|
On August 07 2011 16:27 HolyArrow wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2011 16:21 Darclite wrote:On August 07 2011 16:18 HolyArrow wrote:On August 07 2011 16:10 illumn wrote:If he had said EMP had 12 range, I would have understood what he meant, since it's reasonable to say that a 10-range AoE attack with a radius of 2 has 12 effective range. But he said the range was 13, and no matter what definition of range he was talking about, 13 is flat out wrong, so my original point stands. I fail to see how we're saying the exact same thing. I don't really know how to be clearer on this -_-;; If a guy says EMP has 13 range, he is wrong, no matter what definition of range he uses. If someone says EMP has 10 range, he is indeed right with the assumption that you're talking about cast range.
...he admitted to that mistake. Sorry, it's actually 12.
10 range + 2 from AoE. Please look into stuff before trying to make others look bad. Yup. But then he felt the need to nitpick my statement as if my statement was equally as fallacious as his was, when, actually, 10 range is in fact correct in the typical definition of the term. I believe I have already made that argument clear. I don't know how I can improve my clarity. Person A makes fallacious statement, that, no matter how you interpret it, is incorrect. Person B corrects Person A with a statement that, under a typical assumption (the assumption that "range" is the same thing as "casting range", which is a reasonable assumption since that's how it's defined on liquipedia), is indeed correct. So you saw him post something misleading, so you posted something misleading? Why didn't you just correct him and say that it was 10 + 2 rather than say it was 10? I understand what you are saying here describing why you did it...but why not respond to an inaccuracy by being very accurate? You're indeed correct. I should have said, "EMP has 10 range, or, if you want to talk about true range, then it has 12 range. But 13 is neither of those numbers, so you're wrong." However, I had too much faith that people make the same semantical assumptions that I do, even though my assumptions I'd argue are well-supported, since they're in line with the same way "range" is used on liquipedia, and I'm pretty sure that's how "range" is defined in-game as well.
From what ive seen on these forums any well informed person talking about range states the Additional AOE range as well, EMP has been discussed countless amounts of times on these forums and i rarely see its range being discussed with the inclusion of AOE and we are on these forums, not in the game or on liquipedia. Obviously its not a rule or anything and im not even saying you were wrong but you werent exactly right either and he did correct himself. I think true range is a more correct way to define the range of EMP then just casting range, wouldnt you agree.
|
On August 07 2011 16:16 Lncognit0 wrote:
You should expect that Terran would always be ahead to a degree. Alike in Brood War, around the world Terran is the most played race. More people playing it turns into more innovation and more strategies. You only see a few of them at the top level because all the top Terrans figured out what is best to use. Zerg is just fine the way they are, Protoss may need balance help but even that can't be said for sure for at least a month or two when Protoss players have some time to come up with new strategies, unit comps, etc
This is true, and I think it all comes down to Boxer playing terran back in SC1.
Boxer plays terran in sc1->everyone wants to play terran in sc1 to be like boxer->results in more terran sc1 players which then switch to sc2 and play terran->the number of korean terran players in sc2 causes new players to also play terran in order to copy their strats...
I mean, imagine someone switching from BW to SC2 right now. They see that terran is the most played in code S/code A, all their friends are playing terran...it just easier for them to learn terran than the other races.
I think zerg will be ok since you've got nestea/losira.
But all protoss has is MC (who is great, but he hasn't been performing on the same level as Nestea/Losira/Bomber/MVP lately).
|
On August 07 2011 16:33 Executor1 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2011 16:27 HolyArrow wrote:On August 07 2011 16:21 Darclite wrote:On August 07 2011 16:18 HolyArrow wrote:On August 07 2011 16:10 illumn wrote:If he had said EMP had 12 range, I would have understood what he meant, since it's reasonable to say that a 10-range AoE attack with a radius of 2 has 12 effective range. But he said the range was 13, and no matter what definition of range he was talking about, 13 is flat out wrong, so my original point stands. I fail to see how we're saying the exact same thing. I don't really know how to be clearer on this -_-;; If a guy says EMP has 13 range, he is wrong, no matter what definition of range he uses. If someone says EMP has 10 range, he is indeed right with the assumption that you're talking about cast range.
...he admitted to that mistake. Sorry, it's actually 12.
