|
On October 31 2012 09:15 monkybone wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 08:57 m0ck wrote:On October 31 2012 08:23 monkybone wrote:On October 31 2012 08:19 m0ck wrote:On October 31 2012 08:13 monkybone wrote:On October 31 2012 08:09 m0ck wrote:
Reverting the queen is not the answer. The trend in TvZ before the queen-patch was 3-CCs vs roach-bling all-ins. Terran got to play greedy while zergs had to wait for the 9-minute 3rd while the 4 hellions in front of the Z natural stopped all zerg activity on the map. It was not a balanced match-up then. It may still not be, though it is hard to see the problem if focusing solely on Korean results. In anyt case, itis no worse for terran now than it used to be for zerg.
Remember MMA with a close to 80% TvZ win record while the best ZvT-player, DRG, couldn't break 60% in ZvT? FE'ing in TvZ was not yet standard meta before the queen patch, it was still more common with reactor hellion openings into CC. Yes, this gave map control, which was the saving grace of the matchup. Terran could deny a third, and deny creep. This made the matchup more engaging in the midgame, terran had more options. It was the most balanced matchups of them all. You are quite simply wrong. You're recalling an idea about TvZ, not how it actually played out. Go back and watch some matches from the time, I think you would be surprised. It was the most balanced match-up in the game in which terran always won in the end. I'm not asking to turn back the time. And I think you are looking a bit too far into the past. I'm talking about the period before the patch hit, the state of TvZ was on an all time high, Zergs were doing quite well in the matchup despite the metagame being advantageous to Terrans, and catching up on that. We've yet to see the converse after the patch, even though everyone proclaim that Terrans were going to catch up after a month. But we're still left with a massive underrepresentation of Terrans in most tournaments. Well, it all gets a bit muddled when looking back, that is for sure. My memory of the time preceding the queen-patch was a silly amount of roach-bling all-ins (to counter 3CCs) and of the top code-S terrans (almost) always winning vs zerg. I don't think the balance was terrible before the queen-patch, but then, I don't think the balance is terrible now (the aesthetics of play aside). To my mind, terran has had a fair adjustment upwards in how much APM it takes to achieve the same level of results (there were never any zerg goody or sjow). All-ins are worse (though 2-rax, mass hellions and marauder-hellions still win games) and because of the relatively worse economy for terran vs zerg, turtling to an upgrade-dependent timing through a defensively achieved superior economy is much less effective for terran (and more so for zerg). I think those changes are all fine. The 'ultimate' army of Z is probably too strong (and also immobile), but you have to be very careful when balancing the composition. A less strong end-point for zerg would encourage more engagements earlier in the game, but could also result in terrans turtling instead - and zergs generally can't break that without BLs. I'm still fairly certain that roach busts and terran greed was instigated by the patch and resulting change of metagame. But, I think it's a fairly unison agreement that the state of TvZ was better before the patch. The amount of APM is not really important, the important factor is the skill and difficulty of a race. In fact, there was recently an analysis of how much the top terrans practiced compared to their zerg counterparts. It turns out that the very top of terrans practice almost twice as much of the top zergs, and overall terrans in GM practice much more than zergs in GM. I.e., it takes more practice, more experience, and hence, I would infer, more skill to play terran. It just doesn't come down to APM, that's all. I think this was done on EU ladder. The problem with Zerg isn't the fact that they have broodlords IMO, that is fine, but that Terrans doesn't really have a viable counter option to broodlord corruptor infestor. We've seen it time and time again, it's too much to ask for Terrans to transition safely into a proper response to this, BC's ravens vikings etc.. It's in fact not viable, and good Zergs seem to have an extrordinarily easy time breaking a Terran before this can occur. EDIT: Taking a look at the EU ladder right now: Rank Race Wins Losses 1 z 250 130 2 z 149 40 3 z 287 129 4 z 186 129 5 z 234 75 6 p 275 118 7 z 142 207 8 z 160 87 9 z 123 72 10 t 520 348something is VERY wrong here.... The terran here is Kas, and he plays more than twice as any of the others. It only illustrates the difficulties of Terran, and how much practice it takes compared to Zerg in order to stay even.
It's hard to disagree, but it is also hard to agree. Do terrans practice twice as much as players of other races? I don't see how you go beyond idle speculation.
The same goes for 'skill and difficulty of a race'. What is the yardstick used as measurement?
I don't agree at all on the unimportance of APM. I think it is a hugely important factor and one that has a real impact on what players are able to achieve. The amount of actions you are able to put out puts a limit on the situations in which you can be successful. Of course it is not exactly the same as a measurement of multi-tasking, but it's a very real component in multitasking. It is also one of the few independent-of-observer measurements that we have for comparing players.
The top performing players are usually very fast. MC, MVP, DRG, Teaja are all +350 APM players. So is Stephano. Nerchio and Vortix both breach 300 APM.
