|
On November 09 2011 00:32 nam nam wrote:
Just because you can't understand their reasoning doesn't mean they are inconsistent.
They should have been damn clear about their reasoning then, not put out patches which look completely random and then let the community try and figure their reasoning out like some elaborate riddle.
|
On November 09 2011 00:21 poorcloud wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2011 00:10 Mehukannu wrote:On November 08 2011 23:45 SeaSwift wrote:On November 08 2011 23:36 Mehukannu wrote:On November 08 2011 23:18 SeaSwift wrote:On November 08 2011 22:04 Mehukannu wrote:
Hell, there was only one protoss pro gamer I knew who used HT instead of colossus which was mana. So the whole instant warp-in storm HT strategies didn't get any chance to evolve either, before blizzard cut the amulet off. Given that White-Ra was using HT+Warp Prism drops when SC2 was first released, I don't think the whole "Protoss players just weren't innovative" argument holds any more water here than it does elsewhere. Your argument doesn't even make sense since I didn't even say that protoss players are not innovative which I don't think is not even true at all. -_- I am sure you remember all the talk back then about colossus being imba and people having the mentality to not to use HT because colossus was considered to be better choice all around. Also I didn't get to watch that much White-Ra's games either back then so I wouldn't know how he played, but that is why I said mana was the only protoss player I knew who used HT, because I didn't know there were others. Sorry if it seemed aggressive: you seemed to be claiming that KA was horrifically imba, but players never used HTs and never innovated (you use the word "evolve", which to all intents and purposes means the same) so we never found out that it was imba. I was countering your claim by giving an example of a player who frequently used HTs and innovated tremendously. There was a lot of talk about Colossus imba, but because of that Blizzard's mindset is even harder to comprehend. Colossus imba ---> nerf HT but not Colossus? Even apart from the obvious flaws at the time in play for people to consider Colossus imba, the logic here just doesn't make sense at all. Also, the Korean scene wasn't very large then nor open to Westerners, so even when players like MC used HTs a lot, no foreigners heard about it at the time. Well, my point kinda was we won't ever find out if it was truly imba or not, since there weren't many pro players even using it to begin with. Yeah, the KA nerf did get a some weird looks from the community when people were expecting the colossus getting a nerf rather than the HT. I still remember people saying that they will continue to go colossus since HT is really bad now and what not. Blizzard's mindset seems to be really weird at times, like in HotS they might remove carrier because not many people seem to use it at all, even though the most restricting thing about the unit is the god awfully long build time and not only that, they are taking the hard counter to terran mech too which they are trying to make more viable by adding the warhound and the battle hellion. Or how about the patch they slightly buffed mothership, but couldn't buff carriers because there was some weird choice they had to make or something. So pretty much that isn't the only time when blizzard has made some weird choices. Before the KA nerf, Sanzenith was abusing the templars to the max. You should check some of the LR threads of the GSL back then, especially sanzenith vs scfou. So many people were shitting on San because he would lose every single engagement, but would just warp in storm and defend + harass till he ultimately won the game lol. Almost every game of that series went like that and there was non-stop whine about the KA + new threads being created about it i believe.
Sanzenith barely won that series despite the fact that SC missed like 100 EMPs that would have won him every single game. Not a really good example at all.
And the reason why Sanzenith was losing every engagement is because bio is literally bullshit, and it takes something as broken as KA to even keep the match-up remotely balanced. However, Terran players will never admit that Marine/Maurader/Medivac is far too cost efficient when perfectly controlled. This is on top of SC missing a SHITLOAD of money EMPs that would have won him the game.
Basically, anyone who is arguing that KA is imbalanced because of that match is an idiot. Period. SC made so many mistakes that game and still nearly beat SanZenith who played HT/Mass Expand play nearly perfectly.
|
United Kingdom14464 Posts
On November 08 2011 06:32 MrCon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 06:30 MCDayC wrote:
I can't see the graph, my internet won't connect to it for some reason, could someone write down the stats for the 3 matchups? Thanks. TvP 53.9% TvZ 52% ZvP 56.3%
Thank you very much.
