|
On April 23 2013 13:45 infKelsier wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 13:40 BeyondCtrL wrote:On April 23 2013 13:34 infKelsier wrote:On April 23 2013 13:26 BeyondCtrL wrote:On April 23 2013 13:25 infKelsier wrote:On April 23 2013 13:22 BeyondCtrL wrote:On April 23 2013 13:04 infKelsier wrote:On April 23 2013 12:57 BeyondCtrL wrote:On April 23 2013 12:06 Msr wrote:On April 23 2013 11:59 BeyondCtrL wrote:
[quote]
The Wood League warriors are the first reveal themselves in these threads... Ironic because I am GM on every server, and Ive yet to find a way to kill a voidray army. Hydras and corrupters both get completely destroyed by voidrays. Aoe is the biggest issue with hydras being terrible vs them, and queen-spores is too immobile. The only way I've found to beat a voidray army that is not pure static defense tempest turtle, is to damage their economy so bad that multiple remaxes eventually overpower the protoss. If other skilled zergs have an army composition I am not using correctly please feel free to show me. Oh, the irony is not lost on me here. You are suggesting that a Voidray army, which takes a lot of time and sacrifice to build, a unit that costs 4 supply, 250 minerals and 150 gas, is too hard to counter? You really can't think of a way to beat a specific build like that? As a GM, I'm sure it's obvious to you that the game is asymmetrically balanced and that when certain builds are allowed to be executed unhindered their power of advantage becomes greater. Scouting such a build is not so hard either since getting a sizable VR army quickly would show you more than 1 Stargate and a gradual build up takes time. There is a large window where the Protoss ground army is super weak and vulnerable to counter attack. You shouldn't expect to play vs. every build and strategy to the late game and have a viable way to win, something that is intended as part of the design. Queens start becoming really effective vs. VRs with carapace upgrade since every +1 armor reduces VR dps by 2, a Queen with +2 armor upgrade will reduce a VR's DPS on a queen from 10 to 6... which is the same as a sentry or at max upgrades from 16 to 10. Or better yet, 2 queens cost as much supply, 50 more minerals but no gas. Do the math, if you have 2:1 ratio of Queens to VR. You are gonna kill the VRs. And if the Protoss kills your queens with a ground switch its still in your favor because he lost a ton of gas and you only used minerals and Zerg ground > Protoss... You use a lot of words and it cleverly masks the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about. Cutting through the bullshit here is that apparently "mass queen is the answer to skytoss". Also the skytoss style is very turtley and it is very difficult to attack into it. It's immobile and not very good when in small numbers, i.e, death ball formation, certainly there are maps which make this strat hard to deal with, AW comes to mind, but you don't just stupidly mass Queen. Since Skytoss is very supply heavy type of composition there is a weakness that can be exploited there with early and mid game timings. On bigger maps it's very viable to take a lot of bases since any significant push from the Protoss immediately opens him up for ling counter attacks. You won't clean the Protoss army up in one trade, but even if it take 2-3 waves the ultimate result favors the Zerg because the result will be very gas efficient trade for the Zerg. One other issue here is that in most pro level games Skytoss isn't a prevalent strategy and it's not very often we see the MU unfold in such ways. It is no where near the level of how Inf/GGLord dominated the MU and as we can see the win rates between the races is quite even. I just don't see how this is a problem at the level where the game is being balanced. VRs are really powerful on the ladder, but at the pro level you don't really see them being massed all that often. @ Big J, I'm assuming your reply is a sarcastic one... :3 I think they posted the April win rates recently....might want to check your stat book on that one Who is they? Edit: Here is a snippet from the current WCS, from a sample of 1235 games, 355 PvZ, we see a PvZ 48%, with Z having a marginal lead... The week in starcraft released the winrates here is a link to the doc https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At0PE4rdhsI9dDE0cEprWkwwMGxQdTczTTlLNW1qX1E#gid=0Thing is you said the winrates were even between the races so i'm curious how you arrived at that conclusion. Hahaha, look at that underwhelming sample size... wow. Btw, I saw a Protoss beat a Zerg 3-0, 100% winrate for Protoss, it's imba yo... >_> You brought up statistics to support your argument and now you are saying they are meaningless or that you don't have any statistics. Honestly I don't really think it is valuable to discuss strategy with someone who thinks I should "mass queen because they are just 2 supply and a void is 4" Best answer to skytoss is probably hydra, viper with lots of anti air static D. Not just attacking into someone turtling. I just don't agree with making an argument based on statistics without providing relevant statistics and then trying to ridicule someone who does.
