|
On November 21 2013 21:23 NarutO wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2013 11:12 Wingblade wrote:On November 21 2013 08:47 Ghanburighan wrote:On November 21 2013 08:24 Wingblade wrote:On November 21 2013 08:02 Courthead wrote:On November 21 2013 06:39 Hider wrote: Protoss is better at bo1 with random opponents who you can't prepare against Translation: Protoss is OP on ladder. You can state it in whatever obtuse, convoluted way you want to, but you're still saying it. It's a problem, and Blizzard needs to fix it. And underpowered in tournament formats. There's a reason Protoss still did well on ladder in WoL and beyond but were simply not winning tournaments. Right now there are 1 or 2 Protoss players(Dear, sOs) who have for the most part figured out how to balance the tricky build order based play of ladder Protosses while also avoiding the extreme predictability that can cause many other Protoss to struggle. Things loke Rains mega defensive play, PartinG who for so long relied on the Soul Train and other allins that his current PvZ play is downright awful, MC who still is not close to what he used to be because the metagame has drifted towards heavy macro play and players learned how to defend. There are 2 players who have overcome Protoss' weaknesses of build order reliance in tournaments. In ladder, build order reliance is fine because the other player doesn't know your tendencies at all. A protoss just won WCS Korea and WCS Global, another won Blizzcon. Protoss is NOT underpowered at tournaments. They also completely wrecked all qualifiers in the last 2 months, at least in Korea. Yea, Dear and sOs. Name any other Protoss who have had success in the last 3 to 4 months and sustained it for any period of time. Hell sOs had 1 weekend of success that could very well be a flash in the pan. "Completely wrecked" is an awfully bold statement. Care to back up your hyperbole with any actual evidence? Hey man, whats your opinion on the post below? Show nested quote +On November 21 2013 09:36 TheDwf wrote:On November 21 2013 08:24 Wingblade wrote:
And underpowered in tournament formats. Complete nonsense. Quite on the contrary, the fact Protoss has so many viable builds/styles is a strength in tournaments because it allows them to vary their play. Right now there are 1 or 2 Protoss players(Dear, sOs) who have for the most part figured out how to balance the tricky build order based play of ladder Protosses while also avoiding the extreme predictability that can cause many other Protoss to struggle. Things loke Rains mega defensive play, PartinG who for so long relied on the Soul Train and other allins that his current PvZ play is downright awful, MC who still is not close to what he used to be because the metagame has drifted towards heavy macro play and players learned how to defend. Rain's defensive play is a stylistic choice, he does not have to play like that 100% of the time since his race has countless agressive options; thus his predictability cannot be blamed on his race alone. PartinG relied on his Immortal all-in because Zerg was broken in WoL, zero news here; if he can no longer wins PvZ now, the issue is on his end since other top Protoss players don't have this problem. If MC's relative fall is to be blamed on his tendancy to play agressive/all-in too much (which is a simplistic explanation, but whatever), it's again his fault because his race has passive macro options; thus his predictability cannot be blamed on his race alone, bis. The very examples you provide contradict your own thesis.
His entire point is based on the assumption that it is somehow easy or even doable for a large number of Protoss players to be able to execute all of the potential styles and options at the highest level. I think he greatly overestimated the ability of a player to understand to near perfection so many different timings, strategies and builds. Saying near perfection sounds possibly hyperbolic, but the best of the best truly have perfected their strategies. The closest thing we have to someone who can do all those things right now is Dear.
A great example off the top of my head of someone who showed how difficult it could really be was Rain. We saw him in the OSL actually mix in a few all ins and aggressive plays that helped vary up his style. However, in the Finals it was clear he had lost the luster to his trademark defensive play, he got shredded after going up 2-0. He then struggled in the season 2 finals and fell out quickly in Season 3. He attempted to vary his play style and failed at it.
