|
Last clarification from my part on that debate:
On July 20 2014 01:51 Hider wrote:
Well it's unlikely that the top 5 are exactly equaly skilled, but obviously one cannot go around and assume that T's are better than P's (or vice versa). When you go down that line, then all statistical analysis are just gonna result in a ton of bias.
That doens't mean that they are equally skilled at all points in times, but rather that we have no way reliable way of telling when there is a discrepencacy in skill level.
Which is exactly what I said, except I somehow get called "hypocrite" for saying that the contrary of X (= an assertion as well) is as unproven as X. Next time, please stop putting words in my mouth and stick to what I write.
|
On July 20 2014 03:07 TheDwf wrote:Last clarification from my part on that debate: Show nested quote +On July 20 2014 01:51 Hider wrote:
Well it's unlikely that the top 5 are exactly equaly skilled, but obviously one cannot go around and assume that T's are better than P's (or vice versa). When you go down that line, then all statistical analysis are just gonna result in a ton of bias. Show nested quote +That doens't mean that they are equally skilled at all points in times, but rather that we have no way reliable way of telling when there is a discrepencacy in skill level. Which is exactly what I said, except I somehow get called "hypocrite" for saying that the contrary of X (= an assertion as well) is as unproven as X. Next time, please stop putting words in my mouth and stick to what I write.
I belive you are being a hyporcritte because you only wanted "proof" of the assumption once it went against terran. The assumption has been made countless time before as a support in the claim of terran being UP. Why have you never challenged that assumption before?
Happy was the one who started out by claiming the contrary. Why do you not demand any proof from him?
Why demand proof from a guy who takes a consistent unbiased approach (equal skill)? Why not simple just accept it as very reasonable assumption?
And FYI, assumptions are per se unproven. If they always were true, then they wouldn't be called assumptions. You do not demand "proof" of assumptions, rather all you need is a short explaination of why they are reasonable, and that should be pretty obvious here.
|
On July 20 2014 03:13 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2014 03:07 TheDwf wrote:Last clarification from my part on that debate: On July 20 2014 01:51 Hider wrote:
Well it's unlikely that the top 5 are exactly equaly skilled, but obviously one cannot go around and assume that T's are better than P's (or vice versa). When you go down that line, then all statistical analysis are just gonna result in a ton of bias. That doens't mean that they are equally skilled at all points in times, but rather that we have no way reliable way of telling when there is a discrepencacy in skill level. Which is exactly what I said, except I somehow get called "hypocrite" for saying that the contrary of X (= an assertion as well) is as unproven as X. Next time, please stop putting words in my mouth and stick to what I write. I belive you are being a hyporcritte because you only wanted "proof" of the assumption once it went against terran. The assumption has been made countless time before as a support in the claim of terran being UP. Why have you never challenged that assumption before? Happy was the one who started out by claiming the contrary. Why do you not demand any proof from him? Why demand proof from a guy who takes a consistent unbiased approach (equal skill)? Why not simple just accept it as very reasonable assumption?
http://img11.hostingpics.net/pics/681963Post.jpg
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/462394-pro-opinions-new-proposed-balance-changes?page=9#164
|
On July 20 2014 03:18 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2014 03:13 Hider wrote:On July 20 2014 03:07 TheDwf wrote:Last clarification from my part on that debate: On July 20 2014 01:51 Hider wrote:
Well it's unlikely that the top 5 are exactly equaly skilled, but obviously one cannot go around and assume that T's are better than P's (or vice versa). When you go down that line, then all statistical analysis are just gonna result in a ton of bias. That doens't mean that they are equally skilled at all points in times, but rather that we have no way reliable way of telling when there is a discrepencacy in skill level. Which is exactly what I said, except I somehow get called "hypocrite" for saying that the contrary of X (= an assertion as well) is as unproven as X. Next time, please stop putting words in my mouth and stick to what I write. I belive you are being a hyporcritte because you only wanted "proof" of the assumption once it went against terran. The assumption has been made countless time before as a support in the claim of terran being UP. Why have you never challenged that assumption before? Happy was the one who started out by claiming the contrary. Why do you not demand any proof from him? Why demand proof from a guy who takes a consistent unbiased approach (equal skill)? Why not simple just accept it as very reasonable assumption? http://img11.hostingpics.net/pics/681963Post.jpghttp://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/462394-pro-opinions-new-proposed-balance-changes?page=9#164
I read what you wrote, that doesn't really change anything. The point is (as I wrote previously) that it's a reasonable assumption becasue on average it will be correct and we have no way of telling whenever it isn't correct. If we start to try and "bend" the assumption, then it will suffer significantly from bias. At least you need some insanely good arguments to proof otherwise (thus, the burden of proof is on the other side).
