|
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 24 2012 13:32 redruMBunny wrote:Show nested quote +If you notice every single high level terran game what do you see? some variant of triple oc and double ebay
why do you think this is? they are letting the zerg go to 70 drones, so they deserve to lose right?
You probably don't actually play the game, but there is actually no way to stop zerg from going 70 drones by 8 minutes unless you do some super 2 base timing (usually allin if fails to do any damage), and 6 queens + lings easily stop everything. Aren't you saying that triple OC and double ebay isn't quite working out? But isn't that what you saw prepatch anyways? So maybe triple OC and double ebay is wrong, is what I'm saying. If the triple OC and double ebay are wrong, you're saying, then why are pros still using it? At least I think that is your point. That is, isn't your argument and the argument of many others that because the pros say it's a problem, it's a problem? But I think it could be because the pros have just been slow to adapt. Just because pros do something doesn't mean it's inherently and empirically right. What if pros think the queen buff hasn't really changed things to the degree that they should have to change their playstyle? (and what if pros are wrong about this and are losing TvZ as a result?) What if the pros are busy for the season so don't have the time to adequately practice to correctly counter? Etc. etc. So if I found a bunch of Korean pros that felt the queen buff was proper and right, then what? Does that make other posters concerns invalid? I don't think so. I think some posters consider the queen buff to be a problem in and of itself, and I think they have valid reasons, as I've already expressed (although not for some time as I've been posting pro-queen buff). Although a lot of what I've written has been in favor of the queen buff, that still doesn't mean I think it's 100% correct and necessary, or that I think other arguments have no validity. But consider this - wasn't it recently that one of the pros ran a 0/0 upgrade game, showing switching resources off from upgrades can work successfully, after at least months of everyone going ups? Then what is it about DRG style and Stephano style and Marineking style or however many other styles that are titled after player names? I think it's because the scene adapts, but slowly, especially now because as I mentioned, this is a busy season for SC2 pros. I don't think they have a load of time to screw around trying to invent new timing attacks. Besides that, the answer for each player may be a bit different. Stephano style works for Stephano because of his micro, his ability to assess things so well on the fly, and a lot of other Stephano-ish qualities. But it might not work so well for even another player, even an S-rank Korean pro. It isn't just like there's one standard answer that will work for all players. Besides that, ability to deal with queens isn't just about building some counter. It's a question of executing counters, not just conceptualizing them. If you have a counter that you think may work decently, but you can't quite get a hold of it, it makes sense that you might try a method that's more tried and true than a new animal that you're not quite sure of. Like, suppose you wanted to go to the grocery store to get a pint of ice cream, or if you want to say it's an important trip, to go to the hospital to see a baby get born (maybe a new brother/sister, maybe a son/daughter, who knows?) In any event, does it make sense to jump in a rocket powered car that travels a minimum of 200 mph, especially if you know your nerves are going to be pent up? Sure it might theoretically do the job better, but if you're used to traveling by motor scooter at 30 mph, you might figure your chances of making it to your destination would be better if you used the slow scooter. Now consider that if you're not even sure of executing your counter properly, you will be even that much less sure because you'll be afraid of an opponent's possible counters that your counter can't deal with. It's all unknown and potentially very problematic, so stick with what works, even if it works less successfully. Etc. etc. There are so many reasons why a good answer to queen buff may not be being demonstrated by pros yet, so I think people basing arguments based simply on pro play and win percentages is premature. Five months from now, okay, the slow winter season comes on and players have time to innovate. But for now, I think it's certainly too early to say. I watched a replay of deMuslim's interview at I think it was MLG. Apparently he didn't think the queen buff was imba to begin with, but he changed his mind after listening to other players. What if deMuslim was right in the first place and the others were wrong?
Upgrades cost almost nothing and Terrans can't get many more units if they skimp on upgrades. We are trying to move forwards, not backwards.
This argument that we haven't tried everything (yes, it's true, we haven't tried a planetary fortress rush in a real game yet, maybe that's the solution to the Queens) is utterly stupid. You try things with good fundamental concepts that work well. There's a reason why 3 OC and 2 engineering bay is what everyone tries, it's cause 3 OC's = more money which = bigger army and engineering bays = good upgrades which = better army.
This is like when people try and argue against scientists that are looking for life in the universe. "HEY WHY DO SCIENTISTS ONLY FOCUS ON FINDING PLACES THAT ARE SIMILAR TO EARTH, OTHER LIFE FORMS MIGHT EXIST IN OTHER PLACES" yeah they can but looking at everything is a waste of time.
|
On June 24 2012 13:34 roymarthyup wrote:
6queen openings probably would still be just as effective against hellion openings if the change was reverted because hellions damage queens too slowly to even outdamage transfuse. most zergs could easily justdrop half the tumors and transfuse and still beat the hellions
but 3range queens got slaughtered by bio timings so 6queen openings at least had a hardcounter and didnt defend everything at 3range
Exactly. Zergs can't go a blind 6 queen opening cause if a Terran scouts that, we're going to put pressure and punish a greedy zerg.
We can't do that now with a 5 range queen
|
On June 24 2012 13:25 sGs.Stregon wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2012 08:53 Crookie wrote:On June 24 2012 08:46 Sroobz wrote:On June 24 2012 08:37 Crookie wrote:On June 24 2012 08:32 xrapture wrote:
I don't understand why some people are arguing in favor of balance.
Almost EVERY pro Terran-- yea that's right pro not random poster on TL-- says the matchup became completely imbalanced after the Queen buff.
Hell, DRG, Catz, idra, and Stephano even say Z has the advantage-- DRG even laughed in an interview and said he wants a group with 3 Terrans.
