|
http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/789458
Top 20: #- Name- Race - W/L 1- Select - T - 366/152 2- Fenix - T - 210/94 3- Huk - P - 254/90 4- qxc - T - 205/76 5- Blendio - T - 491/308 6- Murder - T - 188/80 7- Painuser - T - 188/81 8- Silver - T - 233/118 9- TTone - P - 359/186 10- Katari - P - 263/141 11- kOre - Z - 207/104 12- KiWiKaKi - P - 169/60 13- REBUKED - T - 503/368 14- Masq - T - 149/84 15- Gretorp - T - 160/99 16- Stalife - T - 322/199 17- linko - T - 241/171 18 - AlLaboUtyOu - T - 374/275 19- KawaiiRice - T - 153/67 20- HasHe - T - 436/324
15 T, 4 P, 1 Z in top 20.
|
"The game is balanced, people just need to learn how to play zerg."
/s
|
...Is it just me or is the Terran ratio just getting more absurd.
|
Holy shit, thats actually pretty unreal.
|
holy terren batman . that a lot of T how come kOre is so high i dint know he was that good of a Z player well done also who is katari ?
|
On September 14 2010 04:48 Ghazwan wrote: 15 T, 4 P, 1 Z in top 20.
One more statistic like that and my zerg-heart might actually cry...
|
On September 14 2010 04:48 Ghazwan wrote:
2- Fenix - T - 210/94 3- Huk - P - 254/90
This I don't understand. Fenix has 4 more loses, and 44 less wins then Huk. How is he higher ranked.....
|
maybe ppl will stfu about terran not being op now...
...na lol wtf am i thinking the shit will continue to fly TT
|
NYDUS WURMZZZ
User was warned for this post
|
|
"11- kOre - Z - 207/104" is PhoenixWeRRa (korean zerg, he's got a stream here on TL) playing on kOre's account.
|
On September 14 2010 04:51 GenocideRun wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2010 04:48 Ghazwan wrote:
2- Fenix - T - 210/94 3- Huk - P - 254/90
This I don't understand. Fenix has 4 more loses, and 44 less wins then Huk. How is he higher ranked.....
Because HuK's trueskill is probably higher so he's favored in the majority of his matches, thus getting less points for each win.
|
On September 14 2010 04:51 GenocideRun wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2010 04:48 Ghazwan wrote:
2- Fenix - T - 210/94 3- Huk - P - 254/90
This I don't understand. Fenix has 4 more loses, and 44 less wins then Huk. How is he higher ranked.....
Some games give more points then other games, he was just lucky to get more points?
|
On September 14 2010 04:51 GenocideRun wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2010 04:48 Ghazwan wrote:
2- Fenix - T - 210/94 3- Huk - P - 254/90
This I don't understand. Fenix has 4 more loses, and 44 less wins then Huk. How is he higher ranked..... It's been said often enough, it is about WHO he played. If Fenix always played against the top 10 and Huk just people from the top 200 (just hypothetically) then of course Fenix' wins are more valuable than Huks.
|
kOre doesn't even really count, as he's a Korean that happens to play on both the KR and NA servers.
So there are actually NO NA based zergs in the top 20. LOL
edit - just checked the full list. the 21st ranked player is actually a zerg, so at least there's still one in the top 20.
|
But he got 44 games worth of points? Thats mildly ridiculous.
|
infinity21
Canada6683 Posts
Can you show the top 70 list so I can feel good?
|
|
haha oh wow, that's pretty ridiculous. Pretty hard to believe.
|
kOre is phoenixwerra who streams on here, has 200+ sc2 apm and is downright filthy any zergs that want to learn should watch his stream
also, hes from korea so he really doesn't count as an NA player as previously mentioned a few posts up
|
Not surprised, just disappointed
|
|
Meh? There is a total of (1) more zerg in the top 20 in the EU.
|
2 Zerg players is still not a good ratio.
7 Zerg is exactly where it should be, but T is still dominant over Protoss, making this more of a multirealm problem.
|
|
only 36 in the total top 200. ><
|
90 (45%) Terran 66 (33%) Protoss 37 (18%) Zerg 7 (3%) Random
|
On September 14 2010 05:22 Acritter wrote:2 Zerg players is still not a good ratio. 7 Zerg is exactly where it should be, but T is still dominant over Protoss, making this more of a multirealm problem.
What? You think that the least-played race should have over 1/3 of the representation? Okay.
There should be 3-4 zerg players in the top 20 given the % of the population that plays zerg, not 7.
|
On September 14 2010 04:51 GenocideRun wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2010 04:48 Ghazwan wrote:
2- Fenix - T - 210/94 3- Huk - P - 254/90
This I don't understand. Fenix has 4 more loses, and 44 less wins then Huk. How is he higher ranked.....
thats ladder for you lol.
|
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.
|
In the next patch, Marauders should be 75/0 with auto-Stim and a slight HP buff. I believe this might balance the current problem within the meta-game. Food for thought.
|
I'm starting to believe Zerg imba.
|
The longer it takes before Blizzard does something the more skewed it is going to get. Will be fun to see in a couple of months time.
|
|
Ok maybe im not that convincing but I think zerg is probably better now. I mean, I don't feel as hard as I did when dealing with those top 20 terran or protoss players.
|
PhoenixWerra is sick :|
You can download his replay packs from his stream page.
90apm LZgamer and 102apm Drewbie didn't stand a chance 
Also sweet games with HuK & Nony
|
Well the reason T is overrepresented I feel is because people who play T get free wins vs Z. TvZ is such a joke right now that T is basically already winning 50% of their games by default (TvT being the mirror and TvZ being like 100% wins). Therefore if you won 50% of your TvPs you'd have 75% win ratio. Obviously you can see that's exaggerated but it's so much easier to win as T because you're already winning one MU by default.
P on the other hand actually is pretty even to zerg, minus 2 gates and perhaps some map imbalance. A good P is going to do worse simply because they're dropping more games to zergs at even skill level. This is why P is underrepresented vs T. It has NOTHING to do with the state of TvP.
Z on the other hand is losing basically every game to T so you'd have to win almost every game vs P and be amazing at your mirror to come out at like 60% wins needed to be up that high. That's why there's no zergs. To get to the same place in the same number of games as a terran a zerg has to be like 3x as good.
|
Now, can someone please explain to me why having a small number of zerg at the top represents imbalance? Seems like there would have to be NO zerg at the top to truly say that.
|
On September 14 2010 06:05 Grend wrote: The longer it takes before Blizzard does something the more skewed it is going to get. Will be fun to see in a couple of months time. yeah. reminds me of when people thought hunters were terrible in WoW arena.
|
who cares about the balance
I MADE THE LIST YESSS
actually that is an absurd # of terrans
|
I heard ladder rankings are a 100% accurate depiction of racial balance. Oh wait.
|
On September 14 2010 06:11 Floophead_III wrote: Well the reason T is overrepresented I feel is because people who play T get free wins vs Z. TvZ is such a joke right now that T is basically already winning 50% of their games by default (TvT being the mirror and TvZ being like 100% wins). Therefore if you won 50% of your TvPs you'd have 75% win ratio. Obviously you can see that's exaggerated but it's so much easier to win as T because you're already winning one MU by default.
P on the other hand actually is pretty even to zerg, minus 2 gates and perhaps some map imbalance. A good P is going to do worse simply because they're dropping more games to zergs at even skill level. This is why P is underrepresented vs T. It has NOTHING to do with the state of TvP.
Z on the other hand is losing basically every game to T so you'd have to win almost every game vs P and be amazing at your mirror to come out at like 60% wins needed to be up that high. That's why there's no zergs. To get to the same place in the same number of games as a terran a zerg has to be like 3x as good.
This is not true. You ignore one fact that high-level zerg players almost only play zvt.
I was in the top 20 for the past 2 weeks.
Around top 20, there are almost no zerg and very few protoss players. I would say 75% of my games is ZvT. So if I wasnt winning in ZvT, I wont be ranking anywhere near top 20. My zvp and zvz are just very terrible but it doesn't matter much, since they are seldomly played.
|
On September 14 2010 05:57 iEchoic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2010 05:22 Acritter wrote:2 Zerg players is still not a good ratio. 7 Zerg is exactly where it should be, but T is still dominant over Protoss, making this more of a multirealm problem. What? You think that the least-played race should have over 1/3 of the representation? Okay. There should be 3-4 zerg players in the top 20 given the % of the population that plays zerg, not 7.
Population size really doesn't mean much unless it's a drastic difference say like 50% to 10%. The average top level will be even regardless of population.
|
On September 14 2010 05:57 iEchoic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2010 05:22 Acritter wrote:2 Zerg players is still not a good ratio. 7 Zerg is exactly where it should be, but T is still dominant over Protoss, making this more of a multirealm problem. What? You think that the least-played race should have over 1/3 of the representation? Okay. Actually if it was balanced it doesn't really matter how popular the options are, at the top levels it will be quite equal anyways. The reason is that if there are really few zergs the terrans would have much less experience playing against top zergs than the zerg players have against top terrans giving top zergs a huge advantage in that matchup. As an example look at fencing, in top fencing left handed people are extremely overrepresented, it is not because it is an advantage but because they get more training against right handed people than right handed people got training against them, and it is of course totally balanced as well.
And the disparage between how many are left and right handed is much greater than between terran/zerg.
