|
I think you guys have it wrong.
The type of army that is needed to fight a big mech ball does not come from Gateways instantly. You'd need High Templar (WITH STORM), Carriers, Tempests, Immortals, etc. These units take time to generate mana (HT) and take a long ass time to build (and require a lot of infrastructure.. Stargates, Fleet Beacon, Robo, etc.). Remaxing is not the issue here.
The issue is that mech has trouble securing bases at the same rate as Protoss. On equal or greater econ, the Terran would have the resources necessary to make all the Starports and Factories he needs. Nowadays, as soon as P scouts mech, he can just double expand, maybe lose one base to a push, and come out 1-2 bases ahead.
Mech needs something to make small fights better so that it can defend new expansions without requiring a huge critical mass of Tanks / Hellbats to do so.
EDIT -I have a friend who opens up Tanks into Banshees/Ravens and uses those to defend /harass before Protoss gets HT out in order to secure extra bases. He adds a ton of Turrets and PFs everywhere and eventually gets to a big death ball of Mech. He's high Diamond and plays Random, but his TvP is his best matchup. I know how to beat it because I play him all the time... just double expand! But sometimes I still lose. I think if this can be refined and Terran gets something that helps in LotV it can be very viable.
|
If ZvT still struggle iin the next month or two, I personnally like the mine HP nerf idea.
Being two shot by banes with +3 may give zerg a faster advantage to a zerg rushing hive than waiting for ultras/ups/and co. May be a bad idea, but it could be eventually worth it to first search for hive/+3, defend with standard mutalingbling then search ultra and the other ups.
Drawback is mine drop lost a lot though, a faster burrow speed without upgrade could be looked at in this case, numbers of shot by stalkers/rines and stuff should be made just to check
The other part is that in the sheer purpose of fun, templar openings could come back (if they don't before: I doubt it, but it could happen), with a faster burrow move it may even be interesting to use some mine against collossus openings.
EDIT: I'd love to see other changes, especially for underused unit, but I only watch SC2 and don't play anymore, therefore I won't theorycraft too much about them.
|
On October 09 2014 07:50 MTAC wrote:
If ZvT still struggle iin the next month or two, I personnally like the mine HP nerf idea.
Being two shot by banes with +3 may give zerg a faster advantage to a zerg rushing hive than waiting for ultras/ups/and co. May be a bad idea, but it could be eventually worth it to first search for hive/+3, defend with standard mutalingbling then search ultra and the other ups.
Drawback is mine drop lost a lot though, a faster burrow speed without upgrade could be looked at in this case, numbers of shot by stalkers/rines and stuff should be made just to check
The other part is that in the sheer purpose of fun, templar openings could come back (if they don't before: I doubt it, but it could happen), with a faster burrow move it may even be interesting to use some mine against collossus openings.
EDIT: I'd love to see other changes, especially for underused unit, but I only watch SC2 and don't play anymore, therefore I won't theorycraft too much about them.
ZvT didn't struggle in September. Aliguac win/rates points to a very balanced game. Overfocussng on 1-3 tournaments can easily give a wrong view of balance due to variance.
|
On October 09 2014 23:45 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2014 07:50 MTAC wrote:
If ZvT still struggle iin the next month or two, I personnally like the mine HP nerf idea.
Being two shot by banes with +3 may give zerg a faster advantage to a zerg rushing hive than waiting for ultras/ups/and co. May be a bad idea, but it could be eventually worth it to first search for hive/+3, defend with standard mutalingbling then search ultra and the other ups.
Drawback is mine drop lost a lot though, a faster burrow speed without upgrade could be looked at in this case, numbers of shot by stalkers/rines and stuff should be made just to check
The other part is that in the sheer purpose of fun, templar openings could come back (if they don't before: I doubt it, but it could happen), with a faster burrow move it may even be interesting to use some mine against collossus openings.
EDIT: I'd love to see other changes, especially for underused unit, but I only watch SC2 and don't play anymore, therefore I won't theorycraft too much about them. ZvT didn't struggle in September. Aliguac win/rates points to a very balanced game. Overfocussng on 1-3 tournaments can easily give a wrong view of balance due to variance.
Aligulac is not really a good representation of balance because it doesn't take skill into account at all. This is especially relevant at tournaments with mixed Koreans/Foreigners or simply wider ranges of skill. Soo > Ryung and ForGG and Solar > Bunny are pretty much expected outcomes (if you look at DH Stockholm for example).
