|
On July 24 2013 19:13 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 19:10 Decendos wrote:lol so in your opinion picking the highest level tournaments is cherry picking....wow...thats...amazing lol. also just because soulkey used it in 1-3 games doesnt make it a viable strat. just because roach hydra won some games doesnt mean its viable, i can also give you many examples where it loses. its about stats and math when it comes down to balance and its about strats like roach hydra, ling infestor, SH + support not being viable and about burrow movement, ovidrop and nyuds also not being viable. thats a design thing that can be fixed AND in the same time fixing balance. @snowbear: i know you are biased but please keep it objective and dont put words in my mouth. i never said i want zerg to have 55-60% winrate like in the end of WoL again (you even said 65% which is just a lie: http://www.aligulac.com/reports/). i just want a balanced and fun game where you can use different strats and stuff in a viable, macrogame fashion. thats why i am all for a buff to mech for example. You said nothing at all. If it's about math and stats, provide them. Per claim. So far all you do is assert the same claims without any evidence or argumentation, which we can happily ignore just like you can ignore other baseless claims such as: "Blue feathered birds always fly North."
okay here is what i did and what you can do too:
go on liquipedia, search for GSTL, OSL and Proleague, count all TvZs from june and july, count the T wins and then divide the number of T wins through the number of all TvZs played there. its doable.
really sad to see there is no T here that even accepts that Z is in a bad state and that ovidrop etc. are in a bad state since years now. that hasnt even anything to do with winrates, its just that you could fix design leaks and winrates at once by small buffs to ovidrop, nydus and burrow movement which would be a buff to non-muta comps which arent viable at all.
|
On July 24 2013 19:09 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 17:56 GreenGringo wrote:On July 24 2013 17:10 Ghanburighan wrote:
I find it ridiculous how Z's whine and whine and whine, despite there being scarce evidence of anything being wrong. They win championships left and right, and the only stats anyone cites where it looks IMBA, have so much variance due to low numbers of games, they could equally predict a giant kaiju attack. I'm not sure how Zerg is supposed to harass a planetary that's surrounded by missile turrets. The answer is simple ... NOT AT ALL ... just go for the Terran PRODUCTION LINE which can NOT be ringed by static ground defenses and only very very few people actually protect them with a large number of turrets. Now get Overlord speed and carrying capacity upgrades - I know, no one does it so it must be crap, eh? - and then drop a bunch of Roaches or Zerglings on top of that and start killing the addons. Terrans cant replenish them fast enough to be able to continue producing their high tech units while you attack him directly (and forget about the economy). Narrow pathways and the stupid building placement of too many Terrans (all barracks/factories in one row so you cant get through OR evade) will make it easy to pull off. Having an Infestor or two for some Fungals will corral potential defensive forces and give you extra time to do what is necessary. tl;dr If you want to harrass a Terran late in the game GO FOR THE PRODUCTION, because that makes him much more vulnerable than a few SCVs which are partially replaced by temporary MULEs anyways. Terrans need the biggest number of buildings to produce an army constantly and if you get rid of parts of it he will be severely hampered in his offense.
And what if the terrans (who usually build many turrets in their main, where most of their production is) plant even few mines in their main. Most of the overlords will get shot down before they drop their units, unless you send out massive amount of said overlords, leaving you with such a small army that you can't actually defend. Especially because you should send the drop when the terran is pushing for it to do anything.
|
On July 24 2013 16:58 Rossbacher wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 14:23 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On July 24 2013 14:09 Mehukannu wrote:On July 24 2013 13:59 saddaromma wrote:On July 24 2013 04:33 keglu wrote:
IMO at this point current banelings are not good enough to fight marines. Since you cant really nerf marines only way is to buff Zerg AoE (baneglings speed maybe, infesors fungal).
Also i only comment on really top level of tournament play (Korean scene) and i realize that any changes will make it harder for lower level Terrans so its little problematic. Or, you could find a middle ground, buff regular marine, and nerf stimmed marine. Noobs suck with stim anyway. Top players take too much advantage of it. Oh my god, players are using their races advantages to the fullest. Quickly, nerf everything! Seriously, that comment just sounds too stupid. You are playing the game wrong if you are not taking full advantage from the tools you have. There is not such thing as taking too much advantage in this game. It is just more you can get advantage from it, the better it is for you. Agree. Stim is a primary burst mechanic for the bio army, no different than siege mode. As I've said before, burst damage currently is and has been the race's primary mechanic and attraction. Burst damage is one of Terran's defining characteristics over all other races, whereas, Zerg's versatility and Protoss's power. And these clear differences are what separates other generic RTS, that distinct themes separate each class/race/country/etc from the very first unit. tl;dr Go away, Let's-nerf-stim troll. Isn't that was causes the underlying frustration by Zerg players? We are supposed to be the versatile race. With ressources and larva stacked we are supposed to quickly adapt to changes in the game. But with the current ZvT we just can't do that. The 3 cc, endless stream of MMM towards the Zerg style is cheap, reliable and easy to execute (now don't bash me pls, I know skill leves are different, but even if my opponent is no Innovation, I'm no Soulkey...). Zergs don't have any choice but to go for the ling bling muta style. We can't be as cost effective as Terran. And we cannot go to Hive safely due to the constant agression. As soon as Terran get's 3-3, we get owned. Since Zerg is always losing the upgrade war, what do you guys think of making 3-3 upgrades Lair tech? Maybe increase research time a bit to compensate for the Hive morphing time. I don't really see a downside to that, but do enlighten me with your ideas :-)
Fact is, Zerg have poor unit control, seriously have no idea why pro-Zerg would rush 600 minerals worth of lings into a mineral line covered by 4 hellbats and 24 SCVs, lose all 24 lings and the zerg players on TL say the game is imba. What. The. Fuck.
No sane CS pro in the world will charge head-on into an machinegun nest, die and call it imba but for Zergs, there's something wrong with losing to strategically placed hellbats and 55hp SCVs that hit back?
It's like you guys can't into logic.
|
On July 24 2013 19:17 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 16:58 Rossbacher wrote:On July 24 2013 14:23 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On July 24 2013 14:09 Mehukannu wrote:On July 24 2013 13:59 saddaromma wrote:On July 24 2013 04:33 keglu wrote:
IMO at this point current banelings are not good enough to fight marines. Since you cant really nerf marines only way is to buff Zerg AoE (baneglings speed maybe, infesors fungal).
