|
On March 22 2012 12:51 envect wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 09:42 Fig wrote:On March 22 2012 09:09 riff wrote:On March 22 2012 08:57 Bidj wrote:On March 22 2012 08:45 Tingles wrote:On March 22 2012 08:39 ZenithM wrote:On March 22 2012 08:34 Tingles wrote:
So i must say this thread reminds me of when Protoss and Zerg went through their respective shitty periods (sad zealot anyone?).
All i got told was "play better, you suck" or "use a warp prism" or "stop making excuses for your bad play"
I don't get how this is any different ... Terrans need to do something different now. I seem to remember the EXACT arguments about "bad design", "other race is a-move ezpz" etc etc with both Protoss and Zerg having the trouble.
STFU and play better. All 3 races are hard in their own UNIQUE ways. Stop making excuses that Terran is harder so you can feel better about losing.
You seem to forget that Protoss didn't simply play better just like that. They received a good number of buffs. Yep, and Protoss just sat back and complained and then suddenly buffs made them win. Of course i recognize that Toss got buffs, i'm not discrediting that to Protoss doing better. But they still had to actually play better ... it wasn't just like buffs = win ... the first buff was a warp prism buff right ? There was about a month or so after a warp prism buff where it was still the same, except warp prisms didn't die to a single marine. I'm also not saying that Terran has nothing to complain about ... it's hard, and i'm sure late game TvP is fucked. But i can't help but feel that we've been here before with the other races, and all i got was Terrans and Zergs telling me to STFU and play better. The thing is, we are here to try to achieve balance in TvP, or at least "balance in micro needed to win fight among all levels of skill". That's it, that's about balance, not retribution. Some Terrans and Zergs were telling you to STFU when Protoss was UP ? That was stupid/not constructive because buffs were needed and their implementation helped P a lot (with adaptation, etc). So don't replicate this scheme and try to be constructive. I still think making charge a cast (would still be easy because of smartcasting) would help greatly to balance lower levels without influing on top level. Good advice. Just because some people were rude to you when your race was struggling, doesn't mean you have to adopt the same behavior. If you have some insight into the matchup you would like to share, perhaps some suggestions for Terrans to try, by all means, post away, but "stfu and get better," is not constructive. None of us want to go back to the days where Terran is overpowered. All we want is a fair and balanced matchup where a similar amount of effort must be expended on both sides throughout the game in order to achieve victory. One of the ideas I really like so far is to disable charge auto-cast. I think it would be good for the matchup if we gave Protoss more opportunities to micro and thus raise the skill ceiling. If I have to stutter step my bio, focus colossi with my vikings, emp with my ghosts or snipe hts, and macro at the same time, I don't see why Protoss can't have more battle responsibilities as well. Of course, that won't solve all the issues in TvP, but I think it's a small step in the right direction. Have there been any solid arguments against this proposition? Everyone would be happier if Blizzard made it so protosses had to micro charge. It would be more APM intensive, which is what terrans want, and would allow toss players to do more surrounding rather than just a-moving and hoping. Unfortunately, Blizzard is going in the opposite direction, literally. A recent patch removed tosses ability to control charging zealots at all. We used to be able to change their direction while they charged. But the patch changed it so that if you issue your charging zealot any other command it immediately cancels the charge. Therefore I wouldn't hold out for a non-autocast charge, as Blizzard has made it quite clear they don't want tosses microing their zealots... Or voidrays for that matter, like when Blizzard made their charged damage significantly lower. This greatly lowered the incentive to spend a ton of APM both precharging voidrays and keeping them charged, through antics like quickly targeting each other every few feet to get to the enemy base charged. Remember when we saw those awesome voidray strategies where tosses would hallucinate a phoenix to target to keep the charge going? Now all we get is the occasional 3gate voidray all-in. They turned the most micro-intensive unit for toss from unbelievably exciting, into another boring "set it and forget it" unit. Now obviously Blizzard was making a balance decision in each case, but I don't see any reason that they had to reduce the chances for micro. They obviously don't mind lowering the skill ceiling, and I can't stand it. If the stupid, slow, no-micro tempest is actually added in HotS, I'll probably leave the protoss race behind. He said it was a 80 APM a-move during the battle
Why would you have less APM than your average during a fight? Protoss players just watch their shit rape the opponent without moving their fingers now? You can at least macro at home, if you're not watching the fight and microing...
Edit: As for manually triggering charge. I think it would be a huge buff for Protoss. Terrans maybe don't realize that it's very easy to waste his charge on nothing (like a passing SCV), it happens at korean level too, it then gives a window for Terran to start kiting and deplete zealot shields a bit. It's very hard to right click on the charge icon to enable/disable (because there is no hotkey), and impossible to activate manually because you have to target a unit.
I think you underestimate Protoss micro skills (as if using Stim was hard, lol...), and Terran will get raped even harder if you give a stim-like charge to Protoss.
But anyway, I think this proposition usually comes from platinum-diamond level players, not pros, it makes sense that they think it will raise the difficulty of Protoss micro at their level.
A concrete example: let's say P uses charge and T starts kiting, then P backs up his zealots, T thinks it's good to pursue them and pick off stray units for free, maybe stims one more time. Suddenly P doubles back and activate charge again, surrounding MM which are much closer and stutter stepping towards his zealots (It's the same kind of "mind game" oriented micro you see in marines vs banshee fight)
I think it would be much more effective than normal mindlessly charging zealots. On the bright side, you could consider nerfing zealot HP/shield value to take that micro into account and it would indeed raise the skill flood and ceiling for Protoss a bit, which is good.
|
On March 22 2012 12:51 envect wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 09:42 Fig wrote:On March 22 2012 09:09 riff wrote:On March 22 2012 08:57 Bidj wrote:On March 22 2012 08:45 Tingles wrote:On March 22 2012 08:39 ZenithM wrote:On March 22 2012 08:34 Tingles wrote:
So i must say this thread reminds me of when Protoss and Zerg went through their respective shitty periods (sad zealot anyone?).
All i got told was "play better, you suck" or "use a warp prism" or "stop making excuses for your bad play"
I don't get how this is any different ... Terrans need to do something different now. I seem to remember the EXACT arguments about "bad design", "other race is a-move ezpz" etc etc with both Protoss and Zerg having the trouble.
STFU and play better. All 3 races are hard in their own UNIQUE ways. Stop making excuses that Terran is harder so you can feel better about losing.
You seem to forget that Protoss didn't simply play better just like that. They received a good number of buffs. Yep, and Protoss just sat back and complained and then suddenly buffs made them win. Of course i recognize that Toss got buffs, i'm not discrediting that to Protoss doing better. But they still had to actually play better ... it wasn't just like buffs = win ... the first buff was a warp prism buff right ? There was about a month or so after a warp prism buff where it was still the same, except warp prisms didn't die to a single marine. I'm also not saying that Terran has nothing to complain about ... it's hard, and i'm sure late game TvP is fucked. But i can't help but feel that we've been here before with the other races, and all i got was Terrans and Zergs telling me to STFU and play better. The thing is, we are here to try to achieve balance in TvP, or at least "balance in micro needed to win fight among all levels of skill". That's it, that's about balance, not retribution. Some Terrans and Zergs were telling you to STFU when Protoss was UP ? That was stupid/not constructive because buffs were needed and their implementation helped P a lot (with adaptation, etc). So don't replicate this scheme and try to be constructive. I still think making charge a cast (would still be easy because of smartcasting) would help greatly to balance lower levels without influing on top level. Good advice. Just because some people were rude to you when your race was struggling, doesn't mean you have to adopt the same behavior. If you have some insight into the matchup you would like to share, perhaps some suggestions for Terrans to try, by all means, post away, but "stfu and get better," is not constructive. None of us want to go back to the days where Terran is overpowered. All we want is a fair and balanced matchup where a similar amount of effort must be expended on both sides throughout the game in order to achieve victory. One of the ideas I really like so far is to disable charge auto-cast. I think it would be good for the matchup if we gave Protoss more opportunities to micro and thus raise the skill ceiling. If I have to stutter step my bio, focus colossi with my vikings, emp with my ghosts or snipe hts, and macro at the same time, I don't see why Protoss can't have more battle responsibilities as well. Of course, that won't solve all the issues in TvP, but I think it's a small step in the right direction. Have there been any solid arguments against this proposition? Everyone would be happier if Blizzard made it so protosses had to micro charge. It would be more APM intensive, which is what terrans want, and would allow toss players to do more surrounding rather than just a-moving and hoping. Unfortunately, Blizzard is going in the opposite direction, literally. A recent patch removed tosses ability to control charging zealots at all. We used to be able to change their direction while they charged. But the patch changed it so that if you issue your charging zealot any other command it immediately cancels the charge. Therefore I wouldn't hold out for a non-autocast charge, as Blizzard has made it quite clear they don't want tosses microing their zealots... Or voidrays for that matter, like when Blizzard made their charged damage significantly lower. This greatly lowered the incentive to spend a ton of APM both precharging voidrays and keeping them charged, through antics like quickly targeting each other every few feet to get to the enemy base charged. Remember when we saw those awesome voidray strategies where tosses would hallucinate a phoenix to target to keep the charge going? Now all we get is the occasional 3gate voidray all-in. They turned the most micro-intensive unit for toss from unbelievably exciting, into another boring "set it and forget it" unit. Now obviously Blizzard was making a balance decision in each case, but I don't see any reason that they had to reduce the chances for micro. They obviously don't mind lowering the skill ceiling, and I can't stand it. If the stupid, slow, no-micro tempest is actually added in HotS, I'll probably leave the protoss race behind. Nice to see an honest protoss here talking not only about the balance, but make the game more fun Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 12:23 ZenithM wrote:
Can Beasty post a replay of him losing to a Protoss with 50-80 APM like he claimed?
