|
Please DISCUSS the changes and the impact they will have on gameplay.
Straight up whining and bitching will get you a ban, no exceptions. |
On February 13 2012 05:12 zmansman17 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2012 05:03 Snowbear wrote:
If you look at the winrates from terran you see them dropping VERY HARD when the games enters the 20 min mark. Since ghosts are used 99% of the time lategame (after the 20 min mark), blizzard nerfed terran lategame. Meanwhile terran lategame is so so so so so so bad. Yeah I would love to have access to these statistics after a point in time. For example, If Terran wins the game, how often is that game: >5 minutes >10 minutes >20 minutes >40 minutes I can only add anecdotal experience as a Rank 2 master, but I win late game TvP, or TvZ at about 20%. I can be way ahead on econ., even if I have a 2nd FE early in a game versus P (as a response to nexus first) and still lose these games. Terran just doesn't have a good mineral dump (zergs = macro hatches, toss = tons of warpgates, cannons). Also, Terran can't replenish their army in the same way as Zerg or Protoss. So if your army dies, most likely, you just lost the game.
idk terran can also dump all those extra minerals into barracks which can also be used as wall offs for expansions
|
I found this youtube video to do a very good job of summing up balance issues in sc2 with a non-biased and methodical analysis.
|
On February 13 2012 05:08 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2012 05:01 zmansman17 wrote:On February 13 2012 04:57 ZenithM wrote:On February 13 2012 04:45 Acritter wrote:On February 13 2012 04:41 XXXSmOke wrote:On February 13 2012 04:35 ZenithM wrote:
There is one thing I don't understand though. How come nobody is trying to switch to Terran? I'm starting now because top Terran players are cool and Terran is cool and (apparently) challenging. Isn't there anyone interested by some kind of Hard Mode of SC2? Does everybody only want free wins with as few APM as possible or what?
I don't think it's true and I think most Terrans who switched did so because of TvT. It's not easy to get around the fact that a macro TvT between non-top players can easily last more than 30 minutes. But maybe I'm wrong, is there a lot of people here that have switched from Terran because they think they weren't winning enough? Its a vastly different race so I think people get flustered very fast when trying to learn it. Trying to learn all of the micro is very challenging. Marine splitting/stutter stepping/dropping/siege tank leap frogging. Its also very hard to get in a mindset of ending the game earlier rather than relying on BL's or Colossus to do the job for you in the late game. On top of this people tend to not switch to the race that gets nerfed every patch. People tend to not switch race, PERIOD. Off the top of my head, I can think of three players who have switched races: Morrow, TLO, and Artosis. There isn't something deeper about the Terran race being so much more difficult, it's just that players don't usually do full-on race switches. I was actually talking about your mildy decent ladder player (diamond and higher), not pros. Why doesn't anyone try out Terran for the challenge? Do Terrans really want to switch to Protoss?As a Protoss, I can tell you that PvT is not funnier than TvP actually (it just wins more probably), I would say that playing macro is boring as hell against T. All that to say that I don't think difficulty is the reason why we see less Terrans on ladder. This simply isn't true. Of my friends list, many of my Rank 1-3 master and GM friends are really fed up with Terran. There are some that aren't going to continue play next season. There are some like me who will be switching to Toss completely. As for your claim that PvT is "not funnier" than TvP, I can actually tell you that I think PvT is very easy from the Protoss side. Granted, I may know how to play the MU really well since I main Terran (and offrace as Rank 2 Master Protoss), I don't see how Protoss have trouble with the MU. When I said "fun", I really meant fun, not easy. Don't worry, I have no particular complaint with playing PvT. It's just that the current optimal macro way (double forge turtle into your higher tier units) is, in fact, boring to play with, and play against (I assume).
Yeah well I've also heard this argument as well.
The idea that playing Terran is actually more Fun than playing Protoss but I'm not sure where I stand on that side of the debate. I am stubborn and do love the Terran race, that's for sure.
