|
Ok, some more conclusions from sc2ranks data.
I tested the "Stephano hypothesis" which is to say that his playstyle is so popular and easy to learn that people are adopting it. Unfortunately, the data doesn't support this. The key jumps in population occurred between patches 1.3.0 and 1.4.1, as Stephano became massively popular around IEM Cologne (October 2011) and patch 1.4.2 came out in November 2011, you'd expect the jump to be between 1.4.1 and 1.4.2. Yet, for example in Platinum, there was still a 3 % change, so he might have contributed based on this data. Yet, as the the overall jump from 1.2 to 1.4.2 in Platinum is 10%, it seems a small contribution.
Now, something weird happened between 1.4.1 and 1.4.2 - the population of platinum decreased threefold.
Sc2 ranks global
1.4.1
Master (52,081 players)
Diamond (142,996 players)
Platinum (272,682 players)
Gold (352,618 players)
Silver (450,252 players)
Bronze (589,484 players)
1.4.2
Master (25,746 players)
Diamond (49,858 players)
Platinum (89,664 players)
Gold (115,474 players)
Silver (149,705 players)
Bronze (197,086 players)
There were 3x as many plaers in most leagues one patch ago!
Before this, the numbers were quite stable. Let's look at platinum league (with the largest change) in 1.4.1, 1.3.5 and 1.3.0:
1.4.1
Protoss: 32.5% (88,691)
Terran: 27.6% (75,198)
Zerg: 29.7% (81,025)
1.3.5
Protoss: 32.5% (84,981)
Terran: 28.0% (73,048)
Zerg: 29.2% (76,249)
1.3.0:
Protoss: 34.0% (99,655)
Terran: 29.2% (85,581)
Zerg: 25.9% (75,947)
As one can see, the percentages mask a large fluctuation in platinum level. From 1.3.0 to 1.3.5, P lost 15k members, Terran 12k members and Z gained 1k. This is where Z caught up, but not due to gains, but rather from people stopping to play P and T.
From 1.3.5 to 1.4.1, P and Z both gained 5k players. Terran also gained players, but only 2k.
Ok, I don't have time to continue just now, but this shows several things. Firstly, it's not clear that there were T's switching to Z and P. Unless some T stopped playing for a long time and and skipped the patch 1.3.5, then the 12k T lost, was just people giving up.
From 1.3.5 to 1.41, P and Z found new players, but proportionally more than T.
The assumption behind all of this is that a T that switches race would keep on playing in the same league. That's problematic. I think we should continue this in-depth league population analysis but the next step is to look at D and G league populations globally with 1.3.0, 1.3.5 and 1.4.1.
Also, why are there so few players in 1.4.2 compared to 1.4.1?
|
On March 30 2012 00:18 Laurens wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2012 00:00 Meta wrote:On March 29 2012 23:49 ref4 wrote:On March 29 2012 23:34 tdt wrote:
My take from watching pro terrans and playing platnium ones (dont laugh) is the marine is the issue. It's the issue why top tier terrans are so good - because they can split, partial stim, studder, send a couple to take out 5 banes, bunker cheese etc.makin marine best unit in the game bar none and how they dominate all matchup in gsl. Amatuers and low level western pros can't making it an average unit and thier results less than average.
Considering this and low utility of mech I think blizz could solve two issues by nerfing marine and buffing mech. Pros couldnt rely on marine to dominate all matchups. Easier to work with and less micro intesive mech would become more powerful allowing amatuers a better shot whole game long and pros mech would be viable late. What do you terrans think?
Like give 50 damage to tank. More HP or irradation shield on Thor which fries bio in it's immediate vincinity. and marine 1 less range or 2 less dmg? Thoughts? mech is very strong vs. T and Z already. The buff in HoTS will fix mech vs. Protoss (hopefully) but I don't think buffing mech and nerfing Terran bio is the answer. Are you suggesting making siege tank do 50 dmg to all types unsieged or sieged? Mech would be halfway decent vs protoss if it weren't for the immortal. Remove that unit imo. There was no parallel in BW, and for good reason. chargelots is the bigger problem in my opinion, blue flame hellions are supposed to counter them but... battle mode + warhound will improve mech a lot
Yeah that's why I suggested a irradiation shield on thor. Instead of carrying around that useless enegy the Thor would fry biological Zelots and Zerlings when activated and would help against broodlings too. Thor is such a joke right now and the biggest reason pure mech is not viable and you need marines to protect tanks.
|
On March 29 2012 23:46 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2012 23:24 ChaosTerran wrote:On March 29 2012 23:20 Big J wrote:On March 29 2012 23:13 ChaosTerran wrote:On March 29 2012 22:53 caretony wrote:
I'm just really disappointed in Blizzard. It almost seems as if they want terrans to disappear from ladder.
First they nerf a race that is already struggling badly and then they also make the map pool extremely bad for Terran and keep adding more anti-terran maps.
I mean for the upcoming season are there actually any good Terran maps left?
I guess Shakuras is pretty good for T, even tho stats show its pretty heavily P favoured, it's a well balanced map vs Z imo.