It seems to me that higher APM translates into the possibility of a higher level of play and I think the game should allow for the players with high speed to express that advantage when playing slower opponents. I think that is part of what has happened with the patch. Late-game is more APM-intensive than early game. Marineking has suffered. Thorzain has suffered. Kas has suffered. All slower players.
|
On October 31 2012 09:37 m0ck wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 09:07 Shiori wrote:On October 31 2012 08:57 m0ck wrote:On October 31 2012 08:23 monkybone wrote:On October 31 2012 08:19 m0ck wrote:On October 31 2012 08:13 monkybone wrote:On October 31 2012 08:09 m0ck wrote:
Reverting the queen is not the answer. The trend in TvZ before the queen-patch was 3-CCs vs roach-bling all-ins. Terran got to play greedy while zergs had to wait for the 9-minute 3rd while the 4 hellions in front of the Z natural stopped all zerg activity on the map. It was not a balanced match-up then. It may still not be, though it is hard to see the problem if focusing solely on Korean results. In anyt case, itis no worse for terran now than it used to be for zerg.
Remember MMA with a close to 80% TvZ win record while the best ZvT-player, DRG, couldn't break 60% in ZvT? FE'ing in TvZ was not yet standard meta before the queen patch, it was still more common with reactor hellion openings into CC. Yes, this gave map control, which was the saving grace of the matchup. Terran could deny a third, and deny creep. This made the matchup more engaging in the midgame, terran had more options. It was the most balanced matchups of them all. You are quite simply wrong. You're recalling an idea about TvZ, not how it actually played out. Go back and watch some matches from the time, I think you would be surprised. It was the most balanced match-up in the game in which terran always won in the end. I'm not asking to turn back the time. And I think you are looking a bit too far into the past. I'm talking about the period before the patch hit, the state of TvZ was on an all time high, Zergs were doing quite well in the matchup despite the metagame being advantageous to Terrans, and catching up on that. We've yet to see the converse after the patch, even though everyone proclaim that Terrans were going to catch up after a month. But we're still left with a massive underrepresentation of Terrans in most tournaments. Well, it all gets a bit muddled when looking back, that is for sure. My memory of the time preceding the queen-patch was a silly amount of roach-bling all-ins (to counter 3CCs) and of the top code-S terrans (almost) always winning vs zerg. I don't think the balance was terrible before the queen-patch, but then, I don't think the balance is terrible now (the aesthetics of play aside). To my mind, terran has had a fair adjustment upwards in how much APM it takes to achieve the same level of results (there were never any zerg goody or sjow). All-ins are worse (though 2-rax, mass hellions and marauder-hellions still win games) and because of the relatively worse economy for terran vs zerg, turtling to an upgrade-dependent timing through a defensively achieved superior economy is much less effective for terran (and more so for zerg). I think those changes are all fine. The 'ultimate' army of Z is probably too strong (and also immobile), but you have to be very careful when balancing the composition. A less strong end-point for zerg would encourage more engagements earlier in the game, but could also result in terrans turtling instead - and zergs generally can't break that without BLs. I'm pretty sure DRG won a GSL right before the Queen patch hit. If that's not indicative of Zerg being fine in Code S, then nothing is. I remember MKP and DRG trading blows in the month leading up to the patch. I don't remember MKP going 20-0 against DRG, as you'd suggest. And if balance wasn't terrible before the patch, then let's go back to before the patch, because balanced or not seeing Hellion/Banshee into mech has to be the most boring playstyle imaginable. He did indeed, but what happened the following season? In any case, judging by code S terrans are doing just fine, wouldn't you agree? I think peoples memory of what the TvZ match-up used to be don't have a whole lot to do with how the match-up actually was. There were good games and bad games, like now. Go back and watch random TvZ games pre-patch and see if it really was all that. In any case, you can't turn back the clock on the development of terran gameplay. The level of play is stronger. 3CC banshee + hellion opening would be extremely strong against a pre-patch queen. Safe against roach-bling, denies third forever. Mech won't go away either. As goody showed a long time ago, it allows you to be competitive with a relatively low APM requirement.
Mech isn't just not going away; it's quickly becoming the only composition that can actually win macro games. Where are the supposedly "good" games that are happening right now? I can't remember the last time I saw a good TvZ unless the players inexplicably opted (by gentlemen's agreement, I guess) to play 1rax FE vs Muta/Ling/Bling. All I've seen these days is boring Hellion/Banshee into mech or into Marine Tank into mech/Raven. It's not interesting at all. Hell, it's less interesting than when Ghosts could snipe all of Zerg's T3. At least that was a little bit interesting to see. Right now it's just a bunch of big, boring a-move units who win or lose based on whether Fungals are good or terrible. Not fun.
I wouldn't say Code S Terrans are doing particularly well at all. They're cheesing, blind countering, or coinflipping their way into wins in preparation tournaments and getting dominated everywhere else.
