|
On July 21 2012 03:23 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 03:20 Big J wrote:On July 21 2012 03:08 gTank wrote:On July 21 2012 03:04 Big J wrote:On July 21 2012 02:24 derpinator wrote:On July 21 2012 00:58 Big J wrote:On July 21 2012 00:25 derpinator wrote:On July 20 2012 17:30 BlindKill wrote:On July 20 2012 15:18 Gimix wrote:
Even though terran is doing the worst still nobody wants terran to be buffed.
Feels bad man. After that zerg tear extraction thread during our glorious days, I'm pretty sure we made way way way more enemies than friends  I have played zerg a long time but have never realized that so many zerg players have become psychologically damaged at the time when terran whas still OP. Any buff to terran by blizzard will probably face fierce resistance by those I-got-to-masters-when-zerg-got-OP players :D You mean like any nerf to Terran was a huge whinefest, because "I cannot win the game before 5mins without going allin... (which I'm now doing and I'm having like 92.754% winrate) This game is sooo imbalanced!!!"  not talking about the last patch, the new metagame is quite harsh for Terran. But all the other things... I really hope that they just revert queenrange and if needed give zerg an aggressive option instead, that fares well against most Terran builds like hellions did against most zerg builds. (= dynamic matchup) They are never going to revert the queen range, that buff was not meant for ZVT at all. The reason blizzard gave queens +2 range against ground whas to give the zerg player a counter to mass roach instead of going mass roach themselves in ZVZ. If blizzard does revert the queen range than ZVZ and ZVP will all be about mass roach and this doesnt make SC2 an exciting game to watch at all. So the queen range whas about letting this game survive in e-sports and terrans got screwed in the meantime and they where already the weakest race even before the buff. The buff was meant to make it easier for zergs to spread creep against hellion contains and break those. Well, the thing got out of hand and instead of shortening the hellion contains and getting a bit more creep, zergs are now doing completly different builds (3hatch with mass queens and completly gasless). I agree that for ZvZ the patch wasn't too bad (you can now snipe 1-2 extra banelings in a ling/bling fight if you control well), yet it's a mirror matchup which can't be imbalanced at the first place, ling/bling fights are awesome too watch and play (so why patch them) and those rushes can be scouted and countered quite well. And big roach armies did and do exist, but you would always transition into infestors and hydras. That doesn't mean that those ling/bling/infestor-->ultra styles would cease to exist. For PvZ I hardly see any differences. Canonrushes are easier to stop, which is a good thing and denying scouting inside of your base has become a bit easier, but there is not a lot to see in the first place, as you only have to scout the gas before the queen pops and then wait if it is 3hatch, else build a thousand canons, go for a coffee and wait until the "You have won --> Score Screen" pops up. So I don't see a huge problem for zergs if Protoss are now able to *maybe* see the roach warren again, which they expect anyways. And well, I don't get what you are talking about. ZvP is already roach only in the midgame, most of the time. Nerfing queen range doesn't change that roaches are the only costefficient/safe units against upgrade+gateway rushes, after you delayed every other tech for ages with the 3hatch opening. (though mixed in lings are good as well) Also it doesn't make big roach (/ling) attacks any worse. And Terran was not the weakest race in the game. Terrans had a bit of trouble after Protoss developed 2*Forge builds and all the follow up Protoss builds that evolved from the *new* metagame in PvT. For TvZ quite a lot of people would say that Terran was even favored prepatch against those 2hatch tech builds zergs did and at least in my experience quite a lot of Terrans on ladder (and also pros like Demuslim in that interview) said that they felt very confident about TvZ. That's one way to take stuff out of context, he said he was confident in the past. He also said it's ridiculous that Terrans that are simply better at sc2 are losing to Zerg right now. I didn't say he said something about Terran's being favored. I said he (and others) were confident. So Terran was probably not UP in the matchup. Else he would not have blamed the patch for it. And then I said, others even saw it being Terran favored. (obviously at least blizzard thought that and listening to Leenock commentating "imba imba" and NesTea tweeting with DRG about balance, I think it's quite safe to say that there were people who thought that) DRG has said on many occasions that he's confident in TvZ. Besides, I'm pretty sure nobody ever tweeted about the Hellion opener being the source of everyone's woes, especially when the statistics actually showed Zerg in the lead.