There's only so much numbers can show. How can you evaluate balance without focusing on the last few major tournaments?
The same argument Terrans gave a couple of months ago should apply - winrates don't mean anything because you have better Zergs facing crappier Terrans and evening out the win rates despite imbalance blah blah.
Rather we should be looking at the quality of the games on a qualitative basis.
|
The same argument Terrans gave a couple of months ago should apply - winrates don't mean anything because you have better Zergs facing crappier Terrans and evening out the win rates despite imbalance blah blah.
This argument could apply if there were overrepresentation of terran. Which is not the case atm. Before we start to think about nerf/buff of actual used units, we need to see if there really is an imbalance, and we'll need at least one more month for that.
However, looking at underused thing can always be done:
Zerg: Corruptor/Ovi Drop/Nydus/BL, the gimmicky viper and derpfestor could get some love as well.
Protoss: Carrier mostly, every other unit is currently usuable and used atm, even if tempest could be tweaked on the sheer purpose of fun this is not the time to look at it.
Terran: Tank/banshee/BC/Raven (last one for a nerf IMO) don't give a damn if it exclude variety from a mirror, although MarineTank is the best mirror IMO. Bunker and SP tech lab upgrades could be twaked as well.
|
On October 10 2014 00:21 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2014 23:45 Hider wrote:On October 09 2014 07:50 MTAC wrote:
If ZvT still struggle iin the next month or two, I personnally like the mine HP nerf idea.
Being two shot by banes with +3 may give zerg a faster advantage to a zerg rushing hive than waiting for ultras/ups/and co. May be a bad idea, but it could be eventually worth it to first search for hive/+3, defend with standard mutalingbling then search ultra and the other ups.
Drawback is mine drop lost a lot though, a faster burrow speed without upgrade could be looked at in this case, numbers of shot by stalkers/rines and stuff should be made just to check
The other part is that in the sheer purpose of fun, templar openings could come back (if they don't before: I doubt it, but it could happen), with a faster burrow move it may even be interesting to use some mine against collossus openings.
EDIT: I'd love to see other changes, especially for underused unit, but I only watch SC2 and don't play anymore, therefore I won't theorycraft too much about them. ZvT didn't struggle in September. Aliguac win/rates points to a very balanced game. Overfocussng on 1-3 tournaments can easily give a wrong view of balance due to variance. Aligulac is not really a good representation of balance because it doesn't take skill into account at all.
Every time I read a variation on this sentence I just can't help but read "Aligulac is not really a good representation of balance because I don't agree with it."
|
Aligulac is not really a good representation of balance because it doesn't take skill into account at all. This is especially relevant at tournaments with mixed Koreans/Foreigners or simply wider ranges of skill. Soo > Ryung and ForGG and Solar > Bunny are pretty much expected outcomes (if you look at DH Stockholm for example).
Eh.. 1-2 tournamnets barely influence Aliguac w/r.. So that's a pretty bad example. If anything, your example just goes to show how bad it is to look at major tournamnets only.
There's only so much numbers can show. How can you evaluate balance without focusing on the last few major tournaments?
You look at win/rates that have a bigger dataset behind them.
The same argument Terrans gave a couple of months ago should apply - winrates don't mean anything because you have better Zergs facing crappier Terrans and evening out the win rates despite imbalance blah blah.
The argument was that terran was still underpresented and thus deserved a higher win/rate. That was still the case in September - if we assume that underrepresentation is not due to structural reasons. Consider checking up on the numbers before making blind claims.
|
On October 10 2014 01:31 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +Aligulac is not really a good representation of balance because it doesn't take skill into account at all. This is especially relevant at tournaments with mixed Koreans/Foreigners or simply wider ranges of skill. Soo > Ryung and ForGG and Solar > Bunny are pretty much expected outcomes (if you look at DH Stockholm for example). Eh.. 1-2 tournamnets barely influence Aliguac w/r.. So that's a pretty bad example. If anything, your example just goes to show how bad it is to look at major tournamnets only. Show nested quote +There's only so much numbers can show. How can you evaluate balance without focusing on the last few major tournaments? You look at win/rates that have a bigger dataset behind them. Show nested quote +The same argument Terrans gave a couple of months ago should apply - winrates don't mean anything because you have better Zergs facing crappier Terrans and evening out the win rates despite imbalance blah blah.
The argument was that terran was still underpresented and thus deserved a higher win/rate. That was still the case in September - if we assume that underrepresentation is not due to structural reasons. Consider checking up on the numbers before making blind claims.
