|
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 16 2012 00:54 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2012 23:20 Thrombozyt wrote:On February 15 2012 23:08 Big J wrote:On February 15 2012 22:27 WickedSkies wrote:On February 15 2012 21:37 Charon1979 wrote:
... and nydusplay has no room at all because of all the buildings a terran has. Because of comments like this I understand when David Kim buffs zerg so much...cause it clearly reveals the IQ of the average zerg player is between of a carrot and a turtle. CAUSE OF ALL OF THE BUILDINGS THE TERRAN HAS? WTF? WTF? JUST WTF? Sure, they give us vision, but can you even compare it to the vision zergs gain from overlords and creep, or burrowed stuff? Or even to toss who has pylons and obs all over the map? Surely you don't see supply depots all over the map? Besides, it is like comparing it to a nuke, when terran complains toss has obs or zerg has spores. But surely you don't want to use anything that causes you to think or to do more actions than just a-moving with lings/ultra and spamming t with infestors. The more and more I see comments in TL, the more I realize sc2 deserves what is happening to it. Cause it is the fanbase (you, Idra lovers) that play sc2 and who have some subjective opinion based on their own inability and lack of skill, not some objective scrub nobodys who cite the statistics which show terran late game win ratio vs zerg is below 30%. There is no reason to argue, Blizzard have seen that sc2 needs a race which can take a mainstream gamer to masters with ease. They even created two such races. Good luck to you, sirs. zerg buffed so much... yeah lol. please tell me more about those incredible buffs. and your lategame stats... they are taken from one single mlg. their statistical relevance is nonexistent, not only compared to the ladder, region, tournament data that blizzard is collecting and is basing decisions off, but generally. btw I think you should get at least a warning for such posts. insulting zerg pros(player bashing) and huge parts of the community(zerg players) alike... I'm willing to put money on the line, that a greater sample size will produce similar results. The question is: Do you think the terran late game strong enough that the data is just a fluke? Btw: If they would warn/ban for this, then he couldn't insult large parts of the Zerg population/pros because they couldn't read it due to bans. about the statistics... I don't know and I can't tell. if anyone has them/the tools to create them, it's blizzard. also i think it is a little hard to just observe statistcal balance of a certain time periode in a game, as the periods are neither really defined (pro ZvZ often has 10min+ of earlygame, but sometimes you will see lairtech roach 3base play as well), but also interact hugely. If you seriously want my opinion on this I want to note beforehand, that this is just theorycraft. I think right now a lot of Terrans are underpreparing for the lategame, because Zergs and Protoss are overpreparing for it against terran. I mean, we see situations in which an observer is like: why the hell does the zerg not just build a bunch of units and crush the incoming terran push, instead of drone. on the otherside we see a lot of terran pushes that might or might not work, completly dependend on the zerg being underprepared. I mean, sure you can build a ton of marauders and hellions (or marines and tanks) and try to catch a zerg with too few units, but let's face it, if he survives this he is on 3base with midgame tech against 2base and midgame techand noone has an army, which favors the faster producing race. That absolutly doesn't mean that Terrans should stop pressuring or zergs should just randomly produce armies, but I don't think it is a coincidence that aggressive zergs and defensive terrans are the ones that contribute the most to the progress of the game. And specifically: I think that statswise terran higher tech units are absolutly fine, their availability (cost,upgrades,buildtime) could be questionable, but that could also be because you simply will not be able to produce a raven from a baracks or research HSM from a reactor. I mean, does it sound so unreasonable to build starport number 2 instead of baracks number 8 and to add 3vikings against mutalisks and before broodlords instead of adding another 10 marines, when you are not aiming to win before hivetech anyways? and I dont mean to say: Terrans so dumb, so easy solution... but I think there is a lot of room for such stuff in the game in which things just need time to develope. also dont take this as an argument to not patch things and just wait what happens. 150roach armies, mass NP and a unit against which no zerg seems to find a proper solution against when used in the right composition are not fine. and because it might come up/i mentioned it: I think that TvP lategame is similar, though I think that due to feedback terrans options are more limited. yet a ton of terrans experiment with mech and air units, even/especially on GSL level, so I think it is too early to really make a call on their availability. also terran winrates overall are really fine.
Mech units aren't efficient enough in TvP against those massive warp ins after a trade, it always ends up favoring the protoss. Because of the lack of spider mine and other zoning tools. In TvZ against mutas, one does not simply gain air dominance with Vikings due to low rate of fire and inefficiency against light fliers that are so mobile.
|
United States7483 Posts
On February 16 2012 00:46 tdt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2012 16:30 LittleWM wrote:
I'm not convinced on the phoenix change. Am I the only one that gets countered heavily by corrupters when I use phoenix as it is?
ETA: Because, if they're going mutaling, they're transitioning in to brood lord anyway. What do you want a air unit that can't be countered? And are you forgetting speed of the air units? Just wait this phoenix change is really really good and will shut down DRG type domination of protoss in a defensive position. But they are still hard countered by corruptors, hydra, infestors siting at home. Show nested quote +On February 14 2012 15:39 usethis2 wrote:
There is a testing going on with range 6 Phoenix v. Mutalisks @PlayXP. Current consensus is you need about 8~10 Phoenix throughout the whole game, no matter how many Mutalisks are coming at you. Korean ladder Masters. 10 Pheonix v 30 mutalisks resulted in 8 Phoenix left over. (all Mutalisks dead) Both Phoenix and Muta are microed by similarly skilled friends.
It's an experiment to give you guys what to expect. Overlords are also much easier to kill because static air units no longer stack since patch 1.30 (?). Unless each ovie has a personal spore, there are bound to be angles where spores can't reach phoenix.
No, he just wants to be able to make a lot of the air superiority fighter and actually be able to take air superiority. You know, the unit Protoss has that is supposed to be able to take air control?
Problem is, fleet beacon is too far out of reach to get the upgrade at a reasonable time. 300/200 just for the building is expensive.
|
On February 16 2012 01:04 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2012 00:46 tdt wrote:On February 15 2012 16:30 LittleWM wrote:
I'm not convinced on the phoenix change. Am I the only one that gets countered heavily by corrupters when I use phoenix as it is?
ETA: Because, if they're going mutaling, they're transitioning in to brood lord anyway. What do you want a air unit that can't be countered? And are you forgetting speed of the air units? Just wait this phoenix change is really really good and will shut down DRG type domination of protoss in a defensive position. But they are still hard countered by corruptors, hydra, infestors siting at home. On February 14 2012 15:39 usethis2 wrote:
There is a testing going on with range 6 Phoenix v. Mutalisks @PlayXP. Current consensus is you need about 8~10 Phoenix throughout the whole game, no matter how many Mutalisks are coming at you. Korean ladder Masters. 10 Pheonix v 30 mutalisks resulted in 8 Phoenix left over. (all Mutalisks dead) Both Phoenix and Muta are microed by similarly skilled friends.
