|
Blizzard likes asymmetric balance like they have stated many times (t strong early game, p late game etc). Terran was OP for so long time, it's now time for Z to be OP, especially when HOTS (z expansion) is coming. They want to create story lines like MMA/MVP/MKP to be slumping and DRG or someone else being the new number one. But when they eventually buff Terran MVP/MMA/MKP rises to his old glory and wins again. What they didnt consider is that games became a lot less entertaining with the new metagame.
|
On July 04 2012 10:42 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2012 10:13 emc wrote:On July 04 2012 00:44 shockaslim wrote:On July 04 2012 00:30 SeaSwift wrote:On July 04 2012 00:00 one-one-one wrote:On July 03 2012 23:55 Jebediah wrote:On July 03 2012 23:47 IshinShishi wrote:On July 03 2012 23:39 Jebediah wrote:On July 03 2012 23:29 IshinShishi wrote:On July 03 2012 23:22 emc wrote:
[quote]
virtually anyone can sign up for Code A qualifiers, surely you must understand that there is a much bigger skill gap in a qualifier compared to an actual tournament? If we're looking for unbiased balanced, you have to take players who are closely equal in skill, qualifiers are the furthest from equality because the best players roll over everyone and make it to the real deal. Stop spreading bullshit, you need to be at least in code B, i.e stronger than all of the foreign only tournaments. Participation Requirements: - Must be at least 12 years old - Need to have a SC2 Battle.net account (cannot use your family's or friends' accounts) [Does not have to be a Korean Battle.net account] - Identification (Passport, ID, driver's license) These are the requirements to participate in the 2012 GSL Season 3 Code A Qualifiers. Source: GomTV ?Is that supposed to mean anything?I'm sure that the tournament would be full of platinum and diamond players if those were the only requirements, not full of players in sponsored teams that don't always qualify, this is completely meaningless as it does not represent the reality by any means, never did. There are 576 seats, only 21 participants make it through the preliminaries. You could also argue that the MLG Open Bracket is full of Code A/S class players, because the top 20 are stacked with them. You told emc to stop spreading his bullshit while he was saying what was actually true: Anybody can sign up for the qualifiers. How is requirements for entering a qualifier related to TLPD june statistics ? The last few pages are full of this shit. It has no relevance to this thread at all. Because if you include qualifier stats, you are including stats from the possible equivalent of low-level ladder games. If the qualifier stats consist partially of just random players against actual pros, or random players against other random players, why the fuck would you ever include them in pro statistics? That is of course based on the assumption that non-pros do turn up regularly. But that should answer your question about why it is relevant. How is this different from say, MLG where anyone can sign up for the Open Bracket? MLG takes place in ONLY 3 days, Code A qualifiers take over a week, maybe 2. Then the actual tournament of GSL for instance, takes several months, so players can know weeks in advance who they play and study them. If both players have an equal chance at studying each other, then surely GSL is the hardest possible tournament because of the amount of preparation, not even mentioning the caliber of players which we all know are fantastic. My point is, MLG is an endurance test, Code A qualifiers are not, you only have to win 4 matches to make it into Code A, that is NOTHING compared to the grueling task of getting through open brackets. Endurance wise, MLG is a lot tougher, but it could be argued that Code A qualifiers are certainly more challenging. I think there is definitely LESS skill in the MLG open brackets for several rounds until the pros start to finally face each other, but that's hundreds of worthless games until the pros start playing each other. But if it were up to me, I wouldn't include the MLG open bracket because it's basically a qualifier, a bunch of players mixed in from bronze to GM to Code S level, the place you really don't want to take balance from. Honestly I don't think the guy who makes the TLPD cares all that much about international win rates because it seems he pretty much just uses every tournament possible where korea is a lot