But obvously, in any serious analysis you need to take into account how realiable your assumptions are.
In the context of a statistical analysis, that means that if you look at how the top terrans, top protosses and top zergs do and compare them to each other, then you cannot really conclude anything if there only is a relatively small difference in succes. However, if all of the top protosses totally outperform the top terrans, then we can say with a pretty high probability that terran is UP at the highest level.
So in the conclusion, one looks at the assumptions, but just in order to get started with the analysis, you need to make assumptions that are reasonable, even though they aren't always true.
|
Italy12246 Posts
If you don't stop going offtopic and arguing between you two ill start moderating. If you want to keep going, use PM's.
|
As a random player, i do think there is some evidence that playing Terran is more dependant on your mechanics.
I do notice an improvement in my apm and multitasking abilities for all races when i play terran consistently for a couple of weeks as supposed to when i play Protoss more intensively.
Mechanics are a part of skill but not necessarily the only contributing factor. Perhaps Happy was referring to the mechanical aspect of skill.
|
On July 20 2014 03:48 Mojito99 wrote:
As a random player, i do think there is some evidence that playing Terran is more dependant on your mechanics.
I do notice an improvement in my apm and multitasking abilities for all races when i play terran consistently for a couple of weeks as supposed to when i play Protoss more intensively.
Mechanics are a part of skill but not necessarily the only contributing factor. Perhaps Happy was referring to the mechanical aspect of skill.
Doesn't make sense in the context. He was referring to how Blizzard should take into account that the very few top terrans are better when they look at tournament results.
That means actual skills, not just mechanics.
One way you could justify Happy's comments is that he is only refferring to special invite tournaments, which invites a bunch of decent players of all race and then 1 really really good terran (Taeja). So when Taeja wins a tournament, it's not becasue terran isn't UP, but that there is a "flaw" in the invite structure.
But I think Blizzard takes that into account. I don't think Blizzard only looks at premier tournament wins to assess balance. I think they take into acocunt if there only is 1 or 2 terrans in Ro8.
|
My take on this, terran is more mechanical taxing than other races that does not they re more skilled. They are skilled in different ways, and zerg demands skills that playing terran does not. For example managing unit production as zerg, when to drone when to ling. Very sensitive, one mistake and death. Not more or less demanding in skill, demanding in different ways.
Terran used to win tons of tournaments because terran has higher skill ceiling means they can micro the shit out of marines(most op unit in game in the right hands), WMs, drop micro, spliting and so on. Terran can do more with their units than the other races, thats why terran gods can keep up while most other terran is falling off. Its not only being able to micro like a god, its being able to do that while keeping their macro going.
|
Tournaments aren't an exactly perfect tool to figure balance out either. Remember back in BW when Flash was winning? Terran OP? Remember the era of the 6 dragoons (protoss players). Protoss OP? Tournaments aren't perfect either. Remember the 5 hatch build in PvZ where your high templars were almost guaranteed to be sniped by muta stack? There was a discussion for a patch back then if I remember correctly.
|
Changes are not bad, but...
buffing the wm will make an already strong mid game T stronger...which really doesn't truly address T late game issues. Additionally will just make T even more likely to try to end the game in the mid game with lots of aggression. Which really isn't good for spectators or players because it takes away from having more dynamic options.
Time warp change really only serves to make toss all ins slightly less powerful. Which is probably good as I've seen what looks like a hold able situation for Z or T become a loss with the combination of FF and Time Warp. I can't see how it'd really change late game that much.