Theoretically yes, if it was simple enough for a large number of Protoss players to be able to do a lot of builds and variations, it would be strong. But that would imply an insane amount of skill that only one player currently has come close to: Dear.
|
TheDwf is smart but he's also very biased (as many are towards their race, it's normal). If there was any one player who could masters every way to play aggressive AND also play for the long game, he'd be wrecking every tournament on his way to legendary status regardless of what race he played lol
I do, and have always, agreed that Protoss on ladder > > > Protoss in tournaments, I think most ppl do too. It's just kind of common sense that the race that relies the most on hidden builds/timing attacks would flourish more on anonymous Bo1's where you know squat about your opponent. And I think that's ok, ladder has never been, and hopefully will never be, where we look for race balance. With that said, I don't think P is under performing right now, I think they're just fine.
|
On November 21 2013 23:47 Wingblade wrote:
His entire point is based on the assumption that it is somehow easy or even doable for a large number of Protoss players to be able to execute all of the potential styles and options at the highest level. I think he greatly overestimated the ability of a player to understand to near perfection so many different timings, strategies and builds. Saying near perfection sounds possibly hyperbolic, but the best of the best truly have perfected their strategies. The closest thing we have to someone who can do all those things right now is Dear.
A great example off the top of my head of someone who showed how difficult it could really be was Rain. We saw him in the OSL actually mix in a few all ins and aggressive plays that helped vary up his style. However, in the Finals it was clear he had lost the luster to his trademark defensive play, he got shredded after going up 2-0. He then struggled in the season 2 finals and fell out quickly in Season 3. He attempted to vary his play style and failed at it.
Theoretically yes, if it was simple enough for a large number of Protoss players to be able to do a lot of builds and variations, it would be strong. But that would imply an insane amount of skill that only one player currently has come close to: Dear.
My entire point was that Protoss wasn't "predictable" at all because they have lots of options. To that you answer: but you need to master different things for that. So what? It doesn't make Protoss any more "predictable".
Rain didn't lose the OSL finals because his "macro skill" faded while he was supposedly practicing "agressive play". He choked and blundered away won games with bad decisions.
Game 3, he managed to lose a scouted 11/11. This is absolutely unintelligible to me. He knew Maru was using this build from time to time, so he must have had something prepared against it; yet he still tried a defence without MSC, was supply blocked when starting his second Stalker and gave his only Stalker by standing still in front of Marines. Any player who goes zealot-zealot-MSC will crush it with ease; the 2 Zealots, Probes and the MSC are just too much for the few Marines there, it's impossible to complete a Bunker in front of the Nexus against this defence and the MSC has PO by ~5'25. If random high masters on Europe know how to defend it, how come Rain, who has 5 times their skill, seemingly ignores it?
Game 4, he built a commanding lead with his standard play, defending Maru's agression without any trouble (no idea why you claim he "lost the luster to his trademark defensive play"), then again threw away the game by rushing forward without any necessity with his whole army and Templars near Maru's Xel'Naga Tower. All he had to do was send Zealots at Maru's fourth to force a lift, bank a bit with his fourth running up, strengthen the contain and auto-win from there, something I am sure he would naturally do 99% of the time. Maru's position was hopeless, this was only Rain's game to lose.
Game 5, he scouted CC rax rax CC with his MSC and reactively decided to attack with an Immortal bust. This is a very advantageous situation for Protoss as triple OC builds cannot hold certain 2-bases timings/all-ins. Yet instead of going up to 5-6 gates and properly smashing Maru, Rain inexplicably chooses the middle-of-the-road approach and only builds 2 (!) extra gates, thus lacking the army/reinforcements to break through Maru's defence. I like Rain, but this was simply embarrassingly bad. He had basically maphack, full knowledge of a super risky Terran build, rightfully decided to punish it yet failed to do so while tons of lessers Protoss like MC or duckdeok would have won easily from the same position. Your analysis of Rain's play is backwards: his problem here was not that he had lost some skill in his passive macro play, but that he was still lacking the killer instinct.
Game 6 was a DT into fast third build against a triple OC opening (i. e. not a favorable situation for Protoss). Rain's build order was either not refined, wrongly executed, or banked on doing more damage with his DTs, because Maru won with a simple Medivac timing. Rain didn't even have +1 armor or Charge when Maru hit; and he had no AoE, not even a single Archon.
