On November 06 2011 00:29 superstartran wrote: 1) Anyone arguing that Barracks units are not more cost efficient than Gateway units in a toe to toe fight should honestly stop posting here. You are simply wrong.
The first part shows bio with ups against zealots without, obvious bio win. Second part shows bio with ups against chargelots. Decisive chargelots win, even with fairly good kiting.
Maybe YOU should stop posting here, because YOU are simply wrong.
For literally 6 months not a single Terran player ever cried about KA. The crying about KA only came when Blizzard announced its removal simply out of the blue.
This totally boggles my mind. Not only is it absolutely, confoundingly untrue, it makes my head hurt to even wonder why someone would ever lie so unconvincingly.
Here's a thread from one year ago. Ironic...because it's the exact same thread as this one except the Protoss is arguing FOR KA removal.
1) Utilizing a strawman argument is not a really good way to make yourself look good. You put Chargelots with a tier 2 upgrade vs Marine/Maurader without Medivacs. Really? LOL. Nice argument. How about this, you put a Max Gateway unit army composition vs Max Rax Composition and see who wins? Yeah. Exactly. Please don't make me fucking laugh. You have no Colossus/Storm vs Bio, you simply die. Period.
2) One example out of how many? I still have yet to see this supposedly overpowered KA argument that existed before the patch that removed it. There were not many Terran players complaining about it until around Spring time 2011 when KA got removed.
3) The thread was immediately shut down by Plexa because it provided no significant analysis of how or why KA was imbalanced despite the fact that at the time (which even the OP stated himself) Terran was absolutely assraping Protoss left and right.
1) You mean like Zealot/Archon? Quick ups? Early immortal pushes? Please stop propagating misinformation. Please stop comparing vanilla gateway units with upped bio. Medivacs are tier 3, please stop ignoring that fact. 2) EVERYONE was complaining about Psi Storm. You said no one complained about KA until it was removed, which is a ridiculous lie. 3) This thread provides a recap of the conversation a year ago. See 2)
On November 06 2011 00:29 superstartran wrote: 1) Anyone arguing that Barracks units are not more cost efficient than Gateway units in a toe to toe fight should honestly stop posting here. You are simply wrong.
The first part shows bio with ups against zealots without, obvious bio win. Second part shows bio with ups against chargelots. Decisive chargelots win, even with fairly good kiting.
Maybe YOU should stop posting here, because YOU are simply wrong.
Maybe you should double or triple the supply, to make it more realistic. Such small army counts are not realistic, and as we all know, bio (because all units are ranged) becomes much more efficient with size.
And if I had found a video with higher supplies you would be saying that bio is stronger in small numbers (which many, including Day9, often point out, and is actually more accurate).
No, that is nonsense.
Ranged units - regardless which ranged unit - get better and better against meele units, with additional numbers. 1 stalker dies easily to 6 zerglings, but 30 stalkers wont die that easy against 180 zerglings. Its simple really, the larger the ball of ranged units, the harder it gets for the meele units to surround them. And if they cant surround, much of the available DPS is being wasted.
On November 06 2011 00:29 superstartran wrote: 1) Anyone arguing that Barracks units are not more cost efficient than Gateway units in a toe to toe fight should honestly stop posting here. You are simply wrong.
The first part shows bio with ups against zealots without, obvious bio win. Second part shows bio with ups against chargelots. Decisive chargelots win, even with fairly good kiting.
Maybe YOU should stop posting here, because YOU are simply wrong.
Maybe you should double or triple the supply, to make it more realistic. Such small army counts are not realistic, and as we all know, bio (because all units are ranged) becomes much more efficient with size.
And if I had found a video with higher supplies you would be saying that bio is stronger in small numbers (which many, including Day9, often point out, and is actually more accurate).
No, that is nonsense.
Ranged units - regardless which ranged unit - get better and better against meele units, with additional numbers. 1 stalker dies easily to 6 zerglings, but 30 stalkers wont die that easy against 180 zerglings. Its simple really, the larger the ball of ranged units, the harder it gets for the meele units to surround them. And if they cant surround, much of the available DPS is being wasted.
So, in other words, you're saying the cost-efficiency of gateway units vs. bio depends on the situation, because either could easily come out ahead, depending on numbers, terrain, etc.
