|
On July 27 2012 22:46 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +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. I feel like you're arguing a position that existed 2-3 months ago. Not many pro Terrans are lamenting the state of TvP at the moment. Also, Medivac pushes are still worth doing, even if they're not game-ending. They force the Toss to be honest and not cut too many units. As long as you don't overcommit with your push, you're fine.
TvZ is occupying their attention right now, and rightly so.
|
On July 28 2012 02:55 NewbieOne wrote:
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.
This is one of the most moronic counter-arguments I've ever read. Role-playing is absolutely irrelevant to balance.
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.
Actually, no. Something is not imbalanced if there exist reliable strategies that good players can employ against similarly good players to get results. In the case of macro TvP, good Terran players have shown themselves capable of doing things that, when executed correctly, put them in a competitive, even position.
Players with similar skill do put forward pretty even results in TvP at the top level. The only place there is discrepancy is on ladder. But ladder is irrelevant. Zerg, for example, is incredibly difficult at the low levels because it requires a mechanical baseline to be effective. Similarly, Terran requires a certain micro baseline to be competitive against Protoss. Once this baseline is reached, however, the matchup is even.
I have no idea what this has to do with the Snipe nerf, which I opposed to begin with.
So I will repeat my argument: TvP is not imbalanced because, at the highest level, similarly skilled Protoss and Terran players are essentially even, have reliable strategies at their disposal which put them in a competitive position, and in general trade results.
|
On July 27 2012 22:51 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +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. Yes, because the premise is false. Terran having "difficulties" with lategame Protoss production doesn't mean that lategame Protoss production is imbalanced. It means that certain Terrans aren't playing the lategame properly. 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.
Really? And the fact Blizzard explicitally stated terran is designed to create advantage in the midgame to make up for their late game weakness has no bearing?
It's not debatable that terrans late game is weak at best. And the midgame is where they win the bulk of their games. But with metagame, maps, and balance changes pushing the game towards more later game macro style play terrans midgame window is getting smaller and smaller. it's poor game design. It's laughable people even argue the point.
|
On July 28 2012 03:08 mlspmatt wrote:Show nested quote +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. Yes, because the premise is false. Terran having "difficulties" with lategame Protoss production doesn't mean that lategame Protoss production is imbalanced. It means that certain Terrans aren't playing the lategame properly. 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. Really? And the fact Blizzard explicitally stated terran is designed to create advantage in the midgame to make up for their late game weakness has no bearing? It's not debatable that terrans late game is weak at best. And the midgame is where they win the bulk of their games. But with metagame, maps, and balance changes pushing the game towards more later game macro style play terrans midgame window is getting smaller and smaller. it's poor game design. It's laughable people even argue the point.
No, it has no bearing. Show me results of top Terrans getting dominated by Protoss as of late in the lategame. Back when Blizzard announced what it did, Terran had a problem. Since then, the metagame has evolved, Terrans stopped overcommitting on Medivac pushes, and worked on their lategame engagements/composition. Try actually watching high level games instead of spouting bullshit from February.
Terran tier 3 is weak against Protoss. This is not the same as saying Terran's lategame is weak in TvP.
I should point out the irony of taking Blizzard's word for how something is balanced in the case of TvP, but disdaining it in the cases of TvZ's Queen buff, the Snipe nerf, the EMP nerf, and God knows whatever other nonsense Blizzard has said over the years.
|
On July 28 2012 03:09 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 03:08 mlspmatt 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. Yes, because the premise is false. Terran having "difficulties" with lategame Protoss production doesn't mean that lategame Protoss production is imbalanced. It means that certain Terrans aren't playing the lategame properly. 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. Really? And the fact Blizzard explicitally stated terran is designed to create advantage in the midgame to make up for their late game weakness has no bearing? It's not debatable that terrans late game is weak at best. And the midgame is where they win the bulk of their games. But with metagame, maps, and balance changes pushing the game towards more later game macro style play terrans midgame window is getting smaller and smaller. it's poor game design. It's laughable people even argue the point. No, it has no bearing. Show me results of top Terrans getting dominated by Protoss as of late in the lategame. Back when Blizzard announced what it did, Terran had a problem. Since then, the metagame has evolved, Terrans stopped overcommitting on Medivac pushes, and worked on their lategame engagements/composition. Try actually watching high level games instead of spouting bullshit from February. Terran tier 3 is weak against Protoss. This is not the same as saying Terran's lategame is weak in TvP.
