|
Please DISCUSS the changes and the impact they will have on gameplay.
Straight up whining and bitching will get you a ban, no exceptions. |
Was Snipe really that over-used? Seemed to me that 9 times out of 10 Marauders and Vikings were used and were the better unit choice, except for artillery sniping I guess. But even then you needed enough Vikings to actually kill the Brood Lords, and to that end I'm not quite sure why they're nerfing Ghosts and not Vikings.... otherwise these seem quite fair.
|
As a rank 8 Masters Terran, I have to say this patch is garbage.
I'm switching to Protoss. A-Click here I come! GG terrans lol
User was warned for this post
|
On February 11 2012 13:17 mrtomjones wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2012 12:53 SolidMoose wrote:On February 11 2012 12:48 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On February 11 2012 12:14 Jormundr wrote:+ Show Spoiler +From : http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=309042This is taken from a sample size of 102 TvZ matchups Since this was taken from MLG Providence, I will assume that this sample is almost entirely representative of the top 2% of players (masters and grandmasters). This graph provides evidence that ghosts do not 'counter' tier 3 zerg. Considering the whole broodlord infestor vs ghost marine tank viking dance usually starts at or after 20 minutes, why were terrans not winning here? I am pretty sure that snipe efficiency was figured out pretty well this summer (when we first started to see MVP using it profusely, especially against ultralisk comps). So; Question: If ghosts are so strong, why didn't terrans have a positive win-rate after the 20 minute mark? Answer: Ghosts are incredibly expensive, and require tech lab rax instead of reactor rax (important in a marine dominated matchup) Ghosts actually happen to be the most expensive unit per supply in the terran arsenal (I would argue that 2 supply makes them too easy to mass in TvZ, but 3 supply would have too massive of an effect on TvP) For example, to build the scary ball of ghosts that "counters zerg t3" (as I have read over and over again in this thread) I will assume that they mean a ball of: 15 Ghosts 25 ghosts 3000 minerals 5000 minerals 1500 gas 2500 gas 30 supply 50 supply 120 to 200 seconds* 200 to 330 seconds* * note that the first value corresponds to the mad terran player who just happens to have 5 tech lab rax on hand. Second number is for a terran who has 3. 5 tech lab rax would be slightly unusual in a matchup that is marine dominated So without the ghost, what do you suggest to counter broodlord corruptor infestor? m̶a̶r̶i̶n̶e̶s̶ 1 full energy infestor can kill 35 marines, with enough energy left for two infested terrans. OVERPOWERED, I DON'T LIKE IT, COUNTERS TERRAN T1, NEEDS A NERF (etcetera) ̶t̶h̶o̶r̶s̶ 4 broodlords kill 4 micro'd thors with 2 full health broods left v̶i̶k̶i̶n̶g̶s̶ - 8 corruptors kill 8 vikings with 1 corruptor left (no micro, no corruption) b̶a̶t̶t̶l̶e̶c̶r̶u̶i̶s̶e̶r̶ - I tested 4 cruisers (24 supply, 1 arm, 1 leg,) vs 8 corruptors - 1 battlecruiser lives with 57/550 hp. SAVED r̶a̶v̶e̶n̶ - 13 ravens with HSM kill 8 broodlords (if you use 125 energy each) all of these were done with equal upgrades The problem is that broodlord + corruptor + infestor has a ridiculous advantage in the air battle already. corruptor broodlord is better than terran anti air in a straight up fight. Corruptors are also easier to produce en masse (see larvae) which gives them the ability to take momentum in the air battle much more quickly than a terran with 2-3 reactor ports. Also note that zerg air will generally have both armor and attack upgrades, whereas terran air will at best have attack upgrades, because there is no terran air endgame ball that is effective in tvz. TL;DR Without ghosts, terrans have no answer to zerg air superiority because - wait for it - ZERG AIR IS SUPERIOR Um no sorry vikings own everything in the air o.o Also keep in mind other factors will effect such a graph. For example, games where a terran does an all-in and fails but stays in the game past 20 minutes will make the graph look like what it is now. It could just be that a like event happens more than the opposite (a macro terran getting past 20 minutes) Um no sorry numbers speak the truth o.o. Vikings do not beat corruptor/muta. Zerg has better air to air 100%. Vikings can micro dude...amongst other things.. On the topic of Terran whining here... have you even considered that the best 2 players in the world are still both Terran? Have you considered that in the top level of SC2 games there are still either 3 or 4 in the round of 8 with only 1 zerg? I'm not a zerg but perhaps they should be the ones complaining. They havn't been performing for quite awhile now. Has anyone complaining really watched a pro game where one guy had 10-12 ghosts against Zerg? This complaining is stupid. Heck your snipe ability is slightly better against casters now(Not sure if it makes it one less hit or not) and the ghost should exist to counter the enemy casters... -_-
You can't really micro vikings in such an engagement though. First of all, their acceleration is not fast enough, so they will always eat some shots and second of all, how far will you micro them away from the corrupters? Across the map, so that in the meantime the broodlords can kill everything? This is such a delusional post which almost screams "I have no clue" all over.