I was curious at first to see from whom he got his statistics, as you can see I updated my reply after he made his to show my sources. I cannot look at the one he serves all too seriously because it includes ATC and PL, two tournaments where such a statistic can be quite misleading. ATC has teams with a lot of disparity in skill, and certain Protosses of Korean origin ripping apart foreign Zergs. PL is practically dominated by Protoss because Kespa Zergs and Terrans to some degree, are lagging behind compared to their Protoss counterparts; something that is not present in the entirety of the scene.
|
On April 23 2013 13:47 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 13:38 BeyondCtrL wrote:On April 23 2013 13:32 Big J wrote:On April 23 2013 13:22 BeyondCtrL wrote:
@ Big J, I'm assuming your reply is a sarcastic one... :3
No, seriously. Tell me which Zerg ground army beats a Protoss ground army mostly consisting of Archons and Robo units. Immortals are cost and supplyefficient against any zerg unit if you have enough of them. So you are asking if 10+ Immortals, Archons, HTs, Collosus and Gateway meat is cost effcient 1:1 vs Zerg? First Protoss is supposed to be cost efficient unit to unit by design, secondly you are creating a ridiculous composition which almost never happens. I'd love to see those 5 base mass Immortal, Archon, Collosus, Templar builds... because it's so easy to get to. And additionally how do you expect a Protoss that loses a Sky army to re-max on something like that? The amount of Zerg tears post WoL is really amusing. You lost me at "Protoss is suppoed to be costefficient". Because in Starcraft 2 with capped income that is equivalent to "Protoss is supposed to win". And I'm not talking about a Protoss that loses a skyarmy. I'm talking purely about your comment that zerg ground beats protoss ground. So I ask again. How do you beat this composition with zerg ground. Also: 350games "underwhelming" sample size? You know nothing about statistics...
You are creating unrealistic compositions and craving answers for them. How many games have we seen so far, in the WCS across the regions, where Zerg is just being dominated by Protoss in the Air and also being killed by the famous 10 Immortal + mass Archon + Collo + HT builds that hit at 9 min game time after the Protoss has saturated their 5th base...
Also underwhelming sample size refers to how the number of games and the ratio it provides is underwhelming factually...
|
United Kingdom10443 Posts
On April 23 2013 13:51 BeyondCtrL wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 13:45 infKelsier wrote:On April 23 2013 13:40 BeyondCtrL wrote:On April 23 2013 13:34 infKelsier wrote:On April 23 2013 13:26 BeyondCtrL wrote:On April 23 2013 13:25 infKelsier wrote:On April 23 2013 13:22 BeyondCtrL wrote:On April 23 2013 13:04 infKelsier wrote:On April 23 2013 12:57 BeyondCtrL wrote:On April 23 2013 12:06 Msr wrote:
[quote]
Ironic because I am GM on every server, and Ive yet to find a way to kill a voidray army. Hydras and corrupters both get completely destroyed by voidrays. Aoe is the biggest issue with hydras being terrible vs them, and queen-spores is too immobile.
The only way I've found to beat a voidray army that is not pure static defense tempest turtle, is to damage their economy so bad that multiple remaxes eventually overpower the protoss.
If other skilled zergs have an army composition I am not using correctly please feel free to show me. Oh, the irony is not lost on me here. You are suggesting that a Voidray army, which takes a lot of time and sacrifice to build, a unit that costs 4 supply, 250 minerals and 150 gas, is too hard to counter? You really can't think of a way to beat a specific build like that? As a GM, I'm sure it's obvious to you that the game is asymmetrically balanced and that when certain builds are allowed to be executed unhindered their power of advantage becomes greater. Scouting such a build is not so hard either since getting a sizable VR army quickly would show you more than 1 Stargate and a gradual build up takes time. There is a large window where the Protoss ground army is super weak and vulnerable to counter attack. You shouldn't expect to play vs. every build and strategy to the late game and have a viable way to win, something that is intended as part of the design. Queens start becoming really effective vs. VRs with carapace upgrade since every +1 armor reduces VR dps by 2, a Queen with +2 armor upgrade will reduce a VR's DPS on a queen from 10 to 6... which is the same as a sentry or at max upgrades from 16 to 10. Or better yet, 2 queens cost as much supply, 50 more minerals but no gas. Do the math, if you have 2:1 ratio of Queens to VR. You are gonna kill the VRs. And if the Protoss kills your queens with a ground switch its still in your favor because he lost a ton of gas and you only used minerals and Zerg ground > Protoss... You use a lot of words and it cleverly masks the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about. Cutting through the bullshit here is that apparently "mass queen is the answer to skytoss". Also the skytoss style is very turtley and it is very difficult to attack into it. It's immobile and not very good when in small numbers, i.e, death ball formation, certainly there are maps which make this strat hard to deal with, AW comes to mind, but you don't just stupidly