|
On November 06 2012 04:13 Salteador Neo wrote:
Screw nerfing it. Just remove the stupid unit. Infestor is not only OP but makes zerg gameplay hella boring (and all the cons already mentioned, like removing micro). Muta/ling/bane is so much better.
They could argue it evolved and got wings in HotS. When a unit is so terribad it should get the Warhound treatment.
I'd honestly be fine if the Sentry, Infestor, and Marauder got removed in HotS. Not that it'll happen, but it'd be pretty interesting to see what would come of it.
|
On November 06 2012 02:20 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 01:41 Big J wrote:On November 06 2012 01:34 zlefin wrote:
an idea to fix the warpgate issue:
a cost for EACH gateway you upgrade to a warpgate; cost would be somewhere between 50/25 and 100/100.
The idea would be you can still have the ability to warp in reinforcements anywhere, but you need to decide how many you want to be able to summon anywhere.
Given the value of an army in a group; even with a high price to convert to warpgate; it would be worth it to convert some if it means an attack force is bigger and will thus do better in trying to take down a base/whatever you're doing with an attack.
This is a means to make warpgate into a choice: do you want warpgates (and how many) or not.
There would have to be a few tweaks to other things to balance of course; as this would weaken all aggressive protoss builds, but that would allow the gateway units to be a bit stronger and less dependent on forcefields. wohoo, buff Gateway units, so that proxy 2gate or 3Stalker rush or whatever pre 5min pressure/attack you favor finally wins everygame. And if the opponent somehow survives (probably supercrippled), at least you don't need to transition into anything and you can just add more gateways... (yeah, probably an obs at some point) You know it would be nice if we could actually pressure in the first 5 minutes in PvZ, would make the dynamic of the early game more interesting
yeah, and PvZ is basically the only matchup, in which stalkers don't dominate the early game.
I'm not saying it would be bad if they did in ZvP, but I'm saying that gateway units are strong enough in the early-mid stages of the other matchups already. Terran has to get shields, stim and medivacs for bio to combat stalker/zealot combos. There isn't really any bad dynamic in Gateway units at all, the only bad dynamic is how roach/speedling crushes gateway units without forcefield. That's it, and that is not a gateway problem, but a roach problem.
On November 06 2012 02:08 zlefin wrote:
please stick to intelligent comments, troll idiot comments like that do not help big j; i presented a valid solution to a known issue; andi never said the buff would be large, it would be quite minor most likely. and fixing the issues of defensability is quite easy as well.
we all know warpgates need a fix, so try coming up with a solution instead of blathering pointless hate.
I'm not hating. Warpgates simply don't need any "fix". Which problems are there with warpgates?
-) Warpgate rushes? Nerfed and fixed by metagame!
-) Warp prism drops, proxy harass? A great feature of the game, makes for very interesting dynamics/harass!
-) Lategame remax warpins? Yes, maybe a small problem. If it proved to be a huge problem, it could easily be fixed without screwing anything else, with going on cooldown at 200/200 or stuff like that.
|
GRAND OLD AMERICA16375 Posts
On November 06 2012 04:24 Zdrastochye wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 04:13 Salteador Neo wrote:
Screw nerfing it. Just remove the stupid unit. Infestor is not only OP but makes zerg gameplay hella boring (and all the cons already mentioned, like removing micro). Muta/ling/bane is so much better.
They could argue it evolved and got wings in HotS. When a unit is so terribad it should get the Warhound treatment. I'd honestly be fine if the Sentry, Infestor, and Marauder got removed in HotS. Not that it'll happen, but it'd be pretty interesting to see what would come of it.
I think that the infestor should revert to its original concept with the fungals being projectiles rather than instant speed.
|
On November 06 2012 04:24 Zdrastochye wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 04:13 Salteador Neo wrote:
Screw nerfing it. Just remove the stupid unit. Infestor is not only OP but makes zerg gameplay hella boring (and all the cons already mentioned, like removing micro). Muta/ling/bane is so much better.
