|
|
|
On November 10 2011 06:20 petro1987 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2011 06:17 RvB wrote:On November 10 2011 06:09 FaKeSC2 wrote:
I think the people who say: "Just built 2 more ghosts" are seriously underestimating the change. Range 2 to 1.5 doesn't seem like an extreme deal but let's do the math:
Area of a circle = pi*radius²
radius=2 => 3,14*2² = 12,56
radius=1,5 => 3,14*1,5² = 7,07
7,07/12,56 = 0,5629 = 56,29%
So, the area of the new EMP is 56,29% of the old area, which is a decrease of 43,71%!!! That means you need 43,71% more ghosts.
I don't say that this change will make P imba!!! The change might be needed, but the change is quite huge especially with the additional upgrade buff.
Also, the change was too early. The GSL format has JUST been changed. Before the format change it was nearly impossible to kick terrans out of Code S, even if they sucked. So maybe terran dominance in GSL Code S was due to format and metagame reasons. It is indeed huge but the radius for storm has been 1.5 for ages now and it's still a really good spell. EMP will still be really good. I don't really have the right numbers, but people should take into acount that P units are generally larger than T units. 1.5 radius hits way more units of the T army then of a P army (in a ball, ofc).
And yet EMP always does significantly more damage than storm. Any idea why that is? 
|
On November 10 2011 06:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2011 05:44 canikizu wrote:On November 10 2011 05:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 10 2011 05:20 canikizu wrote:On November 10 2011 05:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 10 2011 05:14 IlIlIlIl wrote:On November 10 2011 05:11 Tweleve wrote:On November 10 2011 05:03 IlIlIlIl wrote:
Protoss players need to realize that Terran is only really good at super high levels. Below grandmaster league, it's an absolute nightmare to play. you need to be way better than the protoss player mechanically to win games. You have to have better multitasking + better micro all while keeping on top of your macro, whereas the protoss player basically can just focus on defending and creating a deathball. It's up to the terran player to scout, it's up to the terran player to harass, it's up to the terran player to micro better (way harder to use different groups of units as terran compared to toss. toss can basically just make a huge ball of units and be ok.) etc. where do you come up with this crap Did I say something that is wrong? Yeah, I'll bold and underline it for you. Then show him one statistic/results/anything that prove him wrong? While you are at it, stop being a smartass too. His whole post is nonsensical, to the point that it shouldn't even need to be addressed. Responding to it seriously would be lending credibility to something that should be able to be dismissed out-of-hand. But you could dismantle it by using three numbers: 1-1-1. You could also point out how EMP has been destroying Protosses all across the board (by Terrans who actually care to use the anti-Protoss unit properly), as ghosts can do far more damage than anything that Protoss can throw back at the Terran (far more than high templar or colossi). Immediately dealing thousands of damage and nullifying all Protoss spellcasters? Yeah that takes great skill. Furthermore, to suggest that Protoss don't need to micro or stay on top of their macro or scout, while Terrans aren't the ones known for turtling up, is absurd. So yes, Terran has been raping Zerg and Protoss in Code S for a very long time (which, don't forget, is the basis for racial balance). But that doesn't mean that Protoss is necessarily easy in the lower leagues, or that Terran has an excuse for not implementing winning strategies or better mechanics. The fact that I had to even write this out is ridiculous. Did you somehow miss the part where he said only in high level? I know it's a little hard to see since it in line 1, but come on. You make it like low level Terran players are worse than low level Protoss players. Do you have any statistic/result to back up for that? The fact they are both in low level means that they can't execute their stuffs right, either macro or micro. It means with clumsy execution in low level, Protoss has better chance to defeat the Terran in low level. That what he means in low level. At the lower levels (gold, platinum, diamond, etc.), Terran is still more than capable of doing 1-1-1 and using ghosts effectively. I've seen it. And hell, if I can use storms, Terrans can use EMPs. EMPs are far easier to pull off, and they do much more damage. He's the one who said that Terran is a nightmare to play at the lower levels because they require much higher mechanics than Protoss, not me. I never said that Terran players are worse. That doesn't mean that Terran is absolved of learning how to improve or play the game though, just because he assumes that Terran is a harder race. Protoss macro is much harder than Terran (it's less forgiving, as you can't queue units and you need to warp-in off-screen, as opposed to typing 2AAAADDDD). The micro between the two races is more even. So for him to say that Terran is *sooo* much harder mechanically in every way than Protoss is laughable, especially when he gives no examples.
Lol. Do you really think it's harder for Protoss? You know what Protoss does when they attack? Stop making workers. You know what's easy to do while attacking? Other things that don't directly contribute to attacking, like making workers. In fact, the intuitive nature of Protoss aggression is part of what makes 4 and 6 gate so easy to execute.
As for queuing units, it's a very poor practice in almost every circumstance. If you look at Terran macro and look at problems a lot of Terrans have, the #1 question by far is how many production buildings to make on X bases, and we never get a straight answer. Pros and veteran players alike dodge the question because there is not a solid answer, because it all depends on MULE vs scans and planetary vs orbitals. In a loosely focused macro game, not knowing this will put you behind innately. The almost impossible task of nailing down a steady income as Terran makes it hard to determine your production capacity. Misjudge, and you end up queuing units or gross overproduction, which has 0 benefits as a Terran. The staggered production that occurs from overproduction makes reinforcements unable to address counters and drops effectively, since 2-3 marines/marauders get beat by almost every "task force."
