|
On June 07 2013 01:31 DarkLordOlli wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2013 01:27 keglu wrote:On June 06 2013 21:36 DarkLordOlli wrote:On June 06 2013 21:33 scypio wrote:On June 06 2013 21:17 DarkLordOlli wrote:On June 06 2013 20:54 AxionSteel wrote:
Terran was already on the decline then, Protoss is on the way up here. They already dominate the pro league, and their numbers are signficantly improving in Code S as well.
I'm not disagreeing that protoss is doing well atm, I just really really dislike the argument of just looking at representation. You are talking about representation to state that you don't like talking about representation? Well done :D Obviously you didn't understand my argument. Outside of pure numbers important is trend. In 2012 terran has still high representation but was trending down (from 20 slots at peak to 11 at end of the WoL ). Now Terran has its lowest representation in history and Protoss has its highest. So i dont think that Protoss is struggling in Korea especially considering how Proleague looks like. Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 21:17 DarkLordOlli wrote:On June 06 2013 20:54 AxionSteel wrote:
Terran was already on the decline then, Protoss is on the way up here. They already dominate the pro league, and their numbers are signficantly improving in Code S as well.
I'm not disagreeing that protoss is doing well atm, I just really really dislike the argument of just looking at representation. What's most important when talking about balance is balance. .
That's very deep.
|
Austria24422 Posts
On June 07 2013 01:57 keglu wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2013 01:31 DarkLordOlli wrote:On June 07 2013 01:27 keglu wrote:On June 06 2013 21:36 DarkLordOlli wrote:On June 06 2013 21:33 scypio wrote:On June 06 2013 21:17 DarkLordOlli wrote:On June 06 2013 20:54 AxionSteel wrote:
Terran was already on the decline then, Protoss is on the way up here. They already dominate the pro league, and their numbers are signficantly improving in Code S as well.
I'm not disagreeing that protoss is doing well atm, I just really really dislike the argument of just looking at representation. You are talking about representation to state that you don't like talking about representation? Well done :D Obviously you didn't understand my argument. Outside of pure numbers important is trend. In 2012 terran has still high representation but was trending down (from 20 slots at peak to 11 at end of the WoL ). Now Terran has its lowest representation in history and Protoss has its highest. So i dont think that Protoss is struggling in Korea especially considering how Proleague looks like. On June 06 2013 21:17 DarkLordOlli wrote:On June 06 2013 20:54 AxionSteel wrote:
Terran was already on the decline then, Protoss is on the way up here. They already dominate the pro league, and their numbers are signficantly improving in Code S as well.
I'm not disagreeing that protoss is doing well atm, I just really really dislike the argument of just looking at representation. What's most important when talking about balance is balance. . That's very deep.
And yet the only thing that matters. I'll stop replying to people now who are actively trying not to understand my argument.
|
On June 07 2013 01:57 DarkLordOlli wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2013 01:57 keglu wrote:On June 07 2013 01:31 DarkLordOlli wrote:On June 07 2013 01:27 keglu wrote:On June 06 2013 21:36 DarkLordOlli wrote:On June 06 2013 21:33 scypio wrote:On June 06 2013 21:17 DarkLordOlli wrote:On June 06 2013 20:54 AxionSteel wrote:
Terran was already on the decline then, Protoss is on the way up here. They already dominate the pro league, and their numbers are signficantly improving in Code S as well.
I'm not disagreeing that protoss is doing well atm, I just really really dislike the argument of just looking at representation. You are talking about representation to state that you don't like talking about representation? Well done :D Obviously you didn't understand my argument. Outside of pure numbers important is trend. In 2012 terran has still high representation but was trending down (from 20 slots at peak to 11 at end of the WoL ). Now Terran has its lowest representation in history and Protoss has its highest. So i dont think that Protoss is struggling in Korea especially considering how Proleague looks like. On June 06 2013 21:17 DarkLordOlli wrote:On June 06 2013 20:54 AxionSteel wrote:
Terran was already on the decline then, Protoss is on the way up here. They already dominate the pro league, and their numbers are signficantly improving in Code S as well.
I'm not disagreeing that protoss is doing well atm, I just really really dislike the argument of just looking at representation. What's most important when talking about balance is balance. . That's very deep. And yet the only thing that matters.
