|
Perspective of a zerg player who trends on the cheesy side here.
I have a serious issue with pre-nerf widow mines in their role of earlygame defence. If memory serves, I was less fond of them than even the mothership core (which I was and still am also not fond of). One single widow mine can kill 20 lings. Sure, one single baneling can do this too, but you see a baneling, and you can run away. If you see a widow mine, it's usually too late to prevent losing a chunk of your earlygame army, running away doesn't help, the best you can do is split. Earlygame widow mines just made hatch tech aggression impossible (and zergs would try to cheese at the pro level at the start of HotS, and generally just fail if they tried to allin before lair with overseers).
The new widow mine I think is reasonable in the earlygame, rather than being an unbreakable brick wall through which cheese shall not pass. The problem comes in the lategame, where banelings cost 0.5 supply, and Widow Mines cost 2 supply.
Take note: Banelings and Widow Mines cost almost the same amount of resources. 50/25 and 75/25 respectively. Pre-nerf widow mines just did a lot more--40 splash damage to everything, while banelings do 35 splash damage to light, 20 splash damage to armored, and 0 splash damage to air. Oh, and widow mines were not suicide units. Oh, and they do crazy damage to their primary target (imagine if Banelings did 125 damage to their primary target like Widow Mines do...). In macro games where both players got maxed out, these difference were actually totally fine, because widow mines cost 2 supply, and banelings cost 0.5 supply. The fact that you can get four times as many banelings made the power-level difference between pre-nerf widow mines and banelings totally reasonable. But in the earlygame when cost matters much more than supply, it was not reasonable at all. Not that widow mine drops were too much of an issue; spore+spine+watch the minimap. But zerg aggression generally just failed.
I don't want to go back to pre-nerf widow mines. Please no. I can think of various alternatives that might make the lategame 2 supply Widow Mines to 0.5 supply banelings more manageable, though:
1. Raise the supply on banelings to 1
or 2. Lower the supply of widow mines to 1
or 3. Have a tech lab upgrade that gives widow mines their old pre-nerf splash.
(As for Hellbats, I'm happy that Transforming Servos is no longer required; that was silly. I still want blue flame to do something on them instead of hellbats being full power out of the box, but that's more of an aesthetic preference than a balance opinion. Blue fire is pretty.)
|
United States23455 Posts
On June 30 2014 00:24 ShoCkSC2 wrote:
Wow. I must say im a bit disappointed in TL releasing this here. It makes a couple good points but youre discrediting so many protoss players. Stating things like "All it needed was 1a+2storms" when NaNiwa beat Innovation is just completely disrespectful.
I dont have a problem with people stating their opinion, but by being published on the frontpage of TL, this article sort of does it in an 'official' fashion. Thus Im worried a lot of people will use this article as yet another excuse to blame everything on 'op Protoss' all over again.
1. This is the disclaimer over the top of the article
Note: This is an editorial. The opinions expressed by this article do not reflect the official position of TeamLiquid.net or its staff (other than TheDwf).
2. I wonder if you have ever read the "Lings of Liberty" Thread. This isn't exclusive to Protoss.
3. If you put in a ton of effort to research your cause, back it up with FACTS, and make an argument (and work for TL strategy putting countless hours into "Help Me" threads and generally garnering a lot of respect based on your in game knowledge, passion for the game, and willingness to help newbies) you may get your in depth editorial published on the front page of TL. LIVE THE DREAM MAN!
|
Do people understand what an editorial is as well as the purpose of the editor before going and complaining about it?
Otherwise very interesting article
|
Fiddler's Green42661 Posts
On June 30 2014 00:27 ZAiNs wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2014 00:23 stuchiu wrote:On June 30 2014 00:07 Leviance wrote:![[image loading]](http://s14.directupload.net/images/140629/nbs6z7qz.jpg) If you're going to disagree or criticize the article, at least try to put in as much effort in as the author did. That's not how criticism works, but ok.
I thought criticism was judging the merits or faults of a person or an argument in an intelligible way.
As it is now it was just a blanket image from aligulac without explaining how aligulac works, how the stats are made, match histories of the players, rationalization and so on.
If people disagree with it at least put some thought into it is all I'm saying.
|
On June 30 2014 00:34 SC2John wrote:
I'll go ahead and give my input.
First of all, TL Strategy pretty much sanctioned this piece as a well-written article with a lot of solid points to provoke conversation. TheDwf brought it to us to proofread and look through, and for the most part, although we didn't all agree on all the points, we found it to be a thought-provoking read and expected it to incite real conversation on the actual state of Terran currently.
As far as I know, I was the person who disagreed most with this article. There are definitely some solid points contained in here, especially in the first few paragraphs that get into patches and why Terran play has slowly declined in HotS and explaining the "map paradox" associated with blink all-ins and such; HOWEVER, as I went on to read the following sections, which address all of the problems with TvZ and TvP in great detail, I soon started to feel like I was drowning in balance whine material. It was all stuff I had heard before -- plenty of times. Granted, it was incredibly well put, well sourced, and explained these overly discussed "Terran problems" in a way that made sense and made a solid point. But what did it really add to the article?