more exclusive. but hey, if you are one of those nit pickers that wants to see "true" balance, then create your own damn graph already... sheesh. But if you were interested in balance, then the GSL is actually one of the poorest places to look. Why? Because of two things: sample size, and study opportunities. The first part is self-explanatory, but the second bears some reflection. Even if some matchup is insanely imbalanced, given enough time, one player might be able to study the play of another specific player to the point where they locate a timing that works against them. This isn't possible in an average game and it does little to comment on the balance of a matchup. You need to understand that when MKP plays DRG in the GSL it's about MKP vs DRG more than it is about T vs Z. On the other hand, when MKP and DRG play at MLG, it's still about MKP vs DRG, sure, but it's also about well-executed, but non-tailored, Terran vs well-executed, but non-tailored, Zerg. This is a massive difference, because in many respects it means high skill qualifiers like TSL4KR are actually more useful indicators of balance. Why? Because, firstly, they're a larger sample size, and because, secondly, they evaluate players playing neutrally against each other. Yes, there are certainly some weak players who sign up for TSL qualifiers, but they are a small number. They're not enough to actually mean anything, especially since the saturation of pro players is so, so high. It's inconceivable that a whole bunch of mid Diamond players would somehow work their way up the bracket. You might have one outlier, but with the sample size being larger, that matters less. Hell, you could even manually eliminate for players that aren't at least Korean B-Teamers. It's why I laughed at people who said 0 Zergs in the Ro8 GSL means anything. It doesn't, and it didn't. It just means that the players who played against Zerg that particular time around happened to prepare better/execute their strategies better/get inside their opponent's heads. It might also mean that the Zerg players underprepared or just didn't play their best (which is basically what happened, IMO). It says nothing about the state of PvZ or TvZ because it's not consistent and only exists in one extremely tiny (size-wise) tournament. The reason Terrans are right to be concerned about TvZ is because Zerg is doing well in every neutral tournament. This means GSTL, TSL4KR, and so on. These are tournaments that you can't prepare for except in a general way. You can't develop a strategy designed specifically to steal you a win against DRG. You have to practice your general matchups in such a way that you'd be capable of facing anyone. This means you play more safely and don't tend to mindgame to the same degree, because you simply don't know your opponent's style as well as you might in the GSL. It's that simple. GSTL matters. TSL4KR matters. GSL Code A/S matter only when a consistent, prolonged trend is observed, because only after several seasons can individuality be eliminated by group selection.
would u still want to balance for "neutral" tournaments instead of "preparation" tournaments when the race(s) u play are doing better in neutral tournaments rather than prep tournaments? if yes, why do u think its more important to balance for neutral rather than prep? preparation tournaments offer more prestige and prize money, arent they more important? is it because the number of neutral tournaments are greater? is it cus u want to balance ladder? if you want to just balance the largest number of games then ur saying u wanna balance diamond and below which is laughable.
and to repeat what emc said, "knowing your opponent is a perfectly valid way to play the game." it's why ppl lose to one strat wonders on the ladder the first time and beat them the second time around. if i wanted to be facetious, id say "hey lets go by the shiori method of looking at statistics and exclude all statistics where a person was given time to prepare for the opponent or better yet lets also exclude stats of players that played people theyve played before cus they they know the other guys style and are able to play to it. lets only include stats of players where its their first time playing vs each other."
cus if u do that and want to look at "true" balance whutever the f that means, then what, u wanna exclude stats from build order losses or mindgames? cus i mean thats not really true balance right?