However, I really do enjoy PvZ, and I find that MU to be the most challenging for Protoss (Which is probably why I like it). PvT really is not as much fun from the Protoss side.
|
On February 13 2012 05:05 Consummate wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2012 04:11 ZenithM wrote:On February 13 2012 03:58 Consummate wrote:On February 13 2012 03:51 PureBalls wrote:On February 13 2012 03:39 mlspmatt wrote:On February 13 2012 03:35 PureBalls wrote:On February 13 2012 03:25 mlspmatt wrote:On February 13 2012 03:09 PureBalls wrote:On February 13 2012 02:51 mlspmatt wrote:On February 13 2012 02:35 PureBalls wrote:
[quote]
No, you are wrong.
I can tell you this: when after the infestor DPS buff, first BL/Inf build popped up, most of us toss were bitching how imba it was. Sure, the fungal DPS was nerfed somewhat, but on its own, it wouldnt have done anything against the very strong BL/Inf composition. So, the people who were saying, that toss need to "figure it out" were actually right. And toss did figure it out. The solution was found in the least expected place. The mothership.
If someone at that time would have told me, that mothership + archon would one day be toss' standard late game play against zerg, I would have told him, that he's nuts.
And if I recall correctly, many toss have said the same things against air play, you are saying now. "The reason XXX don't use them is not because they havn't tried, but because when they did they lost so badly, they realized how stupid that idea was and abandoned it for common sense."
Think about this. But you're assuming that because that was true for Protoss, it's true for terran. They're not the same races. And terrans have tried different things. Thorzain inovated the Thor build way back - Blizzard nurfed it. Morrow with mass early reaper vs Zerg - Blizzard nearly removed the unit Team slayers inovated the blue flame hellion play vs. Zerg - Blizzard nurfed it. Terrans finially started using ghosts vs Toss - Blizzrd nurfed it. Now terrans are innovating with snipe in TvZ late game - Blizzard is about to nurf it. At some point it's not terrans fault for sticking to their basic compositions, Blizzard is saying "STICK WITH YOUR BASIC COMPOSITIONS" Actually, what Blizz is saying, is "we are going to keep nerfing you as long as your win % is not 50" And if you look at the win % graphs, you will see, that in TvP terran had a 60% win rate in 4 months out of 12, and only in 2 out of 12 did they have a below 50%. And in TvZ its basically the same thing. What this means, is, that the terran race was way to powerful over all these months. Now you are getting used to working with balanced tools. Those are two different points. The first was regarding terrans not innovating which as shown above is clearly not true, they have innovated plenty. But coincidence or not, a lot of the terran innovations were nurfed. I'm not suggesting they should not have been, but they were examples of innovative play, a lot of innovative play. The second point is about win rate. And my earlier point still stands. I'm not suggesting Terran should have a 60% win rate, never did. But I still believe there are more quality Terrans in GSL than the other two races, and in a perfectley balanced game I would expect, at least for the time being, that Terran would have a higher win rate at GSL. You're welcome to disagree. And I do disagree. In fact, I think that all this "terran players are simply better" nonsense comes from the fact, that the race was too powerful all this time, which made it appear as if terran players were better, because they are winning more, while all along they are doing it by abusing overpowered features of the race. If the Terran race is so overpowered and dominant, how do you explain the lack of terran dominance in Europe and NA. It's only in Korea. Would you suggest that the Zerg and Protoss players are better in NA and Europe, but at the same time claim that isn't the case with terran in Korea? I wouldnt say, that NA and E terran players are bad, but that they tend to play the race the wrong way. I've heard countless times, that Korean ladder is far more aggressive, and aggression is what the terran race seems to be designed for. Thus, Koreans have much more success with the race. Playing the wrong way is the same as saying they are bad. If you smash your head on your keyboard to type rather than use your fingers and everything comes out nonsensical, you are bad at typing. 6 players out of the 10 highest ranked EU GM are Terran. For all our random laddering players complaining, take note, Terran is still the best ladder race. I don't see how this is relevant at all.
