|
On May 09 2013 01:43 Morlock wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Seems pretty clear to me that Protoss can't go the long haul in terms of the meta-game.
Oracle is just a bit of early game cheese and after it gets shut down they're good for nothing but reveal. Any half-competent Zerg or Terran will have 1 or 2 missile turrets per expansion in the late game, so they're not viable harassment units.
Protoss still doesn't have effective harassment that works in the late game. Zealots are simply laughable compared with medivacs and mutas.
Terran is ridiculously overpowered in every way. They simply have a cheek giving Terran this many new capabilities after the emergency supply depots, supply depots that they can lift, flying command centres that you can recycle, bunkers they can refund, and the simplest unit composition in the game.
One gets the impression more and more than Terran is a race designed for X-Box kiddies who think they're soldiers...and that is the only thing holding them back.
Protoss is dead to me and I'm no longer playing them.
+ Show Spoiler +Well, considering that Terran gets so many luxuries that they don't need...from emergency supply depots to command centres that they can recycle to bunkers that they can salvage...you can understand why people are seething that Terran is once again the race with all the perks.
Frankly, David Kim doesn't know what he's doing. How does losing all your units to widow mines increase the enjoyment of the game?
Terran should have to work for their widow mines and they should have to target manually...rather like Zerg has to do with their own baneling mines. And to make things fair, Protoss should be given a mine of their own -- preferably on the oracle.
Ok, we get it... You're mad because you can't play toss well...
But you know, the pros-toss  (e.g. the people the game is designed for) are doing fine...
So if you could stop whinning and polluting this tread, it would be cool!
EDIT; and to answer about all the perks terran got:
-lifting OC, and salvage bunkers because Terran static defense cost supply (need to fill those bunkers)
-call down supply because terran macro is so unforgivable
-ez mines (this is a lie btw ) because microing a terran army and multitasking accordingly is harder than convice your the community than terran is not op :p
|
Complaining about lift and salvage. Lol.
|
On May 09 2013 03:39 HellNino wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 01:43 Morlock wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Seems pretty clear to me that Protoss can't go the long haul in terms of the meta-game.
Oracle is just a bit of early game cheese and after it gets shut down they're good for nothing but reveal. Any half-competent Zerg or Terran will have 1 or 2 missile turrets per expansion in the late game, so they're not viable harassment units.
Protoss still doesn't have effective harassment that works in the late game. Zealots are simply laughable compared with medivacs and mutas.
Terran is ridiculously overpowered in every way. They simply have a cheek giving Terran this many new capabilities after the emergency supply depots, supply depots that they can lift, flying command centres that you can recycle, bunkers they can refund, and the simplest unit composition in the game.
One gets the impression more and more than Terran is a race designed for X-Box kiddies who think they're soldiers...and that is the only thing holding them back.
Protoss is dead to me and I'm no longer playing them. + Show Spoiler +Well, considering that Terran gets so many luxuries that they don't need...from emergency supply depots to command centres that they can recycle to bunkers that they can salvage...you can understand why people are seething that Terran is once again the race with all the perks.
Frankly, David Kim doesn't know what he's doing. How does losing all your units to widow mines increase the enjoyment of the game?
Terran should have to work for their widow mines and they should have to target manually...rather like Zerg has to do with their own baneling mines. And to make things fair, Protoss should be given a mine of their own -- preferably on the oracle. Ok, we get it... You're mad because you can't play toss well... But you know, the pros-toss (e.g. the people the game is designed for) are doing fine... So if you could stop whinning and polluting this tread, it would be cool! EDIT; and to answer about all the perks terran got: -lifting OC, and salvage bunkers because Terran static defense cost supply (need to fill those bunkers) -call down supply because terran macro is so unforgivable -ez mines (this is a lie btw ) because microing a terran army and multitasking accordingly is harder than convice your the community than terran is not op :p
Im not agreeing with you or the guy your arguing too but....calling terran macro unforgivable?!?......lol...you do realize terran has the only macro ability that is stackable
|
On May 09 2013 03:50 SuperYo1000 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 03:39 HellNino wrote:On May 09 2013 01:43 Morlock wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Seems pretty clear to me that Protoss can't go the long haul in terms of the meta-game.