10 range + 2 from AoE. Please look into stuff before trying to make others look bad. Yup. But then he felt the need to nitpick my statement as if my statement was equally as fallacious as his was, when, actually, 10 range is in fact correct in the typical definition of the term. I believe I have already made that argument clear. I don't know how I can improve my clarity. Person A makes fallacious statement, that, no matter how you interpret it, is incorrect. Person B corrects Person A with a statement that, under a typical assumption (the assumption that "range" is the same thing as "casting range", which is a reasonable assumption since that's how it's defined on liquipedia), is indeed correct. So you saw him post something misleading, so you posted something misleading? Why didn't you just correct him and say that it was 10 + 2 rather than say it was 10? I understand what you are saying here describing why you did it...but why not respond to an inaccuracy by being very accurate? You're indeed correct. I should have said, "EMP has 10 range, or, if you want to talk about true range, then it has 12 range. But 13 is neither of those numbers, so you're wrong." However, I had too much faith that people make the same semantical assumptions that I do, even though my assumptions I'd argue are well-supported, since they're in line with the same way "range" is used on liquipedia, and I'm pretty sure that's how "range" is defined in-game as well. From what ive seen on these forums any well informed person talking about range states the Additional AOE range as well, EMP has been discussed countless amounts of times on these forums and i rarely see its range being discussed with the inclusion of AOE and we are on these forums, not in the game or on liquipedia. Obviously its not a rule or anything and im not even saying you were wrong but you werent exactly right either and he did correct himself. I think true range is a more correct way to define the range of EMP then just casting range, wouldnt you agree.
Really? Your forum experience seems to differ from mine, then. I've been in numerous topics discussion Feedback vs. EMP, and I almost always saw people use the term "range" for casting range.
Try giving both my post and his post the benefit of doubt. If we try to give his post the benefit of doubt, we come to the conclusion that saying that EMP has a range of 13 is, no matter what, incorrect. However, if you give my post the benefit of doubt, you come to the conclusion that I'm talking about casting range.
|
On August 07 2011 16:38 HolyArrow wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2011 16:33 Executor1 wrote:On August 07 2011 16:27 HolyArrow wrote:On August 07 2011 16:21 Darclite wrote:On August 07 2011 16:18 HolyArrow wrote:On August 07 2011 16:10 illumn wrote:If he had said EMP had 12 range, I would have understood what he meant, since it's reasonable to say that a 10-range AoE attack with a radius of 2 has 12 effective range. But he said the range was 13, and no matter what definition of range he was talking about, 13 is flat out wrong, so my original point stands. I fail to see how we're saying the exact same thing. I don't really know how to be clearer on this -_-;; If a guy says EMP has 13 range, he is wrong, no matter what definition of range he uses. If someone says EMP has 10 range, he is indeed right with the assumption that you're talking about cast range.
...he admitted to that mistake. Sorry, it's actually 12.
10 range + 2 from AoE. Please look into stuff before trying to make others look bad. Yup. But then he felt the need to nitpick my statement as if my statement was equally as fallacious as his was, when, actually, 10 range is in fact correct in the typical definition of the term. I believe I have already made that argument clear. I don't know how I can improve my clarity. Person A makes fallacious statement, that, no matter how you interpret it, is incorrect. Person B corrects Person A with a statement that, under a typical assumption (the assumption that "range" is the same thing as "casting range", which is a reasonable assumption since that's how it's defined on liquipedia), is indeed correct. So you saw him post something misleading, so you posted something misleading? Why didn't you just correct him and say that it was 10 + 2 rather than say it was 10? I understand what you are saying here describing why you did it...but why not respond to an inaccuracy by being very accurate? You're indeed correct. I should have said, "EMP has 10 range, or, if you want to talk about true range, then it has 12 range. But 13 is neither of those numbers, so you're wrong." However, I had too much faith that people make the same semantical assumptions that I do, even though my assumptions I'd argue are well-supported, since they're in line with the same way "range" is used on liquipedia, and I'm pretty sure that's how "range" is defined in-game as well. From what ive seen on these forums any well informed person talking about range states the Additional AOE range as well, EMP has been discussed countless amounts of times on these forums and i rarely see its range being discussed with the inclusion of AOE and we are on these forums, not in the game or on liquipedia. Obviously its not a rule or anything and im not even saying you were wrong but you werent exactly right either and he did correct himself. I think true range is a more correct way to define the range of EMP then just casting range, wouldnt you agree. Really? Your forum experience seems to differ from mine, then. I've been in numerous topics discussion Feedback vs. EMP, and I almost always saw people use the term "range" for casting range.
I never see 12, but almost always when i see someone say 10 it is immediately corrected by someone else saying "actually its 10+2" *nerdy voice*
Edit: thats actually the only reason i know 10+2 from similair discussions on other threads, if you go to the KA nerf thread it was discussed alot there i beleive and the 1.3. (whatever where ghosts got changed and KA got removed) also the more recent patch thread where ghost price was reduced.