On November 06 2011 00:29 superstartran wrote:2) 6 months of data of high level tournament play on the international level showed KA was not imbalanced at all, and in fact was the key and pivotal factor that prevented Protoss from being absolutely steam rolled by Terran's drops/bio pressure/efficient army trading. This nullifies every single KA "was overpowered" argument. KA at its best provided Protoss about a 50% win percentage, and this was before the advent of splitting units, kiting, and heavy usage of mass EMPs.
I'd like to see the numbers from this in games where KA was actually researched and where the terran was not smart enough to finish the game before the 15th minute mark.
1) You mean like Zealot/Archon? Quick ups? Early immortal pushes? Please stop propagating misinformation. Please stop comparing vanilla gateway units with upped bio. Medivacs are tier 3, please stop ignoring that fact.
Ignore the fact that he said MAXED. You can refute any argument when you remove key elements.
At max everyone has equal upgrades. EARLY is completely negated by the fact that he said MAXED also. A pure zealot archon army at 200/200 vs a MAXED bioball army gets obliterated unless you get some sort of sick surround/ your units are interwoven throughout theirs because most of their army is constantly doing damage while a lot of zealots and/or archons cannot engage. When you see a pure zealot archon army fighting and beating bioball its is never a maxed confrontation.
On November 06 2011 00:29 superstartran wrote: 1) Anyone arguing that Barracks units are not more cost efficient than Gateway units in a toe to toe fight should honestly stop posting here. You are simply wrong.
The first part shows bio with ups against zealots without, obvious bio win. Second part shows bio with ups against chargelots. Decisive chargelots win, even with fairly good kiting.
Maybe YOU should stop posting here, because YOU are simply wrong.
Maybe you should double or triple the supply, to make it more realistic. Such small army counts are not realistic, and as we all know, bio (because all units are ranged) becomes much more efficient with size.
And if I had found a video with higher supplies you would be saying that bio is stronger in small numbers (which many, including Day9, often point out, and is actually more accurate).
No, that is nonsense.
Ranged units - regardless which ranged unit - get better and better against meele units, with additional numbers. 1 stalker dies easily to 6 zerglings, but 30 stalkers wont die that easy against 180 zerglings. Its simple really, the larger the ball of ranged units, the harder it gets for the meele units to surround them. And if they cant surround, much of the available DPS is being wasted.
So, in other words, you're saying the cost-efficiency of gateway units vs. bio depends on the situation, because either could easily come out ahead, depending on numbers, terrain, etc.
Glad we agree.
No, we don not agree.
No one is going to send 10 MMs to the middle of the map, to die fighting chargelots. And even if a terran player does utilize so few units, he will not send them to some open terrain. He might drop a mineral line, and when chargelots arrive, move his units behind the minerals, and make them soooooooooo much more cost efficient against chargelots. Or, he might attack with 30MMs and rape chargelots.
The particular situation, like in the linked video, never happens in a real game. Therefore MM are much more cost efficient than gateway units.
On November 06 2011 00:29 superstartran wrote: 1) Anyone arguing that Barracks units are not more cost efficient than Gateway units in a toe to toe fight should honestly stop posting here. You are simply wrong.
The first part shows bio with ups against zealots without, obvious bio win. Second part shows bio with ups against chargelots. Decisive chargelots win, even with fairly good kiting.
Maybe YOU should stop posting here, because YOU are simply wrong.
Maybe you should double or triple the supply, to make it more realistic. Such small army counts are not realistic, and as we all know, bio (because all units are ranged) becomes much more efficient with size.
And if I had found a video with higher supplies you would be saying that bio is stronger in small numbers (which many, including Day9, often point out, and is actually more accurate).
No, that is nonsense.
Ranged units - regardless which ranged unit - get better and better against meele units, with additional numbers. 1 stalker dies easily to 6 zerglings, but 30 stalkers wont die that easy against 180 zerglings. Its simple really, the larger the ball of ranged units, the harder it gets for the meele units to surround them. And if they cant surround, much of the available DPS is being wasted.
So, in other words, you're saying the cost-efficiency of gateway units vs. bio depends on the situation, because either could easily come out ahead, depending on numbers, terrain, etc.
Glad we agree.
No, we don not agree.
