|
On December 10 2011 04:17 Shyft wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 04:08 Mehukannu wrote:On December 10 2011 03:37 Shyft wrote:On December 10 2011 03:22 Tyrant0 wrote:On December 10 2011 02:23 petro1987 wrote:On December 10 2011 02:09 SeaSwift wrote:On December 10 2011 01:59 petro1987 wrote:
I feel your pain dude. I myself refrain to post most of the times in the forums. I feel like the whole discussion makes no sense. Here we are trying to argue that Terran has a harder time (micro wise) in TvP. But the truth is Protoss players will just say this is not true. It's not a matter of arguments anymore. It has become a matter of faith. They just believe this is not the case. It's like trying to tell people that gypsies don't have psychic powers. They want to believe they do, and that's it.
The irony in this post is astounding. What if it works both ways? What if it is a matter of faith for both sides, and you are the ones believing gypsy fairies? Your post just further proves my point. There's no argument that Terran players could provide that would convince Protoss players that is the case that TvP is harder micro wise for Terran. It has become a matter of faith. If that's not the case, please help us all and answer: what would it take for Protoss players even consider the possibility that Terran is harder micro wise in TvP? Completely ignoring the fact that as Protoss are a-moving chargelots and colossus they're required to stare at their proxy/base to warp units/cboost gateways while Terran can stare at their army/tab through production. I don't even know why this is an argument. Melee units can't be micro'ed unless they're fighting another melee unit. Trying to one up Protoss when your race is entirely ranged units which can all be micro'ed, with stim to top it off. Does it mean you're better than Protoss of similar league rank because your race grants you more control within the nature of a match-up? I agree with this as well, there isnt really very much micro you can do with zealots versus bio so you kind of have to just a-move them, however the luxury that terran has is that during a battle they can hit their production hotkey and queue up a bunch of units while a protoss player needs to divert their attention away from the battle to warp in units at a proxy pylon. The amount of micro that goes into a single battle is not the defining characteristic of which race is easier to play. I don't agree with that line of thought since as protoss you can choose using either warpgates or gateways if you really care about being even ground with terran without going back to your nearest pylon and warp-in round of units. I think you need to think about what you just said.... telling protoss not to use warpgates..... I'm not saying that it is a disadvantage to have to look away to warp in units I'm saying that it is the nature of how protoss is played and how the matchup works. One race doesnt have it easier than the other I'm saying that your attention needs to be allocated to different things depending on the race you're playing and micro in a large battle is not the ultimate deciding factor in who is going to win a game.
This isn't just directed at you but everyone. From a pure game design perspective it's absolutely impossible to have 3 races who are all equally hard to play, you can balance 3 races almost (and I mean almost, true balance is impossible aswell) perfectly, but there will always be races who are harder to play than others. Saying otherwise is just extremely ignorant.
In every fighting game you have characters who are simply harder to play than others, same goes for every single strategy game on this planet.
|
On December 10 2011 04:17 Shyft wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 04:08 Mehukannu wrote:On December 10 2011 03:37 Shyft wrote:On December 10 2011 03:22 Tyrant0 wrote:On December 10 2011 02:23 petro1987 wrote:On December 10 2011 02:09 SeaSwift wrote:On December 10 2011 01:59 petro1987 wrote:
I feel your pain dude. I myself refrain to post most of the times in the forums. I feel like the whole discussion makes no sense. Here we are trying to argue that Terran has a harder time (micro wise) in TvP. But the truth is Protoss players will just say this is not true. It's not a matter of arguments anymore. It has become a matter of faith. They just believe this is not the case. It's like trying to tell people that gypsies don't have psychic powers. They want to believe they do, and that's it.
The irony in this post is astounding. What if it works both ways? What if it is a matter of faith for both sides, and you are the ones believing gypsy fairies? Your post just further proves my point. There's no argument that Terran players could provide that would convince Protoss players that is the case that TvP is harder micro wise for Terran. It has become a matter of faith. If that's not the case, please help us all and answer: what would it take for Protoss players even consider the possibility that Terran is harder micro wise in TvP? Completely ignoring the fact that as Protoss are a-moving chargelots and colossus they're required to stare at their proxy/base to warp units/cboost gateways while Terran can stare at their army/tab through production. I don't even know why this is an argument. Melee units can't be micro'ed unless they're fighting another melee unit. Trying to one up Protoss when your race is entirely ranged units which can all be micro'ed, with stim to top it off. Does it mean you're better than Protoss of similar league rank because your race grants you more control within the nature of a match-up? I agree with this as well, there isnt really very much micro you can do with zealots versus bio so you kind of have to just a-move them, however the luxury that terran has is that during a battle they can hit their production hotkey and queue up a bunch of units while a protoss player needs to divert their attention away from the battle to warp in units at a proxy pylon. The amount of micro that goes into a single battle is not the defining characteristic of which race is easier to play. I don't agree with that line of thought since as protoss you can choose using either warpgates or gateways if you really care about being even ground with terran without going back to your nearest pylon and warp-in round of units. I think you need to think about what you just said.... telling protoss not to use warpgates..... I'm not saying that it is a disadvantage to have to look away to warp in units I'm saying that it is the nature of how protoss is played and how the matchup works. One race doesnt habe it easier than the other I'm saying that your attention needs to be allocated to different things depending on the race you're playing and micro in a large battle is not the ultimate deciding factor in who is going to win a game.