mass Queen. Since Skytoss is very supply heavy type of composition there is a weakness that can be exploited there with early and mid game timings. On bigger maps it's very viable to take a lot of bases since any significant push from the Protoss immediately opens him up for ling counter attacks. You won't clean the Protoss army up in one trade, but even if it take 2-3 waves the ultimate result favors the Zerg because the result will be very gas efficient trade for the Zerg. One other issue here is that in most pro level games Skytoss isn't a prevalent strategy and it's not very often we see the MU unfold in such ways. It is no where near the level of how Inf/GGLord dominated the MU and as we can see the win rates between the races is quite even. I just don't see how this is a problem at the level where the game is being balanced. VRs are really powerful on the ladder, but at the pro level you don't really see them being massed all that often. @ Big J, I'm assuming your reply is a sarcastic one... :3 I think they posted the April win rates recently....might want to check your stat book on that one Who is they? Edit: Here is a snippet from the current WCS, from a sample of 1235 games, 355 PvZ, we see a PvZ 48%, with Z having a marginal lead... The week in starcraft released the winrates here is a link to the doc https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At0PE4rdhsI9dDE0cEprWkwwMGxQdTczTTlLNW1qX1E#gid=0Thing is you said the winrates were even between the races so i'm curious how you arrived at that conclusion. Hahaha, look at that underwhelming sample size... wow. Btw, I saw a Protoss beat a Zerg 3-0, 100% winrate for Protoss, it's imba yo... >_> You brought up statistics to support your argument and now you are saying they are meaningless or that you don't have any statistics. Honestly I don't really think it is valuable to discuss strategy with someone who thinks I should "mass queen because they are just 2 supply and a void is 4" Best answer to skytoss is probably hydra, viper with lots of anti air static D. Not just attacking into someone turtling. I just don't agree with making an argument based on statistics without providing relevant statistics and then trying to ridicule someone who does. I was curious at first to see from whom he got his statistics, as you can see I updated my reply after he made his to show my sources. I cannot look at the one he serves all too seriously because it includes ATC and PL, two tournaments where such a statistic can be quite misleading. ATC has teams with a lot of disparity in skill, and certain Protosses of Korean origin ripping apart foreign Zergs. PL is practically dominated by Protoss because Kespa Zergs and Terrans to some degree, are lagging behind compared to their Protoss counterparts; something that is not present in the entirety of the scene.
So my statistics which include the highest level of play aren't serious? Are you joking? You even talk about the game being balanced around the highest level of play which is what my stats include.
Your statistics are based on the WCS...which literally had players ranging from pros to gold league.
|
I don't even understand. Why would they INCREASE the speed of the oracle? If they want skilled players to be rewarded, how about make their insanely high DPS attack actually require micro like the banshee? And jesus, just remove hellbats. Such a stupid unit.
The two other things are alright though.
|
On April 23 2013 09:31 KadaverBB wrote:Ugh 
Hey, hey.
Just imagine if they did this kind of stuff back in BW. In fact, I should just say vanilla SC.
|
On April 23 2013 13:54 BeyondCtrL wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 13:47 Big J wrote:On April 23 2013 13:38 BeyondCtrL wrote:On April 23 2013 13:32 Big J wrote:On April 23 2013 13:22 BeyondCtrL wrote:
@ Big J, I'm assuming your reply is a sarcastic one... :3
No, seriously. Tell me which Zerg ground army beats a Protoss ground army mostly consisting of Archons and Robo units. Immortals are cost and supplyefficient against any zerg unit if you have enough of them. So you are asking if 10+ Immortals, Archons, HTs, Collosus and Gateway meat is cost effcient 1:1 vs Zerg? First Protoss is supposed to be cost efficient unit to unit by design, secondly you are creating a ridiculous composition which almost never happens. I'd love to see those 5 base mass Immortal, Archon, Collosus, Templar builds... because it's so easy to get to. And additionally how do you expect a Protoss that loses a Sky army to re-max on something like that? The amount of Zerg tears post WoL is really amusing. You lost me at "Protoss is suppoed to be costefficient". Because in Starcraft 2 with capped income that is equivalent to "Protoss is supposed to win". And I'm not talking about a Protoss that loses a skyarmy. I'm talking purely about your comment that zerg ground beats protoss ground. So I ask again. How do you beat this composition with zerg ground. Also: 350games "underwhelming" sample size? You know nothing about statistics... You are creating unrealistic compositions and craving answers for them. How many games have we seen so far, in the WCS across the regions, where Zerg is just being dominated by Protoss in the Air and also being killed by the famous 10 Immortal + mass Archon + Collo + HT builds that hit at 9 min game time after the Protoss has saturated their 5th base...