So is game balanced now base on your subjective criterias?
|
Austria24422 Posts
On June 07 2013 01:58 keglu wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2013 01:57 DarkLordOlli wrote:On June 07 2013 01:57 keglu wrote:On June 07 2013 01:31 DarkLordOlli wrote:On June 07 2013 01:27 keglu wrote:On June 06 2013 21:36 DarkLordOlli wrote:On June 06 2013 21:33 scypio wrote:On June 06 2013 21:17 DarkLordOlli wrote:On June 06 2013 20:54 AxionSteel wrote:
Terran was already on the decline then, Protoss is on the way up here. They already dominate the pro league, and their numbers are signficantly improving in Code S as well.
I'm not disagreeing that protoss is doing well atm, I just really really dislike the argument of just looking at representation. You are talking about representation to state that you don't like talking about representation? Well done :D Obviously you didn't understand my argument. Outside of pure numbers important is trend. In 2012 terran has still high representation but was trending down (from 20 slots at peak to 11 at end of the WoL ). Now Terran has its lowest representation in history and Protoss has its highest. So i dont think that Protoss is struggling in Korea especially considering how Proleague looks like. On June 06 2013 21:17 DarkLordOlli wrote:On June 06 2013 20:54 AxionSteel wrote:
Terran was already on the decline then, Protoss is on the way up here. They already dominate the pro league, and their numbers are signficantly improving in Code S as well.
I'm not disagreeing that protoss is doing well atm, I just really really dislike the argument of just looking at representation. What's most important when talking about balance is balance. . That's very deep. And yet the only thing that matters. So is game balanced now base on your subjective criterias?
What in all the fucks
What are you even talking about. I was saying that winrates, trends and representation DO NOT EQUAL BALANCE. That is all. Nothing else. NOTHING. ELSE. I was never talking about whether the game is actually balanced or not. That's an entirely different discussion.
But if you did ask me about my personal opinion I'd say that it's too early to judge. HotS has been out for 3 months now. Overall winrates are looking good but that might be because players haven't figured out certain timings, cheese, all ins, compositions, transitions, ETC yet. Who knows if suddenly in two weeks somebody brings out a build that's so strong that it completely tilts the winrates of a certain matchup or completely changes the metagame? There's always things to abuse, improve, etc. and I'm fairly certain that players have not figured that all out yet.
|
On June 07 2013 01:59 DarkLordOlli wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2013 01:58 keglu wrote:On June 07 2013 01:57 DarkLordOlli wrote:On June 07 2013 01:57 keglu wrote:On June 07 2013 01:31 DarkLordOlli wrote:On June 07 2013 01:27 keglu wrote:On June 06 2013 21:36 DarkLordOlli wrote:On June 06 2013 21:33 scypio wrote:On June 06 2013 21:17 DarkLordOlli wrote:On June 06 2013 20:54 AxionSteel wrote:
Terran was already on the decline then, Protoss is on the way up here. They already dominate the pro league, and their numbers are signficantly improving in Code S as well.
I'm not disagreeing that protoss is doing well atm, I just really really dislike the argument of just looking at representation. You are talking about representation to state that you don't like talking about representation? Well done :D Obviously you didn't understand my argument. Outside of pure numbers important is trend. In 2012 terran has still high representation but was trending down (from 20 slots at peak to 11 at end of the WoL ). Now Terran has its lowest representation in history and Protoss has its highest. So i dont think that Protoss is struggling in Korea especially considering how Proleague looks like. On June 06 2013 21:17 DarkLordOlli wrote:On June 06 2013 20:54 AxionSteel wrote:
Terran was already on the decline then, Protoss is on the way up here. They already dominate the pro league, and their numbers are signficantly improving in Code S as well.
I'm not disagreeing that protoss is doing well atm, I just really really dislike the argument of just looking at representation. What's most important when talking about balance is balance. . That's very deep. And yet the only thing that matters. So is game balanced now base on your subjective criterias? What in all the fucks What are you even talking about. I was saying that winrates, trends and representation DO NOT EQUAL BALANCE. That is all. Nothing else. NOTHING. ELSE. I was never talking about whether the game is actually balanced or not. That's an entirely different discussion. But if you did ask me about my personal opinion I'd say that it's too early to judge. HotS has been out for 3 months now. Overall winrates are looking good but that might be because players haven't figured out certain timings, cheese, all ins, compositions, transitions, ETC yet.
There is no way of including every aspect of the balance discussion in a single post. We have to use some indicators - results and participation stats for toughest/favorite tournaments, own ladder experience, gut feeling etc.