Oracle is just a bit of early game cheese and after it gets shut down they're good for nothing but reveal. Any half-competent Zerg or Terran will have 1 or 2 missile turrets per expansion in the late game, so they're not viable harassment units.
Protoss still doesn't have effective harassment that works in the late game. Zealots are simply laughable compared with medivacs and mutas.
Terran is ridiculously overpowered in every way. They simply have a cheek giving Terran this many new capabilities after the emergency supply depots, supply depots that they can lift, flying command centres that you can recycle, bunkers they can refund, and the simplest unit composition in the game.
One gets the impression more and more than Terran is a race designed for X-Box kiddies who think they're soldiers...and that is the only thing holding them back.
Protoss is dead to me and I'm no longer playing them. + Show Spoiler +Well, considering that Terran gets so many luxuries that they don't need...from emergency supply depots to command centres that they can recycle to bunkers that they can salvage...you can understand why people are seething that Terran is once again the race with all the perks.
Frankly, David Kim doesn't know what he's doing. How does losing all your units to widow mines increase the enjoyment of the game?
Terran should have to work for their widow mines and they should have to target manually...rather like Zerg has to do with their own baneling mines. And to make things fair, Protoss should be given a mine of their own -- preferably on the oracle. Ok, we get it... You're mad because you can't play toss well... But you know, the pros-toss (e.g. the people the game is designed for) are doing fine... So if you could stop whinning and polluting this tread, it would be cool! EDIT; and to answer about all the perks terran got: -lifting OC, and salvage bunkers because Terran static defense cost supply (need to fill those bunkers) -call down supply because terran macro is so unforgivable -ez mines (this is a lie btw ) because microing a terran army and multitasking accordingly is harder than convice your the community than terran is not op :p Im not agreeing with you or the guy your arguing too but....calling terran macro unforgivable?!?......lol...you do realize terran has the only macro ability that is stackable
You do know that Terran macro is more than spamming MULEs and typing /dance right? If you're going to have a discussion about other races and balance, at least learn the basics.
|
rather like Zerg has to do with their own baneling mines.
That would be so handy for early game defense, having the same tools as baneling mines: So being able to choose between autocast and manual cast, without them always attacking that poke-ling/roach. But I guess despite the result the writer didn't actually want to boost them.
Seriously that baneling mines can be autocasted must be about the least known fact in SC2.
Btw if we are talking about the standard gameplay differences, another downside of terran is that you can stop buildings from building by killing the SCV. And buildings burning down might sound like a small thing, and okay it is a small thing, but having them autoregenerate would be handy too (on the other hand, we can mass repair).
@Superyo, But if supply blocked it takes most work for terran to undo it. And calling down supply depots costs you around 170 minerals or so, it is nice in emergencies, but not something you should plan to use.
|
On May 09 2013 01:26 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 00:43 Graven wrote:
The skill required to stop bio-mine with muta-ling-bling is higher than the skill to perform bio-mine well Where is your evidence for that?
Perhaps my wording invited a flame war, but that wasn't my intention. As everyone can see, pro-Zergs are doing great on the pro-scene right now. The juxiposition of pro-Zerg performance to non-pro-Zerg performance is what I'm pointing to. Mistakes with a Muta-ling-bling army are very unforgiving when facing bio-mine, and at non-pro levels, mistakes are numorous for both sides. At non-pro levels of play (myself included), the skill gap is very obvious.
