|
On July 18 2012 01:46 Decendos wrote:
+ 11 T in RO24 in GSL Code A + perhaps even 12.
why do T so much whine? its like 6 weeks (?) after queen patch and T win more and more since that. also in GSTL where zerg won everything in TvZ after patch T won more than Z did in TvZ in the last round. just give it time, it got better and will get even better.
This has nothing to do with the fact that the matchups featuring Zerg are all horrible right now because they're passive macro fests.
|
On July 18 2012 01:35 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2012 01:26 TrippSC2 wrote:On July 18 2012 01:05 Shiori wrote:On July 18 2012 01:00 TrippSC2 wrote:On July 18 2012 00:34 Shiori wrote:On July 18 2012 00:30 TrippSC2 wrote:On July 17 2012 23:33 Toadvine wrote:On July 17 2012 22:22 yeint wrote:Your core game design points are purely an SC2 fabrication, aside from the tech switch one perhaps. Zerg does not have the best economy in BW when undisturbed What the fuck are you talking about? This is a thread about STACRAFT 2 balance. What the races were like in BW is completely irrelevant. The core game design of SC2 is that Zerg has the best economy if undisturbed. If you had carefully read the post I was replying to, you'd see that he was claiming this was the same in BW, which is wrong. A lot of people newer to the scene think that SC2 Zerg is somehow a continuation of BW Zerg, when they couldn't be further apart, all things considered. I think it's useful to correct this misconception, especially since A LOT of basic strategic ideas were directly lifted from BW into SC2, often to the detriment of the development of original sc2 strategies. For example, the notion of "forcing the Zerg to make units instead of drones" is a lot less impactful in SC2 than it is in BW, because larvae are so cheap in the former. Similarly, forcing a Zerg to make static defense was a huge deal in BW, because they cost a drone at a time when Zerg wouldn't have a lot of drones - DTs forcing a spore at every Zerg expo was in itself pretty decent damage. In SC2, it doesn't matter that much, and you see Zergs having 30+ spines on the map in the lategame. And so forth. As an aside, I think the Zerg core design in SC2 is pretty stupid, but it's impossible to change at this point. I didn't play BW, so please don't hold that against me, but I think that the difference is that the increase in larva capacity becomes exponentially larger if left unchecked early, rather than linearly. A lot of the builds currently used against Zerg in both matchups are the variety that abandon very early pressure in favor of a stronger personal economy, but allow the Zerg free reign in the early game to drone super hard. It's debatable how much Terran have the ability to slow Zergs down with the queen change, but Protoss players have adopted play that basically guarantees that Zergs get to 60 drones and even very strong all-ins that come from FFE can still be held with around 50 drones. I'm surprised that Protoss players haven't given other FE possibilities another look to see if they can trade spending 300 minerals blindly on static defense, in favor of earlier pressure to force units. What Naniwa did in GSL Ro8 might be the start of something like this for the greater metagame. I think the reason this hasn't happened sooner is that Protoss players have a rather strong late mid game and late game composition that is established with solid transitions to get there. I hate this line of reasoning so very much because it shows a fundamental lack of respect for the history of the game and the skill of Protoss pros. 1gate FE is not good. The times it works right now are 100% down to metagame and lack of Zerg practice against this. Proof? We used to 1gate and 3gate expand exclusively in this matchup, before we realized that FFE was better. The reason that Zerg can hold everything Protoss can throw at them is because of nerfs to virtually every Protoss timing following immense Zerg QQ. Maybe you've forgotten, but WG nerfs delay all of our timings SIGNIFICANTLY. Void Ray speed nerf made Stargate openings way worse. Spore Crawler root time was buffed so Stargate is actually virtually useless now. Blink research time was increased in a time when barely anyone was actually losing to Blink timings. What other tech path are we supposed to pressure with? +1 4gate zealot is countered by standard play. DTs are countered by standard play. Warp Prism harass in the midgame is countered by standard play. There's nothing left except all-ins or fake pressures.So yeah, it's not that Protoss players are averse to trying pressures. It's just that all the non-all-in versions have been nerfed to oblivion because Zergs like Idra thought they were entitled to get 70 Drones automatically. Now, I see why I avoided this thread. You don't really want to discuss anything. You just want to bash other races and cry about things not being easy for you. I've played on both sides of the matchup and I'm aware of the meta-game shifts that have happened. My point is that putting down a Forge and a Cannon delays all pressure substantially to be safe against theoretical pressure. If the pressure doesn't come, you can basically assume that Zerg should have 60 drones at a minimum if they play properly, because your tech is so far delayed that you can't actually stop it from happening realistically. I'm not saying go back to 1/3 Gate then expand builds. What I'm saying is that I'm surprised smarter and better Protoss minds than I should look at that and say there is something wrong and there's got to be a better way to do it. I don't want to discuss things that are settled issues. Anything other than FFE is just not workable right now because of how fast Zerg economy can spiral and because of how utterly huge the maps are. Yes, FFE delays your pressure, but no FFE delays your economy. Since every Protoss tech has massive costs attached to it, you can't really 1base for long against a Zerg since Speedling expands are able to fend off basically any ground-based pokes. Every Protoss player knows that FFE makes your pressure come later, but there really isn't anything we can do about it. Sometimes you can get away with going Gate before Forge, but only if the Zerg player opens really greedily. Other than that, Zerg will see your greedy opening and just pump out Lings until you die. Until you can give a suggestion as to what we're supposed to do other than FFE, there's no point saying "oh, well there's gotta be something since FFE is bad." Yeah, no shit FFE is bad. That's the point. That's why PvZ needs fixing. There needs to be some way of viably pressuring Zerg without being incredibly behind in another way. I don't think that it's my job to think for you, but will give you some things that I have seen that look from a Zerg prospective to be better than FFE: Naniwa vs. DRG...Go watch it. Opened gateway in the main, followed by Nexus, then gas. He hit a big 4 gate timing at ~6:30 that forced a lot of units out of DRG. He did similar openings in 4 games against the best zerg in the world and went 2-2. White-ra and Tails do similar builds and it seems rather flexible. It seems like it would have problems with speedling aggression, but, as Naniwa did in one of his games, you can reactively get Forge + Cannon to deal with this sort of thing. I've seen players in high Master league go for Nexus first followed by 2 gateways for early zealot pressure, all while still getting earlier tech for followup aggression than FFE. It seems semi-vulnerable to early 2 base roach timings, but those are problems that can likely be worked out by build refinement, scouting and deviation. The latter opening is viable, but very weak after the Queen buff. The Naniwa Gate expand is 100% a metagame build. It would not work if everyone did it.