Many people seem to agree that the balance at the very top balance goes first - therefore GSL stats seem more relevant than say ZOTAC weekly results.
Right now we're sitting at the 10P/8T/14Z in Code S - that just happened today. Some people may find this interesting (including me). Yes, we realize that this is not ALL balance. Should we put a disclaimer in every post to be able to discuss this thing?
|
Austria24422 Posts
On June 07 2013 02:08 scypio wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2013 01:59 DarkLordOlli wrote:On June 07 2013 01:58 keglu wrote:On June 07 2013 01:57 DarkLordOlli wrote:On June 07 2013 01:57 keglu wrote:On June 07 2013 01:31 DarkLordOlli wrote:On June 07 2013 01:27 keglu wrote:On June 06 2013 21:36 DarkLordOlli wrote:On June 06 2013 21:33 scypio wrote:On June 06 2013 21:17 DarkLordOlli wrote:
[quote]
I'm not disagreeing that protoss is doing well atm, I just really really dislike the argument of just looking at representation. You are talking about representation to state that you don't like talking about representation? Well done :D Obviously you didn't understand my argument. Outside of pure numbers important is trend. In 2012 terran has still high representation but was trending down (from 20 slots at peak to 11 at end of the WoL ). Now Terran has its lowest representation in history and Protoss has its highest. So i dont think that Protoss is struggling in Korea especially considering how Proleague looks like. On June 06 2013 21:17 DarkLordOlli wrote:On June 06 2013 20:54 AxionSteel wrote:
Terran was already on the decline then, Protoss is on the way up here. They already dominate the pro league, and their numbers are signficantly improving in Code S as well.
I'm not disagreeing that protoss is doing well atm, I just really really dislike the argument of just looking at representation. What's most important when talking about balance is balance. . That's very deep. And yet the only thing that matters. So is game balanced now base on your subjective criterias? What in all the fucks What are you even talking about. I was saying that winrates, trends and representation DO NOT EQUAL BALANCE. That is all. Nothing else. NOTHING. ELSE. I was never talking about whether the game is actually balanced or not. That's an entirely different discussion. But if you did ask me about my personal opinion I'd say that it's too early to judge. HotS has been out for 3 months now. Overall winrates are looking good but that might be because players haven't figured out certain timings, cheese, all ins, compositions, transitions, ETC yet. There is no way of including every aspect of the balance discussion in a single post. We have to use some indicators - results and participation stats for toughest/favorite tournaments, own ladder experience, gut feeling etc. Many people seem to agree that the balance at the very top balance goes first - therefore GSL stats seem more relevant than say ZOTAC weekly results. Right now we're sitting at the 10P/8T/14Z in Code S - that just happened today. Some people may find this interesting (including me). Yes, we realize that this is not ALL balance. Should we put a disclaimer in every post to be able to discuss this thing?
Sure it's interesting. But if you look at the posts I was initially responding to, they pretty much said that good representation means that a certain race isn't struggling. Which is plain wrong. Hence why I brought up terran in WoL, BL/infestor, etc.
Basically these posts were implying that there's nothing wrong with balance if winrates and representation are looking good. Just took the time to explain that that's not the case.
|
On June 06 2013 21:57 TeeTS wrote:
terran seem to be the race, that's most vulnerable to allin / hyperagressive early/mid game play.
are you serious?
please take a good hard look at what you wrote there. if you think terran is vulnerable to aggression in the early game then i wonder what zerg would be in your mind. sudden infant death race?
that's some hilariously biased shit right there.
|
On June 07 2013 02:29 willstertben wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 21:57 TeeTS wrote:
terran seem to be the race, that's most vulnerable to allin / hyperagressive early/mid game play. are you serious? please take a good hard look at what you wrote there. if you think terran is vulnerable to aggression in the early game then i wonder what zerg would be in your mind. sudden infant death race? that's some hilariously biased shit right there.
I think that seeing Innovation die to a bunch of roach-ling-bane timings kinda warrants this statement, especially that he seems to be the only terran who gets the game... with Flash maybe a step behind.
|
On June 07 2013 02:38 scypio wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2013 02:29 willstertben wrote:On June 06 2013 21:57 TeeTS wrote:
terran seem to be the race, that's most vulnerable to allin / hyperagressive early/mid game play. are you serious? please take a good hard look at what you wrote there. if you think terran is vulnerable to aggression in the early game then i wonder what zerg would be in your mind. sudden infant death race? that's some hilariously biased shit right there. I think that seeing Innovation die to a bunch of roach-ling-bane timings kinda warrants this statement, especially that he seems to be the only terran who gets the game... with Flash maybe a step behind.