Proves that this is false:
If the Terran race is so overpowered and dominant, how do you explain the lack of terran dominance in Europe and NA
On February 13 2012 05:14 zmansman17 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2012 05:12 synapse wrote:On February 13 2012 05:07 RedMosquito wrote:On February 13 2012 04:34 demitap wrote:On February 13 2012 04:25 zmansman17 wrote:On February 13 2012 04:15 ceaRshaf wrote:On February 13 2012 04:11 ZenithM wrote:On February 13 2012 03:58 Consummate wrote:On February 13 2012 03:51 PureBalls wrote:On February 13 2012 03:39 mlspmatt wrote:
[quote]
If the Terran race is so overpowered and dominant, how do you explain the lack of terran dominance in Europe and NA. It's only in Korea. Would you suggest that the Zerg and Protoss players are better in NA and Europe, but at the same time claim that isn't the case with terran in Korea?
I wouldnt say, that NA and E terran players are bad, but that they tend to play the race the wrong way. I've heard countless times, that Korean ladder is far more aggressive, and aggression is what the terran race seems to be designed for. Thus, Koreans have much more success with the race. Playing the wrong way is the same as saying they are bad. If you smash your head on your keyboard to type rather than use your fingers and everything comes out nonsensical, you are bad at typing. 6 players out of the 10 highest ranked EU GM are Terran. For all our random laddering players complaining, take note, Terran is still the best ladder race. Just checked, lol. Thats a fun fact indeed. Interesting but if we look at the Korean Server, we will find in the Top 20:11 Protoss 5 Zerg 4 Terran Or if we turn to the American server, we will find in the Top 20:7 Zerg 7 Protoss 6 Terran Or if we just go from Rank 20 to Rank 50 on the European server that you mention, there are only 7 Terrans to be found: The reality is that some of the best players play Terran. Clearly, the success that the Top Terran players have has less to do with the race and more to do with their own skill. If the former were true, we would see a disproportionate amount of Terran players in GM league in every server, or in the Top 20 Ranks of each of these servers. But we don't see that. Terran is the least represented race in GM/Master league in every server (with the exception of Master league in KR). The reality is that players like MVP, OgsforGG, MMA can offrace and compete at the highest levels with ANY race. The best players do currently play Terran. Let's face it. But if we mis-interpret these racial stats (since most people look definitively to Pro stats to determine balance), then your conclusions are Flawed. CHINA - 7 terrans in top 10 Europe - 6 terrans in top 10 Korea - 4 terrans in top 10 (balanced) NA - 5 terrans out of 10 Numbers speaks for them self. Yes a sample pool of ten creates the perfect statistic in the world. congratz on being a genius It's a perfectly legitimate argument against zmansman's top 20 stat. It is a legitimate argument for him to make. The problem is that his statistics are wrong. See: NA- 3, http://www.sc2ranks.com/ranks/amKR - 4, http://www.sc2ranks.com/ranks/feaCN - 4, http://www.sc2ranks.com/ranks/cn
I just showed you top ten on all regions. It's a very good race distribution on the top level. Stop with this nonsense that terrans are under represented at high level outside of KR.
|
|
|
On February 13 2012 05:12 zmansman17 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2012 05:03 Snowbear wrote:
If you look at the winrates from terran you see them dropping VERY HARD when the games enters the 20 min mark. Since ghosts are used 99% of the time lategame (after the 20 min mark), blizzard nerfed terran lategame. Meanwhile terran lategame is so so so so so so bad. Yeah I would love to have access to these statistics after a point in time. For example, If Terran wins the game, how often is that game: >5 minutes >10 minutes >20 minutes >40 minutes I can only add anecdotal experience as a Rank 2 master, but I win late game TvP, or TvZ at about 20%. I can be way ahead on econ., even if I have a 2nd FE early in a game versus P (as a response to nexus first) and still lose these games. Terran just doesn't have a good mineral dump (zergs = macro hatches, toss = tons of warpgates, cannons). Also, Terran can't replenish their army in the same way as Zerg or Protoss. So if your army dies, most likely, you just lost the game.