And Zerg was underperforming? I don't know but I really feel like you are stretching the definition of underperforming here a bit. Zerg had the highest overall win rate of all 3 races last month, how exactly is that underperforming, just how!?
And to all the "smartasses" who claim that the only reason terran has such low lategame win rates is the fact that they get a disadvantage early on, this is an invalid argument. Because it works both ways, terran also gets an advantage early on and then can't kill their opponent and have to drop, harrass etc, which often times results in a win later on. So this effectively nullifies the argument, because it is basically an assumption which can only be incorrect.
You could of course cherry-pick and completely ignore the 50% of games that do not support your argument. I mean this is typical, you have numbers which show a clear trend, yet there are people who choose to disregard reality, ignore facts and make up their own stories as to why the numbers are so bad for terran. Really, interesting, really.
|
On February 11 2012 14:03 Areon wrote:
Was Snipe really that over-used? Seemed to me that 9 times out of 10 Marauders and Vikings were used and were the better unit choice, except for artillery sniping I guess. But even then you needed enough Vikings to actually kill the Brood Lords, and to that end I'm not quite sure why they're nerfing Ghosts and not Vikings.... otherwise these seem quite fair.
not a question of it being over-used, but overpowered :D was just too good for its cost against zergt t3, as op says.
|
On February 11 2012 14:05 ChaosTerran wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2012 13:17 mrtomjones wrote:On February 11 2012 12:53 SolidMoose wrote:On February 11 2012 12:48 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On February 11 2012 12:14 Jormundr wrote:+ Show Spoiler +From : http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=309042This is taken from a sample size of 102 TvZ matchups Since this was taken from MLG Providence, I will assume that this sample is almost entirely representative of the top 2% of players (masters and grandmasters). This graph provides evidence that ghosts do not 'counter' tier 3 zerg. Considering the whole broodlord infestor vs ghost marine tank viking dance usually starts at or after 20 minutes, why were terrans not winning here? I am pretty sure that snipe efficiency was figured out pretty well this summer (when we first started to see MVP using it profusely, especially against ultralisk comps). So; Question: If ghosts are so strong, why didn't terrans have a positive win-rate after the 20 minute mark? Answer: Ghosts are incredibly expensive, and require tech lab rax instead of reactor rax (important in a marine dominated matchup) Ghosts actually happen to be the most expensive unit per supply in the terran arsenal (I would argue that 2 supply makes them too easy to mass in TvZ, but 3 supply would have too massive of an effect on TvP) For example, to build the scary ball of ghosts that "counters zerg t3" (as I have read over and over again in this thread) I will assume that they mean a ball of: 15 Ghosts 25 ghosts 3000 minerals 5000 minerals 1500 gas 2500 gas 30 supply 50 supply 120 to 200 seconds* 200 to 330 seconds* * note that the first value corresponds to the mad terran player who just happens to have 5 tech lab rax on hand. Second number is for a terran who has 3. 5 tech lab rax would be slightly unusual in a matchup that is marine dominated So without the ghost, what do you suggest to counter broodlord corruptor infestor? m̶a̶r̶i̶n̶e̶s̶ 1 full energy infestor can kill 35 marines, with enough energy left for two infested terrans. OVERPOWERED, I DON'T LIKE IT, COUNTERS TERRAN T1, NEEDS A NERF (etcetera) ̶t̶h̶o̶r̶s̶ 4 broodlords kill 4 micro'd thors with 2 full health broods left v̶i̶k̶i̶n̶g̶s̶ - 8 corruptors kill 8 vikings with 1 corruptor left (no micro, no corruption) b̶a̶t̶t̶l̶e̶c̶r̶u̶i̶s̶e̶r̶ - I tested 4 cruisers (24 supply, 1 arm, 1 leg,) vs 8 corruptors - 1 battlecruiser lives with 57/550 hp. SAVED r̶a̶v̶e̶n̶ - 13 ravens with HSM kill 8 broodlords (if you use 125 energy each) all of these were done with equal upgrades The problem is that broodlord + corruptor + infestor has a ridiculous advantage in the air battle already. corruptor broodlord is better than terran anti air in a straight up fight. Corruptors are also easier to produce en masse (see larvae) which gives them the ability to take momentum in the air battle much more quickly than a terran with 2-3 reactor ports. Also note that zerg air will generally have both armor and attack upgrades, whereas terran air will at best