|
This thread is going nowhere and I'm tired of dealing with it. Either drop the personal attacks and whining and replace it with actual discussion or it'll be closed.
12:09 KST Page 98 |
On June 23 2012 02:32 Thenerf wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2012 01:21 Haustka wrote:On June 23 2012 01:17 dvorakftw wrote:On June 23 2012 00:47 Cyro wrote:
1 month isnt enough. Give it 3, maybe 6. Hey, let's double the health and S for marines and give it six months to let Zerg and Protoss figure out new builds for the metagame. do you see zerg dominating every single game? Last time I checked, Dreamhack, protoss mana won vs Dimaga Zerg. be realistic please Which I still don't understand how protoss all of a sudden took the lead in performance. I watch the games and I still don't believe it. WHY AREN'T WE TALKING ABOUT THE OBSERVER BUFF!
Because the Observer buff has exactly nothing to do with why a Protoss won Dreamhack. He 2based pretty much every PvZ.
|
On June 23 2012 01:33 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2012 00:50 bLo0d wrote:On June 23 2012 00:27 Doodsmack wrote:On June 23 2012 00:10 SupLilSon wrote:On June 23 2012 00:04 Doodsmack wrote:On June 22 2012 23:54 SupLilSon wrote:On June 22 2012 23:11 Doodsmack wrote:On June 22 2012 22:55 CakeSauc3 wrote:On June 22 2012 22:50 Doodsmack wrote:
Would love to see the replays of the people crying in this thread. Their minerals probably skyrocket to 2000 when theyre doing things with their army on the map on only 2 bases LOL. Yeah the reason you lost was because of balance, not your horrible mechanics.
If you're not high master, then shut the fuck up about balance and get better because at your level, player skill level is far more determinative than balance. Only when both players possess near-optimal mechanics does balance become determinative. It's how Starcraft fucking works, if you don't understand that the sorry but you're unintelligent. Regardless of whether or not you're high masters, Zerg still benefits from the buffs. And believe it or not, all players get matched up to players who are at a similar level of play. So balance does affect gameplay even at a lower level, and even as early as high platinum are players smart enough to take advantage of these buffs that they've received. Some of us aren't out to become the best player in the world - we just enjoy playing the game, but patches like these ruin it for us. Thanks for calling the majority of Starcraft 2 players unintelligent, have a nice day. You didn't address my point. At skill levels lower than high master, an improvement in mechanics far outweighs game balance. If you're platinum then you're doing so many things wrong that balance is just one small factor in your games. I am mid master and when I play against diamond or below zergs and tosses, I crush them with mass marine 98% of the time. Why can't you do the same? Because your mechanics are FUCKING TERRIBLE. Yesterday I beat a mid master toss with mass marine on daybreak. I opened triple orbital, and powered up marines and Protoss did not have sufficient skill level to defend all 3 of his bases. Balance did not factor in at all. There's a reason why pro Terrans don't bother analyze replays of warm up games that were losses. The poor mechanics dictate that the decision making and tactics were mostly irrelevant. I cringe every time I see posts like this, oozing with self - righteousness. I looked you up and you are barely mid master so GTFO talking other people down about terrible mechanics. I guess by your logic, only TBLS can complain about balance. All these code S losers just need to get better. So you looked up my account that has like 5 ladder games the past 3 seasons and somehow determined my MMR, and implied that you have to be at a high skill level in order to understand that only high masters have near-optimal mechanics. Then you claimed that when I referred to high masters it's equivalent to referring to Code S players. Hopefully that post was a fluke and not indicative of your intelligence level. No, I looked at your last season also where you were something like 400 points master, which is pretty shitty. I'm just laughing at the fact that you set some arbitrary cutoff at "high-master" as the point where people can talk about balance. I was making fun of your post by pointing out that many top SC2 players have poor mechanics in comparison to their BW counterparts, but that doesn't stop them from talking balance. The only one showing a lack of intelligence and reasoning is you. 400 points after how many games? What was my bonus pool remaining? Did you look at my opponents' points? How do you know my MMR then? Do you consider yourself a smart person? BW players are irrelevant to this discussion. I'm talking about near-optimal SC2 mechanics, not BW mechanics. And I didn't say sub-high master players can't talk about balance in general. I said they shouldn't blame their losses on balance. Reading comprehension. I don't understand how you say below high master mechanics outweigh balance, which is obviously true and is nothing new, but then say that pro terrans don't look at replays because their poor mechanics make their decision making and tactics irrelevant? Wouldn't it be the complete opposite? Also, why bother even bringing up that low level players have bad mechanics as if you brilliantly realized it and are enlightening everyone with your discovery. Everyone knows this. And why is it weird that he would think you could be talking about Code S players when the post before that you said "pro terrans"? And you're mid masters, how are you trying to use number of games and bonus pool to try to manipulate that? I said pro Terrans wouldn't analyze replays of their warm up games. And I didn't just point out that people below high master have poor mechanics. I pointed that people below high master shouldn't complain about balance in their own games because their poor mechanics are more determinative. Suplilson, I'll do you the favor of not quoting your last two posts because they clearly show that when your reading comprehension has failed so miserably your only option is to just stop addressing my points lol.