Or is he just, I don't know...full of shit?
I'll believe it when I see it. Even at my diamond level, P I face have at least 75 Blizzard APM (not CPM, the one that doens't include tabbing spam). He said it was a 80 APM a-move during the battle
Why would you have less APM than your average during a fight? Protoss players just watch their shit rape the opponent without moving their fingers now? You can at least macro at home, if you're not watching the fight and microing...
Edit: As for manually triggering charge. I think it would be a huge buff for Protoss. Terrans maybe don't realize that it's very easy to waste his charge on nothing (like a passing SCV), it happens at korean level too, it then gives a window for Terran to start kiting and deplete zealot shields a bit. It's very hard to right click on the charge icon to enable/disable (because there is no hotkey), and impossible to activate manually because you have to target a unit.
I think you underestimate Protoss micro skills (as if using Stim was hard, lol...), and Terran will get raped even harder if you give a stim-like charge to Protoss.
But anyway, I think this proposition usually comes from platinum-diamond level players, not pros, it makes sense that they think it will raise the difficulty of Protoss micro at their level.
A concrete example: let's say P uses charge and T starts kiting, then P backs up his zealots, T thinks it's good to pursue them and pick off stray units for free, maybe stims one more time. Suddenly P doubles back and activate charge again, surrounding MM which are much closer and stutter stepping towards his zealots (It's the same kind of "mind game" oriented micro you see in marines vs banshee fight)
I think it would be much more effective than normal mindlessly charging zealots. On the bright side, you could consider nerfing zealot HP/shield value to take that micro into account and it would indeed raise the skill flood and ceiling for Protoss a bit, which is good.
...........can you quote better? I don't wanna edit your non-quoted answers all the time
I just said beasty didn't say nothing about the full match APM. He was talking how nonsense is some a-moves 80 APM vs 350 APM micro fight. Idk ur point, but if you think is impossible to see a high ranked protoss on the ladder with low APM you're so wrong
|
On March 22 2012 06:47 SupLilSon wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 06:18 Treehead wrote:On March 22 2012 05:35 SupLilSon wrote:On March 22 2012 05:18 biology]major wrote:On March 22 2012 05:13 jabberjaw wrote:I'll also point out that while you micro you don't have to look at a pylon to keep your production going. not really an issue because you can always not have warpgates and instead regular gateways if this that big of an issue. problem solved. even with that drawback of warp gates, it's benefits far outweigh having to move scroll to a pylon and warp in units. and this is the level of players arguing in this thread What's wrong with his statement? I've heard numerous protoss, not only on these forums, lament about the fact that they have to look away from a battle to warp in units and how Terran macro during a battle is so much easier because they can just tab through production buildings while never looking away from the screen of battle. You can actually turn warpgates back into gateways. So if it really is such a disadvantage, just do that and voila, you can ezmacro just like a terran or zerg now. Try holding off early game agression without warpgates. Just try it. That's why you get warpgates. Maybe (heavy, heavy emphasis on maybe) eventually it'll be determined that when doing a micro intensive strategy like mass Blink Stalkers, it'll be advantageous to build more gateways and use them as gateways (despite flushing 50/50 down the toilet for the early game safety), but you'd have to be doing some damn crucial micro to ignore the positional and time-oriented limitations of gateways. Really though, try to come up with a build that's safe to early agression without using warpgate. You'll find it's very, very hard. Edit: Wrong quote. I was being sarcastic. Of course Protoss needs to use warpgates. B/c warpgate is strong as hell. Protoss players complaining about warpgate is like Terran players complaining that Stim damages their units (never ever heard someone complain about that). Warpgate mechanic is so ridiculously strong that it needs some sort of drawback. The point was, Protoss can actually revert to normal production, just like Terran but no Protoss would actually do that because the benefits of WG far outweigh the ability to macro on the fly.
Ah, you do realize that it takes longer to create a unit from a normal gate rather than a warp gate? Eg- zealot is 38 seconds from a normal gate but 33 from a warp gate (28 cooldown +5 warp in time). Therefore we don't really have a choice about getting warp gates unless we're willing to have all of our units be built more slowly.
|
On March 22 2012 13:47 tomatriedes wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 06:47 SupLilSon wrote:On March 22 2012 06:18 Treehead wrote:On March 22 2012 05:35 SupLilSon wrote:On March 22 2012 05:18 biology]major wrote:On March 22 2012 05:13 jabberjaw wrote:I'll also point out that while you micro you don't have to look at a pylon to keep your production going. not really an issue because you can always not have warpgates and instead regular gateways if this that big of an issue. problem solved. even with that drawback of warp gates, it's benefits far outweigh having to move scroll to a pylon and warp in units. and this is the level of players arguing in this thread What's wrong with his statement? I've heard numerous protoss, not only on these forums, lament about the fact that they have to look away from a battle to warp in units and how Terran macro during a battle is so much easier because they can just tab through production buildings while never looking away from the screen of battle. You can actually turn warpgates back into gateways. So if it really is such a disadvantage, just do that and voila, you can ezmacro just like a terran or zerg now. Try holding off early game agression without warpgates. Just try it. That's why you get warpgates. Maybe (heavy, heavy emphasis on maybe) eventually it'll be determined that when doing a micro intensive strategy like mass Blink Stalkers, it'll be advantageous to build more gateways and use them as gateways (despite flushing 50/50 down the toilet for the early game safety), but you'd have to be doing some damn crucial micro to ignore the positional and time-oriented limitations of gateways. Really though, try to come up with a build that's safe to early agression without using warpgate. You'll find it's very, very hard. Edit: Wrong quote. I was being sarcastic. Of course Protoss needs to use warpgates. B/c warpgate is strong as hell. Protoss players complaining about warpgate is like Terran players complaining that Stim damages their units (never ever heard someone complain about that). Warpgate mechanic is so ridiculously strong that it needs some sort of drawback. The point was, Protoss can actually revert to normal production, just like Terran but no Protoss would actually do that because the benefits of WG far outweigh the ability to macro on the fly. Ah, you do realize that it takes longer to create a unit from a normal gate rather than a warp gate? Eg- zealot is 38 seconds from a normal gate but 33 from a warp gate (28 cooldown +5 warp in time). Therefore we don't really have a choice about getting warp gates unless we're willing to have all of our units be built more slowly.
This is the most unintuitive part about warp gate. It should be the opposite, but it makes proxy 2 gate too strong, especially vs zerg.
|
On March 22 2012 13:55 Kharnage wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 13:47 tomatriedes wrote:On March 22 2012 06:47 SupLilSon wrote:On March 22 2012 06:18 Treehead wrote:On March 22 2012 05:35 SupLilSon wrote:On March 22 2012 05:18 biology]major wrote:On March 22 2012 05:13 jabberjaw wrote:I'll also point out that while you micro you don't have to look at a pylon to keep your production going. not really an issue because you can always not have warpgates and instead regular gateways if this that big of an issue. problem solved. even with that drawback of warp gates, it's benefits far outweigh having to move scroll to a pylon and warp in units. and this is the level of players arguing in this thread What's wrong with his statement? I've heard numerous protoss, not only on these forums, lament about the fact that they have to look away from a battle to warp in units and how Terran macro during a battle is so much easier because they can just tab through production buildings while never looking away from the screen of battle. You can actually turn warpgates back into gateways. So if it really is such a disadvantage, just do that and voila, you can ezmacro just like a terran or zerg now. Try holding off early game agression without warpgates. Just try it. That's why you get warpgates. Maybe (heavy, heavy emphasis on maybe) eventually it'll be determined that when doing a micro intensive strategy like mass Blink Stalkers, it'll be advantageous to build more gateways and use them as gateways (despite flushing 50/50 down the toilet for the early game safety), but you'd have to be doing some damn crucial micro to ignore the positional and time-oriented limitations of gateways. Really though, try to come up with a build that's safe to early agression without using warpgate. You'll find it's very, very hard. Edit: Wrong quote. I was being sarcastic. Of course Protoss needs to use warpgates. B/c warpgate is strong as hell. Protoss players complaining about warpgate is like Terran players complaining that Stim damages their units (never ever heard someone complain about that). Warpgate mechanic is so ridiculously strong that it needs some sort of drawback. The point was, Protoss can actually revert to normal production, just like Terran but no Protoss would actually do that because the benefits of WG far outweigh the ability to macro on the fly. Ah, you do realize that it takes longer to create a unit from a normal gate rather than a warp gate? Eg- zealot is 38 seconds from a normal gate but 33 from a warp gate (28 cooldown +5 warp in time). Therefore we don't really have a choice about getting warp gates unless we're willing to have all of our units be built more slowly. This is the most unintuitive part about warp gate. It should be the opposite, but it makes proxy 2 gate too strong, especially vs zerg.
