|
On April 12 2013 20:51 tskarzyn wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 20:45 Chaggi wrote:On April 12 2013 20:40 tskarzyn wrote:
ZvT was broken for 12 months, with random euro/NA scrubs regularly taking games off top Koreans. How can anyone know if T is currently OP, or whether the trash just hasn't gotten cleaned out yet?
Are Stephano, Bly, and Vibe as good as some of the terrans they still take games off of?
And where are the NA/Euro terrans that are dominating with their new supposedly OP race?
Fact is, the top Korean zergs will adjust. Life has already shown how effective Muta/ling/bane can be vs widow mines and drops yet guys like Stephano still insist on building roach hydra.... For NA/Euro Terrans to dominate, there needs to be some to begin with. There were tons of EU/NA Terrans in the early days of WoL but they all quit/disappeared from the scene after Terran was nerfed into the ground. Terran has always had the highest skill ceiling, even in BW, and this is the reason that it is almost exclusively Koreans that play it at the pro level. Debating whether someone like Major is better than Vibe and so on is pointless, just look at Euro vs Korean representation.
Terran in the early days of WoL was OP. Either because of the map, or race design, they were incredibly overpowered, and it really showed on ladder. Terran has the highest mechanical skill ceiling of the 3 races, and that means you need to play lots of games to get better.
|
On April 12 2013 20:40 tskarzyn wrote:
ZvT was broken for 12 months, with random euro/NA scrubs regularly taking games off top Koreans. How can anyone know if T is currently OP, or whether the trash just hasn't gotten cleaned out yet?
Are Stephano, Bly, and Vibe as good as some of the terrans they still take games off of?
And where are the NA/Euro terrans that are dominating with their new supposedly OP race?
Fact is, the top Korean zergs will adjust. Life has already shown how effective Muta/ling/bane can be vs widow mines and drops yet guys like Stephano still insist on building roach hydra....
I think terran is back to op. Everything terran does is harder for zerg to defend like mines and drops its not impossible but harder. And mines aren fun to play against just because they are so unpredictable.
|
On April 12 2013 20:53 SlixSC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 20:40 Big J wrote:On April 12 2013 20:23 SlixSC wrote:On April 12 2013 16:25 Big J wrote:On April 12 2013 06:59 SlixSC wrote:On April 12 2013 05:41 Big J wrote:On April 12 2013 04:46 SlixSC wrote:aligulac is not very reliable. they are missing roughly 25% of all games played just in the GSL qualifiers alone. If you really want to have accurate statistics you can't just leave out 25% of all the games played in any given tournament. a) as long as the left out games are arbitrary it doesn't matter statistically b) qualifiers shouldn't be in there anyways, because everyone can participate and therefore you get many pro vs nonpro games which are won by the pro no matter what. And therefore the winrates turn out closer to 50:50 than they should be. c) I wish people would stop calling every statistic inaccurate for some reason or another. Yeah sure they are inaccurate. It's statistic. It's always going to be inaccurate to some degree. Be happy that we get stuff to work with, even if it is not perfect. You realize that I'm not just complaining but actually doing something and making more accurate statistics. And "as long as the left out games are arbitrary" is a meaningless statement, how could you possibly prove that they were left out arbitrarily. And a) is strongly contradicated by b), you understand the central limit theorem, but only apply it to a) but not to b). Which makes me think that you are heavily biased, for whatever reason. a) doesn't contradict b) The underlying assumption is that we only want pro-vs-pro games in out statistics, because pro-vs-nonpro doesn't give us any information. And if there is a set limit like "all qualifier games don't count, no matter whether it is pro or nonpro", or "your first 5games won't make it into the stats, because up to then we don't consider you a highlevel player" we still don't screw the stats. Of course it is a contradiction. Why would you ignore the central limit theorem in b) and assume that the ratio of pros to non-pros differs considerably from race to race? You are assuming that one (or even two) race(s) had better players (on average!) participate in the tournament than one (or two of the) other race(s). You would essentially have to prove that there were more amateur T players participating in the tournament than amateur P or Z players, which then skewed the results in favor of P and Z. But the basic assumption is of course that, that wasn't the case and if you want to argue that it was you actually have to go out and prove it. Im not. Im assuming that the number of pros is actually quite even. Lets say we have MU AvsB with 600-400 in favor of A in terms of progames. So balance should be considered 60-40. Now we hadd 300wins to each race from balanceirelevant pro vs nonpro games. 900-700, so suddenly the stats show 56-44. (though this is of course dependend on the player numbers of each race. But the results will most likely be screwed, either they look too 50:50 or they look too onesided) And Im not implying anything for these stats. I just want to point out that is better to not use open tournaments first rounds. Even if that was the case, the argument people make in this thread is that T>Z and T>P. When actual statistics show that T>Z (though not to the extent people think) and P>T. Even if I ignored R1 of the GSL Qualifiers this would have next to no impact on these statistics. I accept your point but I don't think I'm justified in ignoring some of the games because some of the players "aren't pro enough". It's too subjective.