Antiga is alright, not a T favoured map by any means but a balanced map.
Then all the rest for season 7 seems to be really anti-terran....
Tal darim: extremely unbalanced in TvP, I know the stats say its about 50% but still stats don't say everything, whens the last time you saw a terran win vs a decent protoss on tal darim? Not exactly a good map either vs Z.
Meta: don't even need to talk about it, bad for T in both MUs
Korhal: havn't played much on this, just seems like a bad map for T, I pretty much instantly downvoted it, seen alot of pro T streamers lose on this aswell.
I have to go now, will write some about the new maps later. I actually posted about this issue a while ago. It was on a different forum, but here's my post anyway: I did analyze it from all povs. Zerg on korhal for example has alot of counter attack paths and the third and fourth are extremely hard to take for both protoss and terran. That's a fact. On Cloud Kingdom, terran and protoss get 3 free bases, but the fourth is almost impossible to take for terran in any matchup. This is also a fact. Antiga is a good map for terran, I pointed that out and so are shakuras and shattered to some extent. However, most of the other ladder maps are bad for terran. It's impossible to argue that daybreak is good for terran or metropolis is good for terran (both maps are bad for terran). I don't see what's wrong about pointing out that some maps favor certain races, the ladder mappool is extremely good for Zerg, extremely good and bad for terran. All the good terran maps were removed (or most of them) and replaced with Zerg favored maps, or can you actually refute that argument and tell me how korhal, cloud kingdom, metropolis, tal darim or daybreak favor terran in any way? And like I said, they should not go from one extreme to another and just make every 3rd or 4th impossible to take for slower armies... it used to be a problem that terran could take a center expo on XNC and siege up the zergs third directly, however the new maps are the complete opposite, you ALWAYS expand away from the zerg's third or fourth base which is obviously bad for terran. And keep this on topic? Stop smoking weed dude, I'm talking about maps in a thread about maps, herp derp. edit: And I completely forgot to mention Metalopolis, that's another extremely Zerg favored map, remember when Blizzard said that Zerg has a 60%+ win rate in all matchups on Metalopolis? How could anyone argue that the current ladder pool does not heavily favor zerg when pretty much 80% of the maps are zerg maps. Mind-boggling, really edit2: Before you say anything else, let's just go through the statistics for all the ladder maps in season 7. Daybreak: http://www.teamliqui...ps/479_DaybreakZ favored in TvZ Z favore in PvZ Balanced in TvP (50.3% win rate) Metropolis - not enough data (only around 15 games per matchup, but I can assure you that it's good for Zerg, it's basically metalopolis just slightly different) Metalopolis http://www.teamliqui...Metalopolis_1.1Z favored in TvZ Z favored in PvZ T favored in TvP Ohana - not enough data (only around 10 games per matchup, but definitely looks P and T favored) Cloud Kingdom http://www.teamliqui...V_Cloud_KingdomZ favored in TvZ Z favored in PvZ P favored in TvP Korhal Compound - not enough data (only around 10 games per matchup, but you know I'd assume it's Z favored in all Matchups, absolutely not sure about TvP) Antiga http://www.teamliqui...ga_Shipyard_1.2T favored in TvZ Z favored in ZvP P favored in TvP Entombed Valley - not enough data, can't really tell, but from the roughly 30 games per MU in TLPD it actually seems to favor Zerg, however that's only 30 games, so I won't count that Shakuras http://www.teamliqui...ras_Plateau_2.0T favored in TvZ Z favored in PvZ T favored in TvP Tal Darim Altar http://www.teamliqui...l'Darim_AltarZ favored in TvZ P favored in PvZ P favored in TvP This will probably be the Mappool in season 7. So 9x Zerg is favored, 4x Terran, 4x Protoss. And I didn't even count Korhal (which is obviously Z favored, but we don't have enough data), Metropolis (aka Metalopolis 2) and Entombed Valley (which statistically ~30 games seems to be Zerg favored too in both matchups - but I won't count that yet). Now please tell me that the ladder pool isn't extremely Zerg favored. Zerg is favored in 9 of their matchups and only not favored in 3 matchups (terran AND protoss combined), now please tell me that the ladder maps aren't absolute bullshit and it will be even worse in season 7 (as shown by the stats), Zerg is basically favored on almost every map in the mappool, don't you see how ridiculous that is?# edit3: Both, Protoss and Terran will have a 90% chance that they have to play on a Zerg favored map in season 7, don't you see how that is... I don't know... a little bit unfair? It seems like the new map pool heavily favors Zerg over Terran and Protoss, to an extent where you can actually argue that the map pool is extremely unfair. It would help if the links would actually lead somewhere  Oh yes, I apologize for that. I didn't realize that it cut off the links when I copypasta'd it. I basically just used the links to the TLPD international maps. I somewhat can't believe that; for example, TDA shows those stats: TvZ: 365-340 (51.8%) ZvP: 344-337 (50.5%) PvT: 354-358 (49.7%) which in my opinion means that all 3 MUs are very well balanced. Even more, if you want to be superpicky it's T>Z; Z>P and T>P, while you say it completly the other way round. http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-international/maps/448_Tal'Darim_Altar_LEand there are more mistakes than that all around (not only such ones that make Terran look worse), so I really would like to have those links, as the data simply doesn't seem to match with what TLPD currently. On another note, Korhal Compound was my first veto this season as a zerg. Haven't really figured a way to deal with highground lowground attacks on my third unless I go 2base muta in every MU, which in one is falling out of style and in the other it's a cheese. Might just be me, but I haven't really figured a good way how to play it yet.
