|
On August 06 2013 05:48 GhostOwl wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2013 03:23 NarutO wrote:On August 06 2013 03:05 Decendos wrote:On August 06 2013 03:00 Ghanburighan wrote:On August 06 2013 02:55 NarutO wrote:On August 06 2013 02:52 Decendos 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. where you got those numbers? 10:6 is korea. WCG KOREA QUALIFIER. What were you saying, Decendos, about reading posts properly. And, note, you and saddaromma still just bad-mouth me and Naruto. I write a long post, saddaromma deletes almost all of it, and instead of attacking the straw-man left, all he can say is that it's "ridiculous". If I thought it ridiculous, I would have not written it. So you need to actually argue WHY it is ridiculous. And all you say, Decendos, is that I don't read posts properly. As if the context is going to make 10-6 statistics any more valid. Naruto's nearly 100 games is nearly ten times better, and I would still say it's nearly useless data without aggregating it with a whole lot more data. Bottom line, stop calling me ridiculous, dumb, biased, unable-to-read and whatnot. Argue your point. If TvZ is in a bad state, you should be able to convince us with arguments. And if we are biased, we should look silly arguing against you. Yet, I'd say it's looking quite the opposite. okay here are the arguments...once again: - you have to go mutas or die - WMs counter all 3 units that you have to go for: lings, banes and mutas - Z is always on the defensive OR has to do an early or early midgame roach bane all in - TvZ is broken in macro games: 3 base rally = slow death animation since Z is often unable to get 3 3 + hivetech + infestors + staying alive (not enough gas available) - MMMM whole game long while Z has to transition or die - 1 bad WM engagement = gg, 1 bad banehit /= gg since Z trades gas for minerals all game long You don't have to go mutas. Ling/Bane/Muta is the most skillfull way to play on the highest level, yet HyuN or Symbol who play Roach Styles (Symbol tends to be a bit more timing based / allinish) both do fine on the very highest level of competition. If you want to elevate the highest level of competition to proleague, then obviously I cannot name Hyun, but I will say he has a far decent shot against nearly every Terran. Yes, you don't have to go mutas, but Zerg has no alternative. Roach style requires you to be heavily ahead in Terran macro, or else Roach army vs Bio army on EQUAL macro means Roach style cannot win. Additionally, Terran can pickup-their bio army if the fight is going to look like its going to go bad for them - and escape. Mutas are a MUST, if you want to punish Terran for bad positioning or engagement. Otherwise, Terran can just pick up their losing army everytime and not lose anything. Especially since the infestor nerf. The only way Zergs can avoid going mutas if fungal got buffed again. Show nested quote +On August 06 2013 03:23 NarutO wrote:
WM on their own cannot counter everything. Widowmines only become useful when you are a master with them and can be very letdown as well. The unit is good in the hands of a masterful player and can be negated or minimized by a skillfull player. While I do believe it may be too strong in itself and needs tweaks, its not overpowered to the extent that it allows a weaker Terran to rule over a better Zerg. WD are not SUPPOSED to counter everything, they are used as support units. On the contrary, widow mines is more luck-dependent and less skill-dependent than any other unit because of their random firing. You try to make it sound like unit is good only in the hands of a master player..what a load of bullshit. No one complained about just Widow mines alone. We complained about how it's being used in combination with the current bio army. 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. Show nested quote +On August 06 2013 03:23 NarutO wrote:
Zergs are not always forced on the defensive, as SoulKey did show in some games against INnoVation, as do KangHo, RorO and others. While those didn't have great success this season, aggressive Zergs are lacking because its more benefitial to tech and transition into hive, because utras are very strong than to attack into Terran for several reasons. (lack of creepspread at the Terran-base etc) Of course Zergs are not always forced on the defensive..the matchup would be even more broken if that was the case. No, the real reason aggressive Zergs are lacking is because Terran army is too cost efficient and mules. Innovation vs Soulkey showed us that Zergs can devote to a semi all-in and lose the game EVEN with massive SCV kills because mules will compensate , and Terran army with good micro can just win the fuck in terms of trading. (Imagine 1 marauder tanking several baneling hits while the bio army just pummels the hell outta the Z army). Show nested quote +On August 06 2013 03:23 NarutO wrote:
We don't play 4M because 'we like to abuse' - we play 4M because there is no option given to Terran that allows a good transition. Battlecruisers are an option against ultras in the very lategame (as is skyterran) but the transition takes very long, doesn't share upgrades (as would the ultra transition (same argument as roach/hydra into ultra for example) and is expensive + slow. TvZ is mostly action packed and sitting back 2 minutes might be your doom as Terran. No, 4M is played because it is the best option, and there is no reason to invest in multiple starports and wait forever for BCs to come out, when you can crush your opponent with basic marines, marauders, mines, and medivacs. It's way more mobile, and it's much more forgiving in terms of losing them. The only race that can kill other races's T3 with their T1. Why the hell would you wait till T3 to kill your opponent when can you do it easily with your T1? Show nested quote +On August 06 2013 03:23 NarutO wrote:
The same can be applied for Terran, one bad fight in midgame against muta/ling/bane and unreliable mine hits and the Zerg could be at your natural or ravaging your 3rd, depending on map size and style. Its a good and dangerous style for both parties. While I believe its more 'true' in some extent on masterful level towards Zerg, the same situation occurs for Terran in lategame, a big(ger) engagement or bad fight against an ultra based army (infestor can hold you in place and force a fight) you will be lost as you lose all your punch or potentially production capability. 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. I've seen many many games where Terran loses a bunch of medivacs and still comes back as strong as ever. If a Zerg loses his mutas before he can successfully transition into hive tech, he will most likely lose the game. Terran has no "lose these units and you die" in TvZ compared to Zerg in the same matchup. Terran is much easily forgiven than Zerg in this matchup. Show nested quote +On August 06 2013 03:23 NarutO wrote:
As you can see, while I don't disagree with the statement of Zvt being hard, its hard for both parties and requires skillful play by both. Little tweaks I would like to hear, but right now no one actually brings out a wish for a tweak, buff or nerf.