|
On July 10 2012 01:29 Bluerain wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2012 10:42 Shiori wrote:On July 04 2012 10:13 emc wrote:On July 04 2012 00:44 shockaslim wrote:On July 04 2012 00:30 SeaSwift wrote:On July 04 2012 00:00 one-one-one wrote:On July 03 2012 23:55 Jebediah wrote:On July 03 2012 23:47 IshinShishi wrote:On July 03 2012 23:39 Jebediah wrote:On July 03 2012 23:29 IshinShishi wrote:
[quote]
Stop spreading bullshit, you need to be at least in code B, i.e stronger than all of the foreign only tournaments. Participation Requirements: - Must be at least 12 years old - Need to have a SC2 Battle.net account (cannot use your family's or friends' accounts) [Does not have to be a Korean Battle.net account] - Identification (Passport, ID, driver's license) These are the requirements to participate in the 2012 GSL Season 3 Code A Qualifiers. Source: GomTV ?Is that supposed to mean anything?I'm sure that the tournament would be full of platinum and diamond players if those were the only requirements, not full of players in sponsored teams that don't always qualify, this is completely meaningless as it does not represent the reality by any means, never did. There are 576 seats, only 21 participants make it through the preliminaries. You could also argue that the MLG Open Bracket is full of Code A/S class players, because the top 20 are stacked with them. You told emc to stop spreading his bullshit while he was saying what was actually true: Anybody can sign up for the qualifiers. How is requirements for entering a qualifier related to TLPD june statistics ? The last few pages are full of this shit. It has no relevance to this thread at all. Because if you include qualifier stats, you are including stats from the possible equivalent of low-level ladder games. If the qualifier stats consist partially of just random players against actual pros, or random players against other random players, why the fuck would you ever include them in pro statistics? That is of course based on the assumption that non-pros do turn up regularly. But that should answer your question about why it is relevant. How is this different from say, MLG where anyone can sign up for the Open Bracket? MLG takes place in ONLY 3 days, Code A qualifiers take over a week, maybe 2. Then the actual tournament of GSL for instance, takes several months, so players can know weeks in advance who they play and study them. If both players have an equal chance at studying each other, then surely GSL is the hardest possible tournament because of the amount of preparation, not even mentioning the caliber of players which we all know are fantastic. My point is, MLG is an endurance test, Code A qualifiers are not, you only have to win 4 matches to make it into Code A, that is NOTHING compared to the grueling task of getting through open brackets. Endurance wise, MLG is a lot tougher, but it could be argued that Code A qualifiers are certainly more challenging. I think there is definitely LESS skill in the MLG open brackets for several rounds until the pros start to finally face each other, but that's hundreds of worthless games until the pros start playing each other. But if it were up to me, I wouldn't include the MLG open bracket because it's basically a qualifier, a bunch of players mixed in from bronze to GM to Code S level, the place you really don't want to take balance from. Honestly I don't think the guy who makes the TLPD cares all that much about international win rates because it seems he pretty much just uses every tournament possible where korea is a lot more exclusive. but hey, if you are one of those nit pickers that wants to see "true" balance, then create your own damn graph already... sheesh. But if you were interested in balance, then the GSL is actually one of the poorest places to look. Why? Because of two things: sample size, and study opportunities. The first part is self-explanatory, but the second bears some reflection. Even if some matchup is insanely imbalanced, given enough time, one player might be able to study the play of another specific player to the point where they locate a timing that works against them. This isn't possible in an average game and it does little to comment on the balance of a matchup. You need to understand that when MKP plays DRG in the GSL it's about MKP vs DRG more than it is about T vs Z. On the other hand, when MKP and DRG play at MLG, it's still about MKP vs DRG, sure, but it's also about well-executed, but non-tailored, Terran vs well-executed, but non-tailored, Zerg. This is a massive difference, because in many respects it means high skill qualifiers like TSL4KR are actually more useful indicators of balance. Why? Because, firstly, they're a larger sample size, and because, secondly, they evaluate players playing neutrally against each other. Yes, there are certainly some weak players who sign up for TSL qualifiers, but they are a small number. They're not enough to actually mean anything, especially since the saturation of pro players is so, so high. It's inconceivable that a whole bunch of mid Diamond players would somehow work their way up the bracket. You might have one outlier, but with the sample size being larger, that matters less. Hell, you could even manually eliminate for players that aren't at least Korean B-Teamers. It's why I laughed at people who said 0 Zergs in the Ro8 GSL means anything. It doesn't, and it didn't. It just means that the players who played against Zerg that particular time around happened to prepare better/execute their strategies better/get inside their opponent's heads. It might also mean that the Zerg players underprepared or just didn't play their best (which is basically what happened, IMO). It says nothing about the state of PvZ or TvZ because it's not consistent and only exists in one extremely tiny (size-wise) tournament. The reason Terrans are right to be concerned about TvZ is because Zerg is doing well in every neutral tournament. This means GSTL, TSL4KR, and so on. These are tournaments that you can't prepare for except in a general way. You can't develop a strategy designed specifically to steal you a win against DRG. You have to practice your general matchups in such a way that you'd be capable of facing anyone. This means you play more safely and don't tend to mindgame to the same degree, because you simply don't know your opponent's style as well as you might in the GSL. It's that simple. GSTL matters. TSL4KR matters. GSL Code A/S matter only when a consistent, prolonged trend is observed, because only after several seasons can individuality be eliminated by group selection. would u still want to balance for "neutral" tournaments instead of "preparation" tournaments when the race(s) u play are doing better in neutral tournaments rather than prep tournaments? if yes, why do u think its more important to balance for neutral rather than prep? preparation tournaments offer more prestige and prize money, arent they more important? is it because the number of neutral tournaments are greater? is it cus u want to balance ladder? if you want to just balance the largest number of games then ur saying u wanna balance diamond and below which is laughable. and to repeat what emc said, "knowing your opponent is a perfectly valid way to play the game." it's why ppl lose to one strat wonders on the ladder the first time and beat them the second time around. if i wanted to be facetious, id say "hey lets go by the shiori method of looking at statistics and exclude all statistics where a person was given time to prepare for the opponent or better yet lets also exclude stats of players that played people theyve played before cus they they know the other guys style and are able to play to it. lets only include stats of players where its their first time playing vs each other." cus if u do that and want to look at "true" balance whutever the f that means, then what, u wanna exclude stats from build order losses or mindgames? cus i mean thats not really true balance right?