They could argue it evolved and got wings in HotS. When a unit is so terribad it should get the Warhound treatment. I'd honestly be fine if the Sentry, Infestor, and Marauder got removed in HotS. Not that it'll happen, but it'd be pretty interesting to see what would come of it.
the whole point in units is to add layers of strategy to the gameplay. Removing units simplifies gameplay and make the game kind of redundant or boring to watch.
WOL could have been a great game. but the balance of the game has been ruined. Terran has too many weak units now, THor,
Banshee, reaper, hellions. Protoss has the void ray, Photon cannons, Phoenix, basically unplayable. Only the zerg, did SC2 get right. it's really a great race in SC2. All races should have been equally interesting as Zerg in WOL.
|
yeah, and PvZ is basically the only matchup, in which stalkers don't dominate the early game.
I'm not saying it would be bad if they did in ZvP, but I'm saying that gateway units are strong enough in the early-mid stages of the other matchups already. Terran has to get shields, stim and medivacs for bio to combat stalker/zealot combos. There isn't really any bad dynamic in Gateway units at all, the only bad dynamic is how roach/speedling crushes gateway units without forcefield. That's it, and that is not a gateway problem, but a roach problem.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
cough cough* sorry, I just had to laugh at how stupid this comment was. The poster is prolly in diamond league or something.
User was warned for this post
|
the whole point in units is to add layers of strategy to the gameplay. Removing units simplifies gameplay and make the game kind of redundant or boring to watch
Incorrect, removing units was done in BW for crying out loud, at the end of the day, some units are too all encompassing and as such take away gameplay, the infestor is obviously one such unit, removing it wouldnt be bad considering zerg can still win without infestors (DRG's Muta/ling/Bling vs Toss).
|
On November 06 2012 04:42 Asymptote1 wrote:Show nested quote +the whole point in units is to add layers of strategy to the gameplay. Removing units simplifies gameplay and make the game kind of redundant or boring to watch Incorrect, removing units was done in BW for crying out loud, at the end of the day, some units are too all encompassing and as such take away gameplay, the infestor is obviously one such unit, removing it wouldnt be bad considering zerg can still win without infestors (DRG's Muta/ling/Bling vs Toss).
i'll agree to disagree.
i think other units need to be buffed. I would like to see more Reaper, Thors, Hellions, Ravens, Banshees being an integral part of Terran play. I would like to see Protoss buffed where Void Ray, Phoenix, Photon cannons are added to depth of the Protoss race.
As for infestors, I would love to see the challenge of Terrans and Protoss dealing with infestors. Blizzard can nerf the Infestor strength probably about 10% in my opinion. But then with increased buffs of other terran and protoss units, infestors , zerglings, roacches vs thors, Hellions, tanks, marauders would provide interesting combat experience.
After all, this is a post modern fantasy war game. Units should be diverse yet useful. Chess would be less interesting if the Bishop or the rook was taken out of play TBH
For example,
-Why does the siege tank only have 160 HP but cost 150 M and 125 Gas? what is the gas used for the fuel to drive the tank? some computer electronics? well Gas should be 75 IMO then. A tank is a very large vehicle. i would increase the Min and HP to slightly higher numbers. If a marine is worth 50 M and have 45 HP... how is a tank only worth 3 times the amount of a marine? yet the tank consume 125 gas? this is crazy.
-Hellions, I like their speed. I would increase their AP by one point and gas should be like 25.
- Thors are so cost prohibitive and yield marginal power, no splash damage, are slow, and only contain about 400 HP when
the cost is 300 M 200 G plus all the tech you have to invest into to get a thor onto the field. Ground attack is 30 but no splash.
Air attack is only 6? that is ridiculous. I would increase the thor AP to 35 ground and 20 in Air (with splash damage), and increase their HP to 600.
-Banshees, I would dramatically improve the speed of the Banshee or make it possible harass and retreat style play. This is a highly mobile air unit, yet it is slower than a hellion or Speedling. It's ridiculous.