I would have never actually have thought to take the aoe radius into account before reading it here, hadnt even crossed my mind.
|
On August 07 2011 09:41 ZappaSC wrote:
Wow that looks crazy... what have the terrans learned since last month that i have completly missed? o.O
Blue flame hellion?
|
On August 07 2011 16:26 JustTray wrote:
Pleast stop trying to indicate balance from these stats. This data is irrelevant in that respect. It is not statistically significant. All you should read from this is "Terran won a lot of games in MLG Anaheim," which you already knew if you watched it.
Really lol? Not statistically significant? 2790 International games played, I guarantee you there is a statistically significant difference from 50%. The MLG Anaheim data is only a small fraction of those games anyway.
Not saying people should be reading to deep into these numbers, but your wrong in saying they aren't statistically significant.
|
On August 07 2011 16:39 Executor1 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2011 16:38 HolyArrow wrote:On August 07 2011 16:33 Executor1 wrote:On August 07 2011 16:27 HolyArrow wrote:On August 07 2011 16:21 Darclite wrote:On August 07 2011 16:18 HolyArrow wrote:On August 07 2011 16:10 illumn wrote:If he had said EMP had 12 range, I would have understood what he meant, since it's reasonable to say that a 10-range AoE attack with a radius of 2 has 12 effective range. But he said the range was 13, and no matter what definition of range he was talking about, 13 is flat out wrong, so my original point stands. I fail to see how we're saying the exact same thing. I don't really know how to be clearer on this -_-;; If a guy says EMP has 13 range, he is wrong, no matter what definition of range he uses. If someone says EMP has 10 range, he is indeed right with the assumption that you're talking about cast range.
...he admitted to that mistake. Sorry, it's actually 12.
10 range + 2 from AoE. Please look into stuff before trying to make others look bad. Yup. But then he felt the need to nitpick my statement as if my statement was equally as fallacious as his was, when, actually, 10 range is in fact correct in the typical definition of the term. I believe I have already made that argument clear. I don't know how I can improve my clarity. Person A makes fallacious statement, that, no matter how you interpret it, is incorrect. Person B corrects Person A with a statement that, under a typical assumption (the assumption that "range" is the same thing as "casting range", which is a reasonable assumption since that's how it's defined on liquipedia), is indeed correct. So you saw him post something misleading, so you posted something misleading? Why didn't you just correct him and say that it was 10 + 2 rather than say it was 10? I understand what you are saying here describing why you did it...but why not respond to an inaccuracy by being very accurate? You're indeed correct. I should have said, "EMP has 10 range, or, if you want to talk about true range, then it has 12 range. But 13 is neither of those numbers, so you're wrong." However, I had too much faith that people make the same semantical assumptions that I do, even though my assumptions I'd argue are well-supported, since they're in line with the same way "range" is used on liquipedia, and I'm pretty sure that's how "range" is defined in-game as well. From what ive seen on these forums any well informed person talking about range states the Additional AOE range as well, EMP has been discussed countless amounts of times on these forums and i rarely see its range being discussed with the inclusion of AOE and we are on these forums, not in the game or on liquipedia. Obviously its not a rule or anything and im not even saying you were wrong but you werent exactly right either and he did correct himself. I think true range is a more correct way to define the range of EMP then just casting range, wouldnt you agree. Really? Your forum experience seems to differ from mine, then. I've been in numerous topics discussion Feedback vs. EMP, and I almost always saw people use the term "range" for casting range. I never see 12, but almost always when i see someone say 10 it is immediately corrected by someone else saying "actually its 10+2" *nerdy voice* Edit: thats actually the only reason i know 10+2 from similair discussions on other threads, if you go to the KA nerf thread it was discussed alot there i beleive and the 1.3. (whatever where ghosts got changed and KA got removed) also the more recent patch thread where ghost price was reduced. I would have never actually have thought to take the aoe radius into account before reading it here, hadnt even crossed my mind.
If one person said EMP had 10 range and one said it had 12 range and you gave them both the benefit of doubt, then they'd both be right. That's the standard by which I think we should look at posts.
|
On August 07 2011 16:40 MangoTango wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2011 09:41 ZappaSC wrote:
Wow that looks crazy... what have the terrans learned since last month that i have completly missed? o.O Blue flame hellion?
That and the current incarnation of the 1/1/1 allin that works exceedingly well against protoss on almost every map in the ladder pool.
It's worse than the roach ling pressure. Roach ling pressure you just had to not make as many sentries, make every forcefield count, and simcity better, sometimes with a blind cannon or two. People figured that out and within a 2 weeks it was fine.