And even that, GSL data isn't great, the tournament format is so different compared to other tournaments, you have time to prepare for your opponents, maps are very different, these all have a substantial effect on what win rates in tournaments can look like.
There's no best way to determine balance, and the win/rate graphs that are put out every month are for people who seem to enjoy arguing on forums rather than actually play the game.
|
On April 12 2013 20:56 Usernameffs wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 20:40 tskarzyn wrote:
ZvT was broken for 12 months, with random euro/NA scrubs regularly taking games off top Koreans. How can anyone know if T is currently OP, or whether the trash just hasn't gotten cleaned out yet?
Are Stephano, Bly, and Vibe as good as some of the terrans they still take games off of?
And where are the NA/Euro terrans that are dominating with their new supposedly OP race?
Fact is, the top Korean zergs will adjust. Life has already shown how effective Muta/ling/bane can be vs widow mines and drops yet guys like Stephano still insist on building roach hydra.... I think terran is back to op. Everything terran does is harder for zerg to defend like mines and drops its not impossible but harder. And mines aren fun to play against just because they are so unpredictable.
The first 2-3 weeks of playing in HoTS, I had a 85% win rate against Zergs in TvZ in mid masters. A huge part of that was Zergs not knowing how to react to mines, the new medivacs and simply dependence on infestor for the last 8+ months in WoL. When you have to basically play an entirely separate style, everything is going to seem OP.
|
On April 12 2013 20:57 Chaggi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 20:53 SlixSC wrote:On April 12 2013 20:40 Big J wrote:On April 12 2013 20:23 SlixSC wrote:On April 12 2013 16:25 Big J wrote:On April 12 2013 06:59 SlixSC wrote:On April 12 2013 05:41 Big J wrote:On April 12 2013 04:46 SlixSC wrote:aligulac is not very reliable. they are missing roughly 25% of all games played just in the GSL qualifiers alone. If you really want to have accurate statistics you can't just leave out 25% of all the games played in any given tournament. a) as long as the left out games are arbitrary it doesn't matter statistically b) qualifiers shouldn't be in there anyways, because everyone can participate and therefore you get many pro vs nonpro games which are won by the pro no matter what. And therefore the winrates turn out closer to 50:50 than they should be. c) I wish people would stop calling every statistic inaccurate for some reason or another. Yeah sure they are inaccurate. It's statistic. It's always going to be inaccurate to some degree. Be happy that we get stuff to work with, even if it is not perfect. You realize that I'm not just complaining but actually doing something and making more accurate statistics. And "as long as the left out games are arbitrary" is a meaningless statement, how could you possibly prove that they were left out arbitrarily. And a) is strongly contradicated by b), you understand the central limit theorem, but only apply it to a) but not to b). Which makes me think that you are heavily biased, for whatever reason. a) doesn't contradict b) The underlying assumption is that we only want pro-vs-pro games in out statistics, because pro-vs-nonpro doesn't give us any information. And if there is a set limit like "all qualifier games don't count, no matter whether it is pro or nonpro", or "your first 5games won't make it into the stats, because up to then we don't consider you a highlevel player" we still don't screw the stats. Of course it is a contradiction. Why would you ignore the central limit theorem in b) and assume that the ratio of pros to non-pros differs considerably from race to race? You are assuming that one (or even two) race(s) had better players (on average!) participate in the tournament than one (or two of the) other race(s). You would essentially have to prove that there were more amateur T players participating in the tournament than amateur P or Z players, which then skewed the results in favor of P and Z. But the basic assumption is of course that, that wasn't the case and if you want to argue that it was you actually have to go out and prove it. Im not. Im assuming that the number of pros is actually quite even. Lets say we have MU AvsB with 600-400 in favor of A in terms of progames. So balance should be considered 60-40. Now we hadd 300wins to each race from balanceirelevant pro vs nonpro games. 900-700, so suddenly the stats show 56-44. (though this is of course dependend on the player numbers of each race. But the results will most likely be screwed, either they look too 50:50 or they look too onesided) And Im not implying anything for these stats. I just want to point out that is better to not use open tournaments first rounds. Even if that was the case, the argument people make in this thread is that T>Z and T>P. When actual statistics show that T>Z (though not to the extent people think) and P>T. Even if I ignored R1 of the GSL Qualifiers this would have next to no impact on these statistics. I accept your point but I don't think I'm justified in ignoring some of the games because some of the players "aren't pro enough". It's too subjective. And even that, GSL data isn't great, the tournament format is so different compared to other tournaments, you have time to prepare for your opponents, maps are very different, these all have a substantial effect on what win rates in tournaments can look like. There's no best way to determine balance, and the win/rate graphs that are put out every month are for people who seem to enjoy arguing on forums rather than actually play the game.
