On April 20 2018 22:01 xTJx wrote: I would suggest a whole late game review for all matchups, mass air/spellcaster fiesta is just lame imo, but i know that the community only cares about winrates, not gameplay.
Not always though, these days people like to talk about ravens which is mostly a design problem. I agree with your opinion, lategame in sc2 is bad in pretty much every matchup, way too much about air armies + spellcasters. Though i guess other people might actually like this part because it is different from the other stages of the game, who knows.
Win rates, overall, slightly favor Zerg in this matchup so we want to be cautious about changes here. We want to focus more on Terran’s mid-game power that scales into the late game. Increasing options for a race in the mid game can also improve their late game through having greater control over pacing of the game. Mid-game options can also encourage more counterplay, as options in the late game usually trend towards closing out the match rather than providing control over transitioning. Ongoing results from GSL and WCS will better inform our decisions, and we do have to be careful overall, as this matchup seems to be trending in a good direction.
I have no idea which games bliz look to say "Zerg slightly favored" ? Serral vs Terran foreigner lol ?
Aligulac winrate : 50.3% for T this code S : 80% for T last GSL : 58% for T WESG : 52% for for T
so you just have GSL super tournament : with 46% for T... because solar beat gumiho and dark beat alive... but innovation beat rogue, maru beat soo, and dark avoid maru thx to classic.
Every zerg have experienced the mass raven camping in ladder, 70% of my games vs T are like that, Terran with passive play little harass, mass tanks so you can't attack and they look for lategame with mass raven...
We have seen it on GSL, on challenger, on TvZ or on TvT.
Late game is so bad balanced in this game since the beginning. Only mid-game is good in this game, the early is quite boring but ok, the lategame is just super lame.
[–]MVPItsmesoftSC2[S] 13 points 6 days ago* Also GSL Season 1 and GSL Super Tournament. Combined, the two tournaments produced the following winrates among Korean pros:
PvT obviously needs a fix. The other matchups are kinda fine, but I don't like the TvZ supreme late game. Ghosts are great and fun, but Ravens are cancer.
What I think would improve the game a lot balance and entertainment wise would be to: Nerf Raven AAM to do almost no DMG Buff Marauder (HOTS Marauder) Buff Viking (+HP) Buff Battle-Cruiser (I am not sure how here, but Terran needs some kind of Late game splash or massive Ranged damage) Buff Ultra (HOTS Ultra)
This should help a lot in PvT early/mid game and also TvZ late game, and make the game much more fun. Current PvT is simply disgusting to watch and while I like TvZ a lot the super late game is just ridiculous :/
Btw just looking at this, it just points out how idiotic the Raven AAM is. Its essential for Terran to have some kind of viable Late Game, but to nerf it (because the design and gameplay with that is simply terrible) we need to buff at least 2-3 Terran units to balance it out. LoL
On April 20 2018 23:34 Geo.Rion wrote: sooo... there are no proposed changes at this time? the update is that, yeah, we re not gonna do a balance update, even tho maybe we should?
ya, when it only a "maybe" its tough to create a clear cut pathway for changes.
I think this is the right direction, to make some kind of buff to Terran mid-game. If there is a reasonable buff, I'm fine with a Raven nerf. I would have preferred to see more reasonable options for a buff than just vikings or liberators. What a strange pair of units to mention. I think a liberator buff is unwarranted, unless we're talking about their anti-air attack. And even then, I don't see how that would make any difference in the game.
Meanwhile, the design and method of production of the Viking makes no sense in comparison to Carriers, Corrupters, and even Phoenix and Mutas. Here you have a dedicated anti-air unit that is countered by 2/3rds of the other air units in the game. The main issues with the Viking relate to large Carrier leash range and the fact that 20 corrupters can be produced at a time. In order for the Viking to be useful, a significant damage buff is needed. In order for the Viking to reclaim the role it had in Wings of Liberty and HOTS, its range could be increased.