It's an experiment to give you guys what to expect. Overlords are also much easier to kill because static air units no longer stack since patch 1.30 (?). Unless each ovie has a personal spore, there are bound to be angles where spores can't reach phoenix.
No, he just wants to be able to make a lot of the air superiority fighter and actually be able to take air superiority. You know, the unit Protoss has that is supposed to be able to take air control? Problem is, fleet beacon is too far out of reach to get the upgrade at a reasonable time. 300/200 just for the building is expensive.
Come on. Superiority is hyperbole by blizz author. You don't really expect the Phoenix to beat ever air unit in the game? They just mean really really good and this makes them that way finally. Fastest meaning they can run from everything else and they can take down the muta threat easy after upgrade.
Perhaps "air survivability fighter" would have been more appropriate.
|
On February 16 2012 00:59 Blasterion wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2012 00:54 Big J wrote:On February 15 2012 23:20 Thrombozyt wrote:On February 15 2012 23:08 Big J wrote:On February 15 2012 22:27 WickedSkies wrote:On February 15 2012 21:37 Charon1979 wrote:
... and nydusplay has no room at all because of all the buildings a terran has. Because of comments like this I understand when David Kim buffs zerg so much...cause it clearly reveals the IQ of the average zerg player is between of a carrot and a turtle. CAUSE OF ALL OF THE BUILDINGS THE TERRAN HAS? WTF? WTF? JUST WTF? Sure, they give us vision, but can you even compare it to the vision zergs gain from overlords and creep, or burrowed stuff? Or even to toss who has pylons and obs all over the map? Surely you don't see supply depots all over the map? Besides, it is like comparing it to a nuke, when terran complains toss has obs or zerg has spores. But surely you don't want to use anything that causes you to think or to do more actions than just a-moving with lings/ultra and spamming t with infestors. The more and more I see comments in TL, the more I realize sc2 deserves what is happening to it. Cause it is the fanbase (you, Idra lovers) that play sc2 and who have some subjective opinion based on their own inability and lack of skill, not some objective scrub nobodys who cite the statistics which show terran late game win ratio vs zerg is below 30%. There is no reason to argue, Blizzard have seen that sc2 needs a race which can take a mainstream gamer to masters with ease. They even created two such races. Good luck to you, sirs. zerg buffed so much... yeah lol. please tell me more about those incredible buffs. and your lategame stats... they are taken from one single mlg. their statistical relevance is nonexistent, not only compared to the ladder, region, tournament data that blizzard is collecting and is basing decisions off, but generally. btw I think you should get at least a warning for such posts. insulting zerg pros(player bashing) and huge parts of the community(zerg players) alike... I'm willing to put money on the line, that a greater sample size will produce similar results. The question is: Do you think the terran late game strong enough that the data is just a fluke? Btw: If they would warn/ban for this, then he couldn't insult large parts of the Zerg population/pros because they couldn't read it due to bans. about the statistics... I don't know and I can't tell. if anyone has them/the tools to create them, it's blizzard. also i think it is a little hard to just observe statistcal balance of a certain time periode in a game, as the periods are neither really defined (pro ZvZ often has 10min+ of earlygame, but sometimes you will see lairtech roach 3base play as well), but also interact hugely. If you seriously want my opinion on this I want to note beforehand, that this is just theorycraft. I think right now a lot of Terrans are underpreparing for the lategame, because Zergs and Protoss are overpreparing for it against terran. I mean, we see situations in which an observer is like: why the hell does the zerg not just build a bunch of units and crush the incoming terran push, instead of drone. on the otherside we see a lot of terran pushes that might or might not work, completly dependend on the zerg being underprepared. I mean, sure you can build a ton of marauders and hellions (or marines and tanks) and try to catch a zerg with too few units, but let's face it, if he survives this he is on 3base with midgame tech against 2base and midgame techand noone has an army, which favors the faster producing race. That absolutly doesn't mean that Terrans should stop pressuring or zergs should just randomly produce armies, but I don't think it is a coincidence that aggressive zergs and defensive terrans are the ones that contribute the most to the progress of the game. And specifically: I think that statswise terran higher tech units are absolutly fine, their availability (cost,upgrades,buildtime) could be questionable, but that could also be because you simply will not be able to produce a raven from a baracks or research HSM from a reactor. I mean, does it sound so unreasonable to build starport number 2 instead of baracks number 8 and to add 3vikings against mutalisks and before broodlords instead of adding another 10 marines, when you are not aiming to win before hivetech anyways? and I dont mean to say: Terrans so dumb, so easy solution... but I think there is a lot of room for such stuff in the game in which things just need time to develope. also dont take this as an argument to not patch things and just wait what happens. 150roach armies, mass NP and a unit against which no zerg seems to find a proper solution against when used in the right composition are not fine. and because it might come up/i mentioned it: I think that TvP lategame is similar, though I think that due to feedback terrans options are more limited. yet a ton of terrans experiment with mech and air units, even/especially on GSL level, so I think it is too early to really make a call on their availability. also terran winrates overall are really fine. Mech units aren't efficient enough in TvP against those massive warp ins after a trade, it always ends up favoring the protoss. Because of the lack of spider mine and other zoning tools. In TvZ against mutas, one does not simply gain air dominance with Vikings due to low rate of fire and inefficiency against light fliers that are so mobile.
Mech experimentations in TvP are a fact. Pointing out downsides of it just shows that you either didn't read/understand what I was trying to argue, or don't bother what the topic is.
same goes for vikings in TvZ... I didnt argue air superiority - it's not needed for air units that sit over marines. I was barely pointing out that it's not a huge loss to your army strenght to have some of them instead of sone marines, when you fight mutas, while it is a small gain, when it comes down to fighting broodlords in the endgame. I'm absolutly not of the opinion you should try to go mass viking against mutas.
