|
One thing I just don't understand, is how DK can come out and say a 70% win rate is fine for CK. I mean I understand his logic that since PvT is 50%, there are other maps that are slightly terran favoured to allow the 50% to hold. That being said, 70% win rate on a map is still pretty damn huge, too huge in my mind and I just cannot agree with him that it's "fine". Compared to Metal, 37% is leaps better(though I'd want to see like max 10% favoured,as in max 40/60), since there's "only" 26% difference between races rather than 40%!
I mean obviously there will always be zerg favoured maps, terran favoured maps and toss favoured ones, but when the favourtism is so high, the difference becomes more than the worse race win chance... It's not fine.
|
On April 27 2012 17:29 KiLLJoy216 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2012 17:21 Scila wrote:On April 27 2012 17:00 KiLLJoy216 wrote:On April 27 2012 16:56 Scila wrote:On April 27 2012 16:53 KiLLJoy216 wrote:On April 27 2012 16:46 Scila wrote:On April 27 2012 16:36 KiLLJoy216 wrote:On April 27 2012 15:47 acrimoneyius wrote:On April 27 2012 15:29 darkness wrote:On April 27 2012 15:27 acrimoneyius wrote:
Lower damage of storm, keep the radius. Absolutely ridiculous that ONE STORM can kill an entire pack of marines by itself. Learn to use EMP and ghosts. I know how to use them. If one storm lands successfully the battle is basically lost. How is that fair? You are completely correct. I mean how unfair is it that a tier 3 unit can kill a tier 1 unit so easily, something must be wrong. Tired of these bronze league players' opinions. You SHOULD be punished for only going marines when its 20 minutes into the game, and 1 storm won't kill an entire pack of marines if you know how to micro. This old argument would make sense if Terran's higher tier units were viable. Currently, they are not. Really? Ghosts, Vikings, Ravens seem pretty viable to me, just to mention some. Raven is underrated in my opinion. Ravens are not viable because SM is horrible. Battlecruisers are not viable. Thors are not viable versus Protoss, and somewhat viable against zerg. Ghosts have been nerfed into oblivion, and are only viable against Protoss. :/ seems like you just don't want to try new things. The seeker missile is really powerful when it lands, and the raven has other abilities too. You can make a wall with turrets to funnel zealots and the point defense drone is really good especially early game. Ghosts are really good TvP, don't see why people keep saying otherwise. They outrange templar with snipe and EMP is really effective. Seeker Missile is NEVER seen in proplay because it is a really bad ability. "Wall of turrets" you're just grasping at straws now. I didn't say ghosts were bad in TvP. I said they were bad TvZ, and were overall nerfed too hard. You really have no idea what you're talking about. You clearly don't watch enough streams if you haven't seen Terrans using seeker missile. And your argument that because it isn't used means its not viable is what is grasping at straws. I remember beta when Terran only went blind viking and marine/marauder and didn't use ghost. If everyone thought like you Terrans would have never started using the ghost. I agree snipe was nerfed too hard but the ghost is still very much viable.
Did you even play in the beta? Most of the protoss players were rather producing colossus than high templars. Getting a ghost would mean that you would have to forget starport for medivacs and vikings which would then lead to a quick win for protoss player. Let's not also forget that ghost costs 100/200 which didn't allow you to support starport units and bio upgrades (cost later changed to 150/150 which was still too much gas that was taken by the ghost production to allow you to build starports).
This isn't even to say that the maps had hard to take 3rd bases to get more gas income.
|
On April 27 2012 18:00 KiLLJoy216 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2012 17:59 nOondn wrote:
Look like we got the big theorycraft guy who "watching stream" and not playing himself . Sorry to burst your bubble, I am in Masters. 