No, that's not what I'm saying at all. Read my post against and try again.
|
On July 09 2012 22:02 Orek wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 19:47 nttea wrote:
Jesus christ how is there even a debate... tvz clearly favours z right now, pretty much the same retarded debate from both sides as was seen in early sc2 when the situation was reverse. There used to be these hilariously bad terrans finding excuse after excuse as to why terrans won everything and ladder was a piece of cake for terrible terrans. Roaches had 3 range tanks did 70 damage and maps were pocket sized(and don't even get me started on the fucking mass reaper strat), it's hilarious how people could still defend that situation as anything but ridiculous and i feel it's the same thing now only the opposite. Because this is politics. Nothing is wrong with that.
I think the rest of your post explained why there IS something wrong with this. If everyone acts like a blind racial fanboy, no actual balance discussion is possible, just like how most of politics is two sides screaming past one another with no attempt at real compromise.
|
On July 09 2012 22:56 Jarree wrote:
Blizzard likes asymmetric balance like they have stated many times (t strong early game, p late game etc). Terran was OP for so long time, it's now time for Z to be OP, especially when HOTS (z expansion) is coming. They want to create story lines like MMA/MVP/MKP to be slumping and DRG or someone else being the new number one. But when they eventually buff Terran MVP/MMA/MKP rises to his old glory and wins again. What they didnt consider is that games became a lot less entertaining with the new metagame.
lol we can only hope that isn't how they look at balancing the game. I do believe they knew changing queens the way they did would make zerg way over the top broken though.
|
On July 10 2012 01:29 Bluerain wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2012 10:42 Shiori wrote:On July 04 2012 10:13 emc wrote:On July 04 2012 00:44 shockaslim wrote:On July 04 2012 00:30 SeaSwift wrote:On July 04 2012 00:00 one-one-one wrote:On July 03 2012 23:55 Jebediah wrote:On July 03 2012 23:47 IshinShishi wrote:On July 03 2012 23:39 Jebediah wrote:On July 03 2012 23:29 IshinShishi wrote:
[quote]
Stop spreading bullshit, you need to be at least in code B, i.e stronger than all of the foreign only tournaments. Participation Requirements: - Must be at least 12 years old - Need to have a SC2 Battle.net account (cannot use your family's or friends' accounts) [Does not have to be a Korean Battle.net account] - Identification (Passport, ID, driver's license) These are the requirements to participate in the 2012 GSL Season 3 Code A Qualifiers. Source: GomTV ?Is that supposed to mean anything?I'm sure that the tournament would be full of platinum and diamond players if those were the only requirements, not full of players in sponsored teams that don't always qualify, this is completely meaningless as it does not represent the reality by any means, never did. There are 576 seats, only 21 participants make it through the preliminaries. You could also argue that the MLG Open Bracket is full of Code A/S class players, because the top 20 are stacked with them. You told emc to stop spreading his bullshit while he was saying what was actually true: Anybody can sign up for the qualifiers. How is requirements for entering a qualifier related to TLPD june statistics ? The last few pages are full of this shit. It has no relevance to this thread at all. Because if you include qualifier stats, you are including stats from the possible equivalent of low-level ladder games. If the qualifier stats consist partially of just random players against actual pros, or random players against other random players, why the fuck would you ever include them in pro statistics? That is of course based on the assumption that non-pros do turn up regularly. But that should answer your question about why it is relevant. How is this different from say, MLG where anyone can sign up for the Open Bracket? MLG takes place in ONLY 3 days, Code A qualifiers take over a week, maybe 2. Then the actual tournament of GSL for instance, takes several months, so players can know weeks in advance who they play and study them. If both players have an equal chance at studying each other, then surely GSL is the hardest possible tournament because of the amount of preparation, not even mentioning the caliber of players which we all know are fantastic. My point is, MLG is an endurance test, Code A qualifiers are not, you only have to win 4 matches to make it into Code A, that is NOTHING compared to the grueling task of getting through open brackets. Endurance wise, MLG is a lot tougher, but it could be argued that Code A qualifiers are certainly more challenging. I think there is definitely LESS skill in the MLG open brackets for several rounds until the pros start to finally face each other, but