I'm sorry if I gave off the impression that I think "opinions > statistics". The only thing relevant to me are statistics. accurate statistics. I couldn't give a crap about what people think about balance. it's not a metric for balance for various reasons.
such as lack of testability, inaccurate perceptions, communal reinforcement, etc
|
On April 12 2013 20:59 Chaggi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 20:56 Usernameffs wrote:On April 12 2013 20:40 tskarzyn wrote:
ZvT was broken for 12 months, with random euro/NA scrubs regularly taking games off top Koreans. How can anyone know if T is currently OP, or whether the trash just hasn't gotten cleaned out yet?
Are Stephano, Bly, and Vibe as good as some of the terrans they still take games off of?
And where are the NA/Euro terrans that are dominating with their new supposedly OP race?
Fact is, the top Korean zergs will adjust. Life has already shown how effective Muta/ling/bane can be vs widow mines and drops yet guys like Stephano still insist on building roach hydra.... I think terran is back to op. Everything terran does is harder for zerg to defend like mines and drops its not impossible but harder. And mines aren fun to play against just because they are so unpredictable. The first 2-3 weeks of playing in HoTS, I had a 85% win rate against Zergs in TvZ in mid masters. A huge part of that was Zergs not knowing how to react to mines, the new medivacs and simply dependence on infestor for the last 8+ months in WoL. When you have to basically play an entirely separate style, everything is going to seem OP.
ok i want so see what happens when terran get good at mines, you can target fire them right? So for me its the opposite. Now its like a casino if they are gonna get good hits. I don't know about a drops usually mutas can chase them down even if they have boost but hellion bat drops are really op don't know why we don't see that more.
|
On April 12 2013 21:02 SlixSC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 20:57 Chaggi wrote:On April 12 2013 20:53 SlixSC wrote:On April 12 2013 20:40 Big J wrote:On April 12 2013 20:23 SlixSC wrote:On April 12 2013 16:25 Big J wrote:On April 12 2013 06:59 SlixSC wrote:On April 12 2013 05:41 Big J wrote:On April 12 2013 04:46 SlixSC wrote:aligulac is not very reliable. they are missing roughly 25% of all games played just in the GSL qualifiers alone. If you really want to have accurate statistics you can't just leave out 25% of all the games played in any given tournament. a) as long as the left out games are arbitrary it doesn't matter statistically b) qualifiers shouldn't be in there anyways, because everyone can participate and therefore you get many pro vs nonpro games which are won by the pro no matter what. And therefore the winrates turn out closer to 50:50 than they should be. c) I wish people would stop calling every statistic inaccurate for some reason or another. Yeah sure they are inaccurate. It's statistic. It's always going to be inaccurate to some degree. Be happy that we get stuff to work with, even if it is not perfect. You realize that I'm not just complaining but actually doing something and making more accurate statistics. And "as long as the left out games are arbitrary" is a meaningless statement, how could you possibly prove that they were left out arbitrarily. And a) is strongly contradicated by b), you understand the central limit theorem, but only apply it to a) but not to b). Which makes me think that you are heavily biased, for whatever reason. a) doesn't contradict b) The underlying assumption is that we only want pro-vs-pro games in out statistics, because pro-vs-nonpro doesn't give us any information. And if there is a set limit like "all qualifier games don't count, no matter whether it is pro or nonpro", or "your first 5games won't make it into the stats, because up to then we don't consider you a highlevel player" we still don't screw the stats. Of course it is a contradiction. Why would you ignore the central limit theorem in b) and assume that the ratio of pros to non-pros differs considerably from race to race? You are assuming that one (or even