|
On December 09 2011 03:46 iamke55 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2011 03:24 Big J wrote:On December 09 2011 03:04 SafeAsCheese wrote:On December 09 2011 02:58 1st_Panzer_Div. wrote:
Interesting thing about imbalances. If at some point a race is imbalacned, that race will win more than their skill level would provide. If the imbalance is removed then that race will immediately lose more, as they get re-balanced against appropriate level opponents.
That also becomes less relevant the higher up in play you go, but a lot of these games are not from the top 10 players in the world.
This is why for example blizzard removed KA, despite the win rates being nearly 50% for PvT. They saw an imbalance and removed it. It was OP vs zerg as well. Protoss just had to sit on 3 base and max out. Zerg then tries to counter attack or base trade, because their army can't win, yet you can warp in storms anywhere with banked gas and melt the army so easily as it tries to pass buildings And it also led to bad gameplay. "Hey I'm completly caught off guard, yet it doesn't matter at all!" (not to say it was the Protoss players fault... it was simply viable to not think about defending bases, so noone would waste APM and ressources on defense) Is it really bad gameplay for Protoss to have one cushion that prevents them from losing the instant they make a mistake? The planetary fortress makes Terran never have to think about defending bases, and that is much cheaper than constantly having to warp in templars every time 1 medivac flies near a nexus. Why aren't you calling that OP? IMO removing KA led to bad gameplay because that created situations where you're playing a PvT and you auto-lose from one unscouted drop killing a crucial nexus (something that will never happen to Terran due to orbital lifting off, planetary fortress repairing, and low DPS of whatever is dropped). It takes, what, 10 seconds for a group of marauders to kill a nexus? It's rather absurd to me that in a 20 minute game, you only have to "outplay" your opponent for 10 seconds of it to win. That to me is bad gameplay. I would think in well-designed game you win by consistently outplaying your opponent throughout the course of the game, i.e. at least 11 minutes out of 20. Not 10 seconds.
DT's will wreck an expo just as fast as marauders, plus we don't have warp in to defend it with. Lategame getting planetaries is stupid because you need a lot of scans later on for dt's, spotting armies and mules or you'll be always at disadvantage having 70 SCV's since terran has a way weaker army.
|
On December 09 2011 03:46 iamke55 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2011 03:24 Big J wrote:On December 09 2011 03:04 SafeAsCheese wrote:On December 09 2011 02:58 1st_Panzer_Div. wrote:
Interesting thing about imbalances. If at some point a race is imbalacned, that race will win more than their skill level would provide. If the imbalance is removed then that race will immediately lose more, as they get re-balanced against appropriate level opponents.
That also becomes less relevant the higher up in play you go, but a lot of these games are not from the top 10 players in the world.
This is why for example blizzard removed KA, despite the win rates being nearly 50% for PvT. They saw an imbalance and removed it. It was OP vs zerg as well. Protoss just had to sit on 3 base and max out. Zerg then tries to counter attack or base trade, because their army can't win, yet you can warp in storms anywhere with banked gas and melt the army so easily as it tries to pass buildings And it also led to bad gameplay. "Hey I'm completly caught off guard, yet it doesn't matter at all!" (not to say it was the Protoss players fault... it was simply viable to not think about defending bases, so noone would waste APM and ressources on defense) Is it really bad gameplay for Protoss to have one cushion that prevents them from losing the instant they make a mistake? The planetary fortress makes Terran never have to think about defending bases, and that is much cheaper than constantly having to warp in templars every time 1 medivac flies near a nexus. Why aren't you calling that OP? IMO removing KA led to bad gameplay because that created situations where you're playing a PvT and you auto-lose from one unscouted drop killing a crucial nexus (something that will never happen to Terran due to orbital lifting off, planetary fortress repairing, and low DPS of whatever is dropped). It takes, what, 10 seconds for a group of marauders to kill a nexus? It's rather absurd to me that in a 20 minute game, you only have to "outplay" your opponent for 10 seconds of it to win. That to me is bad gameplay. I would think in well-designed game you win by consistently outplaying your opponent throughout the course of the game, i.e. at least 11 minutes out of 20. Not 10 seconds.
you're exaggerate vastly. You neither instantly lose by losing a nexus to a drop (though it is a big setback) nor do you not have any way to defend anymore. You can still preemtively leave units and canons around, you still have blink and you can still warp in units. You have your cushion...
|
On December 08 2011 22:01 Ravnemesteren wrote:
November is a weird month. Zerg is strongest in the foreign scene, but the weakest in Korea. Glad to see protoss having shot up from their 39% in october in korea. It was looking very bleak for protoss in GSL for a while.