|
On February 16 2012 01:25 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2012 00:59 Blasterion wrote:On February 16 2012 00:54 Big J wrote:On February 15 2012 23:20 Thrombozyt wrote:On February 15 2012 23:08 Big J wrote:On February 15 2012 22:27 WickedSkies wrote:On February 15 2012 21:37 Charon1979 wrote:
... and nydusplay has no room at all because of all the buildings a terran has. Because of comments like this I understand when David Kim buffs zerg so much...cause it clearly reveals the IQ of the average zerg player is between of a carrot and a turtle. CAUSE OF ALL OF THE BUILDINGS THE TERRAN HAS? WTF? WTF? JUST WTF? Sure, they give us vision, but can you even compare it to the vision zergs gain from overlords and creep, or burrowed stuff? Or even to toss who has pylons and obs all over the map? Surely you don't see supply depots all over the map? Besides, it is like comparing it to a nuke, when terran complains toss has obs or zerg has spores. But surely you don't want to use anything that causes you to think or to do more actions than just a-moving with lings/ultra and spamming t with infestors. The more and more I see comments in TL, the more I realize sc2 deserves what is happening to it. Cause it is the fanbase (you, Idra lovers) that play sc2 and who have some subjective opinion based on their own inability and lack of skill, not some objective scrub nobodys who cite the statistics which show terran late game win ratio vs zerg is below 30%. There is no reason to argue, Blizzard have seen that sc2 needs a race which can take a mainstream gamer to masters with ease. They even created two such races. Good luck to you, sirs. zerg buffed so much... yeah lol. please tell me more about those incredible buffs. and your lategame stats... they are taken from one single mlg. their statistical relevance is nonexistent, not only compared to the ladder, region, tournament data that blizzard is collecting and is basing decisions off, but generally. btw I think you should get at least a warning for such posts. insulting zerg pros(player bashing) and huge parts of the community(zerg players) alike... I'm willing to put money on the line, that a greater sample size will produce similar results. The question is: Do you think the terran late game strong enough that the data is just a fluke? Btw: If they would warn/ban for this, then he couldn't insult large parts of the Zerg population/pros because they couldn't read it due to bans. about the statistics... I don't know and I can't tell. if anyone has them/the tools to create them, it's blizzard. also i think it is a little hard to just observe statistcal balance of a certain time periode in a game, as the periods are neither really defined (pro ZvZ often has 10min+ of earlygame, but sometimes you will see lairtech roach 3base play as well), but also interact hugely. If you seriously want my opinion on this I want to note beforehand, that this is just theorycraft. I think right now a lot of Terrans are underpreparing for the lategame, because Zergs and Protoss are overpreparing for it against terran. I mean, we see situations in which an observer is like: why the hell does the zerg not just build a bunch of units and crush the incoming terran push, instead of drone. on the otherside we see a lot of terran pushes that might or might not work, completly dependend on the zerg being underprepared. I mean, sure you can build a ton of marauders and hellions (or marines and tanks) and try to catch a zerg with too few units, but let's face it, if he survives this he is on 3base with midgame tech against 2base and midgame techand noone has an army, which favors the faster producing race. That absolutly doesn't mean that Terrans should stop pressuring or zergs should just randomly produce armies, but I don't think it is a coincidence that aggressive zergs and defensive terrans are the ones that contribute the most to the progress of the game. And specifically: I think that statswise terran higher tech units are absolutly fine, their availability (cost,upgrades,buildtime) could be questionable, but that could also be because you simply will not be able to produce a raven from a baracks or research HSM from a reactor. I mean, does it sound so unreasonable to build starport number 2 instead of baracks number 8 and to add 3vikings against mutalisks and before broodlords instead of adding another 10 marines, when you are not aiming to win before hivetech anyways? and I dont mean to say: Terrans so dumb, so easy solution... but I think there is a lot of room for such stuff in the game in which things just need time to develope. also dont take this as an argument to not patch things and just wait what happens. 150roach armies, mass NP and a unit against which no zerg seems to find a proper solution against when used in the right composition are not fine. and because it might come up/i mentioned it: I think that TvP lategame is similar, though I think that due to feedback terrans options are more limited. yet a ton of terrans experiment with mech and air units, even/especially on GSL level, so I think it is too early to really make a call on their availability. also terran winrates overall are really fine. Mech units aren't efficient enough in TvP against those massive warp ins after a trade, it always ends up favoring the protoss. Because of the lack of spider mine and other zoning tools. In TvZ against mutas, one does not simply gain air dominance with Vikings due to low rate of fire and inefficiency against light fliers that are so mobile. Mech experimentations in TvP are a fact. Pointing out downsides of it just shows that you either didn't read/understand what I was trying to argue, or don't bother what the topic is. same goes for vikings in TvZ... I didnt argue air superiority - it's not needed for air units that sit over marines. I was barely pointing out that it's not a huge loss to your army strenght to have some of them instead of sone marines, when you fight mutas, while it is a small gain, when it comes down to fighting broodlords in the endgame. I'm absolutly not of the opinion you should try to go mass viking against mutas.
Then why would you use units that are bad against what you are fighting?
|
On February 16 2012 01:32 Blasterion wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2012 01:25 Big J wrote:On February 16 2012 00:59 Blasterion wrote:On February 16 2012 00:54 Big J wrote:On February 15 2012 23:20 Thrombozyt wrote:On February 15 2012 23:08 Big J wrote:On February 15 2012 22:27 WickedSkies wrote:On February 15 2012 21:37 Charon1979 wrote:
... and nydusplay has no room at all because of all the buildings a terran has. Because of comments like this I understand when David Kim buffs zerg so much...cause it clearly reveals the IQ of the average zerg player is between of a carrot and a turtle. CAUSE OF ALL OF THE BUILDINGS THE TERRAN HAS? WTF? WTF? JUST WTF? Sure, they give us vision, but can you even compare it to the vision zergs gain from overlords and creep, or burrowed stuff? Or even to toss who has pylons and obs all over the map? Surely you don't see supply depots all over the map? Besides, it is like comparing it to a nuke, when terran complains toss has obs or zerg has spores. But surely you don't want to use anything that causes you to think or to do more actions than just a-moving with lings/ultra and spamming t with infestors. The more and more I see comments in TL, the more I realize sc2 deserves what is happening to it. Cause it is the fanbase (you, Idra lovers) that play sc2 and who have some subjective opinion based on their own inability and lack of skill, not some objective scrub nobodys who cite the statistics which show terran late game win ratio vs zerg is below 30%. There is no reason to argue, Blizzard have seen that sc2 needs a race which can take a mainstream gamer to masters with ease. They even created two such races. Good luck to you, sirs. zerg buffed so much... yeah lol. please tell me more about those incredible buffs. and your lategame stats... they are taken from one single mlg. their statistical relevance is nonexistent, not only compared to the ladder, region, tournament data that blizzard is collecting and is basing decisions off, but generally. btw I think you should get at least a warning for such posts. insulting zerg pros(player bashing) and huge parts of the community(zerg players) alike... I'm willing to put money on the line, that a greater sample size will produce similar results. The question is: Do you think the terran late game strong enough that the data is just a fluke? Btw: If they would warn/ban for this, then he couldn't insult large parts of the Zerg population/pros because they couldn't read it due to bans. about the statistics... I don't know and I can't tell. if anyone has them/the tools to create them, it's blizzard. also i think it is a little hard to just observe statistcal balance of a certain time periode in a game, as the periods are neither really defined (pro ZvZ often has 10min+ of earlygame, but sometimes you will see lairtech roach 3base play as well), but also interact hugely. If you seriously want my opinion on this I want to note beforehand, that this is just theorycraft. I think right now a lot of Terrans are underpreparing for the lategame, because Zergs and Protoss are overpreparing for it against terran. I mean, we see situations in which an observer is like: why the hell does the zerg