two) race(s) had better players (on average!) participate in the tournament than one (or two of the) other race(s). You would essentially have to prove that there were more amateur T players participating in the tournament than amateur P or Z players, which then skewed the results in favor of P and Z. But the basic assumption is of course that, that wasn't the case and if you want to argue that it was you actually have to go out and prove it. Im not. Im assuming that the number of pros is actually quite even. Lets say we have MU AvsB with 600-400 in favor of A in terms of progames. So balance should be considered 60-40. Now we hadd 300wins to each race from balanceirelevant pro vs nonpro games. 900-700, so suddenly the stats show 56-44. (though this is of course dependend on the player numbers of each race. But the results will most likely be screwed, either they look too 50:50 or they look too onesided) And Im not implying anything for these stats. I just want to point out that is better to not use open tournaments first rounds. Even if that was the case, the argument people make in this thread is that T>Z and T>P. When actual statistics show that T>Z (though not to the extent people think) and P>T. Even if I ignored R1 of the GSL Qualifiers this would have next to no impact on these statistics. I accept your point but I don't think I'm justified in ignoring some of the games because some of the players "aren't pro enough". It's too subjective. And even that, GSL data isn't great, the tournament format is so different compared to other tournaments, you have time to prepare for your opponents, maps are very different, these all have a substantial effect on what win rates in tournaments can look like. There's no best way to determine balance, and the win/rate graphs that are put out every month are for people who seem to enjoy arguing on forums rather than actually play the game. I'm sorry if I gave off the impression that I think "opinions > statistics". The only thing relevant to me are statistics. accurate statistics. I couldn't give a crap about what people think about balance. it's not a metric for balance for various reasons.
I strongly agree, it might just be my reading is bad, been up all night studying.
I just don't think there is easy, one stop way to determine balance, and I think that's partially why no one in the community is really happy with Blizzard. There is no way Blizzard could say that Blue Flame Hellions after the MLG, or Thorzain's Thors were OP in that short of a time, just as there's no way they could've NOT seen that infestors, well they're pretty strong and stagnate the entire game. I think it's just too easy for us to look at a matchup, look at a statistic, and take our bais and be like well "X race is OP, look at the win rates!". It's just not that easy.
|
On April 12 2013 18:34 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 18:24 Duncaaaaaan wrote:
I still hate how protoss can mass up a 1A deathball and A move, and terran completely melts to it.
TvP for me is 40%, such a dumb fucking matchup. So whether it is 1a or not I dont want to discuss... But how much of a choice does P have? They dont have medivacs themself, they dont have speedlings or mutas or hellions. Against a bio T Protoss only can sit tight and mass up until they have enough to move out and leave stuf behind...
Protoss has lots of options not, especially with recall. DT drops are not as risky as people seem to think it is, especially if the game goes longer where they can be used to delay expansions and test your opponent's multi tasking.
|
On April 12 2013 21:04 Usernameffs wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 20:59 Chaggi wrote:On April 12 2013 20:56 Usernameffs wrote:On April 12 2013 20:40 tskarzyn wrote:
ZvT was broken for 12 months, with random euro/NA scrubs regularly taking games off top Koreans. How can anyone know if T is currently OP, or whether the trash just hasn't gotten cleaned out yet?
Are Stephano, Bly, and Vibe as good as some of the terrans they still take games off of?
And where are the NA/Euro terrans that are dominating with their new supposedly OP race?
