|
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.
We need the kamikaze upgrade for marines that makes them work like banelings. Upgrade in the fusion core.
My condolences to all Z for even making them think about this.
|
On March 21 2012 23:19 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2012 23:04 Big J wrote: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.
If you remove Warpgates it screws over the complete PvX balance. You basically had a new race in the game, that noone had experience with and that would need a completly new alpha- and betatestphase to become somewhat balanced (and everyone knows how balanced games are after an alpha and betastage).
That's why these discussions are not fruitfull, blizzard is not going to develop a new game, just because some people think the game could be better.
|
On March 21 2012 23:36 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2012 23:19 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 21 2012 23:04 Big J wrote: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. If you remove Warpgates it screws over the complete PvX balance. You basically had a new race in the game, that noone had experience with and that would need a completly new alpha- and betatestphase to become somewhat balanced (and everyone knows how balanced games are after an alpha and betastage). That's why these discussions are not fruitfull, blizzard is not going to develop a new game, just because some people think the game could be better.
I think if any thing balancing warp gate cool down with warp in time will do wonders. Such as reducing cool down but increasing warp in time. But not necessary nothing that a little courage can't fix.
|
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.
This is so oversimplifying it aches.
First of all, there's the mobility issue. A mech army in BW is really immobile, unlike P deathball in SC2. You could say that T is more mobile in SC2, but the difference isn't that big at all.
Secondly, in the actual engagement, the P side in BW has a lot of tatics that can be employed. Zealot bombs, Stasis field, Recall (see the last game of Horang vs Flash).
Thirdly, the P army in BW doesn't need the fine control the T army needs in SC2, in maxed out battle. They basically charges the zealots in the front, bring the dragoons in the back, then use storms, stasis (can also be use preemptively). It's not like AoE can kill your whole army in matter of seconds if you don't micro really well(hello colossus and storms in SC2).
If anything, P is considered more casual friendly than T in BW, not the other way around. You should think a little bit more before posting, your bias is way too strong.
|
On March 21 2012 23:38 Blasterion wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2012 23:36 Big J wrote:On March 21 2012 23:19 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 21 2012 23:04 Big J wrote: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. If you remove Warpgates it screws over the complete PvX balance. You basically had a new race in the game, that noone had experience with and that would need a completly new alpha- and betatestphase to become somewhat balanced (and everyone knows how balanced games are after an alpha and betastage). That's why these discussions are not fruitfull, blizzard is not going to develop a new game, just because some people think the game could be better. I think if any thing balancing warp gate cool down with warp in time will do wonders. Such as reducing cool down but increasing warp in time. But not necessary nothing that a little courage can't fix.
The game should have a courage upgrade, which would basically make a repeating voice every 30 seconds saying: ''You can do it!''
|
On March 21 2012 23:46 Mehukannu wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2012 23:38 Blasterion wrote:On March 21 2012 23:36 Big J wrote:On March 21 2012 23:19 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 21 2012 23:04 Big J wrote: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. If you remove Warpgates it screws over the complete PvX balance. You basically had a new race in the game, that noone had experience with and that would need a completly new alpha- and betatestphase to become somewhat balanced (and everyone knows how balanced games are after an alpha and betastage). That's why these discussions are not fruitfull, blizzard is not going to develop a new game, just because some people think the game could be better. I think if any thing balancing warp gate cool down with warp in time will do wonders. Such as reducing cool down but increasing warp in time. But not necessary nothing that a little courage can't fix. The game should have a courage upgrade, which would basically make a repeating voice every 30 seconds saying: ''You can do it!''