These stats are really not that bad at all, I don't see why everyone is complaining, especially with some of the Protoss buffs hopefully coming in the next patch.
|
On November 09 2011 00:58 MCDayC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 06:32 MrCon wrote:On November 08 2011 06:30 MCDayC wrote:
I can't see the graph, my internet won't connect to it for some reason, could someone write down the stats for the 3 matchups? Thanks. TvP 53.9% TvZ 52% ZvP 56.3% Thank you very much. These stats are really not that bad at all, I don't see why everyone is complaining, especially with some of the Protoss buffs hopefully coming in the next patch.
Well, the patch was only announced less than a day ago, and a lot of this thread was made before it was announced.
It's partly because what MrCon left out (admittedly, he wasn't asked for it) was the overall trend: TvP has never been less than 50% moving average winrate, and ZvP has had a steady downward trend for months. Also, regardless of the results of the graph, there were at the start of this GSL 19 terrans out of 32 places in Code S and only 5 Protoss, and GomTvTvTvT isn't particularly fun to watch for many people even if the percentages say the balance isn't bad.
|
On November 09 2011 00:58 MCDayC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 06:32 MrCon wrote:On November 08 2011 06:30 MCDayC wrote:
I can't see the graph, my internet won't connect to it for some reason, could someone write down the stats for the 3 matchups? Thanks. TvP 53.9% TvZ 52% ZvP 56.3% Thank you very much. These stats are really not that bad at all, I don't see why everyone is complaining, especially with some of the Protoss buffs hopefully coming in the next patch.
Not that bad? What matchup has Protoss in a non-getting-their-shit-pwned situation? PvP? Which situation has Terran losing? TvT? you make think that 56.3 percent is "Only 6.4 percent above even", but really, tha tmeans th eopponent is sitting at a 43.7 percent chance. 43.7 vs 56.3. That's a 12.6 percent difference. 12.6 is well over a 4th of the base 43.7. The Zerg have a winrate over 25% percent higher in ZvP than Protoss does. That's not that bad?
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
That's the thing and I don't see why people keep saying one month's statistics don't look too bad. No, but when it's the same month after month after month, it's a different thing entirely. If a matchup were balanced, month on month winrates should fluctuate around 50%. Since March or so, Protoss win rates against T are fluctuating around 47% and vs Zerg around 45%. I don't see how over a sustained, long period, people can say that the matchups are balanced.
|
On November 09 2011 01:17 Sphen5117 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2011 00:58 MCDayC wrote:On November 08 2011 06:32 MrCon wrote:On November 08 2011 06:30 MCDayC wrote:
I can't see the graph, my internet won't connect to it for some reason, could someone write down the stats for the 3 matchups? Thanks. TvP 53.9% TvZ 52% ZvP 56.3% Thank you very much. These stats are really not that bad at all, I don't see why everyone is complaining, especially with some of the Protoss buffs hopefully coming in the next patch. Not that bad? What matchup has Protoss in a non-getting-their-shit-pwned situation? PvP? Which situation has Terran losing? TvT? you make think that 56.3 percent is "Only 6.4 percent above even", but really, tha tmeans th eopponent is sitting at a 43.7 percent chance. 43.7 vs 56.3. That's a 12.6 percent difference. 12.6 is well over a 4th of the base 43.7. The Zerg have a winrate over 25% percent higher in ZvP than Protoss does. That's not that bad?
It isn't so much that the winrates are bad for this month. In BW they fluctuated a lot, sometimes to 60/40. But the important point is that they are getting consistently worse - this is no statistical fluctuation. There is a clear trend here, and you could extrapolate this out (assuming no patches) to show how poor PvX winrates would be in the future.