Now compare that to Protoss. You have a steady rate of income via probes, as well as a very predictable rate of income increase. However, we all make mistakes and sometimes Protoss can find themselves over or under capacity, just like Terran. Though, there is a noticeable difference here, since boosting production capacity and/or using chrono boost remedies this without the negative consequences. A boosted capacity for Protoss allow for quicker response to counters and drops. Mix this with very resilient units allows for great response to drops and counters. This is why many pros overproduce on gates, to have that flexibility.
|
On November 10 2011 05:58 Killcani wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2011 05:45 Cornix wrote:On November 10 2011 05:34 Killcani wrote:On November 10 2011 05:28 Cornix wrote:On November 08 2011 22:06 rEalGuapo wrote:Well, Ghosts kill every Zerg unit as much as Infestors and HTs do, just the other way round, while fungal and Storm is great vs low HP units, Snipe is good vs units with a lot of hp+armor. Also you forgot about Infested Terrans wich are basically Marines for only the cost of energy. So: Ghosts - Good vs Casters, big units, can cloak, can launch a nuclear freaking missile (not that it matters in over 0.1% of the games, still awesome though  Infestors - good vs units that rely on mobility, low HP units, air, great harras(Fungal and Infested Terrans, whatever you please), can burrow move HTs - Good vs every caster but Ghosts, low/middlish hp units, slow units. can merge to form Archon. So you see? ever caster has his own strengths and weaknesses. Yes, you're right, every caster does have their own strengths and weaknesses.. but here's the problem. 1) High temp... Tech tier 3. Storm could be considered tech tier 3.5 since you have to research it from a tech tier 3 building. But even then let's ignore the 3.5... high temp with storm is just a tier 3 unit. 2) Ghost. Tech tier 2. And how much research do you need to be able to emp/snipe? Right. High temp, the expensive tech tier 3 unit is the counter to what? Small bio units like marines and marauders in PvT, zerglings banelings and hydra in PvZ? So pretty much the researched tech tier 3 unit can counter tech tier 1s pretty well. That seems fair. Now let's look at what ghosts 'counter'. Hive tech. Ultralisks and broodlords, they also can counter/emp infestors which are lair tech. So ghosts can hard counter higher tech units than them, while not really being that high of a tech level. High temps can counter significantly lower tech tier units than them. So they're only helpful when the opponent is either choosing to use the lower tech tier (And how many terrans do anything other than MMMghost? MMMghost is pretty low tech level, 0 BCs or Thors) or you've limited them to that lower tech tier somehow. So in order for high temps to be a useful spellcaster you need to be ahead of your opponent in tech or they need to be going for a low tech army. While on the other hand ghosts are HOW you limit your opponent to low tech stuff against zerg and well... emp is kinda good against everything toss has. A lower tier unit hard countering a higher tier unit even at a 1.65 to 1 level is ridiculously cost efficient compared to what the other races have to do to counter high tech options. And the ability to cut the life total of a good chunk of units effectively in half AND take away energy at the same time instantly when the opponent's only option is an AOE spell of the same radius and less maximum damage that does damage over time and can be moved out of fairly early to make the ability do even less damage? Yeah... you're right, that sounds 100% balanced. Stop talking about different techs cuz its retarded . Thors tech 3 get countered by zealot tech 1 HERP DERP IMBA IMBA. Are you serious? I sure hope not :S Reading comprehension. How many zealots do you need to kill a thor? How many zealots do you need to kill 6 thors? How many zealots do you need to kill a thor that's being repaired by 4 scvs? By 8 scvs? The crucial sentence you seem to have missed is this one "A lower tier unit hard countering a higher tier unit even at a 1.65 to 1 level is ridiculously cost efficient compared to what the other races have to do to counter high tech options." You want to throw 2 zealots at a thor and see who wins? As a second thought let's do a comparison of tier 2 units. To do a straight up comparison against the zerg units that people complain about ghosts for... zerg t3. Protoss has immortals off of the robotics bay, they counter ultralisks pretty well right? That's tier 2 to tier 3.. awesome. Ghosts are tier 2 to tier 3 and counter ultralisks pretty damn well too. Cool. That sounds about even. Now... broodlords. They swoop into the map... oh the immortals are now worthless, awesome that's... cool. How bout those ghosts? ghosts are even MORE efficient against broodlords than ultras. I am amazed you actually believe that a higher tech unit should automatically counter all lower tech units from opposing races. This is not required for the game to be balanced. The game is more complex then that. Your given scenarios are vague and actually do not say anything about balance.
Where did I ever say that a higher tech unit should automatically counter all lower tech units. All I said was that terran low tech counters to high tech zerg units are more cost efficient and useful than protoss low tier counters to those same units. I did not say that lower tier units SHOULDN'T counter high tier units ever. But there shouldn't be 1 universal lower tier counter to ALL higher tech options from another race, which is what the ghost currently is. Sure I can counter thors or ultralisks with immortals.. but I can't counter broodlords or bc's with them? And I certainly can't counter spellcasters with them. Ghosts counter spellcasters, shields, and all of zerg t3 (and half of protoss t3 and still help out against the other protoss t3 option). The universal counter and the sheer cost effectiveness of it is the problem.
|
On November 10 2011 06:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2011 06:20 petro1987 wrote:On November 10 2011 06:17 RvB wrote:On November 10 2011 06:09 FaKeSC2 wrote:
I think the people who say: "Just built 2 more ghosts" are seriously underestimating the change. Range 2 to 1.5 doesn't seem like an extreme deal but let's do the math:
Area of a circle = pi*radius²
radius=2 => 3,14*2² = 12,56
radius=1,5 => 3,14*1,5² = 7,07
7,07/12,56 = 0,5629 = 56,29%
So, the area of the new EMP is 56,29% of the old area, which is a decrease of 43,71%!!! That means you need 43,71% more ghosts.
I don't say that this change will make P imba!!! The change might be needed, but the change is quite huge especially with the additional upgrade buff.
Also, the change was too early. The GSL format has JUST been changed. Before the format change it was nearly impossible to kick terrans out of Code S, even if they sucked. So maybe terran dominance in GSL Code S was due to format and metagame reasons. It is indeed huge but the radius for storm has been 1.5 for ages now and it's still a really good spell. EMP will still be really good. I don't really have the right numbers, but people should take into acount that P units are generally larger than T units. 1.5 radius hits way more units of the T army then of a P army (in a ball, ofc). And yet EMP always does significantly more damage than storm. Any idea why that is?