-Reapers, little to no attack power on moving units (4 AP(5 on light armor)), not that fast without nitro boost. Their AP needs to increase to like 6-8 like a marine. What is the 50 Gas for? guns that barely throws a pebble at an opponent? If Blizzard is so worried about Reaper harass, they should have delayed the unit time so that the reaper can still harass without being overly cheesy.
|
On November 06 2012 04:41 Asymptote1 wrote:Show nested quote +yeah, and PvZ is basically the only matchup, in which stalkers don't dominate the early game.
I'm not saying it would be bad if they did in ZvP, but I'm saying that gateway units are strong enough in the early-mid stages of the other matchups already. Terran has to get shields, stim and medivacs for bio to combat stalker/zealot combos. There isn't really any bad dynamic in Gateway units at all, the only bad dynamic is how roach/speedling crushes gateway units without forcefield. That's it, and that is not a gateway problem, but a roach problem.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL cough cough* sorry, I just had to laugh at how stupid this comment was. The poster is prolly in diamond league or something.
hihi, gl hf. Get Master League with Terran and then do the following openings without a bunker:
1rax expand
CC first
reactored hellions
banshee
Please post the replays, Code S Terrans are always looking for ways to improve their play!
|
On November 06 2012 05:14 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 04:41 Asymptote1 wrote:yeah, and PvZ is basically the only matchup, in which stalkers don't dominate the early game.
I'm not saying it would be bad if they did in ZvP, but I'm saying that gateway units are strong enough in the early-mid stages of the other matchups already. Terran has to get shields, stim and medivacs for bio to combat stalker/zealot combos. There isn't really any bad dynamic in Gateway units at all, the only bad dynamic is how roach/speedling crushes gateway units without forcefield. That's it, and that is not a gateway problem, but a roach problem.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL cough cough* sorry, I just had to laugh at how stupid this comment was. The poster is prolly in diamond league or something. hihi, gl hf. Get Master League with Terran and then do the following openings without a bunker: 1rax expand CC first reactored hellions banshee Please post the replays, Code S Terrans are always looking for ways to improve their play!
I hardly consider making a single Bunker evidence that Gateway units are "strong" in the early game. They're just not completely irrelevant. The problem with Gateway units is that they scale rather poorly. You can hold a 2rax with Gateway units, but you'll be hard pressed to reliably hold a 10 minute Stim timing with them. I wouldn't say that this means Gateway units are strong in the early game in the sense of any sort of domination. But you make a good point: any change to Gateway units should be in the form of an upgrade rather than base stats, unless Forcefield itself is changed. If FF is changed, then Bunkers become stronger for defense as they can be repaired more consistently.
But, frankly, I don't think Protoss needs changes so much as Zerg needs to be rebalanced a little bit. PvT is a varied and dynamic matchup with a great number of openings. It will become more diverse in HotS. PvZ and TvZ, however, are nearly always the same opener (FFE into all-in or passive for Protoss, and Hellion/Banshee for Terran) and nearly always result in the same kind of turtley, passive, deathbally gameplay. And that's just not interesting to play or watch, on top of inherently favouring Zerg.
I'd suggest something like buffing the Hydra significantly/moving it to tier 1 with stats adjustment, decreasing the Roach's stats (but maybe give it a Hive upgrade like Burrow speed equaling regular speed), and then nerfing the bejesus out of the Infestor. That was we could see Roach/Hydra as an early game and midgame composition which scales naturally with Lair tech (Hydra range + Roach speed) then eventually to Hive tech (Hydra speed in HotS). Then we could have Hydra/Roach/BL/Infestor, or something similar, rather than just BL/Infestor, and all four components would actually be important to the way the army works rather than everything getting obliterated by Infestors. This would make the Hydralisk very much like a more specialized Marine, in the sense that it would obtain an upgrade every once in awhile to keep it viable. Way better than the disjointed, overpowered tech switching that Zerg uses right now.
|
On November 06 2012 00:41 Wingblade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2012 19:12 SlixSC wrote:On November 05 2012 17:32 Acritter wrote:On November 05 2012 14:38 SlixSC wrote:On November 05 2012 14:15 Acritter wrote:On November 05 2012 12:34 Filter wrote:On November 05 2012 12:13 Wingblade wrote:On November 05 2012 12:01 Chaggi wrote:On November 05 2012 11:52 Wingblade wrote:On November 05 2012 10:50 TimENT wrote:
37 infestors in one game ----> is that okay blizzard?
