|
On November 05 2011 13:26 Jacobs Ladder wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2011 13:00 blinkingangels wrote:On October 18 2011 07:22 ypslala wrote:
what about ghosts with moebius reator? protoss could crush ur army and terran just trains 6-8 ghosts and emp the shit out of toss.... not too imba ???
dont tell me now ghosts take 30 secs train or something, warpgates have a cooldown as well.
or warping in close to the battle. this is how toss works. therefor terran has its own race advantages like flying buildings, mules, bunkers and repair.
Except EMP can't kill anything. Storm an army 5 times, and it dies. Emp an army five times, and you still have an army. Protoss cannot lose in that situation like terran could. I'm so tired of this argument. Both sides of it are stupid. They aren't the same thing and therefore direct comparisons are pointless. Storm does avoidable damage over time, EMP does unavoidable instant damage but can't kill. They. Aren't. The. Same. People need to instead look at their interactions with the army as a whole rather than "Storm does X emp does Y, IMBA!!". Balance does not occur in a spherical vacuum, you have to try to account for everything.
Well this only further supports my point, so thanks. We were also looking at a specific scenario in the game where army composition doesn't play as large a role. I just find it ignorant to compare Storm to EMP in a game losing scenario when army composition doesn't matter. The fact that storm can actually kill units in that situation makes a huge difference between the two, which is why late game KA with HT warp ins were overpowered, but EMP isn't.
|
On October 18 2011 18:25 Talin wrote:Just going to leave this here. Show nested quote +DES: If you do change over you starcraft 2, would you continue to play protoss?
Bisu: If you're asking for my opinion, then no. Reviews seem to be calling it Terran-World. It'd be nice if they worked on the balance a little bit. If Terran continues to win like this, who is going to play that game? If you're going to make Protoss such a weak race, might as well get rid of it. It's quite saddening. But, if I had to make the switch to Starcraft 2, I probably would play Protoss. (laughs)
But how is that relevant? to balance? He does not play SC2, he doesn't actually know the state of its balance, only something hes heard from someone.
|
On November 05 2011 15:05 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2011 18:25 Talin wrote:Just going to leave this here. DES: If you do change over you starcraft 2, would you continue to play protoss?
Bisu: If you're asking for my opinion, then no. Reviews seem to be calling it Terran-World. It'd be nice if they worked on the balance a little bit. If Terran continues to win like this, who is going to play that game? If you're going to make Protoss such a weak race, might as well get rid of it. It's quite saddening. But, if I had to make the switch to Starcraft 2, I probably would play Protoss. (laughs) But how is that relevant? to balance? He does not play SC2, he doesn't actually know the state of its balance, only something hes heard from someone.
You clearly don't understand.
He's motherfucking Bisu.
Now, if we could just get Reach to also comment similarly on the state of SC2, we would have mostly Protoss in the GSL. Just like that ::snaps fingers:: All zealots would be 200% more muscular as well. Manlots.
|
On November 05 2011 15:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2011 15:05 hunts wrote:On October 18 2011 18:25 Talin wrote:Just going to leave this here. DES: If you do change over you starcraft 2, would you continue to play protoss?
Bisu: If you're asking for my opinion, then no. Reviews seem to be calling it Terran-World. It'd be nice if they worked on the balance a little bit. If Terran continues to win like this, who is going to play that game? If you're going to make Protoss such a weak race, might as well get rid of it. It's quite saddening. But, if I had to make the switch to Starcraft 2, I probably would play Protoss. (laughs) But how is that relevant? to balance? He does not play SC2, he doesn't actually know the state of its balance, only something hes heard from someone. You clearly don't understand. He's motherfucking Bisu. Now, if we could just get Reach to also comment similarly on the state of SC2, we would have mostly Protoss in the GSL. Just like that ::snaps fingers:: All zealots would be 200% more muscular as well. Manlots.
Blizz would need to implement the super zealot, just to keep up with Reach's manliness.
![[image loading]](http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20080329102620/starcraft/images/7/7b/Zealot_SC2_Cncpt2.jpg)
|
On November 05 2011 15:01 blinkingangels wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2011 13:26 Jacobs Ladder wrote:On November 05 2011 13:00 blinkingangels wrote:On October 18 2011 07:22 ypslala wrote:
what about ghosts with moebius reator? protoss could crush ur army and terran just trains 6-8 ghosts and emp the shit out of toss.... not too imba ???
dont tell me now ghosts take 30 secs train or something, warpgates have a cooldown as well.
or warping in close to the battle. this is how toss works. therefor terran has its own race advantages like flying buildings, mules, bunkers and repair.
