|
On July 27 2012 23:02 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 22:55 monkybone wrote:On July 27 2012 22:51 Shiori wrote:On July 27 2012 22:49 monkybone wrote:On July 27 2012 22:46 Shiori wrote:On July 27 2012 22:37 monkybone wrote:On July 27 2012 22:28 Shiori wrote:On July 27 2012 22:05 monkybone wrote:On July 27 2012 21:46 Havik_ wrote:On July 27 2012 21:41 monkybone wrote:
Giving terran the tech reactor from the campaign (a reactor which works for all units, e.g. 2 tanks at a time) as an upgrade from the fusion core or something could give terran the production they lack in the late game. Could be an upgrade on the reactors and tech labs themselves, like a transformation. That would be a bit too strong. TvP late game comes down to micro, that's it. Both sides have to micro like crazy to win. Only difference is Terrans have to be a little bit better about splitting vs Storms. I like the idea of adding some of the crazier stuff from the campaign to the multiplayer though. I don't know, the problem has been that terran can't reproduce their army after a huge engagement while Protoss can. I fail to see how this would be too strong. In the late game, Terran can mine almost entirely without SCVs, which means they have a higher army supply no matter what the Toss does. So you're still fine. That's totally irrelevant. The point is that terran has trouble with protoss production capabilities, and that this is a possible solution to it. Bringing in another aspect of the matchup isn't an argument against that. Yes it is. Terran doesn't need to produce at the same rate as Protoss because they have a larger army supply, which, given positioning and good micro, is incredibly cost-efficient. So you're debating the premise of the discussion (which is that terran has difficulties with lategame protoss production capabilities), and not actually arguing for any of the positions. And yes, Terran still has problems with mass warpgate TvP, I'm not even going to get into a discussion about that now. If you don't want to discuss it, then your point is without merit, because you offer no proof that high level Terrans are actually having trouble. What counts as proof? A ton of replays showing terrans coming out ahead of lategame engagements only to lose their momentum to a mass warp in of zealots which not only pushes the army back, but if warped in near the terran base can wreck the economy? All the proof lies in front of you. We've seen it time and time again, and it's generally accepted that mass warp gate is a huge problem in TvP, so while you don't agree with the premise, most others will, so I'm not going to waste time on that right now. Replays from whom? Master leaguers? GMs? Pros? Korean pros? I've only seen the first two in any number, the third rather scarcely, and the latter almost never at all. If you trade efficiently with a Protoss 200/200 army, you should not be taking significant damage from a pure Zealot warpin. Read that again: efficiently. You have more supply in army at the beginning of the battle. Barely edging out the Protoss army and have 5 Marines left doesn't count as "coming out ahead."
i think it is important to see the difference between "late" and "end" game, protoss completes his tech and 20 warpgates way earlier than a terran can get 10 orbitals to sac 30-40 scvs, so as long as protoss and terran were even until lategame, and protoss trades equally with a HT / Colo / gateway army, he can press the advantage, saving ressources for a big warpin is done faster than the terran "ecoswitch"
basically i am saying terran may have an edge or be equal to protoss when everything is in place like you describe it, but i guess as long as protoss trades evenly with what he has, terran will not have the time and ressources to reach the point you described.
if terran can turtle in a fashion that makes protoss too uncomfortable to attack,
then terran can come out with an army of 175 supply, or mass BC, or whatever he thinks will beat a protoss that has a massive bank.
|
On July 27 2012 23:15 Naphal wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 23:02 Shiori wrote:On July 27 2012 22:55 monkybone wrote:On July 27 2012 22:51 Shiori wrote:On July 27 2012 22:49 monkybone wrote:On July 27 2012 22:46 Shiori wrote:On July 27 2012 22:37 monkybone wrote:On July 27 2012 22:28 Shiori wrote:On July 27 2012 22:05 monkybone wrote:On July 27 2012 21:46 Havik_ wrote:
[quote]
That would be a bit too strong. TvP late game comes down to micro, that's it. Both sides have to micro like crazy to win. Only difference is Terrans have to be a little bit better about splitting vs Storms. I like the idea of adding some of the crazier stuff from the campaign to the multiplayer though. I don't know, the problem has been that terran can't reproduce their army after a huge engagement while Protoss can. I fail to see how this would be too strong. In the late game, Terran can mine almost entirely without SCVs, which means they have a higher army supply no matter what the Toss does. So you're still fine. That's totally irrelevant. The point is that terran has trouble with protoss production capabilities, and that this is a possible solution to it. Bringing in another aspect of the matchup isn't an argument against that. Yes it is. Terran doesn't need to produce at the same rate as Protoss because they have a larger army supply, which, given positioning and good micro, is incredibly cost-efficient. So you're debating the premise of the discussion (which is that terran has difficulties with lategame protoss production capabilities), and not actually arguing for any of the positions. And yes, Terran still has problems with mass warpgate TvP, I'm not even going to get into a discussion about that now. If you don't want to discuss it, then your point is without merit, because you offer no proof that high level Terrans are actually having trouble. What counts as proof? A ton of replays showing terrans coming out ahead of lategame engagements only to lose their momentum to a mass warp in of zealots which not only pushes the army back, but if warped in near the terran base can wreck the economy? All the proof lies in front of you. We've seen it time and time again, and it's generally accepted that mass warp gate is a huge problem in TvP, so while you don't agree with the premise, most others will, so I'm not going to waste time on that right now. Replays from whom? Master leaguers? GMs? Pros? Korean pros? I've only seen the first two in any number, the third rather scarcely, and the latter almost never at all. If you trade efficiently with a Protoss 200/200 army, you should not be taking significant damage from a pure Zealot warpin. Read that again: efficiently. You have more supply in army at the beginning of the battle. Barely edging out the Protoss army and have 5 Marines left doesn't count as "coming out ahead." i think it is important to see the difference between "late" and "end" game, protoss completes his tech and 20 warpgates way earlier than a terran can get 10 orbitals to sac 30-40 scvs, so as long as protoss and terran were even until lategame, and protoss trades equally with a HT / Colo / gateway army, he can press the advantage, saving ressources for a big warpin is done faster than the terran "ecoswitch" basically i am saying terran may have an edge or be equal to protoss when everything is in place like you describe it, but i guess as long as protoss trades evenly with what he has, terran will not have the time and ressources to reach the point you described. if terran can turtle in a fashion that makes protoss too uncomfortable to attack, then terran can come out with an army of 175 supply, or mass BC, or whatever he thinks will beat a protoss that has a massive bank.