Sorry dude. I can't have a discussion with someone who can't admit the obvious. If you think terran's late game is equal to Protoss then you have no credability on any point.
And yes, the community listens to Blizzards points when they state what everyone already knows to be true.
|
On July 28 2012 03:13 mlspmatt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 03:09 Shiori wrote:On July 28 2012 03:08 mlspmatt 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. Yes, because the premise is false. Terran having "difficulties" with lategame Protoss production doesn't mean that lategame Protoss production is imbalanced. It means that certain Terrans aren't playing the lategame properly. 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. Really? And the fact Blizzard explicitally stated terran is designed to create advantage in the midgame to make up for their late game weakness has no bearing? It's not debatable that terrans late game is weak at best. And the midgame is where they win the bulk of their games. But with metagame, maps, and balance changes pushing the game towards more later game macro style play terrans midgame window is getting smaller and smaller. it's poor game design. It's laughable people even argue the point. No, it has no bearing. Show me results of top Terrans getting dominated by Protoss as of late in the lategame. Back when Blizzard announced what it did, Terran had a problem. Since then, the metagame has evolved, Terrans stopped overcommitting on Medivac pushes, and worked on their lategame engagements/composition. Try actually watching high level games instead of spouting bullshit from February. Terran tier 3 is weak against Protoss. This is not the same as saying Terran's lategame is weak in TvP. Sorry dude. I can't have a discussion with someone who can't admit the obvious. If you think terran's late game is equal to Protoss then you have no credability on any point.
Another one bites the dust.
|
I don't know why we'd be in an uproar about TvP right now. The lategame is still not that fun, sure, but midgame timings are still really strong and there are plenty of opportunities to disrupt the Protoss economy to prevent things from snowballing out of control, which they absolutely can if Protoss is left unchecked.
TvZ is the nightmare right now thanks to Blizzard shutting down practically everything Terran can do early on, and Zerg's lategame is a hell of a lot scarier than anything Protoss has too.
|
On July 28 2012 03:03 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 02:55 NewbieOne wrote:
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. This is one of the most moronic counter-arguments I've ever read. Role-playing is absolutely irrelevant to balance.
"Moronic" is irrelevant in any discussion of merits, you basically throw labels and think you've won. My point was that in practical terms having to kill off your own workers reeks of poor design.
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.
Show nested quote +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. Actually, no. Something is not imbalanced if there exist reliable strategies that good players can employ against similarly good players to get results. In the case of macro TvP, good Terran players have shown themselves capable of doing things that, when executed correctly, put them in a competitive, even position.
Now you are saying something different to what you said before and essentially equivalent to what I said but in different words. Before, you were saying that as long as there exists an attainable skill level allowing a Terran to beat good Tosses, everything is fine. Now you are saying that people with similar skill should get similar results.
Players with similar skill do put forward pretty even results in TvP at the top level. The only place there is discrepancy is on ladder. But ladder is irrelevant.
That's only your opinion. I disagree with it because people playing on ladder are paying customers, audience, hooked fans. They are not irrelevant. Neither is their gaming experience.
Zerg, for example, is incredibly difficult at the low levels because it requires a mechanical baseline to be effective.
That may be true but somehow Zerg isn't exactly getting smashed.
Similarly, Terran requires a certain micro baseline to be competitive against Protoss. Once this baseline is reached, however, the matchup is even.
Only at the very top level and when the Terran play is streamlined. I believe skill requirements should be more equal among the races. A Terran shouldn't need great micro to even compete with a Toss that doesn't need that micro.