No one is going to send 10 MMs to the middle of the map, to die fighting chargelots. And even if a terran player does utilize so few units, he will not send them to some open terrain. He might drop a mineral line, and when chargelots arrive, move his units behind the minerals, and make them soooooooooo much more cost efficient against chargelots. Or, he might attack with 30MMs and rape chargelots.
The particular situation, like in the linked video, never happens in a real game. Therefore MM are much more cost efficient than gateway units.
So, in other words, you're saying the cost-efficiency of gateway units vs. bio depends on the situation, because either could easily come out ahead, depending on numbers, terrain, etc.
On November 06 2011 00:29 superstartran wrote: 1) Anyone arguing that Barracks units are not more cost efficient than Gateway units in a toe to toe fight should honestly stop posting here. You are simply wrong.
The first part shows bio with ups against zealots without, obvious bio win. Second part shows bio with ups against chargelots. Decisive chargelots win, even with fairly good kiting.
Maybe YOU should stop posting here, because YOU are simply wrong.
Maybe you should double or triple the supply, to make it more realistic. Such small army counts are not realistic, and as we all know, bio (because all units are ranged) becomes much more efficient with size.
And if I had found a video with higher supplies you would be saying that bio is stronger in small numbers (which many, including Day9, often point out, and is actually more accurate).
No, that is nonsense.
Ranged units - regardless which ranged unit - get better and better against meele units, with additional numbers. 1 stalker dies easily to 6 zerglings, but 30 stalkers wont die that easy against 180 zerglings. Its simple really, the larger the ball of ranged units, the harder it gets for the meele units to surround them. And if they cant surround, much of the available DPS is being wasted.
So, in other words, you're saying the cost-efficiency of gateway units vs. bio depends on the situation, because either could easily come out ahead, depending on numbers, terrain, etc.
Glad we agree.
No, we don not agree.
No one is going to send 10 MMs to the middle of the map, to die fighting chargelots. And even if a terran player does utilize so few units, he will not send them to some open terrain. He might drop a mineral line, and when chargelots arrive, move his units behind the minerals, and make them soooooooooo much more cost efficient against chargelots. Or, he might attack with 30MMs and rape chargelots.
The particular situation, like in the linked video, never happens in a real game. Therefore MM are much more cost efficient than gateway units.
So, in other words, you're saying the cost-efficiency of gateway units vs. bio depends on the situation, because either could easily come out ahead, depending on numbers, terrain, etc.
Do we really have to argue about gateway units vs bio? What do you think is the reason why T can just go bio in pvt while protoss always needs some sort of AoE damage whether it's psi storm or colossi to win. Zealots get kited to death, marauders destroy stalker hard, and sentry suffer hard from emp. Now if we leave out ghost we have to leave out archons as well, and mass chargelot won't ever win anything vs MM, nor do stalker or sentries.
On November 06 2011 04:15 Akhee wrote: storm is not even good, why would KA be OP? just get them back
make a poll, lets vote ~~
Storm is great, I don't get P players saying its bad. It does a lot of damage, the problem is its so easily negated.
i dont get what you saying... its like "its good but its bad", im almost sure everyone even in gold league can micro out of storms with at least 2 seconds reaction (very slow), 40 damage for 150 gas + research and tier 3 is not that good...
This thread is just symptomatic of the bipolar nature of TL's viewing base. A Protoss (arguably the 2 best in the world atm) manages to win a tournament against weak T and Z where the biggest threat is taken out by Z who has a psychological problem against P and herp derp we're balanced and everyone is doing ok.
Flash forward 2-3 weeks of GSL and we have this thread popup.
edit: there was a beautiful post 2 pages back quoted by impke.
On November 06 2011 06:35 superstartran wrote: Seriously, this whole ring around the rosie dance around the statistics shit has to stop. Team Liquid is better than this. You have a fucking YEAR of RAW statistics right in front of you stating that KA was pivotal and key in preventing Protoss from getting absolutely rolled (which they are right now at the moment). At best, KA allowed the match-up to remain at 50/50, and Terran hadn't even figured out how to fully play their race yet. And yet here we are, with a bunch of Terran defenders/Protoss haters simply ignoring over tens of thousands of games played that pretty much is spitting all over any kind of notion that KA was imbalanced.