Depends on whose voice if it's boxer it might be too OP
|
On March 21 2012 23:39 petro1987 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. 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. This is so oversimplifying it aches. First of all, there's the mobility issue. A mech army in BW is really immobile, unlike P deathball in SC2. You could say that T is more mobile in SC2, but the difference isn't that big at all. Secondly, in the actual engagement, the P side in BW has a lot of tatics that can be employed. Zealot bombs, Stasis field, Recall (see the last game of Horang vs Flash). Thirdly, the P army in BW doesn't need the fine control the T army needs in SC2, in maxed out battle. They basically charges the zealots in the front, bring the dragoons in the back, then use storms, stasis (can also be use preemptively). It's not like AoE can kill your whole army in matter of seconds if you don't micro really well(hello colossus and storms in SC2). If anything, P is considered more casual friendly than T in BW, not the other way around. You should think a little bit more before posting, your bias is way too strong.
Everyone knows that T was easily the hardest race in BW, it's no different in SC2. Big J doesn't know what he's talking about, he has proven this time and time again and it's getting really old now.
|
On March 21 2012 23:47 Blasterion wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2012 23:46 Mehukannu wrote:On March 21 2012 23:38 Blasterion wrote:On March 21 2012 23:36 Big J wrote:On March 21 2012 23:19 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 21 2012 23:04 Big J wrote: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. If you remove Warpgates it screws over the complete PvX balance. You basically had a new race in the game, that noone had experience with and that would need a completly new alpha- and betatestphase to become somewhat balanced (and everyone knows how balanced games are after an alpha and betastage). That's why these discussions are not fruitfull, blizzard is not going to develop a new game, just because some people think the game could be better. I think if any thing balancing warp gate cool down with warp in time will do wonders. Such as reducing cool down but increasing warp in time. But not necessary nothing that a little courage can't fix. The game should have a courage upgrade, which would basically make a repeating voice every 30 seconds saying: ''You can do it!'' Depends on whose voice if it's boxer it might be too OP
Hmmm... good point. Maybe something less manly like Arnold Schwarzenegger, perhaps?
|
On March 21 2012 23:56 Mehukannu wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2012 23:47 Blasterion wrote:On March 21 2012 23:46 Mehukannu wrote:On March 21 2012 23:38 Blasterion wrote:On March 21 2012 23:36 Big J wrote:On March 21 2012 23:19 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 21 2012 23:04 Big J wrote: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. If you remove Warpgates it screws over the complete PvX balance. You basically had a new race in the game, that noone had experience with and that would need a completly new alpha- and betatestphase to become somewhat balanced (and everyone knows how balanced games are after an alpha and betastage). That's why these discussions are not fruitfull, blizzard is not going to develop a new game, just because some people think the game could be better. I think if any thing balancing warp gate cool down with warp in time will do wonders. Such as reducing cool down but increasing warp in time. But not necessary nothing that a little courage can't fix. The game should have a courage upgrade, which would basically make a repeating voice every 30 seconds saying: ''You can do it!'' Depends on whose voice if it's boxer it might be too OP Hmmm... good point. Maybe something less manly like Arnold Schwarzenegger, perhaps?
Thor is here, click me, get me back into the fight,
|
On March 21 2012 23:39 petro1987 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. 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. This is so oversimplifying it aches. First of all, there's the mobility issue. A mech army in BW is really immobile, unlike P deathball in SC2. You could say that T is more mobile in SC2, but the difference isn't that big at all. Secondly, in the actual engagement, the P side in BW has a lot of tatics that can be employed. Zealot bombs, Stasis field, Recall (see the last game of Horang vs Flash). Thirdly, the P army in BW doesn't need the fine control the T army needs in SC2, in maxed out battle. They basically charges the zealots in the front, bring the dragoons in the back, then use storms, stasis (can also be use preemptively). It's not like AoE can kill your whole army in matter of seconds if you don't micro really well(hello colossus and storms in SC2). If anything, P is considered more casual friendly than T in BW, not the other way around. You should think a little bit more before posting, your bias is way too strong.
yeah, I love it when people do this. Did I ever say it was different? Did I ever touch how hard it was to play BW or Mech vP in Broodwar? Did I say that T was more casualfriendly than P?
Of course I'm simplyfying it, but I'm not gonna write 20pages of possible things that can happen in matchup of a strategy game to point out that Terran Mech armies had a similar dynamic (lots of lategame wins, fewer early game wins) as Protoss has right now.