MKP said his winrate in tvz went from 60% to 10%. Ryung says he can't even beat NA Zergs. If you are INSANELY better than your opponent, you should win.
No bullshit about "metagame" should even come into discussion. Ryung should roll Ostojiy 10 times in a row, but this patch has really made it impossible for Terran to take advantage of being more skilled because literally nothing in the game can punish mass queen/drone 3 base.
Hell, watch Dimaga vs Brat-ok at Dreamhack. 9 Queens, 3 base, 80 drones at 8:30. That should NOT be standard or possible. I have not once seen any terrans try anything besides the old pre-patch build. Open your eyes dude. All I'm seeing is failed attempts at new builds/timings from Terrans. Maybe I have just missed the games. Do you happen to have the links to any vods, perhaps? I would like to see the new builds. Maybe the answer is to not try to kill the zerg early, and just know that if he is going mass queen, he will not be able to put on any pressure. This allows you to play greedily. Open your eyes dude, every game I have seen of Terran trying to play Greedy against mass queen 70 drone 3+ base opening fails, because zerg scouts it, and either out greeds the Terran and still wins in lategame, or switch's into a 2 base all-in that the Terran cannot prevent, because he is playing greedy and has no army count. Saying Terran should just play jsut as greedy as zerg is asinine, and implausible.. If Terran plays greedy, even a semi decent zerg will just switch into mass unit production and roll over the armyless Terran... If the Terran trys to outgreed a zerg, and the zerg decides too, the Zerg will just go up to 5+ bases to the Terrans 3, and just win late game anyways.. Zerg's crying about hellion openings are stupied, because the hellion openings ((at least for me, when i started using them)) where to prevent sLing bLing play, more than dealing damage. Sure, I would contain a zerg on 2 bases, but not for 10 minutes, all the hellions were for was to force the zerg into a different tech path than mass sLing bLing.. Zergs are crybabys, that have not experimented with their race what-so-freakin-ever. Instead of telling Terrans to just come up with new stuff, why dont zergs actually experiment.((If zergs recieved half as many nerfs as Terran, Zergs would actually have more than 2 openings, and wouldnt cry op about something like a hellion opening that isnt about killing, but about slowing down))
You clearly haven't been playing this game for very long.
I'd rather see some sort of buff to Terran lategame because as it seems, and as some have already pointed out, reverting the queen buff wont change much anymore now that more zergs are realizing how good having 6 queens early can be in general.
|
On June 24 2012 13:40 Jojo131 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2012 13:25 sGs.Stregon wrote:On June 24 2012 08:53 Crookie wrote:On June 24 2012 08:46 Sroobz wrote:On June 24 2012 08:37 Crookie wrote:On June 24 2012 08:32 xrapture wrote:
I don't understand why some people are arguing in favor of balance.
Almost EVERY pro Terran-- yea that's right pro not random poster on TL-- says the matchup became completely imbalanced after the Queen buff.
Hell, DRG, Catz, idra, and Stephano even say Z has the advantage-- DRG even laughed in an interview and said he wants a group with 3 Terrans.
MKP said his winrate in tvz went from 60% to 10%. Ryung says he can't even beat NA Zergs. If you are INSANELY better than your opponent, you should win.
No bullshit about "metagame" should even come into discussion. Ryung should roll Ostojiy 10 times in a row, but this patch has really made it impossible for Terran to take advantage of being more skilled because literally nothing in the game can punish mass queen/drone 3 base.
Hell, watch Dimaga vs Brat-ok at Dreamhack. 9 Queens, 3 base, 80 drones at 8:30. That should NOT be standard or possible. I have not once seen any terrans try anything besides the old pre-patch build. Open your eyes dude. All I'm seeing is failed attempts at new builds/timings from Terrans. Maybe I have just missed the games. Do you happen to have the links to any vods, perhaps? I would like to see the new builds. Maybe the answer is to not try to kill the zerg early, and just know that if he is going mass queen, he will not be able to put on any pressure. This allows you to play greedily. Open your eyes dude, every game I have seen of Terran trying to play Greedy against mass queen 70 drone 3+ base opening fails, because zerg scouts it, and either out greeds the Terran and still wins in lategame, or switch's into a 2 base all-in that the Terran cannot prevent, because he is playing greedy and has no army count. Saying Terran should just play jsut as greedy as zerg is asinine, and implausible.. If Terran plays greedy, even a semi decent zerg will just switch into mass unit production and roll over the armyless Terran... If the Terran trys to outgreed a zerg, and the zerg decides too, the Zerg will just go up to 5+ bases to the Terrans 3, and just win late game anyways.. Zerg's crying about hellion openings are stupied, because the hellion openings ((at least for me, when i started using them)) where to prevent sLing bLing play, more than dealing damage. Sure, I would contain a zerg on 2 bases, but not for 10 minutes, all the hellions were for was to force the zerg into a different tech path than mass sLing bLing.. Zergs are crybabys, that have not experimented with their race what-so-freakin-ever. Instead of telling Terrans to just come up with new stuff, why dont zergs actually experiment.((If zergs recieved half as many nerfs as Terran, Zergs would actually have more than 2 openings, and wouldnt cry op about something like a hellion opening that isnt about killing, but about slowing down)) You clearly haven't been playing this game for very long. I'd rather see some sort of buff to Terran lategame because as it seems, and as some have already pointed out, reverting the queen buff wont change much anymore now that more zergs are realizing how good having 6 queens early can be in general.
Except it can. This is the "ice fisher" build except greedier.
|
Why is this thread still going? I think the usefulness is long gone now....
|
On June 24 2012 14:32 geokilla wrote:
Why is this thread still going? I think the usefulness is long gone now....
