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.
On June 23 2012 03:22 Destructicon wrote: 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.
Then when we do ask for changes later, then people still either go: - Argh there's not enough games/not big enough sample size (what, sample size should be infinity? lawl)/etc OR - ARGH STOP FUCKING COMPLAINING ITS BALANCED ALREADY
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?
Free wins for terrans in what league/level of play?
On June 23 2012 03:22 Destructicon wrote: 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.
Hi Destruction!
I have to agree with whtt you're suggesting. Maybe your comment is some signal to a genaral résumé for the following posts. I think, most of the arguments on the matter have been made. Some were repeated several times. All in all I must say, this was one of the more solid discussions, with some serious back and forth action.
I hope to see my favorite MU to to come back, so we can say the same about TvZ again!
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, we are seeing protoss and terran still winning most of the tournaments, if protoss and terran werent winning and zerg win percent suddenly changed dramatiscally(anything more than 20 percent in winning rate only in top GM level) Then yes I agree with queen being imba and need change.
im only viewing from pro point of view not from anything lower than top GM because if u arent at the top level, there are things for you to work on instead of arguing whether its imba or not.
So hypothetically, if the Terran race only have MVP, MMA, MKP playing, and they manage to keep up 50% win rate against Zerg, which has like 1000 players, then the MU is balanced? I don't think so.
People seem to have perception that as long as a particular race win a particular tournament, that means the race is fine. Actually it doesn't work that way. Fruit Dealer, Nestea won 2 concussive tournaments for Zerg in the dark age, and MC kicked butt people left and right and won 2 tournaments in Protoss dark time to. But overall, at that time, Terran is dominating, same case right now. No matter what problems we are talking about, balance is always based on push/pull, supply/demand, take/give. The easiest way to recognize it is, ironically, statistics in good scale. Over/under representing a race usually a good indication of the balance.
For a very basic example, if there're 2 lines in a coffee shop, one is short and one is long. People from the long line always flock to the short line, and new customers coming in will always go for the short line, until 2 lines are even. There're always events that make one line shorter than the other (fast/slow ordering, serving, spillage,...) but in a greater scale, this process always happen if people notice there's one line shorter. Right now, the one who is taking Terran line's orders is a monkey which don't even know how to take order (Blizzard I'm looking at you), and GSL Terrans are like some fat dudes that take forever to order food. That Terran lines will always look inflate. We either need to get a real order taker or kick those fat dudes out, or this is gonna take forever to fill my stomach.
Back to the point though, although tournament results don't show that Terran is at disadvantage (yet). The overall representation of Zerg race has overcome Terran and Protoss, in ladder and tournaments. In a statistics, there're always outliner that deflate/inflate the norm, but in a general scale, it is what it is, which is imbalance.
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?
Can people stop pretending everything was fine pre-patch. I know every Terran thinks so because no Zergs were winning in GSL and they rarely got interviewed about blaance. When things are bad for Zerg there's 2 zergs in ro16 and 0 zergs ro8, but for Terrans they still have majority representation in ro16 and can bitch all they want in winner interviews.
I feel that Terrans are at a slight disadvantage in the early game now with Zerg being safer to early attacks..
That being said, I am one of those people who believe it needs to be used for a very extended period of time before anyone can complain about it. If the ZvT win rates are super skewed in 4-6 months. Patch it.
Edit: Basically Terrans just need to come up with something new. There IS a way to beat a Zerg who gets queens early game. It's not like the Queens cost 50minerals, do over 9000 DPS and have 8million HP.
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.
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.
While it's true, don't you think it's a bit problematic when someone can actively deny opponent's 4th base using energy and completely free of either resources or risk 10 min in the game a bit much? It's like a sentry constantly FF your 4th and you can't even kill it.
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.
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.
While it's true, don't you think it's a bit problematic when someone can actively deny opponent's 4th base using energy and completely free of either resources or risk 10 min in the game a bit much? It's like a sentry constantly FF your 4th and you can't even kill it.
MKP could have easily sent a couple marines down there to clear up the creep. He didn't clear up the creep until after his almost-game winning push, which by that point he already knew there was creep there. He didn't even clear up the creep when he was trying to expand there the first time. One little maneuver would have won MKP that game.
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?
Can people stop pretending everything was fine pre-patch. I know every Terran thinks so because no Zergs were winning in GSL and they rarely got interviewed about blaance. When things are bad for Zerg there's 2 zergs in ro16 and 0 zergs ro8, but for Terrans they still have majority representation in ro16 and can bitch all they want in winner interviews.