Listen guy, you said in a theoretical argument about unit compositions that zerg ground beats protoss ground. I bring a theoretical example and you start telling me how this doesn't happen at prolevel.
Of course it doesn't happen. People who want to make money by winning are not so dumb to build ground units in such a scenario and go for mutalisks and broodlords instead. The closest scenarios to what I'm telling you are games like sos vs soo in Code S, with double robo mass immortal (10+), stormtemplar, colossus or San vs Courios in GSTL. And those were already far from close games.
|
Just love the burrow and spore idea...but increase the oracle speed you're joking right?! o.O
|
all the waiting for this? "the game is in a solid state", yeah sure
ive played zerg at high masters from the very beginning of wol, being underpowered at periods is just normal in rts
dont get me wrong i hated infestors so much that i didnt even use them in my play, but the biggest thing atm is that is jut not fun to play zerg in hots, in zvt u feel constantly threatened to death form start to finish without being able to do anything to terran unless he screws up, zvp is kinda ok at least as different strats are viable and zvz is just a joke of a matchup to play
gonna play something else i guess until things get figured out or patched, but havent had as less fun playing sc2 as since the release of hots
|
On April 23 2013 13:59 infKelsier wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 13:51 BeyondCtrL wrote:On April 23 2013 13:45 infKelsier wrote:On April 23 2013 13:40 BeyondCtrL wrote:On April 23 2013 13:34 infKelsier wrote:On April 23 2013 13:26 BeyondCtrL wrote:On April 23 2013 13:25 infKelsier wrote:On April 23 2013 13:22 BeyondCtrL wrote:On April 23 2013 13:04 infKelsier wrote:On April 23 2013 12:57 BeyondCtrL wrote:
[quote]
Oh, the irony is not lost on me here. You are suggesting that a Voidray army, which takes a lot of time and sacrifice to build, a unit that costs 4 supply, 250 minerals and 150 gas, is too hard to counter? You really can't think of a way to beat a specific build like that?
As a GM, I'm sure it's obvious to you that the game is asymmetrically balanced and that when certain builds are allowed to be executed unhindered their power of advantage becomes greater. Scouting such a build is not so hard either since getting a sizable VR army quickly would show you more than 1 Stargate and a gradual build up takes time. There is a large window where the Protoss ground army is super weak and vulnerable to counter attack. You shouldn't expect to play vs. every build and strategy to the late game and have a viable way to win, something that is intended as part of the design.
Queens start becoming really effective vs. VRs with carapace upgrade since every +1 armor reduces VR dps by 2, a Queen with +2 armor upgrade will reduce a VR's DPS on a queen from 10 to 6... which is the same as a sentry or at max upgrades from 16 to 10. Or better yet, 2 queens cost as much supply, 50 more minerals but no gas. Do the math, if you have 2:1 ratio of Queens to VR. You are gonna kill the VRs. And if the Protoss kills your queens with a ground switch its still in your favor because he lost a ton of gas and you only used minerals and Zerg ground > Protoss... You use a lot of words and it cleverly masks the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about. Cutting through the bullshit here is that apparently "mass queen is the answer to skytoss". Also the skytoss style is very turtley and it is very difficult to attack into it. It's immobile and not very good when in small numbers, i.e, death ball formation, certainly there are maps which make this strat hard to deal with, AW comes to mind, but you don't just stupidly mass Queen. Since Skytoss is very supply heavy type of composition there is a weakness that can be exploited there with early and mid game timings. On bigger maps it's very viable to take a lot of bases since any significant push from the Protoss immediately opens him up for ling counter attacks. You won't clean the Protoss army up in one trade, but even if it take 2-3 waves the ultimate result favors the Zerg because the result will be very gas efficient trade for the Zerg. One other issue here is that in most pro level games Skytoss isn't a prevalent strategy and it's not very often we see the MU unfold in such ways. It is no where near the level of how Inf/GGLord dominated the MU and as we can see the win rates between the races is quite even. I just don't see how this is a problem at the level where the game is being balanced. VRs are really powerful on the ladder, but at the pro level you don't really see them being massed all that often. @ Big J, I'm assuming your reply is a sarcastic one... :3 I think they posted the April win rates recently....might want to check your stat book on that one Who is they? Edit: Here is a snippet from the current WCS, from a sample of 1235 games, 355 PvZ, we see a PvZ 48%, with Z having a marginal lead... The week in starcraft released the winrates here is a link to the doc https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At0PE4rdhsI9dDE0cEprWkwwMGxQdTczTTlLNW1qX1E#gid=0Thing is you said the winrates were even between the races so i'm curious how you arrived at that conclusion. Hahaha, look at that underwhelming sample size... wow. Btw, I saw a Protoss beat a Zerg 3-0, 100% winrate for Protoss, it's imba yo... >_> You brought up statistics to support your argument and now you are saying they are meaningless or that you don't have any statistics. Honestly I don't really think it is valuable to discuss strategy with someone who thinks I should "mass queen because they are just 2 supply and a void is 4" Best answer to skytoss is probably hydra, viper with lots of anti air static D. Not just attacking into someone turtling. I just don't agree with making an argument based on statistics without providing relevant statistics and then trying to ridicule someone who does. I was curious at first to see from whom he got his statistics, as you can see I updated my reply after he made his to show my sources. I cannot look at the one he serves all too seriously because it includes ATC and PL, two tournaments where such a statistic can be quite misleading. ATC has teams with a lot of disparity in skill, and certain Protosses of Korean origin ripping apart foreign Zergs. PL is practically dominated by Protoss because Kespa Zergs and Terrans to some degree, are lagging behind compared to their Protoss counterparts; something that is not present in the entirety of the scene. So my statistics which include the highest level of play aren't serious? Are you joking? You even talk about the game being balanced around the highest level of play which is what my stats include. Your statistics are based on the WCS...which literally had players ranging from pros to gold league.
