| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Trowabarton756
United States870 Posts
On October 14 2011 23:49 GLLvz wrote: If u say that, people could say "Hey, Terran 10 times easier to play?" Because More people become Pro with terran? it is 10 times easier to play as long as you have decent apm. | ||
|
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
On October 15 2011 03:42 Trowabarton756 wrote: it is 10 times easier to play as long as you have decent apm. Exactly. That's why Terran struggles in platinium and diamond where people generally know what to do (well, at least an approximation) but have very bad APM and overall mechanics. It requires more APM for Terran to execute their basics compared to Protoss (I believe). But when both have very high APM, Terran can spend them in a more useful fashion, whereas Protoss can only use them to defend agression and harass, which is, again, at Terran's own discretion. | ||
|
sereniity
Sweden1159 Posts
On October 15 2011 03:36 InFi.asc wrote: I'm really not playing anymore, just watching. I can't really enjoy it if the better player does not win. And sadly there have been some matches where i felt that is true. This is not the way an ESPORTs game should display itself  Could you direct us to some replays perhaps where this happens? I can probably point out an obvious mistake in 99% of the games you see in any tournament that leads to a loss. It's not about who's "the better player overall" it's about who plays better at the time. | ||
|
Fanatic-Templar
Canada5819 Posts
On October 14 2011 21:51 The KY wrote: No sir. It's not the spawning with storm that bothers me, it's the warping in with storm. So for example on Shakuras Plateau, the protoss natural, main, and far away third (assuming hypothetically they took the natural of the base parallel to theirs as their third) are all equally protected. Remove warp in from templar and reinstate KA, I'd be cool with. (How that would even work I dunno but talking hypothetical still). Ah, I see. You are quite correct. However, while this does mean he can defend any of his bases, it doesn't allow him to defend multiple ones. So if he warped-in to defend an expansion, then his main or other expansions are empty. And if he split his warp-ins, he's vulnerable evrywhere - since Storms don't stack, without a sufficient Zealot buffer, you can simply overrun him. So while it does mean every one of his bases has an equal potential to be protected, they actually are not. And if he needs to wait to know which base you're attacking before he warps-in, he's delaying production and losing macro. Also, even if you cannot take him down, if you keep forcing Storms, you're draining him of gas and gaining a greater lead through attrition. On October 14 2011 21:51 The KY wrote:Also I like that to storm drop mineral lines you have to use a warp prism and risk getting caught and losing the templar inside. With warp in storm all you risk is a warp prism and you get to warp in templar anywhere on the map. That is true and I agree, though I do believe the advantages outweigh inconveniences such as this. On October 14 2011 21:51 The KY wrote: Chargelots are pretty good. If you've killed all their medivacs lategame it's very hard as terran to mass another army because the protoss just throws upgraded chargelots at them, you are forced to stim and kite like hell, it takes up a lot of your apm, stim costs you health, sometimes you don't have an airport runway to kite down. Basically small numbers of MM vs chargelots is fucking hard work. Throw a colossus in to force vikings and you're onto a winner. But if you have a wall-in or Planetary Fortress, you can regather your forces around them, Zealots cannot attack you without Templar support or taking an overwhelming amount of damage. And you can lift-off Orbital Commands while waiting for your army to get refilled. Well, unless they have a Colossus, in which case, yes, they do have an overwhelming advantage. But I agree that Khaydarin Amulet and Colossi are too powerful, I just think the Colossus is the one that needs to go. On October 15 2011 03:28 StimedSheep wrote: This reminds me of the very beginning of Starcraft. For those who might remember when the game first came out there were periods of time where each race was trying to figure out ways to combat different attack styles. I remember people saying that 6 pools were overpowered and could not be beaten. Anyways relax and enjoy the game and try something crazy. = \ I thought 4-pools were overpowered and could not be beaten, hence why they changed the mineral cost to 200 rather than 150. | ||