On September 14 2010 06:12 Carthage wrote: Now, can someone please explain to me why having a small number of zerg at the top represents imbalance? Seems like there would have to be NO zerg at the top to truly say that. Skill ceiling is still very far from being reached in any matchup.
|
On September 14 2010 06:16 gillon wrote: I heard ladder rankings are a 100% accurate depiction of racial balance. Oh wait.
You're right, we should immediately throw this data out, it clearly cannot be used as an indication of anything.
|
|
Idra is so much better than anyone else even when he plays Zerg, but imagine if he actually did switch to Terran. His win ratio would probably be 100% (What is it with Zerg now? 87%?)
Edit: oh only 82%. But still crazy as a Zerg.
|
|
I don't know if T are imba, but all the maps favour them since they are strong on so many different styles. Maybe that is the issue and not actual unit balance (not trolling just trying to think possitive).
|
On September 14 2010 04:56 infinity21 wrote: Can you show the top 70 list so I can feel good?
make it 87 =P
|
Well it's obvious that Z needs to do more Nydus worms and overlord drops. And scout more.
|
This is Terrancraft.
I am eagerly waiting for Zergcraft time and Protosscraft. Make it happen Blizzard + Show Spoiler +it won't happen, who am I kidding lol. Terran is ruling SC2 as hard as it's ruling BW .
|
people realize that there's a patch coming out that will nerf Terran, right? just saying. and don't say 'it doesn't nerf Terran enough', there's something called caution and successful companies usually have it
|
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 dont get your whole post.
Are you telling that pros, those who are on top 200, and play Tournaments, they cant win cause they didnt figure when to drone, atack, or expand yet?
Is that a valid argument for you? Is zerg timing that hard, with only 9 atacking units (vs 11 and 12) to figure their timings? Didnt people claim on beta that Zerg was the easiest race due they are the race with less units?
The second part is quite funny:
Hydras (tier 2, 3 buildings) >>> all gateway units (tier 1, and 1,5, and not 1vs1)
Mutas/corruptors>>>Colossus. (great, 2 air units vs a unit that cant atack air)
Infestors(Tier 2, 3 buildings)+Hydras(again Tier2)+Roach Tier 1.5)+ Banelings (Tier 1.5) >>> Terran bios (Tier 1 and 1.5)
mutas/ling> terran mech builds true except hellions/thors.
infestors+hydras(AA unit) vs terran air.
So its perfect balanced cause a tier 2 unit kill tier 1 and 1.5 unit., also 2 air units are able to kill a unit that cant atack air, a unit combination of tier2 and tier1.5 can defeat a unit combination of tier 1 and 1,5 and an AA unit can kill air units.
Wou, you convince me.
|
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.
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.
|
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.
Deja vu, the exact same was said during beta, the same was said at release, "them zergs will figure it out and own us all!". In terms of rankings, tournament participation (GSL now has 2-3 Zergs left), MLG almost had no Zerg players, it didnt happen, and its gotten worse. The balance issues have gotten worse and worse because while the Zerg players are getting better, so are the Terran players.
I am amazed at how you manage to shoot these rankings down AND manage to offend every Zerg player at the same time, even the ones as Dimaga, Idra and everyone else who has been working hard on developing Zerg play
|
eh by more zergs on Eu ladder you mean 1 more? wow thats a relief :X
|
Are people still harping on imbalance? We heard you the first thousand times. Blizzard has heard you. Blizzard has said they heard you and gave you examples on how they are going to deal with it. Please just wait for the patch and if it isn't at least better then, continue to voice your concerns. Until then, please, just let it rest. It isn't getting the patch out any sooner.
Not only that, but they are probably holding it back till the end of the GSL.
|
On September 14 2010 07:03 biskit wrote:This is Terrancraft. I am eagerly waiting for Zergcraft time and Protosscraft. Make it happen Blizzard + Show Spoiler +it won't happen, who am I kidding lol. Terran is ruling SC2 as hard as it's ruling BW .
![[image loading]](http://starcraft.incgamers.com/w/images/2/24/Battlecruiser_Portrait_SC1.jpg)
Make it happen.
Anyway back on topic, that is incredibly ridiculous how many Terrans and how few Zergs there are, but I wouldn't say it's evidence that Terran is overpowered...
I would say it's evidence that Terrans are currently more successful as a race in exploiting the others. This isn't necessarily anything to do with balance, but it could be. Could be as simple as the correct responses simply haven't been worked out yet.
|
I don't want to say that this shows Terran is OP or Zerg is UP because I try to not get myself caught on saying ideas like that I feel it is better to just adapt to how the game is right now. Anyway that is an absurdly high Terran to Zerg ratio :O
|
On September 14 2010 07:04 Redmark wrote: people realize that there's a patch coming out that will nerf Terran, right? just saying. and don't say 'it doesn't nerf Terran enough', there's something called caution and successful companies usually have it
Yah this patch is clearly a fix-all for the entire game. I can imagine someone on the testing team was like "Hey guys it appears TvZ is not balanced, we should increase the time it takes to make zealots. That should fix it."
.....
|
One thing to note, terran is strong, this is definitely true. But if there is a extreme perception that this is the case, more players will switch over to terran, thus further creating this dynamic of terran at the top.
|
white people can't play zerg.
|
On September 14 2010 04:56 infinity21 wrote: Can you show the top 70 list so I can feel good? Hahaha but now that schools started will you have time to play? lol
|
|
|
On September 14 2010 05:22 Acritter wrote:2 Zerg players is still not a good ratio. 7 Zerg is exactly where it should be, but T is still dominant over Protoss, making this more of a multirealm problem. Well if you notice, the Zergs have played a significantly bigger amount of games then other races in top 20 on korean server, otherwise they wouldnt be there.
|
I feel pretty good as a zerg player right now. Im not failing horribly, but once the patch comes out all zergs players would hit a pretty high point because they delt with being the underpowered race.
|
On September 14 2010 07:49 VirtuallyLost wrote: I feel pretty good as a zerg player right now. Im not failing horribly, but once the patch comes out all zergs players would hit a pretty high point because they delt with being the underpowered race. Unless you lose every game to 5 rax reaper and 2 gate it won't make much of a difference.
|
So when is the patch coming out?
|
congrats to phoenixwerra he is like the black guy in a graduate level computer science (aka me). Switch to terran plz i dont think zerg will be fixed until ATLEAST HotS so dont lose out on tourny money.
|
Kore is not a NA player technically as someone else used the account. Technically there is no Zerg in the top 20 in NA.
EDIT: Finally, I make the cut!
|
On September 14 2010 07:59 illumination wrote: congrats to phoenixwerra he is like the black guy in a graduate level computer science (aka me). Switch to terran plz i dont think zerg will be fixed until ATLEAST HotS so dont lose out on tourny money. ahaha well said lol
|
On September 14 2010 06:22 Klockan3 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2010 05:57 iEchoic wrote:On September 14 2010 05:22 Acritter wrote:2 Zerg players is still not a good ratio. 7 Zerg is exactly where it should be, but T is still dominant over Protoss, making this more of a multirealm problem. What? You think that the least-played race should have over 1/3 of the representation? Okay. Actually if it was balanced it doesn't really matter how popular the options are, at the top levels it will be quite equal anyways. The reason is that if there are really few zergs the terrans would have much less experience playing against top zergs than the zerg players have against top terrans giving top zergs a huge advantage in that matchup. As an example look at fencing, in top fencing left handed people are extremely overrepresented, it is not because it is an advantage but because they get more training against right handed people than right handed people got training against them, and it is of course totally balanced as well. And the disparage between how many are left and right handed is much greater than between terran/zerg. Show nested quote +On September 14 2010 06:12 Carthage wrote: Now, can someone please explain to me why having a small number of zerg at the top represents imbalance? Seems like there would have to be NO zerg at the top to truly say that. Skill ceiling is still very far from being reached in any matchup.
good post, thanks
|
On September 14 2010 07:59 illumination wrote: congrats to phoenixwerra he is like the black guy in a graduate level computer science (aka me). Switch to terran plz i dont think zerg will be fixed until ATLEAST HotS so dont lose out on tourny money.
LOL, i had a black friend in computer science (undergrad). he was on the basketball team while the rest of the class(minus me!) were geeks. fun times.
|
On September 14 2010 07:53 Slayer91 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2010 07:49 VirtuallyLost wrote: I feel pretty good as a zerg player right now. Im not failing horribly, but once the patch comes out all zergs players would hit a pretty high point because they delt with being the underpowered race. Unless you lose every game to 5 rax reaper and 2 gate it won't make much of a difference.
I don't think the patches stop with 1.1. The 1.1 patch is rather miniscule to the other zerg patches that will (hopefully) come out.
|
lol at the disparity in games played.
|
On September 14 2010 08:37 VirtuallyLost wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2010 07:53 Slayer91 wrote:On September 14 2010 07:49 VirtuallyLost wrote: I feel pretty good as a zerg player right now. Im not failing horribly, but once the patch comes out all zergs players would hit a pretty high point because they delt with being the underpowered race. Unless you lose every game to 5 rax reaper and 2 gate it won't make much of a difference. I don't think the patches stop with 1.1. The 1.1 patch is rather miniscule to the other zerg patches that will (hopefully) come out.