Wow, you are just plain wrong and I don't know why you can't see it. 2 months AFTER KA was removed, we had the most balanced month of pro SC2 ever. That is plenty of time for the metagame to shift around KA removal, and it was FINE. There is absolutely no evidence that the KA removal had any significant effect on balance in PvT, and only slight evidence it affected PvZ. In fact, through all the whining and complaining Protoss does about Terran, it remains the most stable match-up currently with only a 47-53 split (T favored). When KA was removed, it was a 49-51 split, with even P edging out in June in the matchup.
Either stop lying to make people believe you or learn how to read a chart.
On November 06 2011 06:44 IVN wrote: Ranged units - regardless which ranged unit - get better and better against meele units, with additional numbers. 1 stalker dies easily to 6 zerglings, but 30 stalkers wont die that easy against 180 zerglings. Its simple really, the larger the ball of ranged units, the harder it gets for the meele units to surround them. And if they cant surround, much of the available DPS is being wasted.
This is a man who have never tried to fight 180 zerglings with 30 stalkers.
On November 06 2011 06:44 IVN wrote: Ranged units - regardless which ranged unit - get better and better against meele units, with additional numbers. 1 stalker dies easily to 6 zerglings, but 30 stalkers wont die that easy against 180 zerglings. Its simple really, the larger the ball of ranged units, the harder it gets for the meele units to surround them. And if they cant surround, much of the available DPS is being wasted.
This is a man who have never tried to fight 180 zerglings with 30 stalkers.
Stalkers would die, but still be much more efficient, than say 5 stalkers vs 30 zerglings.
On November 06 2011 06:35 superstartran wrote: Seriously, this whole ring around the rosie dance around the statistics shit has to stop. Team Liquid is better than this. You have a fucking YEAR of RAW statistics right in front of you stating that KA was pivotal and key in preventing Protoss from getting absolutely rolled (which they are right now at the moment). At best, KA allowed the match-up to remain at 50/50, and Terran hadn't even figured out how to fully play their race yet. And yet here we are, with a bunch of Terran defenders/Protoss haters simply ignoring over tens of thousands of games played that pretty much is spitting all over any kind of notion that KA was imbalanced.
Wow, you are just plain wrong and I don't know why you can't see it. 2 months AFTER KA was removed, we had the most balanced month of pro SC2 ever. That is plenty of time for the metagame to shift around KA removal, and it was FINE. There is absolutely no evidence that the KA removal had any significant effect on balance in PvT, and only slight evidence it affected PvZ. In fact, through all the whining and complaining Protoss does about Terran, it remains the most stable match-up currently with only a 47-53 split (T favored). When KA was removed, it was a 49-51 split, with even P edging out in June in the matchup.
Either stop lying to make people believe you or learn how to read a chart.
Oh yes, let's just ignore the 2 months inbetween that show that Terran started to absolutely dominate P all over the race. Or ignore the other 3 other months that also show that Terran pretty much rocking Protoss.
53/47 split is huge especially considering the number of games played; it gets even worse when you take a look at only Korean level games.
Don't worry though, someone obviously just wants to strawman continuously in order to defend their overpowered as fuck race that has total domination across the board against all the races in every single tournament. The only people who are arguing are those who continously deny the fact that Terran dominates the tournament landscape (and pretty much any mid to high level play), despite the fact that Terran basically assrapes Zerg 58% of the time, and Protoss 53% of the time. Of course you would want to argue that things like KA needed to be removed; it actually made the game fair so you didn't have free reign to drop a Protoss player to death and basically win just because one drop made it through.
On November 06 2011 00:29 superstartran wrote: 1) Anyone arguing that Barracks units are not more cost efficient than Gateway units in a toe to toe fight should honestly stop posting here. You are simply wrong.
The first part shows bio with ups against zealots without, obvious bio win. Second part shows bio with ups against chargelots. Decisive chargelots win, even with fairly good kiting.
Maybe YOU should stop posting here, because YOU are simply wrong.
Maybe you should double or triple the supply, to make it more realistic. Such small army counts are not realistic, and as we all know, bio (because all units are ranged) becomes much more efficient with size.
And if I had found a video with higher supplies you would be saying that bio is stronger in small numbers (which many, including Day9, often point out, and is actually more accurate).
No, that is nonsense.
Ranged units - regardless which ranged unit - get better and better against meele units, with additional numbers. 1 stalker dies easily to 6 zerglings, but 30 stalkers wont die that easy against 180 zerglings. Its simple really, the larger the ball of ranged units, the harder it gets for the meele units to surround them. And if they cant surround, much of the available DPS is being wasted.