so what ? don't call you self master if you're not master on kr server -_-
|
On April 27 2012 17:56 KiLLJoy216 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2012 17:49 Naphal wrote:On April 27 2012 17:29 KiLLJoy216 wrote:On April 27 2012 17:21 Scila wrote:On April 27 2012 17:00 KiLLJoy216 wrote:On April 27 2012 16:56 Scila wrote:On April 27 2012 16:53 KiLLJoy216 wrote:On April 27 2012 16:46 Scila wrote:On April 27 2012 16:36 KiLLJoy216 wrote:On April 27 2012 15:47 acrimoneyius wrote:
[quote]
I know how to use them. If one storm lands successfully the battle is basically lost. How is that fair? You are completely correct. I mean how unfair is it that a tier 3 unit can kill a tier 1 unit so easily, something must be wrong. Tired of these bronze league players' opinions. You SHOULD be punished for only going marines when its 20 minutes into the game, and 1 storm won't kill an entire pack of marines if you know how to micro. This old argument would make sense if Terran's higher tier units were viable. Currently, they are not. Really? Ghosts, Vikings, Ravens seem pretty viable to me, just to mention some. Raven is underrated in my opinion. Ravens are not viable because SM is horrible. Battlecruisers are not viable. Thors are not viable versus Protoss, and somewhat viable against zerg. Ghosts have been nerfed into oblivion, and are only viable against Protoss. :/ seems like you just don't want to try new things. The seeker missile is really powerful when it lands, and the raven has other abilities too. You can make a wall with turrets to funnel zealots and the point defense drone is really good especially early game. Ghosts are really good TvP, don't see why people keep saying otherwise. They outrange templar with snipe and EMP is really effective. Seeker Missile is NEVER seen in proplay because it is a really bad ability. "Wall of turrets" you're just grasping at straws now. I didn't say ghosts were bad in TvP. I said they were bad TvZ, and were overall nerfed too hard. You really have no idea what you're talking about. You clearly don't want enough streams if you haven't seen Terrans using seeker missile. And your argument that because it isn't used means its not viable is what is grasping at straws. I remember beta when Terran only went blind viking and marine/marauder and didn't use ghost. If everyone thought like you Terrans would have never started using the ghost. I agree snipe was nerfed too hard but the ghost is still very much viable. you argue Ghosts win over HTs because of 1 range difference... then you proceed to say terran should make ravens, where HTs have 3 more range on feedback than seekermissile, while seekermissile can be dodged, a raven only has 1 shot (compared to 4 feedbacks or 2 storms for a maxed HT), the SM damage decreases a lot with distance of the impact, so if you hit, you hit mostly shields, EMP is superior in every way imaginable. you know, maybe just act according to your signature... i mean firstly you have not followed any prior balance discussion indicated how you are oblivious to the fact that several progamer stated their issues with this matchup on this very website, secondly please do not suggest halfassed ideas you just came up with, terran has been by far the most explored race, especially compared to protoss (even david kim says so in this blogpost xD) i do not know what has awoken you from your slumber (sudden surge of posts after long silence) but i guess you have not slept well. LOL. I never said to use the Ravens solely for seeker missile so stop assuming. And I've been watching many Protoss streams and templar always gets sniped before getting storm or feedback off. Oh and newsflash... Programmers don't have all the answes. This isn't the first time people have complained about balance. This has happened before and people find new strategies to deal with it. Thanks for the laugh.
well i guess i will act according to your signature, please stop making this thread worse with your clueless posting and attitude, i am guessing you hope some poor terran actually tries what you suggest on ladder, only to find out that "PF walls" and "turret walls to block zealots" have the same meaning as "surrender"
PFs are too big and block much needed biomicro, and ravens... well i am not going to repeat myself.
|
On April 27 2012 18:03 nOondn wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2012 18:00 KiLLJoy216 wrote:On April 27 2012 17:59 nOondn wrote:
Look like we got the big theorycraft guy who "watching stream" and not playing himself . Sorry to burst your bubble, I am in Masters. so what ? don't call you self master if you're not master on kr server -_-
lol? what the hell.. that means that noone in europe is GM eithier ebcause theya re not GM in Korea eithier... or anyone in silver is not really in silver as they are not silver in korea? lol
|
On April 27 2012 17:53 Asha` wrote:
Feeling justified for thinking that cloud kingdom is goddamn horrible =)
The map is an interesting case study though, I think it's one of the best examples of the disconnects between Terrans at different levels.
In Korea they're all pretty godly and are able to make it to around a 47% win rate in TvP despite the handicaps the map throws at them. Meanwhile international pros who lack some of the refinement of the Korean Terrans are humming along a bit lower at about 43%. Then the rest of us mere mortals are getting slaughtered with a spectacularly bad 30% win rate.
This is the crux of why there's a lot of disgruntled Terrans kicking around lately (at least within the match up), little jimmy ladder hero just isn't able to replicate the godly control and awareness of a top korean Terran, and while that's to be expected, the fall off in this particular match up is much bigger (certainly on big maps) than it is in others.