Upon reflection, I realize what the point of this article is. Even though TheDwf doesn't really tie it together all that well, he's essentially saying: Terran's early and mid game has been constantly nerfed since the beginning of HotS, and as a result, have less and less momentum going into the mid and late game. Without any ability to do any real pressure early on, Terran has no ability to even threaten their opponent's greed, and cannot get into the later stages of the game with any real advantage. This is a problem because it limits Terran's options and forces them to walk a fine line between greed and safety while also forcing them to have to play to the late game in which they are not favored against the other races (as per asymmetrical balance).
When reading it like that, this article makes perfect sense, and I begin to question where Blizzard ACTUALLY needs to start with balancing. In my opinion, we've seen all too often in the past that giving Terrans early options tends to result in Terran dominance; would it make more sense to start with the late game and giving Terrans an upgraded late game first? Buffing the Terran early game will do nothing more than boost Terrans back into the spotlight followed by a direct nerf. However, something like reverting the ghost snipe nerf completely changes how powerful late game Terran is without hugely shifting the playing field. These are just ideas. There could be much better ones.
Instead of arguing over whether this article is a balance whine or a much needed post, let's actually talk about the points and come up with some suggestions and solutions on how to fix what is obviously a problem (I don't think anyone here can REALLY say Terran doesn't have some kind of disadvantage and still be taken seriously as a person).
If only he had your objectivity.
I feel like most people agree that Terran needs some kind of buff, but this is the article we're looking at here. Besides praising the good arguments of the editorial, we can criticize the worse parts of it. If it wants less criticism, I guess the editors would just have to edit out the whinier parts.
|
On June 29 2014 20:28 KingAlphard wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2014 20:24 BLinD-RawR wrote:On June 29 2014 20:18 ZAiNs wrote:On June 29 2014 20:15 BLinD-RawR wrote:On June 29 2014 20:09 AxS SouL wrote:
This belongs on Reddit, not TL :/ Why? Because of most of it is opinionated crap and it promotes balance whine culture which is going to fill other threads and ladder with more people who think they know everything. so theres no semblance of any facts or that the depiction of the facts are completely skewed towards how Terran has become a shit race? I apologize for asking as I haven't been keeping up with SC2 and its pro scene much these days. You can find facts which prove that any race is overpowered if you want to. Searching for all the facts which prove that race X is underpowered without bringing reasons to claim that race X is overpowered or balanced at the same time, is also balance whining.
Go on, show us that, then.
|
United States7483 Posts
On June 30 2014 00:34 SC2John wrote:
I'll go ahead and give my input.
First of all, TL Strategy pretty much sanctioned this piece as a well-written article with a lot of solid points to provoke conversation. TheDwf brought it to us to proofread and look through, and for the most part, although we didn't all agree on all the points, we found it to be a thought-provoking read and expected it to incite real conversation on the actual state of Terran currently.
As far as I know, I was the person who disagreed most with this article. There are definitely some solid points contained in here, especially in the first few paragraphs that get into patches and why Terran play has slowly declined in HotS and explaining the "map paradox" associated with blink all-ins and such; HOWEVER, as I went on to read the following sections, which address all of the problems with TvZ and TvP in great detail, I soon started to feel like I was drowning in balance whine material. It was all stuff I had heard before -- plenty of times. Granted, it was incredibly well put, well sourced, and explained these overly discussed "Terran problems" in a way that made sense and made a solid point. But what did it really add to the article?
Upon reflection, I realize what the point of this article is. Even though TheDwf doesn't really tie it together all that well, he's essentially saying: Terran's early and mid game has been constantly nerfed since the beginning of HotS, and as a result, have less and less momentum going into the mid and late game. Without any ability to do any real pressure early on, Terran has no ability to even threaten their opponent's greed, and cannot get into the later stages of the game with any real advantage. This is a problem because it limits Terran's options and forces them to walk a fine line between greed and safety while also forcing them to have to play to the late game in which they are not favored against the other races (as per asymmetrical balance).
When reading it like that, this article makes perfect sense, and I begin to question where Blizzard ACTUALLY needs to start with balancing. In my opinion, we've seen all too often in the past that giving Terrans early options tends to result in Terran dominance; would it make more sense to start with the late game and giving Terrans an upgraded late game first? Buffing the Terran early game will do nothing more than boost Terrans back into the spotlight followed by a direct nerf. However, something like reverting the ghost snipe nerf completely changes how powerful late game Terran is without hugely shifting the playing field. These are just ideas. There could be much better ones.
