|
On May 10 2013 17:10 Ramiz1989 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 16:20 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 07:05 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 10 2013 05:43 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 05:05 Rostam wrote:On May 10 2013 05:04 RogerChillingworth wrote:
TvZ is still terran favored, i don't care what anyone says. Other match-ups are better--can go either way--and really map dependent, but non-retarded Terrans will still make zerg look silly. stats fail to illustrate the full picture, i'm afraid. Good thing Code S is filled with retarded Terrans, then, otherwise zerg would be having issues. The game is very well balanced at the pro level but at the mere-humans level, mines are pretty silly. Incredibly cost efficient, takes 10 times more effort to counter than to use, and one mistake vs mines can be game ending. Welcome to Banelings for all of WoL. As a Zerg player you're simply not accustomed to having to face which you've been dishing out. Infestor/BL really did a number on what players like you perceive as a "balanced" matchup causing you to complain when ZvT is the best it has ever been not only from a gameplay depth and viability standpoint but from a spectator standpoint too. Like I've been saying, banelings are not particularly cost efficient. Yes they are slightly harder to counter than to use, but not anywhere near the level that mines take things. It's fine for an RTS game to have strong units that take a specialized effort to deal with, but mines take it too far. "Be ready to split your army when the banelings come and try to target them down" is a challenge, but an achievable one with practice. "Always have detection around, and follow this complex mine-removal process, and don't ever send units across the map without being ready to instantly turn around if you see a mine, and don't mess up even once or you'll be too cost inefficient" is too much effort and requires too much skill to perform for all but the very best of players. Don't put that "infestor/BL was balanced" strawman on me. Stop arguing with them. Mines don't even suicide, and you name all the problems we have with Mines, while they start to compare them to Banelings that suicides, you lose them to do damage, you almost always lose half of them before they even connect to something, and in the end, if our attack and Banelings hit were good, the resources lost are about equal. I am not saying that things are imbalanced at the moment. I enjoy new match-ups a lot more than the camping ones from WoL, but saying that Widow Mines are same as Banelings is stupid as hell. You can't reason with Terran players that are saying this.
No one is saying mines are same as banelings... But since banelings are the zerg unit most like mines it is the logical choice for comparisons.
And I can also make such a list about mines: They are alot slower than your banelings, they have to burrow to attack, they do friendly damage!, you cannot disable their autoattack, etc.
|
On May 10 2013 17:40 Sissors wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 17:10 Ramiz1989 wrote:On May 10 2013 16:20 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 07:05 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 10 2013 05:43 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 05:05 Rostam wrote:On May 10 2013 05:04 RogerChillingworth wrote:
TvZ is still terran favored, i don't care what anyone says. Other match-ups are better--can go either way--and really map dependent, but non-retarded Terrans will still make zerg look silly. stats fail to illustrate the full picture, i'm afraid. Good thing Code S is filled with retarded Terrans, then, otherwise zerg would be having issues. The game is very well balanced at the pro level but at the mere-humans level, mines are pretty silly. Incredibly cost efficient, takes 10 times more effort to counter than to use, and one mistake vs mines can be game ending. Welcome to Banelings for all of WoL. As a Zerg player you're simply not accustomed to having to face which you've been dishing out. Infestor/BL really did a number on what players like you perceive as a "balanced" matchup causing you to complain when ZvT is the best it has ever been not only from a gameplay depth and viability standpoint but from a spectator standpoint too. Like I've been saying, banelings are not particularly cost efficient. Yes they are slightly harder to counter than to use, but not anywhere near the level that mines take things. It's fine for an RTS game to have strong units that take a specialized effort to deal with, but mines take it too far. "Be ready to split your army when the banelings come and try to target them down" is a challenge, but an achievable one with practice. "Always have detection around, and follow this complex mine-removal process, and don't ever send units across the map without being ready to instantly turn around if you see a mine, and don't mess up even once or you'll be too cost inefficient" is too much effort and requires too much skill to perform for all but the very best of players. Don't put that "infestor/BL was balanced" strawman on me. Stop arguing with them. Mines don't even suicide, and you name all the problems we have with Mines, while they start to compare them to Banelings that suicides, you lose them to do damage, you almost always lose half of them before they even connect to something, and in the end, if our attack and Banelings hit were good, the resources lost are about equal. I am not saying that things are imbalanced at the moment. I enjoy new match-ups a lot more than the camping ones from WoL, but saying that Widow Mines are same as Banelings is stupid as hell. You can't reason with Terran players that are saying this. No one is saying mines are same as banelings... But since banelings are the zerg unit most like mines it is the logical choice for comparisons. And I can also make such a list about mines: They are alot slower than your banelings, they have to burrow to attack, they do friendly damage!, you cannot disable their autoattack, etc.
Of course, you can make such list for every unit in SC2, my point is that Banelings are suicide units, and Mines aren't, and it is extremely hard to be cost-efficient with Banelings, since most of the times you won't kill as much as they cost, while it is hard for Mines to NOT be cost-efficient when they are used as support for Bio units. You can't trigger them with few units when the Bio is on top of them, and if you charge on Terran army with your units then complete chaos happens.