Of course you don't want a buff or nerf. A buff to Terran would mean that even the biased posters can't deny the matchup is broken because it becomes so glaringly obvious. And as for nerfs, you would not even want a height nerf for a marine. That's pretty much your reputation on this thread.
Thanks for taking time to respond in a proper fashion. Personally I feel that your grasp on the match up is lacking. You either seem to overestimate Terran in itself or underestimate the work that is put into the games to make it look like INnoVation does. While I would personally say that Terran has highest potential and is the best race if played to perfection, I believe not even a handful of Terrans are capable of playing to perfection (obviously human perfection, no one can be automaton).
To your points:
As mentioned, Zerg doesn't have to go mutas. Thats what the guy previously stated and its wrong. There are up and downs to every style and for the roach style its having to invest into static defence or being able to have a constant eye on the minimap so you can properly react. Also in addition to that, knowing how to split your army (i.e how much to send to drops) is crucial. While that is the disadvantage, the advantage is that its pretty 'easy' (for a pro obviously) to play as roaches are massed easily and don't require as perfect injects as muta/ling/bane. Furthermore the fights roach/bane especially against low-mine situations (that evolve through the game) its a very hard style for Terran to beat, as its actually quiet strong. For example SoulKeys 3 base timing is insane and very hard to hold, even with tanks for a 'normal person'.
So all I said is, there are alternatives to how you can play with up and downs obviously, but there are options.
Widowmines are not meant to counter everything. That is correct and the guy I quoted said they do - they don't. Simply that and nothing more was my point. You are saying that widowmines are hugely luck dependant - how so? They are unreliable if you don't control them , I can agree to that and if you don't control them, Zerg can take the pace and try to minimize the hits. That is skill in big parts micro and engagements. If Terran does micro the mines to counter splitting, this is skill in the same fashion. So you can see, both parties can work on the mine to be effective or not so effective. You will see INnoVation and Flashs mines are way 'superior' to mine for example. I am not a bad player by any means, but I am high enough level to call you out on it, its not luck-based but skill based. (Dwf vs STLife shows insane anti-mine control)
Don't get me wrong, I for my part would love marine/tank back and viable, but the new - stronger - mutalisk allows for higher sustainability and higher amounts, making it very hard to actually do something with marine/tank. Usually you can push out quiet late, as you need a crucial amount of tanks. I feel Blizzard wanted to 'cover' that area of the game and allow Terrans do pressure while getting tanks. Truth is, the new mutalisk raids your production and easily picks of tanks and that alone buys enough time to make your push so weak that it gets potentially crushed. In addition the Zerg that figures out you are going tanks will have no problem having a 4 base saturation long before you push and potential hive. Furthermore the marine/tank builds simply don't transition that well into the lategame. Ideally you want reactors and not techlabs on your barracks, so you would either cut down reactors (not build them in the first place) and switch to pure bio/mine after the transition hits, but since there is really no benefit from tanks right now, you are better off going bio mine in the first place.
My personal suggestion would be speeding up tank-siege so they have their downside (speed, forced in position when sieged) but also stay viable. Starcraft 2 is a lot faster and if you are at the edge of creep or worse on creep, before your tanks siege and fired Zerg can be close to you. Not even to mention that leapfrogging while in itself is obviously a good method to advance, takes time and if you play marine/tank you don't have much time. You want to trade before any ultras are on the field. Potentially buffing tanks vs ultras could also work. You want variety? Here you go - if you don't make marine/tank viable at the highest level because it lacks mobility and can be abused it will never be played again outside of vs roach/hydra or roach/bane.
4M is superior in any way and I agree with it, the problem is - that is not 'our' fault, but the designs fault. I still don't agree with you saying its T1 for Terran. While Terran has no tiers to begin with, if you want to apply the Tier system, Medivacs would be T3, Mines would be T2.
While it is true that usually you would not win an engagement as Zerg (if you don't win it crushingly) you cannot push into Terran, the same applies for Terran. If he doesn't completely crush you in the engagement, he won't be able to instantly push into you, especially at maxed out fights Terran rarely wins without dropping themselves into supply. I feel like while you call me out as biased, you simply don't experience the high-level TvZ I do or you don't understand the TvZs you watch. While we are exposed to the likes of INnoVation and Flash you can take a good look at Flash vs hyvaa on Newkirk. While Flash won that game (for various reasons) there is one situation where he forced to take a full engagement because one fungal hits. You dumb down the match up by a lot while its such a complex and difficult matchup for both parties and by no means is TvZ a forgiving matchup, for no one.
|
Good post naruto, it proofs u really wanna discuss
I have a few questions if if u dont mind
First is about tvz:
The gas difference between them, dont u think this can be a problem for zerg? Mutas, banes. They cost so much gas if added up, if he wanna add infestors, 150 gas.
To get hive, thats 300gas almost, infe pit and hive
Lets say u cut mutalisks, you stay at 15
You still need tons of banelings to fight 4M
You wanna pressure terran, now u invest in gas to
And u lose all your banelings while investing in it
to me it sounds as a potential problem
You mention dwf vs thelife, have they played in hots? Would love to see it if that was the case
And about flash, i dont understand this hype, he has played sloppy the last games i saw of him, not counting tvt
The match for premier league spot, he didnt use his mines very well. I dont remember whole game but at one time he plants 5mines in a clump and a few banes clean them up immediately
Ofcourse it can happen everyone, to play abit sloppy from time to time
but flash hasnt done anything really outstanding so far i can tell
And his tvp, ghost usage is lacking alot to.
I would love for him to become really really great player
but as of now i see him as overhyped, overrated
just my 2cents hope u answer
|
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.
Retreating a bio-mech army when the zerg doesn't want you to retreat (and you didnt kill his entire army) is impossible. And unsiege time is only a fraction of the problem. Your army is simply so slow there is not a chance in hell you outrun a zerg army. So your choices are either sacrifising all your tanks, or suiciding the entire army while hoping it does enough damage.
No, the real reason aggressive Zergs are lacking is because Terran army is too cost efficient and mules.
Seriously? It is 2013 and zergs are still whining about mules?
