|
Northern Ireland25245 Posts
On August 06 2013 06:52 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2013 06:45 Wombat_NI wrote:
A few things I feel are neglected when it comes to the Inno vs Soulkey Proleague match. I didn't catch it live, and viewed it after seeing a lot of LR QQ and was a bit confused as to the reality. Went back again yesterday and rewatched it again and my mystery is still there.
1. Soulkey was behind in drones to Inno's SCVs. Not a massive amount, but I think it was 5 fewer drones than SCVs for a short period before he launched his attack, and that doesn't factor in the additional income from mules that actually makes that quite a deficit.
2. Soulkey made a lot of worker kills, but they weren't simultaneous. I went to watch the VoD initially thinking that Inno had lost all his SCVs in one go, and came back. Wasn't the case.
3. Soulkey cut tech a bit to execute those attacks and was thus behind in upgrades a bit, which made Inno's bio a lot more efficient when it hit 3/3. Yeah, I agree. It was a bigass 3base 1-1 allinish timing, Innovation defended and was ahead afterwards, even though SK did some damage. From there on it was a pretty standard TvZ but with the Terran having an upgrade and tech advantage and thus wearing SK down. Btw, I wonder how this would have worked out with burrow, as it would force the Terran to scan and thus mule less after the attack. And in those attacks you can often just burrow small groups of lings which would be cleaned up anyways without any further damage, which then either leads to scans instead of mules or damage when the terran tries to moveout. Also landmines. With that kind of aggression you can place baneling landmines very comfortably, something that isn't possible when you are only on the backfoot all game long. At least I have been playing around with similar styles on Whirlwind + burrow lately and I think it is really potent.
I'm not so sure actually, I think such a style seems to rely on doing critical damage on that map.
Luckily we don't play Innovation and his ilk on ladder, but my understanding of the downside would be that delayed Mutas can make dealing with drops difficult.
In the case of Soulkey, he took very little damage (apart from one big widowmine hit on his 3rd I think), but the threat of drops lets you get the infrastructure up behind it to go hardcore parade push later on in the game.
|
On August 06 2013 05:53 GhostOwl wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2013 02:32 Rhaegal wrote:On August 06 2013 02:16 NarutO wrote:On August 06 2013 02:00 Decendos wrote:On August 06 2013 01:48 NarutO wrote:On August 06 2013 00:53 Decendos wrote:
@naruto: you should look at where the Z wins come from. so lets remove innvoation, flash, life and soulkey. are the stats correct now in your opinion? or is it that flash is better than soulkey (which he isnt atm)? like i am sure you find a weird T biased solution. like you have a weird biased argument for everything. just you are so extremely biased you dont even think about maybe T really is too strong or Z too weak right now. Once again ignored all of my arguments... why do I even bother? your arguments are flash and innovation are better than soulkey and life which is stupid since innovation > soulkey > life > flash right now. the other was WCG qualifier show TvZ is fine. TvZ is 10:6 once again for T. how does that prove TvZ is fine? it doesnt prove TvZ is imbalanced but it most definetly doesnt prove TvZ is fine. Win rates for these qualifiers: PvT 59–40 (60%) PvZ 53–53 (50%) TvZ 47–46 (51%) 10:6 ? I'm making stuff up? I am saying INnoVation and Flash are outstanding in the matchup and I didn't compare them to anyone. Also if you would check out proleague records, you would see INnoVation and Flash actually didn't play SoulKey and/or Life most of the time. You know why? Because first off all its the minority of the matches and secondly Life is not in proleague. And yes, I do think about if Terran is potentially too strong, but since I don't see valid arguments on the high level besides INnoVation and Flash who have amazing records, where is your point? SoulKey could dominate most Terrans I dare to say. Soulkey plays Supernova tonight. Let's see how he does when he's not playing vs someone who was 4-0 vs him even in Wings of Liberty (Innovation). And Ghostowl, you say Terran has had higher winrate vs Zerg for all of HOTS, and that can only be concluded from aligulac. http://www.aligulac.com/reports/ . Which does not support your claims for imbalance, actually the opposite. Ew aligulac. Anyway this was a post directly taken from your blog: Show nested quote +On August 05 2013 08:11 Rhaegal wrote:
From an outside view, one would think I had a good life. I go to university for free, I actually get paid to go (mother's work pays for half, grant pays for the other half + refund), get good grades with almost no effort, and have a good family.
But, I feel so out of place in society. My main issue is that nothing appeals to me, be it television, SC2, reading, hanging out with friends, or anything really. Most of my day is spent just refreshing reddit and tl, with no ambition. School means nothing to me because I can't see myself doing anything with my degree.
I don't see myself as a normal person. I look at people with drive and ambition, who care about things like their hygiene or their future, and I'm just perplexed because nothing in life seems to matter to me. I gain pleasure from so few things. I wish I could choose something in life, say writing, fitness, or Starcraft, and commit myself to it, but I just can't. Honestly, I just troll internet forums all day as the attention I get from it is the only thing that makes me smile.
Is this how most people are, utterly lacking in desires, but they force themselves to go in with life? Or am I not a member of society as I have always feared/suspected? Stop trolling this thread, please. It's getting old.