I don't mean to interrupt you guys' argument, but Naniwa Gate expand seems to have some potential. As you said, that build is 100% metagame build now. I agree. I don't think that is something every Protoss should do every game. But, just like there are some different openings in some match-ups, can't it be one of the builds in Protoss arsenal in PvZ? If 50% of games started with FFE, and the rest of 50% started with this gateway expand, Zerg is forced to either scout, play it safe, or die. I'm afraid I don't have specific timing/builds that I can offer here, but having 2 different styles in arsenal can't be bad if both can be reasonably safe. There will be some build order advantage and some coin-flip depending on if Zerg takes 3rd as natural without scouting or goes all-in etc, but having some build order advantage is unavoidable anyways. As long as it is "reasonably" safe and have potential to pressure harder vs Zerg, I think it is too early to say this build is not viable. Just like you don't go a single build every game in PvP series, mixing up a few viable builds in PvZ can keep opponent in doubt.
|
On July 18 2012 01:38 uzushould wrote:
let the statistics speak for them selfs:
OVERALL SUMMERY:
Zerg: 15
Protoss: 19
Terran: 6
Looks bad, does it? How about what went on before the Queen change when many say everything was fine:
Between patch 1.4.3 (Ghost change) and 1.4.3 BU (Queen change):
IEM S6
MLG Winter Champ
GSL S2
IPL S4
Dreamhack Stockholm
Ro8
15 P
17 T
7 Z
Winners:
4 T
1 P
Sure. Blizzard went too far with the patch changes, but it's not like everything was fine before then. I'm not sure if just the overlord change would have been enough, or maybe Queen range 4, but this myth that Blizzard broke a perfectly balanced game that's promoted by some is just that, a myth.
Either that, or tournament results shouldn't enter these debates.
|
On July 18 2012 01:46 Decendos wrote:
+ 11 T in RO24 in GSL Code A + perhaps even 12.
why do T so much whine? its like 6 weeks (?) after queen patch and T win more and more since that. also in GSTL where zerg won everything in TvZ after patch T won more than Z did in TvZ in the last round. just give it time, it got better and will get even better.
Zerg essentially can't lose if they turtle to a GGLord/Infestor army in both matchups. In order for them to lose Protoss has to either do some outrageously risky all in or Zerg has to micro very poorly. Against Terran it's the same, the Terran is forced to do some kind of massive push before hive to win.
This isn't just a balance problem it makes for awful, awful games.
The game played out a lot better when Zerg was very passive early game but need to get aggressive mid game because they were weaker late game. Now they're still defensive early game game but are near untouchable in the mid/late game.
|
On July 18 2012 01:54 Orek wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2012 01:35 Shiori wrote:On July 18 2012 01:26 TrippSC2 wrote:On July 18 2012 01:05 Shiori wrote:On July 18 2012 01:00 TrippSC2 wrote:On July 18 2012 00:34 Shiori wrote:On July 18 2012 00:30 TrippSC2 wrote:On July 17 2012 23:33 Toadvine wrote:On July 17 2012 22:22 yeint wrote:Your core game design points are purely an SC2 fabrication, aside from the tech switch one perhaps. Zerg does not have the best economy in BW when undisturbed What the fuck are you talking about? This is a thread about STACRAFT 2 balance. What the races were like in BW is completely irrelevant. The core game design of SC2 is that Zerg has the best economy if undisturbed. If you had carefully read the post I was replying to, you'd see that he was claiming this was the same in BW, which is wrong. A lot of people newer to the scene think that SC2 Zerg is somehow a continuation of BW Zerg, when they couldn't be further apart, all things considered. I think it's useful to correct this misconception, especially since A LOT of basic strategic ideas were directly lifted from BW into SC2, often to the detriment of the development of original sc2 strategies. For example, the notion of "forcing the Zerg to make units instead of drones" is a lot less impactful in SC2 than it is in BW, because larvae are so cheap in the former. Similarly, forcing a Zerg to make static defense was a huge deal in BW, because they cost a drone at a time when Zerg wouldn't have a lot of drones - DTs forcing a spore at every Zerg expo was in itself pretty decent damage. In SC2, it doesn't matter that much, and you see Zergs having 30+ spines on the map in the lategame. And so forth. As an aside, I think the Zerg core design in SC2 is pretty stupid, but it's impossible to change at this point. I didn't play BW, so please don't hold that against me, but I think that the difference is that the increase in larva capacity becomes exponentially larger if left unchecked early, rather than linearly. A lot of the builds currently used against Zerg in both matchups are the variety that abandon very early pressure in favor of a stronger personal economy, but allow the Zerg free reign in the early game to drone super hard. It's debatable how much Terran have the ability to slow Zergs down with the queen change, but Protoss players have adopted play that basically guarantees that Zergs get to 60 drones and even very strong all-ins that come from FFE can still be held with around 50 drones. I'm surprised that Protoss players haven't given other FE possibilities another look to see if they can trade spending 300 minerals blindly on static defense, in favor of earlier pressure to force units. What Naniwa did in GSL Ro8 might be the start of something like this for the greater metagame. I think the reason this hasn't happened sooner is that Protoss players have a rather strong late mid game and late game composition that is established with solid transitions to get there. I hate this line of reasoning so very much because it shows a fundamental lack of respect for the history of the game and the skill of Protoss pros. 1gate FE is not good. The times it works right now are 100% down to metagame and lack of Zerg practice against this. Proof? We used to 1gate and 3gate expand exclusively in this matchup, before we realized that FFE was better. The reason that Zerg can hold everything Protoss can throw at them is because of nerfs to virtually every Protoss timing following immense Zerg QQ. Maybe you've forgotten, but WG nerfs delay all of our timings SIGNIFICANTLY. Void Ray speed nerf made Stargate openings way worse. Spore Crawler root time was buffed so Stargate is actually virtually useless now. Blink research time was increased in a time when barely anyone was actually losing to Blink timings. What other tech path are we supposed to pressure with? +1 4gate zealot is countered by standard play. DTs are countered by standard play. Warp Prism harass in the midgame is countered by standard play. There's nothing left except all-ins or fake pressures.So yeah, it's not that Protoss players are averse to trying pressures. It's just that all the non-all-in versions have been nerfed to oblivion because Zergs like Idra thought they were entitled to get 70 Drones automatically. Now, I see why I avoided this thread. You don't really want to discuss anything. You just want to bash other races and cry about things not being easy for you. I've played on both sides of the matchup and I'm aware of the meta-game shifts that have happened. My point is that putting down a Forge and a Cannon delays all pressure substantially to be safe against theoretical pressure. If the pressure doesn't come, you can basically assume that Zerg should have 60 drones at a minimum if they play properly, because your tech is so far delayed that you can't actually stop it from happening realistically. I'm not saying go back to 1/3 Gate then expand builds. What I'm saying is that I'm surprised smarter and better Protoss minds than I should look at that and say there is something wrong and there's got to be a better way to do it. I don't want to discuss things that are settled issues. Anything other than FFE is just not workable right now because of how fast Zerg economy can spiral and because of how utterly huge the maps are. Yes, FFE delays your pressure, but no FFE delays your economy. Since every Protoss tech has massive costs attached to it, you can't really 1base for long against a Zerg since Speedling expands are able to fend off basically any ground-based pokes. Every Protoss player knows that FFE makes your pressure come later, but there really isn't anything we can do about it. Sometimes you can get away with going Gate before Forge, but only if the Zerg player opens really greedily. Other than that, Zerg will see your greedy opening and just pump out Lings until you die. Until you can give a suggestion as to what we're supposed to do other than FFE, there's no point saying "oh, well there's gotta be something since FFE is bad." Yeah, no shit FFE is bad. That's the point. That's why PvZ needs fixing. There needs to be some way of viably pressuring Zerg without being incredibly behind in another way. I don't think that it's my job to think for you, but will give you some things that I have seen that look from a Zerg prospective to be better than FFE: Naniwa vs. DRG...Go watch it. Opened gateway in the main, followed by Nexus, then gas. He hit a big 4 gate timing at ~6:30 that forced a lot of units out of DRG. He did similar openings in 4 games against the best zerg in the world and went 2-2. White-ra and Tails do similar builds and it seems rather flexible. It seems like it would have problems with speedling aggression, but, as Naniwa did in one of his games, you can reactively get Forge + Cannon to deal with this sort of thing. I've seen players in high Master league go for Nexus first followed by 2 gateways for early zealot pressure, all while still getting earlier tech for followup aggression than FFE. It seems semi-vulnerable to early 2 base roach timings, but those are problems that can likely be worked out by build refinement, scouting and deviation. The latter opening is viable, but very weak after the Queen buff. The Naniwa Gate expand is 100% a metagame build. It would not work if everyone did it. I don't mean to interrupt you guys' argument, but Naniwa Gate expand seems to have some potential. As you said, that build is 100% metagame build now. I agree. I don't think that is something every Protoss should do every game. But, just like there are some different openings in some match-ups, can't it be one of the builds in Protoss arsenal in PvZ? If 50% of games started with FFE, and the rest of 50% started with this gateway expand, Zerg is forced to either scout, play it safe, or die. I'm afraid I don't have specific timing/builds that I can offer here, but having 2 different styles in arsenal can't be bad if both can be reasonably safe. There will be some build order advantage and some coin-flip depending on if Zerg takes 3rd as natural without scouting or goes all-in etc, but having some build order advantage is unavoidable anyways. As long as it is "reasonably" safe and have potential to pressure harder vs Zerg, I think it is too early to say this build is not viable. Just like you don't go a single build every game in PvP series, mixing up a few viable builds in PvZ can keep opponent in doubt.