Also i only comment on really top level of tournament play (Korean scene) and i realize that any changes will make it harder for lower level Terrans so its little problematic. Or, you could find a middle ground, buff regular marine, and nerf stimmed marine. Noobs suck with stim anyway. Top players take too much advantage of it. Oh my god, players are using their races advantages to the fullest. Quickly, nerf everything! Seriously, that comment just sounds too stupid. You are playing the game wrong if you are not taking full advantage from the tools you have. There is not such thing as taking too much advantage in this game. It is just more you can get advantage from it, the better it is for you. Agree. Stim is a primary burst mechanic for the bio army, no different than siege mode. As I've said before, burst damage currently is and has been the race's primary mechanic and attraction. Burst damage is one of Terran's defining characteristics over all other races, whereas, Zerg's versatility and Protoss's power. And these clear differences are what separates other generic RTS, that distinct themes separate each class/race/country/etc from the very first unit. tl;dr Go away, Let's-nerf-stim troll. Isn't that was causes the underlying frustration by Zerg players? We are supposed to be the versatile race. With ressources and larva stacked we are supposed to quickly adapt to changes in the game. But with the current ZvT we just can't do that. The 3 cc, endless stream of MMM towards the Zerg style is cheap, reliable and easy to execute (now don't bash me pls, I know skill leves are different, but even if my opponent is no Innovation, I'm no Soulkey...). Zergs don't have any choice but to go for the ling bling muta style. We can't be as cost effective as Terran. And we cannot go to Hive safely due to the constant agression. As soon as Terran get's 3-3, we get owned. Since Zerg is always losing the upgrade war, what do you guys think of making 3-3 upgrades Lair tech? Maybe increase research time a bit to compensate for the Hive morphing time. I don't really see a downside to that, but do enlighten me with your ideas :-) Fact is, Zerg have poor unit control, seriously have no idea why pro-Zerg would rush 600 minerals worth of lings into a mineral line covered by 4 hellbats and 24 SCVs, lose all 24 lings and the zerg players on TL say the game is imba. What. The. Fuck. No sane CS pro in the world will charge head-on into an machinegun nest, die and call it imba but for Zergs, there's something wrong with losing to strategically placed hellbats and 55hp SCVs that hit back? It's like you guys can't into logic.
What top end zerg does that? It's like you can't into reality.
|
On July 24 2013 19:19 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 19:17 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On July 24 2013 16:58 Rossbacher wrote:On July 24 2013 14:23 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On July 24 2013 14:09 Mehukannu wrote:On July 24 2013 13:59 saddaromma wrote:On July 24 2013 04:33 keglu wrote:
IMO at this point current banelings are not good enough to fight marines. Since you cant really nerf marines only way is to buff Zerg AoE (baneglings speed maybe, infesors fungal).
Also i only comment on really top level of tournament play (Korean scene) and i realize that any changes will make it harder for lower level Terrans so its little problematic. Or, you could find a middle ground, buff regular marine, and nerf stimmed marine. Noobs suck with stim anyway. Top players take too much advantage of it. Oh my god, players are using their races advantages to the fullest. Quickly, nerf everything! Seriously, that comment just sounds too stupid. You are playing the game wrong if you are not taking full advantage from the tools you have. There is not such thing as taking too much advantage in this game. It is just more you can get advantage from it, the better it is for you. Agree. Stim is a primary burst mechanic for the bio army, no different than siege mode. As I've said before, burst damage currently is and has been the race's primary mechanic and attraction. Burst damage is one of Terran's defining characteristics over all other races, whereas, Zerg's versatility and Protoss's power. And these clear differences are what separates other generic RTS, that distinct themes separate each class/race/country/etc from the very first unit. tl;dr Go away, Let's-nerf-stim troll. Isn't that was causes the underlying frustration by Zerg players? We are supposed to be the versatile race. With ressources and larva stacked we are supposed to quickly adapt to changes in the game. But with the current ZvT we just can't do that. The 3 cc, endless stream of MMM towards the Zerg style is cheap, reliable and easy to execute (now don't bash me pls, I know skill leves are different, but even if my opponent is no Innovation, I'm no Soulkey...). Zergs don't have any choice but to go for the ling bling muta style. We can't be as cost effective as Terran. And we cannot go to Hive safely due to the constant agression. As soon as Terran get's 3-3, we get owned. Since Zerg is always losing the upgrade war, what do you guys think of making 3-3 upgrades Lair tech? Maybe increase research time a bit to compensate for the Hive morphing time. I don't really see a downside to that, but do enlighten me with your ideas :-) Fact is, Zerg have poor unit control, seriously have no idea why pro-Zerg would rush 600 minerals worth of lings into a mineral line covered by 4 hellbats and 24 SCVs, lose all 24 lings and the zerg players on TL say the game is imba. What. The. Fuck. No sane CS pro in the world will charge head-on into an machinegun nest, die and call it imba but for Zergs, there's something wrong with losing to strategically placed hellbats and 55hp SCVs that hit back? It's like you guys can't into logic. What top end zerg does that? It's like you can't into reality.
There are many ZvXs, where Zerg throw units into the meat grinder of Terran. Never mind that burrow exists and a Terran has to burn a scan if your remaining units from are outnumbered from a bad engagement burrow.
http://www.youtube.com/user/ESportsTV/videos
If Terran skipped stim like Zerg skip burrow and lost he wouldn't hear the end of it, but not Zerg, no, it's Terran's fault for having better units, nerf!
|
It seems like Zergs are ignoring their insanely good unit called ultralisk. Once ultralisks are out, the late game swings into Zergs favour, and 1 fungal can win the game.
The reason why innovation (and flash) are so good is because they don't stop attacking, so Zergs don't have a window of opportunity to switch ultra.
Zergs seem to think that it's easy for any Terran to keep mineral count under 300 all game and produce non stop units as Terran. There are only 2 players in the whole world capable of that, and it's flash and innovation. Once Zergs can keep their mineral and gas bank under 300 up to 20 mins in the game whilst splitting units and microing 3 places at the same time, then they can be considered at the same level.
|
On July 24 2013 18:48 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 18:41 ChristianS wrote:On July 24 2013 18:33 GreenGringo wrote:On July 24 2013 18:25 Ghanburighan wrote:On July 24 2013 18:23 GreenGringo wrote:On July 24 2013 18:18 Ghanburighan wrote:On July 24 2013 17:56 GreenGringo wrote:On July 24 2013 17:10 Ghanburighan wrote:
I find it ridiculous how Z's whine and whine and whine, despite there being scarce evidence of anything being wrong. They win championships left and right, and the only stats anyone cites where it looks IMBA, have so much variance due to low numbers of games, they could equally predict a giant kaiju attack. I'm not sure how Zerg is supposed to harass a planetary that's surrounded by missile turrets. If you're so terrified of harass, why not invest in a planetary and an extra 200 minerals in missile turrets to completely nullify the threat of harass? Right-click 19+ banes on it. It will cost you at least 475/475, so you need to be ahead at least 1 base. The PF will most likely going to be a fourth, or you're going to have an economic lead anyway. Are you serious? I can't tell if you're joking. It's the Nestea method. Banes kill everything. You could prevent this kind of attack by building supply depots and a bunker around the planetary. Yes, it's really that simple. I'm getting angry now and I'd better stop posting. I can't believe the refusal of Terran to solve elementary problems that are absolutely trivial by the standards of what the other races have to deal with. I can't believe this is actually a disputed point, but if for a fourth base, a Terran takes a planetary and puts turrets on it, he still needs to keep army there to defend it. Otherwise ling/bane can take that out pretty easily. Sometimes you're okay with just a few widow mines for defense, but generally not. Lings can tank widow mine and PF hits, banelings can murder the thing. Supply depot and bunker walls help a little, but they only stall for a few seconds. Zerg will often just have a swarm of lings and maybe 30 banelings sitting around for this kind of thing, so even if you build ~10 supply depots to wall the thing entirely, Zerg just needs 5 or 6 banelings to break the supply depots at some point and 19 or 20 to kill the PF. If you've got a lot of SCVs, a planetary fortress, and ~10 supply depots there, that's TOTALLY worth it for the Zerg. In what world can a zerg possibly sacrifice 60 supply of banelings and zerglings, and 600+ gas, against a 4+ orbital terran parade pushing 4m into his 4th base? We saw soulkey just last night wipe out innovations mineral line twice, ruin his production with mutas, keep him at 150 supply vs 200 for like 2 minutes and still could not end the game. I get that innovation is the best player in the world, but soulkey isn't exactly terrible. The fact you're actually agreeing with some moron who believes the nestea style of suiciding banelings all day is how to win vs 4m is very telling.
