|
On September 16 2011 04:45 dani` wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2011 04:44 tkRage wrote: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 ^_^
I already stated int his thread that I played protoss ladder games on my main zerg account at high master level and had solid winrate. without any practice.
|
This is probably a perfectly or as close to getting one, balance change, something HAD to be done with the NP even i was a bit skeptical on the removing massive unit but this makes the most sense.
Edit* On September 16 2011 03:49 R0YAL wrote:
Better course of action. But wheres the "FG now slows units instead of eliminating all micro entirely" change?
Yep me too im waiting for my blink stalkers to not all get raped
|
On September 16 2011 04:46 Heavenly wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2011 04:43 tkRage wrote: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.
sorry, you're wrong. double stargate IS all in because if I beat it without taking too much loss I win the game. and protoss can switch to colossi as soon as hydras are out. if they don't, if they keep making other units and other techs, that's a mistake.
|
On September 16 2011 04:46 tkRage wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2011 04:44 xbankx 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. 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.
"Every moment you wonder if its safe to move out."
|
On September 16 2011 04:47 tkRage wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2011 04:45 dani` wrote:On September 16 2011 04:44 tkRage wrote: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 ^_^ I already stated int his thread that I played protoss ladder games on my main zerg account at high master level and had solid winrate. without any practice.
So? And I've done the same with Protoss to Terran, and know people who have done the same from Terran/Protoss to Zerg...
|
On September 16 2011 04:48 slam wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2011 04:46 tkRage wrote:On September 16 2011 04:44 xbankx 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. 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. "Every moment you wonder if its safe to move out."
poor scouting
|
On September 16 2011 04:46 tkRage wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2011 04:44 xbankx 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. 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.
WTF? How is knowing when to siege is mechanic problem? i can siege as fast as a pro. It takes 1 buttom to siege all tanks.
|
On September 16 2011 04:48 tkRage wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2011 04:46 Heavenly wrote:On September 16 2011 04:43 tkRage wrote: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. sorry, you're wrong. double stargate IS all in because if I beat it without taking too much loss I win the game. and protoss can switch to colossi as soon as hydras are out. if they don't, if they keep making other units and other techs, that's a mistake.
lmao you're clearly delusional and this is a discussion thread for NP. There is literally no point arguing with you on anything because you'll just say "nope". Keep thinking zerg is weak despite any evidence to the contrary.
|
On September 16 2011 04:49 ZAiNs wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2011 04:47 tkRage wrote:On September 16 2011 04:45 dani` wrote:On September 16 2011 04:44 tkRage wrote: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:[quote] 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 ^_^ I already stated int his thread that I played protoss ladder games on my main zerg account at high master level and had solid winrate. without any practice. So? And I've done the same with Protoss to Terran, and know people who have done the same from Terran/Protoss to Zerg...
i find that hard to believe about switching to zerg.
|
Hmm. Idk. While this is better than it was. Its almost the same effect to be honest. I'm not sure you really can effectively steal most massive units, with range 7.
I guess Archons can still be NP effectively.
|
On September 16 2011 04:49 Heavenly wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2011 04:48 tkRage wrote:On September 16 2011 04:46 Heavenly wrote:On September 16 2011 04:43 tkRage wrote: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. sorry, you're wrong. double stargate IS all in because if I beat it without taking too much loss I win the game. and protoss can switch to colossi as soon as hydras are out. if they don't, if they keep making other units and other techs, that's a mistake. lmao you're clearly delusional and this is a discussion thread for NP. There is literally no point arguing with you on anything because you'll just say "nope".
hydras are universally accepted to be shit units. the burden of proof is on you for making moronic claims like they are good.
|
Yussss, they listened to my post. :p
I was saying NP shouldn't be useless against massive units, but it should have range reduced to 8 maybe 7.
I still think ITs should be 50 energy each though.
|
On September 16 2011 04:48 DreamChaser wrote:
This is probably a perfectly or as close to getting one, balance change, something HAD to be done with the NP even i was a bit skeptical on the removing massive unit but this makes the most sense.