Those are the winrates up to may (may being the first month with the queenpatch)
http://imgur.com/a/5uKDQ
No, Zerg wasn't in the lead straight before the patch. They had a good March and in retrospect it even makes less sense that they patched this 2months after Zerg was in the lead for the first time since quite some time(or even ever?) in TvZ.
They said something like zerg being weak generally and that they would try to make it through together (through Ro16 group stage, when they were the only zergs left in the GSL as far as a I remember). I don't know why you bring up hellions as if it was part of what I said.
Might be that he (and also others like Leenock) was confident against Terran. As said, winrates also were pretty close so the situation was probably very balanced in the great scheme.
|
On July 20 2012 04:14 Charon1979 wrote:Show nested quote +This is precisely why I used to enjoy TvZ/ZvT so much as a viewer. From the very start of the game there was aggression. It would go from bunker pressure with 2 scvs and a few marines to hellion harass at the front. Both sides were constantly at risk. No. And thats the reason why I hated vT so much. From the very start of the game there was agression. Playing the punching bag for 10 minutes is NOT FUN AT ALL. If really both sides would have been at risk, Z could just take 6 Lings and a drone to put pressure on Terran, or 4 Roaches to contain him until 4+ Marauders are out. Or 1 Base mutalisk and force towers. It was sooooooo cool to watch and go like "hm he got his bunker up, the game is over" or "oh the hellions pushed his queen aside (rapidly spamming move command right behind or between ramp and queen) now he is roasting drones and the game is over again" After the first 10 Minutes of one sided aggresion the game was really fun to watch going back an forth, but the first 10 minutes were horrible from a zerg POV. While I can see that terrans really enjoyed this "impressive micro with 1 - 4 units" and I guess its really cool if you are on the attacking side, as a Zerg player it was like: Wow he defended perfectly now he is able tokill?... no... attack?... no... pressure?.... no... ok... drone." And thats not really interesting.
Terran had to attack because this is was at the time the only safe way to catch up with Zerg in economy, which unhindered is totally broken - as we see now after recent patch.
P.S. Also Infestor is stupidly OP boring unit.
|
I kinda get the queen buff, they want to make zerg less coinflippy and stronger against early timings. Early timings are something zergs have complained since the beta, and the queen buff is actually a pretty good solution to giving zergs "safe builds" in the sense that terran and protoss have. No hard decisions to be made between units and drones, just make queens and you should be a-ok. Nothing inherently wrong with that.
However, it kinda feels like we're playing a beta testing how to make zerg early game more formidable for HOTS, without actually having the other major changes included. Those new zerg queen models? I bet they never even had a 3 range attack animation to begin with.
Now I really hope they've gathered enough data and can turn queens back to 3 range, and go back to 5 range queens in HOTS. Either that, or the next step is a major raven revamp to make terran less shitty in the lategame. That sounds like something they could work on to fix the terran situation.
|
On July 21 2012 04:29 Bagi wrote:
I kinda get the queen buff, they want to make zerg less coinflippy and stronger against early timings. Early timings are something zergs have complained since the beta, and the queen buff is actually a pretty good solution to giving zergs "safe builds" in the sense that terran and protoss have. No hard decisions to be made between units and drones, just make queens and you should be a-ok. Nothing inherently wrong with that.
However, it kinda feels like we're playing a beta testing how to make zerg early game more formidable for HOTS, without actually having the other major changes included. Those new zerg queen models? I bet they never even had a 3 range attack animation to begin with.
Now I really hope they've gathered enough data and can turn queens back to 3 range, and go back to 5 range queens in HOTS. Either that, or the next step is a major raven revamp to make terran less shitty in the lategame. That sounds like something they could work on to fix the terran situation.
This is so dumb though. Why does everyone want every game to be a 5base 200/200 vs 200/200 battle? Why should every pressure be nerfed into the ground or made easily defendable without good micro or deviation from standard play? How is this good for the game to watch the first 10 minutes of every vZ game just be players making workers and taking bases? How is that fun?
|
Lets gets one thing straight. Everyone says how op zerg is. but if you were to look at the recent GSL how Byun Prime 3-0 Nestea suppose to be one of the best zergs in the world and than MC 3-0 DRG suppose to be the best player in the world. and yet people say Stephano is op and Protoss cant beat him but in all of the tournaments that he did not win in. He lost to a protoss in MLG for example he got 2-0ed by Sase.
|
On July 21 2012 04:42 System42 wrote:
Lets gets one thing straight. Everyone says how op zerg is. but if you were to look at the recent GSL how Byun Prime 3-0 Nestea suppose to be one of the best zergs in the world and than MC 3-0 DRG suppose to be the best player in the world. and yet people say Stephano is op and Protoss cant beat him but in all of the tournaments that he did not win in. He lost to a protoss in MLG for example he got 2-0ed by Sase.