To echo the point that jimmy ladder heroes are getting stomped at particular levels, I loved the comment from David Kim that he is reading community discussion about the state of balance below pro level. I have a feeling this also includes the TL thread (now closed because it ran out of steam): Where did all the terrans go?
While we all agree that the pro level is most important, there should be available strategies for other leagues as well. Otherwise it's just not fun to play anymore. And as (pace statistics errors) sc2ranks stats showed, ladder populations were lacking terrans between Platinum and Diamond. Zergs were actually the most numerous, and Protoss (that has been the most populous race from the beginning) was also losing ground to Zergs.
While it might be the case that pro level balance requires a situation where Terran is the hardest to play at plat-diamond level, and Zerg is the easiest, it is nice that Kim is looking at ways to broaden balance at all levels of the game. Otherwise some people will have a significantly more impoverished experience playing sc2, where their skill seems devalued compared to their opponents, and the number of games versus other races are powerfully skewed (this is especially bad if your favourite MU is the one that is currently rare at your level).
|
United Kingdom38149 Posts
On April 27 2012 17:55 tomatriedes wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2012 17:19 Surgical_Strike wrote:On April 27 2012 17:12 Big J wrote:On April 27 2012 17:07 Surgical_Strike wrote:
there is an obvious problem with TvP matchup. It is even until storm charglots are out..and then it gets ugly... anyone denying this is either a biased protoss player or does not watch enough SC2. Id say that most likely storm needs to be nerfed... an idea i was thinking about is possibly giving ghosts stim so they could deal with chargelots a little better and not die because they are so slow during kiting... thus they could be massed easier and giving better opportunities to deny at least a few more storms. I have no idea if that would work but it would be interesting. Yeah, there is an obvious problem with TvP, and it's that Terrans try to make it look Protossfavored, when it is obviously=statistics not. um actually statistics say it is protoss favored and so do the highest level games. have fun with gsl pvp fest. http://www.gomtv.net/records/index.gom?page=1&searchType=3&race=T&vsrace=P&season=2012&leaguetype=20&leagueid=27062&gamever=0&mapid=0&Go=30
e: lol I'm an idiot
|
On April 27 2012 18:05 Naphal wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2012 17:56 KiLLJoy216 wrote:On April 27 2012 17:49 Naphal wrote:On April 27 2012 17:29 KiLLJoy216 wrote:On April 27 2012 17:21 Scila wrote:On April 27 2012 17:00 KiLLJoy216 wrote:On April 27 2012 16:56 Scila wrote:On April 27 2012 16:53 KiLLJoy216 wrote:On April 27 2012 16:46 Scila wrote:On April 27 2012 16:36 KiLLJoy216 wrote:
[quote]
You are completely correct. I mean how unfair is it that a tier 3 unit can kill a tier 1 unit so easily, something must be wrong. Tired of these bronze league players' opinions. You SHOULD be punished for only going marines when its 20 minutes into the game, and 1 storm won't kill an entire pack of marines if you know how to micro. This old argument would make sense if Terran's higher tier units were viable. Currently, they are not. Really? Ghosts, Vikings, Ravens seem pretty viable to me, just to mention some. Raven is underrated in my opinion. Ravens are not viable because SM is horrible. Battlecruisers are not viable. Thors are not viable versus Protoss, and somewhat viable against zerg. Ghosts have been nerfed into oblivion, and are only viable against Protoss. :/ seems like you just don't want to try new things. The seeker missile is really powerful when it lands, and the raven has other abilities too. You can make a wall with turrets to funnel zealots and the point defense drone is really good especially early game. Ghosts are really good TvP, don't see why people keep saying otherwise. They outrange templar with snipe and EMP is really effective. Seeker Missile is NEVER seen in proplay because it is a really bad ability. "Wall of turrets" you're just grasping at straws now. I didn't say ghosts were bad in TvP. I said they were bad TvZ, and were overall nerfed too hard. You really have no idea what you're talking about. You clearly don't want enough streams if you haven't seen Terrans using seeker missile. And your argument that because it isn't used means its not viable is what is grasping at straws. I remember beta when Terran only went blind viking and marine/marauder and didn't use ghost. If everyone thought like you Terrans would have never started using the ghost. I agree snipe was nerfed too hard but the ghost is still very much viable. you argue Ghosts win over HTs because of 1 range difference... then you proceed to say terran should make ravens, where HTs have 3 more range on feedback than seekermissile, while seekermissile can be dodged, a raven only has 1 shot (compared to 4 feedbacks or 2 storms for a maxed HT), the SM damage decreases a lot with distance of the impact, so if you hit, you hit mostly shields, EMP is superior in every way imaginable. you know, maybe just act according to your signature... i mean firstly you have not followed any prior balance discussion indicated how you are oblivious to the fact that several progamer stated their issues with this matchup on this very website, secondly please do not suggest halfassed ideas you just came up with, terran has been by far the most explored race, especially compared to protoss (even david kim says so in this blogpost xD) i do not know what has awoken you from your slumber (sudden surge of posts after long silence) but i guess you have not slept well. LOL. I never said to use the Ravens solely for seeker missile so stop assuming. And I've been watching many Protoss streams and templar always gets sniped before getting storm or feedback off. Oh and newsflash... Programmers don't have all the answes. This isn't the first time people have complained about balance. This has happened before and people find new strategies to deal with it. Thanks for the laugh. well i guess i will act according to your signature, please stop making this thread worse with your clueless posting and attitude, i am guessing you hope some poor terran actually tries what you suggest on ladder, only to find out that "PF walls" and "turret walls to block zealots" have the same meaning as "surrender" PFs are too big and block much needed biomicro, and ravens... well i am not going to repeat myself.
