|
On April 09 2012 11:02 ][Primarch][ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2012 10:36 Shiori wrote:On April 09 2012 10:31 ][Primarch][ wrote:On April 09 2012 09:25 Shiori wrote:
Just work toward a high Ghost count lategame TvP and you'll be fine. Really tired of hear complaints about TvP when Terrans are doing just fine in it at the professional level. I don't know if you are aware of it but you are saying that Terrans are doing fine in late game TvP at the professional level, either you are ignorant or you are outright lying. Terrans are continuing to win tournaments and are continuing to beat Protoss players without incident. If anything, the primary complaints have been against Zerg lategame compositions, not Protoss. Even the statistics back up the fact that PvT is certainly balanced, if not slightly in favour of Terran. I don't even wanna continue this, hidden IMBA complaints on PvT coming from a protoss after saying he is tired of hearing complaints about TvP. What is this? Even trying to push terrans towards keep on whining about lategame zerg armies.
Dude, its shiori. He is probably the single most biased person around. Every matchup that he has no issues winning in are fine, every other matchup something is imba.
Back in september:
"he microed only 99% perfectly against puma's 25% perfection."
|
Austria24417 Posts
On April 09 2012 13:53 nakedsurfer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2012 12:31 teamhozac wrote:On April 09 2012 12:20 Shiori wrote:On April 09 2012 12:08 teamhozac wrote:On April 09 2012 11:04 Shiori wrote:On April 09 2012 11:02 ][Primarch][ wrote:On April 09 2012 10:36 Shiori wrote:On April 09 2012 10:31 ][Primarch][ wrote:On April 09 2012 09:25 Shiori wrote:
Just work toward a high Ghost count lategame TvP and you'll be fine. Really tired of hear complaints about TvP when Terrans are doing just fine in it at the professional level. I don't know if you are aware of it but you are saying that Terrans are doing fine in late game TvP at the professional level, either you are ignorant or you are outright lying. Terrans are continuing to win tournaments and are continuing to beat Protoss players without incident. If anything, the primary complaints have been against Zerg lategame compositions, not Protoss. Even the statistics back up the fact that PvT is certainly balanced, if not slightly in favour of Terran. I don't even wanna continue this, hidden IMBA complaints on PvT coming from a protoss after saying he is tired of hearing complaints about TvP. What is this? Even trying to push terrans towards keep on whining about lategame zerg armies. I don't think PvT is imbalanced at all! I'm saying that no statistics show PvT as favouring Protoss at the pro level. Lategame Zerg seems to be a problem for both Protoss and Terran players, especially since the Snipe nerf. Thats great that YOU think it is balanced AT THE PRO LEVEL, guess where most people play on this forum, ON THE LADDER, and guess where is is imbalanced? ON THE LADDER, blizzard said so themselves "We find that terran is underperforming against protoss and zerg at the lower levels" Reference the ladder statistics where terran only makes up about 26% of the Americas region, and you can see where I am going with this, it has been rehashed so many times but of course zergs and protoss still try and come up with a million reasons why it is not this way, mostly something going like this: "just l2p and stop whining lol" Balancing for ladder is just going to mess up the professional scene. No thanks. The game should be balanced at ALL levels, not just the pro scene What a rediculous statement. Balancing should be focused completely around the pro level. If you try to balance this game around all levels, you will basically have to dumb this game down so hard. Lets imagine that all levels except bronze-gold were perfectly 50% winrates but bronze-gold had the zerg race winning like 58%. With your statement, you're suggesting that blizzard should then nerf zerg accordingly. It would be such a shit show. Show nested quote +On April 09 2012 12:47 krell wrote:
EASY FIX: Have different game balance for different levels. DONE
IE. Make GM have different rules than diamond, etc.... Lollll what a bad idea Lets pretend someone in silver wants a promotion. Once they hit that promotion to gold, their rules change and suddenly they are doing worse. They can't win because the game would be pretty different and now they are back in silver where they dominate.