Taeja struggles SOOOOO hard to barely win an engagement lategame v Rain, both floating 2500 min 1000 gas, rain warps in 48 supply worth of zealots in 1 second ----> is that okay blizzard?
Please stop complaining about PvT lategame. I saw that engagement. Taeja lost 16 ghosts right at the start and Rain still got storms off. Plus, Terran has had better win rate vs P in August, throughout WCS continental tournaments, and at MLG this weekend. This is stupid. Anyone who pulls out win rates and calls something balanced doesn't understand what people are complaining about. PvZ might have a close to 50% win rate but it doesn't matter cause it's not a balanced late game composition. Even Grubby said so on the front page during an interview in this last MLG, look at how people win, if all Protoss does is all in, and they win 90% of the time, while if Zerg gets their late game bl/infestor comp and they win 90% of the time, how does that make for a fun game? (and this is balance aside) Just like TvP, it's not too bad to kill a Protoss sub 4 bases, but after the 4th and 5th base comes up, it gets much harder for the Terran. Just cause you can be like but look Taeja did something wrong doesn't mean it's actually not that hard, but it's cause of some mistake. But it was. And that's not true at all. By that point in the game Terran can trade scvs for more army because they can mine minerals with MULEs as long as they build extra OCs. And how is using winrates less evidence than some dude pulling one engagement out of thin air and claiming balance based on that. I can show you a lategame engagement from one of my games where the Terran doesn't attempt any semblance of micro, misses EMPs and sits in storms and claim Terran lategame is imba against Protoss. That doesn't mean im right. If Colossus are in the picture you actually can't show that engagement, it doesn't exist. The problem is a lot of things frustrate the players ie. you, me and the pros because they is no response available at all for you to defend against some things in the game. Terran doesn't have a response to a mass Protoss late game warp in, it's not a gradual loss you just get smashed and it's frustrating as hell. The same thing applies to Toss players when they get steamrolled by marines, if your higher tech units are taken out there is nothing you can do but get absolutely rolled by 40 marines with stim. The same thing applies with infestor broodlord, you do everything you can to stop it but at some point a fungal lands and you may as well take your hands off the keyboard. There is no response left, it's over. The less control you have over something the more frustrating it tends to become. Mistakes should be punished, but at the same time you should feel like your opponent did something good to punish your mistake. Having your entire army mowed down because you couldn't snipe off 10 ht AND emp the Archons AND control your vikings perfectly is very frustrating. At what point did the protoss player do anything in that particular battle to outplay or outthink you? the simple answer is he didn't, he landed 1-2 storms and a-moved his army. The loss of control in those situations is why Terran players bitch so much about lategame TvP, and why many of us simply don't play that much. When a Zerg gets crushed by an immortal all in it's the same story, the Protoss player might have hit all his timings perfectly but the Zerg is totally helpless and relies on the Toss player making a mistake. Same thing with lategame PvZ, trying to get your mothership into position only to have your opponent spreading his stuff out properly means you're screwed and the game is completely out of your control, again frustrating. Removing and balancing things that are extremely frustrating is very important, it really doesn't matter if the matchup is overall very balanced if certain situations make you want to alt-f4 your game and play something else. Terran Orbital Economy lategame is quite possibly the strongest lategame, except possibly Infestor/Broodlord, simply because the Terran's army size can be 40-50 greater than the opponent. The issue has always been for Terran to reach that lategame. It's comparable to how the Protoss midgame is much weaker than the Terran midgame, and the challenge for the Protoss player is to get to the lategame without the Terran winning. There are already Terran players experimenting with this style: Kas, for example. I think it would be much wiser to wait and see how the professionals manage to play this out. Right now, the win rates are stable, so it's not like Terran is under some massive threat like Protoss was during sAviOr's reign. Any advantage that Protoss has before 10 minutes and after 16 minutes is clearly mitigated by the Terran advantage between those two milestones. All in all? No concerns about the matchup. Just want to let it play out. Please link to win rates. To speak bluntly, win rates are posted on the general forum every month. If you are too disconnected with the scene and with the community to know where to find those easily, then perhaps you shouldn't be posting in this thread. Oh, I thought you actually had evidence. Last month's TvZ win rate in Korea was 36% for Terran as posted earlier in this thread. I really don't see how the win rates are stable in that respect, that's why I asked you for evidence. I don't like it when people make up their own facts. Congratulations, you just used winrates for TvZ to attempt to argue about TvP. Are you serious? Terran had a 53 percent winrate against Protoss in August(which is the last available winrate chart) Terrans had a 53 percent winrate against Protoss in all of the WCS continental finals tournaments compiled together. At MLG, Terran went 26-20 against Protoss. Oh and btw, there were 0 Protoss in top 4.
