( there is a reason that people stopped playing that map when balance-problems with that map became more evident
On September 14 2010 20:53 TreK wrote: lalush whines that he got cliffdropped on temple cause he saw a starport with addon which couldnt be a tankdrop when he was going massqueen , spore and god knows what tech
have you ever tried to stop a cliff drop on temple? you have to have a super fast lair, and build sunkens to slow it down to even have a chance of stopping it. drop doesnt even work because the upgrade takes more than two full minutes to complete and 300/300 which is a huge investment early game often before you scout the drop happening, so you forced to fight marine/turret/medivac with pure muta most of the time.
they are the reason that I open 1base muta on temple, not because its a very good build, but because its 'decent' and there's nothing else that can reliably stop cliff drops
especially if you scout a different tech pattern and counter it correctly, i can see how it would be frustrating.
On September 14 2010 20:53 TreK wrote: lalush whines that he got cliffdropped on temple cause he saw a starport with addon which couldnt be a tankdrop when he was going massqueen , spore and god knows what tech
have you ever tried to stop a cliff drop on temple? you have to have a super fast lair, and build sunkens to slow it down to even have a chance of stopping it. drop doesnt even work because the upgrade takes more than two full minutes to complete and 300/300 which is a huge investment early game often before you scout the drop happening, so you forced to fight marine/turret/medivac with pure muta most of the time.
they are the reason that I open 1base muta on temple, not because its a very good build, but because its 'decent' and there's nothing else that can reliably stop cliff drops
yea temple isnt a very good map, but how can you whine that u scout a starport and thinks he will go banshee and you die on a cliffdrop, starport = drop..nomatter what addon there is on it
i havent been afking at all, its just really hard to win lots of games in a row as z in tours because of the many different strats that u encounter. each terran has his own trademark strat and same can be said about protoss but not in the same degree. the map pool doesnt really help either.
On September 14 2010 21:00 Cheerio wrote: wow at statistics. I made the right decision when switched from random to terran.
Right in what sense?
I think the sense that he enjoys winning. I know I do.
Of course. But it feels much better beating a terran as zerg than playing as terran beating a zerg. You might have a higher ranking as terran, but who freaking cares. If you enjoy playing terran more, all the more power to you, but I fail to see how it is the "right" decision to play the strongest race by default (as he implied with his post).
Wow, I see some high level terrans bashing zergs for whining. I remember top terrans whining back in early phase of beta and nobody accused them for that. You should really stop it and give some constructive criticism.
On September 14 2010 21:09 Liquid`HayprO wrote: i havent been afking at all, its just really hard to win lots of games in a row as z in tours because of the many different strats that u encounter. each terran has his own trademark strat and same can be said about protoss but not in the same degree. the map pool doesnt really help either.
On September 14 2010 17:55 me_viet wrote: who wants to see match between Idra/LaLush as Terran and Morrow as Zerg?
There's no point, because there is literally no way Morrow could win, under any circumstances. It's just not in this realm of reality.
I would take it even further, and say that I even think idra could take Morrow in TvT if you gave him few days to practice.
Could be wrong, but its totally possible
Lol you are delusional. Are you seriously saying that Idra would be able to beat the worlds best terrans with a few days practice, people that have been practiced TvT heavily for months now? Also Idra's playing style does not suit terran good at all, so he would have to change a lot of the fundamentals that he uses as zerg. As much as you people believe it, he isn't God.
In a week he for sure could, actually. He won't do it though because of GSL but after this GSL I wouldnt be too surprised if IdrA switched to T. Patch won't change much...
Even you?! Come on, dont be ridiculous, noone can just switch race and beat the best players in mirrors a week after -.-
I hope IdrA switches, so we can see what happens! Sadly, chances of that are very small...
?!?! Idra has played plenty of terran throughout beta not to mention 8 years of terran in SC:BW I don't think he would have any problems at all if he massed games as terrans for a week or so, infact i'd believe he'd be the best TvZ and TvP player in the world real fast, TvT not sure but up there
Okay you have fair points, I believe IdrA could indeed be a very good Terran with some massing games.
But taking MorroW in TvT, I dont know... From what I have seen, MorroW seems to have the best TvT in the western world?
On September 14 2010 17:55 me_viet wrote: who wants to see match between Idra/LaLush as Terran and Morrow as Zerg?
There's no point, because there is literally no way Morrow could win, under any circumstances. It's just not in this realm of reality.
I would take it even further, and say that I even think idra could take Morrow in TvT if you gave him few days to practice.
Could be wrong, but its totally possible
Lol you are delusional. Are you seriously saying that Idra would be able to beat the worlds best terrans with a few days practice, people that have been practiced TvT heavily for months now? Also Idra's playing style does not suit terran good at all, so he would have to change a lot of the fundamentals that he uses as zerg. As much as you people believe it, he isn't God.
In a week he for sure could, actually. He won't do it though because of GSL but after this GSL I wouldnt be too surprised if IdrA switched to T. Patch won't change much...
Even you?! Come on, dont be ridiculous, noone can just switch race and beat the best players in mirrors a week after -.-
I hope IdrA switches, so we can see what happens! Sadly, chances of that are very small...
The situation posed was Morrow playing as Zerg, Idra as Terran, which is why I said it is impossible for Idra to lose.
Is anyone going to seriously argue that two players of equal skill (even though Idra is obviously superior) switching races Z <--> T would have the same results? Whoever is Terran wins, because the race is fucking easy.
On September 14 2010 21:16 Grond wrote: I think Idra could be quite successful as Terran. What I think would be really interesting is if he tried to apply a macro style to Terran.
Look at how Ensnare, one of the best Terran's in the world played tonight. He played a passive macro mech style, just with a slight harass thrown in with hellions and banshees. He actually outmacroed the zerg both games, so that style can indeed work. Idra has good micro as well, so doing that hellion/banshee/reaper w/e harass would be no problem for him. If he wanted, I'm sure he could pull off playing Terran extremely well.
Who gives a crap about who could be successful as Terran or not. Its a fact that even pro Terrans and pretty much every 1200+ Terran streamer on Livestream / Ustream what ever admitted Terran is too powerful, even game casters make jokes about every hour
On September 14 2010 21:00 Cheerio wrote: wow at statistics. I made the right decision when switched from random to terran.
Right in what sense?
I think the sense that he enjoys winning. I know I do.
Pretty sure all races have a 50% win ratio
Yeah, the automatic matchmaking. Jesus we know. The question is if going from zerg to terran lets you have a 50 percent win ration against better players than you were getting 50 percent against while a zerg.
Switching to another race doesnt make you better, you're still the same player.
maybe not a better player, but a player with better results. Most people would feel a hell of a lot better at 50% in diamond than 50% in gold. That might be exaggerated sure. So let's shrink it down. Most people would feel better at 50% top 200 in Diamond than they would about 50% top 500. Shit, anything that lets you rank up will make most people feel better. Exactly how much it would help is hard to say, we'll have to wait for more people to make the switch
On September 14 2010 17:55 me_viet wrote: who wants to see match between Idra/LaLush as Terran and Morrow as Zerg?
There's no point, because there is literally no way Morrow could win, under any circumstances. It's just not in this realm of reality.
I would take it even further, and say that I even think idra could take Morrow in TvT if you gave him few days to practice.
Could be wrong, but its totally possible
Lol you are delusional. Are you seriously saying that Idra would be able to beat the worlds best terrans with a few days practice, people that have been practiced TvT heavily for months now? Also Idra's playing style does not suit terran good at all, so he would have to change a lot of the fundamentals that he uses as zerg. As much as you people believe it, he isn't God.
In a week he for sure could, actually. He won't do it though because of GSL but after this GSL I wouldnt be too surprised if IdrA switched to T. Patch won't change much...
Even you?! Come on, dont be ridiculous, noone can just switch race and beat the best players in mirrors a week after -.-
I hope IdrA switches, so we can see what happens! Sadly, chances of that are very small...
?!?! Idra has played plenty of terran throughout beta not to mention 8 years of terran in SC:BW I don't think he would have any problems at all if he massed games as terrans for a week or so, infact i'd believe he'd be the best TvZ and TvP player in the world real fast, TvT not sure but up there
Okay you have fair points, I believe IdrA could indeed be a very good Terran with some massing games.
But taking MorroW in TvT, I dont know... From what I have seen, MorroW seems to have the best TvT in the western world?
Demuslim has very impressive TvT. He dominated in TaKe's Homestory cup.
On September 14 2010 17:55 me_viet wrote: who wants to see match between Idra/LaLush as Terran and Morrow as Zerg?
There's no point, because there is literally no way Morrow could win, under any circumstances. It's just not in this realm of reality.
I would take it even further, and say that I even think idra could take Morrow in TvT if you gave him few days to practice.
Could be wrong, but its totally possible
Lol you are delusional. Are you seriously saying that Idra would be able to beat the worlds best terrans with a few days practice, people that have been practiced TvT heavily for months now? Also Idra's playing style does not suit terran good at all, so he would have to change a lot of the fundamentals that he uses as zerg. As much as you people believe it, he isn't God.
In a week he for sure could, actually. He won't do it though because of GSL but after this GSL I wouldnt be too surprised if IdrA switched to T. Patch won't change much...
Even you?! Come on, dont be ridiculous, noone can just switch race and beat the best players in mirrors a week after -.-
I hope IdrA switches, so we can see what happens! Sadly, chances of that are very small...
?!?! Idra has played plenty of terran throughout beta not to mention 8 years of terran in SC:BW I don't think he would have any problems at all if he massed games as terrans for a week or so, infact i'd believe he'd be the best TvZ and TvP player in the world real fast, TvT not sure but up there
Okay you have fair points, I believe IdrA could indeed be a very good Terran with some massing games.
But taking MorroW in TvT, I dont know... From what I have seen, MorroW seems to have the best TvT in the western world?
Demuslim has very impressive TvT. He dominated in TaKe's Homestory cup.
True, true. Such a dynamic MU right now, I guess noone can really be above the playing field for long. MorroW seemed to be 1/2 weeks ago though.
its kinda funny to see MorroW commenting like he is in here. He knows very well that if Terran wasn't so heavily favored, nobody would even care to quote him as he would be a nobody.
On September 14 2010 21:33 Sqq wrote: its kinda funny to see MorroW commenting like he is in here. He knows very well that if Terran wasn't so heavily favored, nobody would even care to quote him as he would be a nobody.
But he still talks about imbalances regardless which race it is (currently Terran). And he knows that there are some things that can be abused to make Terran OP so he is fully aware of Terran state and agreeing that T is OP. He is just using the best out of his race whichever patch updates will come.
From a spectators point of view lack of Z in top tourneys, and lack of different Z-players, makes for a more boring spectating show.
Also i really think /thread after Lalush posted, some of the best analysis i have read. Would a solution be to merge spine crawlers and spore crawlers into one building? Both P and T have defensive structures that are effective against both air and ground, only Z are forced to guess when they want to throw down static defence.
And lol at "Zerg players dont practice enough". Hell i as a casual P players with a full-time job play 4 hours a day ^^
On September 14 2010 21:33 SiGurD wrote: really gj. Some of them i have never heard of! like Trek said, its hard to win many many bo1 vs allintoss or allinzerg tactics.
allintoss I can't speak for, but as a Zerg player, the only 2 all-in build i'm aware of are Baneling Bust or some form of Roach bust.
Baneling bust can be dealt with by using Fact + Rax wall-off. While Roach bust can be dealt with by building an additional bunker and some marauders.
Any early pool can be held off with about 2-3 Scv's on choke with auto-repair on and a marine or 2 behind shooting. Also, If you build the second supply depot before refinery, you are able to wall-out the scouting drones sent out on 12 I think. Which is also about the time 6 lings from a 6-pool pops.
Zerg all-in aren't nearly as strong as Terran's one imo. Two examples I know that works at mid-level Terran are the 5rax no gas rush and the BC rush. Both have got mme wins against other 900-1k+ opponents when I just decided to do it for fun with no prior practice.
Pretty sure all races have a 50% win ratio Switching to another race doesnt make you better, you're still the same player.
Most people have 50% win ratio because that is what Blizzards match making system does, it gives you a 50-58%ish win ratio - even my friends who are bronze have 50% win ratios, IN BRONZE thats how the ladder works. They still lose to me 100% of the time, and in tournaments - where match making isn't determined by MMR - we see a HUGE difference in win ratio between races. Why is this so hard to understand for people?
You really think Idra and Dimaga wouldn't fair better in tournaments at the moment if they race switched to Terran? It's like asking what you'd rather have in a gunfight, a blunderbuss or an AK47.
This thread is making me lean more and more towards a forum style like arenajunkies had. Certain forums only allowed people that were Gladiator or better to post in(WoW).. stops a lot of useless bantering. Also allows better discussion on subjects like this, between people who can actually comment on it.
On September 14 2010 23:10 Macabre wrote: This thread is making me lean more and more towards a forum style like arenajunkies had. Certain forums only allowed people that were Gladiator or better to post in(WoW).. stops a lot of useless bantering. Also allows better discussion on subjects like this, between people who can actually comment on it.
Then you'd be promoting appeal to authority fallacy. An argument can be good or bad no matter the source. The thing is even a lot of pro players don't bother to really know the game like some worse players do. I've seen countless "pro players" stacking storms ones on top of anothers, couldn't even bother to play a bit alone and test this kind of things? Are they just so focused on massing games they forgot to use their heads? Many times lots of practice wins better knowledge, and why some good players aren't actually that good. They're just efficient at the bad things they do. Or people in GSL still using extractor trick when it's been proven that it's worse? And so on. Even if on average worse players input can be worse, sometimes good arguments, ideas and strategies come along.
On September 14 2010 23:01 kataa wrote:You really think Idra and Dimaga wouldn't fair better in tournaments at the moment if they race switched to Terran? It's like asking what you'd rather have in a gunfight, a blunderbuss or an AK47.
they would do ALOT better if they switched to terran. but i think they also play the game for fun and not just to win
and switching race might be great but blizzard has already stated that the new patch is coming and i think thats what keeping them on the zerg side, still some hope left i guess
im sure idra would demolish me if we reversed race 1x1 and im pretty confident in saying idra would be top notch tvt level after just 2 weeks, dimaga would take longer time because he was zerg in sc1.
idra was just that much better than everyone else in sc1 and that skill transfers, im sure of it )
i just hate that i must see everyone blame balance when its so obvious when the terran user just happens to be more skilled than the zerg.
i talk to ret after a metalopolis game and we search for flaws in his play, we find them and he is happy to say he did mistakes, this he can improve. (we also find mistakes in my play obviously but thats not what i talk about) yes its imba and yes he would still lose even if he didnt do those mistakes because its imba but my point is that its so healthy mind set that he can find mistakes in his play even if he lose because of the imba. madfrog is another great example who i been talking to some. these players i have much respect for just for that reason, they can split the difference when they make mistakes and when its imbalanced.
but 99% of zergs just say imba imba even after they make these huge blunders when it was really just their mistake costing them the game and these are the players that wont be good top level even after the game gets balanced and thats also why i dont think they should blame the balance
On September 14 2010 23:01 kataa wrote:You really think Idra and Dimaga wouldn't fair better in tournaments at the moment if they race switched to Terran? It's like asking what you'd rather have in a gunfight, a blunderbuss or an AK47.
they would do ALOT better if they switched to terran. but i think they also play the game for fun and not just to win
and switching race might be great but blizzard has already stated that the new patch is coming and i think thats what keeping them on the zerg side, still some hope left i guess
im sure idra would demolish me if we reversed race 1x1 and im pretty confident in saying idra would be top notch tvt level after just 2 weeks, dimaga would take longer time because he was zerg in sc1.
idra was just that much better than everyone else in sc1 and that skill transfers, im sure of it )
i just hate that i must see everyone blame balance when its so obvious when the terran user just happens to be more skilled than the zerg.
i talk to ret after a metalopolis game and we search for flaws in his play, we find them and he is happy to say he did mistakes, this he can improve. (we also find mistakes in my play obviously but thats not what i talk about) yes its imba and yes he would still lose even if he didnt do those mistakes because its imba but my point is that its so healthy mind set that he can find mistakes in his play even if he lose because of the imba. madfrog is another great example who i been talking to some. these players i have much respect for just for that reason, they can split the difference when they make mistakes and when its imbalanced. but 99% of zergs just say imba imba even after they make these huge blunders when it was really just their mistake costing them the game and these are the players that wont be good top level even after the game gets balanced
The problem with mistakes is its so unforgiving when you do them with Zerg, but with Terran you can do rather huge mistakes and its still very forgiving.
they would do ALOT better if they switched to terran. but i think they also play the game for fun and not just to win
Agreed, as I said before - I wish people wouldn't turn balance discussion into "he didn't deserve to win that" I don't think alot of people are complaining out of spite, they just want to feel like the match ups are fair and they have a chance to show people their abilities.
Good point there MorroW, but there are ppl in here acutally arguing that Terran isnt imbalanced in any way atm. And i think its those ppl everyone is raging on.
On September 14 2010 23:01 kataa wrote:You really think Idra and Dimaga wouldn't fair better in tournaments at the moment if they race switched to Terran? It's like asking what you'd rather have in a gunfight, a blunderbuss or an AK47.
they would do ALOT better if they switched to terran. but i think they also play the game for fun and not just to win
and switching race might be great but blizzard has already stated that the new patch is coming and i think thats what keeping them on the zerg side, still some hope left i guess
im sure idra would demolish me if we reversed race 1x1 and im pretty confident in saying idra would be top notch tvt level after just 2 weeks, dimaga would take longer time because he was zerg in sc1.
idra was just that much better than everyone else in sc1 and that skill transfers, im sure of it )
i just hate that i must see everyone blame balance when its so obvious when the terran user just happens to be more skilled than the zerg.
i talk to ret after a metalopolis game and we search for flaws in his play, we find them and he is happy to say he did mistakes, this he can improve. (we also find mistakes in my play obviously but thats not what i talk about) yes its imba and yes he would still lose even if he didnt do those mistakes because its imba but my point is that its so healthy mind set that he can find mistakes in his play even if he lose because of the imba. madfrog is another great example who i been talking to some. these players i have much respect for just for that reason, they can split the difference when they make mistakes and when its imbalanced. but 99% of zergs just say imba imba even after they make these huge blunders when it was really just their mistake costing them the game and these are the players that wont be good top level even after the game gets balanced
The problem with mistakes is its so unforgiving when you do them with Zerg, but with Terran you can do rather huge mistakes and its still very forgiving.
whats your point? my point is that there are players who say its imba always and there are players who sometimes say "i did a mistake" and sometimes say "ok something is wrong here". and there are TONS more players that just scream imba at everything. madfrog and ret did so well in previous games so they have this beautiful mind set of improving their game while other mediocre players are just pissing me off with their bs
im 1400 diamond terran and my hardest MU is TvZ. I dont 5 rax reaper however i will point out that vs a muta/bane/ling zerg if i dont do alot of damage with my hellion opening into expansion or w/e harass i decide to use. I pretty much guarantee a loss. Once you open up with that expansion it becomes impossible to do any sort of timing attack vs zerg until 200 food and 3 base. in my practice games vs Good zergs they spread overlords everywhere. and vikings are quite useless once mutas come out. SO dropships become nearly impossible to do. Any push before 200 is impossible to do unless i was gonna 8 rax or something redic. there is no feasable way to open up with an expansion vs zerg and win in a macro game. Because you cannot attack them at anypoint once they get mutas before an army of 160-200.
On September 14 2010 23:01 kataa wrote:You really think Idra and Dimaga wouldn't fair better in tournaments at the moment if they race switched to Terran? It's like asking what you'd rather have in a gunfight, a blunderbuss or an AK47.
they would do ALOT better if they switched to terran. but i think they also play the game for fun and not just to win
and switching race might be great but blizzard has already stated that the new patch is coming and i think thats what keeping them on the zerg side, still some hope left i guess
im sure idra would demolish me if we reversed race 1x1 and im pretty confident in saying idra would be top notch tvt level after just 2 weeks, dimaga would take longer time because he was zerg in sc1.
idra was just that much better than everyone else in sc1 and that skill transfers, im sure of it )
i just hate that i must see everyone blame balance when its so obvious when the terran user just happens to be more skilled than the zerg.
i talk to ret after a metalopolis game and we search for flaws in his play, we find them and he is happy to say he did mistakes, this he can improve. (we also find mistakes in my play obviously but thats not what i talk about) yes its imba and yes he would still lose even if he didnt do those mistakes because its imba but my point is that its so healthy mind set that he can find mistakes in his play even if he lose because of the imba. madfrog is another great example who i been talking to some. these players i have much respect for just for that reason, they can split the difference when they make mistakes and when its imbalanced. but 99% of zergs just say imba imba even after they make these huge blunders when it was really just their mistake costing them the game and these are the players that wont be good top level even after the game gets balanced
The problem with mistakes is its so unforgiving when you do them with Zerg, but with Terran you can do rather huge mistakes and its still very forgiving.
whats your point? my point is that there are players who say its imba always and there are players who sometimes say "i did a mistake" and sometimes say "ok something is wrong here".
I agree MorroW. Sadly the latter seems to come up more then the mistake part. I've seen a lot of wins due to IMBA rather then a huge mistake.
and switching race might be great but blizzard has already stated that the new patch is coming and i think thats what keeping them on the zerg side, still some hope left i guess
I really dont think the patch will change much... :/
On September 14 2010 23:01 kataa wrote:You really think Idra and Dimaga wouldn't fair better in tournaments at the moment if they race switched to Terran? It's like asking what you'd rather have in a gunfight, a blunderbuss or an AK47.
they would do ALOT better if they switched to terran. but i think they also play the game for fun and not just to win
and switching race might be great but blizzard has already stated that the new patch is coming and i think thats what keeping them on the zerg side, still some hope left i guess
im sure idra would demolish me if we reversed race 1x1 and im pretty confident in saying idra would be top notch tvt level after just 2 weeks, dimaga would take longer time because he was zerg in sc1.
idra was just that much better than everyone else in sc1 and that skill transfers, im sure of it )
i just hate that i must see everyone blame balance when its so obvious when the terran user just happens to be more skilled than the zerg.
i talk to ret after a metalopolis game and we search for flaws in his play, we find them and he is happy to say he did mistakes, this he can improve. (we also find mistakes in my play obviously but thats not what i talk about) yes its imba and yes he would still lose even if he didnt do those mistakes because its imba but my point is that its so healthy mind set that he can find mistakes in his play even if he lose because of the imba. madfrog is another great example who i been talking to some. these players i have much respect for just for that reason, they can split the difference when they make mistakes and when its imbalanced.
but 99% of zergs just say imba imba even after they make these huge blunders when it was really just their mistake costing them the game and these are the players that wont be good top level even after the game gets balanced and thats also why i dont think they should blame the balance
On September 14 2010 23:01 kataa wrote:You really think Idra and Dimaga wouldn't fair better in tournaments at the moment if they race switched to Terran? It's like asking what you'd rather have in a gunfight, a blunderbuss or an AK47.
they would do ALOT better if they switched to terran. but i think they also play the game for fun and not just to win
and switching race might be great but blizzard has already stated that the new patch is coming and i think thats what keeping them on the zerg side, still some hope left i guess
im sure idra would demolish me if we reversed race 1x1 and im pretty confident in saying idra would be top notch tvt level after just 2 weeks, dimaga would take longer time because he was zerg in sc1.
idra was just that much better than everyone else in sc1 and that skill transfers, im sure of it )
i just hate that i must see everyone blame balance when its so obvious when the terran user just happens to be more skilled than the zerg.
i talk to ret after a metalopolis game and we search for flaws in his play, we find them and he is happy to say he did mistakes, this he can improve. (we also find mistakes in my play obviously but thats not what i talk about) yes its imba and yes he would still lose even if he didnt do those mistakes because its imba but my point is that its so healthy mind set that he can find mistakes in his play even if he lose because of the imba. madfrog is another great example who i been talking to some. these players i have much respect for just for that reason, they can split the difference when they make mistakes and when its imbalanced. but 99% of zergs just say imba imba even after they make these huge blunders when it was really just their mistake costing them the game and these are the players that wont be good top level even after the game gets balanced
The problem with mistakes is its so unforgiving when you do them with Zerg, but with Terran you can do rather huge mistakes and its still very forgiving.
whats your point? my point is that there are players who say its imba always and there are players who sometimes say "i did a mistake" and sometimes say "ok something is wrong here". and there are TONS more players that just scream imba at everything. madfrog and ret did so well in previous games so they have this beautiful mind set of improving their game while other mediocre players are just pissing me off with their bs
I think the point is that it's frustrating knowing that if in a match both the Zerg and Terran make the same amount of mistakes, the Terran would win. It's not saying "oh Terran imba, I always lose". Just playing the game a lot and losing, then watching a replay, then seeing that you and the Terran made the same amount of mistakes yet you, as Zerg, end up losing most of the time takes it's toll on people. Believe me, it's very very VERY frustrating even when you do learn something from the match.
On September 14 2010 23:01 kataa wrote:You really think Idra and Dimaga wouldn't fair better in tournaments at the moment if they race switched to Terran? It's like asking what you'd rather have in a gunfight, a blunderbuss or an AK47.
they would do ALOT better if they switched to terran. but i think they also play the game for fun and not just to win
and switching race might be great but blizzard has already stated that the new patch is coming and i think thats what keeping them on the zerg side, still some hope left i guess
im sure idra would demolish me if we reversed race 1x1 and im pretty confident in saying idra would be top notch tvt level after just 2 weeks, dimaga would take longer time because he was zerg in sc1.
idra was just that much better than everyone else in sc1 and that skill transfers, im sure of it )
i just hate that i must see everyone blame balance when its so obvious when the terran user just happens to be more skilled than the zerg.
i talk to ret after a metalopolis game and we search for flaws in his play, we find them and he is happy to say he did mistakes, this he can improve. (we also find mistakes in my play obviously but thats not what i talk about) yes its imba and yes he would still lose even if he didnt do those mistakes because its imba but my point is that its so healthy mind set that he can find mistakes in his play even if he lose because of the imba. madfrog is another great example who i been talking to some. these players i have much respect for just for that reason, they can split the difference when they make mistakes and when its imbalanced. but 99% of zergs just say imba imba even after they make these huge blunders when it was really just their mistake costing them the game and these are the players that wont be good top level even after the game gets balanced
The problem with mistakes is its so unforgiving when you do them with Zerg, but with Terran you can do rather huge mistakes and its still very forgiving.
whats your point? my point is that there are players who say its imba always and there are players who sometimes say "i did a mistake" and sometimes say "ok something is wrong here". and there are TONS more players that just scream imba at everything. madfrog and ret did so well in previous games so they have this beautiful mind set of improving their game while other mediocre players are just pissing me off with their bs
I think the point is that it's frustrating knowing that if in a match both the Zerg and Terran make the same amount of mistakes, the Terran would win. It's not saying "oh Terran imba, I always lose". Just playing the game a lot and losing, then watching a replay, then seeing that you and the Terran made the same amount of mistakes yet you, as Zerg, end up losing most of the time takes it's toll on people. Believe me, it's very very VERY frustrating even when you do learn something from the match.
sc1 was the exact same way, zerg was so unforgiving race compared to terran, doesnt mean its imbalanced. on top of it i dont talk about balance i talk about mind set and attitude of a player and thats why i dont think its relevant to quote me and write that, just shows that he misunderstood what i said (understandable because my english can be terrible sometimes)
On September 14 2010 23:01 kataa wrote:You really think Idra and Dimaga wouldn't fair better in tournaments at the moment if they race switched to Terran? It's like asking what you'd rather have in a gunfight, a blunderbuss or an AK47.
they would do ALOT better if they switched to terran. but i think they also play the game for fun and not just to win
and switching race might be great but blizzard has already stated that the new patch is coming and i think thats what keeping them on the zerg side, still some hope left i guess
im sure idra would demolish me if we reversed race 1x1 and im pretty confident in saying idra would be top notch tvt level after just 2 weeks, dimaga would take longer time because he was zerg in sc1.
idra was just that much better than everyone else in sc1 and that skill transfers, im sure of it )
i just hate that i must see everyone blame balance when its so obvious when the terran user just happens to be more skilled than the zerg.
i talk to ret after a metalopolis game and we search for flaws in his play, we find them and he is happy to say he did mistakes, this he can improve. (we also find mistakes in my play obviously but thats not what i talk about) yes its imba and yes he would still lose even if he didnt do those mistakes because its imba but my point is that its so healthy mind set that he can find mistakes in his play even if he lose because of the imba. madfrog is another great example who i been talking to some. these players i have much respect for just for that reason, they can split the difference when they make mistakes and when its imbalanced. but 99% of zergs just say imba imba even after they make these huge blunders when it was really just their mistake costing them the game and these are the players that wont be good top level even after the game gets balanced
The problem with mistakes is its so unforgiving when you do them with Zerg, but with Terran you can do rather huge mistakes and its still very forgiving.
whats your point? my point is that there are players who say its imba always and there are players who sometimes say "i did a mistake" and sometimes say "ok something is wrong here". and there are TONS more players that just scream imba at everything. madfrog and ret did so well in previous games so they have this beautiful mind set of improving their game while other mediocre players are just pissing me off with their bs
My point is you might be doing as many if not more mistakes playing Terran, as someone playing Zerg, but seing as your race forgives mistakes so easily its not as clear and out there for people to show. Forgot larva injest ? Your screwed. Forgot to call down mule ? Oh nevermind me, ill just throw down 5. As a Zerg player you need to play a near 100% game to even stand a chance against people like yourself. But as a Terran you don't need to be anywhere near as perfect in your executions. Any timing attack is just an added bonus. I remember watching the IEM and actually agreeing with your view on it, if its there to exploite than go for it, but after watching more and more tournaments its getting to the point where i dont care if I tune in because it will be some above mediocre player playing Terran vs a decent zerg \ protoss, and its the same borefest. Terran is so forgiving coupled with all their small advantages (easy scouting, easy expansion defense, easy air defense, etc). From a spectating perspective TvT is the only fun match up where a T is involved, TvZ and TvP is bloody aweful. Also look at the groups at the IEM NY. 1 pure T group and poor Artosises group. Half of those players wouldn't be anywhere near events like IEM if the Terran race wasn't so strong and forgiving.
On September 14 2010 23:34 FindingPride wrote: im 1400 diamond terran and my hardest MU is TvZ. I dont 5 rax reaper however i will point out that vs a muta/bane/ling zerg if i dont do alot of damage with my hellion opening into expansion or w/e harass i decide to use. I pretty much guarantee a loss. Once you open up with that expansion it becomes impossible to do any sort of timing attack vs zerg until 200 food and 3 base. in my practice games vs Good zergs they spread overlords everywhere. and vikings are quite useless once mutas come out. SO dropships become nearly impossible to do. Any push before 200 is impossible to do unless i was gonna 8 rax or something redic. there is no feasable way to open up with an expansion vs zerg and win in a macro game. Because you cannot attack them at anypoint once they get mutas before an army of 160-200.
When I play ZvT, sometimes I get to a point of game where T attemted to harrass and didn't do enough damage, then I get full map control with bling/ling/muta. T cannot do anything at this point. Just watch when terran is moving out and hit before tanks are sieged.
But if terran builds a couple of thors that messes everything up. After we engage in a fight terran is left only with thors which are repaired quickly. Thats gg for zerg. Coz nothing in zergs army can kill thors in small numbers.
On September 14 2010 23:34 FindingPride wrote: im 1400 diamond terran and my hardest MU is TvZ. I dont 5 rax reaper however i will point out that vs a muta/bane/ling zerg if i dont do alot of damage with my hellion opening into expansion or w/e harass i decide to use. I pretty much guarantee a loss. Once you open up with that expansion it becomes impossible to do any sort of timing attack vs zerg until 200 food and 3 base. in my practice games vs Good zergs they spread overlords everywhere. and vikings are quite useless once mutas come out. SO dropships become nearly impossible to do. Any push before 200 is impossible to do unless i was gonna 8 rax or something redic. there is no feasable way to open up with an expansion vs zerg and win in a macro game. Because you cannot attack them at anypoint once they get mutas before an army of 160-200.
When I play ZvT, sometimes I get to a point of game where T attemted to harrass and didn't do enough damage, then I get full map control with bling/ling/muta. T cannot do anything at this point. Just watch when terran is moving out and hit before tanks are sieged.
But if terran builds a couple of thors that messes everything up. After we engage in a fight terran is left only with thors which are repaired quickly. Thats gg for zerg. Coz nothing in zergs army can kill thors in small numbers.