Well, the post is more than 1 week old (posted when the new maps were announced first). However, for TDA I used this sample http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-international/maps/423_Tal'Darim_Altar, I wasn't aware that there are several different versions in TLPD and like you said, if I didn't only make terran look worse with some of the stats then i don't really see the issue anyway, I mean if we want accurate data we should probably add all the map scores together and see what we get.
But my point is still valid imo, most maps are good for Zerg, most ladder maps that is. And to the guy who said that "as soon as a map has rocks it's bad for zerg" that's just nonsense, "rocks/no rocks" isn't the only map feature... what about map size, expansion layout, etc..? You can't say "TDA is bad for Zerg because there are rocks at the third", disregarding everyhting that is really good for Zerg on that map... it's really open, you get relatively easy expos as zerg, for terran it's the opposite you can get 4 bases depending on your spawning positions but on other spawning positions you are essentially stuck on 3 base, the middle is extremely open so if it's cross map spawn it's extremely easy for the zerg to counter attack or just surround the terran army, etc... rocks are a nuisance for zergs but they don't turn a good zerg map into a bad one. Or should I argue that any map with no rocks is essentially a good zerg map? Don't you see how that makes no sense?
|
On March 30 2012 01:05 ChaosTerran wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2012 23:46 Big J wrote:On March 29 2012 23:24 ChaosTerran wrote:On March 29 2012 23:20 Big J wrote:On March 29 2012 23:13 ChaosTerran wrote:On March 29 2012 22:53 caretony wrote:
I'm just really disappointed in Blizzard. It almost seems as if they want terrans to disappear from ladder.
First they nerf a race that is already struggling badly and then they also make the map pool extremely bad for Terran and keep adding more anti-terran maps.
I mean for the upcoming season are there actually any good Terran maps left?
I guess Shakuras is pretty good for T, even tho stats show its pretty heavily P favoured, it's a well balanced map vs Z imo.
Antiga is alright, not a T favoured map by any means but a balanced map.
Then all the rest for season 7 seems to be really anti-terran....
Tal darim: extremely unbalanced in TvP, I know the stats say its about 50% but still stats don't say everything, whens the last time you saw a terran win vs a decent protoss on tal darim? Not exactly a good map either vs Z.
Meta: don't even need to talk about it, bad for T in both MUs
Korhal: havn't played much on this, just seems like a bad map for T, I pretty much instantly downvoted it, seen alot of pro T streamers lose on this aswell.
I have to go now, will write some about the new maps later. I actually posted about this issue a while ago. It was on a different forum, but here's my post anyway: I did analyze it from all povs. Zerg on korhal for example has alot of counter attack paths and the third and fourth are extremely hard to take for both protoss and terran. That's a fact. On Cloud Kingdom, terran and protoss get 3 free bases, but the fourth is almost impossible to take for terran in any matchup. This is also a fact. Antiga is a good map for terran, I pointed that out and so are shakuras and shattered to some extent. However, most of the other ladder maps are bad for terran. It's impossible to argue that daybreak is good for terran or metropolis is good for terran (both maps are bad for terran). I don't see what's wrong about pointing out that some maps favor certain races, the ladder mappool is extremely good for Zerg, extremely good and bad for terran. All the good terran maps were removed (or most of them) and replaced with Zerg favored maps, or can you actually refute that argument and tell me how korhal, cloud kingdom, metropolis, tal darim or daybreak favor terran in any way? And like I said, they should not go from one extreme to another and just make every 3rd or 4th impossible to take for slower armies... it used to be a problem that terran could take a center expo on XNC and siege up the zergs third directly, however the new maps are the complete opposite, you ALWAYS expand away from the zerg's third or fourth base which is obviously bad for terran. And keep this on topic? Stop smoking weed dude, I'm talking about maps in a thread about maps, herp derp. edit: And I completely forgot to mention Metalopolis, that's another extremely Zerg favored map, remember when Blizzard said that Zerg has a 60%+ win rate in all matchups on Metalopolis? How could anyone argue that the current ladder pool does not heavily favor zerg when pretty much 80% of the maps are zerg maps. Mind-boggling, really edit2: Before you say anything else, let's just go through the statistics for all the ladder maps in season 7. Daybreak: http://www.teamliqui...ps/479_DaybreakZ favored in TvZ Z favore in PvZ Balanced in TvP (50.3% win rate) Metropolis - not enough data (only around 15 games per matchup, but I can assure you that it's good for Zerg, it's basically metalopolis just slightly different) Metalopolis http://www.teamliqui...Metalopolis_1.1Z favored in TvZ Z favored in PvZ T favored in TvP Ohana - not enough data (only around 10 games per matchup, but definitely looks P and T favored) Cloud Kingdom http://www.teamliqui...V_Cloud_KingdomZ favored in TvZ Z favored in PvZ P favored in TvP Korhal Compound - not enough data (only around 10 games per matchup, but you know I'd assume it's Z favored in