I am not saying what using gateways is better, but in that situation where both armies clash together you have the choice on using them to so you can focus more on keeping eye on your army. So I would consider it a choice of having yourself keeping some attention on warping units or having more attention on the battle while still being able to doing macro the same way terran does during the engagement.
It is definitely not a nature of how protoss plays, it is about how the player plays with the protoss.
|
On December 10 2011 04:25 Mehukannu wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 04:17 Shyft wrote:On December 10 2011 04:08 Mehukannu wrote:On December 10 2011 03:37 Shyft wrote:On December 10 2011 03:22 Tyrant0 wrote:On December 10 2011 02:23 petro1987 wrote:On December 10 2011 02:09 SeaSwift wrote:On December 10 2011 01:59 petro1987 wrote:
I feel your pain dude. I myself refrain to post most of the times in the forums. I feel like the whole discussion makes no sense. Here we are trying to argue that Terran has a harder time (micro wise) in TvP. But the truth is Protoss players will just say this is not true. It's not a matter of arguments anymore. It has become a matter of faith. They just believe this is not the case. It's like trying to tell people that gypsies don't have psychic powers. They want to believe they do, and that's it.
The irony in this post is astounding. What if it works both ways? What if it is a matter of faith for both sides, and you are the ones believing gypsy fairies? Your post just further proves my point. There's no argument that Terran players could provide that would convince Protoss players that is the case that TvP is harder micro wise for Terran. It has become a matter of faith. If that's not the case, please help us all and answer: what would it take for Protoss players even consider the possibility that Terran is harder micro wise in TvP? Completely ignoring the fact that as Protoss are a-moving chargelots and colossus they're required to stare at their proxy/base to warp units/cboost gateways while Terran can stare at their army/tab through production. I don't even know why this is an argument. Melee units can't be micro'ed unless they're fighting another melee unit. Trying to one up Protoss when your race is entirely ranged units which can all be micro'ed, with stim to top it off. Does it mean you're better than Protoss of similar league rank because your race grants you more control within the nature of a match-up? I agree with this as well, there isnt really very much micro you can do with zealots versus bio so you kind of have to just a-move them, however the luxury that terran has is that during a battle they can hit their production hotkey and queue up a bunch of units while a protoss player needs to divert their attention away from the battle to warp in units at a proxy pylon. The amount of micro that goes into a single battle is not the defining characteristic of which race is easier to play. I don't agree with that line of thought since as protoss you can choose using either warpgates or gateways if you really care about being even ground with terran without going back to your nearest pylon and warp-in round of units. I think you need to think about what you just said.... telling protoss not to use warpgates..... I'm not saying that it is a disadvantage to have to look away to warp in units I'm saying that it is the nature of how protoss is played and how the matchup works. One race doesnt habe it easier than the other I'm saying that your attention needs to be allocated to different things depending on the race you're playing and micro in a large battle is not the ultimate deciding factor in who is going to win a game. I am not saying what using gateways is better, but in that situation where both armies clash together you have the choice on using them to so you can focus more on keeping eye on your army. So I would consider it a choice of having yourself keeping some attention on warping units or having more attention on the battle while still being able to doing macro the same way terran does during the engagement. It is definitely not a nature of how protoss plays, it is about how the player plays with the protoss.
No one is complaining that warp-gates are too hard to use. It's egotistical Terrans ranting on how imbalanced protoss are because they're supposedly much easier to play, completely ignoring the difference in mechanics.
Also, your suggestion is completely retarded. It's the nature of the fucking race. Get out of here. I don't even want to do the math on how much supply you will lose just building out of gateways as opposed to warpgates, which are superior in every conceivable way. If you have any decent hotkey setup, you can manage warp-ins. It's basically like suggesting a zerg make multiple in-base hatches instead of having to deal with injecting mid fight.
+ Show Spoiler [edit: non-warp gate lol] +I could do the math: find the ratio of number of gateways needed on 3 base to the normal number of warpgates based on the difference in build time/cooldown. Whatever number of extra gateways you'd need to maintain production on 3 saturated bases, is basically minerals that could have been invested into additional units, meaning you will max that much slower. That's even assuming you're actually building additional gateways to account for the slower production, which ultimately cuts into EVERYTHING including your economy, units, the timing of your gas; and it's ALL slower.
And you can't reinforce with them. I don't know why I'm entertaining this stupid idea.
|
On December 10 2011 05:19 Tyrant0 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 04:25 Mehukannu wrote:On December 10 2011 04:17 Shyft wrote:On December 10 2011 04:08 Mehukannu wrote:On December 10 2011 03:37 Shyft wrote:On December 10 2011 03:22 Tyrant0 wrote:On December 10 2011 02:23 petro1987 wrote:On December 10 2011 02:09 SeaSwift wrote:On December 10 2011 01:59 petro1987 wrote:
I feel your pain dude. I myself refrain to post most of the times in the forums. I feel like the whole discussion makes no sense. Here we are trying to argue that Terran has a harder time (micro wise) in TvP. But the truth is Protoss players will just say this is not true. It's not a matter of arguments anymore. It has become a matter of faith. They just believe this is not the case. It's like trying to tell people that gypsies don't have psychic powers. They want to believe they do, and that's it.