This.
You can't balance a game around its bad players because the solution for those players are not changes. The solution for them is to simply get better. Only the stats of the pro scene count when balancing a game because the pros show what a race can really do, not gold league players.
If terrans are having trouble at gold level and terrans pros are winning every single tournament (not saying that's how it is, it's an example!), then the solution is not to buff terran for gold league players. That's just entirely false logic. Instead, those players simply have to get better as it's obviously not the race that keeps them down. Same goes for all players of all races.
|
Pretty hilarious how the protoss and zerg players come in here saying balancing the game at all levels is a terrible idea, basically admitting that the game is imbalanced at lower levels, lol
|
On April 09 2012 20:47 teamhozac wrote:
Pretty hilarious how the protoss and zerg players come in here saying balancing the game at all levels is a terrible idea, basically admitting that the game is imbalanced at lower levels, lol
Whats your point? Games on lower level are lost because people make big mistakes, cannot control properly neither can they set up good macro or economics. Its perfectly true that an eSports competetive game should be balanced at the highest level of play.
I really don't like to admit it, but Terran played at its best is the best race, because you can make every unit worth their costs by times ten. I am Terran myself and obviously not a GSL Code S Terran, so I would HATE nerfs to my race, but if you want to BUFF Terrans for the sake of the lower-level players, you will utterly fuck the high level, because Terran will not just be even better, but probably easier to play as well.
|
Can we bitch about Stalkers in PvZ yet?
They're basically the same thing as mutas, only they cost half the gas and are 2x as good in a fight. They give Protoss too much mobility, bypass my static defenses, building spines is worthless. I don't have anything that can fight them cost-effectively, and all the other complaints that protoss was saying about Mutas 2 months ago.
Where is my +2 roach range upgrade?
|
On April 09 2012 21:37 Jermstuddog wrote:
Can we bitch about Stalkers in PvZ yet?
They're basically the same thing as mutas, only they cost half the gas and are 2x as good in a fight. They give Protoss too much mobility, bypass my static defenses, building spines is worthless. I don't have anything that can fight them cost-effectively, and all the other complaints that protoss was saying about Mutas 2 months ago.
Where is my +2 roach range upgrade?
lol stalkers are the most cost ineffective unit in the game but they are somewhat ok because you can micro them.
god forbid, that zerg players learned to micro, the game would be so imba. 
|
On April 09 2012 22:38 freetgy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2012 21:37 Jermstuddog wrote:
Can we bitch about Stalkers in PvZ yet?
They're basically the same thing as mutas, only they cost half the gas and are 2x as good in a fight. They give Protoss too much mobility, bypass my static defenses, building spines is worthless. I don't have anything that can fight them cost-effectively, and all the other complaints that protoss was saying about Mutas 2 months ago.
Where is my +2 roach range upgrade? lol stalkers are the most cost ineffective unit in the game but they are somewhat ok because you can micro them. god forbid, that zerg players learned to micro, the game would be so imba.
Until you realise forcefields negate any (or a lot of the) ability for zerg to micro vs protoss
Then fungal growth does the same thing..messes up protoss ability to micro making the game, IMO, worse.
Not entirely sure about how to fix it / what to replace ff/fg with.
|
such a joke, how about lings, they have too much mobility, can run by holes in defence, cost no gas, have no tech and do more damage than stalkers cost for cost.
