|
On March 04 2014 09:11 Lunareste wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 08:59 DinoMight wrote:On March 04 2014 08:27 pure.Wasted wrote:
If the design creates balance issues, those balance issues can be resolved. If it means Zealots will have to have 400 HP for the game to be fair, then so be it -- as long as it actually is fair. ... This is not imbalance. This is difference in design. If you don't want to micro against splash damage, don't play Terran. But don't expect that the races have to do everything exactly the same. The difference in how the races play is part of the charm of this game relative to other RTS games like Age of Empires, where only 1 unit/upgrade is different for each "race." Asymmetry = not all races are given the same tools Balance = all races can win if they use the tools they are given effectively I think you will find that as far as RTS games go SC2 is quite balanced given how a symmetrical it is. He's arguing that the design of the races being fun and fair is paramount, not the "balance" per say. Playing Terran is harder than playing Protoss, that isn't really up for debate. It doesn't make sense that Siege Tanks and Widow Mines do a large amount of friendly fire to the user's own units, while Colossi and Banelings do not. He's saying that it isn't fair that Protoss and Zerg are able to punish Terrans for small mistakes in ways that Terran cannot reciprocate.
Zerg and Protoss are hard to play in ways you cannot begin to imagine as a Terran player. Every race has its pros and cons.
Zerg needs to scout whether it's safe to make workers (yes, that's a thing), spread creep, inject, tech, research upgrades, all while not losing all their banelings to a single widow mine (which are invisible). They also need to be able to micro their ass off in ling bane vs. ling bane wars. If you haven't played Zerg I suggest you try and let me know if you still think it's "easier."
Protoss is VERY unforgiving. You might think Terran engagements are hard, but every single aspect of Protoss is unforgiving. If you get dropped and lose a few workers, you lose. If you take an engagement in the open, you lose. Hell, I've lost more games than I can count because ONE forcefield was ONE hex off.
All the races are hard. StarCraft is a hard game. Terran is not harder.
|
On March 04 2014 10:04 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 09:11 Lunareste wrote:On March 04 2014 08:59 DinoMight wrote:On March 04 2014 08:27 pure.Wasted wrote:
If the design creates balance issues, those balance issues can be resolved. If it means Zealots will have to have 400 HP for the game to be fair, then so be it -- as long as it actually is fair. ... This is not imbalance. This is difference in design. If you don't want to micro against splash damage, don't play Terran. But don't expect that the races have to do everything exactly the same. The difference in how the races play is part of the charm of this game relative to other RTS games like Age of Empires, where only 1 unit/upgrade is different for each "race." Asymmetry = not all races are given the same tools Balance = all races can win if they use the tools they are given effectively I think you will find that as far as RTS games go SC2 is quite balanced given how a symmetrical it is. He's arguing that the design of the races being fun and fair is paramount, not the "balance" per say. Playing Terran is harder than playing Protoss, that isn't really up for debate. It doesn't make sense that Siege Tanks and Widow Mines do a large amount of friendly fire to the user's own units, while Colossi and Banelings do not. He's saying that it isn't fair that Protoss and Zerg are able to punish Terrans for small mistakes in ways that Terran cannot reciprocate. Zerg and Protoss are hard to play in ways you cannot begin to imagine as a Terran player. Every race has its pros and cons. Zerg needs to scout whether it's safe to make workers (yes, that's a thing), spread creep, inject, tech, research upgrades, all while not losing all their banelings to a single widow mine (which are invisible). They also need to be able to micro their ass off in ling bane vs. ling bane wars. If you haven't played Zerg I suggest you try and let me know if you still think it's "easier." Protoss is VERY unforgiving. You might think Terran engagements are hard, but every single aspect of Protoss is unforgiving. If you pick a tech route and it's countered, you lose. If you get dropped and lose a few workers, you lose. If you take an engagement in the open, you lose. Hell, I've lost more games than I can count because ONE forcefield was ONE hex off. All the races are hard. StarCraft is a hard game. Terran is not harder.
Protoss early game is very forgiving in TvP. Photon overcharge holds any kind of counter-attack when a Terran defends a proxy.
Other than that, yeah, sc2 is a very unforgiving game.
|
On March 04 2014 08:59 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 08:27 pure.Wasted wrote:
If the design creates balance issues, those balance issues can be resolved. If it means Zealots will have to have 400 HP for the game to be fair, then so be it -- as long as it actually is fair. ... This is not imbalance. This is difference in design. If you don't want to micro against splash damage, don't play Terran. But don't expect that the races have to do everything exactly the same. The difference in how the races play is part of the charm of this game relative to other RTS games like Age of Empires, where only 1 unit/upgrade is different for each "race." Asymmetry = not all races are given the same tools Balance = all races can win if they use the tools they are given effectively I think you will find that as far as RTS games go SC2 is quite balanced given how a symmetrical it is.