The irony in this post is astounding. What if it works both ways? What if it is a matter of faith for both sides, and you are the ones believing gypsy fairies? Your post just further proves my point. There's no argument that Terran players could provide that would convince Protoss players that is the case that TvP is harder micro wise for Terran. It has become a matter of faith. If that's not the case, please help us all and answer: what would it take for Protoss players even consider the possibility that Terran is harder micro wise in TvP? Completely ignoring the fact that as Protoss are a-moving chargelots and colossus they're required to stare at their proxy/base to warp units/cboost gateways while Terran can stare at their army/tab through production. I don't even know why this is an argument. Melee units can't be micro'ed unless they're fighting another melee unit. Trying to one up Protoss when your race is entirely ranged units which can all be micro'ed, with stim to top it off. Does it mean you're better than Protoss of similar league rank because your race grants you more control within the nature of a match-up? I agree with this as well, there isnt really very much micro you can do with zealots versus bio so you kind of have to just a-move them, however the luxury that terran has is that during a battle they can hit their production hotkey and queue up a bunch of units while a protoss player needs to divert their attention away from the battle to warp in units at a proxy pylon. The amount of micro that goes into a single battle is not the defining characteristic of which race is easier to play. I don't agree with that line of thought since as protoss you can choose using either warpgates or gateways if you really care about being even ground with terran without going back to your nearest pylon and warp-in round of units. I think you need to think about what you just said.... telling protoss not to use warpgates..... I'm not saying that it is a disadvantage to have to look away to warp in units I'm saying that it is the nature of how protoss is played and how the matchup works. One race doesnt habe it easier than the other I'm saying that your attention needs to be allocated to different things depending on the race you're playing and micro in a large battle is not the ultimate deciding factor in who is going to win a game. I am not saying what using gateways is better, but in that situation where both armies clash together you have the choice on using them to so you can focus more on keeping eye on your army. So I would consider it a choice of having yourself keeping some attention on warping units or having more attention on the battle while still being able to doing macro the same way terran does during the engagement. It is definitely not a nature of how protoss plays, it is about how the player plays with the protoss. No one is complaining that warp-gates are too hard to use. It's egotistical Terrans ranting on how imbalanced protoss are because they're supposedly much easier to play, completely ignoring the difference in mechanics. Also, your suggestion is completely retarded. It's the nature of the fucking race. Get out of here. I don't even want to do the math on how much supply you will lose just building out of gateways as opposed to warpgates, which are superior in every conceivable way. If you have any decent hotkey setup, you can manage warp-ins. It's basically like suggesting a zerg make multiple in-base hatches instead of having to deal with injecting mid fight.
I think you missed the point here, and your first sentence is hilarious! I haven't complained about imbalance(maybe others have?) more so at the skill it takes to control protoss units over terran. This is my experience and opinion from playing both races, ofcourse i play terran more but to me it was a lot easier to control toss units and be more efficient with them. First time i ever had to blink micro, i did it like a boss, not sure if thats from having to split terran armies or what, but i was even impressed with myself(before that i thought i was hard). You make a good point, maybe the mechanics is what makes it easier??
|
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.
Fuckin EPIC post. U have reiterated my thoughts on this exactly. Terrans receive a lotta complaints cos of Korean Terrans (so much that I actually hope that MVP and MMA lose now, just ot get a break from the forum complainers). And I sit back and watch as my low APM micro and macro can never go to that pro lvl, and everyone complaining about how great Terran is (even with the current winstats on TLPD). I dont udnerstand this hatred for Terran. If they nerf Terran again, it will be almost unplayable for us lower than diamond "noobs". And ppl who ladder ACTIVELY know how few Terrans there are in top 20 in the divisions or generally just on ladder. (I am on platinum rank 4 EU ladder).
|
On December 10 2011 05:45 Superneenja wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 05:19 Tyrant0 wrote:On December 10 2011 04:25 Mehukannu wrote:On December 10 2011 04:17 Shyft wrote:On December 10 2011 04:08 Mehukannu wrote:On December 10 2011 03:37 Shyft wrote:On December 10 2011 03:22 Tyrant0 wrote:On December 10 2011 02:23 petro1987 wrote:On December 10 2011 02:09 SeaSwift wrote:On December 10 2011 01:59 petro1987 wrote:
I feel your pain dude. I myself refrain to post most of the times in the forums. I feel like the whole discussion makes no sense. Here we are trying to argue that Terran has a harder time (micro wise) in TvP. But the truth is Protoss players will just say this is not true. It's not a matter of arguments anymore. It has become a matter of faith. They just believe this is not the case. It's like trying to tell people that gypsies don't have psychic powers. They want to believe they do, and that's it.
