|
On July 28 2012 04:15 monkybone wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 03:13 Shiori wrote:On July 28 2012 03:13 mlspmatt wrote: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:
[quote]
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. You know you're actually making a fool of yourself with that attitude? Clearly, it's on your shoulders to prove otherwise, as both blizzard and the community is in unison agreement that terran lategame is weak, and that warpgate and in particular mass zealot warpins is a problem for terran.
Burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim. You claim that there's an imbalance in pro level TvP. I claim that you have no evidence or sound arguments. So far you've merely appealed to the authority of Blizzard (who doesn't actually share your opinion) and forumers, who not only patently disagree with you, but also disagree with you about other matters. Give me some arguments based on recent pro level replays and then we can chat. Remember: you need to show me a replay where a Protoss player plays badly/less well than the Terran, a Terran player plays well (the two being of similar skill to begin with) and the Protoss wins in the lategame because of an imbalance.
|
|
|
On July 28 2012 04:25 monkybone wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 03:23 Big J wrote:
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
This is a horrible example. Demuslim managed to snipe the observer and make sure Creator had no more observers. Creator didn't care, even in the presence of 19 cloaked ghosts. With a horrible army composition: mainly zealot archon immortal (1 colossus without range), he charged into that, barely getting off any storm due to the army of ghosts standing in the middle taking no damage at all. The zealots were getting demolished by the ghosts, and creator lost his army by repeatedly moving back and forth without any hope of doing damage. It looked like a suicide.
Not that I think Creator played well, or anything, but sniping Observers actually happens a lot at the pro level. It's part of the reason why Protoss players can't blindly a-move.
|
On July 28 2012 04:03 forsooth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 03:46 Mistakes wrote: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.
Hmm. Okai. That makes sense. I would think that CK would be about the same or even better than Ohana in that case. It has a similar base layout for the first few, but with no rocks between 2nd and 3rd. Also, the middle of the map is a lot more open on Ohana which seems would make mech hard.
I suppose I haven't been paying attention to what maps people were meching on and I was more paying attention to the fact that I keep losing to mech. xD
|
On July 28 2012 04:21 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 04:15 monkybone wrote:On July 28 2012 03:13 Shiori wrote:On July 28 2012 03:13 mlspmatt wrote: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:
[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. 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. You know you're actually making a fool of yourself with that attitude? Clearly, it's on your shoulders to prove otherwise, as both blizzard and the community is in unison agreement that terran lategame is weak, and that warpgate and in particular mass zealot warpins is a problem for terran. Burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim. You claim that there's an imbalance in pro level TvP. I claim that you have no evidence or sound arguments. So far you've merely appealed to the authority of Blizzard (who doesn't actually share your opinion) and forumers, who not only patently disagree with you, but also disagree with you about other matters. Give me some arguments based on recent pro level replays and then we can chat. Remember: you need to show me a replay where a Protoss player plays badly/less well than the Terran, a Terran player plays well (the two being of similar skill to begin with) and the Protoss wins in the lategame because of an imbalance.
How long are you going to continue this charade? I made the same exact claims earlier, you said that was the case back then but the metagame has changed since. I asked you to prove it since obviously the burden of proof falls to YOU to explain how things have changed, and to give examples. You didn't show me jack shit.
Best part is you're literally the only person I've seen claim lategame TvP has had some metagame change. Everyone else accepts that terran is stronger in the midgame and protoss in the lategame, making for somewhat balanced winrates overall. A protoss player, known for bias and balance whining, making wild claims that lategame TvP is now totally balanced now. Are you trying to keep repeating "TvP lategame is fine" until people start believing it or something?