The first push Protoss gets with Archon/HT/Colossus is definitely strong, but it's only every unholdable when Terran either
a) picks a really poor place to engage
b) loses all his Ghosts for free (seriously, this seems to happen a lot)
c) overcommitted on his Medivac push, got behind in upgrades/production
If Terran is in a good position leading up to this first 200/200 Protoss push, he can hold it reliably, so long as he has good control and engagement skills, which are what an RTS should be about.
|
I always thought arbiters were imbalanced in BW, yet no one really said that. It's just kinda interesting to see someone basically complaining about the same concept, even though with things like vikings and sensor towers it should be a lot easier to stop. I hope someone shares the secret with me to unlocking late game toss imbalance, because I absolutely hate late game pvt. Yeah, sure it's cool if you have 40 gateways and can instantly reinforce, but I can't imagine many games where a toss player can end up with this kind of economy and not deserve to win, anyways.
And I have no idea where this 1a notion comes from for Toss. Every freaking unit requires you to use spells, and it's not like you can make many 1a collosi when you can make at least 2 vikings at once. If I were Terran and I were to whine, it would be about how boring the race is. I think it's completely fair to have to research everything in the game and have every possible unit and upgrade, and, of course, mass gateways, to capitalize on this "advantage."
There's a reason why Terran wins more games than Toss in the mu every month. I hope they do buff Terran late game so the percentage in favor of Terran can reach an "unacceptable level," so then they can actually try to make it more balanced than it is now. Apparently for some races, 50% isn't balanced. I guess Terran is the chosen race and that would mean serious buffs need to occur. It's just such a joke to clamor for late game buffs and not talk about things to negate some of the reasons for your adv in the mu...
|
I agree with playa if people used the templates the OP had and actually had to think about consequences they would realize balance isn't as simple as "buff this" when there are 3 races.
|
On July 27 2012 23:12 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 23:09 monkybone wrote:On July 27 2012 23:07 Shiori wrote:On July 27 2012 23:05 monkybone wrote:On July 27 2012 23:02 Shiori wrote:On July 27 2012 22:55 monkybone wrote:On July 27 2012 22:51 Shiori wrote:On July 27 2012 22:49 monkybone wrote:On July 27 2012 22:46 Shiori wrote:On July 27 2012 22:37 monkybone wrote:
[quote]
That's totally irrelevant. The point is that terran has trouble with protoss production capabilities, and that this is a possible solution to it. Bringing in another aspect of the matchup isn't an argument against that. Yes it is. Terran doesn't need to produce at the same rate as Protoss because they have a larger army supply, which, given positioning and good micro, is incredibly cost-efficient. So you're debating the premise of the discussion (which is that terran has difficulties with lategame protoss production capabilities), and not actually arguing for any of the positions. And yes, Terran still has problems with mass warpgate TvP, I'm not even going to get into a discussion about that now. If you don't want to discuss it, then your point is without merit, because you offer no proof that high level Terrans are actually having trouble. What counts as proof? A ton of replays showing terrans coming out ahead of lategame engagements only to lose their momentum to a mass warp in of zealots which not only pushes the army back, but if warped in near the terran base can wreck the economy? All the proof lies in front of you. We've seen it time and time again, and it's generally accepted that mass warp gate is a huge problem in TvP, so while you don't agree with the premise, most others will, so I'm not going to waste time on that right now. Replays from whom? Master leaguers? GMs? Pros? Korean pros? I've only seen the first two in any number, the third rather scarcely, and the latter almost never at all. If you trade efficiently with a Protoss 200/200 army, you should not be taking significant damage from a pure Zealot warpin. Read that again: efficiently. You have more supply in army at the beginning of the battle. Barely edging out the Protoss army and have 5 Marines left doesn't count as "coming out ahead." Do you understand the difference between supply efficiency and cost-efficiency? A Terran army is significantly weaker than a Protoss army of equal supply. So yeah, if you actually kill a toss army and are left with 5 marines you have achieved great cost-efficiency, more than you could hope for. And there goes your credibility. You don't understand/watch the matchup at anything approaching the pro level (unless Avilo is your metric for the epitome of TvP). Stop whining and get better. You should stop talking... I haven't whined at all, and I'm trying to discuss TvP in a constructive manner. If you don't have anything but idiotic ad hominems left to add, you can kiss your own credibility goodbye. You haven't exactly proven your own expertise in this thread. You haven't appealed to anything except opinion of the majority of Terran posters on this forum. Newsflash: the opinion of the majority of Terrans on this forum is fucking irrelevant to whether there is an insurmountable problem with TvP. I say 'insurmountable' because that is the only criteria which would imply imbalance, given that no amount of skill would allow you to reliably win against good Protoss players. This has nowhere been established; not by you, and not by anyone.
So as long as there is any Zerg/Toss losing to any Terran, the game is fine, because the mistake isn't "insurmountable", even if it's MKP beating you on the ladder.
And you talk about credibility?
