|
On March 20 2012 04:11 SupLilSon wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2012 04:09 Big J wrote:On March 20 2012 03:41 SupLilSon wrote:On March 20 2012 01:59 Big J wrote:On March 20 2012 01:33 Blasterion wrote:On March 20 2012 01:27 Big J wrote:On March 20 2012 01:14 Blasterion wrote:On March 20 2012 00:41 Big J wrote:On March 20 2012 00:07 Blasterion wrote:On March 19 2012 23:51 Big J wrote:
[quote]
Once upon a time, people actually knew the difference between RTS and Broodwar. Sad times, in which BW-like play is the only way professional RTS games are allowed to be played. Unlike what you imagined, no Koreans didn't have warp in in Age of Empires 2 they had War Wagons and Turtleships Unlike what you imagine, there is something called "new" in the world... I know, that's really creative and scary for a lot of people. Things that are there but have not been there since the big bang, imagine how different things can become with those type of things... :O Imagine there could be RTS games without defenders advantage :O Imagine there are already RTS games that are great fun and have way less defenders advantages than SC2 (walking distance isn't the only defenders advantage  ) nope but it's a damn good one. yup and absolutly necessary in SC2, but not generally in RTS, like the whole defenders advantage concept is not generally needed to make a good RTS But that's exactly why Sc2 is a deathball game, nobody wants to make small to medium scale aggressions because of a lack of defender's advantage, If you lose your small aggression his now bigger army can run you over, So you have players sitting on their units until 200/200 for this so called epic battle. Which is just terrible game design. Protoss defies that defender's advantage, always reinforces first. and can chrono boost their reinforcement. I think the problem is pretty clear. I disagree. In my opinion the defenders advantage is too big. But that's not because of any crazy defenders mechanics, but because the economy is too big in SC2. You will nearly always attack with 20 less supply than your opponent defends with, because army creation is too fast. So the only way to get aggressive is to sacrifice economy for army most of the time, which leaves the game in an awkward situation, in which you either balance the game around "semi-allins" being an efficient strategy, and/or turteling being an efficient strategy, but never "just walking out and attacking" being efficient - due to the amount of units produced in the time it takes you to walk across. I think this thread describes the problem the best: too much money in the game leads to too little time in which an active army is actually useful, therefore activness is often not rewarding which leads to one big army > several smaller armies and replacing > keeping alive. You realize this is exactly one of the massive problems with Terran.... The fact that Protoss is an EXCEPTION to that. Protoss can actually have more supply than you while attacking, even after you repel them. It's the reason why you need to win 6 fights in a row to beat down a Protoss but they usually only need to win 1 fight before stream rolling all the way to your natural. Protoss completely ignore map size and distance. Terran is the race hindered most by reinforcement distance, meaning that if we all in, it usually has to include SCVs, or it needs to be a completely unscouted push that the enemy is simply unprepared for. That's why every Protoss unit that comes from a warpgate is costinefficient compared to their Terran and Zerg "low Tier counterparts" and thereby Protoss has to have a more expensive army than the opponent to attack. All those things are completly fine, due to the costinefficiency of Protoss WG units, but where I do agree is that it becomes complicated when the question is not cost- but supplyefficiency, like in the scenarios in which both players hit a max and afterwards can reinforce from a bank, so costs don't matter as much, but production facilities do. In that scenarios Terran needs supplyefficient units to deal with the faster opponents supplyefficient reinforcements. In TvZ this is fine imo (a Terran usually does not die to lings/roaches which are easy to reinforce in the lategame due to mechanic supplyefficient units), in TvP it forces Terran to win the maxed engagement very efficiently. So the question is, is this consistently possible (~50% of the time)? With the current Terran aggressive TvP styles which don't build up many supplyefficient units but meanwhile focus on getting ahead/winning in the midgame by doing damage, I'd say it is not. With other styles, it might be. The question with those is, if they can achieve the same consistently strong overall winrates, or if they will drop below 50% and therefore have to be considered instable "cheese" strategies. No, they arent. You're entire post is based off a baseless assumption.
And which is that? That warpgate is a broken mechanic? I have news for you, it is. Warpgate should be removed or nerfed, as in producing units from gateway is more time efficient. That together with buffing Protoss gateway units to compensate will lead to a much more better game.