Would you rather see Terrans complain about this in multiple topics or keep our anger in one?
|
The problem that exists has been discussed to death... The answer should be in the Raven, but blizzard has to be the ones to make it happen
Terrans have forever had utterly horrible lategame units, the BC is a complete joke and the Raven is a situational unit that is usually terrible. in TvZ it is just a waste of supply and 200 gas and gives no early game benefits other than its detection and no lategame benefits at all because PDD doesn't do anything versus any ZvT unit and HSM has been awful for forever. But really, the awful lategame options didn't matter because Terran early-mid game always had the potential to be successful. and now that it doesn't, the lack of lategame option is exposed.
I'd rather HSM be fusion core tech and actually good, like it used to be, than starport techlab tech and horrible, like it is now. Giving it its old radius back and +1 range or something and moving it back to fusion core might be a good change.
This way, a Terran doesn't really feel bad about bringing out an early Raven, and an interesting midgame Raven vs. Queen mechanic can exist in TvZ games where a terran sends out a raven with a few units to kill creep and the Zerg tries to fend them off and rebuild tumors. It gives terrans an answer to ridiculous mid-game creep spread and a decent option in the late game to combat Broodlord/Infestor.
|
I find it ironic that zergs complain about defending against hellion runbys when ling runbys are pretty much the same thing that p and t gotta deal with (p especially). The top level zergs dont die to hellions. If hellions run into your base thats your fauly for being a noob. Furthermore the ghost snipe nerf was another very bad balancing decision (thanks mvp for being too good at macro). Really snipe and queen range both need to be reverted. What is blizzard thinking with these utterly bad balancing decisions?
|
On June 24 2012 14:34 Chaggi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2012 14:32 geokilla wrote:
Why is this thread still going? I think the usefulness is long gone now.... Would you rather see Terrans complain about this in multiple topics or keep our anger in one?
There is a thread already, its called designated balance disscusion thread. Why dont you use it instead of making new threads/posts to let your "anger" out.
|
On June 24 2012 13:32 redruMBunny wrote:Show nested quote +If you notice every single high level terran game what do you see? some variant of triple oc and double ebay
why do you think this is? they are letting the zerg go to 70 drones, so they deserve to lose right?
You probably don't actually play the game, but there is actually no way to stop zerg from going 70 drones by 8 minutes unless you do some super 2 base timing (usually allin if fails to do any damage), and 6 queens + lings easily stop everything. Aren't you saying that triple OC and double ebay isn't quite working out? But isn't that what you saw prepatch anyways? So maybe triple OC and double ebay is wrong, is what I'm saying. If the triple OC and double ebay are wrong, you're saying, then why are pros still using it? At least I think that is your point. That is, isn't your argument and the argument of many others that because the pros say it's a problem, it's a problem? But I think it could be because the pros have just been slow to adapt. Just because pros do something doesn't mean it's inherently and empirically right. What if pros think the queen buff hasn't really changed things to the degree that they should have to change their playstyle? (and what if pros are wrong about this and are losing TvZ as a result?) What if the pros are busy for the season so don't have the time to adequately practice to correctly counter? Etc. etc. So if I found a bunch of Korean pros that felt the queen buff was proper and right, then what? Does that make other posters concerns invalid? I don't think so. I think some posters consider the queen buff to be a problem in and of itself, and I think they have valid reasons, as I've already expressed (although not for some time as I've been posting pro-queen buff). Although a lot of what I've written has been in favor of the queen buff, that still doesn't mean I think it's 100% correct and necessary, or that I think other arguments have no validity. But consider this - wasn't it recently that one of the pros ran a 0/0 upgrade game, showing switching resources off from upgrades can work successfully, after at least months of everyone going ups? Then what is it about DRG style and Stephano style and Marineking style or however many other styles that are titled after player names? I think it's because the scene adapts, but slowly, especially now because as I mentioned, this is a busy season for SC2 pros. I don't think they have a load of time to screw around trying to invent new timing attacks. Besides that, the answer for each player may be a bit different. Stephano style works for Stephano because of his micro, his ability to assess things so well on the fly, and a lot of other Stephano-ish qualities. But it might not work so well for even another player, even an S-rank Korean pro. It isn't just like there's one standard answer that will work for all players. Besides that, ability to deal with queens isn't just about building some counter. It's a question of executing counters, not just conceptualizing them. If you have a counter that you think may work decently, but you can't quite get a hold of it, it makes sense that you might try a method that's more tried and true than a new animal that you're not quite sure of. Like, suppose you wanted to go to the grocery store to get a pint of ice cream, or if you want to say it's an important trip, to go to the hospital to see a baby get born (maybe a new brother/sister, maybe a son/daughter, who knows?) In any event, does it make sense to jump in a rocket powered car that travels a minimum of 200 mph, especially if you know your nerves are going to be pent up? Sure it might theoretically do the job better, but if you're used to traveling by motor scooter at 30 mph, you might figure your chances of making it to your destination would be better if you used the slow scooter. Now consider that if you're not even sure of executing your counter properly, you will be even that much less sure because you'll be afraid of an opponent's possible counters that your counter can't deal with. It's all unknown and potentially very problematic, so stick with what works, even if it works less successfully. Etc. etc. There are so many reasons why a good answer to queen buff may not be being demonstrated by pros yet, so I think people basing arguments based simply on pro play and win percentages is premature. Five months from now, okay, the slow winter season comes on and players have time to innovate. But for now, I think it's certainly too early to say. I watched a replay of deMuslim's interview at I think it was MLG. Apparently he didn't think the queen buff was imba to begin with, but he changed his mind after listening to other players. What if deMuslim was right in the first place and the others were wrong?
