|
On March 21 2012 19:47 Kakaru2 wrote:
Beasty proposed that change. And it's no harder than having to kite back constantly.
Edit: I'd prefer more radical change though, but until Hots those will not be possible.
Doesn't zerglings and ultras also autosurround? I do think it'll be harder as even i can stutter step decently while if they remove the surround you'll have to manually box a handful och units to move them around the bioball. And i guess a result of no autosurround will be that most zealots block eachother and wont be in range to attack so you'll have to individually move them to another target, no?
|
On March 21 2012 19:52 karpo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2012 19:47 Kakaru2 wrote:
Beasty proposed that change. And it's no harder than having to kite back constantly.
Edit: I'd prefer more radical change though, but until Hots those will not be possible. Doesn't zerglings and ultras also autosurround? I do think it'll be harder as even i can stutter step decently while if they remove the surround you'll have to manually box a handful och units to move them around the bioball. And i guess a result of no autosurround will be that most zealots block eachother and wont be in range to attack so you'll have to individually move them to another target, no?
Yes, please give Zealots the AI of ultras. All problems would be solved for T 
But in all honesty, this thread has a number of proposed solutions how to change the mechanics and leave balance roughly where it is. In the end, lower end T's need some units that also work without perfect micro but which would get destroyed by a competent toss with good micro. (Thor versus HT is moving in the right direction, but shift-clicking fb on thor is a bit too easy for even a silver league player to fail at it.) In this sense I don't mind FF, as at diamond level P's can't crush me with their ability to FF but at higher levels my poorly managed attacks would not work with sentries around. The problem is, as the game continues chargelot, archon, colossus, storm works pretty damn well with 60 apm micro during the fight while MMMVG does not.
Keep the data and proposals coming, but don't expect to hit the perfect solution any time soon...
|
Listen karpo, everybody agrees that terran requires more micro than the other races. Same in BW. That is also cited as the reason Korean do so well, because they can really exploit Terran micro/apm.
Instead of easing terran, which will make lower league balanced but MMA/MVP/etc OP the solution is to step up the micro for the other race - eg Toss.
Is it easy to split individual marines against banelings? Yet, if you master this you are GM Terran. Same with toss after the proposed change, after they master the splitting they will still own.
But GM Toss will own, for lower league will be average micro versus average micro, not as it is now average micro versus A-move.
That's the reasoning for Beasty proposal.
Like I already said, mine is removing forcefield and warpgate and buff zel/stalker so they can resist early pushes.
When I play toss i'm afraid in the first 10 minutes. When I play Terran I'm afraid after 10 minutes.
This is poor design by blizzard, in BW I had no problem with any of the 3 races.
And zerg isn't that great either, like someone posted if you know what opponent is doing then you 100% win but if they hide that from you you're in a pile of manure from which you'll not get out.
|
I find it funny that Protoss claim that it's balanced at the pro levels... According to the TLPD win rates for Korea, Terran win less against Protoss won than Protoss did against Terran when 1/1/1 was considered overpowered. Those win rates for summer last year justified both huge protoss whine like the sad zealot club and buffs from blizzard's side...
TLPD august 2011: http://i.imgur.com/Jvlvy.png
TLPD february 2012: http://imgur.com/a/1aAfu
|
On March 21 2012 20:20 Kakaru2 wrote:
Listen karpo, everybody agrees that terran requires more micro than the other races. Same in BW. That is also cited as the reason Korean do so well, because they can really exploit Terran micro/apm.
Instead of easing terran, which will make lower league balanced but MMA/MVP/etc OP the solution is to step up the micro for the other race - eg Toss.
Is it easy to split individual marines against banelings? Yet, if you master this you are GM Terran. Same with toss after the proposed change, after they master the splitting they will still own.
But GM Toss will own, for lower league will be average micro versus average micro, not as it is now average micro versus A-move.
That's the reasoning for Beasty proposal.
Like I already said, mine is removing forcefield and warpgate and buff zel/stalker so they can resist early pushes.
When I play toss i'm afraid in the first 10 minutes. When I play Terran I'm afraid after 10 minutes.
This is poor design by blizzard, in BW I had no problem with any of the 3 races.