Where are you getting this 60 supply number? I count 10 to 15 supply of banelings actually being lost. Some number of lings come along, but those don't get "sacrificed" aside from the few that die to PF fire before it goes down, which is pretty minimal. Ultimately you're probably losing less supply in ling/bane than the Terran is losing in SCVs.
And 600 gas? Put it this way. Who in the hell would not sacrifice 6 mutalisks to kill a Terran's planetary fortress fourth base? I'm not saying that you should be getting this opportunity – Terran should either have units to defend, or be keeping pressure on so Zerg doesn't have the chance. But if he doesn't, that's absolutely a worthwhile kill for the Zerg. You don't even need to use all the banelings, because you can just kill off the SCVs and then the Zerglings can actually kill off the PF.
And Soulkey was pulling moves like clumping more than 20 banelings together and then rolling them straight into a mine field. + Show Spoiler +(game one, specifically the part where he was in a nice lead and then lost it)
|
On July 24 2013 19:32 Lock0n wrote:
It seems like Zergs are ignoring their insanely good unit called ultralisk. Once ultralisks are out, the late game swings into Zergs favour, and 1 fungal can win the game.
The reason why innovation (and flash) are so good is because they don't stop attacking, so Zergs don't have a window of opportunity to switch ultra.
Zergs seem to think that it's easy for any Terran to keep mineral count under 300 all game and produce non stop units as Terran. There are only 2 players in the whole world capable of that, and it's flash and innovation. Once Zergs can keep their mineral and gas bank under 300 up to 20 mins in the game, then they can be considered at the same level.
That's not true. Ultralisk are better than WoL, for sure, but nowhere near switching the pace of the game toward zerg. When you first get your ultralisk you do gain a little bit of momentum and you can push the bio mine back, but if you don't do damage in the production of the terran, terran goes a little bit defensive and takes a 4th base and regain momentum after a short period of time. And SK macro is on par with Flash or Innovation, that's for sure.
|
On July 24 2013 19:15 Decendos wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 19:13 Ghanburighan wrote:On July 24 2013 19:10 Decendos wrote:lol so in your opinion picking the highest level tournaments is cherry picking....wow...thats...amazing lol. also just because soulkey used it in 1-3 games doesnt make it a viable strat. just because roach hydra won some games doesnt mean its viable, i can also give you many examples where it loses. its about stats and math when it comes down to balance and its about strats like roach hydra, ling infestor, SH + support not being viable and about burrow movement, ovidrop and nyuds also not being viable. thats a design thing that can be fixed AND in the same time fixing balance. @snowbear: i know you are biased but please keep it objective and dont put words in my mouth. i never said i want zerg to have 55-60% winrate like in the end of WoL again (you even said 65% which is just a lie: http://www.aligulac.com/reports/). i just want a balanced and fun game where you can use different strats and stuff in a viable, macrogame fashion. thats why i am all for a buff to mech for example. You said nothing at all. If it's about math and stats, provide them. Per claim. So far all you do is assert the same claims without any evidence or argumentation, which we can happily ignore just like you can ignore other baseless claims such as: "Blue feathered birds always fly North." okay here is what i did and what you can do too: go on liquipedia, search for GSTL, OSL and Proleague, count all TvZs from june and july, count the T wins and then divide the number of T wins through the number of all TvZs played there. its doable. really sad to see there is no T here that even accepts that Z is in a bad state and that ovidrop etc. are in a bad state since years now. that hasnt even anything to do with winrates, its just that you could fix design leaks and winrates at once by small buffs to ovidrop, nydus and burrow movement which would be a buff to non-muta comps which arent viable at all.
You miss the point again. Knowing the winrate for the MU does not say anything about the strategies you state. In fat, you cannot prove that roach burrow is bad, because if you look up all games where it was used, you'll find at least one game in which Soulkey beat a T with it. As you're looking at very small numbers, you'll find it is a very good strategy.
But the point is, all you can do is CLAIM strategies are bad, you do not show any evidence for it. You're like a parrot. Repeating the same sentence over and over again, without being able to discuss it.
And no, as a T I will not accept that we should arbitrarily nerf my race and skew balance in Z favour as was done "for design reasons" with the queen buff. It was the signle worst balance change in WOL history and it should never be forgotten or repeated.
|
On July 24 2013 19:13 Tsubbi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 19:06 Orek wrote:On July 24 2013 18:58 Sissors wrote:On July 24 2013 18:47 Decendos wrote:On July 24 2013 18:42 Sissors wrote:On July 24 2013 18:33 GreenGringo wrote:On July 24 2013 18:25 Ghanburighan wrote:On July 24 2013 18:23 GreenGringo wrote:On July 24 2013 18:18 Ghanburighan wrote:On July 24 2013 17:56 GreenGringo wrote:
[quote]I'm not sure how Zerg is supposed to harass a planetary that's surrounded by missile turrets.