Yeah, these fake patches are gonna be huge for Zerg. Seriously, though, I think the tank nerf and reaper time nerf will be enough for Zerg to be good. Hydralisks will be seen in TvZ again!
|
|
4 zerg in the top 30 9 toss in the top 30 AND 17 TERRAN! WTF!?!?
|
The Fun part is that non of those Terran players would even be on considered some of the best in the world if they where playing other races. A decent macro \ micro coupled with a good understanding of builds and some practice will get you that far as Terran. No talent required.
|
nerf the marauder and make tanks overkill. problem solved.
|
On September 14 2010 04:48 Ghazwan wrote:http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/789458Top 20: #- Name- Race - W/L 1- Select - T - 366/152 2- Fenix - T - 210/94 3- Huk - P - 254/90 4- qxc - T - 205/76 5- Blendio - T - 491/308 6- Murder - T - 188/80 7- Painuser - T - 188/81 8- Silver - T - 233/118 9- TTone - P - 359/186 10- Katari - P - 263/141 11- kOre - Z - 207/104 12- KiWiKaKi - P - 169/60 13- REBUKED - T - 503/368 14- Masq - T - 149/84 15- Gretorp - T - 160/99 16- Stalife - T - 322/199 17- linko - T - 241/171 18 - AlLaboUtyOu - T - 374/275 19- KawaiiRice - T - 153/67 20- HasHe - T - 436/324 15 T, 4 P, 1 Z in top 20.
and the 1 zerg is korean wow.
:S select's a beast tho
|
What would happen if they insta-promoted all the Terrans 1 league. Then they would be playing against players better than them and hence should return to a more realistic win ratio as it will be balanced out by their "race advantage".
Also, there are no Random players in the top 20.
|
oh god this thread reeks of whining
blizzard please release the patch already, or stop feeding the plebians this shit
|
On September 14 2010 04:53 Shika wrote: "11- kOre - Z - 207/104" is PhoenixWeRRa (korean zerg, he's got a stream here on TL) playing on kOre's account.
so what you're saying is there's actually no NA zergs in the top 20 
damn, you NA people really need to start saccing ovies and using nydus worms
+ Show Spoiler +im jk relax 
|
On September 14 2010 08:28 danl9rm wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2010 07:59 illumination wrote: congrats to phoenixwerra he is like the black guy in a graduate level computer science (aka me). Switch to terran plz i dont think zerg will be fixed until ATLEAST HotS so dont lose out on tourny money. LOL, i had a black friend in computer science (undergrad). he was on the basketball team while the rest of the class(minus me!) were geeks. fun times.
Minus you? Then what are you doing on the internet posting on a thread about overpowered video game races?
Make roaches 1 supply again for like a week or so.
|
It's funny that the number one on the korean server is actually a Zerg :D
|
no currently Zerg is Nr3, and a Terran named Smile is ranked 1.
|
I have decided to take a break from SC2 for a week, the Terran, IT BURNS.
|
lol, anyone else notice on the top 200 page, in the "Top 200" text at the top is a big Terran symbol?
seems appropriate
|
Back in beta, we knew this will happen. I remember someone pointing out that Terran lack representation in beta tournaments, and someone else(tester maybe?) said all terran need are good players to start playing the race, and they will dominate.
Tanks being so powerful existed in beta - even before the tank "buff"(hp wise). Marauders too.
A little disappointed at blizzard for the slow fix - this is getting a little out of control. And I know, I know that 1.1 given the current proposed set of changes wouldn't fix the problem. +5s to reapers? Will that truly make 5rax (soon to be 6rax?) reaper less deadly of an opening vs zerg? Would 4 marauders still snipe a spire in just 8 seconds with stim and make most gateway units almost useless w/o upgrades? Is the tank nerf really a nerf... - why is terran the only race capable of creating ground zero? Will medivac stop granting terran unit god mode status?
A lot of people answer that you need "more skill" to win in XvT. Using things like... terrain and flank to your advantage to counter the terran army. But such mechanics can too be used by a terran player. If PhoenixWeRRa is to play terran, the #1+2 spots on NA ladder might be dominated by koreans.
If there are truly ideas and tactics in which we have not yet discovered - I would like to see blizzard enlighten us.
|
8748 Posts
It'd be so much more interesting if people discussed players and not races.
btw I'm gonna be #1 on the next ranking
|
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
nice!
|
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 How do you discuss players? Racial imbalance is part of the player so you cant really separate them. I guess you can have one of those idra videos where he bms everyone but we know how those go... W.E i guess ill start. Silver has like 90 apm and is just bad at the game but hes a top player now. That was much more productive!
|
i think marauders are the only unit that need any kind of nerf.. but i guess theyr not gona do it yet
|
On September 14 2010 14:14 illumination wrote:Show nested quote +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 How do you discuss players? Racial imbalance is part of the player so you cant really separate them. I guess you can have one of those idra videos where he bms everyone but we know how those go... W.E i guess ill start. Silver has like 90 apm and is just bad at the game but hes a top player now. That was much more productive!
What about blendio?? wasn't he a former bw pro in korea? he has like avg 85 apm but he can still do 5 marauder drops at the same time!
Grats blendio on rank 5 of all NA! Well deserved
|
On September 14 2010 14:25 _Darwin_ wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2010 14:14 illumination wrote: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 How do you discuss players? Racial imbalance is part of the player so you cant really separate them. I guess you can have one of those idra videos where he bms everyone but we know how those go... W.E i guess ill start. Silver has like 90 apm and is just bad at the game but hes a top player now. That was much more productive! What about blendio?? wasn't he a former bw pro in korea? he has like avg 85 apm but he can still do 5 marauder drops at the same time! Grats blendio on rank 5 of all NA! Well deserved  Good point.... EXCEPT Silver cant do that. I also said he was bad at the game. He dosent scout he allins all the time. And APM does matter. Nada said that the lowest apm to be pro in sc1 was like 250. Its a simple fact that there are more things to do in the game than 85 apm can cover so... To not turn this thread into an apm discussion lets talk shit on more players like nony suggested I think drewbie is terrible but he won more than kiwikaki, TT1, and WhiteRa. All of those players have an imperssive rts background (esp. Whitera). Yet they lose more often than Drewbie. Interesting.
|
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.
|
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. what is his style?
|
On September 14 2010 14:51 MasterAsia wrote:Show nested quote +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. what is his style? I am interested in this too.
|
probably could of kept everything in this thread where infinity puts the link. 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
On September 14 2010 14:54 arsenic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2010 14:51 MasterAsia wrote: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. what is his style? I am interested in this too. 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!
|
I think most of the problems with Zerg are the following: 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.
|
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.
|
|
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?
|
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.
|
there are things that concern me more than the top 20 in NA: 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)
|
On September 14 2010 07:14 Pekkz wrote:Show nested quote +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. 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
|
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 ?
|
This really is a worrying sign. I don't know how any terran can not admit to there being SOME sort of problem, even if it's small. 'Ladders don't matter' that's true to an extent, but if there where 5 zergs you would be arguing all day that zerg is viable.
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.
|
|
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?
|
|
Balance is a side issue.
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....
|
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.
|
Honestly at this point, it's freakin ridiculous.... Common Blizzard, give Z a chance.
|
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.
|
North American players just don't know how to play zerg. The one zerg on there is Korean!
|
United Kingdom12022 Posts
I don't think this is down to imbalance.
This is more the fact there is more T players overall than Z/P players, so more stratergies are being developed for Terran.
|
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.
And if you look at how TLO destroyed a really decent Korean Zerg, you might realize that not the European Zergs are lacking, but the Korean Terrans are. I haven't seen a single Korean Terran at the level of the best EU/US ones yet, and I watched every single GOMTV match so far. It's not because they are Koreans that they are automatically to be considered better. They lack a lot in a few aspects of the game - though I have no doubt they will quickly catch up once the "real" top players start SC2.
|
On September 14 2010 16:47 swuSC2 wrote: white people can't play Z? Double racism all the way! :D
|
it's all because of the medivac.. *sigh*
|
On September 14 2010 17:32 Qikz wrote: I don't think this is down to imbalance.
This is more the fact there is more T players overall than Z/P players, so more stratergies are being developed for Terran. You're right, but what's more is because of the roach nerf that Blizzard did on a whim, Zerg players suddenly had to figure out new ways to play, and most just gave up at that point because the nerf destroyed every developed build. Existing P and T builds became stronger and Z builds were set back to square one.
|
The notion that Korean T isn't as good as NA/EU T is a joke. If you watch their games that are sick. NA/EU T is great about find tons of shitty all-ins for T... something impossible to scout most of the time. Thus, the distorted balance. Koreans play a much more solid and impressive T than NA/EU.
|
This list actually made me switch to from T to Z.
|
On September 14 2010 17:38 Rebornx3 wrote: it's all because of the medivac.. *sigh* One of the problems... since the unit serves opposing rolls in one... is it there to re-enforce your bio ball? Is it there to drop? You can't tell like you could in BW. BW making or or the other, or both gave clear clues about your overall strat. SC2 it's just a big question mark.
|
On September 14 2010 17:48 sk` wrote: The notion that Korean T isn't as good as NA/EU T is a joke. If you watch their games that are sick. NA/EU T is great about find tons of shitty all-ins for T... something impossible to scout most of the time. Thus, the distorted balance. Koreans play a much more solid and impressive T than NA/EU.
?
Yesterdays GSL pretty much all T's made some kind of proxy or early all-in?
|
On September 14 2010 17:54 qoiN wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2010 17:48 sk` wrote: The notion that Korean T isn't as good as NA/EU T is a joke. If you watch their games that are sick. NA/EU T is great about find tons of shitty all-ins for T... something impossible to scout most of the time. Thus, the distorted balance. Koreans play a much more solid and impressive T than NA/EU. ? Yesterdays GSL pretty much all T's made some kind of proxy or early all-in? "Pretty much all" and "all" are not the same. But frankly, early all-ins, anywhere, should be common since they are impossible or very difficult to scout with how the game is.
|
8748 Posts
On September 14 2010 14:14 illumination wrote:Show nested quote +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 How do you discuss players? Racial imbalance is part of the player so you cant really separate them. I guess you can have one of those idra videos where he bms everyone but we know how those go... W.E i guess ill start. Silver has like 90 apm and is just bad at the game but hes a top player now. That was much more productive! Search "kespa rank" in BW forum for examples.