You are ridiculous. Rhaegal quoted you saying that we should believe Aligulac data last month, because ZvT is terran favoured, while you had just said this month (quoted) that Aligulac isn't trustworthy (while ZvT is balanced). You were caught cherry-picking, and Rhaegal, who made no claims that require proof from Aligulac, is somehow the hypocrite. You think we're all blind and stupid, don't you.
|
^ oh no its quite a joke at the top still...look at grubby vs MVP today...tt
|
Northern Ireland25245 Posts
On August 06 2013 07:14 sMi.SyMPhOnY wrote:
^ oh no its quite a joke at the top still...look at grubby vs MVP today...tt
What was a joke about that series exactly?
|
On August 06 2013 06:15 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2013 05:48 GhostOwl wrote:
Tanks could be picked off if the bio army had to retreat because the unsiege took a while, but mines can just pop off and run with the bio army. Tell us more about those 2.81 ms units unburrowing in the midst of a swarm of 4.7/6.11 ms units and somehow "running with the bio army" without being destroyed. Show nested quote +On August 06 2013 05:48 GhostOwl wrote:
A Terran expansion can be saved easily with just lifting the OC. Tell us more about that 0.94 ms building "easily" surviving against the 4 ms Mutalisk fleet. Or maybe OCs also have boost in your imaginary world? You're simply covering yourself with ridicule with such statements, just learn what the match-up really looks like instead of wildly theorycrafting unlikely situations.
I never said mines are guaranteed to live. Either way, whether the mines are 2.8 MS or not, they're still faster when it comes to unburrowing as opposed to unsieging. So your point is moot.
And again with the movement speed with the OC. First of all, when a Zerg has enough ground forces to force your expansion to lift up AND has enough mutas to wipe out the running away OC with the Terran not having enough units to defend verse that number of mutas, the game is already heavily one-sided and Zerg is winning badly. On a even scenario, a Terran will have enough army to clean it up, or at least to prevent mutas from destroying the OC.
You try to pull out irrelevant numbers to support your argument, but as I'm dismantling your hilariously poorly constructed points, I'm showing you the numbers you pull out don't even matter.
|
Grubby won clearly toss OP.
|
On August 06 2013 07:13 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2013 06:52 Big J wrote:On August 06 2013 06:45 Wombat_NI wrote:
A few things I feel are neglected when it comes to the Inno vs Soulkey Proleague match. I didn't catch it live, and viewed it after seeing a lot of LR QQ and was a bit confused as to the reality. Went back again yesterday and rewatched it again and my mystery is still there.
1. Soulkey was behind in drones to Inno's SCVs. Not a massive amount, but I think it was 5 fewer drones than SCVs for a short period before he launched his attack, and that doesn't factor in the additional income from mules that actually makes that quite a deficit.
2. Soulkey made a lot of worker kills, but they weren't simultaneous. I went to watch the VoD initially thinking that Inno had lost all his SCVs in one go, and came back. Wasn't the case.
3. Soulkey cut tech a bit to execute those attacks and was thus behind in upgrades a bit, which made Inno's bio a lot more efficient when it hit 3/3. Yeah, I agree. It was a bigass 3base 1-1 allinish timing, Innovation defended and was ahead afterwards, even though SK did some damage. From there on it was a pretty standard TvZ but with the Terran having an upgrade and tech advantage and thus wearing SK down. Btw, I wonder how this would have worked out with burrow, as it would force the Terran to scan and thus mule less after the attack. And in those attacks you can often just burrow small groups of lings which would be cleaned up anyways without any further damage, which then either leads to scans instead of mules or damage when the terran tries to moveout. Also landmines. With that kind of aggression you can place baneling landmines very comfortably, something that isn't possible when you are only on the backfoot all game long. At least I have been playing around with similar styles on Whirlwind + burrow lately and I think it is really potent. I'm not so sure actually, I think such a style seems to rely on doing critical damage on that map. Luckily we don't play Innovation and his ilk on ladder, but my understanding of the downside would be that delayed Mutas can make dealing with drops difficult. In the case of Soulkey, he took very little damage (apart from one big widowmine hit on his 3rd I think), but the threat of drops lets you get the infrastructure up behind it to go hardcore parade push later on in the game.
well yeah, you are completely open to drops, but I think the interesting point of such an aggressive play is that a Terran has very little troops to spare to do the drops. I do think that you should not go as heavily aggressive as SK did, but I do believe that you could be able to do something similar and at least mix in the 2-2 upgrades (and maybe burrow) on such a huge map.
Also, I think you could try to skip the macro hatch and just go for a 4th base instead (to use as macro hatch), so that you can later on skip building the 4th.
It is a gambit for sure, but how much can the Terran actually spare? How strong is a single dropship going to be when you are making nonstop units that you can use for defense when they hatch?
I just think that you are not going to get into that situation very often. Like, the situation in the game was 3hatch before pool against a CC first into rax into CC into factory. Most Terrans will still get the hellions faster, or may just open up with reapers and make you drone less and you won't have the economy for this aggressive ling/bling play, but rather play a macro game (but from a better situation than if you went hatch-->pool-->hatch or some build like that).
But I think it is a very interesting approach, though not completely new I agree. It's a bit of an adaption of Life's 4hatch ling/bling he played at the start of HotS.
|
Page 666!