not just build a bunch of units and crush the incoming terran push, instead of drone. on the otherside we see a lot of terran pushes that might or might not work, completly dependend on the zerg being underprepared. I mean, sure you can build a ton of marauders and hellions (or marines and tanks) and try to catch a zerg with too few units, but let's face it, if he survives this he is on 3base with midgame tech against 2base and midgame techand noone has an army, which favors the faster producing race. That absolutly doesn't mean that Terrans should stop pressuring or zergs should just randomly produce armies, but I don't think it is a coincidence that aggressive zergs and defensive terrans are the ones that contribute the most to the progress of the game. And specifically: I think that statswise terran higher tech units are absolutly fine, their availability (cost,upgrades,buildtime) could be questionable, but that could also be because you simply will not be able to produce a raven from a baracks or research HSM from a reactor. I mean, does it sound so unreasonable to build starport number 2 instead of baracks number 8 and to add 3vikings against mutalisks and before broodlords instead of adding another 10 marines, when you are not aiming to win before hivetech anyways? and I dont mean to say: Terrans so dumb, so easy solution... but I think there is a lot of room for such stuff in the game in which things just need time to develope. also dont take this as an argument to not patch things and just wait what happens. 150roach armies, mass NP and a unit against which no zerg seems to find a proper solution against when used in the right composition are not fine. and because it might come up/i mentioned it: I think that TvP lategame is similar, though I think that due to feedback terrans options are more limited. yet a ton of terrans experiment with mech and air units, even/especially on GSL level, so I think it is too early to really make a call on their availability. also terran winrates overall are really fine. Mech units aren't efficient enough in TvP against those massive warp ins after a trade, it always ends up favoring the protoss. Because of the lack of spider mine and other zoning tools. In TvZ against mutas, one does not simply gain air dominance with Vikings due to low rate of fire and inefficiency against light fliers that are so mobile. Mech experimentations in TvP are a fact. Pointing out downsides of it just shows that you either didn't read/understand what I was trying to argue, or don't bother what the topic is. same goes for vikings in TvZ... I didnt argue air superiority - it's not needed for air units that sit over marines. I was barely pointing out that it's not a huge loss to your army strenght to have some of them instead of sone marines, when you fight mutas, while it is a small gain, when it comes down to fighting broodlords in the endgame. I'm absolutly not of the opinion you should try to go mass viking against mutas. Then why would you use units that are bad against what you are fighting?
read it... if you dont understand ask again.
|
On February 16 2012 01:36 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2012 01:32 Blasterion wrote:On February 16 2012 01:25 Big J wrote:On February 16 2012 00:59 Blasterion wrote:On February 16 2012 00:54 Big J wrote:On February 15 2012 23:20 Thrombozyt wrote:On February 15 2012 23:08 Big J wrote:On February 15 2012 22:27 WickedSkies wrote:On February 15 2012 21:37 Charon1979 wrote:
... and nydusplay has no room at all because of all the buildings a terran has. Because of comments like this I understand when David Kim buffs zerg so much...cause it clearly reveals the IQ of the average zerg player is between of a carrot and a turtle. CAUSE OF ALL OF THE BUILDINGS THE TERRAN HAS? WTF? WTF? JUST WTF? Sure, they give us vision, but can you even compare it to the vision zergs gain from overlords and creep, or burrowed stuff? Or even to toss who has pylons and obs all over the map? Surely you don't see supply depots all over the map? Besides, it is like comparing it to a nuke, when terran complains toss has obs or zerg has spores. But surely you don't want to use anything that causes you to think or to do more actions than just a-moving with lings/ultra and spamming t with infestors. The more and more I see comments in TL, the more I realize sc2 deserves what is happening to it. Cause it is the fanbase (you, Idra lovers) that play sc2 and who have some subjective opinion based on their own inability and lack of skill, not some objective scrub nobodys who cite the statistics which show terran late game win ratio vs zerg is below 30%. There is no reason to argue, Blizzard have seen that sc2 needs a race which can take a mainstream gamer to masters with ease. They even created two such races. Good luck to you, sirs. zerg buffed so much... yeah lol. please tell me more about those incredible buffs. and your lategame stats... they are taken from one single mlg. their statistical relevance is nonexistent, not only compared to the ladder, region, tournament data that blizzard is collecting and is basing decisions off, but generally. btw I think you should get at least a warning for such posts. insulting zerg pros(player bashing) and huge parts of the community(zerg players) alike... I'm willing to put money on the line, that a greater sample size will produce similar results. The question is: Do you think the terran late game strong enough that the data is just a fluke? Btw: If they would warn/ban for this, then he couldn't insult large parts of the Zerg population/pros because they couldn't read it due to bans. about the statistics... I don't know and I can't tell. if anyone has them/the tools to create them, it's blizzard. also i think it is a little hard to just observe statistcal balance of a certain time periode in a game, as the periods are neither really defined (pro ZvZ often has 10min+ of earlygame, but sometimes you will see lairtech roach 3base play as well), but also interact hugely. If you seriously want my opinion on this I want to note beforehand, that this is just theorycraft. I think right now a lot of Terrans are underpreparing for the lategame, because Zergs and Protoss are overpreparing for it against terran. I mean, we see situations in which an observer is like: why the hell does the zerg not just build a bunch of units and crush the incoming terran push, instead of drone. on the otherside we see a lot of terran pushes that might or might not work, completly dependend on the zerg being underprepared. I mean, sure you can build a ton of marauders and hellions (or marines and tanks) and try to catch a zerg with too few units, but let's face it, if he survives this he is on 3base with midgame tech against 2base and midgame techand noone has an army, which favors the faster producing race. That absolutly doesn't mean that Terrans should stop pressuring or zergs should just randomly produce armies, but I don't think it is a coincidence that aggressive zergs and defensive terrans are the ones that contribute the most to the progress of the game. And specifically: I think that statswise terran higher tech units are absolutly fine, their availability (cost,upgrades,buildtime) could be questionable, but that could also be because you simply will not be able to produce a raven from a baracks or research HSM from a reactor. I mean, does it sound so unreasonable to build starport number 2 instead of baracks number 8 and to add 3vikings against mutalisks and before broodlords instead of adding another 10 marines, when you are not aiming to win before hivetech anyways? and I dont mean to say: Terrans so dumb, so easy solution... but I think there is a lot of room for such stuff in the game in which things just need time to develope. also dont take this as an argument to not patch things and just wait what happens. 150roach armies, mass NP and a unit against which no zerg seems to find a proper solution against when used in the right composition are not fine. and because it might come up/i mentioned it: I think that TvP lategame is similar, though I think that due to feedback terrans options are more limited. yet a ton of terrans experiment with mech and air units, even/especially on GSL level, so I think it is too early to really make a call on their availability. also terran winrates overall are really fine. Mech units aren't efficient enough in TvP against those massive warp ins after a trade, it always ends up favoring the protoss. Because of the lack of spider mine and other zoning tools. In TvZ against mutas, one does not simply gain air dominance with Vikings due to low rate of fire and inefficiency against light fliers that are so mobile. Mech experimentations in TvP are a fact. Pointing out downsides of it just shows that you either didn't read/understand what I was trying to argue, or don't bother what the topic is. same goes for vikings in TvZ... I didnt argue air superiority - it's not needed for air units that sit over marines. I was barely pointing out that it's not a huge loss to your army strenght to have some of them instead of sone marines, when you fight mutas, while it is a small gain, when it comes down to fighting broodlords in the endgame. I'm absolutly not of the opinion you should try to go mass viking against mutas. Then why would you use units that are bad against what you are fighting? read it... if you dont understand ask again.