Less is known about these SC2 players than those BW players. But interesting things can be done like grabbing stats from sc2ranks and attaching them to Blizzard's ranking. People could discuss what players seem to be better at ladder and what players seem to be better at tournaments (and why this might be the case). People could point out who has high/low win percentage and high/low games played.
For people to take this thread as an opportunity to discuss race balance for the billionth time is just ridiculously embarrassingly bad and so boring and unfortunately there isn't really any good reason to ban anyone for it.
|
Even if he's not a "real NA player," gotta hand it to kOre for being a hero and representing the Swarm in the top 20. That W/L ratio is pretty incredible. I didn't know that he had a stream, but you can be sure that I will be checking it out.
|
"every player with at least 10 apm can play terran perfectly!" <- mohaha! some of the players in that list just massed games  demuslims win ratio is pretty good!
|
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.
So if we ignore two of the largest communities in the game and look at smaller player samples we will find that racial imbalance is a non-issue?
Gotcha.
|
most zerg player give up because of all the whiner . they got owned and just think '' OMG IMBA''
they dont check the replay , check the error they have done ect , they stop at omg imba .
just reading what you guy say completly demotive any zerg trying to become good probably .
you just repeat the fact that zerg are not strong , but no one try to find anything to fix that , that would be better no ? im sure they are some way for make the zerg realy good at higher level because they got the most potential from all the race .
baneling/infestor/ultralisk = z v t .
that the main reason protoss and terran skill level get higher and higher while zerg stay low that the confidence , hell just reading topic like that motivate me in t v z .
( the korean on the other hand are still realy trying and dont wait for blizzard patch )
im not saying that because korean are better , but im sure you find less whine about zerg in korean website and forum .
and my english suck , you can make fun of me if you want to feal better .
i was realy writing that for help zerg player , no hate plz .
|
On September 14 2010 23:24 Liquid`Tyler wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2010 14:14 illumination wrote: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 How do you discuss players? Racial imbalance is part of the player so you cant really separate them. I guess you can have one of those idra videos where he bms everyone but we know how those go... W.E i guess ill start. Silver has like 90 apm and is just bad at the game but hes a top player now. That was much more productive! Search "kespa rank" in BW forum for examples. Less is known about these SC2 players than those BW players. But interesting things can be done like grabbing stats from sc2ranks and attaching them to Blizzard's ranking. People could discuss what players seem to be better at ladder and what players seem to be better at tournaments (and why this might be the case). People could point out who has high/low win percentage and high/low games played. For people to take this thread as an opportunity to discuss race balance for the billionth time is just ridiculously embarrassingly bad and so boring and unfortunately there isn't really any good reason to ban anyone for it. Why don't you explain what you're saying?
What I see from the stats is that Terran is too versatile. You have gimmicky Terrans, all-in Terrans, strategic Terrans and then a few "actually good" Terrans, like Morrow. All the Zerg players are patient macro masters like IdrA and Dimaga.
So yes there might be a playstyle that Zerg can be played with that allows them to win at very high level BUT the lack of versatility is very worrying.
As I said before, these stats can't show high level balance, but to me what they show is a very poorly constructed game where one race has far too much versatility.
|
I like their banner
![[image loading]](http://us.media3.battle.net/cms/blog_header/97QZC4ZBAHIB1281572337132.jpg)
Notice the terran symbol
|
how is a population of 20...statistic relevant? post top 5% of players than we will see ^^
|
Wow, it's so nice to see Zerg represented in that list (-_-')
|
lol i cant believe it's a terran symbol in the top 200 picture , that made me LOL xd
|
koreans do better as zerg cuz they try harder
Slush is one of the very good zerg and I don't see him crying imba all the time, we all agreed some things needed tweaks, but he still tries to find ways to win his games and just get better
|
On September 15 2010 00:31 Snowfield wrote:I like their banner + Show Spoiler +Notice the terran symbol 
lol that's awesome
|
On September 15 2010 01:32 Fayth wrote: koreans do better as zerg cuz they try harder
Slush is one of the very good zerg and I don't see him crying imba all the time, we all agreed some things needed tweaks, but he still tries to find ways to win his games and just get better
Yeah totally. Progamers should try harder.
|
I like playing Terran the most, to me, they are just the funnest race of the three. Zerg honestly seems quite dull...
But I'm a random player.
Point being, if I played enough, I could get into the top 20 in no time, even as a Zerg player.
|
On September 15 2010 00:31 Iraoidja wrote: how is a population of 20...statistic relevant? post top 5% of players than we will see ^^
Is that... a joke...? Because I can't tell.
On September 15 2010 00:26 Oddysay wrote: most zerg player give up because of all the whiner . they got owned and just think '' OMG IMBA''
they dont check the replay , check the error they have done ect , they stop at omg imba .
just reading what you guy say completly demotive any zerg trying to become good probably .
you just repeat the fact that zerg are not strong , but no one try to find anything to fix that , that would be better no ? im sure they are some way for make the zerg realy good at higher level because they got the most potential from all the race .
baneling/infestor/ultralisk = z v t .
that the main reason protoss and terran skill level get higher and higher while zerg stay low that the confidence , hell just reading topic like that motivate me in t v z .
( the korean on the other hand are still realy trying and dont wait for blizzard patch )
im not saying that because korean are better , but im sure you find less whine about zerg in korean website and forum .
and my english suck , you can make fun of me if you want to feal better .
i was realy writing that for help zerg player , no hate plz .
You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. You have no idea whether I, or other Zerg players check our replays. Out of all the random bullshit you could fabricate, don't say something that has utterly ZERO evidence to back up your claims. No, I'm not whining imbalance (atm!). But god where the hell do all these conspiracy theories come from? Because you're zerg you're automatically lazy despite it generally being agreed it's harder to play than Terran? (I won't comment on Toss, I have no idea how hard it is to play Toss but I've successfully offraced Terrans and have around ~66% win vs Z on Diamond players between ~800-1200).
Also, you have no idea about Korean whining I'm sure. Do I? No. So I'm not going to make claims about what's happening there. Your speculative posts do nothing but provide flame bait. At least provide something to even suggest what you're saying. The main reason I'm griping about your post because you're dumbing the situation down to "baneling/infestor/ultralisk = zvt." You posting that shows you have absolutely no idea what other Zergs are even complaining about in the first place. At least read what they are saying before rambling.
|
On September 15 2010 01:48 SniXSniPe wrote: I like playing Terran the most, to me, they are just the funnest race of the three. Zerg honestly seems quite dull...
But I'm a random player.
Point being, if I played enough, I could get into the top 20 in no time, even as a Zerg player.
So what you are arguing is that T is the most fun to play and Z is dull and the point of this argument is that you can get to top 20 in no time, even as a Z player? OK!
Btw, you can't.
|
On September 15 2010 01:48 SniXSniPe wrote: I like playing Terran the most, to me, they are just the funnest race of the three. Zerg honestly seems quite dull...
But I'm a random player.
Point being, if I played enough, I could get into the top 20 in no time, even as a Zerg player.
highly doubt it. If you're a random player you've never played vs 2gate proxy at natural. I bet you have zero experience holding that off.
|
8748 Posts
On September 15 2010 00:29 Klive5ive wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2010 23:24 Liquid`Tyler wrote:On September 14 2010 14:14 illumination wrote: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 How do you discuss players? Racial imbalance is part of the player so you cant really separate them. I guess you can have one of those idra videos where he bms everyone but we know how those go... W.E i guess ill start. Silver has like 90 apm and is just bad at the game but hes a top player now. That was much more productive! Search "kespa rank" in BW forum for examples. Less is known about these SC2 players than those BW players. But interesting things can be done like grabbing stats from sc2ranks and attaching them to Blizzard's ranking. People could discuss what players seem to be better at ladder and what players seem to be better at tournaments (and why this might be the case). People could point out who has high/low win percentage and high/low games played. For people to take this thread as an opportunity to discuss race balance for the billionth time is just ridiculously embarrassingly bad and so boring and unfortunately there isn't really any good reason to ban anyone for it. Why don't you explain what you're saying? What I see from the stats is that Terran is too versatile. You have gimmicky Terrans, all-in Terrans, strategic Terrans and then a few "actually good" Terrans, like Morrow. All the Zerg players are patient macro masters like IdrA and Dimaga. So yes there might be a playstyle that Zerg can be played with that allows them to win at very high level BUT the lack of versatility is very worrying. As I said before, these stats can't show high level balance, but to me what they show is a very poorly constructed game where one race has far too much versatility. What I'm saying is that it is foremost a player ranking, not a snapshot of race distribution. And even if it was a snapshot of race distribution (like if Blizzard didn't publish names, just races) then it's totally uninteresting because this forum is 90% full of people talking about race balance. It'd be just another drop in the bucket and absolutely nothing new would be discovered other than "the trend of a large number of Terrans and a small number of Zergs is still going strong on NA server"
It is bad for the forum when every single topic that can potentially be turned into a discussion about race balance is turned into a discussion about race balance. There are other things to talk about. If no one was talking about race balance anywhere on the forum and this ranking was published and someone said "oh shit look at all those Terrans and where are the Zergs?!?!" that would be reasonable. But unfortunately the only thing really going on here is the stifling of any potential discussion about a player ranking by people who want to repeat the same thing about race balance for the 1000th time.