And zerg isn't that great either, like someone posted if you know what opponent is doing then you 100% win but if they hide that from you you're in a pile of manure from which you'll not get out.
I really dislike all the hyperbole in this thread. There's so many people saying that T wins 100% early game and P 100% late game, and now you're saying that zerg wins 100% if the opponent doesn't hide what he's doing? It's not close to as black and white as many people are suggesting and is detracts from any kind of value this thread has.
Also if you remove forcefields and buff stalkers and zealots, won't lategame TvP be even thougher as, at least to me, forcefield spam in the late game seem to hinder almost as much as it helps protoss (MC vs Puma IEM comes to mind). It would require a total rebalancing of upgrades, and it would mess PvZ up totally.
I'd disagree that splitting against banelings and splitting zealots to surround are similar as marine splits, even from the best terrans, take damage while dealing ranged damage. It's still a form of kiting, similar to stutter stepping. It's more a question about how well you kite the banelings and how many do hit their mark.
Splitting zealots to catch up to and deal melee damage to a kiting terran will require you to micro all of them all the time to get to their target without clumping and blocking eachother. But all that is theoretical as neither you or i know exactly how it would work, it might be good or it might be next to impossible. Anyone got some editor skills to try it on a test map?
On March 21 2012 21:05 arenlol wrote:I find it funny that Protoss claim that it's balanced at the pro levels... According to the TLPD win rates for Korea, Terran win less against Protoss won than Protoss did against Terran when 1/1/1 was considered overpowered. Those win rates for summer last year justified both huge protoss whine like the sad zealot club and buffs from blizzard's side... TLPD august 2011: http://i.imgur.com/Jvlvy.pngTLPD february 2012: http://imgur.com/a/1aAfu
And if you look at july 2011 to October 2011 terrans have a average monthly winrate of 57.4%, almost 3% more than Protoss "extreme" winrate in february 2012 and higher than Protoss have had ANY month since release.
Stop selectively choosing "evidence".
|
Go watch Dignitas Merz stream and youll understand (he pretty much always gives commentary of his gameplay). He knows pretty much everything of terran and he says straight why he doesn't like the game desing and what he hates about terran.
It really enlightened me, and now i know why the terrans are disappearing.
Even he stated that TvP is imbalanced to protoss on thelategame, because it demands so much of terran to trade efficently, and still remain in mapcontrol. And when the Protoss reinforcing is what it is... He also does much cheese or 111 against P just because of that.
I really understand how frustrated can lower league players get. I'm a diamond and i think exactly the same as him.
|
@ karpo. Exactly that's why I said my "radical" changes can only be implemented with an expansion (HotS or LotV).
Until then Blizzard will take only baby steps.
Anyway, I'm glad you're also thinking of the change required to make TvP a fair matchup again. At present this is a poor matchup. Either terran allin (protoss tears) or protoss rolls over lategame (terran tears).
|
On March 21 2012 20:20 Kakaru2 wrote:
Listen karpo, everybody agrees that terran requires more micro than the other races.
No, there are several people who disagree. If you play bio, I agree that you will have to learn micro first, just like a Protoss has to learn macro first, when he learns double forge builds. In the end, either race needs to learn both. (Just because not everything in SC2 looks as impressive as stutterstepping marines, doesn't mean it isn't hard or necessary)
On March 21 2012 20:20 Kakaru2 wrote:
Same in BW. That is also cited as the reason Korean do so well, because they can really exploit Terran micro/apm.
Instead of easing terran, which will make lower league balanced but MMA/MVP/etc OP the solution is to step up the micro for the other race - eg Toss.
They were able to "exploit" Terran since day one with way less refined mechanics, while the other races would have been able to a-click at that time just as well as today; still Terran was fine.
And if you "step up" the micro for other races, it means that it has to become as beneficial as Terran's, else you are just making things harder so that other parts of the apm-spending of those nonTerran players will suffer. (like warpins, injects, mutalisk micro, blinks, FFs, Storms, focus fire, feedbacks etc etc etc) - thereby you imbalance the game;
On March 21 2012 20:20 Kakaru2 wrote:
Is it easy to split individual marines against banelings? Yet, if you master this you are GM Terran. Same with toss after the proposed change, after they master the splitting they will still own.