The irony in this post is astounding. What if it works both ways? What if it is a matter of faith for both sides, and you are the ones believing gypsy fairies? Your post just further proves my point. There's no argument that Terran players could provide that would convince Protoss players that is the case that TvP is harder micro wise for Terran. It has become a matter of faith. If that's not the case, please help us all and answer: what would it take for Protoss players even consider the possibility that Terran is harder micro wise in TvP? Completely ignoring the fact that as Protoss are a-moving chargelots and colossus they're required to stare at their proxy/base to warp units/cboost gateways while Terran can stare at their army/tab through production. I don't even know why this is an argument. Melee units can't be micro'ed unless they're fighting another melee unit. Trying to one up Protoss when your race is entirely ranged units which can all be micro'ed, with stim to top it off. Does it mean you're better than Protoss of similar league rank because your race grants you more control within the nature of a match-up? I agree with this as well, there isnt really very much micro you can do with zealots versus bio so you kind of have to just a-move them, however the luxury that terran has is that during a battle they can hit their production hotkey and queue up a bunch of units while a protoss player needs to divert their attention away from the battle to warp in units at a proxy pylon. The amount of micro that goes into a single battle is not the defining characteristic of which race is easier to play. I don't agree with that line of thought since as protoss you can choose using either warpgates or gateways if you really care about being even ground with terran without going back to your nearest pylon and warp-in round of units. I think you need to think about what you just said.... telling protoss not to use warpgates..... I'm not saying that it is a disadvantage to have to look away to warp in units I'm saying that it is the nature of how protoss is played and how the matchup works. One race doesnt habe it easier than the other I'm saying that your attention needs to be allocated to different things depending on the race you're playing and micro in a large battle is not the ultimate deciding factor in who is going to win a game. I am not saying what using gateways is better, but in that situation where both armies clash together you have the choice on using them to so you can focus more on keeping eye on your army. So I would consider it a choice of having yourself keeping some attention on warping units or having more attention on the battle while still being able to doing macro the same way terran does during the engagement. It is definitely not a nature of how protoss plays, it is about how the player plays with the protoss. No one is complaining that warp-gates are too hard to use. It's egotistical Terrans ranting on how imbalanced protoss are because they're supposedly much easier to play, completely ignoring the difference in mechanics. Also, your suggestion is completely retarded. It's the nature of the fucking race. Get out of here. I don't even want to do the math on how much supply you will lose just building out of gateways as opposed to warpgates, which are superior in every conceivable way. If you have any decent hotkey setup, you can manage warp-ins. It's basically like suggesting a zerg make multiple in-base hatches instead of having to deal with injecting mid fight. I think you missed the point here, and your first sentence is hilarious! I haven't complained about imbalance(maybe others have?) more so at the skill it takes to control protoss units over terran. This is my experience and opinion from playing both races, ofcourse i play terran more but to me it was a lot easier to control toss units and be more efficient with them. First time i ever had to blink micro, i did it like a boss, not sure if thats from having to split terran armies or what, but i was even impressed with myself(before that i thought i was hard). You make a good point, maybe the mechanics is what makes it easier??
I'm not suggesting imbalance in the sense it's broken and should be patched, but, the GENERALIZED idea is that because protoss units don't require nearly as much micro (i.e. they CAN'T be micro'ed) theres a notable difference in difficulty; AN IMBALANCE, if you will. I've already said Protoss units don't have nearly the potential to be micro'ed as much as Terran's; a much more convenient spin of words, than say, 'Terran units require more micro.' Both are correct statements.
|
every race needs micro at high level of play, micro isn't just clicking back and forth and doing stuttersteps.
Army positioning engagement, good army composition, setups, all that counts on micro and is crucial for doing any good @playing protoss for example (counts for every race of course)
same for zerg with setting up good flanks, setting up traps and so on.
That like me saying terran is OP because they have mules that protoss and zerg don't.
Each race plays fundamentally different. Learn the strengths of your race and play on it hard.
That like zerg saying them having to manage larva injects makes zerg up for the lower races because players are worse managing that.
every race has things that are only doable in highest level play and can balance out a matchup.
Heros PvZ for example
think at the beginning of SC2 where we saw Protoss players losing because they fucking missed a forcefield on a ramp.
Terran playing only marine scv all-ins because of hatch first and what every.
Did the game stay the same? no, players evolved, strategies became alot more long term transition, transitions, gamesense improved and will improve even more and of course also in the lower levels.
If you really think this game would stay the same in the next 6 months even if balance patches would not be done, your kidding your self.
It the attitude that only bio "works" and you have to "cripple" the other races early to have a chance is what limits the growth of terran players right now imho.
|
On December 10 2011 05:57 KingPwny wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2011 05:17 aksfjh wrote: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. Fuckin EPIC post. U have reiterated my thoughts on this exactly. Terrans receive a lotta complaints cos of Korean Terrans (so much that I actually hope that MVP and MMA lose now, just ot get a break from the forum complainers). And I sit back and watch as my low APM micro and macro can never go to that pro lvl, and everyone complaining about how great Terran is (even with the current winstats on TLPD). I dont udnerstand this hatred for Terran. If they nerf Terran again, it will be almost unplayable for us lower than diamond "noobs". And ppl who ladder ACTIVELY know how few Terrans there are in top 20 in the divisions or generally just on ladder. (I am on platinum rank 4 EU ladder).
And the exact same statement is true for every other race as well. I watch the Korean Tournament metagame and go like "fuck yeah I want to play this build", and then when I do it die because it is bad vs 6gate and a commited marine/tank push which never occur on high level of play, but they are pretty much the only builds a zerg is ever facing on the ladder.
And you know, I get those insane advantages as zerg sometimes and think "let's just end it here with a bust. His only choice right now to catch up is to cut corners insanely. There is no playing safe for him anymore." And then the only things those players do is always play safe and every attempt to end a game before Broodlords (or 2mutalisks per marine) has to fail for zerg.
Hell, the first few times I opened 3hatch vs Protoss I always ended up on 20less drones than those great korean macro zergs had had at 10min. Even if you watch Idra vs NesTea mirroring each other at the last MLG, you will still always see NesTea getting a slight droneadvantage. That's how hard it is to play zerg, not even Idra can drone as well as NesTea...
