|
Thank you to those of you who corrected me about Baneling drops. I was skeptical and am glad to find nothing has effectively changed.
|
On September 16 2011 04:39 Heavenly wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2011 04:37 TolEranceNA wrote:On September 16 2011 04:34 Heavenly wrote:On September 16 2011 04:32 ThatGuy89 wrote:
infestor being the 'only decent unit zerg has' means alot of game revolve around them so any nerf is gonna force people to cry.
but no one, NO ONE, can say the infestor was fine as it was. Destiny has shown just how good they can be, practically winning games with them alone. Personally, like alot of people on this forum, i have no idea about how to balance this game. But, unlike alot of people on this forum, im able to admit that. Too many people hate on blizzard when all they are trying to do is fix it. So they've changed their minds a few times, so what? thats good if you ask me. Means they know when they've made mistakes and arent afraid to go back on themselves.
This game is only a year old, there are gonna be alot of changes made and reverted and brought back and whatever and theres also gonna be alot of changes that people wont agree with or understand. Just get on with it and see what happens. The funny part is that all zerg units are decent to great (except maybe hydra, which is still great situationally), but if you listen to some people all zerg units apparently die the second anything touches them and deal about 2 damage. Hydra is great situationally........ Sir what are you smoking man? You can definitely argue about other unit, but hydra is just terrible  Against double stargate play coupled with infestors and as a two hatch nydus hydra bust on Tal'darim after a protoss goes FFE into stargate, or in certain low econ ZvP where resources are tight and colossi tech is too risky to tech to, since hydras cost less than stalkers. What are you smoking?
So when protoss does an all in
Hydras can be used
If the protoss doesn't scout their base
or tech switch appropriately
and then zerg can all in
and it might work
|
A more reasonable thing for tkRage to say is that when playing as Zerg you are more susceptible to losing to players of lower skill, at least non-pro and possibly pro.
|
On September 16 2011 04:32 tkRage wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2011 04:28 humbre wrote:On September 16 2011 04:26 TolEranceNA wrote:On September 16 2011 04:25 humbre wrote:
QQ wins again Terran always win even if they dont qq because they have twice as many talented players as other races Because they have the most cost efficient units. Because they don't have to react to game situations aside from defending attacks. Because their mechanics don't require thoughts. They go through the motions of their mechanics and that typically wins their games. Show me a Terran player making a conscious, spur of the moment making a decision. Protoss is the same way. there's no choices made. You choose a build, you execute it, and you play standard shit from there and you have a solid win rate. The only way to lose is to make drastic mistakes. Zerg makes conscious, game breaking decisions from minute 1 of every single game. Every drone you make is a risk. Show me protoss or terran risks? Every expo you take is a possible loss to a mechanical, robotic timing. Zerg has zero cost or supply effective units; lings are the closest, but with the massive amounts of splash damage (tanks hellions colossus ht) available at every stage of the game, lings become cost inefficient in any sort of straight up engagement. Roaches are supply inefficient and maxed roach-based army compositions are 100% inefficient. Hydras are a joke. Ultras are a joke. Broodlords are not time/cost efficient. Infestors are the closest thing we have to late game cost efficiency and that's being cut into oblivion here.
Zerg bias at its finest. You should switch races for quite a while to learn more about the game. Clearly your idea of the current state of balance is completely off and for some reason you think Zerg is 10x harder/weaker than other races which is hilarious. I think you were claiming to be 'high masters Zerg', which means you should be top 10 GM with either Protoss or Terran within a month if what you said about Zerg is true. Please prove it ^_^
|
I think the zergs of the world should be rejoicing and taking a sigh of relief at this point.