You don't even have a point. Your posts were all bragging about how you can beat lower skilled player using unorthodox strategies and setting your own special guidelines for who can complain about balance and who can not. Aside from that, all you do is try to insult a few people's intelligence and reading comprehension skills.
|
On June 23 2012 02:27 Mjolnir wrote:
For the sake of the game you should give more time to players trying to adapt to these changes.
Far too often has the SC2 community flipped out and reacted to a strat to have something nerfed into oblivion before (or during) the point where players have learned ways to deal with it.
This sort of knee-jerk reaction is the reason Terran makes reapers once every 1000 games (that's one example).
The thing is, the queen buff was completely unwarranted. It wasn't overpowered before, the game was at a good place and most people where very happy. Why should we have to adapt to the game getting ruined for no reason?
|
On June 23 2012 01:23 Zanno wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2012 01:21 Haustka wrote:On June 23 2012 01:17 dvorakftw wrote:On June 23 2012 00:47 Cyro wrote:
1 month isnt enough. Give it 3, maybe 6. Hey, let's double the health and S for marines and give it six months to let Zerg and Protoss figure out new builds for the metagame. do you see zerg dominating every single game? Last time I checked, Dreamhack, protoss mana won vs Dimaga Zerg. be realistic please that is a very interesting point to make in a thread about TvZ in korea
Most recent GSL group 2 terrans advanced over a protoss and a zerg ^^
|
Why are so many defending this buff to queens? TvZ was one of the most balanced matchups there was and then comes Blizzard, throws in a last minute buff to queen range and destroys helions from the matchup.
Yes I can run past them queens like all the pro zergs suggest, but what then? If I fuck up and don't kill enough drones I just lost 800+ minerals for nothing and I can just gg right there or wait for the roach/bane all-in.
Same happened with reapers (ok they were op as fuck tough).
So we just have to adapt like everyone suggests? Or are they suggesting we need to forget that helions exist like we did with reapers? Cause thats what seems to be the trend, learn new builds and stfu. "You were op year ago, so you deserve it".
But hey let's lose horribly on the ladder for 3months and wait for the korean pro's to show us how to do it.
|
On June 23 2012 02:27 Mjolnir wrote:
For the sake of the game you should give more time to players trying to adapt to these changes.
Far too often has the SC2 community flipped out and reacted to a strat to have something nerfed into oblivion before (or during) the point where players have learned ways to deal with it.
This sort of knee-jerk reaction is the reason Terran makes reapers once every 1000 games (that's one example).
Hi Mjolnir, you picked a really nice nickname!
And furthermore, you picked a really bad example. If you are honestly believing terrans do not use reapers out of frustration, then this should be true for protoss not using carrriers and zerg neglecting hydras.
If you are willing to try to understand the reactions among the terran community, I wanna try to give you an other example / analogy to think about:
So imagine you and your brother/sister/cat receiving pocket money by your parents. Each of you get 50 bucks a month. Suddenly, your parents decide to give your brother/sister/cat 60, while you get 40. How would you think about it?
What I mean by this: Maybe the knee-jerk reactions are caused from a knee-jerk patch?
|
On June 23 2012 02:35 Horseballs wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2012 02:27 Mjolnir wrote:
For the sake of the game you should give more time to players trying to adapt to these changes.
Far too often has the SC2 community flipped out and reacted to a strat to have something nerfed into oblivion before (or during) the point where players have learned ways to deal with it.
This sort of knee-jerk reaction is the reason Terran makes reapers once every 1000 games (that's one example).
The thing is, the queen buff was completely unwarranted. It wasn't overpowered before, the game was at a good place and most people where very happy. Why should we have to adapt to the game getting ruined for no reason?
I won't pretend to understand the logic behind the decision made by the SC2 balancing team. God knows how much I've raged at the stupid shit they've done in the past - I could write a list of the changes that I feel are asinine and have made the game less enjoyable and more homogeneous.
I will say that hellion openers really became the go-to strat in a TvZ. They were also really, really strong. If the opener worked, it was usually gg. Maybe they want Terran to switch it up a big, or make it so hellions aren't deciding the game outcome in the first 5 minutes even though it isn't a rush tactic. I don't know.
All I know is that in the past, when people have flipped out over a tactic and it has been changed, the game has become less interesting because of it (like my reaper example).
As it stands now, hellions are still useful, it's just easier to defend them and Zerg isn't forced to make spines and roaches to do so successfully.
I say this as a Terran and Zerg player. I am seeing both sides of this match up. I don't believe queens are game-breaking and I feel that some of the recent Zerg tournament wins are due to exemplary play more than they are due to queens giving Zerg and advantage early.
For instance, at the most recent MLG:
+ Show Spoiler +DRG vs. MKP - semi-finals
People are using this series as an example of how broken queens are - however this series was a good, close set of games. In the games MKP lost, there were constant army trades and it could have gone either way. MKP actually engaged in one battle when he was floating 2400! minerals. Most of his engagements (his initiation) he was floating over 1k in minerals. If he spent that, he won the game. DRG played very well, MKP screwed up.