If you're so terrified of harass, why not invest in a planetary and an extra 200 minerals in missile turrets to completely nullify the threat of harass? Right-click 19+ banes on it. It will cost you at least 475/475, so you need to be ahead at least 1 base. The PF will most likely going to be a fourth, or you're going to have an economic lead anyway. Are you serious? I can't tell if you're joking. It's the Nestea method. Banes kill everything. You could prevent this kind of attack by building supply depots and a bunker around the planetary. Yes, it's really that simple. I'm getting angry now and I'd better stop posting. I can't believe the refusal of Terran to solve elementary problems that are absolutely trivial by the standards of what the other races have to deal with. Come on this is becoming completely ridiculous. Yeah we can make a planetary fortress. Then surround it with missile turrets. At bunkers and supply depots. And then you complain zerg cannot harass that base? What do you think terran can do if you invest that much in static defenses around your bases? and yeah 80 games is close to a statistically relevant sample size, especially if its 67% winrate so it doesnt matter if with more games its 63% or 71% since both would be broken also. No, it isn't. If they were 80 uncorrelated games, then hell yeah that would be significant. But they are highly correlated games. Aditionally it is always easy when cherry picking which games should be included and which shouldnt. cherry picking = picking all june and july games of GSTL, OSL and Proleague. yeah real cherry picking going on there. and btw taking 80 games is much better than just throwing out "ZvT is 50% right now" like snowbear and others do. Yes, that is cherry picking. Because if WCS EU had shown a strong terran performance you would have included that. If proleague had bad ZvT you would have removed it because of the format (you would have a point then btw). Aditionally one can argue that winrates fundamentally are fairly random, and you can better check if the top X players show players from every race. And if you then check the OSL RO32 stats the conclusion would be zerg is OP. Yeah if you check the RO8 you could conclude terran OP. But then the question is, if it is only the case for the best 8 players worldwide, do you then really want to upset the balance for all others? What numbers do you believe then? Just curious. Or should we continue to discuss balance without numbers because no stats is perfect? I'm not saying 67% from 80 games or whatever alone is enough to prove anything, but if we start to deny any numbers because either 1. not enough sample size or 2. too many lower skilled players, then we can't use any numbers. so true, over the course of wol these korean stats were the holy grail, its THE most important data we can aquire atm calling the data of all official korean matches cherry picking is simply wrong
There are alot more official korean matches, which are ignored here. (OSL for example is only premier league, at least I assume that)
And we have had at least 50 pages in this topic with zergs claiming that we shouldn't look at the highest level, because only a few of the top zergs could split vs widow mines and the issue was for everyone below that. And now we suddenly switch to all zergs claiming we should only look at the top few players?
Tell me, why is it better to look at winrates, than to look at how much each race is represented in the top X?
Something for example to take into account is the enormous overrepresentation of zerg in places 16-32 in OSL (roughly bottom half). That significantly alters the win-rate in favour of terran, yet can you honestly say terran is better than zerg because there are a load of zergs just below the top 16? If those were all terrans, then the zerg winrate would be better. Would it then be a more balanced game?
|
On July 24 2013 19:48 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 19:15 Decendos wrote:On July 24 2013 19:13 Ghanburighan wrote:On July 24 2013 19:10 Decendos wrote:lol so in your opinion picking the highest level tournaments is cherry picking....wow...thats...amazing lol. also just because soulkey used it in 1-3 games doesnt make it a viable strat. just because roach hydra won some games doesnt mean its viable, i can also give you many examples where it loses. its about stats and math when it comes down to balance and its about strats like roach hydra, ling infestor, SH + support not being viable and about burrow movement, ovidrop and nyuds also not being viable. thats a design thing that can be fixed AND in the same time fixing balance. @snowbear: i know you are biased but please keep it objective and dont put words in my mouth. i never said i want zerg to have 55-60% winrate like in the end of WoL again (you even said 65% which is just a lie: http://www.aligulac.com/reports/). i just want a balanced and fun game where you can use different strats and stuff in a viable, macrogame fashion. thats why i am all for a buff to mech for example. You said nothing at all. If it's about math and stats, provide them. Per claim. So far all you do is assert the same claims without any evidence or argumentation, which we can happily ignore just like you can ignore other baseless claims such as: "Blue feathered birds always fly North." okay here is what i did and what you can do too: go on liquipedia, search for GSTL, OSL and Proleague, count all TvZs from june and july, count the T wins and then divide the number of T wins through the number of all TvZs played there. its doable. really sad to see there is no T here that even accepts that Z is in a bad state and that ovidrop etc. are in a bad state since years now. that hasnt even anything to do with winrates, its just that you could fix design leaks and winrates at once by small buffs to ovidrop, nydus and burrow movement which would be a buff to non-muta comps which arent viable at all. You miss the point again. Knowing the winrate for the MU does not say anything about the strategies you state. In fat, you cannot prove that roach burrow is bad, because if you look up all games where it was used, you'll find at least one game in which Soulkey beat a T with it. As you're looking at very small numbers, you'll find it is a very good strategy. But the point is, all you can do is CLAIM strategies are bad, you do not show any evidence for it. You're like a parrot. Repeating the same sentence over and over again, without being able to discuss it. And no, as a T I will not accept that we should arbitrarily nerf my race and skew balance in Z favour as was done "for design reasons" with the queen buff. It was the signle worst balance change in WOL history and it should never be forgotten or repeated.
lol. hf trolling. obv you think roach hydra, ling infestor, SH + support, ovidrop, nydus, burrow movement are fine. thats why pros use it all the time. they want to win...hell they earn their money with it, so clearly they use all those strats to win games as we see every day. they dont use ling bane muta that much because clearly the other comps and harrass possibilites of zerg are fine. /sarcasm off.
oh and great argument. queen patch didnt work out so clearly zerg should never receive any buff ever again. srsly you are so biased its insane.
|
On July 24 2013 20:26 Decendos wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 19:48 Ghanburighan wrote:On July 24 2013 19:15 Decendos wrote:On July 24 2013 19:13 Ghanburighan wrote:On July 24 2013 19:10 Decendos wrote:lol so in your opinion picking the highest level tournaments is cherry picking....wow...thats...amazing lol. also just because soulkey used it in 1-3 games doesnt make it a viable strat. just because roach hydra won some games doesnt mean its viable, i can also give you many examples where it loses. its about stats and math when it comes down to balance and its about strats like roach hydra, ling infestor, SH + support not being viable and about burrow movement, ovidrop and nyuds also not being viable. thats a design thing that can be fixed AND in the same time fixing balance. @snowbear: i know you are biased but please keep it objective and dont put words in my mouth. i never said i want zerg to have 55-60% winrate like in the end of WoL again (you even said 65% which is just a lie: http://www.aligulac.com/reports/). i just want a balanced and fun game where you can use different strats and stuff in a viable, macrogame fashion. thats why i am all for a buff to mech for example. You said nothing at all. If it's about math and stats, provide them. Per claim. So far all you do is assert the same claims without any evidence or argumentation, which we can happily ignore just like you can ignore other baseless claims such as: "Blue feathered birds always fly North." okay here is what i did and what you can do too: go on liquipedia, search for GSTL, OSL and Proleague, count all TvZs from june and july, count the T wins and then divide the number of T wins through the number of all TvZs played there. its doable. really sad to see there is no T here that even accepts that Z is in a bad state and that ovidrop etc. are in a bad state since years now. that hasnt even anything to do with winrates, its just that you could fix design leaks and winrates at once by small buffs to ovidrop, nydus and burrow movement which would be a buff to non-muta comps which arent viable at all. You miss the point again. Knowing the winrate for the MU does not say anything about the strategies you state. In fat, you cannot prove that roach burrow is bad, because if you look up all games where it was used, you'll find at least one game in which Soulkey beat a T with it. As you're looking at very small numbers, you'll find it is a very good strategy. But the point is, all you can do is CLAIM strategies are bad, you do not show any evidence for it. You're like a parrot. Repeating the same sentence over and over again, without being able to discuss it. And no, as a T I will not accept that we should arbitrarily nerf my race and skew balance in Z favour as was done "for design reasons" with the queen buff. It was the signle worst balance change in WOL history and it should never be forgotten or repeated. lol. hf trolling. obv you think roach hydra, ling infestor, SH + support, ovidrop, nydus, burrow movement are fine. thats why pros use it all the time. they want to win...hell they earn their money with it, so clearly they use all those strats to win games as we see every day. they dont use ling bane muta that much because clearly the other comps and harrass possibilites of zerg are fine. /sarcasm off. oh and great argument. queen patch didnt work out so clearly zerg should never receive any buff ever again. srsly you are so biased its insane.