Terran representation is increasing meaning Protoss and Zerg representation is falling.
I'm not making "blind claims." I'm just saying that there will always be a way to analyze the numbers in a way that shows one side is favorable or excuses to be made for why it's okay to have a certain win rate etc.
But if you look at tournament games and you see that early game options are limited for a race and they have to many things to scout for/react to and Bo5+ series are starting to be dominated at high end tournaments by a certain race... then you can say there appears to be imbalance.
I guarantee you if aligulac showed 50-50 for a straight year people would still be discussing balance.
|
On October 10 2014 01:53 DinoMight wrote:I guarantee you if aligulac showed 50-50 for a straight year people would still be discussing balance.
And they should be discussing balance. Winrates are only a small part of the picture. A 50-50 winrate does not mean the game is balanced if 95% of the players are the same race.
On October 10 2014 00:21 DinoMight wrote:The same argument Terrans gave a couple of months ago should apply - winrates don't mean anything because you have better Zergs facing crappier Terrans and evening out the win rates despite imbalance blah blah.
This argument is based on the idea that winrates affect the rate of change in tournament representation, and a balanced game requires both fair win rates and even representation in all levels of play.
You will notice that ZvZ mirrors are still roughly twice as common as TvT mirrors, therefore claiming that the top 100 zerg players are all better than the top 50 Terran players is quite a stretch.
On the other hand, claiming the top 50 Terran players should be able to pull off a >50% winrate against the top 100 Zerg players is just common sense.
I'm not going to get excited over a week worth of numbers though.
|
On October 10 2014 01:59 r691175002 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2014 01:53 DinoMight wrote:I guarantee you if aligulac showed 50-50 for a straight year people would still be discussing balance. And they should be discussing balance. Winrates are only a small part of the picture. A 50-50 winrate does not mean the game is balanced if 95% of the players are the same race. Show nested quote +On October 10 2014 00:21 DinoMight wrote:The same argument Terrans gave a couple of months ago should apply - winrates don't mean anything because you have better Zergs facing crappier Terrans and evening out the win rates despite imbalance blah blah. This argument is based on the idea that winrates affect the rate of change in tournament representation, and a balanced game requires both fair win rates and even representation in all levels of play. You will notice that ZvZ mirrors are still roughly twice as common as TvT mirrors, therefore claiming that the top 100 zerg players are all better than the top 50 Terran players is quite a stretch. On the other hand, claiming the top 50 Terran players should be able to pull off a >50% winrate against the top 100 Zerg players is just common sense. I'm not going to get excited over a week worth of numbers though.
Hey look a well articulated reply that isn't condescending and makes sense. 
Yeah I want to see more numbers, but the games I've been watching look rather unfair for Z vs. T.
|
Terran representation is increasing meaning Protoss and Zerg representation is falling.
I'm not making "blind claims." I'm just saying that there will always be a way to analyze the numbers in a way that shows one side is favorable or excuses to be made for why it's okay to have a certain win rate etc.
But if you look at tournament games and you see that early game options are limited for a race and they have to many things to scout for/react to and Bo5+ series are starting to be dominated at high end tournaments by a certain race... then you can say there appears to be imbalance.
I guarantee you if aligulac showed 50-50 for a straight year people would still be discussing balance.
60% of games played in non-mirror matchups have a terran in it. Toss = 68%. Zerg = 71.6%.
My bet is that teran will go up to around 61-62% next month (that seems to be the statistically balanced distribution), and then stablizie around that level with win/rates continuing to be close to 50/50.
Terran is still underpresented, so you can't use the argument that better zergs/toss's are meating inferior terrans.
|
On October 10 2014 02:32 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +Terran representation is increasing meaning Protoss and Zerg representation is falling.
I'm not making "blind claims." I'm just saying that there will always be a way to analyze the numbers in a way that shows one side is favorable or excuses to be made for why it's okay to have a certain win rate etc.
But if you look at tournament games and you see that early game options are limited for a race and they have to many things to scout for/react to and Bo5+ series are starting to be dominated at high end tournaments by a certain race... then you can say there appears to be imbalance.
I guarantee you if aligulac showed 50-50 for a straight year people would still be discussing balance. 60% of games played in non-mirror matchups have a terran in it. Toss = 68%. Zerg = 71.6%. My bet is that teran will go up to around 61-62% next month (that seems to be the statistically balanced distribution), and then stablizie around that level with win/rates continuing to be close to 50/50. Terran is still underpresented, so you can't use the argument that better zergs/toss's are meating inferior terrans.