|
On March 20 2012 04:17 Kakaru2 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2012 04:11 SupLilSon wrote:On March 20 2012 04:09 Big J wrote:On March 20 2012 03:41 SupLilSon wrote:On March 20 2012 01:59 Big J wrote:On March 20 2012 01:33 Blasterion wrote:On March 20 2012 01:27 Big J wrote:On March 20 2012 01:14 Blasterion wrote:On March 20 2012 00:41 Big J wrote:On March 20 2012 00:07 Blasterion wrote:
[quote]
Unlike what you imagined, no Koreans didn't have warp in in Age of Empires 2 they had War Wagons and Turtleships Unlike what you imagine, there is something called "new" in the world... I know, that's really creative and scary for a lot of people. Things that are there but have not been there since the big bang, imagine how different things can become with those type of things... :O Imagine there could be RTS games without defenders advantage :O Imagine there are already RTS games that are great fun and have way less defenders advantages than SC2 (walking distance isn't the only defenders advantage ) nope but it's a damn good one. yup and absolutly necessary in SC2, but not generally in RTS, like the whole defenders advantage concept is not generally needed to make a good RTS But that's exactly why Sc2 is a deathball game, nobody wants to make small to medium scale aggressions because of a lack of defender's advantage, If you lose your small aggression his now bigger army can run you over, So you have players sitting on their units until 200/200 for this so called epic battle. Which is just terrible game design. Protoss defies that defender's advantage, always reinforces first. and can chrono boost their reinforcement. I think the problem is pretty clear. I disagree. In my opinion the defenders advantage is too big. But that's not because of any crazy defenders mechanics, but because the economy is too big in SC2. You will nearly always attack with 20 less supply than your opponent defends with, because army creation is too fast. So the only way to get aggressive is to sacrifice economy for army most of the time, which leaves the game in an awkward situation, in which you either balance the game around "semi-allins" being an efficient strategy, and/or turteling being an efficient strategy, but never "just walking out and attacking" being efficient - due to the amount of units produced in the time it takes you to walk across. I think this thread describes the problem the best: too much money in the game leads to too little time in which an active army is actually useful, therefore activness is often not rewarding which leads to one big army > several smaller armies and replacing > keeping alive. You realize this is exactly one of the massive problems with Terran.... The fact that Protoss is an EXCEPTION to that. Protoss can actually have more supply than you while attacking, even after you repel them. It's the reason why you need to win 6 fights in a row to beat down a Protoss but they usually only need to win 1 fight before stream rolling all the way to your natural. Protoss completely ignore map size and distance. Terran is the race hindered most by reinforcement distance, meaning that if we all in, it usually has to include SCVs, or it needs to be a completely unscouted push that the enemy is simply unprepared for. That's why every Protoss unit that comes from a warpgate is costinefficient compared to their Terran and Zerg "low Tier counterparts" and thereby Protoss has to have a more expensive army than the opponent to attack. All those things are completly fine, due to the costinefficiency of Protoss WG units, but where I do agree is that it becomes complicated when the question is not cost- but supplyefficiency, like in the scenarios in which both players hit a max and afterwards can reinforce from a bank, so costs don't matter as much, but production facilities do. In that scenarios Terran needs supplyefficient units to deal with the faster opponents supplyefficient reinforcements. In TvZ this is fine imo (a Terran usually does not die to lings/roaches which are easy to reinforce in the lategame due to mechanic supplyefficient units), in TvP it forces Terran to win the maxed engagement very efficiently. So the question is, is this consistently possible (~50% of the time)? With the current Terran aggressive TvP styles which don't build up many supplyefficient units but meanwhile focus on getting ahead/winning in the midgame by doing damage, I'd say it is not. With other styles, it might be. The question with those is, if they can achieve the same consistently strong overall winrates, or if they will drop below 50% and therefore have to be considered instable "cheese" strategies. No, they arent. You're entire post is based off a baseless assumption. And which is that? That warpgate is a broken mechanic? I have news for you, it is. Warpgate should be removed or nerfed, as in producing units from gateway is more time efficient. That together with buffing Protoss gateway units to compensate will lead to a much more better game.
umm, buffing protoss gateway units doesn't sound like a good solution. Even without warpgates, 3/3 gateway units are strong enough as is, buffing them would be mental.
|
On March 20 2012 04:17 Kakaru2 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2012 04:11 SupLilSon wrote:On March 20 2012 04:09 Big J wrote:On March 20 2012 03:41 SupLilSon wrote:On March 20 2012 01:59 Big J wrote:On March 20 2012 01:33 Blasterion wrote:On March 20 2012 01:27 Big J wrote:On March 20 2012 01:14 Blasterion wrote:On March 20 2012 00:41 Big J wrote:On March 20 2012 00:07 Blasterion wrote:
[quote]
Unlike what you imagined, no Koreans didn't have warp in in Age of Empires 2 they had War Wagons and Turtleships Unlike what you imagine, there is something called "new" in the world... I know, that's really creative and scary for a lot of people. Things that are there but have not been there since the big bang, imagine how different things can become with those type of things... :O Imagine there could be RTS games without defenders advantage :O Imagine there are already RTS games that are great fun and have way less defenders advantages than SC2 (walking distance isn't the only defenders advantage ) nope but it's a damn good one. yup and absolutly necessary in SC2, but not generally in RTS, like the whole defenders advantage concept is not generally needed to make a good RTS But that's exactly why Sc2 is a deathball game, nobody wants to make small to medium scale aggressions because of a lack of defender's advantage, If you lose your small aggression his now bigger army can run you over, So you have players sitting on their units until 200/200 for this so called epic battle. Which is just terrible game