Fact is, the top Korean zergs will adjust. Life has already shown how effective Muta/ling/bane can be vs widow mines and drops yet guys like Stephano still insist on building roach hydra.... I think terran is back to op. Everything terran does is harder for zerg to defend like mines and drops its not impossible but harder. And mines aren fun to play against just because they are so unpredictable. The first 2-3 weeks of playing in HoTS, I had a 85% win rate against Zergs in TvZ in mid masters. A huge part of that was Zergs not knowing how to react to mines, the new medivacs and simply dependence on infestor for the last 8+ months in WoL. When you have to basically play an entirely separate style, everything is going to seem OP. ok i want so see what happens when terran get good at mines, you can target fire them right? So for me its the opposite. Now its like a casino if they are gonna get good hits. I don't know about a drops usually mutas can chase them down even if they have boost but hellion bat drops are really op don't know why we don't see that more.
Yes, you can target them but realistically it's almost always more beneficial splitting up your units and microing them away. Mines have a 1.5 second charge time, and they can only lock on what's in their range, and you're frantically clicking at zerg units (which may or may not be in the range by the time you click on them, and especially if you have a good spread of widow mines, they literally won't target the same thing... it's just no.
And mines do have that RNG factor about them, you don't know when they're going to hit, which ones to hit, etc, but you can strongly limit it by setting off mines before battles with single lings, or infested terrans, sniping with muta + overseer... if you're just running into a mine field, you deserve to lose your army. Simple as that.
And you not knowing about drops is your play, Zerg can have pretty much full map vision with overlord spread and creep spread. That's on you getting better.
|
On April 12 2013 20:33 Usernameffs wrote:
Why don't protoss use that recall more, they can take out a base and just recall. I think they are just bad so the protoss you play are always worse then you in the league you are in.
Well protoss is worse designed race for sure, but the way 80% of protosses are playing is cause they are just bad, at least in my midd master experience. 90% of protoss i play are like 100/120 apm while all zergs and terrans i meet are around 300, me included. They dont harass at all, they only use chronoboost for upgrades, just sit and wait death ball or terran mistake.
When i play good protosses who are doing stuff with their hands, i just get smashed in the long run cause i cant handle prism harass, dt harass, fenix harass, HT flanks, etc....
Its sad but its how PvT works. U often need 1 or 2 bases more than him, u need to be ahead in upgrades, u need to have excellent decision making and micro, and u need to be aggressive. In other words, u need to be better than him ^^
|
Facing a Protoss that actually knows what they're doing, with multi templar flanks, DT+zealot harass and consistant tech switching is maybe the hardest thing to play on ladder.
|
On April 12 2013 21:09 Chaggi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 21:04 Usernameffs wrote:On April 12 2013 20:59 Chaggi wrote:On April 12 2013 20:56 Usernameffs wrote:On April 12 2013 20:40 tskarzyn wrote:
ZvT was broken for 12 months, with random euro/NA scrubs regularly taking games off top Koreans. How can anyone know if T is currently OP, or whether the trash just hasn't gotten cleaned out yet?
Are Stephano, Bly, and Vibe as good as some of the terrans they still take games off of?
And where are the NA/Euro terrans that are dominating with their new supposedly OP race?
Fact is, the top Korean zergs will adjust. Life has already shown how effective Muta/ling/bane can be vs widow mines and drops yet guys like Stephano still insist on building roach hydra.... I think terran is back to op. Everything terran does is harder for zerg to defend like mines and drops its not impossible but harder. And mines aren fun to play against just because they are so unpredictable. The first 2-3 weeks of playing in HoTS, I had a 85% win rate against Zergs in TvZ in mid masters. A huge part of that was Zergs not knowing how to react to mines, the new medivacs and simply dependence on infestor for the last 8+ months in WoL. When you have to basically play an entirely separate style, everything is going to seem OP. ok i want so see what happens when terran get good at mines, you can target fire them right? So for me its the opposite. Now its like a casino if they are gonna get good hits. I don't know about a drops usually mutas can chase them down even if they have boost but hellion bat drops are really op don't know why we don't see that more. Yes, you can target them but realistically it's almost always more beneficial splitting up your units and microing them away. Mines have a 1.5 second charge time, and they can only lock on what's in their range, and you're frantically clicking at zerg units (which may or may not be in the range by the time you click on them, and especially if you have a good spread of widow mines, they literally won't target the same thing... it's just no. And mines do have that RNG factor about them, you don't know when they're going to hit, which ones to hit, etc, but you can strongly limit it by setting off mines before battles with single lings, or infested terrans, sniping with muta + overseer... if you're just running into a mine field, you deserve to lose your army. Simple as that. And you not knowing about drops is your play, Zerg can have pretty much full map vision with overlord spread and creep spread. That's on you getting better.