|
On May 10 2013 18:07 Ramiz1989 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 17:40 Sissors wrote:On May 10 2013 17:10 Ramiz1989 wrote:On May 10 2013 16:20 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 07:05 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 10 2013 05:43 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 05:05 Rostam wrote:On May 10 2013 05:04 RogerChillingworth wrote:
TvZ is still terran favored, i don't care what anyone says. Other match-ups are better--can go either way--and really map dependent, but non-retarded Terrans will still make zerg look silly. stats fail to illustrate the full picture, i'm afraid. Good thing Code S is filled with retarded Terrans, then, otherwise zerg would be having issues. The game is very well balanced at the pro level but at the mere-humans level, mines are pretty silly. Incredibly cost efficient, takes 10 times more effort to counter than to use, and one mistake vs mines can be game ending. Welcome to Banelings for all of WoL. As a Zerg player you're simply not accustomed to having to face which you've been dishing out. Infestor/BL really did a number on what players like you perceive as a "balanced" matchup causing you to complain when ZvT is the best it has ever been not only from a gameplay depth and viability standpoint but from a spectator standpoint too. Like I've been saying, banelings are not particularly cost efficient. Yes they are slightly harder to counter than to use, but not anywhere near the level that mines take things. It's fine for an RTS game to have strong units that take a specialized effort to deal with, but mines take it too far. "Be ready to split your army when the banelings come and try to target them down" is a challenge, but an achievable one with practice. "Always have detection around, and follow this complex mine-removal process, and don't ever send units across the map without being ready to instantly turn around if you see a mine, and don't mess up even once or you'll be too cost inefficient" is too much effort and requires too much skill to perform for all but the very best of players. Don't put that "infestor/BL was balanced" strawman on me. Stop arguing with them. Mines don't even suicide, and you name all the problems we have with Mines, while they start to compare them to Banelings that suicides, you lose them to do damage, you almost always lose half of them before they even connect to something, and in the end, if our attack and Banelings hit were good, the resources lost are about equal. I am not saying that things are imbalanced at the moment. I enjoy new match-ups a lot more than the camping ones from WoL, but saying that Widow Mines are same as Banelings is stupid as hell. You can't reason with Terran players that are saying this. No one is saying mines are same as banelings... But since banelings are the zerg unit most like mines it is the logical choice for comparisons. And I can also make such a list about mines: They are alot slower than your banelings, they have to burrow to attack, they do friendly damage!, you cannot disable their autoattack, etc. Of course, you can make such list for every unit in SC2, my point is that Banelings are suicide units, and Mines aren't, and it is extremely hard to be cost-efficient with Banelings, since most of the times you won't kill as much as they cost, while it is hard for Mines to NOT be cost-efficient when they are used as support for Bio units. You can't trigger them with few units when the Bio is on top of them, and if you charge on Terran army with your units then complete chaos happens.
That's so incredibly biased. You know what happens most of the time when I use mines at Diamond level? I move command them while the Z attacks and they never go off. Or they burrow and eat popcorn as the Z army runs past them and ravages everything I have. Mines are essentially siege tanks with tiny range, if you don't position them well and have good timings for burrow, they do absolutely nothing. They sit there, wiggle their little legs and get eaten by zerglings.
Not to mention, why are talking about the balance worries of low master players. Just like I don't think mines should be any easier to use, you shouldn't think that your ling a-moves should be easier to execute. The game is finally looking great at the highest level of play and that's what we want.
|
Thank you, even though the spore change is still a bit too much imo given that top level koreans are starting to be able to transition out of mutas, I really appreciate that they are not going to do the completly retarded oracle/burrow change.
|
On May 10 2013 18:14 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 18:07 Ramiz1989 wrote:On May 10 2013 17:40 Sissors wrote:On May 10 2013 17:10 Ramiz1989 wrote:On May 10 2013 16:20 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 07:05 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 10 2013 05:43 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 05:05 Rostam wrote:On May 10 2013 05:04 RogerChillingworth wrote:
TvZ is still terran favored, i don't care what anyone says. Other match-ups are better--can go either way--and really map dependent, but non-retarded Terrans will still make zerg look silly. stats fail to illustrate the full picture, i'm afraid. Good thing Code S is filled with retarded Terrans, then, otherwise zerg would be having issues. The game is very well balanced at the pro level but at the mere-humans level, mines are pretty silly. Incredibly cost efficient, takes 10 times more effort to counter than to use, and one mistake vs mines can be game ending. Welcome to Banelings for all of WoL. As a Zerg player you're simply not accustomed to having to face which you've been dishing out. Infestor/BL really did a number on what players like you perceive as a "balanced" matchup causing you to complain when ZvT is the best it has ever been not only from a gameplay depth and viability standpoint but from a spectator standpoint too. Like I've been saying, banelings are not particularly cost efficient. Yes they are slightly harder to counter than to use, but not anywhere near the level that mines take things. It's fine for an RTS game to have strong units that take a specialized effort to deal with, but mines take it too far. "Be ready to split your army when the banelings come and try to target them down" is a challenge, but an achievable one with practice. "Always have detection around, and follow this complex mine-removal process, and don't ever send units across the map without being ready to instantly turn around if you see a mine, and don't mess up even once or you'll be too cost inefficient" is too much effort and requires too much skill to perform for all but the very best of players. Don't put that "infestor/BL was balanced" strawman on me. Stop arguing with them. Mines don't even suicide, and you name all the problems we have with Mines, while they start to compare them to Banelings that suicides, you lose them to do damage, you almost always lose half of them before they even connect to something, and in the end, if our attack and Banelings hit were good, the resources lost are about equal. I am not saying that things are imbalanced at the moment. I enjoy new match-ups a lot more than the camping ones from WoL, but saying that Widow Mines are same as Banelings is stupid as hell. You can't reason with Terran players that are saying this. No one is saying mines are same as banelings... But since banelings are the zerg unit most like mines it is the logical choice for comparisons. And I can also make such a list about mines: They are alot slower than your banelings, they have to burrow to attack, they do friendly damage!, you cannot disable their autoattack, etc. Of course, you can make such list for every unit in SC2, my point is that Banelings are suicide units, and Mines aren't, and it is extremely hard to be cost-efficient with Banelings, since most of the times you won't kill as much as they cost, while it is hard for Mines to NOT be cost-efficient when they are used as support for Bio units. You can't trigger them with few units when the Bio is on top of them, and if you charge on Terran army with your units then complete chaos happens. That's so incredibly biased. You know what happens most of the time when I use mines at Diamond level? I move command them while the Z attacks and they never go off. Or they burrow and eat popcorn as the Z army runs past them and ravages everything I have. Mines are essentially siege tanks with tiny range, if you don't position them well and have good timings for burrow, they do absolutely nothing. They sit there, wiggle their little legs and get eaten by zerglings. Not to mention, why are talking about the balance worries of low master players. Just like I don't think mines should be any easier to use, you shouldn't think that your ling a-moves should be easier to execute. The game is finally looking great at the highest level of play and that's what we want.