I think zerg can handle themselves against 2 gate proxy very well than they did in the release. That is because the maps have gotten bigger and better. Zergs tend to get more queens and spread creep a lot more often, which then allows them to easily hold it off. Still I could be wrong, so the only way to find out is to just test it.
|
On March 22 2012 13:47 tomatriedes wrote:
Ah, you do realize that it takes longer to create a unit from a normal gate rather than a warp gate? Eg- zealot is 38 seconds from a normal gate but 33 from a warp gate (28 cooldown +5 warp in time). Therefore we don't really have a choice about getting warp gates unless we're willing to have all of our units be built more slowly.
Yes but let's be honest. (I'm a toss, too) My warp gates don't produce units constantly like barracks. Early game I try to get by with the least amount of units possible for faster tech and more probes. And when needed for defense, we have a few (three, to be exact) choices that can be warped on demand.
And late game, I build as many warp gates possible without actually producing so that I can build as many units when needed. The longer the game goes, the more gates I'll have and they work kind of like ever-present larvae. (At that point build time/cooldown is essentially meaningless) Terrans can't do that with barracks.
|
On March 22 2012 05:43 Bojas wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 05:37 biology]major wrote:On March 22 2012 05:26 ChaosTerran wrote:On March 22 2012 05:18 biology]major wrote:On March 22 2012 05:13 jabberjaw wrote:I'll also point out that while you micro you don't have to look at a pylon to keep your production going. not really an issue because you can always not have warpgates and instead regular gateways if this that big of an issue. problem solved. even with that drawback of warp gates, it's benefits far outweigh having to move scroll to a pylon and warp in units. and this is the level of players arguing in this thread Pro level? beastyqt? A bunch of diamond terrans and beastyqt, who is already notoriously known for being whiny and bm since beta. About his argument about how he didn't "deserve" to lose for not dodging 1 storm is not unique to tvp. That is how sc2 is, one fungal, banelings vs marines, vortex, storm, force field all are game changing and you can lose in an instant in any matchup. There are plenty of terrans who are not whiny and have success vs protoss. Naruto has openly stated in this thread that marine ghost will help alot of terrans who rely on marauders the entire game, Lastshadow has made 3 30 min vlogs on tvp explaining in detail how to play with ghost marine/ engagements. Same goes for kawaiirice who used to think tvp was utterly unwinnable and changed his mindset and has improved drastically. Point is every diamond player in this thread is rallying around 1 whiny progamer, when in reality there are those who have success and don't want to argue with said diamond players because they will be ignored and it is not worth the time. Also don't give me the argument that terran takes more apm so its imbalanced, this is not grade school. Not one whining progamer. Beatyqt, Demuslim, Jinro, Merz, Sjow, Avilo, Cloud out of the top of my head. I follow most of these guys on twitter and I regularly hear their opinions on protoss. If you would add the progamers who agree with this but aren't vocal about it I think you have quite a few.
I feel I should shed som light on at least my own opinion here. I do whine a lot recently, guilty as charged. I did not use to whine, for a very long time, I kept imbalance issues out of it for the most part. Why I'm whining at this day is because I look around and I see the only terrans being successful are koreans. I look at the koreans play and try to figure out why they still maintain such a high success with this race, and the conclusions I draw is that they're really just abusing the strong terran early game. I do very much so believe Protoss is stronger than Terran in the lategame, Zerg is too since the ghost nerf. However I'll be the first one to admit right here that the early game is imbalanced in favour of Terrans. Terran has a variety of 1 base openings that are sick strong, hard to identify, and all the units (hellions, marauders, marines) benefit a great deal from good control, which can make them ridiculously cost efficient.
People will argue "Then just resort to using the strenghts of your race" or "If Terran is so strong early but weak late, why do you even play for the lategame?" It's simple. All races should be equally capable in each stage of the game, they should have racial strenghts and weaknesses of course, but having a race who CLEARLY excells in the early game and slowly crumbles in the lategame is problematic for many reasons. Terrans early game strenght comes much from our ability to wall off early, which denies the opponent important intel early on. It also comes from us having a ranged tier 1 unit (the marine) so denying scouting probes/drones are a lot easier compared to zealots or zerglings . It's also due to our racial mechanic which is the mule, basically giving us a sick income boost of minerals on which we can spend towards powerful units early game such as hellions or marines. It also allows us to incorporate workers into our all-ins because mules compensate for the mining time lost if we bring scvs.
Now why this is problematic is because if one race clearly excells at the early game, the other races main objective will always be to just survive and take it til the lategame where they are stronger, while our objective is kill them as soon as possible. This basically results in P and Z tailoring their builds towards all-in play blindly, they even play overly safe sometimes (i.e. protoss going 3 gate before expand just because they scouted gas). This creates some really random scenarios at times which I don't think belongs in game where skill should excell above all else.
Take TvP for example, lets break down 3 scenarios that are all very likely, we're going to assume P scouts gas here
A) P scouts gas, knows theres a possibility of one base play such as 2 rax or the infamous 1/1/1. Plays REALLY safe because the protoss is expecting a one base
B) P scouts gas, goes for the 1 gate nexus anyways and is determined to hold even if it is a 1/1/1 or 2 rax.
C) P scouts gas and goes for a direct blind counter to specific BO, lets say phoenix play because they are expecting a banshee and then the 1/1/1 build as a follow up (which directly counters any 1/1/1 opening).
Scenario A)
P is playing safe, expecting a one base. Several things can happen here. Either Terran mindgames, pulls scvs off gas and goes for a 1 rax FE with reactor, as soon as the probe leaves or is dead. P is now automtically behind in economy because he played overly safe expecting a 1 base play.
Terran can also decide to go for a 1 base play, Protoss holds, proceeds to win game. Here it's already quite random because P can't really know if its a fake or not.
B) Again randomness, if The terran is faking 1 base aggression and actually went for 1 rax CC, the mindgame didn't really do anything and at best the Terran and Protoss is at equal grounds. This, being problematic seeing how Terran wants that early edge and to finish off protoss quick
Or.. Terran went for 1 base play and just so happened to pick the right 1 base strategy to hard counter your 1 gate nexus, Protoss loses the game.
C) Protoss goes for a blind counter, lets use phoenix opening as an example. If terran opens up banshee hes basically dead, if he opened up 2 rax, protoss is all of a sudden pretty dead. If Terran faked P out and went for a 1 rax FE, he's massively ahead in economy, because Phoenix openings aren't very good vs Bio FEs (lots of marines, early ebay etc).
A + B + C and all the different scenarios = RANDOMNESS
Now a Terran always playing it straight up, going for the macro game, is the only time P can ever know exactly what's going on. So here it's already like you're giving up some of your strenght. Worse is, once you reach the lategame where you both have 200/200 armies, Protoss reinforcement capabilites are so much better than Terrans (proxy pylons everywhere, can practically warp in 15-20 chargelots in the MIDDLE of a fight) while Terran can't macro and fight at the same time. Fighting in a 200/200 vs 200/200 in TvP requires 100% focus on the screen where the battle is happening which benefits a protoss with proxy pylons just behind his army. Terrans also has to utilize EMP, stim, kiting, and their vikings. All of these "lock up" important hotkeys during a fight which makes it extremely hard, if not close to impossible, to get a macro round in while you're actually fighting.
I think a perfect example of this is IMMvp. IMMvp is known for his incredible straight up play. He cheeses from time to time, sure, but the majority of his games are straight up solid play. Yet, which one of MVPs matchups is his worst? TvP. Also, if you hadn't noticed by now, IMMvp is posting worse and worse results for every tournament. Which Terran actually excells in Korea right now? MarineKing. Now if you compare the two, MarineKing always has a new one base strategy to pull out of his sleeve, while IMMvp relies more on solid play. MKP does however lack in consistency which I believe is because he sometimes just botches games completlty due to "picking the wrong build".
Whenever I felt playing for the lategame and playing the macrogame didn't work, I'd look at IMMvp and be convinced that it does work, but these past two or three months, I look at IMMvps games and im not convinced anymore. I feel it's a flaw in the design because each race should have equal capabilites in the long game, but that's just not the case. Terran is too strong in the early game and rewards mindgames, using a different strategy each time, and cheap all-ins more than solid straight up play. Obviously each race should be of equal capability in the early game too.
