EPTI am interested in this too.
The latest official SC2 rankings for NA - Page 6
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
arsenic
United States163 Posts
I am interested in this too. | ||
|
TitleRug
United States651 Posts
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=151075¤tpage=6#108 On September 14 2010 04:56 infinity21 wrote: Can you show the top 70 list so I can feel good? haha :D he's streaming right now. we should watch! http://www.teamliquid.net/video/userstream.php?user=PhoeNixWeRRa I just realized something, he doesn't always play his US account so maybe his rank would be even higher if he was an NA player solely. update: he's playing ZvT right now! | ||
|
FrostedMiniWeet
United States636 Posts
1) require much higher APM to maintain optimal macro, especially late game. 2) require keen game senses to make the right game decisions at the right times. You have to know exactly when to attack, how to attack, when to defend, when to drone, when to expand, when to pump units. While this is true of all races, you're on a razor's edge with Zerg, as even a small mistake can give your opponent the advantage. 3) Susceptible to cheese and harassment You'll notice that all of these issues become less of an issue at uber high levels, and possibly completely eliminated when we get the next Jaedong. Thing is, even if zerg can fight with the best of them at uber high levels, is it really fair for the rest of us? I think if Zerg were made more resistant to early game cheese/harrassment, it would benefit the non-uber players greatly, while only marginally affecting the uber-level play. Just my 2 cents. | ||
|
BenKen
United States860 Posts
On September 14 2010 12:02 Liquid`Tyler wrote: It'd be so much more interesting if people discussed players and not races. btw I'm gonna be #1 on the next ranking Sweet! Congrats, now no one can call you the laziest pro-gamer in SC2. | ||
|
Geo.Rion
7377 Posts
| ||
|
Zerokaiser
Canada885 Posts
On September 14 2010 06:16 gillon wrote: I heard ladder rankings are a 100% accurate depiction of racial balance. Oh wait. People are saying the same thing about the tournament results "Tournament results aren't a good indicator of balance." People are saying the same thing about very, very skilled players like idrA losing games to average terran players, it's not an accurate depiction of balance. Okay, let's do some logical thinking here... If ladder performance doesn't indicate balance problems, and tournament performance doesn't indicate balance problems, and top zerg players losing to mediocre terran players doesn't indicate balance problems, then what the fuck indicates a balance problem? I think it's time for you guys to stop burying your heads in the sand and covering your ears. This is a game made by humans, and it is highly, highly complex. This game is NOT going to be balanced out of the starting gate. People need to understand that actions need to be taken according to what the evidence is showing. As it stands now, hard statistics and pro-level opinions are saying that zerg is fighting a very uphill battle against Terran and Protoss, and there is absolutely no indication that this is going to change without patching by Blizzard. TL;DR How can people continue to dismiss the idea of imbalance when every aspect of the competitive scene is screaming that it exists? | ||
|
Maeldun
Australia169 Posts
On September 14 2010 06:02 asianinvasian wrote: don't forget about the number of games played, the korean server has a noticable higher amount of games played by all the zerg(cept that tea guy) I think, like day9 has stated, that once more zerg players figure out timings of when to drone, when to attack, when to expand and other timings down, zerg will be on par if not stronger. this is however based on my opinion that zerg has the hardest learning curve Hydras > all gateway units, mutas/corruptors > colossus infesters/(hydra/roach/ling/bling) > Terran Bios mutas/ling > terran mech builds infesters alone witha few hydras can stomp on terran air. I agree zerg has the hardest learning curve. "Hydras > all gateway units," T2 > T1, yaaaay....................