And here we go again with the whole "EMP doesn't kill vs EMP does more damage" discussion. Please spare me of this again. I was just pointing out that just because they have the same radius (1.5) doesn't mean that they hit the same amount of army. In fact, something like 3 storms could probably hit all T army while at least 5 EMPs are needed to obtain the same effect.
|
On November 10 2011 05:19 dgwow wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2011 21:44 IgnE wrote:
Even if the auto-matchmaking system gives you 50% wins in all 3 matchups, it's not fun to win 50% of your mirror, 60+% of tvz and feel hopeless going into tvp, knowing that you have to win before he gets out collosus and HTs.
Cheaper upgrades make upgrades faster. Anyone who "does math" and says that the upgrades are still the same length have no real concept of how the game actually works. Upgrades are rarely, except in special builds, hit at a certain time, all the time, at the expense of other basic macro priorities. They are typically fit into the builds by using extra accumulated gas/minerals that would have been used to tech somewhere else/add more production/set up an expansion/gear up for an attack/defense. When you have cheaper upgrades, its much easier to accumulate the required resources in the normal course of macro and hence makes it easier to fit in earlier in builds. In empirical practice, cheaper means faster, on average, across all players and games. That said, I would be fine with the upgrade buff if the emp nerf weren't so bad.
I'd almost rather have KA back in the game than have to nerf emp. I like the shield upgrade idea reducing emp damage to shields.
The emp nerf effectively kills early ghost builds which depended on doing cost effective damage to shields/sentry energy. Terrans have one less pressure build to use, allowing protoss to either macro up more easily, or use their more powerful 2 base timings. This also makes it more dangerous for terrans to take an early third, which they now need even more in order to get out more ghosts to deal with the protoss deathball.
This is EXACTLY what protoss needed, a bio ball with 2 or more ghosts in a timing attack than can a-move and easily emp the toss and win is kind of ridiculous, just like the 1-1-1. I also think snipe ranged needs to be nerfed a bit. Remember, the strengths of terran are positioning, micro and multitasking. These changes just make terran more reliant on that, which suits the game, don't you think?
The protoss can deny the 1-1-1 (or 3-1-1 or so for that matter) fairly easily by forcefielding the enemy ramp. It's a fairly decent counter against the build. There is nothing to counter ghosts with in PvT though. One could argue high templar, but remember that the ghost is also a hard counter to high templar, making it kind of a coin flip situation.
|
On November 10 2011 06:25 Cornix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2011 05:58 Killcani wrote:On November 10 2011 05:45 Cornix wrote:On November 10 2011 05:34 Killcani wrote:On November 10 2011 05:28 Cornix wrote:On November 08 2011 22:06 rEalGuapo wrote:Well, Ghosts kill every Zerg unit as much as Infestors and HTs do, just the other way round, while fungal and Storm is great vs low HP units, Snipe is good vs units with a lot of hp+armor. Also you forgot about Infested Terrans wich are basically Marines for only the cost of energy. So: Ghosts - Good vs Casters, big units, can cloak, can launch a nuclear freaking missile (not that it matters in over 0.1% of the games, still awesome though Infestors - good vs units that rely on mobility, low HP units, air, great harras(Fungal and Infested Terrans, whatever you please), can burrow move HTs - Good vs every caster but Ghosts, low/middlish hp units, slow units. can merge to form Archon. So you see? ever caster has his own strengths and weaknesses. Yes, you're right, every caster does have their own strengths and weaknesses.. but here's the problem. 1) High temp... Tech tier 3. Storm could be considered tech tier 3.5 since you have to research it from a tech tier 3 building. But even then let's ignore the 3.5... high temp with storm is just a tier 3 unit. 2) Ghost. Tech tier 2. And how much research do you need to be able to emp/snipe? Right. High temp, the expensive tech tier 3 unit is the counter to what? Small bio units like marines and marauders in PvT, zerglings banelings and hydra in PvZ? So pretty much the researched tech tier 3 unit can counter tech tier 1s pretty well. That seems fair. Now let's look at what ghosts 'counter'. Hive tech. Ultralisks and broodlords, they also can counter/emp infestors which are lair tech. So ghosts can hard counter higher tech units than them, while not really being that high of a tech level. High temps can counter significantly lower tech tier units than them. So they're only helpful when the opponent is either choosing to use the lower tech tier (And how many terrans do anything other than MMMghost? MMMghost is pretty low tech level, 0 BCs or Thors) or you've limited them to that lower tech tier somehow. So in order for high temps to be a useful spellcaster you need to be ahead of your opponent in tech or they need to be going for a low tech army. While on the other hand ghosts are HOW you limit your opponent to low tech stuff against zerg and well... emp is kinda good against everything toss has. A lower tier unit hard countering a higher tier unit even at a 1.65 to 1 level is ridiculously cost efficient compared to what the other races have to do to counter high tech options. And the ability to cut the life total of a good chunk of units effectively in half AND take away energy at the same time instantly when the opponent's only option is an AOE spell of the same radius and less maximum damage that does damage over time and can be moved out of fairly early to make the ability do even less damage? Yeah... you're right, that sounds 100% balanced. Stop talking about different techs cuz its retarded . Thors tech 3 get countered by zealot tech 1 HERP DERP IMBA IMBA. Are you serious? I sure hope not :S Reading comprehension. How many zealots do you need to kill a thor? How many zealots do you need to kill 6 thors? How many zealots do you need to kill a thor that's being repaired by 4 scvs? By 8 scvs? The crucial sentence you seem to have missed is this one "A lower tier unit hard countering a higher tier unit even at a 1.65 to 1 level is ridiculously cost efficient compared to what the other races have to do to counter high tech options." You want to throw 2 zealots at a thor and see who wins? As a second thought let's do a comparison of tier 2 units. To do a straight up comparison against the zerg units that people complain about ghosts for... zerg t3. Protoss has immortals off of the robotics bay, they counter ultralisks pretty well right? That's tier 2 to tier 3.. awesome. Ghosts are tier 2 to tier 3 and counter ultralisks pretty damn well too. Cool. That sounds about even. Now... broodlords. They swoop into the map... oh the immortals are now worthless, awesome that's... cool. How bout those ghosts? ghosts are even MORE efficient against broodlords than ultras. I am amazed you actually believe that a higher tech unit should automatically counter all lower tech units from opposing races. This is not required for the game to be balanced. The game is more complex then that. Your given scenarios are vague and actually do not say anything about balance. Where did I ever say that a higher tech unit should automatically counter all lower tech units. All I said was that terran low tech counters to high tech zerg units are more cost efficient and useful than protoss low tier counters to those same units. I did not say that lower tier units SHOULDN'T counter high tier units ever. But there shouldn't be 1 universal lower tier counter to ALL higher tech options from another race, which is what the ghost currently is. Sure I can counter thors or ultralisks with immortals.. but I can't counter broodlords or bc's with them? And I certainly can't counter spellcasters with them. Ghosts counter spellcasters, shields, and all of zerg t3 (and half of protoss t3 and still help out against the other protoss t3 option). The universal counter and the sheer cost effectiveness of it is the problem.