|
pure_protoss
152 Posts
As a PROTOSS player as stated in my name, I do agree that terran needs a nerf and protoss definatly needs a huge buff to be on par with terran early game and zerg late game. HOWEVER! Those graphs in the OP means absolutely NOTHING! Yes terran will have a super high winrate % simply because there is so much TvT at the moment in the gsl....Which means that for about half of the matches of terrans, they have 100% winrate (which is logic in TvT except for a draw match that never happened in the GSL as far as I can remember). And since there is so less protoss in the gsl, there wont be many PvP's so there is not much 100% win rate matchup for them. Therefore the graphs are rigged.... The only curve that might be accurate would be the curve of zergs however even them would be on the protoss side in this story I believe. Thank you, | ||
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On October 15 2011 04:02 pure_protoss wrote: Hey guyz....I just want to give my little opinion on the subject.... As a PROTOSS player as stated in my name, I do agree that terran needs a nerf and protoss definatly needs a huge buff to be on par with terran early game and zerg late game. HOWEVER! Those graphs in the OP means absolutely NOTHING! Yes terran will have a super high winrate % simply because there is so much TvT at the moment in the gsl....Which means that for about half of the matches of terrans, they have 100% winrate (which is logic in TvT except for a draw match that never happened in the GSL as far as I can remember). And since there is so less protoss in the gsl, there wont be many PvP's so there is not much 100% win rate matchup for them. Therefore the graphs are rigged.... The only curve that might be accurate would be the curve of zergs however even them would be on the protoss side in this story I believe. Thank you, Wouldn't a TvT have a 50% winrate for terran? All mirror matches have a 50% win rate for that race. The only relevant question is the PvT, PvZ and TvZ matchups. | ||
|
InFi.asc
Germany518 Posts
On October 15 2011 04:02 pure_protoss wrote: Hey guyz....I just want to give my little opinion on the subject.... As a PROTOSS player as stated in my name, I do agree that terran needs a nerf and protoss definatly needs a huge buff to be on par with terran early game and zerg late game. HOWEVER! Those graphs in the OP means absolutely NOTHING! Yes terran will have a super high winrate % simply because there is so much TvT at the moment in the gsl....Which means that for about half of the matches of terrans, they have 100% winrate (which is logic in TvT except for a draw match that never happened in the GSL as far as I can remember). And since there is so less protoss in the gsl, there wont be many PvP's so there is not much 100% win rate matchup for them. Therefore the graphs are rigged.... The only curve that might be accurate would be the curve of zergs however even them would be on the protoss side in this story I believe. Thank you, yes and that's why the TvZ and TvP graphs show these numbers, too! Right?! You really think mirror matches are included? you better be trolling mon | ||
|
pure_protoss
152 Posts
On October 15 2011 04:10 Whitewing wrote: Wouldn't a TvT have a 50% winrate for terran? All mirror matches have a 50% win rate for that race. The only relevant question is the PvT, PvZ and TvZ matchups. nha....since there will be 100% sure a terran as a winner....I am pretty sure these graphs are only looking at the results of games and does not take into account the loss of the players. However I might be wrong I am not the one who did the graph...but still...there is a good chance it might be rigged. | ||
|
dooraven
Australia2820 Posts
On October 15 2011 04:02 pure_protoss wrote: Hey guyz....I just want to give my little opinion on the subject.... As a PROTOSS player as stated in my name, I do agree that terran needs a nerf and protoss definatly needs a huge buff to be on par with terran early game and zerg late game. HOWEVER! Those graphs in the OP means absolutely NOTHING! Yes terran will have a super high winrate % simply because there is so much TvT at the moment in the gsl....Which means that for about half of the matches of terrans, they have 100% winrate (which is logic in TvT except for a draw match that never happened in the GSL as far as I can remember). And since there is so less protoss in the gsl, there wont be many PvP's so there is not much 100% win rate matchup for them. Therefore the graphs are rigged.... The only curve that might be accurate would be the curve of zergs however even them would be on the protoss side in this story I believe. Thank you, I really hope this is a troll post.. TvT = 100% win rate for terran? uhh | ||