A large portion of the Z pro community believe the buff is ridiculous and breaks the match-up. People who directly benefit from this by making more money because of it. If you can't listen to that, I don't know what to tell you.
Just, fucking stop. You're wrong. Period. The Queen Buff is too much, and I don't care how you put it, when DRG, Nestea, and various other Z pros go on record about how it was basically too much, it was too much. Period.
On June 24 2012 14:35 saltygrapes wrote:
The problem that exists has been discussed to death... The answer should be in the Raven, but blizzard has to be the ones to make it happen
Terrans have forever had utterly horrible lategame units, the BC is a complete joke and the Raven is a situational unit that is usually terrible. in TvZ it is just a waste of supply and 200 gas and gives no early game benefits other than its detection and no lategame benefits at all because PDD doesn't do anything versus any ZvT unit and HSM has been awful for forever. But really, the awful lategame options didn't matter because Terran early-mid game always had the potential to be successful. and now that it doesn't, the lack of lategame option is exposed.
I'd rather HSM be fusion core tech and actually good, like it used to be, than starport techlab tech and horrible, like it is now. Giving it its old radius back and +1 range or something and moving it back to fusion core might be a good change.
This way, a Terran doesn't really feel bad about bringing out an early Raven, and an interesting midgame Raven vs. Queen mechanic can exist in TvZ games where a terran sends out a raven with a few units to kill creep and the Zerg tries to fend them off and rebuild tumors. It gives terrans an answer to ridiculous mid-game creep spread and a decent option in the late game to combat Broodlord/Infestor.
Replace Raven with Science Vessel. Problem solved. However it will never happen, but the Science Vessel would give Terran enough power late game without sending them over the top.
|
Why doesnt PDD stop broodlings? Thats another nerf i dont understand. Honestly almost everything terran has been nerfed now that i think about it. PDD could be used to counter bls. Nerfed. Ghosts could be used to counter hive tech tech switches (and zerg could still counter this with mass bane tech switches). Nerfed. Barracks, bunker, reaper, hellion, banshee (indirect from queen buff), seige tanks, medivac speed, stim (bio), lol im just thinking off the top of my head it feels like almost every terran unit has been nerfed? Meanwhile the map pool has gotten bigger. Actually this is kind of crazy how much terran stuff has been nerfed.
|
On June 24 2012 14:43 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2012 13:32 redruMBunny wrote:If you notice every single high level terran game what do you see? some variant of triple oc and double ebay
why do you think this is? they are letting the zerg go to 70 drones, so they deserve to lose right?
You probably don't actually play the game, but there is actually no way to stop zerg from going 70 drones by 8 minutes unless you do some super 2 base timing (usually allin if fails to do any damage), and 6 queens + lings easily stop everything. Aren't you saying that triple OC and double ebay isn't quite working out? But isn't that what you saw prepatch anyways? So maybe triple OC and double ebay is wrong, is what I'm saying. If the triple OC and double ebay are wrong, you're saying, then why are pros still using it? At least I think that is your point. That is, isn't your argument and the argument of many others that because the pros say it's a problem, it's a problem? But I think it could be because the pros have just been slow to adapt. Just because pros do something doesn't mean it's inherently and empirically right. What if pros think the queen buff hasn't really changed things to the degree that they should have to change their playstyle? (and what if pros are wrong about this and are losing TvZ as a result?) What if the pros are busy for the season so don't have the time to adequately practice to correctly counter? Etc. etc. So if I found a bunch of Korean pros that felt the queen buff was proper and right, then what? Does that make other posters concerns invalid? I don't think so. I think some posters consider the queen buff to be a problem in and of itself, and I think they have valid reasons, as I've already expressed (although not for some time as I've been posting pro-queen buff). Although a lot of what I've written has been in favor of the queen buff, that still doesn't mean I think it's 100% correct and necessary, or that I think other arguments have no validity. But consider this - wasn't it recently that one of the pros ran a 0/0 upgrade game, showing switching resources off from upgrades can work successfully, after at least months of everyone going ups? Then what is it about DRG style and Stephano style and Marineking style or however many other styles that are titled after player names? I think it's because the scene adapts, but slowly, especially now because as I mentioned, this is a busy season for SC2 pros. I don't think they have a load of time to screw around trying to invent new timing attacks. Besides that, the answer for each player may be a bit different. Stephano style works for Stephano because of his micro, his ability to assess things so well on the fly, and a lot of other Stephano-ish qualities. But it might not work so well for even another player, even an S-rank Korean pro. It isn't just like there's one standard answer that will work for all players. Besides that, ability to deal with queens isn't just about building some counter. It's a question of executing counters, not just conceptualizing them. If you have a counter that you think may work decently, but you can't quite get a hold of it, it makes sense that you might try a method that's more tried and true than a new animal that you're not quite sure of. Like, suppose you wanted to go to the grocery store to get a pint of ice cream, or if you want to say it's an important trip, to go to the hospital to see a baby get born (maybe a new brother/sister, maybe a son/daughter, who knows?) In any event, does it make sense to jump in a rocket powered car that travels a minimum of 200 mph, especially if you know your nerves are going to be pent up? Sure it might theoretically do the job better, but if you're used to traveling by motor scooter at 30 mph, you might figure your chances of making it to your destination would be better if you used the slow scooter. Now consider that if you're not even sure of executing your counter properly, you will be even that much less sure because you'll be afraid of an opponent's possible counters that your counter can't deal with. It's all unknown and potentially very problematic, so stick with what works, even if it works less successfully. Etc. etc. There are so many reasons why a good answer to queen buff may not be being demonstrated by pros yet, so I think people basing arguments based simply on pro play and win percentages is premature. Five months from now, okay, the slow winter season comes on and players have time to innovate. But for now, I think it's certainly too early to say. I watched a replay of deMuslim's interview at I think it was MLG. Apparently he didn't think the queen buff was imba to begin with, but he changed his mind after listening to other players. What if deMuslim was right in the first place and the others were wrong? A large portion of the Z pro community believe the buff is ridiculous and breaks the match-up. People who directly benefit from this by making more money because of it. If you can't listen to that, I don't know what to tell you. Just, fucking stop. You're wrong. Period. The Queen Buff is too much, and I don't care how you put it, when DRG, Nestea, and various other Z pros go on record about how it was basically too much, it was too much. Period. Show nested quote +On June 24 2012 14:35 saltygrapes wrote:
The problem that exists has been discussed to death... The answer should be in the Raven, but blizzard has to be the ones to make it happen
Terrans have forever had utterly horrible lategame units, the BC is a complete joke and the Raven is a situational unit that is usually terrible. in TvZ it is just a waste of supply and 200 gas and gives no early game benefits other than its detection and no lategame benefits at all because PDD doesn't do anything versus any ZvT unit and HSM has been awful for forever. But really, the awful lategame options didn't matter because Terran early-mid game always had the potential to be successful. and now that it doesn't, the lack of lategame option is exposed.