It's way more mobile, and it's much more forgiving in terms of losing them. The only race that can kill other races's T3 with their T1. Why the hell would you wait till T3 to kill your opponent when can you do it easily with your T1?
I do think it is nice to see the overwelming support for giving thor ground attack splash damage from zerg players. Considering zerg are the only race that can kill another races t3 with their t1 easily (zerglings vs thors is just a-move).
If you want terrans to start playing bio-mech again while not having zergs OP, then you will need a significant boost for tanks and/or mutas significantly nerfed. (Or give missile turrets the aoe upgrade from WOL campaign, that will mainly affect mutas).
I have a few questions if if u dont mind
First is about tvz:
The gas difference between them
Not Naruto, but TvT, bio vs mech. There you also got the same gas difference. Does that automatically mean mech cannot beat bio? Of course not. Being mineral starved is not good. I consider it better than gas starved, but a balanced mineral/gas requirement is still better.
|
^ I agree with most of what you said, Naruto. And I want to elaborate more on terran having the highest potential theory. Right now I see korean scene as follows:
- There are clear top players like Bomber, Supernova, Rain, Fantasy, Jaedong, Hyun and others. Who are capable of beating anyone, but have their own vulnerabilities. Sometimes they play great games, sometimes they lose by getting totally outplayed. Lets call them Group A.
- And there are S-class players like Innovation, Flash (in form), Life and Soulkey. These players play better overall, very few mistakes, almost perfect decisions and great micro. They rarely get caught off guard and only unorthodox play could shake them up. -Group S.
As I watch how hots is shaping up, it has nearly perfect balance for Group A, except terran being slightly weak. But for group S, where players discover true potential of their race balance starts to shift. Right now I feel there is an issue in TvZ and TvP.
diclaimer: this paragraph is only relevant to Group S players:
In TvZ, what basically happens is that terran needs to get to 3-3 MMM without being massively behind, and lately, Group S players starting to figure out safer ways to get there and zergs are having less and less options to prevent that.
In TvP, protoss is getting stronger and stronger with each day. This matchup looks more broken than TvZ. Protoss has so many tools and mind-game options that any Group A protoss could dismantle Group S terran. This isn't just because MvP lost yesterday, I was thinking about it long ago. Grubby and Hasu each lost 1 game to MVP, and it was because they made terrible mistakes. I respect both of them but MVP is clearly a better player.
|
OK; this theory of Terran has the highest potential has been around for so long. So I'd like to ask a thing or two about it that nobody who has brought it on the table has ever tried to explain:
- when do we really reach this "endphase of skill increments in which Terran is stronger": because this theory has been around since 2011. It suggested that Terrans were more successful back in 2011 because top players could show more skill with Terran. But 2012 the skill level of progamers far exceeded that of 2011. According to the theory Terrans would have had to be absolutly destroying the proscene. But instead it was zergs that completely dominated while in TvP, Protoss had their best phase ever.
- what are the mechanics that cause this? Because everybody and their mother can split marines quite well in master league already, and multitasking is a thing every race always has to perform. Especially when one race like Terran tries to force it with drop play, the only way to win is to exceed the Terrans multitasking skills. I honestly don't see those incredibly high scaling skills that only Terran has.
I'd really love to see someone paint a Skill-Potential-Diagramm for the 3races and mark the points where we have been 2011, 2012 and now, as well as the points where gold league and master league are currently. Because I don't think this can be consistently done with this theory, ergo, the theory has been disproven.
|
On August 06 2013 17:31 saddaromma wrote:
^ I agree with most of what you said, Naruto. And I want to elaborate more on terran having the highest potential theory. Right now I see korean scene as follows:
- There are clear top players like Bomber, Supernova, Rain, Fantasy, Jaedong, Hyun and others. Who are capable of beating anyone, but have their own vulnerabilities. Sometimes they play great games, sometimes they lose by getting totally outplayed. Lets call them Group A.
- And there are S-class players like Innovation, Flash (in form), Life and Soulkey. These players play better overall, very few mistakes, almost perfect decisions and great micro. They rarely get caught off guard and only unorthodox play could shake them up. -Group S.
As I watch how hots is shaping up, it has nearly perfect balance for Group A, except terran being slightly weak. But for group S, where players discover true potential of their race balance starts to shift. Right now I feel there is an issue in TvZ and TvP.
diclaimer: this paragraph is only relevant to Group S players:
In TvZ, what basically happens is that terran needs to get to 3-3 MMM without being massively behind, and lately, Group S players starting to figure out safer ways to get there and zergs are having less and less options to prevent that.
In TvP, protoss is getting stronger and stronger with each day. This matchup looks more broken than TvZ. Protoss has so many tools and mind-game options that any Group A protoss could dismantle Group S terran. This isn't just because MvP lost yesterday, I was thinking about it long ago. Grubby and Hasu each lost 1 game to MVP, and it was because they made terrible mistakes. I respect both of them but MVP is clearly a better player.
PvT will be fixed when photon overcharge gets a duration nerf. it has been said many times. if photon overcharge gets a slight nerf then terran all-ins will work again. thus causing the matchup to not be in the toss favour anymore.
i would like to see a tank buff
i have seen a lot of terran players playing 4M and just being a bit lazy. they just clump up their army and when banelings roll in they split that ball in half, causing them to lose their army.
i have seen a lot of terrans lose just because they didn't split at all. it's the reason why i liked marine tank play. at least there they try to split.
|
On August 06 2013 18:07 Big J wrote:
OK; this theory of Terran has the highest potential has been around for so long. So I'd like to ask a thing or two about it that nobody who has brought it on the table has ever tried to explain:
- when do we really reach this "endphase of skill increments in which Terran is stronger": because this theory has been around since 2011. It suggested that Terrans were more successful back in 2011 because top players could show more skill with Terran. But 2012 the skill level of progamers far exceeded that of 2011. According to the theory Terrans would have had to be absolutly destroying the proscene. But instead it was zergs that completely dominated while in TvP, Protoss had their best phase ever.
- what are the mechanics that cause this? Because everybody and their mother can split marines quite well in master league already, and multitasking is a thing every race always has to perform. Especially when one race like Terran tries to force it with drop play, the only way to win is to exceed the Terrans multitasking skills. I honestly don't see those incredibly high scaling skills that only Terran has.