Except EMP can't kill anything. Storm an army 5 times, and it dies. Emp an army five times, and you still have an army. Protoss cannot lose in that situation like terran could. I'm so tired of this argument. Both sides of it are stupid. They aren't the same thing and therefore direct comparisons are pointless. Storm does avoidable damage over time, EMP does unavoidable instant damage but can't kill. They. Aren't. The. Same. People need to instead look at their interactions with the army as a whole rather than "Storm does X emp does Y, IMBA!!". Balance does not occur in a spherical vacuum, you have to try to account for everything. Well this only further supports my point, so thanks. We were also looking at a specific scenario in the game where army composition doesn't play as large a role. I just find it ignorant to compare Storm to EMP in a game losing scenario when army composition doesn't matter. The fact that storm can actually kill units in that situation makes a huge difference between the two, which is why late game KA with HT warp ins were overpowered, but EMP isn't.
If you look at actual results terran has been stomping protoss at the highest level of the game since ghost usage has become common whereas even when KA was being used win rates were about 50%. Even Blizzard is starting to realize that EMP is OP now hence the patch.
|
On November 05 2011 15:31 tomatriedes wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2011 15:01 blinkingangels wrote:On November 05 2011 13:26 Jacobs Ladder wrote:On November 05 2011 13:00 blinkingangels wrote:On October 18 2011 07:22 ypslala wrote:
what about ghosts with moebius reator? protoss could crush ur army and terran just trains 6-8 ghosts and emp the shit out of toss.... not too imba ???
dont tell me now ghosts take 30 secs train or something, warpgates have a cooldown as well.
or warping in close to the battle. this is how toss works. therefor terran has its own race advantages like flying buildings, mules, bunkers and repair.
Except EMP can't kill anything. Storm an army 5 times, and it dies. Emp an army five times, and you still have an army. Protoss cannot lose in that situation like terran could. I'm so tired of this argument. Both sides of it are stupid. They aren't the same thing and therefore direct comparisons are pointless. Storm does avoidable damage over time, EMP does unavoidable instant damage but can't kill. They. Aren't. The. Same. People need to instead look at their interactions with the army as a whole rather than "Storm does X emp does Y, IMBA!!". Balance does not occur in a spherical vacuum, you have to try to account for everything. Well this only further supports my point, so thanks. We were also looking at a specific scenario in the game where army composition doesn't play as large a role. I just find it ignorant to compare Storm to EMP in a game losing scenario when army composition doesn't matter. The fact that storm can actually kill units in that situation makes a huge difference between the two, which is why late game KA with HT warp ins were overpowered, but EMP isn't. If you look at actual results terran has been stomping protoss at the highest level of the game since ghost usage has become common whereas even when KA was being used win rates were about 50%. Even Blizzard is starting to realize that EMP is OP now hence the patch.
total winrates are 50%, but I believe it was P>T for over 80% with KA in the late game... And early game pushes have had the stim nerf.
|
United States7483 Posts
On November 05 2011 15:01 blinkingangels wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2011 13:26 Jacobs Ladder wrote:On November 05 2011 13:00 blinkingangels wrote:On October 18 2011 07:22 ypslala wrote:
what about ghosts with moebius reator? protoss could crush ur army and terran just trains 6-8 ghosts and emp the shit out of toss.... not too imba ???
dont tell me now ghosts take 30 secs train or something, warpgates have a cooldown as well.
or warping in close to the battle. this is how toss works. therefor terran has its own race advantages like flying buildings, mules, bunkers and repair.
Except EMP can't kill anything. Storm an army 5 times, and it dies. Emp an army five times, and you still have an army. Protoss cannot lose in that situation like terran could. I'm so tired of this argument. Both sides of it are stupid. They aren't the same thing and therefore direct comparisons are pointless. Storm does avoidable damage over time, EMP does unavoidable instant damage but can't kill. They. Aren't. The. Same. People need to instead look at their interactions with the army as a whole rather than "Storm does X emp does Y, IMBA!!". Balance does not occur in a spherical vacuum, you have to try to account for everything. Well this only further supports my point, so thanks. We were also looking at a specific scenario in the game where army composition doesn't play as large a role. I just find it ignorant to compare Storm to EMP in a game losing scenario when army composition doesn't matter. The fact that storm can actually kill units in that situation makes a huge difference between the two, which is why late game KA with HT warp ins were overpowered, but EMP isn't.