So my advice: build thors, they are good.
you dont magic box?(Mutas) even then lings should work perfectly. Also players who creep spread good are my worst nightmare =/
On September 14 2010 23:01 kataa wrote:You really think Idra and Dimaga wouldn't fair better in tournaments at the moment if they race switched to Terran? It's like asking what you'd rather have in a gunfight, a blunderbuss or an AK47.
they would do ALOT better if they switched to terran. but i think they also play the game for fun and not just to win
and switching race might be great but blizzard has already stated that the new patch is coming and i think thats what keeping them on the zerg side, still some hope left i guess
im sure idra would demolish me if we reversed race 1x1 and im pretty confident in saying idra would be top notch tvt level after just 2 weeks, dimaga would take longer time because he was zerg in sc1.
idra was just that much better than everyone else in sc1 and that skill transfers, im sure of it )
i just hate that i must see everyone blame balance when its so obvious when the terran user just happens to be more skilled than the zerg.
i talk to ret after a metalopolis game and we search for flaws in his play, we find them and he is happy to say he did mistakes, this he can improve. (we also find mistakes in my play obviously but thats not what i talk about) yes its imba and yes he would still lose even if he didnt do those mistakes because its imba but my point is that its so healthy mind set that he can find mistakes in his play even if he lose because of the imba. madfrog is another great example who i been talking to some. these players i have much respect for just for that reason, they can split the difference when they make mistakes and when its imbalanced. but 99% of zergs just say imba imba even after they make these huge blunders when it was really just their mistake costing them the game and these are the players that wont be good top level even after the game gets balanced
The problem with mistakes is its so unforgiving when you do them with Zerg, but with Terran you can do rather huge mistakes and its still very forgiving.
whats your point? my point is that there are players who say its imba always and there are players who sometimes say "i did a mistake" and sometimes say "ok something is wrong here". and there are TONS more players that just scream imba at everything. madfrog and ret did so well in previous games so they have this beautiful mind set of improving their game while other mediocre players are just pissing me off with their bs
I think the point is that it's frustrating knowing that if in a match both the Zerg and Terran make the same amount of mistakes, the Terran would win. It's not saying "oh Terran imba, I always lose". Just playing the game a lot and losing, then watching a replay, then seeing that you and the Terran made the same amount of mistakes yet you, as Zerg, end up losing most of the time takes it's toll on people. Believe me, it's very very VERY frustrating even when you do learn something from the match.
sc1 was the exact same way, zerg was so unforgiving race compared to terran, doesnt mean its imbalanced. on top of it i dont talk about balance i talk about mind set and attitude of a player and thats why i dont think its relevant to quote me and write that, just shows that he misunderstood what i said (understandable because my english can be terrible sometimes)
On September 14 2010 23:01 kataa wrote:You really think Idra and Dimaga wouldn't fair better in tournaments at the moment if they race switched to Terran? It's like asking what you'd rather have in a gunfight, a blunderbuss or an AK47.
they would do ALOT better if they switched to terran. but i think they also play the game for fun and not just to win
and switching race might be great but blizzard has already stated that the new patch is coming and i think thats what keeping them on the zerg side, still some hope left i guess
im sure idra would demolish me if we reversed race 1x1 and im pretty confident in saying idra would be top notch tvt level after just 2 weeks, dimaga would take longer time because he was zerg in sc1.
idra was just that much better than everyone else in sc1 and that skill transfers, im sure of it )
i just hate that i must see everyone blame balance when its so obvious when the terran user just happens to be more skilled than the zerg.
i talk to ret after a metalopolis game and we search for flaws in his play, we find them and he is happy to say he did mistakes, this he can improve. (we also find mistakes in my play obviously but thats not what i talk about) yes its imba and yes he would still lose even if he didnt do those mistakes because its imba but my point is that its so healthy mind set that he can find mistakes in his play even if he lose because of the imba. madfrog is another great example who i been talking to some. these players i have much respect for just for that reason, they can split the difference when they make mistakes and when its imbalanced. but 99% of zergs just say imba imba even after they make these huge blunders when it was really just their mistake costing them the game and these are the players that wont be good top level even after the game gets balanced
The problem with mistakes is its so unforgiving when you do them with Zerg, but with Terran you can do rather huge mistakes and its still very forgiving.
whats your point? my point is that there are players who say its imba always and there are players who sometimes say "i did a mistake" and sometimes say "ok something is wrong here". and there are TONS more players that just scream imba at everything. madfrog and ret did so well in previous games so they have this beautiful mind set of improving their game while other mediocre players are just pissing me off with their bs
My point is you might be doing as many if not more mistakes playing Terran, as someone playing Zerg, but seing as your race forgives mistakes so easily its not as clear and out there for people to show. Forgot larva injest ? Your screwed. Forgot to call down mule ? Oh nevermind me, ill just throw down 5. As a Zerg player you need to play a near 100% game to even stand a chance against people like yourself. But as a Terran you don't need to be anywhere near as perfect in your executions. Any timing attack is just an added bonus. I remember watching the IEM and actually agreeing with your view on it, if its there to exploite than go for it, but after watching more and more tournaments its getting to the point where i dont care if I tune in because it will be some above mediocre player playing Terran vs a decent zerg \ protoss, and its the same borefest. Terran is so forgiving coupled with all their small advantages (easy scouting, easy expansion defense, easy air defense, etc). From a spectating perspective TvT is the only fun match up where a T is involved, TvZ and TvP is bloody aweful. Also look at the groups at the IEM NY. 1 pure T group and poor Artosises group. Half of those players wouldn't be anywhere near events like IEM if the Terran race wasn't so strong and forgiving.
yes terran is a big newbfriendly race. i wish they made them easier and ive been saying that for months. first week of beta i wished the entire game to get easier. and this is why i almost wanna switch race, because i miss the challenge from sc1 and from what ive heard ppl say zerg is the hardest race but they might just be mixing that up with bad. zerg doesnt look too hard to play either, sure the macro mechanics of queen is harder than the orbital command, but other than that its even battlefield imo
played toss 2 days, that race wasnt harder than terran even tho many said terran is this big newbfriendly race
i think in the future if u miss mule calldowns it will be unforgiving just like miss larva inject. larva inject is alot more clear to see when its forgotten
On September 14 2010 23:01 kataa wrote:You really think Idra and Dimaga wouldn't fair better in tournaments at the moment if they race switched to Terran? It's like asking what you'd rather have in a gunfight, a blunderbuss or an AK47.
they would do ALOT better if they switched to terran. but i think they also play the game for fun and not just to win
and switching race might be great but blizzard has already stated that the new patch is coming and i think thats what keeping them on the zerg side, still some hope left i guess
im sure idra would demolish me if we reversed race 1x1 and im pretty confident in saying idra would be top notch tvt level after just 2 weeks, dimaga would take longer time because he was zerg in sc1.
idra was just that much better than everyone else in sc1 and that skill transfers, im sure of it )
i just hate that i must see everyone blame balance when its so obvious when the terran user just happens to be more skilled than the zerg.
i talk to ret after a metalopolis game and we search for flaws in his play, we find them and he is happy to say he did mistakes, this he can improve. (we also find mistakes in my play obviously but thats not what i talk about) yes its imba and yes he would still lose even if he didnt do those mistakes because its imba but my point is that its so healthy mind set that he can find mistakes in his play even if he lose because of the imba. madfrog is another great example who i been talking to some. these players i have much respect for just for that reason, they can split the difference when they make mistakes and when its imbalanced. but 99% of zergs just say imba imba even after they make these huge blunders when it was really just their mistake costing them the game and these are the players that wont be good top level even after the game gets balanced
The problem with mistakes is its so unforgiving when you do them with Zerg, but with Terran you can do rather huge mistakes and its still very forgiving.
whats your point? my point is that there are players who say its imba always and there are players who sometimes say "i did a mistake" and sometimes say "ok something is wrong here". and there are TONS more players that just scream imba at everything. madfrog and ret did so well in previous games so they have this beautiful mind set of improving their game while other mediocre players are just pissing me off with their bs
I think the point is that it's frustrating knowing that if in a match both the Zerg and Terran make the same amount of mistakes, the Terran would win. It's not saying "oh Terran imba, I always lose". Just playing the game a lot and losing, then watching a replay, then seeing that you and the Terran made the same amount of mistakes yet you, as Zerg, end up losing most of the time takes it's toll on people. Believe me, it's very very VERY frustrating even when you do learn something from the match.
sc1 was the exact same way, zerg was so unforgiving race compared to terran, doesnt mean its imbalanced. on top of it i dont talk about balance i talk about mind set and attitude of a player and thats why i dont think its relevant to quote me and write that, just shows that he misunderstood what i said (understandable because my english can be terrible sometimes)
there you have it guys. terran is NOT imba!
perfect example of a guy i wish got banned. and from my point of view majority of the ppl i talk to think like this
On September 14 2010 23:01 kataa wrote:You really think Idra and Dimaga wouldn't fair better in tournaments at the moment if they race switched to Terran? It's like asking what you'd rather have in a gunfight, a blunderbuss or an AK47.
they would do ALOT better if they switched to terran. but i think they also play the game for fun and not just to win
and switching race might be great but blizzard has already stated that the new patch is coming and i think thats what keeping them on the zerg side, still some hope left i guess
im sure idra would demolish me if we reversed race 1x1 and im pretty confident in saying idra would be top notch tvt level after just 2 weeks, dimaga would take longer time because he was zerg in sc1.
idra was just that much better than everyone else in sc1 and that skill transfers, im sure of it )
i just hate that i must see everyone blame balance when its so obvious when the terran user just happens to be more skilled than the zerg.
i talk to ret after a metalopolis game and we search for flaws in his play, we find them and he is happy to say he did mistakes, this he can improve. (we also find mistakes in my play obviously but thats not what i talk about) yes its imba and yes he would still lose even if he didnt do those mistakes because its imba but my point is that its so healthy mind set that he can find mistakes in his play even if he lose because of the imba. madfrog is another great example who i been talking to some. these players i have much respect for just for that reason, they can split the difference when they make mistakes and when its imbalanced. but 99% of zergs just say imba imba even after they make these huge blunders when it was really just their mistake costing them the game and these are the players that wont be good top level even after the game gets balanced
The problem with mistakes is its so unforgiving when you do them with Zerg, but with Terran you can do rather huge mistakes and its still very forgiving.
whats your point? my point is that there are players who say its imba always and there are players who sometimes say "i did a mistake" and sometimes say "ok something is wrong here". and there are TONS more players that just scream imba at everything. madfrog and ret did so well in previous games so they have this beautiful mind set of improving their game while other mediocre players are just pissing me off with their bs
I think the point is that it's frustrating knowing that if in a match both the Zerg and Terran make the same amount of mistakes, the Terran would win. It's not saying "oh Terran imba, I always lose". Just playing the game a lot and losing, then watching a replay, then seeing that you and the Terran made the same amount of mistakes yet you, as Zerg, end up losing most of the time takes it's toll on people. Believe me, it's very very VERY frustrating even when you do learn something from the match.
sc1 was the exact same way, zerg was so unforgiving race compared to terran, doesnt mean its imbalanced. on top of it i dont talk about balance i talk about mind set and attitude of a player and thats why i dont think its relevant to quote me and write that, just shows that he misunderstood what i said (understandable because my english can be terrible sometimes)
I like your attitude and honesty. Its so sad that your efforts are not appreciated due to so-called 'Terran OP'. But nevertheless keep on working and I hope people like you, IdrA or Dimaga will help to make SC2 balanced.
On September 14 2010 23:01 kataa wrote:You really think Idra and Dimaga wouldn't fair better in tournaments at the moment if they race switched to Terran? It's like asking what you'd rather have in a gunfight, a blunderbuss or an AK47.
they would do ALOT better if they switched to terran. but i think they also play the game for fun and not just to win
and switching race might be great but blizzard has already stated that the new patch is coming and i think thats what keeping them on the zerg side, still some hope left i guess
im sure idra would demolish me if we reversed race 1x1 and im pretty confident in saying idra would be top notch tvt level after just 2 weeks, dimaga would take longer time because he was zerg in sc1.
idra was just that much better than everyone else in sc1 and that skill transfers, im sure of it )
i just hate that i must see everyone blame balance when its so obvious when the terran user just happens to be more skilled than the zerg.
i talk to ret after a metalopolis game and we search for flaws in his play, we find them and he is happy to say he did mistakes, this he can improve. (we also find mistakes in my play obviously but thats not what i talk about) yes its imba and yes he would still lose even if he didnt do those mistakes because its imba but my point is that its so healthy mind set that he can find mistakes in his play even if he lose because of the imba. madfrog is another great example who i been talking to some. these players i have much respect for just for that reason, they can split the difference when they make mistakes and when its imbalanced. but 99% of zergs just say imba imba even after they make these huge blunders when it was really just their mistake costing them the game and these are the players that wont be good top level even after the game gets balanced
The problem with mistakes is its so unforgiving when you do them with Zerg, but with Terran you can do rather huge mistakes and its still very forgiving.
whats your point? my point is that there are players who say its imba always and there are players who sometimes say "i did a mistake" and sometimes say "ok something is wrong here". and there are TONS more players that just scream imba at everything. madfrog and ret did so well in previous games so they have this beautiful mind set of improving their game while other mediocre players are just pissing me off with their bs
My point is you might be doing as many if not more mistakes playing Terran, as someone playing Zerg, but seing as your race forgives mistakes so easily its not as clear and out there for people to show. Forgot larva injest ? Your screwed. Forgot to call down mule ? Oh nevermind me, ill just throw down 5. As a Zerg player you need to play a near 100% game to even stand a chance against people like yourself. But as a Terran you don't need to be anywhere near as perfect in your executions. Any timing attack is just an added bonus. I remember watching the IEM and actually agreeing with your view on it, if its there to exploite than go for it, but after watching more and more tournaments its getting to the point where i dont care if I tune in because it will be some above mediocre player playing Terran vs a decent zerg \ protoss, and its the same borefest. Terran is so forgiving coupled with all their small advantages (easy scouting, easy expansion defense, easy air defense, etc). From a spectating perspective TvT is the only fun match up where a T is involved, TvZ and TvP is bloody aweful. Also look at the groups at the IEM NY. 1 pure T group and poor Artosises group. Half of those players wouldn't be anywhere near events like IEM if the Terran race wasn't so strong and forgiving.
yes terran is a big newbfriendly race. i wish they made them easier and ive been saying that for months. first week of beta i wished the entire game to get easier. and this is why i almost wanna switch race, because i miss the challenge from sc1 and from what ive heard ppl say zerg is the hardest race but they might just be mixing that up with bad. zerg doesnt look too hard to play either, sure the macro mechanics of queen is harder than the orbital command, but other than that its even battlefield imo
played toss 2 days, that race wasnt harder than terran even tho many said terran is this big newbfriendly race
i think in the future if u miss mule calldowns it will be unforgiving just like miss larva inject. larva inject is alot more clear to see when its forgotten
Even battlefield ? As a Zerg myself I'm playing blindly against a walled of Terran, and he can tech switch so easily. When playing zerg you need to go down certain tech paths, but as Terran you can easily switch techs thanks to a 50\50 and 50\25 tech buildings. Even Protoss has a hard time tech switching, and most Protosses has just ignored DTs even tho they where so strong in BW. the cost and time to get there is so extremly hard while fighting. While Terran will throw down Barrack, Factory, Starport in every game, and with the magic touch of flying your buildings around you open tech paths so easily. In general Terran is to easy and forgiving. Its basically impossible to get caught out tech wise as a Terran. All buildings bar Fusion Core \ Ghost Acadamy will be thrown down anyways as its normal. The race is to forgiving in all aspects and need to have some punishing elements to teching like Zerg and Protoss has.
On September 14 2010 23:01 kataa wrote:You really think Idra and Dimaga wouldn't fair better in tournaments at the moment if they race switched to Terran? It's like asking what you'd rather have in a gunfight, a blunderbuss or an AK47.
they would do ALOT better if they switched to terran. but i think they also play the game for fun and not just to win
and switching race might be great but blizzard has already stated that the new patch is coming and i think thats what keeping them on the zerg side, still some hope left i guess
im sure idra would demolish me if we reversed race 1x1 and im pretty confident in saying idra would be top notch tvt level after just 2 weeks, dimaga would take longer time because he was zerg in sc1.
idra was just that much better than everyone else in sc1 and that skill transfers, im sure of it )
i just hate that i must see everyone blame balance when its so obvious when the terran user just happens to be more skilled than the zerg.
i talk to ret after a metalopolis game and we search for flaws in his play, we find them and he is happy to say he did mistakes, this he can improve. (we also find mistakes in my play obviously but thats not what i talk about) yes its imba and yes he would still lose even if he didnt do those mistakes because its imba but my point is that its so healthy mind set that he can find mistakes in his play even if he lose because of the imba. madfrog is another great example who i been talking to some. these players i have much respect for just for that reason, they can split the difference when they make mistakes and when its imbalanced. but 99% of zergs just say imba imba even after they make these huge blunders when it was really just their mistake costing them the game and these are the players that wont be good top level even after the game gets balanced
The problem with mistakes is its so unforgiving when you do them with Zerg, but with Terran you can do rather huge mistakes and its still very forgiving.
whats your point? my point is that there are players who say its imba always and there are players who sometimes say "i did a mistake" and sometimes say "ok something is wrong here". and there are TONS more players that just scream imba at everything. madfrog and ret did so well in previous games so they have this beautiful mind set of improving their game while other mediocre players are just pissing me off with their bs
My point is you might be doing as many if not more mistakes playing Terran, as someone playing Zerg, but seing as your race forgives mistakes so easily its not as clear and out there for people to show. Forgot larva injest ? Your screwed. Forgot to call down mule ? Oh nevermind me, ill just throw down 5. As a Zerg player you need to play a near 100% game to even stand a chance against people like yourself. But as a Terran you don't need to be anywhere near as perfect in your executions. Any timing attack is just an added bonus. I remember watching the IEM and actually agreeing with your view on it, if its there to exploite than go for it, but after watching more and more tournaments its getting to the point where i dont care if I tune in because it will be some above mediocre player playing Terran vs a decent zerg \ protoss, and its the same borefest. Terran is so forgiving coupled with all their small advantages (easy scouting, easy expansion defense, easy air defense, etc). From a spectating perspective TvT is the only fun match up where a T is involved, TvZ and TvP is bloody aweful. Also look at the groups at the IEM NY. 1 pure T group and poor Artosises group. Half of those players wouldn't be anywhere near events like IEM if the Terran race wasn't so strong and forgiving.
yes terran is a big newbfriendly race. i wish they made them easier and ive been saying that for months. first week of beta i wished the entire game to get easier. and this is why i almost wanna switch race, because i miss the challenge from sc1 and from what ive heard ppl say zerg is the hardest race but they might just be mixing that up with bad. zerg doesnt look too hard to play either, sure the macro mechanics of queen is harder than the orbital command, but other than that its even battlefield imo
played toss 2 days, that race wasnt harder than terran even tho many said terran is this big newbfriendly race
i think in the future if u miss mule calldowns it will be unforgiving just like miss larva inject. larva inject is alot more clear to see when its forgotten
Even battlefield ? As a Zerg myself I'm playing blindly against a walled of Terran, and he can tech switch so easily. When playing zerg you need to go down certain tech paths, but as Terran you can easily switch techs thanks to a 50\50 and 50\25 tech buildings. Even Protoss has a hard time tech switching, and most Protosses has just ignored DTs even tho they where so strong in BW. the cost and time to get there is so extremly hard while fighting. While Terran will throw down Barrack, Factory, Starport in every game, and with the magic touch of flying your buildings around you open tech paths so easily. In general Terran is to easy and forgiving. Its basically impossible to get caught out tech wise as a Terran. All buildings bar Fusion Core \ Ghost Acadamy will be thrown down anyways as its normal. The race is to forgiving in all aspects and need to have some punishing elements to teching like Zerg and Protoss has.
you're not gonna have this discussion are you? O;\ all your hatches instantly become a barracks, as well as starport, as well as a factory and a command center the instant you build the tech.
I find Terran to be quite a bit forgiving, compared to Zerg.
There's your Wall In, in case you make a small mistake, just run back and mass up a bit while you wall gets damaged by the roaches/lings. If Zerg messes up and for some reason gets its Zerglings in a perfect position for Hellions to roast them, well, the Zerg loses everything and gets said back very far...
Then, there's the MULEs. I agree with you that currently, the game is to young for MULEs to have such a big timing importance, but at this moment, missing you MULE is not a problem at all. So is losing 10 SCVs to a baneling drop way less worse than 10 drones, you just use your mule, which gives money for 5-6 f*cking SCVs!!! Zerg needs to get Drones, which might build a little faster with the Larva mechanic, but they don't get the minerals they need soon enough for it to be important. Next to that, MULEs stack, Larva Inject doesn't.
Next up, the easilly available Tech Switch. Going for something, but you notice your opponent goes heavy on Roaches? Damn, lets just get these 2 raxesbuilding Marauders instead of Marines... How much time does it cost? 25 secs if you build a new, super cheap tech path? If the Zerg goes for Banelings because he saw the barracks building a Reactor, but than it gets swapped and transitions into Marauder Hellion, well, guess you're fucked, building your Lair and Spire will take enough time for the enemy to produce 15 Marauders and 10 Hellions, slaughtering everything you had.
Lets not talk about Scouting. You are totally in the dark about what your opponent is doing?? Guess building a Barracks for some pretty much guaranteed scouting is quite an investment... Zerg needs to suicide 100 Minerals for uncertain scouting, as the buildings fly around and switch tech, the Overlords might miss some things, and they certainly die. It costs 150/100 for a higher chance of good scouting, or 100/100 to get an upgrade making scouting useable.
Antiscouting? Terran Walls deny any form of scouting on the ground, missile turrets and Marines will keep the air clean. Once the Vikings come out, Zerg needs to either get Mass Muta, or just give up on map control and take all their overlords back home. Zerg lacks any Anti Air units early on, so the Early barracks guarantees scouting in the early- mid game. Queens just don't do it and Hydralisks get countered extraordinarilly hard by Tanks, and pretty decently by Hellions.
On September 15 2010 00:03 Sqq wrote:Even battlefield ? As a Zerg myself I'm playing blindly against a walled of Terran, and he can tech switch so easily. When playing zerg you need to go down certain tech paths, but as Terran you can easily switch techs thanks to a 50\50 and 50\25 tech buildings. Even Protoss has a hard time tech switching, and most Protosses has just ignored DTs even tho they where so strong in BW. the cost and time to get there is so extremly hard while fighting. While Terran will throw down Barrack, Factory, Starport in every game, and with the magic touch of flying your buildings around you open tech paths so easily. In general Terran is to easy and forgiving. Its basically impossible to get caught out tech wise as a Terran. All buildings bar Fusion Core \ Ghost Acadamy will be thrown down anyways as its normal. The race is to forgiving in all aspects and need to have some punishing elements to teching like Zerg and Protoss has.
you're not gonna have this discussion are you? O;\ all your hatches instantly become a barracks, as well as starport, as well as a factory and a command center the instant you build the tech.
The instant you build the tech... The instant .... You ment the 2 minutes for going up a tier and than getting the building? By the way, Terran has a hardcounter for every Zerg unit. An extremely Hard Counter, which all become available with these easy techswitches.
I hope some Terran actually takes the time to read this and post an appopriate reply, instead of doing "haha QQ noobnobb !!" and just not arguing.
On September 14 2010 23:01 kataa wrote:You really think Idra and Dimaga wouldn't fair better in tournaments at the moment if they race switched to Terran? It's like asking what you'd rather have in a gunfight, a blunderbuss or an AK47.
they would do ALOT better if they switched to terran. but i think they also play the game for fun and not just to win
and switching race might be great but blizzard has already stated that the new patch is coming and i think thats what keeping them on the zerg side, still some hope left i guess
im sure idra would demolish me if we reversed race 1x1 and im pretty confident in saying idra would be top notch tvt level after just 2 weeks, dimaga would take longer time because he was zerg in sc1.
idra was just that much better than everyone else in sc1 and that skill transfers, im sure of it )
i just hate that i must see everyone blame balance when its so obvious when the terran user just happens to be more skilled than the zerg.
i talk to ret after a metalopolis game and we search for flaws in his play, we find them and he is happy to say he did mistakes, this he can improve. (we also find mistakes in my play obviously but thats not what i talk about) yes its imba and yes he would still lose even if he didnt do those mistakes because its imba but my point is that its so healthy mind set that he can find mistakes in his play even if he lose because of the imba. madfrog is another great example who i been talking to some. these players i have much respect for just for that reason, they can split the difference when they make mistakes and when its imbalanced. but 99% of zergs just say imba imba even after they make these huge blunders when it was really just their mistake costing them the game and these are the players that wont be good top level even after the game gets balanced
The problem with mistakes is its so unforgiving when you do them with Zerg, but with Terran you can do rather huge mistakes and its still very forgiving.
whats your point? my point is that there are players who say its imba always and there are players who sometimes say "i did a mistake" and sometimes say "ok something is wrong here". and there are TONS more players that just scream imba at everything. madfrog and ret did so well in previous games so they have this beautiful mind set of improving their game while other mediocre players are just pissing me off with their bs
My point is you might be doing as many if not more mistakes playing Terran, as someone playing Zerg, but seing as your race forgives mistakes so easily its not as clear and out there for people to show. Forgot larva injest ? Your screwed. Forgot to call down mule ? Oh nevermind me, ill just throw down 5. As a Zerg player you need to play a near 100% game to even stand a chance against people like yourself. But as a Terran you don't need to be anywhere near as perfect in your executions. Any timing attack is just an added bonus. I remember watching the IEM and actually agreeing with your view on it, if its there to exploite than go for it, but after watching more and more tournaments its getting to the point where i dont care if I tune in because it will be some above mediocre player playing Terran vs a decent zerg \ protoss, and its the same borefest. Terran is so forgiving coupled with all their small advantages (easy scouting, easy expansion defense, easy air defense, etc). From a spectating perspective TvT is the only fun match up where a T is involved, TvZ and TvP is bloody aweful. Also look at the groups at the IEM NY. 1 pure T group and poor Artosises group. Half of those players wouldn't be anywhere near events like IEM if the Terran race wasn't so strong and forgiving.
yes terran is a big newbfriendly race. i wish they made them easier and ive been saying that for months. first week of beta i wished the entire game to get easier. and this is why i almost wanna switch race, because i miss the challenge from sc1 and from what ive heard ppl say zerg is the hardest race but they might just be mixing that up with bad. zerg doesnt look too hard to play either, sure the macro mechanics of queen is harder than the orbital command, but other than that its even battlefield imo
played toss 2 days, that race wasnt harder than terran even tho many said terran is this big newbfriendly race
i think in the future if u miss mule calldowns it will be unforgiving just like miss larva inject. larva inject is alot more clear to see when its forgotten
Even battlefield ? As a Zerg myself I'm playing blindly against a walled of Terran, and he can tech switch so easily. When playing zerg you need to go down certain tech paths, but as Terran you can easily switch techs thanks to a 50\50 and 50\25 tech buildings. Even Protoss has a hard time tech switching, and most Protosses has just ignored DTs even tho they where so strong in BW. the cost and time to get there is so extremly hard while fighting. While Terran will throw down Barrack, Factory, Starport in every game, and with the magic touch of flying your buildings around you open tech paths so easily. In general Terran is to easy and forgiving. Its basically impossible to get caught out tech wise as a Terran. All buildings bar Fusion Core \ Ghost Acadamy will be thrown down anyways as its normal. The race is to forgiving in all aspects and need to have some punishing elements to teching like Zerg and Protoss has.
you're not gonna have this discussion are you? O;\ all your hatches instantly become a barracks, as well as starport, as well as a factory and a command center the instant you build the tech.
Where you have to perfectly balance the drone production against the army producation. A small error there and your screwed. Late game your point gets valid, but anytime before that it feels more like a handicap than anything else.
On September 14 2010 23:01 kataa wrote:You really think Idra and Dimaga wouldn't fair better in tournaments at the moment if they race switched to Terran? It's like asking what you'd rather have in a gunfight, a blunderbuss or an AK47.
they would do ALOT better if they switched to terran. but i think they also play the game for fun and not just to win
and switching race might be great but blizzard has already stated that the new patch is coming and i think thats what keeping them on the zerg side, still some hope left i guess
im sure idra would demolish me if we reversed race 1x1 and im pretty confident in saying idra would be top notch tvt level after just 2 weeks, dimaga would take longer time because he was zerg in sc1.
idra was just that much better than everyone else in sc1 and that skill transfers, im sure of it )
i just hate that i must see everyone blame balance when its so obvious when the terran user just happens to be more skilled than the zerg.
i talk to ret after a metalopolis game and we search for flaws in his play, we find them and he is happy to say he did mistakes, this he can improve. (we also find mistakes in my play obviously but thats not what i talk about) yes its imba and yes he would still lose even if he didnt do those mistakes because its imba but my point is that its so healthy mind set that he can find mistakes in his play even if he lose because of the imba. madfrog is another great example who i been talking to some. these players i have much respect for just for that reason, they can split the difference when they make mistakes and when its imbalanced. but 99% of zergs just say imba imba even after they make these huge blunders when it was really just their mistake costing them the game and these are the players that wont be good top level even after the game gets balanced
The problem with mistakes is its so unforgiving when you do them with Zerg, but with Terran you can do rather huge mistakes and its still very forgiving.
whats your point? my point is that there are players who say its imba always and there are players who sometimes say "i did a mistake" and sometimes say "ok something is wrong here". and there are TONS more players that just scream imba at everything. madfrog and ret did so well in previous games so they have this beautiful mind set of improving their game while other mediocre players are just pissing me off with their bs
My point is you might be doing as many if not more mistakes playing Terran, as someone playing Zerg, but seing as your race forgives mistakes so easily its not as clear and out there for people to show. Forgot larva injest ? Your screwed. Forgot to call down mule ? Oh nevermind me, ill just throw down 5. As a Zerg player you need to play a near 100% game to even stand a chance against people like yourself. But as a Terran you don't need to be anywhere near as perfect in your executions. Any timing attack is just an added bonus. I remember watching the IEM and actually agreeing with your view on it, if its there to exploite than go for it, but after watching more and more tournaments its getting to the point where i dont care if I tune in because it will be some above mediocre player playing Terran vs a decent zerg \ protoss, and its the same borefest. Terran is so forgiving coupled with all their small advantages (easy scouting, easy expansion defense, easy air defense, etc). From a spectating perspective TvT is the only fun match up where a T is involved, TvZ and TvP is bloody aweful. Also look at the groups at the IEM NY. 1 pure T group and poor Artosises group. Half of those players wouldn't be anywhere near events like IEM if the Terran race wasn't so strong and forgiving.
yes terran is a big newbfriendly race. i wish they made them easier and ive been saying that for months. first week of beta i wished the entire game to get easier. and this is why i almost wanna switch race, because i miss the challenge from sc1 and from what ive heard ppl say zerg is the hardest race but they might just be mixing that up with bad. zerg doesnt look too hard to play either, sure the macro mechanics of queen is harder than the orbital command, but other than that its even battlefield imo
played toss 2 days, that race wasnt harder than terran even tho many said terran is this big newbfriendly race
i think in the future if u miss mule calldowns it will be unforgiving just like miss larva inject. larva inject is alot more clear to see when its forgotten
Even battlefield ? As a Zerg myself I'm playing blindly against a walled of Terran, and he can tech switch so easily. When playing zerg you need to go down certain tech paths, but as Terran you can easily switch techs thanks to a 50\50 and 50\25 tech buildings. Even Protoss has a hard time tech switching, and most Protosses has just ignored DTs even tho they where so strong in BW. the cost and time to get there is so extremly hard while fighting. While Terran will throw down Barrack, Factory, Starport in every game, and with the magic touch of flying your buildings around you open tech paths so easily. In general Terran is to easy and forgiving. Its basically impossible to get caught out tech wise as a Terran. All buildings bar Fusion Core \ Ghost Acadamy will be thrown down anyways as its normal. The race is to forgiving in all aspects and need to have some punishing elements to teching like Zerg and Protoss has.
i was talking about which race is harder to play and i was saying macroing with the queen mechanic is harder than the orbital command mechanic, but in general i think all 3 races are about as hard to play (should call it as easy if u compare to sc1)
On September 15 2010 00:14 ToastieNL wrote: I find Terran to be quite a bit forgiving, compared to Zerg.