Thor change shouldn't do much for top T's be more so a buff to T's who lack sufficient multitasking speed to already do it.
Overall I doubt any change they do can really fix some issues without major changes in LoTV. They've had 2 iterations to balance and have ended up with a lot of turtle and all in play in both versions with stagnate meta games. They really need to bring their A game with LoTV to give all the match ups and races dynamic options in LoTV.
|
Italy12246 Posts
Following up on my previous post to clear things up:
the issue isn't who is more or less skilled. Silly that magically all the best players played Terran in 2011, Zerg in 2012 and Protoss in 2013 is just silly. Assuming that, on average, players of different races have the same skill, it's obvious that Terran needs help right now.
The point is, you really shouldn't clog up 2 pages worth of this thread with discussion about it, especially when it's just a couple of posters arguing.
|
On July 20 2014 04:25 Nerski wrote:
Changes are not bad, but...
buffing the wm will make an already strong mid game T stronger...which really doesn't truly address T late game issues. Additionally will just make T even more likely to try to end the game in the mid game with lots of aggression. Which really isn't good for spectators or players because it takes away from having more dynamic options.
Time warp change really only serves to make toss all ins slightly less powerful. Which is probably good as I've seen what looks like a hold able situation for Z or T become a loss with the combination of FF and Time Warp. I can't see how it'd really change late game that much.
Thor change shouldn't do much for top T's be more so a buff to T's who lack sufficient multitasking speed to already do it.
Overall I doubt any change they do can really fix some issues without major changes in LoTV. They've had 2 iterations to balance and have ended up with a lot of turtle and all in play in both versions with stagnate meta games. They really need to bring their A game with LoTV to give all the match ups and races dynamic options in LoTV.
I wrote this in the last page:
Mine-change is only debateable one where people think it only impacts mdgame and that late game is the real problem.
However, I believe that analysis shows a misunderstanding of how TvZ works.
Typically a Zerg gets ahead in midgame as he efficiently can spread creep and take expos quite safely. When a terran player overcommits he can typically overrun him. But he cannot end the game in the midgame due to how weak his army is offcreep.
Thus, the game will drag into the lategame with the zerg in an advantage. Then the zerg will get a 200/200 army that costs like 50% more of the terran army and easily a-move to victory in late game. Then Destiny will go on a show arguing that his lategame army is just too good while in that situation ignoring that he got his advantage throughout the midgame.
And ofc, also ignore that Widow Mines do help in the late game as well (same thing with Thor change).
It is the impact of creep-spread which creates an unusually large defenders advantage in the matchup, and it is the effect it has on the gameplay that creates the whole "midgame" is balanced confusion.
|
On July 20 2014 04:25 Nerski wrote:
Changes are not bad, but...
buffing the wm will make an already strong mid game T stronger...which really doesn't truly address T late game issues. Additionally will just make T even more likely to try to end the game in the mid game with lots of aggression. Which really isn't good for spectators or players because it takes away from having more dynamic options.
Time warp change really only serves to make toss all ins slightly less powerful. Which is probably good as I've seen what looks like a hold able situation for Z or T become a loss with the combination of FF and Time Warp. I can't see how it'd really change late game that much.
Thor change shouldn't do much for top T's be more so a buff to T's who lack sufficient multitasking speed to already do it.
Overall I doubt any change they do can really fix some issues without major changes in LoTV. They've had 2 iterations to balance and have ended up with a lot of turtle and all in play in both versions with stagnate meta games. They really need to bring their A game with LoTV to give all the match ups and races dynamic options in LoTV.
A stronger mid-game for Terran will result in a weaker late-game for Zerg, especially due to the nature of larva mechanics. Z has to invest more into mid-game to survive so late-game comes later, and/or in weaker numbers.
Overall, I don't know if widow-mine buff will be too much in TvP. The only test is whether Terrans can force Protoss to change their play enough to address the power of the mines, i.e. collosi play is mandatory (and therefore, predictable) etc. But blink micro counter mines as well, so there are options still for negating mine damage. This would require more actions from the Protoss, like, positioning detection, blink-micro if blink-stalkers are the choice, to negate the mines.
