EPTIMBALANCED! - Introduction - Page 54
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
If you have criticism, you need to address the content, not the hosts. Idra and Artosis are 2 (1.5) Zerg players, but you can't point that out and then blanket them as biased. Respond to the content. You can't tell them to "get 2 Terran and Protoss players". That's fucking obtuse advice. "Yo just get 4 more high level players to record with you." Yes, I think everyone sees the value in getting it, but it's not practical. Respond to the content and use evidence / logic to back up your claims. | ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 Posts
| ||
|
Fallen33
United States596 Posts
| ||
|
Sv1
United States204 Posts
i think this show is not a good thing. people will take this gospel of idra and artosis to be complete truth and while valid on levels, here are two players who are both vocal about their views of the game. i obviously expect that the two of them would speak from zerg points of view so i take it knowing that is where their experience stems from In this episode they almost skip pvt entirely becauase vikings are better than corrupters and then spending a majority of the time highlighting the difficulties zerg have against toss. really thats the pvt debate? Whats more is that time spiral posts in this thread a breakdown comparing siege units of races, to which people jump on him for not citing gas mineral supply and tech. hate to say it but nor did idra and artosis. i didnt even hear any mention of chronoboost. additionally idra then describes a situation zerg has vs colls (around 17ish minute mark) that terran also has. colls being mobile and sentry ffs making it tough for the ground army. i view this episode as a shameless op-ed. i can only hope that they will expand their pov and approach it with a more empircal analysis than what they experience in the games they play. ever hear sportswriters debate events or teams? they cite pros and cons and specific players and plays and trends between the two, they dont say "the packers will win because they have imbalanced players" they back it up with stats and replays. until this series does this i cant see it being anymore than a legitimized flamefest. when idra and artosis do it, its founded. but when tlposter #1134 and tlposter#5521 debate they are baseless whiners. but of course nowadays anyone can get the news that THEY want to hear and not hear an opposing side. how come we never heard the question "what happens when p doesnt get collossus?" | ||
|
Maximumraver
Netherlands124 Posts
 So consider your post x 2 | ||
|
BoondockVeritas
United States191 Posts
| ||
|
Dawski
Canada435 Posts
| ||
|
Sapphire.lux
Romania2620 Posts
| ||
|
Velocirapture
United States983 Posts
| ||
|
Barca
United States418 Posts
I'd love for less emphasis on FF and Collosus. While everyone else says they're OP, I feel that they are too much of a liability. I can't tell you how many times I've lost because it's damn hard to get both of those out in good numbers, and if you can't do this, your army dies. The only way to support this combination is to be incredibly sentry heavy in the beginning and then transfer to Collosus. You can't get both out at the same time due to the gas requirements. So if you lose either of these just once, you lose the game. Of course, if you can infact get both, you can just steamroll him, but any good Zerg doesn't allow this to happen. Hence why the "300 food push" is so common. If Zerg loses it's army, it can remake it almost immediately. The Protoss cannot lose his army. Yaya Collosus may be too strong, but this also makes them incredible fragile. Screw 'em. | ||
|
Chinesewonder
Canada354 Posts
Cheers. | ||
|
epoc
Finland1190 Posts
| ||
|
madcow305
United States152 Posts
Firstly, they mention that an example of a build that might have been imbalanced, and turned out to actually be imbalanced, was the mass Reaper builds that Terrans used against Zerg. They state that in hindsight, the Reaper nerfs were necessary. Then, as an example of something that might have been imbalanced, but turned out to be fine, they cited the mass Mutalisk strategy against Protoss in Beta. They say that in hindsight, mass muta is totally fine against Protoss because the Tosses eventually figured out a build that completely nullified Mutalisks. Now, the problems with these statements are twofold: 1. Idra and Artosis ignore the fact that in the Reaper example they gave, Blizzard nerfed the unit into uselessness. After the combined nerfs of Barracks requiring a Supply Depot, and the Reaper speed requiring a Factory, Reapers were never used again in high level matches. Isn't this going from overpowered/imbalanced to underpowered? Yet, the duo never mentions anything like that. From their point of view, the fact that Reapers are now seldom-used units does not bother them. 2. Idra and Artosis state that mass