Also:
When was the last time, a terran got into the position to sac SCVs because he had 4+ extra orbitals? Out of the pro-games I saw I don't remember..
|
On July 27 2012 23:18 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 23:15 Naphal wrote:On July 27 2012 23:02 Shiori wrote:On July 27 2012 22:55 monkybone wrote:On July 27 2012 22:51 Shiori wrote:On July 27 2012 22:49 monkybone wrote:On July 27 2012 22:46 Shiori wrote:On July 27 2012 22:37 monkybone wrote:On July 27 2012 22:28 Shiori wrote:On July 27 2012 22:05 monkybone wrote:
[quote]
I don't know, the problem has been that terran can't reproduce their army after a huge engagement while Protoss can. I fail to see how this would be too strong. In the late game, Terran can mine almost entirely without SCVs, which means they have a higher army supply no matter what the Toss does. So you're still fine. That's totally irrelevant. The point is that terran has trouble with protoss production capabilities, and that this is a possible solution to it. Bringing in another aspect of the matchup isn't an argument against that. Yes it is. Terran doesn't need to produce at the same rate as Protoss because they have a larger army supply, which, given positioning and good micro, is incredibly cost-efficient. So you're debating the premise of the discussion (which is that terran has difficulties with lategame protoss production capabilities), and not actually arguing for any of the positions. And yes, Terran still has problems with mass warpgate TvP, I'm not even going to get into a discussion about that now. If you don't want to discuss it, then your point is without merit, because you offer no proof that high level Terrans are actually having trouble. What counts as proof? A ton of replays showing terrans coming out ahead of lategame engagements only to lose their momentum to a mass warp in of zealots which not only pushes the army back, but if warped in near the terran base can wreck the economy? All the proof lies in front of you. We've seen it time and time again, and it's generally accepted that mass warp gate is a huge problem in TvP, so while you don't agree with the premise, most others will, so I'm not going to waste time on that right now. Replays from whom? Master leaguers? GMs? Pros? Korean pros? I've only seen the first two in any number, the third rather scarcely, and the latter almost never at all. If you trade efficiently with a Protoss 200/200 army, you should not be taking significant damage from a pure Zealot warpin. Read that again: efficiently. You have more supply in army at the beginning of the battle. Barely edging out the Protoss army and have 5 Marines left doesn't count as "coming out ahead." i think it is important to see the difference between "late" and "end" game, protoss completes his tech and 20 warpgates way earlier than a terran can get 10 orbitals to sac 30-40 scvs, so as long as protoss and terran were even until lategame, and protoss trades equally with a HT / Colo / gateway army, he can press the advantage, saving ressources for a big warpin is done faster than the terran "ecoswitch" basically i am saying terran may have an edge or be equal to protoss when everything is in place like you describe it, but i guess as long as protoss trades evenly with what he has, terran will not have the time and ressources to reach the point you described. if terran can turtle in a fashion that makes protoss too uncomfortable to attack, then terran can come out with an army of 175 supply, or mass BC, or whatever he thinks will beat a protoss that has a massive bank. The first push Protoss gets with Archon/HT/Colossus is definitely strong, but it's only every unholdable when Terran either a) picks a really poor place to engage b) loses all his Ghosts for free (seriously, this seems to happen a lot) c) overcommitted on his Medivac push, got behind in upgrades/production If Terran is in a good position leading up to this first 200/200 Protoss push, he can hold it reliably, so long as he has good control and engagement skills, which are what an RTS should be about.
I agree, if the level of play is sufficiently high, TvP favors neither side too much, of course the lower we go with skill, the more will the amove friendly zealot / archon / colossi ball (with stormsupport) dominate the fragile but extremly damaging mmmvg army (in lategame engagements, likewise will a stim+amove ruin a lesser skilled protosses day before the tech is done), but i feel the easier to use mechunits from hots will give lesser skilled terrans another option, so even if we do not value balance at lower levels of play too highly, i think we are getting there (and ladder might equalize a bit across the board)
my mainconcern is TvZ atm, but i really have nothing to add what has not been said in this very thread up to this point.
|
On July 27 2012 23:40 Thrombozyt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 23:12 Shiori wrote:On July 27 2012 23:09 monkybone wrote:On July 27 2012 23:07 Shiori wrote:On July 27 2012 23:05 monkybone wrote:On July 27 2012 23:02 Shiori wrote:On July 27 2012 22:55 monkybone wrote:On July 27 2012 22:51 Shiori wrote:On July 27 2012 22:49 monkybone wrote:On July 27 2012 22:46 Shiori wrote:
[quote]
Yes it is. Terran doesn't need to produce at the same rate as Protoss because they have a larger army supply, which, given positioning and good micro, is incredibly cost-efficient.
So you're debating the premise of the discussion (which is that terran has difficulties with lategame protoss production capabilities), and not actually arguing for any of the positions. And yes, Terran still has problems with mass warpgate TvP, I'm not even going to get into a discussion about that now. If you don't want to discuss it, then your point is without merit, because you offer no proof that high level Terrans are actually having trouble. What counts as proof? A ton of replays showing terrans coming out ahead of lategame engagements only to lose their momentum to a mass warp in of zealots which not only pushes the army back, but if warped in near the terran base can wreck the economy? All the proof lies in front of you. We've seen it time and time again, and it's generally accepted that mass warp gate is a huge problem in TvP, so while you don't agree with the premise, most others will, so I'm not going to waste time on that right now. Replays from whom? Master leaguers? GMs? Pros? Korean pros? I've only seen the first two in any number, the third rather scarcely, and the latter almost never at all. If you trade efficiently with a Protoss 200/200 army, you should not be taking significant damage from a pure Zealot warpin. Read that again: efficiently. You have more supply in army at the beginning of the battle. Barely edging out the Protoss army and have 5 Marines left doesn't count as "coming out ahead." Do you understand the difference between supply efficiency and cost-efficiency? A Terran army is significantly weaker than a Protoss army of equal supply. So yeah, if you actually kill a toss army and are left with 5 marines you have achieved great cost-efficiency, more than you could hope for. And there goes your credibility. You don't understand/watch the matchup at anything approaching the pro level (unless Avilo is your metric for the epitome of TvP). Stop whining and get better. You should stop talking... I haven't whined at all, and I'm trying to discuss TvP in a constructive manner. If you don't have anything but idiotic ad hominems left to add, you can kiss your own credibility goodbye. You haven't exactly proven your own expertise in this thread. You haven't appealed to anything except opinion of the majority of Terran posters on this forum. Newsflash: the opinion of the majority of Terrans on this forum is fucking irrelevant to whether there is an insurmountable problem with TvP. I say 'insurmountable' because that is the only criteria which would imply imbalance, given that no amount of skill would allow you to reliably win against good Protoss players. This has nowhere been established; not by you, and not by anyone. So as long as there is any Zerg/Toss losing to any Terran, the game is fine, because the mistake isn't "insurmountable", even if it's MKP beating you on the ladder. And you talk about credibility? Also: When was the last time, a terran got into the position to sac SCVs because he had 4+ extra orbitals? Out of the pro-games I saw I don't remember..