(if u can live long enough/get enough gas) "mutas/corruptors > colossus" Wrong, because colossus are never alone, they have 20 stalkers under them. "infesters/(hydra/roach/ling/bling) > Terran Bios" maybe if u live that long. not sure. i'll give you that one "mutas/ling > terran mech builds" wrong, you need like 3 tanks to kill infinity zerglings, and thors are the "hard counter" against mutas. they might win on their own, but should have marine support. if there are mutas, there WILL be marine support. "infesters alone witha few hydras can stomp on terran air." yep, though i've never seen terran air as much of a threat, apart from fast tech to banshees. so basically zerg win if: a) the opponent sucks b) they are already winning (ie, opponent sucks) - can happen if you get a free speedling runby into the SCV line or something, or they screw up an attack and lose so much c) they mass expand freely (see a)) - you can try to force this with muta harrass keeping them in their base, CheckPrime did it well in the GSL. however the protoss failed just turtling so meh... all the zerg units are just poor, and typically cant stand up in a fight against the other races if both players are competant. zerg wins when they just have MORE, or they avoid fighting the opponent head on and do sneak attacks and stuff. tbh i think that it is pretty lame that zerg cant fight head on unless they have a significant advantage (either in tech, eg hydras vs gateways, or in just having MORE). this changes if u get to ultras, theres some good meat and power there. but an answer in T3? .... it kinda makes sense that you wouldn't want to fight without having an advantage. but what i mean is that they just lack raw power and meat. for example spamming gateway units or terran bio is just strong. it might not be the best strategy, but as a terran or protoss you can rely on your basic dudes to kill stuff if you are not behind. zerg however dont have good meat, they have roaches. roaches just flat out lose to terran bio/tanks unless they have superior numbers by far. roaches are good against zealots, but then protoss just mass stalkers and blink nowadays anyway, which beats roaches. also forcefields make it so roaches dont really get to fight, which sucks. spamming roaches was good in early beta, but they got nerfed so they arent overpowered anymore. imo bring back the 2 armour, see if that is reasonable given that they are 2 pop now. | ||
|
c0rn1
Germany146 Posts
the red line which goes through most continents: Random / Toss / Terran / Zerg EU Top 100: Distribution 2.00% (2) 31.00% (31) 50.00% (50) 17.00% (17) Korea Top 100: Distribution 2.00% (2) 28.00% (28) 44.00% (44) 26.00% (26) NA Top 100: Distribution 2.97% (3) 28.71% (29) 50.50% (51) 17.82% (18) Overall Continents Top 100: Distribution 1.00% (1) 28.00% (28) 54.00% (54) 17.00% (17) | ||
|
Orzabal
France287 Posts
On September 14 2010 07:14 Pekkz wrote: This is plain wrong. Have you seen any top games lately? I suggest you watch slush vs silver 40 min game on xel naga. The skill difference in their micro and macro is HUGE. Silver is losing dropships full with units all the time and does ALOT of misstakes, yet its impossible for slush to break him. Silver is 100 apm newb who knows how to abuse terran. Slush plays really well, has like 5 expos vs silvers 3, and still silver makes the game go on for 40 minutes and allmost wins cus slush just cant break silvers defence. It remind me Mondragon vs BratOK. http://sc2casts.com/cast710-BratOK-vs-Mondragon-1-Game-No-Event-Ladder-Game | ||
|
Orzabal
France287 Posts
On September 14 2010 14:39 link0 wrote: Kore/PheonixWerra completely spanked me Z v T. I didn't even make any real mistakes. I seriously do not know how to beat his style of Z v T. That guy is a beast. IMO, Z just requires the highest skill to be in the top 20, but Z is probably only barely UP at the pro-level. And here, you still have people who are no where near the top 200 complaining about imbalances they have no understanding of. If you are even semi-good, there is absolutely no excuse you can't even make it to the top 200 with Zerg. Kore is high ranked on US server but "only" 120 on Asia server. How do you explain that ? Players like Zeno, check, gerrard etc are they so better than Kore ? I just dont understand :/ As a zerg player who wich to imrove, why watch Kore replays would be better than watch cool/check/gerrard etc replays ? | ||
|
Camlito
Australia4040 Posts