I mention this series because everyone seems to use it as the glaring example of how OP queens are. It's not.
|
On June 23 2012 02:41 Tryagain4free wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2012 02:27 Mjolnir wrote:
For the sake of the game you should give more time to players trying to adapt to these changes.
Far too often has the SC2 community flipped out and reacted to a strat to have something nerfed into oblivion before (or during) the point where players have learned ways to deal with it.
This sort of knee-jerk reaction is the reason Terran makes reapers once every 1000 games (that's one example).
Hi Mjolnir, you picked a really nice nickname! And furthermore, you picked a really bad example. If you are honestly believing terrans do not use reapers out of frustration, then this should be true for protoss not using carrriers and zerg neglecting hydras. If you are willing to try to understand the reactions among the terran community, I wanna try to give you an other example / analogy to think about: So imagine you and your brother/sister/cat receiving pocket money by your parents. Each of you get 50 bucks a month. Suddenly, your parents decide to give your brother/sister/cat 60, while you get 40. How would you think about it? What I mean by this: Maybe the knee-jerk reactions are caused from a knee-jerk patch?
Dude, I play Terran. A lot. Master league. I have been hit with the nerf bat as much as any of the rest of you have.
I do not believe that queens are overpowered now.
I also don't understand your analogy between reapers and carriers and hydras. Perhaps I wasn't clear in the post you're referring to because I'm tending to think we're actually in agreement about this particular point.
Again, I'm not saying I "get it", I'm just saying that wanting a change so quickly (before people have had time to deal with it) has not been a great hope for two reasons:
1) Blizzard SC2 devs are stubborn and it probably won't happen
2) In the past knee-jerk reactions have resulted in highly unfavourable changes (especially for Terran)
That's all. I get the frustration - I play Terran. It's different; but I don't feel it's as broken as others believe. I also think we have some amazing Zerg performances lately that are skewing tournament results and/or altering the opinions of how the match up is viewed (see previous post).
EDIT: Grammar fail.
|
On June 23 2012 02:34 SupLilSon wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2012 01:33 Doodsmack wrote:On June 23 2012 00:50 bLo0d wrote:On June 23 2012 00:27 Doodsmack wrote:On June 23 2012 00:10 SupLilSon wrote:On June 23 2012 00:04 Doodsmack wrote:On June 22 2012 23:54 SupLilSon wrote:On June 22 2012 23:11 Doodsmack wrote:On June 22 2012 22:55 CakeSauc3 wrote:On June 22 2012 22:50 Doodsmack wrote:
Would love to see the replays of the people crying in this thread. Their minerals probably skyrocket to 2000 when theyre doing things with their army on the map on only 2 bases LOL. Yeah the reason you lost was because of balance, not your horrible mechanics.
If you're not high master, then shut the fuck up about balance and get better because at your level, player skill level is far more determinative than balance. Only when both players possess near-optimal mechanics does balance become determinative. It's how Starcraft fucking works, if you don't understand that the sorry but you're unintelligent. Regardless of whether or not you're high masters, Zerg still benefits from the buffs. And believe it or not, all players get matched up to players who are at a similar level of play. So balance does affect gameplay even at a lower level, and even as early as high platinum are players smart enough to take advantage of these buffs that they've received. Some of us aren't out to become the best player in the world - we just enjoy playing the game, but patches like these ruin it for us. Thanks for calling the majority of Starcraft 2 players unintelligent, have a nice day. You didn't address my point. At skill levels lower than high master, an improvement in mechanics far outweighs game balance. If you're platinum then you're doing so many things wrong that balance is just one small factor in your games. I am mid master and when I play against diamond or below zergs and tosses, I crush them with mass marine 98% of the time. Why can't you do the same? Because your mechanics are FUCKING TERRIBLE. Yesterday I beat a mid master toss with mass marine on daybreak. I opened triple orbital, and powered up marines and Protoss did not have sufficient skill level to defend all 3 of his bases. Balance did not factor in at all. There's a reason why pro Terrans don't bother analyze replays of warm up games that were losses. The poor mechanics dictate that the decision making and tactics were mostly irrelevant. I cringe every time I see posts like this, oozing with self - righteousness. I looked you up and you are barely mid master so GTFO talking other people down about terrible mechanics. I guess by your logic, only TBLS can complain about balance. All these code S losers just need to get better. So you looked up my account that has like 5 ladder games the past 3 seasons and somehow determined my MMR, and implied that you have to be at a high skill level in order to understand that only high masters have near-optimal mechanics. Then you claimed that when I referred to high masters it's equivalent to referring to Code S players. Hopefully that post was a fluke and not indicative of your intelligence level No, I looked at your last season also where you were something like 400 points master, which is pretty shitty. I'm just laughing at the fact that you set some arbitrary cutoff at "high-master" as the point where people can talk about balance. I was making fun of your post by pointing out that many top SC2 players have poor mechanics in comparison to their BW counterparts, but that doesn't stop them from talking balance. The only one showing a lack of intelligence and reasoning is you. 400 points after how many games? What was my bonus pool remaining? Did you look at my opponents' points? How do you know my MMR then? Do you consider yourself a smart person? BW players are irrelevant to this discussion. I'm talking about near-optimal SC2 mechanics, not BW mechanics. And I didn't say sub-high master players can't talk about balance in general. I said they shouldn't blame their losses on balance. Reading comprehension. I don't understand how you say below high master mechanics outweigh balance, which is obviously true and is nothing new, but then say that pro terrans don't look at replays because their poor mechanics make their decision making and tactics irrelevant? Wouldn't it be the complete opposite? Also, why bother even bringing up that low level players have bad mechanics as if you brilliantly realized it and are enlightening everyone with your discovery. Everyone knows this. And why is it weird that he would think you could be talking about Code S players when the post before that you said "pro terrans"? And you're mid masters, how are you trying to use number of games and bonus pool to try to manipulate that? I said pro Terrans wouldn't analyze replays of their warm up games. And I didn't just point out that people below high master have poor mechanics. I pointed that people below high master shouldn't complain about balance in their own games because their poor mechanics are more determinative. Suplilson, I'll do you the favor of not quoting your last two posts because they clearly show that when your reading comprehension has failed so miserably your only option is to just stop addressing my points lol. You don't even have a point. Your posts were all bragging about how you can beat lower skilled player using unorthodox strategies and setting your own special guidelines for who can complain about balance and who can not. Aside from that, all you do is try to insult a few people's intelligence and reading comprehension skills.
