|
On November 04 2014 01:38 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2014 01:24 TheDwf wrote:On November 04 2014 01:20 pure.Wasted wrote:On November 04 2014 00:28 Doublemint wrote:On November 03 2014 22:07 pure.Wasted wrote:On November 03 2014 21:45 mCon.Hephaistas wrote:
Funny how some terrans were whining so hard when it was 'ZPcraft'.
And when terran wins everything it's all fine and shit.
Bias much?
It's pretty clear that Zerg is underperforming since HoTS release, Zerg won 2 out of 22 WCS events.
Zerg players just worse and make more mistakes? Doubt it.
It irks me to no end when people say Zerg has been underperforming in HOTS. No it hasn't. It's been strangely performing. 2013 s1 had 4 Zergs in ro8. s3 had equal ro32 distribution, 2 Zergs in ro4 and a Zerg in the finals. 2014 s1 had 16 P, 13 Z, and 3 T in ro32, and 2 Z in ro4. s2 had 14 P, 14 Z, and 4 T in ro32 and 2 Z in ro4. s3 had 16 P, 9 Z, and 7 T in ro32 and 3 Z in ro8. Every single Code S final in HOTS has had a Zerg in it (with possible exception of OSL). Zerg produced the single most consistent Code S player of HOTS. Zest might be the most consistent player of 2014, but soO was already a Code S finalist before non-Proleague viewers even knew who Zest was. Zerg foreigners have been by far the most successful in HOTS, with Snute and Scarlett having the best claims to best foreigner. If you think that's underperforming, you don't understand what it was like to be a Terran in 2014. You can cite regions other than KR, you can cite number of first place finishes to seconds, you can cite the number of household name Zergs, or the number of Zerg Blizzcon attendees, and those might all be valid points... so make them. Don't generalize. haha. I am moved to tears. sitting on that throne for so long and for the longest time and then having to deal with a few hiccups really must have hurt terran's egos. I find it pretty funny that of all the things I said that you could have chosen to respond to to have a meaningful and constructive discussion about Zerg performance in competitive play, you choose to QQ about a statement about TvP. But hey, if you want to keep punishing Terrans for 1-1-1 four years ago, that's cool. I guess any imbalance you perceive against Zerg is fine too because we're punishing them for BL/Infestor. What can you do, the 2011 trauma is too deeply anchored. And the entitlement strong with some others.
Yes, the entitlement of non-Korean Terrans is legendary with their everlasting domination
|
|
|
On November 04 2014 01:46 SatedSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2014 01:24 TheDwf wrote:On November 04 2014 01:20 pure.Wasted wrote:On November 04 2014 00:28 Doublemint wrote:On November 03 2014 22:07 pure.Wasted wrote:On November 03 2014 21:45 mCon.Hephaistas wrote:
Funny how some terrans were whining so hard when it was 'ZPcraft'.
And when terran wins everything it's all fine and shit.
Bias much?
It's pretty clear that Zerg is underperforming since HoTS release, Zerg won 2 out of 22 WCS events.
Zerg players just worse and make more mistakes? Doubt it.
It irks me to no end when people say Zerg has been underperforming in HOTS. No it hasn't. It's been strangely performing. 2013 s1 had 4 Zergs in ro8. s3 had equal ro32 distribution, 2 Zergs in ro4 and a Zerg in the finals. 2014 s1 had 16 P, 13 Z, and 3 T in ro32, and 2 Z in ro4. s2 had 14 P, 14 Z, and 4 T in ro32 and 2 Z in ro4. s3 had 16 P, 9 Z, and 7 T in ro32 and 3 Z in ro8. Every single Code S final in HOTS has had a Zerg in it (with possible exception of OSL). Zerg produced the single most consistent Code S player of HOTS. Zest might be the most consistent player of 2014, but soO was already a Code S finalist before non-Proleague viewers even knew who Zest was. Zerg foreigners have been by far the most successful in HOTS, with Snute and Scarlett having the best claims to best foreigner. If you think that's underperforming, you don't understand what it was like to be a Terran in 2014. You can cite regions other than KR, you can cite number of first place finishes to seconds, you can cite the number of household name Zergs, or the number of Zerg Blizzcon attendees, and those might all be valid points... so make them. Don't generalize. haha. I am moved to tears. sitting on that throne for so long and for the longest time and then having to deal with a few hiccups really must have hurt terran's egos. I find it pretty funny that of all the things I said that you could have chosen to respond to to have a meaningful and constructive discussion about Zerg performance in competitive play, you choose to QQ about a statement about TvP. But hey, if you want to keep punishing Terrans for 1-1-1 four years ago, that's cool. I guess any imbalance you perceive against Zerg is fine too because we're punishing them for BL/Infestor. What can you do, the 2011 trauma is too deeply anchored. It's funny because I actually had a far better PvT win-rate when 111 was a thing than I have since HotS was released. 