|
On July 28 2012 04:50 Bagi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 04:21 Shiori wrote:On July 28 2012 04:15 monkybone wrote:On July 28 2012 03:13 Shiori wrote:On July 28 2012 03:13 mlspmatt wrote: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:
[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. 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. You know you're actually making a fool of yourself with that attitude? Clearly, it's on your shoulders to prove otherwise, as both blizzard and the community is in unison agreement that terran lategame is weak, and that warpgate and in particular mass zealot warpins is a problem for terran. Burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim. You claim that there's an imbalance in pro level TvP. I claim that you have no evidence or sound arguments. So far you've merely appealed to the authority of Blizzard (who doesn't actually share your opinion) and forumers, who not only patently disagree with you, but also disagree with you about other matters. Give me some arguments based on recent pro level replays and then we can chat. Remember: you need to show me a replay where a Protoss player plays badly/less well than the Terran, a Terran player plays well (the two being of similar skill to begin with) and the Protoss wins in the lategame because of an imbalance. How long are you going to continue this charade? I made the same exact claims earlier, you said that was the case back then but the metagame has changed since. I asked you to prove it since obviously the burden of proof falls to YOU to explain how things have changed, and to give examples. You didn't show me jack shit. Best part is you're literally the only person I've seen claim lategame TvP has had some metagame change. Everyone else accepts that terran is stronger in the midgame and protoss in the lategame, making for somewhat balanced winrates overall. A protoss player, known for bias and balance whining, making wild claims that lategame TvP is now totally balanced now. Are you trying to keep repeating "TvP lategame is fine" until people start believing it or something?
How have things changed? Think back a few months. Think about what Terrans at the pro level were doing. No, really: think about it. Not enough Ghosts (somehow the Snipe nerf discouraged their usage spilled over into TvP) post-1-1-1 skill vacuum, overcommitment in the midgame, no idea how to deal with double Forge, no idea how to deal with Gate Nexus Nexus, the invention of 1gate FE as being able to defend high pressure followups etc. etc. In a word, the TvP of months ago looks nothing like the TvP we have today, because most of the strategies have been figured out. It's been a pretty long while since Parting's tear through the GSL, and his style has been exposed as having certain weaknesses (Gate Nexus Nexus is no longer the go to build in PvT). Further, even the inventor of the double Forge style (Creator) has claimed that he doesn't believe it to be as powerful as it once was.
Shit has changed immensely since several months ago. Terrans have gotten a lot better at keeping up in upgrades. They've stopped 1-1-1ing as much. They've stopped trying to force a 10 minute timing to do damage at the expense of their unit count. They've started to use Ghosts again, and more strategically. They've started to micro their way out of Storms. They've stopped relying exclusively on multi-pronged drops to win in the lategame. They've started making more Medivacs. They've gotten a faster 3rd OC. They've started using Planetaries to control space. I could go on, but the point is that Terran pros have adapted a LOT to make modern TvP. There's a reason Parting and Squirtle, who last season were considered the best PvT players, dropped games to Terrans during the GSL. You're insulting the Korean Terrans who have actually innovated and perfected late game engagements skills in claiming that we're exactly where we are right after the Protoss upgrade nerf. It's dishonest and completely false.
This delusion that the game is divided into three distinct phases in which one race has a particular advantage is ridiculous. Certain Protoss openings are strong in the midgame, but weak immediately after their aggression ends. This doesn't mean they're weak in the lategame; it means they're weak for a certain period of time after their aggression ends. Similarly, a Terran who opts for a very fast Medivac drop is going to find themselves with delayed tech, a later third, and slower upgrades. This matters if they don't do damage enough to slow the Protoss down to the point where by the time the Protoss gets 3/3 and 200/200, the Terran has also caught up in the areas he's cut. Terran isn't really "stronger" in the midgame, either; they're just more mobile and have the ability to be aggressive without being vulnerable to aggression at home. Unless the Protoss is caught off guard, they shouldn't be able to directly engage his army efficiently. Similarly, in the lategame, Terran should not be easily mopped up by a Protoss a-moving into him unless he isn't paying attention.
Seriously, I wonder if you people actually watch current games or pro streams, or if you're too concerned with advancing outdated rhetoric that you continue to throw forward examples that no longer mean anything.
|
"Parting and Squirtle lost games in PvTs, lategame TvP must be fine" without actual knowledge if the games went into the lategame or not.
To be honest, I have no interest in getting into a wordy argument with you. You've shown that you are incapable of even sticking to the issue at hand. Upgrade timings, committing too heavily in the midgame, none of these really even relate to terran lategame problems. Lategame is when you've each got 4-5 bases, maxed on upgrades with the armies you are expected to have at that point. Protoss mops the floor with terran 4 times out of 5, unless they allow the terran to get the perfect engagement with their terms. I'm sure terran players are doing better playing out the early/midgame with early 3rds and faster upgrades, but they're as fucked as they ever were in the lategame.