Looking at results without considering how the games played out is silly. DRG played against MC, sure, but he played like a Code B Zerg and everyone pointed that out. Even Zerg players acknowledged that DRG was playing extremely below his average level. Byun vs Nestea? Again, Nestea did not look solid in a single game. While Byun definitely played well, Nestea just didn't look like Code S material in that game. As for Stephano vs Sase, I seem to recall that both games were basically all-ins on Sase's part, but I could be wrong.
Every time a Zerg actually plays well and doesn't make any huge blunders, they seem to win, even if the P/T player is also playing well.
|
On July 21 2012 04:37 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 04:29 Bagi wrote:
I kinda get the queen buff, they want to make zerg less coinflippy and stronger against early timings. Early timings are something zergs have complained since the beta, and the queen buff is actually a pretty good solution to giving zergs "safe builds" in the sense that terran and protoss have. No hard decisions to be made between units and drones, just make queens and you should be a-ok. Nothing inherently wrong with that.
However, it kinda feels like we're playing a beta testing how to make zerg early game more formidable for HOTS, without actually having the other major changes included. Those new zerg queen models? I bet they never even had a 3 range attack animation to begin with.
Now I really hope they've gathered enough data and can turn queens back to 3 range, and go back to 5 range queens in HOTS. Either that, or the next step is a major raven revamp to make terran less shitty in the lategame. That sounds like something they could work on to fix the terran situation. This is so dumb though. Why does everyone want every game to be a 5base 200/200 vs 200/200 battle? Why should every pressure be nerfed into the ground or made easily defendable without good micro or deviation from standard play? How is this good for the game to watch the first 10 minutes of every vZ game just be players making workers and taking bases? How is that fun?
Because players complain the most about strats that are 1-2base and thus considered cheese They are just adjusting the game towards what the majority wants.
Also its not completely cheeseproof, since mass queens is a pretty big investment and you do actually need units to fend off any heavy gate/rax rushes. Its just a little less volatile for them.
|
Fungal can be seen as having higher damage than storm. First, you can't stack storm, which is also true to fungal. But second, you can move away from storm even you are hit, so you take maybe less than 40 damage, but with fungal, you always take 40 damage, so it's a guaranteed damage. And you will be chain fungaled again and again. So in practical situation, the damage of fungal is extremely high.
|
On July 21 2012 04:45 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 04:42 System42 wrote:
Lets gets one thing straight. Everyone says how op zerg is. but if you were to look at the recent GSL how Byun Prime 3-0 Nestea suppose to be one of the best zergs in the world and than MC 3-0 DRG suppose to be the best player in the world. and yet people say Stephano is op and Protoss cant beat him but in all of the tournaments that he did not win in. He lost to a protoss in MLG for example he got 2-0ed by Sase. Looking at results without considering how the games played out is silly. DRG played against MC, sure, but he played like a Code B Zerg and everyone pointed that out. Even Zerg players acknowledged that DRG was playing extremely below his average level. Byun vs Nestea? Again, Nestea did not look solid in a single game. While Byun definitely played well, Nestea just didn't look like Code S material in that game. As for Stephano vs Sase, I seem to recall that both games were basically all-ins on Sase's part, but I could be wrong. Every time a Zerg actually plays well and doesn't make any huge blunders, they seem to win, even if the P/T player is also playing well.
Your thoughts are really on spot, sir.
The only reason some Protoss players actually try to challenge Zerg in a lategame is because Protoss army with good micro has the ability to trade fair enough against the Zerg, although for the most part it is really insanely hard and pretty much every mistake you make can lead you to a loss.
The reason TvZ looks broken right now is because Terran doesn't have the ability to trade armies with the zerg. You unsiege some tanks on the creep and from that point on you plainly lose marines to fungals/blings, even if your micro is stellar you will be trading even against the opponent who has 1 more base.