EDIT: marvellosity, great minds think alike 
|
Italy12246 Posts
On November 09 2011 01:19 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2011 01:17 Sphen5117 wrote:On November 09 2011 00:58 MCDayC wrote:On November 08 2011 06:32 MrCon wrote:On November 08 2011 06:30 MCDayC wrote:
I can't see the graph, my internet won't connect to it for some reason, could someone write down the stats for the 3 matchups? Thanks. TvP 53.9% TvZ 52% ZvP 56.3% Thank you very much. These stats are really not that bad at all, I don't see why everyone is complaining, especially with some of the Protoss buffs hopefully coming in the next patch. Not that bad? What matchup has Protoss in a non-getting-their-shit-pwned situation? PvP? Which situation has Terran losing? TvT? you make think that 56.3 percent is "Only 6.4 percent above even", but really, tha tmeans th eopponent is sitting at a 43.7 percent chance. 43.7 vs 56.3. That's a 12.6 percent difference. 12.6 is well over a 4th of the base 43.7. The Zerg have a winrate over 25% percent higher in ZvP than Protoss does. That's not that bad? It isn't so much that the winrates are bad for this month. In BW they fluctuated a lot, sometimes to 60/40. But the important point is that they are getting consistently worse - this is no statistical fluctuation. There is a clear trend here, and you could extrapolate this out (assuming no patches) to show how poor PvX winrates would be in the future. EDIT: marvellosity, great minds think alike
Not only are they getting worse, but some matchups have been consistently favoured for one race for a long period of time, through patches and metagame shifts. While stats from a single month mean little, stats from 6 months to a year are indeed very meaningful.
|
I'm unsure if anyone answered it but I did read the 6 pages after my question and none did there. Basically, how come the september graph on the october graph is greatly different from the september graph from september? Basically it was nearly balanced in september (at least T was) according to these october graphs, meanwhile the september graphs from september where showing T being imba as shit.
|
On November 08 2011 17:47 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 17:05 Holophonist wrote:On November 08 2011 14:55 zanmat0 wrote:On November 08 2011 00:29 Holophonist wrote:
You're wrong. Almost everybody buying their product is a scrub. Also, at the highest levels of play, meta game counts for a lot more than how balanced the game is at the core. For instance, what if protoss players are doing poorly because playing protoss was easy as shit before people learned how to stop a lot of their gay stuff? Top players never had to innovate or think outside the box if every game could be won with either 4gate, 6gate or stargate play. This is true for terran as well except they're still the best because even if you figure out what they're doing, it's still hard to stop most of their junk.
The bottom line is even if zerg starts to win, it's only because we've been forced to explore every single aspect of every different tech given to us. Seriously, what unit/strat hasn't zerg tried? Whereas you really don't see a lot of different stuff from protoss becuase you simply... don't need to. Well maybe now you do. maybe now you have to get creative and get a mothership or even carriers! or get really sick with your warp prism multitasking.
This is a hilarious one. "It's because the Protoss players aren't creative enough, guys! They practice the same amount of time as their teammates but the coaches FORCE them to repeat the same three strategies over and over! If only they used the Warp Prism more!" That argument is almost a year old now. Remember people telling Zerg players they had to experiment more with Nydus worms? Well they didn't, but what happend was Z got buffed, better maps and P got heavily nerfed. And now Z are doing awesome with pretty much the same strategies they've always used. The fact that there are several pro teams in Korea with several pro players being coached 10-12 hours a day means that they have tried pretty much everything; remember it is their job to win games. If what you see in pro play isn't creative enough in your opinion, then guess what, it means the creative stuff just doesn't fucking work. You didn't actually say anything at all.... you sound like an idiot to be honest. Nydus isn't and won't ever be good with things the way they are now. And you do see people trying it. As for your last paragraph... it seriously does anger me when people are completely incapable of understanding BASIC ideas, no matter how many times I try to hand feed it to you people like you're fucking babies. I'm not saying any professional starcraft player (protoss or not) is more or less creative than any other person on the planet. What I'm saying is if you spend your time doing one thing, you're not doing another, RIGHT? So you're necessarily going to be worse at things other than