design. Protoss defies that defender's advantage, always reinforces first. and can chrono boost their reinforcement. I think the problem is pretty clear. I disagree. In my opinion the defenders advantage is too big. But that's not because of any crazy defenders mechanics, but because the economy is too big in SC2. You will nearly always attack with 20 less supply than your opponent defends with, because army creation is too fast. So the only way to get aggressive is to sacrifice economy for army most of the time, which leaves the game in an awkward situation, in which you either balance the game around "semi-allins" being an efficient strategy, and/or turteling being an efficient strategy, but never "just walking out and attacking" being efficient - due to the amount of units produced in the time it takes you to walk across. I think this thread describes the problem the best: too much money in the game leads to too little time in which an active army is actually useful, therefore activness is often not rewarding which leads to one big army > several smaller armies and replacing > keeping alive. You realize this is exactly one of the massive problems with Terran.... The fact that Protoss is an EXCEPTION to that. Protoss can actually have more supply than you while attacking, even after you repel them. It's the reason why you need to win 6 fights in a row to beat down a Protoss but they usually only need to win 1 fight before stream rolling all the way to your natural. Protoss completely ignore map size and distance. Terran is the race hindered most by reinforcement distance, meaning that if we all in, it usually has to include SCVs, or it needs to be a completely unscouted push that the enemy is simply unprepared for. That's why every Protoss unit that comes from a warpgate is costinefficient compared to their Terran and Zerg "low Tier counterparts" and thereby Protoss has to have a more expensive army than the opponent to attack. All those things are completly fine, due to the costinefficiency of Protoss WG units, but where I do agree is that it becomes complicated when the question is not cost- but supplyefficiency, like in the scenarios in which both players hit a max and afterwards can reinforce from a bank, so costs don't matter as much, but production facilities do. In that scenarios Terran needs supplyefficient units to deal with the faster opponents supplyefficient reinforcements. In TvZ this is fine imo (a Terran usually does not die to lings/roaches which are easy to reinforce in the lategame due to mechanic supplyefficient units), in TvP it forces Terran to win the maxed engagement very efficiently. So the question is, is this consistently possible (~50% of the time)? With the current Terran aggressive TvP styles which don't build up many supplyefficient units but meanwhile focus on getting ahead/winning in the midgame by doing damage, I'd say it is not. With other styles, it might be. The question with those is, if they can achieve the same consistently strong overall winrates, or if they will drop below 50% and therefore have to be considered instable "cheese" strategies. No, they arent. You're entire post is based off a baseless assumption. And which is that? That warpgate is a broken mechanic? I have news for you, it is. Warpgate should be removed or nerfed, as in producing units from gateway is more time efficient. That together with buffing Protoss gateway units to compensate will lead to a much more better game.
That Toss gateway units are somehow balanced to be weaker to compensate for the warpgate mechanic. Show me something concrete to prove that. I remember the OP of the Defender's Advantage post was claiming that and it was quickly determined that Blizzard had never said they balanced WP units that way ever.
|
many protoss would gladly accept a warpgate removal for a gateway build time reduction combined with a gateway unit buff. i find it always funny how each race always sees himself as harder to play, and the opposite to be easier.
And as much as lategame is concerned most terran users don't build enough production buildings anyway, cause they are betting most time everything on one card, win or lose, and in the later case die because they never played for a lategame.
|
On March 20 2012 04:21 freetgy wrote:
many protoss would gladly accept a warpgate removal for a gateway build time reduction combined with a gateway unit buff. i find it always funny how each race always sees himself as harder to play, and the opposite to be easier.
And as much as lategame is concerned most terran users don't build enough production buildings anyway, cause they are betting most time everything on one card, win or lose, and in the later case die because they never played for a lategame.
This is obviously what most Terrans do. Obviously.
|
On March 20 2012 00:07 Blasterion wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2012 23:51 Big J wrote:On March 19 2012 23:31 Blasterion wrote:
I think the biggest issue is still warp in since it's completely mindfucks the defender's advantage. Something that's so default and important in an RTS
But then again I am a Terran player and Terran players are manly so it's ok Once upon a time, people actually knew the difference between RTS and Broodwar. Sad times, in which BW-like play is the only way professional RTS games are allowed to be played. Unlike what you imagined, no Koreans didn't have warp in in Age of Empires 2 they had War Wagons and Turtleships
Made me smile :D.
|
On March 20 2012 03:54 Bojas wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2012 03:51 JOJOsc2news wrote:On March 19 2012 23:17 magnaflow wrote:
Toss is broken. Somewhat weak early game (although they are learning how to deal with it) and far too strong of a late game. And the worst part of it all is whenever a PvX game is played it is boring as fuck to watch. Turtle up to 3 base and amove with deathball, not very entertaining. Toss needs to be made more difficult to play and actually require micro. This is such a bitter little whine. You clearly have no understanding of Protoss whatsoever. This thread looks to be more and more derailing into Terran players complaining about how their race is the worst of them all. As to the OP. While I have definitely seen the trend of vanishing Terrans I seem to play more Terrans this season. I mostly play Zerg, then Terran and quite far behind Protoss. I never quite had that distribution yet. Might the Terrans be coming back or are they all busy on the forums complaining? I understand that he's whining but why does he have no clue at all?
I assume you are trolling but I will answer anyways.
I said "no understanding of Protoss" not "no clue at all". Stop derailing!