Zerg can just Drone scout and the problem is completely solved.
And @ the people citing tournaments, you need to look at how these tournaments were won. Virtually every PvZ win has been on the back of pure 2 base all-ins for a long time now. It doesn't matter if Protoss was winning if they still can't hold their own in macro games and only win when the Zergs underprepare. As for Terrans, I know people hate this argument (and I, as a Protoss player, hated it too) but in large part there really were very few good ZvT players and a LOT of good TvZ players. I'm sorry, but it's just a fact. Outside of DRG and maybe now Symbol, nobody in the Zerg camp has shown much aptitude for ZvT until the Queen buff hit. Let me remind you that even pre-buff DRG had a huge ZvT win rate in macro games.But if you look at the Terran side of things, you have MKP, MMA, Polt, Taeja, Alive, and so on who all own face at TvZ and always have because their mechanics are so damn good.
I mean, most of the tournaments we've seen have been 3 or 4 really strong Terrans, MC +1 other Protoss, and DRG. It's unrealistic to expect DRG to win every time, and even more silly to claim that him losing when he's the only competitive Zerg at the event is evidence of anything.
|
On July 18 2012 01:54 Orek wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2012 01:35 Shiori wrote:On July 18 2012 01:26 TrippSC2 wrote:On July 18 2012 01:05 Shiori wrote:On July 18 2012 01:00 TrippSC2 wrote:On July 18 2012 00:34 Shiori wrote:On July 18 2012 00:30 TrippSC2 wrote:On July 17 2012 23:33 Toadvine wrote:On July 17 2012 22:22 yeint wrote:Your core game design points are purely an SC2 fabrication, aside from the tech switch one perhaps. Zerg does not have the best economy in BW when undisturbed What the fuck are you talking about? This is a thread about STACRAFT 2 balance. What the races were like in BW is completely irrelevant. The core game design of SC2 is that Zerg has the best economy if undisturbed. If you had carefully read the post I was replying to, you'd see that he was claiming this was the same in BW, which is wrong. A lot of people newer to the scene think that SC2 Zerg is somehow a continuation of BW Zerg, when they couldn't be further apart, all things considered. I think it's useful to correct this misconception, especially since A LOT of basic strategic ideas were directly lifted from BW into SC2, often to the detriment of the development of original sc2 strategies. For example, the notion of "forcing the Zerg to make units instead of drones" is a lot less impactful in SC2 than it is in BW, because larvae are so cheap in the former. Similarly, forcing a Zerg to make static defense was a huge deal in BW, because they cost a drone at a time when Zerg wouldn't have a lot of drones - DTs forcing a spore at every Zerg expo was in itself pretty decent damage. In SC2, it doesn't matter that much, and you see Zergs having 30+ spines on the map in the lategame. And so forth. As an aside, I think the Zerg core design in SC2 is pretty stupid, but it's impossible to change at this point. I didn't play BW, so please don't hold that against me, but I think that the difference is that the increase in larva capacity becomes exponentially larger if left unchecked early, rather than linearly. A lot of the builds currently used against Zerg in both matchups are the variety that abandon very early pressure in favor of a stronger personal economy, but allow the Zerg free reign in the early game to drone super hard. It's debatable how much Terran have the ability to slow Zergs down with the queen change, but Protoss players have adopted play that basically guarantees that Zergs get to 60 drones and even very strong all-ins that come from FFE can still be held with around 50 drones. I'm surprised that Protoss players haven't given other FE possibilities another look to see if they can trade spending 300 minerals blindly on static defense, in favor of earlier pressure to force units. What Naniwa did in GSL Ro8 might be the start of something like this for the greater metagame. I think the reason this hasn't happened sooner is that Protoss players have a rather strong late mid game and late game composition that is established with solid transitions to get there. I hate this line of reasoning so very much because it shows a fundamental lack of respect for the history of the game and the skill of Protoss pros. 1gate FE is not good. The times it works right now are 100% down to metagame and lack of Zerg practice against this. Proof? We used to 1gate and 3gate expand exclusively in this matchup, before we realized that FFE was better. The reason that Zerg can hold everything Protoss can throw at them is because of nerfs to virtually every Protoss timing following immense Zerg QQ. Maybe you've forgotten, but WG nerfs delay all of our timings SIGNIFICANTLY. Void Ray speed nerf made Stargate openings way worse. Spore Crawler root time was buffed so Stargate is actually virtually useless now. Blink research time was increased in a time when barely anyone was actually losing to Blink timings. What other tech path are we supposed to pressure with? +1 4gate zealot is countered by standard play. DTs are countered by standard play. Warp Prism harass in the midgame is countered by standard play. There's nothing left except all-ins or fake pressures.So yeah, it's not that Protoss players are averse to trying pressures. It's just that all the non-all-in versions have been nerfed to oblivion because Zergs like Idra thought they were entitled to get 70 Drones automatically. Now, I see why I avoided this thread. You don't really want to discuss anything. You just want to bash other races and cry about things not being easy for you. I've played on both sides of the matchup and I'm aware of the meta-game shifts that have happened. My point is that putting down a Forge and a Cannon delays all pressure substantially to be safe against theoretical pressure. If the pressure doesn't come, you can basically assume that Zerg should have 60 drones at a minimum if they play properly, because your tech is so far delayed that you can't actually stop it from happening realistically. I'm not saying go back to 1/3 Gate then expand builds. What I'm saying is that I'm surprised smarter and better Protoss minds than I should look at that and say there is something wrong and there's got to be a better way to do it. I don't want to discuss things that are settled issues. Anything other than FFE is just not workable right now because of how fast Zerg economy can spiral and because of how utterly huge the maps are. Yes, FFE delays your pressure, but no FFE delays your economy. Since every Protoss tech has massive costs attached to it, you can't really 1base for long against a Zerg since Speedling expands are able to fend off basically any ground-based pokes. Every Protoss player knows that FFE makes your pressure come later, but there really isn't anything we can do about it. Sometimes you can get away with going Gate before Forge, but only if the Zerg player opens really greedily. Other than that, Zerg will see your greedy opening and just pump out Lings until you die. Until you can give a suggestion as to what we're supposed to do other than FFE, there's no point saying "oh, well there's gotta be something since FFE is bad." Yeah, no shit