I still don't know how mines work really. How they activate are it always the first ling closest to the mine that they target and stuff like that. Can a ling run right past a mine on creep?
|
On April 12 2013 21:17 Usernameffs wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 21:09 Chaggi wrote:On April 12 2013 21:04 Usernameffs wrote:On April 12 2013 20:59 Chaggi wrote:On April 12 2013 20:56 Usernameffs wrote:On April 12 2013 20:40 tskarzyn wrote:
ZvT was broken for 12 months, with random euro/NA scrubs regularly taking games off top Koreans. How can anyone know if T is currently OP, or whether the trash just hasn't gotten cleaned out yet?
Are Stephano, Bly, and Vibe as good as some of the terrans they still take games off of?
And where are the NA/Euro terrans that are dominating with their new supposedly OP race?
Fact is, the top Korean zergs will adjust. Life has already shown how effective Muta/ling/bane can be vs widow mines and drops yet guys like Stephano still insist on building roach hydra.... I think terran is back to op. Everything terran does is harder for zerg to defend like mines and drops its not impossible but harder. And mines aren fun to play against just because they are so unpredictable. The first 2-3 weeks of playing in HoTS, I had a 85% win rate against Zergs in TvZ in mid masters. A huge part of that was Zergs not knowing how to react to mines, the new medivacs and simply dependence on infestor for the last 8+ months in WoL. When you have to basically play an entirely separate style, everything is going to seem OP. ok i want so see what happens when terran get good at mines, you can target fire them right? So for me its the opposite. Now its like a casino if they are gonna get good hits. I don't know about a drops usually mutas can chase them down even if they have boost but hellion bat drops are really op don't know why we don't see that more. Yes, you can target them but realistically it's almost always more beneficial splitting up your units and microing them away. Mines have a 1.5 second charge time, and they can only lock on what's in their range, and you're frantically clicking at zerg units (which may or may not be in the range by the time you click on them, and especially if you have a good spread of widow mines, they literally won't target the same thing... it's just no. And mines do have that RNG factor about them, you don't know when they're going to hit, which ones to hit, etc, but you can strongly limit it by setting off mines before battles with single lings, or infested terrans, sniping with muta + overseer... if you're just running into a mine field, you deserve to lose your army. Simple as that. And you not knowing about drops is your play, Zerg can have pretty much full map vision with overlord spread and creep spread. That's on you getting better. Just came up with an idea they should be visible when burrowed on creep i think that good idea. And i still don't know how mines work really. How they activate are it always the first ling closest to the mine that they target and stuff like that. Can a ling run right past a mine on creep?
Sure they can. Mines aren't insta kill stuff that comes within the range, and that kinda is where the big hits come from. If you play with mines a bit, you notice that the big big hits, come when things come clumped. So when you see big baneling hits, it's cause the ling has run past the targetting, the banelings has come, and they're slower and they all die. If you run lings past a line, not that many lines will actually die. The big hits really only come when lings run in, are targetted, and then go attack something which they tend to clump up -> lots of dead zerglings.
I think the way to change the mine is to lower the radius of the splash. I truly think the worst part of mines is that it punishes a small mistake in game changing ways. It's just like how Infestors were when you'd move your marine ball slightly too close and get in range of an infestor, and then you lose everything without being able to do anything about it. Lower the radius so big hits aren't as devastating to the Zerg.
|
On April 12 2013 21:10 sage_francis wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 20:33 Usernameffs wrote:
Why don't protoss use that recall more, they can take out a base and just recall. I think they are just bad so the protoss you play are always worse then you in the league you are in. Well protoss is worse designed race for sure, but the way 80% of protosses are playing is cause they are just bad, at least in my midd master experience. 90% of protoss i play are like 100/120 apm while all zergs and terrans i meet are around 300, me included. They dont harass at all, they only use chronoboost for upgrades, just sit and wait death ball or terran mistake. When i play good protosses who are doing stuff with their hands, i just get smashed in the long run cause i cant handle prism harass, dt harass, fenix harass, HT flanks, etc.... Its sad but its how PvT works. U often need 1 or 2 bases more than him, u need to be ahead in upgrades, u need to have excellent decision making and micro, and u need to be aggressive. In other words, u need to be better than him ^^
Storm is good thats a fact its never been nerfed. Personally i don't have a big problem with just storm don't know why.