I dont know if anyone agrees, but I think the korean stats are by far the most interesting. Korea is the highest level, so "balance" stats for lower levels is in some ways redundant in my opinion. The game should be balanced at the very top and all that. Anyways, its cool to see the stats change so fast (maybe it will be a trend, maybe not).
And please blizzard, let terran be at the loosing end of a matchup for a full year :p Just joking... I am actually hoping things will level out and become steady in a year or two. But then again I guess heart of the swarm kills that hope.
Well, I disagree. If something is balanced at the very top, it isn't going to affect u @ diamond or even low masters lvl. I've seen how things go in KR with Terran dominance. And then u look at the EU ladder, and realise it's quite a different truth if ur a terran plat player  U have to take all games into consideration. Ladder and Tournament. Otherwise u'll end up with a game that's balanced for KR and not for little Timmy playing in NA gold lvl '_'
Carrying ur argument further, u joke that u hope terran keeps "losing" etc. But if u say that terran needs another nerf (cos a terran won GSL) then what would u suggest? And would u be sure that if u nerf something terran, that lil timmy in NA gold lvl can cope with it, or are u suggesting that sc2 only be played by GM?
:D
|
I looked at the overall winrates, saw Terran at the bottom of the winrates, freaked out then unfreaked out when I realized that Protoss was just trouncing them.
Overall balance through rock-paper-scissors is disappointing, to say the least.
|
On December 09 2011 04:01 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2011 03:46 iamke55 wrote:On December 09 2011 03:24 Big J wrote:On December 09 2011 03:04 SafeAsCheese wrote:On December 09 2011 02:58 1st_Panzer_Div. wrote:
Interesting thing about imbalances. If at some point a race is imbalacned, that race will win more than their skill level would provide. If the imbalance is removed then that race will immediately lose more, as they get re-balanced against appropriate level opponents.
That also becomes less relevant the higher up in play you go, but a lot of these games are not from the top 10 players in the world.
This is why for example blizzard removed KA, despite the win rates being nearly 50% for PvT. They saw an imbalance and removed it. It was OP vs zerg as well. Protoss just had to sit on 3 base and max out. Zerg then tries to counter attack or base trade, because their army can't win, yet you can warp in storms anywhere with banked gas and melt the army so easily as it tries to pass buildings And it also led to bad gameplay. "Hey I'm completly caught off guard, yet it doesn't matter at all!" (not to say it was the Protoss players fault... it was simply viable to not think about defending bases, so noone would waste APM and ressources on defense) Is it really bad gameplay for Protoss to have one cushion that prevents them from losing the instant they make a mistake? The planetary fortress makes Terran never have to think about defending bases, and that is much cheaper than constantly having to warp in templars every time 1 medivac flies near a nexus. Why aren't you calling that OP? IMO removing KA led to bad gameplay because that created situations where you're playing a PvT and you auto-lose from one unscouted drop killing a crucial nexus (something that will never happen to Terran due to orbital lifting off, planetary fortress repairing, and low DPS of whatever is dropped). It takes, what, 10 seconds for a group of marauders to kill a nexus? It's rather absurd to me that in a 20 minute game, you only have to "outplay" your opponent for 10 seconds of it to win. That to me is bad gameplay. I would think in well-designed game you win by consistently outplaying your opponent throughout the course of the game, i.e. at least 11 minutes out of 20. Not 10 seconds. you're exaggerate vastly. You neither instantly lose by losing a nexus to a drop (though it is a big setback) nor do you not have any way to defend anymore. You can still preemtively leave units and canons around, you still have blink and you can still warp in units. You have your cushion...