that's hundreds of worthless games until the pros start playing each other. But if it were up to me, I wouldn't include the MLG open bracket because it's basically a qualifier, a bunch of players mixed in from bronze to GM to Code S level, the place you really don't want to take balance from. Honestly I don't think the guy who makes the TLPD cares all that much about international win rates because it seems he pretty much just uses every tournament possible where korea is a lot more exclusive. but hey, if you are one of those nit pickers that wants to see "true" balance, then create your own damn graph already... sheesh. But if you were interested in balance, then the GSL is actually one of the poorest places to look. Why? Because of two things: sample size, and study opportunities. The first part is self-explanatory, but the second bears some reflection. Even if some matchup is insanely imbalanced, given enough time, one player might be able to study the play of another specific player to the point where they locate a timing that works against them. This isn't possible in an average game and it does little to comment on the balance of a matchup. You need to understand that when MKP plays DRG in the GSL it's about MKP vs DRG more than it is about T vs Z. On the other hand, when MKP and DRG play at MLG, it's still about MKP vs DRG, sure, but it's also about well-executed, but non-tailored, Terran vs well-executed, but non-tailored, Zerg. This is a massive difference, because in many respects it means high skill qualifiers like TSL4KR are actually more useful indicators of balance. Why? Because, firstly, they're a larger sample size, and because, secondly, they evaluate players playing neutrally against each other. Yes, there are certainly some weak players who sign up for TSL qualifiers, but they are a small number. They're not enough to actually mean anything, especially since the saturation of pro players is so, so high. It's inconceivable that a whole bunch of mid Diamond players would somehow work their way up the bracket. You might have one outlier, but with the sample size being larger, that matters less. Hell, you could even manually eliminate for players that aren't at least Korean B-Teamers. It's why I laughed at people who said 0 Zergs in the Ro8 GSL means anything. It doesn't, and it didn't. It just means that the players who played against Zerg that particular time around happened to prepare better/execute their strategies better/get inside their opponent's heads. It might also mean that the Zerg players underprepared or just didn't play their best (which is basically what happened, IMO). It says nothing about the state of PvZ or TvZ because it's not consistent and only exists in one extremely tiny (size-wise) tournament. The reason Terrans are right to be concerned about TvZ is because Zerg is doing well in every neutral tournament. This means GSTL, TSL4KR, and so on. These are tournaments that you can't prepare for except in a general way. You can't develop a strategy designed specifically to steal you a win against DRG. You have to practice your general matchups in such a way that you'd be capable of facing anyone. This means you play more safely and don't tend to mindgame to the same degree, because you simply don't know your opponent's style as well as you might in the GSL. It's that simple. GSTL matters. TSL4KR matters. GSL Code A/S matter only when a consistent, prolonged trend is observed, because only after several seasons can individuality be eliminated by group selection. would u still want to balance for "neutral" tournaments instead of "preparation" tournaments when the race(s) u play are doing better in neutral tournaments rather than prep tournaments? if yes, why do u think its more important to balance for neutral rather than prep? preparation tournaments offer more prestige and prize money, arent they more important? is it because the number of neutral tournaments are greater? is it cus u want to balance ladder? if you want to just balance the largest number of games then ur saying u wanna balance diamond and below which is laughable. and to repeat what emc said, "knowing your opponent is a perfectly valid way to play the game." it's why ppl lose to one strat wonders on the ladder the first time and beat them the second time around. if i wanted to be facetious, id say "hey lets go by the shiori method of looking at statistics and exclude all statistics where a person was given time to prepare for the opponent or better yet lets also exclude stats of players that played people theyve played before cus they they know the other guys style and are able to play to it. lets only include stats of players where its their first time playing vs each other." cus if u do that and want to look at "true" balance whutever the f that means, then what, u wanna exclude stats from build order losses or mindgames? cus i mean thats not really true balance right?