I'd rather HSM be fusion core tech and actually good, like it used to be, than starport techlab tech and horrible, like it is now. Giving it its old radius back and +1 range or something and moving it back to fusion core might be a good change.
This way, a Terran doesn't really feel bad about bringing out an early Raven, and an interesting midgame Raven vs. Queen mechanic can exist in TvZ games where a terran sends out a raven with a few units to kill creep and the Zerg tries to fend them off and rebuild tumors. It gives terrans an answer to ridiculous mid-game creep spread and a decent option in the late game to combat Broodlord/Infestor. Replace Raven with Science Vessel. Problem solved. However it will never happen, but the Science Vessel would give Terran enough power late game without sending them over the top.
Cite your sources for this. Not that I don't believe you, but I have a hard time believing it.
|
On June 24 2012 14:44 jkos86 wrote:
Why doesnt PDD stop broodlings? Thats another nerf i dont understand. Honestly almost everything terran has been nerfed now that i think about it. PDD could be used to counter bls. Nerfed. Ghosts could be used to counter hive tech tech switches (and zerg could still counter this with mass bane tech switches). Nerfed. Barracks, bunker, reaper, hellion, banshee (indirect from queen buff), seige tanks, medivac speed, stim (bio), lol im just thinking off the top of my head it feels like almost every terran unit has been nerfed? Meanwhile the map pool has gotten bigger. Actually this is kind of crazy how much terran stuff has been nerfed.
Cause blizzard nerfs based on the current meta game and not the actual design of a unit. Fundamental flaw.
|
On June 24 2012 14:52 cydial wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2012 14:43 superstartran wrote:On June 24 2012 13:32 redruMBunny wrote:If you notice every single high level terran game what do you see? some variant of triple oc and double ebay
why do you think this is? they are letting the zerg go to 70 drones, so they deserve to lose right?
You probably don't actually play the game, but there is actually no way to stop zerg from going 70 drones by 8 minutes unless you do some super 2 base timing (usually allin if fails to do any damage), and 6 queens + lings easily stop everything. Aren't you saying that triple OC and double ebay isn't quite working out? But isn't that what you saw prepatch anyways? So maybe triple OC and double ebay is wrong, is what I'm saying. If the triple OC and double ebay are wrong, you're saying, then why are pros still using it? At least I think that is your point. That is, isn't your argument and the argument of many others that because the pros say it's a problem, it's a problem? But I think it could be because the pros have just been slow to adapt. Just because pros do something doesn't mean it's inherently and empirically right. What if pros think the queen buff hasn't really changed things to the degree that they should have to change their playstyle? (and what if pros are wrong about this and are losing TvZ as a result?) What if the pros are busy for the season so don't have the time to adequately practice to correctly counter? Etc. etc. So if I found a bunch of Korean pros that felt the queen buff was proper and right, then what? Does that make other posters concerns invalid? I don't think so. I think some posters consider the queen buff to be a problem in and of itself, and I think they have valid reasons, as I've already expressed (although not for some time as I've been posting pro-queen buff). Although a lot of what I've written has been in favor of the queen buff, that still doesn't mean I think it's 100% correct and necessary, or that I think other arguments have no validity. But consider this - wasn't it recently that one of the pros ran a 0/0 upgrade game, showing switching resources off from upgrades can work successfully, after at least months of everyone going ups? Then what is it about DRG style and Stephano style and Marineking style or however many other styles that are titled after player names? I think it's because the scene adapts, but slowly, especially now because as I mentioned, this is a busy season for SC2 pros. I don't think they have a load of time to screw around trying to invent new timing attacks. Besides that, the answer for each player may be a bit different. Stephano style works for Stephano because of his micro, his ability to assess things so well on the fly, and a lot of other Stephano-ish qualities. But it might not work so well for even another player, even an S-rank Korean pro. It isn't just like there's one standard answer that will work for all players. Besides that, ability to deal with queens isn't just about building some counter. It's a question of executing counters, not just conceptualizing them. If you have a counter that you think may work decently, but you can't quite get a hold of it, it makes sense that you might try a method that's more tried and true than a new animal that you're not quite sure of. Like, suppose you wanted to go to the grocery store to get a pint of ice cream, or if you want to say it's an important trip, to go to the hospital to see a baby get born (maybe a new brother/sister, maybe a son/daughter, who knows?) In any event, does it make sense to jump in a rocket powered car that travels a minimum of 200 mph, especially if you know your nerves are going to be pent up? Sure it might theoretically do the job better, but if you're used to traveling by motor scooter at 30 mph, you might figure your chances of making it to your destination would be better if you used the slow scooter. Now consider that if you're not even sure of executing your counter properly, you will be even that much less sure because you'll be afraid of an opponent's possible counters that your counter can't deal with. It's all unknown and potentially very problematic, so stick with what works, even if it works less successfully. Etc. etc. There are so many reasons why a good answer to queen buff may not be being demonstrated by pros yet, so I think people basing arguments based simply on pro play and win percentages is premature. Five months from now, okay, the slow winter season comes on and players have time to innovate. But for now, I think it's certainly too early to say. I watched a replay of deMuslim's interview at I think it was MLG. Apparently he didn't think the queen buff was imba to begin with, but he changed his mind after listening to other players. What if deMuslim was right in the first place and the others were wrong? A large portion of the Z pro community believe the buff is ridiculous and breaks the match-up. People who directly benefit from this by making more money because of it. If you can't listen to that, I don't know what to tell you. Just, fucking stop. You're wrong. Period. The Queen Buff is too much, and I don't care how you put it, when DRG, Nestea, and various other Z pros go on record about how it was basically too much, it was too much. Period. On June 24 2012 14:35 saltygrapes wrote:
The problem that exists has been discussed to death... The answer should be in the Raven, but blizzard has to be the ones to make it happen
Terrans have forever had utterly horrible lategame units, the BC is a complete joke and the Raven is a situational unit that is usually terrible. in TvZ it is just a waste of supply and 200 gas and gives no early game benefits other than its detection and no lategame benefits at all because PDD doesn't do anything versus any ZvT unit and HSM has been awful for forever. But really, the awful lategame options didn't matter because Terran early-mid game always had the potential to be successful. and now that it doesn't, the lack of lategame option is exposed.
I'd rather HSM be fusion core tech and actually good, like it used to be, than starport techlab tech and horrible, like it is now. Giving it its old radius back and +1 range or something and moving it back to fusion core might be a good change.
This way, a Terran doesn't really feel bad about bringing out an early Raven, and an interesting midgame Raven vs. Queen mechanic can exist in TvZ games where a terran sends out a raven with a few units to kill creep and the Zerg tries to fend them off and rebuild tumors. It gives terrans an answer to ridiculous mid-game creep spread and a decent option in the late game to combat Broodlord/Infestor. Replace Raven with Science Vessel. Problem solved. However it will never happen, but the Science Vessel would give Terran enough power late game without sending them over the top. Cite your sources for this. Not that I don't believe you, but I have a hard time believing it.
Look at interviews, i think gsl ones on sc2 general forum, in the past month. I'd give them to you but I'm on my phone right now.
|
On June 24 2012 14:52 cydial wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2012 14:43 superstartran wrote:On June 24 2012 13:32 redruMBunny wrote:If you notice every single high level terran game what do you see? some variant of triple oc and double ebay
why do you think this is? they are letting the zerg go to 70 drones, so they deserve to lose right?
You probably don't actually play the game, but there is actually no way to stop zerg from going 70 drones by 8 minutes unless you do some super 2 base timing (usually allin if fails to do any damage), and 6 queens + lings easily stop everything. Aren't you saying that triple OC and double ebay isn't quite working out? But isn't that what you saw prepatch anyways? So maybe triple OC and double ebay is wrong, is what I'm saying. If the triple OC and double ebay are wrong, you're saying, then why are pros still using it? At least I think that is your point. That is, isn't your argument and the argument of many others that because the pros say it's a problem, it's a problem? But I think it could be because the pros have just been slow to adapt. Just because pros do something doesn't mean it's inherently and empirically right. What if pros think the queen buff hasn't really changed things to the degree that they should have to change their playstyle? (and what if pros are wrong about this and are losing TvZ as a result?) What if the pros are busy for the season so don't have the time to adequately practice to correctly counter? Etc. etc. So if I found a bunch of Korean pros that felt the queen buff was proper and right, then what? Does that make other posters concerns invalid? I don't think so. I think some posters consider the queen buff to be a problem in and of itself, and I think they have valid reasons, as I've already expressed (although not for some time as I've been posting pro-queen buff). Although a lot of what I've written has been in favor of the queen buff, that still doesn't mean I think it's 100% correct and necessary, or that I think other arguments have no validity. But consider this - wasn't it recently that one of the pros ran a 0/0 upgrade game, showing switching resources off from upgrades can work successfully, after at least months of everyone going ups? Then what is it about DRG style and Stephano style and Marineking style or however many other styles that are titled after player names? I think it's because the scene adapts, but slowly, especially now because as I mentioned, this is a busy season for SC2 pros. I don't think they have a load of time to screw around trying to invent new timing attacks. Besides that, the answer for each player may be a bit different. Stephano style works for Stephano because of his micro, his ability to assess things so well on the fly, and a lot of other Stephano-ish qualities. But it might not work so well for even another player, even an S-rank Korean pro. It isn't just like there's one standard answer that will work for all players. Besides that, ability to deal with queens isn't just about building some counter. It's a question of executing counters, not just conceptualizing them. If you have a counter that you think may work decently, but you can't quite get a hold of it, it makes sense that you might try a method that's more tried and true than a new animal that you're not quite sure of. Like, suppose you wanted to go to the grocery store to get a pint of ice cream, or if you want to say it's an important trip, to go to the hospital to see a baby get born (maybe a new brother/sister, maybe a son/daughter, who knows?) In any event, does it make sense to jump in a rocket powered car that travels a minimum of 200 mph, especially if you know your nerves are going to be pent up? Sure it might theoretically do the job better, but if you're used to traveling by motor scooter at 30 mph, you might figure your chances of making it to your destination would be better if you used the slow scooter. Now consider that if you're not even sure of executing your counter properly, you will be even that much less sure because you'll be afraid of an opponent's possible counters that your counter can't deal with. It's all unknown and potentially very problematic, so stick with what works, even if it works less successfully. Etc. etc. There are so many reasons why a good answer to queen buff may not be being demonstrated by pros yet, so I think people basing arguments based simply on pro play and win percentages is premature. Five months from now, okay, the slow winter season comes on and players have time to innovate. But for now, I think it's certainly too early to say. I watched a replay of deMuslim's interview at I think it was MLG. Apparently he didn't think the queen buff was imba to begin with, but he changed his mind after listening to other players. What if deMuslim was right in the first place and the others were wrong? A large portion of the Z pro community believe the buff is ridiculous and breaks the match-up. People who directly benefit from this by making more money because of it. If you can't listen to that, I don't know what to tell you. Just, fucking stop. You're wrong. Period. The Queen Buff is too much, and I don't care how you put it, when DRG, Nestea, and various other Z pros go on record about how it was basically too much, it was too much. Period. On June 24 2012 14:35 saltygrapes wrote:
The problem that exists has been discussed to death... The answer should be in the Raven, but blizzard has to be the ones to make it happen
Terrans have forever had utterly horrible lategame units, the BC is a complete joke and the Raven is a situational unit that is usually terrible. in TvZ it is just a waste of supply and 200 gas and gives no early game benefits other than its detection and no lategame benefits at all because PDD doesn't do anything versus any ZvT unit and HSM has been awful for forever. But really, the awful lategame options didn't matter because Terran early-mid game always had the potential to be successful. and now that it doesn't, the lack of lategame option is exposed.
I'd rather HSM be fusion core tech and actually good, like it used to be, than starport techlab tech and horrible, like it is now. Giving it its old radius back and +1 range or something and moving it back to fusion core might be a good change.
This way, a Terran doesn't really feel bad about bringing out an early Raven, and an interesting midgame Raven vs. Queen mechanic can exist in TvZ games where a terran sends out a raven with a few units to kill creep and the Zerg tries to fend them off and rebuild tumors. It gives terrans an answer to ridiculous mid-game creep spread and a decent option in the late game to combat Broodlord/Infestor. Replace Raven with Science Vessel. Problem solved. However it will never happen, but the Science Vessel would give Terran enough power late game without sending them over the top. Cite your sources for this. Not that I don't believe you, but I have a hard time believing it. Sources are already in this thread.
Read various GSL interviews, read the transcript of the ro16 code S group ceremony, where Symbol, Nestea and DRG are saying "of course I'd want a 3 terrans group", then DRG says that terran "won't find an answer anytime soon".
|
On June 24 2012 14:32 geokilla wrote:
Why is this thread still going? I think the usefulness is long gone now....
If it's not useful to you anymore, then leave. There is still civil discussion going on, so the fact that it's not "useful" is not sufficient reason to close it.
|
|
|
I would like to point people to this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=163605
It's about a mass marine/raven style, based on SK terran from BW. I think this should be explored, the stuff in that thread is a bit outdated but the key concepts are still there. Mainly that we should try to trade marines for gas units as much as possible, be active with marine groups etc.
It requires really a lot of micro/multitasking but I think this might be it. Ravens are not to be underestimated, turrets are great for mapcontrol & getting tumors and HSM is a killer endgame. The biggest problem is controlling the ravens, clumping them up probably leads to insta gg.
|
On June 24 2012 14:52 cydial wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2012 14:43 superstartran wrote:On June 24 2012 13:32 redruMBunny wrote:If you notice every single high level terran game what do you see? some variant of triple oc and double ebay
why do you think this is? they are letting the zerg go to 70 drones, so they deserve to lose right?
You probably don't actually play the game, but there is actually no way to stop zerg from going 70 drones by 8 minutes unless you do some super 2 base timing (usually allin if fails to do any damage), and 6 queens + lings easily stop everything. Aren't you saying that triple OC and double ebay isn't quite working out? But isn't that what you saw prepatch anyways? So maybe triple OC and double ebay is wrong, is what I'm saying. If the triple OC and double ebay are wrong, you're saying, then why are pros still using it? At least I think that is your point. That is, isn't your argument and the argument of many others that because the pros say it's a problem, it's a problem? But I think it could be because the pros have just been slow to adapt. Just because pros do something doesn't mean it's inherently and empirically right. What if pros think the queen buff hasn't really changed things to the degree that they should have to change their playstyle? (and what if pros are wrong about this and are losing TvZ as a result?) What if the pros are busy for the season so don't have the time to adequately practice to correctly counter? Etc. etc. So if I found a bunch of Korean pros that felt the queen buff was proper and right, then what? Does that make other posters concerns invalid? I don't think so. I think some posters consider the queen buff to be a problem in and of itself, and I think they have valid reasons, as I've already expressed (although not for some time as I've been posting pro-queen buff). Although a lot of what I've written has been in favor of the queen buff, that still doesn't mean I think it's 100% correct and necessary, or that I think other arguments have no validity. But consider this - wasn't it recently that one of the pros ran a 0/0 upgrade game, showing switching resources off from upgrades can work successfully, after at least months of everyone going ups? Then what is it about DRG style and Stephano style and Marineking style or however many other styles that are titled after player names? I think it's because the scene adapts, but slowly, especially now because as I mentioned, this is a busy season for SC2 pros. I don't think they have a load of time to screw around trying to invent new timing attacks. Besides that, the answer for each player may be a bit different. Stephano style works for Stephano because of his micro, his ability to assess things so well on the fly, and a lot of other Stephano-ish qualities. But it might not work so well for even another player, even an S-rank Korean pro. It isn't just like there's one standard answer that will work for all players. Besides that, ability to deal with queens isn't just about building some counter. It's a question of executing counters, not just conceptualizing