Why am I saying he has no understanding of Protoss?
1. "Toss is broken" Generalization
2. "Far too strong of a late game" Generalization
3. "Boring as fuck to watch" Generalization
4. "Turtle up to 3 base and a-move with deathball" Shows no understanding whatsoever.
5. "Toss needs to be made more difficult to play and actually require micro." Shows no understanding whatsoever.
|
On March 20 2012 04:31 JOJOsc2news wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2012 03:54 Bojas wrote:On March 20 2012 03:51 JOJOsc2news wrote:On March 19 2012 23:17 magnaflow wrote:
Toss is broken. Somewhat weak early game (although they are learning how to deal with it) and far too strong of a late game. And the worst part of it all is whenever a PvX game is played it is boring as fuck to watch. Turtle up to 3 base and amove with deathball, not very entertaining. Toss needs to be made more difficult to play and actually require micro. This is such a bitter little whine. You clearly have no understanding of Protoss whatsoever. This thread looks to be more and more derailing into Terran players complaining about how their race is the worst of them all. As to the OP. While I have definitely seen the trend of vanishing Terrans I seem to play more Terrans this season. I mostly play Zerg, then Terran and quite far behind Protoss. I never quite had that distribution yet. Might the Terrans be coming back or are they all busy on the forums complaining? I understand that he's whining but why does he have no clue at all? I assume you are trolling but I will answer anyways. I said "no understanding of Protoss" not "no clue at all". Stop derailing! Why am I saying he has no understanding of Protoss? 1. "Toss is broken" Generalization 2. "Far too strong of a late game" Generalization 3. "Boring as fuck to watch" Generalization 4. "Turtle up to 3 base and a-move with deathball" Shows no understanding whatsoever. 5. "Toss needs to be made more difficult to play and actually require micro." Shows no understanding whatsoever.
You can't play a lot of ladder then. That's how 90% play. Hell, that's how I play Protoss.
|
On March 20 2012 04:28 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2012 00:07 Blasterion wrote:On March 19 2012 23:51 Big J wrote:On March 19 2012 23:31 Blasterion wrote:
I think the biggest issue is still warp in since it's completely mindfucks the defender's advantage. Something that's so default and important in an RTS
But then again I am a Terran player and Terran players are manly so it's ok Once upon a time, people actually knew the difference between RTS and Broodwar. Sad times, in which BW-like play is the only way professional RTS games are allowed to be played. Unlike what you imagined, no Koreans didn't have warp in in Age of Empires 2 they had War Wagons and Turtleships Made me smile :D.
Holy shit those things were over powered I hate war wagons. Nerf Korea
|
On March 20 2012 04:21 freetgy wrote:
And as much as lategame is concerned most terran users don't build enough production buildings anyway, cause they are betting most time everything on one card, win or lose, and in the later case die because they never played for a lategame.
This doesn't change the fact that 15 warpgates can "instantly" warp in 15 units and 15 rax can only build 15 units with at least 30 secs for them to come out. The remaxing is so much faster as a Protoss player. This makes the difference when attacking Expansions, cause you have to run there (after units are built which takes time!) and Toss can warp in nearby.
|
On March 20 2012 04:21 SupLilSon wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2012 04:17 Kakaru2 wrote:On March 20 2012 04:11 SupLilSon wrote:On March 20 2012 04:09 Big J wrote:On March 20 2012 03:41 SupLilSon wrote:On March 20 2012 01:59 Big J wrote:On March 20 2012 01:33 Blasterion wrote:On March 20 2012 01:27 Big J wrote:On March 20 2012 01:14 Blasterion wrote:On March 20 2012 00:41 Big J wrote:[quote] Unlike what you imagine, there is something called "new" in the world... I know, that's really creative and scary for a lot of people. Things that are there but have not been there since the big bang, imagine how different things can become with those type of things... :O Imagine there could be RTS games without defenders advantage :O Imagine there are already RTS games that are great fun and have way less defenders advantages than SC2 (walking distance isn't the only defenders advantage ) nope but it's a damn good one. yup and absolutly necessary in SC2, but not generally in RTS, like the whole defenders advantage concept is not generally needed to make a good RTS But that's exactly why Sc2 is a deathball game, nobody wants to make small to medium scale aggressions because of a lack of defender's advantage, If you lose your small aggression his now bigger army can run you over, So you have players sitting on their units until 200/200 for this so called epic battle. Which is just terrible game design. Protoss defies that defender's advantage, always reinforces first. and can chrono boost their reinforcement. I think the problem is pretty clear. I disagree. In my opinion the defenders advantage is too big. But that's not because of any crazy defenders mechanics, but because the economy is too big in SC2. You will nearly always attack with 20 less supply than your opponent defends with, because army creation is too fast. So the only way to get aggressive is to sacrifice economy for army most of the time, which leaves the game in an awkward situation, in which you either balance the game around "semi-allins" being an efficient strategy, and/or turteling being an efficient strategy, but never "just walking out and attacking" being efficient - due to the amount of units produced in the time it takes you to walk across. I think this thread describes the problem the best: too much money in the game leads to too little time in which an active army is actually useful, therefore activness is often not rewarding which leads to one big army > several smaller armies and replacing > keeping alive. You realize this is exactly one of the massive problems with Terran.... The fact that Protoss is an EXCEPTION to that. Protoss can actually have more supply than you while attacking, even after you repel them. It's the reason why you need to win 6 fights in a row to beat down a Protoss but they usually only need to win 1 fight before stream rolling all the way to your