I honestly don't think you understand the words I write down.
|
On July 24 2013 20:26 Decendos wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 19:48 Ghanburighan wrote:On July 24 2013 19:15 Decendos wrote:On July 24 2013 19:13 Ghanburighan wrote:On July 24 2013 19:10 Decendos wrote:lol so in your opinion picking the highest level tournaments is cherry picking....wow...thats...amazing lol. also just because soulkey used it in 1-3 games doesnt make it a viable strat. just because roach hydra won some games doesnt mean its viable, i can also give you many examples where it loses. its about stats and math when it comes down to balance and its about strats like roach hydra, ling infestor, SH + support not being viable and about burrow movement, ovidrop and nyuds also not being viable. thats a design thing that can be fixed AND in the same time fixing balance. @snowbear: i know you are biased but please keep it objective and dont put words in my mouth. i never said i want zerg to have 55-60% winrate like in the end of WoL again (you even said 65% which is just a lie: http://www.aligulac.com/reports/). i just want a balanced and fun game where you can use different strats and stuff in a viable, macrogame fashion. thats why i am all for a buff to mech for example. You said nothing at all. If it's about math and stats, provide them. Per claim. So far all you do is assert the same claims without any evidence or argumentation, which we can happily ignore just like you can ignore other baseless claims such as: "Blue feathered birds always fly North." okay here is what i did and what you can do too: go on liquipedia, search for GSTL, OSL and Proleague, count all TvZs from june and july, count the T wins and then divide the number of T wins through the number of all TvZs played there. its doable. really sad to see there is no T here that even accepts that Z is in a bad state and that ovidrop etc. are in a bad state since years now. that hasnt even anything to do with winrates, its just that you could fix design leaks and winrates at once by small buffs to ovidrop, nydus and burrow movement which would be a buff to non-muta comps which arent viable at all. You miss the point again. Knowing the winrate for the MU does not say anything about the strategies you state. In fat, you cannot prove that roach burrow is bad, because if you look up all games where it was used, you'll find at least one game in which Soulkey beat a T with it. As you're looking at very small numbers, you'll find it is a very good strategy. But the point is, all you can do is CLAIM strategies are bad, you do not show any evidence for it. You're like a parrot. Repeating the same sentence over and over again, without being able to discuss it. And no, as a T I will not accept that we should arbitrarily nerf my race and skew balance in Z favour as was done "for design reasons" with the queen buff. It was the signle worst balance change in WOL history and it should never be forgotten or repeated. lol. hf trolling. obv you think roach hydra, ling infestor, SH + support, ovidrop, nydus, burrow movement are fine. thats why pros use it all the time. they want to win...hell they earn their money with it, so clearly they use all those strats to win games as we see every day. they dont use ling bane muta that much because clearly the other comps and harrass possibilites of zerg are fine. /sarcasm off. oh and great argument. queen patch didnt work out so clearly zerg should never receive any buff ever again. srsly you are so biased its insane.
Roaches, hydras, lings, infestors and SHs are used all the time. Granted not very often against bio terran (well lings are. And infestors also. And roaches also quite often actually), but you cannot just boost them without taking into account everything else.
|
On July 24 2013 20:30 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 20:26 Decendos wrote:On July 24 2013 19:48 Ghanburighan wrote:On July 24 2013 19:15 Decendos wrote:On July 24 2013 19:13 Ghanburighan wrote:On July 24 2013 19:10 Decendos wrote:lol so in your opinion picking the highest level tournaments is cherry picking....wow...thats...amazing lol. also just because soulkey used it in 1-3 games doesnt make it a viable strat. just because roach hydra won some games doesnt mean its viable, i can also give you many examples where it loses. its about stats and math when it comes down to balance and its about strats like roach hydra, ling infestor, SH + support not being viable and about burrow movement, ovidrop and nyuds also not being viable. thats a design thing that can be fixed AND in the same time fixing balance. @snowbear: i know you are biased but please keep it objective and dont put words in my mouth. i never said i want zerg to have 55-60% winrate like in the end of WoL again (you even said 65% which is just a lie: http://www.aligulac.com/reports/). i just want a balanced and fun game where you can use different strats and stuff in a viable, macrogame fashion. thats why i am all for a buff to mech for example. You said nothing at all. If it's about math and stats, provide them. Per claim. So far all you do is assert the same claims without any evidence or argumentation, which we can happily ignore just like you can ignore other baseless claims such as: "Blue feathered birds always fly North." okay here is what i did and what you can do too: go on liquipedia, search for GSTL, OSL and Proleague, count all TvZs from june and july, count the T wins and then divide the number of T wins through the number of all TvZs played there. its doable. really sad to see there is no T here that even accepts that Z is in a bad state and that ovidrop etc. are in a bad state since years now. that hasnt even anything to do with winrates, its just that you could fix design leaks and winrates at once by small buffs to ovidrop, nydus and burrow movement which would be a buff to non-muta comps which arent viable at all. You miss the point again. Knowing the winrate for the MU does not say anything about the strategies you state. In fat, you cannot prove that roach burrow is bad, because if you look up all games where it was used, you'll find at least one game in which Soulkey beat a T with it. As you're looking at very small numbers, you'll find it is a very good strategy. But the point is, all you can do is CLAIM strategies are bad, you do not show any evidence for it. You're like a parrot. Repeating the same sentence over and over again, without being able to discuss it. And no, as a T I will not accept that we should arbitrarily nerf my race and skew balance in Z favour as was done "for design reasons" with the queen buff. It was the signle worst balance change in WOL history and it should never be forgotten or repeated. lol. hf trolling. obv you think roach hydra, ling infestor, SH + support, ovidrop, nydus, burrow movement are fine. thats why pros use it all the time. they want to win...hell they earn their money with it, so clearly they use all those strats to win games as we see every day. they dont use ling bane muta that much because clearly the other comps and harrass possibilites of zerg are fine. /sarcasm off. oh and great argument. queen patch didnt work out so clearly zerg should never receive any buff ever again. srsly you are so biased its insane. I honestly don't think you understand the words I write down.