First of all, I wasn't discussing balance at all. I made no comments on balance at all, I was simply pointing out a factual error in someone's post.
Terran had a 53 percent winrate against Protoss in August(which is the last available winrate chart)
This isn't really true, the last available win rates for TvP are last month's win rate where Protoss had a 52% win rate vs. Terran. This was posted a few pages ago in this very thread.
Terrans had a 53 percent winrate against Protoss in all of the WCS continental finals tournaments compiled together.
I don't see how this would prove that there is some sort of imbalance in TvP (a 53% win rate really doesn't imply that at all), but again, please provide actual evidence for the win rates you are posting here. Simply naming a number isn't sufficient enough evidence, you at the very least have to give us a source.
At MLG, Terran went 26-20 against Protoss. Oh and btw, there were 0 Protoss in top 4.
Now you are just cherry - picking stats to prove a point I'm not arguing against. I never said TvP is imbalanced and I really don't think 46 games prove imbalance one way or the other. "Oh and there were 0 Protoss in the top 4". Really? How did you set the standard for which "top x" matters? 0 Protoss in the Top 4, but 2 Protoss in the Top 6, but only the top 4 matters? I hope you understand that this is confirmation bias and cherry-picking evidence to an extreme.
yeah and those so called "Korean winrates" on the battle.net forums were so few games, that if some players were cut, it would completle screw the "stats". (like if you cut Life's GSL games, TvZ is 47:53, stuff like that).
I think there is something intellectually dishonest about what you just said and I think you're going to end up paying a price for that. While it is true that 80 games do not prove imbalance, I think you will find that this cuts both ways and it doesn't make the statement "the win rates are stable" any more true. Unless what you mean by stable is "Terran having consistently bad win rates in TvZ" then no, the win rates are not stable. I'm not saying you said that, but you and many others didn't seem to have a problem with someone asserting that "the win rates are stable", thus using win rates to prove the game is balanced (which is not only factually incorrect but also purely subjective) but you very much so have a problem with someone pointing out that this person is wrong and that win rates are in fact not stable.
And again I never made any comments about balance at all, so please stop with the strawman "...but in TvP" - arguments.
|
On November 06 2012 04:41 Asymptote1 wrote:Show nested quote +yeah, and PvZ is basically the only matchup, in which stalkers don't dominate the early game.
I'm not saying it would be bad if they did in ZvP, but I'm saying that gateway units are strong enough in the early-mid stages of the other matchups already. Terran has to get shields, stim and medivacs for bio to combat stalker/zealot combos. There isn't really any bad dynamic in Gateway units at all, the only bad dynamic is how roach/speedling crushes gateway units without forcefield. That's it, and that is not a gateway problem, but a roach problem.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL cough cough* sorry, I just had to laugh at how stupid this comment was. The poster is prolly in diamond league or something.
Actually he's 100% correct...