I have no idea what this has to do with the Snipe nerf, which I opposed to begin with.
The absence of proportion. You implied or seemed to imply that it was okay for Terran to require more skill of its players to even work reliably than for the opposing Toss. As in, any abstract high level of skill vs merely good. Same way, Blizzard saw a "slight" imbalance and corrected it with a "significant" nerf. Good Tosses and good Terrans should about tie, average Tosses and average Terrans should about tie, slight imbalances should be corrected with slight nerfs, significant imbalances with significant nerfs. Proportion basically.
So I will repeat my argument: TvP is not imbalanced because, at the highest level, similarly skilled Protoss and Terran players are essentially even, have reliable strategies at their disposal which put them in a competitive position, and in general trade results.
Except that's because at that highest level players are at the peak of mechanical and micro skill (outliers). My point is that how the curves go below that peak level also matters.
On July 28 2012 03:08 mlspmatt wrote:
It's not debatable that terrans late game is weak at best. And the midgame is where they win the bulk of their games. But with metagame, maps, and balance changes pushing the game towards more later game macro style play terrans midgame window is getting smaller and smaller. it's poor game design. It's laughable people even argue the point.
+1. It's PR smokescreen for poor design. It's not okay to streamline gameplay so much that out of many theoretically available styles only this or that works. And in a certain matchup you need to precisely do damage in mid-game or you die. And in other matchups you need to survive until large macro late game or you die. Or you need to defend rushes and after that you're essentially at an adantage.
The game should be balanced throughout. If you damage the opponent, you should benefit from it. If he overcommits and you defend at a lower cost, you should benefit from that. And so on and so forth. But you shouldn't be forced into narrow scenarios.
And no matter what the PR says it's not cool when you need spectacular micro to defend against a-move (actually, less than necessarily spectacular micro and less than complete a-move, I'm illustrating a point here). It can only boost sales in this or that way but it's not okay, and it's not balance.
|
On July 28 2012 03:08 mlspmatt wrote:Show nested quote +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. Yes, because the premise is false. Terran having "difficulties" with lategame Protoss production doesn't mean that lategame Protoss production is imbalanced. It means that certain Terrans aren't playing the lategame properly. 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. Really? And the fact Blizzard explicitally stated terran is designed to create advantage in the midgame to make up for their late game weakness has no bearing? It's not debatable that terrans late game is weak at best. And the midgame is where they win the bulk of their games. But with metagame, maps, and balance changes pushing the game towards more later game macro style play terrans midgame window is getting smaller and smaller. it's poor game design. It's laughable people even argue the point.
We do agree that if both sides take few to no losses going into the late game, protoss can have an advantage. That said, we also know that terran players have a lot of offensive capability and harassment options at their fingertips in the mid-game. If terran players press that mid-game advantage, then protoss can’t necessarily get into the late game at their full potential, which can nullify any advantage they might have had. So, pressing that mid-game advantage is important (just as it would be important for protoss players to mitigate mid-game damage so they can to move into the late game in the strongest possible position). Ultimately, each game plays out differently, and depending on how the two races enter the late game, each side has a fair chance to win.
-) I don't read anything about this "lategame weakness" being intentional
-) I don't read anything that Terrans need to create a midgame advantage; they have to press the midgame advantage the current game gives them; not create one, which is something entirely different.
-) Of course it is debatable. If a race has good winrates in a matchup (like Terran does in TvP) while not opting for the lategame, it doesn't mean that there aren't very strong lategame strategies. It means that the players think that the strategies they play - which might make them weak in the lategame - are strong and it would be dumb to abbandon them.