I'm not saying that Zergs are losing to inferior Terrans. I'm saying Zergs are having a tough time against equal skill Terrans, from watching tournaments recently.
I still want more games to see how things play out but my guess is a T will win Blizzcon.
|
On October 10 2014 03:17 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2014 02:32 Hider wrote:Terran representation is increasing meaning Protoss and Zerg representation is falling.
I'm not making "blind claims." I'm just saying that there will always be a way to analyze the numbers in a way that shows one side is favorable or excuses to be made for why it's okay to have a certain win rate etc.
But if you look at tournament games and you see that early game options are limited for a race and they have to many things to scout for/react to and Bo5+ series are starting to be dominated at high end tournaments by a certain race... then you can say there appears to be imbalance.
I guarantee you if aligulac showed 50-50 for a straight year people would still be discussing balance. 60% of games played in non-mirror matchups have a terran in it. Toss = 68%. Zerg = 71.6%. My bet is that teran will go up to around 61-62% next month (that seems to be the statistically balanced distribution), and then stablizie around that level with win/rates continuing to be close to 50/50. Terran is still underpresented, so you can't use the argument that better zergs/toss's are meating inferior terrans. I'm not saying that Zergs are losing to inferior Terrans. I'm saying Zergs are having a tough time against equal skill Terrans, from watching tournaments recently.
You don't?
The same argument Terrans gave a couple of months ago should apply - winrates don't mean anything because you have better Zergs facing crappier Terrans and evening out the win rates despite imbalance blah blah.
That's basically why I said you shuold check up on numbers before commenting, because it seemed you thought that terran now was overpresented. But the readjustment proces takes a while. They did however go from 55% to 60% in 2 months.
|
On October 10 2014 03:48 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2014 03:17 DinoMight wrote:On October 10 2014 02:32 Hider wrote:Terran representation is increasing meaning Protoss and Zerg representation is falling.
I'm not making "blind claims." I'm just saying that there will always be a way to analyze the numbers in a way that shows one side is favorable or excuses to be made for why it's okay to have a certain win rate etc.
But if you look at tournament games and you see that early game options are limited for a race and they have to many things to scout for/react to and Bo5+ series are starting to be dominated at high end tournaments by a certain race... then you can say there appears to be imbalance.
I guarantee you if aligulac showed 50-50 for a straight year people would still be discussing balance. 60% of games played in non-mirror matchups have a terran in it. Toss = 68%. Zerg = 71.6%. My bet is that teran will go up to around 61-62% next month (that seems to be the statistically balanced distribution), and then stablizie around that level with win/rates continuing to be close to 50/50. Terran is still underpresented, so you can't use the argument that better zergs/toss's are meating inferior terrans. I'm not saying that Zergs are losing to inferior Terrans. I'm saying Zergs are having a tough time against equal skill Terrans, from watching tournaments recently. You don't? Show nested quote +The same argument Terrans gave a couple of months ago should apply - winrates don't mean anything because you have better Zergs facing crappier Terrans and evening out the win rates despite imbalance blah blah.
That's basically why I said you shuold check up on numbers before commenting, because it seemed you thought that terran now was overpresented. But the readjustment proces takes a while. They did however go from 55% to 60% in 2 months.
Facing crappier Terrans and losing to them are different things.
The representation rates are changing. Even if T is still underrepresented right now, the rate at which they are improving is quite high given the amount of time they were underperforming and if it keeps up, they will eventually be overrepresented.
The point I'm trying to make is we shouldn't wait until there is statistical imbalance by a large margin to say hey look, Zergs are getting pwned by Terran. We can deduce that from watching the games.
|
Look at the final rounds of recent tournaments
GSL, Terran won
Innovation 3 - 0 DRG
Innovation 4 - 2 soO
Cure 3 - 1 Solar
WCS EU, Terran won
Yoda 3 - 0 Golden
Golden 3 - 1 Happy
Red Bull, Terran won
Bomber 2 - 0 DRG
Cure 2 - 1 Scarlett
Polt 2 - 1 Scarlett
Dreamhack stockholm, Zerg won
soO 2 - 0 ForGG
soO 2 - 0 Ryung
Solar 2 -1 Bunny
Dreamhack moscow, Terran won
MMA 2- 0 Snute
JJakji 2 - 0 TRUE
Kespa Cup - no TvZs, Protoss won
IEM Toronto, Terran won
Taeja 3 - 1 Violet
Flash 3 - 2 Snute
If I counted correctly that's 11-4 in series and 31-17 in maps.
|
I'm mostly with Hider on this one. TvZ looks fine currently. I just hope soO vs INnoVation stays the execption gameplaywise. Else I might go full dota and maybe greygoo after blizzcon.