Well if Innovation built a siege tank like he did against Symbol he would have won easily. Lord knows Blizzard gave Terran free Siege tech and they still don't get built.
Simply fact is Innovation is not as good as people make him out to be. Looks like he crumbles under pressure going off what i seen in GSL.
|
On June 07 2013 02:44 Topdoller wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2013 02:38 scypio wrote:On June 07 2013 02:29 willstertben wrote:On June 06 2013 21:57 TeeTS wrote:
terran seem to be the race, that's most vulnerable to allin / hyperagressive early/mid game play. are you serious? please take a good hard look at what you wrote there. if you think terran is vulnerable to aggression in the early game then i wonder what zerg would be in your mind. sudden infant death race? that's some hilariously biased shit right there. I think that seeing Innovation die to a bunch of roach-ling-bane timings kinda warrants this statement, especially that he seems to be the only terran who gets the game... with Flash maybe a step behind. Well if Innovation built a siege tank like he did against Symbol he would have won easily. Lord knows Blizzard gave Terran free Siege tech and they still don't get built. Simply fact is Innovation is not as good as people make him out to be. Looks like he crumbles under pressure going off what i seen in GSL.
If Innovations (and other top terrans) skip tanks that means that tanks probably are weaker then mines at their level. These kind of things vary as skill changes - a bronze player should choose to plant PFs everywhere, a GM will often depend on his quick reaction times, map awareness and sensor towers to defend the expo.
I watched the Innovation vs Soulkey series and I thought to myself - this is ZvT standard. The zerg makes the bust of 20-35-65 dornes (!) and he may kill the terran with it.
On the other hand seeing MVP go 2-base hellbat-marauder all-in vs Stephano felt far from standard for me. This is not something you are expecting to see in a TvZ series... and to be honest I did not expect it to work.
|
On June 07 2013 02:38 scypio wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2013 02:29 willstertben wrote:On June 06 2013 21:57 TeeTS wrote:
terran seem to be the race, that's most vulnerable to allin / hyperagressive early/mid game play. are you serious? please take a good hard look at what you wrote there. if you think terran is vulnerable to aggression in the early game then i wonder what zerg would be in your mind. sudden infant death race? that's some hilariously biased shit right there. I think that seeing Innovation die to a bunch of roach-ling-bane timings kinda warrants this statement, especially that he seems to be the only terran who gets the game... with Flash maybe a step behind.
wait, he surely stomped more busts from symbol/roro/soulkey, then he lost against. And he surely succeeded with more 2raxes against them, then he botched...
|
On June 07 2013 01:59 DarkLordOlli wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 07 2013 01:58 keglu wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2013 01:57 DarkLordOlli wrote:On June 07 2013 01:57 keglu wrote:On June 07 2013 01:31 DarkLordOlli wrote:On June 07 2013 01:27 keglu wrote:On June 06 2013 21:36 DarkLordOlli wrote:On June 06 2013 21:33 scypio wrote:On June 06 2013 21:17 DarkLordOlli wrote:On June 06 2013 20:54 AxionSteel wrote:
Terran was already on the decline then, Protoss is on the way up here. They already dominate the pro league, and their numbers are signficantly improving in Code S as well.
I'm not disagreeing that protoss is doing well atm, I just really really dislike the argument of just looking at representation. You are talking about representation to state that you don't like talking about representation? Well done :D Obviously you didn't understand my argument. Outside of pure numbers important is trend. In 2012 terran has still high representation but was trending down (from 20 slots at peak to 11 at end of the WoL ). Now Terran has its lowest representation in history and Protoss has its highest. So i dont think that Protoss is struggling in Korea especially considering how Proleague looks like. On June 06 2013 21:17 DarkLordOlli wrote:On June 06 2013 20:54 AxionSteel wrote:
Terran was already on the decline then, Protoss is on the way up here. They already dominate the pro league, and their numbers are signficantly improving in Code S as well.