EDIT: @ Mock: Zerg players have higher APM not because they have fundamentally faster hands or mechanics but because Zerg has more APM sinks than the other races. There's more mindless repetitive APM stuff you can do as Zerg than you can as Protoss or Terran; for instance, Overlord and Creep Spreading, Injecting, and so on. Doing these things in succession can add a decent amount to your APM. In terms of actual engagements, I wouldn't say that any Terrans are suffering because of speed. On the contrary, I'd argue that most Zergs have an easier time with their APM sink because it's fundamentally repetitive. You need to be fast to be Zerg, but the fastness is predictable. For Terran and Protoss, the corner of your eye always needs to be on your army, lest you get Fungaled or EMPed or Forcefielded or hit by Banelings. This means you can't just go afk and macro. The closest thing Zerg had to this was Muta control, and in this control we saw the awesome players keep their Mutas alive forever while the mediocre ones allowed them to get killed off. Now? Anyone with a brain can macro adequately to Infsetor/BL and compete with people who have better mechanics than them. This is an indisputable fact and is a direct consequence of the Queen patch and shift in metagame.
|
On October 31 2012 09:33 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 09:21 Yorbon wrote:On October 31 2012 09:16 Shiori wrote:On October 31 2012 09:15 xPabt wrote:On October 31 2012 09:07 Shiori wrote:
I'm pretty sure DRG won a GSL right before the Queen patch hit. If that's not indicative of Zerg being fine in Code S, then nothing is. . GSL 1,2 and 3 were won by FD, Nestea and MC I geuss Terran was underpowered at sc2 release. The metagame was completely undeveloped at release. Comparing GSL 1 to the GSL DRG won (and his accompanying period of being very successful even outside GSL) is fucking nonsense. In general, a person from a certain race winning a league is not indicative of balance, just like taeja's performance in tvz doesn't say anything about the matchup. or jyp's performance in pvt, a while ago.. What I'm saying is that the best Terran in the world and the best Zerg in the world (at the time) were both doing amazingly. It's pretty hard for people to say things like pre-patch TvZ was super Terran favoured if the top players were trading blows completely evenly. These days, we have an undeniable influx of previously unknown Zerg players taking games off of Code S/A Protosses and Terrans. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the metagame became Zerg favoured. In the case of TvZ, it went from amazingly fun to utterly boring in addition to now being likely Zerg favoured. PvZ has been what it is for eons, but as it's become more figured out, things have slid toward Zerg, Immortal all-ins notwithstanding. But I mean, we're at a point where we have two exceedingly passive and boring and repetitive XvZ matchups. That means something needs to be changed, even if it were balanced. 2 players trading blows completely evenly can hardly be considered balance indication, the argument being the same as i gave previously. However, i do agree with the assessment that the metagame is very zerg-favored, maybe even problematically (the influx of unknown zergs might be a symptom of this), but i see the terran late-mid to late game as the main problem. I do think the queen buff was justified, or at least i could see why they did it, but a follow-up is needed, imo. Like i said in some other thread as well, i can see a small tank-buff do wonders for both the tvx match-ups (excluding tvt, which is fine imo, although maybe the buff might have some big consequences). Specifically, in the tvz match-up the mid-game can get a little more weight.
I'll pass on the pvz and boring match-up parts, because i don't feel they are relevant to my general point. Sorry about that.
edit: ):, i don't see how ghost's mass snipe could be regarded above mass fungals. I'm apalled by both in such a way that they should be treated equal.
|
Oh come on, everybody is making it sound like terran is struggling - it's not. Statistically, T is basically even with P/Z in terms of the matchups. Code S still has more terrans than any other race. Korean is still dominated by terrans. The problem isn't that terran is weak, it's that the tvz and tvp endgames are boring to watch and often end up the same way regardless of who is playing.
|
On October 31 2012 10:00 m0ck wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 09:15 monkybone wrote:On October 31 2012 08:57 m0ck wrote:On October 31 2012 08:23 monkybone wrote:On October 31 2012 08:19 m0ck wrote:On October 31 2012 08:13 monkybone wrote:On October 31 2012 08:09 m0ck wrote:
Reverting the queen is not the answer. The trend in TvZ before the queen-patch was 3-CCs vs roach-bling all-ins. Terran got to play greedy while zergs had to wait for the 9-minute 3rd while the 4 hellions in front of the Z natural stopped all zerg activity on the map. It was not a balanced match-up then. It may still not be, though it is hard to see the problem if focusing solely on Korean results. In anyt case, itis no worse for terran now than it used to be for zerg.