have attack upgrades, because there is no terran air endgame ball that is effective in tvz. TL;DR Without ghosts, terrans have no answer to zerg air superiority because - wait for it - ZERG AIR IS SUPERIOR Um no sorry vikings own everything in the air o.o Also keep in mind other factors will effect such a graph. For example, games where a terran does an all-in and fails but stays in the game past 20 minutes will make the graph look like what it is now. It could just be that a like event happens more than the opposite (a macro terran getting past 20 minutes) Um no sorry numbers speak the truth o.o. Vikings do not beat corruptor/muta. Zerg has better air to air 100%. Vikings can micro dude...amongst other things.. On the topic of Terran whining here... have you even considered that the best 2 players in the world are still both Terran? Have you considered that in the top level of SC2 games there are still either 3 or 4 in the round of 8 with only 1 zerg? I'm not a zerg but perhaps they should be the ones complaining. They havn't been performing for quite awhile now. Has anyone complaining really watched a pro game where one guy had 10-12 ghosts against Zerg? This complaining is stupid. Heck your snipe ability is slightly better against casters now(Not sure if it makes it one less hit or not) and the ghost should exist to counter the enemy casters... -_- You can't really micro vikings in such an engagement though. First of all, their acceleration is not fast enough, so they will always eat some shots and second of all, how far will you micro them away from the corrupters? Across the map, so that in the meantime the broodlords can kill everything? This is such a delusional post which almost screams "I have no clue" all over. And Zerg was underperforming? I don't know but I really feel like you are stretching the definition of underperforming here a bit. Zerg had the highest overall win rate of all 3 races last month, how exactly is that underperforming, just how!? And to all the "smartasses" who claim that the only reason terran has such low lategame win rates is the fact that they get a disadvantage early on, this is an invalid argument. Because it works both ways, terran also gets an advantage early on and then can't kill their opponent and have to drop, harrass etc, which often times results in a win later on. So this effectively nullifies the argument, because it is basically an assumption which can only be incorrect. You could of course cherry-pick and completely ignore the 50% of games that do not support your argument. I mean this is typical, you have numbers which show a clear trend, yet there are people who choose to disregard reality, ignore facts and make up their own stories as to why the numbers are so bad for terran. Really, interesting, really.
Can you clarify? This makes no fucking sense.
|
hm, it's good that they're doing something about snipe, but I feel like it's already underused against standard bio units (i.e not a caster, ultra or bl). Why not keep snipe dmg as it is and apply a sort of debuff that reduces dmg against massive to 25?
|
On February 11 2012 14:03 Genetic wrote:
As a rank 8 Masters Terran, I have to say this patch is garbage.
I'm switching to Protoss. A-Click here I come! GG terrans lol
LOLOL. You're going to miss the mules man. They won't be as good on gold, but still, mules are mules :O.
Also, at least now it's a guaranteed 2-snipes for infestor kill.
|
I have a feeling the Phoenix change isn't going to help Protoss very much against Mutas, honestly. I think in the end they're going to have to make Stalkers a little better in some way, because every major Protoss matchup issue centers around Stalkers being all-purpose units that aren't good enough to beat any of the things they are supposed to soft counter - Mutas, Roaches, Marauders . . . and once Stim comes into play or you get involved in an upgrade race, stalkers become almost obsolete. If they would just make stalkers scale better with upgrades, I'd be happy. Maybe increase rof and decrease damage to even out to the same dps?
|
On February 11 2012 14:07 RogerChillingworth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2012 14:03 Areon wrote:
Was Snipe really that over-used? Seemed to me that 9 times out of 10 Marauders and Vikings were used and were the better unit choice, except for artillery sniping I guess. But even then you needed enough Vikings to actually kill the Brood Lords, and to that end I'm not quite sure why they're nerfing Ghosts and not Vikings.... otherwise these seem quite fair. not a question of it being over-used, but overpowered :D was just too good for its cost against zergt t3, as op says.