I'm not disagreeing that protoss is doing well atm, I just really really dislike the argument of just looking at representation. What's most important when talking about balance is balance. . That's very deep. And yet the only thing that matters. So is game balanced now base on your subjective criterias? What in all the fucks What are you even talking about. I was saying that winrates, trends and representation DO NOT EQUAL BALANCE. That is all. Nothing else. NOTHING. ELSE. I was never talking about whether the game is actually balanced or not. That's an entirely different discussion. But if you did ask me about my personal opinion I'd say that it's too early to judge. HotS has been out for 3 months now. Overall winrates are looking good but that might be because players haven't figured out certain timings, cheese, all ins, compositions, transitions, ETC yet. Who knows if suddenly in two weeks somebody brings out a build that's so strong that it completely tilts the winrates of a certain matchup or completely changes the metagame? There's always things to abuse, improve, etc. and I'm fairly certain that players have not figured that all out yet.
Well there are some "balance problems" which HotS kinda inherited from WoL ... or does anyone think that WoL was balanced and free of problems at the end? Thus it is fairly easy to make some predictions as to what will probably go wrong or what is making the game too much based on luck.
Adding ever faster units does make the game "worse to balance" IMO because it becomes too important to be able to defend against these units. The Mutalisk-specific changes are such a case, but the speedboost-Medivac is another (and the faster Warp Prism will be one more).
I always compare the "make stuff faster and faster" way of changing units to cars. The vast majority of people will not be able to drive a race car without crashing it and they wont be able to drive it to the full potential of the vehicle. A true comparison of skill can only be made when everyone drives the same - and rather limited - car. We dont have the same car, but we have the same speed limit in our cities to make traffic work ... but SC2 has none of those things (unlike BW for example, where you had the unit movement and the limited unit selection and some other mechanics to work against) and basically tells us to drive race cars without a speed limit through our cities and then they call that "the ladder". Sure enough the progamers are able to handle the "cars" well enough while driving through town at 200 mph, but every so often one of them crashes too. Since SC2 is supposed to sell a lot of copies to people who only play the game every once in a while it would make more sense to design the game around the "speed limit" ... which would not stop the really good players to still get ahead of the mediocre ones.
On June 07 2013 02:44 Topdoller wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2013 02:38 scypio wrote:On June 07 2013 02:29 willstertben wrote:On June 06 2013 21:57 TeeTS wrote:
terran seem to be the race, that's most vulnerable to allin / hyperagressive early/mid game play. are you serious? please take a good hard look at what you wrote there. if you think terran is vulnerable to aggression in the early game then i wonder what zerg would be in your mind. sudden infant death race? that's some hilariously biased shit right there. I think that seeing Innovation die to a bunch of roach-ling-bane timings kinda warrants this statement, especially that he seems to be the only terran who gets the game... with Flash maybe a step behind. Well if Innovation built a siege tank like he did against Symbol he would have won easily. Lord knows Blizzard gave Terran free Siege tech and they still don't get built. Simply fact is Innovation is not as good as people make him out to be. Looks like he crumbles under pressure going off what i seen in GSL.
The thing is though that Terrans kinda HAVE TO be aggressive against Zerg early on; if they dont disrupt the growth of the Zerg economy they will most likely lose. Building a Siege Tank instead of Widow Mines or Hellbats will slow you down and there is only a small window of vulnerablility for the Zerg. Once that closes it is not really a good idea to try and harrass your Zerg opponent (unless the Zerg screws up, but that should not be a factor for balance design).
The problem we are faced here is that the game is basically "coin flip" and whoever starts his aggression first will most likely win due to the advantage in economy. This is a BAD DESIGN and should be taken out as much as possible and be replaced by more emphasis on the skill of using the available units. Blizzard has stated that they want the game to be more aggressive, so we know they are screwing up and simply turn SC2 into a good old gunfight on a sandy street in an old western town. Whoever draws first (and hits) wins.
|
Austria24422 Posts
Well, I do think that tanks are the safer option. Players in general just tend to cut as many corners as possible. And sure, it's possible to defend with mines but I think the main part that players want to skip is investing the gas into a tech lab and the tank(s) themselves as that delays the rest of their tech. It's safer but it doesn't put them as far ahead if they hold.
|
On June 07 2013 02:38 scypio wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2013 02:29 willstertben wrote:On June 06 2013 21:57 TeeTS wrote:
terran seem to be the race, that's most vulnerable to allin / hyperagressive early/mid game play. are you serious? please take a good hard look at what you wrote there. if you think terran is vulnerable to aggression in the early game then i wonder what zerg would be in your mind. sudden infant death race? that's some hilariously biased shit right there. I think that seeing Innovation die to a bunch of roach-ling-bane timings kinda warrants this statement, especially that he seems to be the only terran who gets the game... with Flash maybe a step behind.