Strawman argument, what he's talking about is high-level Terran players being able to beat high-level Protoss players. Which is still the case, last I checked...
|
On July 27 2012 23:46 Acritter wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 23:40 Thrombozyt wrote:On July 27 2012 23:12 Shiori wrote:On July 27 2012 23:09 monkybone wrote:On July 27 2012 23:07 Shiori wrote:On July 27 2012 23:05 monkybone wrote:On July 27 2012 23:02 Shiori wrote:On July 27 2012 22:55 monkybone wrote:On July 27 2012 22:51 Shiori wrote:On July 27 2012 22:49 monkybone wrote:
[quote]
So you're debating the premise of the discussion (which is that terran has difficulties with lategame protoss production capabilities), and not actually arguing for any of the positions.
And yes, Terran still has problems with mass warpgate TvP, I'm not even going to get into a discussion about that now. If you don't want to discuss it, then your point is without merit, because you offer no proof that high level Terrans are actually having trouble. What counts as proof? A ton of replays showing terrans coming out ahead of lategame engagements only to lose their momentum to a mass warp in of zealots which not only pushes the army back, but if warped in near the terran base can wreck the economy? All the proof lies in front of you. We've seen it time and time again, and it's generally accepted that mass warp gate is a huge problem in TvP, so while you don't agree with the premise, most others will, so I'm not going to waste time on that right now. Replays from whom? Master leaguers? GMs? Pros? Korean pros? I've only seen the first two in any number, the third rather scarcely, and the latter almost never at all. If you trade efficiently with a Protoss 200/200 army, you should not be taking significant damage from a pure Zealot warpin. Read that again: efficiently. You have more supply in army at the beginning of the battle. Barely edging out the Protoss army and have 5 Marines left doesn't count as "coming out ahead." Do you understand the difference between supply efficiency and cost-efficiency? A Terran army is significantly weaker than a Protoss army of equal supply. So yeah, if you actually kill a toss army and are left with 5 marines you have achieved great cost-efficiency, more than you could hope for. And there goes your credibility. You don't understand/watch the matchup at anything approaching the pro level (unless Avilo is your metric for the epitome of TvP). Stop whining and get better. You should stop talking... I haven't whined at all, and I'm trying to discuss TvP in a constructive manner. If you don't have anything but idiotic ad hominems left to add, you can kiss your own credibility goodbye. You haven't exactly proven your own expertise in this thread. You haven't appealed to anything except opinion of the majority of Terran posters on this forum. Newsflash: the opinion of the majority of Terrans on this forum is fucking irrelevant to whether there is an insurmountable problem with TvP. I say 'insurmountable' because that is the only criteria which would imply imbalance, given that no amount of skill would allow you to reliably win against good Protoss players. This has nowhere been established; not by you, and not by anyone. So as long as there is any Zerg/Toss losing to any Terran, the game is fine, because the mistake isn't "insurmountable", even if it's MKP beating you on the ladder. And you talk about credibility? Also: When was the last time, a terran got into the position to sac SCVs because he had 4+ extra orbitals? Out of the pro-games I saw I don't remember.. Strawman argument, what he's talking about is high-level Terran players being able to beat high-level Protoss players. Which is still the case, last I checked...
It's not a strawman. Just read what he said.
Even if you think 'good protoss player' only encompasses GM level, it would still be OK as long as any terran player beats them.
You think in the game there was every a build that was insurmountable by skill? As in you could stop it even if you were 10x better? I don't think so...
|
On July 27 2012 23:18 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 23:15 Naphal wrote:On July 27 2012 23:02 Shiori wrote:On July 27 2012 22:55 monkybone wrote:On July 27 2012 22:51 Shiori wrote:On July 27 2012 22:49 monkybone wrote:On July 27 2012 22:46 Shiori wrote:On July 27 2012 22:37 monkybone wrote:On July 27 2012 22:28 Shiori wrote:On July 27 2012 22:05 monkybone wrote:
[quote]
I don't know, the problem has been that terran can't reproduce their army after a huge engagement while Protoss can. I fail to see how this would be too strong. In the late game, Terran can mine almost entirely without SCVs, which means they have a higher army supply no matter what the Toss does. So you're still fine. That's totally irrelevant. The point is that terran has trouble with protoss production capabilities, and that this is a possible solution to it. Bringing in another aspect of the matchup isn't an argument against that. Yes it is. Terran doesn't need to produce at the same rate as Protoss because they have a larger army supply, which, given positioning and good micro, is incredibly cost-efficient. So you're debating the premise of the discussion (which is that terran has difficulties with lategame protoss production capabilities), and not actually arguing for any of the positions. And yes, Terran still has problems with mass warpgate TvP, I'm not even going to get into a discussion about that now. If you don't want to discuss it, then your point is without merit, because you offer no proof that high level Terrans are actually having trouble. What counts as proof? A ton of replays showing terrans coming out ahead of lategame engagements only to lose their momentum to a mass warp in of zealots which not only pushes the army back, but if warped in near the terran base can wreck the economy? All the proof lies in front of you. We've seen it time and time again, and it's generally accepted that mass warp gate is a huge problem in TvP, so while you don't agree with the premise, most others will, so I'm not going to waste time on that right now. Replays from whom? Master leaguers? GMs? Pros? Korean pros? I've only seen the first two in any number, the third rather scarcely, and the latter almost never at all. If you trade efficiently with a Protoss 200/200 army, you should not be taking significant damage from a pure Zealot warpin. Read that again: efficiently. You have more supply in army at the beginning of the battle. Barely edging out the Protoss army and have 5 Marines left doesn't count as "coming out ahead." i think it is important to see the difference between "late" and "end" game, protoss completes his tech and 20 warpgates way earlier than a terran can get 10 orbitals to sac 30-40 scvs, so as long as protoss and terran were even until lategame, and protoss trades equally with a HT / Colo / gateway army, he can press the advantage, saving ressources for a big warpin is done faster than the terran "ecoswitch" basically i am saying terran may have an edge or be equal to protoss when everything is in place like you describe it, but i guess as long as protoss trades evenly with what he has, terran will not have the time and ressources to reach the point you described. if terran can turtle in a fashion that makes protoss too uncomfortable to attack, then terran can come out with an army of 175 supply, or mass BC, or whatever he thinks will beat a protoss that has a massive bank. The first push Protoss gets with Archon/HT/Colossus is definitely strong, but it's only every unholdable when Terran either a) picks a really poor place to engage b) loses all his Ghosts for free (seriously, this seems to happen a lot) c) overcommitted on his Medivac push, got behind in upgrades/production If Terran is in a good position leading up to this first 200/200 Protoss push, he can hold it reliably, so long as he has good control and engagement skills, which are what an RTS should be about.