Yea, delving into why this unit does FF spash and why this unit does not, inevitably leads to no where. It's just the game design, and what I believe to be their goal of 3 unique races with completely different ideals. To achieve balance, is damn hard, but hey they are trying!
|
Are you really arguing that Terran doesn't require more skill to play on the same level and that Protoss is as unforgiving as Terran? Made me laugh 
At top level Terran is clearly the hardest race or why do you see so few non Korean Terrans? It's not because Terran is boring.
|
On March 04 2014 10:12 TurboMaN wrote:Are you really arguing that Terran doesn't require more skill to play on the same level and that Protoss is as unforgiving as Terran? Made me laugh At top level Terran is clearly the hardest race or why do you see so few non Korean Terrans? It's not because Terran is boring.
It's because all the top Koreans are not afraid of cheesing (vs non Koreans who cheese less) and the combination of maps and cheese options for Protoss was very strong. It will be interesting to see how this changes going forward with the patches.
I do not think that at the late stages of a macro PvT either side is advantaged. I've seen Taeja kill 29 observers in a single game vs Rain where it looked like there was literally nothing Rain could do to win. And then he whined about how Protoss is too strong. I've also seen Protoss players like Parting ANNIHILATE Terrans and make it look unlosable.
I think the lead Protoss gets from having Terran overdefend makes them strong entering the late game, but I think if both enter on the same economic footing it's even. The better player wins.
|
On March 04 2014 08:59 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 08:27 pure.Wasted wrote:
If the design creates balance issues, those balance issues can be resolved. If it means Zealots will have to have 400 HP for the game to be fair, then so be it -- as long as it actually is fair. ... This is not imbalance. This is difference in design. If you don't want to micro against splash damage, don't play Terran. But don't expect that the races have to do everything exactly the same. The difference in how the races play is part of the charm of this game relative to other RTS games like Age of Empires, where only 1 unit/upgrade is different for each "race."
Come on, man. I even bolded the part of my post that answered this point. For emphasis.
Early HOTS Terran vs. Zerg proves that our standards for this game are far too low. It is possible to have two deeply asymmetric races, like Terran Bio + Mine and Zerg Ling/Bling/Muta, that take roughly the same amount of mechanical skill to play. The ONLY problem with that MU was that it had gotten stale -- we've been watching Marines split against Banes for 3 years at that point and despite the new Ling vs. Mine baits and Mine vs. Muta, there just wasn't enough room to do anything else. Blizzard's solution? Make Z easier to micro in battle by nerfing the mine -- first with Muta regen, then with Mine splash radius!
The degree of mechanical skill that went into TvZ should be THE NORM that we expect from EVERY SINGLE MU.
|
On March 04 2014 10:27 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 10:12 TurboMaN wrote:Are you really arguing that Terran doesn't require more skill to play on the same level and that Protoss is as unforgiving as Terran? Made me laugh At top level Terran is clearly the hardest race or why do you see so few non Korean Terrans? It's not because Terran is boring. It's because all the top Koreans are not afraid of cheesing (vs non Koreans who cheese less) and the combination of maps and cheese options for Protoss was very strong. It will be interesting to see how this changes going forward with the patches.
Uh, Terran foreigners have been irrelevant for a lot longer than 6 months. I can't remember when Terran foreigners weren't irrelevant, in fact. It's going to take a lot more than a change in maps to make that not the case.
I do not think that at the late stages of a macro PvT either side is advantaged. I've seen Taeja kill 29 observers in a single game vs Rain where it looked like there was literally nothing Rain could do to win. And then he whined about how Protoss is too strong. I've also seen Protoss players like Parting ANNIHILATE Terrans and make it look unlosable.
In WOL, Terran had advantage in early and midgame, Protoss had advantage in late game. That's why Terrans tried to end the game in the midgame either through lots of econ harass or through powerful all in timings.