I already stated why I find your sample not trustworthy. Even tho ATC and PL provide good games there are a lot of fails too, with a several patchzerg fails, etc. Even though the WCS sample is varied in that regard as well, the overall picture shows that there does not seem to be a strategy vs. Z in the PvZ MU that is dominating Zergs like you claim it is.
If you want to see a smaller sample, from a much more recent window with relevant players, http://aligulac.com/periods/83/ , you can still see the statistic remains relatively equal. If it looks like the TvZ MU, then we can talk about overwhelming balance issues in the MU, because as of now it seems like it's a bunch of non pros that are handling it badly.
|
imho
Hydras doing +damage to bio air would be very cool. Would also love to see their acid attack come back from that instead of the spine/spike thing.
Oracles are fine, they need no buffs.
Burrow might be a more attractive option if it was less than 100g.
|
United Kingdom10443 Posts
On April 23 2013 14:10 BeyondCtrL wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 13:59 infKelsier wrote:On April 23 2013 13:51 BeyondCtrL wrote:On April 23 2013 13:45 infKelsier wrote:On April 23 2013 13:40 BeyondCtrL wrote:On April 23 2013 13:34 infKelsier wrote:On April 23 2013 13:26 BeyondCtrL wrote:On April 23 2013 13:25 infKelsier wrote:On April 23 2013 13:22 BeyondCtrL wrote:On April 23 2013 13:04 infKelsier wrote:
[quote]
You use a lot of words and it cleverly masks the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about.
Cutting through the bullshit here is that apparently "mass queen is the answer to skytoss". Also the skytoss style is very turtley and it is very difficult to attack into it.
It's immobile and not very good when in small numbers, i.e, death ball formation, certainly there are maps which make this strat hard to deal with, AW comes to mind, but you don't just stupidly mass Queen. Since Skytoss is very supply heavy type of composition there is a weakness that can be exploited there with early and mid game timings. On bigger maps it's very viable to take a lot of bases since any significant push from the Protoss immediately opens him up for ling counter attacks. You won't clean the Protoss army up in one trade, but even if it take 2-3 waves the ultimate result favors the Zerg because the result will be very gas efficient trade for the Zerg. One other issue here is that in most pro level games Skytoss isn't a prevalent strategy and it's not very often we see the MU unfold in such ways. It is no where near the level of how Inf/GGLord dominated the MU and as we can see the win rates between the races is quite even. I just don't see how this is a problem at the level where the game is being balanced. VRs are really powerful on the ladder, but at the pro level you don't really see them being massed all that often. @ Big J, I'm assuming your reply is a sarcastic one... :3 I think they posted the April win rates recently....might want to check your stat book on that one Who is they? Edit: Here is a snippet from the current WCS, from a sample of 1235 games, 355 PvZ, we see a PvZ 48%, with Z having a marginal lead... The week in starcraft released the winrates here is a link to the doc https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At0PE4rdhsI9dDE0cEprWkwwMGxQdTczTTlLNW1qX1E#gid=0Thing is you said the winrates were even between the races so i'm curious how you arrived at that conclusion. Hahaha, look at that underwhelming sample size... wow. Btw, I saw a Protoss beat a Zerg 3-0, 100% winrate for Protoss, it's imba yo... >_> You brought up statistics to support your argument and now you are saying they are meaningless or that you don't have any statistics. Honestly I don't really think it is valuable to discuss strategy with someone who thinks I should "mass queen because they are just 2 supply and a void is 4" Best answer to skytoss is probably hydra, viper with lots of anti air static D. Not just attacking into someone turtling. I just don't agree with making an argument based on statistics without providing relevant statistics and then trying to ridicule someone who does. I was curious at first to see from whom he got his statistics, as you can see I updated my reply after he made his to show my sources. I cannot look at the one he serves all too seriously because it includes ATC and PL, two tournaments where such a statistic can be quite misleading. ATC has teams with a lot of disparity in skill, and certain Protosses of Korean origin