I'd really love to see someone paint a Skill-Potential-Diagramm for the 3races and mark the points where we have been 2011, 2012 and now, as well as the points where gold league and master league are currently. Because I don't think this can be consistently done with this theory, ergo, the theory has been disproven.
Why do u think zergt dominated? could it be cuz of no-skill infestor broodlord.. Hmmm tough question could it be...
|
On August 06 2013 18:19 Foxxan wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2013 18:07 Big J wrote:
OK; this theory of Terran has the highest potential has been around for so long. So I'd like to ask a thing or two about it that nobody who has brought it on the table has ever tried to explain:
- when do we really reach this "endphase of skill increments in which Terran is stronger": because this theory has been around since 2011. It suggested that Terrans were more successful back in 2011 because top players could show more skill with Terran. But 2012 the skill level of progamers far exceeded that of 2011. According to the theory Terrans would have had to be absolutly destroying the proscene. But instead it was zergs that completely dominated while in TvP, Protoss had their best phase ever.
- what are the mechanics that cause this? Because everybody and their mother can split marines quite well in master league already, and multitasking is a thing every race always has to perform. Especially when one race like Terran tries to force it with drop play, the only way to win is to exceed the Terrans multitasking skills. I honestly don't see those incredibly high scaling skills that only Terran has.
I'd really love to see someone paint a Skill-Potential-Diagramm for the 3races and mark the points where we have been 2011, 2012 and now, as well as the points where gold league and master league are currently. Because I don't think this can be consistently done with this theory, ergo, the theory has been disproven. Why do u think zergt dominated? could it be cuz of no-skill infestor broodlord.. Hmmm tough question could it be...
Hm, so Terran didn't have the highest potential, because no-skill infestor broodlord had more potential. So the theory has been disproven! Point for me.
|
On August 06 2013 18:23 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2013 18:19 Foxxan wrote:On August 06 2013 18:07 Big J wrote:
OK; this theory of Terran has the highest potential has been around for so long. So I'd like to ask a thing or two about it that nobody who has brought it on the table has ever tried to explain:
- when do we really reach this "endphase of skill increments in which Terran is stronger": because this theory has been around since 2011. It suggested that Terrans were more successful back in 2011 because top players could show more skill with Terran. But 2012 the skill level of progamers far exceeded that of 2011. According to the theory Terrans would have had to be absolutly destroying the proscene. But instead it was zergs that completely dominated while in TvP, Protoss had their best phase ever.
- what are the mechanics that cause this? Because everybody and their mother can split marines quite well in master league already, and multitasking is a thing every race always has to perform. Especially when one race like Terran tries to force it with drop play, the only way to win is to exceed the Terrans multitasking skills. I honestly don't see those incredibly high scaling skills that only Terran has.
I'd really love to see someone paint a Skill-Potential-Diagramm for the 3races and mark the points where we have been 2011, 2012 and now, as well as the points where gold league and master league are currently. Because I don't think this can be consistently done with this theory, ergo, the theory has been disproven. Why do u think zergt dominated? could it be cuz of no-skill infestor broodlord.. Hmmm tough question could it be... Hm, so Terran didn't have the highest potential, because no-skill infestor broodlord had more potential. So the theory has been disproven! Point for me.
In Wings, there were foreign Zergs that beat Top Korean Terran often. And this happened for months. Korean domination vs Foreigners today just shows you how much of an improvement HOTS was, as the better players are winning more often.
|
On August 06 2013 18:23 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2013 18:19 Foxxan wrote:On August 06 2013 18:07 Big J wrote:
OK; this theory of Terran has the highest potential has been around for so long. So I'd like to ask a thing or two about it that nobody who has brought it on the table has ever tried to explain:
- when do we really reach this "endphase of skill increments in which Terran is stronger": because this theory has been around since 2011. It suggested that Terrans were more successful back in 2011 because top players could show more skill with Terran. But 2012 the skill level of progamers far exceeded that of 2011. According to the theory Terrans would have had to be absolutly destroying the proscene. But instead it was zergs that completely dominated while in TvP, Protoss had their best phase ever.
- what are the mechanics that cause this? Because everybody and their mother can split marines quite well in master league already, and multitasking is a thing every race always has to perform. Especially when one race like Terran tries to force it with drop play, the only way to win is to exceed the Terrans multitasking skills. I honestly don't see those incredibly high scaling skills that only Terran has.
I'd really love to see someone paint a Skill-Potential-Diagramm for the 3races and mark the points where we have been 2011, 2012 and now, as well as the points where gold league and master league are currently. Because I don't think this can be consistently done with this theory, ergo, the theory has been disproven. Why do u think zergt dominated? could it be cuz of no-skill infestor broodlord.. Hmmm tough question could it be... Hm, so Terran didn't have the highest potential, because no-skill infestor broodlord had more potential. So the theory has been disproven! Point for me.
no your point is gone, zerg was overpowered
move along
|
On August 06 2013 18:26 Rhaegal wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2013 18:23 Big J wrote:On August 06 2013 18:19 Foxxan wrote:On August 06 2013 18:07 Big J wrote:
OK; this theory of Terran has the highest potential has been around for so long. So I'd like to ask a thing or two about it that nobody who has brought it on the table has ever tried to explain:
- when do we really reach this "endphase of skill increments in which Terran is stronger": because this theory has been around since 2011. It suggested that Terrans were more successful back in 2011 because top players could show more skill with Terran. But 2012 the skill level of progamers far exceeded that of 2011. According to the theory Terrans would have had to be absolutly destroying the proscene. But instead it was zergs that completely dominated while in TvP, Protoss had their best phase ever.
- what are the mechanics that cause this? Because everybody and their mother can split marines quite well in master league already, and multitasking is a thing every race always has to perform. Especially when one race like Terran tries to force it with drop play, the only way to win is to exceed the Terrans multitasking skills. I honestly don't see those incredibly high scaling skills that only Terran has.