And if you just siege in time and stim and run behind your tanks, you are Masters with Terran. Can't really find something "necessary for low leaguers" in here apart from: learn to macro - like everyone in the strategy forum will tell you if you post an actual replay of where you struggled, as a low leaguer, independend from the race you play.
On March 21 2012 20:20 Kakaru2 wrote:
But GM Toss will own, for lower league will be average micro versus average micro, not as it is now average micro versus A-move.
That's the reasoning for Beasty proposal.
You mean average micro of no good macro build and afterwards QQ because you got outmacroed and the opponent didn't have to micro anymore with a superior army.
On March 21 2012 20:20 Kakaru2 wrote:
Like I already said, mine is removing forcefield and warpgate and buff zel/stalker so they can resist early pushes.
Yeah, just break the game completly. Hey, why don't we combine factory and barracks, remove the tank and the marine and change everything accordingly so that the game is still balanced. Let's just take out everything that defines a races gameplay. Larva... lol, just make the roach warren queue roaches!
On March 21 2012 20:20 Kakaru2 wrote:
When I play toss i'm afraid in the first 10 minutes. When I play Terran I'm afraid after 10 minutes.
This is poor design by blizzard, in BW I had no problem with any of the 3 races.
Yeah, because mass Tanks is soooo balanced in every phase of the game in BW.
On March 21 2012 20:20 Kakaru2 wrote:
And zerg isn't that great either, like someone posted if you know what opponent is doing then you 100% win but if they hide that from you you're in a pile of manure from which you'll not get out.
It's called a game with restriced information, pretty much the only way to get that much variety in a RTS game without severly imbalancing it or creating a game with most matches ending in a draw (on high level).
Not to mention that I disagree that Zerg would be the race that profits the most from total information (that would need a ton of highlevel testing and create a completly different metagame, which is close to impossible to predict)
|
Big J - if you can not have an unbiased opinion then you can not expect people to value yours.
I find particularly offensive your comments regarding BW balance. That said it's clearer to me why your stance of SC2 balance is at it is.
Anyway, when 1.50 notes will be up we'll see who was right all along.
|
On March 21 2012 21:37 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2012 20:20 Kakaru2 wrote:
Listen karpo, everybody agrees that terran requires more micro than the other races. No, there are several people who disagree. If you play bio, I agree that you will have to learn micro first, just like a Protoss has to learn macro first, when he learns double forge builds. In the end, either race needs to learn both. (Just because not everything in SC2 looks as impressive as stutterstepping marines, doesn't mean it isn't hard or necessary) Show nested quote +On March 21 2012 20:20 Kakaru2 wrote:
Same in BW. That is also cited as the reason Korean do so well, because they can really exploit Terran micro/apm.
Instead of easing terran, which will make lower league balanced but MMA/MVP/etc OP the solution is to step up the micro for the other race - eg Toss. They were able to "exploit" Terran since day one with way less refined mechanics, while the other races would have been able to a-click at that time just as well as today; still Terran was fine. And if you "step up" the micro for other races, it means that it has to become as beneficial as Terran's, else you are just making things harder so that other parts of the apm-spending of those nonTerran players will suffer. (like warpins, injects, mutalisk micro, blinks, FFs, Storms, focus fire, feedbacks etc etc etc) - thereby you imbalance the game; Show nested quote +On March 21 2012 20:20 Kakaru2 wrote:
Is it easy to split individual marines against banelings? Yet, if you master this you are GM Terran. Same with toss after the proposed change, after they master the splitting they will still own. And if you just siege in time and stim and run behind your tanks, you are Masters with Terran. Can't really find something "necessary for low leaguers" in here apart from: learn to macro - like everyone in the strategy forum will tell you if you post an actual replay of where you struggled, as a low leaguer, independend from the race you play. Show nested quote +On March 21 2012 20:20 Kakaru2 wrote:
But GM Toss will own, for lower league will be average micro versus average micro, not as it is now average micro versus A-move.