Using myself as an example, my winrate vs. Terrans is roughly 30 percent, while my overall win-rate, including Terrans, is roughly 60 percent, with my winrate vs. other Zergs being my best matchup. Lately, as I've mentioned, I've been going Roach-Hydra as an alternative; and while that does great against mines, it does awful again drops. So either I invest in a bunch of Muta's that have no value outside stopping drops and go with the risky approach of ling-bling or I take the safer approach of Roach-Hydra and hope I can survive the drops. Either way it's a gamble and the core reason why you see the Zerg QQ right now.
|
On May 09 2013 03:38 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 03:33 Morlock wrote:On May 09 2013 02:58 Glorfindel! wrote:
In all seriousness, we had a Zerg winning MLG, we had a Zerg winning Dreamhack and we have Zerg as the most represanted race in GSL Top16 (and 8?) so I find it extremly funny Zerg claiming T to be OP ATM ^^ Well, considering that Terran gets so many luxuries that they don't need...from emergency supply depots to command centres that they can recycle to bunkers that they can salvage...you can understand why people are seething that Terran is once again the race with all the perks. Frankly, David Kim doesn't know what he's doing. How does losing all your units to widow mines increase the enjoyment of the game?Terran should have to work for their widow mines and they should have to target manually...rather like Zerg has to do with their own baneling mines. And to make things fair, Protoss should be given a mine of their own -- preferably on the oracle. Let me rephrase the bolder part: How does losing your units increase the enjoyment of the game? It doesn't matter if you lose them to WM or marines or BC. You lose. And people hate losing (unless you give them achievements for it.)
Yes, everyone should be a winner. ^^
Honestly though, I've wondered why Blizzard never realized this and why they did not add at least a few serious game modes that are more cooperative instead of zero sum. In my opinion everything that's wrong with the game can be traced back to Blizzard's intention to make the 'starcraft experience: now you too can smash zergs with a mass carrier army' accessible in competitive play for all skill levels. Surprise, casual players still don't like it and now the game is in a weird middle of the road state that's bad for competitive play. They should have allowed the playerbase to experience all of these moments in different game modes.
I guess they figured that everything would work out on its own with the arcade system.
(I'm sick, sorry if this doesn't make sense :o )
|
@Graven, but that is exactly the position terran has been in for a long time? A few Korean terrans doing awesome micro, while for 'normal' terrans the idea was generally to kill the opponent as quickly as possible, because otherwise your micro would get overtaxed.
Specifically for your ling/bling example. Yes a single mistake can be a huge problem. But exactly the same is true for the terran army. You are on the zergs side of the map, at which point you get supply blocked and really need 2 more rax. So you make them, the zerg attacks, gg, you just lost your entire army to banelings.
|
On May 09 2013 03:58 Graven wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 01:26 TheDwf wrote:On May 09 2013 00:43 Graven wrote:
The skill required to stop bio-mine with muta-ling-bling is higher than the skill to perform bio-mine well Where is your evidence for that? Perhaps my wording invited a flame war, but that wasn't my intention. As everyone can see, pro-Zergs are doing great on the pro-scene right now. The juxiposition of pro-Zerg performance to non-pro-Zerg performance is what I'm pointing to. Mistakes with a Muta-ling-bling army are very unforgiving when facing bio-mine, and at non-pro levels, mistakes are numorous for both sides. At non-pro levels of play (myself included), the skill gap is very obvious. Using myself as an example, my winrate vs. Terrans is roughly 30 percent, while my overall win-rate, including Terrans, is roughly 60 percent, with my winrate vs. other Zergs being my best matchup. Lately, as I've mentioned, I've been going Roach-Hydra as an alternative; and while that does great against mines, it does awful again drops. So either I invest in a bunch of Muta's that have no value outside stopping drops and go with the risky approach of ling-bling or I take the safer approach of Roach-Hydra and hope I can survive the drops. Either way it's a gamble and the core reason why you see the Zerg QQ right now.