predetermined timing attacks if you primarily rely on on them to win most of your games(or at least more than other races. Or at least more than zerg), RIGHT? Seriously, this shouldn't be hard. Or people have tried both other things and timing attacks, and figured out that timing attacks were way more efficient than these other things, the same way that timing attacks as zerg are easily defended unless completely unscouted, so people don't do them. Currently the very lategame PvZ is largely in favor of Zerg. Zerg's deathball is making Protoss deathball litterally a laughing stock (HuK vs Stephano, Mana vs Stephano, Coca vs Sage, etc...). Protoss players cannot even tell how to theoretically beat that army (broodlords, corruptors, infestors + whatever ground units you can fill your supply with). What zergs need to understand when they throw at us dream compositions like "pure void rays, mothership, mass archons, 3/3 carriers" (which we're not even sure it would work, unless some archon toilet garbage) is that we usually have less money than them for one, we must keep producing units all game long for two, those units are not "tradable", when we have a max, we cannot afford to just sacrifice it and make another, and even if we could, it would not be fast enough. So when the zerg doomcloud comes, you have your slowly built-up, now useless, maxed army designed to deal with strong midgame-ish zerg compositions that the Zerg players sacrifies at you since the 13:00 minute mark where he was at 200/200 while you were at your 120/200. No wonder Protoss are making timing attacks. I mean I could be wrong here, but this is honestly how a "macro game" against zerg unfolds in my eyes in recent pro games. Zerg wears the daddy pants in that matchup, UNLESS you do timing attacks, either very strong ones, borderline all ins, or very weird ones, borderline cheesy. You're going to reply that "Zerg is the reactive race, Protoss can just make whatever he wants, blablabla", and then blind spire and mass mutas anyway, infestor timing, or mass roaches if we want a third. So Protoss makes an ungodly amount of units, with some upgrades and throw everything he's got at you, to at least force you to react with what you have right now, not what monstrous army you plan to have with your 80 drones @ 10 minutes economy. Aka the so called Protoss timing attacks. Still, I'm sure people are trying other things, because they're not winning. I'm not actually too worried about Protoss players, obviously they are, or will be, very skilled, because their race is hard to win with. It can only be good for Aiur's future 
I never said timing attacks weren't the best option for protoss. In fact I said they were. That's my whole point. If protoss as a race spends more time working on timing attacks, then you'll have less insight for the late game. Let me put it this way: If you take professional protoss players from like a year from now and put them up against zergs from today, the result may look a bit different. That's because races as a whole learn how to deal with certain things very slowly over time. So, again, if protoss players have less experience dealing with zerg in the late game (because a lot of games are won or lost earlier than that), of course they're going to struggle once their timing attacks stop working (because people are used to them).
|
On November 08 2011 18:19 KingPwny wrote:there is always something I found funny in these imbalance issues, and that is if u have a problem with a race why don tu switch? Ur skillz ARE transferrable.  There problem solved! According blizzard, the game is balanced on Bnet. I dont see more terrans winning tournaments than any other race. So maybe instead of crying of imbalance, it's time to do something about it??
The problem is starcraft 2 is an amazing game which offers 3 different race options that play out entirely different. I wouldn't find it fun to play terran or protoss because they don't fit my playstyle.
|
Switzerland2892 Posts
On November 09 2011 01:39 Theovide wrote:
I'm unsure if anyone answered it but I did read the 6 pages after my question and none did there. Basically, how come the september graph on the october graph is greatly different from the september graph from september? Basically it was nearly balanced in september (at least T was) according to these october graphs, meanwhile the september graphs from september where showing T being imba as shit.
Don't quote me on this, but many games are added a bit late on LP and so the graph evdiently variates because it is corrected.
But I think it has also something to do with the way it is made (with error calculation, average, etc)
|
On November 08 2011 20:02 zanmat0 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 17:05 Holophonist wrote:
You didn't actually say anything at all.... you sound like an idiot to be honest.
Nydus isn't and won't ever be good with things the way they are now. And you do see people trying it.