Prep tournaments like GSL has more prestige cause of the players, not necessarily of the format. Read the post again.
|
May be balanced in % but Z v anything is becoming worst matchup in the game. Whether 3CC Terran passivity or FFE Protoss passivity every game not much happening but mining first 10 min. That shit is boring to me. I loved back when zealots where 28 seconds, WG was fast, queen was weaker and 11-11s and good BFH. Action from 4 min in.
Its not really balanced though if you watch the games. Once zergs larva mechanic takes over because T cant pressure and force gas speed or roaches as much without being an all in - Terran is usually dead unles they exhibit far superior play. And that's just mid game. Late game? Forgetaboutit. Takes miracle plays. Similar goes for Protoss but at least they have hard hitting durable units so can slow Zerg down and force gas speed/roach and block hatches and late game they have mothership gimmick to deal with totally ridiculous BL/infestor. So more balanced than TvZ and more fun to watch at this point.
|
On July 10 2012 06:55 tdt wrote:
May be balanced in % but Z v anything is becoming worst matchup in the game. Whether 3CC Terran passivity or FFE Protoss passivity every game not much happening but mining first 10 min. That shit is boring to me. I loved back when zealots where 28 seconds, WG was fast, queen was weaker and 11-11s and good BFH. Action from 4 min in.
Its not really balanced though if you watch the games. Once zergs larva mechanic takes over because T cant pressure and force gas speed or roaches as much without being an all in - Terran is usually dead unles they exhibit far superior play. And that's just mid game. Late game? Forgetaboutit. Takes miracle plays. Similar goes for Protoss but at least they have hard hitting durable units so can slow Zerg down and force gas speed/roach and block hatches and late game they have mothership gimmick to deal with totally ridiculous BL/infestor. So more balanced than TvZ and more fun to watch at this point.
I can see where you're coming from, but how would you balance that out for zerg? There's a reason warpgate and proxyrax got nerfed.
|
On July 10 2012 07:04 nkr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2012 06:55 tdt wrote:
May be balanced in % but Z v anything is becoming worst matchup in the game. Whether 3CC Terran passivity or FFE Protoss passivity every game not much happening but mining first 10 min. That shit is boring to me. I loved back when zealots where 28 seconds, WG was fast, queen was weaker and 11-11s and good BFH. Action from 4 min in.
Its not really balanced though if you watch the games. Once zergs larva mechanic takes over because T cant pressure and force gas speed or roaches as much without being an all in - Terran is usually dead unles they exhibit far superior play. And that's just mid game. Late game? Forgetaboutit. Takes miracle plays. Similar goes for Protoss but at least they have hard hitting durable units so can slow Zerg down and force gas speed/roach and block hatches and late game they have mothership gimmick to deal with totally ridiculous BL/infestor. So more balanced than TvZ and more fun to watch at this point.
I can see where you're coming from, but how would you balance that out for zerg? There's a reason warpgate and proxyrax got nerfed.
And there's almost a consensus that there was no reason to buff queens in the first place either. You might be able to revert some of the past early game nerfs of the other races with the queen being more powerful and better scouting overlords.
|
Zerg doing a bit better....? What exactly is OPs definition of a bit? lol...
I can't wait for blizzard's new patch. It'll make terran OP again, zerg will be broken, toss will stay stale and boring as hell, and then the next patch will be vice versa. It's a fucking joke.
I have my receipt from 2 years ago. Can I still get my money back?
Edit: I win all my masters tvp and almost all my masters tvt... yet 0% win rate tvz against master/diamond lol... I can't even cheese zerg when they go hatch first. Are you serious?