Zerg just seems like Terran in the start of Brood War. Weren't any huge balance changes, just enough. Skill ceiling will rise  edit: Notable changes in Patch 1.04 + Show Spoiler + * Terran: o Wraith: Buffed + Decreased cost to 150 minerals, 100 gas. + Increased cooldown rate of ground attack. + Increased air to air damage to 20. o Dropship: Buffed slightly + Increased speed slightly. o Science Vessel: Buffed + Decreased cost to 100 minerals, 225 gas. + Increased acceleration + Increased overall damage of Irradiate + Increased sight radius o Battlecruiser: Buffed + Increased starting armor to 3 + Increased Yamato Cannon damage to 260 o Goliath: Buffed + Increased ground damage to 12 + Increased effectiveness of weapon upgrade on ground to air weapon system o Nuke: Buffed + Nuclear Missiles build faster o ComSat: Buffed + Decreased energy cost to 50 o Starport: Buffed + Decrease cost of Starport to 150 minerals, 100 gas + Decreased add-on cost of Control Tower to 50 minerals, 50 gas + Decreased build time * Protoss: o Archon: Buff + Increased acceleration o Dragoon: Buff + Decreased cost to 125 minerals, 50 gas + Decreased build time + Increased range upgrade (Singularity Charge) by 1 o High Templar: Buff + Decreased energy cost of Hallucination to 100 o Scout: Semi-Buff + Increased Air to Air damage to 28 + Decreased starting armor to 0 + Increased shields to 100 and hit points to 150 + Increased cooldown rate of ground attack o Carrier: Alteration + Changed build cost to 350 minerals, and 250 gas + Increased hit points of Carrier to 300 + Increased starting armor of Carrier to 4 + Increased Interceptor shields and hitpoints to 40 + Increased Interceptor damage to 6 + Decreased Interceptor cost to 25 o Arbiter: Buff + Decreased cost to 100 minerals, 350 gas o Shuttle: Nerf + Increased build time o Reaver:Nerf + Increased build time o Templar Archives: Nerf + Increased cost to 150 minerals, 200 gas. o Citadel of Adun: Buff + Decreased cost to 150 minerals, 100 gas. o Stargate: Buff + Decreased cost to 150 minerals, 150 gas + Decreased build time o Robotics Facility: Nerf + Increased build time o Robotics Support Bay: Nerf + Increased cost to 150 minerals, 100 gas o Observatory: Buff + Decreased cost to 50 minerals, 100 gas o Forge: Buff + Decreased cost to 150 minerals o Photon Cannon: Buff + Decreased build time o Fleet Beacon: Buff + Decreased cost of "Increased Carrier capacity" upgrade to 100 minerals, 100 gas + Decreased research time of "Increased Carrier capacity" upgrade o Shield Battery: lol + Increased starting energy to 100 + Increased effective range of “Recharge Shields” ability * Zerg: o Overlord: Buff + Increased speed bonus for "Pneumatized Carapace" upgrade + Decreased research time of "Ventral Sacs" upgrade o Scourge: Buff + Increase hit points to 25 o Hydralisk: Nerf + Increased build time o Queen: Didn't do much + Increased range of Broodling by 1 + Increase energy cost of Parasite to 75 + Decreased Parasite casting range to 12 o Defiler: Nerf + Increased cost to 50 minerals, 150 gas o Hatchery: Nerf + Decreased the speed at which the Hatchery/Lair/Hive spawn new larva + Decreased build cost to 300 minerals + Increased build time o Sunken Colony: Buff + Decreased cost of Sunken Colony upgrade to 50 minerals + Decreased build time + Increased attack rate of Sunken Colony + Increased damage to 40 o Spore Colony: Buff + Decreased build time + Changed damage type to normal o Greater Spire: Nerf + Increased build time From that 1 patch alone, Terran got all buffs, and zerg/protoss got healthy buffs but also healthy nerfs too. Bugs like Reaver cooldown after shuttle release was changed too. Heres patch 1.05 + Show Spoiler + Patch 1.05 * Changes: * Reduced Academy cost to 150 minerals. * Reduced Science Facility cost to 100 minerals, 150 gas. * Reduced Spider Mine research cost to 100 minerals, 100 gas. * Reduced the cooldown for units on unload from a transport. 