You really should read what he said, before shields/stim and medivacs the terran bio units are not "that strong" and gateway units are even if not very slight better due to warp in mechanics. Once you add in those upgrades and healing units is when bio takes off as being better than gateway units but gateway units can add in splash "or" blink/charge in order to even it out.
Like common dude, if you're going to say "he's probably in diamond league" you shouldn't contribute silver-level analysis : /
|
On November 06 2012 05:25 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 05:14 Big J wrote:On November 06 2012 04:41 Asymptote1 wrote:yeah, and PvZ is basically the only matchup, in which stalkers don't dominate the early game.
I'm not saying it would be bad if they did in ZvP, but I'm saying that gateway units are strong enough in the early-mid stages of the other matchups already. Terran has to get shields, stim and medivacs for bio to combat stalker/zealot combos. There isn't really any bad dynamic in Gateway units at all, the only bad dynamic is how roach/speedling crushes gateway units without forcefield. That's it, and that is not a gateway problem, but a roach problem.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL cough cough* sorry, I just had to laugh at how stupid this comment was. The poster is prolly in diamond league or something. hihi, gl hf. Get Master League with Terran and then do the following openings without a bunker: 1rax expand CC first reactored hellions banshee Please post the replays, Code S Terrans are always looking for ways to improve their play! I hardly consider making a single Bunker evidence that Gateway units are "strong" in the early game. They're just not completely irrelevant. The problem with Gateway units is that they scale rather poorly. You can hold a 2rax with Gateway units, but you'll be hard pressed to reliably hold a 10 minute Stim timing with them. I wouldn't say that this means Gateway units are strong in the early game in the sense of any sort of domination. But you make a good point: any change to Gateway units should be in the form of an upgrade rather than base stats, unless Forcefield itself is changed. If FF is changed, then Bunkers become stronger for defense as they can be repaired more consistently. But, frankly, I don't think Protoss needs changes so much as Zerg needs to be rebalanced a little bit. PvT is a varied and dynamic matchup with a great number of openings. It will become more diverse in HotS. PvZ and TvZ, however, are nearly always the same opener (FFE into all-in or passive for Protoss, and Hellion/Banshee for Terran) and nearly always result in the same kind of turtley, passive, deathbally gameplay. And that's just not interesting to play or watch, on top of inherently favouring Zerg. I'd suggest something like buffing the Hydra significantly/moving it to tier 1 with stats adjustment, decreasing the Roach's stats (but maybe give it a Hive upgrade like Burrow speed equaling regular speed), and then nerfing the bejesus out of the Infestor. That was we could see Roach/Hydra as an early game and midgame composition which scales naturally with Lair tech (Hydra range + Roach speed) then eventually to Hive tech (Hydra speed in HotS). Then we could have Hydra/Roach/BL/Infestor, or something similar, rather than just BL/Infestor, and all four components would actually be important to the way the army works rather than everything getting obliterated by Infestors. This would make the Hydralisk very much like a more specialized Marine, in the sense that it would obtain an upgrade every once in awhile to keep it viable. Way better than the disjointed, overpowered tech switching that Zerg uses right now.
usually i dont like shiori's posts too much, but is just smart right here. all of these ideas seem like they could be an interesting and viable alternative to the current balance of the game
|
Northern Ireland25050 Posts
On November 06 2012 05:14 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 04:41 Asymptote1 wrote:yeah, and PvZ is basically the only matchup, in which stalkers don't dominate the early game.
I'm not saying it would be bad if they did in ZvP, but I'm saying that gateway units are strong enough in the early-mid stages of the other matchups already. Terran has to get shields, stim and medivacs for bio to combat stalker/zealot combos. There isn't really any bad dynamic in Gateway units at all, the only bad dynamic is how roach/speedling crushes gateway units without forcefield. That's it, and that is not a gateway problem, but a roach problem.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL cough cough* sorry, I just had to laugh at how stupid this comment was. The poster is prolly in diamond league or something. hihi, gl hf. Get Master League with Terran and then do the following openings without a bunker: 1rax expand CC first reactored hellions banshee Please post the replays, Code S Terrans are always looking for ways to improve their play!