I wish Jinro would comment here :/ But ye a PF is about as useful as a solarium in the sahara in mid or late game toss. I never get PF in TvP, cos it just isn't worth it unless ur really behind or taking a ninja expo. If u look at the GMs they usually morf into Orbitals and never PF in TvP. Terrans can insta lose as well. While we're kiting the MMM, one storm can change the whole battle that's literally a 1 sec micro error. Or if banelings hit ur marine clump, there it's GG. Blizz removed KA and FV a WHILE back bro, get over it U need to work around these things. If I had tocomplain about every terran nerf @ every patch, i would never really understand my match ups. I don't know what cushion ur referring to, but I think that TvP which is in P's favour is still pretty balanced. Well done blizz  Don't listen to complainers!
|
|
|
Korean Zergs continue a four-month-long slide, going from the winningest race to the losingest. 
|
What a beauty, a balanced game is before us.
|
On December 09 2011 03:46 iamke55 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2011 03:24 Big J wrote:On December 09 2011 03:04 SafeAsCheese wrote:On December 09 2011 02:58 1st_Panzer_Div. wrote:
Interesting thing about imbalances. If at some point a race is imbalacned, that race will win more than their skill level would provide. If the imbalance is removed then that race will immediately lose more, as they get re-balanced against appropriate level opponents.
That also becomes less relevant the higher up in play you go, but a lot of these games are not from the top 10 players in the world.
This is why for example blizzard removed KA, despite the win rates being nearly 50% for PvT. They saw an imbalance and removed it. It was OP vs zerg as well. Protoss just had to sit on 3 base and max out. Zerg then tries to counter attack or base trade, because their army can't win, yet you can warp in storms anywhere with banked gas and melt the army so easily as it tries to pass buildings And it also led to bad gameplay. "Hey I'm completly caught off guard, yet it doesn't matter at all!" (not to say it was the Protoss players fault... it was simply viable to not think about defending bases, so noone would waste APM and ressources on defense) Is it really bad gameplay for Protoss to have one cushion that prevents them from losing the instant they make a mistake? The planetary fortress makes Terran never have to think about defending bases, and that is much cheaper than constantly having to warp in templars every time 1 medivac flies near a nexus. Why aren't you calling that OP? IMO removing KA led to bad gameplay because that created situations where you're playing a PvT and you auto-lose from one unscouted drop killing a crucial nexus (something that will never happen to Terran due to orbital lifting off, planetary fortress repairing, and low DPS of whatever is dropped). It takes, what, 10 seconds for a group of marauders to kill a nexus? It's rather absurd to me that in a 20 minute game, you only have to "outplay" your opponent for 10 seconds of it to win. That to me is bad gameplay. I would think in well-designed game you win by consistently outplaying your opponent throughout the course of the game, i.e. at least 11 minutes out of 20. Not 10 seconds.
That's a lot of "will never happen".
Dropping has become a sort of gamble. Warp-ins, spotting pylons and observers in combination with turtling Protoss makes it well-nigh impossible to snipe a high HP structure.
I played both races at Master and currently my main race is Terran, so I know both sides of the medal. I had a 80-90% winrate with Protoss in PvT before any patches.
A normal master scrub Terran can only win in the early, mid and mid-late game which leads to a lot of all-in strategies. But on the other-hand Protoss has some of the sickest all-ins (Voidray, DT, Blink Stalker, 4 Gate Warpprism) which even don't classify as real all-ins sometimes. So you curently you see basically 7 out of 10 games the Protoss sitting on one base.
Once their deathball has completed your only chance to win as a low master Terran is to utterly crush them, otherwise they will reinforce 50-60 supply at a time, often chargelots which, even according to Blizzard, are too strong in this state of the game.
I had games in which I traded 4-5 times with 30% of my army surviving not able to finish him off cause he reinforced Archon/Chargelot.
A word regarding EMPs... you absolutely need them to trade even. EMPs are not auto-win, they are a necessity to be able trade armys at an acceptable rate. Without them you lose definitely in mid-late.
That said, everything I wrote doesn't apply to the highest skill level since Terran's player skill ceiling regarding is 'indefinitely' high and can compensate for this.
Sorry, my perspective on EU Master. Ladder PvT is highly Protoss favoured. I don't cry about balance it is just an observation resulting from my experience which might be different from your experience.
|
On December 09 2011 04:21 corvaleur wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2011 03:46 iamke55 wrote:On December 09 2011 03:24 Big J wrote:On December 09 2011 03:04 SafeAsCheese wrote:On December 09 2011 02:58 1st_Panzer_Div. wrote:
Interesting thing about imbalances. If at some point a race is imbalacned, that race will win more than their skill level would provide. If the imbalance is removed then that race will immediately lose more, as they get re-balanced against appropriate level opponents.