Remember MMA with a close to 80% TvZ win record while the best ZvT-player, DRG, couldn't break 60% in ZvT? FE'ing in TvZ was not yet standard meta before the queen patch, it was still more common with reactor hellion openings into CC. Yes, this gave map control, which was the saving grace of the matchup. Terran could deny a third, and deny creep. This made the matchup more engaging in the midgame, terran had more options. It was the most balanced matchups of them all. You are quite simply wrong. You're recalling an idea about TvZ, not how it actually played out. Go back and watch some matches from the time, I think you would be surprised. It was the most balanced match-up in the game in which terran always won in the end. I'm not asking to turn back the time. And I think you are looking a bit too far into the past. I'm talking about the period before the patch hit, the state of TvZ was on an all time high, Zergs were doing quite well in the matchup despite the metagame being advantageous to Terrans, and catching up on that. We've yet to see the converse after the patch, even though everyone proclaim that Terrans were going to catch up after a month. But we're still left with a massive underrepresentation of Terrans in most tournaments. Well, it all gets a bit muddled when looking back, that is for sure. My memory of the time preceding the queen-patch was a silly amount of roach-bling all-ins (to counter 3CCs) and of the top code-S terrans (almost) always winning vs zerg. I don't think the balance was terrible before the queen-patch, but then, I don't think the balance is terrible now (the aesthetics of play aside). To my mind, terran has had a fair adjustment upwards in how much APM it takes to achieve the same level of results (there were never any zerg goody or sjow). All-ins are worse (though 2-rax, mass hellions and marauder-hellions still win games) and because of the relatively worse economy for terran vs zerg, turtling to an upgrade-dependent timing through a defensively achieved superior economy is much less effective for terran (and more so for zerg). I think those changes are all fine. The 'ultimate' army of Z is probably too strong (and also immobile), but you have to be very careful when balancing the composition. A less strong end-point for zerg would encourage more engagements earlier in the game, but could also result in terrans turtling instead - and zergs generally can't break that without BLs. I'm still fairly certain that roach busts and terran greed was instigated by the patch and resulting change of metagame. But, I think it's a fairly unison agreement that the state of TvZ was better before the patch. The amount of APM is not really important, the important factor is the skill and difficulty of a race. In fact, there was recently an analysis of how much the top terrans practiced compared to their zerg counterparts. It turns out that the very top of terrans practice almost twice as much of the top zergs, and overall terrans in GM practice much more than zergs in GM. I.e., it takes more practice, more experience, and hence, I would infer, more skill to play terran. It just doesn't come down to APM, that's all. I think this was done on EU ladder. The problem with Zerg isn't the fact that they have broodlords IMO, that is fine, but that Terrans doesn't really have a viable counter option to broodlord corruptor infestor. We've seen it time and time again, it's too much to ask for Terrans to transition safely into a proper response to this, BC's ravens vikings etc.. It's in fact not viable, and good Zergs seem to have an extrordinarily easy time breaking a Terran before this can occur. EDIT: Taking a look at the EU ladder right now: Rank Race Wins Losses 1 z 250 130 2 z 149 40 3 z 287 129 4 z 186 129 5 z 234 75 6 p 275 118 7 z 142 207 8 z 160 87 9 z 123 72 10 t 520 348something is VERY wrong here.... The terran here is Kas, and he plays more than twice as any of the others. It only illustrates the difficulties of Terran, and how much practice it takes compared to Zerg in order to stay even. It's hard to disagree, but it is also hard to agree. Do terrans practice twice as much as players of other races? I don't see how you go beyond idle speculation. The same goes for 'skill and difficulty of a race'. What is the yardstick used as measurement? I don't agree at all on the unimportance of APM. I think it is a hugely important factor and one that has a real impact on what players are able to achieve. The amount of actions you are able to put out puts a limit on the situations in which you can be successful. Of course it is not exactly the same as a measurement of multi-tasking, but it's a very real component in multitasking. It is also one of the few independent-of-observer measurements that we have for comparing players. The top performing players are usually very fast. MC, MVP, DRG, Teaja are all +350 APM players. So is Stephano. Nerchio and Vortix both breach 300 APM. It seems to me that higher APM translates into the possibility of a higher level of play and I think the game should allow for the players with high speed to express that advantage when playing slower opponents. I think that is part of what has happened with the patch. Late-game is more APM-intensive than early game. Marineking has suffered. Thorzain has suffered. Kas has suffered. All slower players.
Pretty sure you're wrong in overestimating the APM of these players.
Isn't Stephano known for having relatively slow APM? (Question.... I'm not sure).
I'd be surprised if these players are averaging 350+.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On October 31 2012 10:00 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 09:37 m0ck wrote:On October 31 2012 09:07 Shiori wrote:On October 31 2012 08:57 m0ck wrote:On October 31 2012 08:23 monkybone wrote:On October 31 2012 08:19 m0ck wrote:On October 31 2012 08:13 monkybone wrote:On October 31 2012 08:09 m0ck wrote:
Reverting the queen is not the answer. The trend in TvZ before the queen-patch was 3-CCs vs roach-bling all-ins. Terran got to play greedy while zergs had to wait for the 9-minute 3rd while the 4 hellions in front of the Z natural stopped all zerg activity on the map. It was not a balanced match-up then. It may still not be, though it is hard to see the problem if focusing solely on Korean results. In anyt case, itis no worse for terran now than it used to be for zerg.