Instead of arguing over whether this article is a balance whine or a much needed post, let's actually talk about the points and come up with some suggestions and solutions on how to fix what is obviously a problem (I don't think anyone here can REALLY say Terran doesn't have some kind of disadvantage and still be taken seriously as a person).
I don't think you really disagreed with it more than I did =p.
The overall problem, as I see it, is a combination of design philosophy with Blizzard actually listening to complaints. Consider the general pattern after a change to a strategy game: Aggression gets very strong to start. It takes a good long while for people to learn the optimal ways to defend the new aggressive strategies, and so players will commit harder and harder to those aggressive builds, creating new and more powerful ways of executing it, until such a time as the general population figures out effective defenses that are not overcompensating. This process can take months and months, occasionally a year or more. In the meantime, players and fans are whining and complaining that the aggressive builds are too strong, too ubiquitous, without understanding that this is a transitory state of the game: it won't last forever. So the aggression gets nerfed, and has the nasty effect of hindering the position of the player going into the late game, while also neutering the aggressive build which the defenders have taken a long time to learn to hold. The result is that not only is the aggression weaker, but it's totally useless: defenders are well practiced vs. the stronger variant, so why would they have trouble with weaker versions? The option becomes effectively useless, even if, on paper, it wouldn't be.
Terrans are complaining about a lack of early pressure options. I won't agree with that, as there are still a variety of early aggressions terrans can do. The difference is that they are commitments: gone are the days where you can 2 rax pressure while expanding behind it and wind up fine on econ. You either need to commit to your early attack heavily or not do it at all. The real complaints about this are that such builds don't have the success rates terrans want them to have, because opponent zergs and protosses spent YEARS learning to defend them and have gotten quite good at it. So instead it's "I have no options" rather than the more correct statement "I have no obviously powerful aggressive options".
Remember, for a moment, why Protoss was given the MSC for early defense: They couldn't reliably scout anything at all until observers, or hallucinate (in which case they'd often spend the energy they needed to defend an attack discovering that it was coming just in time to not have forcefields to hold it). Overlord speed was buffed to give zergs more reliable scouting to hold early aggression, but protoss doesn't scout as easily that early, so they were compensated with more defense.
I can't stress enough how incorrectly the word 'greed' is used to describe protoss play these days. Protoss greed would be, for example, taking a third base off one gateway before the terran 3rd and hoping terran doesn't scout it and mine push it, while simultaneously skipping robo and hoping that terran doesn't make a single cloak banshee (I've seen CJ herO die in exactly this way).
Further, TvP seems to be actually fairly balanced lately, although TvZ seems to be heavily zerg favored. I think the main culprit there is that mutas were overbuffed in HotS combined with extremely efficient and well practiced zerg builds that can defend the usual hellion pressure with almost no units, and terran having no reliable anti-baneling unit anymore. Tanks could do the job well if mutas hadn't been overbuffed, so they can't be used like they were in WoL, and the mine is completely unreliable for the job, as it might not fire at all, might target a single ling, might hit a muta, or might blow up all your own medivacs.
|
Canada8157 Posts
On June 30 2014 00:42 argonautdice wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2014 00:34 SC2John wrote:
I'll go ahead and give my input.
First of all, TL Strategy pretty much sanctioned this piece as a well-written article with a lot of solid points to provoke conversation. TheDwf brought it to us to proofread and look through, and for the most part, although we didn't all agree on all the points, we found it to be a thought-provoking read and expected it to incite real conversation on the actual state of Terran currently.
As far as I know, I was the person who disagreed most with this article. There are definitely some solid points contained in here, especially in the first few paragraphs that get into patches and why Terran play has slowly declined in HotS and explaining the "map paradox" associated with blink all-ins and such; HOWEVER, as I went on to read the following sections, which address all of the problems with TvZ and TvP in great detail, I soon started to feel like I was drowning in balance whine material. It was all stuff I had heard before -- plenty of times. Granted, it was incredibly well put, well sourced, and explained these overly discussed "Terran problems" in a way that made sense and made a solid point. But what did it really add to the article?
Upon reflection, I realize what the point of this article is. Even though TheDwf doesn't really tie it together all that well, he's essentially saying: Terran's early and mid game has been constantly nerfed since the beginning of HotS, and as a result, have less and less momentum going into the mid and late game. Without any ability to do any real pressure early on, Terran has no ability to even threaten their opponent's greed, and cannot get into the later stages of the game with any real advantage. This is a problem because it limits Terran's options and forces them to walk a fine line between greed and safety while also forcing them to have to play to the late game in which they are not favored against the other races (as per asymmetrical balance).
When reading it like that, this article makes perfect sense, and I begin to question where Blizzard ACTUALLY needs to start with balancing. In my opinion, we've seen all too often in the past that giving Terrans early options tends to result in Terran dominance; would it make more sense to start with the late game and giving Terrans an upgraded late game first? Buffing the Terran early game will do nothing more than boost Terrans back into the spotlight followed by a direct nerf. However, something like reverting the ghost snipe nerf completely changes how powerful late game Terran is without hugely shifting the playing field. These are just ideas. There could be much better ones.