|
On September 15 2010 01:32 Fayth wrote: koreans do better as zerg cuz they try harder
Slush is one of the very good zerg and I don't see him crying imba all the time, we all agreed some things needed tweaks, but he still tries to find ways to win his games and just get better
Really well said. Crying "imba here and there" is not going to help u improve at all.
|
On September 15 2010 02:09 Liquid`Tyler wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2010 00:29 Klive5ive wrote:On September 14 2010 23:24 Liquid`Tyler wrote:On September 14 2010 14:14 illumination wrote: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 How do you discuss players? Racial imbalance is part of the player so you cant really separate them. I guess you can have one of those idra videos where he bms everyone but we know how those go... W.E i guess ill start. Silver has like 90 apm and is just bad at the game but hes a top player now. That was much more productive! Search "kespa rank" in BW forum for examples. Less is known about these SC2 players than those BW players. But interesting things can be done like grabbing stats from sc2ranks and attaching them to Blizzard's ranking. People could discuss what players seem to be better at ladder and what players seem to be better at tournaments (and why this might be the case). People could point out who has high/low win percentage and high/low games played. For people to take this thread as an opportunity to discuss race balance for the billionth time is just ridiculously embarrassingly bad and so boring and unfortunately there isn't really any good reason to ban anyone for it. Why don't you explain what you're saying? What I see from the stats is that Terran is too versatile. You have gimmicky Terrans, all-in Terrans, strategic Terrans and then a few "actually good" Terrans, like Morrow. All the Zerg players are patient macro masters like IdrA and Dimaga. So yes there might be a playstyle that Zerg can be played with that allows them to win at very high level BUT the lack of versatility is very worrying. As I said before, these stats can't show high level balance, but to me what they show is a very poorly constructed game where one race has far too much versatility. What I'm saying is that it is foremost a player ranking, not a snapshot of race distribution. And even if it was a snapshot of race distribution (like if Blizzard didn't publish names, just races) then it's totally uninteresting because this forum is 90% full of people talking about race balance. It'd be just another drop in the bucket and absolutely nothing new would be discovered other than "the trend of a large number of Terrans and a small number of Zergs is still going strong on NA server" It is bad for the forum when every single topic that can potentially be turned into a discussion about race balance is turned into a discussion about race balance. There are other things to talk about. If no one was talking about race balance and this ranking was published and someone said "oh shit look at all those Terrans and where are the Zergs?!?!" that would be reasonable. But unfortunately the only thing really going on here is the stifling of any potential discussion about a player ranking by people who want to repeat the same thing about race balance for the 1000th time.
What is the number 1 thing that sticks out in the OP? Obviously the dominance of T and the lack of any actual NA Z. People are naturally going to discuss why this occurred. What exactly do you propose should be the topic of discussion? "Damn, Fenix is baller." "Select is massing some games, yeah!" There's no discussion there, just comments, and the thread would have died by page 3 (although maybe you'd prefer that over it degenerating into something worse). Just think it's more appropriate in this topic than most others.
|
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 I wish people would too, but with 15 terran, 4 protoss, and 1 zerg in the top 20, that does seem fairly indicative or imbalance or at least an extremely low proficiency among NA zerg players.
|
Things like this make me feel really bad about how blizzard has been managing this patch. I know that BW wasn't balanced when it was at it's released, and I understand Blizzard can't release a hugely game changing patch on the fly because this isn't beta, but this is getting ridiculous with how many terrans there are winning at the moment. Coupled with the GSL every month(or I think every month, I'm not 100% sure) I'm not sure when Blizzard is going to have time to even patch their game.
|
What I'm more interested in is does these ladder top200 rankings have any meaning for the Blizzard Invitational or some other tournament? If so, is it an overall standing of this season (meaning every weekly rankings) or just a ranking at the end of the deadline the top xx will be invited?
|
This is gay, my head hurts from seeing so much terran.
Fortunately top 20 will soon be dominated by zerg, they just need to learn how to play their race. (sarcasm for anybody not familiar with it)
|
On September 15 2010 02:09 FabledIntegral wrote:
highly doubt it. If you're a random player you've never played vs 2gate proxy at natural. I bet you have zero experience holding that off.
Sure I have. I also know when/how to scout properly. Besides that... 2gate proxy. I haven't seen this since like... placement matches, or some 2v2 games.
On September 15 2010 02:03 Ghazwan wrote:
So what you are arguing is that T is the most fun to play and Z is dull and the point of this argument is that you can get to top 20 in no time, even as a Z player? OK!
Btw, you can't.
Perhaps the reason Zerg has a lower player count than the other races is because it is not a very appealing race/seems quite dull, compared to say, Terran, thus a lower percentage of players are in the top 200, as there is a lower population (also contributions from "imba"). But has anyone taken a look at the average diamond player zerg stats? That would be the most interesting to me.
Also I could. Are you mad that I could with any of the three races? It's really not that difficult for any good player, so long as they have plenty of time to play games.
|
WOW... well no surprise there really, every single statistic ends up showing the same thing in different ways. Now it's just getting more obvious for every1 to see. At this point if ur still battling the "Oh Z is so OP and should be 15 spots in top 20 but all Z players suck" u r either 1) Terran or 2) slow.
|
On September 15 2010 02:13 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2010 02:09 Liquid`Tyler wrote:On September 15 2010 00:29 Klive5ive wrote:On September 14 2010 23:24 Liquid`Tyler wrote:On September 14 2010 14:14 illumination wrote: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 How do you discuss players? Racial imbalance is part of the player so you cant really separate them. I guess you can have one of those idra videos where he bms everyone but we know how those go... W.E i guess ill start. Silver has like 90 apm and is just bad at the game but hes a top player now. That was much more productive! Search "kespa rank" in BW forum for examples. Less is known about these SC2 players than those BW players. But interesting things can be done like grabbing stats from sc2ranks and attaching them to Blizzard's ranking. People could discuss what players seem to be better at ladder and what players seem to be better at tournaments (and why this might be the case). People could point out who has high/low win percentage and high/low games played. For people to take this thread as an opportunity to discuss race balance for the billionth time is just ridiculously embarrassingly bad and so boring and unfortunately there isn't really any good reason to ban anyone for it. Why don't you explain what you're saying? What I see from the stats is that Terran is too versatile. You have gimmicky Terrans, all-in Terrans, strategic Terrans and then a few "actually good" Terrans, like Morrow. All the Zerg players are patient macro masters like IdrA and Dimaga. So yes there might be a playstyle that Zerg can be played with that allows them to win at very high level BUT the lack of versatility is very worrying. As I said before, these stats can't show high level balance, but to me what they show is a very poorly constructed game where one race has far too much versatility. What I'm saying is that it is foremost a player ranking, not a snapshot of race distribution. And even if it was a snapshot of race distribution (like if Blizzard didn't publish names, just races) then it's totally uninteresting because this forum is 90% full of people talking about race balance. It'd be just another drop in the bucket and absolutely nothing new would be discovered other than "the trend of a large number of Terrans and a small number of Zergs is still going strong on NA server" It is bad for the forum when every single topic that can potentially be turned into a discussion about race balance is turned into a discussion about race balance. There are other things to talk about. If no one was talking about race balance and this ranking was published and someone said "oh shit look at all those Terrans and where are the Zergs?!?!" that would be reasonable. But unfortunately the only thing really going on here is the stifling of any potential discussion about a player ranking by people who want to repeat the same thing about race balance for the 1000th time. What is the number 1 thing that sticks out in the OP? Obviously the dominance of T and the lack of any actual NA Z. People are naturally going to discuss why this occurred. What exactly do you propose should be the topic of discussion? "Damn, Fenix is baller." "Select is massing some games, yeah!" There's no discussion there, just comments, and the thread would have died by page 3 (although maybe you'd prefer that over it degenerating into something worse). Just think it's more appropriate in this topic than most others.
I agree with Tyler here, even though its somewhat tempting to discuss racial balance, it would be a much better read if people just discussed the players. What is SelecT really doing, what is his style? Basically, discussing the players.
I am a zerg player, I get it, they lack in every department and have an uphill battle. My eyes are cried out, I have no more tears left, and right now, I just want to see the forums here settle down, discussing more interesting things beside balance in every freaking thread. Patch is around the corner, small changes, that might help boost our economy to make it not feel like such an uphill battle. Further concerns will be seen in tournaments by blizzard, no need to cry so much, as I have cried.
|
On September 15 2010 02:33 SniXSniPe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2010 02:09 FabledIntegral wrote:
highly doubt it. If you're a random player you've never played vs 2gate proxy at natural. I bet you have zero experience holding that off. Sure I have. I also know when/how to scout properly. Besides that... 2gate proxy. I haven't seen this since like... placement matches, or some 2v2 games. Show nested quote +On September 15 2010 02:03 Ghazwan wrote:
So what you are arguing is that T is the most fun to play and Z is dull and the point of this argument is that you can get to top 20 in no time, even as a Z player? OK!
Btw, you can't.
Perhaps the reason Zerg has a lower player count than the other races is because it is not a very appealing race/seems quite dull, compared to say, Terran, thus a lower percentage of players are in the top 200, as there is a lower population (also contributions from "imba"). But has anyone taken a look at the average diamond player zerg stats? That would be the most interesting to me. Also I could. Are you mad that I could with any of the three races? It's really not that difficult for any good player, so long as they have plenty of time to play games.