That's the reasoning for Beasty proposal. You mean average micro of no good macro build and afterwards QQ because you got outmacroed and the opponent didn't have to micro anymore with a superior army. Show nested quote +On March 21 2012 20:20 Kakaru2 wrote:
Like I already said, mine is removing forcefield and warpgate and buff zel/stalker so they can resist early pushes. Yeah, just break the game completly. Hey, why don't we combine factory and barracks, remove the tank and the marine and change everything accordingly so that the game is still balanced. Let's just take out everything that defines a races gameplay. Larva... lol, just make the roach warren queue roaches! Show nested quote +On March 21 2012 20:20 Kakaru2 wrote:
When I play toss i'm afraid in the first 10 minutes. When I play Terran I'm afraid after 10 minutes.
This is poor design by blizzard, in BW I had no problem with any of the 3 races. Yeah, because mass Tanks is soooo balanced in every phase of the game in BW.Show nested quote +On March 21 2012 20:20 Kakaru2 wrote:
And zerg isn't that great either, like someone posted if you know what opponent is doing then you 100% win but if they hide that from you you're in a pile of manure from which you'll not get out. It's called a game with restriced information, pretty much the only way to get that much variety in a RTS game without severly imbalancing it or creating a game with most matches ending in a draw (on high level). Not to mention that I disagree that Zerg would be the race that profits the most from total information (that would need a ton of highlevel testing and create a completly different metagame, which is close to impossible to predict)
So mass Tanks are imbalanced in BW. Seriously? Run to the hills... He got 36 Tanks!!!
I heard 36 Battlecruisers (BW) are also imbalaced. Isn't that sweet?
|
On March 21 2012 21:53 Kakaru2 wrote:
Big J - if you can not have an unbiased opinion then you can not expect people to value yours.
I find particularly offensive your comments regarding BW balance. That said it's clearer to me why your stance of SC2 balance is at it is.
Anyway, when 1.50 notes will be up we'll see who was right all along.
So it's OK to say SC2 has design flaws in TvP (certain phases of the game favoring Toss, certain phases favoring Terran), but it's not OK to say that BW essentially played exactly like that, just with reversed roles ?(and therefore is just as flawed in design):
Protoss going for mass amounts of low Tier units with the occasional higher Tier unit to prevent Terran from getting a too strong army, while Terran was getting up a force of Tanks and minefields and goliath to win the game later on.
I mean, I think this is a design flaw as well, but it is just wrong to put this into one sentence and state in the next that in BW you were fine with how this played out.
And about bias... where have I been biased? That low league Terrans don't macro well? It's a fact that most low league players play the easiest strategy available (I appologize to everyone else who does not). For Terran this is 1-2base allinning. For Zerg this is S-DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD. For Protoss I'd say something along the lines of Colossus or Warpgate play. Let me know when the laddermetagame has shifted to prolevel strategies, but right now it is not there. Not even in masters.
|
On March 21 2012 22:44 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2012 21:53 Kakaru2 wrote:
Big J - if you can not have an unbiased opinion then you can not expect people to value yours.
I find particularly offensive your comments regarding BW balance. That said it's clearer to me why your stance of SC2 balance is at it is.
Anyway, when 1.50 notes will be up we'll see who was right all along. + Show Spoiler +
So it's OK to say SC2 has design flaws in TvP (certain phases of the game favoring Toss, certain phases favoring Terran), but it's not OK to say that BW essentially played exactly like that, just with reversed roles ?(and therefore is just as flawed in design):
Protoss going for mass amounts of low Tier units with the occasional higher Tier unit to prevent Terran from getting a too strong army, while Terran was getting up a force of Tanks and minefields and goliath to win the game later on.
I mean, I think this is a design flaw as well, but it is just wrong to put this into one sentence and state in the next that in BW you were fine with how this played out.
And about bias... where have I been biased? That low league Terrans don't macro well? It's a fact that most low league players play the easiest strategy available (I appologize to everyone else who does not). For Terran this is 1-2base allinning. For Zerg this is S-DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD. For Protoss I'd say something along the lines of Colossus or Warpgate play. Let me know when the laddermetagame has shifted to prolevel strategies, but right now it is not there. Not even in masters.