The fist two are really derpy things that I don't see too often in high level play. The third one happens a bit, but I have watched plenty of games where the terran plays exceptionally well with BETTER upgrades and still loses. The issue is that Protoss makes that first zealot/archon/HT/colossus push the Terran isn't in the best productive state to pump vikings, medivacs, and ghosts......one of them has to suffer. Usually the ghosts but it is really difficult to gauge.
|
On July 27 2012 23:54 Thrombozyt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 23:46 Acritter wrote:On July 27 2012 23:40 Thrombozyt wrote:On July 27 2012 23:12 Shiori wrote:On July 27 2012 23:09 monkybone wrote:On July 27 2012 23:07 Shiori wrote:On July 27 2012 23:05 monkybone wrote:On July 27 2012 23:02 Shiori wrote:On July 27 2012 22:55 monkybone wrote:On July 27 2012 22:51 Shiori wrote:
[quote]
If you don't want to discuss it, then your point is without merit, because you offer no proof that high level Terrans are actually having trouble.
What counts as proof? A ton of replays showing terrans coming out ahead of lategame engagements only to lose their momentum to a mass warp in of zealots which not only pushes the army back, but if warped in near the terran base can wreck the economy? All the proof lies in front of you. We've seen it time and time again, and it's generally accepted that mass warp gate is a huge problem in TvP, so while you don't agree with the premise, most others will, so I'm not going to waste time on that right now. Replays from whom? Master leaguers? GMs? Pros? Korean pros? I've only seen the first two in any number, the third rather scarcely, and the latter almost never at all. If you trade efficiently with a Protoss 200/200 army, you should not be taking significant damage from a pure Zealot warpin. Read that again: efficiently. You have more supply in army at the beginning of the battle. Barely edging out the Protoss army and have 5 Marines left doesn't count as "coming out ahead." Do you understand the difference between supply efficiency and cost-efficiency? A Terran army is significantly weaker than a Protoss army of equal supply. So yeah, if you actually kill a toss army and are left with 5 marines you have achieved great cost-efficiency, more than you could hope for. And there goes your credibility. You don't understand/watch the matchup at anything approaching the pro level (unless Avilo is your metric for the epitome of TvP). Stop whining and get better. You should stop talking... I haven't whined at all, and I'm trying to discuss TvP in a constructive manner. If you don't have anything but idiotic ad hominems left to add, you can kiss your own credibility goodbye. You haven't exactly proven your own expertise in this thread. You haven't appealed to anything except opinion of the majority of Terran posters on this forum. Newsflash: the opinion of the majority of Terrans on this forum is fucking irrelevant to whether there is an insurmountable problem with TvP. I say 'insurmountable' because that is the only criteria which would imply imbalance, given that no amount of skill would allow you to reliably win against good Protoss players. This has nowhere been established; not by you, and not by anyone. So as long as there is any Zerg/Toss losing to any Terran, the game is fine, because the mistake isn't "insurmountable", even if it's MKP beating you on the ladder. And you talk about credibility? Also: When was the last time, a terran got into the position to sac SCVs because he had 4+ extra orbitals? Out of the pro-games I saw I don't remember.. Strawman argument, what he's talking about is high-level Terran players being able to beat high-level Protoss players. Which is still the case, last I checked... It's not a strawman. Just read what he said. Even if you think 'good protoss player' only encompasses GM level, it would still be OK as long as any terran player beats them. You think in the game there was every a build that was insurmountable by skill? As in you could stop it even if you were 10x better? I don't think so...
He said:
no amount of skill would allow you to reliably win against good Protoss players
Meaning that imbalance would come into play only if it was impossible to be good enough to reliably win against top-level players. Yes, you DID make a strawman argument. The word "reliably" is clearly in there. Please, stop. Logical fallacies aren't going to solve anything.
|
As someone that occasionally checks TLPD, I get an error message when trying to compute this sentiment of Terran being slighted in t vs p. Have any of you guys that think t vs p is unfair at a high level actually ever checked the win rates for the best terrans against toss? For instance, Jjakji is 20-2 against toss, and his opponents have largely been the best of the best. The numbers for all of the top Terrans seem to be incredibly good against toss; far better than what I see for the best Toss players against Terran.