natural. Protoss completely ignore map size and distance. Terran is the race hindered most by reinforcement distance, meaning that if we all in, it usually has to include SCVs, or it needs to be a completely unscouted push that the enemy is simply unprepared for. That's why every Protoss unit that comes from a warpgate is costinefficient compared to their Terran and Zerg "low Tier counterparts" and thereby Protoss has to have a more expensive army than the opponent to attack. All those things are completly fine, due to the costinefficiency of Protoss WG units, but where I do agree is that it becomes complicated when the question is not cost- but supplyefficiency, like in the scenarios in which both players hit a max and afterwards can reinforce from a bank, so costs don't matter as much, but production facilities do. In that scenarios Terran needs supplyefficient units to deal with the faster opponents supplyefficient reinforcements. In TvZ this is fine imo (a Terran usually does not die to lings/roaches which are easy to reinforce in the lategame due to mechanic supplyefficient units), in TvP it forces Terran to win the maxed engagement very efficiently. So the question is, is this consistently possible (~50% of the time)? With the current Terran aggressive TvP styles which don't build up many supplyefficient units but meanwhile focus on getting ahead/winning in the midgame by doing damage, I'd say it is not. With other styles, it might be. The question with those is, if they can achieve the same consistently strong overall winrates, or if they will drop below 50% and therefore have to be considered instable "cheese" strategies. No, they arent. You're entire post is based off a baseless assumption. And which is that? That warpgate is a broken mechanic? I have news for you, it is. Warpgate should be removed or nerfed, as in producing units from gateway is more time efficient. That together with buffing Protoss gateway units to compensate will lead to a much more better game. That Toss gateway units are somehow balanced to be weaker to compensate for the warpgate mechanic. Show me something concrete to prove that. I remember the OP of the Defender's Advantage post was claiming that and it was quickly determined that Blizzard had never said they balanced WP units that way ever.
Marines are more cost efficient than anything non-AoE in the game. Roaches and lings are pretty good too.
When you see pure gateway attacks work, it's always an all in the Protoss sacrificed everything else for and he has like twice the army value of his opponent, yet these all ins can be decently held. So yeah, Gateway units are not very efficient. You seem under the conviction than successful gateway attacks are done with equal army value, that's far from true.
And obviously nobody uses pure gateway without templars lategame, so no use talking about that.
What is very strong, and probably too much, is the 3-3 chargelots warp-ins after the Terran army has already been weakened by stim and Aoe damage.
|
On March 20 2012 04:37 TurboMaN wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2012 04:21 freetgy wrote:
And as much as lategame is concerned most terran users don't build enough production buildings anyway, cause they are betting most time everything on one card, win or lose, and in the later case die because they never played for a lategame. This doesn't change the fact that 15 warpgates can "instantly" warp in 15 units and 15 rax can only build 15 units with at least 30 secs for them to come out. The remaxing is so much faster as a Protoss player. This makes the difference when attacking Expansions, cause you have to run there (after units are built which takes time!) and Toss can warp in nearby.
Well there's that and also Chrono Boost, since Nexuses have probably maxed energy by late game all your chrono goes into one place which is your gates.
|
On March 20 2012 03:27 Kakaru2 wrote:...Polt beat him by avoiding a fight and dropping. I don't enjoy this style of play. For me honor is about meeting 1 on 1, equal weapons and fight it out. And you can't to that at all. And even if you want to fight dirty...
This is the worst mindset. Come on, go back and read that. It's completely wrong. I don't know why someone with that mindset would want to play Starcraft at all, let alone Terran. I mean, there are plenty of game lobbies waiting for you in Shogun 2: Total War.... you know, the ones with descriptions that list off units you're not allowed to pick.
You need to play to the race instead of having Blizzard play the race to you. I came to this thread to join in on the whining and moaning like everyone else but this is just backwards.
|
On March 20 2012 04:36 VoO wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2012 04:31 JOJOsc2news wrote:On March 20 2012 03:54 Bojas wrote:On March 20 2012 03:51 JOJOsc2news wrote:On March 19 2012 23:17 magnaflow wrote:
Toss is broken. Somewhat weak early game (although they are learning how to deal with it) and far too strong of a late game. And the worst part of it all is whenever a PvX game is played it is boring as fuck to watch. Turtle up to 3 base and amove with deathball, not very entertaining. Toss needs to be made more difficult to play and actually require micro. This is such a bitter little whine. You clearly have no understanding of Protoss whatsoever. This thread looks to be more and more derailing into Terran players complaining about how their race is the worst of them all. As to the OP. While I have definitely seen the trend of vanishing Terrans I seem to play more Terrans this season. I mostly play Zerg, then Terran and quite far behind Protoss. I never quite had that distribution yet. Might the Terrans be coming back or are they all busy on the forums complaining? I understand that he's whining but why does he have no clue at all? I assume you are trolling but I will answer anyways. I said "no understanding of Protoss" not "no clue at all". Stop derailing! Why am I saying he has no understanding of Protoss? 1. "Toss is broken" Generalization 2. "Far too strong of a late game" Generalization 3. "Boring as fuck to watch" Generalization 4. "Turtle up to 3 base and a-move with deathball" Shows no understanding whatsoever. 5. "Toss needs to be made more difficult to play and actually require micro." Shows no understanding whatsoever. You can't play a lot of ladder then. That's how 90% play. Hell, that's how I play Protoss.