Instead of arguing over whether this article is a balance whine or a much needed post, let's actually talk about the points and come up with some suggestions and solutions on how to fix what is obviously a problem (I don't think anyone here can REALLY say Terran doesn't have some kind of disadvantage and still be taken seriously as a person). If only he had your objectivity. I feel like most people agree that Terran needs some kind of buff, but this is the article we're looking at here. Besides praising the good arguments of the editorial, we can criticize the worse parts of it. If it wants less criticism, I guess the editors would just have to edit out the whinier parts.
There's that word again, it's not suppose to be an objective article
|
On June 30 2014 00:43 Tzuborg wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2014 20:28 KingAlphard wrote:On June 29 2014 20:24 BLinD-RawR wrote:On June 29 2014 20:18 ZAiNs wrote:On June 29 2014 20:15 BLinD-RawR wrote:On June 29 2014 20:09 AxS SouL wrote:
This belongs on Reddit, not TL :/ Why? Because of most of it is opinionated crap and it promotes balance whine culture which is going to fill other threads and ladder with more people who think they know everything. so theres no semblance of any facts or that the depiction of the facts are completely skewed towards how Terran has become a shit race? I apologize for asking as I haven't been keeping up with SC2 and its pro scene much these days. You can find facts which prove that any race is overpowered if you want to. Searching for all the facts which prove that race X is underpowered without bringing reasons to claim that race X is overpowered or balanced at the same time, is also balance whining. Go on, show us that, then.
(but in your own editorial/article please)
|
United States23455 Posts
On June 30 2014 00:45 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2014 00:34 SC2John wrote:
I'll go ahead and give my input.
First of all, TL Strategy pretty much sanctioned this piece as a well-written article with a lot of solid points to provoke conversation. TheDwf brought it to us to proofread and look through, and for the most part, although we didn't all agree on all the points, we found it to be a thought-provoking read and expected it to incite real conversation on the actual state of Terran currently.
As far as I know, I was the person who disagreed most with this article. There are definitely some solid points contained in here, especially in the first few paragraphs that get into patches and why Terran play has slowly declined in HotS and explaining the "map paradox" associated with blink all-ins and such; HOWEVER, as I went on to read the following sections, which address all of the problems with TvZ and TvP in great detail, I soon started to feel like I was drowning in balance whine material. It was all stuff I had heard before -- plenty of times. Granted, it was incredibly well put, well sourced, and explained these overly discussed "Terran problems" in a way that made sense and made a solid point. But what did it really add to the article?
Upon reflection, I realize what the point of this article is. Even though TheDwf doesn't really tie it together all that well, he's essentially saying: Terran's early and mid game has been constantly nerfed since the beginning of HotS, and as a result, have less and less momentum going into the mid and late game. Without any ability to do any real pressure early on, Terran has no ability to even threaten their opponent's greed, and cannot get into the later stages of the game with any real advantage. This is a problem because it limits Terran's options and forces them to walk a fine line between greed and safety while also forcing them to have to play to the late game in which they are not favored against the other races (as per asymmetrical balance).
When reading it like that, this article makes perfect sense, and I begin to question where Blizzard ACTUALLY needs to start with balancing. In my opinion, we've seen all too often in the past that giving Terrans early options tends to result in Terran dominance; would it make more sense to start with the late game and giving Terrans an upgraded late game first? Buffing the Terran early game will do nothing more than boost Terrans back into the spotlight followed by a direct nerf. However, something like reverting the ghost snipe nerf completely changes how powerful late game Terran is without hugely shifting the playing field. These are just ideas. There could be much better ones.
Instead of arguing over whether this article is a balance whine or a much needed post, let's actually talk about the points and come up with some suggestions and solutions on how to fix what is obviously a problem (I don't think anyone here can REALLY say Terran doesn't have some kind of disadvantage and still be taken seriously as a person). I don't think you really disagreed with it more than I did =p.
We all know you are secretly a Terran lover and hate yourself for playing Protoss.
|
The muta regen buff is what murdered TvZ, because it took what was fundamentally a harass unit, and made it viable as a full on assault unit. Also thanks to the ability to clump mutas, which no other unit in the entire game is allowed to do. So if the zerg can built up a cloud of 12-15 mutas there's almost nothing a terran can do against it. Mines were a good initial solution, but even before they got nerfed, zergs had learned to move an overseer with their clump, and let it take the hit on the mine to leave the mutas untouched. This added with the current map design means these mutas can shift from terran base to terran base with nothing able to stop them. Turrets do negligible damage in these numbers, even 2-3. Stimmed marines get blocked by map ridges, and have their medivacs shot down. Thors have similar problems, besides being unbearably slow. Vikings are laughable, and ravens would be lucky to get off a single seeker missile before being snapped out of the sky faster than an oracle.