Terrans lost their early and midgame advantage because of the MSC. Nothing changed to make Protoss lose their edge in the late game.
|
On March 04 2014 10:29 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 08:59 DinoMight wrote:On March 04 2014 08:27 pure.Wasted wrote:
If the design creates balance issues, those balance issues can be resolved. If it means Zealots will have to have 400 HP for the game to be fair, then so be it -- as long as it actually is fair. ... This is not imbalance. This is difference in design. If you don't want to micro against splash damage, don't play Terran. But don't expect that the races have to do everything exactly the same. The difference in how the races play is part of the charm of this game relative to other RTS games like Age of Empires, where only 1 unit/upgrade is different for each "race." Come on, man. I even bolded the part of my post that answered this point. For emphasis. Early HOTS Terran vs. Zerg proves that our standards for this game are far too low. It is possible to have two deeply asymmetric races, like Terran Bio + Mine and Zerg Ling/Bling/Muta, that take roughly the same amount of mechanical skill to play. The ONLY problem with that MU was that it had gotten stale -- we've been watching Marines split against Banes for 3 years at that point and despite the new Ling vs. Mine baits and Mine vs. Muta, there just wasn't enough room to do anything else. Blizzard's solution? Make Z easier to micro in battle by nerfing the mine -- first with Muta regen, then with Mine splash radius! The degree of mechanical skill that went into TvZ should be THE NORM that we expect from EVERY SINGLE MU.
but you can't have protoss be designed around a slow, wrecking ball type army and ALSO require the same mechanical commitment. i agree, it would be great as a zerg player if my APM weren't automatically 50 points higher in zvt than it is in zvp, and if an even-skilled protoss tended to have the same APM as me as well. but that would require a complete overhaul of how protoss works and where its strengths and weaknesses lie. it's like saying "protoss units shouldn't have so much HP, zerglings die so fast and zealots live forever!" protoss needs to have sturdier and more threatening units in a standing engagement in order for their relative lack of mobility and the time it takes them to hit their stride with tech. the fact that big, slow, beefy units require less micro is a matter of plain fact and common sense, not design. why do you think zerg has to fight terran mech essentially the same way we fight protoss (except mech being weaker in the early and midgame)? i understand that you're saying "it can be better," but when you say that it requires that you also ask questions like "how can this specific matchup realistically be made better?"
don't get me wrong, i hate protoss design right now. but saying "it's bad! it's bad! mechanically forgiving!" is the same thing we've been hearing for months and doesn't contribute to forward-thinking ideas about how to gradually fix what's wrong with the race or the matchups
|
On March 04 2014 10:27 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 10:12 TurboMaN wrote:Are you really arguing that Terran doesn't require more skill to play on the same level and that Protoss is as unforgiving as Terran? Made me laugh At top level Terran is clearly the hardest race or why do you see so few non Korean Terrans? It's not because Terran is boring. It's because all the top Koreans are not afraid of cheesing (vs non Koreans who cheese less) and the combination of maps and cheese options for Protoss was very strong. It will be interesting to see how this changes going forward with the patches. I do not think that at the late stages of a macro PvT either side is advantaged. I've seen Taeja kill 29 observers in a single game vs Rain where it looked like there was literally nothing Rain could do to win. And then he whined about how Protoss is too strong. I've also seen Protoss players like Parting ANNIHILATE Terrans and make it look unlosable. I think the lead Protoss gets from having Terran overdefend makes them strong entering the late game, but I think if both enter on the same economic footing it's even. The better player wins.
the reason protoss is considered favored vs terran is that terran HAS to do damage (or at least get an eco advantage) before entering later stages while protoss is fine keeping up on par most of the time.
sometimes this works out in favor of the terran, sometimes for protoss; some are decided by better micro and some look very onesided
overall balance is solid, although i think the reasonable size of BO wins protoss can pull off is slightly too high.
it's not that terran isn't unpredictable aswell but the answer protoss has to all those different builds is the same (MSC).
|
On March 04 2014 10:36 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 10:27 DinoMight wrote:On March 04 2014 10:12 TurboMaN wrote:Are you really arguing that Terran doesn't require more skill to play on the same level and that Protoss is as unforgiving as Terran? Made me laugh At top level Terran is clearly the hardest race or why do you see so few non Korean Terrans? It's not because Terran is boring. It's because all the top Koreans are not afraid of cheesing (vs non Koreans who cheese less) and the combination of maps and cheese options for Protoss was very strong. It will be interesting to see how this changes going forward with the patches. Uh, Terran foreigners have been irrelevant for a lot longer than 6 months. I can't remember when Terran foreigners weren't irrelevant, in fact. It's going to take a lot more than a change in maps to make that not the case. Show nested quote +I do not think that at the late stages of a macro PvT either side is advantaged. I've seen Taeja kill 29 observers in a single game vs Rain where it looked like there was literally nothing Rain could do to win. And then he whined about how Protoss is too strong. I've also seen Protoss players like Parting ANNIHILATE Terrans and make it look unlosable. In WOL, Terran had advantage in early and midgame, Protoss had advantage in late game. That's why Terrans tried to end the game in the midgame either through lots of econ harass or through powerful all in timings. Terrans lost their early and midgame advantage because of the MSC. Nothing changed to make Protoss lose their edge in the late game.