I could go on about this forever but I guess that's it for now. Also to be honest, you look at how Blizzard patch this game and you realize if people cry hard enough about something, it's eventually getting patched. I figured I'd give it a try too.
|
Am I the only terran that has trouble vs. Z more than P? TvP is pretty straightforward, make vikings if he has colossus, make ghosts if he has templar. Micro and win. TvZ is just harder because of creep spread giving vision, fast units, aoe like fungal or banelings, and then hive tech which is sick good.
|
On March 22 2012 14:40 dignitas.merz wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 05:43 Bojas wrote:On March 22 2012 05:37 biology]major wrote:On March 22 2012 05:26 ChaosTerran wrote:On March 22 2012 05:18 biology]major wrote:On March 22 2012 05:13 jabberjaw wrote:I'll also point out that while you micro you don't have to look at a pylon to keep your production going. not really an issue because you can always not have warpgates and instead regular gateways if this that big of an issue. problem solved. even with that drawback of warp gates, it's benefits far outweigh having to move scroll to a pylon and warp in units. and this is the level of players arguing in this thread Pro level? beastyqt? A bunch of diamond terrans and beastyqt, who is already notoriously known for being whiny and bm since beta. About his argument about how he didn't "deserve" to lose for not dodging 1 storm is not unique to tvp. That is how sc2 is, one fungal, banelings vs marines, vortex, storm, force field all are game changing and you can lose in an instant in any matchup. There are plenty of terrans who are not whiny and have success vs protoss. Naruto has openly stated in this thread that marine ghost will help alot of terrans who rely on marauders the entire game, Lastshadow has made 3 30 min vlogs on tvp explaining in detail how to play with ghost marine/ engagements. Same goes for kawaiirice who used to think tvp was utterly unwinnable and changed his mindset and has improved drastically. Point is every diamond player in this thread is rallying around 1 whiny progamer, when in reality there are those who have success and don't want to argue with said diamond players because they will be ignored and it is not worth the time. Also don't give me the argument that terran takes more apm so its imbalanced, this is not grade school. Not one whining progamer. Beatyqt, Demuslim, Jinro, Merz, Sjow, Avilo, Cloud out of the top of my head. I follow most of these guys on twitter and I regularly hear their opinions on protoss. If you would add the progamers who agree with this but aren't vocal about it I think you have quite a few. I feel I should shed som light on at least my own opinion here. I do whine a lot recently, guilty as charged. I did not use to whine, for a very long time, I kept imbalance issues out of it for the most part. Why I'm whining at this day is because I look around and I see the only terrans being successful are koreans. I look at the koreans play and try to figure out why they still maintain such a high success with this race, and the conclusions I draw is that they're really just abusing the strong terran early game. I do very much so believe Protoss is stronger than Terran in the lategame, Zerg is too since the ghost nerf. However I'll be the first one to admit right here that the early game is imbalanced in favour of Terrans. Terran has a variety of 1 base openings that are sick strong, hard to identify, and all the units (hellions, marauders, marines) benefit a great deal from good control, which can make them ridiculously cost efficient. People will argue "Then just resort to using the strenghts of your race" or "If Terran is so strong early but weak late, why do you even play for the lategame?" It's simple. All races should be equally capable in each stage of the game, they should have racial strenghts and weaknesses of course, but having a race who CLEARLY excells in the early game and slowly crumbles in the lategame is problematic for many reasons. Terrans early game strenght comes much from our ability to wall off early, which denies the opponent important intel early on. It also comes from us having a ranged tier 1 unit (the marine) so denying scouting probes/drones are a lot easier compared to zealots or zerglings . It's also due to our racial mechanic which is the mule, basically giving us a sick income boost of minerals on which we can spend towards powerful units early game such as hellions or marines. It also allows us to incorporate workers into our all-ins because mules compensate for the mining time lost if we bring scvs. Now why this is problematic is because if one race clearly excells at the early game, the other races main objective will always be to just survive and take it til the lategame where they are stronger, while our objective is kill them as soon as possible. This basically results in P and Z tailoring their builds towards all-in play blindly, they even play overly safe sometimes (i.e. protoss going 3 gate before expand just because they scouted gas). This creates some really random scenarios at times which I don't think belongs in game where skill should excell above all else. Take TvP for example, lets break down 3 scenarios that are all very likely, we're going to assume P scouts gas here A) P scouts gas, knows theres a possibility of one base play such as 2 rax or the infamous 1/1/1. Plays REALLY safe because the protoss is expecting a one base B) P scouts gas, goes for the 1 gate nexus anyways and is determined to hold even if it is a 1/1/1 or 2 rax. C) P scouts gas and goes for a direct blind counter to specific BO, lets say phoenix play because they are expecting a banshee and then the 1/1/1 build as a follow up (which directly counters any 1/1/1 opening). Scenario A) P is playing safe, expecting a one base. Several things can happen here. Either Terran mindgames, pulls scvs off gas and goes for a 1 rax FE with reactor, as soon as the probe leaves or is dead. P is now automtically behind in economy because he played overly safe expecting a 1 base play. Terran can also decide to go for a 1 base play, Protoss holds, proceeds to win game. Here it's already quite random because P can't really know if its a fake or not. B) Again randomness, if The terran is faking 1 base aggression and actually went for 1 rax CC, the mindgame didn't really do anything and at best the Terran and Protoss is at equal grounds. This, being problematic seeing how Terran wants that early edge and to finish off protoss quick Or.. Terran went for 1 base play and just so happened to pick the right 1 base strategy to hard counter your 1 gate nexus, Protoss loses the game. C) Protoss goes for a blind counter, lets use phoenix opening as an example. If terran opens up banshee hes basically dead, if he opened up 2 rax, protoss is all of a sudden pretty dead. If Terran faked P out and went for a 1 rax FE, he's massively ahead in economy, because Phoenix openings aren't very good vs Bio FEs (lots of marines, early ebay etc). A + B + C and all the different scenarios = RANDOMNESS Now a Terran always playing it straight up, going for the macro game, is the only time P can ever know exactly what's going on. So here it's already like you're giving up some of your strenght. Worse is, once you reach the lategame where you both have 200/200 armies, Protoss reinforcement capabilites are so much better than Terrans (proxy pylons everywhere, can practically warp in 15-20 chargelots in the MIDDLE of a fight) while Terran can't macro and fight at the same time. Fighting in a 200/200 vs 200/200 in TvP requires 100% focus on the screen where the battle is happening which benefits a protoss with proxy pylons just behind his army. Terrans also has to utilize EMP, stim, kiting, and their vikings. All of these "lock up" important hotkeys during a fight which makes it extremely hard, if not close to impossible, to get a macro round in while you're actually fighting. I think a perfect example of this is IMMvp. IMMvp is known for his incredible straight up play. He cheeses from time to time, sure, but the majority of his games are straight up solid play. Yet, which one of MVPs matchups is his worst? TvP. Also, if you hadn't noticed by now, IMMvp is posting worse and worse results for every tournament. Which Terran actually excells in Korea right now? MarineKing. Now if you compare the two, MarineKing always has a new one base strategy to pull out of his sleeve, while IMMvp relies more on solid play. MKP does however lack in consistency which I believe is because he sometimes just botches games completlty due to "picking the wrong build". Whenever I felt playing for the lategame and playing the macrogame didn't work, I'd look at IMMvp and be convinced that it does work, but these past two or three months, I look at IMMvps games and im not convinced anymore. I feel it's a flaw in the design because each race should have equal capabilites in the long game, but that's just not the case. Terran is too strong in the early game and rewards mindgames, using a different strategy each time, and cheap all-ins more than solid straight up play. Obviously each race should be of equal capability in the early game too. I could go on about this forever but I guess that's it for now. Also to be honest, you look at how Blizzard patch this game and you realize if people cry hard enough about something, it's eventually getting patched. I figured I'd give it a try too.
ug
u do realize marineking is #1 on the korean ladder
there isnt much about his play thats random and you have to be pretty consistent to be #1
he just has a wide variety of builds and heres the key, hes SUPER AGRRESSIVE
sometimes we see it be his downfall, but most of the time it works out for him
thats the biggest key to playing terran
non stop poking and dropping, until u give yourself a clear advantage
is this bad for gameplay? idk, but atm thats just how it is
|
No, I don't think you're alone in having increased difficulty recently with Zerg. Personally, TvZ is quickly adopting the same feel as TvP in that if you don't hit the 18-20ish minute mark with a substantial lead, the game will most likely be lost in embarrassing fashion. But the huge difference is, when I go back and watch replays of TvZ I can almost always pinpoint my mistakes. When I watch TvP replays I am almost always at a loss to why I lost. I'll hit the midgame/endgame with an advantage and watch it melt in an instant the second our armies engage. Yes, this can happen vs. Zerg as well but it's almost always due to Terran being out of position, sieging too late, not splitting quick enough, spreading his forces too thin, dropping at the wrong time, etc. These are all things you can identify and work on improving. Trust me, I have 3 practice groups from the TL practice partner thread, and I custom daily with friends on top of playing KR ladder. The problem I have with TvP is no matter how much I practice and try to refine my play, I can't seem to make a difference.