That unit is annoying in TvP, but the real killer is the MSC. Once protoss finally realized the full power of that unit, terrans became lucky to survive the early game. Maybe they could win in mid because they sure in hell aren't going to win against the multiple AOE abilities of the protoss in the late game.
|
On June 30 2014 00:46 Jer99 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2014 00:42 argonautdice wrote:On June 30 2014 00:34 SC2John wrote:
I'll go ahead and give my input.
First of all, TL Strategy pretty much sanctioned this piece as a well-written article with a lot of solid points to provoke conversation. TheDwf brought it to us to proofread and look through, and for the most part, although we didn't all agree on all the points, we found it to be a thought-provoking read and expected it to incite real conversation on the actual state of Terran currently.
As far as I know, I was the person who disagreed most with this article. There are definitely some solid points contained in here, especially in the first few paragraphs that get into patches and why Terran play has slowly declined in HotS and explaining the "map paradox" associated with blink all-ins and such; HOWEVER, as I went on to read the following sections, which address all of the problems with TvZ and TvP in great detail, I soon started to feel like I was drowning in balance whine material. It was all stuff I had heard before -- plenty of times. Granted, it was incredibly well put, well sourced, and explained these overly discussed "Terran problems" in a way that made sense and made a solid point. But what did it really add to the article?
Upon reflection, I realize what the point of this article is. Even though TheDwf doesn't really tie it together all that well, he's essentially saying: Terran's early and mid game has been constantly nerfed since the beginning of HotS, and as a result, have less and less momentum going into the mid and late game. Without any ability to do any real pressure early on, Terran has no ability to even threaten their opponent's greed, and cannot get into the later stages of the game with any real advantage. This is a problem because it limits Terran's options and forces them to walk a fine line between greed and safety while also forcing them to have to play to the late game in which they are not favored against the other races (as per asymmetrical balance).
When reading it like that, this article makes perfect sense, and I begin to question where Blizzard ACTUALLY needs to start with balancing. In my opinion, we've seen all too often in the past that giving Terrans early options tends to result in Terran dominance; would it make more sense to start with the late game and giving Terrans an upgraded late game first? Buffing the Terran early game will do nothing more than boost Terrans back into the spotlight followed by a direct nerf. However, something like reverting the ghost snipe nerf completely changes how powerful late game Terran is without hugely shifting the playing field. These are just ideas. There could be much better ones.
Instead of arguing over whether this article is a balance whine or a much needed post, let's actually talk about the points and come up with some suggestions and solutions on how to fix what is obviously a problem (I don't think anyone here can REALLY say Terran doesn't have some kind of disadvantage and still be taken seriously as a person). If only he had your objectivity. I feel like most people agree that Terran needs some kind of buff, but this is the article we're looking at here. Besides praising the good arguments of the editorial, we can criticize the worse parts of it. If it wants less criticism, I guess the editors would just have to edit out the whinier parts. There's that word again, it's not suppose to be an objective article
Are you saying just because it's an editorial, it shouldn't try to be more objective? If so, then it should have not problem attracting criticism about its bias.
|
On June 29 2014 20:23 ZAiNs wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2014 20:20 Zealously wrote:On June 29 2014 20:18 ZAiNs wrote:On June 29 2014 20:15 BLinD-RawR wrote:On June 29 2014 20:09 AxS SouL wrote:
This belongs on Reddit, not TL :/ Why? Because of most of it is opinionated crap and it promotes balance whine culture which is going to fill other threads and ladder with more people who think they know everything. It is opinionated, but calling it crap is a stretch. Really? "soO a-moves a bunch of ultras offcreep, with Queens and out of mana Infestors lagging behind; several screens of hit & run later, 2 ultras fell for 70 supply of bio. Zerg's micro requirements in this sequence? Null: hands lifted from keyboard would have made literally no difference. The disparity in micro required for each side in this situation is clear as day. You can see Maru microing his heart out of his units; meanwhile, Zerg is perfunctorily casting some useless ITs and a Fungal (25) ; only after 10 seconds does Jaedong awake to shift focus a few Medivacs with his mutas. Jaedong's awful engagement is left unpunished: cost-wise, Terran traded 1:2, but too few remains and supplies are even after the reproduction. Unless the fight takes place near one of Zerg's bases, Terran has no way to immediately capitalize on a won battle. Is the reverse true? Alas, no: if Terran blunders and takes too bad of an engagement, the sanction is often immediate. "
I don't understand. Is it not true or something? What are you trying to say?
|
On June 30 2014 00:34 SC2John wrote:
I'll go ahead and give my input.
First of all, TL Strategy pretty much sanctioned this piece as a well-written article with a lot of solid points to provoke conversation. TheDwf brought it to us to proofread and look through, and for the most part, although we didn't all agree on all the points, we found it to be a thought-provoking read and expected it to incite real conversation on the actual state of Terran currently.