The Rain vs Bomber series in the semi-finals also proves that your point is very fragile. Didn't Rain won with a 3g counter-attack in the Bel'shir Vestige game after holding Bomber's constant agression for minuts in the Star Station game? Didn't the series end with a 10 gate into 5g on Whirlwind?
Rain also achieved top8 in Season 3, no idea how this translates to "fall out quickly" in your words, and no idea why you would correlate this imaginary fall with a supposed decreased level in macro play due to trying agressive builds.
Rain is indeed often disappointing when it comes to agressive play. But if other Protoss like PartinG, MC, duckdeok, Zest, sOs, etc., have no troubles mixing in agressive play, it means the problem is on his end rather than in the race being too demanding when it comes to varying styles.
|
On November 22 2013 00:53 ffadicted wrote:
TheDwf is smart but he's also very biased (as many are towards their race, it's normal). If there was any one player who could masters every way to play aggressive AND also play for the long game, he'd be wrecking every tournament on his way to legendary status regardless of what race he played lol
I do, and have always, agreed that Protoss on ladder > > > Protoss in tournaments, I think most ppl do too. It's just kind of common sense that the race that relies the most on hidden builds/timing attacks would flourish more on anonymous Bo1's where you know squat about your opponent. And I think that's ok, ladder has never been, and hopefully will never be, where we look for race balance. With that said, I don't think P is under performing right now, I think they're just fine.
Congrats on 3k.
I don't think we should believe that Pl >>> Pt. Even if this is indeed often repeated.
Generally the ladder gives an indication of things to come. For example, both MKP and Bomber were reportedly 'unbeatable on ladder' before they went on their respective win streaks. Same was the case with DRG way back when he was only starting to be known in team leagues.
Also, most pro players know each other's barcodes so anonymity does not generally contribute to the win rates.
But, more importantly, zerg doesn't benefit from all-ins, and it's especially vulnerable to them, yet it outperforms terran on the ladder, and is not that far below P. The remaining 'P is good in a bo1' theory does not account for this fact. Anyone wanting to put forward the claim that Pl >>> Pt, should account for it.
|
Rain didn't lose the OSL finals because his "macro skill" faded while he was supposedly practicing "agressive play".
He choked and blundered away won games with bad decisions.
Bad decisions that an in form Rain playing his defensive macro style would never have made. He makes obvious mistakes that we can see and that he never makes. That could be due to any number of factors, but he, nor almost any other Protoss except maybe Dear has been able to do a wide variety of builds and strategies to succeed. Sure a number of Protoss won a tournament or two with their "thing", but Protoss players have never had more than their 15 minutes of fame before they get figured out and just become another good player in the sea of good players.
SC2's history have shown us this pretty clearly. MC won at a time where macro games were much less fleshed out and could abuse the hell out of any gap or hole in a players play. PartinG succeeded for a time in Wings of Liberty against Zerg with his Soul Train, but eventually that got figured out and we moved to a new game where we've seen his macro play. And sadly, being a huge PartinG fan, it is BAD. There are other examples of Protoss players who have their flash in the pan and then just become "good". We still don't know if Dear and sOs can maintain their hot streak into something more.
Yes, the race itself is not predictable, and on ladder for the most part you are playing against a race because you do not most likely know who you play against. In a pro tournament, you play a player, a more known commodity that has replays and people constantly analyzing their style.