There's your Wall In, in case you make a small mistake, just run back and mass up a bit while you wall gets damaged by the roaches/lings. If Zerg messes up and for some reason gets its Zerglings in a perfect position for Hellions to roast them, well, the Zerg loses everything and gets said back very far...
Then, there's the MULEs. I agree with you that currently, the game is to young for MULEs to have such a big timing importance, but at this moment, missing you MULE is not a problem at all. So is losing 10 SCVs to a baneling drop way less worse than 10 drones, you just use your mule, which gives money for 5-6 f*cking SCVs!!! Zerg needs to get Drones, which might build a little faster with the Larva mechanic, but they don't get the minerals they need soon enough for it to be important. Next to that, MULEs stack, Larva Inject doesn't. + Show Spoiler +
Next up, the easilly available Tech Switch. Going for something, but you notice your opponent goes heavy on Roaches? Damn, lets just get these 2 raxesbuilding Marauders instead of Marines... How much time does it cost? 25 secs if you build a new, super cheap tech path? If the Zerg goes for Banelings because he saw the barracks building a Reactor, but than it gets swapped and transitions into Marauder Hellion, well, guess you're fucked, building your Lair and Spire will take enough time for the enemy to produce 15 Marauders and 10 Hellions, slaughtering everything you had.
Lets not talk about Scouting. You are totally in the dark about what your opponent is doing?? Guess building a Barracks for some pretty much guaranteed scouting is quite an investment... Zerg needs to suicide 100 Minerals for uncertain scouting, as the buildings fly around and switch tech, the Overlords might miss some things, and they certainly die. It costs 150/100 for a higher chance of good scouting, or 100/100 to get an upgrade making scouting useable.
Antiscouting? Terran Walls deny any form of scouting on the ground, missile turrets and Marines will keep the air clean. Once the Vikings come out, Zerg needs to either get Mass Muta, or just give up on map control and take all their overlords back home. Zerg lacks any Anti Air units early on, so the Early barracks guarantees scouting in the early- mid game. Queens just don't do it and Hydralisks get countered extraordinarilly hard by Tanks, and pretty decently by Hellions.
On September 15 2010 00:03 Sqq wrote:Even battlefield ? As a Zerg myself I'm playing blindly against a walled of Terran, and he can tech switch so easily. When playing zerg you need to go down certain tech paths, but as Terran you can easily switch techs thanks to a 50\50 and 50\25 tech buildings. Even Protoss has a hard time tech switching, and most Protosses has just ignored DTs even tho they where so strong in BW. the cost and time to get there is so extremly hard while fighting. While Terran will throw down Barrack, Factory, Starport in every game, and with the magic touch of flying your buildings around you open tech paths so easily. In general Terran is to easy and forgiving. Its basically impossible to get caught out tech wise as a Terran. All buildings bar Fusion Core \ Ghost Acadamy will be thrown down anyways as its normal. The race is to forgiving in all aspects and need to have some punishing elements to teching like Zerg and Protoss has.
you're not gonna have this discussion are you? O;\ all your hatches instantly become a barracks, as well as starport, as well as a factory and a command center the instant you build the tech.
The instant you build the tech... The instant .... You ment the 2 minutes for going up a tier and than getting the building? By the way, Terran has a hardcounter for every Zerg unit. An extremely Hard Counter, which all become available with these easy techswitches.
I hope some Terran actually takes the time to read this and post an appopriate reply, instead of doing "haha QQ noobnobb !!" and just not arguing.
Kind Regards, Toastie
Mule DOES NOT equal inject larva! Why does every1 feel the need to compare. Mule is there to balance the possibility of toss and zerg to build workers faster then T. If you miss a mule then in that time the Z/P had 5-6 more workers that were mining . If you remember at last about the mule and spam 2-3 mules that still doesnt cover the fact that you lost mining time.
On September 14 2010 23:01 kataa wrote:You really think Idra and Dimaga wouldn't fair better in tournaments at the moment if they race switched to Terran? It's like asking what you'd rather have in a gunfight, a blunderbuss or an AK47.
they would do ALOT better if they switched to terran. but i think they also play the game for fun and not just to win
and switching race might be great but blizzard has already stated that the new patch is coming and i think thats what keeping them on the zerg side, still some hope left i guess
im sure idra would demolish me if we reversed race 1x1 and im pretty confident in saying idra would be top notch tvt level after just 2 weeks, dimaga would take longer time because he was zerg in sc1.
idra was just that much better than everyone else in sc1 and that skill transfers, im sure of it )
i just hate that i must see everyone blame balance when its so obvious when the terran user just happens to be more skilled than the zerg.
i talk to ret after a metalopolis game and we search for flaws in his play, we find them and he is happy to say he did mistakes, this he can improve. (we also find mistakes in my play obviously but thats not what i talk about) yes its imba and yes he would still lose even if he didnt do those mistakes because its imba but my point is that its so healthy mind set that he can find mistakes in his play even if he lose because of the imba. madfrog is another great example who i been talking to some. these players i have much respect for just for that reason, they can split the difference when they make mistakes and when its imbalanced. but 99% of zergs just say imba imba even after they make these huge blunders when it was really just their mistake costing them the game and these are the players that wont be good top level even after the game gets balanced
The problem with mistakes is its so unforgiving when you do them with Zerg, but with Terran you can do rather huge mistakes and its still very forgiving.
whats your point? my point is that there are players who say its imba always and there are players who sometimes say "i did a mistake" and sometimes say "ok something is wrong here". and there are TONS more players that just scream imba at everything. madfrog and ret did so well in previous games so they have this beautiful mind set of improving their game while other mediocre players are just pissing me off with their bs
My point is you might be doing as many if not more mistakes playing Terran, as someone playing Zerg, but seing as your race forgives mistakes so easily its not as clear and out there for people to show. Forgot larva injest ? Your screwed. Forgot to call down mule ? Oh nevermind me, ill just throw down 5. As a Zerg player you need to play a near 100% game to even stand a chance against people like yourself. But as a Terran you don't need to be anywhere near as perfect in your executions. Any timing attack is just an added bonus. I remember watching the IEM and actually agreeing with your view on it, if its there to exploite than go for it, but after watching more and more tournaments its getting to the point where i dont care if I tune in because it will be some above mediocre player playing Terran vs a decent zerg \ protoss, and its the same borefest. Terran is so forgiving coupled with all their small advantages (easy scouting, easy expansion defense, easy air defense, etc). From a spectating perspective TvT is the only fun match up where a T is involved, TvZ and TvP is bloody aweful. Also look at the groups at the IEM NY. 1 pure T group and poor Artosises group. Half of those players wouldn't be anywhere near events like IEM if the Terran race wasn't so strong and forgiving.
yes terran is a big newbfriendly race. i wish they made them easier and ive been saying that for months. first week of beta i wished the entire game to get easier. and this is why i almost wanna switch race, because i miss the challenge from sc1 and from what ive heard ppl say zerg is the hardest race but they might just be mixing that up with bad. zerg doesnt look too hard to play either, sure the macro mechanics of queen is harder than the orbital command, but other than that its even battlefield imo
played toss 2 days, that race wasnt harder than terran even tho many said terran is this big newbfriendly race
i think in the future if u miss mule calldowns it will be unforgiving just like miss larva inject. larva inject is alot more clear to see when its forgotten
Even battlefield ? As a Zerg myself I'm playing blindly against a walled of Terran, and he can tech switch so easily. When playing zerg you need to go down certain tech paths, but as Terran you can easily switch techs thanks to a 50\50 and 50\25 tech buildings. Even Protoss has a hard time tech switching, and most Protosses has just ignored DTs even tho they where so strong in BW. the cost and time to get there is so extremly hard while fighting. While Terran will throw down Barrack, Factory, Starport in every game, and with the magic touch of flying your buildings around you open tech paths so easily. In general Terran is to easy and forgiving. Its basically impossible to get caught out tech wise as a Terran. All buildings bar Fusion Core \ Ghost Acadamy will be thrown down anyways as its normal. The race is to forgiving in all aspects and need to have some punishing elements to teching like Zerg and Protoss has.
i was talking about which race is harder to play and i was saying macroing with the queen mechanic is harder than the orbital command mechanic, but in general i think all 3 races are about as hard to play (should call it as easy if u compare to sc1)
I think your blinded by the fact that you've stuck with Terran. If its the race you enjoy go for it. But to say that all three races are equally hard is just being ignorant and ignoring the arguments.
On September 14 2010 23:01 kataa wrote:You really think Idra and Dimaga wouldn't fair better in tournaments at the moment if they race switched to Terran? It's like asking what you'd rather have in a gunfight, a blunderbuss or an AK47.
they would do ALOT better if they switched to terran. but i think they also play the game for fun and not just to win
and switching race might be great but blizzard has already stated that the new patch is coming and i think thats what keeping them on the zerg side, still some hope left i guess
im sure idra would demolish me if we reversed race 1x1 and im pretty confident in saying idra would be top notch tvt level after just 2 weeks, dimaga would take longer time because he was zerg in sc1.
idra was just that much better than everyone else in sc1 and that skill transfers, im sure of it )
i just hate that i must see everyone blame balance when its so obvious when the terran user just happens to be more skilled than the zerg.
i talk to ret after a metalopolis game and we search for flaws in his play, we find them and he is happy to say he did mistakes, this he can improve. (we also find mistakes in my play obviously but thats not what i talk about) yes its imba and yes he would still lose even if he didnt do those mistakes because its imba but my point is that its so healthy mind set that he can find mistakes in his play even if he lose because of the imba. madfrog is another great example who i been talking to some. these players i have much respect for just for that reason, they can split the difference when they make mistakes and when its imbalanced. but 99% of zergs just say imba imba even after they make these huge blunders when it was really just their mistake costing them the game and these are the players that wont be good top level even after the game gets balanced
The problem with mistakes is its so unforgiving when you do them with Zerg, but with Terran you can do rather huge mistakes and its still very forgiving.
whats your point? my point is that there are players who say its imba always and there are players who sometimes say "i did a mistake" and sometimes say "ok something is wrong here". and there are TONS more players that just scream imba at everything. madfrog and ret did so well in previous games so they have this beautiful mind set of improving their game while other mediocre players are just pissing me off with their bs
My point is you might be doing as many if not more mistakes playing Terran, as someone playing Zerg, but seing as your race forgives mistakes so easily its not as clear and out there for people to show. Forgot larva injest ? Your screwed. Forgot to call down mule ? Oh nevermind me, ill just throw down 5. As a Zerg player you need to play a near 100% game to even stand a chance against people like yourself. But as a Terran you don't need to be anywhere near as perfect in your executions. Any timing attack is just an added bonus. I remember watching the IEM and actually agreeing with your view on it, if its there to exploite than go for it, but after watching more and more tournaments its getting to the point where i dont care if I tune in because it will be some above mediocre player playing Terran vs a decent zerg \ protoss, and its the same borefest. Terran is so forgiving coupled with all their small advantages (easy scouting, easy expansion defense, easy air defense, etc). From a spectating perspective TvT is the only fun match up where a T is involved, TvZ and TvP is bloody aweful. Also look at the groups at the IEM NY. 1 pure T group and poor Artosises group. Half of those players wouldn't be anywhere near events like IEM if the Terran race wasn't so strong and forgiving.
yes terran is a big newbfriendly race. i wish they made them easier and ive been saying that for months. first week of beta i wished the entire game to get easier. and this is why i almost wanna switch race, because i miss the challenge from sc1 and from what ive heard ppl say zerg is the hardest race but they might just be mixing that up with bad. zerg doesnt look too hard to play either, sure the macro mechanics of queen is harder than the orbital command, but other than that its even battlefield imo
played toss 2 days, that race wasnt harder than terran even tho many said terran is this big newbfriendly race
i think in the future if u miss mule calldowns it will be unforgiving just like miss larva inject. larva inject is alot more clear to see when its forgotten
Even battlefield ? As a Zerg myself I'm playing blindly against a walled of Terran, and he can tech switch so easily. When playing zerg you need to go down certain tech paths, but as Terran you can easily switch techs thanks to a 50\50 and 50\25 tech buildings. Even Protoss has a hard time tech switching, and most Protosses has just ignored DTs even tho they where so strong in BW. the cost and time to get there is so extremly hard while fighting. While Terran will throw down Barrack, Factory, Starport in every game, and with the magic touch of flying your buildings around you open tech paths so easily. In general Terran is to easy and forgiving. Its basically impossible to get caught out tech wise as a Terran. All buildings bar Fusion Core \ Ghost Acadamy will be thrown down anyways as its normal. The race is to forgiving in all aspects and need to have some punishing elements to teching like Zerg and Protoss has.
i was talking about which race is harder to play and i was saying macroing with the queen mechanic is harder than the orbital command mechanic, but in general i think all 3 races are about as hard to play (should call it as easy if u compare to sc1)
JulyZerg's comments : Regarding Starcraft 2's gameplay, he said that "I think the game has gotten more difficult compared to the original", adding that "But because I had experience playing Starcraft as a progamer, I'm getting better rapidly." He added that "I'm currently the first place in my Diamond League, and I'm over 1500 points
On September 15 2010 00:14 ToastieNL wrote: I find Terran to be quite a bit forgiving, compared to Zerg.
There's your Wall In, in case you make a small mistake, just run back and mass up a bit while you wall gets damaged by the roaches/lings. If Zerg messes up and for some reason gets its Zerglings in a perfect position for Hellions to roast them, well, the Zerg loses everything and gets said back very far...
Then, there's the MULEs. I agree with you that currently, the game is to young for MULEs to have such a big timing importance, but at this moment, missing you MULE is not a problem at all. So is losing 10 SCVs to a baneling drop way less worse than 10 drones, you just use your mule, which gives money for 5-6 f*cking SCVs!!! Zerg needs to get Drones, which might build a little faster with the Larva mechanic, but they don't get the minerals they need soon enough for it to be important. Next to that, MULEs stack, Larva Inject doesn't. + Show Spoiler +
Next up, the easilly available Tech Switch. Going for something, but you notice your opponent goes heavy on Roaches? Damn, lets just get these 2 raxesbuilding Marauders instead of Marines... How much time does it cost? 25 secs if you build a new, super cheap tech path? If the Zerg goes for Banelings because he saw the barracks building a Reactor, but than it gets swapped and transitions into Marauder Hellion, well, guess you're fucked, building your Lair and Spire will take enough time for the enemy to produce 15 Marauders and 10 Hellions, slaughtering everything you had.
Lets not talk about Scouting. You are totally in the dark about what your opponent is doing?? Guess building a Barracks for some pretty much guaranteed scouting is quite an investment... Zerg needs to suicide 100 Minerals for uncertain scouting, as the buildings fly around and switch tech, the Overlords might miss some things, and they certainly die. It costs 150/100 for a higher chance of good scouting, or 100/100 to get an upgrade making scouting useable.
Antiscouting? Terran Walls deny any form of scouting on the ground, missile turrets and Marines will keep the air clean. Once the Vikings come out, Zerg needs to either get Mass Muta, or just give up on map control and take all their overlords back home. Zerg lacks any Anti Air units early on, so the Early barracks guarantees scouting in the early- mid game. Queens just don't do it and Hydralisks get countered extraordinarilly hard by Tanks, and pretty decently by Hellions.
On September 15 2010 00:03 Sqq wrote:Even battlefield ? As a Zerg myself I'm playing blindly against a walled of Terran, and he can tech switch so easily. When playing zerg you need to go down certain tech paths, but as Terran you can easily switch techs thanks to a 50\50 and 50\25 tech buildings. Even Protoss has a hard time tech switching, and most Protosses has just ignored DTs even tho they where so strong in BW. the cost and time to get there is so extremly hard while fighting. While Terran will throw down Barrack, Factory, Starport in every game, and with the magic touch of flying your buildings around you open tech paths so easily. In general Terran is to easy and forgiving. Its basically impossible to get caught out tech wise as a Terran. All buildings bar Fusion Core \ Ghost Acadamy will be thrown down anyways as its normal. The race is to forgiving in all aspects and need to have some punishing elements to teching like Zerg and Protoss has.
you're not gonna have this discussion are you? O;\ all your hatches instantly become a barracks, as well as starport, as well as a factory and a command center the instant you build the tech.
The instant you build the tech... The instant .... You ment the 2 minutes for going up a tier and than getting the building? By the way, Terran has a hardcounter for every Zerg unit. An extremely Hard Counter, which all become available with these easy techswitches.
I hope some Terran actually takes the time to read this and post an appopriate reply, instead of doing "haha QQ noobnobb !!" and just not arguing.
Kind Regards, Toastie
Mule DOES NOT equal inject larva! Why does every1 feel the need to compare. Mule is there to balance the possibility of toss and zerg to build workers faster then T. If you miss a mule then in that time the Z/P had 5-6 more workers that were mining . If you remember at last about the mule and spam 2-3 mules that still doesnt cover the fact that you lost mining time.
How do you justify, as a T player, the ability to have a higher income cap then both other races? ie, max saturation on a base for P and Z is 3 min per patch. Mules can mine over scvs + other mules, thus theoretically, Mules push the income cap of the T players up. Before you say something stupid like "oh they mine out faster'.
As day9 says (i'm pretty sure) money in the bank is better than money on the (min) matches.
JulyZerg's comments : Regarding Starcraft 2's gameplay, he said that "I think the game has gotten more difficult compared to the original", adding that "But because I had experience playing Starcraft as a progamer, I'm getting better rapidly." He added that "I'm currently the first place in my Diamond League, and I'm over 1500 points
He means it in a different way than you think. It's like this:
n = noob, a = average, p = pro Skill-meter [-------------------------------------------] Sc1: [-n-----a-------------------------------p] Sc2: [----------n------------------a---------p]
In sc2, it's much EASIER to be better up to a certain level compared to sc1. The mechanics made this much easier, as well as being a lot more forgiving they are also a lot easier to execute. You don't need to send every worker you make to mineral line manually, etc.
Due to this, the people "high" on the skill-meter are on the same place that they would be in sc1, howver, the average player will be MUCH higher comparing to sc1, because the interface/game takes care of a lot of things that you would have to focus on a lot in sc1.
Meaning, the gaps between the ubers and not-so ubers are much smaller. The game itself , in terms of mechanics and the like, is a thousand times easier than sc1.
Zerg needs to suicide 100 Minerals for uncertain scouting, as the buildings fly around and switch tech, the Overlords might miss some things, and they certainly die. It costs 150/100 for a higher chance of good scouting, or 100/100 to get an upgrade making scouting useable.
i think it costs more, bc its very likely if you want to see everything you need to sacrifice that overlord (even with speed cant really make it in and out to the center of the base without dying). it costs actually 200 mineral (100+100) +1 larvae, or 100mineral+8 supply (opportunity cost).
I find it funny. People usually say "Terran can wall In, they are so OP". What I think is "Nice, I can expand the hell I want to and Terrans MUST wall In".
Wall in isn't a virtue, it is a necessity. If they don't, they get run over. Is it hard to attack a walled Terran? Yes. Ok then, play the macro game, keep trying. Harass and do not let them expand. Spread creep, pop worms, dominate air.
There is so many things that can be done. I love the swarm.
On September 15 2010 00:58 J7S wrote: I find it funny. People usually say "Terran can wall In, they are so OP". What I think is "Nice, I can expand the hell I want to and Terrans MUST wall In".
Wall in isn't a virtue, it is a necessity. If they don't, they get run over. Is it hard to attack a walled Terran? Yes. Ok then, play the macro game, keep trying. Harass and do not let them expand. Spread creep, pop worms, dominate air.
There is so many things that can be done. I love the swarm.
On September 14 2010 23:01 kataa wrote:You really think Idra and Dimaga wouldn't fair better in tournaments at the moment if they race switched to Terran? It's like asking what you'd rather have in a gunfight, a blunderbuss or an AK47.
they would do ALOT better if they switched to terran. but i think they also play the game for fun and not just to win
and switching race might be great but blizzard has already stated that the new patch is coming and i think thats what keeping them on the zerg side, still some hope left i guess
im sure idra would demolish me if we reversed race 1x1 and im pretty confident in saying idra would be top notch tvt level after just 2 weeks, dimaga would take longer time because he was zerg in sc1.
idra was just that much better than everyone else in sc1 and that skill transfers, im sure of it )
i just hate that i must see everyone blame balance when its so obvious when the terran user just happens to be more skilled than the zerg.
i talk to ret after a metalopolis game and we search for flaws in his play, we find them and he is happy to say he did mistakes, this he can improve. (we also find mistakes in my play obviously but thats not what i talk about) yes its imba and yes he would still lose even if he didnt do those mistakes because its imba but my point is that its so healthy mind set that he can find mistakes in his play even if he lose because of the imba. madfrog is another great example who i been talking to some. these players i have much respect for just for that reason, they can split the difference when they make mistakes and when its imbalanced. but 99% of zergs just say imba imba even after they make these huge blunders when it was really just their mistake costing them the game and these are the players that wont be good top level even after the game gets balanced
The problem with mistakes is its so unforgiving when you do them with Zerg, but with Terran you can do rather huge mistakes and its still very forgiving.
whats your point? my point is that there are players who say its imba always and there are players who sometimes say "i did a mistake" and sometimes say "ok something is wrong here". and there are TONS more players that just scream imba at everything. madfrog and ret did so well in previous games so they have this beautiful mind set of improving their game while other mediocre players are just pissing me off with their bs
My point is you might be doing as many if not more mistakes playing Terran, as someone playing Zerg, but seing as your race forgives mistakes so easily its not as clear and out there for people to show. Forgot larva injest ? Your screwed. Forgot to call down mule ? Oh nevermind me, ill just throw down 5. As a Zerg player you need to play a near 100% game to even stand a chance against people like yourself. But as a Terran you don't need to be anywhere near as perfect in your executions. Any timing attack is just an added bonus. I remember watching the IEM and actually agreeing with your view on it, if its there to exploite than go for it, but after watching more and more tournaments its getting to the point where i dont care if I tune in because it will be some above mediocre player playing Terran vs a decent zerg \ protoss, and its the same borefest. Terran is so forgiving coupled with all their small advantages (easy scouting, easy expansion defense, easy air defense, etc). From a spectating perspective TvT is the only fun match up where a T is involved, TvZ and TvP is bloody aweful. Also look at the groups at the IEM NY. 1 pure T group and poor Artosises group. Half of those players wouldn't be anywhere near events like IEM if the Terran race wasn't so strong and forgiving.
yes terran is a big newbfriendly race. i wish they made them easier and ive been saying that for months. first week of beta i wished the entire game to get easier. and this is why i almost wanna switch race, because i miss the challenge from sc1 and from what ive heard ppl say zerg is the hardest race but they might just be mixing that up with bad. zerg doesnt look too hard to play either, sure the macro mechanics of queen is harder than the orbital command, but other than that its even battlefield imo
played toss 2 days, that race wasnt harder than terran even tho many said terran is this big newbfriendly race
i think in the future if u miss mule calldowns it will be unforgiving just like miss larva inject. larva inject is alot more clear to see when its forgotten
Even battlefield ? As a Zerg myself I'm playing blindly against a walled of Terran, and he can tech switch so easily. When playing zerg you need to go down certain tech paths, but as Terran you can easily switch techs thanks to a 50\50 and 50\25 tech buildings. Even Protoss has a hard time tech switching, and most Protosses has just ignored DTs even tho they where so strong in BW. the cost and time to get there is so extremly hard while fighting. While Terran will throw down Barrack, Factory, Starport in every game, and with the magic touch of flying your buildings around you open tech paths so easily. In general Terran is to easy and forgiving. Its basically impossible to get caught out tech wise as a Terran. All buildings bar Fusion Core \ Ghost Acadamy will be thrown down anyways as its normal. The race is to forgiving in all aspects and need to have some punishing elements to teching like Zerg and Protoss has.
i was talking about which race is harder to play and i was saying macroing with the queen mechanic is harder than the orbital command mechanic, but in general i think all 3 races are about as hard to play (should call it as easy if u compare to sc1)
JulyZerg's comments : Regarding Starcraft 2's gameplay, he said that "I think the game has gotten more difficult compared to the original", adding that "But because I had experience playing Starcraft as a progamer, I'm getting better rapidly." He added that "I'm currently the first place in my Diamond League, and I'm over 1500 points
of course sc1 was harder thats not even up for debate
On September 14 2010 23:01 kataa wrote:You really think Idra and Dimaga wouldn't fair better in tournaments at the moment if they race switched to Terran? It's like asking what you'd rather have in a gunfight, a blunderbuss or an AK47.
they would do ALOT better if they switched to terran. but i think they also play the game for fun and not just to win
and switching race might be great but blizzard has already stated that the new patch is coming and i think thats what keeping them on the zerg side, still some hope left i guess
im sure idra would demolish me if we reversed race 1x1 and im pretty confident in saying idra would be top notch tvt level after just 2 weeks, dimaga would take longer time because he was zerg in sc1.
idra was just that much better than everyone else in sc1 and that skill transfers, im sure of it )
i just hate that i must see everyone blame balance when its so obvious when the terran user just happens to be more skilled than the zerg.
i talk to ret after a metalopolis game and we search for flaws in his play, we find them and he is happy to say he did mistakes, this he can improve. (we also find mistakes in my play obviously but thats not what i talk about) yes its imba and yes he would still lose even if he didnt do those mistakes because its imba but my point is that its so healthy mind set that he can find mistakes in his play even if he lose because of the imba. madfrog is another great example who i been talking to some. these players i have much respect for just for that reason, they can split the difference when they make mistakes and when its imbalanced. but 99% of zergs just say imba imba even after they make these huge blunders when it was really just their mistake costing them the game and these are the players that wont be good top level even after the game gets balanced
The problem with mistakes is its so unforgiving when you do them with Zerg, but with Terran you can do rather huge mistakes and its still very forgiving.
whats your point? my point is that there are players who say its imba always and there are players who sometimes say "i did a mistake" and sometimes say "ok something is wrong here". and there are TONS more players that just scream imba at everything. madfrog and ret did so well in previous games so they have this beautiful mind set of improving their game while other mediocre players are just pissing me off with their bs
My point is you might be doing as many if not more mistakes playing Terran, as someone playing Zerg, but seing as your race forgives mistakes so easily its not as clear and out there for people to show. Forgot larva injest ? Your screwed. Forgot to call down mule ? Oh nevermind me, ill just throw down 5. As a Zerg player you need to play a near 100% game to even stand a chance against people like yourself. But as a Terran you don't need to be anywhere near as perfect in your executions. Any timing attack is just an added bonus. I remember watching the IEM and actually agreeing with your view on it, if its there to exploite than go for it, but after watching more and more tournaments its getting to the point where i dont care if I tune in because it will be some above mediocre player playing Terran vs a decent zerg \ protoss, and its the same borefest. Terran is so forgiving coupled with all their small advantages (easy scouting, easy expansion defense, easy air defense, etc). From a spectating perspective TvT is the only fun match up where a T is involved, TvZ and TvP is bloody aweful. Also look at the groups at the IEM NY. 1 pure T group and poor Artosises group. Half of those players wouldn't be anywhere near events like IEM if the Terran race wasn't so strong and forgiving.
yes terran is a big newbfriendly race. i wish they made them easier and ive been saying that for months. first week of beta i wished the entire game to get easier. and this is why i almost wanna switch race, because i miss the challenge from sc1 and from what ive heard ppl say zerg is the hardest race but they might just be mixing that up with bad. zerg doesnt look too hard to play either, sure the macro mechanics of queen is harder than the orbital command, but other than that its even battlefield imo
played toss 2 days, that race wasnt harder than terran even tho many said terran is this big newbfriendly race
i think in the future if u miss mule calldowns it will be unforgiving just like miss larva inject. larva inject is alot more clear to see when its forgotten
Even battlefield ? As a Zerg myself I'm playing blindly against a walled of Terran, and he can tech switch so easily. When playing zerg you need to go down certain tech paths, but as Terran you can easily switch techs thanks to a 50\50 and 50\25 tech buildings. Even Protoss has a hard time tech switching, and most Protosses has just ignored DTs even tho they where so strong in BW. the cost and time to get there is so extremly hard while fighting. While Terran will throw down Barrack, Factory, Starport in every game, and with the magic touch of flying your buildings around you open tech paths so easily. In general Terran is to easy and forgiving. Its basically impossible to get caught out tech wise as a Terran. All buildings bar Fusion Core \ Ghost Acadamy will be thrown down anyways as its normal. The race is to forgiving in all aspects and need to have some punishing elements to teching like Zerg and Protoss has.
i was talking about which race is harder to play and i was saying macroing with the queen mechanic is harder than the orbital command mechanic, but in general i think all 3 races are about as hard to play (should call it as easy if u compare to sc1)
JulyZerg's comments : Regarding Starcraft 2's gameplay, he said that "I think the game has gotten more difficult compared to the original", adding that "But because I had experience playing Starcraft as a progamer, I'm getting better rapidly." He added that "I'm currently the first place in my Diamond League, and I'm over 1500 points
of course sc1 was harder thats not even up for debate
yeah, it was probably mistranslated or something. he probably meant to say that it's harder for zerg against the other races compared to sc1.
I was hoping for something more detailed, like cronologicly sorting all tournamets ( names given) since the release and by its winner. This really doesn't say me much. I want to know WHAT morrow has won, not how many times. Well, thanks for (almost) nothing.
On September 14 2010 23:34 FindingPride wrote: Because you cannot attack them at anypoint once they get mutas before an army of 160-200.
Wrong. You can attack the Z at any time and he'll have to stop harassing with Mutas to face your army. If the Z decided to base trade, he'll lose because Mutas take forever to kill buildings. If he decided to face your army, Mutas are useless versus Marine/Thor so the chances are T will win the fight.
On September 15 2010 01:34 LittleeD wrote: I was hoping for something more detailed, like cronoligicly sorting all tournamets ( names given) since the release and by it's winner. This really doesn't say me much. I want to know WHAT morrow has won, not how many times. Well, thanks for (almost) nothing.
Shit, sorry man.
I did compile this list entirely for your benefit so you have no idea how much it not meeting your requirements upsets me. I'm sorry to have failed you this time but in future if there is any information that is easily available to you but you can't be bothered looking up yourself just let me know and I'll be right on it.
In a few hours, when you finish dating all of the individual tournaments and arranging them in chronological order just drop me a PM and I'll add it to the OP.
On September 15 2010 01:34 LittleeD wrote: I was hoping for something more detailed, like cronoligicly sorting all tournamets ( names given) since the release and by it's winner. This really doesn't say me much. I want to know WHAT morrow has won, not how many times. Well, thanks for (almost) nothing.
Shit, sorry man.
I did compile this list entirely for your benefit so you have no idea how much it not meeting your requirements upsets me. I'm sorry to have failed you this time but in future if there is any information that is easily available to you but you can't be bothered looking up yourself just let me know and I'll be right on it.
In a few hours, when you finish dating all of the individual tournaments and arranging them in chronological order just drop me a PM and I'll add it to the OP.
On September 15 2010 01:34 LittleeD wrote: I was hoping for something more detailed, like cronoligicly sorting all tournamets ( names given) since the release and by it's winner. This really doesn't say me much. I want to know WHAT morrow has won, not how many times. Well, thanks for (almost) nothing.
Shit, sorry man.
I did compile this list entirely for your benefit so you have no idea how much it not meeting your requirements upsets me. I'm sorry to have failed you this time but in future if there is any information that is easily available to you but you can't be bothered looking up yourself just let me know and I'll be right on it.
In a few hours, when you finish dating all of the individual tournaments and arranging them in chronological order just drop me a PM and I'll add it to the OP.
Thanks.
You did the OP, it's your job to do it right. Really all this says is that morrow knows how to abuse Terran well and that it's a joke of a race. What's interesting here (by default) is to know how big the variation of tournaments has been and who won which (so you can compare whether it was a big tournament or not)
OP I like your research and the effort you made to compile this list. Obviously people start running to particular assumptions immediately. What I'd like to see if the number of Zergs entering these tournaments compared to the number of Protosses (and more importantly) & Terrans. I've only looked at 2 tournaments myself before posting this so I don't look like a dumbass, but the last 2 wolf cups have only had between 10-15 Zergs sign up out of a total of 64 competitors. If someone provides evidence that equal numbers of Zergs, Terrans and Protosses are signed up for tournaments, imo this thread will hold a lot more merit to the idea of imbalance.
On September 15 2010 01:34 LittleeD wrote: I was hoping for something more detailed, like cronoligicly sorting all tournamets ( names given) since the release and by it's winner. This really doesn't say me much. I want to know WHAT morrow has won, not how many times. Well, thanks for (almost) nothing.