|
On April 09 2012 14:47 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2012 11:02 ][Primarch][ wrote:On April 09 2012 10:36 Shiori wrote:On April 09 2012 10:31 ][Primarch][ wrote:On April 09 2012 09:25 Shiori wrote:
Just work toward a high Ghost count lategame TvP and you'll be fine. Really tired of hear complaints about TvP when Terrans are doing just fine in it at the professional level. I don't know if you are aware of it but you are saying that Terrans are doing fine in late game TvP at the professional level, either you are ignorant or you are outright lying. Terrans are continuing to win tournaments and are continuing to beat Protoss players without incident. If anything, the primary complaints have been against Zerg lategame compositions, not Protoss. Even the statistics back up the fact that PvT is certainly balanced, if not slightly in favour of Terran. I don't even wanna continue this, hidden IMBA complaints on PvT coming from a protoss after saying he is tired of hearing complaints about TvP. What is this? Even trying to push terrans towards keep on whining about lategame zerg armies. Dude, its shiori. He is probably the single most biased person around. Every matchup that he has no issues winning in are fine, every other matchup something is imba. Back in september: "he microed only 99% perfectly against puma's 25% perfection."
Yeah, let's go back 7 or 8 months to find me saying something that in no way shape or form applies to the current metagame! And regardless, I was (I think) talking about 1-1-1, which at the time had something like a 95% winrate against Protoss players and eventually culminated in a Toss buff. Either that or it was when the Ghost EMP radius was the size of the damn moon.
PS my PvZ is way better than my PvT. I still think PvZ is the problematic matchup.
|
United Kingdom1190 Posts
On April 09 2012 20:47 teamhozac wrote:
Pretty hilarious how the protoss and zerg players come in here saying balancing the game at all levels is a terrible idea, basically admitting that the game is imbalanced at lower levels, lol
Not really. People are trying to make a living off this game by being good players so they want a fair game that's balanced regardless of the race they play. These people are more important to the game than people playing in lower leagues a few days a week just to get some ladder points. Sorry but it's the truth. The game is balanced around the pro level because they are the closest to being able to play perfectly, therefore problems with the race and not the player are more distinguishable, meaning that if you're having a problem at a lower level, that's not a problem with the race, it means that you're not playing the race well.
|
On April 09 2012 22:38 freetgy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2012 21:37 Jermstuddog wrote:
Can we bitch about Stalkers in PvZ yet?
They're basically the same thing as mutas, only they cost half the gas and are 2x as good in a fight. They give Protoss too much mobility, bypass my static defenses, building spines is worthless. I don't have anything that can fight them cost-effectively, and all the other complaints that protoss was saying about Mutas 2 months ago.
Where is my +2 roach range upgrade? lol stalkers are the most cost ineffective unit in the game but they are somewhat ok because you can micro them. god forbid, that zerg players learned to micro, the game would be so imba.
Stalkers are more cost effective than Mutas, and that's the comparison here. The only difference in mobility is that Mutas are true flying units, Stalkers are 90% as fast and can blink over cliffs/walls with ease. This would be a "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" situation.
There is no argument that justifies the Phoenix range upgrade in order to deal with Mutas that would not also justify a Roach range upgrade to deal with Stalkers.
As was mentioned a few posts above, force field is to roaches what fungal is to phoenix, you also get colossus and storms. The whole thing just sounds highly Protoss favored, and the Koreans are showing it. Once Protoss secures his 3rd there is basically nothing Zerg can do other than turtle up into spines, broods, and infestors... Nothing else can fight properly supported Stalkers cost-effectively... Pretty impressive for the least cost-effective unit in the game.
|
On April 10 2012 00:08 Jermstuddog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2012 22:38 freetgy wrote:On April 09 2012 21:37 Jermstuddog wrote:
Can we bitch about Stalkers in PvZ yet?
They're basically the same thing as mutas, only they cost half the gas and are 2x as good in a fight. They give Protoss too much mobility, bypass my static defenses, building spines is worthless. I don't have anything that can fight them cost-effectively, and all the other complaints that protoss was saying about Mutas 2 months ago.