I'm not saying you are wrong overall but I often see top level terrans just stop building shit late game when floating many thousands of minerals. Building bunkers, turrets, excessive productions facilities and so on is still something that a lot of players can get better at.
|
On February 13 2012 05:17 ceaRshaf wrote:Proves that this is false: Show nested quote +If the Terran race is so overpowered and dominant, how do you explain the lack of terran dominance in Europe and NA
protoss and zerg players have more skill then their terran counterparts?
|
On February 13 2012 05:19 freetgy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2012 05:17 ceaRshaf wrote:Proves that this is false: If the Terran race is so overpowered and dominant, how do you explain the lack of terran dominance in Europe and NA protoss and zerg players have more skill then their terran counterparts?
wut?
|
On February 13 2012 05:16 J.E.G. wrote:I found this youtube video to do a very good job of summing up balance issues in sc2 with a non-biased and methodical analysis.
Nice! 
I couldnt agree more.
|
On February 13 2012 05:09 bovineblitz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2012 05:03 Snowbear wrote:
If you look at the winrates from terran you see them dropping VERY HARD when the games enters the 20 min mark. Since ghosts are used 99% of the time lategame (after the 20 min mark), blizzard nerfed terran lategame. Meanwhile terran lategame is so so so so so so bad. Yeah but Terran early and midgame is so so so so good. They pretty much define the flow of the game. If Terrans can't do enough damage with the tools they have, they have a tough lategame ahead of them. That doesn't seem like a terribly imbalanced thing to me, the race that controls the early flow should have to use that to their advantage to win.
Lets talk TvZ. How excatly does terran control early-midgame? Zerg has this thing called creep, which is pretty good in TvZ. Zerg has more mobile units, which keeps terran defending, and still a stronger late game composition. Ling/bane/muta can basically stop anything, and control the game untill they get to hive. So where excactly are we supposed to take advantage of this?
Also, it's just bad for the game that terran has to significant damage before the late game to have a chance to survive it.
|
On February 13 2012 05:16 zmansman17 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2012 05:08 ZenithM wrote:On February 13 2012 05:01 zmansman17 wrote:On February 13 2012 04:57 ZenithM wrote:On February 13 2012 04:45 Acritter wrote:On February 13 2012 04:41 XXXSmOke wrote:On February 13 2012 04:35 ZenithM wrote:
There is one thing I don't understand though. How come nobody is trying to switch to Terran? I'm starting now because top Terran players are cool and Terran is cool and (apparently) challenging. Isn't there anyone interested by some kind of Hard Mode of SC2? Does everybody only want free wins with as few APM as possible or what?