|
pure_protoss
152 Posts
On October 15 2011 04:12 InFi.asc wrote: yes and that's why the TvZ and TvP graphs show these numbers, too! Right?! You really think mirror matches are included? you better be trolling mon im talking about the win percentage by race graph not the matchup one! | ||
|
Klausan
3 Posts
| ||
|
InFi.asc
Germany518 Posts
On October 15 2011 04:14 pure_protoss wrote: im talking about the win percentage by race graph not the matchup one! i know, now read my post again and look who created this thread  | ||
|
koppik
United States676 Posts
| ||
|
InFi.asc
Germany518 Posts
| ||
|
InFi.asc
Germany518 Posts
On October 15 2011 03:54 sereniity wrote: Could you direct us to some replays perhaps where this happens? I can probably point out an obvious mistake in 99% of the games you see in any tournament that leads to a loss. It's not about who's "the better player overall" it's about who plays better at the time. Of the top of my head there are some MC vs Puma games from NASL or IEM ( I think ), like where MC caught every drop and was miles ahead and then just lost. Puma vs Hero at IPL wasn't that obvious as other games but I think Hero should have done better, he played outstandingly well. | ||
|
Tewks44
United States2032 Posts
| ||
|
forsooth
United States3648 Posts
On October 14 2011 13:10 iamke55 wrote: Then do you also think the planetary fortress should be removed? Does the same thing as KA except you only have to pay the 150 gas once. Planetaries exist because Terran can't warp-in or nydus or create combat units out of a CC or make any other static anti-ground defensive structures that don't require using up supply. Take away the Planetary and you take away Terran's only option for holding off an attack or harass until sufficient forces arrive from elsewhere on the map to defend it. A Planetary also doesn't have nearly the destructive ability of a warp-in round of storm-ready templars. | ||
|
SeaSwift
Scotland4486 Posts
On October 15 2011 04:24 InFi.asc wrote: Of the top of my head there are some MC vs Puma games from NASL or IEM ( I think ), like where MC caught every drop and was miles ahead and then just lost. Puma vs Hero at IPL wasn't that obvious as other games but I think Hero should have done better, he played outstandingly well. Agreed. Anyone who watched the MC vs Puma at IEM and thought Puma deserved those wins was either kidding themselves (read: heavily biased) or hadn't watched Starcraft before. I don't understand why there is still a discussion about whether PvT is imbalanced or not: the discussion right now should be what can be done to solve the problem. | ||
|
Cain0
United Kingdom608 Posts
On October 14 2011 01:23 ChroMaTe_ wrote: Thus why I switched to Terran. What will you do when Terran run into a tough time? Switch to Z or P and start over? You've got to love the race you play, not play it because its the most powerful one. For example, I love playing zerg because I love to QQ when I lose. "I just spent fucking ages spreading that creep and you walk in here and kill it off in 2 seconds, fuck you". I really feel sorry for toss's recently though, there is so much shit going their way. I wish all 3 races were balanced. (Actually Id rather P and Z had a 60% win ratio vs T for 3 months so T players knows how it feels) | ||
|
1st_Panzer_Div.
United States621 Posts
On October 15 2011 04:47 SeaSwift wrote: Agreed. Anyone who watched the MC vs Puma at IEM and thought Puma deserved those wins was either kidding themselves (read: heavily biased) or hadn't watched Starcraft before. I don't understand why there is still a discussion about whether PvT is imbalanced or not: the discussion right now should be what can be done to solve the problem. Completely agree. And further, how to they change the MU without affecting ZvT at all, which has evolved into something that is really great to watch. I'd actually be curious to see what it would be if they added 20 seconds build time to hatcheries. It should slow down the insane macro advantage that the crazy quick 3 base zerg can do in PvZ. It would actually also help reduce cannon/bunker rush effectiveness, as the T/P has to commit more/longer to the rush, and the zerg has more time to just cancel it and 1 base all-in for a free win. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Other Games |
|
Wardi Open
CranKy Ducklings
Safe House 2
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Safe House 2
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
The PondCast
|
|
|
EPT