2 gate robo doing work!
|
On November 04 2014 01:42 Foxxan wrote:You cant possible know this so please dont use this as absolute.
Okay, fine. The guy plays Random so he has fewer reasons to be biased than you.
Better?
|
|
|
Germany / USA16648 Posts
On November 03 2014 20:07 Tuczniak wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2014 19:59 Foxxan wrote:On November 03 2014 10:10 v_lm wrote:On November 03 2014 10:02 10bulgares wrote:
If the problem is bad engagements in the late game for zerg players, I think what needs to be addressed is some scouting means for the zerg, like a buff for creep tumors: a researchable tech that would increased range of sight of creep tumors doesn't seem stupid to me.
Also it must be more easy for zergs to harrass the terran so that the terran army can also be put out of position. Here I would suggest a nerf to the improved building armor. I really like what you are suggesting. Kinda like an extra spawning pool upgrade that requires Hive and costs a lot. Tumors have more sight, and mb even Tumors spread themselves quicker. i like it a lot. Requires hive, 150/150, 100BT at hatchery. Reduces creep movementspeed by 15%, that speed is instead added on to units instead I like this alot. That would eventually mean that even on hive tech only good engagements could be on creep. I think the whole creep speed bonus just hurts zerg. It makes it so zerg units sucks off creep and zerg has to be passive most of time. BW's creep regen is better from design point of view.
Creep has no effect other than allowing Zerg to build and disallowing Protoss/Terran to build in SC1/BW (ok and allowing larvae to live). You might be thinking of blight in WC3 on which Undead units do heal (they don't heal off blight at all I think).
|
On November 04 2014 01:43 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2014 01:38 Doublemint wrote:On November 04 2014 01:24 TheDwf wrote:On November 04 2014 01:20 pure.Wasted wrote:On November 04 2014 00:28 Doublemint wrote:On November 03 2014 22:07 pure.Wasted wrote:On November 03 2014 21:45 mCon.Hephaistas wrote:
Funny how some terrans were whining so hard when it was 'ZPcraft'.
And when terran wins everything it's all fine and shit.
Bias much?
It's pretty clear that Zerg is underperforming since HoTS release, Zerg won 2 out of 22 WCS events.
Zerg players just worse and make more mistakes? Doubt it.