And once again you prove that you don't understand what I said. Kind of funny when you try to make an argument and someone responds with such conviction even though they actually don't comprehend the relatively simple points you're making LOL. I also specifically remember seeing posts from you in other threads where you clearly were missing the point. I guess at some point I should feel sorry for you and stop responding although if you're in high school or something I maybe can understand.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On June 23 2012 02:49 Mjolnir wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2012 02:35 Horseballs wrote:On June 23 2012 02:27 Mjolnir wrote:
For the sake of the game you should give more time to players trying to adapt to these changes.
Far too often has the SC2 community flipped out and reacted to a strat to have something nerfed into oblivion before (or during) the point where players have learned ways to deal with it.
This sort of knee-jerk reaction is the reason Terran makes reapers once every 1000 games (that's one example).
The thing is, the queen buff was completely unwarranted. It wasn't overpowered before, the game was at a good place and most people where very happy. Why should we have to adapt to the game getting ruined for no reason? I won't pretend to understand the logic behind the decision made by the SC2 balancing team. God knows how much I've raged at the stupid shit they've done in the past - I could write a list of the changes that I feel are asinine and have made the game less enjoyable and more homogeneous. I will say that hellion openers really became the go-to strat in a TvZ. They were also really, really strong. If the opener worked, it was usually gg. Maybe they want Terran to switch it up a big, or make it so hellions aren't deciding the game outcome in the first 5 minutes even though it isn't a rush tactic. I don't know. All I know is that in the past, when people have flipped out over a tactic and it has been changed, the game has become less interesting because of it (like my reaper example). As it stands now, hellions are still useful, it's just easier to defend them and Zerg isn't forced to make spines and roaches to do so successfully. I say this as a Terran and Zerg player. I am seeing both sides of this match up. I don't believe queens are game-breaking and I feel that some of the recent Zerg tournament wins are due to exemplary play more than they are due to queens giving Zerg and advantage early. For instance, at the most recent MLG: + Show Spoiler +DRG vs. MKP - semi-finals
People are using this series as an example of how broken queens are - however this series was a good, close set of games. In the games MKP lost, there were constant army trades and it could have gone either way. MKP actually engaged in one battle when he was floating 2400! minerals. Most of his engagements (his initiation) he was floating over 1k in minerals. If he spent that, he won the game. DRG played very well, MKP screwed up.
I mention this series because everyone seems to use it as the glaring example of how OP queens are. It's not.
You realize that DRG vs MKP game in MLG, the first game MKP only lost because he could not land his 4th base since it was covered by creep 10 min in, right? Realized that there is no way he could compete DRG in a macro game, he went proxy Rax and got caught second game. So the queen buff is the direct reason why DRG won against MKP that series.
EDIT: After his Ro32 win interview, MKP said so himself that after Stephano series, he believed he had no chance against DRG because DRG was stronger player than Stephano. He might actually be right.
|
On June 23 2012 03:01 ragz_gt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2012 02:49 Mjolnir wrote:On June 23 2012 02:35 Horseballs wrote:On June 23 2012 02:27 Mjolnir wrote:
For the sake of the game you should give more time to players trying to adapt to these changes.
Far too often has the SC2 community flipped out and reacted to a strat to have something nerfed into oblivion before (or during) the point where players have learned ways to deal with it.
This sort of knee-jerk reaction is the reason Terran makes reapers once every 1000 games (that's one example).
