|
On August 13 2012 16:11 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:
A terran on 2 bases with 2 OC's is actually ahead (mule income).
You're aware that until the Terran player catches up the Zerg's worker count, MULEs only compensate for Zerg's ability to produce drones faster? Sure 45 SCVs + 2 MULEs > 45 drones, but check any old replay featuring a Reactor Hellion expand against a standard 2-bases Zerg play, Terran had 28-29 SCVs by the time Zerg reached ~45 drones @ the 7'30 mark.
|
On August 13 2012 18:04 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 17:44 Noocta wrote:On August 13 2012 17:37 TheDwf wrote:On August 13 2012 17:33 Noocta wrote:
1 It was. Dustin Browder said it himself. He wanted to give more option for zerg to fend off early game Hellions. Including hellion contain AND hellions run by. Really? OK, my bad. Still, the main benefit is being allowed to creep spread without any unit; some additional hits to Hellions are not going to save your drones if you don't even bother to block paths (e. g. HyuN vs Major @ TSL4). Yep. As far as I remember, he was like " Even with 5 range queen, zerg still lose to Hellions, we don't know what to do anymore ! " or something like that. Lol. This guy never fails to deliver. I guess they briefly considered adding fire immunity to drones after watching HyuN vs Major? At least we know what to do: we should start botching our own Marine splits, in the end we shall be rewarded with +2 range on Tanks or something like that.
The reasoning of the Blizzard developers is actually quite stringent, but they also look at a lot of games and don't judge using their intuition only. I don't understand how people in the forums (like you) really think they can ridicule the patches done by Blizzard. If you don't understand the reasoning behind the balance patches, it should be clear who is the casual gamer/viewer and who is the professional game designing team.
At my work I do things professionally what other guys do casually. When I read forums where amateurs exchange their experiences, I am amazed how confident they feel while they are total scrubs. I think that everyone experiences this in his field of profession, how amateures massively over-estimate their knowledge.
|
On August 13 2012 18:31 [F_]aths wrote:
The reasoning of the Blizzard developers is actually quite stringent, but they also look at a lot of games and don't judge using their intuition only. I don't understand how people in the forums (like you) really think they can give an educated opinion about the balance approach or can ridicule the patches done by Blizzard. If you don't understand the reasoning behind the balance patches, it should be clear who is the casual gamer/viewer and who is the professional game designing team.
Oh, I do understand the reasoning behind +2 range for Queen. It's called a) rewarding terrible play, and b) fixing something that was never broken. 100% of the time a Zerg player loses mass drones to Hellions raids he did something horribly wrong—like, you know, not using proper building placement or having literally 0 combat unit. When I play against mech in TvT, I wall and I never lose any SCV to Hellions raids (unless they're dropped, of course). When I wipe out an entire mineral line with 4 BFH against a bio player who did not bother to wall, I laugh. Just like Zergs can legitimately laugh when they kill 20+ SCVs with a Speedlings raid against a Terran that did not wall. It's called punishing bad play and I don't see anything wrong with that.
You know, just because Blizzard is in charge of balance does not mean they have the slightest clue about it. Because they created the game does not mean they understand it best. Actually they don't, otherwise this terrible +2 Queen range change would have never been implemented, Roaches would have never been 1 supply, BFHs would have never 2-shot workers, PvP would have never been a 4gate fest until 4g was fixed, etc. The list of balance and/or design errors is unfathomable. You know that in beta, Warpgate research was 60 seconds? Lol. Enjoy your 4'20 4g with some Chronoboosts.
See, I played Warcraft III. In this game, everyone knew the Blademaster was totally broken. Everyone. Only blatantly biased Orcs would have refused to acknowledge this. People were even mocking the many new successful Orcs players as “patch Orcs” (rings a bell by the way?). Wanna know the end of the story? The Blademaster was never nerfed for years. And when Blizzard finally did it, the change was so insignificant it did not adress the blatant issues this hero had, while players had suggested so many things that would have fixed the problem, restored balance and thus made a more interesting game. Reminds me of something. But I don't know what.
|
When you imply that the Blizzard balance teams doesn't need "the slightest clue about it" to be put in charge, I don't see much basis of any discussion as you are clearly an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. And if you think that your wisdom would have prevented balance as we have seen in the past I really wonder why you don't work as a professional game designer and earn a load of money with you esports games.