For the millionth time - TvZ was 50/50 in the last GSL and all the zergs got knocked out by PROTOSS. Did you not notice that more than half of the RO8 was protoss?
And terrans have the majority representation because the GSL isn't re-stocked every patch, there were more terrans to start with and therefore there will probably be more in the next round.
On June 23 2012 02:17 dvorakftw wrote: For people who want TvZ stats for GSL Season 3, CLICK HERE
And I guess if you want more GSL focused discussion than the general TvZ conversation here, this is the reddit thread.
The sample size makes this irrelevant.
Also, when you form a conclusion before looking at the stats then you make the stats fit your conclusion. I had already formed the conclusion that the stats were fine, so I looked down to Code S first and saw that it was 6-4 in favour of terran.
On June 23 2012 03:40 Mistakes wrote: I feel that Terrans are at a slight disadvantage in the early game now with Zerg being safer to early attacks..
That being said, I am one of those people who believe it needs to be used for a very extended period of time before anyone can complain about it. If the ZvT win rates are super skewed in 4-6 months. Patch it.
Edit: Basically Terrans just need to come up with something new. There IS a way to beat a Zerg who gets queens early game. It's not like the Queens cost 50minerals, do over 9000 DPS and have 8million HP.
No, as I mentioned on page 41, queens have 175 HP (which is a huge amount in regard of their cost and unit type), cost only 150minerals and do more DPS than a Stalker (to non-armored targets).
It's very telling, that some zerg players don't even realize how insanely good some of their units are....Speaks a lot for their game understanding.
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.
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.
While it's true, don't you think it's a bit problematic when someone can actively deny opponent's 4th base using energy and completely free of either resources or risk 10 min in the game a bit much? It's like a sentry constantly FF your 4th and you can't even kill it.
MKP could have easily sent a couple marines down there to clear up the creep. He didn't clear up the creep until after his almost-game winning push, which by that point he already knew there was creep there. He didn't even clear up the creep when he was trying to expand there the first time. One little maneuver would have won MKP that game.
He did try to clean the creep, multiple times, every time DRG just re-populate the whole area with tumor before old creep even recedes. MKP only cleared it when he stationed his whole army there, and by then it was too late.
On June 23 2012 01:47 submarine wrote: Hey Doodsmack such a huge change on such a common unit has an impact even below pro level. I play quite a lot against friends, and the change made playing zerg far easier. Sure you can still get better. Everyone can. Even top korean Pros can play much better. Just as an extreme example: Should this be the benchmark of marine micro?:
I guess terrans should just stfu until they can use their units to their full potential then? i play quite a lot a terran and zerg, and i can tell you that the queen change made playing zerg far easier in the tvz match up.
Yeah, and Z was perfectly fine because of this:
No one is perfect, using perfect micro to prove a point is stupid because no one can actually do that. You can make every unit look overpowered if you micro it perfectly.
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.
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.
God forbid he scan.
Or better yet, God forbid he not engage with 2000+ mineral in the bank. Yeeeeeeah, go check that one out. Watch the spending on that series. DRG keeps his minearls low as fuck and MKP is floating 1k on average. There's even one point where he is 2400k.
That's the sort of macro that will get people ridiculed on this forum. So how is it that queens dictated the outcome of that series?
On June 23 2012 01:47 submarine wrote: Hey Doodsmack such a huge change on such a common unit has an impact even below pro level. I play quite a lot against friends, and the change made playing zerg far easier. Sure you can still get better. Everyone can. Even top korean Pros can play much better. Just as an extreme example: Should this be the benchmark of marine micro?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXUOWXidcY0
I guess terrans should just stfu until they can use their units to their full potential then? i play quite a lot a terran and zerg, and i can tell you that the queen change made playing zerg far easier in the tvz match up.
No one is perfect, using perfect micro to prove a point is stupid because no one can actually do that. You can make every unit look overpowered if you micro it perfectly.
In the TL-MLG interview with Kim/Browder, they specifically state that they balance units around a specific skill threshhold, and that sometimes they sit and wait on things in order for the players skill to reach that point. Other times they have to tweak things because players surpass the threshhold and unbalance something.
Obviously Terran marinesplit will never hit that scripted level, and neither will zergling tankdodging.