The thing is, the queen buff was completely unwarranted. It wasn't overpowered before, the game was at a good place and most people where very happy. Why should we have to adapt to the game getting ruined for no reason? I won't pretend to understand the logic behind the decision made by the SC2 balancing team. God knows how much I've raged at the stupid shit they've done in the past - I could write a list of the changes that I feel are asinine and have made the game less enjoyable and more homogeneous. I will say that hellion openers really became the go-to strat in a TvZ. They were also really, really strong. If the opener worked, it was usually gg. Maybe they want Terran to switch it up a big, or make it so hellions aren't deciding the game outcome in the first 5 minutes even though it isn't a rush tactic. I don't know. All I know is that in the past, when people have flipped out over a tactic and it has been changed, the game has become less interesting because of it (like my reaper example). As it stands now, hellions are still useful, it's just easier to defend them and Zerg isn't forced to make spines and roaches to do so successfully. I say this as a Terran and Zerg player. I am seeing both sides of this match up. I don't believe queens are game-breaking and I feel that some of the recent Zerg tournament wins are due to exemplary play more than they are due to queens giving Zerg and advantage early. For instance, at the most recent MLG: + Show Spoiler +DRG vs. MKP - semi-finals
People are using this series as an example of how broken queens are - however this series was a good, close set of games. In the games MKP lost, there were constant army trades and it could have gone either way. MKP actually engaged in one battle when he was floating 2400! minerals. Most of his engagements (his initiation) he was floating over 1k in minerals. If he spent that, he won the game. DRG played very well, MKP screwed up.
I mention this series because everyone seems to use it as the glaring example of how OP queens are. It's not.
You realize that DRG vs MKP game in MLG, the first game MKP only lost because he could not land his 4th base since it was covered by creep 10 min in, right? Realized that there is no way he could compete DRG in a macro game, he went proxy Rax and got caught second game. So the queen buff is the direct reason why DRG won against MKP that series. EDIT: After his Ro32 win interview, MKP said so himself that after Stephano series, he believed he had no chance against DRG because DRG was stronger player than Stephano. He might actually be right.
That sounds way more like a lesson that one ought to check potential expansions before expanding, not that the queen buff won DRG the Bo3 against MKP.
|
On June 23 2012 02:49 Mjolnir wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2012 02:35 Horseballs wrote:On June 23 2012 02:27 Mjolnir wrote:
For the sake of the game you should give more time to players trying to adapt to these changes.
Far too often has the SC2 community flipped out and reacted to a strat to have something nerfed into oblivion before (or during) the point where players have learned ways to deal with it.
This sort of knee-jerk reaction is the reason Terran makes reapers once every 1000 games (that's one example).
The thing is, the queen buff was completely unwarranted. It wasn't overpowered before, the game was at a good place and most people where very happy. Why should we have to adapt to the game getting ruined for no reason? I won't pretend to understand the logic behind the decision made by the SC2 balancing team. God knows how much I've raged at the stupid shit they've done in the past - I could write a list of the changes that I feel are asinine and have made the game less enjoyable and more homogeneous. I will say that hellion openers really became the go-to strat in a TvZ. They were also really, really strong. If the opener worked, it was usually gg. Maybe they want Terran to switch it up a big, or make it so hellions aren't deciding the game outcome in the first 5 minutes even though it isn't a rush tactic. I don't know.
This just goes to show you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. The matchup was literally 50/50 before the buff. The more skillful player would win. The hellions would come out and zerg could either make units to start spreading creep or just tech up on two base before clearing out the hellions. This let terran be even with the zerg, and have a chance at hitting a midgame timing or even to have a chance lategame. If it were a "insta-gg" strategy like you are pretending it was, then the matchup wouldn't have been 50/50.
Now the hellions come out and tickle the queens, but the creep is halfway across the map at 10:00. Terran moves out to try to capitalize on their so-called midgame advantage, but then get assfucked by a billion lings and infestors that counter absolutely every unit in the game. They can do this because they could drone up to 80 drones ASAP and tech up to hive ASAP. There is no midgame anymore. This also exposes the glaring lack of any sort of lategame for terran - before you could "not let the zerg get to the unbeatable army" but now it is a freebie for zerg.
And you say that hellion nerf isn't so bad because it was predictable and if successfully pulled off was "gg"? Well guess what, now zerg just opens queens and mass drone and even if done halfway not retarded it is gg.
|
On June 23 2012 02:59 Mjolnir wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2012 02:41 Tryagain4free wrote:On June 23 2012 02:27 Mjolnir wrote:
For the sake of the game you should give more time to players trying to adapt to these changes.
Far too often has the SC2 community flipped out and reacted to a strat to have something nerfed into oblivion before (or during) the point where players have learned ways to deal with it.
This sort of knee-jerk reaction is the reason Terran makes reapers once every 1000 games (that's one example).