It irks me to no end when people say Zerg has been underperforming in HOTS. No it hasn't. It's been strangely performing. 2013 s1 had 4 Zergs in ro8. s3 had equal ro32 distribution, 2 Zergs in ro4 and a Zerg in the finals. 2014 s1 had 16 P, 13 Z, and 3 T in ro32, and 2 Z in ro4. s2 had 14 P, 14 Z, and 4 T in ro32 and 2 Z in ro4. s3 had 16 P, 9 Z, and 7 T in ro32 and 3 Z in ro8. Every single Code S final in HOTS has had a Zerg in it (with possible exception of OSL). Zerg produced the single most consistent Code S player of HOTS. Zest might be the most consistent player of 2014, but soO was already a Code S finalist before non-Proleague viewers even knew who Zest was. Zerg foreigners have been by far the most successful in HOTS, with Snute and Scarlett having the best claims to best foreigner. If you think that's underperforming, you don't understand what it was like to be a Terran in 2014. You can cite regions other than KR, you can cite number of first place finishes to seconds, you can cite the number of household name Zergs, or the number of Zerg Blizzcon attendees, and those might all be valid points... so make them. Don't generalize. haha. I am moved to tears. sitting on that throne for so long and for the longest time and then having to deal with a few hiccups really must have hurt terran's egos. I find it pretty funny that of all the things I said that you could have chosen to respond to to have a meaningful and constructive discussion about Zerg performance in competitive play, you choose to QQ about a statement about TvP. But hey, if you want to keep punishing Terrans for 1-1-1 four years ago, that's cool. I guess any imbalance you perceive against Zerg is fine too because we're punishing them for BL/Infestor. What can you do, the 2011 trauma is too deeply anchored. And the entitlement strong with some others. Yes, the entitlement of non-Korean Terrans is legendary with their everlasting domination
non-Korean Terrans = highest level of play?
I didn't think so.
|
On November 04 2014 01:47 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2014 01:42 Foxxan wrote:1) The guy plays random. He is less biased than you. You cant possible know this so please dont use this as absolute. Okay, fine. The guy plays Random so he has fewer reasons to be biased than you. Better?
Ye its better but still not good.
You cant use it as an argument the way you do.
Random is random, he might get x race more than y and a.
And the player that plays x race might try the other races to. You dont know any of this.
Why not simple look at the arguments instead of looking at the paper.
|
On November 04 2014 01:53 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2014 01:43 TheDwf wrote:On November 04 2014 01:38 Doublemint wrote:On November 04 2014 01:24 TheDwf wrote:On November 04 2014 01:20 pure.Wasted wrote:On November 04 2014 00:28 Doublemint wrote:On November 03 2014 22:07 pure.Wasted wrote:On November 03 2014 21:45 mCon.Hephaistas wrote:
Funny how some terrans were whining so hard when it was 'ZPcraft'.
And when terran wins everything it's all fine and shit.
Bias much?
It's pretty clear that Zerg is underperforming since HoTS release, Zerg won 2 out of 22 WCS events.
Zerg players just worse and make more mistakes? Doubt it.
It irks me to no end when people say Zerg has been underperforming in HOTS. No it hasn't. It's been strangely performing. 2013 s1 had 4 Zergs in ro8. s3 had equal ro32 distribution, 2 Zergs in ro4 and a Zerg in the finals. 2014 s1 had 16 P, 13 Z, and 3 T in ro32, and 2 Z in ro4. s2 had 14 P, 14 Z, and 4 T in ro32 and 2 Z in ro4. s3 had 16 P, 9 Z, and 7 T in ro32 and 3 Z in ro8. Every single Code S final in HOTS has had a Zerg in it (with possible exception of OSL). Zerg produced the single most consistent Code S player of HOTS. Zest might be the most consistent player of 2014, but soO was already a Code S finalist before non-Proleague viewers even knew who Zest was. Zerg foreigners have been by far the most successful in HOTS, with Snute and Scarlett having the best claims to best foreigner. If you think that's underperforming, you don't understand what it was like to be a Terran in 2014. You can cite regions other than KR, you can cite number of first place finishes to seconds, you can cite the number of household name Zergs, or the number of Zerg Blizzcon attendees, and those might all be valid points... so make them. Don't generalize. haha. I am moved to tears. sitting on that throne for so long and for the longest time and then having to deal with a few hiccups really must have hurt terran's egos. I find it pretty funny that of all the things I said that you could have chosen to respond to to have a meaningful and constructive discussion about Zerg performance in competitive play, you choose to QQ about a statement about TvP. But hey, if you want to keep punishing Terrans for 1-1-1 four years ago, that's cool. I guess any imbalance you perceive against Zerg is fine too because we're punishing them for BL/Infestor. What can you do, the 2011 trauma is too deeply anchored. And the entitlement strong with some others. Yes, the entitlement of non-Korean Terrans is legendary with their everlasting domination non-Korean Terrans = highest level of play? I didn't think so.