|
On November 22 2013 02:29 Wingblade wrote:Show nested quote +Rain didn't lose the OSL finals because his "macro skill" faded while he was supposedly practicing "agressive play". Bad decisions that an in form Rain playing his defensive macro style would never have made. He makes obvious mistakes that we can see and that he never makes. That could be due to any number of factors, but he, nor almost any other Protoss except maybe Dear has been able to do a wide variety of builds and strategies to succeed. Sure a number of Protoss won a tournament or two with their "thing", but Protoss players have never had more than their 15 minutes of fame before they get figured out and just become another good player in the sea of good players. SC2's history have shown us this pretty clearly. MC won at a time where macro games were much less fleshed out and could abuse the hell out of any gap or hole in a players play. PartinG succeeded for a time in Wings of Liberty against Zerg with his Soul Train, but eventually that got figured out and we moved to a new game where we've seen his macro play. And sadly, being a huge PartinG fan, it is BAD. There are other examples of Protoss players who have their flash in the pan and then just become "good". We still don't know if Dear and sOs can maintain their hot streak into something more. Yes, the race itself is not predictable, and on ladder for the most part you are playing against a race because you do not most likely know who you play against. In a pro tournament, you play a player, a more known commodity that has replays and people constantly analyzing their style.
http://aligulac.com/reports/
Look and bottom graph. In 3 of last 4 months Protoss is performing best of 3 races. Looking back before that Protoss was best only twice in history of this game. So yeah history shows that Protoss was weakest race in tournaments historically but its strongest now. IMO they wont be winning most Mjor/Premier tournaments since Korean representation outside of Korea is weakest for Protoss (no one on level of Taeja/Polt/jaedong) but in Korea Protoss i strongest race now for few months.
|
On November 22 2013 02:29 Wingblade wrote:Show nested quote +Rain didn't lose the OSL finals because his "macro skill" faded while he was supposedly practicing "agressive play". Bad decisions that an in form Rain playing his defensive macro style would never have made. He makes obvious mistakes that we can see and that he never makes. That could be due to any number of factors, but he, nor almost any other Protoss except maybe Dear has been able to do a wide variety of builds and strategies to succeed. Sure a number of Protoss won a tournament or two with their "thing", but Protoss players have never had more than their 15 minutes of fame before they get figured out and just become another good player in the sea of good players. SC2's history have shown us this pretty clearly. MC won at a time where macro games were much less fleshed out and could abuse the hell out of any gap or hole in a players play. PartinG succeeded for a time in Wings of Liberty against Zerg with his Soul Train, but eventually that got figured out and we moved to a new game where we've seen his macro play. And sadly, being a huge PartinG fan, it is BAD. There are other examples of Protoss players who have their flash in the pan and then just become "good". We still don't know if Dear and sOs can maintain their hot streak into something more. Yes, the race itself is not predictable, and on ladder for the most part you are playing against a race because you do not most likely know who you play against. In a pro tournament, you play a player, a more known commodity that has replays and people constantly analyzing their style.
You need to stop talking about sc2 history. The history was of, in much, a different game; it has little to no application in todays meta. As it stands now, a protoss won wcs korea and season finals AND blizzcon AND on top of that protoss completely dominates the upper spectrum of the ladder, and yet you dont see any problem with blizzard buffing the fucking race. Not only that, they buff the race to be even more annoying earlygame tvp.
|
On November 22 2013 02:29 Wingblade wrote:
Bad decisions that an in form Rain playing his defensive macro style would never have made. He makes obvious mistakes that we can see and that he never makes.
Please. Perfect players don't exist. You also don't reach OSL finals if you're not "in form". Rain made the same kind of surprising blunder against Soulkey this season, forgetting Observers on Whirlwind in an otherwise won game. Are you going to claim it happened because he trained his Polar Night all-in? You have no way to prove that his bad decision in the Star Station game was due to practicing agressive play. One does not unlearn macro play just from mixing other forms of play. You would have a point if Rain had done nothing but all-ins and timings the month before the finals; then you could argue he was presumably rusty in his macro play. Here, there were similar bad decisions in the 11/11 and in the Immortal all-in games, i. e. outside of macro games. I would more simply explain this by pressure. I cannot prove that with indisputable evidence, but the fact he 2:0ed Maru in their last encounter further points towards this direction.
That could be due to any number of factors, but he, nor almost any other Protoss except maybe Dear has been able to do a wide variety of builds and strategies to succeed.
sOs is known for having a lot of builds, and it did help him to win Blizzcon against Jaedong.