Muta was overcome by Protosses essentially "learning to play better." However, they ignore the fact that Stalkers were buffed to deal more damage to light armor units, and static defenses were also buffed, allowing them to better withstand Muta harass. From what they're saying, it seems like they feel everything a Zerg can do can be overcome with better game knowledge, control, timings, etc. However, not everything Protoss/Terran can do to Zergs can be overcome with better control, knowledge of timings, etc. In short, in the first 5 minutes of the video, I'm already getting the vibe that this is a giant QQ session. The two are ignoring the fact that even though Zerg units have been nerfed, they have never been nerfed into the point of uselessness. Roaches, even after the nerf from 2 armor/1 supply, are a staple in all three matchups, unlike the Reaper. Mutalisks were so powerful in massive numbers in beta that both Terran and Protoss had to have their units buffed to deal with them. Missile Turrets went from dealing bonus damage to armored units, to dealing a flat amount against everything, buffing them against Mutalisks. Thors gained an air splash attack. Stalkers gained more damage to light armor, and photon cannons gained more HP/shields. However, none of this was stated. It's like to Idra and Artosis, the fact that Mutas were so powerful never existed. The best part is, even after these units were significantly buffed to deal with them, Mutalisks are still used in every matchup, unlike the Reaper. If someone who knew nothing came and watched this video, they would come away with the conclusion that Zerg is always getting the short end of the stick, their units are never overpowered, and everything they do can be countered by more advanced game sense, control, more mature builds, and a different style of play. However, Zerg can't adjust to things T/P can do, and the only thing that will save the race is to have Blizzard buff them. | ||
|
Deekin[
Serbia1713 Posts
| ||
|
Mafs
Canada458 Posts
On February 07 2011 06:50 Barca wrote: Alright, I play Protoss. I'd love for less emphasis on FF and Collosus. While everyone else says they're OP, I feel that they are too much of a liability. I can't tell you how many times I've lost because it's damn hard to get both of those out in good numbers, and if you can't do this, your army dies. The only way to support this combination is to be incredibly sentry heavy in the beginning and then transfer to Collosus. You can't get both out at the same time due to the gas requirements. So if you lose either of these just once, you lose the game. Of course, if you can infact get both, you can just steamroll him, but any good Zerg doesn't allow this to happen. Hence why the "300 food push" is so common. If Zerg loses it's army, it can remake it almost immediately. The Protoss cannot lose his army. Yaya Collosus may be too strong, but this also makes them incredible fragile. Screw 'em. Zerg cannot lose their army and remake it. units cost something. Larva inject and larva stacking is extremely important if they intend to do so. Protoss can lose his army. 2 robo can make collosus come out faster then you think if they use choronboost. And 10 gateways can remake 20% of his army every 20 secs. I've been playing against a friend recently, he is a random player. ZvP we are about the same skill level, mine is slighly better in ZvT other then that we are even with zerg. He says his weakest race is protoss. And he wins 99% of games. The ones where he loses he does something stupid like not make collosus. Or forgets to take his expansion. We played on scrap right now, I scouted his 1 gate star(10 secs after it started), i had 4 queens, and was massing zergling/roach production. He came in with 1 void ray, with more being made and a 5-6 zealots and 3 stalkers. I killed his void ray with 3 queens remaining, but his zealots and stalker raped my ling/roachs. (keep in mind i have less workers then him all this time on 2 base. I scouted it and made as much defense as i could) then he kept pushing with 1-2 void rays and zealots while taking his expansion. He killed all my queens so I has my hydra den up. Made about 10-20 units of roachs/hydras. I go through the rocks and try to take him out. He has 1 collosus, a second comes out 10 secs later with 3 void rays and 5 stalkers. WTF Its not balance. Protoss units are way too strong. | ||
|
Squirrel
United States1102 Posts
On February 07 2011 08:01 madcow305 wrote: I've only just watched the first 5 minutes, and already these two are showing their bias when talking about balance between races. If you watch to the end the come to the conclusion(Or Artosis does) that Collosi are not OP and that Zerg just need to get better to learn to counter it. Just because they used 2 examples that you disagreed with, that doesn't make them bias'd. | ||
|
Spekulatius
Germany2413 Posts
| ||
|
madcow305