So since it wasn't used vs you since the placement matches, I'm guessing you have no experience actually holding it off. Case in point. It's almost never done in 2v2 as there's no reason to do it in 2v2, unless you proxy outsided your opponent's natural/near his base, which is completely different than building it outside your own natural, which is for the purpose of defense and keeping your opponent on 1 base while you expand yourself. There's no way you could have possibly faced this strat on random, it would mean your opponent scouting before they even built their second probe. By scouting so early you lose the entire effectiveness of the build.
On September 15 2010 02:46 crappen wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2010 02:13 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 15 2010 02:09 Liquid`Tyler wrote:On September 15 2010 00:29 Klive5ive wrote:On September 14 2010 23:24 Liquid`Tyler wrote:On September 14 2010 14:14 illumination wrote: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 How do you discuss players? Racial imbalance is part of the player so you cant really separate them. I guess you can have one of those idra videos where he bms everyone but we know how those go... W.E i guess ill start. Silver has like 90 apm and is just bad at the game but hes a top player now. That was much more productive! Search "kespa rank" in BW forum for examples. Less is known about these SC2 players than those BW players. But interesting things can be done like grabbing stats from sc2ranks and attaching them to Blizzard's ranking. People could discuss what players seem to be better at ladder and what players seem to be better at tournaments (and why this might be the case). People could point out who has high/low win percentage and high/low games played. For people to take this thread as an opportunity to discuss race balance for the billionth time is just ridiculously embarrassingly bad and so boring and unfortunately there isn't really any good reason to ban anyone for it. Why don't you explain what you're saying? What I see from the stats is that Terran is too versatile. You have gimmicky Terrans, all-in Terrans, strategic Terrans and then a few "actually good" Terrans, like Morrow. All the Zerg players are patient macro masters like IdrA and Dimaga. So yes there might be a playstyle that Zerg can be played with that allows them to win at very high level BUT the lack of versatility is very worrying. As I said before, these stats can't show high level balance, but to me what they show is a very poorly constructed game where one race has far too much versatility. What I'm saying is that it is foremost a player ranking, not a snapshot of race distribution. And even if it was a snapshot of race distribution (like if Blizzard didn't publish names, just races) then it's totally uninteresting because this forum is 90% full of people talking about race balance. It'd be just another drop in the bucket and absolutely nothing new would be discovered other than "the trend of a large number of Terrans and a small number of Zergs is still going strong on NA server" It is bad for the forum when every single topic that can potentially be turned into a discussion about race balance is turned into a discussion about race balance. There are other things to talk about. If no one was talking about race balance and this ranking was published and someone said "oh shit look at all those Terrans and where are the Zergs?!?!" that would be reasonable. But unfortunately the only thing really going on here is the stifling of any potential discussion about a player ranking by people who want to repeat the same thing about race balance for the 1000th time. What is the number 1 thing that sticks out in the OP? Obviously the dominance of T and the lack of any actual NA Z. People are naturally going to discuss why this occurred. What exactly do you propose should be the topic of discussion? "Damn, Fenix is baller." "Select is massing some games, yeah!" There's no discussion there, just comments, and the thread would have died by page 3 (although maybe you'd prefer that over it degenerating into something worse). Just think it's more appropriate in this topic than most others. I agree with Tyler here, even though its somewhat tempting to discuss racial balance, it would be a much better read if people just discussed the players. What is SelecT really doing, what is his style? Basically, discussing the players. I am a zerg player, I get it, they lack in every department and have an uphill battle. My eyes are cried out, I have no more tears left, and right now, I just want to see the forums here settle down, discussing more interesting things beside balance in every freaking thread. Patch is around the corner, small changes, that might help boost our economy to make it not feel like such an uphill battle. Further concerns will be seen in tournaments by blizzard, no need to cry so much, as I have cried.
So what can you tell me exactly about select then that will fuel this discussion?
|
8748 Posts
On September 15 2010 02:13 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2010 02:09 Liquid`Tyler wrote:On September 15 2010 00:29 Klive5ive wrote:On September 14 2010 23:24 Liquid`Tyler wrote:On September 14 2010 14:14 illumination wrote: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 How do you discuss players? Racial imbalance is part of the player so you cant really separate them. I guess you can have one of those idra videos where he bms everyone but we know how those go... W.E i guess ill start. Silver has like 90 apm and is just bad at the game but hes a top player now. That was much more productive! Search "kespa rank" in BW forum for examples. Less is known about these SC2 players than those BW players. But interesting things can be done like grabbing stats from sc2ranks and attaching them to Blizzard's ranking. People could discuss what players seem to be better at ladder and what players seem to be better at tournaments (and why this might be the case). People could point out who has high/low win percentage and high/low games played. For people to take this thread as an opportunity to discuss race balance for the billionth time is just ridiculously embarrassingly bad and so boring and unfortunately there isn't really any good reason to ban anyone for it. Why don't you explain what you're saying? What I see from the stats is that Terran is too versatile. You have gimmicky Terrans, all-in Terrans, strategic Terrans and then a few "actually good" Terrans, like Morrow. All the Zerg players are patient macro masters like IdrA and Dimaga. So yes there might be a playstyle that Zerg can be played with that allows them to win at very high level BUT the lack of versatility is very worrying. As I said before, these stats can't show high level balance, but to me what they show is a very poorly constructed game where one race has far too much versatility. What I'm saying is that it is foremost a player ranking, not a snapshot of race distribution. And even if it was a snapshot of race distribution (like if Blizzard didn't publish names, just races) then it's totally uninteresting because this forum is 90% full of people talking about race balance. It'd be just another drop in the bucket and absolutely nothing new would be discovered other than "the trend of a large number of Terrans and a small number of Zergs is still going strong on NA server" It is bad for the forum when every single topic that can potentially be turned into a discussion about race balance is turned into a discussion about race balance. There are other things to talk about. If no one was talking about race balance and this ranking was published and someone said "oh shit look at all those Terrans and where are the Zergs?!?!" that would be reasonable. But unfortunately the only thing really going on here is the stifling of any potential discussion about a player ranking by people who want to repeat the same thing about race balance for the 1000th time. What is the number 1 thing that sticks out in the OP? Obviously the dominance of T and the lack of any actual NA Z. People are naturally going to discuss why this occurred. What exactly do you propose should be the topic of discussion? "Damn, Fenix is baller." "Select is massing some games, yeah!" There's no discussion there, just comments, and the thread would have died by page 3 (although maybe you'd prefer that over it degenerating into something worse). Just think it's more appropriate in this topic than most others. If you've been following the GSL then you've probably heard many people wanting to hear more about the players so that they have some history and context and trivia to spice up the games. Ladder ranking is one of those things. That's all the topic needs to be. Not every topic has to start some huge interesting discussion.
Select kinda got famous for being #1 on ladder. Yeah that's a point of interest. And if you look carefully at the ladder, you'd see there are actually some people playing quite a few games and failing to pass up Select. It's interesting. If those people then play in a tournament and do better than Select, that's interesting. But people don't know what the hell is going on on the ladder except what the race distribution is.
It'd be absolutely ridiculous if someone thought "well this thread isn't going anywhere so I think I'll point out the race distribution and start up the 200th discussion about Terran's dominance and Zerg's troubles. I know that this weekly NA ranking isn't going to help us advance this discussion at all, so it'll just be more of the same, but I've gotta at least bring it up"
Nobody should care about what the race distribution is at this point. If you hadn't been to TL.net in the past month and you stumbled upon this topic then yeah you might have a reason to care. But no, it's this circle jerk of newbies discussing race balance that goes from topic to topic looking for any thread to pollute with their bullshit balance discussions.
|
If you're so certain I have no experience in handling something like that, you're more than welcomed to try it of course...
Actions speak louder than words (or text).
|
On September 15 2010 02:46 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2010 02:33 SniXSniPe wrote:On September 15 2010 02:09 FabledIntegral wrote:
highly doubt it. If you're a random player you've never played vs 2gate proxy at natural. I bet you have zero experience holding that off. Sure I have. I also know when/how to scout properly. Besides that... 2gate proxy. I haven't seen this since like... placement matches, or some 2v2 games. On September 15 2010 02:03 Ghazwan wrote:
So what you are arguing is that T is the most fun to play and Z is dull and the point of this argument is that you can get to top 20 in no time, even as a Z player? OK!
Btw, you can't.