This explains why Mvp lost in ro16 wcs EU
|
On August 06 2013 07:13 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2013 05:53 GhostOwl wrote:On August 06 2013 02:32 Rhaegal wrote:On August 06 2013 02:16 NarutO wrote:On August 06 2013 02:00 Decendos wrote:On August 06 2013 01:48 NarutO wrote:On August 06 2013 00:53 Decendos wrote:
@naruto: you should look at where the Z wins come from. so lets remove innvoation, flash, life and soulkey. are the stats correct now in your opinion? or is it that flash is better than soulkey (which he isnt atm)? like i am sure you find a weird T biased solution. like you have a weird biased argument for everything. just you are so extremely biased you dont even think about maybe T really is too strong or Z too weak right now. Once again ignored all of my arguments... why do I even bother? your arguments are flash and innovation are better than soulkey and life which is stupid since innovation > soulkey > life > flash right now. the other was WCG qualifier show TvZ is fine. TvZ is 10:6 once again for T. how does that prove TvZ is fine? it doesnt prove TvZ is imbalanced but it most definetly doesnt prove TvZ is fine. Win rates for these qualifiers: PvT 59–40 (60%) PvZ 53–53 (50%) TvZ 47–46 (51%) 10:6 ? I'm making stuff up? I am saying INnoVation and Flash are outstanding in the matchup and I didn't compare them to anyone. Also if you would check out proleague records, you would see INnoVation and Flash actually didn't play SoulKey and/or Life most of the time. You know why? Because first off all its the minority of the matches and secondly Life is not in proleague. And yes, I do think about if Terran is potentially too strong, but since I don't see valid arguments on the high level besides INnoVation and Flash who have amazing records, where is your point? SoulKey could dominate most Terrans I dare to say. Soulkey plays Supernova tonight. Let's see how he does when he's not playing vs someone who was 4-0 vs him even in Wings of Liberty (Innovation). And Ghostowl, you say Terran has had higher winrate vs Zerg for all of HOTS, and that can only be concluded from aligulac. http://www.aligulac.com/reports/ . Which does not support your claims for imbalance, actually the opposite. Ew aligulac. Anyway this was a post directly taken from your blog: On August 05 2013 08:11 Rhaegal wrote:
From an outside view, one would think I had a good life. I go to university for free, I actually get paid to go (mother's work pays for half, grant pays for the other half + refund), get good grades with almost no effort, and have a good family.
But, I feel so out of place in society. My main issue is that nothing appeals to me, be it television, SC2, reading, hanging out with friends, or anything really. Most of my day is spent just refreshing reddit and tl, with no ambition. School means nothing to me because I can't see myself doing anything with my degree.
I don't see myself as a normal person. I look at people with drive and ambition, who care about things like their hygiene or their future, and I'm just perplexed because nothing in life seems to matter to me. I gain pleasure from so few things. I wish I could choose something in life, say writing, fitness, or Starcraft, and commit myself to it, but I just can't. Honestly, I just troll internet forums all day as the attention I get from it is the only thing that makes me smile.
Is this how most people are, utterly lacking in desires, but they force themselves to go in with life? Or am I not a member of society as I have always feared/suspected? Stop trolling this thread, please. It's getting old. You are ridiculous. Rhaegal quoted you saying that we should believe Aligulac data last month, because ZvT is terran favoured, while you had just said this month (quoted) that Aligulac isn't trustworthy (while ZvT is balanced). You were caught cherry-picking, and Rhaegal, who made no claims that require proof from Aligulac, is somehow the hypocrite. You think we're all blind and stupid, don't you.
When did I ever say we should rely on that data? The only thing I told him was not to balance based on ladder, but balance based on top performance. Dude, get a grip.
|
On August 06 2013 06:07 Decendos wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2013 05:45 Big J wrote:On August 06 2013 05:36 Decendos wrote:
@big j: you just nerfed the viper lol. instead of 2 clouds with 2,0 radius now it has 1 with 3,0 + gets worth vs colossus and tanks....just let it stay 100 energy. some other changes are good, some arent. And if you do the math how much more R²*Pi with R=3 than R=2 is you may understand what a brutal buff that is to the area the new Cloud covers. It's more than doubled and a Viper for sure shouldn't have two of those (just think about how brutal Time Warp is and imagine what would happen if Protoss could built multiple MsCs for Time Warps alone). Also, a Viper would still have 1blinding cloud + 1abduct on 200energy, which is very powerful (and should be for such an hightech, "no damage", expensive spellcaster) For what you dislike, I'd like to hear what and why. 3^2 = 9. 2*2^2 = 8. not that big of a difference + the nerfs and you cant do 2 clouds which is better than 1 big cloud especially in chokes. wont happen. oh and omg i would trade timewarp everytime vs blinding cloud. + the abduct is horrible vs mobile armies like stalker or MMM or roach hydra which is what blinding cloud sucks against. Show nested quote +On August 06 2013 05:53 TeeTS wrote:On August 06 2013 05:26 GhostOwl wrote:On August 06 2013 03:43 Mattumsfox wrote:On August 05 2013 23:45 GhostOwl wrote:On August 05 2013 22:49 NarutO wrote:
You keep ignoring my points. I called your post uninformed and dumb because it fucking is. The only reason you call me biased towards Terran is because you cannot stand the more worthy opinion/analyses of a higher level player. Why dont I call out others on that the same way I do with you?
Sorry to say but I dont hate at all but you simply overdo it. I Could break that game down for you to the smallest detail and in the end you would say terran op. Like LSN tells us what innovation was doing wasnt impressive. Perfect control and multitasking but for a simple mind it sure looks like nothing impressive. Okay, my posts are uninformed and dumb because I don't see things your way through your Terran-colored lens. No, that's not the reason I call you biased toward Terran. You simply ignore the fact that Terran is superior in TvZ, and you disregard Terran cost effiency and winrates. You ignore all data and winrates until you land on one that makes TvZ look as balanced as possible, which turned out to be 32-24. And then we point out that even that number is not balanced, its 62% and then you blame the sample size afterwards. Just the stuff you do, it's incredibly one-sided and you choose to ignore anything that makes your race look in a bad light. I mean, what kind of guy says 32-24 is balanced? Anyway, the way you rage at me because I missed your discussion earlier, just shows what kind of classy "high level player" you are. Level doesn't always correspond with legit analysis. Some high level players might be inclined to support broken things just because its their race. For example, Flash supported the idea of tanks becoming 2 supply. He's Flash, who has better analysis than probably everyone on this thread, but on the other hand, he has a motive to support things that would better Terran. Just using this as an analogy out there. EDIT: Imagine if Tanks DID become 2 supply. Shudder...I don't even wanna think about that. You say he ignores winrates and he is biased. There are 2 sources for statistics right now, aligulac and chaosterran. According to aligulac the game is well balanced and zerg is improving in ZvT with each passing month. So I assume you aren't using these statistics because they don't support your argument. Therefore I assume you are using chaosterran's statistics that shows TvZ is in favor of terran. This is where your extreme bias shows though. Last month when chaosterran posted the statistics and they showed ZvT was actually in favor of zerg this was your reply. On July 01 2013 21:35 GhostOwl wrote:
I don't trust this data, especially from a guy called "ChaosTerran", no offense.