You also divert from the queen range by citing some other good balance changes done by blizzard but somehow you try to use it to argue that the queen range is bad and should be reverted. The range-5-queen allows to handle hellions much better than the old ones and they are also good to deny worker scouts. You maybe dont't like it but that doesn't mean it's actually terrible.
|
On August 13 2012 18:31 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 18:04 TheDwf wrote:On August 13 2012 17:44 Noocta wrote:On August 13 2012 17:37 TheDwf wrote:On August 13 2012 17:33 Noocta wrote:
1 It was. Dustin Browder said it himself. He wanted to give more option for zerg to fend off early game Hellions. Including hellion contain AND hellions run by. Really? OK, my bad. Still, the main benefit is being allowed to creep spread without any unit; some additional hits to Hellions are not going to save your drones if you don't even bother to block paths (e. g. HyuN vs Major @ TSL4). Yep. As far as I remember, he was like " Even with 5 range queen, zerg still lose to Hellions, we don't know what to do anymore ! " or something like that. Lol. This guy never fails to deliver. I guess they briefly considered adding fire immunity to drones after watching HyuN vs Major? At least we know what to do: we should start botching our own Marine splits, in the end we shall be rewarded with +2 range on Tanks or something like that. The reasoning of the Blizzard developers is actually quite stringent, but they also look at a lot of games and don't judge using their intuition only. I don't understand how people in the forums (like you) really think they can ridicule the patches done by Blizzard. If you don't understand the reasoning behind the balance patches, it should be clear who is the casual gamer/viewer and who is the professional game designing team. At my work I do things professionally what other guys do casually. When I read forums where amateurs exchange their experiences, I am amazed how confident they feel while they are total scrubs. I think that everyone experiences this in his field of profession, how amateures massively over-estimate their knowledge.
Sometimes Blizzard reason to nerf units is weird.
When they nerfed Thor, they said it's because they don't want Thor to be the core of an army, because they are too big and make the action consufing. They want them as a support unit which you have only a few of them.
( Just after Thorzain started the Mass Thor TvP stuff )
|
On August 13 2012 19:34 Noocta wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 18:31 [F_]aths wrote:On August 13 2012 18:04 TheDwf wrote:On August 13 2012 17:44 Noocta wrote:On August 13 2012 17:37 TheDwf wrote:On August 13 2012 17:33 Noocta wrote:
1 It was. Dustin Browder said it himself. He wanted to give more option for zerg to fend off early game Hellions. Including hellion contain AND hellions run by. Really? OK, my bad. Still, the main benefit is being allowed to creep spread without any unit; some additional hits to Hellions are not going to save your drones if you don't even bother to block paths (e. g. HyuN vs Major @ TSL4). Yep. As far as I remember, he was like " Even with 5 range queen, zerg still lose to Hellions, we don't know what to do anymore ! " or something like that. Lol. This guy never fails to deliver. I guess they briefly considered adding fire immunity to drones after watching HyuN vs Major? At least we know what to do: we should start botching our own Marine splits, in the end we shall be rewarded with +2 range on Tanks or something like that. The reasoning of the Blizzard developers is actually quite stringent, but they also look at a lot of games and don't judge using their intuition only. I don't understand how people in the forums (like you) really think they can ridicule the patches done by Blizzard. If you don't understand the reasoning behind the balance patches, it should be clear who is the casual gamer/viewer and who is the professional game designing team. At my work I do things professionally what other guys do casually. When I read forums where amateurs exchange their experiences, I am amazed how confident they feel while they are total scrubs. I think that everyone experiences this in his field of profession, how amateures massively over-estimate their knowledge. Sometimes Blizzard reason to nerf units is weird. When they nerfed Thor, they said it's because they don't want Thor to be the core of an army, because they are too big and make the action consufing. They want them as a support unit which you have only a few of them. ( Just after Thorzain started the Mass Thor TvP stuff )
While in my opinion it was a good idea to push the thor back in a supporter role, I don't think that my opinion matters. Even if I find a balance change questionable (which happens rather often) I assume that Blizzard is way more right than I am.