Perhaps the reason Zerg has a lower player count than the other races is because it is not a very appealing race/seems quite dull, compared to say, Terran, thus a lower percentage of players are in the top 200, as there is a lower population (also contributions from "imba"). But has anyone taken a look at the average diamond player zerg stats? That would be the most interesting to me. Also I could. Are you mad that I could with any of the three races? It's really not that difficult for any good player, so long as they have plenty of time to play games. So since it wasn't used vs you since the placement matches, I'm guessing you have no experience actually holding it off. Case in point. It's almost never done in 2v2 as there's no reason to do it in 2v2, unless you proxy outsided your opponent's natural/near his base, which is completely different than building it outside your own natural, which is for the purpose of defense and keeping your opponent on 1 base while you expand yourself. There's no way you could have possibly faced this strat on random, it would mean your opponent scouting before they even built their second probe. By scouting so early you lose the entire effectiveness of the build. Show nested quote +On September 15 2010 02:46 crappen wrote:On September 15 2010 02:13 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 15 2010 02:09 Liquid`Tyler wrote:On September 15 2010 00:29 Klive5ive wrote:On September 14 2010 23:24 Liquid`Tyler wrote:On September 14 2010 14:14 illumination wrote: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 How do you discuss players? Racial imbalance is part of the player so you cant really separate them. I guess you can have one of those idra videos where he bms everyone but we know how those go... W.E i guess ill start. Silver has like 90 apm and is just bad at the game but hes a top player now. That was much more productive! Search "kespa rank" in BW forum for examples. Less is known about these SC2 players than those BW players. But interesting things can be done like grabbing stats from sc2ranks and attaching them to Blizzard's ranking. People could discuss what players seem to be better at ladder and what players seem to be better at tournaments (and why this might be the case). People could point out who has high/low win percentage and high/low games played. For people to take this thread as an opportunity to discuss race balance for the billionth time is just ridiculously embarrassingly bad and so boring and unfortunately there isn't really any good reason to ban anyone for it. Why don't you explain what you're saying? What I see from the stats is that Terran is too versatile. You have gimmicky Terrans, all-in Terrans, strategic Terrans and then a few "actually good" Terrans, like Morrow. All the Zerg players are patient macro masters like IdrA and Dimaga. So yes there might be a playstyle that Zerg can be played with that allows them to win at very high level BUT the lack of versatility is very worrying. As I said before, these stats can't show high level balance, but to me what they show is a very poorly constructed game where one race has far too much versatility. What I'm saying is that it is foremost a player ranking, not a snapshot of race distribution. And even if it was a snapshot of race distribution (like if Blizzard didn't publish names, just races) then it's totally uninteresting because this forum is 90% full of people talking about race balance. It'd be just another drop in the bucket and absolutely nothing new would be discovered other than "the trend of a large number of Terrans and a small number of Zergs is still going strong on NA server" It is bad for the forum when every single topic that can potentially be turned into a discussion about race balance is turned into a discussion about race balance. There are other things to talk about. If no one was talking about race balance and this ranking was published and someone said "oh shit look at all those Terrans and where are the Zergs?!?!" that would be reasonable. But unfortunately the only thing really going on here is the stifling of any potential discussion about a player ranking by people who want to repeat the same thing about race balance for the 1000th time. What is the number 1 thing that sticks out in the OP? Obviously the dominance of T and the lack of any actual NA Z. People are naturally going to discuss why this occurred. What exactly do you propose should be the topic of discussion? "Damn, Fenix is baller." "Select is massing some games, yeah!" There's no discussion there, just comments, and the thread would have died by page 3 (although maybe you'd prefer that over it degenerating into something worse). Just think it's more appropriate in this topic than most others. I agree with Tyler here, even though its somewhat tempting to discuss racial balance, it would be a much better read if people just discussed the players. What is SelecT really doing, what is his style? Basically, discussing the players. I am a zerg player, I get it, they lack in every department and have an uphill battle. My eyes are cried out, I have no more tears left, and right now, I just want to see the forums here settle down, discussing more interesting things beside balance in every freaking thread. Patch is around the corner, small changes, that might help boost our economy to make it not feel like such an uphill battle. Further concerns will be seen in tournaments by blizzard, no need to cry so much, as I have cried. So what can you tell me exactly about select then that will fuel this discussion?
I was hoping you could tell me, I dont know SelecT, but I am curious how he is so good in ladder.
|
On September 15 2010 02:48 Liquid`Tyler wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2010 02:13 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 15 2010 02:09 Liquid`Tyler wrote:On September 15 2010 00:29 Klive5ive wrote:On September 14 2010 23:24 Liquid`Tyler wrote:On September 14 2010 14:14 illumination wrote: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 How do you discuss players? Racial imbalance is part of the player so you cant really separate them. I guess you can have one of those idra videos where he bms everyone but we know how those go... W.E i guess ill start. Silver has like 90 apm and is just bad at the game but hes a top player now. That was much more productive! Search "kespa rank" in BW forum for examples. Less is known about these SC2 players than those BW players. But interesting things can be done like grabbing stats from sc2ranks and attaching them to Blizzard's ranking. People could discuss what players seem to be better at ladder and what players seem to be better at tournaments (and why this might be the case). People could point out who has high/low win percentage and high/low games played. For people to take this thread as an opportunity to discuss race balance for the billionth time is just ridiculously embarrassingly bad and so boring and unfortunately there isn't really any good reason to ban anyone for it. Why don't you explain what you're saying? What I see from the stats is that Terran is too versatile. You have gimmicky Terrans, all-in Terrans, strategic Terrans and then a few "actually good" Terrans, like Morrow. All the Zerg players are patient macro masters like IdrA and Dimaga. So yes there might be a playstyle that Zerg can be played with that allows them to win at very high level BUT the lack of versatility is very worrying. As I said before, these stats can't show high level balance, but to me what they show is a very poorly constructed game where one race has far too much versatility. What I'm saying is that it is foremost a player ranking, not a snapshot of race distribution. And even if it was a snapshot of race distribution (like if Blizzard didn't publish names, just races) then it's totally uninteresting because this forum is 90% full of people talking about race balance. It'd be just another drop in the bucket and absolutely nothing new would be discovered other than "the trend of a large number of Terrans and a small number of Zergs is still going strong on NA server" It is bad for the forum when every single topic that can potentially be turned into a discussion about race balance is turned into a discussion about race balance. There are other things to talk about. If no one was talking about race balance and this ranking was published and someone said "oh shit look at all those Terrans and where are the Zergs?!?!" that would be reasonable. But unfortunately the only thing really going on here is the stifling of any potential discussion about a player ranking by people who want to repeat the same thing about race balance for the 1000th time. What is the number 1 thing that sticks out in the OP? Obviously the dominance of T and the lack of any actual NA Z. People are naturally going to discuss why this occurred. What exactly do you propose should be the topic of discussion? "Damn, Fenix is baller." "Select is massing some games, yeah!" There's no discussion there, just comments, and the thread would have died by page 3 (although maybe you'd prefer that over it degenerating into something worse). Just think it's more appropriate in this topic than most others. If you've been following the GSL then you've probably heard many people wanting to hear more about the players so that they have some history and context and trivia to spice up the games. Ladder ranking is one of those things. That's all the topic needs to be. Not every topic has to start some huge interesting discussion. Select kinda got famous for being #1 on ladder. Yeah that's a point of interest. And if you look carefully at the ladder, you'd see there are actually some people playing quite a few games and failing to pass up Select. It's interesting. If those people then play in a tournament and do better than Select, that's interesting. But people don't know what the hell is going on on the ladder except what the race distribution is. It'd be absolutely ridiculous if someone thought "well this thread isn't going anywhere so I think I'll point out the race distribution and start up the 200th discussion about Terran's dominance and Zerg's troubles. I know that this weekly NA ranking isn't going to help us advance this discussion at all, so it'll just be more of the same, but I've gotta at least bring it up" Nobody should care about what the race distribution is at this point. If you hadn't been to TL.net in the past month and you stumbled upon this topic then yeah you might have a reason to care. But no, it's this circle jerk of newbies discussing race balance that goes from topic to topic looking for any thread to pollute with their bullshit balance discussions.
I agree with you Tyler. However, unless the mods start to block comments about imbalances, I don't think these discussions will stop.
I think it is important to talk about balance. It is an issue and it influences the game. But, people should realize that balancing takes time. There's no need to rage about it and overdo it.
Blizzard is working on it, they are patching the game. When they are not, then we rage and claim our rights.
|
Wow not 1 NA zerg in the top 20...
|
On September 15 2010 02:48 Liquid`Tyler wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2010 02:13 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 15 2010 02:09 Liquid`Tyler wrote:On September 15 2010 00:29 Klive5ive wrote:On September 14 2010 23:24 Liquid`Tyler wrote:On September 14 2010 14:14 illumination wrote: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 How do you discuss players? Racial imbalance is part of the player so you cant really separate them. I guess you can have one of those idra videos where he bms everyone but we know how those go... W.E i guess ill start. Silver has like 90 apm and is just bad at the game but hes a top player now. That was much more productive! Search "kespa rank" in BW forum for examples. Less is known about these SC2 players than those BW players. But interesting things can be done like grabbing stats from sc2ranks and attaching them to Blizzard's ranking. People could discuss what players seem to be better at ladder and what players seem to be better at tournaments (and why this might be the case). People could point out who has high/low win percentage and high/low games played. For people to take this thread as an opportunity to discuss race balance for the billionth time is just ridiculously embarrassingly bad and so boring and unfortunately there isn't really any good reason to ban anyone for it. Why don't you explain what you're saying? What I see from the stats is that Terran is too versatile. You have gimmicky Terrans, all-in Terrans, strategic Terrans and then a few "actually good" Terrans, like Morrow. All the Zerg players are patient macro masters like IdrA and Dimaga. So yes there might be a playstyle that Zerg can be played with that allows them to win at very high level BUT the lack of versatility is very worrying. As I said before, these stats can't show high level balance, but to me what they show is a very poorly constructed game where one race has far too much versatility. What I'm saying is that it is foremost a player ranking, not a snapshot of race distribution. And even if it was a snapshot of race distribution (like if Blizzard didn't publish names, just races) then it's totally uninteresting because this forum is 90% full of people talking about race balance. It'd be just another drop in the bucket and absolutely nothing new would be discovered other than "the trend of a large number of Terrans and a small number of Zergs is still going strong on NA server" It is bad for the forum when every single topic that can potentially be turned into a discussion about race balance is turned into a discussion about race balance. There are other things to talk about. If no one was talking about race balance and this ranking was published and someone said "oh shit look at all those Terrans and where are the Zergs?!?!" that would be reasonable. But unfortunately the only thing really going on here is the stifling of any potential discussion about a player ranking by people who want to repeat the same thing about race balance for the 1000th time. What is the number 1 thing that sticks out in the OP? Obviously the dominance of T and the lack of any actual NA Z. People are naturally going to discuss why this occurred. What exactly do you propose should be the topic of discussion? "Damn, Fenix is baller." "Select is massing some games, yeah!" There's no discussion there, just comments, and the thread would have died by page 3 (although maybe you'd prefer that over it degenerating into something worse). Just think it's more appropriate in this topic than most others. If you've been following the GSL then you've probably heard many people wanting to hear more about the players so that they have some history and context and trivia to spice up the games. Ladder ranking is one of those things. That's all the topic needs to be. Not every topic has to start some huge interesting discussion. Select kinda got famous for being #1 on ladder. Yeah that's a point of interest. And if you look carefully at the ladder, you'd see there are actually some people playing quite a few games and failing to pass up Select. It's interesting. If those people then play in a tournament and do better than Select, that's interesting. But people don't know what the hell is going on on the ladder except what the race distribution is. It'd be absolutely ridiculous if someone thought "well this thread isn't going anywhere so I think I'll point out the race distribution and start up the 200th discussion about Terran's dominance and Zerg's troubles. I know that this weekly NA ranking isn't going to help us advance this discussion at all, so it'll just be more of the same, but I've gotta at least bring it up" Nobody should care about what the race distribution is at this point. If you hadn't been to TL.net in the past month and you stumbled upon this topic then yeah you might have a reason to care. But no, it's this circle jerk of newbies discussing race balance that goes from topic to topic looking for any thread to pollute with their bullshit balance discussions.