Mass (and I mean a TON of ghosts) counter ultras alright, but at that point, you should be focusing on another unit like roaches or mass lings. In the same way that if I see you make 15 broodlords, it would probably be a good idea to make a ton of vikings. Or if a Protoss makes 10 colossi, you're not going to sit there and complain that ultras can't get close enough because you'll be smart enough to make enough corruptors/mutas/broodlords to deal with them. In the same way Terran got in a rut making low tier units in an attempt to beat broodlord/ling/infestor until they used the ghost more, Zerg is getting in a rut refusing to make enough lower tier units to support the high tier.
Also, ghosts aren't "low tech."
|
On November 10 2011 06:24 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2011 06:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 10 2011 05:44 canikizu wrote:On November 10 2011 05:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 10 2011 05:20 canikizu wrote:On November 10 2011 05:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 10 2011 05:14 IlIlIlIl wrote:On November 10 2011 05:11 Tweleve wrote:On November 10 2011 05:03 IlIlIlIl wrote:
Protoss players need to realize that Terran is only really good at super high levels. Below grandmaster league, it's an absolute nightmare to play. you need to be way better than the protoss player mechanically to win games. You have to have better multitasking + better micro all while keeping on top of your macro, whereas the protoss player basically can just focus on defending and creating a deathball. It's up to the terran player to scout, it's up to the terran player to harass, it's up to the terran player to micro better (way harder to use different groups of units as terran compared to toss. toss can basically just make a huge ball of units and be ok.) etc. where do you come up with this crap Did I say something that is wrong? Yeah, I'll bold and underline it for you. Then show him one statistic/results/anything that prove him wrong? While you are at it, stop being a smartass too. His whole post is nonsensical, to the point that it shouldn't even need to be addressed. Responding to it seriously would be lending credibility to something that should be able to be dismissed out-of-hand. But you could dismantle it by using three numbers: 1-1-1. You could also point out how EMP has been destroying Protosses all across the board (by Terrans who actually care to use the anti-Protoss unit properly), as ghosts can do far more damage than anything that Protoss can throw back at the Terran (far more than high templar or colossi). Immediately dealing thousands of damage and nullifying all Protoss spellcasters? Yeah that takes great skill. Furthermore, to suggest that Protoss don't need to micro or stay on top of their macro or scout, while Terrans aren't the ones known for turtling up, is absurd. So yes, Terran has been raping Zerg and Protoss in Code S for a very long time (which, don't forget, is the basis for racial balance). But that doesn't mean that Protoss is necessarily easy in the lower leagues, or that Terran has an excuse for not implementing winning strategies or better mechanics. The fact that I had to even write this out is ridiculous. Did you somehow miss the part where he said only in high level? I know it's a little hard to see since it in line 1, but come on. You make it like low level Terran players are worse than low level Protoss players. Do you have any statistic/result to back up for that? The fact they are both in low level means that they can't execute their stuffs right, either macro or micro. It means with clumsy execution in low level, Protoss has better chance to defeat the Terran in low level. That what he means in low level. At the lower levels (gold, platinum, diamond, etc.), Terran is still more than capable of doing 1-1-1 and using ghosts effectively. I've seen it. And hell, if I can use storms, Terrans can use EMPs. EMPs are far easier to pull off, and they do much more damage. He's the one who said that Terran is a nightmare to play at the lower levels because they require much higher mechanics than Protoss, not me. I never said that Terran players are worse. That doesn't mean that Terran is absolved of learning how to improve or play the game though, just because he assumes that Terran is a harder race. Protoss macro is much harder than Terran (it's less forgiving, as you can't queue units and you need to warp-in off-screen, as opposed to typing 2AAAADDDD). The micro between the two races is more even. So for him to say that Terran is *sooo* much harder mechanically in every way than Protoss is laughable, especially when he gives no examples. Lol. Do you really think it's harder for Protoss? You know what Protoss does when they attack? Stop making workers. You know what's easy to do while attacking? Other things that don't directly contribute to attacking, like making workers. In fact, the intuitive nature of Protoss aggression is part of what makes 4 and 6 gate so easy to execute. As for queuing units, it's a very poor practice in almost every circumstance. If you look at Terran macro and look at problems a lot of Terrans have, the #1 question by far is how many production buildings to make on X bases, and we never get a straight answer. Pros and veteran players alike dodge the question because there is not a solid answer, because it all depends on MULE vs scans and planetary vs orbitals. In a loosely focused macro game, not knowing this will put you behind innately. The almost impossible task of nailing down a steady income as Terran makes it hard to determine your production capacity. Misjudge, and you end up queuing units or gross overproduction, which has 0 benefits as a Terran. The staggered production that occurs from overproduction makes reinforcements unable to address counters and drops effectively, since 2-3 marines/marauders get beat by almost every "task force." Now compare that to Protoss. You have a steady rate of income via probes, as well as a very predictable rate of income increase. However, we all make mistakes and sometimes Protoss can find themselves over or under capacity, just like Terran. Though, there is a noticeable difference here, since boosting production capacity and/or using chrono boost remedies this without the negative consequences. A boosted capacity for Protoss allow for quicker response to counters and drops. Mix this with very resilient units allows for great response to drops and counters. This is why many pros overproduce on gates, to have that flexibility.