As for your last paragraph... it seriously does anger me when people are completely incapable of understanding BASIC ideas, no matter how many times I try to hand feed it to you people like you're fucking babies. I'm not saying any professional starcraft player (protoss or not) is more or less creative than any other person on the planet.
What I'm saying is if you spend your time doing one thing, you're not doing another, RIGHT? So you're necessarily going to be worse at things other than predetermined timing attacks if you primarily rely on on them to win most of your games(or at least more than other races. Or at least more than zerg), RIGHT? Seriously, this shouldn't be hard. I'm the one who didn't say anything at all and I'm the idiot? Oh, the irony. Take a step back and re-read your substanceless post. You have no arguments, no proof, you're simply spewing some unrelated nonsense out of left field. In fact, I hope you were inebrieated when you wrote that because it makes so little sense. Whatever you were trying to say, you failed. I'd encourage you to give it another attempt but you seem pretty hopeless.
What? Read my last paragraph. This is what's wrong with the vast majority of people on the internet. You just insult with no substance. You'll pick apart what people say and try to find "gotcha" moments of when somebody may slip up, but when it comes to the actual point that I've been trying to make over and over, you won't answer it. Enjoy the internet, I doubt you'd make it in the real world.
|
On November 08 2011 20:20 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 20:12 zanmat0 wrote:
Glad to see you read our respective posts and are participating in the discussion constructively. Thank you for your valuable input.
...I was talking TO you, telling YOU not to respond to Holophonist, who is not worth the effort. If you thought it was the other way round, sorry, it was not meant to read like that. And yes, I read your respective posts, and participated in the discussion a few pages back before I realised too that Holophonist was not worth responding to. He is now saying exactly the same crap he was then, too. Lots of words with very little meaning behind them backed up by lots of ad hominem attacks.
I'm not insulting/attacking anybody more than they're attacking me. Am I? Even though I probably have the right because I'm actually responding to just about everything people are saying to me, whereas you guys won't even address my main thought process. That's what you do. Argue while you have something to pick apart, and when it comes down the meat and potatoes.. you just ignore me and say I'm a troll. You're just... awful.
|
On November 08 2011 20:20 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 20:12 zanmat0 wrote:
Glad to see you read our respective posts and are participating in the discussion constructively. Thank you for your valuable input.
...I was talking TO you, telling YOU not to respond to Holophonist, who is not worth the effort. If you thought it was the other way round, sorry, it was not meant to read like that. And yes, I read your respective posts, and participated in the discussion a few pages back before I realised too that Holophonist was not worth responding to. He is now saying exactly the same crap he was then, too. Lots of words with very little meaning behind them backed up by lots of ad hominem attacks.
Knee jerk reaction? ha
|
Hmm, didn't expect ZvP winrate gap to be so big....
Not gunna lie, as a zerg player I feel bad for protoss players  .
|
On November 09 2011 01:18 marvellosity wrote:
That's the thing and I don't see why people keep saying one month's statistics don't look too bad. No, but when it's the same month after month after month, it's a different thing entirely. If a matchup were balanced, month on month winrates should fluctuate around 50%. Since March or so, Protoss win rates against T are fluctuating around 47% and vs Zerg around 45%. I don't see how over a sustained, long period, people can say that the matchups are balanced.
Yup, a few months back when Protoss was doing bad I thought it was just going to be a metagame shift. For about 7 months, this Protoss has been consistently doing bad. If that isn't sufficient statistic data then I don't know what is. I just feel bad for TvZ more.
|
blizz is just so great at balancing protoss to the other races -_-, I know that we have this new patch coming up, but holy crap those winrates are rediculous T.T
|
On November 09 2011 01:40 Holophonist wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 17:47 ZenithM wrote:On November 08 2011 17:05 Holophonist wrote:On November 08 2011 14:55 zanmat0 wrote:On November 08 2011 00:29 Holophonist wrote:
You're wrong. Almost everybody buying their product is a scrub. Also, at the highest levels of play, meta game counts for a lot more than how balanced the game is at the core. For instance, what if protoss players are doing poorly because playing protoss was easy as shit before people learned how to stop a lot of their gay stuff? Top players never had to innovate or think outside the box if every game could be won with either 4gate, 6gate or stargate play. This is true for terran as well except they're still the best because even if you figure out what they're doing, it's still hard to stop most of their junk.