The latest patch proposal by Blizzard shows that the team does have a clue. They adjusting the tiniest thing possible and still get an effect in the right direction. Also the professional players are probably thankful that the deeper and more complex changes are very rare now because they don't need to constantly learn the new unit properties.
|
|
|
Northern Ireland25724 Posts
On August 13 2012 19:34 Noocta wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 18:31 [F_]aths wrote:On August 13 2012 18:04 TheDwf wrote:On August 13 2012 17:44 Noocta wrote:On August 13 2012 17:37 TheDwf wrote:On August 13 2012 17:33 Noocta wrote:
1 It was. Dustin Browder said it himself. He wanted to give more option for zerg to fend off early game Hellions. Including hellion contain AND hellions run by. Really? OK, my bad. Still, the main benefit is being allowed to creep spread without any unit; some additional hits to Hellions are not going to save your drones if you don't even bother to block paths (e. g. HyuN vs Major @ TSL4). Yep. As far as I remember, he was like " Even with 5 range queen, zerg still lose to Hellions, we don't know what to do anymore ! " or something like that. Lol. This guy never fails to deliver. I guess they briefly considered adding fire immunity to drones after watching HyuN vs Major? At least we know what to do: we should start botching our own Marine splits, in the end we shall be rewarded with +2 range on Tanks or something like that. The reasoning of the Blizzard developers is actually quite stringent, but they also look at a lot of games and don't judge using their intuition only. I don't understand how people in the forums (like you) really think they can ridicule the patches done by Blizzard. If you don't understand the reasoning behind the balance patches, it should be clear who is the casual gamer/viewer and who is the professional game designing team. At my work I do things professionally what other guys do casually. When I read forums where amateurs exchange their experiences, I am amazed how confident they feel while they are total scrubs. I think that everyone experiences this in his field of profession, how amateures massively over-estimate their knowledge. Sometimes Blizzard reason to nerf units is weird. When they nerfed Thor, they said it's because they don't want Thor to be the core of an army, because they are too big and make the action consufing. They want them as a support unit which you have only a few of them. ( Just after Thorzain started the Mass Thor TvP stuff )
I think the Thor nerf was actually pretty justified though, I mean given that Blizz have designed the game in a kind of 'unit x counters unit y' kind of way, and the Thor was crushing it's counter unit, immortals, was just kind of dumb.
Respect to Thorzain for coming up with some of those timings though. Single handedly getting a unit nerfed is pretty impressive
|
On August 13 2012 12:12 Zrana wrote:
I really wish people saying zerg is easymode would just play zerg and see.
How is terran micro significantly harder than zerg micro?
Marine splitting? Meet baneling splitting
Target firing with tanks? Target firing with mutas
EMP? Fungal (and infestors all have a death wish)
Hellions versus zerglings? uhhh zerglings vs hellions
Multiple drops? Defending multiple drops (you lose some marines if you fuck up, zerg loses a mineral line or tech building)
Stutter stepping maybe?
1. Zerg has to do it too to keep up.
2. It's really not that hard
3. Zerg often surrounds/flanks and so there's no need anyway.
I'm not saying at all that terran is easy, of course their units are much less replaceable than zerg's, but zerg has to micro as well, often in many places across the map or controlling multiple armies for a flank and all the while macroing.