|
On September 16 2011 04:38 Arisen wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2011 04:21 ReignFayth wrote:On September 16 2011 04:18 tkRage wrote:On September 16 2011 04:18 slam wrote:
lol @ people trying to bash Fayth. lol @ Fayth trying to bash people, like somehow he's got game knowledge? If you claim that neural parasite needs a nerf, then you clearly don't understand this game AT ALL. neural parasite by itself might not need a nerf, but infestor needed one, it was too good overall, they could give a fucking dark archon to zerg with neural if anything with 9 range and I wouldn't mind Come on, now. You're on the same team as KewiKaki, and I see him roll superb infestor usage a lot with good late game management. You know they're perfectly deal-able. Sure, it makes mid game a bit hard, but no harder than a zerg dealing with protoss midgame, right? I mean, you have to admit there comes a point in the game where zerg can no longer win when you have your HT colossus blink stalker and maybe mothership army up (and god help the zerg if you made like 8 phoenix to lift his infestors), right (or at least hard as shit to the point where pretty much no one can figure it out)? So shouldn't it in turn be REALLY hard to get to that "I can no longer lose state?" I know it's horrible design, game wise, and by itself infestor would be way too powerful, but zerg units are pretty bad compared to protoss units late game, so you need the infestor to be that strong. I really don't like the logic that you need to kill a protoss before he gets this super army state the game is in, but it is. And now it's just easier to get there. Do you think that's a good thing for the balance of the game?
how could you make a typo in kiwikaki 
I also saw him lose pretty horribly to infestors sometimes and it shouldn't really happen, there were just some situation where he couldn't do much despite his amazing timings/micro/macro w/e...
sure protoss doesn't have 0% winrate vs zerg but they're trying to achieve perfect balance, or at least get close to it
|
On September 16 2011 04:40 tkRage wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2011 04:39 Heavenly wrote:On September 16 2011 04:37 TolEranceNA wrote:On September 16 2011 04:34 Heavenly wrote:On September 16 2011 04:32 ThatGuy89 wrote:
infestor being the 'only decent unit zerg has' means alot of game revolve around them so any nerf is gonna force people to cry.
but no one, NO ONE, can say the infestor was fine as it was. Destiny has shown just how good they can be, practically winning games with them alone. Personally, like alot of people on this forum, i have no idea about how to balance this game. But, unlike alot of people on this forum, im able to admit that. Too many people hate on blizzard when all they are trying to do is fix it. So they've changed their minds a few times, so what? thats good if you ask me. Means they know when they've made mistakes and arent afraid to go back on themselves.
This game is only a year old, there are gonna be alot of changes made and reverted and brought back and whatever and theres also gonna be alot of changes that people wont agree with or understand. Just get on with it and see what happens. The funny part is that all zerg units are decent to great (except maybe hydra, which is still great situationally), but if you listen to some people all zerg units apparently die the second anything touches them and deal about 2 damage. Hydra is great situationally........ Sir what are you smoking man? You can definitely argue about other unit, but hydra is just terrible Against double stargate play coupled with infestors and as a two hatch nydus hydra bust on Tal'darim after a protoss goes FFE into stargate, or in certain low econ ZvP where resources are tight and colossi tech is too risky to tech to, since hydras cost less than stalkers. What are you smoking? So when protoss does an all in Hydras can be used If the protoss doesn't scout their base or tech switch appropriately and then zerg can all in and it might work
What are you even talking about?
