Boxer: might go random if Terran gets nerfed again. - Page…

On November 02 2010 02:36 Phrencys wrote:
This is gonna sound cliché and simplistic, but perhaps Terran have been used to have it so easy in early game that they still have to figure out late game? Early tournaments were all about Terran cheesing/mass reapering/marauder-building-sniping tactics. They didn't have to bother with macroing because they could so often end the game in 9minutes.

For example, Terrans suddenly stopped making tanks and reapers altogether as if the units were removed from the game. Reaper speed now require a Factory? That's Blizzard telling you to do mid-game harass with them. Send 6-7 reapers into an exposed base instead of solely relying on marauder drops. Believe it or not they still drop buildings incredibly fast. While this certainly cannot replace pre 1.1.2 marauder drops on all maps, players could at LEAST give this kind of stuff a try before making QQ posts on forums.

On November 02 2010 02:59 Toxigen wrote:
Right now, though, these answers are part of an interview. It's not like BoxeR volunteered his opinion about balance with the ulterior motive of getting his race buffed -- he was solicited for his honest opinion and he gave it.

On November 02 2010 19:21 Fluxx wrote:


Finally other people confirm what I have been feeling for some time now!
The two major vocal flagships of the western community were both zerg. I think this influenced the general opinion ALOT. Though I really respect Idra as a gamer, and Artosis as a caster, they are both sooo biased. Artosis should be a shoutcaster first, and a gamer second.

Day[9] for example, never ever lets something out concerning balance. He actually motivates creative thinking and diverse play rather then stating X IS OP.
I still can not honostly believe for example that the state of the game is currently "good" if zerg can go a BLIND hatchery first, and ALWAYS get away with it.

There should be more flagships be vocal about all the races and hopefully Blizzard will start buffing things, instead of nerfing the crap out of everything else.

On November 02 2010 21:26 Skyze wrote:
Can someone explain to me this "Terran sucks in lategame" theory?? Has any evidence at all point to this? It seems every terran has completely dominated protoss in GSL.. Maybe vs Z, sure once a Z gets 5+ bases its hard for terran, but as far as TvP is concerned, I dont understand this statement.

If we are theorycrafting how "Ohh protoss has collosus and storms".. What about Terran getting units other than marauders?? I know I would much rather have mass tanks and vikings over collosus and storms. Tanks still do insane damage, and vikings can take out collosus fast while dodging storms. Then we get into BCs vs Carriers.. BCs easily win there.

Im just curious; if any of you played any high level (diamond 1000+ at least) FFA games that actually get to the "lategame" (ie 200/200 armies with 3-3 upgrades)... 9 times out of 10, Terrans will win in the end with BCs/thors/marines/tanks, it can take out every protoss army with little effort.

Anyways, not saying terran is overpowered (just marauders obviously still much needed nerf).. I'd say TvP is about 99% perfect balance besides marauders, but im still flabbergasted with this whole "Terran sucks lategame" argument.. Can anyone show me ANY sort of proof??

On November 02 2010 21:26 Skyze wrote:
Can someone explain to me this "Terran sucks in lategame" theory?? Has any evidence at all point to this? It seems every terran has completely dominated protoss in GSL.. Maybe vs Z, sure once a Z gets 5+ bases its hard for terran, but as far as TvP is concerned, I dont understand this statement.

If we are theorycrafting how "Ohh protoss has collosus and storms".. What about Terran getting units other than marauders?? I know I would much rather have mass tanks and vikings over collosus and storms. Tanks still do insane damage, and vikings can take out collosus fast while dodging storms. Then we get into BCs vs Carriers.. BCs easily win there.

Im just curious; if any of you played any high level (diamond 1000+ at least) FFA games that actually get to the "lategame" (ie 200/200 armies with 3-3 upgrades)... 9 times out of 10, Terrans will win in the end with BCs/thors/marines/tanks, it can take out every protoss army with little effort.

Anyways, not saying terran is overpowered (just marauders obviously still much needed nerf).. I'd say TvP is about 99% perfect balance besides marauders, but im still flabbergasted with this whole "Terran sucks lategame" argument.. Can anyone show me ANY sort of proof??

On November 02 2010 22:53 Sqq wrote:
Boxer said in his interview after beating nada that he is a "crying terran". Some word in Korean for it. So he cries about it just to cry about it. Terran is still a tad OP compared to Zerg and Protoss. The only natural thing we are seing after slight nerfs are the shitty people abusing their insane OPness earlier to grab ranks etc getting bumped down to where they belong. And worst off all even those ranks will be inflated.

On November 02 2010 08:20 TheGreatHegemon wrote:


Wrong again. T's late game is weak AND flawed. If T early game was balanced, it'd be brutally apparent too.

On November 03 2010 11:14 Mobius wrote:
i bet this guy will make the weakest race the most powerful.. he seems like that kinda guy

On November 05 2010 20:22 ghostnuke1234 wrote:


Well, if Foxer's play is any sign of how to play Z, the only way T can beat Z is early game. Going to mid game or late game is an auto loss for T against Z.

On November 05 2010 20:35 MrLonely wrote:


A retarded deduction. Just because foxer won early doesn't mean it's impossible to win late. Do you seriously not understand that?

On November 05 2010 23:50 Thrombozyt wrote:


Just because an overwhelming fraction of Terran victories occurred before 10 minutes (that is winning or dealing such a huge and crippling hit that T just rides it smoothly to victory), doesn't mean that T needs to win early and has troubles late?