Shit, sorry man.
I did compile this list entirely for your benefit so you have no idea how much it not meeting your requirements upsets me. I'm sorry to have failed you this time but in future if there is any information that is easily available to you but you can't be bothered looking up yourself just let me know and I'll be right on it.
In a few hours, when you finish dating all of the individual tournaments and arranging them in chronological order just drop me a PM and I'll add it to the OP.
Thanks.
You did the OP, it's your job to do it right. Really all this says is that morrow knows how to abuse Terran well and that it's a joke of a race. What's interesting here (by default) is to know how big the variation of tournaments has been and who won which (so you can compare whether it was a big tournament or not)
He did an OP the way he wanted, and it is a quality post, it is not his job to make the OP into what every demanding little kid wants it to be. If you want that data, go gather it yourself, the OP even offered to put it in the main post for ease of viewing for everyone else!
Morrow plays frequently in the Viking Cup, which features only Nordic players. (unfair statistic) If you can list where each win was from, I would give the list more credit.
On September 14 2010 23:01 kataa wrote:You really think Idra and Dimaga wouldn't fair better in tournaments at the moment if they race switched to Terran? It's like asking what you'd rather have in a gunfight, a blunderbuss or an AK47.
they would do ALOT better if they switched to terran. but i think they also play the game for fun and not just to win
and switching race might be great but blizzard has already stated that the new patch is coming and i think thats what keeping them on the zerg side, still some hope left i guess
im sure idra would demolish me if we reversed race 1x1 and im pretty confident in saying idra would be top notch tvt level after just 2 weeks, dimaga would take longer time because he was zerg in sc1.
idra was just that much better than everyone else in sc1 and that skill transfers, im sure of it )
i just hate that i must see everyone blame balance when its so obvious when the terran user just happens to be more skilled than the zerg.
i talk to ret after a metalopolis game and we search for flaws in his play, we find them and he is happy to say he did mistakes, this he can improve. (we also find mistakes in my play obviously but thats not what i talk about) yes its imba and yes he would still lose even if he didnt do those mistakes because its imba but my point is that its so healthy mind set that he can find mistakes in his play even if he lose because of the imba. madfrog is another great example who i been talking to some. these players i have much respect for just for that reason, they can split the difference when they make mistakes and when its imbalanced. but 99% of zergs just say imba imba even after they make these huge blunders when it was really just their mistake costing them the game and these are the players that wont be good top level even after the game gets balanced
The problem with mistakes is its so unforgiving when you do them with Zerg, but with Terran you can do rather huge mistakes and its still very forgiving.
whats your point? my point is that there are players who say its imba always and there are players who sometimes say "i did a mistake" and sometimes say "ok something is wrong here". and there are TONS more players that just scream imba at everything. madfrog and ret did so well in previous games so they have this beautiful mind set of improving their game while other mediocre players are just pissing me off with their bs
My point is you might be doing as many if not more mistakes playing Terran, as someone playing Zerg, but seing as your race forgives mistakes so easily its not as clear and out there for people to show. Forgot larva injest ? Your screwed. Forgot to call down mule ? Oh nevermind me, ill just throw down 5. As a Zerg player you need to play a near 100% game to even stand a chance against people like yourself. But as a Terran you don't need to be anywhere near as perfect in your executions. Any timing attack is just an added bonus. I remember watching the IEM and actually agreeing with your view on it, if its there to exploite than go for it, but after watching more and more tournaments its getting to the point where i dont care if I tune in because it will be some above mediocre player playing Terran vs a decent zerg \ protoss, and its the same borefest. Terran is so forgiving coupled with all their small advantages (easy scouting, easy expansion defense, easy air defense, etc). From a spectating perspective TvT is the only fun match up where a T is involved, TvZ and TvP is bloody aweful. Also look at the groups at the IEM NY. 1 pure T group and poor Artosises group. Half of those players wouldn't be anywhere near events like IEM if the Terran race wasn't so strong and forgiving.
yes terran is a big newbfriendly race. i wish they made them easier and ive been saying that for months. first week of beta i wished the entire game to get easier. and this is why i almost wanna switch race, because i miss the challenge from sc1 and from what ive heard ppl say zerg is the hardest race but they might just be mixing that up with bad. zerg doesnt look too hard to play either, sure the macro mechanics of queen is harder than the orbital command, but other than that its even battlefield imo
played toss 2 days, that race wasnt harder than terran even tho many said terran is this big newbfriendly race
i think in the future if u miss mule calldowns it will be unforgiving just like miss larva inject. larva inject is alot more clear to see when its forgotten
Even battlefield ? As a Zerg myself I'm playing blindly against a walled of Terran, and he can tech switch so easily. When playing zerg you need to go down certain tech paths, but as Terran you can easily switch techs thanks to a 50\50 and 50\25 tech buildings. Even Protoss has a hard time tech switching, and most Protosses has just ignored DTs even tho they where so strong in BW. the cost and time to get there is so extremly hard while fighting. While Terran will throw down Barrack, Factory, Starport in every game, and with the magic touch of flying your buildings around you open tech paths so easily. In general Terran is to easy and forgiving. Its basically impossible to get caught out tech wise as a Terran. All buildings bar Fusion Core \ Ghost Acadamy will be thrown down anyways as its normal. The race is to forgiving in all aspects and need to have some punishing elements to teching like Zerg and Protoss has.
i was talking about which race is harder to play and i was saying macroing with the queen mechanic is harder than the orbital command mechanic, but in general i think all 3 races are about as hard to play (should call it as easy if u compare to sc1)
JulyZerg's comments : Regarding Starcraft 2's gameplay, he said that "I think the game has gotten more difficult compared to the original", adding that "But because I had experience playing Starcraft as a progamer, I'm getting better rapidly." He added that "I'm currently the first place in my Diamond League, and I'm over 1500 points
of course sc1 was harder thats not even up for debate
yeah, it was probably mistranslated or something. he probably meant to say that it's harder for zerg against the other races compared to sc1.
A lot of people seem to think BW was by nature a harder game than SC2 and that just impossible to ever prove.
What was infinitely harder about BW was the way the game itself functioned, the infastructure itself made it hard to play the game. Notice there's a difference between the difficulty of playing the game and the difficulty of the game. Automine, MBS, smart-targeting, grouped spell-use, all these are things that make SC2 easier to make function than SC2. They make the game easier to play, they don't make the game itself any easier.
Walking a dog isn't a very difficult concept. I'm pretty sure just about anyone on this forum would be able to complete the task of say.. walking a dog 10 blocks. Now what if I told you that to walk that dog 10 blocks you'd be required to use a 100 yard rope constructed of silly string, and the dog is on roller skates.. walking that dog just got a lot fucking harder didn't it?
On September 15 2010 02:24 dudeman001 wrote: OP I like your research and the effort you made to compile this list. Obviously people start running to particular assumptions immediately. What I'd like to see if the number of Zergs entering these tournaments compared to the number of Protosses (and more importantly) & Terrans. I've only looked at 2 tournaments myself before posting this so I don't look like a dumbass, but the last 2 wolf cups have only had between 10-15 Zergs sign up out of a total of 64 competitors. If someone provides evidence that equal numbers of Zergs, Terrans and Protosses are signed up for tournaments, imo this thread will hold a lot more merit to the idea of imbalance.
I agree the racial breakdown of entrants would be useful information to have (and thanks for the polite request, unlike a few others!) but it just wasn't possible. I mean, every Go4SC2 Cup has 1024 entrants and their races aren't listed on the website. I'd literally have to spend hours typing names into sc2ranks.com just to find the player races for one of those tournaments.
There's a lot of information that would be a good addition to the list but most of it would take hours to gather and this was something I just decided to post after counting up the tournament winners to satisfy my own curiosity.
now if only they would release patch 1.1 and then we can start counting the wins and data like this again... Though i still feel that its going to be similar but there should be a few more P and Z wins maybe... but still skewed in favor of terran.
On September 14 2010 17:55 me_viet wrote: who wants to see match between Idra/LaLush as Terran and Morrow as Zerg?
There's no point, because there is literally no way Morrow could win, under any circumstances. It's just not in this realm of reality.
I would take it even further, and say that I even think idra could take Morrow in TvT if you gave him few days to practice.
Could be wrong, but its totally possible
Lol you are delusional. Are you seriously saying that Idra would be able to beat the worlds best terrans with a few days practice, people that have been practiced TvT heavily for months now? Also Idra's playing style does not suit terran good at all, so he would have to change a lot of the fundamentals that he uses as zerg. As much as you people believe it, he isn't God.
In a week he for sure could, actually. He won't do it though because of GSL but after this GSL I wouldnt be too surprised if IdrA switched to T. Patch won't change much...
I dont think IdrA can get any better than he is right now, even if he switches race. IdrA likes heavy macro, no cheese and very defensive the first 10-20 mins of the game, so Terran wouldnt fit him very well. Zerg and IdrA is the perfect match.
I think Dimaga could play terran quite well though, but not enough to beat the top ones, i think that would require alot more practice.
actually that's pretty much how you have to play zerg unless Terran gets greedy and doesn't wall. Pretty much any aggressive play by Zerg early relies on Terran playing greedy (not walling). It's true though that a lot of terran don't wall so it can work, it just is not reliable in any way.
Really list a decent aggressive play that zerg can do in SC2 with any reliability in ZvT. There is no muta harass in SC2, missile turrets basically nullify them, roaches can be outranged by proper building placement, lings.... wall ins. They have no options besides going a crazy all in and hoping the opponent hasn't learned barracks/factory wall ins.
It's very obvious to any Terran how dominate / easy to understand the matchup is, because you can literally force zerg into a maximum of like 2-3 choices. Know how many options zerg has if you go five rax reaper? It takes about 20 games played to see pretty much everything zerg can possibly do. Anyone that plays terran, unless retarded, understands TvZ better than any other matchup.
Alot of the Korean zergs are very aggresive and i've seen alot of cool 1 base builds. I've never seen IdrA win a game that was less than 20mins long i think, it's really rare. But who knows, maybe he could get good at doing 1 base builds and cheesing abit.
no, you've seen a lot of 1 base gimmicks not builds.
On September 15 2010 00:17 Sqq wrote: Where you have to perfectly balance the drone production against the army producation. A small error there and your screwed. Late game your point gets valid, but anytime before that it feels more like a handicap than anything else.
I don't understand why people complain about tech switch in TvZ. If anything Z tech switch easier compare to other races. Sure you have to make a choice between workers and army but it has always been the case since BW. That is how Idra is such a good player because he knows how to survive on small army and droning up until saturation. Don't you agree that when a Terran build 5 rax he is going bio? If he has 4 factories then he is meching. Just some general examples. When Terran scan Z he can see all the tech but if he didn't scan the actual army he would not know your composition. If you say it is a problem in scouting then I agree but blaming imba based on tech switch is just absurd.
ok, another really splendid argument seems to be, that the winratio seems to be pretty equal in ladder. yeah, it is, but what does it tell? it says that a 1k diamond terran has the same ratio as a 1k zerg. but that only means, that he wins just as much, and not is equally skilled. there are skilled terran players, no doubt. but here comes the reason why every tournament is featuring a high amount of terrans in upper stages. a terran with less skill can defeat a protoss or zerg with more skill. again, therefore they are ranked the same in ladder. but a terran of similar skill ownz the hell out of every toss or zerg with similar skill level. and thats why tournaments are dominated by terran. this also would implie that there are more terrans in the upper ranks like 1.3k-1.8k, which you can easily check on the sc2-ranks page.
just an example take that 1k terran. if we assume that the game was balanced, then that 1k terran was as skilled as the equally rated protoss. this would go all the way through. that means in every league there would be the same amount of terrans as the distribution of the races would imply.
is this the case? no! there are way more terran players on the top, even though protoss is as far as i know the most played race. so take that 1k terran again. now we assume, that the game was imbalanced in terrans favor. this would make this 1k terran win vs. his 1k toss and zerg brothers. now he is 1.2k. does he have another win ratio? no! but that would also imply that more terrans were to be found in the higher ranks. is this the case? YES!
It's disappointing to see still many players defending the current balance, or saying these numbers prove nothing. When people point out that there are only 2 zerg in both the EU and US top 25 ladder, people answer "doesn't mean anything, it's tournaments that count", and then you show this 22-12-2 different winners for tournaments and still people deny any problem at all.
Let's take a look at what these objections are :
- Statistics prove nothing, you need to know the racial distribution of the entrants : well, I'm sure that in 90% of the tournaments you have more than 5% zerg (and usually you have less than 60% terran).
- Statistics prove nothing, the sample is not big enough : the first results are pretty uni-directional however, especially when the consensus is that T is OP, and the results on the ladder are the same.
- Zerg players need to improve their game-play, BO and timings : we're talking about pro-gamers here, people who play 8h/day. True the meta-game evolves, and people may find new tactics, but it's the same for the other races, so there's no reason one race should be left behind (and one far ahead).
- Use nydus worms : No comment...
- It's harder to win with Zerg because Zerg is harder to play : The point is that for pro gamers it shouldn't be harder to play Zerg than any other races. If it's too hard for a (western) pro gamer, there's a serious design problem.
- There are fewer good Zerg players than good Terran, or Zerg players don't train enough (cf Morrow) : This one is funny, because it's impossible to prove or deny. Good job Morrow finding it... However, common sense would say that there should be some disparity, but not that much.
- Korean Zergs are OP : If the game asks for 200 apm instead of 100 apm to be balanced, I think it's safe to say there's a problem of balance. So there's no reason to look at what happens in Korea.
I may have missed some points, but you just cannot say there's no problem at all with the game at the moment.
- Korean Zergs are OP : If the game asks for 200 apm instead of 100 apm to be balanced, I think it's safe to say there's a problem of balance. So there's no reason to look at what happens in Korea.
hold on hold on... what do you people think happens in korea? look at the god damn gsl if you want to know what happens in korea.
On September 14 2010 17:14 Irrational_Animal wrote: Well a good indicator also could be that even Dimaga (who is usually considered as the Zerg skill beast in the foreigner world) has not been really able to win much recently. 0-2 vs Hasuobs, 0-2 vs. WhiteRa (both in Take´s Cup), 1-2 vs Tarson in the Zotac quarter finals, 3-4 vs Kiwikaki, 1-3 vs TLO in the SCcastCup and so forth. I mean he plays about three or four Tourneys per week but usually he just reaches the quarter-/semi-finals. Sen (who is also commonly used as a reference for a Zerg that overcomes the imbalance) lost to Bratok in the Go4sc2 Quarterfinals aswell Madfrog as a Progamer (thus I assume he plays a lot) did not even qualify for IEM (losing to Aures) in the Euroqualifier whereas 5 Swedish Terrans succeeded. Of course Morrow is a gifted player and so is Sjow, but are players like Merz or Jimpo that much superior to the likes of Haypro, Lalush or Madfrog? Of course the statistics could have looked a bit better if Mondragon would play 6 hours a day, if Ret would not have retired for a few months or if Kolll would be active (btw. Morrow, do you know if Kolll intends to play SC2 seriously in the forseeable future?) but the same argument can be applied for the other races too, a player líke Androide would be easily another top-Terran etc.
I like how you call SjoW gifted then question me, when I beat SjoW (and Jimpo too for that matter) in a bo3 fair and square in the IEM to qualify for the final tournament.
On September 15 2010 03:30 ensis wrote: ok, another really splendid argument seems to be, that the winratio seems to be pretty equal in ladder. yeah, it is, but what does it tell? it says that a 1k diamond terran has the same ratio as a 1k zerg. but that only means, that he wins just as much, and not is equally skilled. there are skilled terran players, no doubt. but here comes the reason why every tournament is featuring a high amount of terrans in upper stages. a terran with less skill can defeat a protoss or zerg with more skill. again, therefore they are ranked the same in ladder. but a terran of similar skill ownz the hell out of every toss or zerg with similar skill level. and thats why tournaments are dominated by terran. this also would implie that there are more terrans in the upper ranks like 1.3k-1.8k, which you can easily check on the sc2-ranks page.
just an example take that 1k terran. if we assume that the game was balanced, then that 1k terran was as skilled as the equally rated protoss. this would go all the way through. that means in every league there would be the same amount of terrans as the distribution of the races would imply.
is this the case? no! there are way more terran players on the top, even though protoss is as far as i know the most played race. so take that 1k terran again. now we assume, that the game was imbalanced in terrans favor. this would make this 1k terran win vs. his 1k toss and zerg brothers. now he is 1.2k. does he have another win ratio? no! but that would also imply that more terrans were to be found in the higher ranks. is this the case? YES!
I went to sc2 ranks to look at a few numbers, and here's what I found. First, we're going to assume that players of Diamond skill level (whether it be top or bottom of Diamond) are capable of hitting diamond league and aren't stuck in Platinum.
Next, we look at how many pages of players you get when you search for Diamond players in North America by race. Zerg: 78 Protoss: 116 Terran: 281 Based on those numbers alone, there are more than twice as many Terran players that Protoss players, and about 3.6 Terran players for each Zerg player. Doesn't it make sense that in a league with similarly skilled players, there are naturally more high-point Terran players than Zerg players? Absolutely. As cuppatea said, it's nearly impossible to keep track of every player entering the tournaments sofar. But from the breakdown of Diamond league players, there's an obscene amount of Terran players, it's only natural that they're the ones flooding these tournaments and winning for the Terran race.
On September 15 2010 03:57 dudeman001 wrote: Based on those numbers alone, there are more than twice as many Terran players that Protoss players, and about 3.6 Terran players for each Zerg player. Doesn't it make sense that in a league with similarly skilled players, there are naturally more high-point Terran players than Zerg players? Absolutely. As cuppatea said, it's nearly impossible to keep track of every player entering the tournaments sofar. But from the breakdown of Diamond league players, there's an obscene amount of Terran players, it's only natural that they're the ones flooding these tournaments and winning for the Terran race.
If there are 3.6 high-level terrans for every zerg player, and 10+ tournament-winning terrans for every tournament-winning zerg, then that is a trend.
On September 15 2010 02:38 FlamingTurd wrote: Wow... these statistics r exactly what I knew the balance was like all along... no surprise, just really, really, really sad.
- Korean Zergs are OP : If the game asks for 200 apm instead of 100 apm to be balanced, I think it's safe to say there's a problem of balance. So there's no reason to look at what happens in Korea.
hold on hold on... what do you people think happens in korea? look at the god damn gsl if you want to know what happens in korea.
I'm not debating if Korean Zergs are really OP or not, I'm just saying that EU + US results are enough to get a conclusion.
koreans just have another style, terrans mostly play bio, and they focus on micro. but we have seen TLO and how to crush a korean zerg as he has to face a metal army. i follow the GSL and most of tha games are just crap... (hope they will get better in the further rounds)
this statistic just comes from the fact that zerg has a hard time to fend of all-in timing-pushes, especially if you dont scout them early or due to the short distance of the map, like steppes of war or sth.
On September 15 2010 03:57 dudeman001 wrote: Next, we look at how many pages of players you get when you search for Diamond players in North America by race. Zerg: 78 Protoss: 116 Terran: 281 Based on those numbers alone, there are more than twice as many Terran players that Protoss players, and about 3.6 Terran players for each Zerg player.
Huh, there are 101 pages of terran, not 281. 116 P, 101 T, 78 Z Total: 336
On September 15 2010 03:30 ensis wrote: ok, another really splendid argument seems to be, that the winratio seems to be pretty equal in ladder. yeah, it is, but what does it tell? it says that a 1k diamond terran has the same ratio as a 1k zerg. but that only means, that he wins just as much, and not is equally skilled. there are skilled terran players, no doubt. but here comes the reason why every tournament is featuring a high amount of terrans in upper stages. a terran with less skill can defeat a protoss or zerg with more skill. again, therefore they are ranked the same in ladder. but a terran of similar skill ownz the hell out of every toss or zerg with similar skill level. and thats why tournaments are dominated by terran. this also would implie that there are more terrans in the upper ranks like 1.3k-1.8k, which you can easily check on the sc2-ranks page.
just an example take that 1k terran. if we assume that the game was balanced, then that 1k terran was as skilled as the equally rated protoss. this would go all the way through. that means in every league there would be the same amount of terrans as the distribution of the races would imply.
is this the case? no! there are way more terran players on the top, even though protoss is as far as i know the most played race. so take that 1k terran again. now we assume, that the game was imbalanced in terrans favor. this would make this 1k terran win vs. his 1k toss and zerg brothers. now he is 1.2k. does he have another win ratio? no! but that would also imply that more terrans were to be found in the higher ranks. is this the case? YES!
I went to sc2 ranks to look at a few numbers, and here's what I found. First, we're going to assume that players of Diamond skill level (whether it be top or bottom of Diamond) are capable of hitting diamond league and aren't stuck in Platinum.
Next, we look at how many pages of players you get when you search for Diamond players in North America by race. Zerg: 78 Protoss: 116 Terran: 281 Based on those numbers alone, there are more than twice as many Terran players that Protoss players, and about 3.6 Terran players for each Zerg player. Doesn't it make sense that in a league with similarly skilled players, there are naturally more high-point Terran players than Zerg players? Absolutely. As cuppatea said, it's nearly impossible to keep track of every player entering the tournaments sofar. But from the breakdown of Diamond league players, there's an obscene amount of Terran players, it's only natural that they're the ones flooding these tournaments and winning for the Terran race.
http://sc2ranks.com/ranks/all/diamond/1/terran/points/0 http://sc2ranks.com/ranks/all/diamond/1/protoss/points/0 zerg has a little bug, but it works till about page 190 you looked propably wrong, if this is the same site were talking about, and you look at the global data, its that way, toss>terran>zerg 284>245>190 on diamond. the diamond league itself is pretty interesting though, especially in the upper regions http://sc2ranks.com/ranks/all/diamond/1 60% terran top 5 and top 10 and then its going down abit, although protoss is most played. and btw. because the imblalance as already stated severel times is not something that shows itself in one specific strategy, so it´s just not abusable for anyone, only for higher players, lets say at about 1k diamond you should be able to feel it.
On September 14 2010 03:02 GGTeMpLaR wrote: I love threads like this
it boosts my self esteem every time I see someone who knows absolutely nothing about elementary statistics make some conclusion with insufficient evidence
And it boosts my self esteem every time an armchair statistician thinks that these increasingly large samples mean absolutely nothing. How many tests is it going to take before you deniers finally admit there is a problem? Do you see yet? That is the problem. No matter what evidence there is you will never be satisfied.
The cold hard fact is that terran has over twice as many viable play styles as any other race, therefore it is easier to win because your opponent can't possibly counter them all in the same game. As long as you prevent scouting for a couple minutes (and any casual level terran can manage this) you will stomp all over any zerg regardless of his skill level.
Granted that most of the statistics out there are not conclusive, they do seem to hint that Zerg needs a boost. The only thing I can think of that might suggest otherwise is that the percentage of Zerg increases for each league up. In other words, 17.14% (Bronze), 19.79% , 19.93%, 20.47%, 23.79% (Diamond). However this could be for other reasons. If anything, Blizzard need to improve Zergs appeal one way or another. Hopefully we don't have to wait for the expansion pack for this to happen, but most likely we will.
the tournament winners is a very good statistic to follow conversely the ladder is probably the dumbest stats to follow. the ladder at 1k+ diamond is filled with bullshit gimmicks and cheese for the most part.
when you start hitting about 1200+ is when you see a lot of macro games usually but thats not the majority of the top 200. there are plenty of people i know that came from war3 or WoW that are 1k+ because they a few gimmicky rush builds. they know nothing about macro and would break down in a 3-4 base game.
the ladder will clear up in a few months and the people that are really skilled will be left at the top and the guys using 4 gate every game or bbs will slowly drop and hopefully go play another game.
the ladder isn't a good indication of the balance of a game. the highest level of play you can see the imbalance. i've had 1300-1500 terrans do that 5 rax reaper build into marauder push on me.
there are certain situations when it almost feels like as soon as i scout it i want to leave the game because for example on metal or LT in close positions the terran retains map control until mutas come out and your 3rd is so late... you know what i'm not going to finish describing this i'll put myself out there. if you're high level diamond terran and you want to know what 5 rax reaper feels like in close positions on LT/metal PM me and we'll setup a custom game.
On September 15 2010 03:57 dudeman001 wrote: Next, we look at how many pages of players you get when you search for Diamond players in North America by race. Zerg: 78 Protoss: 116 Terran: 281 Based on those numbers alone, there are more than twice as many Terran players that Protoss players, and about 3.6 Terran players for each Zerg player.
Huh, there are 101 pages of terran, not 281. 116 P, 101 T, 78 Z Total: 336
So... yeah, there goes your point.
http://sc2ranks.com/ranks/us/diamond/1/terran/points/0 I don't know why but the number of pages has fluctuated for me from 281 to 230 and during the process of writing this post it jumped down to 101. Obviously what I was looking at before was bugged somehow, and the numbers I got before were completely messed up. That being said my previous post is now worthless and so pretty much disregard it completely.
On September 15 2010 04:56 Arm4n wrote: the tournament winners is a very good statistic to follow conversely the ladder is probably the dumbest stats to follow. the ladder at 1k+ diamond is filled with bullshit gimmicks and cheese for the most part.
when you start hitting about 1200+ is when you see a lot of macro games usually but thats not the majority of the top 200. there are plenty of people i know that came from war3 or WoW that are 1k+ because they a few gimmicky rush builds. they know nothing about macro and would break down in a 3-4 base game.
the ladder will clear up in a few months and the people that are really skilled will be left at the top and the guys using 4 gate every game or bbs will slowly drop and hopefully go play another game.
the ladder isn't a good indication of the balance of a game. the highest level of play you can see the imbalance. i've had 1300-1500 terrans do that 5 rax reaper build into marauder push on me.
there are certain situations when it almost feels like as soon as i scout it i want to leave the game because for example on metal or LT in close positions the terran retains map control until mutas come out and your 3rd is so late... you know what i'm not going to finish describing this i'll put myself out there. if you're high level diamond terran and you want to know what 5 rax reaper feels like in close positions on LT/metal PM me and we'll setup a custom game.
and in what tournament of all heavens do you not see cheese????? just watch those freaking koreans play!!!! or watch huk, i feel like everytime huk is playing 50% of his games end in early-midgame. at least day[9] said, that on tournaments people tend to cheese more, because its only about winning and not about training the macro-game.
On September 15 2010 04:56 Arm4n wrote: the tournament winners is a very good statistic to follow conversely the ladder is probably the dumbest stats to follow. the ladder at 1k+ diamond is filled with bullshit gimmicks and cheese for the most part.
when you start hitting about 1200+ is when you see a lot of macro games usually but thats not the majority of the top 200. there are plenty of people i know that came from war3 or WoW that are 1k+ because they a few gimmicky rush builds. they know nothing about macro and would break down in a 3-4 base game.
the ladder will clear up in a few months and the people that are really skilled will be left at the top and the guys using 4 gate every game or bbs will slowly drop and hopefully go play another game.
the ladder isn't a good indication of the balance of a game. the highest level of play you can see the imbalance. i've had 1300-1500 terrans do that 5 rax reaper build into marauder push on me.
there are certain situations when it almost feels like as soon as i scout it i want to leave the game because for example on metal or LT in close positions the terran retains map control until mutas come out and your 3rd is so late... you know what i'm not going to finish describing this i'll put myself out there. if you're high level diamond terran and you want to know what 5 rax reaper feels like in close positions on LT/metal PM me and we'll setup a custom game.
and in what tournament of all heavens do you not see cheese????? just watch those freaking koreans play!!!! or watch huk, i feel like everytime huk is playing 50% of his games end in early-midgame. at least day[9] said, that on tournaments people tend to cheese more, because its only about winning and not about training the macro-game.
you see a lot of cheese right now because the game isn't as developed as broodwar. also, you might see cheese from pro gamers in tournaments but thats part of the meta game for them. the people on the ladder i'm talking about i mean just go look at Affect the guy from TL. this guy has BBS'd like 60-70% of his games to get to the rating hes at.
there are a lot of people like him on the ladder. the difference is the pros can back it up with actual skill and these guys can't.
On September 15 2010 04:53 starcraft911 wrote: i know zerg has won a lot more than that... you HAVE to be missing a lot of tournaments. Nice start though.
This is for tournaments sense release. Ever sense july 27'th zerg has barely won any tournaments at all which is true.
Not going to give my opinion on balance or anything just wanted to throw that out there for you.
- Korean Zergs are OP : If the game asks for 200 apm instead of 100 apm to be balanced, I think it's safe to say there's a problem of balance. So there's no reason to look at what happens in Korea.
hold on hold on... what do you people think happens in korea? look at the god damn gsl if you want to know what happens in korea.
I'm not debating if Korean Zergs are really OP or not, I'm just saying that EU + US results are enough to get a conclusion.
Korean Zergs are losing. that is what is happening in GSL. ^^
On September 14 2010 05:44 sjschmidt93 wrote: Yeah... I'm pretty sure Morrow is the best in the world. Certainly the best foreigner, only IdrA could be second.
Foreigners in Korea will always be better than those outside it because they play much better players on average, whereas MorroW racking up lower-skill cups doesn't even equate.
IEM isn't a small cup.., and Morrow beat both IdrA and TLO there, two foreigners in Korea.
i was under the impression that idra was the best sc2 player around right now
thats probably because he won king of the beta, but now i realize thats too old of an account to accurately depict who the best is, especially since idra apparently doesn't even make this list
then again, i don't play sc2, much less follow the highly competitive scene
On September 15 2010 06:33 Nal_rAwr wrote: i was under the impression that idra was the best sc2 player around right now
thats probably because he won king of the beta, but now i realize thats too old of an account to accurately depict who the best is, especially since idra apparently doesn't even make this list
then again, i don't play sc2, much less follow the highly competitive scene
No not even close. He was just 'big' because he lived in Korea. There are alot of much better players than him.
On September 15 2010 06:37 teamsolid wrote: I think whoever wins the GSL is gonna be pretty widely regarded as top SC2 player in the world.
Agreed. Small, online foreigner tournaments are pretty meaningless in comparison.
so far GSL has shown skill level far inferior to IEM. Hopefully itll change in ro32 but the top Gamescon players will have a very solid claim for being the best as well.
On September 15 2010 06:33 Nal_rAwr wrote: i was under the impression that idra was the best sc2 player around right now
thats probably because he won king of the beta, but now i realize thats too old of an account to accurately depict who the best is, especially since idra apparently doesn't even make this list
then again, i don't play sc2, much less follow the highly competitive scene
No not even close. He was just 'big' because he lived in Korea. There are alot of much better players than him.
not even close? He has beaten almost every good player in a series. Winning KOTH beta tournament, yes that was long ago still. He placed 2nd in the IEM losing to Morrow who isn't a bad player by any means and I still wouldn't say Morrow is better either but I am not saying he is worse.
Qualifying in the GSL + stomping his terran opponent in the first round.
Idra is definitely one of the best players right now in the world. Is he the absolute best? Probably not but saying he's not even close to being the best is well a horribly false statement.
On September 15 2010 01:34 LittleeD wrote: I was hoping for something more detailed, like cronoligicly sorting all tournamets ( names given) since the release and by it's winner. This really doesn't say me much. I want to know WHAT morrow has won, not how many times. Well, thanks for (almost) nothing.
Shit, sorry man.
I did compile this list entirely for your benefit so you have no idea how much it not meeting your requirements upsets me. I'm sorry to have failed you this time but in future if there is any information that is easily available to you but you can't be bothered looking up yourself just let me know and I'll be right on it.
In a few hours, when you finish dating all of the individual tournaments and arranging them in chronological order just drop me a PM and I'll add it to the OP.
Thanks.
You did the OP, it's your job to do it right. Really all this says is that morrow knows how to abuse Terran well and that it's a joke of a race. What's interesting here (by default) is to know how big the variation of tournaments has been and who won which (so you can compare whether it was a big tournament or not)
I can't believe this idiot isn't getting a warning for such a stupid post, you sound like a freaking child man. It's people like you who lower the quality of TL.
On topic.... Don't all the terran defenders realize that even IF there are 100 terrans to 10 zergs in the tournaments, that in itself is showing there is a probable balance issue?