To elaborate this point: A properly defended mine-drop will now kill 1 worker really really hard. Blink-stalkers disjointing the mines will mean that empty space will be hit really really hard. And when collosi hit the field, well that's that.
My prediction: Will make life hell for most Protoss on ladder; thus the huge outpouring of tears in this thread. Top (Mostly Korean, and Naniwa in top-form) Protoss will brush it off, since anti-mine play from Protoss was already well-established to be able to negate most damage. If that damage is higher, it means the mistakes will be punished harder.
At the top-most level, this change will be a smaller buff, since it seems designed to punish mistakes harder from P and Z. The only substantial change at top-most level TvP is the predictability of the Protoss reaction when forced to do something about mines blowing up everything. So, more collosi/blink play. But seriously, that is only fair, Terran is very predictable to Protoss as well.
PS. And with chargelots' guaranteed auto-hit, mine drag is definitely another possibility of addressing mines; maybe to be used in conjunction with other styles in late-game stages where all Protoss tech opens up.
PPS. I remember some Protoss complaining that stalkers getting into the range of mines were a bug and needed to be fixed, even when the mines were in a nerfed state. So yeah, expect lots more of those posts on TL and BNet forums.
|
On July 20 2014 04:40 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2014 04:25 Nerski wrote:
Changes are not bad, but...
buffing the wm will make an already strong mid game T stronger...which really doesn't truly address T late game issues. Additionally will just make T even more likely to try to end the game in the mid game with lots of aggression. Which really isn't good for spectators or players because it takes away from having more dynamic options.
Time warp change really only serves to make toss all ins slightly less powerful. Which is probably good as I've seen what looks like a hold able situation for Z or T become a loss with the combination of FF and Time Warp. I can't see how it'd really change late game that much.
Thor change shouldn't do much for top T's be more so a buff to T's who lack sufficient multitasking speed to already do it.
Overall I doubt any change they do can really fix some issues without major changes in LoTV. They've had 2 iterations to balance and have ended up with a lot of turtle and all in play in both versions with stagnate meta games. They really need to bring their A game with LoTV to give all the match ups and races dynamic options in LoTV. I wrote this in the last page: Show nested quote +Mine-change is only debateable one where people think it only impacts mdgame and that late game is the real problem.
However, I believe that analysis shows a misunderstanding of how TvZ works.
Typically a Zerg gets ahead in midgame as he efficiently can spread creep and take expos quite safely. When a terran player overcommits he can typically overrun him. But he cannot end the game in the midgame due to how weak his army is offcreep.
Thus, the game will drag into the lategame with the zerg in an advantage. Then the zerg will get a 200/200 army that costs like 50% more of the terran army and easily a-move to victory in late game. Then Destiny will go on a show arguing that his lategame army is just too good while in that situation ignoring that he got his advantage throughout the midgame.
And ofc, also ignore that Widow Mines do help in the late game as well (same thing with Thor change). It is the impact of creep-spread which creates an unusually large defenders advantage in the matchup, and it is the effect it has on the gameplay that creates the whole "midgame" is balanced confusion.
I totally agree with you about that. What decide the lategame is obviously the midgame. If a terran manages to take the upper hand in the midgame by securing a 4th while putting pressure on the zerg's 4th, restraining him from getting a huge muta balls too early and teching 3/3 and ultras while having creep on 3/4 of the map, the terran can compete without problem into the late game. It's not the late game zerg in itsellf that is OP, it's the fact that it comes way too fast. A terran can deal with 3/3 gling and 5/3 ultras if they have the same economy and the creep isn't on your 4th.