The thing is, do you know his playstyle? Feel free to talk about it. But they are just names to me. I've never seen him play. I've played a few games vs Fenix before and was thoroughly stomped all 3x. All 3x were Thor drop and more so around the beginning of game release (maybe beta?). The thing is I don't think anyone really knows anything so how is this discussion going to start? You more than anyone should be qualified to talk about him considering you're one of the ones that even competes at that top level that you'd be getting matched against him.
It's not as much to do with "this thread isn't going anywhere" as much as it is "this thread is specifically detailing the lack of any NA zerg in the top 20 and the complete dominance of Terran in the top 20." As I said before, I think you're crazy to suggest this wouldn't be the topic, if it has to happen, where such speculation on imbalance would occur. Sure, the discussion has nearly plagued the forums and turned up nearly everywhere. So is it really that surprising that it resurfaces in a thread so insanely relevant to it?! Instead you should get annoyed that every thread can someone turn into this balance debate, as opposed to ones that are clearly portraying racial distributions amongst the top and T dominance on the ladder.
|
A solution to the out of control balance talk that is going on in almost every thread, is to create a subforum for balance. If you got beef with balance, take it up there.
Please do something to increase the quality life of this forum.
|
the only zerg in the american top 20 is actually a korean zerg in disguise.
yeehaw
|
I'm not a mod but I don't see why people posting about balance in this thread can't get a warning? This topic has nothing to do with balance itself. You may learn something perhaps related to balance here, for example that apparently there is 1 Zerg in top 20 NA, but you don't post about it here because this topic is about the rankings themselves. I would say, go post it in an appropriate location, but I am not a mod.
I would be more interested in discussing what types of games the best players pull off in order to keep their rank, trends related to the top players styles and strategies, etc. In fact, I think if this was what was being talked about, Zerg players might get some potential ideas out of the constructive discussion...
|
On September 15 2010 02:59 crappen wrote: A solution to the out of control balance talk that is going on in almost every thread, is to create a subforum for balance. If you got beef with balance, take it up there.
Please do something to increase the quality life of this forum.
I wouldn't argue with that, but you'd still expect in threads like these, for maybe not while discussing balance changes, for balance comments to be brought up (oh wow, look how T is dominating, etc.).
My entire point is that if there ever was an appropriate topic for discussion such as this, it would be THIS topic or the tourney topic about tourney winners. Because it asks, "Why are there so many T's on the top of the ladder," or "why are T's dominating all tournaments?" Imbalance shouldn't be someone's first thoughts, until people see the extremities at which are occurring. Once again, no I'm not even claiming TvZ is imba or even trying to bring it up, I'm just trying to say it's appropriate that discussion about it is brought up here rather than elsewhere.
|
Gogo Masq
Thanks for updating. I never take the time to check official SC2 site for these things.
|
Not going to make a separate thread for the Europe rankings:
http://eu.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/683001
1. Demuslim (T) 2. Naama (T) 3. Morrow (T) 4. Pokeroffkas (T) 5. Mana (P) 6. Cloud (T) 7. Tarson (T) 8. SharkGSjow (T) 9. HuK (P) 10. DuckloadRa (P) 11. Darkforce (Z) 12. Keysu (T) 13. Lucifron (T) 14. Pomi (P) 15. KiwiKaki (P) 16. srsRAZERnAni (P) 17. BratOK (T) 18. Strelok (T) 19. Dimaga (Z) 20. ServyOa (T)
T - 12 P - 6 Z - 2
I will say regardless of any balance discussion Demuslim is a beast. 191 - 43 is just nasty!
|
Nerf marauders/tanks plz.
way too many terran
|
I definitely agree with the general sentiment that Zergs are underpowered. However, there is some truth to the idea of a self-fulfilling prophecy in Terran popularity. If everyone thinks Terran is OP, then more players will be inclined to play them, thereby further increasing the disparity between Terran representation and all the other races.
|
|
On September 15 2010 02:33 SniXSniPe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2010 02:09 FabledIntegral wrote:
highly doubt it. If you're a random player you've never played vs 2gate proxy at natural. I bet you have zero experience holding that off. Sure I have. I also know when/how to scout properly. Besides that... 2gate proxy. I haven't seen this since like... placement matches, or some 2v2 games. Show nested quote +On September 15 2010 02:03 Ghazwan wrote:
So what you are arguing is that T is the most fun to play and Z is dull and the point of this argument is that you can get to top 20 in no time, even as a Z player? OK!
Btw, you can't.
Perhaps the reason Zerg has a lower player count than the other races is because it is not a very appealing race/seems quite dull, compared to say, Terran, thus a lower percentage of players are in the top 200, as there is a lower population (also contributions from "imba"). But has anyone taken a look at the average diamond player zerg stats? That would be the most interesting to me. Also I could. Are you mad that I could with any of the three races? It's really not that difficult for any good player, so long as they have plenty of time to play games.
No, no you couldn't.
|
Seriously all the people complaining that T is OP spurs more people to play T. And since they really don't seem to care to be innovative or try something new or tightening up their play the more T's there are vs the more under represented Z's creates and even bigger race and "skill disparity".
People who don't even analyze the "apparent" balance issues but complain just cause their race to suffer more until they reach a point where Blizzards like, "this is probably gonna break the game but whatever at least we'll get the monkeys off our backs."
|
Just some historical numbers for perspective. Top 20 is a bit unstable. But the Top 200 hasn't changed much in four weeks.
Top 20 NA 8/23 T=10 P=9 Z=1 8/30 T=9 P=8 Z=3 9/7 T=11 P=6 Z=3 9/14 T=15 P=4 Z=1
Top 200 NA 8/23 T=89 P=64 Z=42 8/30 T=92 P=63 Z=38 9/7 T=92 P=59 Z=42 9/14 T=90 P= 66 Z=37
|
Would be curious to see how these stack up to the sc2ranks site, with +/- in ranking for the top 100. Perhaps we could then get a better handle on how Blizz actually ranks the players internally.
|
Interesting point: 2 weeks ago I had almost exactly 1 week of inactivity in ladder, the next week (I had about 3 days of ladder before the rankings) I was off the top 200 even when I had the points to be in there (Daboo was on I think and I had just beaten him twice that day and there was like 100 points between us) and now I jumped to #137.
So it seems activity is an appreciable factor. Idra was on there for a certain time so it probably drops you a certain amount based on days inactive.
Another note: Draco playing P at #182!
|
The past 3 top 20 articles I have read on here have a max of about 3 zerg, BOTH NA and EU.
Honestly its just disgusting, how can somebody NOT talk about racial imbalance at this point considering only P and T have been winning tournaments on top of it.
This game is becoming Starcraft 2: Wings of Terran/Protoss
|
terran is OP we all know that, they need to nerf Marauder drops
|
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.
Am I the only one who finds Terran players that whine about Zerg whiners even more annoying?
|
Ladder is a bit hard to judge [from the racial standpoint], there are people (myself) who are high rated but use an account to test and try builds. The player that plays relatively 'standard' every game and doesn't forfeit his bonus pool (By this kind of practice, also assuming he is skilled) will obviously climb to the top.
Ignoring 'balance' of all units the other factor why Terran is such a large percentage is because they are currently the only race that can rely on a general build with the variant they like while the other two races are unable to do so.
|
On September 14 2010 07:53 Slayer91 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2010 07:49 VirtuallyLost wrote: I feel pretty good as a zerg player right now. Im not failing horribly, but once the patch comes out all zergs players would hit a pretty high point because they delt with being the underpowered race. Unless you lose every game to 5 rax reaper and 2 gate it won't make much of a difference.
Yea, tanks are never used in TvZ.
Why even mention them in this match-up, how silly.
|
|
|
|