In a lot of games the zerg gets ahead on macro by capitalising on a terran mistake or not being punished for greed and so the rest of the game it seems like zerg is just a-moving to win but this is not an accurate representation of an even match.
edit: and also zerg macro is way more decision making than T macro. Zerg has to make a decision on whether to make drones or attacking units based on scouting. Terran just blindly follows a build order.
About 30-50 games of playing zerg in 3v3 just to get my inject timings working was enough for my zerg offrace to become good enough to the point where I could crush with people with the MMR I got to by playing terran. Especially other terrans, since I knew how the matchup worked. Even other protosses my MMR I could destroy just by making units. And this was back in the day of close position metalopolis when people were bitching about zerg being hard/weak. No knowledge of builds was ever necessary. Just keeping my injects up and making semi-intelligent decisions.
Zerg has always been easier to play.
Edit: Funny thing is I played a Stephano style of going ling and upgrade heavy and using just those to defend until I could get my tech out instead of gambling Idra style and praying I wouldn't get attacked while I droned like every other zerg did back then. I can't imagine how much easier it'll be now with superqueens.
|
On August 13 2012 18:19 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 16:11 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:
A terran on 2 bases with 2 OC's is actually ahead (mule income). You're aware that until the Terran player catches up the Zerg's worker count, MULEs only compensate for Zerg's ability to produce drones faster? Sure 45 SCVs + 2 MULEs > 45 drones, but check any old replay featuring a Reactor Hellion expand against a standard 2-bases Zerg play, Terran had 28-29 SCVs by the time Zerg reached ~45 drones @ the 7'30 mark.
Your argument is bad.
I went and pulled up a random ZvT game just to see and yeah, Zerg has about 45 drones at 7:30, but Terran has about 35 workers +2-3 MULE's.
Looking at the income tab, Zerg is sitting at 1300/448, and Terran is at 1440/240.
QQ all you want, but Zerg takes so long to actually get a worker advantage, and even longer to turn that worker advantage into an income advantage, your argument is invalid.
Actually, just letting the replay go 2 min further to 9:30, Terran is up to 54 workers and Zerg is at 55.
1800/448 income for Terran
1320/432 for Zerg
In this particular game, Zerg (me) has chosen to make 7 combat units and build up his infrastructure (12 buildings), so I guess I could have been in the 60s, but then I also risk dying to 10 marines.
TL,DR: Early game income is not a good argument if you want to claim Zerg imba.
|
Random TvZs are conclusive evidence of balance. You heard it here first.
|
On August 13 2012 21:31 Dalavita wrote:
Random TvZs are conclusive evidence of balance. You heard it here first.
Made up numbers are even better.
Sorry for basing my facts on actual games played.
|
On August 13 2012 21:26 Jermstuddog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 18:19 TheDwf wrote:On August 13 2012 16:11 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:
A terran on 2 bases with 2 OC's is actually ahead (mule income). You're aware that until the Terran player catches up the Zerg's worker count, MULEs only compensate for Zerg's ability to produce drones faster? Sure 45 SCVs + 2 MULEs > 45 drones, but check any old replay featuring a Reactor Hellion expand against a standard 2-bases Zerg play, Terran had 28-29 SCVs by the time Zerg reached ~45 drones @ the 7'30 mark. Your argument is bad. I went and pulled up a random ZvT game just to see and yeah, Zerg has about 45 drones at 7:30, but Terran has about 35 workers +2-3 MULE's. Looking at the income tab, Zerg is sitting at 1300/448, and Terran is at 1440/240. QQ all you want, but Zerg takes so long to actually get a worker advantage, and even longer to turn that worker advantage into an income advantage, your argument is invalid. Actually, just letting the replay go 2 min further to 9:30, Terran is up to 54 workers and Zerg is at 55. 1800/448 income for Terran 1320/432 for Zerg In this particular game, Zerg (me) has chosen to make 7 combat units and build up his infrastructure (12 buildings), so I guess I could have been in the 60s, but then I also risk dying to 10 marines. TL,DR: Early game income is not a good argument if you want to claim Zerg imba.