|
On September 16 2011 04:41 dani` wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2011 04:32 tkRage wrote:On September 16 2011 04:28 humbre wrote:On September 16 2011 04:26 TolEranceNA wrote:On September 16 2011 04:25 humbre wrote:
QQ wins again Terran always win even if they dont qq because they have twice as many talented players as other races Because they have the most cost efficient units. Because they don't have to react to game situations aside from defending attacks. Because their mechanics don't require thoughts. They go through the motions of their mechanics and that typically wins their games. Show me a Terran player making a conscious, spur of the moment making a decision. Protoss is the same way. there's no choices made. You choose a build, you execute it, and you play standard shit from there and you have a solid win rate. The only way to lose is to make drastic mistakes. Zerg makes conscious, game breaking decisions from minute 1 of every single game. Every drone you make is a risk. Show me protoss or terran risks? Every expo you take is a possible loss to a mechanical, robotic timing. Zerg has zero cost or supply effective units; lings are the closest, but with the massive amounts of splash damage (tanks hellions colossus ht) available at every stage of the game, lings become cost inefficient in any sort of straight up engagement. Roaches are supply inefficient and maxed roach-based army compositions are 100% inefficient. Hydras are a joke. Ultras are a joke. Broodlords are not time/cost efficient. Infestors are the closest thing we have to late game cost efficiency and that's being cut into oblivion here. Zerg bias at its finest. You should switch races for quite a while to learn more about the game. Clearly your idea of the current state of balance is completely off and for some reason you think Zerg is 10x harder/weaker than other races which is hilarious. I think you were claiming to be 'high masters Zerg', which means you should be top 10 GM with either Protoss or Terran within a month if what you said about Zerg is true. Please prove it ^_^
I've played all three races. Thanks
|
SoCal8910 Posts
On September 16 2011 04:32 tkRage wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2011 04:28 humbre wrote:On September 16 2011 04:26 TolEranceNA wrote:On September 16 2011 04:25 humbre wrote:
QQ wins again Terran always win even if they dont qq because they have twice as many talented players as other races Because they have the most cost efficient units. Because they don't have to react to game situations aside from defending attacks. Because their mechanics don't require thoughts. They go through the motions of their mechanics and that typically wins their games. Show me a Terran player making a conscious, spur of the moment making a decision. Protoss is the same way. there's no choices made. You choose a build, you execute it, and you play standard shit from there and you have a solid win rate. The only way to lose is to make drastic mistakes. Zerg makes conscious, game breaking decisions from minute 1 of every single game. Every drone you make is a risk. Show me protoss or terran risks? Every expo you take is a possible loss to a mechanical, robotic timing. Zerg has zero cost or supply effective units; lings are the closest, but with the massive amounts of splash damage (tanks hellions colossus ht) available at every stage of the game, lings become cost inefficient in any sort of straight up engagement. Roaches are supply inefficient and maxed roach-based army compositions are 100% inefficient. Hydras are a joke. Ultras are a joke. Broodlords are not time/cost efficient. Infestors are the closest thing we have to late game cost efficiency and that's being cut into oblivion here.
did you actually call lings border-line cost-efficient?
|
On September 16 2011 04:42 Heavenly wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2011 04:40 tkRage wrote:On September 16 2011 04:39 Heavenly wrote:On September 16 2011 04:37 TolEranceNA wrote:On September 16 2011 04:34 Heavenly wrote:On September 16 2011 04:32 ThatGuy89 wrote:
infestor being the 'only decent unit zerg has' means alot of game revolve around them so any nerf is gonna force people to cry.
but no one, NO ONE, can say the infestor was fine as it was. Destiny has shown just how good they can be, practically winning games with them alone. Personally, like alot of people on this forum, i have no idea about how to balance this game. But, unlike alot of people on this forum, im able to admit that. Too many people hate on blizzard when all they are trying to do is fix it. So they've changed their minds a few times, so what? thats good if you ask me. Means they know when they've made mistakes and arent afraid to go back on themselves.
This game is only a year old, there are gonna be alot of changes made and reverted and brought back and whatever and theres also gonna be alot of changes that people wont agree with or understand. Just get on with it and see what happens. The funny part is that all zerg units are decent to great (except maybe hydra, which is still great situationally), but if you listen to some people all zerg units apparently die the second anything touches them and deal about 2 damage. Hydra is great situationally........ Sir what are you smoking man? You can definitely argue about other unit, but hydra is just terrible Against double stargate play coupled with infestors and as a two hatch nydus hydra bust on Tal'darim after a protoss goes FFE into stargate, or in certain low econ ZvP where resources are tight and colossi tech is too risky to tech to, since hydras cost less than stalkers. What are you smoking? So when protoss does an all in Hydras can be used If the protoss doesn't scout their base or tech switch appropriately and then zerg can all in and it might work What are you even talking about?
protoss does double stargate all in
zerg can counter with a hydra nydus all in
if the protoss doesn't remove nyduses fast enough
and hasn't switched to colossus.