The problem right now is the snowball effect where terran can't put any pressure on the zergs 4th while the zerg has no problem for denying it a lot. The key thing in TvZ's late game transition is really the 4th expand. Back when we had this awesome Innovation vs DRG series, I remember that the game Inno won was when he managed to secure his 4th, and the 2 loses was when DRG sniped it. The problem right now is that a terran can't deny the 4th at all while he has a really hard time taking his.
|
On July 19 2014 15:32 SC2John wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2014 14:03 Loccstana wrote:On July 19 2014 11:29 Universum wrote:On July 19 2014 11:23 Faust852 wrote:
People should stop saying that protoss are forced to play colossi atm, this is in no way true. It might be with the future patch, but it's currently not the case at all. Protoss are not forced to play colossi. It's just that it's easier and safer, so they use that. But in no way HT opening are not viable. You should try (At least in Masters league) to get consistant result with templar openings, you would see how inconsistent it vs Robo builds.With a Robo build you can survive a mis-scouted Widow mine drop/play whereas with Templar openings you have no way of defending widow mine harass unless you manage to pick them off before they burrow. Some say '' Well build a robo anyway even if templar opening '', but it delays Charge/Storm sufficiently that you can barely/can't hold the regular timing pushes Terrans are doing atm Sorry but the game does not revolve around you. If you dont want to adapt, its your own fault. Whats wrong with including a robo in your build? Immortal, templar, zealot compositions are very strong against bio, plus you get detection and are able to snipe mines with immortals. There's nothing wrong with opening robo into templar. It's how Protoss played Templar openings throughout all of WoL and the first half of HotS. The only time we really started to see roboless templar play was when blink was so strong. HOWEVER, even with a robo, it's difficult just because the execution of poking out with stalkers to kill mines without getting your observer killed is very very difficult. On top of that, you really can't afford more than 4-6 stalkers in a templar opening because the templar cost sooooooooo much gas. Show nested quote +On July 19 2014 14:07 Loccstana wrote:On July 19 2014 14:02 Whitewing wrote:On July 19 2014 13:55 Socup wrote:On July 19 2014 11:29 Universum wrote:On July 19 2014 11:23 Faust852 wrote:
People should stop saying that protoss are forced to play colossi atm, this is in no way true. It might be with the future patch, but it's currently not the case at all. Protoss are not forced to play colossi. It's just that it's easier and safer, so they use that. But in no way HT opening are not viable. You should try (At least in Masters league) to get consistant result with templar openings, you would see how inconsistent it vs Robo builds.With a Robo build you can survive a mis-scouted Widow mine drop/play whereas with Templar openings you have no way of defending widow mine harass unless you manage to pick them off before they burrow. Some say '' Well build a robo anyway even if templar opening '', but it delays Charge/Storm sufficiently that you can barely/can't hold the regular timing pushes Terrans are doing atm What? How can that be true? Widow mines dont move when they are burrowed. Storm the area or run drones and build a single cannon. You have a forge for upgrades, right? In the event you need a meatshield to soak up a shot of WM, make an archon. Shields regenerate. On July 19 2014 13:20 Loccstana wrote:
Widow mines still dont do enough damage. They need to make it do 125 splash in the entire radius. I want to see games like this:
A few problems. First, the auto-ball feature of SC2 makes it more deadly. I don't recall whether in SC:BW if you separated a few units and then clicked to move to an area, they stayed in formation or not. It can be done to some degree in SC2, but its costly APM that can go into macro or kiting. The WM is still easily visible in the ground without need for an observer. SM's aren't. SM's can detect and kill cloaked units. WM's can't. One of my peeves about the WM is it's lack of micro in a big battle situation. Any interaction with the WM causes the countdown to fire to reset, which essentially makes attempting to use them intelligently useless in most scenarios except mineral line drops or defense against some small time harass. You can't afford to use storms on widow mines unless they're all super clumped up in the same spot and not spread out like they should be, at least not in the mid-game. It takes 2 storms to kill a widow mine, and you need the storms for the bio. During the mid-game against a good terran executing well, if you don't hit at least 2-3 storms on the bio with a chargelot/templar style you just die. Further, if you don't have any zealots left over because they all got killed by mines, you just die. The mines zone the templar out and destroy zealots very well. You can't afford to use emp on high templar unless they're all super clumped up in the same spot and not spread out like they should be, at least not in the mid-game. It takes 2 emps to drain a templar's energy, and you need the emps for the rest of the protoss army. During the mid-game against a good protoss executing well, if you don't hit at least 2-3 emps on the chargelot/templar with a bio/ghost style you just die. Further, if you don't have any bio left over because they all got killed by the templar, you just die. The storms zone the ghosts out and destroy bio very well. This is the most near-sighted and dumb thing I've read on TL. There is never a point in which you are so short on ghost mana (especially after the recent buff), and even then ghosts are still useful for DPS. A HT without energy for storm is a useless unit. The problem with the mine/zealot problem in question is that it's very difficult to clear the mines and zealots/archons just slowly get kited and mined to death. Whitewing put it eloquently with the phrase "hemorrhaging units". The end solution is a lot like the old TvZs. You just keep trading gas units and taking inefficient trades until you can't afford it anymore and the Terran dam breaks over and kills you. The situation that you describe is nothing like templar vs biomine, and it's simply moronic to take that comparison seriously.