Apart from that... Protoss deathball really mobile? I'm sorry, but Colossi and Templar are not mobile and the reason it is called deathball is because it has to stay together (= the slowest units in the composition dictate the speed).
|
Colossus is so slower than reaver. Did you actually played BW? Rhetorical question, no need to answer.
Can't wait for those 1.50 notes.
|
On March 22 2012 00:10 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2012 23:39 petro1987 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. 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. This is so oversimplifying it aches. First of all, there's the mobility issue. A mech army in BW is really immobile, unlike P deathball in SC2. You could say that T is more mobile in SC2, but the difference isn't that big at all. Secondly, in the actual engagement, the P side in BW has a lot of tatics that can be employed. Zealot bombs, Stasis field, Recall (see the last game of Horang vs Flash). Thirdly, the P army in BW doesn't need the fine control the T army needs in SC2, in maxed out battle. They basically charges the zealots in the front, bring the dragoons in the back, then use storms, stasis (can also be use preemptively). It's not like AoE can kill your whole army in matter of seconds if you don't micro really well(hello colossus and storms in SC2). If anything, P is considered more casual friendly than T in BW, not the other way around. You should think a little bit more before posting, your bias is way too strong. yeah, I love it when people do this. Did I ever say it was different? Did I ever touch how hard it was to play BW or Mech vP in Broodwar? Did I say that T was more casualfriendly than P? Of course I'm simplyfying it, but I'm not gonna write 20pages of possible things that can happen in matchup of a strategy game to point out that Terran Mech armies had a similar dynamic (lots of lategame wins, fewer early game wins) as Protoss has right now. Apart from that... Protoss deathball really mobile? I'm sorry, but Colossi and Templar are not mobile and the reason it is called deathball is because it has to stay together (= the slowest units in the composition dictate the speed).
Only slow thing is the  high templar with movement speed 1.875. colossus has a movement speed of 2.25 which is considered to be the normal movement speed for units, that is not of course mentioning the fact that it can walk over units and cliffs, which of course add into the mobility of the unit. So the only unit that can potentially slow the protoss down is of course high templar, but that is easily fixed by adding 1 or 2 warp prisms depending how many High templars you have.
|
On March 21 2012 23:38 Blasterion wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2012 23:36 Big J wrote:On March 21 2012 23:19 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 21 2012 23:04 Big J wrote: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. If you remove Warpgates it screws over the complete PvX balance. You basically had a new race in the game, that noone had experience with and that would need a completly new alpha- and betatestphase to become somewhat balanced (and everyone knows how balanced games are after an alpha and betastage). That's why these discussions are not fruitfull, blizzard is not going to develop a new game, just because some people think the game could be better. I think if any thing balancing warp gate cool down with warp in time will do wonders. Such as reducing cool down but increasing warp in time. But not necessary nothing that a little courage can't fix.
I think there are a lot of things that could be changed around warpgates, the question is which "problems" you want to attack.