The bottom line is even if zerg starts to win, it's only because we've been forced to explore every single aspect of every different tech given to us. Seriously, what unit/strat hasn't zerg tried? Whereas you really don't see a lot of different stuff from protoss becuase you simply... don't need to. Well maybe now you do. maybe now you have to get creative and get a mothership or even carriers! or get really sick with your warp prism multitasking.
This is a hilarious one. "It's because the Protoss players aren't creative enough, guys! They practice the same amount of time as their teammates but the coaches FORCE them to repeat the same three strategies over and over! If only they used the Warp Prism more!" That argument is almost a year old now. Remember people telling Zerg players they had to experiment more with Nydus worms? Well they didn't, but what happend was Z got buffed, better maps and P got heavily nerfed. And now Z are doing awesome with pretty much the same strategies they've always used. The fact that there are several pro teams in Korea with several pro players being coached 10-12 hours a day means that they have tried pretty much everything; remember it is their job to win games. If what you see in pro play isn't creative enough in your opinion, then guess what, it means the creative stuff just doesn't fucking work. You didn't actually say anything at all.... you sound like an idiot to be honest. Nydus isn't and won't ever be good with things the way they are now. And you do see people trying it. As for your last paragraph... it seriously does anger me when people are completely incapable of understanding BASIC ideas, no matter how many times I try to hand feed it to you people like you're fucking babies. I'm not saying any professional starcraft player (protoss or not) is more or less creative than any other person on the planet. What I'm saying is if you spend your time doing one thing, you're not doing another, RIGHT? So you're necessarily going to be worse at things other than predetermined timing attacks if you primarily rely on on them to win most of your games(or at least more than other races. Or at least more than zerg), RIGHT? Seriously, this shouldn't be hard. Or people have tried both other things and timing attacks, and figured out that timing attacks were way more efficient than these other things, the same way that timing attacks as zerg are easily defended unless completely unscouted, so people don't do them. Currently the very lategame PvZ is largely in favor of Zerg. Zerg's deathball is making Protoss deathball litterally a laughing stock (HuK vs Stephano, Mana vs Stephano, Coca vs Sage, etc...). Protoss players cannot even tell how to theoretically beat that army (broodlords, corruptors, infestors + whatever ground units you can fill your supply with). What zergs need to understand when they throw at us dream compositions like "pure void rays, mothership, mass archons, 3/3 carriers" (which we're not even sure it would work, unless some archon toilet garbage) is that we usually have less money than them for one, we must keep producing units all game long for two, those units are not "tradable", when we have a max, we cannot afford to just sacrifice it and make another, and even if we could, it would not be fast enough. So when the zerg doomcloud comes, you have your slowly built-up, now useless, maxed army designed to deal with strong midgame-ish zerg compositions that the Zerg players sacrifies at you since the 13:00 minute mark where he was at 200/200 while you were at your 120/200. No wonder Protoss are making timing attacks. I mean I could be wrong here, but this is honestly how a "macro game" against zerg unfolds in my eyes in recent pro games. Zerg wears the daddy pants in that matchup, UNLESS you do timing attacks, either very strong ones, borderline all ins, or very weird ones, borderline cheesy. You're going to reply that "Zerg is the reactive race, Protoss can just make whatever he wants, blablabla", and then blind spire and mass mutas anyway, infestor timing, or mass roaches if we want a third. So Protoss makes an ungodly amount of units, with some upgrades and throw everything he's got at you, to at least force you to react with what you have right now, not what monstrous army you plan to have with your 80 drones @ 10 minutes economy. Aka the so called Protoss timing attacks. Still, I'm sure people are trying other things, because they're not winning. I'm not actually too worried about Protoss players, obviously they are, or will be, very skilled, because their race is hard to win with. It can only be good for Aiur's future I never said timing attacks weren't the best option for protoss. In fact I said they were. That's my whole point. If protoss as a race spends more time working on timing attacks, then you'll have less insight for the late game. Let me put it this way: If you take professional protoss players from like a year from now and put them up against zergs from today, the result may look a bit different. That's because races as a whole learn how to deal with certain things very slowly over time. So, again, if protoss players have less experience dealing with zerg in the late game (because a lot of games are won or lost earlier than that), of course they're going to struggle once their timing attacks stop working (because people are used to them).