I'd really love to see someone paint a Skill-Potential-Diagramm for the 3races and mark the points where we have been 2011, 2012 and now, as well as the points where gold league and master league are currently. Because I don't think this can be consistently done with this theory, ergo, the theory has been disproven. Why do u think zergt dominated? could it be cuz of no-skill infestor broodlord.. Hmmm tough question could it be... Hm, so Terran didn't have the highest potential, because no-skill infestor broodlord had more potential. So the theory has been disproven! Point for me. In Wings, there were foreign Zergs that beat Top Korean Terran often. And this happened for months. Korean domination vs Foreigners today just shows you how much of an improvement HOTS was, as the better players are winning more often.
Could you expand on that more, because for me that sounds like you want to say "HotS raised the skillcap."
Which means the following two things for me:
- Terran has never been the race with the highest potential in WoL as Zerg had simply more potential, ergo, the theory was wrong back in WoL.
- if the theory is right, it is solely because of the changes HotS introduced. So the skill potential comes from medivac boosters, widow mines and hellbats - and matchupspeficically from nerfed fungal. Not from stuff that was in WoL.
On August 06 2013 18:27 Foxxan wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2013 18:23 Big J wrote:On August 06 2013 18:19 Foxxan wrote:On August 06 2013 18:07 Big J wrote:
OK; this theory of Terran has the highest potential has been around for so long. So I'd like to ask a thing or two about it that nobody who has brought it on the table has ever tried to explain:
- when do we really reach this "endphase of skill increments in which Terran is stronger": because this theory has been around since 2011. It suggested that Terrans were more successful back in 2011 because top players could show more skill with Terran. But 2012 the skill level of progamers far exceeded that of 2011. According to the theory Terrans would have had to be absolutly destroying the proscene. But instead it was zergs that completely dominated while in TvP, Protoss had their best phase ever.
- what are the mechanics that cause this? Because everybody and their mother can split marines quite well in master league already, and multitasking is a thing every race always has to perform. Especially when one race like Terran tries to force it with drop play, the only way to win is to exceed the Terrans multitasking skills. I honestly don't see those incredibly high scaling skills that only Terran has.
I'd really love to see someone paint a Skill-Potential-Diagramm for the 3races and mark the points where we have been 2011, 2012 and now, as well as the points where gold league and master league are currently. Because I don't think this can be consistently done with this theory, ergo, the theory has been disproven. Why do u think zergt dominated? could it be cuz of no-skill infestor broodlord.. Hmmm tough question could it be... Hm, so Terran didn't have the highest potential, because no-skill infestor broodlord had more potential. So the theory has been disproven! Point for me. no your point is gone, zerg was overpowered move along
OP/UP is connected to potential. Zerg can only be overpowered at the highest skill level if of two equally high skilled players one performs far better with zerg than with terran. which means terran cannot translate his skill into gameplay as well as the zerg can and thus Zerg had the higher potential.
|
On August 06 2013 18:07 Big J wrote:
OK; this theory of Terran has the highest potential has been around for so long. So I'd like to ask a thing or two about it that nobody who has brought it on the table has ever tried to explain:
- when do we really reach this "endphase of skill increments in which Terran is stronger": because this theory has been around since 2011. It suggested that Terrans were more successful back in 2011 because top players could show more skill with Terran. But 2012 the skill level of progamers far exceeded that of 2011. According to the theory Terrans would have had to be absolutly destroying the proscene. But instead it was zergs that completely dominated while in TvP, Protoss had their best phase ever.
- what are the mechanics that cause this? Because everybody and their mother can split marines quite well in master league already, and multitasking is a thing every race always has to perform. Especially when one race like Terran tries to force it with drop play, the only way to win is to exceed the Terrans multitasking skills. I honestly don't see those incredibly high scaling skills that only Terran has.
I'd really love to see someone paint a Skill-Potential-Diagramm for the 3races and mark the points where we have been 2011, 2012 and now, as well as the points where gold league and master league are currently. Because I don't think this can be consistently done with this theory, ergo, the theory has been disproven.
I stated this already a while ago. If you take the worldwide player base together, you have to accept, that talent and skill should be distributed evenly over the 3 races. meaning: all 3 races should have nearly equal success. Now we look at the distribution at different stages of the top:
at the very top (top20 or top30 worldwide) we have a strong terran represantation (we are only talking about korean players here). In WCS Kor premier league (which has to be viewed as the very best league) terrans are doing well. But if we just go down a little bit, looking at the top players out of korea, there are only very few terrans achieving anything. Lucifron is so far the only non korean terran, showing some results so far (in HotS) while we have several zergs and protoss players do so. And you can go down to grandmaster in the ladder with that and master league in the ladder. And only in the very bottom ladder ranks we again face a strong terran represetation.
So we have a lot of terrans at the very very top and very bottom of the rankings. in between they are underrepresentated.
This shows that the race is not generally underpowered, because very skilled players are doing really well with it. But if you don't meet this requirement you are doing way worse than protoss or zerg.
|
TeeTs wrote:
So we have a lot of terrans at the very very top and very bottom of the rankings. in between they are underrepresentated.
This shows that the race is not generally underpowered, because very skilled players are doing really well with it. But if you don't meet this requirement you are doing way worse than protoss or zerg.
Exactly. This combined with the way Blizzard chooses to balance, and in theory we can have a game where Terran wins every tournament, because as long as Terrans lose a lot on the ladder Blizzard considers it balanced in the sample size of 'players of all levels'. I know the 'problem' isn't as extreme as that hypothesis makes it sound, but Terran has won 6 premier tournaments in HotS so far, Zerg 5, and Protoss only 2, and yet we have casual Terran players asking for nerfs to Protoss -- A natural result of Terran being too strong at the top and too weak at the bottom, which in turn is a natural result of Blizzard making some units with insane micro potential and give one race an incredibly high skill ceiling, and one other race not so much.
|
On August 06 2013 19:11 TeeTS wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2013 18:07 Big J wrote:
OK; this theory of Terran has the highest potential has been around for so long. So I'd like to ask a thing or two about it that nobody who has brought it on the table has ever tried to explain:
- when do we really reach this "endphase of skill increments in which Terran is stronger": because this theory has been around since 2011. It suggested that Terrans were more successful back in 2011 because top players could show more skill with Terran. But 2012 the skill level of progamers far exceeded that of 2011. According to the theory Terrans would have had to be absolutly destroying the proscene. But instead it was zergs that completely dominated while in TvP, Protoss had their best phase ever.