If you want to fight the loch ness monster, make sure it's real first. Although, I can see how simply the notion can be pretty scary. If you can't micro, then everything is going to look imbalanced. I just wonder where people are drawing their conclusions from. Personally, in my limited experience, I do feel the small time window/advantage Toss has is when you just get your tier 3 tech and Terran hasn't been able to build up vikings/ghost/etc, but every build has it's pros and cons; does everyone have to go fast expo?
|
On July 27 2012 23:05 monkybone wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 23:02 Shiori wrote:On July 27 2012 22:55 monkybone wrote:On July 27 2012 22:51 Shiori wrote:On July 27 2012 22:49 monkybone wrote:On July 27 2012 22:46 Shiori wrote:On July 27 2012 22:37 monkybone wrote:On July 27 2012 22:28 Shiori wrote:On July 27 2012 22:05 monkybone wrote:On July 27 2012 21:46 Havik_ wrote:
[quote]
That would be a bit too strong. TvP late game comes down to micro, that's it. Both sides have to micro like crazy to win. Only difference is Terrans have to be a little bit better about splitting vs Storms. I like the idea of adding some of the crazier stuff from the campaign to the multiplayer though. I don't know, the problem has been that terran can't reproduce their army after a huge engagement while Protoss can. I fail to see how this would be too strong. In the late game, Terran can mine almost entirely without SCVs, which means they have a higher army supply no matter what the Toss does. So you're still fine. That's totally irrelevant. The point is that terran has trouble with protoss production capabilities, and that this is a possible solution to it. Bringing in another aspect of the matchup isn't an argument against that. Yes it is. Terran doesn't need to produce at the same rate as Protoss because they have a larger army supply, which, given positioning and good micro, is incredibly cost-efficient. So you're debating the premise of the discussion (which is that terran has difficulties with lategame protoss production capabilities), and not actually arguing for any of the positions. And yes, Terran still has problems with mass warpgate TvP, I'm not even going to get into a discussion about that now. If you don't want to discuss it, then your point is without merit, because you offer no proof that high level Terrans are actually having trouble. What counts as proof? A ton of replays showing terrans coming out ahead of lategame engagements only to lose their momentum to a mass warp in of zealots which not only pushes the army back, but if warped in near the terran base can wreck the economy? All the proof lies in front of you. We've seen it time and time again, and it's generally accepted that mass warp gate is a huge problem in TvP, so while you don't agree with the premise, most others will, so I'm not going to waste time on that right now. Replays from whom? Master leaguers? GMs? Pros? Korean pros? I've only seen the first two in any number, the third rather scarcely, and the latter almost never at all. If you trade efficiently with a Protoss 200/200 army, you should not be taking significant damage from a pure Zealot warpin. Read that again: efficiently. You have more supply in army at the beginning of the battle. Barely edging out the Protoss army and have 5 Marines left doesn't count as "coming out ahead." Do you understand the difference between supply efficiency and cost-efficiency? A Terran army is significantly weaker than a Protoss army of equal supply. So yeah, if you actually kill a toss army and are left with 5 marines you have achieved great cost-efficiency, more than you could hope for.
This right here. Shiori doesn't like to admit it because he plays Protoss, but in TvP if you trade evenly with your opponent you will lose because of Zealot warp-ins being there before you can even complete a production cycle. Terran having more army supply is already accounted for because a Terran army is significantly weaker than a Protoss army of equal supply.
In other words you have to outplay your opponent enough to vastly destroy his army to go even.
|
On July 27 2012 05:17 sieksdekciw wrote:Today, when I look @ sc2ranks, I see a bunch of zergs I've never heard of, also tosses. Almost no terrans, and where there are, they are famous pros, or at least names we see often on gm and as ESL/eu playhem winners/runner ups. Look at this: ![[image loading]](http://snag.gy/eT40v.jpg) Again, I repeat Top 200: protoss: 95 random: 1 terran: 42 zerg: 87 This is not balance nor is a laughing matter. It is not that suddenly zerg players 'figured out the game'. Here is the problem:
Wow, I didn't even know. But I wonder how Blizzard can not know, or if. Blizzard seems to insist on being in denial.
|
On July 28 2012 02:07 NewbieOne wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 05:17 sieksdekciw wrote:Today, when I look @ sc2ranks, I see a bunch of zergs I've never heard of, also tosses. Almost no terrans, and where there are, they are famous pros, or at least names we see often on gm and as ESL/eu playhem winners/runner ups. Look at this: Again, I repeat Top 200: protoss: 95 random: 1 terran: 42 zerg: 87 This is not balance nor is a laughing matter. It is not that suddenly zerg players 'figured out the game'. Here is the problem: Wow, I didn't even know. But I wonder how Blizzard can not know, or if. Blizzard seems to insist on being in denial.
I think if Blizzard doesn't do something pretty quick, its quite obvious they're "getting back" at terran for being OP during the early stages of the game.
Its the FOTM model they used in WoW and I probably don't even have to say how pathetic it is for a competitive game.
|
On July 28 2012 02:23 Bagi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 02:07 NewbieOne wrote:On July 27 2012 05:17 sieksdekciw wrote:Today, when I look @ sc2ranks, I see a bunch of zergs I've never heard of, also tosses. Almost no terrans, and where there are, they are famous pros, or at least names we see often on gm and as ESL/eu playhem winners/runner ups. Look at this: Again, I repeat Top 200: protoss: 95 random: 1 terran: 42 zerg: 87 This is not balance nor is a laughing matter. It is not that suddenly zerg players 'figured out the game'. Here is the problem: Wow, I didn't even know. But I wonder how Blizzard can not know, or if. Blizzard seems to insist on being in denial. I think if Blizzard doesn't do something pretty quick, its quite obvious they're "getting back" at terran for being OP during the early stages of the game. Its the FOTM model they used in WoW and I probably don't even have to say how pathetic it is for a competitive game.
Don't attribute to malice what can as easily be explained by incompetence. To even apply the FOTM model, you need some understanding of the game you're balancing, which Dustin Browder clearly doesn't have (either that, or he's very good at playing clueless in interviews).