On September 15 2010 04:56 Arm4n wrote: the tournament winners is a very good statistic to follow conversely the ladder is probably the dumbest stats to follow. the ladder at 1k+ diamond is filled with bullshit gimmicks and cheese for the most part.
when you start hitting about 1200+ is when you see a lot of macro games usually but thats not the majority of the top 200. there are plenty of people i know that came from war3 or WoW that are 1k+ because they a few gimmicky rush builds. they know nothing about macro and would break down in a 3-4 base game.
the ladder will clear up in a few months and the people that are really skilled will be left at the top and the guys using 4 gate every game or bbs will slowly drop and hopefully go play another game.
the ladder isn't a good indication of the balance of a game. the highest level of play you can see the imbalance. i've had 1300-1500 terrans do that 5 rax reaper build into marauder push on me.
there are certain situations when it almost feels like as soon as i scout it i want to leave the game because for example on metal or LT in close positions the terran retains map control until mutas come out and your 3rd is so late... you know what i'm not going to finish describing this i'll put myself out there. if you're high level diamond terran and you want to know what 5 rax reaper feels like in close positions on LT/metal PM me and we'll setup a custom game.
this.
i beat a 1200 protoss yesterday on ladder who had over 900 1v1 games played and 61 apm lol...
the ladder is a terrible stat to look at, because 95%+ of the players simply aren't good.
The problem with mistakes is its so unforgiving when you do them with Zerg, but with Terran you can do rather huge mistakes and its still very forgiving.
whats your point? my point is that there are players who say its imba always and there are players who sometimes say "i did a mistake" and sometimes say "ok something is wrong here". and there are TONS more players that just scream imba at everything. madfrog and ret did so well in previous games so they have this beautiful mind set of improving their game while other mediocre players are just pissing me off with their bs
He clearly stated his point. His point is that one fuckup as Z and the game is over, but you can fuck up ten times as T and still win. If you think that's balanced you should probably play Z for a while since your perspective is so severely biased.
Unfortunately I fear a switch to Z would permanently end your career!
The problem with mistakes is its so unforgiving when you do them with Zerg, but with Terran you can do rather huge mistakes and its still very forgiving.
whats your point? my point is that there are players who say its imba always and there are players who sometimes say "i did a mistake" and sometimes say "ok something is wrong here". and there are TONS more players that just scream imba at everything. madfrog and ret did so well in previous games so they have this beautiful mind set of improving their game while other mediocre players are just pissing me off with their bs
He clearly stated his point. His point is that one fuckup as Z and the game is over, but you can fuck up ten times as T and still win. If you think that's balanced you should probably play Z for a while since your perspective is so severely biased.
Unfortunately I fear a switch to Z would permanently end your career!
What's with all the freaking hyperboles. Permanently, really?
The bandaid fix would be to make overlord speed available pre-lair, for 150/150. I just don't see the upcoming patch changes to be THAT significant in the long run. I don't remember the last time I played a T who centered their strategy around tanks. When I play T I usually transition into Thor, blueflame hellion - maruader (or marines), and it's a pretty powerful unit mix.
On September 15 2010 00:22 sadyque wrote: Mule DOES NOT equal inject larva! Why does every1 feel the need to compare. Mule is there to balance the possibility of toss and zerg to build workers faster then T. If you miss a mule then in that time the Z/P had 5-6 more workers that were mining . If you remember at last about the mule and spam 2-3 mules that still doesnt cover the fact that you lost mining time.
Um... yes it does. It covers it exactly. 3 mules harvest the same minerals in series or in parallel. It doesn't matter whether you call them down individually the instant you have the energy or all in one go when the energy is saved up: at the moment the last mule falls to bits (which will happen at the same time regardless - think about it) they will have collected exactly the same number of minerals.
Now, what you can't do is spend the minerals as easily if you grab them in one quick lump.
On September 15 2010 08:00 Warrior Madness wrote: The bandaid fix would be to make overlord speed available pre-lair, for 150/150. I just don't see the upcoming patch changes to be THAT significant in the long run. I don't remember the last time I played a T who centered their strategy around tanks. When I play T I usually transition into Thor, blueflame hellion - maruader (or marines), and it's a pretty powerful unit mix.
That would be a shit fix.
It would delay lair tech too much and be too expensive to be a viable early game choice. In fact, just getting a lair and making an overseer would be better every single time, while lowering minerals and gas and timing to be a viable early game research would overpower zerg and just make the game worse overall, as the other races no longer have any viable way of denying zerg scouting.
I think giving Overlords changling that unlock with spawning pool would be better.
No not even close. He was just 'big' because he lived in Korea. There are alot of much better players than him.
On September 15 2010 06:33 Nal_rAwr wrote: i was under the impression that idra was the best sc2 player around right now
thats probably because he won king of the beta, but now i realize thats too old of an account to accurately depict who the best is, especially since idra apparently doesn't even make this list
then again, i don't play sc2, much less follow the highly competitive scene
No not even close. He was just 'big' because he lived in Korea. There are alot of much better players than him.
While changes such as Changling as OL upgrade before lair, or overseer before lair, or anything in that trend would help.
I kinda feel like that would be a bit over the top, I mean starcraft in a certain way is still a way of incomplete information, where the wholes where you can't perfectly scout him you have to rely on gamesense/timing/etc.
And I kinda feel like things like that would be to much of a "maphack" it would be like having obs as a gateway warp-in after making a core.
At the same time it is a big problem, but I also don't want terrans to lose all of their options (except for maybe delaying drop, I still don't see any reason why tank/thor drops on LT for example should be possible that early, that is just imbalanced, no matter how you turn it).
Maybe like change something so that there are more clear signs of what they are actuallly doing? For example tech labs having a different animation depending on if they the added structure is building something or it is researching.
But then you still run into those typical T's who let marines patrol along the edges of their base making it necessary to send in 2 OL's. And yes I have offraced a decent amount trough the beta and since release, and losing 2 OL's hurts more then scanning imo.
It's just a very hard thing to "fix" imo.
The most reasonable thing I can personally think off is slightly (!) up the standard overlord speed, so even if it dies you could just see that extra bit.
But more importantly, start looking at zerg again, especially the early game (and together with that I feel that to much of the zerg is just balanced around spawn larva *see note). And just give zerg better tools to deal with it.
Even if that doesn't balance it completely, it would be much less frustrating for zerg, much more fun, and it wouldn't feel like such an uphill battle and cut down on the "auto-losses", and just generally make the race more appealing to play and increase the zerg numbers.
But well, the earliest (even if blizzard would do something like that) is in HoTs wich is still a long time away.
*note
And yes I feel that spawn larvae is just to powerfull, and zerg gave up a lot of other stuff to keep the overall race balanced.
Everytime I think as zerg as a whole it seems like in alpha/development stage they had this really awesome race, with a lot of cool idea's and so on, but then they added spawn larvea to let zerg keep up with the increased production capability's of the other 2 races, but then they realized that their earlier idea's + the ability to churn out units as they do now was to strong, so they kinda just nerfed all the rest of zerg, since they didn't really know how to adress the spawn rate of larvae appropriatly.
And things like this I just feel troughout the whole zerg race.
Hydra's? It just feels like they just felt obligated to put hydra's in the game, but they had like no clue what to actually do with them, so they made them this light, low hp very heavy dps unit to offsett it's position in the swarm compared to the roach. But then they seemed to have realized that the dmg was just to good and they decided to make the hydra slow and constrict it to creep, wich well, we all know how the hydra's has ended up by now.
Corruptors? This is absolutely the most useless pathetic unit in the whole game. It's only reason of existing is to just let zerg not die against certain types of air and as a colossus counter.
Outside of that they had like no clue what to do with the unit, so they just gave them the BL upgrade as a band-aid fix and troughout development/beta just kept tacking on other things just to try to give it some role.
Banelings:
gonna keep it short, this was one of blizzard's 'cool' idea's and this demonstrate another flaw.
They just kept thinking of cool idea's like the baneling, and then they tried to make them work, without thinking about the possible concerns that may arise (having to shift away from the lurker, while the baneling does not forfill that same purpose). And then afterwards just try to tweak the numbers here and there as a band-aid fix without realizing that they should take a step back and look what the real problems are.
And these are just the major issues with zerg as a race.
Terran is not OP, terran's are not godsend players, Zergs do not just suck that much, it's overall just a very poorly designed race in a lot of aspects, and because of that they had tio make big adjustments to other things (the nerfs to the roach in beta for example) and up spawn larvea it seems just to make it all work, but it ended up in what we have today.
On September 15 2010 00:17 Sqq wrote: Where you have to perfectly balance the drone production against the army producation. A small error there and your screwed. Late game your point gets valid, but anytime before that it feels more like a handicap than anything else.
I don't understand why people complain about tech switch in TvZ. If anything Z tech switch easier compare to other races. Sure you have to make a choice between workers and army but it has always been the case since BW. That is how Idra is such a good player because he knows how to survive on small army and droning up until saturation. Don't you agree that when a Terran build 5 rax he is going bio? If he has 4 factories then he is meching. Just some general examples. When Terran scan Z he can see all the tech but if he didn't scan the actual army he would not know your composition. If you say it is a problem in scouting then I agree but blaming imba based on tech switch is just absurd.
Ok, so you're a zerg and you scout him going two tech labbed rax and a reactored factory. You know that he is going to have a mostly hellion/marauder mix. So you counter that with speedlings for the Maurauders and roaches for the hellions. You fight an intense battle and just survive, keeping your natural. You have no forces left. You have no resources left. The next wave of units comes at you a minute later. It's a mix of marines, marauders and tanks. Unless you scouted what he was doing (he swapped his rax and factory) while the previous fight was on you cannot counter the second wave in time because you now need banelings to counter the marines and speedlings to counter the rest.
This is just one very easy tech switch that Terran can do at any time. It's difficult to scout, it's extremely effective and for zerg to survive they need to quickly change the way that their army is structured.
It's even more confusing against 111 builds (is the reactored starport for medivacs or vikings, is the tech labbed fact for thor or tanks?). The truth is that you have no idea what the terrans army will be composed of until he's built it. Zerg have soft counters to terran's hard counters and therefore the wrong composition will destroy the zerg player, while the terran is not so hampered.
On September 15 2010 08:00 Warrior Madness wrote: The bandaid fix would be to make overlord speed available pre-lair, for 150/150. I just don't see the upcoming patch changes to be THAT significant in the long run. I don't remember the last time I played a T who centered their strategy around tanks. When I play T I usually transition into Thor, blueflame hellion - maruader (or marines), and it's a pretty powerful unit mix.
That would be a shit fix.
It would delay lair tech too much and be too expensive to be a viable early game choice. In fact, just getting a lair and making an overseer would be better every single time, while lowering minerals and gas and timing to be a viable early game research would overpower zerg and just make the game worse overall, as the other races no longer have any viable way of denying zerg scouting.
Buffing Zerg scouting would make the game worse overall ? They could get an undeniable scouting ? They could have the same scouting abilities as Terran or Protoss ? Clearly it would be broken ...
Buffing Zerg scouting would make the game worse overall ? They could get an undeniable scouting ? They could have the same scouting abilities as Terran or Protoss ? Clearly it would be broken ...[/QUOTE]
On April 11 2010 20:20 MorroW wrote: well the sad part is that exactly that @Art_of_Kill forces terran to be the offender against zerg and toss while they always just have to defend. because once u strike 200 psi and both have many expoes, zerg can remkae 50 roaches in 30 seconnds and toss can warpin units in 5 second while terran must build their units
in sc1 terran 200 psi was stronger than toss 200 psi but toss rebuilt faster, so after a battle toss had to rebuild and then wipe out terran
but in sc2 terran 200 psi is weaker and they rebuild alot slower in comparison to production facilities costs
thats why i hope they do something about this because in theory zerg and toss never has to attack the terran because they know they have an easy ride later game. so they can put larva max to half and that wouldnt change alot except for later game where u actually stop make units as z
its very shallow match up if u know lategame terran always lose. maybe u can balance it and say ok terran have to attack and that is balanced, sure but its not so interesting if we always see terran be the attacker. all races should be able to camp, timing attack and be somewhat equal in the late game, but its not like that at all with sc2
On April 14 2010 23:06 MorroW wrote: i agree with every single thing OP said
and sorry i dont have any advise for u, i dont know a safe way to fe anymore. in patch5 and before i could rax fe then 6-7 i could marauder fe and now i cant fe. i cant do anything and ive tried everything just like u
its not really just the early game, later game i feel like toss can simply get far better economy because his units r very cost effective
and lategame is just ridiculous, if u reach that toss always wins
the only way terran has been able to win this entire beta stage is through early game, as we r getting worse bio and stronger mech we are now in a position where we lose against everything rather than everything being viable.
demuslim is one of the best terrans in the world and if he comes here and says this, its not just that he has been winning because he been spoiled wins by imba. terran has been worst race and we r getting changes but demuslim were one of few terrans who fought the odds of the mus. if u dont understand the level of play i suggest u to just agree with what he says and if u disagree i suggest u to be silent and accept ur the one whos missing something, not demuslim
On April 14 2010 17:19 3D.Strelok wrote: In TvP now it's like that: if you perfectly know what protoss does ( maphack is on) you stay on 50% chances to win. It turns onto who is better. And if you miss what protoss does you have almost no chances to win. I really want to think it's not imbalance but thing that terran didn't find counters yet.
u cant really know what toss is doing early game, if u spend 50 on a scan to see what his doing (assuming he built every single tech building near the nexus including with gateways) sure u know what he do, but u cant stop it because u just lost ur mule. if u dont scan u end up in a scenario where either u get a game rolling ur toss rolls over u because he countered ur build and u had no idea whats coming. simply think its ignorant to say its a 50% chance to win in a mu and this is if u know what toss is doing, a good toss wont let u know that and remember toss ALWAYS knows what ur doing. they r the ones with maphack not us so ur scenario is very unrealistic
On April 14 2010 23:15 Gretorp wrote: in my experience, tvp has now become very very very boring. you go 4 rax to keep up with the protoss and stay on one base the entire game. tech appropriately such that you don't die to protoss tech since mass immortals and mass collossus are dealt with in 2 different gas/mineral routes(ghost and vikings). don't expand till you're about to run out of minerals, lift CC and expo when minerals start to run out. at end yo uwill still be on either 4 or 5 rax, a factory not producing anything, and a starport, interchanging its add on with the rax. if you go to expo anywhere during this phase, you lose positioning which you desperately need, and you are behind in units.
I've tried going mech pretty aggressively for the past week, and it is very hard to control gas when going mech. then i ran into a warp prism + 2 immortal and lol'ed at my defending tanks. and by lol'ed i mean QQed
if u r 1base vs 1base he can make dts and force u to turn back, force u to build turrets and force u to waste at least 1 scan. u cant afford this on 1base and u cant get a raven either, u also cant really contain a toss with a turret and u cant assume hes going dt and get turrets every game. on top of that you also cant scout it. and as ur paying for all this shit just to survive he can expand and hes in a great shape. 1base vs 1base toss is stronger, its the truth
On April 15 2010 02:01 DeMusliM wrote: I can tell we just had a huge influx of protoss players join this thread and fail to see the point.
A terran HAS to make a heavy tier 1-1.5 army just to survive the gateway push - with bunkers the whole lot, pumping every resource he has into this. Meanwhile the protoss can easily expo and out resource the terran - this is the problem - that the terran cannot survive early without getting some kinda force together, while the protoss can can tech even, while pumping out 4 warpgates and immortals while the terrans later tech units make little difference - (Immortals counter all ground terran has, and HT's counter anything that counters the immortal - see the problem late game?).
And i'm not even talking about late game, the problem for terrans right now is surviving the early game without being too far behind mid-late. People who fail to see this are enjoying the easy life of 4 warpgate rushing terrans and winning with relative ease. I spoke with several top protoss players on Europe who all agreed that the MU right now is very heavily favoured towards the protoss - and the only way they lose is if they make a big mistake micro/macro wise or don't scout (pretty hard not to scout with a obs!).
On April 15 2010 01:44 deo.deo wrote: haha, cant wait until the koreans really bite into the game. all those little whine threads will be shaken up completely.
as it is now im pretty sure sc2 wont last in korea, why? koreans love hard games and sc2 doesnt qualify for that afaik :x
On April 15 2010 01:54 Prozen wrote: Have you guys tried going 4 Rax no gas/addons FE? You build only marines and you FE while you build about 3 bunkers to defend your nat. It's been very successful for me lately, haven't lost with it yet. (Top 10 Plat Protosses). The problem with the build though is that you HAVE to make sure the Protoss is going Immortals, otherwise he can just go Collosi and rape your army rofl. It doesn't work too well on maps with two chokepoints sadly, but it worked well fro me on maps like Steppes of War.
this is basically how i was playing before patch 6 was out, it even raped colosus then the sad part atm is that it doesnt work now, sentry -2 dmg along with immortal and zea meatshield fucking hard rape this build or they can make fast colosus which also rape it. they can even go mass zea sentry and rape it too :/
On April 17 2010 09:26 MorroW wrote: the goal is just to create a build that survives and puts up a good fight against anything toss does. just like siege expo in sc1.
if u stop a massgateway u will be ahead and win the game, its a simple thought
the proper way how a rts game should be is that a counter to a safe expo is to expo urself to catch up rather than having a bunch of "C&C db style rock paper scissor" hard counters
im not sure if my build or any tvp build for that matter can defend all cheese yet by "scout and respond rule" but i know its the best so far, since everything else has been failing terribly lately. just watch my reps vs nightend where i desperately tried to play my old 1rax fe xd
so if it now happens to be that u can counter cheese with this build, it doesnt mean pvt is impossible. it just means ur not gonna win easily by going same 1robo3warpgate every game. hopefully this is the first step to counter fe with fe rather than counter fe with rush. if both fe i guess it will turn out to be anyones game. but if terran cant fe then terran cant win because stuff like dts or sentry with force field are just so strong 1base vs 1base that they can let u expand while terran is locked in (5sentry 2immortal and 3 zealot is never ever gonna let u down the ramp). thats why its so important that we need a fe build thats safe against all cheese
im not gonna release any reps and its best if i dont talk about this any more for now because im still not sure how good it is really. but i can imagine it being really strong and ive never lost with it where i executed it correctly yet (im low rating tho). but ill keep u guys posted of my build works or not (as in straight up play, not luck based. not as in win or lose... "without meta game abuse" as nony would say :>)
LOL. Only reason I couldn't find more zerg whine is because morrow's post history mysteriously stops in around mid april. All the zerg whining took place in March and early April. Then roach armor and supply got nerfed along with 2x nerf of hydras and a bunch of other things.
I only had to check 3 threads to find whine similar to zergs' whine though.
I distinctly remember morrow doing lots of crying instead of just "playing the game", as is usually morrow's advice to zerg players nowadays.
Protoss 1base vs Terran 1base is imbalanced =) You can't go raven ^^ "Need ways to FE safely". hahaha. Guess what, zerg needs ways to FE safely too!
i love you man, thats what i thought all the time, too
in my opinion, the (4-5!?) roach nerfs just were too hard. they were mentioned as the new zerg-backbone in the midgame.... well, nowerdays, they arent even a backbone in the earlygame. i know, you can mass them and defend against several strategys, but they arent anywhere near cost efficient... well, even our banelings are more cost efficient (though they are suicide units). i dont get that at all. against terran you need to get your expo up, and harass with mutas (both, roach and hydra are just crap in mid, even that patch wont help us using hydras, cause of that horrific movement speed) but why does terran have so much anti air? strongest turrets alongside with high dps marines and splash thors? you need that time, your mutas would buy to get a third up to safely tech into ultra or brood. but thats simply not possible. i mean, i have no problem with facing a good terran, with nice controle micro and building placement, where i have a really hard time to do any damage, but as it is like this, he just crushes my mutaforce without any problems.
so we have to exactly scout what the opponent has, because we lack of an allround unit... oh wait... thats what the roach was designed for... but sadly cannot keep up with it after all those nerfs
As soon as the reapers build time is increased, I think the TvZ MU is going to be alot better. Whenever I see terrans open with hellions etc instead of this 5 rax reaper, then it becomes a really nice game which seem pretty balanced. I still think the damage of the ultralisks is abit insane but thats not the biggest issue right now.
The problem with mistakes is its so unforgiving when you do them with Zerg, but with Terran you can do rather huge mistakes and its still very forgiving.
whats your point? my point is that there are players who say its imba always and there are players who sometimes say "i did a mistake" and sometimes say "ok something is wrong here". and there are TONS more players that just scream imba at everything. madfrog and ret did so well in previous games so they have this beautiful mind set of improving their game while other mediocre players are just pissing me off with their bs
He clearly stated his point. His point is that one fuckup as Z and the game is over, but you can fuck up ten times as T and still win. If you think that's balanced you should probably play Z for a while since your perspective is so severely biased.
Unfortunately I fear a switch to Z would permanently end your career!
Scrubs like you have no right to berate a clearly amazing player. People like you are the reason top players don't bother posting on TL, because of all the shit they get from no name scrubs.
Scrubs like me can tell scrubs like you to shut up, so please: Shut up!
On September 15 2010 06:37 teamsolid wrote: I think whoever wins the GSL is gonna be pretty widely regarded as top SC2 player in the world.
Agreed. Small, online foreigner tournaments are pretty meaningless in comparison.
so far GSL has shown skill level far inferior to IEM. Hopefully itll change in ro32 but the top Gamescon players will have a very solid claim for being the best as well.
I do not agree that GSL has shown a far inferior skill level. And the tournament has 64 players, not 16 as in Gamescom. There has been some players in GSL that hasnt really showed a high amount of skill, but then again there has been many more who have showed skill level on par or higher than that of the standard in IEM. Remember that Nazgul and Jinro didnt manage to qualify for GSL, and I am pretty sure that they would have qualified for a western tournament of the same size.
Anyways, what I mean is that the general level of this large tournament is very high and therefore winning it will be considered a much larger achievement than winning IEM or MSL.
He clearly stated his point. His point is that one fuckup as Z and the game is over
Yes I'm pretty sure that was clearly established.
If you think that's balanced you should probably play Z for a while since your perspective is so severely biased.
Except he wasn't talking about balance.
Unfortunately I fear a switch to Z would permanently end your career!
luls. w/e, continue on being bad :/. so far GSL has shown skill level far inferior to IEM.[/quote]
Yes
Buffing Zerg scouting would make the game worse overall ? They could get an undeniable scouting ? They could have the same scouting abilities as Terran or Protoss ? Clearly it would be broken ...
Huuur duuuurrf.
Look. Zerg is my main, recently finally chose to pick it over random (cuz p is so gay to play lol). I think zerg needs a buff. Now understand there is a difference between making the game more balanced, and more fun to play, and simply changing it.
The suggestion that I quoted to is not a buff to zerg. It is a nerf. The increase in overlord speed from 100/100 to 150/150 is not offset by moving it down to t1 because its price and research time, combined with other necessary t1 gas usage such as ling speed would be too high a price time, combined with its confliction with making an overseer, to be viably researched before lair anyway.
The timing window for this ability does not exist in t1 assuming significant gas investment and sizable research time in a standard bo. Moreover, the ability cannot exist as a reactive ability because the timing of the research would mean that in the timing window before this ability can come into play, the opponent can already guarantee a lethal force. And thats only assuming IF the timing is lower then lairtech+overseer by a significant margin.
The only way overspeed can be a viable skill t1 is if it existed as a "tech placement upgrade", an upgrade not to create choice or balance an abilities power by requiring an investment, but to simply delay it until a specific timing window. Think warpgates, except overspeed would need a faster research time as well.
If you think having 3-4 flying scouts with 200 hp moving at roughly the speed of a voidray t1 is equal to a scan which delays 270 minerals for no significant mineral or gas cost and little upgrade time, then you are flat our retarded. Sorry.
And if you think Protoss t1 has better scouting then Zerg t1, then you're simply playing a different game :/.
tl;dr- Overspeed cannot exist in T1, it will either be useless or overpowering.
The only way overspeed can be balanced for t1 is if it gives some increased scouting, but not uncounterable, on a upgrade with fast research times, and a noticeable but not prohibitive cost in gas and minerals. This can be accomplished by simply lowering the speed, which would also double as a nerf for zerg come t2, or as I would suggest, another scouting ability, maybe changelings.
Zerg players just need to know how to play zerg. It's called strategy the main reason why zergs are so bad is because the players using zerg have no tactics and it shows even the zergs on the higher levels are struggling. If you wanna defeat your opponent than your going to need a strategy, but zerg players don't know how to play and haven't developed a concept for using tactics.
On September 15 2010 15:35 Rasky wrote: Zerg players just need to know how to play zerg. It's called strategy the main reason why zergs are so bad is because the players using zerg have no tactics and it shows even the zergs on the higher levels are struggling. If you wanna defeat your opponent than your going to need a strategy, but zerg players don't know how to play and haven't developed a concept for using tactics.
just gonna jump in before this guy gets warned and stuff and flamed.
On September 15 2010 15:35 Rasky wrote: Zerg players just need to know how to play zerg. It's called strategy the main reason why zergs are so bad is because the players using zerg have no tactics and it shows even the zergs on the higher levels are struggling. If you wanna defeat your opponent than your going to need a strategy, but zerg players don't know how to play and haven't developed a concept for using tactics.
it's so narcissistic when terrans say this. "Other races suck at tactics but we have them down pat. Why is this? ummm.." Yeah, you have it figured out, but all these people playing another race don't. That's totally believable.
*edit* too slow tyrantPotato. It's pretty poor sarcasm when it is completely indistinguishable from things we frequently see people say in all seriousness. If he thinks that is over the top enough to be obvious.. well I wish it was
On September 15 2010 15:35 Rasky wrote: Zerg players just need to know how to play zerg. It's called strategy the main reason why zergs are so bad is because the players using zerg have no tactics and it shows even the zergs on the higher levels are struggling. If you wanna defeat your opponent than your going to need a strategy, but zerg players don't know how to play and haven't developed a concept for using tactics.
I'm glad you've found the underlining reason as to why Zerg players are failing to achieve the same success as Terran or Protoss players. Through many hours of practice, theorycrafting, number crunching, and saving puppies, who would have thought that the reason Zergs lose is because they don't have a strategy!
On September 15 2010 15:35 Rasky wrote: Zerg players just need to know how to play zerg. It's called strategy the main reason why zergs are so bad is because the players using zerg have no tactics and it shows even the zergs on the higher levels are struggling. If you wanna defeat your opponent than your going to need a strategy, but zerg players don't know how to play and haven't developed a concept for using tactics.
it's so narcissistic when terrans say this. "Other races suck at tactics but we have them down pat. Why is this? ummm.." Yeah, you have it figured out, but all these people playing another race don't. That's totally believable.
*edit* too slow tyrantPotato. It's pretty poor sarcasm when it is completely indistinguishable from things we frequently see people say in all seriousness. If he thinks that is over the top enough to be obvious.. well I wish it was
yeah. well i only assume its sarcasim. but your right. this isnt even half as bad as some of the posts that appear on TL.
i dont really care, if top-level-players post here. not as long as they spout some shit like morrow does, like telling that reaper micro is really hard. just for instance. every player, that ever played stalker or roaches against zealots will state, that its not that freaking hard, in addition those fuckers can jump cliffs. though i really appreciate it, when people like qxc or naruto just stood up and made a thread here, clearly saying, that THEIR OWN RACE is imbalanced. or drewbie stating in a interview, that he also thinks that terran is imbalanced and helped him of course raising high. big respect to them. and it´s already stated in this thread, that there are way too many over-modest progamers, who just won´t speak their mind. take madfrog at iem.
On September 15 2010 16:38 ensis wrote: i dont really care, if top-level-players post here. not as long as they spout some shit like morrow does, like telling that reaper micro is really hard. just for instance. every player, that ever played stalker or roaches against zealots will state, that its not that freaking hard, in addition those fuckers can jump cliffs. though i really appreciate it, when people like qxc or naruto just stood up and made a thread here, clearly saying, that THEIR OWN RACE is imbalanced. or drewbie stating in a interview, that he also thinks that terran is imbalanced and helped him of course raising high. big respect to them. and it´s already stated in this thread, that there are way too many over-modest progamers, who just won´t speak their mind. take madfrog at iem.
the problem with Morrow saying reaper micro is hard is that he admittedly learnt the build like 2 days before he won a large-money tournament with them, in a convincing manner. So either he's the new Boxer-Jaedong Hybrid, or that micro just inst that hard
didnt even knew that, but should prove this even more and lol @ret quote^^
btw. @idra rage well i hated idra back in sc1 he always flamed good and skilled players, but back then, the game was pretty balanced. right now, i love idra, because he just is the pro-voice of the community
On September 15 2010 06:37 teamsolid wrote: I think whoever wins the GSL is gonna be pretty widely regarded as top SC2 player in the world.
Agreed. Small, online foreigner tournaments are pretty meaningless in comparison.
so far GSL has shown skill level far inferior to IEM. Hopefully itll change in ro32 but the top Gamescon players will have a very solid claim for being the best as well.
Yeah, so far GSL has shown a lesser average skill level as IEM. But cool, check and tester would have each won easily the IEM if they played it, so average doesn't mean a lot.
On September 15 2010 06:37 teamsolid wrote: I think whoever wins the GSL is gonna be pretty widely regarded as top SC2 player in the world.
Agreed. Small, online foreigner tournaments are pretty meaningless in comparison.
so far GSL has shown skill level far inferior to IEM. Hopefully itll change in ro32 but the top Gamescon players will have a very solid claim for being the best as well.
Yeah, so far GSL has shown a lesser average skill level as IEM. But cool, check and tester would have each won easily the IEM if they played it, so average doesn't mean a lot.
Agreed. I'd even go so far as to say that Losira would have done very well at IEM as well. The level of pressure he put on TLO was quite impressive, and that is against a much improved TLO (improved as in refined, his play at the IEM was cool, but it was not as refined as it is now).
Add to that list, HongUnPrime would have definitely put a Protoss player through the group stages. oGsEnsnare and oGsZenio would also have done very well.
I think we should wait for RO16 from GSL to compare to IEM.
On September 14 2010 18:03 Mentos wrote: rabiator how about you read the thread, then you'll know what problems zergs have. also...scrap station a zerg map... good joke.
On September 15 2010 16:38 ensis wrote: i dont really care, if top-level-players post here. not as long as they spout some shit like morrow does, like telling that reaper micro is really hard. just for instance. every player, that ever played stalker or roaches against zealots will state, that its not that freaking hard, in addition those fuckers can jump cliffs. though i really appreciate it, when people like qxc or naruto just stood up and made a thread here, clearly saying, that THEIR OWN RACE is imbalanced. or drewbie stating in a interview, that he also thinks that terran is imbalanced and helped him of course raising high. big respect to them. and it´s already stated in this thread, that there are way too many over-modest progamers, who just won´t speak their mind. take madfrog at iem.
the problem with Morrow saying reaper micro is hard is that he admittedly learnt the build like 2 days before he won a large-money tournament with them, in a convincing manner. So either he's the new Boxer-Jaedong Hybrid, or that micro just inst that hard
starcraft 2 in general is actually that easy for terran (not gonna talk about the other races because i didnt play them enough).
playing mass reaper the last 2 days with top zergs to help and support me boosted me up so high, its not like u need 200 tvzs to practice wraith patrol micro to get good at it (sc1) here its just the overall gameplan and simple bo structure that i had to learn, and sure some little techniques to micro and macro same time with this build to get a good gameflow but learning a new playstyle is quite easy in this game if u got the basic knowledge of the game and higher mechanics than needed
and thats exactly why i feel so confident saying idra would be equal or better terran really quickly if he switched. TLO isnt a god of sc2 still me manged to play really high level in all matchups.
so dont come and say 2days of preparation with top zergs coaching is not enough in sc2, because it is lol and thats what i think is so sad about the game for all beta and release, only mu i want to compare with hard skill it takes to play from sc1 is tvt
On September 15 2010 17:36 amanet wrote: naniwa has 3 1st places in zotac i think ...
that was beta stage where he won with 4gate in every game (i could remember this wrong)
well what should i say? people are therycrafting a lot and its all good
but in my opinion theres just 1 simple problem: the marauder its a fucking good unit, and people have been whining about it since early in the beta yet it has been nerfed very little. I think its time it got hit with the nerfhammer
morrow: if sc2 is so "easy" why is there only like you, bratok, demuslim and maybe a few more terrans in the world that can display such a high skill level? i think its not easy yhoure jsut the best atm. No body can do drop as well as bratok and no body can macro as well as u imo
On September 15 2010 06:37 teamsolid wrote: I think whoever wins the GSL is gonna be pretty widely regarded as top SC2 player in the world.
Agreed. Small, online foreigner tournaments are pretty meaningless in comparison.
so far GSL has shown skill level far inferior to IEM. Hopefully itll change in ro32 but the top Gamescon players will have a very solid claim for being the best as well.