- what are the mechanics that cause this? Because everybody and their mother can split marines quite well in master league already, and multitasking is a thing every race always has to perform. Especially when one race like Terran tries to force it with drop play, the only way to win is to exceed the Terrans multitasking skills. I honestly don't see those incredibly high scaling skills that only Terran has.
I'd really love to see someone paint a Skill-Potential-Diagramm for the 3races and mark the points where we have been 2011, 2012 and now, as well as the points where gold league and master league are currently. Because I don't think this can be consistently done with this theory, ergo, the theory has been disproven. I stated this already a while ago. If you take the worldwide player base together, you have to accept, that talent and skill should be distributed evenly over the 3 races. meaning: all 3 races should have nearly equal success. Now we look at the distribution at different stages of the top: at the very top (top20 or top30 worldwide) we have a strong terran represantation (we are only talking about korean players here). In WCS Kor premier league (which has to be viewed as the very best league) terrans are doing well. But if we just go down a little bit, looking at the top players out of korea, there are only very few terrans achieving anything. Lucifron is so far the only non korean terran, showing some results so far while we have several zergs and protoss players do so. And you can go down to grandmaster in the ladder with that and master league in the ladder. And only in the very bottom ladder ranks we again face a strong terran represetation. So we have a lot of terrans at the very very top and very bottom of the rankings. in between they are underrepresentated. This shows that the race is not generally underpowered, because very skilled players are doing really well with it. But if you don't meet this requirement you are doing way worse than protoss or zerg.
Point one, your observation is simply wrong:
I don't think we have a strong Terran representation at the top. In all the big Korean Leagues/Tournaments - WCS, GSTL, Proleague - Terran has not been very strongly represented in the last months (or even years). It fluctuates up and down just like it should statistically.
At lower levels, Terrans are the least representated race by a tiny margin from silver to masters, which does not conclude to "Terran does worse with less skill" but which is most likely just a statistical thing of less people playing Terran.
So no, we don't have a lot of terrans at the very, ver top and the very bottom the rankings and in between they are underrepresented. (If we had, we would have to consider Terran overpowered, as at the toplevel they would be too strong)
Point two, what you are saying can be represented by that diagramm:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Sa0hU5t.png)
So if the situation is currently balanced, it will become terribly imbalanced when everybody gets better. Which I doubt.
|
On August 06 2013 18:07 Big J wrote:
OK; this theory of Terran has the highest potential has been around for so long. So I'd like to ask a thing or two about it that nobody who has brought it on the table has ever tried to explain:
- when do we really reach this "endphase of skill increments in which Terran is stronger": because this theory has been around since 2011. It suggested that Terrans were more successful back in 2011 because top players could show more skill with Terran. But 2012 the skill level of progamers far exceeded that of 2011. According to the theory Terrans would have had to be absolutly destroying the proscene. But instead it was zergs that completely dominated while in TvP, Protoss had their best phase ever.
- what are the mechanics that cause this? Because everybody and their mother can split marines quite well in master league already, and multitasking is a thing every race always has to perform. Especially when one race like Terran tries to force it with drop play, the only way to win is to exceed the Terrans multitasking skills. I honestly don't see those incredibly high scaling skills that only Terran has.
I'd really love to see someone paint a Skill-Potential-Diagramm for the 3races and mark the points where we have been 2011, 2012 and now, as well as the points where gold league and master league are currently. Because I don't think this can be consistently done with this theory, ergo, the theory has been disproven.
There is no line to draw. Balance can't be black and white, we have to use common sense and judgement. Its hard to make a call on a such complex game as starcraft. And referring to statistics in order to balance the game should be the last thing to do.
For example a hypothetical scenario: Protoss' late game vs Terran's 1/1/1. Suppose, terran uses 1/1/1 each game, and due to variuos circumstances protoss has 50% chance of defending it, and if protoss defends it they win in late game. So matchup will be 50/50, perfectly balanced, according to David Kim. Should we be content with that?
|
On August 06 2013 19:39 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2013 19:11 TeeTS wrote:On August 06 2013 18:07 Big J wrote:
OK; this theory of Terran has the highest potential has been around for so long. So I'd like to ask a thing or two about it that nobody who has brought it on the table has ever tried to explain:
- when do we really reach this "endphase of skill increments in which Terran is stronger": because this theory has been around since 2011. It suggested that Terrans were more successful back in 2011 because top players could show more skill with Terran. But 2012 the skill level of progamers far exceeded that of 2011. According to the theory Terrans would have had to be absolutly destroying the proscene. But instead it was zergs that completely dominated while in TvP, Protoss had their best phase ever.
- what are the mechanics that cause this? Because everybody and their mother can split marines quite well in master league already, and multitasking is a thing every race always has to perform. Especially when one race like Terran tries to force it with drop play, the only way to win is to exceed the Terrans multitasking skills. I honestly don't see those incredibly high scaling skills that only Terran has.