|
On March 22 2012 14:58 mcleod wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 14:40 dignitas.merz wrote:On March 22 2012 05:43 Bojas wrote:On March 22 2012 05:37 biology]major wrote:On March 22 2012 05:26 ChaosTerran wrote:On March 22 2012 05:18 biology]major wrote:On March 22 2012 05:13 jabberjaw wrote:I'll also point out that while you micro you don't have to look at a pylon to keep your production going. not really an issue because you can always not have warpgates and instead regular gateways if this that big of an issue. problem solved. even with that drawback of warp gates, it's benefits far outweigh having to move scroll to a pylon and warp in units. and this is the level of players arguing in this thread Pro level? beastyqt? A bunch of diamond terrans and beastyqt, who is already notoriously known for being whiny and bm since beta. About his argument about how he didn't "deserve" to lose for not dodging 1 storm is not unique to tvp. That is how sc2 is, one fungal, banelings vs marines, vortex, storm, force field all are game changing and you can lose in an instant in any matchup. There are plenty of terrans who are not whiny and have success vs protoss. Naruto has openly stated in this thread that marine ghost will help alot of terrans who rely on marauders the entire game, Lastshadow has made 3 30 min vlogs on tvp explaining in detail how to play with ghost marine/ engagements. Same goes for kawaiirice who used to think tvp was utterly unwinnable and changed his mindset and has improved drastically. Point is every diamond player in this thread is rallying around 1 whiny progamer, when in reality there are those who have success and don't want to argue with said diamond players because they will be ignored and it is not worth the time. Also don't give me the argument that terran takes more apm so its imbalanced, this is not grade school. Not one whining progamer. Beatyqt, Demuslim, Jinro, Merz, Sjow, Avilo, Cloud out of the top of my head. I follow most of these guys on twitter and I regularly hear their opinions on protoss. If you would add the progamers who agree with this but aren't vocal about it I think you have quite a few. I feel I should shed som light on at least my own opinion here. I do whine a lot recently, guilty as charged. I did not use to whine, for a very long time, I kept imbalance issues out of it for the most part. Why I'm whining at this day is because I look around and I see the only terrans being successful are koreans. I look at the koreans play and try to figure out why they still maintain such a high success with this race, and the conclusions I draw is that they're really just abusing the strong terran early game. I do very much so believe Protoss is stronger than Terran in the lategame, Zerg is too since the ghost nerf. However I'll be the first one to admit right here that the early game is imbalanced in favour of Terrans. Terran has a variety of 1 base openings that are sick strong, hard to identify, and all the units (hellions, marauders, marines) benefit a great deal from good control, which can make them ridiculously cost efficient. People will argue "Then just resort to using the strenghts of your race" or "If Terran is so strong early but weak late, why do you even play for the lategame?" It's simple. All races should be equally capable in each stage of the game, they should have racial strenghts and weaknesses of course, but having a race who CLEARLY excells in the early game and slowly crumbles in the lategame is problematic for many reasons. Terrans early game strenght comes much from our ability to wall off early, which denies the opponent important intel early on. It also comes from us having a ranged tier 1 unit (the marine) so denying scouting probes/drones are a lot easier compared to zealots or zerglings . It's also due to our racial mechanic which is the mule, basically giving us a sick income boost of minerals on which we can spend towards powerful units early game such as hellions or marines. It also allows us to incorporate workers into our all-ins because mules compensate for the mining time lost if we bring scvs. Now why this is problematic is because if one race clearly excells at the early game, the other races main objective will always be to just survive and take it til the lategame where they are stronger, while our objective is kill them as soon as possible. This basically results in P and Z tailoring their builds towards all-in play blindly, they even play overly safe sometimes (i.e. protoss going 3 gate before expand just because they scouted gas). This creates some really random scenarios at times which I don't think belongs in game where skill should excell above all else. Take TvP for example, lets break down 3 scenarios that are all very likely, we're going to assume P scouts gas here A) P scouts gas, knows theres a possibility of one base play such as 2 rax or the infamous 1/1/1. Plays REALLY safe because the protoss is expecting a one base B) P scouts gas, goes for the 1 gate nexus anyways and is determined to hold even if it is a 1/1/1 or 2 rax. C) P scouts gas and goes for a direct blind counter to specific BO, lets say phoenix play because they are expecting a banshee and then the 1/1/1 build as a follow up (which directly counters any 1/1/1 opening). Scenario A) P is playing safe, expecting a one base. Several things can happen here. Either Terran mindgames, pulls scvs off gas and goes for a 1 rax FE with reactor, as soon as the probe leaves or is dead. P is now automtically behind in economy because he played overly safe expecting a 1 base play. Terran can also decide to go for a 1 base play, Protoss holds, proceeds to win game. Here it's already quite random because P can't really know if its a fake or not. B) Again randomness, if The terran is faking 1 base aggression and actually went for 1 rax CC, the mindgame didn't really do anything and at best the Terran and Protoss is at equal grounds. This, being problematic seeing how Terran wants that early edge and to finish off protoss quick Or.. Terran went for 1 base play and just so happened to pick the right 1 base strategy to hard counter your 1 gate nexus, Protoss loses the game. C) Protoss goes for a blind counter, lets use phoenix opening as an example. If terran opens up banshee hes basically dead, if he opened up 2 rax, protoss is all of a sudden pretty dead. If Terran faked P out and went for a 1 rax FE, he's massively ahead in economy, because Phoenix openings aren't very good vs Bio FEs (lots of marines, early ebay etc). A + B + C and all the different scenarios = RANDOMNESS Now a Terran always playing it straight up, going for the macro game, is the only time P can ever know exactly what's going on. So here it's already like you're giving up some of your strenght. Worse is, once you reach the lategame where you both have 200/200 armies, Protoss reinforcement capabilites are so much better than Terrans (proxy pylons everywhere, can practically warp in 15-20 chargelots in the MIDDLE of a fight) while Terran can't macro and fight at the same time. Fighting in a 200/200 vs 200/200 in TvP requires 100% focus on the screen where the battle is happening which benefits a protoss with proxy pylons just behind his army. Terrans also has to utilize EMP, stim, kiting, and their vikings. All of these "lock up" important hotkeys during a fight which makes it extremely hard, if not close to impossible, to get a macro round in while you're actually fighting. I think a perfect example of this is IMMvp. IMMvp is known for his incredible straight up play. He cheeses from time to time, sure, but the majority of his games are straight up solid play. Yet, which one of MVPs matchups is his worst? TvP. Also, if you hadn't noticed by now, IMMvp is posting worse and worse results for every tournament. Which Terran actually excells in Korea right now? MarineKing. Now if you compare the two, MarineKing always has a new one base strategy to pull out of his sleeve, while IMMvp relies more on solid play. MKP does however lack in consistency which I believe is because he sometimes just botches games completlty due to "picking the wrong build". Whenever I felt playing for the lategame and playing the macrogame didn't work, I'd look at IMMvp and be convinced that it does work, but these past two or three months, I look at IMMvps games and im not convinced anymore. I feel it's a flaw in the design because each race should have equal capabilites in the long game, but that's just not the case. Terran is too strong in the early game and rewards mindgames, using a different strategy each time, and cheap all-ins more than solid straight up play. Obviously each race should be of equal capability in the early game too. I could go on about this forever but I guess that's it for now. Also to be honest, you look at how Blizzard patch this game and you realize if people cry hard enough about something, it's eventually getting patched. I figured I'd give it a try too. ug u do realize marineking is #1 on the korean ladder there isnt much about his play thats random and you have to be pretty consistent to be #1 he just has a wide variety of builds and heres the key, hes SUPER AGRRESSIVE sometimes we see it be his downfall, but most of the time it works out for him thats the biggest key to playing terran non stop poking and dropping, until u give yourself a clear advantage is this bad for gameplay? idk, but atm thats just how it is
??? I said he excells as in hes probably the best terran in Korea right now. I pointed out he has a variety of builds and new tricks up his sleeve every time, and much like you, sometimes its his downfall. I've already pointed out the key to playing Terran is getting a clear advantage early on. I don't really understand why you'd quote me and post this.
|
because you seemed to hint that marineking is cheesy?
hes aggressive thats all
and maybe playing like marineking should be standard for terran, rather than how IMMVP plays which is predictable and one dimensional
MMA is another great of example of how to play terran, that guy really gets the current metagame
i never watch IMMVP replays, because everything is just sooo standard. theres nothing to learn
blizzard just needs to fix mech TvP, so terrans atleast have a choice to play passive and into lategame scenarios
|
On March 22 2012 15:07 mcleod wrote:
because you seemed to hint that marineking is cheesy?
hes aggressive thats all
and maybe playing like marineking should be standard for terran, rather than how IMMVP plays which is predictable and one dimensional
MMA is another great of example of how to play terran, that guy really gets the current metagame
i never watch IMMVP replays, because everything is just sooo standard. theres nothing to learn
blizzard just needs to fix mech TvP, so terrans atleast have a choice to play passive and into lategame scenarios
He is very cheesy, that doesn't equal bad. He uses a wide variety of all-ins, he can play straight up as well. I'm pointing at MKP because I believe he GETS how to play Terran and he realizes how to utilize the race to its fullest. I'm not trying to diss Marineking, I have great respect for the guy and I should have, I was merely trying to compare one player who plays predictable but does it really well and solid, with someone who uses a lot of variety, and their success.
|
On March 22 2012 15:07 mcleod wrote:
because you seemed to hint that marineking is cheesy?
hes aggressive thats all
and maybe playing like marineking should be standard for terran, rather than how IMMVP plays which is predictable and one dimensional
MMA is another great of example of how to play terran, that guy really gets the current metagame
i never watch IMMVP replays, because everything is just sooo standard. theres nothing to learn
blizzard just needs to fix mech TvP, so terrans atleast have a choice to play passive and into lategame scenarios
I like how he makes this whole post stating what everyone has been saying all long in huge detail and explanation which you all ask for.. and you find something in there and twists it's words, turn it into slander. Why are you not contributing instead of arguing?