I am giving out solutions while all you can do is complain. I am the one being productive here unlike you. You don't agree with my solutions? Give out better ones. Stop adding to the problem and offer solutions. Those games in MLG semis and other tournies that were won with PF must have been an illusion than. You don't have to attack head on, you can drop. Stop being narrow minded. Think outside the box. Ciao
|
On April 27 2012 17:56 KiLLJoy216 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2012 17:49 Naphal wrote:On April 27 2012 17:29 KiLLJoy216 wrote:On April 27 2012 17:21 Scila wrote:On April 27 2012 17:00 KiLLJoy216 wrote:On April 27 2012 16:56 Scila wrote:On April 27 2012 16:53 KiLLJoy216 wrote:On April 27 2012 16:46 Scila wrote:On April 27 2012 16:36 KiLLJoy216 wrote:On April 27 2012 15:47 acrimoneyius wrote:
[quote]
I know how to use them. If one storm lands successfully the battle is basically lost. How is that fair? You are completely correct. I mean how unfair is it that a tier 3 unit can kill a tier 1 unit so easily, something must be wrong. Tired of these bronze league players' opinions. You SHOULD be punished for only going marines when its 20 minutes into the game, and 1 storm won't kill an entire pack of marines if you know how to micro. This old argument would make sense if Terran's higher tier units were viable. Currently, they are not. Really? Ghosts, Vikings, Ravens seem pretty viable to me, just to mention some. Raven is underrated in my opinion. Ravens are not viable because SM is horrible. Battlecruisers are not viable. Thors are not viable versus Protoss, and somewhat viable against zerg. Ghosts have been nerfed into oblivion, and are only viable against Protoss. :/ seems like you just don't want to try new things. The seeker missile is really powerful when it lands, and the raven has other abilities too. You can make a wall with turrets to funnel zealots and the point defense drone is really good especially early game. Ghosts are really good TvP, don't see why people keep saying otherwise. They outrange templar with snipe and EMP is really effective. Seeker Missile is NEVER seen in proplay because it is a really bad ability. "Wall of turrets" you're just grasping at straws now. I didn't say ghosts were bad in TvP. I said they were bad TvZ, and were overall nerfed too hard. You really have no idea what you're talking about. You clearly don't want enough streams if you haven't seen Terrans using seeker missile. And your argument that because it isn't used means its not viable is what is grasping at straws. I remember beta when Terran only went blind viking and marine/marauder and didn't use ghost. If everyone thought like you Terrans would have never started using the ghost. I agree snipe was nerfed too hard but the ghost is still very much viable. you argue Ghosts win over HTs because of 1 range difference... then you proceed to say terran should make ravens, where HTs have 3 more range on feedback than seekermissile, while seekermissile can be dodged, a raven only has 1 shot (compared to 4 feedbacks or 2 storms for a maxed HT), the SM damage decreases a lot with distance of the impact, so if you hit, you hit mostly shields, EMP is superior in every way imaginable. you know, maybe just act according to your signature... i mean firstly you have not followed any prior balance discussion indicated how you are oblivious to the fact that several progamer stated their issues with this matchup on this very website, secondly please do not suggest halfassed ideas you just came up with, terran has been by far the most explored race, especially compared to protoss (even david kim says so in this blogpost xD) i do not know what has awoken you from your slumber (sudden surge of posts after long silence) but i guess you have not slept well. LOL. I never said to use the Ravens solely for seeker missile so stop assuming. And I've been watching many Protoss streams and templar always gets sniped before getting storm or feedback off. Oh and newsflash... Programmers don't have all the answes. This isn't the first time people have complained about balance. This has happened before and people find new strategies to deal with it. Thanks for the laugh.