I don't think it's true and I think most Terrans who switched did so because of TvT. It's not easy to get around the fact that a macro TvT between non-top players can easily last more than 30 minutes. But maybe I'm wrong, is there a lot of people here that have switched from Terran because they think they weren't winning enough? Its a vastly different race so I think people get flustered very fast when trying to learn it. Trying to learn all of the micro is very challenging. Marine splitting/stutter stepping/dropping/siege tank leap frogging. Its also very hard to get in a mindset of ending the game earlier rather than relying on BL's or Colossus to do the job for you in the late game. On top of this people tend to not switch to the race that gets nerfed every patch. People tend to not switch race, PERIOD. Off the top of my head, I can think of three players who have switched races: Morrow, TLO, and Artosis. There isn't something deeper about the Terran race being so much more difficult, it's just that players don't usually do full-on race switches. I was actually talking about your mildy decent ladder player (diamond and higher), not pros. Why doesn't anyone try out Terran for the challenge? Do Terrans really want to switch to Protoss?As a Protoss, I can tell you that PvT is not funnier than TvP actually (it just wins more probably), I would say that playing macro is boring as hell against T. All that to say that I don't think difficulty is the reason why we see less Terrans on ladder. This simply isn't true. Of my friends list, many of my Rank 1-3 master and GM friends are really fed up with Terran. There are some that aren't going to continue play next season. There are some like me who will be switching to Toss completely. As for your claim that PvT is "not funnier" than TvP, I can actually tell you that I think PvT is very easy from the Protoss side. Granted, I may know how to play the MU really well since I main Terran (and offrace as Rank 2 Master Protoss), I don't see how Protoss have trouble with the MU. When I said "fun", I really meant fun, not easy. Don't worry, I have no particular complaint with playing PvT. It's just that the current optimal macro way (double forge turtle into your higher tier units) is, in fact, boring to play with, and play against (I assume). Yeah well I've also heard this argument as well. The idea that playing Terran is actually more Fun than playing Protoss but I'm not sure where I stand on that side of the debate. I am stubborn and do love the Terran race, that's for sure. However, I really do enjoy PvZ, and I find that MU to be the most challenging for Protoss (Which is probably why I like it). PvT really is not as much fun from the Protoss side.
Yes, PvZ is a challenging and interesting matchup (much more than PvT I'll gladly give you that) 
PvP is very fun to play too, imo more than TvT. It's less complex in the overall strategy but is very micro and tactics oriented.
|
Also, it's just bad for the game that terran has to significant damage before the late game to have a chance to survive it.
So you would like to play a passive game vs an overexpanding/overdroning zerg and still have a chance lategame? Zerg is a macro race. It's by design their strength if left unchecked.
|
These are absolutely huge changes!! I can't wait to see these go live.
|
On February 13 2012 05:27 ceaRshaf wrote:Show nested quote +
Also, it's just bad for the game that terran has to significant damage before the late game to have a chance to survive it.
So you would like to play a passive game vs an overexpanding/overdroning zerg and still have a chance lategame? Zerg is a macro race. It's by design their strength if left unchecked.
I didn't say that. My point is that zerg can much easier hold of terran pushes in early-mid game. While terran just gets roflstomped in late game (most of the time).
|
On February 13 2012 05:27 ceaRshaf wrote:Show nested quote +
Also, it's just bad for the game that terran has to significant damage before the late game to have a chance to survive it.
So you would like to play a passive game vs an overexpanding/overdroning zerg and still have a chance lategame? Zerg is a macro race. It's by design their strength if left unchecked.
What makes it different from playing the same way as Terran? If both Z and T rush for 4 bases without attacking, T should still have a few "timing" attacks to hit to force some units form zerg/kill some drones BUT assuming all goes equal as far as bases and workers, T will be weaker. T's expansion mindset will be forced to "better expand during this push so if this timing fails I have another one".
|
On February 13 2012 05:12 zmansman17 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2012 05:03 Snowbear wrote:
If you look at the winrates from terran you see them dropping VERY HARD when the games enters the 20 min mark. Since ghosts are used 99% of the time lategame (after the 20 min mark), blizzard nerfed terran lategame. Meanwhile terran lategame is so so so so so so bad. Yeah I would love to have access to these statistics after a point in time. For example, If Terran wins the game, how often is that game: >5 minutes >10 minutes >20 minutes >40 minutes I can only add anecdotal experience as a Rank 2 master, but I win late game TvP, or TvZ at about 20%. I can be way ahead on econ., even if I have a 2nd FE early in a game versus P (as a response to nexus first) and still lose these games. Terran just doesn't have a good mineral dump (zergs = macro hatches, toss = tons of warpgates, cannons). Also, Terran can't replenish their army in the same way as Zerg or Protoss. So if your army dies, most likely, you just lost the game.