1MULE = 4 workers.
1OC = 1 MULE
If you get 3 MULES at a time with 2 OC, its because you have bad macro.
|
On August 13 2012 21:45 Sea_Food wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 21:26 Jermstuddog wrote:On August 13 2012 18:19 TheDwf wrote:On August 13 2012 16:11 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:
A terran on 2 bases with 2 OC's is actually ahead (mule income). You're aware that until the Terran player catches up the Zerg's worker count, MULEs only compensate for Zerg's ability to produce drones faster? Sure 45 SCVs + 2 MULEs > 45 drones, but check any old replay featuring a Reactor Hellion expand against a standard 2-bases Zerg play, Terran had 28-29 SCVs by the time Zerg reached ~45 drones @ the 7'30 mark. Your argument is bad. I went and pulled up a random ZvT game just to see and yeah, Zerg has about 45 drones at 7:30, but Terran has about 35 workers +2-3 MULE's. Looking at the income tab, Zerg is sitting at 1300/448, and Terran is at 1440/240. QQ all you want, but Zerg takes so long to actually get a worker advantage, and even longer to turn that worker advantage into an income advantage, your argument is invalid. Actually, just letting the replay go 2 min further to 9:30, Terran is up to 54 workers and Zerg is at 55. 1800/448 income for Terran 1320/432 for Zerg In this particular game, Zerg (me) has chosen to make 7 combat units and build up his infrastructure (12 buildings), so I guess I could have been in the 60s, but then I also risk dying to 10 marines. TL,DR: Early game income is not a good argument if you want to claim Zerg imba. 1MULE = 4 workers. 1OC = 1 MULE If you get 3 MULES at a time with 2 OC, its because you have bad macro.
Because it's not common for Terrans to have 3 OCs by the 7 or 8 min mark.
|
On August 13 2012 21:40 Jermstuddog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 21:31 Dalavita wrote:
Random TvZs are conclusive evidence of balance. You heard it here first. Made up numbers are even better. Sorry for basing my facts on actual games played.
You should be sorry for using random TvZs with random occurences and at random skill levels as an example of TvZs in general.
I haven't said anything good about made up numbers either, so you should be sorry for making that accusation as well.
|
Zerg tears in this thread are so delicious.
So even while playing Zerg as it is now some people manage to lose to Terran on ladder, huh.
|
On August 13 2012 21:50 Dalavita wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 21:40 Jermstuddog wrote:On August 13 2012 21:31 Dalavita wrote:
Random TvZs are conclusive evidence of balance. You heard it here first. Made up numbers are even better. Sorry for basing my facts on actual games played. You should be sorry for using random TvZs with random occurences and at random skill levels as an example of TvZs in general. I haven't said anything good about made up numbers either, so you should be sorry for making that accusation as well.
Sorry for using top master level, knowing that the difference between my play and a GMs play is they take more calculated risks than I do?
Ok... first pro ZvT rep on sc2rep dKiller vs FXOTree:
http://sc2rep.com/replays/(Z)dKiLLeR_vs_(T)FXOTree/20560
7:30
Terran has 32 SCVs, 3 orbitals and 2 MULE's for a total of: 1400/224
Zerg has 29 drones 2 hatches for a total of: 860/336
Zerg and Terran are actually fighting in the early game, so this isn't a good argument for macro potential. Also, T fucks up and lets Zerg all the way into his main killing his own income for the next major portion of the game.
Next game down the list
Mill.Tarson vs AcerBly
http://sc2rep.com/replays/(T)MǂTarson_vs_(Z)AcerBly/20510
7:30
T: 36+2 Mules - 1480/224
Z: 47 - 1240/432
9:30
T: 47+0 Mules - 1120/464
Z: 43 - 1240/432
Point to any pro level rep you want, because apparently top of masters isn't good enough. It's always the same, always has been. Zerg econ struggles in the early game. This is why Terrans find themselves not knowing wtf to do now. They've been beating up on the fat kid for 2 years.