Yeah, so far GSL has shown a lesser average skill level as IEM. But cool, check and tester would have each won easily the IEM if they played it, so average doesn't mean a lot.
Agreed. I'd even go so far as to say that Losira would have done very well at IEM as well. The level of pressure he put on TLO was quite impressive, and that is against a much improved TLO (improved as in refined, his play at the IEM was cool, but it was not as refined as it is now).
Add to that list, HongUnPrime would have definitely put a Protoss player through the group stages. oGsEnsnare and oGsZenio would also have done very well.
I think we should wait for RO16 from GSL to compare to IEM.
Yes. There were some very good zerg in GSL, but they all faced a very hard match up and most lost, zerg were very unlucky with their opponents.
(just to add about the "reaper micro is soooo easy" debate, you should try it before saying it's easy. At my modest level, every player who goes reaper amass a lot of minerals in the process, and every person who tried reaper to show "how easy it is" finaly fail miserably and have to admit that it's not as easy as they first thought. It's only easy on the forums.)
On September 15 2010 18:08 bjwithbraces wrote: psure blizzard won't patch until this GSL season is done.
Gimme 1 good reason why?
Beacuse GOM and Blizzard are partners and they dont want to create a mess out of an ongoing tournament?
But there won't be long breaks between GSL seasons and the prelims are being played in the 10 day break they are going to have before season 2 so it's never gonna be the ideal time no matter when they decide to patch. At most there will be like 5-6 days or something with no games so there really isn't much point in waiting for those 5 days, might as well just patch in the korean thanksgiving break or whatever then.
On September 15 2010 18:08 MrCon wrote: (just to add about the "reaper micro is soooo easy" debate, you should try it before saying it's easy. At my modest level, every player who goes reaper amass a lot of minerals in the process, and every person who tried reaper to show "how easy it is" finaly fail miserably and have to admit that it's not as easy as they first thought. It's only easy on the forums.)
I'm far from being a pro, but even I can do 5rax reaper successfully without letting my macro suffer, and I only got like 100 games or something played as terran.
On September 15 2010 11:37 Kare wrote: As soon as the reapers build time is increased, I think the TvZ MU is going to be alot better. Whenever I see terrans open with hellions etc instead of this 5 rax reaper, then it becomes a really nice game which seem pretty balanced. I still think the damage of the ultralisks is abit insane but thats not the biggest issue right now.
Are you for real. You think a 5 second build time on reapers may balance the game, and maby zerg needs a nerf after it? Have you seen any ZvT lately? People dont even mass reapers that much anymore on high level. Theres so many problems in this matchup that nerfing buildtime or damage on a unit wont do much.
Annoying how these bad terrans try defend their race when its obvious how broken TvZ is now.
On September 15 2010 18:08 bjwithbraces wrote: psure blizzard won't patch until this GSL season is done.
Gimme 1 good reason why?
Beacuse GOM and Blizzard are partners and they dont want to create a mess out of an ongoing tournament?
What if in the RO8 all that is left is terran? IMO, that would be the single most disastrous thing that could possibly happen in any big tournament, let alone the first.
On September 15 2010 18:08 bjwithbraces wrote: psure blizzard won't patch until this GSL season is done.
Gimme 1 good reason why?
Beacuse GOM and Blizzard are partners and they dont want to create a mess out of an ongoing tournament?
What if in the RO8 all that is left is terran? IMO, that would be the single most disastrous thing that could possibly happen in any big tournament, let alone the first.
Im actually hoping for something like that to happen so alll the non believers will finally shut up..
On September 15 2010 18:08 bjwithbraces wrote: psure blizzard won't patch until this GSL season is done.
Gimme 1 good reason why?
Beacuse GOM and Blizzard are partners and they dont want to create a mess out of an ongoing tournament?
What if in the RO8 all that is left is terran? IMO, that would be the single most disastrous thing that could possibly happen in any big tournament, let alone the first.
Im actually hoping for something like that to happen so alll the non believers will finally shut up..
Considering how many P that are left I find an all T RO8 to be unrealistic.
On September 15 2010 21:50 Therickz wrote: only goes to show that terran players are the most skilled players, not that it is overpowered
I can't decide if you actually believe all the best players just happened to pick terran, or if you are terrified of a possible incoming nerf for your race D:
On September 15 2010 21:57 SilverPotato wrote: I think we need better Zerg players is all.
Even if it would be the case that the Zerg-players are just bad and smaller in numbers, which it clearly isn't, sth. still would be wrong.
Playing Zerg just isn't appealing atm. cuz you have a much harder time to win, they have the least amount of Units, are defending most of the game against uber-harrass-units/timing-pushes, have the least rewarding macro-abilities that require the most APM and are the most punishing if you neglect them etc.
Even if Zerg would be balanced, that stuff would still make less ppl play Zerg, but on top of that, it's even a weaker race!
On September 14 2010 02:29 SilverPotato wrote: Sheesh, Zerg players need to get better or something. I guess Ret will be helping balance this out
Not if his Zerg play is going to be similar to what I seen him do against Rotterdam yesterday on DecemvreTV stream. That was really bad Zerg play. None can expect anything from him for at least a month of hard practice and learning all the tricks of sc2.
The game is balanced, don't question Blizzard. The game is balanced, don't question Blizzard. The game is balanced, don't question Blizzard. The game is balanced, don't question Blizzard. The game is balanced, don't question Blizzard.
On September 15 2010 22:40 Rev0lution wrote: The game is balanced, don't question Blizzard. The game is balanced, don't question Blizzard. The game is balanced, don't question Blizzard. The game is balanced, don't question Blizzard. The game is balanced, don't question Blizzard.
Stop trolling, plz. btw, nice effort. Hope that Blizzard see this
On September 15 2010 16:38 ensis wrote: i dont really care, if top-level-players post here. not as long as they spout some shit like morrow does, like telling that reaper micro is really hard. just for instance. every player, that ever played stalker or roaches against zealots will state, that its not that freaking hard, in addition those fuckers can jump cliffs. though i really appreciate it, when people like qxc or naruto just stood up and made a thread here, clearly saying, that THEIR OWN RACE is imbalanced. or drewbie stating in a interview, that he also thinks that terran is imbalanced and helped him of course raising high. big respect to them. and it´s already stated in this thread, that there are way too many over-modest progamers, who just won´t speak their mind. take madfrog at iem.
the problem with Morrow saying reaper micro is hard is that he admittedly learnt the build like 2 days before he won a large-money tournament with them, in a convincing manner. So either he's the new Boxer-Jaedong Hybrid, or that micro just inst that hard
starcraft 2 in general is actually that easy for terran (not gonna talk about the other races because i didnt play them enough).
playing mass reaper the last 2 days with top zergs to help and support me boosted me up so high, its not like u need 200 tvzs to practice wraith patrol micro to get good at it (sc1) here its just the overall gameplan and simple bo structure that i had to learn, and sure some little techniques to micro and macro same time with this build to get a good gameflow but learning a new playstyle is quite easy in this game if u got the basic knowledge of the game and higher mechanics than needed
and thats exactly why i feel so confident saying idra would be equal or better terran really quickly if he switched. TLO isnt a god of sc2 still me manged to play really high level in all matchups.
so dont come and say 2days of preparation with top zergs coaching is not enough in sc2, because it is lol and thats what i think is so sad about the game for all beta and release, only mu i want to compare with hard skill it takes to play from sc1 is tvt
How many times has racial power shifted? MANY TIMES, without changes to the game.
All the IMBA QQ is really pissing me off.
If you can't handle a race having a (PROBABLY TEMPORARY) advantage, you shouldn't be playing RTS, as this always always always happens, even in the most balanced games possible like BW.
On September 15 2010 22:59 ltortoise wrote: How long has BW been considered balanced, now?
How many times has racial power shifted? MANY TIMES, without changes to the game.
All the IMBA QQ is really pissing me off.
If you can't handle a race having a (PROBABLY TEMPORARY) advantage, you shouldn't be playing RTS, as this always always always happens, even in the most balanced games possible like BW.
Of course there are power shifts within RTSes once they are balanced but that doesn't mean sometimes real imbalances don't exist either. Especially when the game hasn't even been patched post-release yet.
On September 15 2010 22:59 ltortoise wrote: How long has BW been considered balanced, now?
How many times has racial power shifted? MANY TIMES, without changes to the game.
All the IMBA QQ is really pissing me off.
If you can't handle a race having a (PROBABLY TEMPORARY) advantage, you shouldn't be playing RTS, as this always always always happens, even in the most balanced games possible like BW.
Of course there are power shifts within RTSes once they are balanced but that doesn't mean sometimes real imbalances don't exist either. Especially when the game hasn't even been patched post-release yet.
Continuously whining about it doesn't help anything. It just turns the forums into an unreadable shithole. I can't be the only one sick of seeing every other thread degenerate into ___ IS IMBA.
On September 15 2010 22:59 ltortoise wrote: How long has BW been considered balanced, now?
How many times has racial power shifted? MANY TIMES, without changes to the game.
All the IMBA QQ is really pissing me off.
If you can't handle a race having a (PROBABLY TEMPORARY) advantage, you shouldn't be playing RTS, as this always always always happens, even in the most balanced games possible like BW.
Of course there are power shifts within RTSes once they are balanced but that doesn't mean sometimes real imbalances don't exist either. Especially when the game hasn't even been patched post-release yet.
Continuously whining about it doesn't help anything. It just turns the forums into an unreadable shithole. I can't be the only one sick of seeing every other thread degenerate into ___ IS IMBA.
Personally I'm just as sick of the people constantly QQing about QQing and whining about whining. Don't try and act like you're any better. A lot of people are trying to have reasonable discussions about balance and comments like these don't contribute anything.
On September 15 2010 22:59 ltortoise wrote: How long has BW been considered balanced, now?
How many times has racial power shifted? MANY TIMES, without changes to the game.
All the IMBA QQ is really pissing me off.
If you can't handle a race having a (PROBABLY TEMPORARY) advantage, you shouldn't be playing RTS, as this always always always happens, even in the most balanced games possible like BW.
Of course there are power shifts within RTSes once they are balanced but that doesn't mean sometimes real imbalances don't exist either. Especially when the game hasn't even been patched post-release yet.
Continuously whining about it doesn't help anything. It just turns the forums into an unreadable shithole. I can't be the only one sick of seeing every other thread degenerate into ___ IS IMBA.
Yeah, but it's way more fun for all the Zerg's getting sick of SC2 itself because it's so frustrating to loose to inferior players.... -.-°
You don't have to read the post's after all and still have lots and lots of fun trolling around in this forum, now what are Zerg-players gonna do - Play the campaign? Switch races to the IMBA or the easy-race?
I wanna play Zerg but I want them to be balanced and everyone who cared about the game at all, wants it to be balanced as well.
On September 15 2010 22:59 ltortoise wrote: How long has BW been considered balanced, now?
How many times has racial power shifted? MANY TIMES, without changes to the game.
All the IMBA QQ is really pissing me off.
If you can't handle a race having a (PROBABLY TEMPORARY) advantage, you shouldn't be playing RTS, as this always always always happens, even in the most balanced games possible like BW.
Of course there are power shifts within RTSes once they are balanced but that doesn't mean sometimes real imbalances don't exist either. Especially when the game hasn't even been patched post-release yet.
Continuously whining about it doesn't help anything. It just turns the forums into an unreadable shithole. I can't be the only one sick of seeing every other thread degenerate into ___ IS IMBA.
Personally I'm just as sick of the people constantly QQing about QQing and whining about whining. Don't try and act like you're any better. A lot of people are trying to have reasonable discussions about balance and comments like these don't contribute anything.
Let Blizzard do the balancing. They're the professionals and the ones who made BW.
Nobody wants the game balanced more than Blizzard.
On September 15 2010 22:59 ltortoise wrote: How long has BW been considered balanced, now?
How many times has racial power shifted? MANY TIMES, without changes to the game.
All the IMBA QQ is really pissing me off.
If you can't handle a race having a (PROBABLY TEMPORARY) advantage, you shouldn't be playing RTS, as this always always always happens, even in the most balanced games possible like BW.
Of course there are power shifts within RTSes once they are balanced but that doesn't mean sometimes real imbalances don't exist either. Especially when the game hasn't even been patched post-release yet.
Continuously whining about it doesn't help anything. It just turns the forums into an unreadable shithole. I can't be the only one sick of seeing every other thread degenerate into ___ IS IMBA.
if it wasn't for the whining, blizzard wouldn't even know about the balance issues.
On September 15 2010 22:59 ltortoise wrote: How long has BW been considered balanced, now?
How many times has racial power shifted? MANY TIMES, without changes to the game.
All the IMBA QQ is really pissing me off.
If you can't handle a race having a (PROBABLY TEMPORARY) advantage, you shouldn't be playing RTS, as this always always always happens, even in the most balanced games possible like BW.
Of course there are power shifts within RTSes once they are balanced but that doesn't mean sometimes real imbalances don't exist either. Especially when the game hasn't even been patched post-release yet.
Continuously whining about it doesn't help anything. It just turns the forums into an unreadable shithole. I can't be the only one sick of seeing every other thread degenerate into ___ IS IMBA.
if it wasn't for the whining, blizzard wouldn't even know about the balance issues.
I simply disagree. Blizzard isn't stupid. You think they don't keep up with the tournament results just like we do?
Are you kidding? A majority of whiny TL regulars yelling "IMBA" doesn't make it true, and Blizzard knows this best of all, simply by watching bw evolve over the years... It still is evolving! WITH NO CHANGES. What a surprise.
Blizzard will come to their own conclusions, with or without whiny forums.
On September 15 2010 22:59 ltortoise wrote: How long has BW been considered balanced, now?
How many times has racial power shifted? MANY TIMES, without changes to the game.
All the IMBA QQ is really pissing me off.
If you can't handle a race having a (PROBABLY TEMPORARY) advantage, you shouldn't be playing RTS, as this always always always happens, even in the most balanced games possible like BW.
Of course there are power shifts within RTSes once they are balanced but that doesn't mean sometimes real imbalances don't exist either. Especially when the game hasn't even been patched post-release yet.
Continuously whining about it doesn't help anything. It just turns the forums into an unreadable shithole. I can't be the only one sick of seeing every other thread degenerate into ___ IS IMBA.
if it wasn't for the whining, blizzard wouldn't even know about the balance issues.
I simply disagree. Blizzard isn't stupid. You think they don't keep up with the tournament results just like we do?
Are you kidding? A majority of whiny TL regulars yelling "IMBA" doesn't make it true, and Blizzard knows this best of all, simply by watching bw evolve over the years... It still is evolving! WITH NO CHANGES. What a surprise.
You are wrong. There are regular changes in BW that greatly affect balance. Changes in map pool, that is. Balancing through map changes isn't good idea for SC2 though, cause that will have negative impact on map pool diversity.
On September 15 2010 22:59 ltortoise wrote: How long has BW been considered balanced, now?
How many times has racial power shifted? MANY TIMES, without changes to the game.
All the IMBA QQ is really pissing me off.
If you can't handle a race having a (PROBABLY TEMPORARY) advantage, you shouldn't be playing RTS, as this always always always happens, even in the most balanced games possible like BW.
Of course there are power shifts within RTSes once they are balanced but that doesn't mean sometimes real imbalances don't exist either. Especially when the game hasn't even been patched post-release yet.
Continuously whining about it doesn't help anything. It just turns the forums into an unreadable shithole. I can't be the only one sick of seeing every other thread degenerate into ___ IS IMBA.
if it wasn't for the whining, blizzard wouldn't even know about the balance issues.
I simply disagree. Blizzard isn't stupid. You think they don't keep up with the tournament results just like we do?
Are you kidding? A majority of whiny TL regulars yelling "IMBA" doesn't make it true, and Blizzard knows this best of all, simply by watching bw evolve over the years... It still is evolving! WITH NO CHANGES. What a surprise.
You are wrong. There are regular changes in BW that greatly affect balance. Changes in map pool, that is. Balancing through map changes isn't good idea for SC2 though, cause that will have negative impact on map pool diversity.
You are wrong.
Blizzard is changing DO next patch, and therefore we are likely to see other map changes in the future.
On September 15 2010 22:59 ltortoise wrote: How long has BW been considered balanced, now?
How many times has racial power shifted? MANY TIMES, without changes to the game.
All the IMBA QQ is really pissing me off.
If you can't handle a race having a (PROBABLY TEMPORARY) advantage, you shouldn't be playing RTS, as this always always always happens, even in the most balanced games possible like BW.
Of course there are power shifts within RTSes once they are balanced but that doesn't mean sometimes real imbalances don't exist either. Especially when the game hasn't even been patched post-release yet.
Continuously whining about it doesn't help anything. It just turns the forums into an unreadable shithole. I can't be the only one sick of seeing every other thread degenerate into ___ IS IMBA.
if it wasn't for the whining, blizzard wouldn't even know about the balance issues.
I simply disagree. Blizzard isn't stupid. You think they don't keep up with the tournament results just like we do?
Are you kidding? A majority of whiny TL regulars yelling "IMBA" doesn't make it true, and Blizzard knows this best of all, simply by watching bw evolve over the years... It still is evolving! WITH NO CHANGES. What a surprise.
You are wrong. There are regular changes in BW that greatly affect balance. Changes in map pool, that is. Balancing through map changes isn't good idea for SC2 though, cause that will have negative impact on map pool diversity.
You are wrong.
Blizzard is changing DO next patch, and therefore we are likely to see other map changes in the future.
Regardless of how many or what kind of map changes we're likely or not likely to see in the future, that doesn't really change the fact that he rebutted your 'without changes' point, such as it was.
And I think there would be a lot less 'whining' in these forums if Terran players would just accept the imbalance, accept that it's going to be discussed, and get over it. If it were accepted as established fact then there would be no reason to argue and therefore less posts wasted on it. But that's obviously not going to happen, because there's always going to be that special kind of player who can never accept that his faction is the one with the problems.
On September 15 2010 22:59 ltortoise wrote: How long has BW been considered balanced, now?
How many times has racial power shifted? MANY TIMES, without changes to the game.
All the IMBA QQ is really pissing me off.
If you can't handle a race having a (PROBABLY TEMPORARY) advantage, you shouldn't be playing RTS, as this always always always happens, even in the most balanced games possible like BW.
Of course there are power shifts within RTSes once they are balanced but that doesn't mean sometimes real imbalances don't exist either. Especially when the game hasn't even been patched post-release yet.
Continuously whining about it doesn't help anything. It just turns the forums into an unreadable shithole. I can't be the only one sick of seeing every other thread degenerate into ___ IS IMBA.
if it wasn't for the whining, blizzard wouldn't even know about the balance issues.
I simply disagree. Blizzard isn't stupid. You think they don't keep up with the tournament results just like we do?
Are you kidding? A majority of whiny TL regulars yelling "IMBA" doesn't make it true, and Blizzard knows this best of all, simply by watching bw evolve over the years... It still is evolving! WITH NO CHANGES. What a surprise.
You are wrong. There are regular changes in BW that greatly affect balance. Changes in map pool, that is. Balancing through map changes isn't good idea for SC2 though, cause that will have negative impact on map pool diversity.
You are wrong.
Blizzard is changing DO next patch, and therefore we are likely to see other map changes in the future.
Regardless of how many or what kind of map changes we're likely or not likely to see in the future, that doesn't really change the fact that he rebutted your 'without changes' point, such as it was.
And I think there would be a lot less 'whining' in these forums if Terran players would just accept the imbalance, accept that it's going to be discussed, and get over it. If it were accepted as established fact then there would be no reason to argue and therefore less posts wasted on it. But that's obviously not going to happen, because there's always going to be that special kind of player who can never accept that his faction is the one with the problems.
He didn't refute anything.
Even holding maps a constant factor, there were power shifts between the races in bw, WITH ZERO CHANGES.
I think it also takes a special kind of player who, instead of trying to improve, tries to get the game to change around their whims so that they can win more. Bad attitude.
The game WILL become more and more balanced as time goes on. Blizzard doesn't neglect their games. So instead of putting all this energy into whining that doesn't help anything except justify your own crappiness as a player, you could be playing the game and trying to improve.
On September 15 2010 22:59 ltortoise wrote: How long has BW been considered balanced, now?
How many times has racial power shifted? MANY TIMES, without changes to the game.
All the IMBA QQ is really pissing me off.
If you can't handle a race having a (PROBABLY TEMPORARY) advantage, you shouldn't be playing RTS, as this always always always happens, even in the most balanced games possible like BW.
Of course there are power shifts within RTSes once they are balanced but that doesn't mean sometimes real imbalances don't exist either. Especially when the game hasn't even been patched post-release yet.
Continuously whining about it doesn't help anything. It just turns the forums into an unreadable shithole. I can't be the only one sick of seeing every other thread degenerate into ___ IS IMBA.
Personally I'm just as sick of the people constantly QQing about QQing and whining about whining. Don't try and act like you're any better. A lot of people are trying to have reasonable discussions about balance and comments like these don't contribute anything.
Let Blizzard do the balancing. They're the professionals and the ones who made BW.
Nobody wants the game balanced more than Blizzard.
You seem to be under the impression that Blizzard balanced Starcraft 1. They did to a certain extent improve the balance through patches and the expansion. With those changes they eliminated the most obvious imbalances, but the game was still far from balanced. What actually made BW balanced was the Korean map making scene.
Do you honestly believe that the game would be balanced if we were still playing on Blizzard maps?
So no, Blizzard does not have awesome magical powers when it comes to balancing games. However, I do believe that they will eventually manage to make sc2 a very balanced game, but they will need the help of the community. Pretty much all top zerg players and even a good number of terrans agree that terran is too strong and zerg too weak. If people didn't complain about balance, it would be much harder for Blizzard to actually notice that there is a problem and where it lies. Their internal statistics will certainly help with balancing, but statistics alone don't tell the whole story, so the input from the users, particularly the top players is very valuable.
Aside from that, complaining about imbalance makes you feel much better than just bottling up that anger inside of you And trust me, when you play zerg and keep losing to inferior players, you will get angry from time to time.
ROFL dimaga is the light ! but really , whens he gonna switch to terran ?? being the best zerg in europe wont mean much to his sponsors if hes not winning ):
On September 16 2010 01:54 T0fuuu wrote: ROFL dimaga is the light ! but really , whens he gonna switch to terran ?? being the best zerg in europe wont mean much to his sponsors if hes not winning ):
after the GSL i think he said, unless they fix whatever it is he wants to be fixed.
On September 15 2010 22:40 Rev0lution wrote: The game is balanced, don't question Blizzard. The game is balanced, don't question Blizzard. The game is balanced, don't question Blizzard. The game is balanced, don't question Blizzard. The game is balanced, don't question Blizzard.
On September 15 2010 22:59 ltortoise wrote: How long has BW been considered balanced, now?
How many times has racial power shifted? MANY TIMES, without changes to the game.
All the IMBA QQ is really pissing me off.
If you can't handle a race having a (PROBABLY TEMPORARY) advantage, you shouldn't be playing RTS, as this always always always happens, even in the most balanced games possible like BW.
Of course there are power shifts within RTSes once they are balanced but that doesn't mean sometimes real imbalances don't exist either. Especially when the game hasn't even been patched post-release yet.
Continuously whining about it doesn't help anything. It just turns the forums into an unreadable shithole. I can't be the only one sick of seeing every other thread degenerate into ___ IS IMBA.
if it wasn't for the whining, blizzard wouldn't even know about the balance issues.
I simply disagree. Blizzard isn't stupid. You think they don't keep up with the tournament results just like we do?
Are you kidding? A majority of whiny TL regulars yelling "IMBA" doesn't make it true, and Blizzard knows this best of all, simply by watching bw evolve over the years... It still is evolving! WITH NO CHANGES. What a surprise.
You are wrong. There are regular changes in BW that greatly affect balance. Changes in map pool, that is. Balancing through map changes isn't good idea for SC2 though, cause that will have negative impact on map pool diversity.
You are wrong.
Blizzard is changing DO next patch, and therefore we are likely to see other map changes in the future.
Regardless of how many or what kind of map changes we're likely or not likely to see in the future, that doesn't really change the fact that he rebutted your 'without changes' point, such as it was.
And I think there would be a lot less 'whining' in these forums if Terran players would just accept the imbalance, accept that it's going to be discussed, and get over it. If it were accepted as established fact then there would be no reason to argue and therefore less posts wasted on it. But that's obviously not going to happen, because there's always going to be that special kind of player who can never accept that his faction is the one with the problems.
He didn't refute anything.
Even holding maps a constant factor, there were power shifts between the races in bw, WITH ZERO CHANGES.
I think it also takes a special kind of player who, instead of trying to improve, tries to get the game to change around their whims so that they can win more. Bad attitude.
The game WILL become more and more balanced as time goes on. Blizzard doesn't neglect their games. So instead of putting all this energy into whining that doesn't help anything except justify your own crappiness as a player, you could be playing the game and trying to improve.
Speaking of which, I'm going to go play SC2.
There's an interesting power shift at the moment. Terran is going from dominant to ultra-super-dominant.
If you read the post you quote, the reason for all the whining is that there's no consensus about the balance, there are always players who deny any problem. And it just makes people whine even more, and they will continue until everyone agrees there's a problem.
Telling people to improve won't change anything as well. Everyone can improve. But a lot of people don't necessarily want to improve, they want to have fun and play a fair game. There's no fun in a "broken" game. Not to mention that Zerg is already hard/unfriendly to play, if they are less strong as well no wonder people cry.
zog is right, if people wouldnt deny the imbalance, then everyone would just say, yay, we know, hope it gets fixed. but nothing makes someone more rageous than a player playing some imbashit is completely sure, that he is only winning because its his mighty skills that beat the other players.
if anyone would just say, yup, its imbalanced, it could be changed that and that way it would all be more constructive that way. the only people holding this process back are those, like, naaaaahhhhhhhh, every terran is great, all zergs and tosses suck. just let yourself get raped over the next 2 years by a-click and see how the metagame evolves.
edit: yeah mana won go4sc, go to gosugamers and read the comments there -.-
On September 15 2010 03:57 dudeman001 wrote: Next, we look at how many pages of players you get when you search for Diamond players in North America by race. Zerg: 78 Protoss: 116 Terran: 281 Based on those numbers alone, there are more than twice as many Terran players that Protoss players, and about 3.6 Terran players for each Zerg player.
Huh, there are 101 pages of terran, not 281. 116 P, 101 T, 78 Z Total: 336
So... yeah, there goes your point.
http://sc2ranks.com/ranks/us/diamond/1/terran/points/0 I don't know why but the number of pages has fluctuated for me from 281 to 230 and during the process of writing this post it jumped down to 101. Obviously what I was looking at before was bugged somehow, and the numbers I got before were completely messed up. That being said my previous post is now worthless and so pretty much disregard it completely.
There is already a page with the statistics you want to see: http://sc2ranks.com/stats/race/us/1 http://sc2ranks.com/stats/race/all/1 Notice how in diamond the higher the rank, the higher terran representation. That means, T is being pushed up in the ladder, whereas Z and P are being pushed down. Either better players choose to play Terran, or Terran is imba. Or both.
On September 15 2010 21:47 Elwar wrote: Isn't the GSL been played via LAN? Couldn't Blizzard patch SC2 to 1.1 but the GSL still play on the current patch? Pretty sure thats how it should work anyway.
On September 15 2010 22:59 ltortoise wrote: How long has BW been considered balanced, now?
How many times has racial power shifted? MANY TIMES, without changes to the game.
All the IMBA QQ is really pissing me off.
If you can't handle a race having a (PROBABLY TEMPORARY) advantage, you shouldn't be playing RTS, as this always always always happens, even in the most balanced games possible like BW.
Of course there are power shifts within RTSes once they are balanced but that doesn't mean sometimes real imbalances don't exist either. Especially when the game hasn't even been patched post-release yet.
Continuously whining about it doesn't help anything. It just turns the forums into an unreadable shithole. I can't be the only one sick of seeing every other thread degenerate into ___ IS IMBA.
Yeah, but it's way more fun for all the Zerg's getting sick of SC2 itself because it's so frustrating to loose to inferior players.... -.-°
You don't have to read the post's after all and still have lots and lots of fun trolling around in this forum, now what are Zerg-players gonna do - Play the campaign? Switch races to the IMBA or the easy-race?
I wanna play Zerg but I want them to be balanced and everyone who cared about the game at all, wants it to be balanced as well.
Agreed, there's no worse feeling after finishing a game, and watching the rep, only to find out how much worse your opponent was. You think it was close, but he was actually floating 5k mins half the time. You think he had godly macro, only to find out half the times his production building wasn't building, the other half he had 5 queued units. You think he had good game sense scanning your banelings, only to find out he just had 200/200 energy. You think he was constantly building scv's to match your economy...no he just mule'd. You see his army rips into your army, thinking he must've had awesome micro...but he just a-moved, and didn't even look at the battle. You think he went for a really fast thor drop....but it turns out he built the tech-lab on the starport by accident.
I know I can improve if I watch my own ZvT reps...it's just so painful to watch.
On September 14 2010 01:45 Bibdy wrote: Top players would probably be interested in them if they didn't suck.
The very top (<0.01%) have this natural aversion to shifting towards whatever will garner them the most success and consistency.
I'm sure a lot of those top guys have played all of the races to death and just eventually settled on whichever one they felt most comfortable with.
Lo and behold, most of them like the safety and consistency of having powerful, cheap units and absurd levels of defense that can keep you in the game with ease if you're falling behind.
their race provided them the means to reach the top naturally, tis not a decisive swap
On September 15 2010 22:59 ltortoise wrote: How long has BW been considered balanced, now?
How many times has racial power shifted? MANY TIMES, without changes to the game.
All the IMBA QQ is really pissing me off.
If you can't handle a race having a (PROBABLY TEMPORARY) advantage, you shouldn't be playing RTS, as this always always always happens, even in the most balanced games possible like BW.
Of course there are power shifts within RTSes once they are balanced but that doesn't mean sometimes real imbalances don't exist either. Especially when the game hasn't even been patched post-release yet.
Continuously whining about it doesn't help anything. It just turns the forums into an unreadable shithole. I can't be the only one sick of seeing every other thread degenerate into ___ IS IMBA.
Yeah, but it's way more fun for all the Zerg's getting sick of SC2 itself because it's so frustrating to loose to inferior players.... -.-°
You don't have to read the post's after all and still have lots and lots of fun trolling around in this forum, now what are Zerg-players gonna do - Play the campaign? Switch races to the IMBA or the easy-race?
I wanna play Zerg but I want them to be balanced and everyone who cared about the game at all, wants it to be balanced as well.
Agreed, there's no worse feeling after finishing a game, and watching the rep, only to find out how much worse your opponent was. You think it was close, but he was actually floating 5k mins half the time. You think he had godly macro, only to find out half the times his production building wasn't building, the other half he had 5 queued units. You think he had good game sense scanning your banelings, only to find out he just had 200/200 energy. You think he was constantly building scv's to match your economy...no he just mule'd. You see his army rips into your army, thinking he must've had awesome micro...but he just a-moved, and didn't even look at the battle. You think he went for a really fast thor drop....but it turns out he built the tech-lab on the starport by accident.
I know I can improve if I watch my own ZvT reps...it's just so painful to watch.
oh man thats one epically true statement, kudos for the viewpoint
please switch. zerg has such a lack of players, "high skill level" or not. but also, prove everyone wrong. show us that zerg can win tournaments.
lol, a notable terran player switching to zerg. That'll be the day.
And if he did and he would win the same amount of tournaments what would that prove? Im betting the zerg whiners will still go "ooooooh but he is just one player with imbawtfpwnage 300000000 apm and skillz like god thats why he can win with Zerg...."
Zerg is so much harder to play. I would like to see if morrow would be as good if he were playing zerg. i dont believe it.
Recently someone told me how easy it is to counter High Templars as Zerg. All we have to do is, besides flanking the opponent and watch out where we fight because of bad designed maps and reproducing drones and units, just FG the Templar group, FG the Blink Stalkers, NP 1-2 HT and Storm the group. sounds awesome if i only had 2 more hands to do this.
please switch. zerg has such a lack of players, "high skill level" or not. but also, prove everyone wrong. show us that zerg can win tournaments.
lol, a notable terran player switching to zerg. That'll be the day.