maybe that's cause of tripple orbital 2 ebays off of no real units?
innovation is really good, sure, but a big part of his success is being way greedier than he is supposed to be.
if that gets punished it isn't cause terran is vulnerable to early game aggression (just typing out those 5 words in that order makes me smirk) but because his BUILD ORDER is. big difference.
has nothing at all to do with the race itself.
zerg on the other hand IS vulnerable to early game aggression BECAUSE of the race specific mechanics, more specifically balancing drones vs units. we have seen this being exploited since beta. no other race has lost so many games to being allind as zerg has.
terran? not so much.
actually i would go as far as saying that terran is in fact the least likely race to lose to allins. why?
-bunkers! defend the allin with static defense then sell that defense and get your money back!
-being able to sacrifice workers to defend and still have decent income (mules).
-walloffs!! + repair + range units!
-being able to lift off your expansions!
|
On June 07 2013 03:15 willstertben wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2013 02:38 scypio wrote:On June 07 2013 02:29 willstertben wrote:On June 06 2013 21:57 TeeTS wrote:
terran seem to be the race, that's most vulnerable to allin / hyperagressive early/mid game play. are you serious? please take a good hard look at what you wrote there. if you think terran is vulnerable to aggression in the early game then i wonder what zerg would be in your mind. sudden infant death race? that's some hilariously biased shit right there. I think that seeing Innovation die to a bunch of roach-ling-bane timings kinda warrants this statement, especially that he seems to be the only terran who gets the game... with Flash maybe a step behind. maybe that's cause of tripple orbital 2 ebays off of no real units? innovation is really good, sure, but a big part of his success is being way greedier than he is supposed to be. if that gets punished it isn't cause terran is vulnerable to early game aggression (just typing out those 5 words in that order makes me smirk) but because his BUILD ORDER is. big difference. has nothing at all to do with the race itself. zerg on the other hand IS vulnerable to early game aggression BECAUSE of the race specific mechanics, more specifically balancing drones vs units. we have seen this being exploited since beta. no other race has lost so many games to being allind as zerg has. terran? not so much. actually i would go as far as saying that terran is in fact the least likely race to lose to allins. why? -bunkers! defend the allin with static defense then sell that defense and get your money back! -being able to sacrifice workers to defend and still have decent income (mules). -walloffs!! + repair + range units! -being able to lift off your expansions!
Yes, I agree that defensive terran is unbreakable. Unfortunately, turtling on two bases will let your Protoss or Zerg opponents explode in terms of technology and economy (or most likely both) and smash you 5 or 10 minutes later.
That's why guys like Lucifron or Innovation go for those 3CC builds double ebay builds - that seems to be the way to support enough units and upgrades to gain some advantage during mid game.
If sitting behind a wall with a couple of tanks would do the trick I'm sure they would have known about it.
|
Austria8760 Posts
On June 07 2013 03:24 scypio wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2013 03:15 willstertben wrote:On June 07 2013 02:38 scypio wrote:On June 07 2013 02:29 willstertben wrote:On June 06 2013 21:57 TeeTS wrote:
terran seem to be the race, that's most vulnerable to allin / hyperagressive early/mid game play. are you serious? please take a good hard look at what you wrote there. if you think terran is vulnerable to aggression in the early game then i wonder what zerg would be in your mind. sudden infant death race? that's some hilariously biased shit right there. I think that seeing Innovation die to a bunch of roach-ling-bane timings kinda warrants this statement, especially that he seems to be the only terran who gets the game... with Flash maybe a step behind. maybe that's cause of tripple orbital 2 ebays off of no real units? innovation is really good, sure, but a big part of his success is being way greedier than he is supposed to be. if that gets punished it isn't cause terran is vulnerable to early game aggression (just typing out those 5 words in that order makes me smirk) but because his BUILD ORDER is. big difference. has nothing at all to do with the race itself. zerg on the other hand IS vulnerable to early game aggression BECAUSE of the race specific mechanics, more specifically balancing drones vs units. we have seen this being exploited since beta. no other race has lost so many games to being allind as zerg has. terran? not so much. actually i would go as far as saying that terran is in fact the least likely race to lose to allins. why? -bunkers! defend the allin with static defense then sell that defense and get your money back! -being able to sacrifice workers to defend and still have decent income (mules). -walloffs!! + repair + range units! -being able to lift off your expansions! Yes, I agree that defensive terran is unbreakable. Unfortunately, turtling on two bases will let your Protoss or Zerg opponents explode in terms of technology and economy (or most likely both) and smash you 5 or 10 minutes later. That's why guys like Lucifron or Innovation go for those 3CC builds double ebay builds - that seems to be the way to support enough units and upgrades to gain some advantage during mid game. If sitting behind a wall with a couple of tanks would do the trick I'm sure they would have known about it.