That actually has nothing to do with it, and while I'm not going to make an argument that KA storms were or were not overpowered, your logical argument is full of holes here.
Firstly, terran army dps comes from mineral expenditure. That is, your main dps units (marines and marauders) are very mineral heavy, and gas light. That means your gas units are your support units (ghosts, vikings). Therefore, your gas units don't need to be able to kill, because your mineral units already do an amazing job of scoring kills. It's the opposite with the protoss: the main kill scoring units of the protoss army are the gas heavy units, the high templar, the colossi, immortals, etc. The support units are the mineral units (zealots to tank damage and force kiting). High templar are extremely gas heavy: that means that if your HT's don't score kills, you straight up lose, because you've chosen to make them your kill scoring units. If you make a bunch of HT's, you can't afford colossi, or other really important core units like sentries. If you make a bunch of HT's and they don't do tremendous damage, you straight up lose.
This "Storm kills, EMP doesn't, therefore EMP not imba" argument makes no sense.
|
On November 05 2011 13:00 blinkingangels wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2011 07:22 ypslala wrote:
what about ghosts with moebius reator? protoss could crush ur army and terran just trains 6-8 ghosts and emp the shit out of toss.... not too imba ???
dont tell me now ghosts take 30 secs train or something, warpgates have a cooldown as well.
or warping in close to the battle. this is how toss works. therefor terran has its own race advantages like flying buildings, mules, bunkers and repair.
Except EMP can't kill anything. Storm an army 5 times, and it dies. Emp an army five times, and you still have an army. Protoss cannot lose in that situation like terran could.
right, you can not kill with pure emp.
maybe thats why most terrans build some additional units. marauders and such.
|
|
|
Why does that matter if the TvP win ratio is more than 50%, and GSL would have ended up needing to rename their top league "Code T" instead of Code S if they hadn't decided to make the system more volatile?
As you can see from your own source, there's pretty much more Protoss players *everywhere*. With that many players playing a race, it's not surprising that a few extra will dribble up into the next league. People just like playing Protoss because it's clearly the most awesome race.
|
On November 05 2011 16:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Why does that matter if the TvP win ratio is more than 50%, and GSL would have ended up needing to rename their top league "Code T" instead of Code S if they hadn't decided to make the system more volatile? As you can see from your own source, there's pretty much more Protoss players *everywhere*. With that many players playing a race, it's not surprising that a few extra will dribble up into the next league. People just like playing Protoss because it's clearly the most awesome race.
Well, T is the most played race in Bronze and Silver, but by far the least played race in the higher leagues, I mainly think it's because terran is alot harder to play than Protoss and Zerg are, other explanation is that T is UP which is clearly not the case.
|
On November 05 2011 16:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Why does that matter if the TvP win ratio is more than 50%, and GSL would have ended up needing to rename their top league "Code T" instead of Code S if they hadn't decided to make the system more volatile?
If it doesnt matter, then we should close this thread, because only pro players play Starcraft 2. We just pretend to play it. The whole point of this thread is that everyone gets to talk about balance at their own level.
As you can see from your own source, there's pretty much more Protoss players *everywhere*. With that many players playing a race, it's not surprising that a few extra will dribble up into the next league. People just like playing Protoss because it's clearly the most awesome race.
The interesting parts are:
1) The lack of Terrans in the "middle leagues"
2) The abundance of Zergs in the "middle leagues"
3) The recent drop in Terrans; last season, Masters was damn near even, now it is much more skewed.
4) Many people argue Terran is OP. Why isnt this reflected in player count?
|
On November 05 2011 16:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Why does that matter if the TvP win ratio is more than 50%, and GSL would have ended up needing to rename their top league "Code T" instead of Code S if they hadn't decided to make the system more volatile? As you can see from your own source, there's pretty much more Protoss players *everywhere*. With that many players playing a race, it's not surprising that a few extra will dribble up into the next league. People just like playing Protoss because it's clearly the most awesome race.