okay for you: zerg pros dont use that strats and they have WAY more game knowledge than you and me. so obv since they choose ling bane muta pretty much every game with the occasional roach bane and NEVER go ovidrop and almost never go nydus/burrow movement and NEVER go ling infestor or SH + support and almost never go roach hydra that means those things are UP. i cant put it more clearly and i am pretty sure you know that i am saying this the 5th time know, you just want to troll.
|
On July 24 2013 20:32 Decendos wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 20:30 Ghanburighan wrote:On July 24 2013 20:26 Decendos wrote:On July 24 2013 19:48 Ghanburighan wrote:On July 24 2013 19:15 Decendos wrote:On July 24 2013 19:13 Ghanburighan wrote:On July 24 2013 19:10 Decendos wrote:lol so in your opinion picking the highest level tournaments is cherry picking....wow...thats...amazing lol. also just because soulkey used it in 1-3 games doesnt make it a viable strat. just because roach hydra won some games doesnt mean its viable, i can also give you many examples where it loses. its about stats and math when it comes down to balance and its about strats like roach hydra, ling infestor, SH + support not being viable and about burrow movement, ovidrop and nyuds also not being viable. thats a design thing that can be fixed AND in the same time fixing balance. @snowbear: i know you are biased but please keep it objective and dont put words in my mouth. i never said i want zerg to have 55-60% winrate like in the end of WoL again (you even said 65% which is just a lie: http://www.aligulac.com/reports/). i just want a balanced and fun game where you can use different strats and stuff in a viable, macrogame fashion. thats why i am all for a buff to mech for example. You said nothing at all. If it's about math and stats, provide them. Per claim. So far all you do is assert the same claims without any evidence or argumentation, which we can happily ignore just like you can ignore other baseless claims such as: "Blue feathered birds always fly North." okay here is what i did and what you can do too: go on liquipedia, search for GSTL, OSL and Proleague, count all TvZs from june and july, count the T wins and then divide the number of T wins through the number of all TvZs played there. its doable. really sad to see there is no T here that even accepts that Z is in a bad state and that ovidrop etc. are in a bad state since years now. that hasnt even anything to do with winrates, its just that you could fix design leaks and winrates at once by small buffs to ovidrop, nydus and burrow movement which would be a buff to non-muta comps which arent viable at all. You miss the point again. Knowing the winrate for the MU does not say anything about the strategies you state. In fat, you cannot prove that roach burrow is bad, because if you look up all games where it was used, you'll find at least one game in which Soulkey beat a T with it. As you're looking at very small numbers, you'll find it is a very good strategy. But the point is, all you can do is CLAIM strategies are bad, you do not show any evidence for it. You're like a parrot. Repeating the same sentence over and over again, without being able to discuss it. And no, as a T I will not accept that we should arbitrarily nerf my race and skew balance in Z favour as was done "for design reasons" with the queen buff. It was the signle worst balance change in WOL history and it should never be forgotten or repeated. lol. hf trolling. obv you think roach hydra, ling infestor, SH + support, ovidrop, nydus, burrow movement are fine. thats why pros use it all the time. they want to win...hell they earn their money with it, so clearly they use all those strats to win games as we see every day. they dont use ling bane muta that much because clearly the other comps and harrass possibilites of zerg are fine. /sarcasm off. oh and great argument. queen patch didnt work out so clearly zerg should never receive any buff ever again. srsly you are so biased its insane. I honestly don't think you understand the words I write down. okay for you: zerg pros dont use that strats and they have WAY more game knowledge than you and me. so obv since they choose ling bane muta pretty much every game with the occasional roach bane and NEVER go ovidrop and almost never go nydus/burrow movement and NEVER go ling infestor or SH + support and almost never go roach hydra that means those things are UP. i cant put it more clearly and i am pretty sure you know that i am saying this the 5th time know, you just want to troll.
You repeat the same nonsense 5 times, while I bring up counterexamples of Zergs using those very strategies. And even if some of them are not used often (we see roaches every bloody game), there are other factors. If terran were to go mech (like Maru did), we would see more SH and Vipers because those units hard-counter the composition. The reason for not seeing it is that Mech is god-awful against Z.
For each of those strats, there are recent games of pros using them to win games. And, no, we do not buff things randomly because you want to play SH against MMM. We buff them when there is an actual balance problem. Something you claim but fail to prove.
|
On July 24 2013 20:38 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 20:32 Decendos wrote:On July 24 2013 20:30 Ghanburighan wrote:On July 24 2013 20:26 Decendos wrote:On July 24 2013 19:48 Ghanburighan wrote:On July 24 2013 19:15 Decendos wrote:On July 24 2013 19:13 Ghanburighan wrote:On July 24 2013 19:10 Decendos wrote:lol so in your opinion picking the highest level tournaments is cherry picking....wow...thats...amazing lol. also just because soulkey used it in 1-3 games doesnt make it a viable strat. just because roach hydra won some games doesnt mean its viable, i can also give you many examples where it loses. its about stats and math when it comes down to balance and its about strats like roach hydra, ling infestor, SH + support not being viable and about burrow movement, ovidrop and nyuds also not being viable. thats a design thing that can be fixed AND in the same time fixing balance. @snowbear: i know you are biased but please keep it objective and dont put words in my mouth. i never said i want zerg to have 55-60% winrate like in the end of WoL again (you even said 65% which is just a lie: http://www.aligulac.com/reports/). i just want a balanced and fun game where you can use different strats and stuff in a viable, macrogame fashion. thats why i am all for a buff to mech for example. You said nothing at all. If it's about math and stats, provide them. Per claim. So far all you do is assert the same claims without any evidence or argumentation, which we can happily ignore just like you can ignore other baseless claims such as: "Blue feathered birds always fly North." okay here is what i did and what you can do too: go on liquipedia, search for GSTL, OSL and Proleague, count all TvZs from june and july, count the T wins and then divide the number of T wins through the number of all TvZs played there. its doable. really sad to see there is no T here that even accepts that Z is in a bad state and that ovidrop etc. are in a bad state since years now. that hasnt even anything to do with winrates, its just that you could fix design leaks and winrates at once by small buffs to ovidrop, nydus and burrow movement which would be a buff to non-muta comps which arent viable at all. You miss the point again. Knowing the winrate for the MU does not say anything about the strategies you state. In fat, you cannot prove that roach burrow is bad, because if you look up all games where it was used, you'll find at least one game in which Soulkey beat a T with it. As you're looking at very small numbers, you'll find it is a very good strategy. But the point is, all you can do is CLAIM strategies are bad, you do not show any evidence for it. You're like a parrot. Repeating the same sentence over and over again, without being able to discuss it. And no, as a T I will not accept that we should arbitrarily nerf my race and skew balance in Z favour as was done "for design reasons" with the queen buff. It was the signle worst balance change in WOL history and it should never be forgotten or repeated. lol. hf trolling. obv you think roach hydra, ling infestor, SH + support, ovidrop, nydus, burrow movement are fine. thats why pros use it all the time. they want to win...hell they earn their money with it, so clearly they use all those strats to win games as we see every day. they dont use ling bane muta that much because clearly the other comps and harrass possibilites of zerg are fine. /sarcasm off. oh and great argument. queen patch didnt work out so clearly zerg should never receive any buff ever again. srsly you are so biased its insane. I honestly don't think you understand the words I write down. okay for you: zerg pros dont use that strats and they have WAY more game knowledge than you and me. so obv since they choose ling bane muta pretty much every game with the occasional roach bane and NEVER go ovidrop and almost never go nydus/burrow movement and NEVER go ling infestor or SH + support and almost never go roach hydra that means those things are UP. i cant put it more clearly and i am pretty sure you know that i am saying this the 5th time know, you just want to troll. You repeat the same nonsense 5 times, while I bring up counterexamples of Zergs using those very strategies. And even if some of them are not used often (we see roaches every bloody game), there are other factors. If terran were to go mech (like Maru did), we would see more SH and Vipers because those units hard-counter the composition. The reason for not seeing it is that Mech is god-awful against Z. For each of those strats, there are recent games of pros using them to win games. And, no, we do not buff things randomly because you want to play SH against MMM. We buff them when there is an actual balance problem. Something you claim but fail to prove.