They're controlling their templars wrong. Watch some of Parting or Squirtle's (or other really top P) games. The trick is to put your templars in africa, then come from behind and storm mid-battle. Far too many P tries to get the advantage at the start and run their templars in at the front before the engagement.
The idea is, a T's army has to kite against Chargelots for maximum efficiency; But when they kite, guess what, ghosts can't kite. So they either let their ghost die, or leave them farther behind and have to come in at the EXACT right time to snipe/emp every templars; which is near impossible to do, as even if you're half a second off, storm gets off.
Seriously, there is no debate that P's late-game max army is easily superior to any T's late-game max army. The only debate around TvP balance atm seems to be whether T's strong early game makes up for their weak end-game.
|
I think they are in love with Protoss or something lol Im astounded they did not discuss the late game PvT statistics or maybe even the skill gap to some extent. I think this is what most terrans are getting annoyed about but still i think its good for zerg to get a chance to scout a little better vs T as i agree they seem to have to play blind a lot of the times and i don't believe that is a fair way to play in the early game.
|
On April 27 2012 17:53 Asha` wrote:
Feeling justified for thinking that cloud kingdom is goddamn horrible =)
The map is an interesting case study though, I think it's one of the best examples of the disconnects between Terrans at different levels.
In Korea they're all pretty godly and are able to make it to around a 47% win rate in TvP despite the handicaps the map throws at them. Meanwhile international pros who lack some of the refinement of the Korean Terrans are humming along a bit lower at about 43%. Then the rest of us mere mortals are getting slaughtered with a spectacularly bad 30% win rate.
This is the crux of why there's a lot of disgruntled Terrans kicking around lately (at least within the match up), little jimmy ladder hero just isn't able to replicate the godly control and awareness of a top korean Terran, and while that's to be expected, the fall off in this particular match up is much bigger (certainly on big maps) than it is in others.
i was about to veto it, but now i open 111 and setup with few scvs below the ramp with the destructible rocks, poking with banshees at minerals, seeing if i can siege their natural, if not, i trade as well as i can, expand, but continue to have at least 4-5 tanks, they are awesome at defending and because of the mapdesign they give me a real backbone when i push the natural or the 3rd, i could even do well without vikings for a bit because the tanks focussing the colossi make trades possible.
(low diamond only experience ^.- but it made the map far more enjoyable for me)
only map where tanks retain a certain value after 111 / 222 etc imo.
|
I feel that the TvP "issue" that some are complaining about is mainly related to the fact that protoss began to handle ghosts in late game rather recently, which make any type of current late game Terran strategy unadapted to the way the matchup has evolved. Give the Korean terrans more time, and they will find stuff that wins for sure.