FFE is bad. That's the point. That's why PvZ needs fixing. There needs to be some way of viably pressuring Zerg without being incredibly behind in another way. I don't think that it's my job to think for you, but will give you some things that I have seen that look from a Zerg prospective to be better than FFE: Naniwa vs. DRG...Go watch it. Opened gateway in the main, followed by Nexus, then gas. He hit a big 4 gate timing at ~6:30 that forced a lot of units out of DRG. He did similar openings in 4 games against the best zerg in the world and went 2-2. White-ra and Tails do similar builds and it seems rather flexible. It seems like it would have problems with speedling aggression, but, as Naniwa did in one of his games, you can reactively get Forge + Cannon to deal with this sort of thing. I've seen players in high Master league go for Nexus first followed by 2 gateways for early zealot pressure, all while still getting earlier tech for followup aggression than FFE. It seems semi-vulnerable to early 2 base roach timings, but those are problems that can likely be worked out by build refinement, scouting and deviation. The latter opening is viable, but very weak after the Queen buff. The Naniwa Gate expand is 100% a metagame build. It would not work if everyone did it. I don't mean to interrupt you guys' argument, but Naniwa Gate expand seems to have some potential. As you said, that build is 100% metagame build now. I agree. I don't think that is something every Protoss should do every game. But, just like there are some different openings in some match-ups, can't it be one of the builds in Protoss arsenal in PvZ? If 50% of games started with FFE, and the rest of 50% started with this gateway expand, Zerg is forced to either scout, play it safe, or die. I'm afraid I don't have specific timing/builds that I can offer here, but having 2 different styles in arsenal can't be bad if both can be reasonably safe. There will be some build order advantage and some coin-flip depending on if Zerg takes 3rd as natural without scouting or goes all-in etc, but having some build order advantage is unavoidable anyways. As long as it is "reasonably" safe and have potential to pressure harder vs Zerg, I think it is too early to say this build is not viable. Just like you don't go a single build every game in PvP series, mixing up a few viable builds in PvZ can keep opponent in doubt.
Naniwa won game 1 because DRG didn't know what was going on. He won game 4 because DRG made a big mistake. The fact that you can prepare that way vs a guy who spent two weeks preparing for forge expands and still lose pretty comfortably doesn't suggest it's too viable to me but I'd be happy to see Protoss try.
I think that if DRG had spent two weeks preparing for people who gateway expand he'd have completely destroyed Naniwa though. Most of it's success was based on DRG not haven't played against it in a long time.
|
Another problem is that since everyone started forge expanding:
- Warp Gate research takes longer to build
- Blink takes longer to build
- Queens are now a ranged unit
- As a result of the Queen buff Zergs have much better creep spread.
- Maps are a lot bigger
- Overlords are faster and can much better scout your tech and for proxies
Pretty much everything that was good about gate expands like the ability to pressure, the ability to get a much wider variety of tech and a better ability to catch your opponent off guard has been hurt by changes since people realised Forge expanding was better. With all that in mind I don't see how gateway expanding is going to work when it's only going to be worse than it was when people realised it wasn't that great in the first place.
The only area where Protoss have improved is the Immortal Buff but imo there's no way one base Immortal builds will work with the new overlord scouting and Immortal expands would be far to slow to keep up with Zerg production. The Zerg would be on 40 drones before the Protoss even took their natural.
|
On July 18 2012 01:56 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2012 01:54 Orek wrote:On July 18 2012 01:35 Shiori wrote:On July 18 2012 01:26 TrippSC2 wrote:On July 18 2012 01:05 Shiori wrote:On July 18 2012 01:00 TrippSC2 wrote:On July 18 2012 00:34 Shiori wrote:On July 18 2012 00:30 TrippSC2 wrote:On July 17 2012 23:33 Toadvine wrote:On July 17 2012 22:22 yeint wrote:
[quote]
What the fuck are you talking about? This is a thread about STACRAFT 2 balance. What the races were like in BW is completely irrelevant. The core game design of SC2 is that Zerg has the best economy if undisturbed. If you had carefully read the post I was replying to, you'd see that he was claiming this was the same in BW, which is wrong. A lot of people newer to the scene think that SC2 Zerg is somehow a continuation of BW Zerg, when they couldn't be further apart, all things considered. I think it's useful to correct this misconception, especially since A LOT of basic strategic ideas were directly lifted from BW into SC2, often to the detriment of the development of original sc2 strategies. For example, the notion of "forcing the Zerg to make units instead of drones" is a lot less impactful in SC2 than it is in BW, because larvae are so cheap in the former. Similarly, forcing a Zerg to make static defense was a huge deal in BW, because they cost a drone at a time when Zerg wouldn't have a lot of drones - DTs forcing a spore at every Zerg expo was in itself pretty decent damage. In SC2, it doesn't matter that much, and you see Zergs having 30+ spines on the map in the lategame. And so forth. As an aside, I think the Zerg core design in SC2 is pretty stupid, but it's impossible to change at this point. I didn't play BW, so please don't hold that against me, but I think that the difference is that the increase in larva capacity becomes exponentially larger if left unchecked early, rather than linearly. A lot of the builds currently used against Zerg in both matchups are the variety that abandon very early pressure in favor of a stronger personal economy, but allow the Zerg free reign in the early game to drone super hard. It's debatable how much Terran have the ability to slow Zergs down with the queen change, but Protoss players have adopted play that basically guarantees that Zergs get to 60 drones and even very strong all-ins that come from FFE can still be held with around 50 drones. I'm surprised that Protoss players haven't given other FE possibilities another look to see if they can trade spending 300 minerals blindly on static defense, in favor of earlier pressure to force units. What Naniwa did in GSL Ro8 might be the start of something like this for the greater metagame. I think the reason this hasn't happened sooner is that Protoss players have a rather strong late mid game and late game composition that is established with solid transitions to get there. I hate this line of reasoning so very much because it shows a fundamental lack of respect for the history of the game and the skill of Protoss pros. 1gate FE is not good. The times it works right now are 100% down to metagame and lack of Zerg practice against this. Proof? We used to 1gate and 3gate expand exclusively in this matchup, before we realized that FFE was better. The reason that Zerg can hold everything Protoss can throw at them is because of