okay you just dont get it. its fine. hf.
|
On July 24 2013 20:26 Decendos wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 19:48 Ghanburighan wrote:On July 24 2013 19:15 Decendos wrote:On July 24 2013 19:13 Ghanburighan wrote:On July 24 2013 19:10 Decendos wrote:lol so in your opinion picking the highest level tournaments is cherry picking....wow...thats...amazing lol. also just because soulkey used it in 1-3 games doesnt make it a viable strat. just because roach hydra won some games doesnt mean its viable, i can also give you many examples where it loses. its about stats and math when it comes down to balance and its about strats like roach hydra, ling infestor, SH + support not being viable and about burrow movement, ovidrop and nyuds also not being viable. thats a design thing that can be fixed AND in the same time fixing balance. @snowbear: i know you are biased but please keep it objective and dont put words in my mouth. i never said i want zerg to have 55-60% winrate like in the end of WoL again (you even said 65% which is just a lie: http://www.aligulac.com/reports/). i just want a balanced and fun game where you can use different strats and stuff in a viable, macrogame fashion. thats why i am all for a buff to mech for example. You said nothing at all. If it's about math and stats, provide them. Per claim. So far all you do is assert the same claims without any evidence or argumentation, which we can happily ignore just like you can ignore other baseless claims such as: "Blue feathered birds always fly North." okay here is what i did and what you can do too: go on liquipedia, search for GSTL, OSL and Proleague, count all TvZs from june and july, count the T wins and then divide the number of T wins through the number of all TvZs played there. its doable. really sad to see there is no T here that even accepts that Z is in a bad state and that ovidrop etc. are in a bad state since years now. that hasnt even anything to do with winrates, its just that you could fix design leaks and winrates at once by small buffs to ovidrop, nydus and burrow movement which would be a buff to non-muta comps which arent viable at all. You miss the point again. Knowing the winrate for the MU does not say anything about the strategies you state. In fat, you cannot prove that roach burrow is bad, because if you look up all games where it was used, you'll find at least one game in which Soulkey beat a T with it. As you're looking at very small numbers, you'll find it is a very good strategy. But the point is, all you can do is CLAIM strategies are bad, you do not show any evidence for it. You're like a parrot. Repeating the same sentence over and over again, without being able to discuss it. And no, as a T I will not accept that we should arbitrarily nerf my race and skew balance in Z favour as was done "for design reasons" with the queen buff. It was the signle worst balance change in WOL history and it should never be forgotten or repeated. lol. hf trolling. obv you think roach hydra, ling infestor, SH + support, ovidrop, nydus, burrow movement are fine. thats why pros use it all the time. they want to win...hell they earn their money with it, so clearly they use all those strats to win games as we see every day. they dont use ling bane muta that much because clearly the other comps and harrass possibilites of zerg are fine. /sarcasm off. oh and great argument. queen patch didnt work out so clearly zerg should never receive any buff ever again. srsly you are so biased its insane.
It took more than a year for the top korean zergs to start using infestor style, so telling us that it's not viable because the pro's don't use it, is just a joke.
|
On July 24 2013 20:03 Sissors wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 19:13 Tsubbi wrote:On July 24 2013 19:06 Orek wrote:On July 24 2013 18:58 Sissors wrote:On July 24 2013 18:47 Decendos wrote:On July 24 2013 18:42 Sissors wrote:On July 24 2013 18:33 GreenGringo wrote:On July 24 2013 18:25 Ghanburighan wrote:On July 24 2013 18:23 GreenGringo wrote:On July 24 2013 18:18 Ghanburighan wrote:
[quote]
Right-click 19+ banes on it. It will cost you at least 475/475, so you need to be ahead at least 1 base. The PF will most likely going to be a fourth, or you're going to have an economic lead anyway. Are you serious? I can't tell if you're joking. It's the Nestea method. Banes kill everything. You could prevent this kind of attack by building supply depots and a bunker around the planetary. Yes, it's really that simple. I'm getting angry now and I'd better stop posting. I can't believe the refusal of Terran to solve elementary problems that are absolutely trivial by the standards of what the other races have to deal with. Come on this is becoming completely ridiculous. Yeah we can make a planetary fortress. Then surround it with missile turrets. At bunkers and supply depots. And then you complain zerg cannot harass that base? What do you think terran can do if you invest that much in static defenses around your bases? and yeah 80 games is close to a statistically relevant sample size, especially if its 67% winrate so it doesnt matter if with more games its 63% or 71% since both would be broken also. No, it isn't. If they were 80 uncorrelated games, then hell yeah that would be significant. But they are highly correlated games. Aditionally it is always easy when cherry picking which games should be included and which shouldnt. cherry picking = picking all june and july games of GSTL, OSL and Proleague. yeah real cherry picking going on there. and btw taking 80 games is much better than just throwing out "ZvT is 50% right now" like snowbear and others do. Yes, that is cherry picking. Because if WCS EU had shown a strong terran performance you would have included that. If proleague had bad ZvT you would have removed it because of the format (you would have a point then btw). Aditionally one can argue that winrates fundamentally are fairly random, and you can better check if the top X players show players from every race. And if you then check the OSL RO32 stats the conclusion would be zerg is OP. Yeah if you check the RO8 you could conclude terran OP. But then the question is, if it is only the case for the best 8 players worldwide, do you then really want to upset the balance for all others? What numbers do you believe then? Just curious. Or should we continue to discuss balance without numbers because no stats is perfect? I'm not saying 67% from 80 games or whatever alone is enough to prove anything, but if we start to deny any numbers because either 1. not enough sample size or 2. too many lower skilled players, then we can't use any numbers. so true, over the course of wol these korean stats were the holy grail, its THE most important data we can aquire atm calling the data of all official korean matches cherry picking is simply wrong There are alot more official korean matches, which are ignored here. (OSL for example is only premier league, at least I assume that) And we have had at least 50 pages in this topic with zergs claiming that we shouldn't look at the highest level, because only a few of the top zergs could split vs widow mines and the issue was for everyone below that. And now we suddenly switch to all zergs claiming we should only look at the top few players? Tell me, why is it better to look at winrates, than to look at how much each race is represented in the top X? Something for example to take into account is the enormous overrepresentation of zerg in places 16-32 in OSL (roughly bottom half). That significantly alters the win-rate in favour of terran, yet can you honestly say terran is better than zerg because there are a load of zergs just below the top 16? If those were all terrans, then the zerg winrate would be better. Would it then be a more balanced game?