The reason Terran no longer has a significant mid-game is "death by a thousand cuts", of sorts. The worker change means the timing in comparison to workers built for Z and P is a bit later for specific builds like the 2-1-1 double medivac marine drop. Unit changes are also significant though. Since HOTS, here are things that have been buffed which affect Terran mid-game:
TvZ 1. Hydras (HP buff) 2. Banelings (HP buff) 3. Queen AA range buff
TvP 1. Zealot charge damage buff 2. Warp prism pickup range buff(In my opinion, this alone gave Protoss as strong a mid-game as Terran.) 3. Minor Stalker damage buff
With all this said, I think for Terran mid-game to be strong again you need a unit that synergizes very well with MMM. Mines filled this role in the past. Liberators already do so, but have reasonable counter play since they are stationary. The idea behind MMM is that the playstyle is stick-and-move. Previously mentioned buffs to Z and P have made them quite a bit easier to defend with the units already mentioned plus Immortals or Roach/Ravager. Here are units that I believe could be reasonably buffed.
1. The Hellbat (revert them to only taking 2 spaces in a medivac rather than 4 or increase damage of BF for Hellbats) 2. The Widow mine (revert build time but let them be permanently cloaked after they have drilling claws.) 3. The Marauder (If you don't want to revert the damage of Marauders, at least let concussive shell deny chargelots from hitting.) 4. The Medivac (allow them to heal 2 units at once or increase the power of the upgrade to medivac boost)
The most obvious changes would be: - Revert marauders from 2x10 to 1x20 - Make Raven's AAM dmg unstackable - buff Viking HP slightly
from there I'd wait a bit and see how the balance looks like. If PvT is still problematic for Terran I'd would rather have WM reworked than Tank or Lib. Personally I'd prefer to change WM more into ordinary landmine (similar to spider mine from BW): 50minerals 0 gas 1 or even 0 supply 40-50hp one use - blows up can only target ground Once burrowed cannot be moved (drilling claws upg would allow for unlimited reburrow)
Win rates, overall, slightly favor Zerg in this matchup so we want to be cautious about changes here. We want to focus more on Terran’s mid-game power that scales into the late game. Increasing options for a race in the mid game can also improve their late game through having greater control over pacing of the game. Mid-game options can also encourage more counterplay, as options in the late game usually trend towards closing out the match rather than providing control over transitioning. Ongoing results from GSL and WCS will better inform our decisions, and we do have to be careful overall, as this matchup seems to be trending in a good direction.
I have no idea which games bliz look to say "Zerg slightly favored" ? Serral vs Terran foreigner lol ?
Aligulac winrate : 50.3% for T this code S : 80% for T last GSL : 58% for T WESG : 52% for for T
so you just have GSL super tournament : with 46% for T... because solar beat gumiho and dark beat alive... but innovation beat rogue, maru beat soo, and dark avoid maru thx to classic.
Every zerg have experienced the mass raven camping in ladder, 70% of my games vs T are like that, Terran with passive play little harass, mass tanks so you can't attack and they look for lategame with mass raven...
We have seen it on GSL, on challenger, on TvZ or on TvT.
Late game is so bad balanced in this game since the beginning. Only mid-game is good in this game, the early is quite boring but ok, the lategame is just super lame.
Also, LOL at 80% for "this code S". Yeah, those 5 games are super representative. What's next, claiming Terran has a 100% winrate when they win the first game of a set?
I know i wasn't saying look 80% winrates, Terran is imba. I was saying where the tendancy where Z is favored ? I know it's a small sample of games, but at least there are relevant because it's the best players of the world fighting each over.
You include qualifiers which is totally irrelevant. Do you take games of diamond vs master to take about balance ? "Look the diamond terran lost vs the master Zerg, it's imba !"
No, i don't think so. So why do you include some qualifiers where guys who have some 200 MMR difference and sometimes more are fighting ? The winrates of theses games means nothing at all.
Qualifiers always shows : the best and well known players usually qualify, the only thing interesting is if some top players meet each other in the qualifier.
Also taking everygames is stupid, if the question is "does ravens are imba vs Z", why taking account of non-raven games ?
If you want to answer the question, you need : equal level progamers fighting, at best the best progamers, only lategame games where someone hasn't a huge lead at the beginning.
And if you do, i bet the winrates for T will be some 80-90% maybe more.
As it's hard to find some games like that, we can reason by the absurd.
If the lategame is balanced (50% winrates) you have to find at least few games where Zerg wins (with equal skill, not a huge lead etc...).
If not, it's the proof it's imbalanced.