Thats because top level terran foreigners are either predictable or whiney. I am a huge fan of Demuslim, but if I watched him fail to scout one more game I would rip my hair out. Korean players are not super human and if they were winning, foreign terrans could to. Obviously protoss has had the upper hand for a couple of months, but back when Korean terrans were crushing face, foreign terrans could too.
|
On March 04 2014 10:36 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 10:27 DinoMight wrote:On March 04 2014 10:12 TurboMaN wrote:Are you really arguing that Terran doesn't require more skill to play on the same level and that Protoss is as unforgiving as Terran? Made me laugh At top level Terran is clearly the hardest race or why do you see so few non Korean Terrans? It's not because Terran is boring. It's because all the top Koreans are not afraid of cheesing (vs non Koreans who cheese less) and the combination of maps and cheese options for Protoss was very strong. It will be interesting to see how this changes going forward with the patches. Uh, Terran foreigners have been irrelevant for a lot longer than 6 months. I can't remember when Terran foreigners weren't irrelevant, in fact. It's going to take a lot more than a change in maps to make that not the case. Show nested quote +I do not think that at the late stages of a macro PvT either side is advantaged. I've seen Taeja kill 29 observers in a single game vs Rain where it looked like there was literally nothing Rain could do to win. And then he whined about how Protoss is too strong. I've also seen Protoss players like Parting ANNIHILATE Terrans and make it look unlosable. In WOL, Terran had advantage in early and midgame, Protoss had advantage in late game. That's why Terrans tried to end the game in the midgame either through lots of econ harass or through powerful all in timings. Terrans lost their early and midgame advantage because of the MSC. Nothing changed to make Protoss lose their edge in the late game.
our tanks deal more damage now. behold.
|
Fiddler's Green42661 Posts
Just making sure, this patch went through before Zest vs Bbyong right?
|
On March 04 2014 10:40 Waise wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 10:29 pure.Wasted wrote:On March 04 2014 08:59 DinoMight wrote:On March 04 2014 08:27 pure.Wasted wrote:
If the design creates balance issues, those balance issues can be resolved. If it means Zealots will have to have 400 HP for the game to be fair, then so be it -- as long as it actually is fair. ... This is not imbalance. This is difference in design. If you don't want to micro against splash damage, don't play Terran. But don't expect that the races have to do everything exactly the same. The difference in how the races play is part of the charm of this game relative to other RTS games like Age of Empires, where only 1 unit/upgrade is different for each "race." Come on, man. I even bolded the part of my post that answered this point. For emphasis. Early HOTS Terran vs. Zerg proves that our standards for this game are far too low. It is possible to have two deeply asymmetric races, like Terran Bio + Mine and Zerg Ling/Bling/Muta, that take roughly the same amount of mechanical skill to play. The ONLY problem with that MU was that it had gotten stale -- we've been watching Marines split against Banes for 3 years at that point and despite the new Ling vs. Mine baits and Mine vs. Muta, there just wasn't enough room to do anything else. Blizzard's solution? Make Z easier to micro in battle by nerfing the mine -- first with Muta regen, then with Mine splash radius! The degree of mechanical skill that went into TvZ should be THE NORM that we expect from EVERY SINGLE MU. but you can't have protoss be designed around a slow, wrecking ball type army and ALSO require the same mechanical commitment. i agree, it would be great as a zerg player if my APM weren't automatically 50 points higher in zvt than it is in zvp, and if an even-skilled protoss tended to have the same APM as me as well. but that would require a complete overhaul of how protoss works and where its strengths and weaknesses lie. it's like saying "protoss units shouldn't have so much HP, zerglings die so fast and zealots live forever!" protoss needs to have sturdier and more threatening units in a standing engagement in order for their relative lack of mobility and the time it takes them to hit their stride with tech. the fact that big, slow, beefy units require less micro is a matter of plain fact and common sense, not design. why do you think zerg has to fight terran mech essentially the same way we fight protoss (except mech being weaker in the early and midgame)? i understand that you're saying "it can be better," but when you say that it requires that you also ask questions like "how can this specific matchup realistically be made better?" don't get me wrong, i hate protoss design right now. but saying "it's bad! it's bad! mechanically forgiving!" is the same thing we've been hearing for months and doesn't contribute to forward-thinking ideas about how to gradually fix what's wrong with the race or the matchups
I posted a gradual fix on the previous page.