Terran has the best mineral dump in the game in the form of macro orbitals, as it frees up supply and you can roll with a 150+ supply army. A way to spend my minerals in the lategame is the least of my worries.
As for gas dumps our options are lacking, ravens are the obvious solution but they simply don't do much.
|
On February 13 2012 05:22 ZenithM wrote:PvP is very fun to play too, imo more than TvT. It's less complex in the overall strategy but is very micro and tactics oriented.
Yeah man, lets 4 gate into twilight blink into immortals into dark templars. TvT is the best mirror matchup, no need to discuss it further.
|
On February 13 2012 05:09 bovineblitz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2012 05:03 Snowbear wrote:
If you look at the winrates from terran you see them dropping VERY HARD when the games enters the 20 min mark. Since ghosts are used 99% of the time lategame (after the 20 min mark), blizzard nerfed terran lategame. Meanwhile terran lategame is so so so so so so bad. Yeah but Terran early and midgame is so so so so good. They pretty much define the flow of the game. If Terrans can't do enough damage with the tools they have, they have a tough lategame ahead of them. That doesn't seem like a terribly imbalanced thing to me, the race that controls the early flow should have to use that to their advantage to win.
Once protoss get colossus and HT, it is next to impossible to win. They could be behind, but get those up and all it takes is 2 storms and they win the fight. That is why ghosts need to be the way they are, if you compare ghosts to HT or infestors, you realize very quickly that they aren't actually that broken.
Anyone who doesn't see that protoss late game is 100% broken beyond all reason is kidding themselves and should honestly have their hands cut off. There is no excuse for protoss being a 90% win rate in late game race, and it's not like they don't have any good timings or ways to win early.
User was warned for this post
|
On February 13 2012 05:49 Wyk wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2012 05:22 ZenithM wrote:PvP is very fun to play too, imo more than TvT. It's less complex in the overall strategy but is very micro and tactics oriented. Yeah man, lets 4 gate into twilight blink into immortals into dark templars. TvT is the best mirror matchup, no need to discuss it further.
Again, didn't say that PvP was better, I also think that TvT is the better mirror, but blink battles are actually fun to play. I find blinking stalkers more fun than sieging tanks micro-wise, that's all. Note that I also said that TvT was more complex, which is a good indicator of how good a matchup is usually.
|
On February 13 2012 05:40 Bagi wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2012 05:12 zmansman17 wrote:On February 13 2012 05:03 Snowbear wrote:
If you look at the winrates from terran you see them dropping VERY HARD when the games enters the 20 min mark. Since ghosts are used 99% of the time lategame (after the 20 min mark), blizzard nerfed terran lategame. Meanwhile terran lategame is so so so so so so bad. Yeah I would love to have access to these statistics after a point in time. For example, If Terran wins the game, how often is that game: >5 minutes >10 minutes >20 minutes >40 minutes I can only add anecdotal experience as a Rank 2 master, but I win late game TvP, or TvZ at about 20%. I can be way ahead on econ., even if I have a 2nd FE early in a game versus P (as a response to nexus first) and still lose these games. Terran just doesn't have a good mineral dump (zergs = macro hatches, toss = tons of warpgates, cannons). Also, Terran can't replenish their army in the same way as Zerg or Protoss. So if your army dies, most likely, you just lost the game. Terran has the best mineral dump in the game in the form of macro orbitals, as it frees up supply and you can roll with a 150+ supply army. A way to spend my minerals in the lategame is the least of my worries. As for gas dumps our options are lacking, ravens are the obvious solution but they simply don't do much.
No, when I say mineral dump, I Don't mean to say another way that Terran can exponentially increase their minerals. But instead, to Spend those minerals in a way that will help them win the game.
Perhaps you misunderstand the functionality of the mineral dump. The idea of the mineral dump is either to create a bunch of defensive structures (cannons, spine crawlers) that solidify/defend position OR a means to reinforce your army (macro hatches, warpgates).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