Let's do some math:
3 ghosts: 600/300
1 ultra: 300/200
2 ghosts: 400/200
1 bl: 300/250
So how is it too good for its cost?
|
On February 11 2012 14:12 Ziggitz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2012 14:05 ChaosTerran wrote:On February 11 2012 13:17 mrtomjones wrote:On February 11 2012 12:53 SolidMoose wrote:On February 11 2012 12:48 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On February 11 2012 12:14 Jormundr wrote:+ Show Spoiler +From : http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=309042This is taken from a sample size of 102 TvZ matchups Since this was taken from MLG Providence, I will assume that this sample is almost entirely representative of the top 2% of players (masters and grandmasters). This graph provides evidence that ghosts do not 'counter' tier 3 zerg. Considering the whole broodlord infestor vs ghost marine tank viking dance usually starts at or after 20 minutes, why were terrans not winning here? I am pretty sure that snipe efficiency was figured out pretty well this summer (when we first started to see MVP using it profusely, especially against ultralisk comps). So; Question: If ghosts are so strong, why didn't terrans have a positive win-rate after the 20 minute mark? Answer: Ghosts are incredibly expensive, and require tech lab rax instead of reactor rax (important in a marine dominated matchup) Ghosts actually happen to be the most expensive unit per supply in the terran arsenal (I would argue that 2 supply makes them too easy to mass in TvZ, but 3 supply would have too massive of an effect on TvP) For example, to build the scary ball of ghosts that "counters zerg t3" (as I have read over and over again in this thread) I will assume that they mean a ball of: 15 Ghosts 25 ghosts 3000 minerals 5000 minerals 1500 gas 2500 gas 30 supply 50 supply 120 to 200 seconds* 200 to 330 seconds* * note that the first value corresponds to the mad terran player who just happens to have 5 tech lab rax on hand. Second number is for a terran who has 3. 5 tech lab rax would be slightly unusual in a matchup that is marine dominated So without the ghost, what do you suggest to counter broodlord corruptor infestor? m̶a̶r̶i̶n̶e̶s̶ 1 full energy infestor can kill 35 marines, with enough energy left for two infested terrans. OVERPOWERED, I DON'T LIKE IT, COUNTERS TERRAN T1, NEEDS A NERF (etcetera) ̶t̶h̶o̶r̶s̶ 4 broodlords kill 4 micro'd thors with 2 full health broods left v̶i̶k̶i̶n̶g̶s̶ - 8 corruptors kill 8 vikings with 1 corruptor left (no micro, no corruption) b̶a̶t̶t̶l̶e̶c̶r̶u̶i̶s̶e̶r̶ - I tested 4 cruisers (24 supply, 1 arm, 1 leg,) vs 8 corruptors - 1 battlecruiser lives with 57/550 hp. SAVED r̶a̶v̶e̶n̶ - 13 ravens with HSM kill 8 broodlords (if you use 125 energy each) all of these were done with equal upgrades The problem is that broodlord + corruptor + infestor has a ridiculous advantage in the air battle already. corruptor broodlord is better than terran anti air in a straight up fight. Corruptors are also easier to produce en masse (see larvae) which gives them the ability to take momentum in the air battle much more quickly than a terran with 2-3 reactor ports. Also note that zerg air will generally have both armor and attack upgrades, whereas terran air will at best have attack upgrades, because there is no terran air endgame ball that is effective in tvz. TL;DR Without ghosts, terrans have no answer to zerg air superiority because - wait for it - ZERG AIR IS SUPERIOR Um no sorry vikings own everything in the air o.o Also keep in mind other factors will effect such a graph. For example, games where a terran does an all-in and fails but stays in the game past 20 minutes will make the graph look like what it is now. It could just be that a like event happens more than the opposite (a macro terran getting past 20 minutes) Um no sorry numbers speak the truth o.o. Vikings do not beat corruptor/muta. Zerg has better air to air 100%. Vikings can micro dude...amongst other