ripping apart foreign Zergs. PL is practically dominated by Protoss because Kespa Zergs and Terrans to some degree, are lagging behind compared to their Protoss counterparts; something that is not present in the entirety of the scene. So my statistics which include the highest level of play aren't serious? Are you joking? You even talk about the game being balanced around the highest level of play which is what my stats include. Your statistics are based on the WCS...which literally had players ranging from pros to gold league. I already stated why I find your sample not trustworthy. Even tho ATC and PL provide good games there are a lot of fails too, with a several patchzerg fails, etc. Even though the WCS sample is varied in that regard as well, the overall picture shows that there does not seem to be a strategy vs. Z in the PvZ MU that is dominating Zergs like you claim it is. If you want to see a smaller sample, from a much more recent window with relevant players, http://aligulac.com/periods/83/ , you can still see the statistic remains relatively equal. If it looks like the TvZ MU, then we can talk about overwhelming balance issues in the MU, because as of now it seems like it's a bunch of non pros that are handling it badly.
I'm not making any claims about an overpowered strategy (though I doubt I will see mass queen be the answer to skytoss), I'm just commenting on your use/misuse of statistics.
you say that your statistics show PvZ is even, however when I provide statistics that contradict your point, you berate me whilst providing no statistics yourself. And saying my statistics are untrustworthy because it includes ATC and proleague (really don't understand that point)
Then you bring up your statistics which are from WCS (which has gold league players) and then games from the last 4 days of a sample size smaller than mine (note how you laughed at the sample size I provided yet give one smaller as your evidence)
My overall analysis is that you are salty about Zerg domination at the end of WoL (shown by your use of "patch zerg fail" which is disgusting and shows a small mind) and stated statistics to try and support your argument. However when I called you on it, turned out you had jack shit and are hastly trying to recover but you are just digging a deeper hole.
Honestly you don't have a leg to stand on anymore. I think Skytoss can be answered, vibe showed great use of hydra, viper and static D but it is a really strong strat.
|
On April 23 2013 13:47 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 13:38 BeyondCtrL wrote:On April 23 2013 13:32 Big J wrote:On April 23 2013 13:22 BeyondCtrL wrote:
@ Big J, I'm assuming your reply is a sarcastic one... :3
No, seriously. Tell me which Zerg ground army beats a Protoss ground army mostly consisting of Archons and Robo units. Immortals are cost and supplyefficient against any zerg unit if you have enough of them. So you are asking if 10+ Immortals, Archons, HTs, Collosus and Gateway meat is cost effcient 1:1 vs Zerg? First Protoss is supposed to be cost efficient unit to unit by design, secondly you are creating a ridiculous composition which almost never happens. I'd love to see those 5 base mass Immortal, Archon, Collosus, Templar builds... because it's so easy to get to. And additionally how do you expect a Protoss that loses a Sky army to re-max on something like that? The amount of Zerg tears post WoL is really amusing. You lost me at "Protoss is suppoed to be costefficient". Because in Starcraft 2 with capped income that is equivalent to "Protoss is supposed to win". And I'm not talking about a Protoss that loses a skyarmy. I'm talking purely about your comment that zerg ground beats protoss ground. So I ask again. How do you beat this composition with zerg ground. Also: 350games "underwhelming" sample size? You know nothing about statistics...
theeeeeeee fuck are you talking about? protoss is supposed to be cost efficient because they are slow and expensive and their tech is spread out like a jello bomb. If you let a protoss get to 6base and assemble an archonrobogatewaystargatearmyofDOOOOOOM you're fucked sure enough-seems awfully similar to a certain race that would secure bases and turtle to infestor+hive tech with techswitches (not naming any names though). And, as to a ground army that could do it, I would place my bets on ultra/swarmhost/infestor/hydra having the best chance (not necessarily 100%), and if you say that's unrealistic because it's expensive, i'm going to laugh at you.