So, when you fuck up, Mines don't do anything? You don't say!?
You know what happens when I a-click with Banelings? 10 of them get killed, 7 of them suicide on single Marauder, next 7 on the next Marauder, and I am out of the Banelings! Yeah, Banelings are terrible! On a serious note, Zerg won't be able to pass by them if you use them correctly, or should I say, burrow the Mines, and attack with Bio, then stim Bio and run back to the Mines when he tries to attack? Only problem you can have if you don't burrow the Mines on time, and with the upgrade, Mines burrow in one second, so in the mid game, I don't even see that happening.
I agree with you about the highest level of play though, as I said in one of previous posts, I am not balance whining, I like how game is played right now, just when Terran players think that Mines are same as Banelings, or that Banelings are as cost-efficient as Mines are, those Terrans are delusional.
|
so sad the worst of the 3 suggestions goes through. burrow on hatchtech is still 100% useless. sad to see. would finally give Z something new in the early game which has changed a lot for T and P and not at all for Z. really hope they rethink about it in some weeks when they see its still completely useless.
|
On May 10 2013 17:00 DemigodcelpH wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 16:20 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 07:05 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 10 2013 05:43 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 05:05 Rostam wrote:On May 10 2013 05:04 RogerChillingworth wrote:
TvZ is still terran favored, i don't care what anyone says. Other match-ups are better--can go either way--and really map dependent, but non-retarded Terrans will still make zerg look silly. stats fail to illustrate the full picture, i'm afraid. Good thing Code S is filled with retarded Terrans, then, otherwise zerg would be having issues. The game is very well balanced at the pro level but at the mere-humans level, mines are pretty silly. Incredibly cost efficient, takes 10 times more effort to counter than to use, and one mistake vs mines can be game ending. Welcome to Banelings for all of WoL. As a Zerg player you're simply not accustomed to having to face which you've been dishing out. Infestor/BL really did a number on what players like you perceive as a "balanced" matchup causing you to complain when ZvT is the best it has ever been not only from a gameplay depth and viability standpoint but from a spectator standpoint too. Like I've been saying, banelings are not particularly cost efficient. Yes they are slightly harder to counter than to use Bolded for emphasis. With all due respect you are incredibly biased, and unfortunately the rest of your post falls victim to this style of thinking. Downplaying things to suit your agenda isn't making a valid point, so everything I mentioned still effectively stands.
If you think that's biased then I don't think you understand the game very well, or at least haven't played the matchup from both sides. Seeing banelings and reacting by splitting your marines (or stim + run to cover) is not that hard, and is certainly nowhere near the difficulty of dealing with mines cost efficiently as zerg. That's simply a fact.
Additionally, banelings have higher risk and lower reward than mines. Usually some "great baneling connections!" are an even trade on the resources lost meter, and still means zerg is spending gas to wipe out mineral-only units. The reward for successful banelings is low, and they carry the risk of being inefficient and costing you the game (if you run into tank fire, perfect splits, or hit the wrong units).
Mines simply aren't like that. I've never seen a terran lose due to being inefficient with his mines. I've seen many terrans win, including at the pro level, where mines wipe out large portions of armies at once while losing nothing. Mines are far more cost efficient and that means the risk you take by making them is virtually nothing... and the rewards are often so high. They're useful all game long too - they're even good against ultras.
As an esports fan I recognize that mines are balanced at the pro level and I appreciate seeing the skill on display in using them and countering them. But as a player, I can recognize a problem in a game where non-expert players have no chance to deal with something efficiently even if they know it's coming.
|
On May 10 2013 18:28 Ramiz1989 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 18:14 Ghanburighan wrote:On May 10 2013 18:07 Ramiz1989 wrote:On May 10 2013 17:40 Sissors wrote:On May 10 2013 17:10 Ramiz1989 wrote:On May 10 2013 16:20 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 07:05 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 10 2013 05:43 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 05:05 Rostam wrote:On May 10 2013 05:04 RogerChillingworth wrote:
TvZ is still terran favored, i don't care what anyone says. Other match-ups are better--can go either way--and really map dependent, but non-retarded Terrans will still make zerg look silly. stats fail to illustrate the full picture, i'm afraid. Good thing Code S is filled with retarded Terrans, then, otherwise zerg would be having issues. The game is very well balanced at the pro level but at the mere-humans level, mines are pretty silly. Incredibly cost efficient, takes 10 times more effort to counter than to use, and one mistake vs mines can be game ending. Welcome to Banelings for all of WoL. As a Zerg player you're simply not accustomed to having to face which you've been dishing out. Infestor/BL really did a number on what players like you perceive as a "balanced" matchup causing you to complain when ZvT is the best it has ever been not only from a gameplay depth and viability standpoint but from a spectator standpoint too. Like I've been saying, banelings are not particularly cost efficient. Yes they are slightly harder to counter than to use, but not anywhere near the level that mines take things. It's fine for an RTS game to have strong units that take a specialized effort to deal with, but mines take it too far. "Be ready to split your army when the banelings come and try to target them down" is a challenge, but an achievable one with practice. "Always have detection around, and follow this complex mine-removal process, and don't ever send units across the map without being ready to instantly turn around if you see a mine, and don't mess up even once or you'll be too cost inefficient" is too much effort and requires too much skill to perform for all but the very best of players. Don't put that "infestor/BL was balanced" strawman on me. Stop arguing with them. Mines don't even suicide, and you name all the problems we have with Mines, while they start to compare them to Banelings that suicides, you lose them to do damage, you almost always lose half of them before they even connect