Really? That's how 90% play? I can make up statistics too, 100% of Terrans think Protoss is OP according to this thread. But honestly, not every protoss plays the way "you do". I play with timing attacks and when I feel like it I will do safe SG expo into a third. It's not "turtle on 3 bases and win every game" We all do different things in different matchups. My GM protoss friends can attest to that and so can I. You can probably do the turtle/roll with deathball strat up to diamond, but it wont work as well any higher.
|
On March 20 2012 04:55 LavaLava wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2012 03:27 Kakaru2 wrote:...Polt beat him by avoiding a fight and dropping. I don't enjoy this style of play. For me honor is about meeting 1 on 1, equal weapons and fight it out. And you can't to that at all. And even if you want to fight dirty... This is the worst mindset. Come on, go back and read that. It's completely wrong. I don't know why someone with that mindset would want to play Starcraft at all, let alone Terran. I mean, there are plenty of game lobbies waiting for you in Shogun 2: Total War.... you know, the ones with descriptions that list off units you're not allowed to pick. You need to play to the race instead of having Blizzard play the race to you. I came to this thread to join in on the whining and moaning like everyone else but this is just backwards.
First thing you do, check off Muskets. Poor Takeda calvary, even fuurinkazan isn't a match for some TANEGASHIMA~~~~!!!!
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1RHX1.jpg)
|
On March 20 2012 04:56 itsjuspeter wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2012 04:36 VoO wrote:On March 20 2012 04:31 JOJOsc2news wrote:On March 20 2012 03:54 Bojas wrote:On March 20 2012 03:51 JOJOsc2news wrote:On March 19 2012 23:17 magnaflow wrote:
Toss is broken. Somewhat weak early game (although they are learning how to deal with it) and far too strong of a late game. And the worst part of it all is whenever a PvX game is played it is boring as fuck to watch. Turtle up to 3 base and amove with deathball, not very entertaining. Toss needs to be made more difficult to play and actually require micro. This is such a bitter little whine. You clearly have no understanding of Protoss whatsoever. This thread looks to be more and more derailing into Terran players complaining about how their race is the worst of them all. As to the OP. While I have definitely seen the trend of vanishing Terrans I seem to play more Terrans this season. I mostly play Zerg, then Terran and quite far behind Protoss. I never quite had that distribution yet. Might the Terrans be coming back or are they all busy on the forums complaining? I understand that he's whining but why does he have no clue at all? I assume you are trolling but I will answer anyways. I said "no understanding of Protoss" not "no clue at all". Stop derailing! Why am I saying he has no understanding of Protoss? 1. "Toss is broken" Generalization 2. "Far too strong of a late game" Generalization 3. "Boring as fuck to watch" Generalization 4. "Turtle up to 3 base and a-move with deathball" Shows no understanding whatsoever. 5. "Toss needs to be made more difficult to play and actually require micro." Shows no understanding whatsoever. You can't play a lot of ladder then. That's how 90% play. Hell, that's how I play Protoss. Really? That's how 90% play? I can make up statistics too, 100% of Terrans think Protoss is OP according to this thread. But honestly, not every protoss plays the way "you do". I play with timing attacks and when I feel like it I will do safe SG expo into a third. It's not "turtle on 3 bases and win every game" We all do different things in different matchups. My GM protoss friends can attest to that and so can I. You can probably do the turtle/roll with deathball strat up to diamond, but it wont work as well any higher.