That's a bit ridiculous though. If Protoss players have few late game experience in PvZ, it's the same for Zerg in ZvP, their games last the same amount of time. If Zergs are better in late game just like that out of nowhere, it just confirms that their late game is at least easier to play than Protoss, if not better.
You can maybe argue that ZvT (ok...) and ZvZ (haha) are longer matchups, but I think that late game ZvT is way different than ZvP, due to many different reasons. The core terran unit, the marine, becomes so much better that our core unit (stalker), at max upgrades, and tanks control space, while there is really no terran deathball except mech. It means naturally that Protoss has to keep his army together to maximize its effectiveness while Terran can, and must, threaten Zerg on several front.
To sum up, I don't think experiencing more late game situations in another matchup should matter too much. It's like saying that as Protoss players experiences more early game situations, they are better early game, which is lawl.
|
On November 09 2011 02:07 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2011 01:40 Holophonist wrote:On November 08 2011 17:47 ZenithM wrote:On November 08 2011 17:05 Holophonist wrote:On November 08 2011 14:55 zanmat0 wrote:On November 08 2011 00:29 Holophonist wrote:
You're wrong. Almost everybody buying their product is a scrub. Also, at the highest levels of play, meta game counts for a lot more than how balanced the game is at the core. For instance, what if protoss players are doing poorly because playing protoss was easy as shit before people learned how to stop a lot of their gay stuff? Top players never had to innovate or think outside the box if every game could be won with either 4gate, 6gate or stargate play. This is true for terran as well except they're still the best because even if you figure out what they're doing, it's still hard to stop most of their junk.
The bottom line is even if zerg starts to win, it's only because we've been forced to explore every single aspect of every different tech given to us. Seriously, what unit/strat hasn't zerg tried? Whereas you really don't see a lot of different stuff from protoss becuase you simply... don't need to. Well maybe now you do. maybe now you have to get creative and get a mothership or even carriers! or get really sick with your warp prism multitasking.
This is a hilarious one. "It's because the Protoss players aren't creative enough, guys! They practice the same amount of time as their teammates but the coaches FORCE them to repeat the same three strategies over and over! If only they used the Warp Prism more!" That argument is almost a year old now. Remember people telling Zerg players they had to experiment more with Nydus worms? Well they didn't, but what happend was Z got buffed, better maps and P got heavily nerfed. And now Z are doing awesome with pretty much the same strategies they've always used. The fact that there are several pro teams in Korea with several pro players being coached 10-12 hours a day means that they have tried pretty much everything; remember it is their job to win games. If what you see in pro play isn't creative enough in your opinion, then guess what, it means the creative stuff just doesn't fucking work. You didn't actually say anything at all.... you sound like an idiot to be honest. Nydus isn't and won't ever be good with things the way they are now. And you do see people trying it. As for your last paragraph... it seriously does anger me when people are completely incapable of understanding BASIC ideas, no matter how many times I try to hand feed it to you people like you're fucking babies. I'm not saying any professional starcraft player (protoss or not) is more or less creative than any other person on the planet. What I'm saying is if you spend your time doing one thing, you're not doing another, RIGHT? So you're necessarily going to be worse at things other than predetermined timing attacks if you primarily rely on on them to win most of your games(or at least more than other races. Or at least more than zerg), RIGHT? Seriously, this shouldn't be hard. Or people have tried both other things and timing attacks, and figured out that timing attacks were way more efficient than these other things, the same way that timing attacks as zerg are easily defended unless completely unscouted, so people don't do them. Currently the very lategame PvZ is largely in favor of Zerg. Zerg's deathball is making Protoss deathball litterally a laughing stock (HuK vs Stephano, Mana vs Stephano, Coca vs Sage, etc...). Protoss players cannot even tell how to