As far as I know, I was the person who disagreed most with this article. There are definitely some solid points contained in here, especially in the first few paragraphs that get into patches and why Terran play has slowly declined in HotS and explaining the "map paradox" associated with blink all-ins and such; HOWEVER, as I went on to read the following sections, which address all of the problems with TvZ and TvP in great detail, I soon started to feel like I was drowning in balance whine material. It was all stuff I had heard before -- plenty of times. Granted, it was incredibly well put, well sourced, and explained these overly discussed "Terran problems" in a way that made sense and made a solid point. But what did it really add to the article?
Upon reflection, I realize what the point of this article is. Even though TheDwf doesn't really tie it together all that well, he's essentially saying: Terran's early and mid game has been constantly nerfed since the beginning of HotS, and as a result, have less and less momentum going into the mid and late game. Without any ability to do any real pressure early on, Terran has no ability to even threaten their opponent's greed, and cannot get into the later stages of the game with any real advantage. This is a problem because it limits Terran's options and forces them to walk a fine line between greed and safety while also forcing them to have to play to the late game in which they are not favored against the other races (as per asymmetrical balance).
When reading it like that, this article makes perfect sense, and I begin to question where Blizzard ACTUALLY needs to start with balancing. In my opinion, we've seen all too often in the past that giving Terrans early options tends to result in Terran dominance; would it make more sense to start with the late game and giving Terrans an upgraded late game first? Buffing the Terran early game will do nothing more than boost Terrans back into the spotlight followed by a direct nerf. However, something like reverting the ghost snipe nerf completely changes how powerful late game Terran is without hugely shifting the playing field. These are just ideas. There could be much better ones.
Instead of arguing over whether this article is a balance whine or a much needed post, let's actually talk about the points and come up with some suggestions and solutions on how to fix what is obviously a problem (I don't think anyone here can REALLY say Terran doesn't have some kind of disadvantage and still be taken seriously as a person).
The problems of Terran in the order of their severity:
1) Expanding beyond a 3rd or 4th base, unless the map is completely tinkered to make those bases supereasy (which is a double-edged sword to begin with). Reason: Warp-in and mutalisks stretch the defenses of existing and new bases too thin
2) Transitions from bio-play to more supply-efficient units vs Z are too hard and against P don't pay off;
3) Scouting issues against Protoss and a lesser degree Zerg + some of the possible attacks are not commited enough that defending them gives you a real advantage while living with the risk of straight out losing, in particular blink.
|
On June 30 2014 00:46 Jer99 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2014 00:42 argonautdice wrote:On June 30 2014 00:34 SC2John wrote:
I'll go ahead and give my input.
First of all, TL Strategy pretty much sanctioned this piece as a well-written article with a lot of solid points to provoke conversation. TheDwf brought it to us to proofread and look through, and for the most part, although we didn't all agree on all the points, we found it to be a thought-provoking read and expected it to incite real conversation on the actual state of Terran currently.
As far as I know, I was the person who disagreed most with this article. There are definitely some solid points contained in here, especially in the first few paragraphs that get into patches and why Terran play has slowly declined in HotS and explaining the "map paradox" associated with blink all-ins and such; HOWEVER, as I went on to read the following sections, which address all of the problems with TvZ and TvP in great detail, I soon started to feel like I was drowning in balance whine material. It was all stuff I had heard before -- plenty of times. Granted, it was incredibly well put, well sourced, and explained these overly discussed "Terran problems" in a way that made sense and made a solid point. But what did it really add to the article?
Upon reflection, I realize what the point of this article is. Even though TheDwf doesn't really tie it together all that well, he's essentially saying: Terran's early and mid game has been constantly nerfed since the beginning of HotS, and as a result, have less and less momentum going into the mid and late game. Without any ability to do any real pressure early on, Terran has no ability to even threaten their opponent's greed, and cannot get into the later stages of the game with any real advantage. This is a problem because it limits Terran's options and forces them to walk a fine line between greed and safety while also forcing them to have to play to the late game in which they are not favored against the other races (as per asymmetrical balance).
When reading it like that, this article makes perfect sense, and I begin to question where Blizzard ACTUALLY needs to start with balancing. In my opinion, we've seen all too often in the past that giving Terrans early options tends to result in Terran dominance; would it make more sense to start with the late game and giving Terrans an upgraded late game first? Buffing the Terran early game will do nothing more than boost Terrans back into the spotlight followed by a direct nerf. However, something like reverting the ghost snipe nerf completely changes how powerful late game Terran is without hugely shifting the playing field. These are just ideas. There could be much better ones.