You obviously didn't read the entire thread then
|
On March 20 2012 04:58 Blasterion wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2012 04:56 itsjuspeter wrote:On March 20 2012 04:36 VoO wrote:On March 20 2012 04:31 JOJOsc2news wrote:On March 20 2012 03:54 Bojas wrote:On March 20 2012 03:51 JOJOsc2news wrote:On March 19 2012 23:17 magnaflow wrote:
Toss is broken. Somewhat weak early game (although they are learning how to deal with it) and far too strong of a late game. And the worst part of it all is whenever a PvX game is played it is boring as fuck to watch. Turtle up to 3 base and amove with deathball, not very entertaining. Toss needs to be made more difficult to play and actually require micro. This is such a bitter little whine. You clearly have no understanding of Protoss whatsoever. This thread looks to be more and more derailing into Terran players complaining about how their race is the worst of them all. As to the OP. While I have definitely seen the trend of vanishing Terrans I seem to play more Terrans this season. I mostly play Zerg, then Terran and quite far behind Protoss. I never quite had that distribution yet. Might the Terrans be coming back or are they all busy on the forums complaining? I understand that he's whining but why does he have no clue at all? I assume you are trolling but I will answer anyways. I said "no understanding of Protoss" not "no clue at all". Stop derailing! Why am I saying he has no understanding of Protoss? 1. "Toss is broken" Generalization 2. "Far too strong of a late game" Generalization 3. "Boring as fuck to watch" Generalization 4. "Turtle up to 3 base and a-move with deathball" Shows no understanding whatsoever. 5. "Toss needs to be made more difficult to play and actually require micro." Shows no understanding whatsoever. You can't play a lot of ladder then. That's how 90% play. Hell, that's how I play Protoss. Really? That's how 90% play? I can make up statistics too, 100% of Terrans think Protoss is OP according to this thread. But honestly, not every protoss plays the way "you do". I play with timing attacks and when I feel like it I will do safe SG expo into a third. It's not "turtle on 3 bases and win every game" We all do different things in different matchups. My GM protoss friends can attest to that and so can I. You can probably do the turtle/roll with deathball strat up to diamond, but it wont work as well any higher. You obviously didn't read the entire thread then
You obviously didn't get my post. I merely suggested I'm making up a statistic, please comprehend that. As to why I did not agree with the final reply was, the original post is baseless and assumes a protoss will turtle to 3 bases and roll. The last post agreed that "90%" do it anyway so why not? I'm saying this isn't true and that you can't make such a statement, you're just countering baseless assumptions with more baseless assumption. Please understand something thoroughly before replying. Thanks.
|
On March 20 2012 04:21 SupLilSon wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2012 04:17 Kakaru2 wrote:On March 20 2012 04:11 SupLilSon wrote:On March 20 2012 04:09 Big J wrote:On March 20 2012 03:41 SupLilSon wrote:On March 20 2012 01:59 Big J wrote:On March 20 2012 01:33 Blasterion wrote:On March 20 2012 01:27 Big J wrote:On March 20 2012 01:14 Blasterion wrote:On March 20 2012 00:41 Big J wrote:[quote] Unlike what you imagine, there is something called "new" in the world... I know, that's really creative and scary for a lot of people. Things that are there but have not been there since the big bang, imagine how different things can become with those type of things... :O Imagine there could be RTS games without defenders advantage :O Imagine there are already RTS games that are great fun and have way less defenders advantages than SC2 (walking distance isn't the only defenders advantage ) nope but it's a damn good one. yup and absolutly necessary in SC2, but not generally in RTS, like the whole defenders advantage concept is not generally needed to make a good RTS But that's exactly why Sc2 is a deathball game, nobody wants to make small to medium scale aggressions because of a lack of defender's advantage, If you lose your small aggression his now bigger army can run you over, So you have players sitting on their units until 200/200 for this so called epic battle. Which is just terrible game design. Protoss defies that defender's advantage, always reinforces first. and can chrono boost their reinforcement. I think the problem is pretty clear. I disagree. In my opinion the defenders advantage is too big. But that's not because of any crazy defenders mechanics, but because the economy is too big in SC2. You will nearly always attack with 20 less supply than your opponent defends with, because army creation is too fast. So the only way to get aggressive is to sacrifice economy for army most of the time, which leaves the game in an awkward situation, in which you either balance the game around "semi-allins" being an efficient strategy, and/or turteling being an efficient strategy, but never "just walking out and attacking" being efficient - due to the amount of units produced in the time it takes you to walk across. I think this thread describes the problem the best: too much money in the game leads to too little time in which an active army is actually useful, therefore activness is often not rewarding which leads to one big army > several smaller armies and replacing > keeping alive. You realize this is exactly one of the massive problems with Terran.... The fact that Protoss is an EXCEPTION to that. Protoss can actually have more supply than you while attacking, even after you repel them. It's the reason why you need to win 6 fights in a row to beat down a Protoss but they usually only need to win 1 fight before stream rolling all the way to your natural. Protoss completely ignore map size and distance. Terran is the race hindered most by reinforcement distance, meaning that if we all in, it usually has to include SCVs, or it needs to be a completely unscouted push that the enemy is simply unprepared for. That's why every Protoss unit that comes from a warpgate is costinefficient compared to their Terran and Zerg "low Tier counterparts" and thereby Protoss has to have a more expensive army than the opponent to attack. All those things are completly fine, due to the costinefficiency of Protoss WG units, but where I do agree is that it becomes complicated when the question is not cost- but supplyefficiency, like in the scenarios in which both players hit a max and afterwards can reinforce from a bank, so costs don't matter as much, but production facilities do. In that scenarios Terran needs supplyefficient units to deal with the faster opponents supplyefficient reinforcements. In TvZ this is fine imo (a Terran usually does not die to lings/roaches which are easy to reinforce in the lategame due to mechanic supplyefficient units), in TvP it forces Terran to win the maxed engagement very efficiently. So the question is, is this consistently possible (~50% of the time)? With the current Terran aggressive TvP styles which don't build up many supplyefficient units but meanwhile focus on getting ahead/winning in the midgame by doing damage, I'd say it is not. With other styles, it might be. The question with those is, if they can achieve the same consistently strong overall winrates, or if they will drop below 50% and therefore have to be considered instable "cheese" strategies. No, they arent. You're entire post is based off a baseless assumption. And which is that? That warpgate is a broken mechanic? I have news for you, it is. Warpgate should be removed or nerfed, as in producing units from gateway is more time efficient. That together with buffing Protoss gateway units to compensate will lead to a much more better game. That Toss gateway units are somehow balanced to be weaker to compensate for the warpgate mechanic. Show me something concrete to prove that. I remember the OP of the Defender's Advantage post was claiming that and it was quickly determined that Blizzard had never said they balanced WP units that way ever.