You can keep repeating that korean terrans are just so much better that they outweigh all odds and how they only now have learned how to micro from storms but couldn't a few months ago. I'm sorry if I just dont buy it, especially when you seem to be unable to point out any examples.
|
On July 28 2012 05:41 Bagi wrote:
"Parting and Squirtle lost games in PvTs, lategame TvP must be fine" without actual knowledge if the games went into the lategame or not.
To be honest, I have no interest in getting into a wordy argument with you. You've shown that you are incapable of even sticking to the issue at hand. Upgrade timings, committing too heavily in the midgame, none of these really even relate to terran lategame problems. Lategame is when you've each got 4-5 bases, maxed on upgrades with the armies you are expected to have at that point. Protoss mops the floor with terran 4 times out of 5, unless they allow the terran to get the perfect engagement with their terms. I'm sure terran players are doing better playing out the early/midgame with early 3rds and faster upgrades, but they're as fucked as they ever were in the lategame.
You can keep repeating that korean terrans are just so much better that they outweigh all odds and how they only now have learned how to micro from storms but couldn't a few months ago. I'm sorry if I just dont buy it, especially when you seem to be unable to point out any examples.
What the fuck? You're clueless. What happens in the midgame is hugely relevant to what happens in the lategame because it determines who gets to their lategame tech first. If you commit too heavily in the midgame, Protoss is going to have free reign in the late game for a good long while, even if they don't kill you. You, on the other hand, will be forced to cut economy and upgrades to get a weaker army. No matter what happens, something gets cut. The Protoss player, meanwhile, gets to play as greedily as he wants because you're overcommitted.
Oh yeah, and "Protoss mops the floor with terran 4 times out of 5"? Prove it. Terran has much more ability to position themselves than Protoss does, by the way, given the mobility of their army.
|
On July 28 2012 04:36 Mistakes wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 04:03 forsooth wrote:On July 28 2012 03:46 Mistakes wrote: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. Hmm. Okai. That makes sense. I would think that CK would be about the same or even better than Ohana in that case. It has a similar base layout for the first few, but with no rocks between 2nd and 3rd. Also, the middle of the map is a lot more open on Ohana which seems would make mech hard. I suppose I haven't been paying attention to what maps people were meching on and I was more paying attention to the fact that I keep losing to mech. xD
Ohana's middle isn't all that open and the rush distance is quite short. It's very ideal for mech. I'd go so far as to say it's probably the best mech map we've seen since Shattered. CK on the other hand leaves you with a relatively large distance between your nat and third, and the third itself can be a pain to keep because it's so open to attack from two angles. The map in general provides a lot of ways to run around and avoid Terran's extremely slow mechball. I think the more bio-intensive style we see from most Terran pros on that map in TvZ is the way to go. Also as a Terran, I don't care about rocks all that much. It doesn't take that long to knock them down and we don't usually take a third nearly as fast as Zerg anyway.
|
On July 28 2012 05:46 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 05:41 Bagi wrote:
"Parting and Squirtle lost games in PvTs, lategame TvP must be fine" without actual knowledge if the games went into the lategame or not.
To be honest, I have no interest in getting into a wordy argument with you. You've shown that you are incapable of even sticking to the issue at hand. Upgrade timings, committing too heavily in the midgame, none of these really even relate to terran lategame problems. Lategame is when you've each got 4-5 bases, maxed on upgrades with the armies you are expected to have at that point. Protoss mops the floor with terran 4 times out of 5, unless they allow the terran to get the perfect engagement with their terms. I'm sure terran players are doing better playing out the early/midgame with early 3rds and faster upgrades, but they're as fucked as they ever were in the lategame.
You can keep repeating that korean terrans are just so much better that they outweigh all odds and how they only now have learned how to micro from storms but couldn't a few months ago. I'm sorry if I just dont buy it, especially when you seem to be unable to point out any examples. What the fuck? You're clueless. What happens in the midgame is hugely relevant to what happens in the lategame because it determines who gets to their lategame tech first. If you commit too heavily in the midgame, Protoss is going to have free reign in the late game for a good long while, even if they don't kill you. You, on the other hand, will be forced to cut economy and upgrades to get a weaker army. No matter what happens, something gets cut. The Protoss player, meanwhile, gets to play as greedily as he wants because you're overcommitted. Oh yeah, and "Protoss mops the floor with terran 4 times out of 5"? Prove it. Terran has much more ability to position themselves than Protoss does, by the way, given the mobility of their army.