them. If you have a counter that you think may work decently, but you can't quite get a hold of it, it makes sense that you might try a method that's more tried and true than a new animal that you're not quite sure of. Like, suppose you wanted to go to the grocery store to get a pint of ice cream, or if you want to say it's an important trip, to go to the hospital to see a baby get born (maybe a new brother/sister, maybe a son/daughter, who knows?) In any event, does it make sense to jump in a rocket powered car that travels a minimum of 200 mph, especially if you know your nerves are going to be pent up? Sure it might theoretically do the job better, but if you're used to traveling by motor scooter at 30 mph, you might figure your chances of making it to your destination would be better if you used the slow scooter. Now consider that if you're not even sure of executing your counter properly, you will be even that much less sure because you'll be afraid of an opponent's possible counters that your counter can't deal with. It's all unknown and potentially very problematic, so stick with what works, even if it works less successfully. Etc. etc. There are so many reasons why a good answer to queen buff may not be being demonstrated by pros yet, so I think people basing arguments based simply on pro play and win percentages is premature. Five months from now, okay, the slow winter season comes on and players have time to innovate. But for now, I think it's certainly too early to say. I watched a replay of deMuslim's interview at I think it was MLG. Apparently he didn't think the queen buff was imba to begin with, but he changed his mind after listening to other players. What if deMuslim was right in the first place and the others were wrong? A large portion of the Z pro community believe the buff is ridiculous and breaks the match-up. People who directly benefit from this by making more money because of it. If you can't listen to that, I don't know what to tell you. Just, fucking stop. You're wrong. Period. The Queen Buff is too much, and I don't care how you put it, when DRG, Nestea, and various other Z pros go on record about how it was basically too much, it was too much. Period. On June 24 2012 14:35 saltygrapes wrote:
The problem that exists has been discussed to death... The answer should be in the Raven, but blizzard has to be the ones to make it happen
Terrans have forever had utterly horrible lategame units, the BC is a complete joke and the Raven is a situational unit that is usually terrible. in TvZ it is just a waste of supply and 200 gas and gives no early game benefits other than its detection and no lategame benefits at all because PDD doesn't do anything versus any ZvT unit and HSM has been awful for forever. But really, the awful lategame options didn't matter because Terran early-mid game always had the potential to be successful. and now that it doesn't, the lack of lategame option is exposed.
I'd rather HSM be fusion core tech and actually good, like it used to be, than starport techlab tech and horrible, like it is now. Giving it its old radius back and +1 range or something and moving it back to fusion core might be a good change.
This way, a Terran doesn't really feel bad about bringing out an early Raven, and an interesting midgame Raven vs. Queen mechanic can exist in TvZ games where a terran sends out a raven with a few units to kill creep and the Zerg tries to fend them off and rebuild tumors. It gives terrans an answer to ridiculous mid-game creep spread and a decent option in the late game to combat Broodlord/Infestor. Replace Raven with Science Vessel. Problem solved. However it will never happen, but the Science Vessel would give Terran enough power late game without sending them over the top. Cite your sources for this. Not that I don't believe you, but I have a hard time believing it.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=346873 - RO32 interviews
Ryung - "Playing on NA Server resulted in TvZ all loss"
DRG (probably best Zerg atm, more than probably actually) - "This is required, it's a great time to try for the gold, have to win a gold when zergs have the advantage"
MKP (probably second best Terran behind MVP) in response - "It's the most unbalanced match-up in history, before the patch (my) TvZ win-rate was around 60%, now it's plummeted to 10%. I'm really lost, why did this happen, I've studied alot of counter zerg strategies, and I haven't found any solutions yet.
In hindsight it's (strategies) all like that game on metropolis, playing to the late-game and setting up the prefect defense all around, it's kind of a solution with out a solution. I
I've watched alot of zergs that do well on ladder's records, alot of people basically haven't lost to Terran in a whole week. It's basically impossible for a terran with the same skill level as the zerg to win. Unless you all-in, or the opponent's psyche collapses, or your luck is just too good, it's hard to win. Even in practice I don't want to play TvZ, I always lose."
That said, Violet did say this - "Zerg definitely got more powerful, but personally I just feel that other races were sniping zergs too easily before, so now they are finding zergs hard.
ZvP hasn't changed match, ZvT is improved, because Terrans are too focused (affected) on the queens, so they are playing very cowardly in ZvT, that's why this phenomenon exists now."
But I do remember top-tier Terrans stating that this is the first time their win-rate has completely plummated, and Zergs saying that's it's become better/2ez
|
On June 24 2012 15:25 Andr3 wrote:I would like to point people to this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=163605It's about a mass marine/raven style, based on SK terran from BW. I think this should be explored, the stuff in that thread is a bit outdated but the key concepts are still there. Mainly that we should try to trade marines for gas units as much as possible, be active with marine groups etc. It requires really a lot of micro/multitasking but I think this might be it. Ravens are not to be underestimated, turrets are great for mapcontrol & getting tumors and HSM is a killer endgame. The biggest problem is controlling the ravens, clumping them up probably leads to insta gg.
I used to play like that, but it really works best against zergs that go banelings to deal with marines. Ling/infestor is very good at dealing with marines unless there are lots of medivacs. You also need MKP level micro on both your marines and ravens because clumping too much and getting fungalled is the end of the game. I really hope we don't have to play on that sort of knife edge to be successful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
