EPTOn July 20 2014 07:56 blade55555 wrote:
lol well T/Z are equal at a super 3 wins each.
lol well T/Z are equal at a super 3 wins each.
Everything will be played at the IEM now !
Pro Opinions: New Proposed Balance Changes - Page 11
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Faust852
Luxembourg4004 Posts
Everything will be played at the IEM now ! | ||
|
Vindicare605
United States16071 Posts
On July 20 2014 04:19 darkness wrote: 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. That's a terrible example. When the same guy is winning over and over and over again it's because he's a better player not because the race is imbalanced. What we see with the current situation with Protoss and what we saw a lot during Infestor/Broodlord was not an instance of one champion of a race consistently winning, it was that the race itself was winning everything with different players winning at different times with no order to be found. Look at the GSL right now. We've had 4 Protoss champions in a row and the only repeat Champion in this period was Zest who won two events only a couple weeks apart, the rest have all been different champions. If we break down this year's premier events with Protoss champions it's the same pattern. Zest is the only repeat champion, the rest have all been split between other players. How does that compare even the slightest bit to Flash dominating Brood War? It doesn't at all. | ||
|
Cheren
United States2911 Posts
On July 20 2014 07:56 blade55555 wrote: lol well T/Z are equal at a super 3 wins each. Zergs have won 10 major tournaments to 1 Terran win, and some of the Zerg wins were fairly big wins like LSC and SeatStory. | ||
|
-sLi-
Germany17 Posts
| ||
|
Salient
United States876 Posts
| ||
|
plogamer
Canada3132 Posts
On July 20 2014 06:57 Socup wrote: 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. I do know of unit inertia, actually learned about it from the QQ about widow mines. You also re-iterate my point on how mines will be negated by more skilled players. In TvZ, stronger Terran mid-game WILL result in weaker Zerg late-game. Every baneling forced is gas taken away from ultras and 3/3 upgrades. There's a reason 3/3 for Terran used to be considered a death sentence for the Z, until Z started to split and take better mid-game and then go for 3/3 before going for ultras. Will it be too much? Unlikely, at least past the initial stages where Zergs who got too used to mines that actually threaten to punish mistakes severely. Against Protoss, mines can be used to punish chargelot spams that happen so frequently in late-game. Let's see how it plays out, but within the limited scope of creating the lowest impact on other matchups, Blizzard has to take conservative approach. Delaying late-game tech is a way to weakening it, allowing the Terran enough room to properly react. While T lategame is 'weak', Terrans have the ability to respond to every threat in lategame. Ultras do die to marauders. | ||
|
Konranjyoutai
112 Posts
On July 20 2014 08:15 Cheren wrote: Zergs have won 10 major tournaments to 1 Terran win, and some of the Zerg wins were fairly big wins like LSC and SeatStory. way to pull numbers out of your ass | ||
|
Faust852
Luxembourg4004 Posts
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Major_Tournaments | ||
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
Major events aren't Premier events. Yes, in Major events (as defined there), zerg have 10 wins, protoss have 6, and terran have 1 in 2014. In Premier events, 11 protoss wins, 3 zerg, 3 terran. | ||
|
Cheren
United States2911 Posts
On July 20 2014 12:40 Whitewing wrote: Major events aren't Premier events. Yes, in Major events (as defined there), zerg have 10 wins, protoss have 6, and terran have 1 in 2014. In Premier events, 11 protoss wins, 3 zerg, 3 terran. He was responding to my post which was specifically about major events as defined by Liquipedia. | ||
|
Nerski
United States1095 Posts
On July 20 2014 11:39 plogamer wrote: I do know of unit inertia, actually learned about it from the QQ about widow mines. You also re-iterate my point on how mines will be negated by more skilled players. In TvZ, stronger Terran mid-game WILL result in weaker Zerg late-game. Every baneling forced is gas taken away from ultras and 3/3 upgrades. There's a reason 3/3 for Terran used to be considered a death sentence for the Z, until Z started to split and take better mid-game and then go for 3/3 before going for ultras. Will it be too much? Unlikely, at least past the initial stages where Zergs who got too used to mines that actually threaten to punish mistakes severely. Against Protoss, mines can be used to punish chargelot spams that happen so frequently in late-game. Let's see how it plays out, but within the limited scope of creating the lowest impact on other matchups, Blizzard has to take conservative approach. Delaying late-game tech is a way to weakening it, allowing the Terran enough room to properly react. While T lategame is 'weak', Terrans have the ability to respond to every threat in lategame. Ultras do die to marauders. Point most T would make is a mine is not really a late game important unit. It's a mid game unit if playing Marine Tank Mine or MMMM. No buff in radius to the mine will help T deal with 3/5 Ultras with infestor support and a muta ball harassing all over the place. A stronger mine only serves to help T to end the game during the mid game when Zerg is stuck on Muta/Ling/Bane. Which is more so what you are describing then it actually helping T late game. I could just as easily (though its' more drastic) say 2rax helps T late game because less ultras and 3/3 and it'd be the same point. | ||