You can make that argument for any race against another's AoE. Oh look, I just ran into a storm, look I'm dead. Or hey didn't split properly in an engagement, banelings killed me. Didn't have enough APM to kite ultras during an engagement? DEAD.
|
@Sissors and Chaggi: To both of you, the distinction is that no micro is needed for mines. It's not like storms, EMP, banelings, etc. So if you turn away to build a rax in your main, you can camp your units near your mines and they're protected. Not to mention, Zerg has the largest requirement of multi-tasking during an egagement, especially with ling/bling, because if you're slow on injects, you literally don't have the larvae to compete with the Terran bio.
And I enjoy playing random in team games, so I'm very familiar with all the races mechanics (and I'm very sloppy with Nexus energy and muling, lol), but I don't think it's fair to compare the ease of kiting an Ultra to the complexity of ling/bling vs. Widow Mines. I genuinely can't imagine someone doing both of those and thinking they require the same level of skill, haha. With splitting, it's more of a grey area, as pro-splitting can be pretty awesome. But again, I'm fine with bling vs. splitting marines...the issue is blings vs. afk Terrans with mines everywhere.
|
Terran should have to work for their widow mines and they should have to target manually...rather like Zerg has to do with their own baneling mines. And to make things fair, Protoss should be given a mine of their own -- preferably on the oracle.
So you suggesting buffing WM especially for top players?
Fact that they autoattack should be used againts them you can trigger their attack by sending bait units. Thats probably main way of fighting them.
|
On May 09 2013 03:58 Graven wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 01:26 TheDwf wrote:On May 09 2013 00:43 Graven wrote:
The skill required to stop bio-mine with muta-ling-bling is higher than the skill to perform bio-mine well Where is your evidence for that? Perhaps my wording invited a flame war, but that wasn't my intention. As everyone can see, pro-Zergs are doing great on the pro-scene right now. The juxiposition of pro-Zerg performance to non-pro-Zerg performance is what I'm pointing to. Mistakes with a Muta-ling-bling army are very unforgiving when facing bio-mine, and at non-pro levels, mistakes are numorous for both sides. At non-pro levels of play (myself included), the skill gap is very obvious.
Come back when Zerg won't be overepresented in all high leagues on ladder : http://www.sc2ranks.com/stats/league/all/1/all
Then we can discuss how Zerg is to hard to play on ladder level.
|
On May 09 2013 04:26 Graven wrote:
@Sissors and Chaggi: To both of you, the distinction is that no micro is needed for mines. It's not like storms, EMP, banelings, etc. So if you turn away to build a rax in your main, you can camp your units near your mines and they're protected. Not to mention, Zerg has the largest requirement of multi-tasking during an egagement, especially with ling/bling, because if you're slow on injects, you literally don't have the larvae to compete with the Terran bio.
It doesn't work like that. Unmicro'd you will get horribly overrun by banelings in an instant. And you can have mines placed, but against unmicro'd bio they will do alot of damage vs the terran's own bio.
|
On May 09 2013 04:32 keglu wrote:Show nested quote +
Terran should have to work for their widow mines and they should have to target manually...rather like Zerg has to do with their own baneling mines. And to make things fair, Protoss should be given a mine of their own -- preferably on the oracle.
So you suggesting buffing WM especially for top players? Fact that they autoattack should be used againts them you can trigger their attack by sending bait units. Thats probably main way of fighting them.
If this was true, then why don't pros turn off the autoattack? They can buff the widow mine for themselves if autoattack off was better. I think it's clear that removing autoattack is a straight up nerf to window mines (it removes a functionality of the unit). It is very similar to the amount of people that think charge would be better for pros if they had to individually charge zealots, except for the fact that they can already do it, but they just don't for a very good reason. You already have 200 other things you are doing, on top of 600 more than you could be doing but can't. Having autoattack/autocharge is useful even for pros.
|
On May 09 2013 04:47 convention wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 04:32 keglu wrote:
Terran should have to work for their widow mines and they should have to target manually...rather like Zerg has to do with their own baneling mines. And to make things fair, Protoss should be given a mine of their own -- preferably on the oracle.