nerfs to virtually every Protoss timing following immense Zerg QQ. Maybe you've forgotten, but WG nerfs delay all of our timings SIGNIFICANTLY. Void Ray speed nerf made Stargate openings way worse. Spore Crawler root time was buffed so Stargate is actually virtually useless now. Blink research time was increased in a time when barely anyone was actually losing to Blink timings. What other tech path are we supposed to pressure with? +1 4gate zealot is countered by standard play. DTs are countered by standard play. Warp Prism harass in the midgame is countered by standard play. There's nothing left except all-ins or fake pressures.So yeah, it's not that Protoss players are averse to trying pressures. It's just that all the non-all-in versions have been nerfed to oblivion because Zergs like Idra thought they were entitled to get 70 Drones automatically. Now, I see why I avoided this thread. You don't really want to discuss anything. You just want to bash other races and cry about things not being easy for you. I've played on both sides of the matchup and I'm aware of the meta-game shifts that have happened. My point is that putting down a Forge and a Cannon delays all pressure substantially to be safe against theoretical pressure. If the pressure doesn't come, you can basically assume that Zerg should have 60 drones at a minimum if they play properly, because your tech is so far delayed that you can't actually stop it from happening realistically. I'm not saying go back to 1/3 Gate then expand builds. What I'm saying is that I'm surprised smarter and better Protoss minds than I should look at that and say there is something wrong and there's got to be a better way to do it. I don't want to discuss things that are settled issues. Anything other than FFE is just not workable right now because of how fast Zerg economy can spiral and because of how utterly huge the maps are. Yes, FFE delays your pressure, but no FFE delays your economy. Since every Protoss tech has massive costs attached to it, you can't really 1base for long against a Zerg since Speedling expands are able to fend off basically any ground-based pokes. Every Protoss player knows that FFE makes your pressure come later, but there really isn't anything we can do about it. Sometimes you can get away with going Gate before Forge, but only if the Zerg player opens really greedily. Other than that, Zerg will see your greedy opening and just pump out Lings until you die. Until you can give a suggestion as to what we're supposed to do other than FFE, there's no point saying "oh, well there's gotta be something since FFE is bad." Yeah, no shit FFE is bad. That's the point. That's why PvZ needs fixing. There needs to be some way of viably pressuring Zerg without being incredibly behind in another way. I don't think that it's my job to think for you, but will give you some things that I have seen that look from a Zerg prospective to be better than FFE: Naniwa vs. DRG...Go watch it. Opened gateway in the main, followed by Nexus, then gas. He hit a big 4 gate timing at ~6:30 that forced a lot of units out of DRG. He did similar openings in 4 games against the best zerg in the world and went 2-2. White-ra and Tails do similar builds and it seems rather flexible. It seems like it would have problems with speedling aggression, but, as Naniwa did in one of his games, you can reactively get Forge + Cannon to deal with this sort of thing. I've seen players in high Master league go for Nexus first followed by 2 gateways for early zealot pressure, all while still getting earlier tech for followup aggression than FFE. It seems semi-vulnerable to early 2 base roach timings, but those are problems that can likely be worked out by build refinement, scouting and deviation. The latter opening is viable, but very weak after the Queen buff. The Naniwa Gate expand is 100% a metagame build. It would not work if everyone did it. I don't mean to interrupt you guys' argument, but Naniwa Gate expand seems to have some potential. As you said, that build is 100% metagame build now. I agree. I don't think that is something every Protoss should do every game. But, just like there are some different openings in some match-ups, can't it be one of the builds in Protoss arsenal in PvZ? If 50% of games started with FFE, and the rest of 50% started with this gateway expand, Zerg is forced to either scout, play it safe, or die. I'm afraid I don't have specific timing/builds that I can offer here, but having 2 different styles in arsenal can't be bad if both can be reasonably safe. There will be some build order advantage and some coin-flip depending on if Zerg takes 3rd as natural without scouting or goes all-in etc, but having some build order advantage is unavoidable anyways. As long as it is "reasonably" safe and have potential to pressure harder vs Zerg, I think it is too early to say this build is not viable. Just like you don't go a single build every game in PvP series, mixing up a few viable builds in PvZ can keep opponent in doubt. Zerg can just Drone scout and the problem is completely solved.
Drone scout = economic damage especially in 4 player map.
Not drone scouting today = almost no risk as 95% are FFE.
Not drone scouting if Gateway expand becomes more popular = some risk taking 3rd as natural.
As I said, there is some build order advantage/disadvantage in doing this. For example, if Zerg goes 6 pool, you might simply die doing gateway at natural while you survive well with normal FFE.
But if you can force drone scout and hesitation to take 3rd as natural before scouting just by doing gateway first expand like 20-40% of games, it can be a viable option.
I wouldn't say this build is what you should go every time, but "metagame shift" from 95% FFE into say 70% FFE itself benefits normal FFE games as well. Zerg today are so greedy. They just assume Protoss is FFE and do builds that are disadvantageous or simply die against early pressure.
|
On July 18 2012 02:10 Orek wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2012 01:56 Shiori wrote:On July 18 2012 01:54 Orek wrote:On July 18 2012 01:35 Shiori wrote:On July 18 2012 01:26 TrippSC2 wrote:On July 18 2012 01:05 Shiori wrote:On July 18 2012 01:00 TrippSC2 wrote:On July 18 2012 00:34 Shiori wrote:On July 18 2012 00:30 TrippSC2 wrote:On July 17 2012 23:33 Toadvine wrote:
[quote]
If you had carefully read the post I was replying to, you'd see that he was claiming this was the same in BW, which is wrong. A lot of people newer to the scene think that SC2 Zerg is somehow a continuation of BW Zerg, when they couldn't be further apart, all things considered. I think it's useful to correct this misconception, especially since A LOT of basic strategic ideas were directly lifted from BW into SC2, often to the detriment of the development of original sc2 strategies.
For example, the notion of "forcing the Zerg to make units instead of drones" is a lot less impactful in SC2 than it is in BW, because larvae are so cheap in the former. Similarly, forcing a Zerg to make static defense was a huge deal in BW, because they cost a drone at a time when Zerg wouldn't have a lot of drones - DTs forcing a spore at every Zerg expo was in itself pretty decent damage. In SC2, it doesn't matter that much, and you see Zergs having 30+ spines on the map in the lategame. And so forth.