It's not even a huge balance issue. It's, why the fuck did you increase queen? Like.. that changed the entire dynamic of sc2. Not just TvZ. Every fucking MU is mining for 10 minutes and then an attempt to push out and see if zerg has 40 lings instead of 75.
Even when I turn off QQ... This game is still very boring because what 'sc2 joe' wants to watch a sc game with nothing happening until 10 minutes in. I love Tastetossis but I can't hear them talk for 10 minutes every zerg MU. It's lame.
So on ladder, on the TL streams here, and even in GSL it's a passive game until you have a good 2-3 base economy. And I'm sorry, but even then how many times have we seen (even up to GM) a decent fungal and instant GG. Seriously. Instant gg. The guys who don't, play so fucking good just to catch up all game and then late game gg. It's painful to watch.
And even more so playing.
|
On July 10 2012 08:48 MrRicewife wrote: I can't even cheese zerg when they go hatch first. Are you serious?
Glad you're not balancing this game...
On July 10 2012 08:48 MrRicewife wrote:It's not even a huge balance issue. It's, why the fuck did you increase queen?
Because 4 hellions in the zerg base was basically insta-win, and didn't make for exciting games or require any skill by the terran player..
|
On July 10 2012 09:12 bakedace wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2012 08:48 MrRicewife wrote: I can't even cheese zerg when they go hatch first. Are you serious? Glad you're not balancing this game... Show nested quote +On July 10 2012 08:48 MrRicewife wrote:It's not even a huge balance issue. It's, why the fuck did you increase queen? Because 4 hellions in the zerg base was basically insta-win, and didn't make for exciting games or require any skill by the terran player..
And I'm glad you are not balancing this game either.
|
On July 10 2012 09:26 Huragius wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2012 09:12 bakedace wrote:On July 10 2012 08:48 MrRicewife wrote: I can't even cheese zerg when they go hatch first. Are you serious? Glad you're not balancing this game... On July 10 2012 08:48 MrRicewife wrote:It's not even a huge balance issue. It's, why the fuck did you increase queen? Because 4 hellions in the zerg base was basically insta-win, and didn't make for exciting games or require any skill by the terran player.. And I'm glad you are not balancing this game either.
You know, 2 rax is still viable. And they hit before queens come out. Its the new korea meta game and the one that contributed to the 51% lead. Maybe its time NA terrans stop qqing and actually playing?
|
Why do all zerg quote hellion run-bys? I'm sorry but if you ever died to a single reactor factory making hellions, that isn't balance, you just kinda suck. Sure you can lose to it, once or twice. You see he has hellions, and then you don't prepare at all and then cry? That is like saying a 2 raxx is overpowered because it can just win a game out right. It is a coin flip, and if you scout it, it is instant gg. That makes scouting broken. I see your logic.
|
I've lost to Zergling runbys on more than 1 occasion because I messed up my wall. Can we nerf Speedlings now?
|
The Korea TvZ numbers really shocked me. So I went through just the current GSL's numbers so far. Keep in mind that many of these games will be included in July results. TvZ is right now 28-47. 37% win rate for Terran, 63% win rate for Zerg. In other words, even more imbalanced than the June International results.
I'm pretty sure that even Blizzard has admitted that a 20% gap in a matchup indicates a balance issue. Of course this is only one tournament (albeit with a large sample size and the highest skilled players in the world), but still.
GSL Code A+S TVZ
Nestea v STC 2-0
SuHoSin v MVP 1-2
Sniper v Supernova 1-2
YuGiOh v MKP 1-2
Symbol v MKP 2-0
DRG v Maru 2-1
Violet v Maru 2-1
Leenock v Ryung 0-2
Leenock v Taeja 0-2
Violet v MVP 2-0
Symbol v MKP 2-1
DRG v Ryung 2-1
Nestea v Supernova 2-0
Nestea v Supernova 2-1
Monster v Jjakji 0-2
YuGiOh v Harrier 2-0
Freaky v Bomber 1-2
Losira v Hack 1-2
Total: 25-21
GSTL TVZ
Life v TL 1-0
Life v Slayers 1-0
Symbol v Fnatic 1-0
Losira v TSL 1-0
Symbol v IM 3-0
Moon v IM 1-0
Byul v IM 1-0
Annyeong v Fnatic 1-0
Moon v Prime 2-0
BBong v TSL 0-1
Sniper v Fnatic 2-0
Coca v Prime 3-0
KingKong v HoSeo 0-1
Curious v HoSeo 0-1
Ragnarok v FXO 0-1
Shine v FXO 1-0
Hyun v HoSeo 1-1
Symbol v HoSeo 0-1
Revival v HoSeo 1-0
Lucky v Startale 1-1
Leenock vs Startale 1-0
Total: 22-7
Grand Total: 47-28. 63% Z v 37% T.