|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/sRNCtRm.png)
Made this after mlg winter. Forgot to post till now :p
User was warned for this post
|
On April 12 2013 21:24 Chaggi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 21:17 Usernameffs wrote:On April 12 2013 21:09 Chaggi wrote:On April 12 2013 21:04 Usernameffs wrote:On April 12 2013 20:59 Chaggi wrote:On April 12 2013 20:56 Usernameffs wrote:On April 12 2013 20:40 tskarzyn wrote:
ZvT was broken for 12 months, with random euro/NA scrubs regularly taking games off top Koreans. How can anyone know if T is currently OP, or whether the trash just hasn't gotten cleaned out yet?
Are Stephano, Bly, and Vibe as good as some of the terrans they still take games off of?
And where are the NA/Euro terrans that are dominating with their new supposedly OP race?
Fact is, the top Korean zergs will adjust. Life has already shown how effective Muta/ling/bane can be vs widow mines and drops yet guys like Stephano still insist on building roach hydra.... I think terran is back to op. Everything terran does is harder for zerg to defend like mines and drops its not impossible but harder. And mines aren fun to play against just because they are so unpredictable. The first 2-3 weeks of playing in HoTS, I had a 85% win rate against Zergs in TvZ in mid masters. A huge part of that was Zergs not knowing how to react to mines, the new medivacs and simply dependence on infestor for the last 8+ months in WoL. When you have to basically play an entirely separate style, everything is going to seem OP. ok i want so see what happens when terran get good at mines, you can target fire them right? So for me its the opposite. Now its like a casino if they are gonna get good hits. I don't know about a drops usually mutas can chase them down even if they have boost but hellion bat drops are really op don't know why we don't see that more. Yes, you can target them but realistically it's almost always more beneficial splitting up your units and microing them away. Mines have a 1.5 second charge time, and they can only lock on what's in their range, and you're frantically clicking at zerg units (which may or may not be in the range by the time you click on them, and especially if you have a good spread of widow mines, they literally won't target the same thing... it's just no. And mines do have that RNG factor about them, you don't know when they're going to hit, which ones to hit, etc, but you can strongly limit it by setting off mines before battles with single lings, or infested terrans, sniping with muta + overseer... if you're just running into a mine field, you deserve to lose your army. Simple as that. And you not knowing about drops is your play, Zerg can have pretty much full map vision with overlord spread and creep spread. That's on you getting better. Just came up with an idea they should be visible when burrowed on creep i think that good idea. And i still don't know how mines work really. How they activate are it always the first ling closest to the mine that they target and stuff like that. Can a ling run right past a mine on creep? Sure they can. Mines aren't insta kill stuff that comes within the range, and that kinda is where the big hits come from. If you play with mines a bit, you notice that the big big hits, come when things come clumped. So when you see big baneling hits, it's cause the ling has run past the targetting, the banelings has come, and they're slower and they all die. If you run lings past a line, not that many lines will actually die. The big hits really only come when lings run in, are targetted, and then go attack something which they tend to clump up -> lots of dead zerglings. I think the way to change the mine is to lower the radius of the splash. I truly think the worst part of mines is that it punishes a small mistake in game changing ways. It's just like how Infestors were when you'd move your marine ball slightly too close and get in range of an infestor, and then you lose everything without being able to do anything about it. Lower the radius so big hits aren't as devastating to the Zerg.
The creep mine burrow thing was a bad idea.
|
mines should just die after exploding like real mines do. Sc2 mines are more like defensive/offensive turrets. Its a nonsense to call it "mine".
I think real mines should be landed by helions, remove blue flame, remove this silly, bad design and redondant unit that is hellbat.
|
On April 12 2013 21:30 Usernameffs wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 21:24 Chaggi wrote:On April 12 2013 21:17 Usernameffs wrote:On April 12 2013 21:09 Chaggi wrote:On April 12 2013 21:04 Usernameffs wrote:On April 12 2013 20:59 Chaggi wrote:On April 12 2013 20:56 Usernameffs wrote:On April 12 2013 20:40 tskarzyn wrote:
ZvT was broken for 12 months, with random euro/NA scrubs regularly taking games off top Koreans. How can anyone know if T is currently OP, or whether the trash just hasn't gotten cleaned out yet?