SC2's history have shown us this pretty clearly. MC won at a time where macro games were much less fleshed out and could abuse the hell out of any gap or hole in a players play. PartinG succeeded for a time in Wings of Liberty against Zerg with his Soul Train, but eventually that got figured out and we moved to a new game where we've seen his macro play. And sadly, being a huge PartinG fan, it is BAD. There are other examples of Protoss players who have their flash in the pan and then just become "good". We still don't know if Dear and sOs can maintain their hot streak into something more.
You focus too much on the winners of individual tournaments, which is fairly insignificant in itself (e. g. both the Bogus vs Soulkey and the Maru vs Rain finals resulted in the inferior player "accidentally" winning). The question is, are there consistent top Protoss players? And the answer is yes. Rain has been successful, sOs has been successful, PartinG has been successful (it doesn't matter if his Immortal all-in no longer works in PvZ; he still reached RO8 last season). We shall see in the next months if players like Dear, Zest or Trap further follow that road.
MC cannot be a top top player in the more competitive environement of today because his often atrocious decision making will always make him stumble at some point. There's sadly a reason he's called SuicideToss, and you only have to remember his inexplicable move down the ramp near his third against MMA on Whirlwind at the last WCS Europe Finals to see why. Still, he doesn't do that bad. If Protoss was that gimmicky, explain how MC can still win, even against top Korean players sometimes, despite having played like 1300+ official games already, and being well-known for his timings and agressive play?
|
No, that assumes that the player numbers would be 33-33-33 (-random) in perfect balance.
Noone is referring to the amount of players playing a certain race when applying the distribution argument. That is irrelevant in it self. Instead, we are looking at the league by race distribution. It is calculated in this way;
Amount of terran players in league X / total amount of terran players.
By doing that calculation for every league and afterwards comparing it to the same numbers for protoss and zerg we find a huge assymmetry which in my opinion can only be attributed to a balance problem.
That doesn't mean that the total amount of players playing a certain can't impact the "balanced league by race"-distribution. If one race is heavily played, it is very possibly that it consist more heavily of casual players which means that the distrubiton should be skewed more towards the lower leagues. However, that isn't the case at all for terran as terran atm is the most played race.
|
Reasons why I think carriers need a buff: Carriers are powerful when in mass, but take too long to make.
1. I'd like to see the carrier buffed in some way. A popular answer is to decrease the time it takes to build. Currently its at 120 seconds, but I think it should be 90 second (to be on par with the battlecruiser) or lower.
2. I'd also like to see a decrease in cost interceptors to 20 minerals or 15. (Or interceptors with more HP)
3. Make the graviton catapult give the ability to unleash all interceptors at once.
I'm not saying all of these need to be implemented at once, but at least 1 or 2 of the changes would be nice.
I've heard people say that blizzard doesn't want to have a single end-all be-all unit for the late game, which makes sense, but even with this time buff I don't see that happening since the carrier has of counters (vikings, corrupters, void rays, and I'm sure there are more). If a player went only carriers, that wouldn't be smart because they'd have nothing to tank the damage away from them. Basically, carriers can be an integral part of the protoss army, but not as a mass unit.
Change #1: This is possibly the biggest problem. Carriers cannot be used if they don't have time to see the light of day.
Change #2: Carriers as they are now are a sink hole. It is understandable in a way because they can have so many interceptors. Nevertheless, storms, fungals, hydras, and mass marines wipe out interceptors like it's nothing. That being said, a carrier needs either interceptors with more HP, or they need to be cheaper to make so the fighting can continue.
Change #3: This coincides with change 2. A carrier is useless without its interceptors. As it is now, interceptors leave the carrier one at a time. With the graviton catapult, they should leave all at once. like a bee hive, if attacked the bees will all come out at once. That's what makes it scary and that is how the carrier needs to act with the upgrade.
Skepticism of this is understood, only with a test map can opinions be swayed one way or another. To be honest, I'm not 100% how these changes would end up in the long run. Testing is the only way to know.
|
On November 22 2013 07:09 BruMeister wrote:
Reasons why I think carriers need a buff: Carriers are powerful when in mass, but take too long to make.