all Matchups, absolutely not sure about TvP) Antiga http://www.teamliqui...ga_Shipyard_1.2T favored in TvZ Z favored in ZvP P favored in TvP Entombed Valley - not enough data, can't really tell, but from the roughly 30 games per MU in TLPD it actually seems to favor Zerg, however that's only 30 games, so I won't count that Shakuras http://www.teamliqui...ras_Plateau_2.0T favored in TvZ Z favored in PvZ T favored in TvP Tal Darim Altar http://www.teamliqui...l'Darim_AltarZ favored in TvZ P favored in PvZ P favored in TvP This will probably be the Mappool in season 7. So 9x Zerg is favored, 4x Terran, 4x Protoss. And I didn't even count Korhal (which is obviously Z favored, but we don't have enough data), Metropolis (aka Metalopolis 2) and Entombed Valley (which statistically ~30 games seems to be Zerg favored too in both matchups - but I won't count that yet). Now please tell me that the ladder pool isn't extremely Zerg favored. Zerg is favored in 9 of their matchups and only not favored in 3 matchups (terran AND protoss combined), now please tell me that the ladder maps aren't absolute bullshit and it will be even worse in season 7 (as shown by the stats), Zerg is basically favored on almost every map in the mappool, don't you see how ridiculous that is?# edit3: Both, Protoss and Terran will have a 90% chance that they have to play on a Zerg favored map in season 7, don't you see how that is... I don't know... a little bit unfair? It seems like the new map pool heavily favors Zerg over Terran and Protoss, to an extent where you can actually argue that the map pool is extremely unfair. It would help if the links would actually lead somewhere Oh yes, I apologize for that. I didn't realize that it cut off the links when I copypasta'd it. I basically just used the links to the TLPD international maps. I somewhat can't believe that; for example, TDA shows those stats: TvZ: 365-340 (51.8%) ZvP: 344-337 (50.5%) PvT: 354-358 (49.7%) which in my opinion means that all 3 MUs are very well balanced. Even more, if you want to be superpicky it's T>Z; Z>P and T>P, while you say it completly the other way round. http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-international/maps/448_Tal'Darim_Altar_LEand there are more mistakes than that all around (not only such ones that make Terran look worse), so I really would like to have those links, as the data simply doesn't seem to match with what TLPD currently. On another note, Korhal Compound was my first veto this season as a zerg. Haven't really figured a way to deal with highground lowground attacks on my third unless I go 2base muta in every MU, which in one is falling out of style and in the other it's a cheese. Might just be me, but I haven't really figured a good way how to play it yet. Well, the post is more than 1 week old (posted when the new maps were announced first). However, for TDA I used this sample http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-international/maps/423_Tal'Darim_Altar, I wasn't aware that there are several different versions in TLPD and like you said, if I didn't only make terran look worse with some of the stats then i don't really see the issue anyway, I mean if we want accurate data we should probably add all the map scores together and see what we get. But my point is still valid imo, most maps are good for Zerg, most ladder maps that is. And to the guy who said that "as soon as a map has rocks it's bad for zerg" that's just nonsense, "rocks/no rocks" isn't the only map feature... what about map size, expansion layout, etc..? You can't say "TDA is bad for Zerg because there are rocks at the third", disregarding everyhting that is really good for Zerg on that map... it's really open, you get relatively easy expos as zerg, for terran it's the opposite you can get 4 bases depending on your spawning positions but on other spawning positions you are essentially stuck on 3 base, the middle is extremely open so if it's cross map spawn it's extremely easy for the zerg to counter attack or just surround the terran army, etc... rocks are a nuisance for zergs but they don't turn a good zerg map into a bad one. Or should I argue that any map with no rocks is essentially a good zerg map? Don't you see how that makes no sense.
Well, the point is that you use data and give precise information like #race favored in #MU on #map to create an arguement. However if that data isn't correct, or at least your arguement is pretty exaggerated (things like 53-47 stats are still pretty balanced in my opinion; you simply won't get "the real balance" as those rates come from samples and the metagame shifts and maps get figuered over time etc.) it doesn't make you look good, even if I agree that those maps are way better for zergs than they were. Are they better for zerg overall? At least not vastly.
|
On March 29 2012 23:53 0ne wrote:
Where did all the GSL zergs go?
"Terran is unplayable sub-pro level"
"LOL LOOK AT GSL TERRAN IS FINE!!"
Really?
|
Win-rates don't take game-length into account.
I know this thread is still talking about like four different issues at the same time, but really, trying to use raw match-up statistics in an argument about the late-game doesn't make sense, if that's the argument. If it's about terran needing to micro more and having issues with skill-caps at various levels, it also doesn't make sense. If it's about compositions it doesn't make sense. If it's about just GSL it doesn't make sense.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On March 30 2012 00:32 Ghanburighan wrote:
Ok, some more conclusions from sc2ranks data.