HoTS has messed up balance heavily...and it's currently a big mess right now. So when the statistics show that the matchup is fine you don't trust the data but when it shows terran is favored that same data is perfectly fine. So for you to call anyone biased is extremely laughable. And then there's this data which we can easily verify: On July 31 2013 00:03 GhostOwl wrote:On July 30 2013 23:44 Rhaegal wrote:On July 30 2013 23:39 GhostOwl wrote:On July 30 2013 23:33 NarutO wrote:On July 30 2013 23:13 GhostOwl wrote:On July 30 2013 21:06 Dwayn wrote:
A big step towards balance in ZvT would be if zerg could get it's 3/3 on lair. No, this doesnt matter. The broken balance of TvZ comes from the cost efficiency and power of a well- microed bio ball with WM support. Equal engagements trades for T and Z hurts Zerg alot more cuz he loses gas while Terran only loses marines (easily replenished w mules and reactors) Medivacs get free escape button and WM are cheap to replenish. @Naruro, quit pulling out win rates that support ur view while conviently ignoring the 65%-70% T favored TvZ balance data posted few pages ago I pulled the winrates? Go look em up in WCG qualifier, lol. Pulling does not mean making them up. I guess you have no idea how the word is used..just like how you have no idea what you're talking about when you keep trying to deny TvZ is broken ZvT in WCG qualifier was 42-43 iirc, and just recently we have had Revial beat Polt and Life beat Bomber... doesn't seem very "broken" to me. http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/hots/leagues/3724_2012-2013_SPL/mainhttp://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/hots/leagues/3655_2013_GSTL_S1http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/hots/leagues/3975_2013_WCS_S2:_OSL51-29 TvZ 63.8% 30-16 TvZ 65.2% 15-6 TvZ 71.4% Seems very broken to me. Naruto keeps bringing up the WCG qualifers but those are QUALIFERS and it's just ONE tournament. Yeah, there was one tournament where the TvZ balance was near 50%, great? I just showed you 3 tournaments/season. He knitpicks data like crazy.... http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/hots/leagues/3714_2013_WCS_S1:_GSL_Code_S50-50 http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/hots/leagues/3802_2013_WCS_S1:_GSL_Code_A36-64 in favor of Z http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/hots/leagues/3801_2013_WCS_S1:_GSL_Qualifier50-50 http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/hots/leagues/4026_2013_WCS_S2:_OSL_Chall43-57 in favor of Z http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/hots/leagues/4002_2013_WCS_S2:_OSL_Qual43-57 in favor of Z I can play the "pick your tournament which underlines your point" game too. please post more tournaments from april and may....
took the words right outta my mouth...
|
On August 06 2013 07:18 GhostOwl wrote:
I never said mines are guaranteed to live. Either way, whether the mines are 2.8 MS or not, they're still faster when it comes to unburrowing as opposed to unsieging. So your point is moot.
My point isn't moot; you said "but mines can just pop off and run with the bio army," which is completely irrelevant because whether they die where they're burrowed or 2 cases away changes nothing to the fact 95% of the time you're guaranteed to lose all of them when you lose an engagement.
On August 06 2013 07:18 GhostOwl wrote:
And again with the movement speed with the OC. First of all, when a Zerg has enough ground forces to force your expansion to lift up AND has enough mutas to wipe out the running away OC with the Terran not having enough units to defend verse that number of mutas, the game is already heavily one-sided and Zerg is winning badly. On a even scenario, a Terran will have enough army to clean it up, or at least to prevent mutas from destroying the OC.
Nice try to redefine the situation you were discussing, but may I kindly remind the original point? "A Zerg hatchery will pop is a few seconds after the Terran army goes to it. A Terran expansion can be saved easily with just lifting the OC." So you were precisely not discussing an "even scenario," you were talking about what occurs after one side loses "too badly" a fight.
|
Northern Ireland25245 Posts
On August 06 2013 07:26 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2013 07:13 Wombat_NI wrote:On August 06 2013 06:52 Big J wrote:On August 06 2013 06:45 Wombat_NI wrote:
A few things I feel are neglected when it comes to the Inno vs Soulkey Proleague match. I didn't catch it live, and viewed it after seeing a lot of LR QQ and was a bit confused as to the reality. Went back again yesterday and rewatched it again and my mystery is still there.
1. Soulkey was behind in drones to Inno's SCVs. Not a massive amount, but I think it was 5 fewer drones than SCVs for a short period before he launched his attack, and that doesn't factor in the additional income from mules that actually makes that quite a deficit.
2. Soulkey made a lot of worker kills, but they weren't simultaneous. I went to watch the VoD initially thinking that Inno had lost all his SCVs in one go, and came back. Wasn't the case.