things.. On the topic of Terran whining here... have you even considered that the best 2 players in the world are still both Terran? Have you considered that in the top level of SC2 games there are still either 3 or 4 in the round of 8 with only 1 zerg? I'm not a zerg but perhaps they should be the ones complaining. They havn't been performing for quite awhile now. Has anyone complaining really watched a pro game where one guy had 10-12 ghosts against Zerg? This complaining is stupid. Heck your snipe ability is slightly better against casters now(Not sure if it makes it one less hit or not) and the ghost should exist to counter the enemy casters... -_- You can't really micro vikings in such an engagement though. First of all, their acceleration is not fast enough, so they will always eat some shots and second of all, how far will you micro them away from the corrupters? Across the map, so that in the meantime the broodlords can kill everything? This is such a delusional post which almost screams "I have no clue" all over. And Zerg was underperforming? I don't know but I really feel like you are stretching the definition of underperforming here a bit. Zerg had the highest overall win rate of all 3 races last month, how exactly is that underperforming, just how!? And to all the "smartasses" who claim that the only reason terran has such low lategame win rates is the fact that they get a disadvantage early on, this is an invalid argument. Because it works both ways, terran also gets an advantage early on and then can't kill their opponent and have to drop, harrass etc, which often times results in a win later on. So this effectively nullifies the argument, because it is basically an assumption which can only be incorrect. You could of course cherry-pick and completely ignore the 50% of games that do not support your argument. I mean this is typical, you have numbers which show a clear trend, yet there are people who choose to disregard reality, ignore facts and make up their own stories as to why the numbers are so bad for terran. Really, interesting, really. Can you clarify? This makes no fucking sense.
It's really quite easy to understand. Your premise was that terran only has low lategame win rates because of a disadvantageous early game (in the games they lose). This is essenitally your argument. But it completely ignores the fact that there will be a similar amount of games with an advantageous early game for terran, which results in the same amount of wins/losses. Terran is hard to kill, sure, but Terran also relies on heavy harrassment and dropping to win games, which very, very often drags into late game. A terran does not simply a move to victory, unless they are ridiculously, unbelievably far ahead. Most terran victories (unless they are early game all-ins) are methdocial harrass- drop wins, that's how most players play terran. Harrassment and then a final kill move. And stop the cherry picking. There is absolutely no evidence for your theory, absolutely none. So just leave it, you can't possibly win this argument because you have zero evidence.
|
LoL at Ghost having to snipe 9 times to kill overseers. Good luck trying to emp or nuke or whatever to zerg.
|
On February 11 2012 14:16 architecture wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2012 14:07 RogerChillingworth wrote:On February 11 2012 14:03 Areon wrote:
Was Snipe really that over-used? Seemed to me that 9 times out of 10 Marauders and Vikings were used and were the better unit choice, except for artillery sniping I guess. But even then you needed enough Vikings to actually kill the Brood Lords, and to that end I'm not quite sure why they're nerfing Ghosts and not Vikings.... otherwise these seem quite fair. not a question of it being over-used, but overpowered :D was just too good for its cost against zergt t3, as op says. Let's do some math: 3 ghosts: 600/300 1 ultra: 300/200 2 ghosts: 400/200 1 bl: 300/250 So how is it too good for its cost?