I tested the "Stephano hypothesis" which is to say that his playstyle is so popular and easy to learn that people are adopting it. Unfortunately, the data doesn't support this. The key jumps in population occurred between patches 1.3.0 and 1.4.1, as Stephano became massively popular around IEM Cologne (October 2011) and patch 1.4.2 came out in November 2011, you'd expect the jump to be between 1.4.1 and 1.4.2. Yet, for example in Platinum, there was still a 3 % change, so he might have contributed based on this data. Yet, as the the overall jump from 1.2 to 1.4.2 in Platinum is 10%, it seems a small contribution.
Now, something weird happened between 1.4.1 and 1.4.2 - the population of platinum decreased threefold.
Sc2 ranks global
1.4.1
Master (52,081 players)
Diamond (142,996 players)
Platinum (272,682 players)
Gold (352,618 players)
Silver (450,252 players)
Bronze (589,484 players)
1.4.2
Master (25,746 players)
Diamond (49,858 players)
Platinum (89,664 players)
Gold (115,474 players)
Silver (149,705 players)
Bronze (197,086 players)
There were 3x as many plaers in most leagues one patch ago!
Before this, the numbers were quite stable. Let's look at platinum league (with the largest change) in 1.4.1, 1.3.5 and 1.3.0:
1.4.1
Protoss: 32.5% (88,691)
Terran: 27.6% (75,198)
Zerg: 29.7% (81,025)
1.3.5
Protoss: 32.5% (84,981)
Terran: 28.0% (73,048)
Zerg: 29.2% (76,249)
1.3.0:
Protoss: 34.0% (99,655)
Terran: 29.2% (85,581)
Zerg: 25.9% (75,947)
As one can see, the percentages mask a large fluctuation in platinum level. From 1.3.0 to 1.3.5, P lost 15k members, Terran 12k members and Z gained 1k. This is where Z caught up, but not due to gains, but rather from people stopping to play P and T.
From 1.3.5 to 1.4.1, P and Z both gained 5k players. Terran also gained players, but only 2k.
Ok, I don't have time to continue just now, but this shows several things. Firstly, it's not clear that there were T's switching to Z and P. Unless some T stopped playing for a long time and and skipped the patch 1.3.5, then the 12k T lost, was just people giving up.
From 1.3.5 to 1.41, P and Z found new players, but proportionally more than T.
The assumption behind all of this is that a T that switches race would keep on playing in the same league. That's problematic. I think we should continue this in-depth league population analysis but the next step is to look at D and G league populations globally with 1.3.0, 1.3.5 and 1.4.1.
Also, why are there so few players in 1.4.2 compared to 1.4.1?
honestly i think the data is wrong. Its just too much too fast, if the game is new and this would be the difference betwen the first and the 3 month after release maybe but not after a year.
I would love to see Blizzard give real data about playerpopulation, winrates/time (... im missing /stats from wc3 really hard).
|
On March 29 2012 02:52 -_- wrote:
I don't think the idea that Protoss is easy compared to Terran below the pro level in SC2 would exist if the same idea hadn't been repeated Ad Nauseam in Broodwar. Just like in SC2, in BW Terrans gave better than they got in tournaments. Instead, however, of making the natural observation that Terran players likely had a small advantage, Terran forumers came up with the droll idea that Terran was only the strongest when superhuman APM could be employed. This let Terran players complain about balance without statistical repercussion; any win by a Terran player wasn't really a Terran winning. A God won in Terran form, and no conclusions about non-God Terran players could be made.
As you would expect, BW Terrans never satisfactorily explained what about their race took so much more skill. All they did was make ignorant comments about "a-moving," ignoring, for example, the tremendous disparity in work that clearing out Vulture minefields took in comparison to setting them.
If Terran players actually do believe Protoss is easier to play below a pro level, they need to make a stronger case than is present in this thread. For example, in a normal TvP Midgame battle, a Protoss will have Zealots and Sentry on one hotkey, Stalkers on a second, and High Templars on third. Terran will have MMM on one hotkey, and Ghosts on a second. Please explain why it takes so much more skill to handle the Terran army. Please explain why Terran has to pay more attention to stutter stepping, than the Protoss player does to pulling back his zealots into the range of his stalkers, and pulling back his stalkers back so his Templar can storm. And please, please explain why Stutter Stepping is considered some holy grail of difficulty when it is mechanical action which can be practiced and mastered against an AI (because it requires minimal decision making).
Actually comparing the skill required to play two races would be incredibly difficult. Every action taken by one race demands a reaction by the other, and a-moving charge lots is only possible when you've played out the game to your advantage and are delivering the killing blow. Instead, this thread harbors vague complaints and no strict analysis.
Is this a joke? I play both protoss and terran at mid masters and it's undeniable that the skill required to play terran at lower levels scales much, much more poorly than protoss. With amazing apm terran will be a lot more rewarding at higher levels simply because of how much better marines and marauders become when microd....
