|
On November 08 2012 09:05 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 08:30 President Dead wrote:
Not killing a Zerg before 200 supply implies you must all-in.
This is a defeatist attitude which negates the idea of possibility in ones game. If you can stop worrying so much about a result, it's actually really fun opening and expanding your mind creatively to get the upper hand.
I think you guys even know it's completely wrong, as you're not dumb, but feel frustrated and thus causes you to fall into a confined box of thought?
Stop conducting naive psychoanalysis. None of us are telling you that killing a Zerg before 200/200 = all-in
"Shiori November 08 2012 08:22. Posts 2427 PM Profile Quote #
Oh I'm sorry. I wasn't aware that competitive matchups are supposed to boil down to one all-in every game."
And don't tell em what to do. For all the complaining I haven't heard one solid, non-contradicting point.
|
I don't why there are so many people asking fungal being changed from a root to a slow. It still wouldn't change the fact that fungal is a large aoe root/slow spell that does dot damage. Zerg would still be massing infestor with unlimited IT and broodlords would still be untouchable. There is literally no downside to using fungal, considering its utility is just unmatched offensively and defensively. Fungal should just be removed from the game or changed to the point where it is either costly and/or risky to use a fungal.
|
On November 08 2012 09:49 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 09:28 Entirety wrote:On November 08 2012 09:20 VanGarde wrote:On November 08 2012 09:10 TheRabidDeer wrote:
mutalisks will lose to in a direct confrontation.
So my proposal is this: Broodlords morph from mutalisks instead of corruptors.
I think your solution is wrong, but your analysis is correct. I agree that corruptors is a big part of the problem in TvZ. In fact if the zerg lategame was broodlord/infestor then things would be very different. The issue is that while you can make all the vikings you want, the zerg can match you on corruptor count and still have enough infestors to fungal and infested terran. I find that the mass corruptor count is what screws me over every single time in the lategame tvz because even if I transition to air in time for the broodlord switch, competent zergs will just make infinity corruptors and then just enough broodlords to deal the damage because they know that with infestor/broodlord blocking all pathing the broodlords can only be attacked from the air, so it doesn't matter if you just have 6 broodlords and the rest in corruptors because Terran can't just abose the overcommitment to air and go marine. What if Corruptors were changed to do less damage with a generous helping of +damage against Massive? Essentially, this would allow the Corruptor to take out Carriers, Battlecruisers, and Colossi, but they would do FAR less damage against Vikings, Phoenix, Void Rays. Then, we could see Protoss incorporating Void Rays to help fight the Corruptors and we could see Terran utilizing their Vikings to ward off Corruptors as well. That would still make Carriers and Battlecruisers nearly obsolete against zerg. T and P players want air armies to be viable in this game, which means you need to have a core component that cannot be straight-up countered.
If a race cannot counter(or get equal with) a unit/composition, then there is a win condition in the game (like BL/Inf/Cor vs Protoss right now). Then games will come down to preventing that wincondition from happening, while the other player just turtles. Or it comes down to baseracing. Two stupid alternatives...
To the original idea... The corruptor is fine. Boring as hell, but fine balancewise. Voidrays break even against them or even beat them, Vikings do very well against them and can kite/run easily to locations where they have ground to airsupport, if they are not in sufficient numbers available.
The mere problem is, that Infestors ground to air support is way to strong. ITs are like stimmed marines - a unit that destroys every Air unit but the BC and the BL. Fungal prevents you from running, and wins the game if you clump just once while hitting ground and air units alike with it's splash.
+ Show Spoiler +The game as a core problem balancing air unit's stats with ground units stats. Air units stats are just way weaker, which renders most of them unavailable when the opponent has antiair. The only really available air units, are mutalisks, broodlords, medivacs, vikings and banshees.
Mutas and banshees are available because they are not combat units and therefore it doesn't matter as much that their stats are kind of bad.
Broodlords are available, because zerg can build huge amounts of them at once to overcome the volatile transitioning phase + long range helps a ton.
Vikings are available because they have long enough range and enough mobility, that they usually can be protected from ground to air while they are in combat + they nearly always find air to air targets, or at least increase the siege range.
Medivacs...
All the others? Void rays, BCs, Carriers are engagement units, that even on paper only pay off if you have a ton of them. They get destroyed because ground to air just overwhelms them before they kick off, or in the case of the carrier... everything just overwhelms it. Phoenix is semiviable, because it's an harassment unit... but it is really easy to shut down by fungal, blink, marines and statics. Corruptors are only viable if your opponent goes heavy into air, before that, they are a joke as they lack mobility to combat anything. Ravens are crap, unless your opponent has a ton of slow units and you a ton of time/ressources to build an expensive unit that does essentially what Tank and Thor do, just a bit better.
|
On November 08 2012 13:41 President Dead wrote:
And don't tell em what to do. For all the complaining I haven't heard one solid, non-contradicting point.