|
On July 10 2012 10:19 RoboBob wrote:
The Korea TvZ numbers really shocked me. So I went through just the current GSL's numbers so far. Keep in mind that many of these games will be included in July results. TvZ is right now 29-48. 38% win rate for Terran, 62% win rate for Zerg. I'm pretty sure that even Blizzard has admitted that a 20% gap in a matchup indicates a balance issue. Of course this is only one tournament (albeit with a large sample size and the highest skilled players in the world), but still.
GSL Code A+S TVZ
Nestea v STC 2-0
SuHoSin v MVP 1-2
Sniper v Supernova 1-2
YuGiOh v MKP 1-2
Symbol v MKP 2-0
DRG v Maru 2-1
Violet v Maru 2-1
Leenock v Ryung 0-2
Leenock v Taeja 0-2
Violet v MVP 2-0
Symbol v MKP 2-1
DRG v Ryung 2-1
Nestea v Supernova 2-0
Nestea v Supernova 2-1
Monster v Jjakji 0-2
YuGiOh v Harrier 2-0
Freaky v Bomber 1-2
Losira v Hack 1-2
Total: 25-21
GSTL TVZ
Life v TL 1-0
Life v Slayers 1-0
Symbol v Fnatic 1-0
Losira v TSL 1-0
Symbol v IM 3-0
Moon v IM 1-0
Byul v IM 1-0
Annyeong v Fnatic 1-0
Moon v Prime 2-0
BBong v TSL 0-1
Sniper v Fnatic 2-0
Coca v Prime 3-0
KingKong v HoSeo 0-1
Curious v HoSeo 0-1
Ragnarok v FXO 0-1
Shine v FXO 1-0
Jjakji v TSL 1-1
Hyun v HoSeo 1-1
Symbol v HoSeo 0-1
Revival v HoSeo 1-0
Lucky v Startale 1-1
Leenock vs Startale 1-0
Total: 23-8
Grand Total: 48-29. 62% Z v 38% T.
Thanks for posting this. Half the Zergs on here are acting like the matchup is solved because they saw someone 2rax on Ohana.
|
c'mon guys, you guys have it all wrong!!!
the good players happen to play zerg, just like good players happened to play terran back in the day, as the experts(forumers) have said already regarding imbalance.
|
On July 10 2012 09:12 bakedace wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2012 08:48 MrRicewife wrote: I can't even cheese zerg when they go hatch first. Are you serious? Glad you're not balancing this game... Show nested quote +On July 10 2012 08:48 MrRicewife wrote:It's not even a huge balance issue. It's, why the fuck did you increase queen? Because 4 hellions in the zerg base was basically insta-win, and didn't make for exciting games or require any skill by the terran player..
Lol, way to go reaching bud.
Cheese doesn't mean win. If you go hatch first and I go 11/11 I should be able to do some good damage. Not anymore. Any follow up is insta-denied by a queen that can shoot half way across the map.
And your hellion comment is completely irrelevant, which is why I said you are just reaching.
Like I said, why increase queen range? Changed all MU, and zerg can basically power drone without worry. Even get a fast 3rd - what, 5 marine picks off a queen maybe 2-3 drones, then the timing window is over, and then you've set yourself up for a hard-core roach bane attack.
|
On July 02 2012 22:30 Hypemeup wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 22:29 mEtRoSG wrote:
fake? no way terran has had so many wins against zerg ive only seen zerg wins in gsl gstl etc Nah, Korean terrans are actually doing ok against zergs, they have found ways to beat them before 14 minutes.
Yep if Terran can win before 15 min...match up is balanced.../s
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