to something, and in the end, if our attack and Banelings hit were good, the resources lost are about equal. I am not saying that things are imbalanced at the moment. I enjoy new match-ups a lot more than the camping ones from WoL, but saying that Widow Mines are same as Banelings is stupid as hell. You can't reason with Terran players that are saying this. No one is saying mines are same as banelings... But since banelings are the zerg unit most like mines it is the logical choice for comparisons. And I can also make such a list about mines: They are alot slower than your banelings, they have to burrow to attack, they do friendly damage!, you cannot disable their autoattack, etc. Of course, you can make such list for every unit in SC2, my point is that Banelings are suicide units, and Mines aren't, and it is extremely hard to be cost-efficient with Banelings, since most of the times you won't kill as much as they cost, while it is hard for Mines to NOT be cost-efficient when they are used as support for Bio units. You can't trigger them with few units when the Bio is on top of them, and if you charge on Terran army with your units then complete chaos happens. That's so incredibly biased. You know what happens most of the time when I use mines at Diamond level? I move command them while the Z attacks and they never go off. Or they burrow and eat popcorn as the Z army runs past them and ravages everything I have. Mines are essentially siege tanks with tiny range, if you don't position them well and have good timings for burrow, they do absolutely nothing. They sit there, wiggle their little legs and get eaten by zerglings. Not to mention, why are talking about the balance worries of low master players. Just like I don't think mines should be any easier to use, you shouldn't think that your ling a-moves should be easier to execute. The game is finally looking great at the highest level of play and that's what we want. So, when you fuck up, Mines don't do anything? You don't say!? You know what happens when I a-click with Banelings? 10 of them get killed, 7 of them suicide on single Marauder, next 7 on the next Marauder, and I am out of the Banelings! Yeah, Banelings are terrible! On a serious note, Zerg won't be able to pass by them if you use them correctly, or should I say, burrow the Mines, and attack with Bio, then stim Bio and run back to the Mines when he tries to attack? Only problem you can have if you don't burrow the Mines on time, and with the upgrade, Mines burrow in one second, so in the mid game, I don't even see that happening. I agree with you about the highest level of play though, as I said in one of previous posts, I am not balance whining, I like how game is played right now, just when Terran players think that Mines are same as Banelings, or that Banelings are as cost-efficient as Mines are, those Terrans are delusional.
I would argue Terran is the hardest to play at the lowest level. The reason I feel this is because they have the most players in bronze. Terran has always been over represented in bronze/silver, whilst zerg is under represented in the lower leagues. Evidence - http://www.sc2ranks.com/stats/league/all/1/all. Not that I mind. I'd prefer if rank scaled more evenly with skill between the races, but I don't think it really matters. If mines make the match up a little harder for zerg at lower levels I don't think thats a bad thing.
|
On May 10 2013 18:57 Chocobo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 17:00 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 10 2013 16:20 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 07:05 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 10 2013 05:43 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 05:05 Rostam wrote:On May 10 2013 05:04 RogerChillingworth wrote:
TvZ is still terran favored, i don't care what anyone says. Other match-ups are better--can go either way--and really map dependent, but non-retarded Terrans will still make zerg look silly. stats fail to illustrate the full picture, i'm afraid. Good thing Code S is filled with retarded Terrans, then, otherwise zerg would be having issues. The game is very well balanced at the pro level but at the mere-humans level, mines are pretty silly. Incredibly cost efficient, takes 10 times more effort to counter than to use, and one mistake vs mines can be game ending. Welcome to Banelings for all of WoL. As a Zerg player you're simply not accustomed to having to face which you've been dishing out. Infestor/BL really did a number on what players like you perceive as a "balanced" matchup causing you to complain when ZvT is the best it has ever been not only from a gameplay depth and viability standpoint but from a spectator standpoint too. Like I've been saying, banelings are not particularly cost efficient. Yes they are slightly harder to counter than to use Bolded for emphasis. With all due respect you are incredibly biased, and unfortunately the rest of your post falls victim to this style of thinking. Downplaying things to suit your agenda isn't making a valid point, so everything I mentioned still effectively stands. If you think that's biased then I don't think you understand the game very well, or at least haven't played the matchup from both sides. Seeing banelings and reacting by splitting your marines (or stim + run to cover) is not that hard, and is certainly nowhere near the difficulty of dealing with mines cost efficiently as zerg. That's simply a fact. Additionally, banelings have higher risk and lower reward than mines. Usually some "great baneling connections!" are an even trade on the resources lost meter, and still means zerg is spending gas to wipe out mineral-only units. The reward for successful banelings is low, and they carry the risk of being inefficient and costing you the game (if you run into tank fire, perfect splits, or hit the wrong units). Mines simply aren't like that. I've never seen a terran lose due to being inefficient with his mines. I've seen many terrans win, including at the pro level, where mines wipe out large portions of armies at once while losing nothing. Mines are far more cost efficient and that means the risk you take by making them is virtually nothing... and the rewards are often so high. They're useful all game long too - they're even good against ultras. As an esports fan I recognize that mines are balanced at the pro level and I appreciate seeing the skill on display in using them and countering them. But as a player, I can recognize a problem in a game where non-expert players have no chance to deal with something efficiently even if they know it's coming.
You could also play roach hydra. That's very strong when your opponent goes mines. I don't think it's as good as skillful ling bane muta play, but you can hit a very strong midgame timing where the onus is once more on the terran to recognize what you are doing and react appropriately.