|
I really hope if Blizzard does anything its strictly buffs and no nerfs, however I would prefer them to give everything a lot more time before making adjustments simply because I don't want HOTS to end up stale like WOL was at the end, before adjusting/nerfing things I feel it's important to A) let players figure out and try to adapt versus something, and B) adjust maps and let them fluctuate and see if statistics change at all (BL Infestor was too strong but if you looked at a map like Whirlwind with a huge open middle area it was actually manageable for both Protoss and Terran simply because this map wasn't another Daybreak clone and you could spread and flank a ton easier)
as for the Oracle speed buff I support it simply because as of right now Oracles are only really relevant vs greedy Terran players and greedy Protoss players, it feels like they are either hit or miss and cannot be utilized in the mid-late game simply because attempting to use Envision is too difficult given how fragile the Oracle is
also I'd like to note statistics can be useless even if they are in a large sample if the sample is taken during a short period from a stagnant metagame
|
On April 23 2013 14:04 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 13:54 BeyondCtrL wrote:On April 23 2013 13:47 Big J wrote:On April 23 2013 13:38 BeyondCtrL wrote:On April 23 2013 13:32 Big J wrote:On April 23 2013 13:22 BeyondCtrL wrote:
@ Big J, I'm assuming your reply is a sarcastic one... :3
No, seriously. Tell me which Zerg ground army beats a Protoss ground army mostly consisting of Archons and Robo units. Immortals are cost and supplyefficient against any zerg unit if you have enough of them. So you are asking if 10+ Immortals, Archons, HTs, Collosus and Gateway meat is cost effcient 1:1 vs Zerg? First Protoss is supposed to be cost efficient unit to unit by design, secondly you are creating a ridiculous composition which almost never happens. I'd love to see those 5 base mass Immortal, Archon, Collosus, Templar builds... because it's so easy to get to. And additionally how do you expect a Protoss that loses a Sky army to re-max on something like that? The amount of Zerg tears post WoL is really amusing. You lost me at "Protoss is suppoed to be costefficient". Because in Starcraft 2 with capped income that is equivalent to "Protoss is supposed to win". And I'm not talking about a Protoss that loses a skyarmy. I'm talking purely about your comment that zerg ground beats protoss ground. So I ask again. How do you beat this composition with zerg ground. Also: 350games "underwhelming" sample size? You know nothing about statistics... You are creating unrealistic compositions and craving answers for them. How many games have we seen so far, in the WCS across the regions, where Zerg is just being dominated by Protoss in the Air and also being killed by the famous 10 Immortal + mass Archon + Collo + HT builds that hit at 9 min game time after the Protoss has saturated their 5th base... Listen guy, you said in a theoretical argument about unit compositions that zerg ground beats protoss ground. I bring a theoretical example and you start telling me how this doesn't happen at prolevel. Of course it doesn't happen. People who want to make money by winning are not so dumb to build ground units in such a scenario and go for mutalisks and broodlords instead. The closest scenarios to what I'm telling you are games like sos vs soo in Code S, with double robo mass immortal (10+), stormtemplar, colossus or San vs Courios in GSTL. And those were already far from close games.
Ya because soo and San played those games perfectly, right? It's as if they totally outplayed their opponents. There are games where players of even, or near even skill, can produce games where it's a rofl stomp. The reason why Stargate opening are favored over ground is because it produces better results over all. If you are suggesting that it's the other way around or that both frontlines are equally ridiculous then why aren't we seeing PvZ with a crushing stat like TvZ? Where in actuality it's nowhere close to that. When you favor the Stargate it implies that Protoss feel like the ground battle is less favorable, something which good Viper play has shown, enabling a roach/hydra comp to crush a robo based comp.
I just don't understand how you can only evaluate the balance of the game on just army vs. army basis, when the reality is that it's only a portion of the outcome and is a result of a whole game's worth of decisions prior to that. It's obvious that there are comps in the game that are very hard to beat, but arriving to them is really rare and very hard and nerfing the units that compose them weaken their ability to be viable in the earlier parts of the game which makes the MU into a bigger turtle fest. The reason the VR and Stargate units were focused on was because of how bad it was before, and not only that we have been in the same discussion with VRs in the beginning of WoL too; the eventual nerfs to which completely phased the unit out from the game, except in rare occasions (SKMC).
|
Northern Ireland25648 Posts
I see the Oracle's future (and have always wanted it to be designed to be) a genuine supporting unit with Envision being a spell I have a lot of hopes for.
A speed buff may seem a bit strange to some, but if it enables more experimentation with it in this capacity, then it could potentially be subsequently nerfed if it proves too silly as a gimmicky proxy unit.
|
On April 23 2013 14:33 Wombat_NI wrote:
I see the Oracle's future (and have always wanted it to be designed to be) a genuine supporting unit with Envision being a spell I have a lot of hopes for.
A speed buff may seem a bit strange to some, but if it enables more experimentation with it in this capacity, then it could potentially be subsequently nerfed if it proves too silly as a gimmicky proxy unit.