Remember MMA with a close to 80% TvZ win record while the best ZvT-player, DRG, couldn't break 60% in ZvT? FE'ing in TvZ was not yet standard meta before the queen patch, it was still more common with reactor hellion openings into CC. Yes, this gave map control, which was the saving grace of the matchup. Terran could deny a third, and deny creep. This made the matchup more engaging in the midgame, terran had more options. It was the most balanced matchups of them all. You are quite simply wrong. You're recalling an idea about TvZ, not how it actually played out. Go back and watch some matches from the time, I think you would be surprised. It was the most balanced match-up in the game in which terran always won in the end. I'm not asking to turn back the time. And I think you are looking a bit too far into the past. I'm talking about the period before the patch hit, the state of TvZ was on an all time high, Zergs were doing quite well in the matchup despite the metagame being advantageous to Terrans, and catching up on that. We've yet to see the converse after the patch, even though everyone proclaim that Terrans were going to catch up after a month. But we're still left with a massive underrepresentation of Terrans in most tournaments. Well, it all gets a bit muddled when looking back, that is for sure. My memory of the time preceding the queen-patch was a silly amount of roach-bling all-ins (to counter 3CCs) and of the top code-S terrans (almost) always winning vs zerg. I don't think the balance was terrible before the queen-patch, but then, I don't think the balance is terrible now (the aesthetics of play aside). To my mind, terran has had a fair adjustment upwards in how much APM it takes to achieve the same level of results (there were never any zerg goody or sjow). All-ins are worse (though 2-rax, mass hellions and marauder-hellions still win games) and because of the relatively worse economy for terran vs zerg, turtling to an upgrade-dependent timing through a defensively achieved superior economy is much less effective for terran (and more so for zerg). I think those changes are all fine. The 'ultimate' army of Z is probably too strong (and also immobile), but you have to be very careful when balancing the composition. A less strong end-point for zerg would encourage more engagements earlier in the game, but could also result in terrans turtling instead - and zergs generally can't break that without BLs. I'm pretty sure DRG won a GSL right before the Queen patch hit. If that's not indicative of Zerg being fine in Code S, then nothing is. I remember MKP and DRG trading blows in the month leading up to the patch. I don't remember MKP going 20-0 against DRG, as you'd suggest. And if balance wasn't terrible before the patch, then let's go back to before the patch, because balanced or not seeing Hellion/Banshee into mech has to be the most boring playstyle imaginable. He did indeed, but what happened the following season? In any case, judging by code S terrans are doing just fine, wouldn't you agree? I think peoples memory of what the TvZ match-up used to be don't have a whole lot to do with how the match-up actually was. There were good games and bad games, like now. Go back and watch random TvZ games pre-patch and see if it really was all that. In any case, you can't turn back the clock on the development of terran gameplay. The level of play is stronger. 3CC banshee + hellion opening would be extremely strong against a pre-patch queen. Safe against roach-bling, denies third forever. Mech won't go away either. As goody showed a long time ago, it allows you to be competitive with a relatively low APM requirement. Mech isn't just not going away; it's quickly becoming the only composition that can actually win macro games. Where are the supposedly "good" games that are happening right now? I can't remember the last time I saw a good TvZ unless the players inexplicably opted (by gentlemen's agreement, I guess) to play 1rax FE vs Muta/Ling/Bling. All I've seen these days is boring Hellion/Banshee into mech or into Marine Tank into mech/Raven. It's not interesting at all. Hell, it's less interesting than when Ghosts could snipe all of Zerg's T3. At least that was a little bit interesting to see. Right now it's just a bunch of big, boring a-move units who win or lose based on whether Fungals are good or terrible. Not fun. I wouldn't say Code S Terrans are doing particularly well at all. They're cheesing, blind countering, or coinflipping their way into wins in preparation tournaments and getting dominated everywhere else. EDIT: @ Mock: Zerg players have higher APM not because they have fundamentally faster hands or mechanics but because Zerg has more APM sinks than the other races. There's more mindless repetitive APM stuff you can do as Zerg than you can as Protoss or Terran; for instance, Overlord and Creep Spreading, Injecting, and so on. Doing these things in succession can add a decent amount to your APM. In terms of actual engagements, I wouldn't say that any Terrans are suffering because of speed. On the contrary, I'd argue that most Zergs have an easier time with their APM sink because it's fundamentally repetitive. You need to be fast to be Zerg, but the fastness is predictable. For Terran and Protoss, the corner of your eye always needs to be on your army, lest you get Fungaled or EMPed or Forcefielded or hit by Banelings. This means you can't just go afk and macro. The closest thing Zerg had to this was Muta control, and in this control we saw the awesome players keep their Mutas alive forever while the mediocre ones allowed them to get killed off. Now? Anyone with a brain can macro adequately to Infsetor/BL and compete with people who have better mechanics than them. This is an indisputable fact and is a direct consequence of the Queen patch and shift in metagame.
I think the next month will give us an answer, either way. If the match-up really is skewed heavily towards zerg we'll certainly see it in the month of tournaments coming up.
My view of the match-up isn't as bleak as yours. Partly because there is still is a decent amount of action, partly because I don't think it has fallen that far. As I'm repeating ad nauseum, I think pre-patch TvZ is remembered as being more glorious than it was.
Having said that, aggression is more fun than defensive play. Zerg post-patch does lend itself to turtely play. But not exclusively. You might not have liked seeing terrans losing against zergs in todays code S, but they were pretty much all games with plenty of aggression. For an all-out slugfest, I think the final game of Roro vs Hack was a good example. Early aggression, big leads lost and plenty of multitasking around the map. And a terran winner 
|
I remember pre-patch zvt as praying zerg not dying to 3000 different kinds of aggression early or mid-game. ):
But that was when my knowledge was even worse, so this actually isn't quite noteworthy D:
|
On October 31 2012 10:10 monkybone wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 10:04 FabledIntegral wrote:On October 31 2012 10:00 m0ck wrote:On October 31 2012 09:15 monkybone wrote:On October 31 2012 08:57 m0ck wrote:On October 31 2012 08:23 monkybone wrote:On October 31 2012 08:19 m0ck wrote:On October 31 2012 08:13 monkybone wrote:On October 31 2012 08:09 m0ck wrote:
Reverting the queen is not the answer. The trend in TvZ before the queen-patch was 3-CCs vs roach-bling all-ins. Terran got to play greedy while zergs had to wait for the 9-minute 3rd while the 4 hellions in front of the Z natural stopped all zerg activity on the map. It was not a balanced match-up then. It may still not be, though it is hard to see the problem if focusing solely on Korean results. In anyt case, itis no worse for terran now than it used to be for zerg.