|
On May 10 2013 16:45 Prugelhugel wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 16:22 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 07:01 Rostam wrote:On May 10 2013 06:23 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 06:00 Kergy wrote:On May 10 2013 05:43 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 05:05 Rostam wrote:On May 10 2013 05:04 RogerChillingworth wrote:
TvZ is still terran favored, i don't care what anyone says. Other match-ups are better--can go either way--and really map dependent, but non-retarded Terrans will still make zerg look silly. stats fail to illustrate the full picture, i'm afraid. Good thing Code S is filled with retarded Terrans, then, otherwise zerg would be having issues. The game is very well balanced at the pro level but at the mere-humans level, mines are pretty silly. Incredibly cost efficient, takes 10 times more effort to counter than to use, and one mistake vs mines can be game ending. I know that balancing the game for the pro level is far more important than other skill levels... but I can't help but wish they didn't introduce a unit like this into the game. For me in low masters mines just make me want to quit the game. I can't leave my base, I can't ling harrass or go for surrounds, just in case there's a mine there that'll blow up everything for free. I can get mine dropped before I have detection. And even if I know exactly where every mine is, it's still a mess to deal with them... and the only unit that really counters them is broodlords. It's just so frustrating and half the time I just allin against terran now because I'm sick of facing bio/mines and not being able to do anything about it because it takes pro level control to deal with it. WoL ZvT was zerg-favored for a long time but the infestor nerfs and raven buffs made it close to balanced at the very end... then HotS hits and the matchup changed so much in terran's favor. Reapers, speedvacs, hellbats, and mines are all so good and can be gotten quickly, they can affect every game. Meanwhile SH is bad vs terran, so zerg's new toys are the ultra and viper... which are great, but the early game is so much harder. I'm disappointed that changes to mines or reapers apparently weren't even discussed... and something potentially useful for zerg (early burrow) was tossed out before giving it a chance. I feel like I should switch races just so I can use units that can deal with mines better. There's no such thing as imbalance in lower levels, it just means you're not doing things correctly. It's different with mines, because it's so challenging to find them and deal with them effectively. Instead of the bottom 40% of players struggling to counter a simple offensive style, it's the bottom 97%. You have to be very skilled to counter bio + mines in a cost efficient way - far more skill than it takes to scout a dark shrine, wall off vs 10p, or split your marines up. Do you have any proof that 97% of zerg players are struggling, other than your own experiences? I'm having a hard time seeing evidence of it based on the ladder statistics. No, but if they're ruining the game for me at mid masters, somehow I doubt that platinum zergs are dealing with mines just fine. Now that I think about it I suppose 97% is too high though, because at lower levels the terrans will put mines in bad places or forget to burrow them and things like that... it's still a large percentage of zergs though. You have to look at it from another perspective: Mines are no burrow and forget units. If a terran has no idea how to use them and burrows them at the wrong spots, they will never ever trigger any explosions or do crucial damage. So it's not only that zergs are worse at lower levels, terrans also neither play perfect. Yes, maybe zergs can lose like 30 lings on a single mine here and there, but such mistakes are forgiveable below diamond I'd say.
You're right, mines are not great at every skill level below the pros. In the lower leagues where terrans put them in useless places or forget to burrow, they won't do much. My 97% estimate was wrong.
But for the upper half of the ladder, they're easily the most cost efficient unit in the game... and I'd argue that it's worse to have a problem in the game at those skill levels, which contain the players who really care about the game and play more often.
I don't know if there's any good way to change the mines without making them too weak at the pro level though. You don't want to nerf them into uselessness... but right now zerg doesn't have any good tools for dealing with them effectively.
|
Why is everyone comparing widow mines with banelings? Has everyone forgotten the free spell called fungal that can win the game all for 0 mins 0 gas?
|
On May 10 2013 18:28 Ramiz1989 wrote:
You know what happens when I a-click with Banelings? 10 of them get killed, 7 of them suicide on single Marauder, next 7 on the next Marauder, and I am out of the Banelings! Yeah, Banelings are terrible! On a serious note, Zerg won't be able to pass by them if you use them correctly, or should I say, burrow the Mines, and attack with Bio, then stim Bio and run back to the Mines when he tries to attack? Only problem you can have if you don't burrow the Mines on time, and with the upgrade, Mines burrow in one second, so in the mid game, I don't even see that happening.
I agree with you about the highest level of play though, as I said in one of previous posts, I am not balance whining, I like how game is played right now, just when Terran players think that Mines are same as Banelings, or that Banelings are as cost-efficient as Mines are, those Terrans are delusional.
You know what happens when I a-click with marines? 90% of them get killed by banelings, the others die against the lings, and I am out of Marines! Yeah, Marines are terrible!
You know what happens when I a-click with marines? 90% of them get killed by fungal, the others die against the lings, and I am out of Marines! Yeah, Marines are terrible!
If you read your post you would think TvZ is 70-30 atm!
|
On May 10 2013 19:19 Lock0n wrote:
Why is everyone comparing widow mines with banelings? Has everyone forgotten the free spell called fungal that can win the game all for 0 mins 0 gas?
Thats like saying every single unit in the game is free apart from banelings (and maybe carriers) as the damage they deal are free of charge.
|
On May 10 2013 19:06 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 18:57 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 17:00 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 10 2013 16:20 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 07:05 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 10 2013 05:43 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 05:05 Rostam wrote:On May 10 2013 05:04 RogerChillingworth wrote:
TvZ is still terran favored, i don't care what anyone says. Other match-ups are better--can go either way--and really map dependent, but non-retarded Terrans will still make zerg look silly. stats fail to illustrate the full picture, i'm afraid. Good thing Code S is filled with retarded Terrans, then, otherwise zerg would be having issues. The game is very well balanced at the pro level but at the mere-humans level, mines are pretty silly. Incredibly cost efficient, takes 10 times more effort to counter than to use, and one mistake vs mines can be game ending. Welcome to Banelings for all of WoL. As a Zerg player you're simply not accustomed to having to face which you've been dishing out. Infestor/BL really did a number on what players like you perceive as a "balanced" matchup causing you to complain when ZvT is the best it has ever been not only from a gameplay depth and viability standpoint but from a spectator standpoint too. Like I've been saying, banelings are not particularly cost efficient. Yes they are slightly harder to counter than to use Bolded for emphasis. With all due respect you are incredibly biased, and unfortunately the rest of your post falls victim to this style of thinking. Downplaying things to suit your agenda isn't making a valid point, so everything I mentioned still effectively stands. If you think that's biased then I don't think you understand the game very well, or at least haven't played the matchup from both sides. Seeing banelings and reacting by splitting your marines (or stim + run to cover) is not that hard, and is certainly nowhere near the difficulty of dealing with mines cost efficiently as zerg. That's simply a fact. Additionally, banelings have higher risk and lower reward than mines. Usually some "great baneling connections!" are an even trade on the resources lost meter, and still means zerg is spending gas to wipe out mineral-only units. The reward for successful banelings is low, and they carry the risk of being inefficient and costing you the game (if you run into tank fire, perfect splits, or hit the wrong units). Mines simply aren't like that. I've never seen a terran lose due to being inefficient with his mines. I've seen many terrans win, including at the pro level, where mines wipe out large portions of armies at once while losing nothing. Mines are far more cost efficient and that means the risk you take by making them is virtually nothing... and the rewards are often so high. They're useful all game long too - they're even good against ultras. As an esports fan I recognize that mines are balanced at the pro level and I appreciate seeing the skill on display in using them and countering them. But as a player, I can recognize a problem in a game where non-expert players have no chance to deal with something efficiently even if they know it's coming. You could also play roach hydra. That's very strong when your opponent goes mines. I don't think it's as good as skillful ling bane muta play, but you can hit a very strong midgame timing where the onus is once more on the terran to recognize what you are doing and react appropriately.