So you suggesting buffing WM especially for top players? Fact that they autoattack should be used againts them you can trigger their attack by sending bait units. Thats probably main way of fighting them. If this was true, then why don't pros turn off the autoattack? They can buff the widow mine for themselves if autoattack off was better. I think it's clear that removing autoattack is a straight up nerf to window mines (it removes a functionality of the unit). It is very similar to the amount of people that think charge would be better for pros if they had to individually charge zealots, except for the fact that they can already do it, but they just don't for a very good reason. You already have 200 other things you are doing, on top of 600 more than you could be doing but can't. Having autoattack/autocharge is useful even for pros.
Because you cannot.
|
On May 09 2013 04:26 Graven wrote:
@Sissors and Chaggi: To both of you, the distinction is that no micro is needed for mines. It's not like storms, EMP, banelings, etc. So if you turn away to build a rax in your main, you can camp your units near your mines and they're protected. Not to mention, Zerg has the largest requirement of multi-tasking during an egagement, especially with ling/bling, because if you're slow on injects, you literally don't have the larvae to compete with the Terran bio.
And I enjoy playing random in team games, so I'm very familiar with all the races mechanics (and I'm very sloppy with Nexus energy and muling, lol), but I don't think it's fair to compare the ease of kiting an Ultra to the complexity of ling/bling vs. Widow Mines. I genuinely can't imagine someone doing both of those and thinking they require the same level of skill, haha. With splitting, it's more of a grey area, as pro-splitting can be pretty awesome. But again, I'm fine with bling vs. splitting marines...the issue is blings vs. afk Terrans with mines everywhere.
You do realize that if terran camps his units near mines it won't make him protected at all due to mines doing friendly splash damage, which will make it even easier to kill the whole army that terran has. If anything the micro of the widow mine is about the same level as that of a baneling or siege tank.
|
On May 09 2013 04:26 Graven wrote:
@Sissors and Chaggi: To both of you, the distinction is that no micro is needed for mines. It's not like storms, EMP, banelings, etc. So if you turn away to build a rax in your main, you can camp your units near your mines and they're protected. Not to mention, Zerg has the largest requirement of multi-tasking during an egagement, especially with ling/bling, because if you're slow on injects, you literally don't have the larvae to compete with the Terran bio.
And I enjoy playing random in team games, so I'm very familiar with all the races mechanics (and I'm very sloppy with Nexus energy and muling, lol), but I don't think it's fair to compare the ease of kiting an Ultra to the complexity of ling/bling vs. Widow Mines. I genuinely can't imagine someone doing both of those and thinking they require the same level of skill, haha. With splitting, it's more of a grey area, as pro-splitting can be pretty awesome. But again, I'm fine with bling vs. splitting marines...the issue is blings vs. afk Terrans with mines everywhere.
No, it really seems like you actually have no idea how to play the other races. It's very easy to exploit mines if you know how they work and you can see pros do it a lot. The complexity of ling/bling vs widow mine and kiting ultras is silly, you can't even say that - because they DON'T WORK IN A VACCUM. Kiting ultras is stupid easy by itself. But if you have ling/bling/infester/vipers closing in around you, not so easy. Just like ling/bling vs widow mine is so easy if there isn't any bio around. And Zerg has the largest requirement of multi-tasking in an engagement? This really tells me you haven't played. The setup for Zerg is much more important than actual engagement micro.
Honestly, all I hear is that you want it to be easier because you don't know how to control mines. Everyone else (and I do mean pros cause seriously, who cares about a Diamond level player) can do it, and you should too. It's so stupid to argue what's harder and what's not when people don't play, or at least have a decently high level of understanding of a MU.
|
On May 09 2013 04:56 Chaggi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 04:26 Graven wrote:
@Sissors and Chaggi: To both of you, the distinction is that no micro is needed for mines. It's not like storms, EMP, banelings, etc. So if you turn away to build a rax in your main, you can camp your units near your mines and they're protected. Not to mention, Zerg has the largest requirement of multi-tasking during an egagement, especially with ling/bling, because if you're slow on injects, you literally don't have the larvae to compete with the Terran bio.
