EPTOn February 03 2012 00:39 Felnarion wrote:
I think the "problem" in PvZ is Protoss reliance on FFE.
I think the "problem" in PvZ is Protoss reliance on FFE.
biggest fail post in the whole thread lol.
TLPD Winrate Charts: January - Page 17
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Drowsy
United States4876 Posts
biggest fail post in the whole thread lol. | ||
|
Drowsy
United States4876 Posts
On February 03 2012 08:22 Jermstuddog wrote: Stargates would appear to be the area with the most room for improvement. Phoenixes are already plenty effective vs mutas (though protoss players inexplicably think otherwise) unfortunately they suck vs pretty much everything else. So... where do you apply the fix? The only realistic place I can see is the Void Ray, but that is calling for a whole redesign from the ground up. And considering the things Blizzard has shown in their HotS interview, they're not looking forward to reworking existing units... If trends continue, Blizzard may have already written themselves into quite the corner. No, they do suck against mutas. They require huge resource commitments that make any tech switches complete death and to add insult to injury they barely trade efficiently against mutas on a resource basis because the glaive bounce becomes so powerful when the groups are large. If you want to blindly open 2 star to not have to deal with mutas, you can find 10 phoenixes annihilated in a short period of time by 3-4 infestors. Add splash damage upgrade for phoenixes (vs light only or something) at the cybernetics core. But honestly I still think pvz is the most fun matchup to play for me personally and it's my best other than the mirror. | ||
|
TheTurk
United States732 Posts
ZvP what? | ||
|
Yoshi Kirishima
United States10383 Posts
even international looks great, tho ZvP is a little off, but it's still within 60% at least Also I'm surprised TvP is actually pretty even, with all the complaints that TvP is really hard. | ||
|
Enzymatic
Canada1301 Posts
On February 03 2012 12:20 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: WOW korea looks really good! even international looks great, tho ZvP is a little off, but it's still within 60% at least Also I'm surprised TvP is actually pretty even, with all the complaints that TvP is really hard. Not sure how you can say international looks "great" when one match-up is more imbalanced then any match-up has really ever been in the history of this game. | ||
|
Enzymatic
Canada1301 Posts
On February 03 2012 08:12 zdfgucker wrote: People will adapt. There shouldn't be any nerfs or buffs soon. Zergs complain about ZvP, tosses complain about PvZ, so it's all fine, no? Zergs complain about.... Everything. Working as intended. | ||
|
Talack
Canada2742 Posts
Always entertaining | ||
|
FuzzyJAM
Scotland9300 Posts
Besides that, you get a bunch of pros to flip coins and you'll find that people with blue eyes will beat people with brown eyes about 50% of the time. It would be "balanced", but for a pro with a 75% win record in normal games, they would obviously consider it far harder to win than it is for one with a 40% win record. Now, that's an extreme example, but hopefully it explains why a MU can be described as "hard" even if there is close to a 50/50 win split. | ||
|
Sajaki
Canada1135 Posts
| ||
|
Hoodlum
United States350 Posts
On February 02 2012 17:56 isleyofthenorth wrote: lol zvt has been in negative for zerg 12 CONSECUTIVE months People like this crack my up, It's not that big of a difference, sure its a bit positive on the Terran side but in the grand scheme of things it seems to be pretty even, excluding pvz but even then it's not as bad as it LOOKS in the graph. | ||
|
nttea
Sweden4353 Posts
On February 03 2012 13:08 Hoodlum wrote: People like this crack my up, It's not that big of a difference, sure its a bit positive on the Terran side but in the grand scheme of things it seems to be pretty even, excluding pvz but even then it's not as bad as it LOOKS in the graph. you say its not as bad as it looks like theres some obvious reason why that is... please enlighten me (the pvz part) | ||
|
ChriS-X
Malaysia1374 Posts
| ||
|
Aterons_toss
Romania1275 Posts
| ||
|
ravenKRaz
United States580 Posts
On February 03 2012 10:02 GLLuvz wrote: i like how people say "theres not much diffrence between the Korean and US/EU pros" yet once stats comes out, and EU/US has xxxxx more games then Korea to take stats from they say its wrong cuz Koreans Are IMBA. eventho its way WAY less games to take from in Korea. The words of a Overrated player are meaningless. rofl so many QQers in this thread T_T | ||
|
TheDougler
Canada8324 Posts
[B] Stargates would appear to be the area with the most room for improvement. Phoenixes are already plenty effective vs mutas (though protoss players inexplicably think otherwise) unfortunately they suck vs pretty much everything else. Still, this doesn't leave much room for improvement as Zerg has trouble shooting up in general. Buffing the Phoenix in any way would likely cause 1) mutas to become completely non-viable in the MU, 2) lead to an unstoppable air-based harass which Zerg has no way of answering, or 3) both. The Void Ray seems to be more of a gimmick than anything, I don't care what race we're talking about. The Carrier is starting to see viability in the late game vs Zerg, but Blizzard has already stated intentions of scrapping the unit completely. Same goes for the Mothership. No man, sorry but as a Zerg player I have to tell you phoenixes are NOT effective vs mutas. The thing is this, you need to do some combination of three things to have phoenixes be as effective as mutas: A. Be on same upgrades. B. Have ~equal numbers of pheonixes as mutas in general, I'd say you need at least 80% of the muta's numbers. (That's an estimate, if