However, I wouldn't be surprised if Blizzard views creep as a mechanic that has surprassed their intended balance threshhold, with player's ability to spread it so rapidly and still macro/scout/play like a fucking boss (DRG). We may see creep getting a nerf in the next patch, whether it be directly to creep (probably make it recede faster) or a buff to anti-creep (buff units that help contain it, Raven).
I don't understand why we're still debating. Don't you guys realize it's impossible to talk about balance objectively? Because whenever you look at stats or gameplays, so many other factors come into play aside from balance (including stage nerves, experience, skills, etc).
We can therefore, only talk about TvZ SUBJECTIVELY, ie based on people's opinions.
Now, that being said, MMA, MVP, MKP, JJiaki, Supernova, Keen, AS WELL as DRG, all have publicly said that TvZ is imbalanced. Yes, these are just opinions and it doesn't PROVE anything. But like I said above, since we can't really prove it anyways, opinions are the only thing that matters; and if we don't take the opinions of unarguably the top 4 TvZers, as well as the current Code S Terrans and the top Zerg, who would we look at? Incontrol's? Random forum Platinum players?
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.
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.
God forbid he scan.
Or better yet, God forbid he not engage with 2000+ mineral in the bank. Yeeeeeeah, go check that one out. Watch the spending on that series. DRG keeps his minearls low as fuck and MKP is floating 1k on average. There's even one point where he is 2400k.
That's the sort of macro that will get people ridiculed on this forum. So how is it that queens dictated the outcome of that series?
Gonna assume you don't play Terran at a high level (or any race, for that matter). MKP did Scan when he tried to land his 4th, but since Creep takes around 193476901763 hours for Creep to recede it didn't matter anyway. Regardless, wasting Scans to deny 1 or 2 Tumors in the very early game isn't worth it, since with 6 Queens that barely dents the Creep Spread.
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, butthen 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.
Jesus. Hyperbole much?
I play Terran. I mean it, I really do. I get the distinct feeling that you're jumping on me because you think I'm a Zerg player who loves their new omgwtfbbq queens.
I play both races at a relatively high level. I'm no GM but I "get the game" just fine. I don't think this change is OP at all.
Also, before you tell me that I have "no idea what I'm talking about" maybe you should examine more carefully the part you bolded. I said "if the opener worked" as in - if BF hellions got into a base and fried a lot of drones.
That made the mid game timing extremely strong - usually a gg from the Zerg.
As a Terran player, I can say that if I got hellions in and did damage (and it was't particularly easy for the zerg to stop it efficiently) the Zerg was in a worse position. Period.
You want the Zerg to go roach/spine/queen to defend hellions. That's a lot of resources and larva that is extremely costly to a Zerg early on. While I can't say I understand Blizzard's position on this change, it wouldn't surprise me if this was something they felt was costing Zerg a bit much that early in the game - especially considering the following:
1. Factory tech is generally wanted by Terrans in a TvZ 2. Roaches are a unit that Zerg wants to shy away from in a TvZ (unless heavy mech) 3. Defending the hellions cost Zerg more than it cost Terran to implement hellions (up front costs and long term)
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.
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.
God forbid he scan.
Or better yet, God forbid he not engage with 2000+ mineral in the bank. Yeeeeeeah, go check that one out. Watch the spending on that series. DRG keeps his minearls low as fuck and MKP is floating 1k on average. There's even one point where he is 2400k.
That's the sort of macro that will get people ridiculed on this forum. So how is it that queens dictated the outcome of that series?
Gonna assume you don't play Terran at a high level (or any race, for that matter). MKP did Scan when he tried to land his 4th, but since Creep takes around 193476901763 hours for Creep to recede it didn't matter anyway. Regardless, wasting Scans to deny 1 or 2 Tumors in the very early game isn't worth it, since with 6 Queens that barely dents the Creep Spread.
So now I don't play at a high level because...why?
Is it because MKP did scan and creep takes a while to recede? Because scanning at 10 min onward is "early game"? What about MKP floating those 1k+ minerals on average at every engagement - that he initiated?
Does that last one put me in Bronze league too? Most TLers in forum would say something along those lines if I was crying about balance when I posted a replay that had me floating upwards of 2k minerals.
Fuck me, why does everyone get so personal about this stuff? It's a game. There's an expansion coming soon. Shitty change is shitty change. They won't revert it because you don't like it. They'll revert it if/when they feel it's a bad change. Keep in mind they're stubborn as fuck... don't hold your breath.
EPT