Well, there's an argument to be made that the game shouldn't only be balanced at the highest level of play but that it should also be balanced down the skill ladder.
Given how hard it is to balance the game at the top-level (which seems to be Blizzard's focus) it's highly unlikely that they'll manage to balance it out at all levels.
I'd like to point out that non-Koreans haven't dominated anything in a while. And, come to think of it, the best foreigner right now is probably a Terran.
|
On November 04 2014 01:56 Foxxan wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2014 01:47 DinoMight wrote:On November 04 2014 01:42 Foxxan wrote:1) The guy plays random. He is less biased than you. You cant possible know this so please dont use this as absolute. Okay, fine. The guy plays Random so he has fewer reasons to be biased than you. Better? Ye its better but still not good. You cant use it as an argument the way you do. Random is random, he might get x race more than y and a. And the player that plays x race might try the other races to. You dont know any of this. Why not simple look at the arguments instead of looking at the paper.
I agree, but some people tend to dismiss arguments based on racial bias. So I was trying to show that the guy probably has less racial bias than someone who only plays one race.
|
On November 04 2014 01:56 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2014 01:53 Doublemint wrote:On November 04 2014 01:43 TheDwf wrote:On November 04 2014 01:38 Doublemint wrote:On November 04 2014 01:24 TheDwf wrote:On November 04 2014 01:20 pure.Wasted wrote:On November 04 2014 00:28 Doublemint wrote:On November 03 2014 22:07 pure.Wasted wrote:On November 03 2014 21:45 mCon.Hephaistas wrote:
Funny how some terrans were whining so hard when it was 'ZPcraft'.
And when terran wins everything it's all fine and shit.
Bias much?
It's pretty clear that Zerg is underperforming since HoTS release, Zerg won 2 out of 22 WCS events.
Zerg players just worse and make more mistakes? Doubt it.
It irks me to no end when people say Zerg has been underperforming in HOTS. No it hasn't. It's been strangely performing. 2013 s1 had 4 Zergs in ro8. s3 had equal ro32 distribution, 2 Zergs in ro4 and a Zerg in the finals. 2014 s1 had 16 P, 13 Z, and 3 T in ro32, and 2 Z in ro4. s2 had 14 P, 14 Z, and 4 T in ro32 and 2 Z in ro4. s3 had 16 P, 9 Z, and 7 T in ro32 and 3 Z in ro8. Every single Code S final in HOTS has had a Zerg in it (with possible exception of OSL). Zerg produced the single most consistent Code S player of HOTS. Zest might be the most consistent player of 2014, but soO was already a Code S finalist before non-Proleague viewers even knew who Zest was. Zerg foreigners have been by far the most successful in HOTS, with Snute and Scarlett having the best claims to best foreigner. If you think that's underperforming, you don't understand what it was like to be a Terran in 2014. You can cite regions other than KR, you can cite number of first place finishes to seconds, you can cite the number of household name Zergs, or the number of Zerg Blizzcon attendees, and those might all be valid points... so make them. Don't generalize. haha. I am moved to tears. sitting on that throne for so long and for the longest time and then having to deal with a few hiccups really must have hurt terran's egos. I find it pretty funny that of all the things I said that you could have chosen to respond to to have a meaningful and constructive discussion about Zerg performance in competitive play, you choose to QQ about a statement about TvP. But hey, if you want to keep punishing Terrans for 1-1-1 four years ago, that's cool. I guess any imbalance you perceive against Zerg is fine too because we're punishing them for BL/Infestor. What can you do, the 2011 trauma is too deeply anchored. And the entitlement strong with some others. Yes, the entitlement of non-Korean Terrans is legendary with their everlasting domination non-Korean Terrans = highest level of play? I didn't think so. Well, there's an argument to be made that the game shouldn't only be balanced at the highest level of play but that it should also be balanced down the skill ladder. Given how hard it is to balance the game at the top-level (which seems to be Blizzard's focus) it's highly unlikely that they'll manage to balance it out at all levels.