I for one agree with his post, on everything too. This is exactly how I feel each TvP. If I don't get ahead now, I will die later. I will often resort to 1 base play to achieve my wins vs protoss.
|
have come to the point where i hate to play the game already tvp is totally shit and i m quitting the game already..
totally frustrating to play tvp.. i tried to improve, but to no avail... hope blizz does something about it.. not surpised LOL took over SC2
|
On March 22 2012 14:40 dignitas.merz wrote:
I feel I should shed som light on at least my own opinion here. I do whine a lot recently, guilty as charged. I did not use to whine, for a very long time, I kept imbalance issues out of it for the most part. Why I'm whining at this day is because I look around and I see the only terrans being successful are koreans. I look at the koreans play and try to figure out why they still maintain such a high success with this race, and the conclusions I draw is that they're really just abusing the strong terran early game. I do very much so believe Protoss is stronger than Terran in the lategame, Zerg is too since the ghost nerf. However I'll be the first one to admit right here that the early game is imbalanced in favour of Terrans. Terran has a variety of 1 base openings that are sick strong, hard to identify, and all the units (hellions, marauders, marines) benefit a great deal from good control, which can make them ridiculously cost efficient.
People will argue "Then just resort to using the strenghts of your race" or "If Terran is so strong early but weak late, why do you even play for the lategame?" It's simple. All races should be equally capable in each stage of the game, they should have racial strenghts and weaknesses of course, but having a race who CLEARLY excells in the early game and slowly crumbles in the lategame is problematic for many reasons. Terrans early game strenght comes much from our ability to wall off early, which denies the opponent important intel early on. It also comes from us having a ranged tier 1 unit (the marine) so denying scouting probes/drones are a lot easier compared to zealots or zerglings . It's also due to our racial mechanic which is the mule, basically giving us a sick income boost of minerals on which we can spend towards powerful units early game such as hellions or marines. It also allows us to incorporate workers into our all-ins because mules compensate for the mining time lost if we bring scvs.
Now why this is problematic is because if one race clearly excells at the early game, the other races main objective will always be to just survive and take it til the lategame where they are stronger, while our objective is kill them as soon as possible. This basically results in P and Z tailoring their builds towards all-in play blindly, they even play overly safe sometimes (i.e. protoss going 3 gate before expand just because they scouted gas). This creates some really random scenarios at times which I don't think belongs in game where skill should excell above all else.
just a small question, because you are somewhat implying TvZ to be similar:
Isn't it a concious decision in TvZ to not go for a good lategame, but instead play for the early wins? Mech is viable in this matchup and does have a very strong lategame, that can deal pretty well with everything a zerg can throw at you at this time, yet I somehow get the feeling that Terrans don't want to change style, because their winrates are still >50% with bioplay, because it still gets a ton of early-midwins, while not getting crushed in the lategame a lot of times.
(And I'm not standing alone with this opinion. Various progamers have said things along those lines as well)
I do believe that this is somewhat the best (designwise) it can get for a race that is basically 2races (techpaths) combined in one and the question should not be "how does blizzard balance the current game out so that bio works better in the lategame vs Protoss/Zerg", but rather it should be "blizzard should ensure that Mech becomes viable vs Protoss and maybe even more viable vs Zerg - and possibly even nerf down bios early game a little more vs Zerg"
|
On March 22 2012 17:21 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 14:40 dignitas.merz wrote:
I feel I should shed som light on at least my own opinion here. I do whine a lot recently, guilty as charged. I did not use to whine, for a very long time, I kept imbalance issues out of it for the most part. Why I'm whining at this day is because I look around and I see the only terrans being successful are koreans. I look at the koreans play and try to figure out why they still maintain such a high success with this race, and the conclusions I draw is that they're really just abusing the strong terran early game. I do very much so believe Protoss is stronger than Terran in the lategame, Zerg is too since the ghost nerf. However I'll be the first one to admit right here that the early game is imbalanced in favour of Terrans. Terran has a variety of 1 base openings that are sick strong, hard to identify, and all the units (hellions, marauders, marines) benefit a great deal from good control, which can make them ridiculously cost efficient.
People will argue "Then just resort to using the strenghts of your race" or "If Terran is so strong early but weak late, why do you even play for the lategame?" It's simple. All races should be equally capable in each stage of the game, they should have racial strenghts and weaknesses of course, but having a race who CLEARLY excells in the early game and slowly crumbles in the lategame is problematic for many reasons. Terrans early game strenght comes much from our ability to wall off early, which denies the opponent important intel early on. It also comes from us having a ranged tier 1 unit (the marine) so denying scouting probes/drones are a lot easier compared to zealots or zerglings . It's also due to our racial mechanic which is the mule, basically giving us a sick income boost of minerals on which we can spend towards powerful units early game such as hellions or marines. It also allows us to incorporate workers into our all-ins because mules compensate for the mining time lost if we bring scvs.
Now why this is problematic is because if one race clearly excells at the early game, the other races main objective will always be to just survive and take it til the lategame where they are stronger, while our objective is kill them as soon as possible. This basically results in P and Z tailoring their builds towards all-in play blindly, they even play overly safe sometimes (i.e. protoss going 3 gate before expand just because they scouted gas). This creates some really random scenarios at times which I don't think belongs in game where skill should excell above all else.
just a small question, because you are somewhat implying TvZ to be similar: Isn't it a concious decision in TvZ to not go for a good lategame, but instead play for the early wins? Mech is viable in this matchup and does have a very strong lategame, that can deal pretty well with everything a zerg can throw at you at this time, yet I somehow get the feeling that Terrans don't want to change style, because their winrates are still >50% with bioplay, because it still gets a ton of early-midwins, while not getting crushed in the lategame a lot of times. (And I'm not standing alone with this opinion. Various progamers have said things along those lines as well) I do believe that this is somewhat the best (designwise) it can get for a race that is basically 2races (techpaths) combined in one and the question should not be "how does blizzard balance the current game out so that bio works better in the lategame vs Protoss/Zerg", but rather it should be "blizzard should ensure that Mech becomes viable vs Protoss and maybe even more viable vs Zerg - and possibly even nerf down bios early game a little more vs Zerg"
Imo, Mech can't ever work in WoL on most maps because of how immobile it is, especially against Mutas Mech is so bad, you need to put up a bajillion turrets everywhere because if the Zerg ever find a weak spot somewhere he can kill of your entire main until your army eventually gets there. And mech won't ever work against protoss either, unless they remove
blink, charge, immortals, speed prisms, nexus recall from the game. And then you also have the problem of hard counters. Zerg goes mass roach, you mass tanks, then he switches into mutas, you mass thors, then back to roach, then goes broordlords and even if you instantely scout it, it takes you ages to mass up the counter to the specific unit. You also can't harrass zerg at all, if he just puts up spine crawlers at his expo.
And by the way, if you count Mech and Bio as 2 in 1, you could very well count infestor and muta as 2 in 1 and chargelot archon and robo as 2 in 1. Mech would have to be buffed to no end to become viable in SC2, I would of course be ok with bio getting nerfed, but only if you massively buff every single mech unit and give us something to overcome the immobility of the mech army.