3. Soulkey cut tech a bit to execute those attacks and was thus behind in upgrades a bit, which made Inno's bio a lot more efficient when it hit 3/3. Yeah, I agree. It was a bigass 3base 1-1 allinish timing, Innovation defended and was ahead afterwards, even though SK did some damage. From there on it was a pretty standard TvZ but with the Terran having an upgrade and tech advantage and thus wearing SK down. Btw, I wonder how this would have worked out with burrow, as it would force the Terran to scan and thus mule less after the attack. And in those attacks you can often just burrow small groups of lings which would be cleaned up anyways without any further damage, which then either leads to scans instead of mules or damage when the terran tries to moveout. Also landmines. With that kind of aggression you can place baneling landmines very comfortably, something that isn't possible when you are only on the backfoot all game long. At least I have been playing around with similar styles on Whirlwind + burrow lately and I think it is really potent. I'm not so sure actually, I think such a style seems to rely on doing critical damage on that map. Luckily we don't play Innovation and his ilk on ladder, but my understanding of the downside would be that delayed Mutas can make dealing with drops difficult. In the case of Soulkey, he took very little damage (apart from one big widowmine hit on his 3rd I think), but the threat of drops lets you get the infrastructure up behind it to go hardcore parade push later on in the game. well yeah, you are completely open to drops, but I think the interesting point of such an aggressive play is that a Terran has very little troops to spare to do the drops. I do think that you should not go as heavily aggressive as SK did, but I do believe that you could be able to do something similar and at least mix in the 2-2 upgrades (and maybe burrow) on such a huge map. Also, I think you could try to skip the macro hatch and just go for a 4th base instead (to use as macro hatch), so that you can later on skip building the 4th. It is a gambit for sure, but how much can the Terran actually spare? How strong is a single dropship going to be when you are making nonstop units that you can use for defense when they hatch? I just think that you are not going to get into that situation very often. Like, the situation in the game was 3hatch before pool against a CC first into rax into CC into factory. Most Terrans will still get the hellions faster, or may just open up with reapers and make you drone less and you won't have the economy for this aggressive ling/bling play, but rather play a macro game (but from a better situation than if you went hatch-->pool-->hatch or some build like that). But I think it is a very interesting approach, though not completely new I agree. It's a bit of an adaption of Life's 4hatch ling/bling he played at the start of HotS.
I feel such a style might work, but we'll see. Previously, with Hellbats in their previous state it was their capacity to deal really well with ling-only defense that gave them so much potency.
Actually I feel the problem with mines is dealing with them when they get to something approaching critical mass. Even Life's ling micro isn't sufficient when the game gets late, at least from games I see.
Personally, the only change I would possibly make is giving Overseers an increase in vision/detection range?
At least to me, the thing I feel uneasy about is that Zergs have to march into biomine without prior knowledge of where some of the mines are located. The micro they can perform to mitigate mines becomes that much harder when they don't get sufficient time to react.
Again, it's perhaps not a balance thing, it's my personal view. Zerg also rely on the speed of lings to hold their own in terms of defending drops and whatnot, and the need to take care when trying to manouvere round the map really shuts down that mobility advantage, without much cost or thought of the Terran.
|
On August 06 2013 07:31 GhostOwl wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2013 06:07 Decendos wrote:On August 06 2013 05:45 Big J wrote:On August 06 2013 05:36 Decendos wrote:
@big j: you just nerfed the viper lol. instead of 2 clouds with 2,0 radius now it has 1 with 3,0 + gets worth vs colossus and tanks....just let it stay 100 energy. some other changes are good, some arent. And if you do the math how much more R²*Pi with R=3 than R=2 is you may understand what a brutal buff that is to the area the new Cloud covers. It's more than doubled and a Viper for sure shouldn't have two of those (just think about how brutal Time Warp is and imagine what would happen if Protoss could built multiple MsCs for Time Warps alone). Also, a Viper would still have 1blinding cloud + 1abduct on 200energy, which is very powerful (and should be for such an hightech, "no damage", expensive spellcaster) For what you dislike, I'd like to hear what and why. 3^2 = 9. 2*2^2 = 8. not that big of a difference + the nerfs and you cant do 2 clouds which is better than 1 big cloud especially in chokes. wont happen. oh and omg i would trade timewarp everytime vs blinding cloud. + the abduct is horrible vs mobile armies like stalker or MMM or roach hydra which is what blinding cloud sucks against. On August 06 2013 05:53 TeeTS wrote:On August 06 2013 05:26 GhostOwl wrote:On August 06 2013 03:43 Mattumsfox wrote:On August 05 2013 23:45 GhostOwl wrote:On August 05 2013 22:49 NarutO wrote:
You keep ignoring my points. I called your post uninformed and dumb because it fucking is. The only reason you call me biased towards Terran is because you cannot stand the more worthy opinion/analyses of a higher level player. Why dont I call out others on that the same way I do with you?
Sorry to say but I dont hate at all but you simply overdo it. I Could break that game down for you to the smallest detail and in the end you would say terran op. Like LSN tells us what innovation was doing wasnt impressive. Perfect control and multitasking but for a simple mind it sure looks like nothing impressive. Okay, my posts are uninformed and dumb because I don't see things your way through your Terran-colored lens. No, that's not the reason I call you biased toward Terran. You simply ignore the fact that Terran is superior in TvZ, and you disregard Terran cost effiency and winrates. You ignore all data and winrates until you land on one that makes TvZ look as balanced as possible, which turned out to be 32-24. And then we point out that even that number is not balanced, its 62% and then you blame the sample size afterwards. Just the stuff you do, it's incredibly one-sided and you choose to ignore anything that makes your race look in a bad light. I mean, what kind of guy says 32-24 is balanced? Anyway, the way you rage at me because I missed your discussion earlier, just shows what kind of classy "high level player" you are. Level doesn't always correspond with legit analysis. Some high level players might be inclined to support broken things just because its their race. For example, Flash supported the idea of tanks becoming 2 supply. He's Flash, who has better analysis than probably everyone on this thread, but on the other hand, he has a motive to support things that would better Terran. Just using this as an analogy out there. EDIT: Imagine if Tanks DID become 2 supply. Shudder...I don't even wanna think about that. You say he ignores winrates and he is biased. There are 2 sources for statistics right now, aligulac and chaosterran. According to aligulac the game is well balanced and zerg is improving in ZvT with each passing month. So I assume you aren't using these statistics because they don't support your argument. Therefore I assume you are using chaosterran's statistics that shows TvZ is in favor of terran. This is where your extreme bias shows though. Last month when chaosterran posted the statistics and they showed ZvT was actually in favor of zerg this was your reply. On July 01 2013 21:35 GhostOwl wrote:
I don't trust this data, especially from a guy called "ChaosTerran", no offense.