|
On April 27 2012 18:11 Fubi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2012 17:56 KiLLJoy216 wrote:On April 27 2012 17:49 Naphal wrote:On April 27 2012 17:29 KiLLJoy216 wrote:On April 27 2012 17:21 Scila wrote:On April 27 2012 17:00 KiLLJoy216 wrote:On April 27 2012 16:56 Scila wrote:On April 27 2012 16:53 KiLLJoy216 wrote:On April 27 2012 16:46 Scila wrote:On April 27 2012 16:36 KiLLJoy216 wrote:
[quote]
You are completely correct. I mean how unfair is it that a tier 3 unit can kill a tier 1 unit so easily, something must be wrong. Tired of these bronze league players' opinions. You SHOULD be punished for only going marines when its 20 minutes into the game, and 1 storm won't kill an entire pack of marines if you know how to micro. This old argument would make sense if Terran's higher tier units were viable. Currently, they are not. Really? Ghosts, Vikings, Ravens seem pretty viable to me, just to mention some. Raven is underrated in my opinion. Ravens are not viable because SM is horrible. Battlecruisers are not viable. Thors are not viable versus Protoss, and somewhat viable against zerg. Ghosts have been nerfed into oblivion, and are only viable against Protoss. :/ seems like you just don't want to try new things. The seeker missile is really powerful when it lands, and the raven has other abilities too. You can make a wall with turrets to funnel zealots and the point defense drone is really good especially early game. Ghosts are really good TvP, don't see why people keep saying otherwise. They outrange templar with snipe and EMP is really effective. Seeker Missile is NEVER seen in proplay because it is a really bad ability. "Wall of turrets" you're just grasping at straws now. I didn't say ghosts were bad in TvP. I said they were bad TvZ, and were overall nerfed too hard. You really have no idea what you're talking about. You clearly don't want enough streams if you haven't seen Terrans using seeker missile. And your argument that because it isn't used means its not viable is what is grasping at straws. I remember beta when Terran only went blind viking and marine/marauder and didn't use ghost. If everyone thought like you Terrans would have never started using the ghost. I agree snipe was nerfed too hard but the ghost is still very much viable. you argue Ghosts win over HTs because of 1 range difference... then you proceed to say terran should make ravens, where HTs have 3 more range on feedback than seekermissile, while seekermissile can be dodged, a raven only has 1 shot (compared to 4 feedbacks or 2 storms for a maxed HT), the SM damage decreases a lot with distance of the impact, so if you hit, you hit mostly shields, EMP is superior in every way imaginable. you know, maybe just act according to your signature... i mean firstly you have not followed any prior balance discussion indicated how you are oblivious to the fact that several progamer stated their issues with this matchup on this very website, secondly please do not suggest halfassed ideas you just came up with, terran has been by far the most explored race, especially compared to protoss (even david kim says so in this blogpost xD) i do not know what has awoken you from your slumber (sudden surge of posts after long silence) but i guess you have not slept well. LOL. I never said to use the Ravens solely for seeker missile so stop assuming. And I've been watching many Protoss streams and templar always gets sniped before getting storm or feedback off. Oh and newsflash... Programmers don't have all the answes. This isn't the first time people have complained about balance. This has happened before and people find new strategies to deal with it. Thanks for the laugh. They're controlling their templars wrong. Watch some of Parting or Squirtle's (or other really top P) games. The trick is to put your templars in africa, then come from behind and storm mid-battle. Far too many P tries to get the advantage at the start and run their templars in at the front before the engagement. The idea is, a T's army has to kite against Chargelots for maximum efficiency; But when they kite, guess what, ghosts can't kite. So they either let their ghost die, or leave them farther behind and have to come in at the EXACT right time to snipe/emp every templars; which is near impossible to do, as even if you're half a second off, storm gets off. Seriously, there is no debate that P's late-game max army is easily superior to any T's late-game max army. The only debate around TvP balance atm seems to be whether T's strong early game makes up for their weak end-game.
I agree with this post 99%. Only thing I would say could be debated is the templar placement. Terran then just need better ghost placement, and can use medivac to pick them up and move them etc. Use Terrans extreme mobility. Just food for thought.
|
some of these comments here... Calm down nerds. It's pretty balanced, the only problem I see with TvP is that Terran doesnt have any good high tier units to combat the rediculous compositions of protoss, but mind you
Terran has a way better midgame
and
It takes protoss a lot of time to get all the tech up.
Don't ONLY focus on the end game, there are plenty of moments in the game where terran can get ahead aswell.
As for the maps : I totally agree, as long as 1 race isnt completely dominating a map, its fine. Even a 30% or 70% is fine, as long as 2 of the 3 maps in a Bo3 even eachother out.
|
On April 27 2012 18:08 Asha` wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2012 17:55 tomatriedes wrote:On April 27 2012 17:19 Surgical_Strike wrote:On April 27 2012 17:12 Big J wrote:On April 27 2012 17:07 Surgical_Strike wrote:
there is an obvious problem with TvP matchup. It is even until storm charglots are out..and then it gets ugly... anyone denying this is either a biased protoss player or does not watch enough SC2. Id say that most likely storm needs to be nerfed... an idea i was thinking about is possibly giving ghosts stim so they could deal with chargelots a little better and not die because they are so slow during kiting... thus they could be massed easier and giving better opportunities to deny at least a few more storms. I have no idea if that would work but it would be interesting. Yeah, there is an obvious problem with TvP, and it's that Terrans try to make it look Protossfavored, when it is obviously=statistics not. um actually statistics say it is protoss favored and so do the highest level games. have fun with gsl pvp fest. http://www.gomtv.net/records/index.gom?page=1&searchType=3&race=T&vsrace=P&season=2012&leaguetype=20&leagueid=27062&gamever=0&mapid=0&Go=30 This keeps bugging me, how do they both have over 50% match ratio against each other. And how do Protoss have almost twice as many recorded games against T as T does against P. >_< Incidentally if you search the other way around they both have under 50% against each and T is the one with twice as many games. Gom fix yo stats page ><
What are you talking about? I don't know what you're doing wrong, but this is what it looks like for me:
http://s11.postimage.org/xz6cosjmb/stats1.jpg
http://s13.postimage.org/f9y9bjaxz/stats2.jpg
We clearly see that Protoss is 20-25 against Terran this season. That is consistent either way you search.