For example:
warpgate rushes: make the warping in units more fragile or make the warp in take longer, depending on the distance to the next nexus
endgame remaxes: make every warpgate go on (half) cooldown or make warpgates close when P maxes
or make zealots and stalkers warp in with blink/charge cooldown
lots of stuff that can be done, the question is what is necessary/helps/intented to work and what is simply not. (for example one could argue that bio vs Protoss is perfectly balanced with the low Tier composition being more potent early and the other one more potent late; the problem then rather is that the Terran "50% lategamewin" strategies - including things like not opening mass bio and therefore not having the choice to try and kill someone early/midgame - seem not really viable)
|
On March 22 2012 00:29 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2012 23:38 Blasterion wrote:On March 21 2012 23:36 Big J wrote:On March 21 2012 23:19 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 21 2012 23:04 Big J wrote: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. If you remove Warpgates it screws over the complete PvX balance. You basically had a new race in the game, that noone had experience with and that would need a completly new alpha- and betatestphase to become somewhat balanced (and everyone knows how balanced games are after an alpha and betastage). That's why these discussions are not fruitfull, blizzard is not going to develop a new game, just because some people think the game could be better. I think if any thing balancing warp gate cool down with warp in time will do wonders. Such as reducing cool down but increasing warp in time. But not necessary nothing that a little courage can't fix. I think there are a lot of things that could be changed around warpgates, the question is which "problems" you want to attack. For example: warpgate rushes: make the warping in units more fragile or make the warp in take longer, depending on the distance to the next nexus endgame remaxes: make every warpgate go on (half) cooldown or make warpgates close when P maxes or make zealots and stalkers warp in with blink/charge cooldown lots of stuff that can be done, the question is what is necessary/helps/intented to work and what is simply not. (for example one could argue that bio vs Protoss is perfectly balanced with the low Tier composition being more potent early and the other one more potent late; the problem then rather is that the Terran "50% lategamewin" strategies - including things like not opening mass bio and therefore not having the choice to try and kill someone early/midgame - seem not really viable)
Lol warp in sickness it's a stupid idea but hear me out so when a unit is warped in it's debuffed temporarily. Ok that was stupid, I still think changing the warp in time and cooldown is the better choice.
|
Blizzard needs to add more of Warhammer 40k style'ish courage-lines into the game for Terrans wich are voice acted by Michael Ironside, Ron Perlman. Everytime those soundclips play in the game, everyone can hear them., even your opponent.
Lines like :
1) Your a-move has but one cure, and i shall deliver it...WITH MICRO !
2) ThorZain protects !...from all-ins !
3) To admit defeat is to blashpheme against the Boxer !
4) A good soldier can micro without question. A good officer can macro without doubt.
5) Even a man who has nothing can still pull his SCV's !
6) Mvp is the first step on the road to perfection !
and ofc my personal favorite !
7) Victory needs no explanation, defeat allows none.
|
On March 22 2012 00:10 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2012 23:39 petro1987 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. 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. This is so oversimplifying it aches. First of all, there's the mobility issue. A mech army in BW is really immobile, unlike P deathball in SC2. You could say that T is more mobile in SC2, but the difference isn't that big at all. Secondly, in the actual engagement, the P side in BW has a lot of tatics that can be employed. Zealot bombs, Stasis field, Recall (see the last game of Horang vs Flash). Thirdly, the P army in BW doesn't need the fine control the T army needs in SC2, in maxed out battle. They basically charges the zealots in the front, bring the dragoons in the back, then use storms, stasis (can also be use preemptively). It's not like AoE can kill your whole army in matter of seconds if you don't micro really well(hello colossus and storms in SC2). If anything, P is considered more casual friendly than T in BW, not the other way around. You should think a little bit more before posting, your bias is way too strong. yeah, I love it when people do this. Did I ever say it was different? Did I ever touch how hard it was to play BW or Mech vP in Broodwar? Did I say that T was more casualfriendly than P? Of course I'm simplyfying it, but I'm not gonna write 20pages of possible things that can happen in matchup of a strategy game to point out that Terran Mech armies had a similar dynamic (lots of lategame wins, fewer early game wins) as Protoss has right now. Apart from that... Protoss deathball really mobile? I'm sorry, but Colossi and Templar are not mobile and the reason it is called deathball is because it has to stay together (= the slowest units in the composition dictate the speed).
Do you really want to compare the mobility between Terran mech army in BW and Protoss deathball in SC2? Come on. Colossus move speed is 2.25 (the same of the marine). The only really slow unit is the hight templar, what could be solved with a prism.
About Terran having more late games wins than early games wins in BW. This is true. But it's not like Protoss have many early games win either. The truth is, neither side has many wins in the early game and the late game is obviously balanced (as much as it can be, at least). So I don't know how this is the same thing that happens in SC2, "just reversed", as you claim.
|
Recap of the thread for anyone who's just checking in.
OP asks where all the terrans have gone.