Where is my +2 roach range upgrade? lol stalkers are the most cost ineffective unit in the game but they are somewhat ok because you can micro them. god forbid, that zerg players learned to micro, the game would be so imba. Stalkers are more cost effective than Mutas, and that's the comparison here. The only difference in mobility is that Mutas are true flying units, Stalkers are 90% as fast and can blink over cliffs/walls with ease. This would be a "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" situation. There is no argument that justifies the Phoenix range upgrade in order to deal with Mutas that would not also justify a Roach range upgrade to deal with Stalkers. As was mentioned a few posts above, force field is to roaches what fungal is to phoenix, you also get colossus and storms. The whole thing just sounds highly Protoss favored, and the Koreans are showing it. Once Protoss secures his 3rd there is basically nothing Zerg can do other than turtle up into spines, broods, and infestors... Nothing else can fight properly supported Stalkers cost-effectively... Pretty impressive for the least cost-effective unit in the game.
I'm sorry, I must have missed the PvZ slaughter at IPL. Oh wait, only 1 PvZ in the group stages and beyond ended in favour of Protoss.
Getting a fast third is the supposed counter to Mutas, and it can usually be punished by 3base Roach. The defense of 3base Roach involves immortal and sentry spam, which, you guessed it, leaves the Protoss player open to Mutas if the third Nexus goes down. 9/10, that Nexus will go down unless the Zerg messes up of the Protoss splits perfectly on a favourable map. On maps like Shakuras, 3base Roach is unbelievably good at denying fast thirds, which makes Muta followups especially deadly.
Furthermore, the Phoenix upgrade is more or less useless and I've yet to see a pro game where the Protoss player uses it without already being miles ahead.
|
So do people have any ideas to buff Terran at lower level without making them overpowered at professional level?
Or are we just bitching for the sake of bitching?
We "could" increase marine HP and lower their DPS, but would you really want that. (as an example)
If you want to adjust a race's weakness at lower level without making them ridiculous at higher level you have to adjust the race's attributes that makes it so, not nerfing the other 2 races.
|
On April 10 2012 00:24 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2012 00:08 Jermstuddog wrote:On April 09 2012 22:38 freetgy wrote:On April 09 2012 21:37 Jermstuddog wrote:
Can we bitch about Stalkers in PvZ yet?
They're basically the same thing as mutas, only they cost half the gas and are 2x as good in a fight. They give Protoss too much mobility, bypass my static defenses, building spines is worthless. I don't have anything that can fight them cost-effectively, and all the other complaints that protoss was saying about Mutas 2 months ago.
Where is my +2 roach range upgrade? lol stalkers are the most cost ineffective unit in the game but they are somewhat ok because you can micro them. god forbid, that zerg players learned to micro, the game would be so imba. Stalkers are more cost effective than Mutas, and that's the comparison here. The only difference in mobility is that Mutas are true flying units, Stalkers are 90% as fast and can blink over cliffs/walls with ease. This would be a "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" situation. There is no argument that justifies the Phoenix range upgrade in order to deal with Mutas that would not also justify a Roach range upgrade to deal with Stalkers. As was mentioned a few posts above, force field is to roaches what fungal is to phoenix, you also get colossus and storms. The whole thing just sounds highly Protoss favored, and the Koreans are showing it. Once Protoss secures his 3rd there is basically nothing Zerg can do other than turtle up into spines, broods, and infestors... Nothing else can fight properly supported Stalkers cost-effectively... Pretty impressive for the least cost-effective unit in the game. I'm sorry, I must have missed the PvZ slaughter at IPL. Oh wait, only 1 PvZ in the group stages and beyond ended in favour of Protoss. Getting a fast third is the supposed counter to Mutas, and it can usually be punished by 3base Roach. The defense of 3base Roach involves immortal and sentry spam, which, you guessed it, leaves the Protoss player open to Mutas if the third Nexus goes down. 9/10, that Nexus will go down unless the Zerg messes up of the Protoss splits perfectly on a favourable map. On maps like Shakuras, 3base Roach is unbelievably good at denying fast thirds, which makes Muta followups especially deadly. Furthermore, the Phoenix upgrade is more or less useless and I've yet to see a pro game where the Protoss player uses it without already being miles ahead.