I'd like to point out that non-Koreans haven't dominated anything in a while. And, come to think of it, the best foreigner right now is probably a Terran.
Well it's the only way, otherwise you will have problems having an at least somewhat even playing field for esports.
Lower leagues are simply not all that important, maybe game design wise some things could be changed if some leagues are SUPER imbalanced, and even then it's important to keep the big picture in mind. But the last big opportunity for that would be LotV.
|
On November 04 2014 01:58 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2014 01:56 Foxxan wrote:On November 04 2014 01:47 DinoMight wrote:On November 04 2014 01:42 Foxxan wrote:1) The guy plays random. He is less biased than you. You cant possible know this so please dont use this as absolute. Okay, fine. The guy plays Random so he has fewer reasons to be biased than you. Better? Ye its better but still not good. You cant use it as an argument the way you do. Random is random, he might get x race more than y and a. And the player that plays x race might try the other races to. You dont know any of this. Why not simple look at the arguments instead of looking at the paper. I agree, but some people tend to dismiss arguments based on racial bias. So I was trying to show that the guy probably has less racial bias than someone who only plays one race.
Which is an error imo. Better to use arguments to proof it than showing a paper as proof
|
Yup. I love how people now realize that Terran T3 is not as strong for a reason, and that's because Terran bio is ridiculously good in _every_ situation.
What you were saying was ok until this, stop for gods sake, stop saying this, this is one of those things that are completely wrong and have NO utility at all this.
This whole "tiers" bullshit means nothing.
First of all, medivacs, vikings, and thors are tier 3 units, they are used very commonly and are very strong.
Second, something being of higher tech doesn't means is has to be stronger, thats not how SC2 works, otherwise everybody would just turtle to skytoss/skyterran/hive every game, SC2 doesn't works like that you need zealots with your templars, marauders with you ghosts, zerglings with your ultras.
Third, Terran bio is actually very shitty, try fighting a blink stalkers with just marine and marauders you would eventually die to your own stim, medivacs ARE tier 3 units, they are quite expensive (not in themselves but they take a lot of resources to makes constantly) and are VERY necessary, people seem to forget this because terran players get medivac as fast as they can, wich only helps make my point that "tiers" mean nothing.
You can say bio is too strong because terran doesn't works quite like the other races, you either go bio or you go mech, and altough skyterran armies can be achieved from a bio composition the reason players don't do it isn't because they are weak but because sky armies are slow and don't work well with the fast bio army.
|
Do we have any Premier League winrate stats from say the 2011-Terran-OP and the End-of-Wings-Zerg-OP periods?
We can then look at the (>1 season)-period that maximizes the product DURATION*winrate_surplus, where winrate_surplus is winrate-50% over that period. An objective criterion on a match-up being broken would then be something like:
"there is a period T up to NOW, such that in each WCS region, the DURATION(T)*winrate_surplus(Race1, Race2, T) product is at least great as the worse the greater DURATION*surplus product of any match-up in history."
Sure this would mean that such a match-up is REALLY REALLY broken. But at least we would have certainty that it is broken, and that it is reasonable to request balance adjustment. Other than that, we will to wait until the last sc2 extension, to hope for a more deeply explored META, corresponding to the result of long term adjustments, and with strat emerging as true equilibria of the game, and not just best strat given the limited understanding of the current-version-of-the-game that we have.
|
On November 04 2014 02:04 Lexender wrote:Show nested quote +
Yup. I love how people now realize that Terran T3 is not as strong for a reason, and that's because Terran bio is ridiculously good in _every_ situation.