+ Show Spoiler +DeMuslim vs Creator anyone? 25min no attack, then 20+ ghosts wipe the floor with one of the best PvT players in the world on one of the said-to-be slightly Protossfavored Cloud Kingdom. It's not a proof of a balanced game, but an example of a very, very strong lategame strategy of Terrans against Protoss
-) you don't need a "midgame window". You need to concentrate on your strenghts. For Terran that is, that they are finished with teching at 10min.
|
On July 28 2012 03:17 NewbieOne wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 03:03 Shiori wrote:On July 28 2012 02:55 NewbieOne wrote:
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. This is one of the most moronic counter-arguments I've ever read. Role-playing is absolutely irrelevant to balance. "Moronic" is irrelevant in any discussion of merits, you basically throw labels and think you've won. My point was that in practical terms having to kill off your own workers reeks of poor design. Show nested quote +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.
Show nested quote +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. Actually, no. Something is not imbalanced if there exist reliable strategies that good players can employ against similarly good players to get results. In the case of macro TvP, good Terran players have shown themselves capable of doing things that, when executed correctly, put them in a competitive, even position. Now you are saying something different to what you said before and essentially equivalent to what I said but in different words. Before, you were saying that as long as there exists an attainable skill level allowing a Terran to beat good Tosses, everything is fine. Now you are saying that people with similar skill should get similar results. Show nested quote +Players with similar skill do put forward pretty even results in TvP at the top level. The only place there is discrepancy is on ladder. But ladder is irrelevant. That's only your opinion. I disagree with it because people playing on ladder are paying customers, audience, hooked fans. They are not irrelevant. Neither is their gaming experience. Show nested quote +Zerg, for example, is incredibly difficult at the low levels because it requires a mechanical baseline to be effective. That may be true but somehow Zerg isn't exactly getting smashed. Show nested quote +Similarly, Terran requires a certain micro baseline to be competitive against Protoss. Once this baseline is reached, however, the matchup is even. Only at the very top level and when the Terran play is streamlined. I believe skill requirements should be more equal among the races. A Terran shouldn't need great micro to even compete with a Toss that doesn't need that micro. Show nested quote +I have no idea what this has to do with the Snipe nerf, which I opposed to begin with. The absence of proportion. You implied or seemed to imply that it was okay for Terran to require more skill of its players to even work reliably than for the opposing Toss. As in, any abstract high level of skill vs merely good. Same way, Blizzard saw a "slight" imbalance and corrected it with a "significant" nerf. Good Tosses and good Terrans should about tie, average Tosses and average Terrans should about tie, slight imbalances should be corrected with slight nerfs, significant imbalances with significant nerfs. Proportion basically. Show nested quote +So I will repeat my argument: TvP is not imbalanced because, at the highest level, similarly skilled Protoss and Terran players are essentially even, have reliable strategies at their disposal which put them in a competitive position, and in general trade results. Except that's because at that highest level players are at the peak of mechanical and micro skill (outliers). My point is that how the curves go below that peak level also matters.
Ah yes, the age old idiotic argument about whether we should be balancing this game for Bronze leaguers or pros. We're going to have to agree to disagree in that regard. Pros play this game for a living. They need a balanced game. People in Bronze can win by getting better, even if the learning curve is uneven. It was the same deal in BW. Deal with it.
Zerg has been getting smashed on the low end of ladder for a large part of this game's existence.
Toss players do need to micro just as much as Terran players at the top level. If you watch any top Protoss player play in the lategame, you'll see that they maintain a high APM at all times, and that they must micro their units to avoid unfavourable engagements.
Like it or not, skill requirements at particular levels aren't equal for all races, and they never will be unless you make every race function the same. Someone with horrible APM can't have good Injects/Creep Spread, but that's not a reason to change Zerg; it's a reason for that player to get better at the game. Every race has challenges that occur in different areas, and, similarly, at different skill levels. I can 3rax, 6pool, and 4gate my way to Masters with relative ease. The only thing stopping bad players from winning is that they are bad. Whether or not they think they're "less bad" than their opponent in one particular area is irrelevant. They're still bad.