Lol, the argument has nothing to do with the midgame. Suppose both players don't attack each other and expand at the same time, have maxed upgrades, maxed armies and don't even see each other until late game 4-5 base where they both have a healthy number of the standard units and use equally good control. That is the example at hand. I don't how all this overcommiting and cutting economy BS even got thrown into the discussion.
|
On July 28 2012 06:32 Shasta37 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 05:46 Shiori wrote:On July 28 2012 05:41 Bagi wrote:
"Parting and Squirtle lost games in PvTs, lategame TvP must be fine" without actual knowledge if the games went into the lategame or not.
To be honest, I have no interest in getting into a wordy argument with you. You've shown that you are incapable of even sticking to the issue at hand. Upgrade timings, committing too heavily in the midgame, none of these really even relate to terran lategame problems. Lategame is when you've each got 4-5 bases, maxed on upgrades with the armies you are expected to have at that point. Protoss mops the floor with terran 4 times out of 5, unless they allow the terran to get the perfect engagement with their terms. I'm sure terran players are doing better playing out the early/midgame with early 3rds and faster upgrades, but they're as fucked as they ever were in the lategame.
You can keep repeating that korean terrans are just so much better that they outweigh all odds and how they only now have learned how to micro from storms but couldn't a few months ago. I'm sorry if I just dont buy it, especially when you seem to be unable to point out any examples. What the fuck? You're clueless. What happens in the midgame is hugely relevant to what happens in the lategame because it determines who gets to their lategame tech first. If you commit too heavily in the midgame, Protoss is going to have free reign in the late game for a good long while, even if they don't kill you. You, on the other hand, will be forced to cut economy and upgrades to get a weaker army. No matter what happens, something gets cut. The Protoss player, meanwhile, gets to play as greedily as he wants because you're overcommitted. Oh yeah, and "Protoss mops the floor with terran 4 times out of 5"? Prove it. Terran has much more ability to position themselves than Protoss does, by the way, given the mobility of their army. Lol, the argument has nothing to do with the midgame. Suppose both players don't attack each other and expand at the same time, have maxed upgrades, maxed armies and don't even see each other until late game 4-5 base where they both have a healthy number of the standard units and use equally good control. That is the example at hand. I don't how all this overcommiting and cutting economy BS even got thrown into the discussion.
It would be an even fight. I'm still waiting on recent replays to support the theory that two players microing at a high level will almost always leave the Protoss player ahead, supposing the two were even beforehand.
Total number of replays supplied so far:
|
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
I only ever go mech (too clumsy for marine splitting etc.) and TvZ is probably my best matchup.
On a different note, I've just been to an online store with SC2 t-shirts that I won't name. Pro force fields. Sixpool. Banes. Mothership rush. Nothing from Terran. People think the flashy force field spam and chain fungal is pro. Sure, it takes skill to do right but the "pro" factor is associated with the flashy marketing value (something which e.g. EMP did not have). Flashy toys get marketing impact, Terran loses out on this.
|
On July 28 2012 03:28 Shiori wrote:
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.
"Agreeing to disagree" after calling an argument idiotic. Nice blend of seemingly high culture of debating with a couple of unbacked labels.
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.
You're forgetting that pro balance is not eliminated by making some balance in the lower brackets. That's a false assumption. Imbalance in lower leagues does not per se improve pro balance. Pro balance per se does not need to deteriorate balance on ladder. What is needed is a type of game design where all races require comparable skill to play or effort in playing. A blend of both, I'd say, largely subjective but we're not talking about surgical precision here. You could never calculate precise balance for people with uneven skill levels, inconsistent form, wide differences in skill between the one and the other aspect of their game. But you can cut on a lot of things. Blizzard cut down on ling roasting BFH. Slightly delayed 1/1/1. Toned down the snipes. Won't address FF spam or chain fungal etc. because those are cool effects casters love shouting about.
Zerg has been getting smashed on the low end of ladder for a large part of this game's existence.
I don't think it's that bad, though I don't really have data.