Stop being that guy who says "prove it, prove it, prove it, prove it" to everything, but ignores the responses. For all your (rhetorical) questions, it's obvious that nobody is going to be able to give an answer you'll be happy with.
On topic: pretty much everything that can be said has been said, but i think it would be a good idea to test fungals that can't hit air, with improved hydralisks to fill the role.
|
Russian Federation221 Posts
SC2 as eSport is broken.
Let’s see at finalists of last five CodeS tournaments.
Life MVP
Seed MC
MVP Squirtle
DRG Genius
Jiakji Leenok
5 different winers and 5 different runner-ups. Only MVP managed to reach finals twice.
SC2 is a game where there is a lof of random and skill mean little.
So all talks about Colossus, sentrie, infestors and others being imba are pointless until mechanics of the game allow skill prevail over random.
|
On November 08 2012 13:41 President Dead wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 09:05 Shiori wrote:On November 08 2012 08:30 President Dead wrote:
Not killing a Zerg before 200 supply implies you must all-in.
This is a defeatist attitude which negates the idea of possibility in ones game. If you can stop worrying so much about a result, it's actually really fun opening and expanding your mind creatively to get the upper hand.
I think you guys even know it's completely wrong, as you're not dumb, but feel frustrated and thus causes you to fall into a confined box of thought?
Stop conducting naive psychoanalysis. None of us are telling you that killing a Zerg before 200/200 = all-in "Shiori November 08 2012 08:22. Posts 2427 PM Profile Quote # Oh I'm sorry. I wasn't aware that competitive matchups are supposed to boil down to one all-in every game." And don't tell em what to do. For all the complaining I haven't heard one solid, non-contradicting point.
Did you actually just cut off a quote in the middle of a sentence to make it seem like I was saying something I didn't? Get the fuck out, please.
|
There was a time when T were saying that it was impossible to win against P if the P got to 200/200 and you had to all in every game. People started to figure it out. Everyone needs to calm down for a while
|
On November 09 2012 00:55 arfyron wrote:
There was a time when T were saying that it was impossible to win against P if the P got to 200/200 and you had to all in every game. People started to figure it out. Everyone needs to calm down for a while
Except even when people were saying P was hard to beat 200/200, Taeja and others were still destroying lategame toss armies. Which meant that while it was really really hard, it was clearly possible because Taeja would always seem to win those battles over and over again. However, with TvZ and PvZ, no one has ever been consistently beating BL/infestor armies. It doesn't matter whether it is taeja v some mediocre foreign zerg, he would usually get destroyed by a BL/infestor army still. The only difference is, he would be better at hitting timings or allins to prevent the ultimate army from happening.
|
On November 08 2012 13:47 KamikazeDurrrp wrote:
I don't why there are so many people asking fungal being changed from a root to a slow. It still wouldn't change the fact that fungal is a large aoe root/slow spell that does dot damage. Zerg would still be massing infestor with unlimited IT and broodlords would still be untouchable. There is literally no downside to using fungal, considering its utility is just unmatched offensively and defensively. Fungal should just be removed from the game or changed to the point where it is either costly and/or risky to use a fungal.
Changing to a slow instead of a root would actually be a huge nerf. One good fungal on a clump of units means you can follow up with chain fungals to guarantee kills. Fungal growth itself actually has terrible (as in shitty) damage (30) compared to other AOE spells like Psi Storm that does 80 damage. So it really does have a downside. By changing it to a slow, players can spread their units out while being FG'd which either allow more of their units to survive, or force the Zerg to use a lot more energy. It also means that air units such as void rays and medivacs that get fungaled can still escape if there is enough air space at the edge the map.
|
On November 09 2012 03:19 ckcornflake wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 13:47 KamikazeDurrrp wrote:
I don't why there are so many people asking fungal being changed from a root to a slow. It still wouldn't change the fact that fungal is a large aoe root/slow spell that does dot damage. Zerg would still be massing infestor with unlimited IT and broodlords would still be untouchable. There is literally no downside to using fungal, considering its utility is just unmatched offensively and defensively. Fungal should just be removed from the game or changed to the point where it is either costly and/or risky to use a fungal. Changing to a slow instead of a root would actually be a huge nerf. One good fungal on a clump of units means you can follow up with chain fungals to guarantee kills. Fungal growth itself actually has terrible (as in shitty) damage (30) compared to other AOE spells like Psi Storm that does 80 damage.