As an aside, I think the Zerg core design in SC2 is pretty stupid, but it's impossible to change at this point. I didn't play BW, so please don't hold that against me, but I think that the difference is that the increase in larva capacity becomes exponentially larger if left unchecked early, rather than linearly. A lot of the builds currently used against Zerg in both matchups are the variety that abandon very early pressure in favor of a stronger personal economy, but allow the Zerg free reign in the early game to drone super hard. It's debatable how much Terran have the ability to slow Zergs down with the queen change, but Protoss players have adopted play that basically guarantees that Zergs get to 60 drones and even very strong all-ins that come from FFE can still be held with around 50 drones. I'm surprised that Protoss players haven't given other FE possibilities another look to see if they can trade spending 300 minerals blindly on static defense, in favor of earlier pressure to force units. What Naniwa did in GSL Ro8 might be the start of something like this for the greater metagame. I think the reason this hasn't happened sooner is that Protoss players have a rather strong late mid game and late game composition that is established with solid transitions to get there. I hate this line of reasoning so very much because it shows a fundamental lack of respect for the history of the game and the skill of Protoss pros. 1gate FE is not good. The times it works right now are 100% down to metagame and lack of Zerg practice against this. Proof? We used to 1gate and 3gate expand exclusively in this matchup, before we realized that FFE was better. The reason that Zerg can hold everything Protoss can throw at them is because of nerfs to virtually every Protoss timing following immense Zerg QQ. Maybe you've forgotten, but WG nerfs delay all of our timings SIGNIFICANTLY. Void Ray speed nerf made Stargate openings way worse. Spore Crawler root time was buffed so Stargate is actually virtually useless now. Blink research time was increased in a time when barely anyone was actually losing to Blink timings. What other tech path are we supposed to pressure with? +1 4gate zealot is countered by standard play. DTs are countered by standard play. Warp Prism harass in the midgame is countered by standard play. There's nothing left except all-ins or fake pressures.So yeah, it's not that Protoss players are averse to trying pressures. It's just that all the non-all-in versions have been nerfed to oblivion because Zergs like Idra thought they were entitled to get 70 Drones automatically. Now, I see why I avoided this thread. You don't really want to discuss anything. You just want to bash other races and cry about things not being easy for you. I've played on both sides of the matchup and I'm aware of the meta-game shifts that have happened. My point is that putting down a Forge and a Cannon delays all pressure substantially to be safe against theoretical pressure. If the pressure doesn't come, you can basically assume that Zerg should have 60 drones at a minimum if they play properly, because your tech is so far delayed that you can't actually stop it from happening realistically. I'm not saying go back to 1/3 Gate then expand builds. What I'm saying is that I'm surprised smarter and better Protoss minds than I should look at that and say there is something wrong and there's got to be a better way to do it. I don't want to discuss things that are settled issues. Anything other than FFE is just not workable right now because of how fast Zerg economy can spiral and because of how utterly huge the maps are. Yes, FFE delays your pressure, but no FFE delays your economy. Since every Protoss tech has massive costs attached to it, you can't really 1base for long against a Zerg since Speedling expands are able to fend off basically any ground-based pokes. Every Protoss player knows that FFE makes your pressure come later, but there really isn't anything we can do about it. Sometimes you can get away with going Gate before Forge, but only if the Zerg player opens really greedily. Other than that, Zerg will see your greedy opening and just pump out Lings until you die. Until you can give a suggestion as to what we're supposed to do other than FFE, there's no point saying "oh, well there's gotta be something since FFE is bad." Yeah, no shit FFE is bad. That's the point. That's why PvZ needs fixing. There needs to be some way of viably pressuring Zerg without being incredibly behind in another way. I don't think that it's my job to think for you, but will give you some things that I have seen that look from a Zerg prospective to be better than FFE: Naniwa vs. DRG...Go watch it. Opened gateway in the main, followed by Nexus, then gas. He hit a big 4 gate timing at ~6:30 that forced a lot of units out of DRG. He did similar openings in 4 games against the best zerg in the world and went 2-2. White-ra and Tails do similar builds and it seems rather flexible. It seems like it would have problems with speedling aggression, but, as Naniwa did in one of his games, you can reactively get Forge + Cannon to deal with this sort of thing. I've seen players in high Master league go for Nexus first followed by 2 gateways for early zealot pressure, all while still getting earlier tech for followup aggression than FFE. It seems semi-vulnerable to early 2 base roach timings, but those are problems that can likely be worked out by build refinement, scouting and deviation. The latter opening is viable, but very weak after the Queen buff. The Naniwa Gate expand is 100% a metagame build. It would not work if everyone did it. I don't mean to interrupt you guys' argument, but Naniwa Gate expand seems to have some potential. As you said, that build is 100% metagame build now. I agree. I don't think that is something every Protoss should do every game. But, just like there are some different openings in some match-ups, can't it be one of the builds in Protoss arsenal in PvZ? If 50% of games started with FFE, and the rest of 50% started with this gateway expand, Zerg is forced to either scout, play it safe, or die. I'm afraid I don't have specific timing/builds that I can offer here, but having 2 different styles in arsenal can't be bad if both can be reasonably safe. There will be some build order advantage and some coin-flip depending on if Zerg takes 3rd as natural without scouting or goes all-in etc, but having some build order advantage is unavoidable anyways. As long as it is "reasonably" safe and have potential to pressure harder vs Zerg, I think it is too early to say this build is not viable. Just like you don't go a single build every game in PvP series, mixing up a few viable builds in PvZ can keep opponent in doubt. Zerg can just Drone scout and the problem is completely solved. Drone scout = economic damage especially in 4 player map. Not drone scouting today = almost no risk as 95% are FFE. Not drone scouting if Gateway expand becomes more popular = some risk taking 3rd as natural. As I said, there is some build order advantage/disadvantage in doing this. For example, if Zerg goes 6 pool, you might simply die doing gateway at natural while you survive well with normal FFE. But if you can force drone scout and hesitation to take 3rd as natural before scouting just by doing gateway first expand like 20-40% of games, it can be an viable option. I wouldn't say this build is what you should go every time, but "metagame shift" from 95% FFE into say 70% FFE itself benefits normal FFE games as well. Zerg today are so greedy. They just assume Protoss is FFE and do builds that are disadvantageous or simply die against early pressure.
Drone scouting is definitely not economic damage of any appreciable level.
|
On July 18 2012 01:56 Shiori wrote:
Let me remind you that even pre-buff DRG had a huge ZvT win rate in macro games.
Between the ghost and queen patches, DRG had a 51.8% ZvT winrate overall, not exactly huge.
|
On July 18 2012 02:15 Nourek wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2012 01:56 Shiori wrote:
Let me remind you that even pre-buff DRG had a huge ZvT win rate in macro games. Between the ghost and queen patches, DRG had a 51.8% ZvT winrate overall, not exactly huge.
Whatever. He won a GSL and an MLG Arena.
|
Zerg was arguably the weakest race before the patch, which increased OL speed and Queen range, take this into consideration when you suggest changes, some of the changes suggested here would completely trash Zerg.
The way some of the vocal whiners express themselves it sounds like ZvP has 80% win rate for Zerg, and Protoss never wins a single macro game vs Zerg, which isn't true, Protoss usually loses macro games vs Stephano, but does pretty well vs other Zergs.
|
On July 18 2012 02:12 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2012 02:10 Orek wrote:On July 18 2012 01:56 Shiori wrote:On July 18 2012 01:54 Orek wrote:On July 18 2012 01:35 Shiori wrote:On July 18 2012 01:26 TrippSC2 wrote:On July 18 2012 01:05 Shiori wrote:On July 18 2012 01:00 TrippSC2 wrote:On July 18 2012 00:34 Shiori wrote:On July 18 2012 00:30 TrippSC2 wrote:
[quote]
I didn't play BW, so please don't hold that against me, but I think that the difference is that the increase in larva capacity becomes exponentially larger if left unchecked early, rather than linearly. A lot of the builds currently used against Zerg in both matchups are the variety that abandon very early pressure in favor of a stronger personal economy, but allow the Zerg free reign in the early game to drone super hard.