What you were saying was ok until this, stop for gods sake, stop saying this, this is one of those things that are completely wrong and have NO utility at all this. This whole "tiers" bullshit means nothing. First of all, medivacs, vikings, and thors are tier 3 units, they are used very commonly and are very strong. Second, something being of higher tech doesn't means is has to be stronger, thats not how SC2 works, otherwise everybody would just turtle to skytoss/skyterran/hive every game, SC2 doesn't works like that you need zealots with your templars, marauders with you ghosts, zerglings with your ultras. Third, Terran bio is actually very shitty, try fighting a blink stalkers with just marine and marauders you would eventually die to your own stim, medivacs ARE tier 3 units, they are quite expensive (not in themselves but they take a lot of resources to makes constantly) and are VERY necessary, people seem to forget this because terran players get medivac as fast as they can, wich only helps make my point that "tiers" mean nothing. You can say bio is too strong because terran doesn't works quite like the other races, you either go bio or you go mech, and altough skyterran armies can be achieved from a bio composition the reason players don't do it isn't because they are weak but because sky armies are slow and don't work well with the fast bio army.
The reason people don't consider Medivacs as "Tier 3" units is because of the speed at which they're attained in a standard game. Typically vs Protoss they're had at ~10 mins? And they can be on the field earlier if you're doing some early drop play. They're 100/100 and can be produced 2 at a time. So it's not really in the same bracket as Carriers/Tempests/Battlecruisers/Ultras...
Nobody is arguing for Bio alone being OP or too strong. But when you look at MMM, it IS quite strong and it's definitely a mid-game composition, not a late game "T3" army.
|
On November 04 2014 02:04 Lexender wrote:Show nested quote +
Yup. I love how people now realize that Terran T3 is not as strong for a reason, and that's because Terran bio is ridiculously good in _every_ situation.
What you were saying was ok until this, stop for gods sake, stop saying this, this is one of those things that are completely wrong and have NO utility at all this. This whole "tiers" bullshit means nothing. First of all, medivacs, vikings, and thors are tier 3 units, they are used very commonly and are very strong. Second, something being of higher tech doesn't means is has to be stronger, thats not how SC2 works, otherwise everybody would just turtle to skytoss/skyterran/hive every game, SC2 doesn't works like that you need zealots with your templars, marauders with you ghosts, zerglings with your ultras. Third, Terran bio is actually very shitty, try fighting a blink stalkers with just marine and marauders you would eventually die to your own stim, medivacs ARE tier 3 units, they are quite expensive (not in themselves but they take a lot of resources to makes constantly) and are VERY necessary, people seem to forget this because terran players get medivac as fast as they can, wich only helps make my point that "tiers" mean nothing. You can say bio is too strong because terran doesn't works quite like the other races, you either go bio or you go mech, and altough skyterran armies can be achieved from a bio composition the reason players don't do it isn't because they are weak but because sky armies are slow and don't work well with the fast bio army.
Medivacs are NOT T3... that's like saying immortals/voidrays are T3 or hydras/infestors. Yes I could have clarified that naked Bio is indeed shitty - in the long run. But isn't that kind of self evident?
|
Also, I'd like to add that the metagame is still so unexplored that simply the passage of time could dramatically change the way we play.
This weekend we saw Classic and San go fucking Colossus drops vs T + Show Spoiler +.
And Polt went (kind of) mech vs P!!!!
|
On November 04 2014 02:09 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2014 02:04 Lexender wrote:
Yup. I love how people now realize that Terran T3 is not as strong for a reason, and that's because Terran bio is ridiculously good in _every_ situation.
What you were saying was ok until this, stop for gods sake, stop saying this, this is one of those things that are completely wrong and have NO utility at all this. This whole "tiers" bullshit means nothing. First of all, medivacs, vikings, and thors are tier 3 units, they are used very commonly and are very strong. Second, something being of higher tech doesn't means is has to be stronger, thats not how SC2 works, otherwise everybody would just turtle to skytoss/skyterran/hive every game, SC2 doesn't works like that you need zealots with your templars, marauders with you ghosts, zerglings with your ultras. Third, Terran bio is actually very shitty, try fighting a blink stalkers with just marine and marauders you would eventually die to your own stim, medivacs ARE tier 3 units, they are quite expensive (not in themselves but they take a lot of resources to makes constantly) and are VERY necessary, people seem to forget this because terran players get medivac as fast as they can, wich only helps make my point that "tiers" mean nothing. You can say bio is too strong because terran doesn't works quite like the other races, you either go bio or you go mech, and altough skyterran armies can be achieved from a bio composition the reason players don't do it isn't because they are weak but because sky armies are slow and don't work well with the fast bio army. The reason people don't consider Medivacs as "Tier 3" units is because of the speed at which they're attained in a standard game. Typically vs Protoss they're had at ~10 mins? And they can be on the field earlier if you're doing some early drop play. They're 100/100 and can be produced 2 at a time. So it's not really in the same bracket as Carriers/Tempests/Battlecruisers/Ultras... Nobody is arguing for Bio alone being OP or too strong. But when you look at MMM, it IS quite strong and it's definitely a mid-game composition, not a late game "T3" army.