Remember MMA with a close to 80% TvZ win record while the best ZvT-player, DRG, couldn't break 60% in ZvT? FE'ing in TvZ was not yet standard meta before the queen patch, it was still more common with reactor hellion openings into CC. Yes, this gave map control, which was the saving grace of the matchup. Terran could deny a third, and deny creep. This made the matchup more engaging in the midgame, terran had more options. It was the most balanced matchups of them all. You are quite simply wrong. You're recalling an idea about TvZ, not how it actually played out. Go back and watch some matches from the time, I think you would be surprised. It was the most balanced match-up in the game in which terran always won in the end. I'm not asking to turn back the time. And I think you are looking a bit too far into the past. I'm talking about the period before the patch hit, the state of TvZ was on an all time high, Zergs were doing quite well in the matchup despite the metagame being advantageous to Terrans, and catching up on that. We've yet to see the converse after the patch, even though everyone proclaim that Terrans were going to catch up after a month. But we're still left with a massive underrepresentation of Terrans in most tournaments. Well, it all gets a bit muddled when looking back, that is for sure. My memory of the time preceding the queen-patch was a silly amount of roach-bling all-ins (to counter 3CCs) and of the top code-S terrans (almost) always winning vs zerg. I don't think the balance was terrible before the queen-patch, but then, I don't think the balance is terrible now (the aesthetics of play aside). To my mind, terran has had a fair adjustment upwards in how much APM it takes to achieve the same level of results (there were never any zerg goody or sjow). All-ins are worse (though 2-rax, mass hellions and marauder-hellions still win games) and because of the relatively worse economy for terran vs zerg, turtling to an upgrade-dependent timing through a defensively achieved superior economy is much less effective for terran (and more so for zerg). I think those changes are all fine. The 'ultimate' army of Z is probably too strong (and also immobile), but you have to be very careful when balancing the composition. A less strong end-point for zerg would encourage more engagements earlier in the game, but could also result in terrans turtling instead - and zergs generally can't break that without BLs. I'm still fairly certain that roach busts and terran greed was instigated by the patch and resulting change of metagame. But, I think it's a fairly unison agreement that the state of TvZ was better before the patch. The amount of APM is not really important, the important factor is the skill and difficulty of a race. In fact, there was recently an analysis of how much the top terrans practiced compared to their zerg counterparts. It turns out that the very top of terrans practice almost twice as much of the top zergs, and overall terrans in GM practice much more than zergs in GM. I.e., it takes more practice, more experience, and hence, I would infer, more skill to play terran. It just doesn't come down to APM, that's all. I think this was done on EU ladder. The problem with Zerg isn't the fact that they have broodlords IMO, that is fine, but that Terrans doesn't really have a viable counter option to broodlord corruptor infestor. We've seen it time and time again, it's too much to ask for Terrans to transition safely into a proper response to this, BC's ravens vikings etc.. It's in fact not viable, and good Zergs seem to have an extrordinarily easy time breaking a Terran before this can occur. EDIT: Taking a look at the EU ladder right now: Rank Race Wins Losses 1 z 250 130 2 z 149 40 3 z 287 129 4 z 186 129 5 z 234 75 6 p 275 118 7 z 142 207 8 z 160 87 9 z 123 72 10 t 520 348something is VERY wrong here.... The terran here is Kas, and he plays more than twice as any of the others. It only illustrates the difficulties of Terran, and how much practice it takes compared to Zerg in order to stay even. It's hard to disagree, but it is also hard to agree. Do terrans practice twice as much as players of other races? I don't see how you go beyond idle speculation. The same goes for 'skill and difficulty of a race'. What is the yardstick used as measurement? I don't agree at all on the unimportance of APM. I think it is a hugely important factor and one that has a real impact on what players are able to achieve. The amount of actions you are able to put out puts a limit on the situations in which you can be successful. Of course it is not exactly the same as a measurement of multi-tasking, but it's a very real component in multitasking. It is also one of the few independent-of-observer measurements that we have for comparing players. The top performing players are usually very fast. MC, MVP, DRG, Teaja are all +350 APM players. So is Stephano. Nerchio and Vortix both breach 300 APM. It seems to me that higher APM translates into the possibility of a higher level of play and I think the game should allow for the players with high speed to express that advantage when playing slower opponents. I think that is part of what has happened with the patch. Late-game is more APM-intensive than early game. Marineking has suffered. Thorzain has suffered. Kas has suffered. All slower players. Pretty sure you're wrong in overestimating the APM of these players. Isn't Stephano known for having relatively slow APM? (Question.... I'm not sure). I'd be surprised if these players are averaging 350+. Stephano has an extremely high APM, as much as or more than DRG. He is really fast. And DRG is one of the fastest in the world averaging about 300 APM as I've seen in several games.