I really don't see how this proves hydras are a cost effective, solid unit
|
Ugh. Why did they change neural at all? Blizzard has no clue how to balance. I was hoping that SC2 wouldn't just be a patch every few months that changes the meta game, but it looks like its going to be that way.
|
On September 16 2011 04:40 bwally wrote:
A more reasonable thing for tkRage to say is that when playing as Zerg you are more susceptible to losing to players of lower skill, at least non-pro and possibly pro.
same goes for protoss
maybe only terran is a "safer" race overall
|
On September 16 2011 04:42 tkRage wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2011 04:41 dani` wrote:On September 16 2011 04:32 tkRage wrote:On September 16 2011 04:28 humbre wrote:On September 16 2011 04:26 TolEranceNA wrote:On September 16 2011 04:25 humbre wrote:
QQ wins again Terran always win even if they dont qq because they have twice as many talented players as other races Because they have the most cost efficient units. Because they don't have to react to game situations aside from defending attacks. Because their mechanics don't require thoughts. They go through the motions of their mechanics and that typically wins their games. Show me a Terran player making a conscious, spur of the moment making a decision. Protoss is the same way. there's no choices made. You choose a build, you execute it, and you play standard shit from there and you have a solid win rate. The only way to lose is to make drastic mistakes. Zerg makes conscious, game breaking decisions from minute 1 of every single game. Every drone you make is a risk. Show me protoss or terran risks? Every expo you take is a possible loss to a mechanical, robotic timing. Zerg has zero cost or supply effective units; lings are the closest, but with the massive amounts of splash damage (tanks hellions colossus ht) available at every stage of the game, lings become cost inefficient in any sort of straight up engagement. Roaches are supply inefficient and maxed roach-based army compositions are 100% inefficient. Hydras are a joke. Ultras are a joke. Broodlords are not time/cost efficient. Infestors are the closest thing we have to late game cost efficiency and that's being cut into oblivion here. Zerg bias at its finest. You should switch races for quite a while to learn more about the game. Clearly your idea of the current state of balance is completely off and for some reason you think Zerg is 10x harder/weaker than other races which is hilarious. I think you were claiming to be 'high masters Zerg', which means you should be top 10 GM with either Protoss or Terran within a month if what you said about Zerg is true. Please prove it ^_^ I've played all three races. Thanks
That's not enough of an answer. Did you make it significantly higher up the ladder with Terran or Protoss? Again, a high master Zerg should make it top-10 GM if we assume your thoughts about balance are true. Did you?
|
On September 16 2011 04:42 immortlone wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2011 04:32 tkRage wrote:On September 16 2011 04:28 humbre wrote:On September 16 2011 04:26 TolEranceNA wrote:On September 16 2011 04:25 humbre wrote:
QQ wins again Terran always win even if they dont qq because they have twice as many talented players as other races Because they have the most cost efficient units. Because they don't have to react to game situations aside from defending attacks. Because their mechanics don't require thoughts. They go through the motions of their mechanics and that typically wins their games. Show me a Terran player making a conscious, spur of the moment making a decision. Protoss is the same way. there's no choices made. You choose a build, you execute it, and you play standard shit from there and you have a solid win rate. The only way to lose is to make drastic mistakes. Zerg makes conscious, game breaking decisions from minute 1 of every single game. Every drone you make is a risk. Show me protoss or terran risks? Every expo you take is a possible loss to a mechanical, robotic timing. Zerg has zero cost or supply effective units; lings are the closest, but with the massive amounts of splash damage (tanks hellions colossus ht) available at every stage of the game, lings become cost inefficient in any sort of straight up engagement. Roaches are supply inefficient and maxed roach-based army compositions are 100% inefficient. Hydras are a joke. Ultras are a joke. Broodlords are not time/cost efficient. Infestors are the closest thing we have to late game cost efficiency and that's being cut into oblivion here. did you actually call lings cost-efficient?