It's debatable how much Terran have the ability to slow Zergs down with the queen change, but Protoss players have adopted play that basically guarantees that Zergs get to 60 drones and even very strong all-ins that come from FFE can still be held with around 50 drones. I'm surprised that Protoss players haven't given other FE possibilities another look to see if they can trade spending 300 minerals blindly on static defense, in favor of earlier pressure to force units. What Naniwa did in GSL Ro8 might be the start of something like this for the greater metagame. I think the reason this hasn't happened sooner is that Protoss players have a rather strong late mid game and late game composition that is established with solid transitions to get there. I hate this line of reasoning so very much because it shows a fundamental lack of respect for the history of the game and the skill of Protoss pros. 1gate FE is not good. The times it works right now are 100% down to metagame and lack of Zerg practice against this. Proof? We used to 1gate and 3gate expand exclusively in this matchup, before we realized that FFE was better. The reason that Zerg can hold everything Protoss can throw at them is because of nerfs to virtually every Protoss timing following immense Zerg QQ. Maybe you've forgotten, but WG nerfs delay all of our timings SIGNIFICANTLY. Void Ray speed nerf made Stargate openings way worse. Spore Crawler root time was buffed so Stargate is actually virtually useless now. Blink research time was increased in a time when barely anyone was actually losing to Blink timings. What other tech path are we supposed to pressure with? +1 4gate zealot is countered by standard play. DTs are countered by standard play. Warp Prism harass in the midgame is countered by standard play. There's nothing left except all-ins or fake pressures.So yeah, it's not that Protoss players are averse to trying pressures. It's just that all the non-all-in versions have been nerfed to oblivion because Zergs like Idra thought they were entitled to get 70 Drones automatically. Now, I see why I avoided this thread. You don't really want to discuss anything. You just want to bash other races and cry about things not being easy for you. I've played on both sides of the matchup and I'm aware of the meta-game shifts that have happened. My point is that putting down a Forge and a Cannon delays all pressure substantially to be safe against theoretical pressure. If the pressure doesn't come, you can basically assume that Zerg should have 60 drones at a minimum if they play properly, because your tech is so far delayed that you can't actually stop it from happening realistically. I'm not saying go back to 1/3 Gate then expand builds. What I'm saying is that I'm surprised smarter and better Protoss minds than I should look at that and say there is something wrong and there's got to be a better way to do it. I don't want to discuss things that are settled issues. Anything other than FFE is just not workable right now because of how fast Zerg economy can spiral and because of how utterly huge the maps are. Yes, FFE delays your pressure, but no FFE delays your economy. Since every Protoss tech has massive costs attached to it, you can't really 1base for long against a Zerg since Speedling expands are able to fend off basically any ground-based pokes. Every Protoss player knows that FFE makes your pressure come later, but there really isn't anything we can do about it. Sometimes you can get away with going Gate before Forge, but only if the Zerg player opens really greedily. Other than that, Zerg will see your greedy opening and just pump out Lings until you die. Until you can give a suggestion as to what we're supposed to do other than FFE, there's no point saying "oh, well there's gotta be something since FFE is bad." Yeah, no shit FFE is bad. That's the point. That's why PvZ needs fixing. There needs to be some way of viably pressuring Zerg without being incredibly behind in another way. I don't think that it's my job to think for you, but will give you some things that I have seen that look from a Zerg prospective to be better than FFE: Naniwa vs. DRG...Go watch it. Opened gateway in the main, followed by Nexus, then gas. He hit a big 4 gate timing at ~6:30 that forced a lot of units out of DRG. He did similar openings in 4 games against the best zerg in the world and went 2-2. White-ra and Tails do similar builds and it seems rather flexible. It seems like it would have problems with speedling aggression, but, as Naniwa did in one of his games, you can reactively get Forge + Cannon to deal with this sort of thing. I've seen players in high Master league go for Nexus first followed by 2 gateways for early zealot pressure, all while still getting earlier tech for followup aggression than FFE. It seems semi-vulnerable to early 2 base roach timings, but those are problems that can likely be worked out by build refinement, scouting and deviation. The latter opening is viable, but very weak after the Queen buff. The Naniwa Gate expand is 100% a metagame build. It would not work if everyone did it. I don't mean to interrupt you guys' argument, but Naniwa Gate expand seems to have some potential. As you said, that build is 100% metagame build now. I agree. I don't think that is something every Protoss should do every game. But, just like there are some different openings in some match-ups, can't it be one of the builds in Protoss arsenal in PvZ? If 50% of games started with FFE, and the rest of 50% started with this gateway expand, Zerg is forced to either scout, play it safe, or die. I'm afraid I don't have specific timing/builds that I can offer here, but having 2 different styles in arsenal can't be bad if both can be reasonably safe. There will be some build order advantage and some coin-flip depending on if Zerg takes 3rd as natural without scouting or goes all-in etc, but having some build order advantage is unavoidable anyways. As long as it is "reasonably" safe and have potential to pressure harder vs Zerg, I think it is too early to say this build is not viable. Just like you don't go a single build every game in PvP series, mixing up a few viable builds in PvZ can keep opponent in doubt. Zerg can just Drone scout and the problem is completely solved. Drone scout = economic damage especially in 4 player map. Not drone scouting today = almost no risk as 95% are FFE. Not drone scouting if Gateway expand becomes more popular = some risk taking 3rd as natural. As I said, there is some build order advantage/disadvantage in doing this. For example, if Zerg goes 6 pool, you might simply die doing gateway at natural while you survive well with normal FFE. But if you can force drone scout and hesitation to take 3rd as natural before scouting just by doing gateway first expand like 20-40% of games, it can be an viable option. I wouldn't say this build is what you should go every time, but "metagame shift" from 95% FFE into say 70% FFE itself benefits normal FFE games as well. Zerg today are so greedy. They just assume Protoss is FFE and do builds that are disadvantageous or simply die against early pressure. Drone scouting is definitely not economic damage of any appreciable level.
Waiting to kill pylon block at natural instead of taking 3rd as natural is definitely economic damage if drone scout it not enough.
I never claim gateway expand should be majority, but mixing up more might benefit Protoss. Today, Zerg became so good vs FFE that top pros know exact timings for everything. Call it metagame build, but I would like to see more players try this until it forces ungreedy play from Zerg or it fails. If it worked vs DRG even if he didn't practice enough vs this style, then why not try as arguably none is currently as good as DRG. Once it gets figured out and concluded that it is not viable enough, then Protoss can discard the whole idea just like 4 gate. Concluding today that it is not viable seems too early when it worked well vs top Zerg within a week.
|
On July 18 2012 02:21 sibs wrote:
Zerg was arguably the weakest race before the patch, which increased OL speed and Queen range, take this into consideration when you suggest changes, some of the changes suggested here would completely trash Zerg.
The way some of the vocal whiners express themselves it sounds like ZvP has 80% win rate for Zerg, and Protoss never wins a single macro game vs Zerg, which isn't true, Protoss usually loses macro games vs Stephano, but does pretty well vs other Zergs.
Protoss players very rarely win macro games against Zerg. I don't count MC taking out Ret as an example, mostly because Ret threw the game away and because the difference in their skill is immense.
The only thing I can imagine you're referring to is Code S, but in that tournament opponents basically study each other for a week and come up with a strategy that only works against that specific person.