|
On March 22 2012 14:40 dignitas.merz wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 05:43 Bojas wrote:On March 22 2012 05:37 biology]major wrote:On March 22 2012 05:26 ChaosTerran wrote:On March 22 2012 05:18 biology]major wrote:On March 22 2012 05:13 jabberjaw wrote:I'll also point out that while you micro you don't have to look at a pylon to keep your production going. not really an issue because you can always not have warpgates and instead regular gateways if this that big of an issue. problem solved. even with that drawback of warp gates, it's benefits far outweigh having to move scroll to a pylon and warp in units. and this is the level of players arguing in this thread Pro level? beastyqt? A bunch of diamond terrans and beastyqt, who is already notoriously known for being whiny and bm since beta. About his argument about how he didn't "deserve" to lose for not dodging 1 storm is not unique to tvp. That is how sc2 is, one fungal, banelings vs marines, vortex, storm, force field all are game changing and you can lose in an instant in any matchup. There are plenty of terrans who are not whiny and have success vs protoss. Naruto has openly stated in this thread that marine ghost will help alot of terrans who rely on marauders the entire game, Lastshadow has made 3 30 min vlogs on tvp explaining in detail how to play with ghost marine/ engagements. Same goes for kawaiirice who used to think tvp was utterly unwinnable and changed his mindset and has improved drastically. Point is every diamond player in this thread is rallying around 1 whiny progamer, when in reality there are those who have success and don't want to argue with said diamond players because they will be ignored and it is not worth the time. Also don't give me the argument that terran takes more apm so its imbalanced, this is not grade school. Not one whining progamer. Beatyqt, Demuslim, Jinro, Merz, Sjow, Avilo, Cloud out of the top of my head. I follow most of these guys on twitter and I regularly hear their opinions on protoss. If you would add the progamers who agree with this but aren't vocal about it I think you have quite a few. I feel I should shed som light on at least my own opinion here. I do whine a lot recently, guilty as charged. I did not use to whine, for a very long time, I kept imbalance issues out of it for the most part. Why I'm whining at this day is because I look around and I see the only terrans being successful are koreans. I look at the koreans play and try to figure out why they still maintain such a high success with this race, and the conclusions I draw is that they're really just abusing the strong terran early game. I do very much so believe Protoss is stronger than Terran in the lategame, Zerg is too since the ghost nerf. However I'll be the first one to admit right here that the early game is imbalanced in favour of Terrans. Terran has a variety of 1 base openings that are sick strong, hard to identify, and all the units (hellions, marauders, marines) benefit a great deal from good control, which can make them ridiculously cost efficient. People will argue "Then just resort to using the strenghts of your race" or "If Terran is so strong early but weak late, why do you even play for the lategame?" It's simple. All races should be equally capable in each stage of the game, they should have racial strenghts and weaknesses of course, but having a race who CLEARLY excells in the early game and slowly crumbles in the lategame is problematic for many reasons. Terrans early game strenght comes much from our ability to wall off early, which denies the opponent important intel early on. It also comes from us having a ranged tier 1 unit (the marine) so denying scouting probes/drones are a lot easier compared to zealots or zerglings . It's also due to our racial mechanic which is the mule, basically giving us a sick income boost of minerals on which we can spend towards powerful units early game such as hellions or marines. It also allows us to incorporate workers into our all-ins because mules compensate for the mining time lost if we bring scvs. Now why this is problematic is because if one race clearly excells at the early game, the other races main objective will always be to just survive and take it til the lategame where they are stronger, while our objective is kill them as soon as possible. This basically results in P and Z tailoring their builds towards all-in play blindly, they even play overly safe sometimes (i.e. protoss going 3 gate before expand just because they scouted gas). This creates some really random scenarios at times which I don't think belongs in game where skill should excell above all else. Take TvP for example, lets break down 3 scenarios that are all very likely, we're going to assume P scouts gas here A) P scouts gas, knows theres a possibility of one base play such as 2 rax or the infamous 1/1/1. Plays REALLY safe because the protoss is expecting a one base B) P scouts gas, goes for the 1 gate nexus anyways and is determined to hold even if it is a 1/1/1 or 2 rax. C) P scouts gas and goes for a direct blind counter to specific BO, lets say phoenix play because they are expecting a banshee and then the 1/1/1 build as a follow up (which directly counters any 1/1/1 opening). Scenario A) P is playing safe, expecting a one base. Several things can happen here. Either Terran mindgames, pulls scvs off gas and goes for a 1 rax FE with reactor, as soon as the probe leaves or is dead. P is now automtically behind in economy because he played overly safe expecting a 1 base play. Terran can also decide to go for a 1 base play, Protoss holds, proceeds to win game. Here it's already quite random because P can't really know if its a fake or not. B) Again randomness, if The terran is faking 1 base aggression and actually went for 1 rax CC, the mindgame didn't really do anything and at best the Terran and Protoss is at equal grounds. This, being problematic seeing how Terran wants that early edge and to finish off protoss quick Or.. Terran went for 1 base play and just so happened to pick the right 1 base strategy to hard counter your 1 gate nexus, Protoss loses the game. C) Protoss goes for a blind counter, lets use phoenix opening as an example. If terran opens up banshee hes basically dead, if he opened up 2 rax, protoss is all of a sudden pretty dead. If Terran faked P out and went for a 1 rax FE, he's massively ahead in economy, because Phoenix openings aren't very good vs Bio FEs (lots of marines, early ebay etc). A + B + C and all the different scenarios = RANDOMNESS Now a Terran always playing it straight up, going for the macro game, is the only time P can ever know exactly what's going on. So here it's already like you're giving up some of your strenght. Worse is, once you reach the lategame where you both have 200/200 armies, Protoss reinforcement capabilites are so much better than Terrans (proxy pylons everywhere, can practically warp in 15-20 chargelots in the MIDDLE of a fight) while Terran can't macro and fight at the same time. Fighting in a 200/200 vs 200/200 in TvP requires 100% focus on the screen where the battle is happening which benefits a protoss with proxy pylons just behind his army. Terrans also has to utilize EMP, stim, kiting, and their vikings. All of these "lock up" important hotkeys during a fight which makes it extremely hard, if not close to impossible, to get a macro round in while you're actually fighting. I think a perfect example of this is IMMvp. IMMvp is known for his incredible straight up play. He cheeses from time to time, sure, but the majority of his games are straight up solid play. Yet, which one of MVPs matchups is his worst? TvP. Also, if you hadn't noticed by now, IMMvp is posting worse and worse results for every tournament. Which Terran actually excells in Korea right now? MarineKing. Now if you compare the two, MarineKing always has a new one base strategy to pull out of his sleeve, while IMMvp relies more on solid play. MKP does however lack in consistency which I believe is because he sometimes just botches games completlty due to "picking the wrong build". Whenever I felt playing for the lategame and playing the macrogame didn't work, I'd look at IMMvp and be convinced that it does work, but these past two or three months, I look at IMMvps games and im not convinced anymore. I feel it's a flaw in the design because each race should have equal capabilites in the long game, but that's just not the case. Terran is too strong in the early game and rewards mindgames, using a different strategy each time, and cheap all-ins more than solid straight up play. Obviously each race should be of equal capability in the early game too. I could go on about this forever but I guess that's it for now. Also to be honest, you look at how Blizzard patch this game and you realize if people cry hard enough about something, it's eventually getting patched. I figured I'd give it a try too.
+ 11111. Couldn't have said it any better.
|
On March 22 2012 17:34 ChaosTerran wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 17:21 Big J wrote:On March 22 2012 14:40 dignitas.merz wrote:
I feel I should shed som light on at least my own opinion here. I do whine a lot recently, guilty as charged. I did not use to whine, for a very long time, I kept imbalance issues out of it for the most part. Why I'm whining at this day is because I look around and I see the only terrans being successful are koreans. I look at the koreans play and try to figure out why they still maintain such a high success with this race, and the conclusions I draw is that they're really just abusing the strong terran early game. I do very much so believe Protoss is stronger than Terran in the lategame, Zerg is too since the ghost nerf. However I'll be the first one to admit right here that the early game is imbalanced in favour of Terrans. Terran has a variety of 1 base openings that are sick strong, hard to identify, and all the units (hellions, marauders, marines) benefit a great deal from good control, which can make them ridiculously cost efficient.
People will argue "Then just resort to using the strenghts of your race" or "If Terran is so strong early but weak late, why do you even play for the lategame?" It's simple. All races should be equally capable in each stage of the game, they should have racial strenghts and weaknesses of course, but having a race who CLEARLY excells in the early game and slowly crumbles in the lategame is problematic for many reasons. Terrans early game strenght comes much from our ability to wall off early, which denies the opponent important intel early on. It also comes from us having a ranged tier 1 unit (the marine) so denying scouting probes/drones are a lot easier compared to zealots or zerglings . It's also due to our racial mechanic which is the mule, basically giving us a sick income boost of minerals on which we can spend towards powerful units early game such as hellions or marines. It also allows us to incorporate workers into our all-ins because mules compensate for the mining time lost if we bring scvs.
Now why this is problematic is because if one race clearly excells at the early game, the other races main objective will always be to just survive and take it til the lategame where they are stronger, while our objective is kill them as soon as possible. This basically results in P and Z tailoring their builds towards all-in play blindly, they even play overly safe sometimes (i.e. protoss going 3 gate before expand just because they scouted gas). This creates some really random scenarios at times which I don't think belongs in game where skill should excell above all else.
just a small question, because you are somewhat implying TvZ to be similar: Isn't it a concious decision in TvZ to not go for a good lategame, but instead play for the early wins? Mech is viable in this matchup and does have a very strong lategame, that can deal pretty well with everything a zerg can throw at you at this time, yet I somehow get the feeling that Terrans don't want to change style, because their winrates are still >50% with bioplay, because it still gets a ton of early-midwins, while not getting crushed in the lategame a lot of times. (And I'm not standing alone with this opinion. Various progamers have said things along those lines as well) I do believe that this is somewhat the best (designwise) it can get for a race that is basically 2races (techpaths) combined in one and the question should not be "how does blizzard balance the current game out so that bio works better in the lategame vs Protoss/Zerg", but rather it should be "blizzard should ensure that Mech becomes viable vs Protoss and maybe even more viable vs Zerg - and possibly even nerf down bios early game a little more vs Zerg" Imo, Mech can't ever work in WoL on most maps because of how immobile it is, especially against Mutas Mech is so bad, you need to put up a bajillion turrets everywhere because if the Zerg ever find a weak spot somewhere he can kill of your entire main until your army eventually gets there. And mech won't ever work against protoss either, unless they remove blink, charge, immortals, speed prisms, nexus recall from the game. And then you also have the problem of hard counters. Zerg goes mass roach, you mass tanks, then he switches into mutas, you mass thors, then back to roach, then goes broordlords and even if you instantely scout it, it takes you ages to mass up the counter to the specific unit. You also can't harrass zerg at all, if he just puts up spine crawlers at his expo. And by the way, if you count Mech and Bio as 2 in 1, you could very well count infestor and muta as 2 in 1 and chargelot archon and robo as 2 in 1. Mech would have to be buffed to no end to become viable in SC2, I would of course be ok with bio getting nerfed, but only if you massively buff every single mech unit and give us something to overcome the immobility of the mech army.