Stutter Stepping while splitting bio against incoming storms is much harder than it looks. At sub pro levels it's a protoss favored matchup.
|
On March 29 2012 20:35 KAmaKAsa wrote:
After reading that post by merz ive lost all respect towards him... half of it went when he was overstimming his marauder heavy army against some protoss in shakuras at arena... cant remember against who though...
Ever thought you were doing something wrong? and whatabout trying to be innovative? and analyze your replays, maybe you didnt deal with some harassment well enough and came out behind or were caught out of position or just didnt engage properly...
Try not fall to the pit of blaming shit on imbalance when it very likely is you just not playing well enough or making a few critical mistakes... and anyways how the fuck can you define imbalance or balance? and what is and what isnt
I'm sorry you feel this way. The game you are referring to is vs Socke on Shakuras plateu.
Let me say this, I was whining a lot recently (which I admitted) and I've been struggling with TvP for a LONG time, but I've always neglected going for 2 base timings, 1 base all-ins, 1 base aggressions into expansion etc. I did mix them into bo3s but during practice I always focused on standard, 1 rax FE play.
I study other terrans (korean pros too) every day for at least 2 hours, GSL games, streams, you name it.
I've stated that I feel Terran is imbalanced in the early game, which you completlty seemed to miss? I.e I don't feel the matchup is overall imbalanced in favour of protoss, I just feel a certain stage of the game is, which is the lategame with 200/200 fights and reinforcement capabilities.
HOWEVER; You are right, I should not jump onto the whine on imbalance wagon, I don't think it's good for my mental approach towards this game. Rather than whining on imbalance I should be looking for solutions and stop being so stubborn about using one style. I'd just like to say I never in my post stated that 1) I don't do mistakes 2) I'm not trying to be innovative 3) That I don't analyse my own replays
So all of these things are pretty unfair of you to assume.
All in all, I'm trying to cut back on the whining and look for solutions, however you make a lot of false assumptions in your post which is kind of disappointing to see.
|
Also I believe there isn't a lot of terrans in the lower leagues because of banelings  , unless you can split like a boss, or your enemy is an idiot and hits banelings towards tanks or you know how to focus fire with tanks, T V Z is a bit too hard for people in the lower leagues.
|
On March 30 2012 08:34 Dontkillme wrote:Also I believe there isn't a lot of terrans in the lower leagues because of banelings , unless you can split like a boss, or your enemy is an idiot and hits banelings towards tanks or you know how to focus fire with tanks, T V Z is a bit too hard for people in the lower leagues.
You'd be surprised how many Zergs actually do this and how often it seems to be worth it anyway. Still, I think splitting versus banes is something that can be learned very easily. I also believe that Terran is slightly favoured in the lower leagues, just because of the "tutorial bonus" they get from the campaign and the unusual macro mechanics of Zerg (and Protoss to some extent) that are unique to Starcraft.
Finding the connection to the topic: having been taught how to play Terran should actually result in a higher number of Terran players in Bronze and maybe Silver. I believe they have been left out of the discussion though.
|
On March 30 2012 08:41 oberhofer wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2012 08:34 Dontkillme wrote:Also I believe there isn't a lot of terrans in the lower leagues because of banelings , unless you can split like a boss, or your enemy is an idiot and hits banelings towards tanks or you know how to focus fire with tanks, T V Z is a bit too hard for people in the lower leagues. You'd be surprised how many Zergs actually do this and how often it seems to be worth it anyway. Still, I think splitting versus banes is something that can be learned very easily. I also believe that Terran is slightly favoured in the lower leagues, just because of the "tutorial bonus" they get from the campaign and the unusual macro mechanics of Zerg (and Protoss to some extent) that are unique to Starcraft. Finding the connection to the topic: having been taught how to play Terran should actually result in a higher number of Terran players in Bronze and maybe Silver. I believe they have been left out of the discussion though.
Splitting versus banelings is... easy?
You realise that for a split to be effective, you need to split into groups of 4 marines or less in the splash zone? Splitting your ball of 50 marines into 5 groups of 10 is completely ineffective, because 2 banelings will wipe them, with the cost being 200 to the zerg and 500 to the terran.
Your statement screams ignorance in the matchup.
And FYI, that kind of splitting, IE splitting 50 marines into 10+ groups in less than 5 seconds, is why terran bio micro ALONE is harder than all micro that a zerg has to do.
You want 'deep analysis' - here it is. ZvT, Ling Bling Muta vs. Marine Medivac Tank.
Terran has to:
- Siege/Unsiege tanks in a spread line heading away from the point of engagement, to make sure they don't all die in the first 5 seconds.
- Focus fire blings with tanks.
- Spread marines (As above) to keep them away from blings, whilst keeping them close enough to tanks to prevent sniping from the mutas.
- Stim marines in groups to be efficent, otherwise a group stim.
- Keep Medivacs back away from mutas.
Zerg has to:
- A move.
- Target Marines with blings.
- Target tanks with mutas.
Add infestors and ghosts, you can include fungals and EMPs, which balance.
It's pretty obvious who has it harder.