I actually honestly don't know what you're trying to convey here. Vikings suck against mutas, everyone knows that. Why would you build something like that? They serve no purpose at that point in game. and will only suck up supply.
|
On February 16 2012 01:40 Blasterion wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2012 01:36 Big J wrote:On February 16 2012 01:32 Blasterion wrote:On February 16 2012 01:25 Big J wrote:On February 16 2012 00:59 Blasterion wrote:On February 16 2012 00:54 Big J wrote:On February 15 2012 23:20 Thrombozyt wrote:On February 15 2012 23:08 Big J wrote:On February 15 2012 22:27 WickedSkies wrote:On February 15 2012 21:37 Charon1979 wrote:
... and nydusplay has no room at all because of all the buildings a terran has. Because of comments like this I understand when David Kim buffs zerg so much...cause it clearly reveals the IQ of the average zerg player is between of a carrot and a turtle. CAUSE OF ALL OF THE BUILDINGS THE TERRAN HAS? WTF? WTF? JUST WTF? Sure, they give us vision, but can you even compare it to the vision zergs gain from overlords and creep, or burrowed stuff? Or even to toss who has pylons and obs all over the map? Surely you don't see supply depots all over the map? Besides, it is like comparing it to a nuke, when terran complains toss has obs or zerg has spores. But surely you don't want to use anything that causes you to think or to do more actions than just a-moving with lings/ultra and spamming t with infestors. The more and more I see comments in TL, the more I realize sc2 deserves what is happening to it. Cause it is the fanbase (you, Idra lovers) that play sc2 and who have some subjective opinion based on their own inability and lack of skill, not some objective scrub nobodys who cite the statistics which show terran late game win ratio vs zerg is below 30%. There is no reason to argue, Blizzard have seen that sc2 needs a race which can take a mainstream gamer to masters with ease. They even created two such races. Good luck to you, sirs. zerg buffed so much... yeah lol. please tell me more about those incredible buffs. and your lategame stats... they are taken from one single mlg. their statistical relevance is nonexistent, not only compared to the ladder, region, tournament data that blizzard is collecting and is basing decisions off, but generally. btw I think you should get at least a warning for such posts. insulting zerg pros(player bashing) and huge parts of the community(zerg players) alike... I'm willing to put money on the line, that a greater sample size will produce similar results. The question is: Do you think the terran late game strong enough that the data is just a fluke? Btw: If they would warn/ban for this, then he couldn't insult large parts of the Zerg population/pros because they couldn't read it due to bans. about the statistics... I don't know and I can't tell. if anyone has them/the tools to create them, it's blizzard. also i think it is a little hard to just observe statistcal balance of a certain time periode in a game, as the periods are neither really defined (pro ZvZ often has 10min+ of earlygame, but sometimes you will see lairtech roach 3base play as well), but also interact hugely. If you seriously want my opinion on this I want to note beforehand, that this is just theorycraft. I think right now a lot of Terrans are underpreparing for the lategame, because Zergs and Protoss are overpreparing for it against terran. I mean, we see situations in which an observer is like: why the hell does the zerg not just build a bunch of units and crush the incoming terran push, instead of drone. on the otherside we see a lot of terran pushes that might or might not work, completly dependend on the zerg being underprepared. I mean, sure you can build a ton of marauders and hellions (or marines and tanks) and try to catch a zerg with too few units, but let's face it, if he survives this he is on 3base with midgame tech against 2base and midgame techand noone has an army, which favors the faster producing race. That absolutly doesn't mean that Terrans should stop pressuring or zergs should just randomly produce armies, but I don't think it is a coincidence that aggressive zergs and defensive terrans are the ones that contribute the most to the progress of the game. And specifically: I think that statswise terran higher tech units are absolutly fine, their availability (cost,upgrades,buildtime) could be questionable, but that could also be because you simply will not be able to produce a raven from a baracks or research HSM from a reactor. I mean, does it sound so unreasonable to build starport number 2 instead of baracks number 8 and to add 3vikings against mutalisks and before broodlords instead of adding another 10 marines, when you are not aiming to win before hivetech anyways? and I dont mean to say: Terrans so dumb, so easy solution... but I think there is a lot of room for such stuff in the game in which things just need time to develope. also dont take this as an argument to not patch things and just wait what happens. 150roach armies, mass NP and a unit against which no zerg seems to find a proper solution against when used in the right composition are not fine. and because it might come up/i mentioned it: I think that TvP lategame is similar, though I think that due to feedback terrans options are more limited. yet a ton of terrans experiment with mech and air units, even/especially on GSL level, so I think it is too early to really make a call on their availability. also terran winrates overall are really fine. Mech units aren't efficient enough in TvP against those massive warp ins after a trade, it always ends up favoring the protoss. Because of the lack of spider mine and other zoning tools. In TvZ against mutas, one does not simply gain air dominance with Vikings due to low rate of fire and inefficiency against light fliers that are so mobile. Mech experimentations in TvP are a fact. Pointing out downsides of it just shows that you either didn't read/understand what I was trying to argue, or don't bother what the topic is. same goes for vikings in TvZ... I didnt argue air superiority - it's not needed for air units that sit over marines. I was barely pointing out that it's not a huge loss to your army strenght to have some of them instead of sone marines, when you fight mutas, while it is a small gain, when it comes down to fighting broodlords in the endgame. I'm absolutly not of the opinion you should try to go mass viking against mutas. Then why would you use units that are bad against what you are fighting? read it... if you dont understand ask again. I actually honestly don't know what you're trying to convey here. Vikings suck against mutas, everyone knows that. Why would you build something like that?