Instead of arguing over whether this article is a balance whine or a much needed post, let's actually talk about the points and come up with some suggestions and solutions on how to fix what is obviously a problem (I don't think anyone here can REALLY say Terran doesn't have some kind of disadvantage and still be taken seriously as a person). If only he had your objectivity. I feel like most people agree that Terran needs some kind of buff, but this is the article we're looking at here. Besides praising the good arguments of the editorial, we can criticize the worse parts of it. If it wants less criticism, I guess the editors would just have to edit out the whinier parts. There's that word again, it's not suppose to be an objective article
Well, the article makes a case for some kind of objective statements. It doesn't just say "I think X" but goes on to present various statistics and arguments that can be interpreted and analysed by others. I think everyone always have a subjective reason, aim or desire for anything they do and that things get better when these things are clearly stated and positioned. However, it's different to be situated and to be partisan (to borrow some theory of knowledge words for this). The article would just have been better without the partisan parts.
|
On June 30 2014 00:47 ander wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2014 20:23 ZAiNs wrote:On June 29 2014 20:20 Zealously wrote:On June 29 2014 20:18 ZAiNs wrote:On June 29 2014 20:15 BLinD-RawR wrote:On June 29 2014 20:09 AxS SouL wrote:
This belongs on Reddit, not TL :/ Why? Because of most of it is opinionated crap and it promotes balance whine culture which is going to fill other threads and ladder with more people who think they know everything. It is opinionated, but calling it crap is a stretch. Really? "soO a-moves a bunch of ultras offcreep, with Queens and out of mana Infestors lagging behind; several screens of hit & run later, 2 ultras fell for 70 supply of bio. Zerg's micro requirements in this sequence? Null: hands lifted from keyboard would have made literally no difference. The disparity in micro required for each side in this situation is clear as day. You can see Maru microing his heart out of his units; meanwhile, Zerg is perfunctorily casting some useless ITs and a Fungal (25) ; only after 10 seconds does Jaedong awake to shift focus a few Medivacs with his mutas. Jaedong's awful engagement is left unpunished: cost-wise, Terran traded 1:2, but too few remains and supplies are even after the reproduction. Unless the fight takes place near one of Zerg's bases, Terran has no way to immediately capitalize on a won battle. Is the reverse true? Alas, no: if Terran blunders and takes too bad of an engagement, the sanction is often immediate. " I don't understand. Is it not true or something? What are you trying to say?
It's not true, Jaedong and soO aren't the same person :p
|
Take for instance the Flash vs Rain series in the last WoL Code A. In the Akilon Wastes game, Rain misplayed and allowed two full Medivacs to unload his main base while Flash rallied the rest of his Marines at natural; Rain immediately lost 10 Probes in the maneuver and was in difficulty for the rest of the game. In the Daybreak game, he tried an ambitious tech-heavy build on 2 bases and was likewise refuted by Flash's drop play. In HotS? Photon Overcharge combined with the massive tech advantage would make him impervious to such things; breaking a Protoss on 2 bases is pretty much unthinkable these days.
I think this is very deceiving as well. You must be careful about not cherrypicking all the "right" games to support your argument. I remember that series as well, simply becasue it was one of the only series that featured dropplay the high levels. Most WOL TvP's were really passive in midgame.
|
Canada8157 Posts
On June 30 2014 00:47 ander wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2014 20:23 ZAiNs wrote:On June 29 2014 20:20 Zealously wrote:On June 29 2014 20:18 ZAiNs wrote:On June 29 2014 20:15 BLinD-RawR wrote:On June 29 2014 20:09 AxS SouL wrote:
This belongs on Reddit, not TL :/ Why? Because of most of it is opinionated crap and it promotes balance whine culture which is going to fill other threads and ladder with more people who think they know everything. It is opinionated, but calling it crap is a stretch. Really? "soO a-moves a bunch of ultras offcreep, with Queens and out of mana Infestors lagging behind; several screens of hit & run later, 2 ultras fell for 70 supply of bio. Zerg's micro requirements in this sequence? Null: hands lifted from keyboard would have made literally no difference. The disparity in micro required for each side in this situation is clear as day. You can see Maru microing his heart out of his units; meanwhile, Zerg is perfunctorily casting some useless ITs and a Fungal (25) ; only after 10 seconds does Jaedong awake to shift focus a few Medivacs with his mutas. Jaedong's awful engagement is left unpunished: cost-wise, Terran traded 1:2, but too few remains and supplies are even after the reproduction. Unless the fight takes place near one of Zerg's bases, Terran has no way to immediately capitalize on a won battle. Is the reverse true? Alas, no: if Terran blunders and takes too bad of an engagement, the sanction is often immediate. " I don't understand. Is it not true or something? What are you trying to say?
If the terran wins a fight, it's still very hard to capitalize on that. Zerg can reproduce units with their 60+ banked larva almost immediately. If terran loses the fight, it's probably GG because we just can't reproduce 120 army supply in 40 seconds
|
Worst title ever.