People who make stupid comments like 'blink and FF is just as hard' just have no experience in playing terran for long periods of time at Masters+
|
On March 29 2012 23:47 petro1987 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2012 23:40 aksfjh wrote:On March 29 2012 23:34 tdt wrote:
My take from watching pro terrans and playing platnium ones (dont laugh) is the marine is the issue. It's the issue why top tier terrans are so good - because they can split, partial stim, studder, send a couple to take out 5 banes, bunker cheese etc.makin marine best unit in the game bar none and how they dominate all matchup in gsl. Amatuers and low level western pros can't making it an average unit and thier results less than average.
Considering this and low utility of mech I think blizz could solve two issues by nerfing marine and buffing mech. Pros couldnt rely on marine to dominate all matchups. Easier to work with and less micro intesive mech would become more powerful allowing amatuers a better shot whole game long and pros mech would be viable late. What do you terrans think?
Like give 50 damage to tank. More HP or irradation shield on Thor. and marine 1 less range or 2 less dmg? Thoughts? Marine already loses cost for cost against every early game unit until around 20 or 30. The only way to make them cost effective is to get and keep superior numbers or force them in an advantageous position, like a choke against zerglings. I guess everyone agrees that marine is a pretty good unit if microed properly. I actually like his idea. Terran is doing quite well at GSL level. A buff in mech (with a correspondent nerf in bio) would be very welcome and make the game more balanced skill wise in the lower levels.
Weakening the marine doesn't make it easier for lower levels though. There are really effective aggressive builds from both P and Z which require the strength of marines in bunkers to survive. It would also effectively castrate early game Terran pressure which keeps certain really greedy play in check. Blizzard would have to revert a great deal of early game nerfs to coincide with a marine nerf to keep early game balanced.
|
On March 30 2012 02:33 EmilA wrote:"Terran is unplayable sub-pro level" "LOL LOOK AT GSL TERRAN IS FINE!!" Really?
Both statements are equally bad. Terrans aren't close to unplayable and GSL terrans are just so much better than non-pros that the race could just as well be totally different.
|
the problem with sc2 is this :
blizzard balances the game accordingly to the top pros(GSL, IEM,NASL u name it)
So the rest of the sc2 terrans get "left" behind, and has to do the same thing as the korean pros do, but lack the raw physical tools that they possess.
=
Marines is ONLY as good as those wielding them. MKP + Marines = godlike || Marines + casual gamers(scrubs) = cannonfodder.
|
On March 30 2012 12:13 wTeffecT wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2012 08:41 oberhofer wrote:On March 30 2012 08:34 Dontkillme wrote:Also I believe there isn't a lot of terrans in the lower leagues because of banelings , unless you can split like a boss, or your enemy is an idiot and hits banelings towards tanks or you know how to focus fire with tanks, T V Z is a bit too hard for people in the lower leagues. You'd be surprised how many Zergs actually do this and how often it seems to be worth it anyway. Still, I think splitting versus banes is something that can be learned very easily. I also believe that Terran is slightly favoured in the lower leagues, just because of the "tutorial bonus" they get from the campaign and the unusual macro mechanics of Zerg (and Protoss to some extent) that are unique to Starcraft. Finding the connection to the topic: having been taught how to play Terran should actually result in a higher number of Terran players in Bronze and maybe Silver. I believe they have been left out of the discussion though. Splitting versus banelings is... easy? You realise that for a split to be effective, you need to split into groups of 4 marines or less in the splash zone? Splitting your ball of 50 marines into 5 groups of 10 is completely ineffective, because 2 banelings will wipe them, with the cost being 200 to the zerg and 500 to the terran. Your statement screams ignorance in the matchup. And FYI, that kind of splitting, IE splitting 50 marines into 10+ groups in less than 5 seconds, is why terran bio micro ALONE is harder than all micro that a zerg has to do. You want 'deep analysis' - here it is. ZvT, Ling Bling Muta vs. Marine Medivac Tank. Terran has to: - Siege/Unsiege tanks in a spread line heading away from the point of engagement, to make sure they don't all die in the first 5 seconds. - Focus fire blings with tanks. - Spread marines (As above) to keep them away from blings, whilst keeping them close enough to tanks to prevent sniping from the mutas. - Stim marines in groups to be efficent, otherwise a group stim. - Keep Medivacs back away from mutas. Zerg has to: - A move. - Target Marines with blings. - Target tanks with mutas. Add infestors and ghosts, you can include fungals and EMPs, which balance. It's pretty obvious who has it harder. People who make stupid comments like 'blink and FF is just as hard' just have no experience in playing terran for long periods of time at Masters+
Exaggerations like these add nothing. It's just so biased towards the race you play. It can be summarized as "My race has to micro their hearts out while the opponent just a-moves". It's not that simple and it just adds to the race balance shittalk instead of the discussion about adding diversity and microability in the matchups.
|
People are a bit silly when they compare what each race need to do in battles.
Okay terran need to micro more, we know that, that's why most of us chose terran anyway.