Hi Mjolnir, you picked a really nice nickname! And furthermore, you picked a really bad example. If you are honestly believing terrans do not use reapers out of frustration, then this should be true for protoss not using carrriers and zerg neglecting hydras. If you are willing to try to understand the reactions among the terran community, I wanna try to give you an other example / analogy to think about: So imagine you and your brother/sister/cat receiving pocket money by your parents. Each of you get 50 bucks a month. Suddenly, your parents decide to give your brother/sister/cat 60, while you get 40. How would you think about it? What I mean by this: Maybe the knee-jerk reactions are caused from a knee-jerk patch? Dude, I play Terran. A lot. Master league. I have been hit with the nerf bat as much as any of the rest of you have. I do not believe that queens are overpowered now. I also don't understand your analogy between reapers and carriers and hydras. Perhaps I wasn't clear in the post you're referring to because I'm tending to think we're actually in agreement about this particular point. Again, I'm not saying I "get it", I'm just saying that wanting a change so quickly (before people have had time to deal with it) has not been a great hope for two reasons: 1) Blizzard SC2 devs are stubborn and it probably won't happen 2) In the past knee-jerk reactions have resulted in highly unfavourable changes (especially for Terran) That's all. I get the frustration - I play Terran. It's different; but I don't feel it's as broken as others believe. I also think we have some amazing Zerg performances lately that are skewing tournament results and/or altering the opinions of how the match up is viewed (see previous post). EDIT: Grammar fail.
Hi again Mjolnir,
and thank you for claryfication. I think your points 1) and 2) are sad, but true. Anyway, funny thing is, I don't play terran. And I personally am under the impression of a negative impact caused by the latest patch. While you play terran, and don't feel it.
And I think that shows how different perception and opinions can be. Nothing wrong with that so.
But from my perspective (as a close observer and watcher) I doubt that all the results and the swing in recent winrates is just because of amazing performences and by coincidencent.
Anyway, thanks once more for your time and your answer.
|
On June 23 2012 01:26 canikizu wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2012 01:21 Haustka wrote:On June 23 2012 01:17 dvorakftw wrote:On June 23 2012 00:47 Cyro wrote:
1 month isnt enough. Give it 3, maybe 6. Hey, let's double the health and S for marines and give it six months to let Zerg and Protoss figure out new builds for the metagame. do you see zerg dominating every single game? Last time I checked, Dreamhack, protoss mana won vs Dimaga Zerg. be realistic please And this is relevant in a topic named "1 Month later... Is Queen Range still too strong [TvZ]? -…" because?
Because the person who started this whole mess wanted to double health and S for marines to imply how OP as hell zerg now is.
Can you just imagine marines with that, terran would NEVER lose and zerg still loses some matches so its not even close.
|
On June 23 2012 03:00 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2012 02:34 SupLilSon wrote:On June 23 2012 01:33 Doodsmack wrote:On June 23 2012 00:50 bLo0d wrote:On June 23 2012 00:27 Doodsmack wrote:On June 23 2012 00:10 SupLilSon wrote:On June 23 2012 00:04 Doodsmack wrote:On June 22 2012 23:54 SupLilSon wrote:On June 22 2012 23:11 Doodsmack wrote:On June 22 2012 22:55 CakeSauc3 wrote:
[quote]
Regardless of whether or not you're high masters, Zerg still benefits from the buffs. And believe it or not, all players get matched up to players who are at a similar level of play. So balance does affect gameplay even at a lower level, and even as early as high platinum are players smart enough to take advantage of these buffs that they've received.
Some of us aren't out to become the best player in the world - we just enjoy playing the game, but patches like these ruin it for us. Thanks for calling the majority of Starcraft 2 players unintelligent, have a nice day. You didn't address my point. At skill levels lower than high master, an improvement in mechanics far outweighs game balance. If you're platinum then you're doing so many things wrong that balance is just one small factor in your games. I am mid master and when I play against diamond or below zergs and tosses, I crush them with mass marine 98% of the time. Why can't you do the same? Because your mechanics are FUCKING TERRIBLE. Yesterday I beat a mid master toss with mass marine on daybreak. I opened triple orbital, and powered up marines and Protoss did not have sufficient skill level to defend all 3 of his bases. Balance did not factor in at all. There's a reason why pro Terrans don't bother analyze replays of warm up games that were losses. The poor mechanics dictate that the decision making and tactics were mostly irrelevant. I cringe every time I see posts like this, oozing with self - righteousness. I looked you up and you are barely mid master so GTFO talking other people down about terrible mechanics. I guess by your logic, only TBLS can complain about balance. All these code S losers just need to get better. So you looked up my account that has like 5 ladder games the past 3 seasons and somehow determined my MMR, and implied that you have to be at a high skill level in order to understand that only high masters have near-optimal mechanics. Then you claimed that when I referred to high masters it's equivalent to referring to Code S players. Hopefully that post was a fluke and not indicative of your intelligence level No, I looked at your last season also where you were something like 400 points master, which is pretty shitty. I'm just laughing at the fact that you set some arbitrary cutoff at "high-master" as the point where people can talk about balance. I was making fun of your post by pointing out that many top SC2 players have poor mechanics in comparison to their BW counterparts, but that doesn't stop them from talking balance. The only one showing a lack of intelligence and reasoning is you. 400 points after how many games? What was my bonus pool remaining? Did you look at my opponents' points? How do you know my MMR then? Do you consider yourself a smart person? BW players are irrelevant to this discussion. I'm talking about near-optimal SC2 mechanics, not BW mechanics. And I didn't say sub-high master players can't talk about balance in general. I said they shouldn't blame their losses on balance. Reading comprehension. I don't understand how you say below high master mechanics outweigh balance, which is obviously true and is nothing new, but then say that pro terrans don't look at replays because their poor mechanics make their decision making and tactics irrelevant? Wouldn't it be the complete opposite? Also, why bother even bringing up that low level players have bad mechanics as if you brilliantly realized it and are enlightening everyone with your discovery. Everyone knows this. And why is it weird that he would think you could be talking about Code S players when the post before that you said "pro terrans"? And you're mid masters, how are you trying to use number of games and bonus pool to try to manipulate that? I said pro Terrans wouldn't analyze replays of their warm up games. And I didn't just point out that people below high master have poor mechanics. I pointed that people below high master shouldn't complain about balance in their own games because their poor mechanics are more determinative. Suplilson, I'll do you the favor of not quoting your last two posts because they clearly show that when your reading comprehension has failed so miserably your only option is to just stop addressing my points lol. You don't even have a point. Your posts were all bragging about how you can beat lower skilled player using unorthodox strategies and setting your own special guidelines for who can complain about balance and who can not. Aside from that, all you do is try to insult a few people's intelligence and reading comprehension skills. And once again you prove that you don't understand what I said. Kind of funny when you try to make an argument and someone responds with such conviction even though they actually don't comprehend the relatively simple points you're making LOL. I also specifically remember seeing posts from you in other threads where you clearly were missing the point. I guess at some point I should feel sorry for you and stop responding although if you're in high school or something I maybe can understand.