Toss players do need to micro just as much as Terran players at the top level.
The problem is that at the same time at lower levels Terran players need to micro like they're already in masters to deal with relatively simple memorised build order 1A attacks.
The solution would be to find a way to keep the micro for the pros and indeed for everybody else (I like taking advantage of it or averting a loss occasionally but don't like to be forced to use it to survive against a-move) but scale it appropriately.
Pros would lose nothing if there simply were a way of making things "degrade gracefully" on lower levels. Again, bad scaling on the ladder is not a prerequisite for good balance on pro levels. This is a myth created to justify imbalance. A true solution is making things scale by appropriately designing the races so that at no significant point any race has significant advantage.
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.
Again, that's cool but it does not necessarily require ladder Terran to be so vulnerable. This vulnerability isn't a necessary cost for pro balance for the good of e-sports and enjoyable highly watchable VODs. This vulnerability is basically something that could use optimisation.
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.
By that logic it would be okay for a master Toss to lose to bronze Terrans because they're all equally bad and beatable any number of games to nil by a real pro (or a low GM MMR player). And you could say that Toss lost because he was bad and it's irrelevant he "thinks" he's less bad.
The problem here is that you're acting like any Protoss player can play Parting-level PvT lategame,
Of course not.
Low level Protoss players suck at holding drops,
Bronze or silver maybe and not sure about silver. A large part of the problem is that "spells" are easier to use than to deal with and Terrans don't really have an arsenal, compared to either P or Z. We can easily get forcefielded, feedbacked, fungalled etc. out of the game, while the other races aren't exactly at a disadvantage to us when it comes to comparative combat unit arsenals.
So in general. Yeah, it's probably easier for a Protoss to win in the lategame vs Terran at a low level,
Early game is a problem. Unless you go for an aggressive build, you're in a tough spot against Toss. Lategame ball is obviously better. This leaves you with some midgame potential but this is often negated by FF/storm/colossi from as soon as a non-insigificant quantity can be fielded by Toss.
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.
I'm not saying there should be some meticulous balance watch on low levels, I'm saying skill curves should be roughly similar and no race should be gimped, visibly disfavoured, over the top difficult compared to others at lower levels.
And again I'm going to use the argument that this is a computer game and everybody who bought a copy is a player. Making and selling games is not like simply selling bats and gloves and balls and leaving it up to everybody to figure out the rest. All races should have a chance of enjoyable experience.
This is where Terran being so continually put on his toes and made to pay hard for every small mistake doesn't really fit in. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, maybe other races too can lose the game on a single small mistake or have only a narrow margin available to avert a loss in certain matchups.
|
On July 28 2012 08:02 NewbieOne wrote:
And again I'm going to use the argument that this is a computer game and everybody who bought a copy is a player. Making and selling games is not like simply selling bats and gloves and balls and leaving it up to everybody to figure out the rest. All races should have a chance of enjoyable experience.
This is where Terran being so continually put on his toes and made to pay hard for every small mistake doesn't really fit in. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, maybe other races too can lose the game on a single small mistake or have only a narrow margin available to avert a loss in certain matchups.
Just gonna reply to this because it's really the core of our disagreement. In a word: yes. Yes, every race has some situation which makes you lose because of 1 small mistake. Holding 3base Roach as Toss is impossible unless you have half-decent FFs. Hell, defending a Medivac drop on Antiga shipyard is tough for Masters players, let alone Platinums. I've witness Gold leaguers win against Diamonds and Masters just by 3raxing, Proxy Gate/Raxing or 6pooling. Why? Well, it varies, but it's usually because there was a crucial missed Forcefield. How about Zerg? Oh, you pulled Drones an instant too late to deal with that Proxy Rax? Well, you lose. You didn't look at your minimap? Well, your ramp is Forcefielded now and you lose.