I cant believe there are people who still used this mineral/gas per cost to value to judge units.LOL
|
On February 11 2012 12:48 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2012 12:14 Jormundr wrote:+ Show Spoiler +From : http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=309042This is taken from a sample size of 102 TvZ matchups Since this was taken from MLG Providence, I will assume that this sample is almost entirely representative of the top 2% of players (masters and grandmasters). This graph provides evidence that ghosts do not 'counter' tier 3 zerg. Considering the whole broodlord infestor vs ghost marine tank viking dance usually starts at or after 20 minutes, why were terrans not winning here? I am pretty sure that snipe efficiency was figured out pretty well this summer (when we first started to see MVP using it profusely, especially against ultralisk comps). So; Question: If ghosts are so strong, why didn't terrans have a positive win-rate after the 20 minute mark? Answer: Ghosts are incredibly expensive, and require tech lab rax instead of reactor rax (important in a marine dominated matchup) Ghosts actually happen to be the most expensive unit per supply in the terran arsenal (I would argue that 2 supply makes them too easy to mass in TvZ, but 3 supply would have too massive of an effect on TvP) For example, to build the scary ball of ghosts that "counters zerg t3" (as I have read over and over again in this thread) I will assume that they mean a ball of: 15 Ghosts 25 ghosts 3000 minerals 5000 minerals 1500 gas 2500 gas 30 supply 50 supply 120 to 200 seconds* 200 to 330 seconds* * note that the first value corresponds to the mad terran player who just happens to have 5 tech lab rax on hand. Second number is for a terran who has 3. 5 tech lab rax would be slightly unusual in a matchup that is marine dominated So without the ghost, what do you suggest to counter broodlord corruptor infestor? m̶a̶r̶i̶n̶e̶s̶ 1 full energy infestor can kill 35 marines, with enough energy left for two infested terrans. OVERPOWERED, I DON'T LIKE IT, COUNTERS TERRAN T1, NEEDS A NERF (etcetera) ̶t̶h̶o̶r̶s̶ 4 broodlords kill 4 micro'd thors with 2 full health broods left v̶i̶k̶i̶n̶g̶s̶ - 8 corruptors kill 8 vikings with 1 corruptor left (no micro, no corruption) b̶a̶t̶t̶l̶e̶c̶r̶u̶i̶s̶e̶r̶ - I tested 4 cruisers (24 supply, 1 arm, 1 leg,) vs 8 corruptors - 1 battlecruiser lives with 57/550 hp. SAVED r̶a̶v̶e̶n̶ - 13 ravens with HSM kill 8 broodlords (if you use 125 energy each) all of these were done with equal upgrades The problem is that broodlord + corruptor + infestor has a ridiculous advantage in the air battle already. corruptor broodlord is better than terran anti air in a straight up fight. Corruptors are also easier to produce en masse (see larvae) which gives them the ability to take momentum in the air battle much more quickly than a terran with 2-3 reactor ports. Also note that zerg air will generally have both armor and attack upgrades, whereas terran air will at best have attack upgrades, because there is no terran air endgame ball that is effective in tvz. TL;DR Without ghosts, terrans have no answer to zerg air superiority because - wait for it - ZERG AIR IS SUPERIOR Um no sorry vikings own everything in the air o.o Also keep in mind other factors will effect such a graph. For example, games where a terran does an all-in and fails but stays in the game past 20 minutes will make the graph look like what it is now. It could just be that a like event happens more than the opposite (a macro terran getting past 20 minutes)
Um no sorry, mvp lost with 45 spread out as fuck vikings with +3 ship weapons against +1 zerg air.
Using ghosts is INCREDIBLY hard, it's by no means an autowin, I've seen them lose way more than they win, jesus christ.As a high masters terran, I see no way out other than switching to protoss, I am sure many will follow suit.
|
On February 11 2012 14:16 blackberry_ wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2012 14:03 Genetic wrote:
As a rank 8 Masters Terran, I have to say this patch is garbage.
I'm switching to Protoss. A-Click here I come! GG terrans lol LOLOL. You're going to miss the mules man. They won't be as good on gold, but still, mules are mules :O. Also, at least now it's a guaranteed 2-snipes for infestor kill.
The one thing about Terran I DON'T miss when I'm playing Zerg and Protoss is MULES honestly they are cried about way more than is ever deserved.
I feel as though anyone who's actually spent a decent amount of time playing Terran learns how overrated MULES are and how good Spawn Larvae and Chronoboosted Probes are.
|
the fact that terran keep getting nerfed and nerfed at every patch at every new strategy that was found
annoys me more than the nerf it self
at least make BC's and Ravens more viable
they made phoenix viable too
so why cant raven and BC's too
the previous buff certaintly not good enough
no pro player ever tried it in high level play
|
On February 11 2012 14:20 FakeDeath wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2012 14:16 architecture wrote:On February 11 2012 14:07 RogerChillingworth wrote:On February 11 2012 14:03 Areon wrote:
Was Snipe really that over-used? Seemed to me that 9 times out of 10 Marauders and Vikings were used and were the better unit choice, except for artillery sniping I guess. But even then you needed enough Vikings to actually kill the Brood Lords, and to that end I'm not quite sure why they're nerfing Ghosts and not Vikings.... otherwise these seem quite fair. not a question of it being over-used, but overpowered :D was just too good for its cost against zergt t3, as op says. Let's do some math: 3 ghosts: 600/300 1 ultra: 300/200 2 ghosts: 400/200 1 bl: 300/250 So how is it too good for its cost? I cant believe there are people who still used this mineral/gas per cost to value to judge units.LOL
Then how should we judge?