Besides, about 50% of the time, they actually get stuff right (Immortal buff was a good example of that). So I think they ultimately meant well with the Queen/Overlord buffs, and are now just waiting for HotS, hoping that things will work themselves out. Kind of sucks for Terran pros, but eh, that's why I wouldn't ever play SC2 competitively. Dustin's interviews already make my blood pressure rise; if my livelihood depended on his decisions, I think I'd die of an aneurysm before my 30th birthday.
|
On July 27 2012 23:18 Shiori wrote:
If Terran is in a good position leading up to this first 200/200 Protoss push, he can hold it reliably, so long as he has good control and engagement skills, which are what an RTS should be about.
Good control and engagement skills should definately be important, but while I don't think it has to be equally important for two races in a game like sc2 I do think it definately shouldn't be as skewed as it is. As it is now a terran has to outmicro a protoss incredibly hard to win a bigger battle. I remember Wolf, former P player in Fxo, once saying on air that keeping your zealots in the front is the hardest thing to do when controling a protoss army. That comment had me in stiches!
|
On July 28 2012 02:07 NewbieOne wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 05:17 sieksdekciw wrote:Today, when I look @ sc2ranks, I see a bunch of zergs I've never heard of, also tosses. Almost no terrans, and where there are, they are famous pros, or at least names we see often on gm and as ESL/eu playhem winners/runner ups. Look at this: Again, I repeat Top 200: protoss: 95 random: 1 terran: 42 zerg: 87 This is not balance nor is a laughing matter. It is not that suddenly zerg players 'figured out the game'. Here is the problem: Wow, I didn't even know. But I wonder how Blizzard can not know, or if. Blizzard seems to insist on being in denial.
Right now top 20 looks like this:
7 Zergs
5 Terrans
8 protoss
I know who all of the players are except for like 3 of them, including a barcode terran.
|
On July 28 2012 02:37 kyllinghest wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 23:18 Shiori wrote:
If Terran is in a good position leading up to this first 200/200 Protoss push, he can hold it reliably, so long as he has good control and engagement skills, which are what an RTS should be about. Good control and engagement skills should definately be important, but while I don't think it has to be equally important for two races in a game like sc2 I do think it definately shouldn't be as skewed as it is. As it is now a terran has to outmicro a protoss incredibly hard to win a bigger battle. I remember Wolf, former P player in Fxo, once saying on air that keeping your zealots in the front is the hardest thing to do when controling a protoss army. That comment had me in stiches!
That is pretty funny. I can see how A-move would make the faster speed Stalkers want to lead the attack. 
Ya, but the reason terrans haven't pushed the issue in whining about this now is because TvZ feels like total imbalance whereas TvP was asymmetrical balance, but still, balance. Plus, the new A-move additions terran is getting in HOTS has sort of put a clock on how much longer Terran has to wait to be as easy to control as Protoss. It's in the mail so to speak. But on TvZ, Blizzard has been silent still.
|
On July 28 2012 02:37 kyllinghest wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 23:18 Shiori wrote:
If Terran is in a good position leading up to this first 200/200 Protoss push, he can hold it reliably, so long as he has good control and engagement skills, which are what an RTS should be about. Good control and engagement skills should definately be important, but while I don't think it has to be equally important for two races in a game like sc2 I do think it definately shouldn't be as skewed as it is. As it is now a terran has to outmicro a protoss incredibly hard to win a bigger battle. I remember Wolf, former P player in Fxo, once saying on air that keeping your zealots in the front is the hardest thing to do when controling a protoss army. That comment had me in stiches!
The point is that at the highest level, everyone has really good APM and multitasking. The micro challenge isn't actually as hard as you're making it out to be for anyone playing this game for money. It's insufficient to just a-move and micro Templar against, say, MKP, which is why Parting, Squirtle, and MC don't do it.
|
On July 28 2012 02:23 Bagi wrote:
Its the FOTM model they used in WoW and I probably don't even have to say how pathetic it is for a competitive game.
The mis-PR so far does hint at something else than face value in Blizzard's dealing with Terran.
On July 27 2012 05:22 monkybone wrote:
The worst part is that blizzard repeatedly says that all matchups seem balanced on ladder. How can they say this when it so clearly isn't? Massive underrepresentation in higher leagues is a severe ladder imbalance.
The problem comes down to unassailable reasoning vs assailable reasoning. Representation does not conclusively prove anything about balance because in theory there could be other factors at play in how and why people choose their races.
The fact that balance or imbalance is unprovable strictly speaking (also because anybody's level of skill or his form at the moment are not provable in a precise fashion) also helps the defender of the thesis that game is balanced (until you prove it's not).
On July 27 2012 05:27 Toadvine wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 05:25 avilo wrote:
I'll be making a post on TL later as well as a video giving urgent feedback on HOTS because earlier today with my stream I just figured out that Blizzard is actually nerfing lategame TvP with HOTS because of how they say they are going to change the ghost.
So, yes, Terran is being nerfed again. If you do not know what i'm talking about, i'm speaking of the ghost cooldown change with cloak. It's a nerf to lategame Terran nuke harrass and the ghost in general. Don't worry avilo, you'll solve that problem by a-moving over the Protoss in the midgame with mech. That's what David Kim says.
I'm not sure to what extent I trust David Kim any more.
On July 27 2012 06:08 sieksdekciw wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 05:55 Big J wrote:
Furthermore it is COMPLETELY HILARIOUS, that you point out that based upon that evidence, Zerg should get nerfed, while Protoss, which are represented more EVERYWHERE, seem to be fine for you. Ah, toss. To be COMPLETELY HONEST, I never actually said that I am fine with toss either. What is more, I have pointed out in many posts and on many occasions that I believe the skill requirement for is a bit too low. It is the race that requires the least apm, facilitates a moving, and has the strongest units. However, since the toss problem and the broken warp gate mechanics have been addressed many times on TL, especially in the previous months, I believe I have nothing more to say about toss but my recommendation of nerfing warpgate/zealot health so a late game engagement near your base doesn't outright kill the terran.