theoretically beat that army (broodlords, corruptors, infestors + whatever ground units you can fill your supply with). What zergs need to understand when they throw at us dream compositions like "pure void rays, mothership, mass archons, 3/3 carriers" (which we're not even sure it would work, unless some archon toilet garbage) is that we usually have less money than them for one, we must keep producing units all game long for two, those units are not "tradable", when we have a max, we cannot afford to just sacrifice it and make another, and even if we could, it would not be fast enough. So when the zerg doomcloud comes, you have your slowly built-up, now useless, maxed army designed to deal with strong midgame-ish zerg compositions that the Zerg players sacrifies at you since the 13:00 minute mark where he was at 200/200 while you were at your 120/200. No wonder Protoss are making timing attacks. I mean I could be wrong here, but this is honestly how a "macro game" against zerg unfolds in my eyes in recent pro games. Zerg wears the daddy pants in that matchup, UNLESS you do timing attacks, either very strong ones, borderline all ins, or very weird ones, borderline cheesy. You're going to reply that "Zerg is the reactive race, Protoss can just make whatever he wants, blablabla", and then blind spire and mass mutas anyway, infestor timing, or mass roaches if we want a third. So Protoss makes an ungodly amount of units, with some upgrades and throw everything he's got at you, to at least force you to react with what you have right now, not what monstrous army you plan to have with your 80 drones @ 10 minutes economy. Aka the so called Protoss timing attacks. Still, I'm sure people are trying other things, because they're not winning. I'm not actually too worried about Protoss players, obviously they are, or will be, very skilled, because their race is hard to win with. It can only be good for Aiur's future I never said timing attacks weren't the best option for protoss. In fact I said they were. That's my whole point. If protoss as a race spends more time working on timing attacks, then you'll have less insight for the late game. Let me put it this way: If you take professional protoss players from like a year from now and put them up against zergs from today, the result may look a bit different. That's because races as a whole learn how to deal with certain things very slowly over time. So, again, if protoss players have less experience dealing with zerg in the late game (because a lot of games are won or lost earlier than that), of course they're going to struggle once their timing attacks stop working (because people are used to them). That's a bit ridiculous though. If Protoss players have few late game experience in PvZ, it's the same for Zerg in ZvP, their games last the same amount of time. If Zergs are better in late game just like that out of nowhere, it just confirms that their late game is at least easier to play than Protoss, if not better. You can maybe argue that ZvT (ok...) and ZvZ (haha) are longer matchups, but I think that late game ZvT is way different than ZvP, due to many different reasons. The core terran unit, the marine, becomes so much better that our core unit (stalker), at max upgrades, and tanks control space, while there is really no terran deathball except mech. It means naturally that Protoss has to keep his army together to maximize its effectiveness while Terran can, and must, threaten Zerg on several front. To sum up, I don't think experiencing more late game situations in another matchup should matter too much. It's like saying that as Protoss players experiences more early game situations, they are better early game, which is lawl.
Even if the zvt late game is different (which it obviously is), the army is often the same. And just late game experience in general helps.
And if you're trying to convince me that marines are better than stalkers... you don't have to try hard.
EDIT: It's also not just lategame, it's just playing reactively/defensive in general. For instance, I'm a ridiculously standard player, I never all-in unless I scout something greedy like nexus first or nexus before gateway or something like that. And even then I usually just naturally sneak in some drones because that's my nature. As a result, I lose some games I could probably win if I were just more aggressive. But the entire reason I play like that is because by NOT winning those games, I'm learning more about the game as a whole. Winning with a timing attack teaches you nothing but how to win with that timing attack.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