That also becomes less relevant the higher up in play you go, but a lot of these games are not from the top 10 players in the world.
This is why for example blizzard removed KA, despite the win rates being nearly 50% for PvT. They saw an imbalance and removed it. It was OP vs zerg as well. Protoss just had to sit on 3 base and max out. Zerg then tries to counter attack or base trade, because their army can't win, yet you can warp in storms anywhere with banked gas and melt the army so easily as it tries to pass buildings And it also led to bad gameplay. "Hey I'm completly caught off guard, yet it doesn't matter at all!" (not to say it was the Protoss players fault... it was simply viable to not think about defending bases, so noone would waste APM and ressources on defense) Is it really bad gameplay for Protoss to have one cushion that prevents them from losing the instant they make a mistake? The planetary fortress makes Terran never have to think about defending bases, and that is much cheaper than constantly having to warp in templars every time 1 medivac flies near a nexus. Why aren't you calling that OP? IMO removing KA led to bad gameplay because that created situations where you're playing a PvT and you auto-lose from one unscouted drop killing a crucial nexus (something that will never happen to Terran due to orbital lifting off, planetary fortress repairing, and low DPS of whatever is dropped). It takes, what, 10 seconds for a group of marauders to kill a nexus? It's rather absurd to me that in a 20 minute game, you only have to "outplay" your opponent for 10 seconds of it to win. That to me is bad gameplay. I would think in well-designed game you win by consistently outplaying your opponent throughout the course of the game, i.e. at least 11 minutes out of 20. Not 10 seconds. That's a lot of "will never happen". Dropping has become a sort of gamble. Warp-ins, spotting pylons and observers in combination with turtling Protoss makes it well-nigh impossible to snipe a high HP structure. I played both races at Master and currently my main race is Terran, so I know both sides of the medal. I had a 80-90% winrate with Protoss in PvT before any patches. A normal master scrub Terran can only win in the early, mid and mid-late game which leads to a lot of all-in strategies. But on the other-hand Protoss has some of the sickest all-ins (Voidray, DT, Blink Stalker, 4 Gate Warpprism) which even don't classify as real all-ins sometimes. So you curently you see basically 7 out of 10 games the Protoss sitting on one base. Once their deathball has completed your only chance to win as a low master Terran is to utterly crush them, otherwise they will reinforce 50-60 supply at a time, often chargelots which, even according to Blizzard, are too strong in this state of the game. I had games in which I traded 4-5 times with 30% of my army surviving not able to finish him off cause he reinforced Archon/Chargelot. A word regarding EMPs... you absolutely need them to trade even. EMPs are not auto-win, they are a necessity to be able trade armys at an acceptable rate. Without them you lose definitely in mid-late. That said, everything I wrote doesn't apply to the highest skill level since Terran's player skill ceiling regarding is 'indefinitely' high and can compensate for this. Sorry, my perspective on EU Master. Ladder PvT is highly Protoss favoured. I don't cry about balance it is just an observation resulting from my experience which might be different from your experience.
Yep, that's my main problem. If you do not just completely stomp them in a battle they will just warp in so much shit and you cannot do anything at all.
|
On December 09 2011 03:46 iamke55 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2011 03:24 Big J wrote:On December 09 2011 03:04 SafeAsCheese wrote:On December 09 2011 02:58 1st_Panzer_Div. wrote:
Interesting thing about imbalances. If at some point a race is imbalacned, that race will win more than their skill level would provide. If the imbalance is removed then that race will immediately lose more, as they get re-balanced against appropriate level opponents.
That also becomes less relevant the higher up in play you go, but a lot of these games are not from the top 10 players in the world.