And if he did and he would win the same amount of tournaments what would that prove? Im betting the zerg whiners will still go "ooooooh but he is just one player with imbawtfpwnage 300000000 apm and skillz like god thats why he can win with Zerg...."
lol morrow wins a single prized tournament with zerg and ill never say the word balance again
On September 16 2010 22:03 w1kk wrote: Zerg is so much harder to play. I would like to see if morrow would be as good if he were playing zerg. i dont believe it.
Recently someone told me how easy it is to counter High Templars as Zerg. All we have to do is, besides flanking the opponent and watch out where we fight because of bad designed maps and reproducing drones and units, just FG the Templar group, FG the Blink Stalkers, NP 1-2 HT and Storm the group. sounds awesome if i only had 2 more hands to do this.
HT is easy to counter because storm has such small radius and only one-shots zerglings. they are easily picked off with hydras or muta.
On September 16 2010 22:03 w1kk wrote: Zerg is so much harder to play. I would like to see if morrow would be as good if he were playing zerg. i dont believe it.
Recently someone told me how easy it is to counter High Templars as Zerg. All we have to do is, besides flanking the opponent and watch out where we fight because of bad designed maps and reproducing drones and units, just FG the Templar group, FG the Blink Stalkers, NP 1-2 HT and Storm the group. sounds awesome if i only had 2 more hands to do this.
HT is easy to counter because storm has such small radius and only one-shots zerglings. they are easily picked off with hydras or muta.
Nice Troll.
Anyway, I would love to see one of the top EU Terran ( Morrow, Demuslim ... ) play zerg in a tournament. I wonder if this would change their point f vue on the Zerg race . ( Before any patch ofc :p)
please switch. zerg has such a lack of players, "high skill level" or not. but also, prove everyone wrong. show us that zerg can win tournaments.
lol, a notable terran player switching to zerg. That'll be the day.
And if he did and he would win the same amount of tournaments what would that prove? Im betting the zerg whiners will still go "ooooooh but he is just one player with imbawtfpwnage 300000000 apm and skillz like god thats why he can win with Zerg...."
lol morrow wins a single prized tournament with zerg and ill never say the word balance again
I soo wish that would happen but i srsly doubt it...(the morrow go zerg and win part..)
The thing is, I don't doubt that all the top players at least have practiced with their off-race. If only to learn Timings and stuff. It's good practice to at least play other races so you know what your talking about when posting on forums and have a clearer understanding of your own gameplay.
ie. how annoying it actually is to deal with mutas as T or P.
Finally, hopefully all cries of imbalance can now stop since this shows that Terran players are just better than Zerg players as the tournament record shows.
On September 16 2010 23:08 Mearis wrote: Finally, hopefully all cries of imbalance can now stop since this shows that Terran players are just better than Zerg players as the tournament record shows.
Wrote this in the battle.net forums (because there are so many genius there (rolls eyes). ANYWAYS, I thought that I made a legitimate point that shows that the "since more terran play, they should win more" is a stupid excuse. I'm just wondering if there's a legitimate reason that proves me wrong (which I really do want to know...) Anyways...here:
At the moment, there are some balance issues with Terran. That said, there are also balance issues with Protoss (especially against Zerg). I understand you are sticking up for your race but denying it is like denying the holocost, especially after the given statistics. There -ARE- good terrans. However it is almost IMPOSSIBLE to tell whos good and whos not due to the simplicity of MMM(G) T-A-Click
May I ask why more people play Terran? (And don't give me this It was in Single player crap, like that matters at high level play). (I'm not trying to argue, I actually want to know what is the ratio/percentage for each race).
NOW... From http://sc2ranks.com/stats/all/1/all, I can see that about 20% of all diamond players are Zerg. Now if we take that same percentage and applied it to pro gamers/people who played in these tournaments (even though there are usually and EQUAL amount of each race in these tournaments), why have zerg not win 20% of these tourneys?
Also, I don't mind Blizz taking their time (even though that report release and not putting up the patch yet is killing me...), as long as the fixes are correct. Is this future patch going to fix a lot? Maybe, maybe not, we don't know. Also, strategies are changing. When 5 Rax reaper (If you don't know what this is, don't even bother talking about balance issues, and I'm not trying to be an elitist or something, but if you actually played SC alot, you would know what it meant) first came out, it was really hard for Z players to deal, but now (even though it is still tough) pro gamers and dealing with it, and it isn't an instant win.
People get better/change the way they play/adapt to strats over time, we can't deny this. But somethings just need to be changed...
so basically, it shouldn't matter whether there are more or less of one race in tournaments because they are usually even in number (sorry I don't have proof and this is one weak point in my argument). Also, 20% of Diamond players are Zerg, so why don't zerg players win 20% of all tournaments?
please switch. zerg has such a lack of players, "high skill level" or not. but also, prove everyone wrong. show us that zerg can win tournaments.
lol, a notable terran player switching to zerg. That'll be the day.
And if he did and he would win the same amount of tournaments what would that prove? Im betting the zerg whiners will still go "ooooooh but he is just one player with imbawtfpwnage 300000000 apm and skillz like god thats why he can win with Zerg...."
lol morrow wins a single prized tournament with zerg and ill never say the word balance again
On September 14 2010 19:17 Liquid`Ret wrote: Dimaga hasn't won anything since earlier days of beta when game wasn't in the state it's in now (few patches ago). Same goes for Haypro. Morrow your claims about their not being enough zergs practicing hard is totally silly
Thank you, a person actually speaks truth.
However I must say MorroW..
You playing Zerg would not only embarass you, but other Terrans as well. You will only show that you'd be back to being a 'good' player and not a 'great' player. It will show that the "One of the Best Terran Players" can't even win a tournament with Zerg, therefore proving all high level zerg players correct.
Not only for yourself, but for other Terran players around you, do not switch, it will only end up making Zergs and other competent players right.
Its simple, Zerg is quite underpowered as of right now, its a fact. Anyone who disagrees is either incompetent, stubborn, or a troll.
Which is fine, and we shall wait for more patches to come to balance the game. However, don't come here and blow smoke up our asses talking about that there is "not enough zergs in tournies" or "Derp Dimaga Wins!", Dimaga hasn't won anything as of recent, did you see how happy he was to place 3rd at IEM?
There is no need to exaggerate or be stubborn, just be professional and admit the current state of the game. This is no disrespect to you morrow, but the truth must be folded out time to time.
On September 14 2010 19:17 Liquid`Ret wrote: Dimaga hasn't won anything since earlier days of beta when game wasn't in the state it's in now (few patches ago). Same goes for Haypro. Morrow your claims about their not being enough zergs practicing hard is totally silly
Thank you, a person actually speaks truth in an non-insulting way.
However I must say MorroW..
You playing Zerg would not only embarass you, but other Terrans as well. You will only show that you'd be back to being a 'good' player and not a 'great' player. It will show that the "One of the Best Terran Players" can't even win a tournament with Zerg, therefore proving all high level zerg players correct.
Not only for yourself, but for other Terran players around you, do not switch, it will only end up making Zergs and other competent players right.
Its simple, Zerg is quite underpowered as of right now, its a fact. Anyone who disagrees is either incompetent, stubborn, or a troll.
Which is fine, and we shall wait for more patches to come to balance the game. However, don't come here and blow smoke up our asses talking about that there is "not enough zergs in tournies" or "Derp Dimaga Wins!", Dimaga hasn't won anything as of recent, did you see how happy he was to place 3rd at IEM?
There is no need to exaggerate or be stubborn, just be professional and admit the current state of the game. This is no disrespect to you morrow, but the truth must be folded out time to time.
Not quite, for other Zerg players to be fully right, the opposite must also happen. A Zerg player must also win a tournament as T.
Why would a zerg have to win a tournament as T? The T's there have put 900 games into terrna, the zerg 900 games into zerg, yet theres 22gold Terran wins and 2 gold Zerg wins. Plus arguably, the best foreign players from BW mostly play zerg. (Ret, dimaga, artosis, Idra ofc, mondragon) Morrow is a map hacker and shouldnt be rolling kids as T.
On September 17 2010 15:15 Phayze wrote: Why would a zerg have to win a tournament as T? The T's there have put 900 games into terrna, the zerg 900 games into zerg, yet theres 22gold Terran wins and 2 gold Zerg wins. Plus arguably, the best foreign players from BW mostly play zerg. (Ret, dimaga, artosis, Idra ofc, mondragon) Morrow is a map hacker and shouldnt be rolling kids as T.
Zerg being Underpowered is very different than Terran is Overpowered.
Having a Top Terran win as Zerg would say that Zerg is not underpowered.
Having a Zerg win as Terran would say that Terran is Overpowered.
On September 17 2010 15:15 Phayze wrote: Why would a zerg have to win a tournament as T? The T's there have put 900 games into terrna, the zerg 900 games into zerg, yet theres 22gold Terran wins and 2 gold Zerg wins. Plus arguably, the best foreign players from BW mostly play zerg. (Ret, dimaga, artosis, Idra ofc, mondragon) Morrow is a map hacker and shouldnt be rolling kids as T.
Zerg being Underpowered is very different than Terran is Overpowered.
Having a Top Terran win as Zerg would say that Zerg is not underpowered.
Having a Zerg win as Terran would say that Terran is Overpowered.
Its not that simple, and thats a very small sample size to make those kinds of assumptions. it's completely statistics like this that show race balance, not who is having a good/bad day and who can play other races effectively.
On September 17 2010 15:15 Phayze wrote: Why would a zerg have to win a tournament as T? The T's there have put 900 games into terrna, the zerg 900 games into zerg, yet theres 22gold Terran wins and 2 gold Zerg wins. Plus arguably, the best foreign players from BW mostly play zerg. (Ret, dimaga, artosis, Idra ofc, mondragon) Morrow is a map hacker and shouldnt be rolling kids as T.
Zerg being Underpowered is very different than Terran is Overpowered.
Having a Top Terran win as Zerg would say that Zerg is not underpowered.
Having a Zerg win as Terran would say that Terran is Overpowered.
Its not that simple, and thats a very small sample size to make those kinds of assumptions. it's completely statistics like this that show race balance, not who is having a good/bad day and who can play other races effectively.
Terran- 51 Protoss - 22 Zerg - 4
Look, there isn't anything you could draw from that conclusion except if nothing else, something needs to change with Zerg. Like, even if, for some reason, you could compute a mathematical formula for balance, and Zerg turned out balanced, when the difference between Zerg wins to Terran wins on a competitive level is 1500%, your going to need to change something about zerg.
On September 17 2010 15:15 Phayze wrote: Why would a zerg have to win a tournament as T? The T's there have put 900 games into terrna, the zerg 900 games into zerg, yet theres 22gold Terran wins and 2 gold Zerg wins. Plus arguably, the best foreign players from BW mostly play zerg. (Ret, dimaga, artosis, Idra ofc, mondragon) Morrow is a map hacker and shouldnt be rolling kids as T.
Zerg being Underpowered is very different than Terran is Overpowered.
Having a Top Terran win as Zerg would say that Zerg is not underpowered.
Having a Zerg win as Terran would say that Terran is Overpowered.
Its not that simple, and thats a very small sample size to make those kinds of assumptions. it's completely statistics like this that show race balance, not who is having a good/bad day and who can play other races effectively.
Terran- 51 Protoss - 22 Zerg - 4
Look, there isn't anything you could draw from that conclusion except if nothing else, something needs to change with Zerg. Like, even if, for some reason, you could compute a mathematical formula for balance, and Zerg turned out balanced, when the difference between Zerg wins to Terran wins on a competitive level is 1500%, your going to need to change something about zerg.
Lol i'm not even sure I follow these arguments anymore. I just really wanna see a ZvT with Morrow vs Idra except with off-race =P
please switch. zerg has such a lack of players, "high skill level" or not. but also, prove everyone wrong. show us that zerg can win tournaments.
lol, a notable terran player switching to zerg. That'll be the day.
And if he did and he would win the same amount of tournaments what would that prove? Im betting the zerg whiners will still go "ooooooh but he is just one player with imbawtfpwnage 300000000 apm and skillz like god thats why he can win with Zerg...."
lol morrow wins a single prized tournament with zerg and ill never say the word balance again
On September 17 2010 16:13 Elegy wrote: i think people forget morrow was still an A level BW player. its not like hes some random scrub who won a few tournies abusing X race
On September 17 2010 16:13 Elegy wrote: i think people forget morrow was still an A level BW player. its not like hes some random scrub who won a few tournies abusing X race
lol. so is idra.
well ofc idra is going to exaggerate things to a certain extent but hes a baller. i was referring to random people who just say morrow is a bad player who only wins because of his race and who don't either know or acknowledge that morrow is, surprisingly enough, very good at rts games ^^
please switch. zerg has such a lack of players, "high skill level" or not. but also, prove everyone wrong. show us that zerg can win tournaments.
lol, a notable terran player switching to zerg. That'll be the day.
And if he did and he would win the same amount of tournaments what would that prove? Im betting the zerg whiners will still go "ooooooh but he is just one player with imbawtfpwnage 300000000 apm and skillz like god thats why he can win with Zerg...."
lol morrow wins a single prized tournament with zerg and ill never say the word balance again
I soo wish that would happen but i srsly doubt it...(the morrow go zerg and win part..)
He'll never switch to Zerg. Although, I'd like to see him try so when he inevitably fails, we can laugh at him.
please switch. zerg has such a lack of players, "high skill level" or not. but also, prove everyone wrong. show us that zerg can win tournaments.
lol, a notable terran player switching to zerg. That'll be the day.
And if he did and he would win the same amount of tournaments what would that prove? Im betting the zerg whiners will still go "ooooooh but he is just one player with imbawtfpwnage 300000000 apm and skillz like god thats why he can win with Zerg...."
lol morrow wins a single prized tournament with zerg and ill never say the word balance again
I soo wish that would happen but i srsly doubt it...(the morrow go zerg and win part..)
He'll never switch to Zerg. Although, I'd like to see him try so when he inevitably fails, we can laugh at him.
he's not going to try, because he will fail and people will laugh
seriously if he's going to say that terran isn't imba and zerg isn't UP then he better be able to back up his words by playing or eat them
There is already a page with the statistics you want to see: http://sc2ranks.com/stats/race/us/1 http://sc2ranks.com/stats/race/all/1 Notice how in diamond the higher the rank, the higher terran representation. That means, T is being pushed up in the ladder, whereas Z and P are being pushed down. Either better players choose to play Terran, or Terran is imba. Or both.
These stats don't mean anything, only 20% play Zerg on Battle.net and if you look at these stats :
The quite few tournaments won by zerg players, is much more relevant imho. I think there is a balance issue (Zerg is UP), but a few minor changes should be enough to solve that.
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.
On September 16 2010 22:05 IdrA wrote: lol morrow wins a single prized tournament with zerg and ill never say the word balance again
If morrow doesnt want to do it, you could always try it yourself and win a prized tournament with terran, seeing that its so OP it should be pretty easy right? Just an ideia.
On September 15 2010 23:25 kickinhead wrote: Yeah, but it's way more fun for all the Zerg's getting sick of SC2 itself because it's so frustrating to loose to inferior players.... -.-°
Typical Zerg mentality " i am actually gosu but because Terran is easy mode and OP i dont win games".
I have yet to see a game were Zerg lose to an "inferior" player without making key mistakes that actualy cost him the game, be it vs either terran or protoss.
ah now i get it all terrans are pro kekekeke. just think about idra being a progamer in korea for the last year ( mb 2 ?), loosing to a semi-okay a-ranked bw player. i sure believe that relies to idra isnt training and playing right huh?
no zerg mentality, its the mentality of peops who arent staring through pink glasses.
On September 17 2010 16:08 me_viet wrote: Lol i'm not even sure I follow these arguments anymore. I just really wanna see a ZvT with Morrow vs Idra except with off-race =P
On September 17 2010 21:59 in7e.sCream wrote: ah now i get it all terrans are pro kekekeke. just think about idra being a progamer in korea for the last year ( mb 2 ?), loosing to a semi-okay a-ranked bw player. i sure believe that relies to idra isnt training and playing right huh?
no zerg mentality, its the mentality of peops who arent staring through pink glasses.
Yes, fanboy just because you like him it automaticly makes him better than any other player.
Dont really get were you saw in my post that i think all terrans are pro, what i said is that zergs think they are pro but are stuck with an UP race.
Interpret it however you like but i dont see Fruitseller for example struggling with these issues.
wtf has this to do with "fanboy" ? its just a clear and obvious fact that he has way more strategical / mechanic skills then most of the current sc2 terrans cause he played in a PROTEAM in korea AT A TEAMHOUSE, where peops tend to play like 12-14 hours a day. oh god.
btw iam not that big idra fan cause he is a bit too bm imo. its just kinda obvious that peops like him would never loose to players like morrow~~
On September 15 2010 22:59 ltortoise wrote: How long has BW been considered balanced, now?
How many times has racial power shifted? MANY TIMES, without changes to the game.
All the IMBA QQ is really pissing me off.
If you can't handle a race having a (PROBABLY TEMPORARY) advantage, you shouldn't be playing RTS, as this always always always happens, even in the most balanced games possible like BW.
Of course there are power shifts within RTSes once they are balanced but that doesn't mean sometimes real imbalances don't exist either. Especially when the game hasn't even been patched post-release yet.
Continuously whining about it doesn't help anything. It just turns the forums into an unreadable shithole. I can't be the only one sick of seeing every other thread degenerate into ___ IS IMBA.
Yeah, but it's way more fun for all the Zerg's getting sick of SC2 itself because it's so frustrating to loose to inferior players.... -.-°
You don't have to read the post's after all and still have lots and lots of fun trolling around in this forum, now what are Zerg-players gonna do - Play the campaign? Switch races to the IMBA or the easy-race?
I wanna play Zerg but I want them to be balanced and everyone who cared about the game at all, wants it to be balanced as well.
Agreed, there's no worse feeling after finishing a game, and watching the rep, only to find out how much worse your opponent was. You think it was close, but he was actually floating 5k mins half the time. You think he had godly macro, only to find out half the times his production building wasn't building, the other half he had 5 queued units. You think he had good game sense scanning your banelings, only to find out he just had 200/200 energy. You think he was constantly building scv's to match your economy...no he just mule'd. You see his army rips into your army, thinking he must've had awesome micro...but he just a-moved, and didn't even look at the battle. You think he went for a really fast thor drop....but it turns out he built the tech-lab on the starport by accident.
I know I can improve if I watch my own ZvT reps...it's just so painful to watch.
Ban Type: Spamming / Trolling Expires: Sunday, September 19, 2010 5:54:21 PM UTC (in 1 day, 21 hours) Ban Reason: Suspended from the Battle.Net forums for for one or more of the following: spamming, trolling, & re-posting a moderated thread. "The last post was deleted.. not sure why.. http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/628237958 (cant be found.. really?) Anyway, just in case that was a mistake to delete a perfectly good post that broke no rules, I'll post it again.. Maybe it was a database error.. maybe it was an attempt to supress this information.. Tournament wins by race: Terran - 51 Protoss - 22 Zerg - 4 Tournament winners by race: Terran - 22 Protoss- 12 Zerg - 2 Blizzard, if you deleted this post can you at least send me an email explaining why? That is really offensive to me that you would do this considering this is a *discussion* board. Thanks and please leave this one alone, it spurs great debates."
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..
Nothing new for Blizzard's forums, unfortunately. Besides punishing people for outright trolling, they'll punish people simply for sharing information that might be considered inflammatory, or for expressing themselves in a confrontational manner.
There is already a page with the statistics you want to see: http://sc2ranks.com/stats/race/us/1 http://sc2ranks.com/stats/race/all/1 Notice how in diamond the higher the rank, the higher terran representation. That means, T is being pushed up in the ladder, whereas Z and P are being pushed down. Either better players choose to play Terran, or Terran is imba. Or both.
These stats don't mean anything, only 20% play Zerg on Battle.net and if you look at these stats :
The quite few tournaments won by zerg players, is much more relevant imho. I think there is a balance issue (Zerg is UP), but a few minor changes should be enough to solve that.
It is actually win% that is meaningless in these statistics. Current system just matches you up with worse players. This also accounts for there being so few Zerg in the higher ranks.
However even your statistic is bias. Zerg actually have the worst win% in diamond at 54.03%. Well to be truthful Random has slightly worse win%.
You can not say these stats do not mean anything when Terran is so high up in the rankings. They are extremely high yet not the most numerous.
I really didn't want to bump this, but I really want to know a valid argument against this logic:
On September 17 2010 12:38 EliteAzn wrote: Wrote this in the battle.net forums (because there are so many genius there (rolls eyes). ANYWAYS, I thought that I made a legitimate point that shows that the "since more terran play, they should win more" is a stupid excuse. I'm just wondering if there's a legitimate reason that proves me wrong (which I really do want to know...) Anyways...here:
At the moment, there are some balance issues with Terran. That said, there are also balance issues with Protoss (especially against Zerg). I understand you are sticking up for your race but denying it is like denying the holocost, especially after the given statistics. There -ARE- good terrans. However it is almost IMPOSSIBLE to tell whos good and whos not due to the simplicity of MMM(G) T-A-Click
May I ask why more people play Terran? (And don't give me this It was in Single player crap, like that matters at high level play). (I'm not trying to argue, I actually want to know what is the ratio/percentage for each race).
NOW... From http://sc2ranks.com/stats/all/1/all, I can see that about 20% of all diamond players are Zerg. Now if we take that same percentage and applied it to pro gamers/people who played in these tournaments (even though there are usually and EQUAL amount of each race in these tournaments), why have zerg not win 20% of these tourneys?
Also, I don't mind Blizz taking their time (even though that report release and not putting up the patch yet is killing me...), as long as the fixes are correct. Is this future patch going to fix a lot? Maybe, maybe not, we don't know. Also, strategies are changing. When 5 Rax reaper (If you don't know what this is, don't even bother talking about balance issues, and I'm not trying to be an elitist or something, but if you actually played SC alot, you would know what it meant) first came out, it was really hard for Z players to deal, but now (even though it is still tough) pro gamers and dealing with it, and it isn't an instant win.
People get better/change the way they play/adapt to strats over time, we can't deny this. But somethings just need to be changed...
so basically, it shouldn't matter whether there are more or less of one race in tournaments because they are usually even in number (sorry I don't have proof and this is one weak point in my argument). Also, 20% of Diamond players are Zerg, so why don't zerg players win 20% of all tournaments?
Also, winning percentage found at sc2ranks and other sites are kinda useless because it doesn't say the ranking of their opponents who they beat. Therefore, it can easily be Terrans killing all the equal rank Zergs, and Zergs killing the lower rank Terrans (lower rank because they lose, then they lower in rank, and play worse players).
Also, a small change can make a huge difference, we just won't know until people test it out. We have to trust blizzard, and we have to be PATIENT
On September 17 2010 21:59 in7e.sCream wrote: ah now i get it all terrans are pro kekekeke. just think about idra being a progamer in korea for the last year ( mb 2 ?), loosing to a semi-okay a-ranked bw player. i sure believe that relies to idra isnt training and playing right huh?
no zerg mentality, its the mentality of peops who arent staring through pink glasses.
Yes, fanboy just because you like him it automaticly makes him better than any other player.
Dont really get were you saw in my post that i think all terrans are pro, what i said is that zergs think they are pro but are stuck with an UP race.
Interpret it however you like but i dont see Fruitseller for example struggling with these issues.
Fruitseller said himself that Zerg is clearly UP. All Zergs, regardless of their skill level, say Zerg is UP. IdrA, Dimaga and Cool all think the same. We don't think we're pro but we know that we shouldn't be losing to the players which we're currently losing to.
On September 17 2010 21:59 in7e.sCream wrote: ah now i get it all terrans are pro kekekeke. just think about idra being a progamer in korea for the last year ( mb 2 ?), loosing to a semi-okay a-ranked bw player. i sure believe that relies to idra isnt training and playing right huh?
no zerg mentality, its the mentality of peops who arent staring through pink glasses.
Yes, fanboy just because you like him it automaticly makes him better than any other player.
Dont really get were you saw in my post that i think all terrans are pro, what i said is that zergs think they are pro but are stuck with an UP race.
Interpret it however you like but i dont see Fruitseller for example struggling with these issues.
You do not see "Fruitseller" expressing his concerns because he expressed them as oGsCool. He was the Zerg who said that "Zerg can not win against Protoss" because of the econ damage a 2gate does to a Zerg. He even went to say that he was practicing mainly protoss for a while, he is just more well versed as Zerg which is why he is competing as Zerg.
I will edit this with the link and to fix grammar.
I heard Zerg is a very hard race to play with. Even with the other races, i am quite confident that i can beat good zerg players. Thats how hard zerg is. Unlike other races, zerg's main powers are yet to be established. Its not bad but as you transition into mid-late games, its very hard to stand toe to toe with armies of the other races.
please switch. zerg has such a lack of players, "high skill level" or not. but also, prove everyone wrong. show us that zerg can win tournaments.
lol, a notable terran player switching to zerg. That'll be the day.
And if he did and he would win the same amount of tournaments what would that prove? Im betting the zerg whiners will still go "ooooooh but he is just one player with imbawtfpwnage 300000000 apm and skillz like god thats why he can win with Zerg...."
lol morrow wins a single prized tournament with zerg and ill never say the word balance again
On September 18 2010 00:31 Alexstrasas wrote:Interpret it however you like but i dont see Fruitseller for example struggling with these issues.
Cool (Fruitseller) said in an interview that Zerg is so underpowered at the moment that he could beat any top level Zerg offracing with Protoss, or Terran.
On September 18 2010 00:31 Alexstrasas wrote:Interpret it however you like but i dont see Fruitseller for example struggling with these issues.
Cool (Fruitseller) said in an interview that Zerg is so underpowered at the moment that he could beat any top level Zerg offracing with Protoss, or Terran.
On September 18 2010 00:31 Alexstrasas wrote:Interpret it however you like but i dont see Fruitseller for example struggling with these issues.
Cool (Fruitseller) said in an interview that Zerg is so underpowered at the moment that he could beat any top level Zerg offracing with Protoss, or Terran.
What interview?
The interview after he left oGs. I don't know if that was exactly that that was said but it was something along those lines. You also see him doing it on gisados stream.
On September 16 2010 19:30 me_viet wrote: Agreed, there's no worse feeling after finishing a game, and watching the rep, only to find out how much worse your opponent was. You think it was close, but he was actually floating 5k mins half the time. You think he had godly macro, only to find out half the times his production building wasn't building, the other half he had 5 queued units. You think he had good game sense scanning your banelings, only to find out he just had 200/200 energy. You think he was constantly building scv's to match your economy...no he just mule'd. You see his army rips into your army, thinking he must've had awesome micro...but he just a-moved, and didn't even look at the battle. You think he went for a really fast thor drop....but it turns out he built the tech-lab on the starport by accident.
I know I can improve if I watch my own ZvT reps...it's just so painful to watch.
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)
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
if im not mistaken i also heard there was HUGE amount of zerg that entered tl open.
so no one can call the "not enough zerg entered thats why no one did well" line.
tbh, this makes me more determined to stick with zerg. I feel like when blizzard eventually fixes zerg (even if it takes till HotS), the people who have been playing zerg since the beginning will be at a great advantage. Zerg requires a different kind of game sense than the other races (when to drone, when to expand) and I'm just going to work on that that
also, when I game I try to avoid going with trends, so by picking the worst race I'm totally avoiding that trend of picking a good one =P
why are people still crying about imbalance, its a fact....... hopefully blizzard fixes it soon ; ( poor zergs t_T weirdly i dont feel bad for idra tho ;D
On September 19 2010 15:47 drewbie.root wrote: why are people still crying about imbalance, its a fact....... hopefully blizzard fixes it soon ; ( poor zergs t_T weirdly i dont feel bad for idra tho ;D
I think it would be better to update the ladder map pool with better maps instead of patching the game.
On September 18 2010 00:31 Alexstrasas wrote:Interpret it however you like but i dont see Fruitseller for example struggling with these issues.
Cool (Fruitseller) said in an interview that Zerg is so underpowered at the moment that he could beat any top level Zerg offracing with Protoss, or Terran.
This is priceless. ^^'
Whenever I see Sen, Cella, phoenix or other top-zergs offrace on stream, they actually do better than with Zerg.
I offrace vs same-level zergs too and win without any problems - it's a joke.
On September 19 2010 20:58 DotAFighter wrote: Wheres IdrA?
In South Korea.
With patch 1.1 probably bringing no other changes than those already announced, I don't see these stats changing at all in the near future. Good for Morrow. Since you know, if they nerfed any Terran/Protoss unit, the whole race would be useless. (A popular argument amongst P/T players, this 'x will become useless' thing. Very detailed and insightful, don't you think?)
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)
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
Seems like everyone agree there is balance problems, but terrans seem to think that only minor changes needs to be done. And you got morrow who thinks he can win tournaments with zerg.
Just look at the stats people. The tournaments last few days only has terran in the semi finals or finals.
Do anyone here really think its because the best players choose to play terran? Some random guy who does the biggest worst misstakes i have ever seen on a high level, gets to the semi finals of a 512 player tournament(drafter). And ofc he is only eliminated by another terran.
Lets pray to the patch god, and hope we get more changes then what they announced, cus we all know its not enough.
Watching streams now. Zotac and Go4SC2. Guess what, there are only terrans.
I am so dissapointed with sc2... Is this a joke or what? There are only terrans in every tournament. So fed up with TvTs. No epicness, no beatiful games, no nothing.
Edit: yes, I am whining. I cant stand this shit anymore.
On September 20 2010 04:13 travis wrote: no guys people who complain about terran imba are only trying to make theirselves feel better about when they lose
no one can possibly understand the game well enough to make statements on balance without being one of the top 10 players in the world
hopefully the game is awesomely balanced when i get done with my military shit
as if the top 10 players make any difference... they have known the game for just as long as the rest and might not be the best theorycrafters... i dont think the best players always come up with the best strats (see bw)... they just execute them best...
On September 20 2010 04:13 travis wrote: no guys people who complain about terran imba are only trying to make theirselves feel better about when they lose
no one can possibly understand the game well enough to make statements on balance without being one of the top 10 players in the world
hopefully the game is awesomely balanced when i get done with my military shit
as if the top 10 players make any difference... they have known the game for just as long as the rest and might not be the best theorycrafters... i dont think the best players always come up with the best strats (see bw)... they just execute them best...
On September 20 2010 04:13 travis wrote: no guys people who complain about terran imba are only trying to make theirselves feel better about when they lose
no one can possibly understand the game well enough to make statements on balance without being one of the top 10 players in the world
hopefully the game is awesomely balanced when i get done with my military shit
as if the top 10 players make any difference... they have known the game for just as long as the rest and might not be the best theorycrafters... i dont think the best players always come up with the best strats (see bw)... they just execute them best...
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
Add today's Zotac Cup (top 4 TvT's) and Go4SC2 (finals TvT, 3/4 T in semis) to that list.
On September 20 2010 04:13 travis wrote: no guys people who complain about terran imba are only trying to make theirselves feel better about when they lose
no one can possibly understand the game well enough to make statements on balance without being one of the top 10 players in the world
hopefully the game is awesomely balanced when i get done with my military shit
as if the top 10 players make any difference... they have known the game for just as long as the rest and might not be the best theorycrafters... i dont think the best players always come up with the best strats (see bw)... they just execute them best...
im being sarcastic
you are too good at it.
indeed indeed... and i should've read the whole topic i guess, but its too damn long
On September 19 2010 21:19 gozima wrote: If I'm not mistaken, some Zerg named Ryze won the Craft Cup yesterday.
I could be wrong, though.
Do realize I don't think any top terran players like qxc were playing in it. I dont' think any of the really really good terrans played in this craftcup due to other tournaments and its only like 20$ so may not be worth the time for them .
I think the only 2 terrans I recognized when I looked at player list were fenix and thisisjimmy. As for toss didn't recognize any of them but grats to him either way as he did win it.
On September 20 2010 04:13 travis wrote: no guys people who complain about terran imba are only trying to make theirselves feel better about when they lose
no one can possibly understand the game well enough to make statements on balance without being one of the top 10 players in the world
hopefully the game is awesomely balanced when i get done with my military shit
as if the top 10 players make any difference... they have known the game for just as long as the rest and might not be the best theorycrafters... i dont think the best players always come up with the best strats (see bw)... they just execute them best...