You're talking about small-scale engagements which are the only times that gateway units match their bio counterparts. This is where a Protoss with good micro can out-control a gateway only mix and trade well with/beat equivalent numbers of bio. Or in the case of a banshee opener you've teched up hard and skipped units
Skipping a bunker blindly with those openers is just silly play anyway.
|
On November 06 2012 05:46 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 05:14 Big J wrote:On November 06 2012 04:41 Asymptote1 wrote:yeah, and PvZ is basically the only matchup, in which stalkers don't dominate the early game.
I'm not saying it would be bad if they did in ZvP, but I'm saying that gateway units are strong enough in the early-mid stages of the other matchups already. Terran has to get shields, stim and medivacs for bio to combat stalker/zealot combos. There isn't really any bad dynamic in Gateway units at all, the only bad dynamic is how roach/speedling crushes gateway units without forcefield. That's it, and that is not a gateway problem, but a roach problem.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL cough cough* sorry, I just had to laugh at how stupid this comment was. The poster is prolly in diamond league or something. hihi, gl hf. Get Master League with Terran and then do the following openings without a bunker: 1rax expand CC first reactored hellions banshee Please post the replays, Code S Terrans are always looking for ways to improve their play! You're talking about small-scale engagements which are the only times that gateway units match their bio counterparts. This is where a Protoss with good micro can out-control a gateway only mix and trade well with/beat equivalent numbers of bio. Or in the case of a banshee opener you've teched up hard and skipped units Skipping a bunker blindly with those openers is just silly play anyway.
Sometimes skipping 5 bunkers ends up being silly play. I'm hesitant to call gateway units weak or strong, but I think they can be very "potent" when used correctly.
|
Sorry, I could not hear you guys over the stats which show that GM and Masters consistently for the past two/three seasons:
about 38-40% toss in master and gm level
about 42-40% zerg in master and gm level
about 20% terran in master and gm level
Besides, if we fight gateway armies pre-stim vs bio armies, I tell you that there should be no protoss in the world that would lose that engagement.
And gateway armies are far easier to control, zealots are basically a moved, so are stalkers, and sentries cast forcefields behind the terran army. No stutter step, no avoiding forcefields.
Everybody who has seen an sentry immortal bust knows that unless the terran should have like 10 scv's pulled, and 3/4 bunkers prepared, and will still lose some of the time. Hell, even after medivacs are out, if you get forcefielded and you don't pick up, you will die. So, I guess there should be no debate whether bio or gateway army is stronger as it is obvious that gateway army is far stronger.
|
On November 06 2012 05:35 SlixSC wrote:Show nested quote +
yeah and those so called "Korean winrates" on the battle.net forums were so few games, that if some players were cut, it would completle screw the "stats". (like if you cut Life's GSL games, TvZ is 47:53, stuff like that).
I think there is something intellectually dishonest about what you just said and I think you're going to end up paying a price for that. While it is true that 80 games do not prove imbalance, I think you will find that this cuts both ways and it doesn't make the statement "the win rates are stable" any more true. Unless what you mean by stable is "Terran having consistently bad win rates in TvZ" then no, the win rates are not stable. I'm not saying you said that, but you and many others didn't seem to have a problem with someone asserting that "the win rates are stable", thus using win rates to prove the game is balanced (which is not only factually incorrect but also purely subjective) but you very much so have a problem with someone pointing out that this person is wrong and that win rates are in fact not stable.
You are assuming too much. I've never stated that the winrates are stable. All I'm saying is, that there is no use in discussing winrates without winrates...
|
i assume the TL mods just ignore this thread and let it be to let people have their fun because honestly 99% of the stuff being said in here is just ridiculous
|
On November 06 2012 06:07 sieksdekciw wrote:
Sorry, I could not hear you guys over the stats which show that GM and Masters consistently for the past two/three seasons:
about 38-40% toss in master and gm level
about 42-40% zerg in master and gm level
about 20% terran in master and gm level
Besides, if we fight gateway armies pre-stim vs bio armies, I tell you that there should be no protoss in the world that would lose that engagement.