Now that Terran can't bully Zerg around BEFORE they get on equal income, Terran feels behind. Little do they realize, they've always been way ahead.
|
On August 13 2012 19:08 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 18:31 [F_]aths wrote:
The reasoning of the Blizzard developers is actually quite stringent, but they also look at a lot of games and don't judge using their intuition only. I don't understand how people in the forums (like you) really think they can give an educated opinion about the balance approach or can ridicule the patches done by Blizzard. If you don't understand the reasoning behind the balance patches, it should be clear who is the casual gamer/viewer and who is the professional game designing team. Oh, I do understand the reasoning behind +2 range for Queen. It's called a) rewarding terrible play, and b) fixing something that was never broken. 100% of the time a Zerg player loses mass drones to Hellions raids he did something horribly wrong—like, you know, not using proper building placement or having literally 0 combat unit. When I play against mech in TvT, I wall and I never lose any SCV to Hellions raids (unless they're dropped, of course). When I wipe out an entire mineral line with 4 BFH against a bio player who did not bother to wall, I laugh. Just like Zergs can legitimately laugh when they kill 20+ SCVs with a Speedlings raid against a Terran that did not wall. It's called punishing bad play and I don't see anything wrong with that. You know, just because Blizzard is in charge of balance does not mean they have the slightest clue about it. Because they created the game does not mean they understand it best. Actually they don't, otherwise this terrible +2 Queen range change would have never been implemented, Roaches would have never been 1 supply, BFHs would have never 2-shot workers, PvP would have never been a 4gate fest until 4g was fixed, etc. The list of balance and/or design errors is unfathomable. You know that in beta, Warpgate research was 60 seconds? Lol. Enjoy your 4'20 4g with some Chronoboosts. See, I played Warcraft III. In this game, everyone knew the Blademaster was totally broken. Everyone. Only blatantly biased Orcs would have refused to acknowledge this. People were even mocking the many new successful Orcs players as “patch Orcs” (rings a bell by the way?). Wanna know the end of the story? The Blademaster was never nerfed for years. And when Blizzard finally did it, the change was so insignificant it did not adress the blatant issues this hero had, while players had suggested so many things that would have fixed the problem, restored balance and thus made a more interesting game. Reminds me of something. But I don't know what.
I'm sorry you have no idea of warcraft. Blademaster is the only reason orcs could even win a game.
The blademaster wasn't OP in any way. The only match up where orc had an advantage was versus undead and it was only because most maps had ridiculous item drops. The match up could have been balanced rather easily if they'd just weakend all the claw drops etc.
The match up might have needed something more, but nobody can tell that.
The demon hunter is just as strong as the blademaster and elfes have druids of the talon which are just ridiculous for their cost. Orcs couldn't even get their third burrow up before blizzard decided to nerf their staff. Orcs struggled like hell against tower pushes from humans and casters and breakers in general were still even with orc. Not even going to talk about mk gripphons on for example melting valley which was obviously too strong.
Even now humans and elves still have better tournament results, better everything.
|
On August 13 2012 22:03 Jermstuddog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 21:50 Dalavita wrote:On August 13 2012 21:40 Jermstuddog wrote:On August 13 2012 21:31 Dalavita wrote:
Random TvZs are conclusive evidence of balance. You heard it here first. Made up numbers are even better. Sorry for basing my facts on actual games played. You should be sorry for using random TvZs with random occurences and at random skill levels as an example of TvZs in general. I haven't said anything good about made up numbers either, so you should be sorry for making that accusation as well. Sorry for using top master level, knowing that the difference between my play and a GMs play is they take more calculated risks than I do? Ok... first pro ZvT rep on sc2rep dKiller vs FXOTree: 7:30 Terran has 32 SCVs, 3 orbitals and 2 MULE's for a total of: 1400/224 Zerg has 29 drones 2 hatches for a total of: 860/336 Zerg and Terran are actually fighting in the early game, so this isn't a good argument for macro potential. Also, T fucks up and lets Zerg all the way into his main killing his own income for the next major portion of the game. Next game down the list Mill.Tarson vs AcerBly 7:30 T: 36+2 Mules - 1480/224 Z: 47 - 1240/432 9:30 T: 47+0 Mules - 1120/464 Z: 43 - 1240/432 Point to any pro level rep you want, because apparently top of masters isn't good enough. It's always the same, always has been. Zerg econ struggles in the early game. This is why Terrans find themselves not knowing wtf to do now. They've been beating up on the fat kid for 2 years. Now that Terran can't bully Zerg around BEFORE they get on equal income, Terran feels behind. Little do they realize, they've always been way ahead.