If there's an answer it definitely lies in roach/hydra... this is the only pre-broodlord unit comp that can deal with mines. But all terran has to do is recognize "oh it's roach hydra, time to stop making mines and go MMM". I don't think roach/hydra/viper has a future, blinding cloud is too easy to run back from (and zerg can't chase through the cloud without being blinded themselves). Maybe there's a way to transition out of roach/hydra back into something stronger vs MMM...
Anyway, this isn't the balance thread. I was just really hoping they'd at least be considering some kind of change to mines, or some kind of beneficial change for zerg that comes before hive tech. Oh well.
|
On May 10 2013 19:22 Chocobo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 19:06 Ghanburighan wrote:On May 10 2013 18:57 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 17:00 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 10 2013 16:20 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 07:05 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 10 2013 05:43 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 05:05 Rostam wrote:On May 10 2013 05:04 RogerChillingworth wrote:
TvZ is still terran favored, i don't care what anyone says. Other match-ups are better--can go either way--and really map dependent, but non-retarded Terrans will still make zerg look silly. stats fail to illustrate the full picture, i'm afraid. Good thing Code S is filled with retarded Terrans, then, otherwise zerg would be having issues. The game is very well balanced at the pro level but at the mere-humans level, mines are pretty silly. Incredibly cost efficient, takes 10 times more effort to counter than to use, and one mistake vs mines can be game ending. Welcome to Banelings for all of WoL. As a Zerg player you're simply not accustomed to having to face which you've been dishing out. Infestor/BL really did a number on what players like you perceive as a "balanced" matchup causing you to complain when ZvT is the best it has ever been not only from a gameplay depth and viability standpoint but from a spectator standpoint too. Like I've been saying, banelings are not particularly cost efficient. Yes they are slightly harder to counter than to use Bolded for emphasis. With all due respect you are incredibly biased, and unfortunately the rest of your post falls victim to this style of thinking. Downplaying things to suit your agenda isn't making a valid point, so everything I mentioned still effectively stands. If you think that's biased then I don't think you understand the game very well, or at least haven't played the matchup from both sides. Seeing banelings and reacting by splitting your marines (or stim + run to cover) is not that hard, and is certainly nowhere near the difficulty of dealing with mines cost efficiently as zerg. That's simply a fact. Additionally, banelings have higher risk and lower reward than mines. Usually some "great baneling connections!" are an even trade on the resources lost meter, and still means zerg is spending gas to wipe out mineral-only units. The reward for successful banelings is low, and they carry the risk of being inefficient and costing you the game (if you run into tank fire, perfect splits, or hit the wrong units). Mines simply aren't like that. I've never seen a terran lose due to being inefficient with his mines. I've seen many terrans win, including at the pro level, where mines wipe out large portions of armies at once while losing nothing. Mines are far more cost efficient and that means the risk you take by making them is virtually nothing... and the rewards are often so high. They're useful all game long too - they're even good against ultras. As an esports fan I recognize that mines are balanced at the pro level and I appreciate seeing the skill on display in using them and countering them. But as a player, I can recognize a problem in a game where non-expert players have no chance to deal with something efficiently even if they know it's coming. You could also play roach hydra. That's very strong when your opponent goes mines. I don't think it's as good as skillful ling bane muta play, but you can hit a very strong midgame timing where the onus is once more on the terran to recognize what you are doing and react appropriately. If there's an answer it definitely lies in roach/hydra... this is the only pre-broodlord unit comp that can deal with mines. But all terran has to do is recognize "oh it's roach hydra, time to stop making mines and go MMM". I don't think roach/hydra/viper has a future, blinding cloud is too easy to run back from (and zerg can't chase through the cloud without being blinded themselves). Maybe there's a way to transition out of roach/hydra back into something stronger vs MMM... Anyway, this isn't the balance thread. I was just really hoping they'd at least be considering some kind of change to mines, or some kind of beneficial change for zerg that comes before hive tech. Oh well.
Are we playing a different game? Because in my game, zergs are actually winning games. You act like there is no counter to mines and the moment a terran makes a few mines, he wins. You need to micro now, the easy 1a WOL times are OVER and you should really start practicing.
|
On May 10 2013 15:23 RanEncounter wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 14:24 Rabiator wrote:Dayvie said
2. Ladder data is showing no sign of imbalance at any skill level.
4. Oracle/Burrow changes could be problematic as you guys bring up, and we really don't want to risk messing with a game that's already really solid. Especially since the game is still changing frequently without balance patches, we just don't think it's a good time to be exploring new options yet. #2 Rofl ... as if the ladder didnt adjust itself automatically. Ladder data doesnt say anything about the game being good, because BALANCE <> GOOD GAME. Balance is necessary to a certain degree, but it isnt the "be all, end all" of game design. Ladder has a lot of data of balance, it has all the played games on ladder! You can tell many things about balance from the ladder data. On top of that blizzard might be collecting even more data from ladder that is know at this point. In a competitive game balance is a huge part of a game being good. Good balancing equals more interested players. If people play more games then before doesn't that mean it is a better game in average? I think that SC2 hots has all the other stuff solid (other then balancing).