And gateway armies are far easier to control, zealots are basically a moved, so are stalkers, and sentries cast forcefields behind the terran army. No stutter step, no avoiding forcefields.
Everybody who has seen an sentry immortal bust knows that unless the terran should have like 10 scv's pulled, and 3/4 bunkers prepared, and will still lose some of the time. Hell, even after medivacs are out, if you get forcefielded and you don't pick up, you will die. So, I guess there should be no debate whether bio or gateway army is stronger as it is obvious that gateway army is far stronger.
I agree, but this isn't a balance problem in my opinion.
Pre- stim, combat shields, medivac, gateway units are obviously superior to bio armies, this is why Terran needs bunkers in the early game. But once you have upgrades and medivacs the roles are reversed and protoss actually needs splash damage to combat this army. I don't see a problem with that to be honest. Especially since the timings work out quite nicely for both races.
Why are people even discussing TvP in the first place. The matchup seems very balanced statistically and I personally enjoy playing TvP more than any other matchup, because I feel both races are very balanced. ( some might say Protoss is stronger in the lategame and while I agree that this is true to some extent, I personally play a mass ghost, planetary fortress style in the super lategame which very much so makes up for insta-warp in and splash damage in general - but is very hard to play).
|
On November 06 2012 06:16 Slipspace wrote:
i assume the TL mods just ignore this thread and let it be to let people have their fun because honestly 99% of the stuff being said in here is just ridiculous
Pretty much. I find it actually a good idea.
|
On November 06 2012 06:07 sieksdekciw wrote:
Sorry, I could not hear you guys over the stats which show that GM and Masters consistently for the past two/three seasons:
about 38-40% toss in master and gm level
about 42-40% zerg in master and gm level
about 20% terran in master and gm level
Besides, if we fight gateway armies pre-stim vs bio armies, I tell you that there should be no protoss in the world that would lose that engagement.
And gateway armies are far easier to control, zealots are basically a moved, so are stalkers, and sentries cast forcefields behind the terran army. No stutter step, no avoiding forcefields.
Everybody who has seen an sentry immortal bust knows that unless the terran should have like 10 scv's pulled, and 3/4 bunkers prepared, and will still lose some of the time. Hell, even after medivacs are out, if you get forcefielded and you don't pick up, you will die. So, I guess there should be no debate whether bio or gateway army is stronger as it is obvious that gateway army is far stronger.
That's why terran needs to be stimmed or have combat shields to strengthen their bio army. Protoss Sentries, Stalkers, immortals, and zealots would definitely over run M-M-M combination. That is if their unit count were similar, without upgrades as well.
I agree, but this isn't a balance problem in my opinion.
Pre- stim, combat shields, medivac, gateway units are obviously superior to bio armies, this is why Terran needs bunkers in the early game. But once you have upgrades and medivacs the roles are reversed and protoss actually needs splash damage to combat this army. I don't see a problem with that to be honest. Especially since the timings work out quite nicely for both races.
Why are people even discussing TvP in the first place. The matchup seems very balanced statistically and I personally enjoy playing TvP more than any other matchup, because I feel both races are very balanced. ( some might say Protoss is stronger in the lategame and while I agree that this is true to some extent, I personally play a mass ghost, planetary fortress style in the super Last edit: 2012-11-06 06:20:39
lategame which very much so makes up for insta-warp in and splash damage in general - but is very hard to play).
T vs P doesn't seem to be quite the issue Z vs T is now. And inherently, there are some weak terran units. You can actually look at the abilities and stats of weaker units of Terrans. And watching games of KOrean pros seem to re-inforce the notion that
Thors, Hellions, Reapers, Banshees are not strong balanced units at all.
As for Protoss, i don't understand the purpose of the immortal. The void ray is hardly used. THe phoenix is never out in battle. And the photon cannons are probably too expensive, cost innefficient to be used defensively.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