It's always about finding a middle ground between being safe and getting the most out of any given moment in the game.
And at this level going for the middle ground maybe is not enough and mind games, early cheeses and finding timings and holes in your opponents play are the deciding factors. Soulkey used it properly and narrowly won 4:3 after being behind 3 games(!) - that in itself is a fantastic performance and worthy of a champion. But it does not mean terran is the most susceptible to early game aggression...
|
On June 07 2013 03:24 scypio wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2013 03:15 willstertben wrote:On June 07 2013 02:38 scypio wrote:On June 07 2013 02:29 willstertben wrote:On June 06 2013 21:57 TeeTS wrote:
terran seem to be the race, that's most vulnerable to allin / hyperagressive early/mid game play. are you serious? please take a good hard look at what you wrote there. if you think terran is vulnerable to aggression in the early game then i wonder what zerg would be in your mind. sudden infant death race? that's some hilariously biased shit right there. I think that seeing Innovation die to a bunch of roach-ling-bane timings kinda warrants this statement, especially that he seems to be the only terran who gets the game... with Flash maybe a step behind. maybe that's cause of tripple orbital 2 ebays off of no real units? innovation is really good, sure, but a big part of his success is being way greedier than he is supposed to be. if that gets punished it isn't cause terran is vulnerable to early game aggression (just typing out those 5 words in that order makes me smirk) but because his BUILD ORDER is. big difference. has nothing at all to do with the race itself. zerg on the other hand IS vulnerable to early game aggression BECAUSE of the race specific mechanics, more specifically balancing drones vs units. we have seen this being exploited since beta. no other race has lost so many games to being allind as zerg has. terran? not so much. actually i would go as far as saying that terran is in fact the least likely race to lose to allins. why? -bunkers! defend the allin with static defense then sell that defense and get your money back! -being able to sacrifice workers to defend and still have decent income (mules). -walloffs!! + repair + range units! -being able to lift off your expansions! Yes, I agree that defensive terran is unbreakable. Unfortunately, turtling on two bases will let your Protoss or Zerg opponents explode in terms of technology and economy (or most likely both) and smash you 5 or 10 minutes later. That's why guys like Lucifron or Innovation go for those 3CC builds double ebay builds - that seems to be the way to support enough units and upgrades to gain some advantage during mid game. If sitting behind a wall with a couple of tanks would do the trick I'm sure they would have known about it.
And the reason for this is, that zergs actually play more often macro then they bust. E.g: Soulkey played only 3busts in 7games. Compared to 5 1-2base openings from Innovation.
|
On June 07 2013 03:15 willstertben wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2013 02:38 scypio wrote:On June 07 2013 02:29 willstertben wrote:On June 06 2013 21:57 TeeTS wrote:
terran seem to be the race, that's most vulnerable to allin / hyperagressive early/mid game play. are you serious? please take a good hard look at what you wrote there. if you think terran is vulnerable to aggression in the early game then i wonder what zerg would be in your mind. sudden infant death race? that's some hilariously biased shit right there. I think that seeing Innovation die to a bunch of roach-ling-bane timings kinda warrants this statement, especially that he seems to be the only terran who gets the game... with Flash maybe a step behind. maybe that's cause of tripple orbital 2 ebays off of no real units? innovation is really good, sure, but a big part of his success is being way greedier than he is supposed to be. if that gets punished it isn't cause terran is vulnerable to early game aggression (just typing out those 5 words in that order makes me smirk) but because his BUILD ORDER is. big difference. has nothing at all to do with the race itself. zerg on the other hand IS vulnerable to early game aggression BECAUSE of the race specific mechanics, more specifically balancing drones vs units. we have seen this being exploited since beta. no other race has lost so many games to being allind as zerg has. terran? not so much. actually i would go as far as saying that terran is in fact the least likely race to lose to allins. why? -bunkers! defend the allin with static defense then sell that defense and get your money back! -being able to sacrifice workers to defend and still have decent income (mules). -walloffs!! + repair + range units! -being able to lift off your expansions!