You see thats the problem people tend to talk in hyperbole too much, by definition every midgame composition is also a lategame composition, you never stop making MMM but in a TvP for example, you will lose if you stay in MMM all game long, you need vikings and ghost, plus PFs and Sensor towers, people look at things way too in the exterior, a ghost/viking army is expensive (vikings are some of the most expensive units to make because the correlation between cost and build time/supply is the highest and ghost are some of the most expensive terran units) and really slow to make but is also very strong just because an army has MMM it doesn't means that is just MMM, just try to win against colossus/templar without ghost/viking.
As for the T3 thing, what makes a unit a T3 unit? cost? tech? build time? By the most standard definition medivacs ARE T3 (Rax->1 Fact->2 Starport->3) tell me exactly what makes a unit a T3 unit then.
|
On November 04 2014 02:23 Lexender wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2014 02:09 DinoMight wrote:On November 04 2014 02:04 Lexender wrote:
Yup. I love how people now realize that Terran T3 is not as strong for a reason, and that's because Terran bio is ridiculously good in _every_ situation.
What you were saying was ok until this, stop for gods sake, stop saying this, this is one of those things that are completely wrong and have NO utility at all this. This whole "tiers" bullshit means nothing. First of all, medivacs, vikings, and thors are tier 3 units, they are used very commonly and are very strong. Second, something being of higher tech doesn't means is has to be stronger, thats not how SC2 works, otherwise everybody would just turtle to skytoss/skyterran/hive every game, SC2 doesn't works like that you need zealots with your templars, marauders with you ghosts, zerglings with your ultras. Third, Terran bio is actually very shitty, try fighting a blink stalkers with just marine and marauders you would eventually die to your own stim, medivacs ARE tier 3 units, they are quite expensive (not in themselves but they take a lot of resources to makes constantly) and are VERY necessary, people seem to forget this because terran players get medivac as fast as they can, wich only helps make my point that "tiers" mean nothing. You can say bio is too strong because terran doesn't works quite like the other races, you either go bio or you go mech, and altough skyterran armies can be achieved from a bio composition the reason players don't do it isn't because they are weak but because sky armies are slow and don't work well with the fast bio army. The reason people don't consider Medivacs as "Tier 3" units is because of the speed at which they're attained in a standard game. Typically vs Protoss they're had at ~10 mins? And they can be on the field earlier if you're doing some early drop play. They're 100/100 and can be produced 2 at a time. So it's not really in the same bracket as Carriers/Tempests/Battlecruisers/Ultras... Nobody is arguing for Bio alone being OP or too strong. But when you look at MMM, it IS quite strong and it's definitely a mid-game composition, not a late game "T3" army. You see thats the problem people tend to talk in hyperbole too much, by definition every midgame composition is also a lategame composition, you never stop making MMM but in a TvP for example, you will lose if you stay in MMM all game long, you need vikings and ghost, plus PFs and Sensor towers, people look at things way too in the exterior, a ghost/viking army is expensive (vikings are some of the most expensive units to make because the correlation between cost and build time/supply is the highest and ghost are some of the most expensive terran units) and really slow to make but is also very strong just because an army has MMM it doesn't means that is just MMM, just try to win against colossus/templar without ghost/viking. As for the T3 thing, what makes a unit a T3 unit? cost? tech? build time? By the most standard definition medivacs ARE T3 (Rax->1 Fact->2 Starport->3) tell me exactly what makes a unit a T3 unit then.