Only on paper. People don't bath in Storms, so they don't take 80 damage because they don't stay in the AoE. People are forced to bath in Fungals if Infestors have enough energy, so they do take more than 30/40 damage. In the end I'm fairly sure than an average Storm deals much less damage than a Fungal Growth because of the lesser radius and the possibility to dodge the spell.
|
On November 09 2012 03:19 ckcornflake wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 13:47 KamikazeDurrrp wrote:
I don't why there are so many people asking fungal being changed from a root to a slow. It still wouldn't change the fact that fungal is a large aoe root/slow spell that does dot damage. Zerg would still be massing infestor with unlimited IT and broodlords would still be untouchable. There is literally no downside to using fungal, considering its utility is just unmatched offensively and defensively. Fungal should just be removed from the game or changed to the point where it is either costly and/or risky to use a fungal. Changing to a slow instead of a root would actually be a huge nerf. One good fungal on a clump of units means you can follow up with chain fungals to guarantee kills. Fungal growth itself actually has terrible (as in shitty) damage (30) compared to other AOE spells like Psi Storm that does 80 damage. So it really does have a downside. By changing it to a slow, players can spread their units out while being FG'd which either allow more of their units to survive, or force the Zerg to use a lot more energy. It also means that air units such as void rays and medivacs that get fungaled can still escape if there is enough air space at the edge the map.
You also have to take into consideration when comparing Fungal vs. Storm is that Fungal is very click effective. Point, click, guarenteed 30/40 dmg to that unit. Storm has a delay, HTs are slow and Storm range is more limited than you think, the cast has a delay too, so the effective damage is usually 0-40. One has root, guarenteed damage, can be used right out of the box. The other has inconsistent damage, cannot be used right then, needs to be researched. Notice the imbalance now? Infestor is far and away the best caster of the 3.
|
On November 09 2012 00:55 arfyron wrote:
There was a time when T were saying that it was impossible to win against P if the P got to 200/200 and you had to all in every game. People started to figure it out. Everyone needs to calm down for a while
Still impossible for me lol
|
On November 09 2012 00:36 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 13:41 President Dead wrote:On November 08 2012 09:05 Shiori wrote:On November 08 2012 08:30 President Dead wrote:
Not killing a Zerg before 200 supply implies you must all-in.
This is a defeatist attitude which negates the idea of possibility in ones game. If you can stop worrying so much about a result, it's actually really fun opening and expanding your mind creatively to get the upper hand.
I think you guys even know it's completely wrong, as you're not dumb, but feel frustrated and thus causes you to fall into a confined box of thought?
Stop conducting naive psychoanalysis. None of us are telling you that killing a Zerg before 200/200 = all-in "Shiori November 08 2012 08:22. Posts 2427 PM Profile Quote # Oh I'm sorry. I wasn't aware that competitive matchups are supposed to boil down to one all-in every game." And don't tell em what to do. For all the complaining I haven't heard one solid, non-contradicting point. Did you actually just cut off a quote in the middle of a sentence to make it seem like I was saying something I didn't? Get the fuck out, please.
That is not nice. It is very clear what you wrote. If you dont mean something you shouldnt say it so there is no confusion. You telling and swearing at me to leave when I am just trying to enlighten the conversation is in poor tatse and not conducive to the conversation. I ask not to be sworn at and please reply with something substantial.
Also, the idea of rhetorical questions and demanding "proof" is very valid. If someone has a mathematically consistent point, then there is no way I can counter argue it. As far as I know, Blizzard are the professionals and have worked very hard and doing a good job with balance.
|
On November 09 2012 09:50 President Dead wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2012 00:36 Shiori wrote:On November 08 2012 13:41 President Dead wrote:On November 08 2012 09:05 Shiori wrote:On November 08 2012 08:30 President Dead wrote:
Not killing a Zerg before 200 supply implies you must all-in.
This is a defeatist attitude which negates the idea of possibility in ones game. If you can stop worrying so much about a result, it's actually really fun opening and expanding your mind creatively to get the upper hand.
I think you guys even know it's completely wrong, as you're not dumb, but feel frustrated and thus causes you to fall into a confined box of thought?
Stop conducting naive psychoanalysis. None of us are telling you that killing a Zerg before 200/200 = all-in "Shiori November 08 2012 08:22. Posts 2427 PM Profile Quote # Oh I'm sorry. I wasn't aware that competitive matchups are supposed to boil down to one all-in every game." And don't tell em what to do. For all the complaining I haven't heard one solid, non-contradicting point. Did you actually just cut off a quote in the middle of a sentence to make it seem like I was saying something I didn't? Get the fuck out, please. That is not nice. It is very clear what you wrote. If you dont mean something you shouldnt say it so there is no confusion. You telling and swearing at me to leave when I am just trying to enlighten the conversation is in poor tatse and not conducive to the conversation. I ask not to be sworn at and please reply with something substantial. Also, the idea of rhetorical questions and demanding "proof" is very valid. If someone has a mathematically consistent point, then there is no way I can counter argue it. As far as I know, Blizzard are the professionals and have worked very hard and doing a good job with balance.