And I'm pretty sure that Protoss has similar problems (ever seen how many sentries those ladder protoss players build, because their FFs are always bad, so they need more FFs to begin with?
Just because you need a ton of clicks in TvX battles, doesn't mean that other races also don't have stuff that is at least as important and at least as hard...
|
On December 10 2011 00:23 Tyrant0 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2011 23:11 ZorBa.G wrote:On December 09 2011 22:24 Big J wrote:On December 09 2011 08:45 ZorBa.G wrote:On December 09 2011 08:19 Big J wrote:On December 09 2011 07:25 ZorBa.G wrote:
The biggest problem here is;
The skill gap between Wood league and Professional level for Protoss is MUCH smaller then the skill gap for Terran.
What grinds my gears is that Terran is continued with this burden to micro more and more as they keep getting nerfed on Protoss accord.
I think it's obvious what the solution is;
Fix this shit design of a race (Protoss) Blizzard and stop nerfing Terran. The only thing you guys are doing is increasing the skill gap for Terrans whilst minimizing it for Toss. why is the skill gap for Terrans that big in your opinion? I myself as a mid-high master zerg player have no problem with playing Terran around mid-high diamond level without any micro/multitasking training for them... On the other hand I have huge troubles with forcefielding, my stalker kiting usually always leads to a lot of hull damage and I keep on missing warp ins. So from my personal experiences, I would say that Protoss is way harder to play overall than Terran for me, at least if I'm not doing a plain colossus or gateway allin. (note this is ONLY personal experience and note that maybe "zerg skills" simply transfer better to "terran skills" than to "protoss skills") On December 09 2011 07:25 ZorBa.G wrote:
I'm not getting paid to balance the game out, you are Blizzard. Stop trying to find the easy way out trying to nerf Terran, I think it's time to realize that you really screwed up the Toss race in the first place and it's becoming evident you need to fix it.
EDIT: And who is the Einstein that came up with the idea of warp mechanics? Seriously, doesn't it occur to you that one of the fine aspects of RTS games is the timing of moving your army from your base on foot to your opponents base. It's like you designed this race, then went SHIT we have a big problem here (no one new about before it was released) and said oh well "lets just let these guys teleport in front of the Terran/Zergs base." Smart idea indeed! Apparently Starcraft 2 is an RTS and apparently there is warp in in it and apparently it is one of the best games out there, for forum posters like you and me probably the best (else we would play and write about something else). In other great RTS games you will find similar abilities to warp in ("ambush" from C&C generals f.e.), or simply machanics that curcumvent army movement at all (nukes looooooooooooooooooong rang artillery) and even in Starcraft:BW and Starcraft 2 there is another such mechanism that works against such timings: Nydus Network. So I guess no, those walk out timings are not "one of the fine apects of RTS", but "one of the fine aspects of Race X in game Y". PS: Even with all of Warp Ins problems, I love the idea behind it... It just makes Protoss feel different from Terran gameplaywise. (each race no has unique production: larva, "normal RTS rally", warp in) Why is the skill gap that big in my opinion? - IIRC we have 1 Terran going to Blizzcon so far... MVP. - Name me some outstanding foreign Terrans atm? The only ones doing well are the top Terrans in GSL jjakji, MVP, fin (ForGG) looks promising. In Korea. - Look at the general consensus on SC2 forums, I must be imagining things when I see so many Terrans complaining about late game T v P - In my own experiences where my go to build was a 1 rax fe where I "had" an 80% win rate against Toss until recently with the Protoss who now headbutts their keyboard into the 1 A Chargelot/Archon compositon.... I still have not won 1 single game against Toss yet (in the late game). So I consider myself at 0% win rate. Yes I do win still, however it is only when I go for the all-in builds now. - It's not just me saying this, browse over the forums more and you will also find pro gamers saying the same thing if at any time you might think what I say lacks credibility. I can go on for ages with this........ To you next point; Stalker kiting? Force fielding? really?...... You need to come play Terran..... I'm not going to elaborate on this much further because I think we both know here that what you said is utter bullshit in a fail attempt to rebut. I urge you to download ANY professional replay of your choice where the Terran engages a Protoss army, check out the apm whilst engaging. You can't tell me there is much difference from a Pro toss player 1 A'ing a chargelot/archon army then a wood leaguer doing the same thing. Your argument for the whole warp mechanics is pathetic.... it really seems like your trying to grab onto anything here to try and rebut me. Trying to compare nydus network to warp in? Really dude? Come on... Yeah and now I could ask you to name outstanding Protoss players in the GSL last season: Oz... that's it. I could ask you to look at the general consensus in any SC2 forum from the other races about terran: ZvT: "Zerg has to outplay Terran 20mins to get 1one broodlord push. If it fails mass ghost is gonna win against any zerg composition" PvT: "Protoss can't do anything all game long until it has a 200supply deathball, which can't be split and the moment you move out 4marauders kill your whole base in 5sec" You're not imagining that Terrans are whining all over the place, just as much as Protoss and Zergs are whining. (btw I wish any Terran forum poster would stick to all the "zerg players are whiners, terrans would never do that"-stuff they said over time. But apparently, Terrans are just as whiny as any other race. Maybe even more. They are whining about not having completly broken stats anymore, while Protoss and Zergs at least had statistics on their side for whining at some times) I could tell you that if you had 80% winrate against Protoss, you were either way better than your protoss opponents OR the game was pretty broken before. If you only consider hardcore macro wins to be "true wins", I urge you to go and cut corners hardcore (15CC,15CC, 15CC, 15CC as a BO...). You really shouldn't lose any game anymore. As I hadn't checked Pro-APM for a long time I was courious about the "Terran Pros have higher in