What I'm trying to say is that when you're playing against the Zerg you're betting on him playing worse than you do. And by worse, I mean REALLY bad. That's what we saw in both DRG and NesTea wins.
|
On July 21 2012 05:17 DidYuhim wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 04:45 Shiori wrote:On July 21 2012 04:42 System42 wrote:
Lets gets one thing straight. Everyone says how op zerg is. but if you were to look at the recent GSL how Byun Prime 3-0 Nestea suppose to be one of the best zergs in the world and than MC 3-0 DRG suppose to be the best player in the world. and yet people say Stephano is op and Protoss cant beat him but in all of the tournaments that he did not win in. He lost to a protoss in MLG for example he got 2-0ed by Sase. Looking at results without considering how the games played out is silly. DRG played against MC, sure, but he played like a Code B Zerg and everyone pointed that out. Even Zerg players acknowledged that DRG was playing extremely below his average level. Byun vs Nestea? Again, Nestea did not look solid in a single game. While Byun definitely played well, Nestea just didn't look like Code S material in that game. As for Stephano vs Sase, I seem to recall that both games were basically all-ins on Sase's part, but I could be wrong. Every time a Zerg actually plays well and doesn't make any huge blunders, they seem to win, even if the P/T player is also playing well. Your thoughts are really on spot, sir. The only reason some Protoss players actually try to challenge Zerg in a lategame is because Protoss army with good micro has the ability to trade fair enough against the Zerg, although for the most part it is really insanely hard and pretty much every mistake you make can lead you to a loss. The reason TvZ looks broken right now is because Terran doesn't have the ability to trade armies with the zerg. You unsiege some tanks on the creep and from that point on you plainly lose marines to fungals/blings, even if your micro is stellar you will be trading even against the opponent who has 1 more base. What I'm trying to say is that when you're playing against the Zerg you're betting on him playing worse than you do. And by worse, I mean REALLY bad. That's what we saw in both DRG and NesTea wins.
I hope the terrans in MLG tonight can prove us wrong 
|
On July 21 2012 04:53 larse wrote:
Fungal can be seen as having higher damage than storm. First, you can't stack storm, which is also true to fungal. But second, you can move away from storm even you are hit, so you take maybe less than 40 damage, but with fungal, you always take 40 damage, so it's a guaranteed damage. And you will be chain fungaled again and again. So in practical situation, the damage of fungal is extremely high.
Fungal optimally does do more damage than storm, but its more spread out, and its easier to get optimal storm's than fungal's.
Concentrated damaged is better than split damage, if you can focus some units down quickly, you take less damage for the rest of the engagement.
|
On July 21 2012 04:52 Bagi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 04:37 Shiori wrote:On July 21 2012 04:29 Bagi wrote:
I kinda get the queen buff, they want to make zerg less coinflippy and stronger against early timings. Early timings are something zergs have complained since the beta, and the queen buff is actually a pretty good solution to giving zergs "safe builds" in the sense that terran and protoss have. No hard decisions to be made between units and drones, just make queens and you should be a-ok. Nothing inherently wrong with that.
However, it kinda feels like we're playing a beta testing how to make zerg early game more formidable for HOTS, without actually having the other major changes included. Those new zerg queen models? I bet they never even had a 3 range attack animation to begin with.
Now I really hope they've gathered enough data and can turn queens back to 3 range, and go back to 5 range queens in HOTS. Either that, or the next step is a major raven revamp to make terran less shitty in the lategame. That sounds like something they could work on to fix the terran situation. This is so dumb though. Why does everyone want every game to be a 5base 200/200 vs 200/200 battle? Why should every pressure be nerfed into the ground or made easily defendable without good micro or deviation from standard play? How is this good for the game to watch the first 10 minutes of every vZ game just be players making workers and taking bases? How is that fun? Because players complain the most about strats that are 1-2base and thus considered cheese They are just adjusting the game towards what the majority wants. Also its not completely cheeseproof, since mass queens is a pretty big investment and you do actually need units to fend off any heavy gate/rax rushes. Its just a little less volatile for them.
Fuck what most players want. Most players want to win on ladder and have worked it into their heads that when someone does an all-in it's somehow less skillful than whatever they were trying to do. No idea why we need to justify that fucking retarded way of looking at the game.
|
A fair point to remember to those claiming "hellions were never a problem for anybody." There were plenty of times where Zergs would just get obliterated by a single lucky hellion runby. Whether it was a misplaced queen on the ramp, or a completely missed hellion stockpile, there were plenty of Zergs essentially losing the game to the unluckiest of errors (in a sense).