So, in other words, you're saying the cost-efficiency of gateway units vs. bio depends on the situation, because either could easily come out ahead, depending on numbers, terrain, etc.
Glad we agree.
No, we don not agree.
No one is going to send 10 MMs to the middle of the map, to die fighting chargelots. And even if a terran player does utilize so few units, he will not send them to some open terrain. He might drop a mineral line, and when chargelots arrive, move his units behind the minerals, and make them soooooooooo much more cost efficient against chargelots. Or, he might attack with 30MMs and rape chargelots.
The particular situation, like in the linked video, never happens in a real game. Therefore MM are much more cost efficient than gateway units.
So, in other words, you're saying the cost-efficiency of gateway units vs. bio depends on the situation, because either could easily come out ahead, depending on numbers, terrain, etc.
Glad we agree.
What kind of silver league level analysis is this bullshit? Gateway units suck against Barracks units, period. They are there to tank damage for Storms and Colossus to do damage. Period. It's only when you are running on 5+ bases with 70+ probes and 15+ Warpgates do Chargelots really become scary at all, and even then all you do simply go Marine heavy with EMPs and you'll eat them alive regardless.
In nearly EVERY situation Barracks units are more cost effective than their Gateway counterparts. They do more damage, have more utility, all of them are ranged, are able to harass far better, are more effective at killing buildings (Mauraders snipe tech buildings and Nexus in like 3 seconds), and generally are far more flexible in what they can do. To argue that Gateway units are more cost efficient is just absolutely retarded, and anyone trying to do so obviously either
1) Doesn't play the game at remotely any decent level
This thread should really be closed, people are either just attacking each other or discussing how bio is better than gateway units. This is not producing good discussion anymore.
On November 06 2011 10:59 Spicy_Curry wrote: This thread should really be closed, people are either just attacking each other or discussing how bio is better than gateway units. This is not producing good discussion anymore.
More like the only thing is Terran players trying to draw the argument away from the core facts; KA at most made the match-up even. Those arguing that the game was balanced after the removal forget that 5 out of the 6 months after KA was removed have shown that Terran has a pretty significant advantage over Protoss in tournament play. It only gets worse when you look at Korean level statistics over those 6 months, with Terran having obscene amounts of success (upwards towards 60% in certain months) against Protoss.
It's completely asinine to think that KA was somehow overpowered, yet you have a shitload of Terran players saying that Bio's insane DPS is ok, or that EMPs are fine against Protoss, etc. despite the fact that they have been railing Protoss in the ass for nearly 6 months on end in tournament play, particularly in Korea.
This argument only gets more asinine when you see that Fungal Growth and EMP are far more cost efficient energy wise, and are on units that have far more utility than the HT does.
What I've seen a lot in this thread is 'Terran is OP versus Protoss, but the win rate was as close as its ever been to 50/50 when KA was in the game'. That leads me to believe KA is also OP, only Protoss don't get to have their OP thing against Terran.
That kind of balance makes me grimace to be honest. I would much rather Terran was nerfed so that they were no longer OP against Protoss, rather than have two overpowered things battling it out.
I am under the assumption BW had situations such as this (I didn't play it). Personally I don't like this kind of balancing, but it might just be me.
On November 06 2011 11:06 HystericaLaughter wrote: What I've seen a lot in this thread is 'Terran is OP versus Protoss, but the win rate was as close as its ever been to 50/50 when KA was in the game'. That leads me to believe KA is also OP, only Protoss don't get to have their OP thing against Terran.
That kind of balance makes me grimace to be honest. I would much rather Terran was nerfed so that they were no longer OP against Protoss, rather than have two overpowered things battling it out.
I am under the assumption BW had situations such as this (I didn't play it). Personally I don't like this kind of balancing, but it might just be me.
No, Vultures were OP as fuck in the right hands. You're downright crazy if you think otherwise. Tanks/Turrets were really damn close to it too. However, this was counteracted by the fact that Protoss had some things borderline OP like Reaver drops, Carriers, Arbiters, and good Storms (which were HARD to dodge and move out of).
What made BW great was that nearly every single damn unit in the game had something that most players would consider today "overpowered." You know how much crying there would be right now if the Vulture or Reaver were still in the game? LOL.
EPT