"Would love to see the replays of the people crying in this thread. Their minerals probably skyrocket to 2000 when theyre doing things with their army on the map on only 2 bases LOL. Yeah the reason you lost was because of balance, not your horrible mechanics.
If you're not high master, then shut the fuck up about balance and get better because at your level, player skill level is far more determinative than balance. Only when both players possess near-optimal mechanics does balance become determinative. It's how Starcraft fucking works, if you don't understand that the sorry but you're unintelligent."
Here is your first post that I responded to. Pray tell, where is your "point"? Where is the "point" that I am missing due to my low IQ and total lack of reading comprehension skills? Because just about everything I see in your post is completely irrelevant to this discussion and marks you as a douche.
Maybe someone can help me out because my high school level reading comprehension is being owned by Doodsmack's graduate level rhetoric.
|
On June 22 2012 23:38 HeroMystic wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2012 22:50 Doodsmack wrote:
Would love to see the replays of the people crying in this thread. Their minerals probably skyrocket to 2000 when theyre doing things with their army on the map on only 2 bases LOL. Yeah the reason you lost was because of balance, not your horrible mechanics.
If you're not high master, then shut the fuck up about balance and get better because at your level, player skill level is far more determinative than balance. Only when both players possess near-optimal mechanics does balance become determinative. It's how Starcraft fucking works, if you don't understand that the sorry but you're unintelligent. I'm not blaming the Queen buff for my lack of skill (I NEVER blame patches for my lack of skill. I blame myself). But what the patch did do was throw away the timings of when I judged my benchmarks. So what do you suggest I do? Go 2-base MM and pray he didn't make banelings?
So I did 2-base MM...
I'm surprised how many Zergs don't make banelings.
|
On June 23 2012 03:11 SupLilSon wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2012 03:00 Doodsmack wrote:On June 23 2012 02:34 SupLilSon wrote:On June 23 2012 01:33 Doodsmack wrote:On June 23 2012 00:50 bLo0d wrote:On June 23 2012 00:27 Doodsmack wrote:On June 23 2012 00:10 SupLilSon wrote:On June 23 2012 00:04 Doodsmack wrote:On June 22 2012 23:54 SupLilSon wrote:On June 22 2012 23:11 Doodsmack wrote:
[quote]
You didn't address my point. At skill levels lower than high master, an improvement in mechanics far outweighs game balance. If you're platinum then you're doing so many things wrong that balance is just one small factor in your games. I am mid master and when I play against diamond or below zergs and tosses, I crush them with mass marine 98% of the time. Why can't you do the same? Because your mechanics are FUCKING TERRIBLE. Yesterday I beat a mid master toss with mass marine on daybreak. I opened triple orbital, and powered up marines and Protoss did not have sufficient skill level to defend all 3 of his bases. Balance did not factor in at all.