Yep, maybe they could give Motherships the "frenzied" trait to prevent them from being np'ed, but otherwise I'm confident that this change could make it into the final patch.
|
On September 16 2011 04:47 tkRage wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2011 04:45 dani` wrote:On September 16 2011 04:44 tkRage wrote: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 ^_^ I already stated int his thread that I played protoss ladder games on my main zerg account at high master level and had solid winrate. without any practice.
Yes you mentioned that, but everybody can do that with every race. Now you'd be a lot more convincing / believable if you actually played T or P for ~ 1 month and see where you end up. Again, your MMR should be easily GM according to your own reasoning. I'm curious if you'd manage.
|
On September 16 2011 04:51 dani` wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2011 04:47 tkRage wrote:On September 16 2011 04:45 dani` wrote:On September 16 2011 04:44 tkRage wrote: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:[quote] 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 ^_^ I already stated int his thread that I played protoss ladder games on my main zerg account at high master level and had solid winrate. without any practice. Yes you mentioned that, but everybody can do that with every race. Now you'd be a lot more convincing / believable if you actually played T or P for ~ 1 month and see where you end up. Again, your MMR should be easily GM according to your own reasoning. I'm curious if you'd manage.
my mmr is already gm.
|
On September 16 2011 04:50 tkRage wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2011 04:49 Heavenly wrote:On September 16 2011 04:48 tkRage wrote:On September 16 2011 04:46 Heavenly wrote:On September 16 2011 04:43 tkRage wrote: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:
[quote]
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. sorry, you're wrong. double stargate IS all in because if I beat it without taking too much loss I win the game. and protoss can switch to colossi as soon as hydras are out. if they don't, if they keep making other units and other techs, that's a mistake. lmao you're clearly delusional and this is a discussion thread for NP. There is literally no point arguing with you on anything because you'll just say "nope". hydras are universally accepted to be shit units. the burden of proof is on you for making moronic claims like they are good.
I did give proof, and you said "nope" even though it's clearly happened in plenty of high level games like Losira v MC. I could say anything, give examples, and you'll just say "well he should had maphacks and flawless mechanics". You're nothing more than a QQer.
|
On September 16 2011 04:49 tkRage wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2011 04:48 slam wrote:On September 16 2011 04:46 tkRage wrote:On September 16 2011 04:44 xbankx 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. 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. "Every moment you wonder if its safe to move out." poor scouting So scouting 100% stops mutas from counter attacking? Hrmmm, I should try that.
|
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.
I don't think you get what he means. You say "critical decisions are made all the time." The critical decision a terran makes is the positioning of his or her tanks, and that will often win or lose them the game.
It's also one of the hardest things in the game to get right.
|
If neural can still affect massive, i dont want fungal to snare massive units... and you should be able to blink when fungal is on (just not walk after blinking)
|
On September 16 2011 04:52 Heavenly wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2011 04:50 tkRage wrote:On September 16 2011 04:49 Heavenly wrote:On September 16 2011 04:48 tkRage wrote:On September 16 2011 04:46 Heavenly wrote:On September 16 2011 04:43 tkRage wrote: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:[quote] 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. sorry, you're wrong. double stargate IS all in because if I beat it without taking too much loss I win the game. and protoss can switch to colossi as soon as hydras are out. if they don't, if they keep making other units and other techs, that's a mistake. lmao you're clearly delusional and this is a discussion thread for NP. There is literally no point arguing with you on anything because you'll just say "nope". hydras are universally accepted to be shit units. the burden of proof is on you for making moronic claims like they are good. I did give proof, and you said "nope" even though it's clearly happened in plenty of high level games like Losira v MC. I could say anything, give examples, and you'll just say "well he should had maphacks and flawless mechanics". You're nothing more than a QQer.
yes, hydras can be used effectively in one situation which is an all in which counters an all in.
congrats you've proved it
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