The problem here is that you're acting like any Protoss player can play Parting-level PvT lategame, but that Terran players are stuck learning the old fashioned way. That's just utterly false and is completely ridiculous. Low level Protoss players suck at holding drops, have unrefined build orders that lose to 10 minute Medivac timings (which is extremely easy for Terrans to pull of) and so on. Just because a 200/200 Protoss deathball is good in the low leagues where Terran players have poor macro and overextend all over the place doesn't mean it's imbalanced. It means they're playing the matchup wrong. The other player is playing it a little closer to right, and reaping the reward in the lategame.
So in general. Yeah, it's probably easier for a Protoss to win in the lategame vs Terran at a low level, but it's also easy for Terran to win before the lategame at a low level. Why are these irrelevant to balance? Because they're at a low level, an because the general population continues to improve. Aside from the fact that balancing for noobs screws up the pro scene (and doesn't actually achieve anything, since there isn't any imbalance that makes this game unplayable, and there never has been; people who think this need to take ladder a lot less seriously) it doesn't even work! Players in Masters on NA would be Code S level when this game came out. Think about that. Getting Platinum today is equivalent to getting Diamond last year in terms of skill. Just like in BW, people get better as the game lives on. Some things which are easy wins because nonviable simply because pretty much everyone has reached the skill level necessary to hold them, even if they're still Diamond relative to the top pros.
There are plenty of sports which favour certain physiques at an amateur level, but at the top level these physiques can be advantageous with the requisite amount skill (think about naturally large people vs small ones; the naturally large ones can be useful even in amateur games, but at the top level, the small ones generally have amazing speed & technique, which makes them valuable). We don't handicap the game for the sake of people who aren't skilled at it.
|
I have a question to you Terran players out there:
Why don't more of you mech against Zerg?
Every Terran player that I have played on the ladder (Master NA) that has macro meched has been impossible-feeling to deal with. The standard marine-tank can still be done, but it's been figured out. The pure bio style is ok, but you have to be killing bases with it to make it viable. However the macro mech style is deadly, no matter if the Zerg quad expands, or if the Terran is stuck on 2 bases. With Hellion harass, Banshee harass, Thor/Tank/Hellion/Banshee push all denying fast tech to BL the only options seem to be Roach/Ling/Infestor. Which does ok if you catch the Terran unsieged and you have a HUGE army. It just seems extremely hard (at least for me) to deal with, and I barely see any Terrans doing it.
Why no mech? :o
|
On July 28 2012 03:35 Mistakes wrote:
I have a question to you Terran players out there:
Why don't more of you mech against Zerg?
Every Terran player that I have played on the ladder (Master NA) that has macro meched has been impossible-feeling to deal with. The standard marine-tank can still be done, but it's been figured out. The pure bio style is ok, but you have to be killing bases with it to make it viable. However the macro mech style is deadly, no matter if the Zerg quad expands, or if the Terran is stuck on 2 bases. With Hellion harass, Banshee harass, Thor/Tank/Hellion/Banshee push all denying fast tech to BL the only options seem to be Roach/Ling/Infestor. Which does ok if you catch the Terran unsieged and you have a HUGE army. It just seems extremely hard (at least for me) to deal with, and I barely see any Terrans doing it.
Why no mech? :o
Mech is very map dependent.