battle APM in PvT" and opened a random Puma vs Hero game (from IPL). Your statement is simply true. Heros APM were better overall and his in battle peaks were 300-400 against 250-300 from Puma, but with Puma having a little more solid in battle APM (always above 200, while Hero's APM were sometimes wildly going to up to 350+ and then dropping again under 100 for a second). My arguement about Warp In was focusing on the part were you declared everything bullshit that wasn't army movement across the map. Nydus worm is an example for that. Anyways, this whole discussion is pathetic. Terran is nearly as much represented than any other race in any ladder league. Terran is overrepresented in the GSL and other Korean Tournaments (= the highest level of play) and well represented in most tournaments worldwide(like any race has it's better and worse tournaments) The winrate stats of Korea (=highest level) are still over 50% and the matchup that is said to be the "best balanced" (TvZ) is and has nearly always been hugely in favor of Terran. It's only TvP that has gone from completly broken in favor of Terran to Protossfavored FOR ONLY ONE MONTH. There is absolutly no data that would suggest that Terran has any major flaw at any level of play... I'm sorry dude, but for the first couple of paragraphs all I read was blah blah GSL blah blah.... Did you forget that I was merely talking about the skill gap of Terran and Toss at lower to professional levels? Secondly, funny thing is I was never much of a ghost user before the emp nerf.... and yes, I won long macro games without it. After the emp nerf, I learned really fast to start using it due to double forge builds..... and that doesn't even help me. But my personal QQ here and my own flaws are not the point. The point I'm trying to get across here is, I don't believe it's right that a Chargelot/Archon composition should only require a 1 a whereas the Terran has to work so much harder during the engagement. I'm going to say this again..... Nydus Worm? Really? Your still trying to hang on to this? I'm still not even going to bother with this, it's quiet pathetic. Your right, this whole discussion is pathetic. There is no point trying to talk to people that can't see things from your side of the story and are only interested in finding any pathetic way to rebut you. It really is a waste of time. If you have taken any notice to what I have been saying all along, my main argument has been about the Chargelot/Archon composition. I'm sure I speak for many Terrans here when I say that there is nothing worse then trading armies with that composition and then suffer a whole new wave of Chargelot warp-in straight after. Especially knowing during that whole time you were frantically smashing the shit out of your keyboard whilst the Protoss is having a cup of coffee back at his base macro'ing up. But yeah, lets see how things pan out over the next few months. I'm dying to know what that new age T v P composition is! I'm sorry mods, I'm sure there is one of you who wants to give me a warning or whatever, but this is my last post in this thread. I don't like talking to brick walls. You'd think he'd be ENRAGED at how little micro most zerg units require. But the double forge is the flavor of the month and is actually flipping the meta game on it's head so now Terran as a race is fucked because it's harder to micro. Zerg apparently isn't doing as hot so no one gives a shit. Neither makes the slightest difference at the highest levels. I'll tell you what's bullshit. How much more difficult it is to defend drops/multi-pronged attacks than it is to shift queue a medivac or two; stim when they arrive.
Zergs takes very little micro to play well as well, agreed. The difference is that the terran doesn't have to extend all of his effort on the zerg attacks for an extended period of time to keep up. You simply split your marines, snipe the banes and make sure the mutas don't have free reign over your tanks, and you're done. If you're fighting protoss you're going to be kiting zealots for the next 20 seconds nonstop while the protoss simply has to a-click your general direction once in a while and do other things.
On December 10 2011 01:19 Xalorian wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 00:55 Superneenja wrote:
I don't care if I lose, but its just sad when you go watch a replay vs P and you see yourself having to micro crazy in an engagement and you switch to P camera view and they just a move their chargelots and archons. Sadly the only micro I see P doing is moving their lots back to not get kited...its even more stupid to watch when they have a few storms in there. Looking at everything else we are pretty even yet somehow they come out ahead with very minimal micro involved. And if i do majority of the engagement all they have to do is fall back to a pylon while my units are walking across the screen... Personally I'd be a little embarrassed playing toss and in MY OPINION the lack of skill it takes to get wins. Before playing seriously I randomed played P and Z quite a bit in 1s and 2s, and even back then i didn't think either took as much skill as T, seems like any little mistake would cost you the game, regardless of mules, because mules dont make you build units faster. It's arguably true that Terran is mechanically harder than protoss at lower level when you basically have a harder time with your hotkeys and with your hand speeds, but that's pretty much it, in my opinion It's actually easier, at least under master league, to get win as terran, since you can just choose a build and execute the same build every single game without going away from that. If toss don't want to all in, they have to adapt and be reactive. Zerg even more. And it's always the terran that dictate the speed of the game. No matter what league you actually are, if you are not GM, you will have a 50% win rate, since it's the way that the ladder is working. If you have more than 50% win rate, you will get promoted, no matter what. So, actually, there's no way to know if races are balance or not under GM. There's easier and harder race to play at lower level, but it has nothing to do with balance. And if I look at my super long list of replay on SC2Gears, Zerg have the higher replay and average unspent ressource in Bronze-Plat. Terran have the lower. It could means that Zerg is harder and Terran is the easiest. But this thread is about tournament level stats, and in pretty much every replay I watched recently, almost all Protoss who had success, had higher APM than their Terran opponent. Sometime WAY HIGHER.