We didn't see it in pro games a lot, but it was there in the community, and it was understandably frustrating. Of course, I personally think it was ultimately fair in the broader sense of game balance, especially in hindsight, but the sentiment in the community was there.
|
On July 21 2012 09:40 aksfjh wrote:
A fair point to remember to those claiming "hellions were never a problem for anybody." There were plenty of times where Zergs would just get obliterated by a single lucky hellion runby. Whether it was a misplaced queen on the ramp, or a completely missed hellion stockpile, there were plenty of Zergs essentially losing the game to the unluckiest of errors (in a sense).
We didn't see it in pro games a lot, but it was there in the community, and it was understandably frustrating. Of course, I personally think it was ultimately fair in the broader sense of game balance, especially in hindsight, but the sentiment in the community was there.
Oz just lost to a "frustrating" ling runby. Can we make Speed lair tech now?
|
On July 21 2012 09:40 aksfjh wrote:
A fair point to remember to those claiming "hellions were never a problem for anybody." There were plenty of times where Zergs would just get obliterated by a single lucky hellion runby. Whether it was a misplaced queen on the ramp, or a completely missed hellion stockpile, there were plenty of Zergs essentially losing the game to the unluckiest of errors (in a sense).
We didn't see it in pro games a lot, but it was there in the community, and it was understandably frustrating. Of course, I personally think it was ultimately fair in the broader sense of game balance, especially in hindsight, but the sentiment in the community was there.
Terran can lose the game to big ling run byes in early and midgame. Good example is Thorzain vs moon earlier today.
|
On July 21 2012 04:42 System42 wrote:
Lets gets one thing straight. Everyone says how op zerg is. but if you were to look at the recent GSL how Byun Prime 3-0
Vivid example fallacy. Not even going into him just playing bad that day (the 1st game that shouldn't have allowed the double bunkered ramp, the second game he looked like a Diamondplayer losing a dozen workers early to hellions,third game he threw away a lead just running into a tank field) I could counter that In the last group TvZ was 1-5. It's bad and it's part of a larger pattern but in of itself it's just too small a data point.
|
Why the hell are roaches the only unit in the game strong enough to be considered a "unit composition" completely on their own?
|
On July 21 2012 11:39 Hellfury wrote:
Why the hell are roaches the only unit in the game strong enough to be considered a "unit composition" completely on their own?
It's more the unit that you can mass enough that stands alone. Bio needs medivacs. gateway units work well together. BL are nothing without infestors. etc... Roaches are just tanky and do decent damage with the ability to heal and have a speed upgrade. They are a midgame unit though; it would be the same as as terran if zerg didn't have a late game. I don't really think it is a big deal though...whether you mass 1 unit or have a different combination.
|
On July 21 2012 11:39 Hellfury wrote:
Why the hell are roaches the only unit in the game strong enough to be considered a "unit composition" completely on their own?
Because you can max on them without hurting your economy, without being all-in, and at a time when everyone else is at 120 supply.
|
On July 21 2012 04:52 Bagi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 04:37 Shiori wrote:On July 21 2012 04:29 Bagi wrote:
I kinda get the queen buff, they want to make zerg less coinflippy and stronger against early timings. Early timings are something zergs have complained since the beta, and the queen buff is actually a pretty good solution to giving zergs "safe builds" in the sense that terran and protoss have. No hard decisions to be made between units and drones, just make queens and you should be a-ok. Nothing inherently wrong with that.
However, it kinda feels like we're playing a beta testing how to make zerg early game more formidable for HOTS, without actually having the other major changes included. Those new zerg queen models? I bet they never even had a 3 range attack animation to begin with.
Now I really hope they've gathered enough data and can turn queens back to 3 range, and go back to 5 range queens in HOTS. Either that, or the next step is a major raven revamp to make terran less shitty in the lategame. That sounds like something they could work on to fix the terran situation. This is so dumb though. Why does everyone want every game to be a 5base 200/200 vs 200/200 battle? Why should every pressure be nerfed into the ground or made easily defendable without good micro or deviation from standard play? How is this good for the game to watch the first 10 minutes of every vZ game just be players making workers and taking bases? How is that fun? Because players complain the most about strats that are 1-2base and thus considered cheese They are just adjusting the game towards what the majority wants. Also its not completely cheeseproof, since mass queens is a pretty big investment and you do actually need units to fend off any heavy gate/rax rushes. Its just a little less volatile for them.
It doesn't matter if people complain about cheese, it's part of the game. And if the majority of people hated zerg and wanted to remove the whole race from the game, would blizzard do it? No. Just because zergs get their jimmies rustled by early game pressure doesnt mean they change the game to make it easier.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