Are Stephano, Bly, and Vibe as good as some of the terrans they still take games off of?
And where are the NA/Euro terrans that are dominating with their new supposedly OP race?
Fact is, the top Korean zergs will adjust. Life has already shown how effective Muta/ling/bane can be vs widow mines and drops yet guys like Stephano still insist on building roach hydra.... I think terran is back to op. Everything terran does is harder for zerg to defend like mines and drops its not impossible but harder. And mines aren fun to play against just because they are so unpredictable. The first 2-3 weeks of playing in HoTS, I had a 85% win rate against Zergs in TvZ in mid masters. A huge part of that was Zergs not knowing how to react to mines, the new medivacs and simply dependence on infestor for the last 8+ months in WoL. When you have to basically play an entirely separate style, everything is going to seem OP. ok i want so see what happens when terran get good at mines, you can target fire them right? So for me its the opposite. Now its like a casino if they are gonna get good hits. I don't know about a drops usually mutas can chase them down even if they have boost but hellion bat drops are really op don't know why we don't see that more. Yes, you can target them but realistically it's almost always more beneficial splitting up your units and microing them away. Mines have a 1.5 second charge time, and they can only lock on what's in their range, and you're frantically clicking at zerg units (which may or may not be in the range by the time you click on them, and especially if you have a good spread of widow mines, they literally won't target the same thing... it's just no. And mines do have that RNG factor about them, you don't know when they're going to hit, which ones to hit, etc, but you can strongly limit it by setting off mines before battles with single lings, or infested terrans, sniping with muta + overseer... if you're just running into a mine field, you deserve to lose your army. Simple as that. And you not knowing about drops is your play, Zerg can have pretty much full map vision with overlord spread and creep spread. That's on you getting better. Just came up with an idea they should be visible when burrowed on creep i think that good idea. And i still don't know how mines work really. How they activate are it always the first ling closest to the mine that they target and stuff like that. Can a ling run right past a mine on creep? Sure they can. Mines aren't insta kill stuff that comes within the range, and that kinda is where the big hits come from. If you play with mines a bit, you notice that the big big hits, come when things come clumped. So when you see big baneling hits, it's cause the ling has run past the targetting, the banelings has come, and they're slower and they all die. If you run lings past a line, not that many lines will actually die. The big hits really only come when lings run in, are targetted, and then go attack something which they tend to clump up -> lots of dead zerglings. I think the way to change the mine is to lower the radius of the splash. I truly think the worst part of mines is that it punishes a small mistake in game changing ways. It's just like how Infestors were when you'd move your marine ball slightly too close and get in range of an infestor, and then you lose everything without being able to do anything about it. Lower the radius so big hits aren't as devastating to the Zerg. The creep mine burrow thing was a bad idea.
It's not horrible but that doesn't solve the problem. Imagine if you can see them, zerglings go run, attack, and surround. And then you lose all of them cause they clump up and just die
|
On April 12 2013 21:31 sage_francis wrote:
mines should just die after exploding like real mines do. Sc2 mines are more like defensive/offensive turrets. Its a nonsense to call it "mine".
I think real mines should be landed by helions, remove blue flame, remove this silly, bad design and redondant unit that is hellbat.
THe first idea was really good.
|
On April 12 2013 21:31 sage_francis wrote:
mines should just die after exploding like real mines do. Sc2 mines are more like defensive/offensive turrets. Its a nonsense to call it "mine".
I think real mines should be landed by helions, remove blue flame, remove this silly, bad design and redondant unit that is hellbat.
Instead of making hellions shoot fire, they should shoot small grenades and should be able to move while firing. And the Thor should just be smaller and let it have a single target AA attack with something like a machine gun! Oh and Ravens instead of Missiles, should just have Irradiate, man imagine if the metagame shifts to a 2 Raven opener, casting irradiate on each other and killing all the workers!
This isn't BW, and it seems very clear that Blizzard does not want to take many designs from that game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