The lower levels of this game are rife with examples of tiny errors being game ending. Certain Terran pushes are incredibly hard for low level Protoss and Zerg players to hold, because they require more than 1-aing to deal with. They require reaction, good forcefields, good creep spread, overlord spread, surrounds, unit composition etc. etc. Terran has to deal with some of the same things. Even pre-patch TvZ was fucking difficult for low level players who couldn't make bio cost-efficient due to their lack of micro on Creep. TvP is difficult because beating a 200/200 Protoss army requires some micro. But on the flipside, the Terran army scales better with micro overall. This means if a Protoss doesn't micro beyond 1-aing and a Terran micros extremely poorly, but more than not at all, they might still lose, however, if a Protoss micros amazingly and a Terran also micros equally amazingly, they'll be very, very even. That's what we want in a strategy game. It's just not realistic to have every ability, composition, skill and so on scale at the exact same rate. Even in mirror matchups certain strategies are easier to execute than others, but are ineffective at the highest level. Look at 4gating.
Hell, try playing PvP at a low level. Unless you want to 4gate all day every day, you better not ever miss a Forcefield on your ramp, or you're going to suffer some of the most stinging losses of all time. Same with accidentally losing all your Lings to one Baneling in ZvZ.
|
On July 28 2012 07:05 NewbieOne 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 I only ever go mech (too clumsy for marine splitting etc.) and TvZ is probably my best matchup. On a different note, I've just been to an online store with SC2 t-shirts that I won't name. Pro force fields. Sixpool. Banes. Mothership rush. Nothing from Terran. People think the flashy force field spam and chain fungal is pro. Sure, it takes skill to do right but the "pro" factor is associated with the flashy marketing value (something which e.g. EMP did not have). Flashy toys get marketing impact, Terran loses out on this.
Man, I hate that foreigners don't give a shit about Terran. Honestly, game balance is peanuts to the shitty attitude that exists in this community. People weirdly hate Terran players very consistently across a lot of websites- if you browse SCReddit's new section for instance, you'll see a lot of buried threads with the word "Terran" in the title, despite being completely unoffensive- players, streamers, builds, strategy questions, normal stuff. 0 points. People are extremely biased and immature in this way.
The root cause is probably a combination of the post-release overpoweredness, and the race's design, which heavily rewards cheap crap while moderately punishing macro games. I think people just grew to hate Terran players personally and never gave it up. It's really disheartening.
|
|
|
On July 28 2012 06:32 Shasta37 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 05:46 Shiori wrote:On July 28 2012 05:41 Bagi wrote:
"Parting and Squirtle lost games in PvTs, lategame TvP must be fine" without actual knowledge if the games went into the lategame or not.
To be honest, I have no interest in getting into a wordy argument with you. You've shown that you are incapable of even sticking to the issue at hand. Upgrade timings, committing too heavily in the midgame, none of these really even relate to terran lategame problems. Lategame is when you've each got 4-5 bases, maxed on upgrades with the armies you are expected to have at that point. Protoss mops the floor with terran 4 times out of 5, unless they allow the terran to get the perfect engagement with their terms. I'm sure terran players are doing better playing out the early/midgame with early 3rds and faster upgrades, but they're as fucked as they ever were in the lategame.
You can keep repeating that korean terrans are just so much better that they outweigh all odds and how they only now have learned how to micro from storms but couldn't a few months ago. I'm sorry if I just dont buy it, especially when you seem to be unable to point out any examples. What the fuck? You're clueless. What happens in the midgame is hugely relevant to what happens in the lategame because it determines who gets to their lategame tech first. If you commit too heavily in the midgame, Protoss is going to have free reign in the late game for a good long while, even if they don't kill you. You, on the other hand, will be forced to cut economy and upgrades to get a weaker army. No matter what happens, something gets cut. The Protoss player, meanwhile, gets to play as greedily as he wants because you're overcommitted. Oh yeah, and "Protoss mops the floor with terran 4 times out of 5"? Prove it. Terran has much more ability to position themselves than Protoss does, by the way, given the mobility of their army. Lol, the argument has nothing to do with the midgame. Suppose both players don't attack each other and expand at the same time, have maxed upgrades, maxed armies and don't even see each other until late game 4-5 base where they both have a healthy number of the standard units and use equally good control. That is the example at hand. I don't how all this overcommiting and cutting economy BS even got thrown into the discussion.
Perhaps in that situation, Terran is screwed (I feel like with the standard compositions, there are more things Protosses could be doing but aren't compared to Terrans in the engagements, mostly various flanks involving warp prisms).
However, as a purely theory discussion with lots of arbitrary numbers thrown in, it currently sounds like we're arguing over whether or not Protoss is overpowered after the Terran has played to what is generally accepted as the Protoss's strength, namely the direct army battle in the lategame (where I'll take the definition of lategame up there for the rest of this post).