This is why for example blizzard removed KA, despite the win rates being nearly 50% for PvT. They saw an imbalance and removed it. It was OP vs zerg as well. Protoss just had to sit on 3 base and max out. Zerg then tries to counter attack or base trade, because their army can't win, yet you can warp in storms anywhere with banked gas and melt the army so easily as it tries to pass buildings And it also led to bad gameplay. "Hey I'm completly caught off guard, yet it doesn't matter at all!" (not to say it was the Protoss players fault... it was simply viable to not think about defending bases, so noone would waste APM and ressources on defense) Is it really bad gameplay for Protoss to have one cushion that prevents them from losing the instant they make a mistake? The planetary fortress makes Terran never have to think about defending bases, and that is much cheaper than constantly having to warp in templars every time 1 medivac flies near a nexus. Why aren't you calling that OP? IMO removing KA led to bad gameplay because that created situations where you're playing a PvT and you auto-lose from one unscouted drop killing a crucial nexus (something that will never happen to Terran due to orbital lifting off, planetary fortress repairing, and low DPS of whatever is dropped). It takes, what, 10 seconds for a group of marauders to kill a nexus? It's rather absurd to me that in a 20 minute game, you only have to "outplay" your opponent for 10 seconds of it to win. That to me is bad gameplay. I would think in well-designed game you win by consistently outplaying your opponent throughout the course of the game, i.e. at least 11 minutes out of 20. Not 10 seconds.
I snipe his third but it doesnt matter.
|
United Kingdom20285 Posts
On December 09 2011 03:55 shuurai wrote:
As most of you know, terrans are already sparse on ladder. If this "balancing" trend continues, it'll result in even more PvP/ZvZ , until everyone left will be totally fed up -- and there won't be any more T to blame, either. Very redeeming thought.
If it is the cost of a balanced endgame that can scale well as APM climbs without causing major imbalances, it is worth it.
When a player looks at the competitive scene, and they see things that they beleive are just wrong (HuK vs Virus comes to mind a few months back, 1-1-1 with all scvs pulled, and then the exact same push with all scvs pulled 10 minutes later winning the game even though the first "all in" didnt put huk in a particularly bad position) they are demotivated to play and get better, what is the point if this shit still happens to the best players and there is seemingly nothing you can do about it, right?
With game balance directed at the best of the best, you can fix all of your problems at any by just becoming better. In the current state of the game, plenty of high level pros frequently loose games to random high masters due to all ins, etc
|
Interesting statistics, thanks for sharing.
|
United Kingdom20285 Posts
On December 09 2011 04:29 Techno wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2011 03:46 iamke55 wrote:On December 09 2011 03:24 Big J wrote:On December 09 2011 03:04 SafeAsCheese wrote:On December 09 2011 02:58 1st_Panzer_Div. wrote:
Interesting thing about imbalances. If at some point a race is imbalacned, that race will win more than their skill level would provide. If the imbalance is removed then that race will immediately lose more, as they get re-balanced against appropriate level opponents.
That also becomes less relevant the higher up in play you go, but a lot of these games are not from the top 10 players in the world.
This is why for example blizzard removed KA, despite the win rates being nearly 50% for PvT. They saw an imbalance and removed it. It was OP vs zerg as well. Protoss just had to sit on 3 base and max out. Zerg then tries to counter attack or base trade, because their army can't win, yet you can warp in storms anywhere with banked gas and melt the army so easily as it tries to pass buildings And it also led to bad gameplay. "Hey I'm completly caught off guard, yet it doesn't matter at all!" (not to say it was the Protoss players fault... it was simply viable to not think about defending bases, so noone would waste APM and ressources on defense) Is it really bad gameplay for Protoss to have one cushion that prevents them from losing the instant they make a mistake? The planetary fortress makes Terran never have to think about defending bases, and that is much cheaper than constantly having to warp in templars every time 1 medivac flies near a nexus. Why aren't you calling that OP? IMO removing KA led to bad gameplay because that created situations where you're playing a PvT and you auto-lose from one unscouted drop killing a crucial nexus (something that will never happen to Terran due to orbital lifting off, planetary fortress repairing, and low DPS of whatever is dropped). It takes, what, 10 seconds for a group of marauders to kill a nexus? It's rather absurd to me that in a 20 minute game, you only have to "outplay" your opponent for 10 seconds of it to win. That to me is bad gameplay. I would think in well-designed game you win by consistently outplaying your opponent throughout the course of the game, i.e. at least 11 minutes out of 20. Not 10 seconds. I snipe his third but it doesnt matter.