Just go to any unit tester and do even amounts of ressource battles; roaches and lings win, as well as Marine/Marauder.
Whenever a Protoss goes for a bust, he is cutting most lategame tech, upgrades and probes for it, chronoboosting his warp gates and has worked for a special unit setup (often sentryheavy for the FFs; or specific immortal counts) to begin with.
All those busts are timed to hit in a phase in which gateways finish to create "ressource banked" timings and usually hit just when standard Terran has invested into tech (usually medivacs, upgrades or ghosts when we talk about 2base timings; stim and shields when we talk about one base timings) but can't quite profit from it yet, so protoss actually just has more stuff on the battlefield.
|
On March 20 2012 05:03 itsjuspeter wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2012 04:58 Blasterion wrote:On March 20 2012 04:56 itsjuspeter wrote:On March 20 2012 04:36 VoO wrote:On March 20 2012 04:31 JOJOsc2news wrote:On March 20 2012 03:54 Bojas wrote:On March 20 2012 03:51 JOJOsc2news wrote:On March 19 2012 23:17 magnaflow wrote:
Toss is broken. Somewhat weak early game (although they are learning how to deal with it) and far too strong of a late game. And the worst part of it all is whenever a PvX game is played it is boring as fuck to watch. Turtle up to 3 base and amove with deathball, not very entertaining. Toss needs to be made more difficult to play and actually require micro. This is such a bitter little whine. You clearly have no understanding of Protoss whatsoever. This thread looks to be more and more derailing into Terran players complaining about how their race is the worst of them all. As to the OP. While I have definitely seen the trend of vanishing Terrans I seem to play more Terrans this season. I mostly play Zerg, then Terran and quite far behind Protoss. I never quite had that distribution yet. Might the Terrans be coming back or are they all busy on the forums complaining? I understand that he's whining but why does he have no clue at all? I assume you are trolling but I will answer anyways. I said "no understanding of Protoss" not "no clue at all". Stop derailing! Why am I saying he has no understanding of Protoss? 1. "Toss is broken" Generalization 2. "Far too strong of a late game" Generalization 3. "Boring as fuck to watch" Generalization 4. "Turtle up to 3 base and a-move with deathball" Shows no understanding whatsoever. 5. "Toss needs to be made more difficult to play and actually require micro." Shows no understanding whatsoever. You can't play a lot of ladder then. That's how 90% play. Hell, that's how I play Protoss. Really? That's how 90% play? I can make up statistics too, 100% of Terrans think Protoss is OP according to this thread. But honestly, not every protoss plays the way "you do". I play with timing attacks and when I feel like it I will do safe SG expo into a third. It's not "turtle on 3 bases and win every game" We all do different things in different matchups. My GM protoss friends can attest to that and so can I. You can probably do the turtle/roll with deathball strat up to diamond, but it wont work as well any higher. You obviously didn't read the entire thread then You obviously didn't get my post. I merely suggested I'm making up a statistic, please comprehend that. As to why I did not agree with the final reply was, the original post is baseless and assumes a protoss will turtle to 3 bases and roll. The last post agreed that "90%" do it anyway so why not? I'm saying this isn't true and that you can't make such a statement, you're just countering baseless assumptions with more baseless assumption. Please understand something thoroughly before replying. Thanks.
There's little effort I can spend on someone that just throws around random statistics that has no content in it. People like you for example. Sorry that I didn't bother to spent any effort reading trash posts. I understand anyone would want their posts recognized, even those that they spend no thoughts into I formally apologize for my curt answer previously.
|
On March 20 2012 04:45 Blasterion wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2012 04:37 TurboMaN wrote:On March 20 2012 04:21 freetgy wrote:
And as much as lategame is concerned most terran users don't build enough production buildings anyway, cause they are betting most time everything on one card, win or lose, and in the later case die because they never played for a lategame. This doesn't change the fact that 15 warpgates can "instantly" warp in 15 units and 15 rax can only build 15 units with at least 30 secs for them to come out. The remaxing is so much faster as a Protoss player. This makes the difference when attacking Expansions, cause you have to run there (after units are built which takes time!) and Toss can warp in nearby. Well there's that and also Chrono Boost, since Nexuses have probably maxed energy by late game all your chrono goes into one place which is your gates.
It's official: Warp in system is broken and every toss match up is boring to watch which is the worst thing happened in the SC2 e-sport
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