The superior production capability of Z?
The superior ability to tech switch?
|
On February 11 2012 14:17 ChaosTerran wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2012 14:12 Ziggitz wrote:On February 11 2012 14:05 ChaosTerran wrote:On February 11 2012 13:17 mrtomjones wrote:On February 11 2012 12:53 SolidMoose wrote:On February 11 2012 12:48 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On February 11 2012 12:14 Jormundr wrote:+ Show Spoiler +From : http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=309042This is taken from a sample size of 102 TvZ matchups Since this was taken from MLG Providence, I will assume that this sample is almost entirely representative of the top 2% of players (masters and grandmasters). This graph provides evidence that ghosts do not 'counter' tier 3 zerg. Considering the whole broodlord infestor vs ghost marine tank viking dance usually starts at or after 20 minutes, why were terrans not winning here? I am pretty sure that snipe efficiency was figured out pretty well this summer (when we first started to see MVP using it profusely, especially against ultralisk comps). So; Question: If ghosts are so strong, why didn't terrans have a positive win-rate after the 20 minute mark? Answer: Ghosts are incredibly expensive, and require tech lab rax instead of reactor rax (important in a marine dominated matchup) Ghosts actually happen to be the most expensive unit per supply in the terran arsenal (I would argue that 2 supply makes them too easy to mass in TvZ, but 3 supply would have too massive of an effect on TvP) For example, to build the scary ball of ghosts that "counters zerg t3" (as I have read over and over again in this thread) I will assume that they mean a ball of: 15 Ghosts 25 ghosts 3000 minerals 5000 minerals 1500 gas 2500 gas 30 supply 50 supply 120 to 200 seconds* 200 to 330 seconds* * note that the first value corresponds to the mad terran player who just happens to have 5 tech lab rax on hand. Second number is for a terran who has 3. 5 tech lab rax would be slightly unusual in a matchup that is marine dominated So without the ghost, what do you suggest to counter broodlord corruptor infestor? m̶a̶r̶i̶n̶e̶s̶ 1 full energy infestor can kill 35 marines, with enough energy left for two infested terrans. OVERPOWERED, I DON'T LIKE IT, COUNTERS TERRAN T1, NEEDS A NERF (etcetera) ̶t̶h̶o̶r̶s̶ 4 broodlords kill 4 micro'd thors with 2 full health broods left v̶i̶k̶i̶n̶g̶s̶ - 8 corruptors kill 8 vikings with 1 corruptor left (no micro, no corruption) b̶a̶t̶t̶l̶e̶c̶r̶u̶i̶s̶e̶r̶ - I tested 4 cruisers (24 supply, 1 arm, 1 leg,) vs 8 corruptors - 1 battlecruiser lives with 57/550 hp. SAVED r̶a̶v̶e̶n̶ - 13 ravens with HSM kill 8 broodlords (if you use 125 energy each) all of these were done with equal upgrades The problem is that broodlord + corruptor + infestor has a ridiculous advantage in the air battle already. corruptor broodlord is better than terran anti air in a straight up fight. Corruptors are also easier to produce en masse (see larvae) which gives them the ability to take momentum in the air battle much more quickly than a terran with 2-3 reactor ports. Also note that zerg air will generally have both armor and attack upgrades, whereas terran air will at best have attack upgrades, because there is no terran air endgame ball that is effective in tvz. TL;DR Without ghosts, terrans have no answer to zerg air superiority because - wait for it - ZERG AIR IS SUPERIOR Um no sorry vikings own everything in the air o.o Also keep in mind other factors will effect such a graph. For example, games where a terran does an all-in and fails but stays in the game past 20 minutes will make the graph look like what it is now. It could just be that a like event happens more than the opposite (a macro terran getting past 20 minutes) Um no sorry numbers speak the truth o.o. Vikings do not beat corruptor/muta. Zerg has better air to air 100%. Vikings can micro dude...amongst other things.. On the topic of Terran whining here... have you even considered that the best 2 players in the world are still both Terran? Have you considered that in the top level of SC2 games there are still either 3 or 4 in the round of 8 with only 1 zerg? I'm not a zerg but perhaps they should be the ones complaining. They havn't been performing for quite awhile now. Has anyone complaining really watched a pro game where one guy had 10-12 ghosts against Zerg? This complaining is stupid. Heck your snipe ability is slightly better against casters now(Not sure if it makes it one less hit or not) and the ghost should exist to counter the enemy casters... -_- You can't really micro vikings in such an engagement though. First of all, their acceleration is not fast enough, so they will always eat some shots and second of all, how far will you micro them away