Your post was biased in the sense that it was nothing but sarcasm and hyperbole. If you had good points to make there, you can write them up clearly as arguments rather than as insulting jabs. People might even think you made good points then...
|
On March 21 2012 22:51 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2012 22:44 Big J wrote:On March 21 2012 21:53 Kakaru2 wrote:
Big J - if you can not have an unbiased opinion then you can not expect people to value yours.
I find particularly offensive your comments regarding BW balance. That said it's clearer to me why your stance of SC2 balance is at it is.
Anyway, when 1.50 notes will be up we'll see who was right all along. + Show Spoiler +
So it's OK to say SC2 has design flaws in TvP (certain phases of the game favoring Toss, certain phases favoring Terran), but it's not OK to say that BW essentially played exactly like that, just with reversed roles ?(and therefore is just as flawed in design):
Protoss going for mass amounts of low Tier units with the occasional higher Tier unit to prevent Terran from getting a too strong army, while Terran was getting up a force of Tanks and minefields and goliath to win the game later on.
I mean, I think this is a design flaw as well, but it is just wrong to put this into one sentence and state in the next that in BW you were fine with how this played out.
And about bias... where have I been biased? That low league Terrans don't macro well? It's a fact that most low league players play the easiest strategy available (I appologize to everyone else who does not). For Terran this is 1-2base allinning. For Zerg this is S-DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD. For Protoss I'd say something along the lines of Colossus or Warpgate play. Let me know when the laddermetagame has shifted to prolevel strategies, but right now it is not there. Not even in masters. Your post was biased in the sense that it was nothing but sarcasm and hyperbole. If you had good points to make there, you can write them up clearly as arguments rather than as insulting jabs. People might even think you made good points then...
Because it gets so frustrating to read design proposals and biased opinions that are being generalized ("everyone agrees", "you have to be able to do X to become league Y"...). Do you really think we should argue in this thread how Stalker/Zealot without FFs and warpgates should look like? Do you really think we are in a position to forsee how those things will effect balance? (no more warpgate timings, no more remax play, no more emergency warp ins against drops and mutas, no more reinforcing etc...)
I mean, just changing charge a bit and make it so when properly controlled Protoss is somewhat as efficient as it is now (possibly stronger when optimally controlled, hopefully weaker when controlled far from optimally) and stuff like that are completly discussable. But that other stuff is just random bullshit that really should not get treated seriously.
|
They all quit, because every macro game delivers the most hurting blow to your temper and believe in the game.
I've talked to many terrans in my skill range (plat-master) adn this thread is not about top koreans, but about the average gamer.
Everyone I talked to gave me the same answer: Terran can't play a macro game. It's the most frustrating thing in the world to lose to opponents a-moving their blob around. Most terrans just quit, cause they don't want to allin every game.
I myself still play almost only macro games against terrans and zergs. But against protoss I just allin almost every game. It'S just not worth it to play macro, if your winrate is like 10%.
So the answer to the question is: They are fed up with the state of the game or they got more korean.
|
On March 21 2012 23:13 OmegaKnetus wrote:
They all quit, because every macro game delivers the most hurting blow to your temper and believe in the game.
I've talked to many terrans in my skill range (plat-master) adn this thread is not about top koreans, but about the average gamer.
Everyone I talked to gave me the same answer: Terran can't play a macro game. It's the most frustrating thing in the world to lose to opponents a-moving their blob around. Most terrans just quit, cause they don't want to allin every game.
I myself still play almost only macro games against terrans and zergs. But against protoss I just allin almost every game. It'S just not worth it to play macro, if your winrate is like 10%.
So the answer to the question is: They are fed up with the state of the game or they got more korean.
Those people lack courage. TvP is difficult, very difficult. But it's not impossible, as long as the win rate isn't zero there is hope the rest of the numbers can be filled in with courage.
|
On March 21 2012 22:44 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2012 21:53 Kakaru2 wrote:
Big J - if you can not have an unbiased opinion then you can not expect people to value yours.
I find particularly offensive your comments regarding BW balance. That said it's clearer to me why your stance of SC2 balance is at it is.