3 more buffs to terran, and the last one helps terran particularly early (and would have on maps like LT) and here is 1.08, the infamous 150 min pool -> 200 min pool + Show Spoiler + Balance Changes 1.08 TERRAN: Valkyrie: * Damage increase to 6 per missile. * Acceleration and velocity increased slightly. * Build time decreased. Science Facility: * Build time decreased. * Irradiate research cost increased to 200 minerals, 200 gas. * Yamato Cannon research cost decreased to 100 minerals, 100 gas. Missile Turret: * Decreased cost to 75 minerals. Factory: * Charon Missile Booster research cost decreased to 100 minerals, 100 gas. Dropship: * Increased speed. Goliath: * Increased ground attack range. Battle Cruiser: * Build time decreased. * Supply cost decreased to 6. PROTOSS: Dragoon: * Build time increased. Scout: * Decreased cost to 275 minerals, 125 gas. Carrier: * Supply cost decreased to 6. Templar: * Psi Storm Damage reduced. Corsair: * Disruption Web spell duration decreased. Zealot: * Shields decreased to 60 and hit points increased to 100. ZERG: Queen: * Decreased build cost to 100 minerals, 100 gas. Ultralisk: * Supply cost decreased to 4. Queen's Nest: * Spawn Broodling cost decreased to 100 minerals, 100 gas. Hydralisk Den: * Lurker Aspect cost increased to 200 minerals, 200 gas. * Hydralisk speed upgrade cost increased to 150 minerals, 150 gas. Spawning Pool: * Increased build cost to 200 minerals Sunken Colony: * Building armor increased to 2. * Hit points decreased to 300. So many changes, alot pretty game changing. People are so reluctant to see any changes (or at least yet) and that is a fair point, the game needs time to develop, but looking at this OP it has just gotten worse. | ||
|
papaz
Sweden4149 Posts
| ||
|
papaz
Sweden4149 Posts
On September 14 2010 09:06 Keitzer wrote: 4 zerg in the top 30 9 toss in the top 30 AND 17 TERRAN! WTF!?!? These kinds of post really need to stop. I think the whole sc2 community has over and over come to the conclusion that yes the zergs are underrepresented at the top. And since there has been no patch or radical change to playstyles that will change this outcome I don't quite understand the "OMG WTF ONLY X AMOUNT OF ZERG IN TOP 100" every single week. Tell me, did you expect something to have happened the last 7-10 days that makes you so surprised of the rankings this week? EDIT: Who is Fenix at second place? | ||
|
theqat
United States2856 Posts
On September 14 2010 16:03 papaz wrote: who is fenix at second place? http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/international/players/1169_Fenix I think | ||
|
Klive5ive
United Kingdom6056 Posts
Let's talk about how piss easy it is to play Terran at mid-high diamond. You basically do nothing, just sit behind your wall, choose 1 of 50 strategies and execute it pretty perfectly because Terran macro is so easy and micro is so easy. I don't care whether it's balanced it's about how easy it is to do. These figures should of course be very worrying for Blizzard, it basically means their game is boring and fail at this level. They must make it harder for Terran by making the aggression options of the other races more viable. Bad Terrans should LOSE if they don't scout... at the moment they don't even need to. Hydras need to be faster, Nydus worms need to drop quicker, Planetary fortress and all their bullshit defence stuff needs to be removed. etc.... | ||
|
VTSwu
United States40 Posts
Taiwan: P 6/ T 6 / 8 Z / 1 R SEA: 12 P/ 4 T / 4 Z Korea: P 5 / 8 T /7 Z So stop throwing statistics at why T is OP. I mean if you look at this is Protoss OP in SEA then? I mean if all the Zerg players hating on T in the US+Europe are just basing their rationale on Top XX players then maybe white people can't play Z? How about you people post something useful on another post actually analyzing why something or not being over powered instead of jumping into these posts and saying stuff like "Wow these statistics are IMBA. | ||
|
FlamingTurd
United States1059 Posts
| ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On September 14 2010 16:47 swuSC2 wrote: Except when you actually look at NON-US, NON-EUROPE Top 20 you'd see that: Taiwan: P 6/ T 6 / 8 Z / 1 R SEA: 12 P/ 4 T / 4 Z Korea: P 5 / 8 T /7 Z So stop throwing statistics at why T is OP. I mean if you look at this is Protoss OP in SEA then? I mean if all the Zerg players hating on T in the US+Europe are just basing their rationale on Top XX players then maybe white people can't play Z? How about you people post something useful on another post actually analyzing why something or not being over powered instead of jumping into these posts and saying stuff like "Wow these statistics are IMBA. Stop posting everything in bold. People are less likely to listen. | ||
|
squintz
Canada217 Posts
| ||
|
Qikz
United Kingdom12022 Posts
This is more the fact there is more T players overall than Z/P players, so more stratergies are being developed for Terran. | ||
| ||