The problem is that your posts have literally no content, with the possible exception of your statistics from back in 2011. Rhetorical questions are a language device and contribute nothing to an actual discussion.
As for mathematical consistency... balance is completely subjective. Going into a subjective discussion and asking for mathematical evidence is pointless when any numbers can and will be interpreted subjectively. Pointing out that a subjective discussion is subjective, as you're constantly doing as though it's some kind of evidence against points being raised, is redundant.
|
I've always thought that both Storm's and Fungal's damage should be reduced by the armor level the opponent has. Something like -3 damage per level would be really nice. It would prevent Marines from pretty much dying instantly to Storm/Fungal and make it more forgiving on the Terran in those large 200/200 battles.
Or maybe an alternative solution is place a cool down on both the spells so each player can cast one Storm or Fungal every 2-3 seconds. Blanket storms and Fungals would not exist and the player would need more precision and accuracy to use one.
Either way though, Fungal's radius should be reduced slightly.
|
So even the GSL pros accept the fact that zerg is the strongest race and no one picked a zerg as opponent as long as there was a toss/terran avaliable? (read it on another thread, haven't checked myself)
|
"Although better mechanics are also important, I think Zerg's Broodlord and Infestor army is too strong. I don't know about ZvT, but in some maps they are way too strong in ZvP. Daybreak is a good example. Even though I am a big whiner for Zerg, I honestly think this composition is imbalanced. Solutions for this strategy should come out pretty soon though." - Nestea
Even the Zergs seems to agree to BL/Infestor actually being OP right now. Would be interesting to here Blizzard give some kind of statement regarding the current balance-situation.
Source/Interview from here
|
On November 09 2012 09:50 President Dead wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2012 00:36 Shiori wrote:On November 08 2012 13:41 President Dead wrote:On November 08 2012 09:05 Shiori wrote:On November 08 2012 08:30 President Dead wrote:
Not killing a Zerg before 200 supply implies you must all-in.
This is a defeatist attitude which negates the idea of possibility in ones game. If you can stop worrying so much about a result, it's actually really fun opening and expanding your mind creatively to get the upper hand.
I think you guys even know it's completely wrong, as you're not dumb, but feel frustrated and thus causes you to fall into a confined box of thought?
Stop conducting naive psychoanalysis. None of us are telling you that killing a Zerg before 200/200 = all-in "Shiori November 08 2012 08:22. Posts 2427 PM Profile Quote # Oh I'm sorry. I wasn't aware that competitive matchups are supposed to boil down to one all-in every game." And don't tell em what to do. For all the complaining I haven't heard one solid, non-contradicting point. Did you actually just cut off a quote in the middle of a sentence to make it seem like I was saying something I didn't? Get the fuck out, please. That is not nice. It is very clear what you wrote.
Apparently it isn't. I said that none of us are telling you that killing a Zerg before 200/200 is an all-in because of our biases. Not that it isn't an all-in. I said that the reason we're telling you that has nothing to do with our own personal biases. I understand the ambiguity, but seeing as how there wasn't a period or semicolon...
|
Let's swing a little away from BL-Inf, it should be pretty much obvious for now to even Blizzard that it's too strong. Even the solution is sort of outlined, slow instead of rooting units.
Since the start major changes took place and in the current situation terran seems to be the weakest race (the irony  ). As far as I know, the dramatic decline both in terran ladder presence and tournament placements started since the Queen buff, which was in Patch 1.4.3. (Of course effects added up with the previous terran nerfs.)
Unfortunately I don't play a lot because I'm more of a watcher, which is why I'm pretty bad, but because I watch a lot of pro games I'm quite up-to-date with the current metagame and strategies.
So, as of the Queen buff, suddenly all terran pressure builds and timings started not to work anymore and terrans more and more struggled against zerg which is where we are at the moment. Catching some matches last MLG, it just amazed me how hopeless terrans looked against zerg creep spread. If you remember Scarlett vs Bomber, zerg creep was nearly at the terrans third all of the matches like at 10-12 minutes, I don't remember exactly, but it was so insane, Bomber could hardly move out or take a third, and only managed to take off one game of Scarlett, and even that was because Scarlett screwed up big time.
So I was wondering, what if Queens could only use their buffed ground range after Lair? Would this help a little bit for terrans, what do you think? I guess this would mean that hellions could deny creep and reactor hellion would be useful again until the zerg gets Lair. I guess this would delay at least creep spread, which would help terrans moving out.
|
121 Posts
Since the start major changes took place and in the current situation terran seems to be the weakest race (the irony ). As far as I know, the dramatic decline both in terran ladder presence and tournament placements started since the Queen buff, which was in Patch 1.4.3. (Of course effects added up with the previous terran nerfs.)
How do you figure that? Protoss is the race with the least representation in GSL..
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