ALL THAT SAID, we really need to stop quoting Rain for saying "templar openings are dead", "Mine OP can't play templar anymore", etc., etc. He said something along those lines, but we don't need to take it as far as saying "Rain gave authority that playing templar openings is impossible, so it's absolutely true". And second, that may have just been Rain's view on the situation (who has generally preferred the more classic blink/colossus opening), and it doesn't necessarily give full authority to the statement that NO PROTOSS CAN OPEN TEMPLAR BECAUSE ITS IMPOSSIBLE IMBA IMBA. I think robo -> templar is still viable, but the execution of it is much much harder than it was before. If this patch goes through, I don't think it will really affect the dynamic of this composition war all that much; it will still be difficult as hell to do, but it will probably still be viable with excellent control and the right circumstances. Haven't we proven that colossus builds don't die to SCV pulls by now? Can we not put labels on things as "impossible" just because they're not necessarily popular? (And no, this does not include mech TvP or "The Avilo Build", which are simply nonsensical strategies).
Even Protoss pros admit that one of the big problems for terran in the ghost vs HT war is the fact that even after EMP, the HT's as an archon are vastly more useful than 2 ghosts auto attacking and maybe having 1 snipe of energy left vs a chargelot frontline.
That being said, snipe is great (and very, VERY hard to use well, but great). That is a different part of the dynamic that favors terran, the above only applies to EMP. I wish protoss would play TvP before dismissing all complaints because most crap terrans exaggerate. Most crap protoss exaggerate concerns too, as do zerg. Doesn't mean there were never any concerns for P or Z...I play PvT as a terran main and appreciate all the things protoss has to do to survive and to trick T but i still think late game is much harder for Terran. If protoss played TvP, they would understand how hard it is to snipe templar when its maybe 6+ ghosts vs 6+ ht without having the critical 2-4 storms land, microing and positioning rest of army, and keeping up on inferior production style / more attention-demanding harass and counter-harass. (microing bio harass on offense and defense vs warpin+target). SC is a game of attention and the problem in TvP is not the strength of the races on paper, but the fact that terrans need to focus more attention on each thing to be effective.
|
|
|
What if Sacsri win the DH ?  And check major even too :D
|
Looks like we got new pro opinion to add to the opening post lol.
|
On July 20 2014 04:58 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2014 04:25 Nerski wrote:
Changes are not bad, but...
buffing the wm will make an already strong mid game T stronger...which really doesn't truly address T late game issues. Additionally will just make T even more likely to try to end the game in the mid game with lots of aggression. Which really isn't good for spectators or players because it takes away from having more dynamic options.
Time warp change really only serves to make toss all ins slightly less powerful. Which is probably good as I've seen what looks like a hold able situation for Z or T become a loss with the combination of FF and Time Warp. I can't see how it'd really change late game that much.
Thor change shouldn't do much for top T's be more so a buff to T's who lack sufficient multitasking speed to already do it.