Hmmm who am I confusing him with then...
|
EDIT: @ Mock: Zerg players have higher APM not because they have fundamentally faster hands or mechanics but because Zerg has more APM sinks than the other races. There's more mindless repetitive APM stuff you can do as Zerg than you can as Protoss or Terran; for instance, Overlord and Creep Spreading, Injecting, and so on. Doing these things in succession can add a decent amount to your APM. In terms of actual engagements, I wouldn't say that any Terrans are suffering because of speed. On the contrary, I'd argue that most Zergs have an easier time with their APM sink because it's fundamentally repetitive. You need to be fast to be Zerg, but the fastness is predictable. For Terran and Protoss, the corner of your eye always needs to be on your army, lest you get Fungaled or EMPed or Forcefielded or hit by Banelings. This means you can't just go afk and macro. The closest thing Zerg had to this was Muta control, and in this control we saw the awesome players keep their Mutas alive forever while the mediocre ones allowed them to get killed off. Now? Anyone with a brain can macro adequately to Infsetor/BL and compete with people who have better mechanics than them. This is an indisputable fact and is a direct consequence of the Queen patch and shift in metagame.
I'm not saying that zerg-players are necessarily faster (though I think it used to be that they had to be), and I do agree that part of the difference in APM is down to the basics of the race, but there is a very real cap to many players that go beyond what is imposed by the race they are playing. It is the case for a number of the old WC3-players.
There is a reason that Thorzain is known for his thoroughness, for his thoughtfulness in builds and for his meticulous play and not his multitasking. That naniwa is know for his timings and early aggression. And on the contrary, that MMA & MVP became famous for challenging their opponents with their multitasking. Do you really want to argue that that is unrelated to the 100+ APM difference? And that that same difference is meaningless when comparing players of different races?
Your judgement of the demands of the different races seems somewhat clouded.. You have to agree that the improvement in play from zerg players are far from uniform. Where is super-ret? Magic-morrow? Legendary-Losira?
|
On October 31 2012 10:38 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 10:10 monkybone wrote:On October 31 2012 10:04 FabledIntegral wrote:On October 31 2012 10:00 m0ck wrote:On October 31 2012 09:15 monkybone wrote:On October 31 2012 08:57 m0ck wrote:On October 31 2012 08:23 monkybone wrote:On October 31 2012 08:19 m0ck wrote:On October 31 2012 08:13 monkybone wrote:On October 31 2012 08:09 m0ck wrote:
Reverting the queen is not the answer. The trend in TvZ before the queen-patch was 3-CCs vs roach-bling all-ins. Terran got to play greedy while zergs had to wait for the 9-minute 3rd while the 4 hellions in front of the Z natural stopped all zerg activity on the map. It was not a balanced match-up then. It may still not be, though it is hard to see the problem if focusing solely on Korean results. In anyt case, itis no worse for terran now than it used to be for zerg.
Remember MMA with a close to 80% TvZ win record while the best ZvT-player, DRG, couldn't break 60% in ZvT? FE'ing in TvZ was not yet standard meta before the queen patch, it was still more common with reactor hellion openings into CC. Yes, this gave map control, which was the saving grace of the matchup. Terran could deny a third, and deny creep. This made the matchup more engaging in the midgame, terran had more options. It was the most balanced matchups of them all. You are quite simply wrong. You're recalling an idea about TvZ, not how it actually played out. Go back and watch some matches from the time, I think you would be surprised. It was the most balanced match-up in the game in which terran always won in the end. I'm not asking to turn back the time. And I think you are looking a bit too far into the past. I'm talking about the period before the patch hit, the state of TvZ was on an all time high, Zergs were doing quite well in the matchup despite the metagame being advantageous to Terrans, and catching up on that. We've yet to see the converse after the patch, even though everyone proclaim that Terrans were going to catch up after a month. But we're still left with a massive underrepresentation of Terrans in most tournaments. Well, it all gets a bit muddled when looking back, that is for sure. My memory of the time preceding the queen-patch was a silly amount of roach-bling all-ins (to counter 3CCs) and of the top code-S terrans (almost) always winning vs zerg. I don't think the balance was terrible before the queen-patch, but then, I don't think the balance is terrible now (the aesthetics of play aside). To my mind, terran has had a fair adjustment upwards in how much APM it takes to achieve the same level of results (there were never any zerg goody or sjow). All-ins are worse (though 2-rax, mass hellions and marauder-hellions still win games) and because of the relatively worse economy for terran vs zerg, turtling to an upgrade-dependent timing through a defensively achieved superior economy is much less effective for terran (and more so for zerg). I think those changes are all fine. The 'ultimate' army of Z is probably too strong (and also immobile), but you have to be very careful when balancing the composition. A less strong end-point for zerg would encourage more engagements earlier in the game, but could also result in terrans turtling instead - and zergs generally can't break that without BLs. I'm still fairly certain that roach busts and terran greed was instigated by the patch and resulting change of metagame. But, I think it's a fairly unison agreement that the state of TvZ was better before the patch. The amount of APM is not really important, the important factor is the skill and difficulty of a race. In fact, there was recently an analysis of how much the top terrans practiced compared to their zerg counterparts. It turns out that the very top of terrans practice almost twice as much of the top zergs, and overall terrans in GM practice much more than zergs in GM. I.e., it takes more practice, more experience, and