To be meaningful though, there are basically two questions to be answered here (in each, assume the errors the players make are comparable).
1. Is PvT imbalanced in the lategame for Protoss?
2. If the Protoss chooses to play for the lategame, can he ensure he gets there or can the Terran consistently prevent him from reaching the lategame?
I don't feel like dwelling on 1 that much because you guys are already doing that (kinda), but I feel like that stage is probably when Terran should be tech switching (though it's possible that this is just a shitty idea) but Protoss might have edge with current standard compositions (most likely depending on map).
For 2, I'm leaning more towards it being the latter, based on TaeJa vs MC game 2 (yes I cite that a lot). Perhaps I'm just bad at this game (well I am), but as far as I could tell:
Standard game, lots of engagements between the two armies with TaeJa and MC adding on various tech as the game progressed. With the constant engagements, the positions of the two players basically went back and forth, but when the position went in favor of TaeJa, he was able to take the opportunity to take out MC's fifth (and apparently MC's fourth died to cloaked ghosts or something as an engagement ended, idk), and the game never progressed to that "4-5 base, healthy maxed armies with max upgrades" stage (and TaeJa won).
To address a few points:
- Yes, MC did make mistakes, but I don't think he made so many more than Taeja did that it invalidates the assumption made when posing the two questions. Also, it's pretty hard to beat a theoretical player that literally plays perfectly.
- Obviously, one game is not conclusive at all, but when talking about TvP in this or a similar context, this is the game that comes to mind for me (there probably aren't that many high level TvP's recently to use as examples anyways).
|
On July 28 2012 09:07 LavaLava wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 07:05 NewbieOne 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 I only ever go mech (too clumsy for marine splitting etc.) and TvZ is probably my best matchup. On a different note, I've just been to an online store with SC2 t-shirts that I won't name. Pro force fields. Sixpool. Banes. Mothership rush. Nothing from Terran. People think the flashy force field spam and chain fungal is pro. Sure, it takes skill to do right but the "pro" factor is associated with the flashy marketing value (something which e.g. EMP did not have). Flashy toys get marketing impact, Terran loses out on this. Man, I hate that foreigners don't give a shit about Terran. Honestly, game balance is peanuts to the shitty attitude that exists in this community. People weirdly hate Terran players very consistently across a lot of websites- if you browse SCReddit's new section for instance, you'll see a lot of buried threads with the word "Terran" in the title, despite being completely unoffensive- players, streamers, builds, strategy questions, normal stuff. 0 points. People are extremely biased and immature in this way. The root cause is probably a combination of the post-release overpoweredness, and the race's design, which heavily rewards cheap crap while moderately punishing macro games. I think people just grew to hate Terran players personally and never gave it up. It's really disheartening.
There's also been a TON of Zerg and Protoss general lesson/coaching threads and anti-Terran casters (like Tastosis). A lot of feedback and analysis in pro matches focus on Zerg and Protoss build orders and Terran micro. Guess which one is easier to write down and use as a learning noob?
|
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.
Taeja illustrated it again today in IPL against Squirtle. He rode the advantage he got from his mid-game tech harass (cloakshees) into having a superior late game army of mass ghosts that crushed Squirtle's army with well-placed EMPs. The whiners in this thread are just blind to what is possible with terran.
|
Shiori...
I don't know anything about TvP. I'm a 900 points masters zerg.
But I have not seen a single terran win against Toss when Toss has *secured* (not taken, but *secured) 3 bases. If Toss is able to get a fourth, just 100% Terran never wins, although I'd say really that 100% of the time, Terran loses if Toss can get 3 bases.
It's just what I've seen, I'm sure player skill and a lot is going on, but a lot of these same games also had both players going evenly into the lategame. I just never, ever have seen a terran win a game when it went into lategame with Toss securing his third safely. All of the terran wins are when terran closes the game, usually when Toss is trying to take his third.
This is going by every single TvP at gomtv for the last 2 months.
On a side note, I think terran has always been underrepresented on ladder, but I personally feel like I run into terrans a lot more, with sc2gears saying I run into terrans more than I did last season (to the guy saying no one plays terran).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