This 1/1/1 has been around in various incarnations since beta and has been killing protoss for a long time, only really coming into widespread use in the last 3-4 weeks though.
|
Did anyone just catch the CPL finals?
MarineKing blindly all-inned SaSe 3 times in a row and won.
Yeah PvT sure is fun these days.
|
On August 07 2011 16:33 thepeonwhocould wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2011 16:16 Lncognit0 wrote:
You should expect that Terran would always be ahead to a degree. Alike in Brood War, around the world Terran is the most played race. More people playing it turns into more innovation and more strategies. You only see a few of them at the top level because all the top Terrans figured out what is best to use. Zerg is just fine the way they are, Protoss may need balance help but even that can't be said for sure for at least a month or two when Protoss players have some time to come up with new strategies, unit comps, etc This is true, and I think it all comes down to Boxer playing terran back in SC1. Boxer plays terran in sc1->everyone wants to play terran in sc1 to be like boxer->results in more terran sc1 players which then switch to sc2 and play terran->the number of korean terran players in sc2 causes new players to also play terran in order to copy their strats... I mean, imagine someone switching from BW to SC2 right now. They see that terran is the most played in code S/code A, all their friends are playing terran...it just easier for them to learn terran than the other races. I think zerg will be ok since you've got nestea/losira. But all protoss has is MC (who is great, but he hasn't been performing on the same level as Nestea/Losira/Bomber/MVP lately).
What? MC has performed just as well/better than all of those people besides nestea. You can't just completely disregard his foreign tourney success.
|
You can see the BFH-revelation unfold in the blue spike. XD
Korean PvZ looks...funny.
|
On August 07 2011 16:53 Jinivus wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2011 16:33 thepeonwhocould wrote:On August 07 2011 16:16 Lncognit0 wrote:
You should expect that Terran would always be ahead to a degree. Alike in Brood War, around the world Terran is the most played race. More people playing it turns into more innovation and more strategies. You only see a few of them at the top level because all the top Terrans figured out what is best to use. Zerg is just fine the way they are, Protoss may need balance help but even that can't be said for sure for at least a month or two when Protoss players have some time to come up with new strategies, unit comps, etc This is true, and I think it all comes down to Boxer playing terran back in SC1. Boxer plays terran in sc1->everyone wants to play terran in sc1 to be like boxer->results in more terran sc1 players which then switch to sc2 and play terran->the number of korean terran players in sc2 causes new players to also play terran in order to copy their strats... I mean, imagine someone switching from BW to SC2 right now. They see that terran is the most played in code S/code A, all their friends are playing terran...it just easier for them to learn terran than the other races. I think zerg will be ok since you've got nestea/losira. But all protoss has is MC (who is great, but he hasn't been performing on the same level as Nestea/Losira/Bomber/MVP lately). What? MC has performed just as well/better than all of those people besides nestea. You can't just completely disregard his foreign tourney success.
Actually, in this case you can, because it is a graph of korean tournament matches that we are looking at....
|
On August 07 2011 17:05 Surili wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2011 16:53 Jinivus wrote:On August 07 2011 16:33 thepeonwhocould wrote:On August 07 2011 16:16 Lncognit0 wrote:
You should expect that Terran would always be ahead to a degree. Alike in Brood War, around the world Terran is the most played race. More people playing it turns into more innovation and more strategies. You only see a few of them at the top level because all the top Terrans figured out what is best to use. Zerg is just fine the way they are, Protoss may need balance help but even that can't be said for sure for at least a month or two when Protoss players have some time to come up with new strategies, unit comps, etc This is true, and I think it all comes down to Boxer playing terran back in SC1. Boxer plays terran in sc1->everyone wants to play terran in sc1 to be like boxer->results in more terran sc1 players which then switch to sc2 and play terran->the number of korean terran players in sc2 causes new players to also play terran in order to copy their strats... I mean, imagine someone switching from BW to SC2 right now. They see that terran is the most played in code S/code A, all their friends are playing terran...it just easier for them to learn terran than the other races. I think zerg will be ok since you've got nestea/losira. But all protoss has is MC (who is great, but he hasn't been performing on the same level as Nestea/Losira/Bomber/MVP lately). What? MC has performed just as well/better than all of those people besides nestea. You can't just completely disregard his foreign tourney success. Actually, in this case you can, because it is a graph of korean tournament matches that we are looking at....