somebody has the exact number let me know). Obviously this varies hugely depending on ability to micro, which is one of the things that makes balancing phoenixes so damn tricky. Technically one phoenix can kill infinite mutas, but in reality, you need around 80% of the muta player's numbers. C. Be able to have your phoenixes fight the mutas. But there's a problem with each of these. A. With the exception of shield upgrades --granted, that's a very notable exception-- none of the upgrades you get your phoenixes benefit the rest of your army. B. Any supply spent on phoenixes is resources that could have been spent on your ground army. Without a sizable ground force you WILL get overrun. (By lings or roaches usually). C. Lastly, when it is finally time to kill your opponent you're faced with a dillemna. Do you leave the phonixes at home so you don't lose your whole fucking base? Or do you bring them along with the hopes that the game doesn't end in a base race? Like, look at Destiny vs Mana in the IPL. Destiny made Mana look like a chump but what could mana do!? 53 mutas!? And Destiny could resupply easy. How long do you think it would take Mana to chrono out enough phoenixes to be able to fight that? He'd need at least three starports each of them just mass producing phoenixes. | ||
|
Mzimzim
United States221 Posts
 | ||
|
NerdCRAFT
United States53 Posts
| ||
|
Amui
Canada10567 Posts
On February 03 2012 14:39 ChriS-X wrote: is there a version of the chart where it goes from 0-100%? i want to see the actual relative differences when its not limited to a range of 20% The zerg bar would look roughly 50% larger than the protoss bar. --------------- ---------- Something like that. But honestly there's a good reason the author makes the charts like that, and it's because it makes the more balanced matchups(almost all of them) far, far more legible. | ||
|
windsupernova
Mexico5280 Posts
On February 03 2012 14:50 Mzimzim wrote: what are the TvT winrates. I seem to be losing all of those T always loses there.  | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On February 03 2012 14:47 TheDougler wrote: No man, sorry but as a Zerg player I have to tell you phoenixes are NOT effective vs mutas. The thing is this, you need to do some combination of three things to have phoenixes be as effective as mutas: A. Be on same upgrades. B. Have ~equal numbers of pheonixes as mutas in general, I'd say you need at least 80% of the muta's numbers. (That's an estimate, if somebody has the exact number let me know). Obviously this varies hugely depending on ability to micro, which is one of the things that makes balancing phoenixes so damn tricky. Technically one phoenix can kill infinite mutas, but in reality, you need around 80% of the muta player's numbers. C. Be able to have your phoenixes fight the mutas. But there's a problem with each of these. A. With the exception of shield upgrades --granted, that's a very notable exception-- none of the upgrades you get your phoenixes benefit the rest of your army. B. Any supply spent on phoenixes is resources that could have been spent on your ground army. Without a sizable ground force you WILL get overrun. (By lings or roaches usually). C. Lastly, when it is finally time to kill your opponent you're faced with a dillemna. Do you leave the phonixes at home so you don't lose your whole fucking base? Or do you bring them along with the hopes that the game doesn't end in a base race? A. Pretty easy to acquire with chronoboost. Upgrade armor, because it denies 3*1 (mutabounces), while the attack upgrades of mutalisks only give +1/+0.333/+0.111, so +1phoenix armor > +2attack mutas in the direct engagement. B. You need around 60% if you aim for a 1a trade. If you micro with 60% or 1a with 80% you should stomp them in a pure muta vs phoenix battle. But the problem is that those phoenix dont help you vs zerglings, and zerglings > any P nontech unit, so you still need to go for templar, which is the big problem when going phoenix. C. Muta players face this decision all the time, when deciding between a muta/ling baserace or a defense. But with a phoenix build you should simply have a good idea where his mutas are, so there just shouldn't be a "sudden" mutalisk counterattack. The phoenix vs mutalisk is fine, the problem is that phoenix are not good enough against anything else when you go reactive phoenix vs mutas. (at least not if you try to do it the way we usually see it: of less bases/ressources compared to the zerg; after wasting a ton of money/units on a gatway attack) Phoenix vs Mutalisk Testbattles: + Show Spoiler + just for the funnsies I tested some "1a, 60-66%Phoenix"-constellations today (for those who think the phoenix loses the battle vs mutas), to find out more with more precision how many Phoenix you need to win the 1a battle: 2surving Phoenix in: 3P vs 5M at 0/0; (60%) 3surving Phoenix in: 6P vs 10M at 0/0; (60%) 5surving Phoenix in: 10P vs 15M at 1/1; (66%) 6surving Phoenix in: 16P vs 24M at 2/2; (66%) 14surving Phoenix in: 24P vs 32M at 2/2; (75%) 11surving Mutalisk in: 24P vs 40M at 2/2; (60%) 2surving Phoenix in: 24P vs 36M at 3/3; (66%) from the last results I would say, you really want to have more than those 66% in a straight up battle, because then you will just crush through with the zerg unable to ever go mutalisks again due to so many Phoenix surving, while the moment you engage the mutalisks with too few Phoenix (<66% unmicroed), you have the same problem with Phoenix yourself. I guess this is the main problem with Phoenix vs mutas: If you ever fall behind in the production - which you will be from the start if you start the stargates around the time the spire is finishing - it's extremly hard to get into those 66% relations you need to start engaging/hunting the mutas. | ||
| ||