Partially because of this:
Balance Discussion Math(Best of N format analysis)
As for overrepresentation in earlier rounds, which was not explained in the thread, it probably means that Zerg players who shouldn't have been in Code S/ premier league in the first place but were there thanks to WoL balance 2 seasons ago finally started to lose their positions. So-called queen patch arrived during 2013 S2 code S, but it took 3 more tournaments until Terran overrepresentation ended. Same thing.
+ Show Spoiler +
Personally, I don't think TvZ is super imba now. I feel it is slightly Terran favored, but it is still acceptable. What we don't want is trying to fix something like 53-47 balance and ending up with 40-60, which was what queen patch did to TvZ. If Terran continues to do much better for the next, say, 2 months or something, then it's worth considering balance change, but until then, we can chill.
|
On July 24 2013 20:42 Decendos wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 20:38 Ghanburighan wrote:On July 24 2013 20:32 Decendos wrote:On July 24 2013 20:30 Ghanburighan wrote:On July 24 2013 20:26 Decendos wrote:On July 24 2013 19:48 Ghanburighan wrote:On July 24 2013 19:15 Decendos wrote:On July 24 2013 19:13 Ghanburighan wrote:On July 24 2013 19:10 Decendos wrote:lol so in your opinion picking the highest level tournaments is cherry picking....wow...thats...amazing lol. also just because soulkey used it in 1-3 games doesnt make it a viable strat. just because roach hydra won some games doesnt mean its viable, i can also give you many examples where it loses. its about stats and math when it comes down to balance and its about strats like roach hydra, ling infestor, SH + support not being viable and about burrow movement, ovidrop and nyuds also not being viable. thats a design thing that can be fixed AND in the same time fixing balance. @snowbear: i know you are biased but please keep it objective and dont put words in my mouth. i never said i want zerg to have 55-60% winrate like in the end of WoL again (you even said 65% which is just a lie: http://www.aligulac.com/reports/). i just want a balanced and fun game where you can use different strats and stuff in a viable, macrogame fashion. thats why i am all for a buff to mech for example. You said nothing at all. If it's about math and stats, provide them. Per claim. So far all you do is assert the same claims without any evidence or argumentation, which we can happily ignore just like you can ignore other baseless claims such as: "Blue feathered birds always fly North." okay here is what i did and what you can do too: go on liquipedia, search for GSTL, OSL and Proleague, count all TvZs from june and july, count the T wins and then divide the number of T wins through the number of all TvZs played there. its doable. really sad to see there is no T here that even accepts that Z is in a bad state and that ovidrop etc. are in a bad state since years now. that hasnt even anything to do with winrates, its just that you could fix design leaks and winrates at once by small buffs to ovidrop, nydus and burrow movement which would be a buff to non-muta comps which arent viable at all. You miss the point again. Knowing the winrate for the MU does not say anything about the strategies you state. In fat, you cannot prove that roach burrow is bad, because if you look up all games where it was used, you'll find at least one game in which Soulkey beat a T with it. As you're looking at very small numbers, you'll find it is a very good strategy. But the point is, all you can do is CLAIM strategies are bad, you do not show any evidence for it. You're like a parrot. Repeating the same sentence over and over again, without being able to discuss it. And no, as a T I will not accept that we should arbitrarily nerf my race and skew balance in Z favour as was done "for design reasons" with the queen buff. It was the signle worst balance change in WOL history and it should never be forgotten or repeated. lol. hf trolling. obv you think roach hydra, ling infestor, SH + support, ovidrop, nydus, burrow movement are fine. thats why pros use it all the time. they want to win...hell they earn their money with it, so clearly they use all those strats to win games as we see every day. they dont use ling bane muta that much because clearly the other comps and harrass possibilites of zerg are fine. /sarcasm off. oh and great argument. queen patch didnt work out so clearly zerg should never receive any buff ever again. srsly you are so biased its insane. I honestly don't think you understand the words I write down. okay for you: zerg pros dont use that strats and they have WAY more game knowledge than you and me. so obv since they choose ling bane muta pretty much every game with the occasional roach bane and NEVER go ovidrop and almost never go nydus/burrow movement and NEVER go ling infestor or SH + support and almost never go roach hydra that means those things are UP. i cant put it more clearly and i am pretty sure you know that i am saying this the 5th time know, you just want to troll. You repeat the same nonsense 5 times, while I bring up counterexamples of Zergs using those very strategies. And even if some of them are not used often (we see roaches every bloody game), there are other factors. If terran were to go mech (like Maru did), we would see more SH and Vipers because those units hard-counter the composition. The reason for not seeing it is that Mech is god-awful against Z. For each of those strats, there are recent games of pros using them to win games. And, no, we do not buff things randomly because you want to play SH against MMM. We buff them when there is an actual balance problem. Something you claim but fail to prove. okay you just dont get it. its fine. hf.
Stop wasting your nerve on these guys. They'll never understand (not sure if they are trolling or what). Whenever you beat their arguments they bring up totally new one, mostly nonsense. And they always have their get out of jail card - "Flash and Innovation are better players". And another card - "Meta will figure it out, we have to wait".
|
All I can say for ZvT is that zerg is wayyy to use to not have to split or mitigate Damage of AOE with their smaller units .... I guarantee anyone who complains about this balance starts to not only spread out their units when engaging and going for surrounds will start feeling COMPLETELY different. When you just Take your 30 banelings and just right click into the marine pack you clump them up SUCHHH an atrocious micro crime against sc2.... Just because widow mines now force you to do what terran has had to do since day 1 you are complaining..... The micro field is on even kilter ..... High Masters will be able to tell you how to do this with effectivness... I can't tell you how many times I've gotten raped buy just a good spread from a high/ mid masters that understands a good engage....
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/2C7nQum.png)