HoTS has messed up balance heavily...and it's currently a big mess right now. So when the statistics show that the matchup is fine you don't trust the data but when it shows terran is favored that same data is perfectly fine. So for you to call anyone biased is extremely laughable. And then there's this data which we can easily verify: On July 31 2013 00:03 GhostOwl wrote:On July 30 2013 23:44 Rhaegal wrote:On July 30 2013 23:39 GhostOwl wrote:On July 30 2013 23:33 NarutO wrote:On July 30 2013 23:13 GhostOwl wrote:On July 30 2013 21:06 Dwayn wrote:
A big step towards balance in ZvT would be if zerg could get it's 3/3 on lair. No, this doesnt matter. The broken balance of TvZ comes from the cost efficiency and power of a well- microed bio ball with WM support. Equal engagements trades for T and Z hurts Zerg alot more cuz he loses gas while Terran only loses marines (easily replenished w mules and reactors) Medivacs get free escape button and WM are cheap to replenish. @Naruro, quit pulling out win rates that support ur view while conviently ignoring the 65%-70% T favored TvZ balance data posted few pages ago I pulled the winrates? Go look em up in WCG qualifier, lol. Pulling does not mean making them up. I guess you have no idea how the word is used..just like how you have no idea what you're talking about when you keep trying to deny TvZ is broken ZvT in WCG qualifier was 42-43 iirc, and just recently we have had Revial beat Polt and Life beat Bomber... doesn't seem very "broken" to me. http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/hots/leagues/3724_2012-2013_SPL/mainhttp://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/hots/leagues/3655_2013_GSTL_S1http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/hots/leagues/3975_2013_WCS_S2:_OSL51-29 TvZ 63.8% 30-16 TvZ 65.2% 15-6 TvZ 71.4% Seems very broken to me. Naruto keeps bringing up the WCG qualifers but those are QUALIFERS and it's just ONE tournament. Yeah, there was one tournament where the TvZ balance was near 50%, great? I just showed you 3 tournaments/season. He knitpicks data like crazy.... http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/hots/leagues/3714_2013_WCS_S1:_GSL_Code_S50-50 http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/hots/leagues/3802_2013_WCS_S1:_GSL_Code_A36-64 in favor of Z http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/hots/leagues/3801_2013_WCS_S1:_GSL_Qualifier50-50 http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/hots/leagues/4026_2013_WCS_S2:_OSL_Chall43-57 in favor of Z http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/hots/leagues/4002_2013_WCS_S2:_OSL_Qual43-57 in favor of Z I can play the "pick your tournament which underlines your point" game too. please post more tournaments from april and may.... took the words right outta my mouth...
so? but SPL and GSTL are legit?
|
On August 06 2013 03:43 Mattumsfox wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2013 23:45 GhostOwl wrote:On August 05 2013 22:49 NarutO wrote:
You keep ignoring my points. I called your post uninformed and dumb because it fucking is. The only reason you call me biased towards Terran is because you cannot stand the more worthy opinion/analyses of a higher level player. Why dont I call out others on that the same way I do with you?
Sorry to say but I dont hate at all but you simply overdo it. I Could break that game down for you to the smallest detail and in the end you would say terran op. Like LSN tells us what innovation was doing wasnt impressive. Perfect control and multitasking but for a simple mind it sure looks like nothing impressive. Okay, my posts are uninformed and dumb because I don't see things your way through your Terran-colored lens. No, that's not the reason I call you biased toward Terran. You simply ignore the fact that Terran is superior in TvZ, and you disregard Terran cost effiency and winrates. You ignore all data and winrates until you land on one that makes TvZ look as balanced as possible, which turned out to be 32-24. And then we point out that even that number is not balanced, its 62% and then you blame the sample size afterwards. Just the stuff you do, it's incredibly one-sided and you choose to ignore anything that makes your race look in a bad light. I mean, what kind of guy says 32-24 is balanced? Anyway, the way you rage at me because I missed your discussion earlier, just shows what kind of classy "high level player" you are. Level doesn't always correspond with legit analysis. Some high level players might be inclined to support broken things just because its their race. For example, Flash supported the idea of tanks becoming 2 supply. He's Flash, who has better analysis than probably everyone on this thread, but on the other hand, he has a motive to support things that would better Terran. Just using this as an analogy out there. EDIT: Imagine if Tanks DID become 2 supply. Shudder...I don't even wanna think about that. You say he ignores winrates and he is biased. There are 2 sources for statistics right now, aligulac and chaosterran. According to aligulac the game is well balanced and zerg is improving in ZvT with each passing month. So I assume you aren't using these statistics because they don't support your argument. Therefore I assume you are using chaosterran's statistics that shows TvZ is in favor of terran. This is where your extreme bias shows though. Last month when chaosterran posted the statistics and they showed ZvT was actually in favor of zerg this was your reply.
On July 01 2013 21:35 GhostOwl wrote:
I don't trust this data, especially from a guy called "ChaosTerran", no offense.
HoTS has messed up balance heavily...and it's currently a big mess right now.
So when the statistics show that the matchup is fine you don't trust the data but when it shows terran is favored that same data is perfectly fine. So for you to call anyone biased is extremely laughable.