PO damage change from 20 to 5+55 Shields (or whatever would give it basically the same amount of dps accounting for the fact that shields make up only half of a unit's HP), Time Warp a Cyber Core research and affects friendly units.
This would go a long way to evening out the playing field until LOTV. My guess is it would be enough. PO fixes WOL PvP, MSC and Halluc give Protoss scouting and pressure, MSC/Oracle allow Protoss to go Stargate, Twilight, or Templar bypassing the Robo. That's literally all Protoss needed in WOL.
Then once LOTV is in the works, the race needs to be redesigned as you say. This is Blizzard's last chance, and compared with their previous expansions -- BW and TFT, the ones that actually didn't matter as much when they were being made -- Blizzard took a straight up vacation with HOTS. They should be all rested up and ready to go by now.
|
8751 Posts
Slowing down the speed at which protoss can tech (by making photon overcharge worthless) won't improve the game. Everyone (including most protosses) hated when the best protoss builds were warpgate rushes, whether defensive or offensive.
|
On March 04 2014 10:04 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 09:11 Lunareste wrote:On March 04 2014 08:59 DinoMight wrote:On March 04 2014 08:27 pure.Wasted wrote:
If the design creates balance issues, those balance issues can be resolved. If it means Zealots will have to have 400 HP for the game to be fair, then so be it -- as long as it actually is fair. ... This is not imbalance. This is difference in design. If you don't want to micro against splash damage, don't play Terran. But don't expect that the races have to do everything exactly the same. The difference in how the races play is part of the charm of this game relative to other RTS games like Age of Empires, where only 1 unit/upgrade is different for each "race." Asymmetry = not all races are given the same tools Balance = all races can win if they use the tools they are given effectively I think you will find that as far as RTS games go SC2 is quite balanced given how a symmetrical it is. He's arguing that the design of the races being fun and fair is paramount, not the "balance" per say. Playing Terran is harder than playing Protoss, that isn't really up for debate. It doesn't make sense that Siege Tanks and Widow Mines do a large amount of friendly fire to the user's own units, while Colossi and Banelings do not. He's saying that it isn't fair that Protoss and Zerg are able to punish Terrans for small mistakes in ways that Terran cannot reciprocate. Zerg and Protoss are hard to play in ways you cannot begin to imagine as a Terran player. Every race has its pros and cons. Zerg needs to scout whether it's safe to make workers (yes, that's a thing), spread creep, inject, tech, research upgrades, all while not losing all their banelings to a single widow mine (which are invisible). They also need to be able to micro their ass off in ling bane vs. ling bane wars. If you haven't played Zerg I suggest you try and let me know if you still think it's "easier." Protoss is VERY unforgiving. You might think Terran engagements are hard, but every single aspect of Protoss is unforgiving. If you get dropped and lose a few workers, you lose. If you take an engagement in the open, you lose. Hell, I've lost more games than I can count because ONE forcefield was ONE hex off. All the races are hard. StarCraft is a hard game. Terran is not harder.
sorry, yes it is. not really an argument to be had here anymore.
|
On March 04 2014 11:11 Aveng3r wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 10:04 DinoMight wrote:On March 04 2014 09:11 Lunareste wrote:On March 04 2014 08:59 DinoMight wrote:On March 04 2014 08:27 pure.Wasted wrote:
If the design creates balance issues, those balance issues can be resolved. If it means Zealots will have to have 400 HP for the game to be fair, then so be it -- as long as it actually is fair. ... This is not imbalance. This is difference in design. If you don't want to micro against splash damage, don't play Terran. But don't expect that the races have to do everything exactly the same. The difference in how the races play is part of the charm of this game relative to other RTS games like Age of Empires, where only 1 unit/upgrade is different for each "race." Asymmetry = not all races are given the same tools Balance = all races can win if they use the tools they are given effectively I think you will find that as far as RTS games go SC2 is quite balanced given how a symmetrical it is. He's arguing that the design of the races being fun and fair is paramount, not the "balance" per say. Playing Terran is harder than playing Protoss, that isn't really up for debate. It doesn't make sense that Siege Tanks and Widow Mines do a large amount of friendly fire to the user's own units, while Colossi and Banelings do not. He's saying that it isn't fair that Protoss and Zerg are able to punish Terrans for small mistakes in ways that Terran cannot reciprocate. Zerg and Protoss are hard to play in ways you cannot begin to imagine as a Terran player. Every race has its pros and cons. Zerg needs to scout whether it's safe to make workers (yes, that's a thing), spread creep, inject, tech, research upgrades, all while not losing all their banelings to a single widow mine (which are invisible). They also need to be able to micro their ass off in ling bane vs. ling bane wars. If you haven't played Zerg I suggest you try and let me know if you still think it's "easier." Protoss is VERY unforgiving. You might think Terran engagements are hard, but every single aspect of Protoss is unforgiving. If you get dropped and lose a few workers, you lose. If you take an engagement in the open, you lose. Hell, I've lost more games than I can count because ONE forcefield was ONE hex off. All the races are hard. StarCraft is a hard game. Terran is not harder. sorry, yes it is. not really an argument to be had here anymore.