...........................................................................
lings are cost efficient in a lot of situations. against smaller numbers and against less splash damage. and when they can get surface area. or with solid upgrades. or in super late game drop harass. there's tons of times where lings are highly cost efficient. you get 2 of them for 1 larva and 50 minerals. that's sick.
|
On September 16 2011 04:32 tkRage wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2011 04:28 humbre wrote:On September 16 2011 04:26 TolEranceNA wrote:On September 16 2011 04:25 humbre wrote:
QQ wins again Terran always win even if they dont qq because they have twice as many talented players as other races Because they have the most cost efficient units. Because they don't have to react to game situations aside from defending attacks. Because their mechanics don't require thoughts. They go through the motions of their mechanics and that typically wins their games. Show me a Terran player making a conscious, spur of the moment making a decision. Protoss is the same way. there's no choices made. You choose a build, you execute it, and you play standard shit from there and you have a solid win rate. The only way to lose is to make drastic mistakes. Zerg makes conscious, game breaking decisions from minute 1 of every single game. Every drone you make is a risk. Show me protoss or terran risks? Every expo you take is a possible loss to a mechanical, robotic timing. Zerg has zero cost or supply effective units; lings are the closest, but with the massive amounts of splash damage (tanks hellions colossus ht) available at every stage of the game, lings become cost inefficient in any sort of straight up engagement. Roaches are supply inefficient and maxed roach-based army compositions are 100% inefficient. Hydras are a joke. Ultras are a joke. Broodlords are not time/cost efficient. Infestors are the closest thing we have to late game cost efficiency and that's being cut into oblivion here.
I just assume you are trolling here.
Infestors are the best unit in the game by far. Roaches are very cost effective but supply inefficent. Zerg are not suppposed to be cost effective thats why they can take more bases easier. Thier units are generally more mobile and creep is pretty good I heard.
you really don't play toss at a high level. Every single FF you cast is like a challenge. Miss 1 ff and sometimes you lose. Go the wrong tech path and its gg.(all toss tech cost a lot and takes forever) Every moment you wonder if its safe to move out. One msitake and your opponent catches you in middle of map? Your army dies and there is no coming back. Toss is litterally an ALL-in race everytime it moves its army out in the center because core units are so expensive and we are so resource limtied.
Terran? How should I siege my tanks. When Should I siege my tanks? If I siege them too early and leapfrog, zerg can mass enough and take out push and win game from there. If I siege too slow, baneling gets to marine and gg. Every micro decesion is important. How should I move out with my army? If i move out am I rdy for the muta counterattack? What if he jsut circumvents my army and sacs into my base? Is there baneling land mines? WHere are his infestors because guess what? 1 fungal=20 death marines(due to chain fungal).
|
On September 16 2011 04:43 dani` wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2011 04:42 tkRage wrote:On September 16 2011 04:41 dani` wrote:On September 16 2011 04:32 tkRage wrote:On September 16 2011 04:28 humbre wrote:On September 16 2011 04:26 TolEranceNA wrote:On September 16 2011 04:25 humbre wrote:
QQ wins again Terran always win even if they dont qq because they have twice as many talented players as other races Because they have the most cost efficient units. Because they don't have to react to game situations aside from defending attacks. Because their mechanics don't require thoughts. They go through the motions of their mechanics and that typically wins their games. Show me a Terran player making a conscious, spur of the moment making a decision. Protoss is the same way. there's no choices made. You choose a build, you execute it, and you play standard shit from there and you have a solid win rate. The only way to lose is to make drastic mistakes. Zerg makes conscious, game breaking decisions from minute 1 of every single game. Every drone you make is a risk. Show me protoss or terran risks? Every expo you take is a possible loss to a mechanical, robotic timing. Zerg has zero cost or supply effective units; lings are the closest, but with the massive amounts of splash damage (tanks hellions colossus ht) available at every stage of the game, lings become cost inefficient in any sort of straight up engagement. Roaches are supply inefficient and maxed roach-based army compositions are 100% inefficient. Hydras are a joke. Ultras are a joke. Broodlords are not time/cost efficient. Infestors are the closest thing we have to late game cost efficiency and that's being cut into oblivion here. Zerg bias at its finest. You should switch races for quite a while to learn more about the game. Clearly your idea of the current state of balance is completely off and for some reason you think Zerg is 10x harder/weaker than other races which is hilarious. I think you were claiming to be 'high masters Zerg', which means you should be top 10 GM with either Protoss or Terran within a month if what you said about Zerg is true. Please prove it ^_^ I've played all three races. Thanks That's not enough of an answer. Did you make it significantly higher up the ladder with Terran or Protoss? Again, a high master Zerg should make it top-10 GM if we assume your thoughts about balance are true. Did you?