None of the things you listed account for the fact that Terran won't know a roach bane all in is coming until they see units crossing the map. Even then it's really hard to scout if its truly an all-in or just some form of roach pressure. You seem to be a pro, so do you have any way to know whether the all in is coming before a Terran has to decide to throw down a 3rd OC or go for defensive tech?
|
You cant base balance of Innovation, because all he does is build marines and widow mines.
As far as Terrans go watch and learn from MVP. He plays super "boring" standard, but guess what, the that fucker never dies. He can play all styles and its the reason he is flat down the best SC2 player ever. he is without doubt the most intelligent player so far and its the reason he has won so much
When i see Flash and Innovation play i see them cutting way too many corners to often. Innovation was 3 games up in the final, and all he had to do was play "safe" and the title was his
|
On June 07 2013 03:45 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2013 03:24 scypio wrote:On June 07 2013 03:15 willstertben wrote:On June 07 2013 02:38 scypio wrote:On June 07 2013 02:29 willstertben wrote:On June 06 2013 21:57 TeeTS wrote:
terran seem to be the race, that's most vulnerable to allin / hyperagressive early/mid game play. are you serious? please take a good hard look at what you wrote there. if you think terran is vulnerable to aggression in the early game then i wonder what zerg would be in your mind. sudden infant death race? that's some hilariously biased shit right there. I think that seeing Innovation die to a bunch of roach-ling-bane timings kinda warrants this statement, especially that he seems to be the only terran who gets the game... with Flash maybe a step behind. maybe that's cause of tripple orbital 2 ebays off of no real units? innovation is really good, sure, but a big part of his success is being way greedier than he is supposed to be. if that gets punished it isn't cause terran is vulnerable to early game aggression (just typing out those 5 words in that order makes me smirk) but because his BUILD ORDER is. big difference. has nothing at all to do with the race itself. zerg on the other hand IS vulnerable to early game aggression BECAUSE of the race specific mechanics, more specifically balancing drones vs units. we have seen this being exploited since beta. no other race has lost so many games to being allind as zerg has. terran? not so much. actually i would go as far as saying that terran is in fact the least likely race to lose to allins. why? -bunkers! defend the allin with static defense then sell that defense and get your money back! -being able to sacrifice workers to defend and still have decent income (mules). -walloffs!! + repair + range units! -being able to lift off your expansions! Yes, I agree that defensive terran is unbreakable. Unfortunately, turtling on two bases will let your Protoss or Zerg opponents explode in terms of technology and economy (or most likely both) and smash you 5 or 10 minutes later. That's why guys like Lucifron or Innovation go for those 3CC builds double ebay builds - that seems to be the way to support enough units and upgrades to gain some advantage during mid game. If sitting behind a wall with a couple of tanks would do the trick I'm sure they would have known about it. And the reason for this is, that zergs actually play more often macro then they bust. E.g: Soulkey played only 3busts in 7games. Compared to 5 1-2base openings from Innovation.
I agree, and that is because the top zergs seem to favor lategame vs every terran composition. The unbeatable 4M somehow becomes less of an issue as you shift your focus towards the best zerg players.
This means that playing safe (read: building a tank or two) will put the Terran most likely at a disadvantage. Tanks offensive potential is inferior to widow mines, they are easier to kill, slower, do not work that well in lower numbers (they won't kill units, only damage them in most cases).
Tanks are good are defending and that's not what you need going into TvZ. You have to somehow slow the zerg down - this has not changed at all. And a mine simply does it better than a tank. It is faster - with the huge maps nowadays this is also a factor.
This is the risk you have to take in order to win a standard game. You need to rely on your scouting, starsense and micro to stop the zerg if he goes for the bust.
I dare to say that terran has three basic routes to follow:
1. The greedy route (3cc, double ebay) - vulnerable to busts.
2. Cheese (11/11, 8/8/8 repear etc)
3. Fast tech + harassment (hellbat drops, banshees etc).
The first route is current standard and - especially in a boX - the opponent may choose to try and punish it.
Routes two and three are getting figured out - just like the "unstoppable" oracles - and become less efficient.
That is why there are so few terrans in the Code S right now. Also - that is why I'd bet on Z or P winning the upcoming WCS season finals. Without efficient harassment / cheese option the T does not feel solid enough for me - and I think that the zergs and protoss got much better at dealing with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