Well first of all, Protoss don't necessarily stop making workers when they attack. No clue where you came up with that.
But I exactly explained why lower level players who can't macro would find it easier to keep their macro up during battle as Terran, and never have to worry about hitting their warp-in timings perfectly (they can queue up two seconds or ten seconds before the previous unit finishes).
And there's absolutely no reason why Terran can't have a few extra unit-producing structures like Protoss might, if they're unsure about how much they can produce. Will the amount they can produce oscillate? Sure; as a Protoss player, it does for me too. When I'm off 6 gates, I can't always produce out of all of them. But I make the investment if I know I can potentially make that much when I'm not also upgrading. That takes game experience; that's not a race-based problem. Protoss doesn't have it any easier than Terran; in fact, there have been plenty of instances (TT1 comes to mind) when we see a Protoss player sometimes go 6gate, sometimes 7gate, sometimes 8gate or 9gate or more when he pushes. A lot of times there's no standard; it depends on the strategy. I believe TLO famously went up to 5 or 6rax a few times as well during a super early push (in MLG or some other big tournament). You make what you think you can support at the time, and sometimes you have structures that don't produce units. It works with all-ins, and it works with longer games as well.
|
On November 10 2011 06:32 epicdemic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2011 05:19 dgwow wrote:On November 08 2011 21:44 IgnE wrote:
Even if the auto-matchmaking system gives you 50% wins in all 3 matchups, it's not fun to win 50% of your mirror, 60+% of tvz and feel hopeless going into tvp, knowing that you have to win before he gets out collosus and HTs.
Cheaper upgrades make upgrades faster. Anyone who "does math" and says that the upgrades are still the same length have no real concept of how the game actually works. Upgrades are rarely, except in special builds, hit at a certain time, all the time, at the expense of other basic macro priorities. They are typically fit into the builds by using extra accumulated gas/minerals that would have been used to tech somewhere else/add more production/set up an expansion/gear up for an attack/defense. When you have cheaper upgrades, its much easier to accumulate the required resources in the normal course of macro and hence makes it easier to fit in earlier in builds. In empirical practice, cheaper means faster, on average, across all players and games. That said, I would be fine with the upgrade buff if the emp nerf weren't so bad.
I'd almost rather have KA back in the game than have to nerf emp. I like the shield upgrade idea reducing emp damage to shields.
The emp nerf effectively kills early ghost builds which depended on doing cost effective damage to shields/sentry energy. Terrans have one less pressure build to use, allowing protoss to either macro up more easily, or use their more powerful 2 base timings. This also makes it more dangerous for terrans to take an early third, which they now need even more in order to get out more ghosts to deal with the protoss deathball.
This is EXACTLY what protoss needed, a bio ball with 2 or more ghosts in a timing attack than can a-move and easily emp the toss and win is kind of ridiculous, just like the 1-1-1. I also think snipe ranged needs to be nerfed a bit. Remember, the strengths of terran are positioning, micro and multitasking. These changes just make terran more reliant on that, which suits the game, don't you think? The protoss can deny the 1-1-1 (or 3-1-1 or so for that matter) fairly easily by forcefielding the enemy ramp. It's a fairly decent counter against the build. There is nothing to counter ghosts with in PvT though. One could argue high templar, but remember that the ghost is also a hard counter to high templar, making it kind of a coin flip situation.
Sieged tanks and banshees would disagree with those sentries trying to FF contain. There's a reason we don't ever see that in pro games.
|
On November 10 2011 06:06 Talack wrote:
I'm glad that all the protoss all-ins like 6-gate and immortal bust are not being looked at but the late-game of terran is being nerfed ><
God I hate how they balance this game around players with insane micro but the leagues like low-mid masters get screwed when they can't do that but their macro mechanics are solid. Really really hard when both sides are able to make huge armies and the terran player is expected to play x1000 better just to compete with the a-moving with a FF or a storm tossed here and there.
Late game TvP is broken. I don't see how the blizzard developer team does not see it and does not make changes.
I think emp was nerfed cause late game terran is op, not protoss. You're doing something wrong.
Oh and toss has to:
ff, gs, storm, feedback, blink, micro zealots, warp in units in the middle of a battle, spread hts & sentries
terran has to:
1a + stim and scoot and shoot
What's easier?
|
On November 10 2011 06:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2011 06:24 aksfjh wrote:On November 10 2011 06:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 10 2011 05:44 canikizu wrote:On November 10 2011 05:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 10 2011 05:20 canikizu wrote:On November 10 2011 05:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 10 2011 05:14 IlIlIlIl wrote:On November 10 2011 05:11 Tweleve wrote:On November 10 2011 05:03 IlIlIlIl wrote:
Protoss players need to realize that Terran is only really good at super high levels. Below grandmaster league, it's an absolute nightmare to play. you need to be way better than the protoss player mechanically to win games. You have to have better multitasking + better micro all while keeping on top of your macro, whereas the protoss player basically can just focus on defending and creating a deathball. It's up to the terran player to scout, it's up to the terran player to harass, it's up to the terran player to micro better (way harder to use different groups of units as terran compared to toss. toss can basically just make a huge ball of units and be ok.) etc. where do you come up with this crap Did I say something that is wrong? Yeah, I'll bold and underline it for you. Then show him one statistic/results/anything that prove him wrong? While you are at it, stop being a smartass too. His whole post is nonsensical, to the point that it shouldn't even need to be addressed. Responding to it seriously would be lending credibility to something that should be able to be dismissed out-of-hand. But you could dismantle it by using three numbers: 1-1-1. You could also point out how EMP has been destroying Protosses all across the board (by Terrans who actually care to use the anti-Protoss unit properly), as ghosts can do far more damage than anything that Protoss can throw back at the Terran (far more than high templar or colossi). Immediately dealing thousands of damage and nullifying all Protoss spellcasters? Yeah that takes great skill. Furthermore, to suggest that Protoss don't need to micro or stay on top of their macro or scout, while Terrans aren't the ones known for turtling up, is absurd. So yes, Terran has been raping Zerg and Protoss in Code S for a very long time (which, don't forget, is the basis for racial balance). But that doesn't mean that Protoss is necessarily easy in the lower leagues, or that Terran has an excuse for not implementing winning strategies or better mechanics. The fact that I had to even write this out is ridiculous. Did you somehow miss the part where he said only in high level? I know it's a little hard to see since it in line 1, but come on. You make it like low level Terran players are worse than low level Protoss players. Do you have any statistic/result to back up for that? The fact they are both in low level means that they can't execute their stuffs right, either macro or micro. It means with clumsy execution in low level, Protoss has better chance to defeat the Terran in low level. That what he means in low level. At the lower levels (gold, platinum, diamond, etc.), Terran is still more than capable of doing 1-1-1 and using ghosts effectively. I've seen it. And hell, if I can use storms, Terrans can use EMPs. EMPs are far easier to pull off, and they do much more damage. He's the one who said that Terran is a nightmare to play at the lower levels because they require much higher mechanics than Protoss, not me. I never said that Terran players are worse. That doesn't mean that Terran is absolved of learning how to improve or play the game though, just because he assumes that Terran is a harder race. Protoss macro is much harder than Terran (it's less forgiving, as you can't queue units and you need to warp-in off-screen, as opposed to typing 2AAAADDDD). The micro between the two races is more even. So for him to say that Terran is *sooo* much harder mechanically in every way than Protoss is laughable, especially when he gives no examples. Lol. Do you really think it's harder for Protoss? You know what Protoss does when they attack? Stop making workers. You know what's easy to do while attacking? Other things that don't directly contribute to attacking, like making workers. In fact, the intuitive nature of Protoss aggression is part of what makes 4 and 6 gate so easy to execute. As for queuing units, it's a very poor practice in almost every circumstance. If you look at Terran macro and look at problems a lot of Terrans have, the #1 question by far is how many production buildings to make on X bases, and we never get a straight answer. Pros and veteran players alike dodge the question because there is not a solid answer, because it all depends on MULE vs scans and planetary vs orbitals. In a loosely focused macro game, not knowing this will put you behind innately. The almost impossible task of nailing down a steady income as Terran makes it hard to determine your production capacity. Misjudge, and you end up queuing units or gross overproduction, which has 0 benefits as a Terran. The staggered production that occurs from overproduction makes reinforcements unable to address counters and drops effectively, since 2-3 marines/marauders get beat by almost every "task force." Now compare that to Protoss. You have a steady rate of income via probes, as well as a very predictable rate of income increase. However, we all make mistakes and sometimes Protoss can find themselves over or under capacity, just like Terran. Though, there is a noticeable difference here, since boosting production capacity and/or using chrono boost remedies this without the negative consequences. A boosted capacity for Protoss allow for quicker response to counters and drops. Mix this with very resilient units allows for great response to drops and counters. This is why many pros overproduce on gates, to have that flexibility. Well first of all, Protoss don't necessarily stop making workers when they attack. No clue where you came up with that. But I exactly explained why lower level players who can't macro would find it easier to keep their macro up during battle as Terran, and never have to worry about hitting their warp-in timings perfectly (they can queue up two seconds or ten seconds before the previous unit finishes). And there's absolutely no reason why Terran can't have a few extra unit-producing structures like Protoss might, if they're unsure about how much they can produce. Will the amount they can produce oscillate? Sure; as a Protoss player, it does for me too. When I'm off 6 gates, I can't always produce out of all of them. But I make the investment if I know I can potentially make that much when I'm not also upgrading. That takes game experience; that's not a race-based problem. Protoss doesn't have it any easier than Terran; in fact, there have been plenty of instances (TT1 comes to mind) when we see a Protoss player sometimes go 6gate, sometimes 7gate, sometimes 8gate or 9gate or more when he pushes. A lot of times there's no standard; it depends on the strategy. I believe TLO famously went up to 5 or 6rax a few times as well during a super early push (in MLG or some other big tournament). You make what you think you can support at the time, and sometimes you have structures that don't produce units. It works with all-ins, and it works with longer games as well.
While that is true, I still submit to you that the added overproduction of Protoss lends to stronger play than doing the same as Terran. It gives an amount of flexibility in warp-ins that you simply can't reproduce as Terran. Even when cutting army to get that overproduction, it doesn't pack the same punch as an extra 2-3 unit warpins that Protoss can achieve.
We will probably disagree on this point though, but I want people to realize at the very least that tactics involving overproduction and maco are very rarely parallel in strength and potential between races.