That is an exception id guess, with PvT loosing the third nexus at certain timings flat out ends the game within 30 seconds in my experience, you have 2 choices, effectively dont mine for a minute and a half, or pull everything and amove. You would generally want a 4'th base up before your natural mines out but it isnt always possible, maybe that got cancelled too by the same 10 second slip up or something, and if you loose your third in any of those games it is completely over, either for the protoss when he fails to kill the terran or the terran when he dies to the all in moments later. There is no way to recover.
|
On December 09 2011 04:40 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2011 03:55 shuurai wrote:
As most of you know, terrans are already sparse on ladder. If this "balancing" trend continues, it'll result in even more PvP/ZvZ , until everyone left will be totally fed up -- and there won't be any more T to blame, either. Very redeeming thought. If it is the cost of a balanced endgame that can scale well as APM climbs without causing major imbalances, it is worth it. When a player looks at the competitive scene, and they see things that they beleive are just wrong (HuK vs Virus comes to mind a few months back, 1-1-1 with all scvs pulled, and then the exact same push with all scvs pulled 10 minutes later winning the game even though the first "all in" didnt put huk in a particularly bad position) they are demotivated to play and get better, what is the point if this shit still happens to the best players and there is seemingly nothing you can do about it, right? With game balance directed at the best of the best, you can fix all of your problems at any by just becoming better. In the current state of the game, plenty of high level pros frequently loose games to random high masters due to all ins, etc
So what you're saying is that it's okay to continue with patches that effectively make Terran impossible to be competitive with at any but the highest level of play, because non-Terran players who see pros lose sometimes to silly cheeses will get demotivated to continue trying to play and get better?
That's not even a disguised attempt at saying "Fuck Terran, I don't want to play or see Terran anymore".
|
On December 08 2011 14:18 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2011 14:07 kofman wrote:On December 06 2011 22:09 Sated wrote:
The EMP change has just punished bad Terrans really hard because they've relied on blanket EMPs for too long, this is why the graph has swung so badly this month. Terrans who could previously do well by relying on Ghosts are getting stomped by Protoss players who were always better than them, but were fighting against Ghosts being ridiculous.
Don't worry, Terran players. All will be well. And if not, you could always try Battlecruisers! No one uses capital ships, you should use them more!
(Hehehehe...) ALL Terran players relied on EMP blankets... If you dont use emp blankets, you are bad. Now, ghosts are a lot weaker. Its amazing that you consider terran players who use emp worse than protoss players, but just abusing emp to win. Try the battlecruiser? what a joke of a unit. 1. It can get feedbacked 2. its slow as hell 3. Stalkers own them Carriers die 1v1 to BC's before yamato, are significantly slower, and MARINES own them. Marines are lower tier than stalkers, im not sure where your argument comes from.
I hate when people talk about "tiers." Carriers are a bad unit, yes, but Battlecruisers are even worse in TvP. There is a higher chance that a Protoss will have Blink Stalker/High Templar to destroy battlecruiser then there is of a Terran having a significant number of marines late game. Marines are awful once Protoss has Colossi and Storm.
|
no it means terran player will have to learn to play more to their races strenghs.
(strong defense that is!)
|
On December 09 2011 04:21 corvaleur wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2011 03:46 iamke55 wrote:On December 09 2011 03:24 Big J wrote:On December 09 2011 03:04 SafeAsCheese wrote:On December 09 2011 02:58 1st_Panzer_Div. wrote:
Interesting thing about imbalances. If at some point a race is imbalacned, that race will win more than their skill level would provide. If the imbalance is removed then that race will immediately lose more, as they get re-balanced against appropriate level opponents.
That also becomes less relevant the higher up in play you go, but a lot of these games are not from the top 10 players in the world.