I have to say +1. Please understand I'm not trying to imply anything bad about Protoss players and it doesn't exactly feel great to have to imply that someone's favourite race is imbalanced. But there might be a problem with skill requirements, although here the individual playing style has a lot to do with the results. Generally, Toss has both strong units and a lot of very effective special abilities, a lot of versatility, making stuff really hard from a Terran point of view. And zealots, especially chargelots, are a problem because they mop the floor too easily. It is awful for Terran to lack any melee unit while tanks need to deploy and become immobile.
On July 27 2012 08:42 PersonDudeGuy wrote:
Just to put this out there:
I play Skyterran as my TvP standard. I have REALLY hammered this build out to the point that i OFTEN get to a 5 base versus 3 base situation with even upgrades and a intimidating mass banshee tank marine army with macro orbitals. This is quite literally common for me. However, even in spite of doing constant air harass, having reasonably fast upgrades and a MUCH better economy it is not uncommon for me to lose in this 3 base vs 5 base scenario because protoss units are simply more efficient then terran tech. In my experience I have to be extremely cautious in all scenarios because as few as 3+ Hts and a dozen+ stalkers can kill 15 or so banshees. As long as the protoss knows what he's doing you can have your handsful.
Just today i was going 5 bases versus 3, i pushed ahead and lost most of my army to kill his 3rd and some of his army. The result was basically me on 5 bases (the 3rd + all being pfs) and with about 120 supply (with scv advantage) versus 150 supply. Despite getting to 3/3 and battlecruisers the protoss bashed through two planetaries using immortals, zealots and stalkers, in spite of taking tank and banshee shots throughout he had enough energy to get all the way to my natural before being killed. Terran tech against protoss can not be the solution except in VERY rare circumstances. Hightemplar are simply to strong of a counter to really leave many tech options viable.
That's not to say i think the MU is imbalanced, just that resorting to teching to get an edge will leave you next to no where because that's exactly the style I go, until recently it has worked FANTASTIC, but once you get to a decent level high masters protosses respond extraordinarily well and can go toe to toe easily.
I could say the same except your description sounds more skilled than my own game.
On July 27 2012 21:41 monkybone wrote:
Giving terran the tech reactor from the campaign (a reactor which works for all units, e.g. 2 tanks at a time) as an upgrade from the fusion core or something could give terran the production they lack in the late game. Could be an upgrade on the reactors and tech labs themselves, like a transformation.
+1
And if too imba, it could be toned down by appropriate cost or tech requirements. It would also have the advantage of not needing the Terran to cover so much space and thus spread out so much when wanting to have more production capacity.
On July 27 2012 22:28 Shiori wrote:
In the late game, Terran can mine almost entirely without SCVs, which means they have a higher army supply no matter what the Toss does. So you're still fine.
The problem is that killing off your own units in a war-like game is in a way admitting defeat. Going against your own men. Kinda like killing off "non-essential" personnel to preserve supplies for more essential ones. Very bad on even an elementary roleplaying side. A disband button could help.
On July 27 2012 23:12 Shiori wrote:
You haven't appealed to anything except opinion of the majority of Terran posters on this forum. Newsflash: the opinion of the majority of Terrans on this forum is fucking irrelevant to whether there is an insurmountable problem with TvP. I say 'insurmountable' because that is the only criteria which would imply imbalance, given that no amount of skill would allow you to reliably win against good Protoss players. This has nowhere been established; not by you, and not by anyone.
You fall prey of a certain fallacy there, I'm afraid. I bolded the parts which show it. In a way, it's similar to how Blizzard handled the Snipe nerf discussion (where they responded to a "slightly too good counter" with "significantly reducing its effectiveness" in their own words within the same article).
First you insert the qualification of "insurmountable" as if that somehow were a logical requirement, which it is not. Then you define it as a situation when no matter how good you are, you can't beat a good opponent of the given race. That's a fallacy because you deny proportion: players with similar skill levels should generally be close to tying. That's not necessarily 50/50 because, in theory, even winning 0 games out of 10 where every game is a very close game is basically close to tying. In some situations players with similar skill levels could thus have win rates much different from a 50/50 proportion, I admit this. But in your logic everything is fine as long as there exists an attainable level of skill that would allow Terran to begin beating good Tosses reliably (like becoming a bonjwa Terran to beat high master/low GM Toss?), while good Terrans and similarly good Tosses should gravitate towards tying their games. Where 50/50 scores would provide for better sport than large streaks of very close wins for either party.
On July 28 2012 02:53 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 02:37 kyllinghest wrote:On July 27 2012 23:18 Shiori wrote:
If Terran is in a good position leading up to this first 200/200 Protoss push, he can hold it reliably, so long as he has good control and engagement skills, which are what an RTS should be about. Good control and engagement skills should definately be important, but while I don't think it has to be equally important for two races in a game like sc2 I do think it definately shouldn't be as skewed as it is. As it is now a terran has to outmicro a protoss incredibly hard to win a bigger battle. I remember Wolf, former P player in Fxo, once saying on air that keeping your zealots in the front is the hardest thing to do when controling a protoss army. That comment had me in stiches! The point is that at the highest level, everyone has really good APM and multitasking. The micro challenge isn't actually as hard as you're making it out to be for anyone playing this game for money. It's insufficient to just a-move and micro Templar against, say, MKP, which is why Parting, Squirtle, and MC don't do it.
True and that's actually part of the problem. In the pro sector (and I don't even mean the best people), almost everybody either has like 300 APM or the ability to compensate for it. This is something we can safely assume. But when one race requires much more of this than the other on ladder, then there's a problem. Millions of people have accepted the proposal made by the game (and by Blizzard as its author) and have invested their time, attention, emotions, money. They do not deserve a high-handed treatment. Not as audience in art, not as customers in business, not as spectators and amateur players in a sport.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