|
On July 28 2012 03:23 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 03:08 mlspmatt 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. Yes, because the premise is false. Terran having "difficulties" with lategame Protoss production doesn't mean that lategame Protoss production is imbalanced. It means that certain Terrans aren't playing the lategame properly. 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. Really? And the fact Blizzard explicitally stated terran is designed to create advantage in the midgame to make up for their late game weakness has no bearing? It's not debatable that terrans late game is weak at best. And the midgame is where they win the bulk of their games. But with metagame, maps, and balance changes pushing the game towards more later game macro style play terrans midgame window is getting smaller and smaller. it's poor game design. It's laughable people even argue the point. Show nested quote +We do agree that if both sides take few to no losses going into the late game, protoss can have an advantage. That said, we also know that terran players have a lot of offensive capability and harassment options at their fingertips in the mid-game. If terran players press that mid-game advantage, then protoss can’t necessarily get into the late game at their full potential, which can nullify any advantage they might have had. So, pressing that mid-game advantage is important (just as it would be important for protoss players to mitigate mid-game damage so they can to move into the late game in the strongest possible position). Ultimately, each game plays out differently, and depending on how the two races enter the late game, each side has a fair chance to win. -) I don't read anything about this "lategame weakness" being intentional -) I don't read anything that Terrans need to create a midgame advantage; they have to press the midgame advantage the current game gives them; not create one, which is something entirely different. -) Of course it is debatable. If a race has good winrates in a matchup (like Terran does in TvP) while not opting for the lategame, it doesn't mean that there aren't very strong lategame strategies. It means that the players think that the strategies they play - which might make them weak in the lategame - are strong and it would be dumb to abbandon them. + Show Spoiler +DeMuslim vs Creator anyone? 25min no attack, then 20+ ghosts wipe the floor with one of the best PvT players in the world on one of the said-to-be slightly Protossfavored Cloud Kingdom. It's not a proof of a balanced game, but an example of a very, very strong lategame strategy of Terrans against Protoss -) you don't need a "midgame window". You need to concentrate on your strenghts. For Terran that is, that they are finished with teching at 10min.
Yeah I read it, it says exactley what I said it does.
|
On July 28 2012 03:39 mlspmatt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 03:23 Big J wrote:On July 28 2012 03:08 mlspmatt 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. Yes, because the premise is false. Terran having "difficulties" with lategame Protoss production doesn't mean that lategame Protoss production is imbalanced. It means that certain Terrans aren't playing the lategame properly. 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. Really? And the fact Blizzard explicitally stated terran is designed to create advantage in the midgame to make up for their late game weakness has no bearing? It's not debatable that terrans late game is weak at best. And the midgame is where they win the bulk of their games. But with metagame, maps, and balance changes pushing the game towards more later game macro style play terrans midgame window is getting smaller and smaller. it's poor game design. It's laughable people even argue the point. We do agree that if both sides take few to no losses going into the late game, protoss can have an advantage. That said, we also know that terran players have a lot of offensive capability and harassment options at their fingertips in the mid-game. If terran players press that mid-game advantage, then protoss can’t necessarily get into the late game at their full potential, which can nullify any advantage they might have had. So, pressing that mid-game advantage is important (just as it would be important for protoss players to mitigate mid-game damage so they can to move into the late game in the strongest possible position). Ultimately, each game plays out differently, and depending on how the two races enter the late game, each side has a fair chance to win. -) I don't read anything about this "lategame weakness" being intentional -) I don't read anything that Terrans need to create a midgame advantage; they have to press the midgame advantage the current game gives them; not create one, which is something entirely different. -) Of course it is debatable. If a race has good winrates in a matchup (like Terran does in TvP) while not opting for the lategame, it doesn't mean that there aren't very strong lategame strategies. It means that the players think that the strategies they play - which might make them weak in the lategame - are strong and it would be dumb to abbandon them. + Show Spoiler +DeMuslim vs Creator anyone? 25min no attack, then 20+ ghosts wipe the floor with one of the best PvT players in the world on one of the said-to-be slightly Protossfavored Cloud Kingdom. It's not a proof of a balanced game, but an example of a very, very strong lategame strategy of Terrans against Protoss -) you don't need a "midgame window". You need to concentrate on your strenghts. For Terran that is, that they are finished with teching at 10min. Yeah I read it, it says exactley what I said it does.
We do agree that if both sides take few to no losses going into the late game, protoss can have an advantage.
"can", not "does".
That said, we also know that terran players have a lot of offensive capability and harassment options at their fingertips in the mid-game. If terran players press that mid-game advantage, then protoss can’t necessarily get into the late game at their full potential, which can nullify any advantage they might have had.
press that advantage. Not "go out and do damage or kill".