You can assume all you want but it only makes you look like an idiot
|
On September 16 2011 04:44 tkRage wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2011 04:43 dani` wrote:On September 16 2011 04:42 tkRage wrote:On September 16 2011 04:41 dani` wrote:On September 16 2011 04:32 tkRage wrote:On September 16 2011 04:28 humbre wrote:On September 16 2011 04:26 TolEranceNA wrote:On September 16 2011 04:25 humbre wrote:
QQ wins again Terran always win even if they dont qq because they have twice as many talented players as other races Because they have the most cost efficient units. Because they don't have to react to game situations aside from defending attacks. Because their mechanics don't require thoughts. They go through the motions of their mechanics and that typically wins their games. Show me a Terran player making a conscious, spur of the moment making a decision. Protoss is the same way. there's no choices made. You choose a build, you execute it, and you play standard shit from there and you have a solid win rate. The only way to lose is to make drastic mistakes. Zerg makes conscious, game breaking decisions from minute 1 of every single game. Every drone you make is a risk. Show me protoss or terran risks? Every expo you take is a possible loss to a mechanical, robotic timing. Zerg has zero cost or supply effective units; lings are the closest, but with the massive amounts of splash damage (tanks hellions colossus ht) available at every stage of the game, lings become cost inefficient in any sort of straight up engagement. Roaches are supply inefficient and maxed roach-based army compositions are 100% inefficient. Hydras are a joke. Ultras are a joke. Broodlords are not time/cost efficient. Infestors are the closest thing we have to late game cost efficiency and that's being cut into oblivion here. Zerg bias at its finest. You should switch races for quite a while to learn more about the game. Clearly your idea of the current state of balance is completely off and for some reason you think Zerg is 10x harder/weaker than other races which is hilarious. I think you were claiming to be 'high masters Zerg', which means you should be top 10 GM with either Protoss or Terran within a month if what you said about Zerg is true. Please prove it ^_^ I've played all three races. Thanks That's not enough of an answer. Did you make it significantly higher up the ladder with Terran or Protoss? Again, a high master Zerg should make it top-10 GM if we assume your thoughts about balance are true. Did you? You can assume all you want but it only makes you look like an idiot
Do you see how you are completely avoiding answering the question? Clearly you didn't perform well with Terran / Protoss at all otherwise you'd be bragging about that by now ^_^
|
How is it now impossible to np a tank or collosus? Now you just have to send in some units in front and then follow in with your infestors instead of just np before the battle even begins and gg
|
On September 16 2011 04:43 tkRage wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2011 04:42 Heavenly wrote:On September 16 2011 04:40 tkRage wrote:On September 16 2011 04:39 Heavenly wrote:On September 16 2011 04:37 TolEranceNA wrote:On September 16 2011 04:34 Heavenly wrote:On September 16 2011 04:32 ThatGuy89 wrote:
infestor being the 'only decent unit zerg has' means alot of game revolve around them so any nerf is gonna force people to cry.
but no one, NO ONE, can say the infestor was fine as it was. Destiny has shown just how good they can be, practically winning games with them alone. Personally, like alot of people on this forum, i have no idea about how to balance this game. But, unlike alot of people on this forum, im able to admit that. Too many people hate on blizzard when all they are trying to do is fix it. So they've changed their minds a few times, so what? thats good if you ask me. Means they know when they've made mistakes and arent afraid to go back on themselves.