I'd really love to see someone paint a Skill-Potential-Diagramm for the 3races and mark the points where we have been 2011, 2012 and now, as well as the points where gold league and master league are currently. Because I don't think this can be consistently done with this theory, ergo, the theory has been disproven. I stated this already a while ago. If you take the worldwide player base together, you have to accept, that talent and skill should be distributed evenly over the 3 races. meaning: all 3 races should have nearly equal success. Now we look at the distribution at different stages of the top: at the very top (top20 or top30 worldwide) we have a strong terran represantation (we are only talking about korean players here). In WCS Kor premier league (which has to be viewed as the very best league) terrans are doing well. But if we just go down a little bit, looking at the top players out of korea, there are only very few terrans achieving anything. Lucifron is so far the only non korean terran, showing some results so far while we have several zergs and protoss players do so. And you can go down to grandmaster in the ladder with that and master league in the ladder. And only in the very bottom ladder ranks we again face a strong terran represetation. So we have a lot of terrans at the very very top and very bottom of the rankings. in between they are underrepresentated. This shows that the race is not generally underpowered, because very skilled players are doing really well with it. But if you don't meet this requirement you are doing way worse than protoss or zerg. Point one, your observation is simply wrong: I don't think we have a strong Terran representation at the top. In all the big Korean Leagues/Tournaments - WCS, GSTL, Proleague - Terran has not been very strongly represented in the last months (or even years). It fluctuates up and down just like it should statistically. At lower levels, Terrans are the least representated race by a tiny margin from silver to masters, which does not conclude to "Terran does worse with less skill" but which is most likely just a statistical thing of less people playing Terran. So no, we don't have a lot of terrans at the very, ver top and the very bottom the rankings and in between they are underrepresented. (If we had, we would have to consider Terran overpowered, as at the toplevel they would be too strong) Point two, what you are saying can be represented by that diagramm: So if the situation is currently balanced, it will become terribly imbalanced when everybody gets better. Which I doubt.
we don't have fewer people playing terran, we have from GM to silver fewer terrans and a huge group of terrans in bronze to make up for that. you could say it's a small margin, but it's this way since 2011. if it were a statistical variance, it would swing back and forth over a large period of time. But it has been this way forever. it has been solidified over years. and if you look at tournament success of non korean pro players (representating the group between general GM and Code S) terrans are doing way worse than protoss and zerg. look at GM stats: 26% Terran. Master to Silver <30% terran across the board.
We have this trend for years now, only variating in its extremes.
|
On August 06 2013 19:46 saddaromma wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2013 18:07 Big J wrote:
OK; this theory of Terran has the highest potential has been around for so long. So I'd like to ask a thing or two about it that nobody who has brought it on the table has ever tried to explain:
- when do we really reach this "endphase of skill increments in which Terran is stronger": because this theory has been around since 2011. It suggested that Terrans were more successful back in 2011 because top players could show more skill with Terran. But 2012 the skill level of progamers far exceeded that of 2011. According to the theory Terrans would have had to be absolutly destroying the proscene. But instead it was zergs that completely dominated while in TvP, Protoss had their best phase ever.
- what are the mechanics that cause this? Because everybody and their mother can split marines quite well in master league already, and multitasking is a thing every race always has to perform. Especially when one race like Terran tries to force it with drop play, the only way to win is to exceed the Terrans multitasking skills. I honestly don't see those incredibly high scaling skills that only Terran has.
I'd really love to see someone paint a Skill-Potential-Diagramm for the 3races and mark the points where we have been 2011, 2012 and now, as well as the points where gold league and master league are currently. Because I don't think this can be consistently done with this theory, ergo, the theory has been disproven. There is no line to draw. Balance can't be black and white, we have to use common sense and judgement. Its hard to make a call on a such complex game as starcraft. And referring to statistics in order to balance the game should be the last thing to do. For example a hypothetical scenario: Protoss' late game vs Terran's 1/1/1. Suppose, terran uses 1/1/1 each game, and due to variuos circumstances protoss has 50% chance of defending it, and if protoss defends it they win in late game. So matchup will be 50/50, perfectly balanced (according to David Kim). Should we be content with that?
I don't know what what-you-write has to do with what I asked but I agree with you.
|
On August 06 2013 19:50 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2013 19:46 saddaromma wrote:On August 06 2013 18:07 Big J wrote:
OK; this theory of Terran has the highest potential has been around for so long. So I'd like to ask a thing or two about it that nobody who has brought it on the table has ever tried to explain:
- when do we really reach this "endphase of skill increments in which Terran is stronger": because this theory has been around since 2011. It suggested that Terrans were more successful back in 2011 because top players could show more skill with Terran. But 2012 the skill level of progamers far exceeded that of 2011. According to the theory Terrans would have had to be absolutly destroying the proscene. But instead it was zergs that completely dominated while in TvP, Protoss had their best phase ever.
- what are the mechanics that cause this? Because everybody and their mother can split marines quite well in master league already, and multitasking is a thing every race always has to perform. Especially when one race like Terran tries to force it with drop play, the only way to win is to exceed the Terrans multitasking skills. I honestly don't see those incredibly high scaling skills that only Terran has.
I'd really love to see someone paint a Skill-Potential-Diagramm for the 3races and mark the points where we have been 2011, 2012 and now, as well as the points where gold league and master league are currently. Because I don't think this can be consistently done with this theory, ergo, the theory has been disproven. There is no line to draw. Balance can't be black and white, we have to use common sense and judgement. Its hard to make a call on a such complex game as starcraft. And referring to statistics in order to balance the game should be the last thing to do. For example a hypothetical scenario: Protoss' late game vs Terran's 1/1/1. Suppose, terran uses 1/1/1 each game, and due to variuos circumstances protoss has 50% chance of defending it, and if protoss defends it they win in late game. So matchup will be 50/50, perfectly balanced (according to David Kim). Should we be content with that? I don't know what what-you-write has to do with what I asked but I agree with you.
I didn't have any better answer for your question and went on rambling. I suppose I was trying to say that we can't know for sure if a player went beyond skillcap and started to discover true potential of the race.
|
I've written this on the official EU forums, and this is my take on ZvT.
I've put it in a spoiler since there's a lot of stuff in there.
+ Show Spoiler +I've been watching a lot of streams, tournament games, casts and what not. I've experienced this on my own accord, and can only shrug it off as being the thing that really breaks this matchup on all levels of play. Its not that certain units are overpowered, per se. Its not that certain compositions just dwarfs others into oblivion, making the game entirely unplayable..
Its the speed dynamic of the units.
When stating this, what is it that I'm actually referring to?...
1: When Zerg engages on creep, banelings can get to blow up on widowmines before the widowmines can shoot. They are significantly faster than stimmed bio. Ultralisks are faster than stimmed bio, which means they have to kite more and shoot less. Infestors have a way easier time getting to the front and falling back without getting picked off in the process. Speedlings are insanely fast to wrap around the bio, making efficient trades possible if the medivacs are caught before lifting the Terran army away.