|
I understand that zergs need better scout options, but what about zvt lategame? Broodlord infestor corruptor is EXTREMELY cost-efficiënt, and I NEVER saw a terran that was NOT ahead beat it.
|
I'm surprised to see so few zergs in the highest spheres, lately. No zergs left in the GSL code S for example :O
|
On April 27 2012 17:55 tomatriedes wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2012 17:19 Surgical_Strike wrote:On April 27 2012 17:12 Big J wrote:On April 27 2012 17:07 Surgical_Strike wrote:
there is an obvious problem with TvP matchup. It is even until storm charglots are out..and then it gets ugly... anyone denying this is either a biased protoss player or does not watch enough SC2. Id say that most likely storm needs to be nerfed... an idea i was thinking about is possibly giving ghosts stim so they could deal with chargelots a little better and not die because they are so slow during kiting... thus they could be massed easier and giving better opportunities to deny at least a few more storms. I have no idea if that would work but it would be interesting. Yeah, there is an obvious problem with TvP, and it's that Terrans try to make it look Protossfavored, when it is obviously=statistics not. um actually statistics say it is protoss favored and so do the highest level games. have fun with gsl pvp fest. No they don't. It's actually Terran > protoss both in Korea and internationally at tournament level and also in this season's GSL. Why not try actually looking at statistics rather than just making stuff up? http://imgur.com/a/XmBDVand http://www.gomtv.net/records/index.gom?page=1&searchType=3&race=T&vsrace=P&season=2012&leaguetype=20&leagueid=27062&gamever=0&mapid=0&Go=30
I don't know why people keep brining up the stats. The stats for TvP only appears balanced because most of the Ts just do an all-in or some early stim-timing in order to win. I don't call that balance really, when one side is forced to play with a timer, while the other side just has to defend well to win; it's ridiculously frustrating and not fun to both play or watch.
|
On April 27 2012 18:09 KiLLJoy216 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2012 18:05 Naphal wrote:On April 27 2012 17:56 KiLLJoy216 wrote:On April 27 2012 17:49 Naphal wrote:On April 27 2012 17:29 KiLLJoy216 wrote:On April 27 2012 17:21 Scila wrote:On April 27 2012 17:00 KiLLJoy216 wrote:On April 27 2012 16:56 Scila wrote:On April 27 2012 16:53 KiLLJoy216 wrote:On April 27 2012 16:46 Scila wrote:
[quote]
This old argument would make sense if Terran's higher tier units were viable. Currently, they are not. Really? Ghosts, Vikings, Ravens seem pretty viable to me, just to mention some. Raven is underrated in my opinion. Ravens are not viable because SM is horrible. Battlecruisers are not viable. Thors are not viable versus Protoss, and somewhat viable against zerg. Ghosts have been nerfed into oblivion, and are only viable against Protoss. :/ seems like you just don't want to try new things. The seeker missile is really powerful when it lands, and the raven has other abilities too. You can make a wall with turrets to funnel zealots and the point defense drone is really good especially early game. Ghosts are really good TvP, don't see why people keep saying otherwise. They outrange templar with snipe and EMP is really effective. Seeker Missile is NEVER seen in proplay because it is a really bad ability. "Wall of turrets" you're just grasping at straws now. I didn't say ghosts were bad in TvP. I said they were bad TvZ, and were overall nerfed too hard. You really have no idea what you're talking about. You clearly don't want enough streams if you haven't seen Terrans using seeker missile. And your argument that because it isn't used means its not viable is what is grasping at straws. I remember beta when Terran only went blind viking and marine/marauder and didn't use ghost. If everyone thought like you Terrans would have never started using the ghost. I agree snipe was nerfed too hard but the ghost is still very much viable. you argue Ghosts win over HTs because of 1 range difference... then you proceed to say terran should make ravens, where HTs have 3 more range on feedback than seekermissile, while seekermissile can be dodged, a raven only has 1 shot (compared to 4 feedbacks or 2 storms for a maxed HT), the SM damage decreases a lot with distance of the impact, so if you hit, you hit mostly shields, EMP is superior in every way imaginable. you know, maybe just act according to your signature... i mean firstly you have not followed any prior balance discussion indicated how you