Oh, well if its not an argument any more, I guess we will all accept it as fact. Glad you are here to help us with this and to make sure we know what we shouldn't be discussing.
There is nothing like buying your own hype.
|
On March 04 2014 11:08 NonY wrote:
Slowing down the speed at which protoss can tech (by making photon overcharge worthless) won't improve the game. Everyone (including most protosses) hated when the best protoss builds were warpgate rushes, whether defensive or offensive.
And Blink/DT/Oracle rushes are better...?
Protoss could play macro at end of WOL, and Protoss can play macro even better now, we see it any time Blink Stalker pressure fails and the Protoss easily transitions into zeal/HT/archon. Take any game from Polt vs. Classic series. It's not as though zeal/HT/archon would magically stop working if Terrans only had to build 2 Bunkers instead of 5 to hold off Blink pressure, or if a Protoss decided not to do any Blink pressure at all.
You obviously know how the game feels a lot better than I do, but I just don't remember Protoss struggling in macro games in any way except options, and nerfing PO doesn't get rid of any non-extreme options, all it does is attach consequences to them. You fail, you lose.
|
On March 04 2014 10:48 stuchiu wrote:
Just making sure, this patch went through before Zest vs Bbyong right?
Nah, it wasn't a "I win" patch, you see.
|
On March 04 2014 10:44 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 10:36 pure.Wasted wrote:On March 04 2014 10:27 DinoMight wrote:On March 04 2014 10:12 TurboMaN wrote:Are you really arguing that Terran doesn't require more skill to play on the same level and that Protoss is as unforgiving as Terran? Made me laugh At top level Terran is clearly the hardest race or why do you see so few non Korean Terrans? It's not because Terran is boring. It's because all the top Koreans are not afraid of cheesing (vs non Koreans who cheese less) and the combination of maps and cheese options for Protoss was very strong. It will be interesting to see how this changes going forward with the patches. Uh, Terran foreigners have been irrelevant for a lot longer than 6 months. I can't remember when Terran foreigners weren't irrelevant, in fact. It's going to take a lot more than a change in maps to make that not the case. I do not think that at the late stages of a macro PvT either side is advantaged. I've seen Taeja kill 29 observers in a single game vs Rain where it looked like there was literally nothing Rain could do to win. And then he whined about how Protoss is too strong. I've also seen Protoss players like Parting ANNIHILATE Terrans and make it look unlosable. In WOL, Terran had advantage in early and midgame, Protoss had advantage in late game. That's why Terrans tried to end the game in the midgame either through lots of econ harass or through powerful all in timings. Terrans lost their early and midgame advantage because of the MSC. Nothing changed to make Protoss lose their edge in the late game. Thats because top level terran foreigners are either predictable or whiney. I am a huge fan of Demuslim, but if I watched him fail to scout one more game I would rip my hair out. Korean players are not super human and if they were winning, foreign terrans could to. Obviously protoss has had the upper hand for a couple of months, but back when Korean terrans were crushing face, foreign terrans could too.
Are you suggesting that foreign protosses and zergs aren't predictable or whiny?
The reason that foreign terrans never did well was that they couldn't really replicate the mid game multitasking and pressure the koreans terrans were able to pull off. With zerg and protoss, this type of aggression wasn't really the focal point, that is why the foreign zergs and protosses did better.
|
Fiddler's Green42661 Posts
On March 04 2014 11:23 aZealot wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 10:48 stuchiu wrote:
Just making sure, this patch went through before Zest vs Bbyong right? Nah, it wasn't a "I win" patch, you see.
I'm being serious -_-
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