Do you need an explanation in presentation? I'm fine with you using top masters level replays if you provide information about the replay along with a link of the replay so other people can watch it for themselves if they want to, and to show the validity of the replay used to demonstrate an example. You did neither in your previous post, and you should be sorry about using top masters level replays without stating so or linking the replay in question as well.
Until you have credible sources and links, your numbers can just as well be made up.
|
On August 13 2012 22:06 Dalavita wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 22:03 Jermstuddog wrote:On August 13 2012 21:50 Dalavita wrote:On August 13 2012 21:40 Jermstuddog wrote:On August 13 2012 21:31 Dalavita wrote:
Random TvZs are conclusive evidence of balance. You heard it here first. Made up numbers are even better. Sorry for basing my facts on actual games played. You should be sorry for using random TvZs with random occurences and at random skill levels as an example of TvZs in general. I haven't said anything good about made up numbers either, so you should be sorry for making that accusation as well. Sorry for using top master level, knowing that the difference between my play and a GMs play is they take more calculated risks than I do? Ok... first pro ZvT rep on sc2rep dKiller vs FXOTree: 7:30 Terran has 32 SCVs, 3 orbitals and 2 MULE's for a total of: 1400/224 Zerg has 29 drones 2 hatches for a total of: 860/336 Zerg and Terran are actually fighting in the early game, so this isn't a good argument for macro potential. Also, T fucks up and lets Zerg all the way into his main killing his own income for the next major portion of the game. Next game down the list Mill.Tarson vs AcerBly 7:30 T: 36+2 Mules - 1480/224 Z: 47 - 1240/432 9:30 T: 47+0 Mules - 1120/464 Z: 43 - 1240/432 Point to any pro level rep you want, because apparently top of masters isn't good enough. It's always the same, always has been. Zerg econ struggles in the early game. This is why Terrans find themselves not knowing wtf to do now. They've been beating up on the fat kid for 2 years. Now that Terran can't bully Zerg around BEFORE they get on equal income, Terran feels behind. Little do they realize, they've always been way ahead. Do you need an explanation in presentation? I'm fine with you using top masters level replays if you provide information about the replay along with a link of the replay so other people can watch it for themselves if they want to, and to show the validity of the replay used to demonstrate an example. You did neither in your previous post, and you should be sorry about using top masters level replays without stating so or linking the replay in question as well. Until you have credible sources and links, your numbers can just as well be made up.
This shit has been known for 2 years. I thought it was common knowledge and I was shutting up the one guy who doesn't realize the situation as it has stood since the release of the game.
Sorry for now finding that nobody here actually knows wtf they're talking about and really we just want to cry at each other without ever looking into anything beforehand.
The queen buff has made ZvT early game EQUAL.
It's not some imba bullshit that Blizzard put together to make sure Terran never wins ever.
The PROBLEM with the queen buff is that it has shown the shittiness of the entire Terran race. The whole fucking race is based on marine micro, the early game advantage of Terran macro, and taking advantage of both those facts to bypass anything useful the other guy has.
You want to fix Terran? nerf the marine and buff elsewhere. Otherwise, we'll continue to see top-level terrans dominate while the race struggles everywhere else.
Been saying it for 2 years, but I don't see Blizz ever doing it, don't know why I bother...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