This is why for example blizzard removed KA, despite the win rates being nearly 50% for PvT. They saw an imbalance and removed it. It was OP vs zerg as well. Protoss just had to sit on 3 base and max out. Zerg then tries to counter attack or base trade, because their army can't win, yet you can warp in storms anywhere with banked gas and melt the army so easily as it tries to pass buildings And it also led to bad gameplay. "Hey I'm completly caught off guard, yet it doesn't matter at all!" (not to say it was the Protoss players fault... it was simply viable to not think about defending bases, so noone would waste APM and ressources on defense) Is it really bad gameplay for Protoss to have one cushion that prevents them from losing the instant they make a mistake? The planetary fortress makes Terran never have to think about defending bases, and that is much cheaper than constantly having to warp in templars every time 1 medivac flies near a nexus. Why aren't you calling that OP? IMO removing KA led to bad gameplay because that created situations where you're playing a PvT and you auto-lose from one unscouted drop killing a crucial nexus (something that will never happen to Terran due to orbital lifting off, planetary fortress repairing, and low DPS of whatever is dropped). It takes, what, 10 seconds for a group of marauders to kill a nexus? It's rather absurd to me that in a 20 minute game, you only have to "outplay" your opponent for 10 seconds of it to win. That to me is bad gameplay. I would think in well-designed game you win by consistently outplaying your opponent throughout the course of the game, i.e. at least 11 minutes out of 20. Not 10 seconds. That's a lot of "will never happen". Dropping has become a sort of gamble. Warp-ins, spotting pylons and observers in combination with turtling Protoss makes it well-nigh impossible to snipe a high HP structure. I played both races at Master and currently my main race is Terran, so I know both sides of the medal. I had a 80-90% winrate with Protoss in PvT before any patches. A normal master scrub Terran can only win in the early, mid and mid-late game which leads to a lot of all-in strategies. But on the other-hand Protoss has some of the sickest all-ins (Voidray, DT, Blink Stalker, 4 Gate Warpprism) which even don't classify as real all-ins sometimes. So you curently you see basically 7 out of 10 games the Protoss sitting on one base. Once their deathball has completed your only chance to win as a low master Terran is to utterly crush them, otherwise they will reinforce 50-60 supply at a time, often chargelots which, even according to Blizzard, are too strong in this state of the game. I had games in which I traded 4-5 times with 30% of my army surviving not able to finish him off cause he reinforced Archon/Chargelot. A word regarding EMPs... you absolutely need them to trade even. EMPs are not auto-win, they are a necessity to be able trade armys at an acceptable rate. Without them you lose definitely in mid-late. That said, everything I wrote doesn't apply to the highest skill level since Terran's player skill ceiling regarding is 'indefinitely' high and can compensate for this. Sorry, my perspective on EU Master. Ladder PvT is highly Protoss favoured. I don't cry about balance it is just an observation resulting from my experience which might be different from your experience.
I agree 100% with this post. It sums up the major problem with TvP lategame: ie 60 food warp ins vs rax production.
IMO there is an easy fix to this: gateway cooldowns should not refresh when at max food. As soon as a unit dies, then the WG cooldown can begin.
EMP's are, as he also mentionned, needed to win any straight up Ball vs Ball battle, they don't tip the battle to terran's favor, they simply balance it out. This is fine, as T is sticking to T1/T2 units. But we'd all be more than happy to have a viable T3 alternative. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like HoTS will be bringing any along with it.
|
On December 09 2011 04:40 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2011 03:55 shuurai wrote:
As most of you know, terrans are already sparse on ladder. If this "balancing" trend continues, it'll result in even more PvP/ZvZ , until everyone left will be totally fed up -- and there won't be any more T to blame, either. Very redeeming thought. If it is the cost of a balanced endgame that can scale well as APM climbs without causing major imbalances, it is worth it. When a player looks at the competitive scene, and they see things that they beleive are just wrong (HuK vs Virus comes to mind a few months back, 1-1-1 with all scvs pulled, and then the exact same push with all scvs pulled 10 minutes later winning the game even though the first "all in" didnt put huk in a particularly bad position) they are demotivated to play and get better, what is the point if this shit still happens to the best players and there is seemingly nothing you can do about it, right? With game balance directed at the best of the best, you can fix all of your problems at any by just becoming better. In the current state of the game, plenty of high level pros frequently loose games to random high masters due to all ins, etc
But there's a problem with that. As a Terran, I watch these high level games and I see Protoss do things like 1 gate expand, which I know how to crush at my level, or Terran push Zerg at 8 minutes with pure marines and no stim against ling/bling. However, I get on the ladder, and I cannot emulate these styles of play because they are of a different metagame. I scout the Protoss base and I see 4 gate robo, so I build bunkers and whatnot and get completely annihilated. I try the same 8 minute push I saw the gosu Terran do and when I get there, the Zerg has twice as much ling/bling as expected and crushes my forces. I go online, look for variations of my experiences and all I get are seemingly risky plays, super thick metagame, or control/macro I can't even hope to mimic at a diamond level.