In TvP it's the protoss dictating the matchup, not the other way around. Also, there is a way to check for race "balance", and that is checking the numbers of people playing the race at any given ranking.
|
On December 10 2011 06:29 Dalavita wrote:
In TvP it's the protoss dictating the matchup, not the other way around. Also, there is a way to check for race "balance", and that is checking the numbers of people playing the race at any given ranking.
this statement is wrong on so many levels...
|
On December 10 2011 02:40 Xalorian wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 02:35 aksfjh wrote:On December 10 2011 00:37 Xalorian wrote:On December 10 2011 00:32 gruff wrote:On December 10 2011 00:25 Xalorian wrote:
Terran were dominating Toss for almost a year before Nov. All this time, Terran were just saying in EVERY SINGLE balance thread, that Toss should just Learn 2 play, and that Terran were more skilled and that was why.
Now that Toss had the high end of the stick... for only a MONTH... they are crying to the nerf.
Hypocrites?
I'm not even playing Toss, but for god fucking sake, can we wait another month or two before crying at the imbalance? There was not even that many games played during that month. And it's the most balanced month yet. 49,1% win rate for terran, how can they cry when they were in the complete denial when they were at 58%? I don't even get it. It's possible it's different people crying you know?  I'm sure that if we actually look at it, many terran crying were telling protoss to L2P in older thread. It's the case on the official SC2 forum, that's for sure. You mean Terrans who thought Protoss was fine or great before the last patch are complaining that Protoss is broken now? Those crazy people, being consistent with their view of TvP! So, when Terran are saying to Protoss to L2P when stats are showing a 40% win rate is fine, but Protoss saying to Terran to L2P when Terran are at 49% win rate is not, right?
If you thought Protoss was more powerful than what was shown in TLPD graphs, you would say L2P as well. Meanwhile, if you thought Terran TLPD dominance was actually more of a reflection of Korean dominance, then you would think L2P comments coming from people who play a race that you believe is underutilized would be quite insulting.
The only people who contradict themselves in "balance discussions" are those that repeat "L2P" regardless of swings in results.
|
On December 10 2011 06:41 freetgy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 06:29 Dalavita wrote:
In TvP it's the protoss dictating the matchup, not the other way around. Also, there is a way to check for race "balance", and that is checking the numbers of people playing the race at any given ranking.
this statement is wrong on so many levels...
Thank you for proving me wrong!
Protoss got the more aggressive all-ins and openings, and they set the pace for the mid game, they decide what path they want to tech to and the terran has to react with the correct compositions and play based on it.
Terran is the reactive race in tvp.
|
in a balanced game the have to be balance swings in positive and negative for all races and matchups.
if one races always stays dominant in a match up that is a true exposure of imbalance.
it isn't balanced when one races always shave like 53 vs. 47 the whole year balance comes
From the fluctuations between those intervals, because this shows that each races has the tools change the metagame at least for a short time.
and this month is the first time the rates for terran are going even close to down under 50% and this was needed for a very long time and needs to go at least for some weeks hopefully so the terran players start to evolve because they are forced to because 0815 play isn't working anymore.
|
On December 10 2011 06:46 freetgy wrote:
in a balanced game the have to be balance swings in positive and negative for all races and matchups.
if one races always stays dominant in a match up that is a true exposure of imbalance.
it isn't balanced when one races always shave like 53 vs. 47 the whole year balance comes
From the fluctuations between those intervals, because this shows that each races has the tools change the metagame at least for a short time.
and this month is the first time the rates for terran are going even close to down under 50% and this was needed for a very long time and needs to go at least for some weeks hopefully so the terran players start to evolve because they are forced to because 0815 play isn't working anymore.
While normally I agree with the last paragraph, I am hesitant in this case. When you look at patch and map history, what you see is a bunch of nerfs for Terran which greatly alter the direction of the metagame. However, when you look at the graph, at worst you would see Terran numbers within a few percentage points after the patch. Every time the metagame was patched away from Terran, they evolved to find new ways to win and stay on top.
However, for the first time, Terran finds itself not able to adapt quickly enough to the most recent changes. What was once a gradual decline over the course of 2-3 months, bringing rates back into relative balance, we now have a matchup that has swung almost 10 percentage points in a single month against Terran. When you look at the history of all the matchups, that is HUGE and not generally a characteristic of Terran response to forced metagame shifts.
To bring that into perspective: the next** biggest swing in a matchup came in January 2011, TvZ, of almost 5 percentage points.