|
On November 10 2011 06:43 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2011 06:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 10 2011 06:24 aksfjh wrote:On November 10 2011 06:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 10 2011 05:44 canikizu wrote:On November 10 2011 05:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 10 2011 05:20 canikizu wrote:On November 10 2011 05:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 10 2011 05:14 IlIlIlIl wrote:On November 10 2011 05:11 Tweleve wrote:
[quote]
where do you come up with this crap Did I say something that is wrong? Yeah, I'll bold and underline it for you. Then show him one statistic/results/anything that prove him wrong? While you are at it, stop being a smartass too. His whole post is nonsensical, to the point that it shouldn't even need to be addressed. Responding to it seriously would be lending credibility to something that should be able to be dismissed out-of-hand. But you could dismantle it by using three numbers: 1-1-1. You could also point out how EMP has been destroying Protosses all across the board (by Terrans who actually care to use the anti-Protoss unit properly), as ghosts can do far more damage than anything that Protoss can throw back at the Terran (far more than high templar or colossi). Immediately dealing thousands of damage and nullifying all Protoss spellcasters? Yeah that takes great skill. Furthermore, to suggest that Protoss don't need to micro or stay on top of their macro or scout, while Terrans aren't the ones known for turtling up, is absurd. So yes, Terran has been raping Zerg and Protoss in Code S for a very long time (which, don't forget, is the basis for racial balance). But that doesn't mean that Protoss is necessarily easy in the lower leagues, or that Terran has an excuse for not implementing winning strategies or better mechanics. The fact that I had to even write this out is ridiculous. Did you somehow miss the part where he said only in high level? I know it's a little hard to see since it in line 1, but come on. You make it like low level Terran players are worse than low level Protoss players. Do you have any statistic/result to back up for that? The fact they are both in low level means that they can't execute their stuffs right, either macro or micro. It means with clumsy execution in low level, Protoss has better chance to defeat the Terran in low level. That what he means in low level. At the lower levels (gold, platinum, diamond, etc.), Terran is still more than capable of doing 1-1-1 and using ghosts effectively. I've seen it. And hell, if I can use storms, Terrans can use EMPs. EMPs are far easier to pull off, and they do much more damage. He's the one who said that Terran is a nightmare to play at the lower levels because they require much higher mechanics than Protoss, not me. I never said that Terran players are worse. That doesn't mean that Terran is absolved of learning how to improve or play the game though, just because he assumes that Terran is a harder race. Protoss macro is much harder than Terran (it's less forgiving, as you can't queue units and you need to warp-in off-screen, as opposed to typing 2AAAADDDD). The micro between the two races is more even. So for him to say that Terran is *sooo* much harder mechanically in every way than Protoss is laughable, especially when he gives no examples. Lol. Do you really think it's harder for Protoss? You know what Protoss does when they attack? Stop making workers. You know what's easy to do while attacking? Other things that don't directly contribute to attacking, like making workers. In fact, the intuitive nature of Protoss aggression is part of what makes 4 and 6 gate so easy to execute. As for queuing units, it's a very poor practice in almost every circumstance. If you look at Terran macro and look at problems a lot of Terrans have, the #1 question by far is how many production buildings to make on X bases, and we never get a straight answer. Pros and veteran players alike dodge the question because there is not a solid answer, because it all depends on MULE vs scans and planetary vs orbitals. In a loosely focused macro game, not knowing this will put you behind innately. The almost impossible task of nailing down a steady income as Terran makes it hard to determine your production capacity. Misjudge, and you end up queuing units or gross overproduction, which has 0 benefits as a Terran. The staggered production that occurs from overproduction makes reinforcements unable to address counters and drops effectively, since 2-3 marines/marauders get beat by almost every "task force." Now compare that to Protoss. You have a steady rate of income via probes, as well as a very predictable rate of income increase. However, we all make mistakes and sometimes Protoss can find themselves over or under capacity, just like Terran. Though, there is a noticeable difference here, since boosting production capacity and/or using chrono boost remedies this without the negative consequences. A boosted capacity for Protoss allow for quicker response to counters and drops. Mix this with very resilient units allows for great response to drops and counters. This is why many pros overproduce on gates, to have that flexibility. Well first of all, Protoss don't necessarily stop making workers when they attack. No clue where you came up with that. But I exactly explained why lower level players who can't macro would find it easier to keep their macro up during battle as Terran, and never have to worry about hitting their warp-in timings perfectly (they can queue up two seconds or ten seconds before the previous unit finishes). And there's absolutely no reason why Terran can't have a few extra unit-producing structures like Protoss might, if they're unsure about how much they can produce. Will the amount they can produce oscillate? Sure; as a Protoss player, it does for me too. When I'm off 6 gates, I can't always produce out of all of them. But I make the investment if I know I can potentially make that much when I'm not also upgrading. That takes game experience; that's not a race-based problem. Protoss doesn't have it any easier than Terran; in fact, there have been plenty of instances (TT1 comes to mind) when we see a Protoss player sometimes go 6gate, sometimes 7gate, sometimes 8gate or 9gate or more when he pushes. A lot of times there's no standard; it depends on the strategy. I believe TLO famously went up to 5 or 6rax a few times as well during a super early push (in MLG or some other big tournament). You make what you think you can support at the time, and sometimes you have structures that don't produce units. It works with all-ins, and it works with longer games as well. While that is true, I still submit to you that the added overproduction of Protoss lends to stronger play than doing the same as Terran. It gives an amount of flexibility in warp-ins that you simply can't reproduce as Terran. Even when cutting army to get that overproduction, it doesn't pack the same punch as an extra 2-3 unit warpins that Protoss can achieve. We will probably disagree on this point though, but I want people to realize at the very least that tactics involving overproduction and maco are very rarely parallel in strength and potential between races.
I think that the warp-in mechanic is very strong and flexible in the (obvious) sense that it allows Protoss to make up for the fact that it's the least mobile race in the game, so it can help clean up drops or bring units to the battle immediately (after cooldown finishes), rather than worrying about units streaming on to the field at staggered times.
Of course, the warp-in is more versatile than just standard Terran rally points, but I would note that both races still macro at the same rate at the highest level (when no one misses a warp-in round), so it's balanced in that respect.
On a sidenote, I hate needing to look off screen during a battle to warp-in at a proxy pylon, and then coming back to the battle to see all my units kited/ dead
|
On November 10 2011 06:33 aksfjh wrote:
Also, ghosts aren't "low tech."
Come on. All they require is a Barracks with Tech Lab and a 150/50 building, with optional 150/150 Cloak (in no way necessary for the unit to fulfil it's role) and 100/100 +25 starting energy (something which Infestors are lucky to have, and HTs are sorely lacking).
Considering that it is percieved as a lategame unit, although sometimes midgame in TvP and very occasionally early-midgame in TLO-style TvT, that is very low tech indeed. None of it's vital spells require upgrading (Nukes are similar to Cloak: yet another option that often goes unused because Terran have more juicy options readily available). Ghosts are VERY low-tech for a spellcaster.
On November 10 2011 06:37 Logros wrote:
Sieged tanks and banshees would disagree with those sentries trying to FF contain. There's a reason we don't ever see that in pro games.