I actually honestly don't think you read it. I said you build them because they are good vs broodlords later, and right now they add dps against mutas.
why does a protoss build stalkers vs bio? because they can protect his colossi later on.
hell... why do you upgrade or tech... you could use the same ressources on more marines earlier.
|
Feels like Zerg has nothing... fair enough!! At least we get to show our CPM now.. selecting all hatch and spamming Z all the way
|
I actually honestly don't know what you're trying to convey here. Vikings suck against mutas, everyone knows that. Why would you build something like that? They serve no purpose at that point in game. and will only suck up supply.
Last edit: 2012-02-16 01:44:53
This is a widespread misconception.
Vikings sucks against muta in the unit tester 1a scenario but in real games i found viking to be extremely effective against muta harass, you just dont need vikings alone.
I predict a huge comback of the viking in tvz
|
On February 16 2012 01:54 Tristanity wrote:
Feels like Zerg has nothing... fair enough!! At least we get to show our CPM now.. selecting all hatch and spamming Z all the way
There is like 200 pages talking about what zerg got. Sniping bio has no effect on protoss that's for sure.
|
On February 16 2012 01:52 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2012 01:40 Blasterion wrote:On February 16 2012 01:36 Big J wrote:On February 16 2012 01:32 Blasterion wrote:On February 16 2012 01:25 Big J wrote:On February 16 2012 00:59 Blasterion wrote:On February 16 2012 00:54 Big J wrote:On February 15 2012 23:20 Thrombozyt wrote:On February 15 2012 23:08 Big J wrote:On February 15 2012 22:27 WickedSkies wrote:
[quote]
Because of comments like this I understand when David Kim buffs zerg so much...cause it clearly reveals the IQ of the average zerg player is between of a carrot and a turtle. CAUSE OF ALL OF THE BUILDINGS THE TERRAN HAS? WTF? WTF? JUST WTF? Sure, they give us vision, but can you even compare it to the vision zergs gain from overlords and creep, or burrowed stuff? Or even to toss who has pylons and obs all over the map? Surely you don't see supply depots all over the map? Besides, it is like comparing it to a nuke, when terran complains toss has obs or zerg has spores. But surely you don't want to use anything that causes you to think or to do more actions than just a-moving with lings/ultra and spamming t with infestors. The more and more I see comments in TL, the more I realize sc2 deserves what is happening to it. Cause it is the fanbase (you, Idra lovers) that play sc2 and who have some subjective opinion based on their own inability and lack of skill, not some objective scrub nobodys who cite the statistics which show terran late game win ratio vs zerg is below 30%. There is no reason to argue, Blizzard have seen that sc2 needs a race which can take a mainstream gamer to masters with ease. They even created two such races. Good luck to you, sirs.
zerg buffed so much... yeah lol. please tell me more about those incredible buffs. and your lategame stats... they are taken from one single mlg. their statistical relevance is nonexistent, not only compared to the ladder, region, tournament data that blizzard is collecting and is basing decisions off, but generally. btw I think you should get at least a warning for such posts. insulting zerg pros(player bashing) and huge parts of the community(zerg players) alike... I'm willing to put money on the line, that a greater sample size will produce similar results. The question is: Do you think the terran late game strong enough that the data is just a fluke? Btw: If they would warn/ban for this, then he couldn't insult large parts of the Zerg population/pros because they couldn't read it due to bans. about the statistics... I don't know and I can't tell. if anyone has them/the tools to create them, it's blizzard. also i think it is a little hard to just observe statistcal balance of a certain time periode in a game, as the periods are neither really defined (pro ZvZ often has 10min+ of earlygame, but sometimes you will see lairtech roach 3base play as well), but also interact hugely. If you seriously want my opinion on this I want to note beforehand, that this is just theorycraft. I think right now a lot of Terrans are underpreparing for the lategame, because Zergs and Protoss are overpreparing for it against terran. I mean, we see situations in which an observer is like: why the hell does the zerg not just build a bunch of units and crush the incoming terran push, instead of drone. on the otherside we see a lot of terran pushes that might or might not work, completly dependend on the zerg being underprepared. I mean, sure you can build a ton of marauders and hellions (or marines and tanks) and try to catch a zerg with too few units, but let's face it, if he survives this he is on 3base with midgame tech against 2base and midgame techand noone has an army, which favors the faster producing race. That absolutly doesn't mean that Terrans should stop pressuring or zergs should just randomly produce armies, but I don't think it is a coincidence that aggressive zergs and defensive terrans are the ones that contribute the most to the progress of the game. And specifically: I think that statswise terran higher tech units are absolutly fine, their availability (cost,upgrades,buildtime) could be questionable, but that could also be because you simply will not be able to produce a raven from a baracks or research HSM from a reactor. I mean, does it sound so unreasonable to build starport number 2 instead of baracks number 8 and to add 3vikings against mutalisks and before broodlords instead of adding another 10 marines, when you are not aiming to win before hivetech anyways? and I dont mean to say: Terrans so dumb, so easy solution... but I think there is a lot of room for such stuff in the game in which things just need time to develope. also dont take this as an argument to not patch things and just wait what happens. 150roach armies, mass NP and a unit against which no zerg seems to find a proper solution against when used in the right composition are not fine. and because it might come up/i mentioned it: I think that TvP lategame is similar, though I think that due to feedback terrans options are more limited. yet a ton of terrans experiment with mech and air units, even/especially on GSL level, so I think it is too early to really make a call on their availability. also terran winrates overall are really fine. Mech units aren't efficient enough in TvP against those massive warp ins after a trade, it always ends up favoring the protoss. Because of the lack of spider mine and other zoning tools. In TvZ against mutas, one does not simply gain air dominance with Vikings due to low rate of fire and inefficiency against light fliers that are so mobile. Mech experimentations in TvP are a fact. Pointing out downsides of it just shows that you either didn't read/understand what I was trying to argue, or don't bother what the topic is. same goes for vikings in TvZ... I didnt argue air superiority - it's not needed for air units that sit over marines. I was barely pointing out that it's not a huge loss to your army strenght to have some of them instead of sone marines, when you fight mutas, while it is a small gain, when it comes down to fighting broodlords in the endgame. I'm absolutly not of the opinion you should try to go mass viking against mutas. Then why would you use units that are bad against what you are fighting? read it... if you dont understand ask again. I actually honestly don't know what you're trying to convey here. Vikings suck against mutas, everyone knows that. Why would you build something like that? I actually honestly don't think you read it. I said you build them because they are good vs broodlords later, and right now they add dps against mutas. why does a protoss build stalkers vs bio? because they can protect his colossi later on. hell... why do you upgrade or tech... you could use the same ressources on more marines earlier.
why don't you just make extra starports instead, if you lose those early viking numbers to mutas then there is no point, instead you could make extra medivacs or something more useful.
|
On February 16 2012 01:56 Rassy wrote:
I actually honestly don't know what you're trying to convey here. Vikings suck against mutas, everyone knows that. Why would you build something like that? They serve no purpose at that point in game. and will only suck up supply.