Ultimately, each game plays out differently, and depending on how the two races enter the late game, each side has a fair chance to win.
A fair chance to win. Not "Terran is fucked lategame".
And I can't find anything anywhere in there, where they said "we designed Terran to be very good midgame and garbage in the lategame". If anything, it works out that way. But not by intentional design, rather by 2years of playing the game.
|
On July 28 2012 03:36 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 03:35 Mistakes wrote:
I have a question to you Terran players out there:
Why don't more of you mech against Zerg?
Every Terran player that I have played on the ladder (Master NA) that has macro meched has been impossible-feeling to deal with. The standard marine-tank can still be done, but it's been figured out. The pure bio style is ok, but you have to be killing bases with it to make it viable. However the macro mech style is deadly, no matter if the Zerg quad expands, or if the Terran is stuck on 2 bases. With Hellion harass, Banshee harass, Thor/Tank/Hellion/Banshee push all denying fast tech to BL the only options seem to be Roach/Ling/Infestor. Which does ok if you catch the Terran unsieged and you have a HUGE army. It just seems extremely hard (at least for me) to deal with, and I barely see any Terrans doing it.
Why no mech? :o Mech is very map dependent.
Can you provide some examples of good mech maps?
The most recent game where a Terran went mech against me was Cloud Kingdom I believe.
|
The main issue I have with TvZ is that Terran is more vulnerable to mistakes than zerg. With zerg it it very easy to catch unseiged tanks, and fungal clustered marines for huge wins, while Zerg trades realitively cost effieicently even when caught it terrible situations. There isnt alot of scenarios in which Terran can say to himself: "ah, he fucked up and has his units clumped up here, I can punish that" While the match-up is decently even if both players play perfectly, the vulnerability's of Terran create a scenario in which Terran will lose more often, and the mistakes will be outlined and give the illusion that the Zerg was the better player, however the Zerg may have made as many or more mistakes but the Terran could not capitalize on them.
|
On July 28 2012 03:46 Mistakes wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 03:36 Shiori wrote:On July 28 2012 03:35 Mistakes wrote:
I have a question to you Terran players out there:
Why don't more of you mech against Zerg?
Every Terran player that I have played on the ladder (Master NA) that has macro meched has been impossible-feeling to deal with. The standard marine-tank can still be done, but it's been figured out. The pure bio style is ok, but you have to be killing bases with it to make it viable. However the macro mech style is deadly, no matter if the Zerg quad expands, or if the Terran is stuck on 2 bases. With Hellion harass, Banshee harass, Thor/Tank/Hellion/Banshee push all denying fast tech to BL the only options seem to be Roach/Ling/Infestor. Which does ok if you catch the Terran unsieged and you have a HUGE army. It just seems extremely hard (at least for me) to deal with, and I barely see any Terrans doing it.
Why no mech? :o Mech is very map dependent. Can you provide some examples of good mech maps? The most recent game where a Terran went mech against me was Cloud Kingdom I believe.
Basically any map that's relatively small with 3 bases that are easy to protect and not too much open space to be outflanked.
So Antiga, Shakuras, and Ohana would be examples of maps you still see in tournaments that mech can work on.
Cloud Kingdom isn't one that would occur to me to try though.
|
|
|
On July 28 2012 04:06 monkybone wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 02:32 Toadvine wrote:
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. Many pros says that the immortal is the most OP unit right now. Seed recently said that he is no balance whiner, but there is one thing he is certain of, and that is that the immortal is overpowered.
Even if the Immortal is the most OP units right now (personally I'd say the Infestor is, but whatever, Immortals are strong) it doesn't really affect you as a Terran player since it's mostly used in PvZ.  It's also sort of necessary for it to be as strong as it is given how powerful 3base Roach is. I mean, it's pretty much on a knife edge with good Forcefields. Nerfing the Immortal would definitely get rid of Immortal/Sentry all-ins, but it would also make 3base Roach way stronger, which doesn't seem necessary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