This game is only a year old, there are gonna be alot of changes made and reverted and brought back and whatever and theres also gonna be alot of changes that people wont agree with or understand. Just get on with it and see what happens. The funny part is that all zerg units are decent to great (except maybe hydra, which is still great situationally), but if you listen to some people all zerg units apparently die the second anything touches them and deal about 2 damage. Hydra is great situationally........ Sir what are you smoking man? You can definitely argue about other unit, but hydra is just terrible Against double stargate play coupled with infestors and as a two hatch nydus hydra bust on Tal'darim after a protoss goes FFE into stargate, or in certain low econ ZvP where resources are tight and colossi tech is too risky to tech to, since hydras cost less than stalkers. What are you smoking? So when protoss does an all in Hydras can be used If the protoss doesn't scout their base or tech switch appropriately and then zerg can all in and it might work What are you even talking about? protoss does double stargate all in zerg can counter with a hydra nydus all in if the protoss doesn't remove nyduses fast enough and hasn't switched to colossus. I really don't see how this proves hydras are a cost effective, solid unit
Not what I said at all? Double stargate isn't an all-in in the first place, just a heavy tech commitment, and plenty of protoss do it. The hydra nydus all-in is in responsive to any stargate opener which is extremely common after FFE on Tal'darim and goes outside of the base to eliminate travel time, not inside of the base. And there are situations where protoss can't tech switch to colossi immediately without dying to several other attacks not using hydras.
And I'm sorry that the race that gets more econ, especially in the midgame, doesn't have cost-effective units versus everything. Even though roaches cost half what stalkers do and benefit much better from upgrades and can be massed much easier, we should probably give them 6 range too so that you can just mass roach and win.
|
On September 16 2011 04:44 xbankx wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2011 04:32 tkRage wrote:On September 16 2011 04:28 humbre wrote:On September 16 2011 04:26 TolEranceNA wrote:On September 16 2011 04:25 humbre wrote:
QQ wins again Terran always win even if they dont qq because they have twice as many talented players as other races Because they have the most cost efficient units. Because they don't have to react to game situations aside from defending attacks. Because their mechanics don't require thoughts. They go through the motions of their mechanics and that typically wins their games. Show me a Terran player making a conscious, spur of the moment making a decision. Protoss is the same way. there's no choices made. You choose a build, you execute it, and you play standard shit from there and you have a solid win rate. The only way to lose is to make drastic mistakes. Zerg makes conscious, game breaking decisions from minute 1 of every single game. Every drone you make is a risk. Show me protoss or terran risks? Every expo you take is a possible loss to a mechanical, robotic timing. Zerg has zero cost or supply effective units; lings are the closest, but with the massive amounts of splash damage (tanks hellions colossus ht) available at every stage of the game, lings become cost inefficient in any sort of straight up engagement. Roaches are supply inefficient and maxed roach-based army compositions are 100% inefficient. Hydras are a joke. Ultras are a joke. Broodlords are not time/cost efficient. Infestors are the closest thing we have to late game cost efficiency and that's being cut into oblivion here. I just assume you are trolling here. Infestors are the best unit in the game by far. Roaches are very cost effective but supply inefficent. Zerg are not suppposed to be cost effective thats why they can take more bases easier. Thier units are generally more mobile and creep is pretty good I heard. you really don't play toss at a high level. Every single FF you cast is like a challenge. Miss 1 ff and sometimes you lose. Go the wrong tech path and its gg? Every moment you wonder if its safe to move out. One msitake and your opponent catches you in middle of map? Your army dies and there is no coming back. Toss is litterally an ALL-in race everytime it moves its army out in the center because core units are so expensive and we are so resource limtied. Terran? How should I siege my tanks. When Should I siege my tanks? If I siege them too early and leapfrog, zerg can mass enough and take out push and win game from there. If I siege too slow, baneling gets to marine and gg. Every micro decesion is important. How should I move out with my army? If i move out am I rdy for the muta counterattack? What if he jsut circumvents my army and sacs into my base? Is there baneling land mines? WHere are his infestors because guess what? 1 fungal=20 death marines(due to chain fungal).
Nearly everything you listed is a MECHANICAL problem, not a strategic/brain/thought problem. Not a decision, but poor mechanics. Not watching the minimap? poor mechanics. Not sieging fast enough? poor m echanics. Miss a ff? poor mechanics. caught in the middle of the map? poor mechanics. not scanning/using one fucking raven to stop baneling mines? poor mechanics. not scouting? poor mechanics.
This is all mechanics, I'm sorry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