How does "data" tell you if the game is INTERESTING and most importantly FUN? You cant have a "fun statistic" and losing to super efficient harrassment units just because you are in gold league and cant beat that speed-Medivac with those two Hellbats inside (because you forgot) is a NOT FUN WAY TO LOSE. If you lose after fighting for your life in an almost equal battle which lasted for many minutes you had fun, but the super aggressive harrassment which kills most of your workers and makes continuing pointless is not fun. You cant get this from "data", you have to THINK and make the right decisions.
Apart from that the ladder adjusts its numbers automatically and consequently "player skill" doesnt mean you are in the same league with other players of equal skill level. You are just in the same league with players of the same MMR.
|
On May 10 2013 19:12 Chocobo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 16:45 Prugelhugel wrote:On May 10 2013 16:22 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 07:01 Rostam wrote:On May 10 2013 06:23 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 06:00 Kergy wrote:On May 10 2013 05:43 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 05:05 Rostam wrote:On May 10 2013 05:04 RogerChillingworth wrote:
TvZ is still terran favored, i don't care what anyone says. Other match-ups are better--can go either way--and really map dependent, but non-retarded Terrans will still make zerg look silly. stats fail to illustrate the full picture, i'm afraid. Good thing Code S is filled with retarded Terrans, then, otherwise zerg would be having issues. The game is very well balanced at the pro level but at the mere-humans level, mines are pretty silly. Incredibly cost efficient, takes 10 times more effort to counter than to use, and one mistake vs mines can be game ending. I know that balancing the game for the pro level is far more important than other skill levels... but I can't help but wish they didn't introduce a unit like this into the game. For me in low masters mines just make me want to quit the game. I can't leave my base, I can't ling harrass or go for surrounds, just in case there's a mine there that'll blow up everything for free. I can get mine dropped before I have detection. And even if I know exactly where every mine is, it's still a mess to deal with them... and the only unit that really counters them is broodlords. It's just so frustrating and half the time I just allin against terran now because I'm sick of facing bio/mines and not being able to do anything about it because it takes pro level control to deal with it. WoL ZvT was zerg-favored for a long time but the infestor nerfs and raven buffs made it close to balanced at the very end... then HotS hits and the matchup changed so much in terran's favor. Reapers, speedvacs, hellbats, and mines are all so good and can be gotten quickly, they can affect every game. Meanwhile SH is bad vs terran, so zerg's new toys are the ultra and viper... which are great, but the early game is so much harder. I'm disappointed that changes to mines or reapers apparently weren't even discussed... and something potentially useful for zerg (early burrow) was tossed out before giving it a chance. I feel like I should switch races just so I can use units that can deal with mines better. There's no such thing as imbalance in lower levels, it just means you're not doing things correctly. It's different with mines, because it's so challenging to find them and deal with them effectively. Instead of the bottom 40% of players struggling to counter a simple offensive style, it's the bottom 97%. You have to be very skilled to counter bio + mines in a cost efficient way - far more skill than it takes to scout a dark shrine, wall off vs 10p, or split your marines up. Do you have any proof that 97% of zerg players are struggling, other than your own experiences? I'm having a hard time seeing evidence of it based on the ladder statistics. No, but if they're ruining the game for me at mid masters, somehow I doubt that platinum zergs are dealing with mines just fine. Now that I think about it I suppose 97% is too high though, because at lower levels the terrans will put mines in bad places or forget to burrow them and things like that... it's still a large percentage of zergs though. You have to look at it from another perspective: Mines are no burrow and forget units. If a terran has no idea how to use them and burrows them at the wrong spots, they will never ever trigger any explosions or do crucial damage. So it's not only that zergs are worse at lower levels, terrans also neither play perfect. Yes, maybe zergs can lose like 30 lings on a single mine here and there, but such mistakes are forgiveable below diamond I'd say. I don't know if there's any good way to change the mines without making them too weak at the pro level though. You don't want to nerf them into uselessness... but right now zerg doesn't have any good tools for dealing with them effectively.
I have to admit, those zerg players are dedicated! They have no way to deal with mines, they must lose pretty much always against terran, and yet zerg is still played ALOT more than terran in the region where it is worst according to you.
|
On May 10 2013 19:24 Snowbear wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 19:22 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 19:06 Ghanburighan wrote:On May 10 2013 18:57 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 17:00 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 10 2013 16:20 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 07:05 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 10 2013 05:43 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 05:05 Rostam wrote:On May 10 2013 05:04 RogerChillingworth wrote:
TvZ is still terran favored, i don't care what anyone says. Other match-ups are better--can go either way--and really map dependent, but non-retarded Terrans will still make zerg look silly. stats fail to illustrate the full picture, i'm afraid. Good thing Code S is filled with retarded Terrans, then, otherwise zerg would be having issues. The game is very well balanced at the pro level but at the mere-humans level, mines are pretty silly. Incredibly cost efficient, takes 10 times more effort to counter than to use, and one mistake vs mines can be game ending. Welcome to Banelings for all of WoL. As a Zerg player you're simply not accustomed to having to face which you've been dishing out. Infestor/BL really did a number on what players like you perceive as a "balanced" matchup causing you to complain when ZvT is the best it has ever been not only from a gameplay depth and viability standpoint but from a spectator standpoint too. Like I've been saying, banelings are not particularly cost efficient. Yes they are slightly harder to counter than to use Bolded for emphasis. With all due respect you are incredibly biased, and unfortunately the rest of your post falls victim to this style of thinking. Downplaying things to suit your agenda isn't making a valid point, so everything I mentioned still effectively stands. If you think that's biased then I don't think you understand the game very well, or at least haven't played the matchup from both sides. Seeing banelings and reacting by splitting your marines (or stim + run to cover) is not that hard, and is certainly nowhere near the difficulty of dealing with mines cost efficiently as zerg. That's simply a fact. Additionally, banelings have higher risk and lower reward than mines. Usually some "great baneling connections!" are an even trade on the resources lost meter, and still means zerg is spending gas to wipe out mineral-only units. The reward for successful banelings is low, and they carry the risk of being inefficient and costing you the game (if you run into tank fire, perfect splits, or hit the wrong units). Mines simply aren't like that. I've never seen a terran lose due to being inefficient with his mines. I've seen many terrans win, including at the pro level, where mines wipe out large portions of armies at once while losing nothing. Mines are far more cost efficient and that means the risk you take by making them is virtually nothing... and the rewards are often so high. They're useful all game long too - they're even good against ultras. As an esports fan I recognize that mines are balanced at the pro level and I appreciate seeing the skill on display in using them and countering them. But as a player, I can recognize a problem in a game where non-expert players have no chance to deal with something efficiently even if they know it's coming. You could also play roach hydra. That's very strong when your opponent goes mines. I don't think it's as good as skillful ling bane muta play, but you can hit a very strong midgame timing where the onus is once more on the terran to recognize what you are doing and react appropriately. If there's an answer it definitely lies in roach/hydra... this is the only pre-broodlord unit comp that can deal with mines. But all terran has to do is recognize "oh it's roach hydra, time to stop making mines and go MMM". I don't think roach/hydra/viper has a future, blinding cloud is too easy to run back from (and zerg can't chase through the cloud without being blinded themselves). Maybe there's a way to transition out of roach/hydra back into something stronger vs MMM... Anyway, this isn't the balance thread. I was just really hoping they'd at least be considering some kind of change to mines, or some kind of beneficial change for zerg that comes before hive tech. Oh well. Are we playing a different game? Because in my game, zergs are actually winning games. You act like there is no counter to mines and the moment a terran makes a few mines, he wins. You need to micro now, the easy WOL times are OVER and you should really start practicing.