|
VArsovskiSC
Macedonia563 Posts
On July 20 2014 01:37 TheDwf wrote: And how exactly can you prove that at any given time, the top5 players from each race are equally skilled? offracing, ez Like - sick and tired of that Superiority complex of Terran players overall.. Some at least know that there takes "different type" of skill to play the other races, but those who never touched anything but Terran - are sado-mazo "babies" that would rather enjoy "Zerg tears" and getting raped by Protoss rather than have 2 equally difficult (but various in a different way) matchups w.t.f. For those who think that Terran is the hardest - let me state the "easy" ones for once: 1 - Terran never has to have it's screen repositioned during a fight to macro 2 - Terran never has to have more bases than 2 (if playing agressive bio) - mules basically "forgive" A LOT of mistakes, let's be honest in that way.. 3 - Terran has very large edge at base-racing, so if you're not so much of a good player, you can still win by making it go to agressive early and force somehow the base-race scenario.. 4 - Terran can use almost every unit (even the cheap ones) in BOTH - battles and harass with them also (but it's kinda OK-ish, since Zerg can do that too, so it's more that Protoss has a specialist combat vs specialist harass units than other way round) Now let me say why you think Protoss is easy: 1 - Protoss never has to micro (more like 20%) DURING a fight, more like - Protoss is the 80%/20% race, and Terran is 20%/80% race... In other words - Protoss PREPARES the battles before they even start, Terran simply can't do such a thing cause they don't depend on spellcasts.. Basically the Protoss micro happens BEFORE the engagements start - spread out Templar, spread out Obs and keep an eye to not get caught offguard, have WPrism nearby or near the opponent's base, spread out Colossi, position them far away from ledges so Vikings shouldn't shoot them down without having enough "space" for your Stalkers, e.t.c. BUT - once the ENGAGEMENT happens - if Protoss PREDICTED and/or PREPARED well - it's like far easier than Terran would have to do during the fight.. The same against Zerg too - they have to think of a "route" where troups should go, as well as "predict places" where forcefields should be placed for the best outcome/result.. Now - as WHY we see Protoss sometimes actually loses - Protoss ALWAYS - lacks vision on the map.. Unless being Pigbaby with 8 observers out on the map or sth - they always lack that.. THAT, or simply - Terran opponent was a superior "sick Bomber" guy  Now - let me say WHY Terran think that it's only them that micro ? 3 - Most of "only playing Terran" think that the only type of Micro is the kiting and/or target-fire  , but there are different types of micro:a - Sending injured units back b - Peeling the front "lane" apart c - Doing or preventing a surround d - Healing injured units when on low HP Well TBH the target-fire-one is probably the HARDEST OF ALL cause requires precisions and mistakes of it backfire the MOST of them all.. If Terran requires only kiting to achieve what they should do - it's not as much of a biggie, but if they really have to kite and TARGET-FIRE (like that sicker baller Bomber does) - then that's a whole new "era" of difficulty - one misclick and half of your army dies But that just proves how badly designed the race is TBH (not to say that I found quite a few IMO legit "flaws" in the Terran race's design and what it lacks) | ||
|
Svizcy
Slovenia300 Posts
That would be terrible, since you macro will suffer when you offrace, no matter from which race to which race your going to switch. The way i see things atm is that terran needs small buff (i'd love to see the tank buff since it's my favorite unit in sc2 but ohh well). PvZ has a nice balance atm and they both dominate terrans at current stage so nerfing either of them would be mistake atm. Maybe later yes, but atm only a terran buff is the right correction to be made. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9388 Posts
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. If zerg has a more difficult time spreading creep in midgame, his lategame is per definition weaker as well. There is no point in time where he can just suddenly get a good creep spread at time X in the late game. What your ignoring is that late game TvZ isn't that bad in it self for terran. Terrans aren't cost-ineffective in late game TvZ (assuming solid micro). But ofc they are going to lose battles when opponent has 50% higher army value and terran has no bank. However, if you give terran a bank in that situation he still has a reasonable probability of winning. But when he doens't have a bank and opponent has 50% more army value, chances are that he came significantly behind during the midgame. People are simply confusing lategame with midgame here due to the effect of the creep spread. Normally an opponent getting ahead in midgame can finish it off in this phase of the game, but this doens't apply to ZvT due to the defenders advantage of creep spread. In TvP, it's quite different though as terran is strong during this phase of the game and there is no point in really buffing it any more as it just will result in Scv-timings being stronger. Though Widow Mine buffs probably is the exception here as it doens't really affect scv-pull timings that much. 