But on the other hand, Terran don't need to came back to his base EVER once he made enough supply depots. Zerg has creep and inject to worry about ( yeah I know, creep spreading isn't something people worry about during battles, but we'd get there eventually ), Protoss need to get his camera on a pylon and can't chronoboost from a distance either.
So yes, Terran need to micro more, good thing for us: we have time to spare doing it because our macro mechanics are easier and don't requiere to look away from the battle.
|
On March 30 2012 17:21 Noocta wrote:
People are a bit silly when they compare what each race need to do in battles.
Okay terran need to micro more, we know that, that's why most of us chose terran anyway.
But on the other hand, Terran don't need to came back to his base EVER once he made enough supply depots. Zerg has creep and inject to worry about ( yeah I know, creep spreading isn't something people worry about during battles, but we'd get there eventually ), Protoss need to get his camera on a pylon and can't chronoboost from a distance either.
So yes, Terran need to micro more, good thing for us: we have time to spare doing it because our macro mechanics are easier and don't requiere to look away from the battle.
Why write the rest after a good start?
|
On March 30 2012 17:46 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2012 17:21 Noocta wrote:
People are a bit silly when they compare what each race need to do in battles.
Okay terran need to micro more, we know that, that's why most of us chose terran anyway.
But on the other hand, Terran don't need to came back to his base EVER once he made enough supply depots. Zerg has creep and inject to worry about ( yeah I know, creep spreading isn't something people worry about during battles, but we'd get there eventually ), Protoss need to get his camera on a pylon and can't chronoboost from a distance either.
So yes, Terran need to micro more, good thing for us: we have time to spare doing it because our macro mechanics are easier and don't requiere to look away from the battle. Why write the rest after a good start?
Yeah I guess I'm a bit silly to compare what each races need to do outside of battles as well.
But heh.. I'm bored and thought it was pretty obvious that everything has a balance inside the game itself.
|
On March 30 2012 12:13 wTeffecT wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2012 08:41 oberhofer wrote:On March 30 2012 08:34 Dontkillme wrote:Also I believe there isn't a lot of terrans in the lower leagues because of banelings , unless you can split like a boss, or your enemy is an idiot and hits banelings towards tanks or you know how to focus fire with tanks, T V Z is a bit too hard for people in the lower leagues. You'd be surprised how many Zergs actually do this and how often it seems to be worth it anyway. Still, I think splitting versus banes is something that can be learned very easily. I also believe that Terran is slightly favoured in the lower leagues, just because of the "tutorial bonus" they get from the campaign and the unusual macro mechanics of Zerg (and Protoss to some extent) that are unique to Starcraft. Finding the connection to the topic: having been taught how to play Terran should actually result in a higher number of Terran players in Bronze and maybe Silver. I believe they have been left out of the discussion though. Splitting versus banelings is... easy? You realise that for a split to be effective, you need to split into groups of 4 marines or less in the splash zone? Splitting your ball of 50 marines into 5 groups of 10 is completely ineffective, because 2 banelings will wipe them, with the cost being 200 to the zerg and 500 to the terran. Your statement screams ignorance in the matchup. And FYI, that kind of splitting, IE splitting 50 marines into 10+ groups in less than 5 seconds, is why terran bio micro ALONE is harder than all micro that a zerg has to do. You want 'deep analysis' - here it is. ZvT, Ling Bling Muta vs. Marine Medivac Tank. Terran has to: - Siege/Unsiege tanks in a spread line heading away from the point of engagement, to make sure they don't all die in the first 5 seconds. - Focus fire blings with tanks. - Spread marines (As above) to keep them away from blings, whilst keeping them close enough to tanks to prevent sniping from the mutas. - Stim marines in groups to be efficent, otherwise a group stim. - Keep Medivacs back away from mutas. Zerg has to: - A move. - Target Marines with blings. - Target tanks with mutas. Add infestors and ghosts, you can include fungals and EMPs, which balance. It's pretty obvious who has it harder. People who make stupid comments like 'blink and FF is just as hard' just have no experience in playing terran for long periods of time at Masters+
You have 2 posts are you already whining? Relax man. First of all there is never gonna be a 50 marine splitting scenario. It'll be a stim run backwards and focus with tank scenario. And yes I don't think any Zerg denies that splitting and focusing your tanks are harder than the micro they do. But you forget that macro is a much larger part of the game. And I doubt your 100% efficient with your mule drops and mineral spending. Pros aren't either but I'm sure their macro (compared to yours) is still a large factor in why they do better and you don't. They have the macro down better, the micro down better, heck, what's your average apm if your whining like this?
And as for blinks and FF's just like your micro goes. Theres decent levels that most masters players can accomplish. Then theres pro micro where every FF is virtually perfect, without overlapping, and blinks are less grouped/wasted and much more efficient. Plus like previously stated macro is a very large part of the game and you seemingly are neglecting that.
All races have many things that are difficult and easy, and easy to perform mediocre while very hard to perform excellent. So please stop your whining and take time to consider your next posts. You seem to have long posts and are willing to our effort into them. But nobody likes someone who is gonna whine about their own race being "so much harder" and toot their own horn.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