If the unit is simply to strong in proxy scenarios like WOL beta Reapers were I think the speed buff could be great coupled with a build time increase or something along the lines giving it more utility later on while keeping it in check early game
|
On April 23 2013 12:39 petered wrote:
Forgot how much fun patching days were. Reading the over the top reactions and complaining over changes that aren't even happening for sure is pretty hilarious.
From my perspective, I don't even care that much about perfect balance at this point. I just want them to focus on interesting and dynamic units. Speed increase on oracle sounds good to me because a good player can make just a couple and use them effectively throughout the game, which I think is pretty cool. Unfortunately larger changes are probably out of the question for a while, but it makes me excited for LotV if they keep up that focus.
This is already possible-see herO[join] rain vs flash~ i think ~
1 oracle stays alive for the whole game and constantly envisions terran army so that drops are really hard to execute and it's really easy to defend straight up pushes since you know exactly where its coming from
|
Northern Ireland25648 Posts
Wasn't that Rain vs Flash?
And yes, I despise gimmicky play (don't know why I play Protoss). I've yet to figure a way to make Stargate/Oracle worthwhile (or at least as good as Robo tech in utility) unless my opponent gets caught with his pants down.
Looking forward to getting back to playing tbh, been a few weeks out of the groove
|
On April 23 2013 14:29 GTPGlitch wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 13:47 Big J wrote:On April 23 2013 13:38 BeyondCtrL wrote:On April 23 2013 13:32 Big J wrote:On April 23 2013 13:22 BeyondCtrL wrote:
@ Big J, I'm assuming your reply is a sarcastic one... :3
No, seriously. Tell me which Zerg ground army beats a Protoss ground army mostly consisting of Archons and Robo units. Immortals are cost and supplyefficient against any zerg unit if you have enough of them. So you are asking if 10+ Immortals, Archons, HTs, Collosus and Gateway meat is cost effcient 1:1 vs Zerg? First Protoss is supposed to be cost efficient unit to unit by design, secondly you are creating a ridiculous composition which almost never happens. I'd love to see those 5 base mass Immortal, Archon, Collosus, Templar builds... because it's so easy to get to. And additionally how do you expect a Protoss that loses a Sky army to re-max on something like that? The amount of Zerg tears post WoL is really amusing. You lost me at "Protoss is suppoed to be costefficient". Because in Starcraft 2 with capped income that is equivalent to "Protoss is supposed to win". And I'm not talking about a Protoss that loses a skyarmy. I'm talking purely about your comment that zerg ground beats protoss ground. So I ask again. How do you beat this composition with zerg ground. Also: 350games "underwhelming" sample size? You know nothing about statistics... theeeeeeee fuck are you talking about? protoss is supposed to be cost efficient because they are slow and expensive and their tech is spread out like a jello bomb. If you let a protoss get to 6base and assemble an archonrobogatewaystargatearmyofDOOOOOOM you're fucked sure enough-seems awfully similar to a certain race that would secure bases and turtle to infestor+hive tech with techswitches (not naming any names though). And, as to a ground army that could do it, I would place my bets on ultra/swarmhost/infestor/hydra having the best chance (not necessarily 100%), and if you say that's unrealistic because it's expensive, i'm going to laugh at you.
So according to you protoss is playing how zergs did play at the end of WOL and that if you allow them to do that then you deserve to die? You do realize everybody considered what zerg was doing as a problem that warranted changes to the game to prevent right? I want to make sure you understand that considering what you're saying is that now that it's protoss it's somehow ok.
p.s. To be frank protoss are the cost efficient race as much as zerg are the "swarm" race in that neither of them really are if anything terran fills those roles more in sc2. People need to stop acting like this is BW, it's not.
|
On April 23 2013 14:36 GTPGlitch wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 12:39 petered wrote:
Forgot how much fun patching days were. Reading the over the top reactions and complaining over changes that aren't even happening for sure is pretty hilarious.
From my perspective, I don't even care that much about perfect balance at this point. I just want them to focus on interesting and dynamic units. Speed increase on oracle sounds good to me because a good player can make just a couple and use them effectively throughout the game, which I think is pretty cool. Unfortunately larger changes are probably out of the question for a while, but it makes me excited for LotV if they keep up that focus. This is already possible-see herO[join] vs flash~ i think ~ 1 oracle stays alive for the whole game and constantly envisions terran army so that drops are really hard to execute and it's really easy to defend straight up pushes since you know exactly where its coming from
It was Rain who did this and it was definitely pretty awesome to see, he used it on the medivacs after Flash had enough static defense to ward off Pulsar Beam and because of this Rain felt comfortable enough to take a third knowing where that he could spot any drop and prepare for it
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