Otherwise, a really enjoyable read. 'Mad props' for all the effort put in!
|
On June 30 2014 00:30 Incognoto wrote:
I'm amazed by the comments you get in this thread. I have several things to get off my chest:
- theDwf, you have just gone up in my esteem by a lot; it must have taken a lot of time to write that, especially since everything is backed up with VODs and logic. screw the haters
- To the people with under 200 posts and calling it a "balance whine", screw you. it "shocks" you that this is featured? screw you. Someone took the time to write an editorial and TL decided that it was pertinent enough to feature. Anyone saying that this isn't a quality post is a biased dumbass. The arguments are there, they're real, they're oozing with logic and everything is backed up with evidence found in VODs. This article is hateful and a waste of time? screw you. This article is admittedly a fiery piece of work but it's not senseless hate, unlike all your shitty replies.
- There's another kind of annoying dumbass, albeit they're not as annoying as the dumbasses mentioned above. It's the ones who will pull an obscure part of the article and start counter arguing that point. e.g. they'll discuss Terran micro vs Protoss micro and discredit the article because Protoss micro is deeper than just a-move. Which is true; Protoss micro obviously isn't just a-move. The point in the article was that Terran have a lot more work to do than Protoss to get equal returns. Which I think is quite true, but this is not something that can be objectively proven. So arguing about just that point is somewhat annoying to me. It's fine if an argument isn't 100% spot on when discussing something as difficult to judge as micro.
- Yes, there's some subjectivity to the article. If you're going to focus on just that aspect while ignoring the rest of the arguments that have been fleshed out, don't.
- "thedwf let his emotions get the better of him and worded everything as if Protoss or Zerg takes no skill while Terran has an infinitely harder time in every single aspect of the game." this is bullshit as well. Don't put words in the authors mouth. Even though it may have come off as "thedwf said Z and P require no skill" to your biased ears, what I heard is "T requires a bit more effort to get things done right compared to Z and P and this is one of the factors which is exacerbating the problem for T atm".
Otherwise, related to the article:
- Reading this article, I've decided that DK is incompetent. theDwf very clearly understands starcraft and how it works, DK with the kinds of changes he implements doesn't get it. The queen buff was one example, the widow mine nerf was another. It's like starcraft is a game of balance; give an edge to a certain race at one point and the entire balance can be skewed. e.g. queen buff. DK repeated this mistake apparently by going crazy with nerf-hammer on terran. terran does seem to have lost its ability to deal damage / pressure an opponent in the earliesh game.
- On a very personal level, I kind of feel like the MSC core's photon overcharge is too strong. Protoss does indeed seem quite untouchable in the early-game because of it. It's kind of like the queen buff in that they can play just a >bit< greedier which leads to a small edge. A good P will use that small edge to get a bigger one.
Just because someone has under 200 posts, he/she isn't relevant to the scene? I may well have spent more efforts on actually playing the game or some community elsewhere. Just cuz I don't have 200 posts or write extensive amounts of content on TL doesn't mean I've spent more time on SC2 than most people who comment here, so that argument is just invalid, lol. And even when TL staff themselves admit that statistics can be skewed to the author's favor (failure to account for every existing statistics of the opposition's perspective will end up in subjective stats, which is 100% of the time), I don't know why your biased self is trying to defend that everything listed is 100% objective. To add on, if you're going to criticize people for being biased, don't enter the table offering a biased perspective yourself. Do you really think people expect you to be anything other than Terran from your post?
And why is nobody understanding this. Nobody is saying the points thedwf present are 100% bs - some are true, but at the same time other points are just absurd. "INnoVation clearly doesn't leave his production idle while harassing" then you think San isn't doing anything in his main while doing a 4g pressure? Is Life just completely giving up injects and creep spread while doing ling runbys? It's called multitasking, one of the most basic elements of the game, and thedwf plays around with words to make it sound like it's something unique to Terrans. That's just one example of how not every point in this article is trustworthy, cuz everyone's been flaming anyone criticizing this post as "not being able to back up their claims with anything but just flaming the author as a knee-jerk reflex."
And THIS type of "this is OP, this is BS" attitude is why so many people quit. Starcraft 2 is a mentally challenging and tense game, with imbalances existing everywhere. Who knows, maybe the most fundamental thing like mules or probes being able to warp in buildings and go back to mining is imbalanced, but it'll be almost impossible to quantify that. If people are going to play an asymmetric game like Starcraft, recognize that imbalances can exist at any point in time, but just suck it up and try to improve your own skills. DEFINITELY NOT SAYING that blatant imbalances are ok (as a P player, I do believe Ts currently deserve a better representation in tournaments through some minor race buff or sth), but if you actually care enough about this game to keep posting on TL and play the game here and there, suck it up and just play. This editorial promotes a whiny loser mentality and that's def something the scene did not need to reinvigorate itself. Think any Korean pro Terran starts each practice thinking 'oh what's the point, I'll lose in tourneys anyway cuz of Z OP and P OP' ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