I never said mines are autowin or anything like that. ZvT is not unwinnable, but I'd be shocked if the winrates weren't favoring terran in the area of platinum to mid masters. When something is that efficient and there's no way to counter or punish it, what else could happen?
"Learn to play" is such a pointless thing to say. In the infestor/broodlord era did you tell terran and protoss players "yeah it's strong, deal with it. go practice and find a way to beat it, if MVP does it so can you"?
Of course difficult challenges can be often overcome if you practice endlessly and put in a herculean effort. But the point is that there's an issue if one person is required to do that and the other is not.
|
I really wish they would stop worrying so much about zvz, and look at things like mines in zvt. So hard to engage effectively with mass mine bio.
|
On May 10 2013 19:40 Sissors wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 19:12 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 16:45 Prugelhugel wrote:On May 10 2013 16:22 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 07:01 Rostam wrote:On May 10 2013 06:23 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 06:00 Kergy wrote:On May 10 2013 05:43 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 05:05 Rostam wrote:On May 10 2013 05:04 RogerChillingworth wrote:
TvZ is still terran favored, i don't care what anyone says. Other match-ups are better--can go either way--and really map dependent, but non-retarded Terrans will still make zerg look silly. stats fail to illustrate the full picture, i'm afraid. Good thing Code S is filled with retarded Terrans, then, otherwise zerg would be having issues. The game is very well balanced at the pro level but at the mere-humans level, mines are pretty silly. Incredibly cost efficient, takes 10 times more effort to counter than to use, and one mistake vs mines can be game ending. I know that balancing the game for the pro level is far more important than other skill levels... but I can't help but wish they didn't introduce a unit like this into the game. For me in low masters mines just make me want to quit the game. I can't leave my base, I can't ling harrass or go for surrounds, just in case there's a mine there that'll blow up everything for free. I can get mine dropped before I have detection. And even if I know exactly where every mine is, it's still a mess to deal with them... and the only unit that really counters them is broodlords. It's just so frustrating and half the time I just allin against terran now because I'm sick of facing bio/mines and not being able to do anything about it because it takes pro level control to deal with it. WoL ZvT was zerg-favored for a long time but the infestor nerfs and raven buffs made it close to balanced at the very end... then HotS hits and the matchup changed so much in terran's favor. Reapers, speedvacs, hellbats, and mines are all so good and can be gotten quickly, they can affect every game. Meanwhile SH is bad vs terran, so zerg's new toys are the ultra and viper... which are great, but the early game is so much harder. I'm disappointed that changes to mines or reapers apparently weren't even discussed... and something potentially useful for zerg (early burrow) was tossed out before giving it a chance. I feel like I should switch races just so I can use units that can deal with mines better. There's no such thing as imbalance in lower levels, it just means you're not doing things correctly. It's different with mines, because it's so challenging to find them and deal with them effectively. Instead of the bottom 40% of players struggling to counter a simple offensive style, it's the bottom 97%. You have to be very skilled to counter bio + mines in a cost efficient way - far more skill than it takes to scout a dark shrine, wall off vs 10p, or split your marines up. Do you have any proof that 97% of zerg players are struggling, other than your own experiences? I'm having a hard time seeing evidence of it based on the ladder statistics. No, but if they're ruining the game for me at mid masters, somehow I doubt that platinum zergs are dealing with mines just fine. Now that I think about it I suppose 97% is too high though, because at lower levels the terrans will put mines in bad places or forget to burrow them and things like that... it's still a large percentage of zergs though. You have to look at it from another perspective: Mines are no burrow and forget units. If a terran has no idea how to use them and burrows them at the wrong spots, they will never ever trigger any explosions or do crucial damage. So it's not only that zergs are worse at lower levels, terrans also neither play perfect. Yes, maybe zergs can lose like 30 lings on a single mine here and there, but such mistakes are forgiveable below diamond I'd say. I don't know if there's any good way to change the mines without making them too weak at the pro level though. You don't want to nerf them into uselessness... but right now zerg doesn't have any good tools for dealing with them effectively. I have to admit, those zerg players are dedicated! They have no way to deal with mines, they must lose pretty much always against terran, and yet zerg is still played ALOT more than terran in the region where it is worst according to you.
I didn't realize balance is determined by how many people play each race.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