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. That's one way of balancing it. I, however, much prefer the idea of a unit with a solid defenders advantage that requires micro to play with and against, but if correctly used, can be quite effective. Balancing the game out of some units being relatively cost-effective is IMO more interesting thant equalization production strenght in the late game. Point most T would make is a mine is not really a late game important unit. It's a mid game unit if playing Marine Tank Mine or MMMM. No buff in radius to the mine will help T deal with 3/5 Ultras with infestor support and a muta ball harassing all over the place. It's not a late game unit now cus it's just not good enough. However, better splash will definitely help vs a heavy Baneling/Ultra composition. | ||
|
VArsovskiSC
Macedonia563 Posts
On July 20 2014 16:18 Svizcy wrote: That would be terrible, since you macro will suffer when you offrace, no matter from which race to which race your going to switch. The way i see things atm is that terran needs small buff (i'd love to see the tank buff since it's my favorite unit in sc2 but ohh well). PvZ has a nice balance atm and they both dominate terrans at current stage so nerfing either of them would be mistake atm. Maybe later yes, but atm only a terran buff is the right correction to be made. My point is - Terrans will never admit that they have an easier time harassing than the other 2 races, hence why (one of the reasons) they play Terran.. The problems emmerge when they find a "tough rock" to break or sth, otherwise they enjoy that "superiority illusion" of just killing the opponent with the first 2-3 unit types they can produce and stick all game long with that | ||
|
Loccstana
United States833 Posts
| ||
|
plogamer
Canada3132 Posts
On July 20 2014 15:08 Nerski wrote: Point most T would make is a mine is not really a late game important unit. It's a mid game unit if playing Marine Tank Mine or MMMM. No buff in radius to the mine will help T deal with 3/5 Ultras with infestor support and a muta ball harassing all over the place. A stronger mine only serves to help T to end the game during the mid game when Zerg is stuck on Muta/Ling/Bane. Which is more so what you are describing then it actually helping T late game. I could just as easily (though its' more drastic) say 2rax helps T late game because less ultras and 3/3 and it'd be the same point. 2 rax is not strong enough if its scouted, and scouting it isn't very hard. So the logic is fine even in that case. It has miniscule impact because of it's miniscule ability to force a change in Zerg playstyle. Collosi has a much more drastic reaction required from Terrans, i.e. forced into building more vikings, and that does take a toll on the medivac count. Or turrets being forced by mutalisks, and banelings being forced by marines. Against Zerg, the impact of stronger mines will force more larva and resources being spent into replenishing the greater losses. That will directly impact the timing and the amount of Zerg lategame units. I would be really happy even if it means that when I face an ultra switch composed of 2 ultras rather than 8 ultras. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9388 Posts
My point is - Terrans will never admit that they have an easier time harassing than the other 2 races, hence why (one of the reasons) they play Terran.. The problems emmerge when they find a "tough rock" to break or sth, otherwise they enjoy that "superiority illusion" of just killing the opponent with the first 2-3 unit types they can produce and stick with that all game long In midgame? Yeh, surely terran has easier access to harass. But that doesn't make the harass easy in it self since all forms of terran harass are very microintensive. | ||
|
pure.Wasted
Canada4701 Posts
On July 20 2014 16:40 VArsovskiSC wrote: My point is - Terrans will never admit that they have an easier time harassing than the other 2 races You're so blinded by your own bias, you can't even see how other people might think differently from you. Newsflash: plenty of people who are dissatisfied with Protoss and Zerg design want Protoss and Zerg to scale better with mechanical skill. You know what that inherently means? Better harassment potential. We don't want Terran to be more like Protoss. We want Protoss to be more like Terran. | ||
|
plogamer
Canada3132 Posts
On July 20 2014 16:40 VArsovskiSC wrote: My point is - Terrans will never admit that they have an easier time harassing than the other 2 races, hence why (one of the reasons) they play Terran.. The problems emmerge when they find a "tough rock" to break or sth, otherwise they enjoy that "superiority illusion" of just killing the opponent with the first 2-3 unit types they can produce and stick all game long with that Terran harass took a big hit with Nexus Overcharge and improvements to Z queens and spore evochamber-requirement removal (and Z players learning about the magic of creep a few years into the game). Observer build speed has also been increased tremendously; used to great effect by Pigbaby in dismantling Taeja's midgame. Seriously, this is some "inferiority illusion" about harass with WoL-shades still on. | ||
| ||