Exactly. The "counter" to a 1-1-1 can be found with a quick search in the strategy forum, but it is definitely not a Sentry contain - in fact, because of the gas required for FFs at Terran's ramps, a Sentry contain is considered to be very weak against a decent 1-1-1.
|
My TvP sucks, but in general I guess I can be happy for protosses. (Is that the right plural for protoss?)
|
On November 10 2011 06:52 SeaSwift wrote:Come on. All they require is a Barracks with Tech Lab and a 150/50 building, with optional 150/150 Cloak (in no way necessary for the unit to fulfil it's role) and 100/100 +25 starting energy (something which Infestors are lucky to have, and HTs are sorely lacking). Considering that it is percieved as a lategame unit, although sometimes midgame in TvP and very occasionally early-midgame in TLO-style TvT, that is very low tech indeed. None of it's vital spells require upgrading (Nukes are similar to Cloak: yet another option that often goes unused because Terran have more juicy options readily available). Ghosts are VERY low-tech for a spellcaster. Show nested quote +On November 10 2011 06:37 Logros wrote:
Sieged tanks and banshees would disagree with those sentries trying to FF contain. There's a reason we don't ever see that in pro games. Exactly. The "counter" to a 1-1-1 can be found with a quick search in the strategy forum, but it is definitely not a Sentry contain - in fact, because of the gas required for FFs at Terran's ramps, a Sentry contain is considered to be very weak against a decent 1-1-1.
but but but, think of how Expensive ghosts are!
There is no way terran can get them before they are on 3 bases, I mean, they almost cost as much as an Immortal!
|
On November 10 2011 06:39 NineteenSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2011 06:06 Talack wrote:
I'm glad that all the protoss all-ins like 6-gate and immortal bust are not being looked at but the late-game of terran is being nerfed ><
God I hate how they balance this game around players with insane micro but the leagues like low-mid masters get screwed when they can't do that but their macro mechanics are solid. Really really hard when both sides are able to make huge armies and the terran player is expected to play x1000 better just to compete with the a-moving with a FF or a storm tossed here and there.
Late game TvP is broken. I don't see how the blizzard developer team does not see it and does not make changes. I think emp was nerfed cause late game terran is op, not protoss. You're doing something wrong. Oh and toss has to: ff, gs, storm, feedback, blink, micro zealots, warp in units in the middle of a battle, spread hts & sentries terran has to: 1a + stim and scoot and shoot What's easier?
Late game Terran OP...am I dreaming? Protoss armies ROLL Terran bio with no micro (except Stim) on either side. Chargelots and Colossus absolutely manhandle Marines and Marauders.
There's a reason Terran tends to be the aggressor in the early and mid game...if you don't hurt a toss you're in for an uphill battle in the lategame...
|
On November 10 2011 07:27 Scufo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2011 06:39 NineteenSC2 wrote:On November 10 2011 06:06 Talack wrote:
I'm glad that all the protoss all-ins like 6-gate and immortal bust are not being looked at but the late-game of terran is being nerfed ><
God I hate how they balance this game around players with insane micro but the leagues like low-mid masters get screwed when they can't do that but their macro mechanics are solid. Really really hard when both sides are able to make huge armies and the terran player is expected to play x1000 better just to compete with the a-moving with a FF or a storm tossed here and there.
Late game TvP is broken. I don't see how the blizzard developer team does not see it and does not make changes. I think emp was nerfed cause late game terran is op, not protoss. You're doing something wrong. Oh and toss has to: ff, gs, storm, feedback, blink, micro zealots, warp in units in the middle of a battle, spread hts & sentries terran has to: 1a + stim and scoot and shoot What's easier? Late game Terran OP...am I dreaming? Protoss armies ROLL Terran bio with no micro (except Stim) on either side. Chargelots and Colossus absolutely manhandle Marines and Marauders. There's a reason Terran tends to be the aggressor in the early and mid game...if you don't hurt a toss you're in for an uphill battle in the lategame...
I think I found your problems.
You're supposed to micro your units. And make ghosts and vikings instead of just tier one units against an entire Protoss deathball.
You're welcome.
|
On November 10 2011 07:27 Scufo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2011 06:39 NineteenSC2 wrote:On November 10 2011 06:06 Talack wrote:
I'm glad that all the protoss all-ins like 6-gate and immortal bust are not being looked at but the late-game of terran is being nerfed ><
God I hate how they balance this game around players with insane micro but the leagues like low-mid masters get screwed when they can't do that but their macro mechanics are solid. Really really hard when both sides are able to make huge armies and the terran player is expected to play x1000 better just to compete with the a-moving with a FF or a storm tossed here and there.
Late game TvP is broken. I don't see how the blizzard developer team does not see it and does not make changes. I think emp was nerfed cause late game terran is op, not protoss. You're doing something wrong. Oh and toss has to: ff, gs, storm, feedback, blink, micro zealots, warp in units in the middle of a battle, spread hts & sentries terran has to: 1a + stim and scoot and shoot What's easier? Late game Terran OP...am I dreaming? Protoss armies ROLL Terran bio with no micro (except Stim) on either side. Chargelots and Colossus absolutely manhandle Marines and Marauders. There's a reason Terran tends to be the aggressor in the early and mid game...if you don't hurt a toss you're in for an uphill battle in the lategame...
Why would you not micro your units? I mean one race should generally be stronger at certain points (hence why you have pooshes) Terran Ghost mech beats everything zerg has. The MU is still the most balanced MU that is not a mirror.
|
On November 10 2011 06:39 NineteenSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2011 06:06 Talack wrote:
I'm glad that all the protoss all-ins like 6-gate and immortal bust are not being looked at but the late-game of terran is being nerfed ><
God I hate how they balance this game around players with insane micro but the leagues like low-mid masters get screwed when they can't do that but their macro mechanics are solid. Really really hard when both sides are able to make huge armies and the terran player is expected to play x1000 better just to compete with the a-moving with a FF or a storm tossed here and there.
Late game TvP is broken. I don't see how the blizzard developer team does not see it and does not make changes. I think emp was nerfed cause late game terran is op, not protoss. You're doing something wrong. Oh and toss has to: ff, gs, storm, feedback, blink, micro zealots, warp in units in the middle of a battle, spread hts & sentries terran has to: 1a + stim and scoot and shoot What's easier?
Well you can't really micro zealots lol. Zealot archon is the closest thing to A moving.
Terran has to stim, spread, kite like CRAZY(while producing) target fire with vikings, emp, snipe, dropship micro.
Argument can go both ways, no point in being biased.
|
I just came back on broodwar, perfect timing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