Not exclusively, and he obviously wasn't since he said MVP was performing better than MC. You know, the guy that bombed out of GSL group stages a bunch of times?
|
I all honesty I feel like these statistics are doing more harm than good atm. It's just leading to a lot of QQing and balance whining. This is a small sample size of the top players and as we can see it can vary drastically based on the meta. Drawing conclusions here only fuels rather pointless fires.
|
Protoss the weakest and most skill requiring race confirmed. Protoss players should just boycott SC2 for some time until Blizzard buffs us.
|
I play random, so I don't have a stake in the balance, and beyond that I've found that many of my preconceived notions of things that are imba are in fact easily dealt with (I just wasn't good enough or creative enough to counter them).
That said, Terran does seem to performing quite strongly over a relatively length time horizon. Blizzard has done a pretty good job at making all units in the game useful in their own way, so I think Terran may be helped by the sheer number of units they have available, which in conjunction with their macro mechanic, makes them more versatile than Protoss and Zerg.
One thing I can say with certainty is that KA should not be returned. If anything, the other spellcasters (ghost & infestors) should be nerfed slightly. Ghosts are really only a problem for toss though. Infestors are very strong in the current metagame (or maybe just very strong, period), but at the same time Zerg has the fewest overall units, and infestor possesses strong ground range abilities for a race otherwise extremely melee-oriented. With the infestor in particular, the issue seems to be that because of its versatility, it's not a bad strategy to spend almost all of your gas on infestors sometimes.
The thing I find puzzling is that a few patches ago Blizzard nerfed the Thor cannon strike ability by changing it to energy, which eliminated Thorzain's thor-heavy mech-build vs. Protoss. That strategy had barely been explored, and wasn't nearly as abusive (or early) as the 1/1/1 build. Not a big deal to be sure, but I think the thor is already one of the least useful units in the game (mostly good for tanking damage in TvT and dealing with mass muta in TvZ), so why address that?
|
Has a foreign terran actually won anything this month? I'm getting the impression that most finals and winners in foreign tournaments are actually either zerg or protoss.
Also, does the foreign chart include MLG? Cause if so then yeah, I could see where those numbers come from.
|
On August 07 2011 17:11 wolfe wrote:
I all honesty I feel like these statistics are doing more harm than good atm. It's just leading to a lot of QQing and balance whining. This is a small sample size of the top players and as we can see it can vary drastically based on the meta. Drawing conclusions here only fuels rather pointless fires.
I disagree with you on this one. QQuers are small portion of people and others are here sitting and thinking : "OK, I gotta start doing something different because my race is not doing well". These graphs show how races perform during certain time limit and reminds people to stop and think of something new to shift meta-game.
Small-size of sample? 19000 games played on graph for International players, that is MUCH more than enough to make correct assumptions. Most of the top-tier players are fairly similar skill, may differ at certain but they don't have a huge skill gap, thus games should be 50/50 chance but it is not. Having Protoss to lose in every MU means: 1. Either Toss is UP 2. Players are stuck on old metagame.
|
On August 07 2011 17:24 Zinthar wrote:
The thing I find puzzling is that a few patches ago Blizzard nerfed the Thor cannon strike ability by changing it to energy, which eliminated Thorzain's thor-heavy mech-build vs. Protoss. That strategy had barely been explored, and wasn't nearly as abusive (or early) as the 1/1/1 build. Not a big deal to be sure, but I think the thor is already one of the least useful units in the game (mostly good for tanking damage in TvT and dealing with mass muta in TvZ), so why address that?
Thor's are actually pretty stupid good against protoss in large numbers. Just some random game on PTR while it was up. No clue what league the guy was in but he was meching and got about 10-12 thor's, most with full energy. I had 5 HT's with near or full energy, fedback all the ghosts in his army, fedback every single thor that started the fight, and threw down storms over the middle of the thor ball, and promptly got rolled by 200hp thors T.T
I actually went back and watched the replay, because I was so shocked at how badly my army got rolled at the time. 3-3 HT chargelot stalker immortal vs 2 armour thors. I think I ended up killing 5 of the 200 hp thors and all the buffer units....
|
On August 07 2011 14:16 Amui wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2011 13:52 JoeSchmoe wrote:
but heads up VR all-ins beats 1/1/1 almost all the time.
I think it'd be more helpful to link to somebody who's higher level than 99% of the posters on TL http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=232753 specifically possiblity 3. 1/1/1 is actually stronger than a Xrax without stim opening against VR allins because you get microable units that outrange voidrays and stalkers respectively.
that doesn't mean much when I'm referencing games from the highest levels of play, specifically ganzi vs hongun. possibility 3 would not even apply. there is no time to even get out a siege tank. the vr comes with a higher ground warp-in. all you have are a few marines and a banshee.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