On September 20 2010 04:13 travis wrote: no guys people who complain about terran imba are only trying to make theirselves feel better about when they lose
no one can possibly understand the game well enough to make statements on balance without being one of the top 10 players in the world
hopefully the game is awesomely balanced when i get done with my military shit
as if the top 10 players make any difference... they have known the game for just as long as the rest and might not be the best theorycrafters... i dont think the best players always come up with the best strats (see bw)... they just execute them best...
im being sarcastic
Way to sarcastic my face off. Thanks alot Travis. But in all honesty guys, if you are not competing for these competitions and are complaining about ladder games then the balance doesn't even affect you. If Blizzard cares about this being an esport then they will patch for the higher level of players, (the pros) until then, enjoy your 50% win rate because the matchmaking system seems to be working very nicely.
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.
On September 20 2010 04:13 travis wrote: no one can possibly understand the game well enough to make statements on balance without being one of the top 10 players in the world
People keep saying this but you don't have to one of the top 10 players in the world to understand SC2.
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.
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"
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.
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 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 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 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 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 05:25 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 05:25 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 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.
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.
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.
...um does it not bother anyone that terrans wins are only so high cause morrow has won a grand total of 12! tournaments... this might be more conclusive if it was more evenly spread between the terran players.
On September 20 2010 06:25 DonKey_ wrote: ...um does it not bother anyone that terrans wins are only so high cause morrow has won a grand total of 12! tournaments... this might be more conclusive if it was more evenly spread between the terran players.
even if you took morrow out of the equation the numbers would still favor Terran by a pretty large margin, but he is definitely an outlier that skews the statistic a little further toward Terran. If he was just being carried by his race he wouldn't have 12 wins, it would be spread out more between other terrans.
But the fact that we are seeing tournaments with top 4s consisting of all Terrans is pretty compelling, and enough for me to consider the results conclusive.
edit: also, I think the more important statstic is the super low number of zergs
On September 20 2010 06:25 DonKey_ wrote: ...um does it not bother anyone that terrans wins are only so high cause morrow has won a grand total of 12! tournaments... this might be more conclusive if it was more evenly spread between the terran players.
even if you took morrow out of the equation the numbers would still favor Terran by a pretty large margin, but he is definitely an outlier that skews the statistic a little further toward Terran. If he was just being carried by his race he wouldn't have 12 wins, it would be spread out more between other terrans.
But the fact that we are seeing tournaments with top 4s consisting of all Terrans is pretty compelling, and enough for me to consider the results conclusive.
Saying that is a bit hard to do. MLG had one Terran in the top 4 and none in the Top 3, the rest being Protosss. ESL had no Protoss in the top 4, with 2 Zergs in the top 3. Also, most of these are weekly tournaments and the like, which might skew the results slightly.
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.
Yeah you can mass any unit, but back at one supply, the roach let you mass a unit that could actually crack fortified positions. Now to do that you need to get to tier 3 and get either broodlords or ultras.
Let's look at the units:
Lings - very massable but melt to anything at all that has AOE damage or even fast attacks. Mutas - massable but get annihilated by anything with AtG damage Hydra - massable but paper thin and incredibly immobile (compare to the void ray, which is similarly a glass cannon but has mobility advantages over hydra) Roach - massable but not enough to develop critical mass to crack a tank line. They melt to a stalker/colossus ball. Infestors - spellcaster and not viable to mass Corruptors - worst unit in the game Broodlords and Ultras - Tier 3 units that are awesome but you can never really have more than half a dozen or so of them. Drones - I mass drones every game. I aim for 60+ every time. Banelings - I <3 banelings. They are awesome against marines (which are pound for pound the best unit in the game).
Now I think personally that most of these units really are quite good and all have their place in the zerg army. What is missing though is something on the ground that can crack a fortified position in the midgame. Everything on the ground melts to stalker/colossi. Everything on the ground gets owned by any AOE attack. There is no real hard hitter for the zerg in the midgame. Nothing that really makes your opponent crap their pants when they see or hear it (I get nightmares about the siege mode sound).
In the midgame, against protoss players of any quality you do not engage ground forces without ultras and against terran players of any quality you do not engage ground forces without some other kind of advantage.
On September 20 2010 06:25 DonKey_ wrote: ...um does it not bother anyone that terrans wins are only so high cause morrow has won a grand total of 12! tournaments... this might be more conclusive if it was more evenly spread between the terran players.
Large portion of those wins are with a TVT in the finals so it doesnt matter.
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.
quite the contrary. yes, it's nothing like people think, but in the other direction. toss and terran are both ridiculously overpowered against zerg. the amount of skill requird for a zerg player to win against a terran or toss is ridiculous compared to what the terran and protoss player has to be able to do. only players who played one race mainly and switched to the other races while maintaining diamond level (for me its around 1k with random, zerg I was at around 1.1k in a tough division meaning my opponents were always 1300+) know what I'm talking about, since I'm one of them.
I was zerg, and playing both terran and toss is so damn ridiculously easy that it's really not funny (I'm random for now until the patch hopefuly does more than what's in the situation report 1). maybe not mechanically, since terran in my eyes actually requires a little bit more apm than zerg, but certainly strategically, which is the most important thing since everyone with more than one arm should be able to maintain 120-150 apm which is plenty for every race. the players I lose to on the ladder with zerg, when I get them again the game after, which happens a lot during my playtimes, and get any other races I completely and utterly destroy them, even in mirror, and that's not exaggerated. ok, granted, the opponents i play against are only at around 1000-1200 rating, but still, show me one terran who offraces as zerg and beats opponents with it on the ladder whom he wasn't able to beat with terran. you will find 0. literally 0.
both terran and protoss are just much much much more streamlined and in general have much more powerful units and abilites than zerg. it's a million times easier to get BOs straight, to counter stuff, and to keep your macro in check than with zerg. battles are a million times less scary since you do in general have a more powerful army unless you've enormously fucked up. especially with protoss it's just a joke. force field is the most overpowered thing every to grace the face of an RTS, the only reason most players don't realize that yet is because most protoss players, even the high level ones, utterly suck in force field usage. when I play protoss on the ladder against zerg, I rarely if ever lose a lot of units in combat, be it lategame or midgame push, simply because of force field (unless there are ultras of course, but my opponents never get to that and if they do, I've done something terribly wrong).
with terran it's actually not so much the units (but that's just because I'm too bad to properly use and position my tanks) but rather the ridiculous strategies u can pull off against zerg. blue flame hellions into double airport invisible banshees when opponent has just arrived at lair? no problem. simply 20 marine push when your opponent doesn't expect it at all? no problem. mass reaper into fast expand and simultaneous deadly m&m push? no problem. let's not even talk about drops. If a zerg could have maphack against terran he would actually be quite fine.
so yeah, people won't realize how ridiculous the other two races are until a guy like idra or dimaga switches to terran full time. but that won't happen, since those guys are too loyal to their race~~.
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 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.
Yeah you can mass any unit, but back at one supply, the roach let you mass a unit that could actually crack fortified positions. Now to do that you need to get to tier 3 and get either broodlords or ultras.
Let's look at the units:
Lings - very massable but melt to anything at all that has AOE damage or even fast attacks. Mutas - massable but get annihilated by anything with AtG damage Hydra - massable but paper thin and incredibly immobile (compare to the void ray, which is similarly a glass cannon but has mobility advantages over hydra) Roach - massable but not enough to develop critical mass to crack a tank line. They melt to a stalker/colossus ball. Infestors - spellcaster and not viable to mass Corruptors - worst unit in the game Broodlords and Ultras - Tier 3 units that are awesome but you can never really have more than half a dozen or so of them. Drones - I mass drones every game. I aim for 60+ every time. Banelings - I <3 banelings. They are awesome against marines (which are pound for pound the best unit in the game).
Now I think personally that most of these units really are quite good and all have their place in the zerg army. What is missing though is something on the ground that can crack a fortified position in the midgame. Everything on the ground melts to stalker/colossi. Everything on the ground gets owned by any AOE attack. There is no real hard hitter for the zerg in the midgame. Nothing that really makes your opponent crap their pants when they see or hear it (I get nightmares about the siege mode sound).
In the midgame, against protoss players of any quality you do not engage ground forces without ultras and against terran players of any quality you do not engage ground forces without some other kind of advantage.
That is not entirely true. In ZvP zerg is jst fine after the critical all-in timings in the early midgame. The key to those stalker-colossi armies are lots and lots of roaches with both upgrades, reinforced by just a handfull of hydras and some corruptors. once you hit endgame on at least 3 base with either broodlords or ultras you cannot lose against anything the protoss can throw at you. ZvT however is a bitch.
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.
Yeah you can mass any unit, but back at one supply, the roach let you mass a unit that could actually crack fortified positions. Now to do that you need to get to tier 3 and get either broodlords or ultras.
Let's look at the units:
Lings - very massable but melt to anything at all that has AOE damage or even fast attacks. Mutas - massable but get annihilated by anything with AtG damage Hydra - massable but paper thin and incredibly immobile (compare to the void ray, which is similarly a glass cannon but has mobility advantages over hydra) Roach - massable but not enough to develop critical mass to crack a tank line. They melt to a stalker/colossus ball. Infestors - spellcaster and not viable to mass Corruptors - worst unit in the game Broodlords and Ultras - Tier 3 units that are awesome but you can never really have more than half a dozen or so of them. Drones - I mass drones every game. I aim for 60+ every time. Banelings - I <3 banelings. They are awesome against marines (which are pound for pound the best unit in the game).
Now I think personally that most of these units really are quite good and all have their place in the zerg army. What is missing though is something on the ground that can crack a fortified position in the midgame. Everything on the ground melts to stalker/colossi. Everything on the ground gets owned by any AOE attack. There is no real hard hitter for the zerg in the midgame. Nothing that really makes your opponent crap their pants when they see or hear it (I get nightmares about the siege mode sound).
In the midgame, against protoss players of any quality you do not engage ground forces without ultras and against terran players of any quality you do not engage ground forces without some other kind of advantage.
That is not entirely true. In ZvP zerg is jst fine after the critical all-in timings in the early midgame. The key to those stalker-colossi armies are lots and lots of roaches with both upgrades, reinforced by just a handfull of hydras and some corruptors. once you hit endgame on at least 3 base with either broodlords or ultras you cannot lose against anything the protoss can throw at you. ZvT however is a bitch.
On September 17 2010 19:28 IdrA wrote: zvp is largely considered the least balanced in korea right now
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.
Yup. Except sc2ranks shows that difference in race distribution in Diamond league is around ~3 percent (most of non-terrans are at the bottom though, of course) and in whole ladder around ~10 percent with majority of players being Protoss. Even in TL open (and GSL) majority of entrances are Protoss, yet even Protoss is behind the Terran when it comes to winning.
And please, provide source about Protoss being considered more "imba" than Terran in Korea.
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.
Yup. Except sc2ranks shows that difference in race distribution in Diamond league is around ~3 percent (most of non-terrans are at the bottom though, of course) and in whole ladder around ~10 percent with majority of players being Protoss. Even in TL open (and GSL) majority of entrances are Protoss, yet even Protoss is behind the Terran when it comes to winning.
And please, provide source about Protoss being considered more "imba" than Terran in Korea.
Tasteless and Artosis's commentary in the GSL. They mention the mindset numerous times.
On September 20 2010 06:25 DonKey_ wrote: ...um does it not bother anyone that terrans wins are only so high cause morrow has won a grand total of 12! tournaments... this might be more conclusive if it was more evenly spread between the terran players.
even if you took morrow out of the equation the numbers would still favor Terran by a pretty large margin, but he is definitely an outlier that skews the statistic a little further toward Terran. If he was just being carried by his race he wouldn't have 12 wins, it would be spread out more between other terrans.
But the fact that we are seeing tournaments with top 4s consisting of all Terrans is pretty compelling, and enough for me to consider the results conclusive.
Saying that is a bit hard to do. MLG had one Terran in the top 4 and none in the Top 3, the rest being Protosss. ESL had no Protoss in the top 4, with 2 Zergs in the top 3. Also, most of these are weekly tournaments and the like, which might skew the results slightly.
very good point, I agree completely. I never should have (and nobody should) made generalizations based on a few tournaments. That was sloppy and unscientific of me.
I still consider the data in the OP to be a large enough sample to be compelling, but my use of anecdotal evidence does not support it. I also agree that development of strategies and playstyles will do more to help Zerg than balance patches ever will.
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.
Yeah you can mass any unit, but back at one supply, the roach let you mass a unit that could actually crack fortified positions. Now to do that you need to get to tier 3 and get either broodlords or ultras.
Let's look at the units:
Lings - very massable but melt to anything at all that has AOE damage or even fast attacks. Mutas - massable but get annihilated by anything with AtG damage Hydra - massable but paper thin and incredibly immobile (compare to the void ray, which is similarly a glass cannon but has mobility advantages over hydra) Roach - massable but not enough to develop critical mass to crack a tank line. They melt to a stalker/colossus ball. Infestors - spellcaster and not viable to mass Corruptors - worst unit in the game Broodlords and Ultras - Tier 3 units that are awesome but you can never really have more than half a dozen or so of them. Drones - I mass drones every game. I aim for 60+ every time. Banelings - I <3 banelings. They are awesome against marines (which are pound for pound the best unit in the game).
Now I think personally that most of these units really are quite good and all have their place in the zerg army. What is missing though is something on the ground that can crack a fortified position in the midgame. Everything on the ground melts to stalker/colossi. Everything on the ground gets owned by any AOE attack. There is no real hard hitter for the zerg in the midgame. Nothing that really makes your opponent crap their pants when they see or hear it (I get nightmares about the siege mode sound).
In the midgame, against protoss players of any quality you do not engage ground forces without ultras and against terran players of any quality you do not engage ground forces without some other kind of advantage.
That is not entirely true. In ZvP zerg is jst fine after the critical all-in timings in the early midgame. The key to those stalker-colossi armies are lots and lots of roaches with both upgrades, reinforced by just a handfull of hydras and some corruptors. once you hit endgame on at least 3 base with either broodlords or ultras you cannot lose against anything the protoss can throw at you. ZvT however is a bitch.
Against a Protoss who has good forcefield usage you really cannot engage their army without risking losing everything. All they need is an observer and they can nullify mass roach usage quite easily.
On an open field you are fine but there are precious few places to engage that are open enough.
The timing window in which the protoss have Colossi and you don't have ultras is very painful (if the protoss know how to use forcefield).
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.
Man, you have to try to play zerg before claiming something. Play something like 200 games, get to the top diamond and try defending multiple drops and Thor/scv push. This is a Bullshit. So easy for terran.
Its from my own experience: I played like 160 games with terran initially, then I swithced to zerg to see why people are whining and played like 200 games... got frustrated with stupid loses where 40 apm terran a-moves me. Now I am playing terran again.
It so easy to beat zergs that are way better than me. Believe it or not, I have beaten a decent zerg almost without using keyboard. Just my mouse and did couple thor drops.
ZvT is far, very far from being balanced. I think that blizzard needs to change mechanics. Because in late game zerg totally dominates terran, and in early game its vice versa.
Dunno if anyone already said this but there should be Platinum and Diamond medals imo, for example Morrow 1 platinum medal for winning the IEM Global Challenge @ Gamescon.
All those people saying that the terran statistics are skewed because of most of their medal representation being one player should really look at how the zerg medals are spread out between players of that race.
On September 20 2010 06:25 DonKey_ wrote: ...um does it not bother anyone that terrans wins are only so high cause morrow has won a grand total of 12! tournaments... this might be more conclusive if it was more evenly spread between the terran players.
On September 20 2010 06:25 DonKey_ wrote: ...um does it not bother anyone that terrans wins are only so high cause morrow has won a grand total of 12! tournaments... this might be more conclusive if it was more evenly spread between the terran players.
You're assuming Morrow's wins would go to non-Terrans.
Dealing them out proportionally to the Morrow-absent results gives 3 more to Toss and 1 more to Zerg.
So 48 T, 25 P, 5 Z.
Yeah, it really bothers me that Morrow is included. Things would be so different otherwise. :/
I'm sure this has been mentioned, so I apologize if it has.
It should be noted and always thought about that this is one (incomplete) data set. On its own, this yields no real conclusions or even correlations. To make any assumptions you would need other data sets including but not limited to: (a) distribution of races entered into said tournements (b) a metric for judging skill to further polish the numbers (there's no point in including non top players) and (c) some manner of standard deviation or statistical probability -- which is very difficult. Drawing any conclusions from this set of data alone is just as foolish as using Battle.net rankings as a metric of balance.
Guitarizt: Gospel was stating mathematical fact. It is not his opinion. The interpretations can be objective, but he states the ground facts to FORM opinions based on. Get educated or don't comment on posts like that.
On September 29 2010 13:38 NameOfTheLawl wrote: Guitarizt: Gospel was stating mathematical fact. It is not his opinion. The interpretations can be objective, but he states the ground facts to FORM opinions based on. Get educated or don't comment on posts like that.
agreed. If you're arguing with some using math and logic, use math and logic to counter his arguments.
The information gospel listed leads directly to making conclusions about race balance based on the OP's info. Guitarizt was simply saying that regardless of balance, you could draw a tournament winner out of a hat and odd are less than expected that it would be zerg. I think his only assumption was that these trends would continue as is. I'm not going to try to say whether patch 1.1 was enough to break his assumption.
I swear, people who come in here talking about how you need all this additional information such as sample size and correlation etc etc to prove what these results imply. You guys are like lawyers. Arguing about something that is clearly wrong under retarded technicalities. What happened to common sense. You don't need a physics degree to know that coffee coming out the pot is hot. But you accountant and statics majors try to distort the blatant evidence that zerg is under-powered by saying you need more data. gtfo. Either zerg doesn't win tournaments because they're UP or no one plays zerg because they're UP. What are you arguing?
On September 29 2010 15:08 Count_Waltz wrote: I swear, people who come in here talking about how you need all this additional information such as sample size and correlation etc etc to prove what these results imply. You guys are like lawyers. Arguing about something that is clearly wrong under retarded technicalities. What happened to common sense. You don't need a physics degree to know that coffee coming out the pot is hot. But you accountant and statics majors try to distort the blatant evidence that zerg is under-powered by saying you need more data. gtfo. Either zerg doesn't win tournaments because they're UP or no one plays zerg because they're UP. What are you arguing?
I am questioning your post since that's not what ppl are arguing. People are not arguing 'Z is not UP' but saying that the 'OP's data' is not support this and people should not conclude 'Z is UP' by looking at OP. Let's look at it this way, if you take Morrow (who had won A LOT) out of the equation, the Terran win goes down significantly to the point Terran has less win than Protoss or even Zerg. That itself should tell you that the data provided does not say anything about the current balance. I am sure there are other data (though quite small) that could say 'Z is UP' but the OP's data does not say anything and that's what rational people on this topic are arguing about. An irrational person would be arguing NO THIS SUPPORTS the data 'Z is UP' look at those numberz. People aren't lawyers but people will argue if someone calls an orange, an apple.
On September 29 2010 15:08 Count_Waltz wrote: I swear, people who come in here talking about how you need all this additional information such as sample size and correlation etc etc to prove what these results imply. You guys are like lawyers. Arguing about something that is clearly wrong under retarded technicalities. What happened to common sense. You don't need a physics degree to know that coffee coming out the pot is hot. But you accountant and statics majors try to distort the blatant evidence that zerg is under-powered by saying you need more data. gtfo. Either zerg doesn't win tournaments because they're UP or no one plays zerg because they're UP. What are you arguing?
I am questioning your post since that's not what ppl are arguing. People are not arguing 'Z is not UP' but saying that the 'OP's data' is not support this and people should not conclude 'Z is UP' by looking at OP. Let's look at it this way, if you take Morrow (who had won A LOT) out of the equation, the Terran win goes down significantly to the point Terran has less win than Protoss or even Zerg. That itself should tell you that the data provided does not say anything about the current balance. I am sure there are other data (though quite small) that could say 'Z is UP' but the OP's data does not say anything and that's what rational people on this topic are arguing about. An irrational person would be arguing NO THIS SUPPORTS the data 'Z is UP' look at those numberz. People aren't lawyers but people will argue if someone calls an orange, an apple.
you can't just "take out morrow's wins", because if he hadn't won, another Terran may of.
How many Zergs do you think were in the finals that he did win? Probably not many.
And look at that post earlier about recent tourneys... in like the 3 most recent tourneys all top 4 spots were Terran.
So its not like eliminating Morrow is really going to change anything.. just a different Terran thats going to win.
On September 29 2010 04:57 gospelwut wrote: I'm sure this has been mentioned, so I apologize if it has.
It should be noted and always thought about that this is one (incomplete) data set. On its own, this yields no real conclusions or even correlations. To make any assumptions you would need other data sets including but not limited to: (a) distribution of races entered into said tournements (b) a metric for judging skill to further polish the numbers (there's no point in including non top players) and (c) some manner of standard deviation or statistical probability -- which is very difficult. Drawing any conclusions from this set of data alone is just as foolish as using Battle.net rankings as a metric of balance.
You are correct that this would be meaningless without other data. Fortunately, that other data exists and is easily available, and the statistical techniques required to analyze the data are not hard.
In order to get an idea of the ratio of Terran, Zerg, and Protoss players in these tournaments, lets use the ratio for the top 100 players in diamond. http://sc2ranks.com/stats/league/all/1/100/ They are not the exact players, but those players are all probably of the caliber required to be competitive in these tournaments, and all we are looking for is an idea of how many players were from each race. It seems unlikely that this subsection gives bad results, since we see the same basic ratio that exists throughout the ladder.
So, from that data we expect about 23% of the players to be zerg. If we assume that they are all equally competitive (assuming that one group is less competitive would automatically make the conclusion true), then the expected value for the proportion of zerg wins is 0.23.
Now, we can conduct a standard one proportion z test as someone might learn about in any High-school statistics class. I believe most graphing calculators have this function built in (which is how I will do it) and a quick google search will acquaint you with it if you haven't heard of it.
The P-value I get from the test is .0001026. This is very small. It means, basically, that we can be 99.9897 percent sure that zerg players could not have a win rate this small through random chance if the three races are equally balanced. Statisticians normally use 95% as the cutoff for whether the data is conclusive, so I would say that we can indeed draw conclusions from this data.
edit: If anyone's wondering, the same test gives about the same conclusion for how sure we can be about Terran's win rate being higher than expected. The difference between the Protoss win rate and its expected value is not statistically significant. And, if anyone has a more accurate way of determining the proportion of races for only the players who actively compete in tournaments, that would be the best way of ensuring the accuracy of these results.
On September 29 2010 15:08 Count_Waltz wrote: Either zerg doesn't win tournaments because they're UP or no one plays zerg because they're UP. What are you arguing?
If I'm a new player who's never played SC1:BW, after playing SC2:WOL, I only know how to play T or P, because in the campaign, I never touched a Z. I know how to build buildings, train units with T or P, I have no clue how to do that stuff with Z. I don't know what creep tumor is, what lavas are, and stuff. That is why I don't play Z.
Putting the balance thing aside, it's normal that majority of the players choose T or P. They're exposed to T and P so much after all. I think that's how things work. It's like after GSL, I'm sure there will be a bunch of people switching to Z. It's because they're exposed to high level Z play imo.
On September 29 2010 15:08 Count_Waltz wrote: I swear, people who come in here talking about how you need all this additional information such as sample size and correlation etc etc to prove what these results imply. You guys are like lawyers. Arguing about something that is clearly wrong under retarded technicalities. What happened to common sense. You don't need a physics degree to know that coffee coming out the pot is hot. But you accountant and statics majors try to distort the blatant evidence that zerg is under-powered by saying you need more data. gtfo. Either zerg doesn't win tournaments because they're UP or no one plays zerg because they're UP. What are you arguing?
"Common sense" is hardly common. Making assumptions based on weak data is what leads to stuff like "PvZ is unwinnable" circa late 2006. If you want to use statistics, you need to use them well. To be honest, I don't think we should tolerate any more remedial number usages. At best, it's misleading and at worst, it clouds out the bright minds in this community that actually understand how statistics and mathematics work.
On September 29 2010 04:57 gospelwut wrote: I'm sure this has been mentioned, so I apologize if it has.
It should be noted and always thought about that this is one (incomplete) data set. On its own, this yields no real conclusions or even correlations. To make any assumptions you would need other data sets including but not limited to: (a) distribution of races entered into said tournements (b) a metric for judging skill to further polish the numbers (there's no point in including non top players) and (c) some manner of standard deviation or statistical probability -- which is very difficult. Drawing any conclusions from this set of data alone is just as foolish as using Battle.net rankings as a metric of balance.
You are correct that this would be meaningless without other data. Fortunately, that other data exists and is easily available, and the statistical techniques required to analyze the data are not hard.
In order to get an idea of the ratio of Terran, Zerg, and Protoss players in these tournaments, lets use the ratio for the top 100 players in diamond. http://sc2ranks.com/stats/league/all/1/100/ They are not the exact players, but those players are all probably of the caliber required to be competitive in these tournaments, and all we are looking for is an idea of how many players were from each race. It seems unlikely that this subsection gives bad results, since we see the same basic ratio that exists throughout the ladder.
So, from that data we expect about 23% of the players to be zerg. If we assume that they are all equally competitive (assuming that one group is less competitive would automatically make the conclusion true), then the expected value for the proportion of zerg wins is 0.23.
Now, we can conduct a standard one proportion z test as someone might learn about in any High-school statistics class. I believe most graphing calculators have this function built in (which is how I will do it) and a quick google search will acquaint you with it if you haven't heard of it.
The P-value I get from the test is .0001026. This is very small. It means, basically, that we can be 99.9897 percent sure that zerg players could not have a win rate this small through random chance if the three races are equally balanced.
You haven't defined what constitutes a balanced race, and you've ignored all external factors. So far you've been able to use numbers to find that a problem exists (Zerg does not win as often as it should in an ideal game state) but you can't recommend corrective measures from that because everything else is still unsolved. If the only map available was Scrap Station, what would the numbers then reflect?
On September 29 2010 15:08 Count_Waltz wrote: I swear, people who come in here talking about how you need all this additional information such as sample size and correlation etc etc to prove what these results imply. You guys are like lawyers. Arguing about something that is clearly wrong under retarded technicalities. What happened to common sense. You don't need a physics degree to know that coffee coming out the pot is hot. But you accountant and statics majors try to distort the blatant evidence that zerg is under-powered by saying you need more data. gtfo. Either zerg doesn't win tournaments because they're UP or no one plays zerg because they're UP. What are you arguing?
lmfao are you kidding me? yeah, let's ignore statisticians who for many years have specialized in how you can logically draw conclusions from data through mathematical rigor, and just go ahead and draw fallacious conclusions. i bet you are the same kind of person who doesn't believe in evolution because "it just doesn't make sense that we came from monkeys."
On September 29 2010 04:57 gospelwut wrote: I'm sure this has been mentioned, so I apologize if it has.
It should be noted and always thought about that this is one (incomplete) data set. On its own, this yields no real conclusions or even correlations. To make any assumptions you would need other data sets including but not limited to: (a) distribution of races entered into said tournements (b) a metric for judging skill to further polish the numbers (there's no point in including non top players) and (c) some manner of standard deviation or statistical probability -- which is very difficult. Drawing any conclusions from this set of data alone is just as foolish as using Battle.net rankings as a metric of balance.
You are correct that this would be meaningless without other data. Fortunately, that other data exists and is easily available, and the statistical techniques required to analyze the data are not hard.
In order to get an idea of the ratio of Terran, Zerg, and Protoss players in these tournaments, lets use the ratio for the top 100 players in diamond. http://sc2ranks.com/stats/league/all/1/100/ They are not the exact players, but those players are all probably of the caliber required to be competitive in these tournaments, and all we are looking for is an idea of how many players were from each race. It seems unlikely that this subsection gives bad results, since we see the same basic ratio that exists throughout the ladder.
So, from that data we expect about 23% of the players to be zerg. If we assume that they are all equally competitive (assuming that one group is less competitive would automatically make the conclusion true), then the expected value for the proportion of zerg wins is 0.23.
Now, we can conduct a standard one proportion z test as someone might learn about in any High-school statistics class. I believe most graphing calculators have this function built in (which is how I will do it) and a quick google search will acquaint you with it if you haven't heard of it.
The P-value I get from the test is .0001026. This is very small. It means, basically, that we can be 99.9897 percent sure that zerg players could not have a win rate this small through random chance if the three races are equally balanced.
You haven't defined what constitutes a balanced race, and you've ignored all external factors. So far you've been able to use numbers to find that a problem exists (Zerg does not win as often as it should in an ideal game state) but you can't recommend corrective measures from that because everything else is still unsolved. If the only map available was Scrap Station, what would the numbers then reflect?
You're correct, this only says that there is something causing zergs to win less than would be expected if everything was even. It doesn't necessarily have to be something built into the race. It is entirely possible that something else, like the map pool, is causing zerg to be less likely to win (unfortunately, I don't know of a site that has data on individual maps). Since we can't remove confounding variables like that, the races' win probabilities in that analysis include not only the inherent strength of the race but also things like map imbalance.
The data we would need to find a more specific answer or find something to change would be way harder to find, and it may not exist in a form we can access, but that doesn't mean we can't look at the data we do have.
On September 29 2010 04:57 gospelwut wrote: I'm sure this has been mentioned, so I apologize if it has.
It should be noted and always thought about that this is one (incomplete) data set. On its own, this yields no real conclusions or even correlations. To make any assumptions you would need other data sets including but not limited to: (a) distribution of races entered into said tournements (b) a metric for judging skill to further polish the numbers (there's no point in including non top players) and (c) some manner of standard deviation or statistical probability -- which is very difficult. Drawing any conclusions from this set of data alone is just as foolish as using Battle.net rankings as a metric of balance.
You are correct that this would be meaningless without other data. Fortunately, that other data exists and is easily available, and the statistical techniques required to analyze the data are not hard.
In order to get an idea of the ratio of Terran, Zerg, and Protoss players in these tournaments, lets use the ratio for the top 100 players in diamond. http://sc2ranks.com/stats/league/all/1/100/ They are not the exact players, but those players are all probably of the caliber required to be competitive in these tournaments, and all we are looking for is an idea of how many players were from each race. It seems unlikely that this subsection gives bad results, since we see the same basic ratio that exists throughout the ladder.
So, from that data we expect about 23% of the players to be zerg. If we assume that they are all equally competitive (assuming that one group is less competitive would automatically make the conclusion true), then the expected value for the proportion of zerg wins is 0.23.
Now, we can conduct a standard one proportion z test as someone might learn about in any High-school statistics class. I believe most graphing calculators have this function built in (which is how I will do it) and a quick google search will acquaint you with it if you haven't heard of it.
The P-value I get from the test is .0001026. This is very small. It means, basically, that we can be 99.9897 percent sure that zerg players could not have a win rate this small through random chance if the three races are equally balanced.
You haven't defined what constitutes a balanced race, and you've ignored all external factors. So far you've been able to use numbers to find that a problem exists (Zerg does not win as often as it should in an ideal game state) but you can't recommend corrective measures from that because everything else is still unsolved. If the only map available was Scrap Station, what would the numbers then reflect?
You're correct, this only says that there is something causing zergs to win less than would be expected if everything was even. It doesn't necessarily have to be something built into the race. It is entirely possible that something else, like the map pool, is causing zerg to be less likely to win (unfortunately, I don't know of a site that has data on individual maps). Since we can't remove confounding variables like that, the races' win probabilities in that analysis include not only the inherent strength of the race but also things like map imbalance.
The data we would need to find a more specific answer or find something to change would be way harder to find, and it may not exist in a form we can access, but that doesn't mean we can't look at the data we do have.
Hopefully the SC2 TLPD will be a bit more robust in time, and we'll at least get better access to map information. With VODs and everything, could even include match length.
Please can a mod update this thread OP. It would help to know how foreigners stand against each other by seeing who's been winning all the tournaments.
either that or incorporate all the information into the TLPD.
This is no longer useful since there has already been a patch which is probably why he isn't updating it. You really need to build a new list every patch for it to be meaningful.
On October 12 2010 06:32 EnderCN wrote: This is no longer useful since there has already been a patch which is probably why he isn't updating it. You really need to build a new list every patch for it to be meaningful.
On October 13 2010 06:22 Cyber_Cheese wrote: this should be started for every patch IMO
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/Ticon_small.png)
MorroW - 12![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/common/gold.png)
4![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/common/silver.png)
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/Picon_small.png)
HuK - 7![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/Zicon_small.png)
Dimaga - 3
![[image loading]](http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l727h8pK6E1qare33o1_500.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:57ivU19zr8O5WM:http://i600.photobucket.com/albums/tt86/dave2233/trollface.jpg&t=1)
![[image loading]](http://animeotaku.animeblogger.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/coolface.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i148/samsamsam_2006/3rdplace.png)