There's a reason why pro Terrans don't bother analyze replays of warm up games that were losses. The poor mechanics dictate that the decision making and tactics were mostly irrelevant. I cringe every time I see posts like this, oozing with self - righteousness. I looked you up and you are barely mid master so GTFO talking other people down about terrible mechanics. I guess by your logic, only TBLS can complain about balance. All these code S losers just need to get better. So you looked up my account that has like 5 ladder games the past 3 seasons and somehow determined my MMR, and implied that you have to be at a high skill level in order to understand that only high masters have near-optimal mechanics. Then you claimed that when I referred to high masters it's equivalent to referring to Code S players. Hopefully that post was a fluke and not indicative of your intelligence level No, I looked at your last season also where you were something like 400 points master, which is pretty shitty. I'm just laughing at the fact that you set some arbitrary cutoff at "high-master" as the point where people can talk about balance. I was making fun of your post by pointing out that many top SC2 players have poor mechanics in comparison to their BW counterparts, but that doesn't stop them from talking balance. The only one showing a lack of intelligence and reasoning is you. 400 points after how many games? What was my bonus pool remaining? Did you look at my opponents' points? How do you know my MMR then? Do you consider yourself a smart person? BW players are irrelevant to this discussion. I'm talking about near-optimal SC2 mechanics, not BW mechanics. And I didn't say sub-high master players can't talk about balance in general. I said they shouldn't blame their losses on balance. Reading comprehension. I don't understand how you say below high master mechanics outweigh balance, which is obviously true and is nothing new, but then say that pro terrans don't look at replays because their poor mechanics make their decision making and tactics irrelevant? Wouldn't it be the complete opposite? Also, why bother even bringing up that low level players have bad mechanics as if you brilliantly realized it and are enlightening everyone with your discovery. Everyone knows this. And why is it weird that he would think you could be talking about Code S players when the post before that you said "pro terrans"? And you're mid masters, how are you trying to use number of games and bonus pool to try to manipulate that? I said pro Terrans wouldn't analyze replays of their warm up games. And I didn't just point out that people below high master have poor mechanics. I pointed that people below high master shouldn't complain about balance in their own games because their poor mechanics are more determinative. Suplilson, I'll do you the favor of not quoting your last two posts because they clearly show that when your reading comprehension has failed so miserably your only option is to just stop addressing my points lol. You don't even have a point. Your posts were all bragging about how you can beat lower skilled player using unorthodox strategies and setting your own special guidelines for who can complain about balance and who can not. Aside from that, all you do is try to insult a few people's intelligence and reading comprehension skills. And once again you prove that you don't understand what I said. Kind of funny when you try to make an argument and someone responds with such conviction even though they actually don't comprehend the relatively simple points you're making LOL. I also specifically remember seeing posts from you in other threads where you clearly were missing the point. I guess at some point I should feel sorry for you and stop responding although if you're in high school or something I maybe can understand. "Would love to see the replays of the people crying in this thread. Their minerals probably skyrocket to 2000 when theyre doing things with their army on the map on only 2 bases LOL. Yeah the reason you lost was because of balance, not your horrible mechanics. If you're not high master, then shut the fuck up about balance and get better because at your level, player skill level is far more determinative than balance. Only when both players possess near-optimal mechanics does balance become determinative. It's how Starcraft fucking works, if you don't understand that the sorry but you're unintelligent." Here is your first post that I responded to. Pray tell, where is your "point"? Where is the "point" that I am missing due to my low IQ and total lack of reading comprehension skills? Because just about everything I see in your post is completely irrelevant to this discussion and marks you as a douche.
Seems fairly obvious, that this thread is more or less a totally worthless gesture, as it is full to the brim with sub-optimal players commenting on theoretically optimal play.
|
Calgary26003 Posts
SupLilSon and Doodsmack - let's move forward. Bad players have glaring holes in their play that go much beyond balance. That, however, doesn't mean they aren't able to accurately analyze play above their own abilities.
Let's get past this.
|
4713 Posts
Though I really hate the queen buff, I have to agree in a way with what Mjolnir has said. Bitching about it and asking for it to be reverted this soon is somewhat pointless because the pool of data really isn't that big. The data pool is growing all right but if we ask for a revert right now its no better then when Blizzard nerfed the Thor, Reaper or Ghost without truly giving the meta-game time to catch up.
While it really does suck for the terrans right now, who seem to be running out of options, its still wisest to just give it some more time. When we get the TLPD for June and July and if it continues to look extremely zerg favored then we can definitely say without a shadow of a doubt that the queen range buff was a huge disaster. I'm inclined to believe the results for June and July will confirm what many of us suspect, but still, patience is a virtue.
|
On June 23 2012 02:41 Tryagain4free wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2012 02:27 Mjolnir wrote:
For the sake of the game you should give more time to players trying to adapt to these changes.
Far too often has the SC2 community flipped out and reacted to a strat to have something nerfed into oblivion before (or during) the point where players have learned ways to deal with it.
This sort of knee-jerk reaction is the reason Terran makes reapers once every 1000 games (that's one example).
Hi Mjolnir, you picked a really nice nickname! And furthermore, you picked a really bad example. If you are honestly believing terrans do not use reapers out of frustration, then this should be true for protoss not using carrriers and zerg neglecting hydras. If you are willing to try to understand the reactions among the terran community, I wanna try to give you an other example / analogy to think about: So imagine you and your brother/sister/cat receiving pocket money by your parents. Each of you get 50 bucks a month. Suddenly, your parents decide to give your brother/sister/cat 60, while you get 40. How would you think about it? What I mean by this: Maybe the knee-jerk reactions are caused from a knee-jerk patch?
But it wasn't a knee-jerk patch. As Kim/Browder have both said, they didn't like the quick, free wins that a lot of terrans were getting in the early game. They wanted that part of the game eliminated and they figured increased queen range and faster overlords was the answer. It did what it was supposed to. As a result, terrans apparently have a harder time harassing the zerg economy and, maybe more importantly, eliminating creep. If the metagame doesn't change, they will buff/nerf something. But a month or 2 just simply isn't enough time to say that definitively! How is this hard for people to understand?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