You're right there is too much hyperbole. Though in the case of MMM we have seen some games being won without Vikings/Ghosts altogether (though it takes great skill).
I think "Tiers" are stupid. Most people define Tiers by building pre-requisites. Gateway/Spawning Pool/Barracks is Tier 1. But I think this view is a bit silly.. to me "Tiering" is much more about how long something takes to achieve in game time.
So I tend to look at units as an early/mid/late game composition. By that definition i wouldn't say Medivacs are Tier 3. They're very frequently out on 2 base economies and sometimes on 1 base. Meanwhile something like Carriers requires at the minimum 3 bases and realistically 4-5 to be viable.
|
On November 04 2014 02:23 Lexender wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2014 02:09 DinoMight wrote:On November 04 2014 02:04 Lexender wrote:
Yup. I love how people now realize that Terran T3 is not as strong for a reason, and that's because Terran bio is ridiculously good in _every_ situation.
What you were saying was ok until this, stop for gods sake, stop saying this, this is one of those things that are completely wrong and have NO utility at all this. This whole "tiers" bullshit means nothing. First of all, medivacs, vikings, and thors are tier 3 units, they are used very commonly and are very strong. Second, something being of higher tech doesn't means is has to be stronger, thats not how SC2 works, otherwise everybody would just turtle to skytoss/skyterran/hive every game, SC2 doesn't works like that you need zealots with your templars, marauders with you ghosts, zerglings with your ultras. Third, Terran bio is actually very shitty, try fighting a blink stalkers with just marine and marauders you would eventually die to your own stim, medivacs ARE tier 3 units, they are quite expensive (not in themselves but they take a lot of resources to makes constantly) and are VERY necessary, people seem to forget this because terran players get medivac as fast as they can, wich only helps make my point that "tiers" mean nothing. You can say bio is too strong because terran doesn't works quite like the other races, you either go bio or you go mech, and altough skyterran armies can be achieved from a bio composition the reason players don't do it isn't because they are weak but because sky armies are slow and don't work well with the fast bio army. The reason people don't consider Medivacs as "Tier 3" units is because of the speed at which they're attained in a standard game. Typically vs Protoss they're had at ~10 mins? And they can be on the field earlier if you're doing some early drop play. They're 100/100 and can be produced 2 at a time. So it's not really in the same bracket as Carriers/Tempests/Battlecruisers/Ultras... Nobody is arguing for Bio alone being OP or too strong. But when you look at MMM, it IS quite strong and it's definitely a mid-game composition, not a late game "T3" army. You see thats the problem people tend to talk in hyperbole too much, by definition every midgame composition is also a lategame composition, you never stop making MMM but in a TvP for example, you will lose if you stay in MMM all game long, you need vikings and ghost, plus PFs and Sensor towers, people look at things way too in the exterior, a ghost/viking army is expensive (vikings are some of the most expensive units to make because the correlation between cost and build time/supply is the highest and ghost are some of the most expensive terran units) and really slow to make but is also very strong just because an army has MMM it doesn't means that is just MMM, just try to win against colossus/templar without ghost/viking. As for the T3 thing, what makes a unit a T3 unit? cost? tech? build time? By the most standard definition medivacs ARE T3 (Rax->1 Fact->2 Starport->3) tell me exactly what makes a unit a T3 unit then.
It's actually:
T0: Command Center (you start with that)
T1: Supply Depot
T2: Barrack
T3: Factory
T4: Starport
I guess if you call the CC T0 (because you start with it) it's T4. And that's not even the whole story. It's impossible to build a Medivac without building a refinery, though that one can be built while climbing up the tech ladder.
However, if the tech ladder is your choice of defining Tiers, that makes Broodlords T5.
hatch(T0)-->pool/gas-->lair-->infestation pit+spire-->hive-->greater spire
At which point it becomes clear that - in contrast to your point - the usual T1 to T3 definitions with one being lowest and three being highest simply don't go by how many buildings you need to tech through in succession.
I hope I don't have to add that in general it's just not fruitful to even start Tier discussions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