And I enjoy playing random in team games, so I'm very familiar with all the races mechanics (and I'm very sloppy with Nexus energy and muling, lol), but I don't think it's fair to compare the ease of kiting an Ultra to the complexity of ling/bling vs. Widow Mines. I genuinely can't imagine someone doing both of those and thinking they require the same level of skill, haha. With splitting, it's more of a grey area, as pro-splitting can be pretty awesome. But again, I'm fine with bling vs. splitting marines...the issue is blings vs. afk Terrans with mines everywhere. It's very easy to exploit mines if you know how they work and you can see pros do it a lot. Everyone else (and I do mean pros cause seriously, who cares about a Diamond level player) can do it, and you should too.
Good talk.
It's clear your angry, so I'd prefer end this discussion here. In all seriousness though, go back and read a few of my previous posts. The point is to show that non-pro Zergs are the ones having the issue. While I agree that's not game-breaking, it is an issue and is also an explaination for the QQ, whether you agree with that or not.
|
On May 09 2013 05:17 Graven wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 04:56 Chaggi wrote:On May 09 2013 04:26 Graven wrote:
@Sissors and Chaggi: To both of you, the distinction is that no micro is needed for mines. It's not like storms, EMP, banelings, etc. So if you turn away to build a rax in your main, you can camp your units near your mines and they're protected. Not to mention, Zerg has the largest requirement of multi-tasking during an egagement, especially with ling/bling, because if you're slow on injects, you literally don't have the larvae to compete with the Terran bio.
And I enjoy playing random in team games, so I'm very familiar with all the races mechanics (and I'm very sloppy with Nexus energy and muling, lol), but I don't think it's fair to compare the ease of kiting an Ultra to the complexity of ling/bling vs. Widow Mines. I genuinely can't imagine someone doing both of those and thinking they require the same level of skill, haha. With splitting, it's more of a grey area, as pro-splitting can be pretty awesome. But again, I'm fine with bling vs. splitting marines...the issue is blings vs. afk Terrans with mines everywhere. It's very easy to exploit mines if you know how they work and you can see pros do it a lot. Everyone else (and I do mean pros cause seriously, who cares about a Diamond level player) can do it, and you should too. Good talk. It's clear your angry, so I'd prefer end this discussion here. In all seriousness though, go back and read a few of my previous posts. The point is to show that non-pro Zergs are the ones having the issue. While I agree that's not game-breaking, it is an issue and is also an explaination for the QQ, whether you agree with that or not.
If it isn't game-breaking, then only issue we are having is a learn to play issue.
Personally I don't see mines being all that powerful in a month or two due to people getting used to them and learning to deal with the effectively. That is of course expecting that there are no balance changes that affect mine play in anyway during that time. But I could be wrong of course.
|
On May 09 2013 04:47 convention wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 04:32 keglu wrote:
Terran should have to work for their widow mines and they should have to target manually...rather like Zerg has to do with their own baneling mines. And to make things fair, Protoss should be given a mine of their own -- preferably on the oracle.
So you suggesting buffing WM especially for top players? Fact that they autoattack should be used againts them you can trigger their attack by sending bait units. Thats probably main way of fighting them. If this was true, then why don't pros turn off the autoattack? They can buff the widow mine for themselves if autoattack off was better. I think it's clear that removing autoattack is a straight up nerf to window mines (it removes a functionality of the unit). It is very similar to the amount of people that think charge would be better for pros if they had to individually charge zealots, except for the fact that they can already do it, but they just don't for a very good reason. You already have 200 other things you are doing, on top of 600 more than you could be doing but can't. Having autoattack/autocharge is useful even for pros.
You realize its not about autoattack but about abillity to aim. If you let window mines to be manually used you have to give them abillity to aim which is buff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