Stephano plays Zerg the way it's supposed to be played insofar as he counter attacks when Protoss pressures. This is usually a free win because every Protoss pressure is extremely expensive and has very little defensive capability.
We don't need to test Gate expands again. We already saw how they worked for the first half of this game's lifespan, and that's when Protoss hadn't yet be nerfed as much. FFE is bettter.
|
The biggest issue is that if Protoss or Terran lose an engagement vs Zerg before they have three bases the game is over. Even if they pressure and trade evenly, that's it, it's done and Zerg economy gets out of control in minutes.
Yet at the same time they can't just leave the Zerg to it's own devices because then they'll lose as well.
So the only choices they have is to do the most all innish all in you can ever imagine on 1/2 bases or to get on three bases do a massive push before brood lords.
There's no pressure builds anymore to get slight edges because Zerg is too good at stopping them and the second you trade unfavourably versus a Zerg in the early or mid game the Zerg ends up with 50-100% more supply than you a few minutes later.
|
On July 18 2012 01:54 Nourek wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2012 01:38 uzushould wrote:
let the statistics speak for them selfs:
OVERALL SUMMERY:
Zerg: 15
Protoss: 19
Terran: 6
Looks bad, does it? How about what went on before the Queen change when many say everything was fine: Between patch 1.4.3 (Ghost change) and 1.4.3 BU (Queen change): IEM S6 MLG Winter Champ GSL S2 IPL S4 Dreamhack Stockholm Ro8 15 P 17 T 7 Z Winners: 4 T 1 P Sure. Blizzard went too far with the patch changes, but it's not like everything was fine before then. I'm not sure if just the overlord change would have been enough, or maybe Queen range 4, but this myth that Blizzard broke a perfectly balanced game that's promoted by some is just that, a myth. Either that, or tournament results shouldn't enter these debates.
You missed one gsl s1, which had a zerg and toss at the top. Game was not perfectly balanced even then and we could see zerg starting to gain strength, so was toss.
The stats you provided are like the TLPD ratings: highly rigged in order to prove something that is in fact not true. Game is more favoring zerg now than it ever used to be terran, even the severely modified ratings could not hide that.Terran win rate vs zerg is about 30%. Such thing never was for zerg, even in the times where the only zerg player that played decently was Nestea.
|
On July 18 2012 03:12 sieksdekciw wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2012 01:54 Nourek wrote:On July 18 2012 01:38 uzushould wrote:
let the statistics speak for them selfs:
OVERALL SUMMERY:
Zerg: 15
Protoss: 19
Terran: 6
Looks bad, does it? How about what went on before the Queen change when many say everything was fine: Between patch 1.4.3 (Ghost change) and 1.4.3 BU (Queen change): IEM S6 MLG Winter Champ GSL S2 IPL S4 Dreamhack Stockholm Ro8 15 P 17 T 7 Z Winners: 4 T 1 P Sure. Blizzard went too far with the patch changes, but it's not like everything was fine before then. I'm not sure if just the overlord change would have been enough, or maybe Queen range 4, but this myth that Blizzard broke a perfectly balanced game that's promoted by some is just that, a myth. Either that, or tournament results shouldn't enter these debates. You missed one gsl s1, which had a zerg and toss at the top. Game was not perfectly balanced even then and we could see zerg starting to gain strength, so was toss. The stats you provided are like the TLPD ratings: highly rigged in order to prove something that is in fact not true. Game is more favoring zerg now than it ever used to be terran, even the severely modified ratings could not hide that.Terran win rate vs zerg is about 30%. Such thing never was for zerg, even in the times where the only zerg player that played decently was Nestea.
Oh, yeah, missed that. So it's 19 P, 20 T, 8 Z /// 4 T, 1 P, 1 Z. Much better, yay!
|
On July 18 2012 01:38 uzushould wrote:
let the statistics speak for them selfs:
Homestory cup top 8:
Zerg: 5
Protoss: 3
Terran: 0
MLG Annaheim top 8:
Zerg: 2
Protoss: 3
Terran: 3
NASL Finals top 8:
Zerg: 2
Protoss: 5
Terran: 1
Dreamhack top 8:
Zerg: 3
Protoss: 5
Terran: 0
GSL codeS Season 3 top 8:
Zerg: 3
Protoss: 3
Terran: 2
OVERALL SUMMERY:
Zerg: 15
Protoss: 19
Terran: 6
as well i have looked up how much zerg/toss/terra is in the top 8 of the 3 ladders (NA, Europe, Korea)
there are :
11 Zerg
8 Protoss
5 Terrans
overall there are aproximately (sc2ranks.com shows always some more then 200 for the gm for some reason, but aproxximate the numbers should be ok)
so overall there are
241 Zerg
238 Protoss
168 Terrans
in the GMs of EU NA Korea together.
this all while the actual
NASL:
4 terran in RO16: 1 Terran in RO8, he got there through TvT...
Stats clearly show terran is weaker atm (look at 'foreigner hero zergs' ...)
We'll see how it turns out! Interested on Blizzards take.
|
On July 18 2012 03:23 Nourek wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2012 03:12 sieksdekciw wrote:On July 18 2012 01:54 Nourek wrote:On July 18 2012 01:38 uzushould wrote:
let the statistics speak for them selfs:
OVERALL SUMMERY:
Zerg: 15
Protoss: 19
Terran: 6
Looks bad, does it? How about what went on before the Queen change when many say everything was fine: Between patch 1.4.3 (Ghost change) and 1.4.3 BU (Queen change): IEM S6 MLG Winter Champ GSL S2 IPL S4 Dreamhack Stockholm Ro8 15 P 17 T 7 Z Winners: 4 T 1 P Sure. Blizzard went too far with the patch changes, but it's not like everything was fine before then. I'm not sure if just the overlord change would have been enough, or maybe Queen range 4, but this myth that Blizzard broke a perfectly balanced game that's promoted by some is just that, a myth. Either that, or tournament results shouldn't enter these debates. You missed one gsl s1, which had a zerg and toss at the top. Game was not perfectly balanced even then and we could see zerg starting to gain strength, so was toss. The stats you provided are like the TLPD ratings: highly rigged in order to prove something that is in fact not true. Game is more favoring zerg now than it ever used to be terran, even the severely modified ratings could not hide that.Terran win rate vs zerg is about 30%. Such thing never was for zerg, even in the times where the only zerg player that played decently was Nestea. Oh, yeah, missed that. So it's 19 P, 20 T, 8 Z /// 4 T, 1 P, 1 Z. Much better, yay!
Rigged to the max. I can also pick tournaments won by zerg only (almost any tournament) and then claim zerg is imba.
NASL overall win percentages TvZ:
TvZ 43.7%
Hence - Zerg imba
|
On July 18 2012 03:25 Toastie.NL wrote:
Stats clearly show terran is weaker atm (look at 'foreigner hero zergs' ...)
We'll see how it turns out! Interested on Blizzards take.
Blizzard's take is to say that TvZ is fine. Their original premise for the Queen buff was pro players having problems with the 4 Hellion contain forgodssake.
I don't much mind slight imbalances, but the extent to which nonmirrors are a joke in this game is ridiculous. Not to mention boring. It's funny how one patch made me rather watch TvP than TvZ.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