2: When Zerg engages off creep, widowmines get to detonate early. Banelings are slower than stimmed bio. Lings are the only units that can get a surround on the Terran bio-ball, but most of these will be picked off as the rest of the Zerg army is attempting to catch up. (Really, against high numbers Zerglings just melt.) allowing the Terran to split and kite versus Infestor/Bling/Ultra all freaking day. If Terran even remotely secures his flanks, getting a surround on a bio-ball becomes impossible. Zerg is then relying solely on landing a fungal to actually kill the Terran army. The cheaper, faster to produce and lower tech army gets to dominate the Zerg player so hard that winning lategame scenarios become seemingly impossible.
To me, this concept is utterly disgusting, especially on the larger maps like Whirlwind. Getting good creep-spread going is not only super tough against a competent Terran, but also instrumental in winning macro games versus Terran. To then have the Terran finish rounding off his endgame deathball at thirteen minutes just blows my mind. Assuming the High-end winrates for Zerg are as bad as has been suggested, maybe it'd be time to take a look at lowering Zerg units speed on creep, while increasing their speed off creep. At least, I find it horrendously stupid that my most important units can only fight on creep.
~ My 2c.
EDIT: Obviously what I am suggesting, is that Terran should have an easier time when fighting on creep, and a harder time when fighting off creep. My whole gripe is that creep decides so incredibly much in the ZvT engagements that the same armies engaging either on or off creep will result in either side potentially getting stomped. I'm not advocating that creep shouldn't be important, but right now its kind of dictating the matchup to a disgusting degree.
|
On August 06 2013 19:49 TeeTS wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2013 19:39 Big J wrote:On August 06 2013 19:11 TeeTS wrote:On August 06 2013 18:07 Big J wrote:
OK; this theory of Terran has the highest potential has been around for so long. So I'd like to ask a thing or two about it that nobody who has brought it on the table has ever tried to explain:
- when do we really reach this "endphase of skill increments in which Terran is stronger": because this theory has been around since 2011. It suggested that Terrans were more successful back in 2011 because top players could show more skill with Terran. But 2012 the skill level of progamers far exceeded that of 2011. According to the theory Terrans would have had to be absolutly destroying the proscene. But instead it was zergs that completely dominated while in TvP, Protoss had their best phase ever.
- what are the mechanics that cause this? Because everybody and their mother can split marines quite well in master league already, and multitasking is a thing every race always has to perform. Especially when one race like Terran tries to force it with drop play, the only way to win is to exceed the Terrans multitasking skills. I honestly don't see those incredibly high scaling skills that only Terran has.
I'd really love to see someone paint a Skill-Potential-Diagramm for the 3races and mark the points where we have been 2011, 2012 and now, as well as the points where gold league and master league are currently. Because I don't think this can be consistently done with this theory, ergo, the theory has been disproven. I stated this already a while ago. If you take the worldwide player base together, you have to accept, that talent and skill should be distributed evenly over the 3 races. meaning: all 3 races should have nearly equal success. Now we look at the distribution at different stages of the top: at the very top (top20 or top30 worldwide) we have a strong terran represantation (we are only talking about korean players here). In WCS Kor premier league (which has to be viewed as the very best league) terrans are doing well. But if we just go down a little bit, looking at the top players out of korea, there are only very few terrans achieving anything. Lucifron is so far the only non korean terran, showing some results so far while we have several zergs and protoss players do so. And you can go down to grandmaster in the ladder with that and master league in the ladder. And only in the very bottom ladder ranks we again face a strong terran represetation. So we have a lot of terrans at the very very top and very bottom of the rankings. in between they are underrepresentated. This shows that the race is not generally underpowered, because very skilled players are doing really well with it. But if you don't meet this requirement you are doing way worse than protoss or zerg. Point one, your observation is simply wrong: I don't think we have a strong Terran representation at the top. In all the big Korean Leagues/Tournaments - WCS, GSTL, Proleague - Terran has not been very strongly represented in the last months (or even years). It fluctuates up and down just like it should statistically. At lower levels, Terrans are the least representated race by a tiny margin from silver to masters, which does not conclude to "Terran does worse with less skill" but which is most likely just a statistical thing of less people playing Terran. So no, we don't have a lot of terrans at the very, ver top and the very bottom the rankings and in between they are underrepresented. (If we had, we would have to consider Terran overpowered, as at the toplevel they would be too strong) Point two, what you are saying can be represented by that diagramm: So if the situation is currently balanced, it will become terribly imbalanced when everybody gets better. Which I doubt. we don't have fewer people playing terran, we have from GM to silver fewer terrans and a huge group of terrans in bronze to make up for that. you could say it's a small margin, but it's this way since 2011. if it were a statistical variance, it would swing back and forth over a large period of time. But it has been this way forever. it has been solidified over years. and if you look at tournament success of non korean pro players (representating the group between general GM and Code S) terrans are doing way worse than protoss and zerg. look at GM stats: 26% Terran. Master to Silver <30% terran across the board. We have this trend for years now, only variating in its extremes.
why would it swing? The race choosing process has a variance. After that we have a (nearly) deterministic situation in form of racial distribution.
People start playing the game, they pick a race for some reasons - so with a certain probability which may not be even to begin with because certain racial characteristics may or may not appeal to them - and then for the most part stick with it.
You don't get swings, unless a fuckton of new people join the game (which isn't happening) or race switching would be attractive (which for the most part it isn't, only if we assume the game was imbalanced and now isn't anymore, then there should be some switching from the former OP to the former UP race).
Also, how do you explain the bronze Terrans? They are all stuck, because it's too hard to play Terran? Then why did we have so many more Terran than Zerg players at the start of WoL, when Zerg is actually easier at that level and people don't play Terran because it's too hard for them?
This pointing towards ladder distribution does not make any sense, because it's not consistent. Compared to the Terran average, Terran is overrepresented at Bronze, Silver, Masters and Diamond, and underrepresented at Platinum and GM. So Terran skill scales more at the ones and worse at the others, but it scales best at the tiptop level and worse under the top20 for sure? Sorry, but there is nothing representing that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