None of anything you said has anything to do with late game Stalkers.
|
On April 10 2012 00:42 david0925 wrote:
So do people have any ideas to buff Terran at lower level without making them overpowered at professional level?
Or are we just bitching for the sake of bitching?
We "could" increase marine HP and lower their DPS, but would you really want that. (as an example)
If you want to adjust a race's weakness at lower level without making them ridiculous at higher level you have to adjust the race's attributes that makes it so, not nerfing the other 2 races.
The answer has always been simple, make marines less good and buff in other areas. Siege tanks and ravens could both use meaningful buffs without ruining any MU right now. Better hellions would be nice so long as they could somehow avoid the worker rape. Remove the Thor mana bar and they are suddenly viable in TvP again.
Essentially, you balance out the skill curve on Terran by removing their massive micro potential and bring them in line with the rest of the game.
|
On April 10 2012 00:42 david0925 wrote:
So do people have any ideas to buff Terran at lower level without making them overpowered at professional level?
Or are we just bitching for the sake of bitching?
We "could" increase marine HP and lower their DPS, but would you really want that. (as an example)
If you want to adjust a race's weakness at lower level without making them ridiculous at higher level you have to adjust the race's attributes that makes it so, not nerfing the other 2 races.
Do something, anything to make it so that protoss is just as strong as it is now, while giving the protoss player a mechanical requirement to control his deathball that is on par with the mechanical requirements of controlling a terran ball to maximum efficiency.
this way balance doesn't change, but there is a more level playing field throughout the game
|
Hero vs Curious the Phoenix range upgrade is researched and he wasn't miles ahead.
|
Here is an interesting question: How do Terrans stop a Protoss's 2 base colossi + thermal lance push?
We saw Squirtle DESTROYED MMA and MKP with this build. Four times, quick 2-0 each and MMA and MKP (arguably best Terrans atm) couldn't do a thing about it. While it was true that both MMA and MKP was not building vikings until it was too late since the metagame of PvT in Korea right now is templar-tech favored, what could they have done even if they scouted the colossus? By the time the 2 colossi push hits the Terran MIGHT at best have 4 vikings, which get picked off easily by stalkers.
|
On April 09 2012 21:37 Jermstuddog wrote:
Can we bitch about Stalkers in PvZ yet?
They're basically the same thing as mutas, only they cost half the gas and are 2x as good in a fight. They give Protoss too much mobility, bypass my static defenses, building spines is worthless. I don't have anything that can fight them cost-effectively, and all the other complaints that protoss was saying about Mutas 2 months ago.
Where is my +2 roach range upgrade?
HAHAHAHA. This has to be the stupidest post i've ever fuckin see (and that's saying a lot). Stalkers are pretty much the most cost inefficient units in the game. Vikings on the fuckin ground do more damage. Marauders and roaches have WAYY more dps and stalkers cost the most. OO QQ they have mobility. Are you honestly trying to argue that stalkers have more mobility than mutas? Dear god.
Also protip: mutas are harassing units, not to be used in a straight up engagement.
|
On April 10 2012 01:07 ref4 wrote:
Here is an interesting question: How do Terrans stop a Protoss's 2 base colossi + thermal lance push?
We saw Squirtle DESTROYED MMA and MKP with this build. Four times, quick 2-0 each and MMA and MKP (arguably best Terrans atm) couldn't do a thing about it. While it was true that both MMA and MKP was not building vikings until it was too late since the metagame of PvT in Korea right now is templar-tech favored, what could they have done even if they scouted the colossus? By the time the 2 colossi push hits the Terran MIGHT at best have 4 vikings, which get picked off easily by stalkers.
it was a combination of two things:
1. MKP was playing greedy (quick third).
2. Squirtle hid the all in well.
Nothing more to it.
edit: sry double post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