**If you go back further, you get some results in the 8 percentage point range, but that was in Sept-Oct 2010, which can probably be explained by pure evolution of tournament play and the emergence of Korean GSL influence.
|
On December 10 2011 07:08 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 06:46 freetgy wrote:
in a balanced game the have to be balance swings in positive and negative for all races and matchups.
if one races always stays dominant in a match up that is a true exposure of imbalance.
it isn't balanced when one races always shave like 53 vs. 47 the whole year balance comes
From the fluctuations between those intervals, because this shows that each races has the tools change the metagame at least for a short time.
and this month is the first time the rates for terran are going even close to down under 50% and this was needed for a very long time and needs to go at least for some weeks hopefully so the terran players start to evolve because they are forced to because 0815 play isn't working anymore. While normally I agree with the last paragraph, I am hesitant in this case. When you look at patch and map history, what you see is a bunch of nerfs for Terran which greatly alter the direction of the metagame. However, when you look at the graph, at worst you would see Terran numbers within a few percentage points after the patch. Every time the metagame was patched away from Terran, they evolved to find new ways to win and stay on top. However, for the first time, Terran finds itself not able to adapt quickly enough to the most recent changes. What was once a gradual decline over the course of 2-3 months, bringing rates back into relative balance, we now have a matchup that has swung almost 10 percentage points in a single month against Terran. When you look at the history of all the matchups, that is HUGE and not generally a characteristic of Terran response to forced metagame shifts. To bring that into perspective: the next** biggest swing in a matchup came in January 2011, TvZ, of almost 5 percentage points. **If you go back further, you get some results in the 8 percentage point range, but that was in Sept-Oct 2010, which can probably be explained by pure evolution of tournament play and the emergence of Korean GSL influence.
Word!
|
On December 10 2011 07:08 aksfjh wrote:
However, for the first time, Terran finds itself not able to adapt quickly enough to the most recent changes. What was once a gradual decline over the course of 2-3 months, bringing rates back into relative balance, we now have a matchup that has swung almost 10 percentage points in a single month against Terran. When you look at the history of all the matchups, that is HUGE and not generally a characteristic of Terran response to forced metagame shifts.
To bring that into perspective: the next** biggest swing in a matchup came in January 2011, TvZ, of almost 5 percentage points.
**If you go back further, you get some results in the 8 percentage point range, but that was in Sept-Oct 2010, which can probably be explained by pure evolution of tournament play and the emergence of Korean GSL influence.
while i agree, you can't make balance claims with just 1 month of data, and negate all past experiance with it.
and still terran dropping down for a while has no impact on over all game balance. It yet has to prove himself to be an issue.
And this is very doubtful because terran is the most solid and well designed race of the three.
We still have 2 terran champions on the highest tourney levels after all and in the end this is what counts, the capability on winning tournaments.
|
Terran champions...yes that is all we we hear about. Terran so good when u are a skilled player. How about when ur not from korea?
How about we look at race distribution from silver to masters:
http://sc2ranks.com/stats/league/eu/1/all/14
(lol @ 40 % zerg in GM, that says a lot I think!)
Dya see how it's represented in EU? Could that be cos maybe Terran isn't OP and as hard or easy to play as other races?
|
On December 10 2011 07:26 KingPwny wrote:Terran champions...yes that is all we we hear about. Terran so good when u are a skilled player. How about when ur not from korea? How about we look at race distribution from silver to masters: http://sc2ranks.com/stats/league/eu/1/all/14(lol @ 40 % zerg in GM, that says a lot I think!) Dya see how it's represented in EU? Could that be cos maybe Terran isn't OP and as hard or easy to play as other races?
Well Zerg is more played than Terran overall in EU. Stats are similar starting down from Gold up to GM.
|
On December 10 2011 06:16 freetgy wrote:+ Show Spoiler +every race needs micro at high level of play, micro isn't just clicking back and forth and doing stuttersteps.
Army positioning engagement, good army composition, setups, all that counts on micro and is crucial for doing any good @playing protoss for example (counts for every race of course)
same for zerg with setting up good flanks, setting up traps and so on.
That like me saying terran is OP because they have mules that protoss and zerg don't.
Each race plays fundamentally different. Learn the strengths of your race and play on it hard.
That like zerg saying them having to manage larva injects makes zerg up for the lower races because players are worse managing that.
every race has things that are only doable in highest level play and can balance out a matchup.
Heros PvZ for example
think at the beginning of SC2 where we saw Protoss players losing because they fucking missed a forcefield on a ramp.
Terran playing only marine scv all-ins because of hatch first and what every.
Did the game stay the same? no, players evolved, strategies became alot more long term transition, transitions, gamesense improved and will improve even more and of course also in the lower levels.
If you really think this game would stay the same in the next 6 months even if balance patches would not be done, your kidding your self.
It the attitude that only bio "works" and you have to "cripple" the other races early to have a chance is what limits the growth of terran players right now imho.
While this is all in essence much too generalized to attempt to debate it's accuracy, blanketing a vague sense of equilibrium upon all the races discredits any legitimate arguments. Alot of the comparisons aren't even relevant, and provide very little to no substance.
Also, your literal interpretation of micro applies to every race, yet neither race can stutter step as much as Terran can, which is basically in all compositions in all match-ups discluding the rare occurrence of mech.
|
On December 10 2011 06:46 Dalavita wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 06:41 freetgy wrote:On December 10 2011 06:29 Dalavita wrote:
In TvP it's the protoss dictating the matchup, not the other way around. Also, there is a way to check for race "balance", and that is checking the numbers of people playing the race at any given ranking.
this statement is wrong on so many levels... Thank you for proving me wrong! Protoss got the more aggressive all-ins and openings, and they set the pace for the mid game, they decide what path they want to tech to and the terran has to react with the correct compositions and play based on it. Terran is the reactive race in tvp.
Protoss does not dictate anything in PvT until lategame. Terran has more aggressive options in the beginning and midgame.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