from the corrupters? Across the map, so that in the meantime the broodlords can kill everything? This is such a delusional post which almost screams "I have no clue" all over. And Zerg was underperforming? I don't know but I really feel like you are stretching the definition of underperforming here a bit. Zerg had the highest overall win rate of all 3 races last month, how exactly is that underperforming, just how!? And to all the "smartasses" who claim that the only reason terran has such low lategame win rates is the fact that they get a disadvantage early on, this is an invalid argument. Because it works both ways, terran also gets an advantage early on and then can't kill their opponent and have to drop, harrass etc, which often times results in a win later on. So this effectively nullifies the argument, because it is basically an assumption which can only be incorrect. You could of course cherry-pick and completely ignore the 50% of games that do not support your argument. I mean this is typical, you have numbers which show a clear trend, yet there are people who choose to disregard reality, ignore facts and make up their own stories as to why the numbers are so bad for terran. Really, interesting, really. Can you clarify? This makes no fucking sense. It's really quite easy to understand. Your premise was that terran only has low lategame win rates because of a disadvantageous early game (in the games they lose). This is essenitally your argument. But it completely ignores the fact that there will be a similar amount of games with an advantageous early game for terran, which results in the same amount of wins/losses. Terran is hard to kill, sure, but Terran also relies on heavy harrassment and dropping to win games, which very, very often drags into late game. A terran does not simply a move to victory, unless they are ridiculously, unbelievably far ahead. Most terran victories (unless they are early game all-ins) are methdocial harrass- drop wins, that's how most players play terran. Harrassment and then a final kill move. And stop the cherry picking. There is absolutely no evidence for your theory, absolutely none. So just leave it, you can't possibly win this argument because you have zero evidence.
One does not simply A-move terran to victory! :D Truer words could not have been spoken! <3
|
On February 11 2012 13:21 Arkless wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2012 12:40 Xorphene wrote:On February 11 2012 03:11 xTrim wrote:
overmake vikings = lose to f**king ultra switch... god i hate this, why do i keep playing? Stop feeling so nerfed, zerg's have suffered this forever. Overmake corruptors in ZvP and lose to gateway remax. Stop feeling so special, Terrans moaning about infestors vs vikings need to realise they simply need to split their marines. This is a fantastic patch. The most bias response, and most rediculous. Split your marines? Are you trolling? You negate the fact entirely as well that corruptors, the pre cursor to BL's, counter your bl counter of vikings. They just roll ur main army with ling bling, snipe off ur vikings, remax with bls. That doesn't seem weird???? NOW we also are hella nerfed if both are on golds, it hurts the terran to drop a mule period because of 0 bonus, you lose out in the end.
Maybe Terran has to start thinking like Zerg now and take advantage of the fact that you can't win a head-on engagement, but your army is much more mobile and and can be stronger around the map instead of 1 big ball of units...
i.e Stop deathballing and get better
|
On February 11 2012 14:20 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2012 14:16 blackberry_ wrote:On February 11 2012 14:03 Genetic wrote:
As a rank 8 Masters Terran, I have to say this patch is garbage.
I'm switching to Protoss. A-Click here I come! GG terrans lol LOLOL. You're going to miss the mules man. They won't be as good on gold, but still, mules are mules :O. Also, at least now it's a guaranteed 2-snipes for infestor kill. The one thing about Terran I DON'T miss when I'm playing Zerg and Protoss is MULES honestly they are cried about way more than is ever deserved. I feel as though anyone who's actually spent a decent amount of time playing Terran learns how overrated MULES are and how good Spawn Larvae and Chronoboosted Probes are.
Uhhhh,Mules are okay in general.BUT if you can get a Planetary at gold base and spam mules there,that is pretty good =).
Majority agreed that it is OP and GSL have already removed gold bases entirely and Blizzard is smart enough to do something like that just make them mine as the same rate as blue minerals.
|
honestly, I think the Snipe change is a bit too much. I think it will just change gameplay way too drastically. but the others are pretty exciting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/114/zvt.png)
