|
On September 16 2011 04:52 tkRage wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2011 04:51 dani` wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
Unless your league says GM, you're not GM.
|
On September 16 2011 04:53 tkRage wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2011 04:52 Heavenly wrote: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:
[quote]
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
Which is exactly what I said, that they are good in certain situations.
Thanks for your congratulations.
|
On September 16 2011 04:53 slam wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2011 04:49 tkRage wrote: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.
if you're unprepared for muta counter attacks you probably shouldn't be moving across the map yet.
there, i just made that decision for you in all future games. you're now one league higher, congrats.
|
On September 16 2011 04:53 Torte de Lini wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2011 04:52 tkRage wrote:On September 16 2011 04:51 dani` wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Unless you're league says GM, you're not GM.
I didn't say I was gm
|
they should change ghost range too or lessen the aoe radius
you can't np ghost anymore before you get EMP
|
Some time ago people were discussing final Neural Parasite change, just reminding You what's this thread about.
EDIT:
As I stated before, it sounds too beta-ish too me. Sure, change it why not. Let's see what happens. Besides more splatter.
|
On September 16 2011 04:53 Heavenly wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2011 04:53 tkRage wrote:On September 16 2011 04:52 Heavenly wrote: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:
[quote]
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 Which is exactly what I said, that they are good in certain situations. Thanks for your congratulations.
lol hydras aren't effective because they are usable in one situation, i'm sorry.
|
i think i'd rather have the range : (
|
On September 16 2011 04:54 tkRage wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2011 04:53 Heavenly wrote:On September 16 2011 04:53 tkRage wrote:On September 16 2011 04:52 Heavenly wrote: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:
[quote]
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 Which is exactly what I said, that they are good in certain situations. Thanks for your congratulations. lol hydras aren't effective because they are usable in one situation, i'm sorry.
Um yes, if they are usable in one situation (btw I listed several but you decided to make it all one thing for some reason) then they are in fact effective, in that situation, which was exactly what I said.
|
Look people. The bottom line is that there aren't any effective unit compositions that don't include infestors. We've tried them. All of 'em. Name a unit comp that Zerg hasn't tried. Until the other compositions become viable, you can't nerf infestor to the ground like this or it destroys the balance of the game.
|
SoCal8910 Posts
On September 16 2011 04:44 tkRage wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2011 04:42 immortlone 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. did you actually call lings border-line 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.
theres a difference between being "good at harass" and "cost-efficient" - when we talk about "cost-efficiency" we're talking about them being used in combat.
of course they're going to be good at the things you listed if theres no army around. and even in low splash situations they're not cost efficient. vs a pack of marines, gg. vs a pack of zealots, gg. blink stalkers? gg.
after that, you're going to be dealing with splash damage almost always with the other two races be it colossus or HT, siege tanks or hellions. players WILL have those units in their compositions and they WILL eat lings way more cost efficiently than lings vs the rest of the army.
|
On September 16 2011 04:54 tkRage wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2011 04:53 slam wrote:On September 16 2011 04:49 tkRage wrote: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. if you're unprepared for muta counter attacks you probably shouldn't be moving across the map yet. there, i just made that decision for you in all future games. you're now one league higher, congrats.
What the fuck is wrong with you?
|
On September 16 2011 04:49 xbankx 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. 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.
I think he was referring more to having good timing with your siege tank leap frog maneuvers and scouting to make sure you are safe to do so.
The point remains that all of your questions can be answered with better mechanics/ experience/ better scouting. You make it sound like it's impossible for T/P to win, when in reality through experience all of your problems can be solved
|
On September 16 2011 04:56 tkRage wrote:
Look people. The bottom line is that there aren't any effective unit compositions that don't include infestors. We've tried them. All of 'em. Name a unit comp that Zerg hasn't tried. Until the other compositions become viable, you can't nerf infestor to the ground like this or it destroys the balance of the game.
That's my last post here.
You're right of course, no zerg has ever beat a protoss without the use of neural parasite.
|
On September 16 2011 04:56 KonohaFlash wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2011 04:54 tkRage wrote:On September 16 2011 04:53 slam wrote:On September 16 2011 04:49 tkRage wrote: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:[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. 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. if you're unprepared for muta counter attacks you probably shouldn't be moving across the map yet. there, i just made that decision for you in all future games. you're now one league higher, congrats. What the fuck is wrong with you?
thanks for your insightful response
|
On September 16 2011 04:56 tkRage wrote:
Look people. The bottom line is that there aren't any effective unit compositions that don't include infestors. We've tried them. All of 'em. Name a unit comp that Zerg hasn't tried. Until the other compositions become viable, you can't nerf infestor to the ground like this or it destroys the balance of the game.
That's my last post here.
Nestea/Losira rape Protoss players in their sleep while making zero infestors.
Good change - shouldn't make mech OP v Z or anything but helps against Toss which obviously needs it.
|
On September 16 2011 04:56 tkRage wrote:
Look people. The bottom line is that there aren't any effective unit compositions that don't include infestors. We've tried them. All of 'em. Name a unit comp that Zerg hasn't tried. Until the other compositions become viable, you can't nerf infestor to the ground like this or it destroys the balance of the game.
That's my last post here.
Mutaling seems to do pretty well ?_?
But yeah, you should take a time off this thread if it upsets you so much
|
Russian Federation798 Posts
Rage please stop posting, all you are doing is derailing this thread. Its about the NP change NOT your thaughts on why Zerg is 10x harder to play than other races.
|
On September 16 2011 04:56 tkRage wrote:
Look people. The bottom line is that there aren't any effective unit compositions that don't include infestors. We've tried them. All of 'em. Name a unit comp that Zerg hasn't tried. Until the other compositions become viable, you can't nerf infestor to the ground like this or it destroys the balance of the game.
That's my last post here.
Lol, wasn't PvZ pretty even before Infestor/ling became popular?
Pretty sure I've seen Roach/Hydra or just Roach with corruptor support if P goes Colossi or not beat Protoss.
|
On September 16 2011 04:57 Yaotzin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2011 04:56 tkRage wrote:
Look people. The bottom line is that there aren't any effective unit compositions that don't include infestors. We've tried them. All of 'em. Name a unit comp that Zerg hasn't tried. Until the other compositions become viable, you can't nerf infestor to the ground like this or it destroys the balance of the game.
That's my last post here. Nestea/Losira rape Protoss players in their sleep while making zero infestors. Good change - shouldn't make mech OP v Z or anything but helps against Toss which obviously needs it.
There are no good Korean protoss players other than MC who is not in top shape and only won his two GSLs through absurdly greedy builds that were unpunished like 1gate nexus to colossus tech without adding more gates.
nestea losira zvz finals only happened because neither of them faced a good terran player in the entire season; byun and ensnare??
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