Touché.
|
On August 06 2013 07:33 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2013 07:18 GhostOwl wrote:
I never said mines are guaranteed to live. Either way, whether the mines are 2.8 MS or not, they're still faster when it comes to unburrowing as opposed to unsieging. So your point is moot. My point isn't moot; you said "but mines can just pop off and run with the bio army," which is completely irrelevant because whether they die where they're burrowed or 2 cases away changes nothing to the fact 95% of the time you're guaranteed to lose all of them when you lose an engagement.
Wow...way to exaggerate. 95% of the time? where did you pull that number from? your ass? or hard data with multiple experiements done? Anyway...
Zerg can't chase the retreating T army forever - unless he pretty much won the game. Reinforcing WM can be burrowed to stop the chase, or reinforcing bio army / or home static defense. It does change things that tanks die earlier because a few seconds of difference can mean whether the remaining Terran army can make it back safely to base or not. Depending on whether they engaged near the base / rally point or not.
The irony of your garbage logic is that you pulled out the movement speed numbers to show that WMs eventually get caught but instead, it proved that they still survive better than a unsiegeing tank would. And I just showed how that makes a difference.
On August 06 2013 07:33 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2013 07:18 GhostOwl wrote:
And again with the movement speed with the OC. First of all, when a Zerg has enough ground forces to force your expansion to lift up AND has enough mutas to wipe out the running away OC with the Terran not having enough units to defend verse that number of mutas, the game is already heavily one-sided and Zerg is winning badly. On a even scenario, a Terran will have enough army to clean it up, or at least to prevent mutas from destroying the OC. Nice try to redefine the situation you were discussing, but may I kindly remind the original point? "A Zerg hatchery will pop is a few seconds after the Terran army goes to it. A Terran expansion can be saved easily with just lifting the OC." So you were precisely not discussing an "even scenario," you were talking about what occurs after one side loses "too badly" a fight.
Are you kidding me? A single medivac filled with marines can take down a hatchery easily. That's 500 minerals 100 gas. Try to see if a Zerg army with 500 mineral 100 gas can take down a orbital command even half as fast. So if we put them on "even scenario/even amount of money", Terran wins easily.
|
On August 06 2013 08:03 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2013 03:43 Mattumsfox wrote:On August 05 2013 23:45 GhostOwl wrote:On August 05 2013 22:49 NarutO wrote:
You keep ignoring my points. I called your post uninformed and dumb because it fucking is. The only reason you call me biased towards Terran is because you cannot stand the more worthy opinion/analyses of a higher level player. Why dont I call out others on that the same way I do with you?
Sorry to say but I dont hate at all but you simply overdo it. I Could break that game down for you to the smallest detail and in the end you would say terran op. Like LSN tells us what innovation was doing wasnt impressive. Perfect control and multitasking but for a simple mind it sure looks like nothing impressive. Okay, my posts are uninformed and dumb because I don't see things your way through your Terran-colored lens. No, that's not the reason I call you biased toward Terran. You simply ignore the fact that Terran is superior in TvZ, and you disregard Terran cost effiency and winrates. You ignore all data and winrates until you land on one that makes TvZ look as balanced as possible, which turned out to be 32-24. And then we point out that even that number is not balanced, its 62% and then you blame the sample size afterwards. Just the stuff you do, it's incredibly one-sided and you choose to ignore anything that makes your race look in a bad light. I mean, what kind of guy says 32-24 is balanced? Anyway, the way you rage at me because I missed your discussion earlier, just shows what kind of classy "high level player" you are. Level doesn't always correspond with legit analysis. Some high level players might be inclined to support broken things just because its their race. For example, Flash supported the idea of tanks becoming 2 supply. He's Flash, who has better analysis than probably everyone on this thread, but on the other hand, he has a motive to support things that would better Terran. Just using this as an analogy out there. EDIT: Imagine if Tanks DID become 2 supply. Shudder...I don't even wanna think about that. You say he ignores winrates and he is biased. There are 2 sources for statistics right now, aligulac and chaosterran. According to aligulac the game is well balanced and zerg is improving in ZvT with each passing month. So I assume you aren't using these statistics because they don't support your argument. Therefore I assume you are using chaosterran's statistics that shows TvZ is in favor of terran. This is where your extreme bias shows though. Last month when chaosterran posted the statistics and they showed ZvT was actually in favor of zerg this was your reply. Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 21:35 GhostOwl wrote:
I don't trust this data, especially from a guy called "ChaosTerran", no offense.
HoTS has messed up balance heavily...and it's currently a big mess right now. Show nested quote +So when the statistics show that the matchup is fine you don't trust the data but when it shows terran is favored that same data is perfectly fine. So for you to call anyone biased is extremely laughable. Touché.
I told you earlier not to contribute if you don't have anything useful to say. You did it again. TL doesn't like 1 word giant quotes. Aligulac and Chaosterran's data is not the sole data available. There are GSTL's and Proleague data. They are verify-able unlike Chaosterran's mass large data (we don't know if he "skipped a match or not") and I'd rather look at these than Aligulac.
|
On August 06 2013 08:25 GhostOwl wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2013 08:03 plogamer wrote:On August 06 2013 03:43 Mattumsfox wrote:On August 05 2013 23:45 GhostOwl wrote:On August 05 2013 22:49 NarutO wrote:
You keep ignoring my points. I called your post uninformed and dumb because it fucking is. The only reason you call me biased towards Terran is because you cannot stand the more worthy opinion/analyses of a higher level player. Why dont I call out others on that the same way I do with you?