I'm rather worried for TvP currently. Haven't seen a Protoss that got the iniative by playing well. It mostly seems like either the Terran fucks up, gets allinned or just wins, regardless how well the Protoss plays.
|
On October 10 2014 04:39 Big J wrote:
I'm mostly with Hider on this one. TvZ looks fine currently. I just hope soO vs INnoVation stays the execption gameplaywise. Else I might go full dota and maybe greygoo after blizzcon.
I'm rather worried for TvP currently. Haven't seen a Protoss that got the iniative by playing well. It mostly seems like either the Terran fucks up, gets allinned or just wins, regardless how well the Protoss plays.
I stopped talking about TvP because it seems everyone is still sore from when P was strong... but yes I agree with you. The games have become "watch Terran this game slowly over a period of 20 minutes unless he makes a huge mistake."
With 1 viable non-allin opening from Protoss it's not a surprise. You either die to the allin, hold it and win, or hard counter their macro build and have to be outplayed.
|
PvT or TvP looks for me more like the Terran mind says: "oh hey, SCV pull seems pretty strong" then he SCV Pulls in one of its form ( with or without 3 ghosts, with or without armory, with or without 3rd base ) and the protoss is about "oh no, this SCV pull will come anyways". So the Protoss has to to either delay its third sometime till the 14s minute and and have alot of colossi, or he tries to get storm directly after showing the terran one coloss to get rid of the strongest melee unit in the game called SCV.
TvP was my loved match up ( when the P was strong(er) ) and the Mappool stopped the Blink madness. But nowaday, so much SCV Pull, so much boring stuff. It does not seem that Protoss is able to find the "perfect" way to counter the SCV Pull. Either the Terran sees the Protoss to long on 2 base and says "screw it, i build armory, secound ebay and go to macro with my 3 cc" or he pulls the boys and wins it because protoss has 2 2 but not enough on the field.
TvP has to be looked at, not TvZ in my opinion. The strong SCV pulls make the matchup boring on the one hand and on the other hand i dont know if its to hard for protoss, i play the terran side.
|
On October 10 2014 05:12 Clonester wrote:
PvT or TvP looks for me more like the Terran mind says: "oh hey, SCV pull seems pretty strong" then he SCV Pulls in one of its form ( with or without 3 ghosts, with or without armory, with or without 3rd base ) and the protoss is about "oh no, this SCV pull will come anyways". So the Protoss has to to either delay its third sometime till the 14s minute and and have alot of colossi, or he tries to get storm directly after showing the terran one coloss to get rid of the strongest melee unit in the game called SCV.
TvP was my loved match up ( when the P was strong(er) ) and the Mappool stopped the Blink madness. But nowaday, so much SCV Pull, so much boring stuff. It does not seem that Protoss is able to find the "perfect" way to counter the SCV Pull. Either the Terran sees the Protoss to long on 2 base and says "screw it, i build armory, secound ebay and go to macro with my 3 cc" or he pulls the boys and wins it because protoss has 2 2 but not enough on the field.
TvP has to be looked at, not TvZ in my opinion. The strong SCV pulls make the matchup boring on the one hand and on the other hand i dont know if its to hard for protoss, i play the terran side.
Well, Protosses started going Templar because SCV pulls were so strong against "fast" 3rds with upgrades. That way you could still get upgrades and survive a possible SCV pull.
Mine buff has killed HT opening. So now we're back to SCV pulls vs. colo. The only option is to delay the expansion/upgrades in favor of more units. So P now has to play with less economy and lower upgrades against an opponent hard countering their build (Marauder Viking vs. Stalker Colo).
Yeah it sucks.
|
On October 10 2014 04:39 Big J wrote:
I'm mostly with Hider on this one. TvZ looks fine currently. I just hope soO vs INnoVation stays the execption gameplaywise. Else I might go full dota and maybe greygoo after blizzcon.
I'm rather worried for TvP currently. Haven't seen a Protoss that got the iniative by playing well. It mostly seems like either the Terran fucks up, gets allinned or just wins, regardless how well the Protoss plays.
Happy Birthday
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