But he's right though, I was surprised myself. KR GM has always been Terran favored, and now there are more protosses, that's weird. Maybe protosses take ladder more seriously. When I see JYP play on ladder (he was #1 not long ago), it's serious business man, he wants those ladder points. He does many timing attacks and all ins, it's not like HuK, who mostly ladders to practice his micro and lategame, but never all out attacks even if he has a huge advantage. I don't know. One scary thought: it could be that some of these extra protosses are the current BW pros' smurfs :D
4) Many people argue Terran is OP. Why isnt this reflected in player count?
I would have switched to Terran if it weren't for its overwhelming OPness. The race just seems more versatile than Protoss, which is a part of its power. But nobody wants to play an OP race and be called a noob by everybody they play.
|
As far as I can tell, protoss only looks weak in GSL code S, whereas everywhere else, they are perfectly fine.
|
On November 05 2011 16:38 Techno wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2011 16:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Why does that matter if the TvP win ratio is more than 50%, and GSL would have ended up needing to rename their top league "Code T" instead of Code S if they hadn't decided to make the system more volatile? If it doesnt matter, then we should close this thread, because only pro players play Starcraft 2. We just pretend to play it. The whole point of this thread is that everyone gets to talk about balance at their own level. Show nested quote +As you can see from your own source, there's pretty much more Protoss players *everywhere*. With that many players playing a race, it's not surprising that a few extra will dribble up into the next league. People just like playing Protoss because it's clearly the most awesome race. The interesting parts are: 1) The lack of Terrans in the "middle leagues" 2) The abundance of Zergs in the "middle leagues" 3) The recent drop in Terrans; last season, Masters was damn near even, now it is much more skewed. 4) Many people argue Terran is OP. Why isnt this reflected in player count?
Terran is alot harder to play than P and Z at diamond/masters level, there was a thread on TL with polls not so long ago and it's general consensus that terran is the hardest race to play from platinum to high master. stats also prove that. terran might be the strongest race at super high level, but at non-pro level terran really feels underpowered, player numbers and stats also reflect this.
|
On November 05 2011 16:10 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2011 15:01 blinkingangels wrote:On November 05 2011 13:26 Jacobs Ladder wrote:On November 05 2011 13:00 blinkingangels wrote:On October 18 2011 07:22 ypslala wrote:
what about ghosts with moebius reator? protoss could crush ur army and terran just trains 6-8 ghosts and emp the shit out of toss.... not too imba ???
dont tell me now ghosts take 30 secs train or something, warpgates have a cooldown as well.
or warping in close to the battle. this is how toss works. therefor terran has its own race advantages like flying buildings, mules, bunkers and repair.
Except EMP can't kill anything. Storm an army 5 times, and it dies. Emp an army five times, and you still have an army. Protoss cannot lose in that situation like terran could. I'm so tired of this argument. Both sides of it are stupid. They aren't the same thing and therefore direct comparisons are pointless. Storm does avoidable damage over time, EMP does unavoidable instant damage but can't kill. They. Aren't. The. Same. People need to instead look at their interactions with the army as a whole rather than "Storm does X emp does Y, IMBA!!". Balance does not occur in a spherical vacuum, you have to try to account for everything. Well this only further supports my point, so thanks. We were also looking at a specific scenario in the game where army composition doesn't play as large a role. I just find it ignorant to compare Storm to EMP in a game losing scenario when army composition doesn't matter. The fact that storm can actually kill units in that situation makes a huge difference between the two, which is why late game KA with HT warp ins were overpowered, but EMP isn't. That actually has nothing to do with it, and while I'm not going to make an argument that KA storms were or were not overpowered, your logical argument is full of holes here. Firstly, terran army dps comes from mineral expenditure. That is, your main dps units (marines and marauders) are very mineral heavy, and gas light. That means your gas units are your support units (ghosts, vikings). Therefore, your gas units don't need to be able to kill, because your mineral units already do an amazing job of scoring kills. It's the opposite with the protoss: the main kill scoring units of the protoss army are the gas heavy units, the high templar, the colossi, immortals, etc. The support units are the mineral units (zealots to tank damage and force kiting). High templar are extremely gas heavy: that means that if your HT's don't score kills, you straight up lose, because you've chosen to make them your kill scoring units. If you make a bunch of HT's, you can't afford colossi, or other really important core units like sentries. If you make a bunch of HT's and they don't do tremendous damage, you straight up lose. This "Storm kills, EMP doesn't, therefore EMP not imba" argument makes no sense.