Well, regarding the mobility issue, the HOTS goliaths might be quite mobile. So I'm hoping that might be a solution. Don't know how many T are going to remain in the game if we need to wait that long, though.
As for mech against Z, what seems to happen is that it comes down to scouting. If the Z scouts in time and gets tons of upgrades and nothing but roach, mech isn't actually viable. There are generally too many throw-away roach drops into the main and then the Z will just crush the T once the T moves out. Games to see: Puma v a Z on daybreak, Nada v Nestea on Bel'shir beach, even Mvp v Symbol yesterday (The latter might have had Mvp too far behind from failed cheese, though). But mech play is definitely available for exploration in the TvZ MU, it's just that it seems weaker than marine tank so it doesn't get played/explored much at all.
|
On March 22 2012 14:40 dignitas.merz wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 05:43 Bojas wrote:On March 22 2012 05:37 biology]major wrote:On March 22 2012 05:26 ChaosTerran wrote:On March 22 2012 05:18 biology]major wrote:On March 22 2012 05:13 jabberjaw wrote:I'll also point out that while you micro you don't have to look at a pylon to keep your production going. not really an issue because you can always not have warpgates and instead regular gateways if this that big of an issue. problem solved. even with that drawback of warp gates, it's benefits far outweigh having to move scroll to a pylon and warp in units. and this is the level of players arguing in this thread Pro level? beastyqt? A bunch of diamond terrans and beastyqt, who is already notoriously known for being whiny and bm since beta. About his argument about how he didn't "deserve" to lose for not dodging 1 storm is not unique to tvp. That is how sc2 is, one fungal, banelings vs marines, vortex, storm, force field all are game changing and you can lose in an instant in any matchup. There are plenty of terrans who are not whiny and have success vs protoss. Naruto has openly stated in this thread that marine ghost will help alot of terrans who rely on marauders the entire game, Lastshadow has made 3 30 min vlogs on tvp explaining in detail how to play with ghost marine/ engagements. Same goes for kawaiirice who used to think tvp was utterly unwinnable and changed his mindset and has improved drastically. Point is every diamond player in this thread is rallying around 1 whiny progamer, when in reality there are those who have success and don't want to argue with said diamond players because they will be ignored and it is not worth the time. Also don't give me the argument that terran takes more apm so its imbalanced, this is not grade school. Not one whining progamer. Beatyqt, Demuslim, Jinro, Merz, Sjow, Avilo, Cloud out of the top of my head. I follow most of these guys on twitter and I regularly hear their opinions on protoss. If you would add the progamers who agree with this but aren't vocal about it I think you have quite a few. I feel I should shed som light on at least my own opinion here. I do whine a lot recently, guilty as charged. I did not use to whine, for a very long time, I kept imbalance issues out of it for the most part. Why I'm whining at this day is because I look around and I see the only terrans being successful are koreans. I look at the koreans play and try to figure out why they still maintain such a high success with this race, and the conclusions I draw is that they're really just abusing the strong terran early game. I do very much so believe Protoss is stronger than Terran in the lategame, Zerg is too since the ghost nerf. However I'll be the first one to admit right here that the early game is imbalanced in favour of Terrans. Terran has a variety of 1 base openings that are sick strong, hard to identify, and all the units (hellions, marauders, marines) benefit a great deal from good control, which can make them ridiculously cost efficient. People will argue "Then just resort to using the strenghts of your race" or "If Terran is so strong early but weak late, why do you even play for the lategame?" It's simple. All races should be equally capable in each stage of the game, they should have racial strenghts and weaknesses of course, but having a race who CLEARLY excells in the early game and slowly crumbles in the lategame is problematic for many reasons. Terrans early game strenght comes much from our ability to wall off early, which denies the opponent important intel early on. It also comes from us having a ranged tier 1 unit (the marine) so denying scouting probes/drones are a lot easier compared to zealots or zerglings . It's also due to our racial mechanic which is the mule, basically giving us a sick income boost of minerals on which we can spend towards powerful units early game such as hellions or marines. It also allows us to incorporate workers into our all-ins because mules compensate for the mining time lost if we bring scvs. Now why this is problematic is because if one race clearly excells at the early game, the other races main objective will always be to just survive and take it til the lategame where they are stronger, while our objective is kill them as soon as possible. This basically results in P and Z tailoring their builds towards all-in play blindly, they even play overly safe sometimes (i.e. protoss going 3 gate before expand just because they scouted gas). This creates some really random scenarios at times which I don't think belongs in game where skill should excell above all else. Take TvP for example, lets break down 3 scenarios that are all very likely, we're going to assume P scouts gas here A) P scouts gas, knows theres a possibility of one base play such as 2 rax or the infamous 1/1/1. Plays REALLY safe because the protoss is expecting a one base B) P scouts gas, goes for the 1 gate nexus anyways and is determined to hold even if it is a 1/1/1 or 2 rax. C) P scouts gas and goes for a direct blind counter to specific BO, lets say phoenix play because they are expecting a banshee and then the 1/1/1 build as a follow up (which directly counters any 1/1/1 opening). Scenario A) P is playing safe, expecting a one base. Several things can happen here. Either Terran mindgames, pulls scvs off gas and goes for a 1 rax FE with reactor, as soon as the probe leaves or is dead. P is now automtically behind in economy because he played overly safe expecting a 1 base play. Terran can also decide to go for a 1 base play, Protoss holds, proceeds to win game. Here it's already quite random because P can't really know if its a fake or not. B) Again randomness, if The terran is faking 1 base aggression and actually went for 1 rax CC, the mindgame didn't really do anything and at best the Terran and Protoss is at equal grounds. This, being problematic seeing how Terran wants that early edge and to finish off protoss quick Or.. Terran went for 1 base play and just so happened to pick the right 1 base strategy to hard counter your 1 gate nexus, Protoss loses the game. C) Protoss goes for a blind counter, lets use phoenix opening as an example. If terran opens up banshee hes basically dead, if he opened up 2 rax, protoss is all of a sudden pretty dead. If Terran faked P out and went for a 1 rax FE, he's massively ahead in economy, because Phoenix openings aren't very good vs Bio FEs (lots of marines, early ebay etc). A + B + C and all the different scenarios = RANDOMNESS Now a Terran always playing it straight up, going for the macro game, is the only time P can ever know exactly what's going on. So here it's already like you're giving up some of your strenght. Worse is, once you reach the lategame where you both have 200/200 armies, Protoss reinforcement capabilites are so much better than Terrans (proxy pylons everywhere, can practically warp in 15-20 chargelots in the MIDDLE of a fight) while Terran can't macro and fight at the same time. Fighting in a 200/200 vs 200/200 in TvP requires 100% focus on the screen where the battle is happening which benefits a protoss with proxy pylons just behind his army. Terrans also has to utilize EMP, stim, kiting, and their vikings. All of these "lock up" important hotkeys during a fight which makes it extremely hard, if not close to impossible, to get a macro round in while you're actually fighting. I think a perfect example of this is IMMvp. IMMvp is known for his incredible straight up play. He cheeses from time to time, sure, but the majority of his games are straight up solid play. Yet, which one of MVPs matchups is his worst? TvP. Also, if you hadn't noticed by now, IMMvp is posting worse and worse results for every tournament. Which Terran actually excells in Korea right now? MarineKing. Now if you compare the two, MarineKing always has a new one base strategy to pull out of his sleeve, while IMMvp relies more on solid play. MKP does however lack in consistency which I believe is because he sometimes just botches games completlty due to "picking the wrong build". Whenever I felt playing for the lategame and playing the macrogame didn't work, I'd look at IMMvp and be convinced that it does work, but these past two or three months, I look at IMMvps games and im not convinced anymore. I feel it's a flaw in the design because each race should have equal capabilites in the long game, but that's just not the case. Terran is too strong in the early game and rewards mindgames, using a different strategy each time, and cheap all-ins more than solid straight up play. Obviously each race should be of equal capability in the early game too. I could go on about this forever but I guess that's it for now. Also to be honest, you look at how Blizzard patch this game and you realize if people cry hard enough about something, it's eventually getting patched. I figured I'd give it a try too.
Cherry picking hidden gems. Added to the First page.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