1. I'd like to see the carrier buffed in some way. A popular answer is to decrease the time it takes to build. Currently its at 120 seconds, but I think it should be 90 second (to be on par with the battlecruiser) or lower.
2. I'd also like to see a decrease in cost interceptors to 20 minerals or 15. (Or interceptors with more HP)
3. Make the graviton catapult give the ability to unleash all interceptors at once.
I'm not saying all of these need to be implemented at once, but at least 1 or 2 of the changes would be nice.
I've heard people say that blizzard doesn't want to have a single end-all be-all unit for the late game, which makes sense, but even with this time buff I don't see that happening since the carrier has of counters (vikings, corrupters, void rays, and I'm sure there are more). If a player went only carriers, that wouldn't be smart because they'd have nothing to tank the damage away from them. Basically, carriers can be an integral part of the protoss army, but not as a mass unit.
Change #1: This is possibly the biggest problem. Carriers cannot be used if they don't have time to see the light of day.
Change #2: Carriers as they are now are a sink hole. It is understandable in a way because they can have so many interceptors. Nevertheless, storms, fungals, hydras, and mass marines wipe out interceptors like it's nothing. That being said, a carrier needs either interceptors with more HP, or they need to be cheaper to make so the fighting can continue.
Change #3: This coincides with change 2. A carrier is useless without its interceptors. As it is now, interceptors leave the carrier one at a time. With the graviton catapult, they should leave all at once. like a bee hive, if attacked the bees will all come out at once. That's what makes it scary and that is how the carrier needs to act with the upgrade.
Skepticism of this is understood, only with a test map can opinions be swayed one way or another. To be honest, I'm not 100% how these changes would end up in the long run. Testing is the only way to know.
if carriers and bc's got buffed that could certainly create some interesting late games. Mech in tvp would be more rewarding and fun for both races imo, but it will take at least a few patches dedicated to mech to make it happen, and im not entirely confident that the balance team can pull it off since they usually just make quick and easy fixes instead of long term changes to make the metagame more fun for all races.
|
On November 22 2013 11:35 EleanorRIgby wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2013 07:09 BruMeister wrote:
Reasons why I think carriers need a buff: Carriers are powerful when in mass, but take too long to make.
1. I'd like to see the carrier buffed in some way. A popular answer is to decrease the time it takes to build. Currently its at 120 seconds, but I think it should be 90 second (to be on par with the battlecruiser) or lower.
2. I'd also like to see a decrease in cost interceptors to 20 minerals or 15. (Or interceptors with more HP)
3. Make the graviton catapult give the ability to unleash all interceptors at once.
I'm not saying all of these need to be implemented at once, but at least 1 or 2 of the changes would be nice.
I've heard people say that blizzard doesn't want to have a single end-all be-all unit for the late game, which makes sense, but even with this time buff I don't see that happening since the carrier has of counters (vikings, corrupters, void rays, and I'm sure there are more). If a player went only carriers, that wouldn't be smart because they'd have nothing to tank the damage away from them. Basically, carriers can be an integral part of the protoss army, but not as a mass unit.
Change #1: This is possibly the biggest problem. Carriers cannot be used if they don't have time to see the light of day.
Change #2: Carriers as they are now are a sink hole. It is understandable in a way because they can have so many interceptors. Nevertheless, storms, fungals, hydras, and mass marines wipe out interceptors like it's nothing. That being said, a carrier needs either interceptors with more HP, or they need to be cheaper to make so the fighting can continue.
Change #3: This coincides with change 2. A carrier is useless without its interceptors. As it is now, interceptors leave the carrier one at a time. With the graviton catapult, they should leave all at once. like a bee hive, if attacked the bees will all come out at once. That's what makes it scary and that is how the carrier needs to act with the upgrade.
Skepticism of this is understood, only with a test map can opinions be swayed one way or another. To be honest, I'm not 100% how these changes would end up in the long run. Testing is the only way to know. if carriers and bc's got buffed that could certainly create some interesting late games. Mech in tvp would be more rewarding and fun for both races imo, but it will take at least a few patches dedicated to mech to make it happen, and im not entirely confident that the balance team can pull it off since they usually just make quick and easy fixes instead of long term changes to make the metagame more fun for all races.