Somehow you still have seemed to miss the point that it was overpowered only in a specific scenario. It had nothing to do with army composition and unit roles, but with the fact that HT warp-ins with KA gave protoss way too much to fall back on in a game losing scenario. Of course HTs and Colossi should be able to do that kind of damage in a full up engagement, but I'm not arguing that. If terran lost all of his army, then has the luck to have 3 ghosts and a handful of marauders come out as soon protoss reaches his base, EMP isn't going to do anything except soften up the protoss army. If the opposite was true and protoss lost his entire army, he could still kill a majority of terran's army with 3 well placed storms. Even if it didn't outright kill the army, it was generally enough to push it back and re-stabilize. How you don't see the difference between that and EMP is astounding. To be clear though, it had nothing to do with unit roles in relation to army compositions of the two races.
|
On November 05 2011 15:31 tomatriedes wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2011 15:01 blinkingangels wrote:On November 05 2011 13:26 Jacobs Ladder wrote:On November 05 2011 13:00 blinkingangels wrote:On October 18 2011 07:22 ypslala wrote:
what about ghosts with moebius reator? protoss could crush ur army and terran just trains 6-8 ghosts and emp the shit out of toss.... not too imba ???
dont tell me now ghosts take 30 secs train or something, warpgates have a cooldown as well.
or warping in close to the battle. this is how toss works. therefor terran has its own race advantages like flying buildings, mules, bunkers and repair.
Except EMP can't kill anything. Storm an army 5 times, and it dies. Emp an army five times, and you still have an army. Protoss cannot lose in that situation like terran could. I'm so tired of this argument. Both sides of it are stupid. They aren't the same thing and therefore direct comparisons are pointless. Storm does avoidable damage over time, EMP does unavoidable instant damage but can't kill. They. Aren't. The. Same. People need to instead look at their interactions with the army as a whole rather than "Storm does X emp does Y, IMBA!!". Balance does not occur in a spherical vacuum, you have to try to account for everything. Well this only further supports my point, so thanks. We were also looking at a specific scenario in the game where army composition doesn't play as large a role. I just find it ignorant to compare Storm to EMP in a game losing scenario when army composition doesn't matter. The fact that storm can actually kill units in that situation makes a huge difference between the two, which is why late game KA with HT warp ins were overpowered, but EMP isn't. If you look at actual results terran has been stomping protoss at the highest level of the game since ghost usage has become common whereas even when KA was being used win rates were about 50%. Even Blizzard is starting to realize that EMP is OP now hence the patch.
Terran were only winning by allining. Slowly but surely toss started learning to defeat terran allins and then they began dominating terrans. Look at the results from the time around GSTL 1. Toss was considered unbeatable late game.
|
Protoss was dominating Terran during the era when MVP dropped to Code A and MC won his second championship. This was also the time where new maps were introduced and people like Artosis and Protoss players started saying 'well if you're gonna go marine marauder all game you deserve to lose.' This was when Supernova went marine tank and Artosis labelled him 'best TvP in the world', and you saw MVP and MKP try and do marine tank stuff as well. It wasn't till Thorzain that Protoss started to lose again. KA was nerfed but Protoss was winning anyway. Thorzain went sup and showed fast upgrades with 2 reactor starports. Protoss players realized they couldn't win with a colossus death ball anymore, so they switched to zealot based upgrade centric armies. 'Late game zealot' became a problem, until Puma showed everyone that mass marauder was pretty awful vs anything but stalker colossus, and that ghosts were a good unit. Thorzain was a prominnent ghost user too but MC somehow won the ghost/ht wars.
Protoss death ball was no more. 1/1/1 showed up again after - few months hiatus, ghost timings showed up. Protoss forgot that Terrans were really greedy every game and that a 6 gate would win loads of games had they decided to do it. We now just have to wait to see what comes next. I still think it will still bs MC who will show the way.
|
I am tired of how good terran is... It is ridiculous how good marines are.
User was warned for this post
|
On November 06 2011 05:57 BoomNasty wrote:
I am tired of how good terran is... It is ridiculous how good marines are.
Comments like these always perplex me. Blizzard's own ladder statistics show the game is pretty well balanced, with some minor issues at the highest levels of play, which are most likely due to frequent changes in strategies and shifts in the meta-game. Implying Terran is better than every other race because of marines is silly. If there's an imbalance at this point, it's not going to be something as large as a single unit that's causing all of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