A large number of terrans from silver to high-masters reply saying they've stopped playing, and a lot of them cite TvP for the reason they don't play the game anymore. The consensus is the match up is unforgiving, volatile, and frustrating due to terran's margin of error being razor-slim whereas protoss can make many mistakes and still win. Several high-masters random players say the same things, as do a couple of pros. You would think this answers the question: terrans are quitting 1v1s because it's not fun, mainly due to one matchup.
Yet there's a small number of people in this thread, mainly but not all protoss players, that keep derailing it towards a balance discussion at the pro level, and keep telling terrans to get better, w/o addressing many of the concerns, often cherry-picking small inaccuracies to focus on, and often employing sarcasm and over-exaggeration to make fun of terrans posting in this thread.
Type|Naruto is a terran pro player that's doing a huge disservice to all casual terran players by repeatedly making posts along the lines of "stop caring about balance, practice more and get better". A fine mindset for a pro, but completely missing the point of this thread. (Though whether he truly means it is questionable, as I've just seen him cry imbalance in a TvZ game on his stream, oh the irony.)
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/s6V2D.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/EWtWz.jpg) translation is along the lines of: hope Blizzard realize how imba this combo is like ghosts; ok you must've won because you're 1000x better than me -- i.e. a similar sentiment to what many casual terrans have expressed in this thread in regards to TvP (I must outplay my protoss opponent to win - they don't), only to get told by Naruto to stop complaining and practice more.
This is NOT a balance discussion thread, even though there have been suggestions on balance changes that would make TvP a more fun matchup to play AND watch, so please, if you're a protoss player do not talk about pro-level balance, do not tell us to "get better" and do not try to argue against the fact that hundreds of terran players have said the quit playing because of TvP.
If you're a terran player and you've stopped playing 1v1s or maybe play less than you used to, please post your win % in you matchups so that we have more data, as well as any info on how you feel about the various MUs and the game in general.
EDIT: added translation.
|
|
|
On March 22 2012 01:44 sushichef wrote:Recap of the thread for anyone who's just checking in.OP asks where all the terrans have gone. A large number of terrans from silver to high-masters reply saying they've stopped playing, and a lot of them cite TvP for the reason they don't play the game anymore. The consensus is the match up is unforgiving, volatile, and frustrating due to terran's margin of error being razor-slim whereas protoss can make many mistakes and still win. Several high-masters random players say the same things, as do a couple of pros. You would think this answers the question: terrans are quitting 1v1s because it's not fun, mainly due to one matchup.Yet there's a small number of people in this thread, mainly but not all protoss players, that keep derailing it towards a balance discussion at the pro level, and keep telling terrans to get better, w/o addressing many of the concerns, often cherry-picking small inaccuracies to focus on, and often employing sarcasm and over-exaggeration to make fun of terrans posting in this thread. Type|Naruto is a terran pro player that's doing a huge disservice to all casual terran players by repeatedly making posts along the lines of "stop caring about balance, practice more and get better". A fine mindset for a pro, but completely missing the point of this thread. (Though whether he truly means it is questionable, as I've just seen him cry imbalance in a TvZ game on his stream, oh the irony.) + Show Spoiler +This is NOT a balance discussion thread, even though there have been suggestions on balance changes that would make TvP a more fun matchup to play AND watch, so please, if you're a protoss player do not talk about pro-level balance, do not tell us to "get better" and do not try to argue against the fact that hundreds of terran players have said the quit playing because of TvP. If you're a terran player and you've stopped playing 1v1s or maybe play less than you used to, please post your win % in you matchups so that we have more data, as well as any info on how you feel about the various MUs and the game in general.
Can you please translate that chat?
|
On March 22 2012 01:47 Sein wrote:
Can you please translate that chat?
Translation is along the lines of: hope Blizzard realize how imba this combo is like ghosts; ok you must've won because you're 1000x better than me -- i.e. a similar sentiment to what many casual terrans have expressed in this thread in regards to TvP (I must outplay my protoss opponent to win in late game - they don't), only to get told by Naruto to stop complaining and practice more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