Last edit: 2012-02-16 01:44:53
This is a widespread misconception.
Vikings sucks against muta in the unit tester 1a scenario but in real games i found viking to be extremely effective against muta harass, you just dont need vikings alone.
I predict a huge comback of the viking in tvz
Vikings aren't valkyries they don't splash, they aren't goliaths with 11 range either.
|
On February 16 2012 01:59 Blasterion wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2012 01:56 Rassy wrote:
I actually honestly don't know what you're trying to convey here. Vikings suck against mutas, everyone knows that. Why would you build something like that? They serve no purpose at that point in game. and will only suck up supply.
Last edit: 2012-02-16 01:44:53
This is a widespread misconception.
Vikings sucks against muta in the unit tester 1a scenario but in real games i found viking to be extremely effective against muta harass, you just dont need vikings alone.
I predict a huge comback of the viking in tvz Vikings aren't valkyries they don't splash, they aren't goliaths with 11 range either.
In fact, viking's range is longer than the goliath one, even with charon boosters. Goliath range when upgraded was 8 iirc
|
On February 16 2012 01:58 Blasterion wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2012 01:52 Big J wrote:On February 16 2012 01:40 Blasterion wrote:On February 16 2012 01:36 Big J wrote:On February 16 2012 01:32 Blasterion wrote:On February 16 2012 01:25 Big J wrote:On February 16 2012 00:59 Blasterion wrote:On February 16 2012 00:54 Big J wrote:On February 15 2012 23:20 Thrombozyt wrote:On February 15 2012 23:08 Big J wrote:
[quote]
zerg buffed so much... yeah lol. please tell me more about those incredible buffs.
and your lategame stats... they are taken from one single mlg. their statistical relevance is nonexistent, not only compared to the ladder, region, tournament data that blizzard is collecting and is basing decisions off, but generally.
btw I think you should get at least a warning for such posts. insulting zerg pros(player bashing) and huge parts of the community(zerg players) alike... I'm willing to put money on the line, that a greater sample size will produce similar results. The question is: Do you think the terran late game strong enough that the data is just a fluke? Btw: If they would warn/ban for this, then he couldn't insult large parts of the Zerg population/pros because they couldn't read it due to bans. about the statistics... I don't know and I can't tell. if anyone has them/the tools to create them, it's blizzard. also i think it is a little hard to just observe statistcal balance of a certain time periode in a game, as the periods are neither really defined (pro ZvZ often has 10min+ of earlygame, but sometimes you will see lairtech roach 3base play as well), but also interact hugely. If you seriously want my opinion on this I want to note beforehand, that this is just theorycraft. I think right now a lot of Terrans are underpreparing for the lategame, because Zergs and Protoss are overpreparing for it against terran. I mean, we see situations in which an observer is like: why the hell does the zerg not just build a bunch of units and crush the incoming terran push, instead of drone. on the otherside we see a lot of terran pushes that might or might not work, completly dependend on the zerg being underprepared. I mean, sure you can build a ton of marauders and hellions (or marines and tanks) and try to catch a zerg with too few units, but let's face it, if he survives this he is on 3base with midgame tech against 2base and midgame techand noone has an army, which favors the faster producing race. That absolutly doesn't mean that Terrans should stop pressuring or zergs should just randomly produce armies, but I don't think it is a coincidence that aggressive zergs and defensive terrans are the ones that contribute the most to the progress of the game. And specifically: I think that statswise terran higher tech units are absolutly fine, their availability (cost,upgrades,buildtime) could be questionable, but that could also be because you simply will not be able to produce a raven from a baracks or research HSM from a reactor. I mean, does it sound so unreasonable to build starport number 2 instead of baracks number 8 and to add 3vikings against mutalisks and before broodlords instead of adding another 10 marines, when you are not aiming to win before hivetech anyways? and I dont mean to say: Terrans so dumb, so easy solution... but I think there is a lot of room for such stuff in the game in which things just need time to develope. also dont take this as an argument to not patch things and just wait what happens. 150roach armies, mass NP and a unit against which no zerg seems to find a proper solution against when used in the right composition are not fine. and because it might come up/i mentioned it: I think that TvP lategame is similar, though I think that due to feedback terrans options are more limited. yet a ton of terrans experiment with mech and air units, even/especially on GSL level, so I think it is too early to really make a call on their availability. also terran winrates overall are really fine. Mech units aren't efficient enough in TvP against those massive warp ins after a trade, it always ends up favoring the protoss. Because of the lack of spider mine and other zoning tools. In TvZ against mutas, one does not simply gain air dominance with Vikings due to low rate of fire and inefficiency against light fliers that are so mobile. Mech experimentations in TvP are a fact. Pointing out downsides of it just shows that you either didn't read/understand what I was trying to argue, or don't bother what the topic is. same goes for vikings in TvZ... I didnt argue air superiority - it's not needed for air units that sit over marines. I was barely pointing out that it's not a huge loss to your army strenght to have some of them instead of sone marines, when you fight mutas, while it is a small gain, when it comes down to fighting broodlords in the endgame. I'm absolutly not of the opinion you should try to go mass viking against mutas. Then why would you use units that are bad against what you are fighting? read it... if you dont understand ask again. I actually honestly don't know what you're trying to convey here. Vikings suck against mutas, everyone knows that. Why would you build something like that? I actually honestly don't think you read it. I said you build them because they are good vs broodlords later, and right now they add dps against mutas. why does a protoss build stalkers vs bio? because they can protect his colossi later on. hell... why do you upgrade or tech... you could use the same ressources on more marines earlier. why don't you just make extra starports instead, if you lose those early viking numbers to mutas then there is no point, instead you could make extra medivacs or something more useful.
hard work to explain an argument to someone who hasn't read it...
I was saying you cut some other units and production facilities to get another starport (so yeah, i already said more starports... your suggestion is already part of the argument that you haven't read)
The point is: cutting some units and slowly adding lategame units is less risky. no matter how hard vikings suck against mutalisks in the air or banelings on the ground.
if you feel like you don't need the lategame units now either, more infrastructure might of course be even better.
|
On February 16 2012 02:18 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2012 01:58 Blasterion wrote:On February 16 2012 01:52 Big J wrote:On February 16 2012 01:40 Blasterion wrote:On February 16 2012 01:36 Big J wrote:On February 16 2012 01:32 Blasterion wrote:On February 16 2012 01:25 Big J wrote:On February 16 2012 00:59 Blasterion wrote:On February 16 2012 00:54 Big J wrote:On February 15 2012 23:20 Thrombozyt wrote:
[quote]
I'm willing to put money on the line, that a greater sample size will produce similar results.
The question is: Do you think the terran late game strong enough that the data is just a fluke?