Anyway, when 1.50 notes will be up we'll see who was right all along. So it's OK to say SC2 has design flaws in TvP (certain phases of the game favoring Toss, certain phases favoring Terran), but it's not OK to say that BW essentially played exactly like that, just with reversed roles ?(and therefore is just as flawed in design): Protoss going for mass amounts of low Tier units with the occasional higher Tier unit to prevent Terran from getting a too strong army, while Terran was getting up a force of Tanks and minefields and goliath to win the game later on. I mean, I think this is a design flaw as well, but it is just wrong to put this into one sentence and state in the next that in BW you were fine with how this played out. And about bias... where have I been biased? That low league Terrans don't macro well? It's a fact that most low league players play the easiest strategy available (I appologize to everyone else who does not). For Terran this is 1-2base allinning. For Zerg this is S-DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD. For Protoss I'd say something along the lines of Colossus or Warpgate play. Let me know when the laddermetagame has shifted to prolevel strategies, but right now it is not there. Not even in masters.
Currently bw terran acts a lot more like a mothership less toss in sc2 PvZ if you're looking at game progression. It's 1-2-3 base timing pushes, I only remember two terrans actually trying to get a 4th in a TvP this season of proleague. + Show Spoiler +
So no it's not really reverse BW TvP which I'd be way more comfortable with. The actual bwTvP of sc2 is bio vs mech TvT if you're looking for one.
--
Imo It's just dumb to change race roles like that. Should hots zerg suddenly have the worst passive game but "it's fine because it acts just like sc2 tvp did in wol"? Currently no one wants to play a 5+ base maxed/banked zerg. Let's just introduce the "broodlords be gone" unit and then buff zerg early game (I've heard it's some what volatile). Switching around race identities is just wrong...
They changed the matchup from BW to make it so terran early game was easier and for toss to have an easier time with tanks... woila we have the reverse of the former problem (now toss has it harder early game and terran a problem with tanks (as in colossi). But it sucks because tanks are only approximately 100x more interesting of a unit. And the mu is more confused at the moment since the mobility as well as the strength parts are way more up for grabs at different points.
Queue hots and to fix early game toss and terran vs late toss we suddenly have the matchup in its "original status", that's at least what they're trying basically with the battle hellions and the new "spider mines".
|
On March 21 2012 23:04 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2012 22:51 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 21 2012 22:44 Big J wrote:On March 21 2012 21:53 Kakaru2 wrote:
Big J - if you can not have an unbiased opinion then you can not expect people to value yours.
I find particularly offensive your comments regarding BW balance. That said it's clearer to me why your stance of SC2 balance is at it is.
Anyway, when 1.50 notes will be up we'll see who was right all along. + Show Spoiler +
So it's OK to say SC2 has design flaws in TvP (certain phases of the game favoring Toss, certain phases favoring Terran), but it's not OK to say that BW essentially played exactly like that, just with reversed roles ?(and therefore is just as flawed in design):
Protoss going for mass amounts of low Tier units with the occasional higher Tier unit to prevent Terran from getting a too strong army, while Terran was getting up a force of Tanks and minefields and goliath to win the game later on.
I mean, I think this is a design flaw as well, but it is just wrong to put this into one sentence and state in the next that in BW you were fine with how this played out.
And about bias... where have I been biased? That low league Terrans don't macro well? It's a fact that most low league players play the easiest strategy available (I appologize to everyone else who does not). For Terran this is 1-2base allinning. For Zerg this is S-DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD. For Protoss I'd say something along the lines of Colossus or Warpgate play. Let me know when the laddermetagame has shifted to prolevel strategies, but right now it is not there. Not even in masters. Your post was biased in the sense that it was nothing but sarcasm and hyperbole. If you had good points to make there, you can write them up clearly as arguments rather than as insulting jabs. People might even think you made good points then... Because it gets so frustrating to read design proposals and biased opinions that are being generalized ("everyone agrees", "you have to be able to do X to become league Y"...). Do you really think we should argue in this thread how Stalker/Zealot without FFs and warpgates should look like? Do you really think we are in a position to forsee how those things will effect balance? (no more warpgate timings, no more remax play, no more emergency warp ins against drops and mutas, no more reinforcing etc...) I mean, just changing charge a bit and make it so when properly controlled Protoss is somewhat as efficient as it is now (possibly stronger when optimally controlled, hopefully weaker when controlled far from optimally) and stuff like that are completly discussable. But that other stuff is just random bullshit that really should not get treated seriously.