Overall I doubt any change they do can really fix some issues without major changes in LoTV. They've had 2 iterations to balance and have ended up with a lot of turtle and all in play in both versions with stagnate meta games. They really need to bring their A game with LoTV to give all the match ups and races dynamic options in LoTV. A stronger mid-game for Terran will result in a weaker late-game for Zerg, especially due to the nature of larva mechanics. Z has to invest more into mid-game to survive so late-game comes later, and/or in weaker numbers. Overall, I don't know if widow-mine buff will be too much in TvP. The only test is whether Terrans can force Protoss to change their play enough to address the power of the mines, i.e. collosi play is mandatory (and therefore, predictable) etc. But blink micro counter mines as well, so there are options still for negating mine damage. This would require more actions from the Protoss, like, positioning detection, blink-micro if blink-stalkers are the choice, to negate the mines.
To elaborate this point: A properly defended mine-drop will now kill 1 worker really really hard. Blink-stalkers disjointing the mines will mean that empty space will be hit really really hard. And when collosi hit the field, well that's that.My prediction: Will make life hell for most Protoss on ladder; thus the huge outpouring of tears in this thread. Top (Mostly Korean, and Naniwa in top-form) Protoss will brush it off, since anti-mine play from Protoss was already well-established to be able to negate most damage. If that damage is higher, it means the mistakes will be punished harder. At the top-most level, this change will be a smaller buff, since it seems designed to punish mistakes harder from P and Z. The only substantial change at top-most level TvP is the predictability of the Protoss reaction when forced to do something about mines blowing up everything. So, more collosi/blink play . But seriously, that is only fair, Terran is very predictable to Protoss as well.PS. And with chargelots' guaranteed auto-hit, mine drag is definitely another possibility of addressing mines; maybe to be used in conjunction with other styles in late-game stages where all Protoss tech opens up. PPS. I remember some Protoss complaining that stalkers getting into the range of mines were a bug and needed to be fixed, even when the mines were in a nerfed state. So yeah, expect lots more of those posts on TL and BNet forums.
Why do people say this?...
Getting attacked midgame does not translate into a weaker late game. It translates into a delayed late game. When the player that was attacked and survives into the late game gets the bases they need, and their upgrades all maxed out, then they're not at any disadvantage anymore. It doesn't matter how good the "midgame" of a different race is vs this other race, eventually the late game will become the maxed out stuff that it always is, unless they lose before that point.
Attacks do NOT create weaker late game. They create delayed late game. Practically everyone yarns about this "weaker late game" stuff but it's simply false.
The stalker "bug" is due to their unit intertia, they can be micro to stop outside of range and shoot the mine without danger, or you can a move and lose a stalker because you don't know about inertia, which is where a lot of complaints about this "bug" come from.
The problem with mines "blowing up everything", is that typically that's nearly impossible to do unless the protoss player is stupid. You can see mines buried without detection, you can split units instead of ball up, you can attack from a better angle. If there's some sort of mass mine drop play into Protoss army im not aware of, how did protoss deal with, and eventually kill off, the mass banes into protoss army play? Give me 3-3 siege tanks over WM for blowing up an entire protoss army any day. That's probably as difficult to pull off unless you force an encounter where you're in great positions and their army is split up because you created a bait base.. I did that last game and it worked pretty well.
As far as terran complaints about late game vs Z or P, the problem is lack of macro production buildings into the late game, not late game itself, per say.
ghost/mech should be your first line of attackers with bio follow up after the AoE is off the field. The two things that really wreak havoc with T are storm colossus, and maybe to a degree the ability of P to ball up and T no real way to actively punish it other than a concave and baiting an attack.
Mass marine bio even takes care of mass carriers as long as you keep HTs down. The design goal in brood war was to require the using of all "tiers" of units in a complimentary force. The macro mechanics make it too easy to build up pure T3+, but the costs of immortals, HTs, and DTs dont reflect this ease of resource acquirement. HT/DT supply should definitely be 3, not 2. Cost should also increase a bit. They did this with the tank, why not two of the power units of protoss? Immortal could stand to be a little more mineral costly. It's sitting at reaver cost but far more mobile and well protected.
|
lol well T/Z are equal at a super 3 wins each.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