Btw:
If they would warn/ban for this, then he couldn't insult large parts of the Zerg population/pros because they couldn't read it due to bans. about the statistics... I don't know and I can't tell. if anyone has them/the tools to create them, it's blizzard. also i think it is a little hard to just observe statistcal balance of a certain time periode in a game, as the periods are neither really defined (pro ZvZ often has 10min+ of earlygame, but sometimes you will see lairtech roach 3base play as well), but also interact hugely. If you seriously want my opinion on this I want to note beforehand, that this is just theorycraft. I think right now a lot of Terrans are underpreparing for the lategame, because Zergs and Protoss are overpreparing for it against terran. I mean, we see situations in which an observer is like: why the hell does the zerg not just build a bunch of units and crush the incoming terran push, instead of drone. on the otherside we see a lot of terran pushes that might or might not work, completly dependend on the zerg being underprepared. I mean, sure you can build a ton of marauders and hellions (or marines and tanks) and try to catch a zerg with too few units, but let's face it, if he survives this he is on 3base with midgame tech against 2base and midgame techand noone has an army, which favors the faster producing race. That absolutly doesn't mean that Terrans should stop pressuring or zergs should just randomly produce armies, but I don't think it is a coincidence that aggressive zergs and defensive terrans are the ones that contribute the most to the progress of the game. And specifically: I think that statswise terran higher tech units are absolutly fine, their availability (cost,upgrades,buildtime) could be questionable, but that could also be because you simply will not be able to produce a raven from a baracks or research HSM from a reactor. I mean, does it sound so unreasonable to build starport number 2 instead of baracks number 8 and to add 3vikings against mutalisks and before broodlords instead of adding another 10 marines, when you are not aiming to win before hivetech anyways? and I dont mean to say: Terrans so dumb, so easy solution... but I think there is a lot of room for such stuff in the game in which things just need time to develope. also dont take this as an argument to not patch things and just wait what happens. 150roach armies, mass NP and a unit against which no zerg seems to find a proper solution against when used in the right composition are not fine. and because it might come up/i mentioned it: I think that TvP lategame is similar, though I think that due to feedback terrans options are more limited. yet a ton of terrans experiment with mech and air units, even/especially on GSL level, so I think it is too early to really make a call on their availability. also terran winrates overall are really fine. Mech units aren't efficient enough in TvP against those massive warp ins after a trade, it always ends up favoring the protoss. Because of the lack of spider mine and other zoning tools. In TvZ against mutas, one does not simply gain air dominance with Vikings due to low rate of fire and inefficiency against light fliers that are so mobile. Mech experimentations in TvP are a fact. Pointing out downsides of it just shows that you either didn't read/understand what I was trying to argue, or don't bother what the topic is. same goes for vikings in TvZ... I didnt argue air superiority - it's not needed for air units that sit over marines. I was barely pointing out that it's not a huge loss to your army strenght to have some of them instead of sone marines, when you fight mutas, while it is a small gain, when it comes down to fighting broodlords in the endgame. I'm absolutly not of the opinion you should try to go mass viking against mutas. Then why would you use units that are bad against what you are fighting? read it... if you dont understand ask again. I actually honestly don't know what you're trying to convey here. Vikings suck against mutas, everyone knows that. Why would you build something like that? I actually honestly don't think you read it. I said you build them because they are good vs broodlords later, and right now they add dps against mutas. why does a protoss build stalkers vs bio? because they can protect his colossi later on. hell... why do you upgrade or tech... you could use the same ressources on more marines earlier. why don't you just make extra starports instead, if you lose those early viking numbers to mutas then there is no point, instead you could make extra medivacs or something more useful. hard work to explain an argument to someone who hasn't read it... I was saying you cut some other units and production facilities to get another starport (so yeah, i already said more starports... your suggestion is already part of the argument that you haven't read) The point is: cutting some units and slowly adding lategame units is less risky. no matter how hard vikings suck against mutalisks in the air or banelings on the ground. if you feel like you don't need the lategame units now either, more infrastructure might of course be even better.
That just means the Zerg doesn't even need late game to kill you, they can just kill you with Mutaling at that moment. Because X of your supply is stuck in useless vikings.
|
oh god. i have 6supply of vikings, how should i ever hold an attack now... that's ridicolous.
|
Ok, I'm sick of people saying that it is not OK for a T2 unit (ghosts) to counter T3 zerg units. A few points:
1. Terran does NOT have any viable T3 units.
Thors are T3 that are useful ONLY in countering T2 (mutas). And are vulnerable to T1, T2, and T3 units (Ultras, BLs, lings, roaches).
Battlecruisers, at this stage, are worthless in TvZ. Why? If they are scouted, all it takes is one wave of corruptor production to nullify them. Their damage is limited against ground and air (doesnt have any splash so zerglings detract from other targets, AND low damage makes them useless aginst ultra armor). They are slow as hell and easily NP'd / fungaled which makes it hard to move around.
Cloaked Banshees - would be viable if terran had a AA solution to mutalisks (ie, buffed raven). They are extremely vulnerable to infestors, mutas, corruptors. They force tech labs on the starport which forces a huge capital investment in starports in addition to the reactored starports.
2. So yes, ghosts are T2 that counter T3, and snipe is a really strong spell. But, you cannot nerf this spell without offering some form of counter-balance. Make on of the T3 units actually WORTH getting.
- Give BC's some splash against light units.
- OR give BC's the ability to attack air and ground at the same time
- OR Allow terrans to select which units thors focus first (target prioritizing - would allow for a lot more thor micro)
- OR decrease raven build time OR cost OR spell energy cost.
- OR make raven turrets FLAME turrets so they can actually do some damage.
Then you can talk about nerfing snipe.
I completely agree. Seriously, Terran has no viable T3 unit. BC suck against Z and P. Ravens are so costly, slow build time, slow movement, and out ranged by almost everything. And not ghost is nerfed...again!
This causes a huge problem, especially in TvZ . Z can easily tech switch late game after any battle and going from broodloards to ultras is just going to be impossible to defend when T needs just different units.
IMO this is going to force T to do more early all-ins as the probability of a TvZ late game win will go down significantly.
|
On February 16 2012 02:33 Big J wrote:
oh god. i have 6supply of vikings, how should i ever hold an attack now... that's ridicolous.
What the hell are you going to do with 3 Vikings....
|
On February 16 2012 02:59 Blasterion wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2012 02:33 Big J wrote:
oh god. i have 6supply of vikings, how should i ever hold an attack now... that's ridicolous. What the hell are you going to do with 3 Vikings....
land and lift, land and lift, land and lift...
+ Show Spoiler +i have 3more vikings and an extra starport if a BL switch comes. I can more easily go into ravens - the unit that jinro considers borderline broken against Z in the lategame - if I want to.
but yeah, if you dont think that is better than not having them in the lategame, i guess I will concentrate on land and lift.
btw Im not gonna answer you anymore about things that you could have read in my original post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