United States152 Posts
On February 07 2011 08:14 Seam wrote: If you watch to the end the come to the conclusion(Or Artosis does) that Collosi are not OP and that Zerg just need to get better to learn to counter it. Just because they used 2 examples that you disagreed with, that doesn't make them bias'd. They only used 1 example for something that was genuinely imbalanced (Reapers), and 1 example for something that seemed imbalanced, but turned out fine in the end (mass Mutalisks). Both were poor examples of balance, in that Reapers may have been too strong, but now they're too weak, and Mutalisks were too strong, but people didn't learn to just overcome them, Blizzard actually had to buff Terran and Protoss to counter mass Muta. If they had given more examples, we'd all have more things to critique, but they did not. And now that I have watched to the end, here are my thoughts on the video as a whole: The rest of the video is not as obviously biased as the introduction was. Indeed, Idrosis admit that the Colossus may or may not be too powerful. However, one central theme they mention throughout the analysis caught my attention, and is something that doesn't make sense. They state that when a matchup revolves around a single unit, with the example being how PvZ revolves around the Colossus, then that unit may be imbalanced. This statement is wrong. Take SC1 for example. In TvP, TvT, and in some TvZ, the games revolve around a single unit: the Siege Tank. Protoss, Zerg, and Terrans always have to keep tanks in mind, and always need a way to deal with them, much like how Zergs need to deal with Colossi in SC2. Were tanks imbalanced in SC1? In fact, current ZvP seems a lot like ZvT against a Mech build in SC1. You need Corruptors (Mutalisks) to deal with Colossi (Siege Tanks). However, you also need Roaches/Zerglings (Hydralisks/Zerglings) to deal with Zealot/Stalker/Sentry (Vultures/Goliaths). ZvT in SC1 against a Mech Terran also utilizes the same strategy of flanking, engaging as far from your base as possible, and balancing the right number of Mutas vs Hydras that ZvP in SC2 use. So, is Mech imbalanced against Zerg in SC1? | ||
|
misirlou
Portugal3308 Posts
On February 07 2011 08:37 madcow305 wrote: They only used 1 example for something that was genuinely imbalanced (Reapers), and 1 example for something that seemed imbalanced, but turned out fine in the end (mass Mutalisks). Both were poor examples of balance, in that Reapers may have been too strong, but now they're too weak, and Mutalisks were too strong, but people didn't learn to just overcome them, Blizzard actually had to buff Terran and Protoss to counter mass Muta. If they had given more examples, we'd all have more things to critique, but they did not. they did mention the roach. And its a damn good example of a balanced unit. You failed to mention it because it wasnt convinient. | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
On February 07 2011 08:13 Mafs wrote: Zerg cannot lose their army and remake it. units cost something. Larva inject and larva stacking is extremely important if they intend to do so. Protoss can lose his army. 2 robo can make collosus come out faster then you think if they use choronboost. And 10 gateways can remake 20% of his army every 20 secs. I've been playing against a friend recently, he is a random player. ZvP we are about the same skill level, mine is slighly better in ZvT other then that we are even with zerg. He says his weakest race is protoss. And he wins 99% of games. The ones where he loses he does something stupid like not make collosus. Or forgets to take his expansion. We played on scrap right now, I scouted his 1 gate star(10 secs after it started), i had 4 queens, and was massing zergling/roach production. He came in with 1 void ray, with more being made and a 5-6 zealots and 3 stalkers. I killed his void ray with 3 queens remaining, but his zealots and stalker raped my ling/roachs. (keep in mind i have less workers then him all this time on 2 base. I scouted it and made as much defense as i could) then he kept pushing with 1-2 void rays and zealots while taking his expansion. He killed all my queens so I has my hydra den up. Made about 10-20 units of roachs/hydras. I go through the rocks and try to take him out. He has 1 collosus, a second comes out 10 secs later with 3 void rays and 5 stalkers. WTF Its not balance. Protoss units are way too strong. Do you even play this game? Are you really complaining about a zergs inability to remake units while saying protoss can easily replace things, like colossi? Holy shit. Not only is that absurd, it's false as a matter of absolute fact. Warpgates is one thing, Robos is another. Also, zerg is by far the best are instantly remaking armies late-game, which is when you run into double robos. | ||
|
NrG.YuY
47 Posts
every race has it's problems and every race is hard to play. | ||
| ||