hence, I would infer, more skill to play terran. It just doesn't come down to APM, that's all. I think this was done on EU ladder. The problem with Zerg isn't the fact that they have broodlords IMO, that is fine, but that Terrans doesn't really have a viable counter option to broodlord corruptor infestor. We've seen it time and time again, it's too much to ask for Terrans to transition safely into a proper response to this, BC's ravens vikings etc.. It's in fact not viable, and good Zergs seem to have an extrordinarily easy time breaking a Terran before this can occur. EDIT: Taking a look at the EU ladder right now: Rank Race Wins Losses 1 z 250 130 2 z 149 40 3 z 287 129 4 z 186 129 5 z 234 75 6 p 275 118 7 z 142 207 8 z 160 87 9 z 123 72 10 t 520 348something is VERY wrong here.... The terran here is Kas, and he plays more than twice as any of the others. It only illustrates the difficulties of Terran, and how much practice it takes compared to Zerg in order to stay even. It's hard to disagree, but it is also hard to agree. Do terrans practice twice as much as players of other races? I don't see how you go beyond idle speculation. The same goes for 'skill and difficulty of a race'. What is the yardstick used as measurement? I don't agree at all on the unimportance of APM. I think it is a hugely important factor and one that has a real impact on what players are able to achieve. The amount of actions you are able to put out puts a limit on the situations in which you can be successful. Of course it is not exactly the same as a measurement of multi-tasking, but it's a very real component in multitasking. It is also one of the few independent-of-observer measurements that we have for comparing players. The top performing players are usually very fast. MC, MVP, DRG, Teaja are all +350 APM players. So is Stephano. Nerchio and Vortix both breach 300 APM. It seems to me that higher APM translates into the possibility of a higher level of play and I think the game should allow for the players with high speed to express that advantage when playing slower opponents. I think that is part of what has happened with the patch. Late-game is more APM-intensive than early game. Marineking has suffered. Thorzain has suffered. Kas has suffered. All slower players. Pretty sure you're wrong in overestimating the APM of these players. Isn't Stephano known for having relatively slow APM? (Question.... I'm not sure). I'd be surprised if these players are averaging 350+. Stephano has an extremely high APM, as much as or more than DRG. He is really fast. And DRG is one of the fastest in the world averaging about 300 APM as I've seen in several games. Hmmm who am I confusing him with then...
Nestea was known as a slow player, though he did reach almost 280 APM. DRG plays at ~390 APM, Stephano at ~370.
A good resource is the MLG-site. It's pretty interesting and can be quite surprising:
http://www.majorleaguegaming.com/players
|
sometimes APM does not matter.. remember Flash on his dominating stage has only 250+ apm and it's broodwar
|
On October 31 2012 10:04 Fission wrote:
Oh come on, everybody is making it sound like terran is struggling - it's not. Statistically, T is basically even with P/Z in terms of the matchups. Code S still has more terrans than any other race. Korean is still dominated by terrans. The problem isn't that terran is weak, it's that the tvz and tvp endgames are boring to watch and often end up the same way regardless of who is playing.
Can you link to these statistics please?
|
Flash... I was thinking of Flash...!
|
On October 31 2012 10:04 Fission wrote:
Oh come on, everybody is making it sound like terran is struggling - it's not. Statistically, T is basically even with P/Z in terms of the matchups. Code S still has more terrans than any other race. Korean is still dominated by terrans. The problem isn't that terran is weak, it's that the tvz and tvp endgames are boring to watch and often end up the same way regardless of who is playing.
GSL is not dominated by terran anymore, it's fairly even (14/9/9). However, the problem that everyone has been pointing to is outside of korea, zergs are winning basically everything. Rarely in any non-korean tournament will terrans do well and zergs do poorly. There have been several renditions of top 8 of each non-korean tournament of the months from queen-buff to now. In a vast vast majority have 5-7 zergs, and 1-3 protoss, and sometimes a terran. It is clearly a problem that if you are not in korea, you will only do well if you play zerg.
|
For the most part, I have given up talking about the blatant dire situation for Terrans. People just kinda accept that SC2 consists of Zerg, Protoss, and MVP. Top Terran foreigners are ditching the game in droves and the only people replacing them are Zergs. It's gotten to the point where you can mention Terran sucking the average SC2 player and there's no real debate, just a quick mutual agreement that things are meant to that screwed up for some reason.
|
On October 31 2012 14:07 aksfjh wrote:
For the most part, I have given up talking about the blatant dire situation for Terrans. People just kinda accept that SC2 consists of Zerg, Protoss, and MVP. Top Terran foreigners are ditching the game in droves and the only people replacing them are Zergs. It's gotten to the point where you can mention Terran sucking the average SC2 player and there's no real debate, just a quick mutual agreement that things are meant to that screwed up for some reason.
I'll agree that terran are doing fairly poorly outside of Korea but in Korea they are still the best race and have been pretty much since the release of SC2. Which makes this stupid argument that somehow MVP is the only terran doing good look silly. If anything that argument fits much better with zerg and protoss then it does terran.
|
Northern Ireland26003 Posts
It's not, for me anyway a really imbalanced current state of affairs, just pretty stagnant, especially in matches involving Z lately. Hopefully there come some new interesting Terran openers sometime soon, or HoTS switches things up a bit. I'm not one to denigrate pro players, and they do what they have to do to win, but Bl/Infestor 9 times out of 10 non Zerg mirrors just is incredibly stale at this point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