are oblivious to the fact that several progamer stated their issues with this matchup on this very website, secondly please do not suggest halfassed ideas you just came up with, terran has been by far the most explored race, especially compared to protoss (even david kim says so in this blogpost xD) i do not know what has awoken you from your slumber (sudden surge of posts after long silence) but i guess you have not slept well. LOL. I never said to use the Ravens solely for seeker missile so stop assuming. And I've been watching many Protoss streams and templar always gets sniped before getting storm or feedback off. Oh and newsflash... Programmers don't have all the answes. This isn't the first time people have complained about balance. This has happened before and people find new strategies to deal with it. Thanks for the laugh. well i guess i will act according to your signature, please stop making this thread worse with your clueless posting and attitude, i am guessing you hope some poor terran actually tries what you suggest on ladder, only to find out that "PF walls" and "turret walls to block zealots" have the same meaning as "surrender" PFs are too big and block much needed biomicro, and ravens... well i am not going to repeat myself. I am giving out solutions while all you can do is complain. I am the one being productive here unlike you. You don't agree with my solutions? Give out better ones. Stop adding to the problem and offer solutions. Those games in MLG semis and other tournies that were won with PF must have been an illusion than. You don't have to attack head on, you can drop. Stop being narrow minded. Think outside the box. Ciao
Think outside the box! Drops! Holy nuts! Really? I read your "solutions" and am trying not to laugh. It's so evident that you've never actually tried any of these pro strats out. WTF is a wall of turrets to funnel zealots. How does that even make sense in theory crafting? Any standard Protoss deathball will just demolish your turret wall with collosus instead of herp derping all their zealots into your cannon D maze or w/e you are proposing. I've seen streamers try to use ravens, I've tried to include 3-5 ravens late game. All the raven spells are really short range. 1 Feedback kills your raven outright, there goes 200 gas worth of a shit unit and however more you wasted into the upgrades. All the while that templar is smashing together with another templar that just killed 50 supply of marines while you were trying to snipe them, and now they make an archon which is ready to tank 20 some maurader shots and probably kill another 10 units. zz
|
On April 27 2012 18:17 HolyArrow wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2012 18:08 Asha` wrote:On April 27 2012 17:55 tomatriedes wrote:On April 27 2012 17:19 Surgical_Strike wrote:On April 27 2012 17:12 Big J wrote:On April 27 2012 17:07 Surgical_Strike wrote:
there is an obvious problem with TvP matchup. It is even until storm charglots are out..and then it gets ugly... anyone denying this is either a biased protoss player or does not watch enough SC2. Id say that most likely storm needs to be nerfed... an idea i was thinking about is possibly giving ghosts stim so they could deal with chargelots a little better and not die because they are so slow during kiting... thus they could be massed easier and giving better opportunities to deny at least a few more storms. I have no idea if that would work but it would be interesting. Yeah, there is an obvious problem with TvP, and it's that Terrans try to make it look Protossfavored, when it is obviously=statistics not. um actually statistics say it is protoss favored and so do the highest level games. have fun with gsl pvp fest. http://www.gomtv.net/records/index.gom?page=1&searchType=3&race=T&vsrace=P&season=2012&leaguetype=20&leagueid=27062&gamever=0&mapid=0&Go=30 This keeps bugging me, how do they both have over 50% match ratio against each other. And how do Protoss have almost twice as many recorded games against T as T does against P. >_< Incidentally if you search the other way around they both have under 50% against each and T is the one with twice as many games. Gom fix yo stats page >< What are you talking about? I don't know what you're doing wrong, but this is what it looks like for me: http://s11.postimage.org/xz6cosjmb/stats1.jpghttp://s13.postimage.org/f9y9bjaxz/stats2.jpgWe clearly see that Protoss is 20-25 against Terran this season. That is consistent either way you search.
He thought set win ratio was the win rate for Protoss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