Then I go to the community looking for input and some sort of intermediate experience between competitive play and pro level play. Instead, I get berated in every SC2 media due to the success of MVP, MMA, or Puma. I tune into some SC2 related program and it's 4 Protoss complaining about their inability to Nexus first against 2 rax, and I sit there wishing diamond/masters Protoss would have the balls to do the same. Or I tune into some casts of high level Terran plays, looking for some glimmer of insight to their build and decision making, and instead I get 3 games of, "Well, it's 1:00 in and Terran is getting bio. Now, let's talk for 30 minutes about how brilliant this Zerg/Protoss is and how we're both going to steal his build since we wouldn't touch Terran with a 10 foot pole!" Annoyed at this, I finally come to talk strategy online, looking for just general insight, and all I hear is the community echoing the statements of the SC2 media. "Idra said that ghosts are OP in 6 base ZvT!"
At the end of the day, I'm stuck on ladder hitting my head against a wall. No direction, just results from a handful of pro players from Korea. I end up sitting there with the stream near muted with my mouth wide with amazement at what those "gods" can do, unable to enjoy my own play without direction for improvement. "Becoming better" at this point seems hopeless.
|
On December 09 2011 05:17 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2011 04:40 Cyro wrote:On December 09 2011 03:55 shuurai wrote:
As most of you know, terrans are already sparse on ladder. If this "balancing" trend continues, it'll result in even more PvP/ZvZ , until everyone left will be totally fed up -- and there won't be any more T to blame, either. Very redeeming thought. If it is the cost of a balanced endgame that can scale well as APM climbs without causing major imbalances, it is worth it. When a player looks at the competitive scene, and they see things that they beleive are just wrong (HuK vs Virus comes to mind a few months back, 1-1-1 with all scvs pulled, and then the exact same push with all scvs pulled 10 minutes later winning the game even though the first "all in" didnt put huk in a particularly bad position) they are demotivated to play and get better, what is the point if this shit still happens to the best players and there is seemingly nothing you can do about it, right? With game balance directed at the best of the best, you can fix all of your problems at any by just becoming better. In the current state of the game, plenty of high level pros frequently loose games to random high masters due to all ins, etc But there's a problem with that. As a Terran, I watch these high level games and I see Protoss do things like 1 gate expand, which I know how to crush at my level, or Terran push Zerg at 8 minutes with pure marines and no stim against ling/bling. However, I get on the ladder, and I cannot emulate these styles of play because they are of a different metagame. I scout the Protoss base and I see 4 gate robo, so I build bunkers and whatnot and get completely annihilated. I try the same 8 minute push I saw the gosu Terran do and when I get there, the Zerg has twice as much ling/bling as expected and crushes my forces. I go online, look for variations of my experiences and all I get are seemingly risky plays, super thick metagame, or control/macro I can't even hope to mimic at a diamond level. Then I go to the community looking for input and some sort of intermediate experience between competitive play and pro level play. Instead, I get berated in every SC2 media due to the success of MVP, MMA, or Puma. I tune into some SC2 related program and it's 4 Protoss complaining about their inability to Nexus first against 2 rax, and I sit there wishing diamond/masters Protoss would have the balls to do the same. Or I tune into some casts of high level Terran plays, looking for some glimmer of insight to their build and decision making, and instead I get 3 games of, "Well, it's 1:00 in and Terran is getting bio. Now, let's talk for 30 minutes about how brilliant this Zerg/Protoss is and how we're both going to steal his build since we wouldn't touch Terran with a 10 foot pole!" Annoyed at this, I finally come to talk strategy online, looking for just general insight, and all I hear is the community echoing the statements of the SC2 media. "Idra said that ghosts are OP in 6 base ZvT!" At the end of the day, I'm stuck on ladder hitting my head against a wall. No direction, just results from a handful of pro players from Korea. I end up sitting there with the stream near muted with my mouth wide with amazement at what those "gods" can do, unable to enjoy my own play without direction for improvement. "Becoming better" at this point seems hopeless.
Then why don't you work on your micro and try to be better ?
Just think that nothing is imbalanced at your level, everything can be solved by you with better decision/better micro/better macro.
You're actually trying to be cute. Cute is good, but only if you know what you're doing. Just go marine/tanks each tvz until you understand the mu/builds. Then you can be cute and full marines with 14cc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