I feel like Tempest and Templar against BCs would just shit on the BCs no matter what
|
So, after GSTL I think we can start to cry about how shit WMs are in TvZ. I'm mainly a zerg myself but holy fucking shit biomine just doesn't seem to work anymore.
Should terrans go back to biotank or try something completely new?
|
On November 22 2013 20:46 Keeemy wrote:
So, after GSTL I think we can start to cry about how shit WMs are in TvZ. I'm mainly a zerg myself but holy fucking shit biomine just doesn't seem to work anymore.
Should terrans go back to biotank or try something completely new?
Would have loved to see Tanks vs 32 Mutas, X-Spawn on Whirlwind.
Seems like on all those huge maps, most Terrans face the same destiny and that is being starved on their Fourth base by a +30 Muta Ball.
Example:
Innovation today -
Maru vs Jaedong on Frost.
Terrans just seems to imobile on the large maps to deal with the mutas since you need like +10 Turrets to fight them off.
|
Yeah, mutas should be nerfed a bit. What are some good changes people would suggest? Less hp, regen slower, slower overall, less dps, increase cost...?
|
On November 22 2013 21:00 Keeemy wrote:
Yeah, mutas should be nerfed a bit. What are some good changes people would suggest? Less hp, regen slower, slower overall, less dps, increase cost...?
Let's give top terran some time to figure it out before we can say anything about balance, it tooks 9 month to see the WM nerfed, so I guess we should wait the same amount of time before considering a nerf to mutalisk.
|
On November 22 2013 21:49 Vanadiel wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2013 21:00 Keeemy wrote:
Yeah, mutas should be nerfed a bit. What are some good changes people would suggest? Less hp, regen slower, slower overall, less dps, increase cost...? Let's give top terran some time to figure it out before we can say anything about balance, it tooks 9 month to see the WM nerfed, so I guess we should wait the same amount of time before considering a nerf to mutalisk.
WM wasn't nerfed because of balance.... and tanks are still trash on large open maps. 3 base tank allins ftw on maps like yeonsu, screw macro games from now on.
|
On November 22 2013 21:56 PanzerElite wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2013 21:49 Vanadiel wrote:On November 22 2013 21:00 Keeemy wrote:
Yeah, mutas should be nerfed a bit. What are some good changes people would suggest? Less hp, regen slower, slower overall, less dps, increase cost...? Let's give top terran some time to figure it out before we can say anything about balance, it tooks 9 month to see the WM nerfed, so I guess we should wait the same amount of time before considering a nerf to mutalisk. WM wasn't nerfed because of balance.... and tanks are still trash on large open maps. 3 base tank allins ftw on maps like yeonsu, screw macro games from now on.
Less mad. More skill.
|
On November 22 2013 22:10 RaFox17 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2013 21:56 PanzerElite wrote:On November 22 2013 21:49 Vanadiel wrote:On November 22 2013 21:00 Keeemy wrote:
Yeah, mutas should be nerfed a bit. What are some good changes people would suggest? Less hp, regen slower, slower overall, less dps, increase cost...? Let's give top terran some time to figure it out before we can say anything about balance, it tooks 9 month to see the WM nerfed, so I guess we should wait the same amount of time before considering a nerf to mutalisk. WM wasn't nerfed because of balance.... and tanks are still trash on large open maps. 3 base tank allins ftw on maps like yeonsu, screw macro games from now on. Less mad. More skill.
Mad? Those are just facts and zergs tend do die easily on small maps when I copy Bomber's wol marine tank builds. You max before 14 minutes and most of them get rolled by sheer production. 16 marines and 3 tanks per cycle ftw. Plz less mad more skill, rolf. Is that all you got to say?
|
RaFox17 is just a troll. He hasn't made a constructive post since the patch notes came out. It's just a combo of "umad" and "more gg, more skill" trolling. Ignoring him means that we don't get spammed with useless posts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