Well, you just gave a pretty good argument for why the idea above (removing FF and WG) is not very good. Let's study it a bit more, though.
One would lose all WG timings, the final battle would need to be more conclusive because one cannot remax any more, drops and mutas will become more difficult. (you mentioned reinforcing twice, why?) Now, each of these is an argument.
Let's look at the first one, no more WG timings. Some people argue that WG + immortal pushes have become too strong, others that WG+void pushes are too strong (thank you Genius, you creative bastard). Yet, it's almost impossible to figure out how new timings will work so suggestions along these lines are difficult to judge. Furthermore, not many people think that WG pushes are the problem in this thread, so this counts as a minus to the idea.
Let's look at the second problem: remaxing/reinforcing a battle. This is a z-like mechanic which allows one to lose a battle and yet come out on top. The benefit is that the game isn't decided with a single battle, the problem is that it should exist for races that are likely to lose the first battle. Currently P has the strongest low-apm Deathball and remax, which is twice as difficult to deal with without godly micro. So, this is a plus to the wg removal suggestion unless the Deathball isn't changed in some other way.
I could go on, but I think you see how these are sensible things to discuss. The conclusion of discussion is likely to be more informed after these posts. So, no, it's not bs, it requires attention. And I do not think that everyone in this thread is so much wiser than me that they have already weighed all the pros and cons of balance changes.
|
On March 21 2012 19:08 Noocta wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2012 18:59 shizna wrote:On March 21 2012 12:16 Blasterion wrote:On March 21 2012 12:07 Drowsy wrote:
Zealots want give high five to mariners but mariners no like high five. They run away and shoot zealots
Manly race huh? Not running, It's advancing backwards in a manly fashion. even chuck norris would run away from a zealot. Zealot are the true corwards anyway. Marines don't scream in fear at their chain of command everytime they get hit by a zergling ! ( Aaaaaaarrghhh... We can't hoooold ) 
I'm pretty sure they scream for backup 
"WE NEED SOME HELP HERE!"
|
On March 21 2012 23:16 Blasterion wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2012 23:13 OmegaKnetus wrote:
They all quit, because every macro game delivers the most hurting blow to your temper and believe in the game.
I've talked to many terrans in my skill range (plat-master) adn this thread is not about top koreans, but about the average gamer.
Everyone I talked to gave me the same answer: Terran can't play a macro game. It's the most frustrating thing in the world to lose to opponents a-moving their blob around. Most terrans just quit, cause they don't want to allin every game.
I myself still play almost only macro games against terrans and zergs. But against protoss I just allin almost every game. It'S just not worth it to play macro, if your winrate is like 10%.
So the answer to the question is: They are fed up with the state of the game or they got more korean. Those people lack courage. TvP is difficult, very difficult. But it's not impossible, as long as the win rate isn't zero there is hope the rest of the numbers can be filled in with courage.
Hahahah, I wish "courage" makes all marines blow up themselves like banelings and take out those chargelots when they die.
|
On March 21 2012 23:31 Sein wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2012 23:16 Blasterion wrote:On March 21 2012 23:13 OmegaKnetus wrote:
They all quit, because every macro game delivers the most hurting blow to your temper and believe in the game.
I've talked to many terrans in my skill range (plat-master) adn this thread is not about top koreans, but about the average gamer.
Everyone I talked to gave me the same answer: Terran can't play a macro game. It's the most frustrating thing in the world to lose to opponents a-moving their blob around. Most terrans just quit, cause they don't want to allin every game.
I myself still play almost only macro games against terrans and zergs. But against protoss I just allin almost every game. It'S just not worth it to play macro, if your winrate is like 10%.
So the answer to the question is: They are fed up with the state of the game or they got more korean. Those people lack courage. TvP is difficult, very difficult. But it's not impossible, as long as the win rate isn't zero there is hope the rest of the numbers can be filled in with courage. Hahahah, I wish "courage" makes all marines blow up themselves like banelings and take out those chargelots when they die.
Courage makes 1% into 100% if you lost that just means you didn't have enough courage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