Sorry to say but I dont hate at all but you simply overdo it. I Could break that game down for you to the smallest detail and in the end you would say terran op. Like LSN tells us what innovation was doing wasnt impressive. Perfect control and multitasking but for a simple mind it sure looks like nothing impressive. Okay, my posts are uninformed and dumb because I don't see things your way through your Terran-colored lens. No, that's not the reason I call you biased toward Terran. You simply ignore the fact that Terran is superior in TvZ, and you disregard Terran cost effiency and winrates. You ignore all data and winrates until you land on one that makes TvZ look as balanced as possible, which turned out to be 32-24. And then we point out that even that number is not balanced, its 62% and then you blame the sample size afterwards. Just the stuff you do, it's incredibly one-sided and you choose to ignore anything that makes your race look in a bad light. I mean, what kind of guy says 32-24 is balanced? Anyway, the way you rage at me because I missed your discussion earlier, just shows what kind of classy "high level player" you are. Level doesn't always correspond with legit analysis. Some high level players might be inclined to support broken things just because its their race. For example, Flash supported the idea of tanks becoming 2 supply. He's Flash, who has better analysis than probably everyone on this thread, but on the other hand, he has a motive to support things that would better Terran. Just using this as an analogy out there. EDIT: Imagine if Tanks DID become 2 supply. Shudder...I don't even wanna think about that. You say he ignores winrates and he is biased. There are 2 sources for statistics right now, aligulac and chaosterran. According to aligulac the game is well balanced and zerg is improving in ZvT with each passing month. So I assume you aren't using these statistics because they don't support your argument. Therefore I assume you are using chaosterran's statistics that shows TvZ is in favor of terran. This is where your extreme bias shows though. Last month when chaosterran posted the statistics and they showed ZvT was actually in favor of zerg this was your reply. On July 01 2013 21:35 GhostOwl wrote:
I don't trust this data, especially from a guy called "ChaosTerran", no offense.
HoTS has messed up balance heavily...and it's currently a big mess right now. So when the statistics show that the matchup is fine you don't trust the data but when it shows terran is favored that same data is perfectly fine. So for you to call anyone biased is extremely laughable. Touché. I told you earlier not to contribute if you don't have anything useful to say. You did it again. TL doesn't like 1 word giant quotes. Aligulac and Chaosterran's data is not the sole data available. There are GSTL's and Proleague data. They are verify-able unlike Chaosterran's mass large data (we don't know if he "skipped a match or not") and I'd rather look at these than Aligulac.
Since I seem to have to spell this out: You have 0 credibility. I did not add much since it was pretty clear from the response of the person I quoted. Have a lick of modesty and refrain from spouting more nonsense in this thread.
/edit
Rather look at what data again? There is no other source of statistically significant data other than the Aligulac and Chaosterran. Though I could be mistaken.
|
On August 06 2013 08:03 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2013 03:43 Mattumsfox wrote:On August 05 2013 23:45 GhostOwl wrote:On August 05 2013 22:49 NarutO wrote:
You keep ignoring my points. I called your post uninformed and dumb because it fucking is. The only reason you call me biased towards Terran is because you cannot stand the more worthy opinion/analyses of a higher level player. Why dont I call out others on that the same way I do with you?
Sorry to say but I dont hate at all but you simply overdo it. I Could break that game down for you to the smallest detail and in the end you would say terran op. Like LSN tells us what innovation was doing wasnt impressive. Perfect control and multitasking but for a simple mind it sure looks like nothing impressive. Okay, my posts are uninformed and dumb because I don't see things your way through your Terran-colored lens. No, that's not the reason I call you biased toward Terran. You simply ignore the fact that Terran is superior in TvZ, and you disregard Terran cost effiency and winrates. You ignore all data and winrates until you land on one that makes TvZ look as balanced as possible, which turned out to be 32-24. And then we point out that even that number is not balanced, its 62% and then you blame the sample size afterwards. Just the stuff you do, it's incredibly one-sided and you choose to ignore anything that makes your race look in a bad light. I mean, what kind of guy says 32-24 is balanced? Anyway, the way you rage at me because I missed your discussion earlier, just shows what kind of classy "high level player" you are. Level doesn't always correspond with legit analysis. Some high level players might be inclined to support broken things just because its their race. For example, Flash supported the idea of tanks becoming 2 supply. He's Flash, who has better analysis than probably everyone on this thread, but on the other hand, he has a motive to support things that would better Terran. Just using this as an analogy out there. EDIT: Imagine if Tanks DID become 2 supply. Shudder...I don't even wanna think about that. You say he ignores winrates and he is biased. There are 2 sources for statistics right now, aligulac and chaosterran. According to aligulac the game is well balanced and zerg is improving in ZvT with each passing month. So I assume you aren't using these statistics because they don't support your argument. Therefore I assume you are using chaosterran's statistics that shows TvZ is in favor of terran. This is where your extreme bias shows though. Last month when chaosterran posted the statistics and they showed ZvT was actually in favor of zerg this was your reply. Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 21:35 GhostOwl wrote:
I don't trust this data, especially from a guy called "ChaosTerran", no offense.
HoTS has messed up balance heavily...and it's currently a big mess right now. Show nested quote +So when the statistics show that the matchup is fine you don't trust the data but when it shows terran is favored that same data is perfectly fine. So for you to call anyone biased is extremely laughable. Touché.
Haha, I can't really believe that GhostOwl is for real. I mean, geez, how more biased can one get?
Not that I mind, personally enjoy reading comments from extremely biased people. Always good entertainment.
|
Northern Ireland25245 Posts
On August 06 2013 07:14 sMi.SyMPhOnY wrote:
^ oh no its quite a joke at the top still...look at grubby vs MVP today...tt
Again, what was a joke about that series? Please elaborate, otherwise it's baseless QQing rather than actual discussion of anything.
|
On August 06 2013 11:08 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2013 07:14 sMi.SyMPhOnY wrote:
^ oh no its quite a joke at the top still...look at grubby vs MVP today...tt Again, what was a joke about that series? Please elaborate, otherwise it's baseless QQing rather than actual discussion of anything.
The Hasuobs game 3 is a bit more alarming. So many techs off of two bases.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