Feel free to upload theses games, i would be glad to learn how to defeat mass raven.
Ah yes, qualifiers are irrelevant, yet you cite Aligulac that includes every game played. But not _all_ of Aligulac, just the one incomplete period that happens to show what you want. Oh, and only games with Ravens matter? Then why are you including winrates that include a bunch of games without Ravens? And of course, the icing on your cake is your incredibly dishonest "80%" number based on a sample of five games played between three players, meanwhile you discount the super tournament results because "because solar beat gumiho and dark beat alive... but innovation beat rogue, maru beat soo, and dark avoid maru thx to classic", which isn't even an argument. So it's "80% winrate" instead of "Byun beats Leenock and Elazer" but when it comes to an entire tournament that doesn't fit your narrative, then it's "because solar beat gumiho and dark beat alive" not "48% winrate". Right.
I knew you were going to double-down on your disingenuous and dumb cherry-picking, but the heroic contortions you're resorting to somehow justify what you wrote are...something else.
I'm not even going to get into your "lategame imba" diversion. That was never Blizzard's assertion, your transparent attempt to move the goalposts aside. I will, however, note the hypocrisy of complaining about the lategame when apparently it was fine for the entirety of LotV for zerg to camp to their cancerous hive deathball, but as soon as things don't look favorable it's now an urgent problem, despite winrates saying otherwise.
Obviously you haven't read what i've sayed but just want to whine.
Like always on TL/reddit/battle net there are ten terrans saying "Terran so weak let's discuss how many buffs we should have".
Mid game is already terran favored, zerg can't harass terrans, can't trade well of creep, etc... There is no kill it before he reachs lategame, there isn't windows to attack Terran that camps.
And Ghosts are fine to deal with every lategame agression, they can be protected by tanks, range lib and it's already 50/50 in lategame just with ghosts.
With raven, it's unwinable, the only possible unit with the same range than raven is infestor which is outranged by tanks, emp by ghost.
Like every broken composition the only thing zerg could try is mass spores, broodlords infestors +SH and wait for 1hours+ games.
Problem, the SH, the only units that can reach tanks without beeing crushed by ghosts/raven (broodlords can't) cost too much supply to be good on lategame (+long cooldown).
Add to that mule power in late game and T have more army supply.
You can also add nukes to kill the mass spores and expansions, can even one shot all zerg army if lucky, and the lategame is perfectly design to give no solution to win as zerg.
Of course, i expect to be insulted again, and ten terrans telling me it's winnable, only the god terrans can do this style (funny when one terran wins he immediatly become a god and it's never balance).
I have played this game pretty much non stop since launch, but I've stopped for the last 3 months. As a bio-loving terran (dia1 for reference), I'm just not enjoying the game anymore really.
Where are the positional wars, the tug-of-wars, the mid-game multitask ? Winrates may be decent when all you do as terran is turtle up, camp and don't do shit before having an unbeatable army, but I find that absolutely no fun at all (which is why I've always played bio rather than mech). Playing vs mech every TvT saddens me and frustrates me to no end. Not being able to do shit against a protoss is also depressing. And playing bio against zerg right now... well, let's just say that you feel behind all game, hydra + bane makes a Z pretty much unkillable midgame with bio + tanks, so you have to face Hive tech. And if you don't have the right units (which cost a fortune, requiring you to pretty much not trade units earlier on in the game), you die. So back to camping. Sigh.
Win rates, overall, slightly favor Zerg in this matchup so we want to be cautious about changes here. We want to focus more on Terran’s mid-game power that scales into the late game. Increasing options for a race in the mid game can also improve their late game through having greater control over pacing of the game. Mid-game options can also encourage more counterplay, as options in the late game usually trend towards closing out the match rather than providing control over transitioning. Ongoing results from GSL and WCS will better inform our decisions, and we do have to be careful overall, as this matchup seems to be trending in a good direction.
I have no idea which games bliz look to say "Zerg slightly favored" ? Serral vs Terran foreigner lol ?
Aligulac winrate : 50.3% for T this code S : 80% for T last GSL : 58% for T WESG : 52% for for T
so you just have GSL super tournament : with 46% for T... because solar beat gumiho and dark beat alive... but innovation beat rogue, maru beat soo, and dark avoid maru thx to classic.
Every zerg have experienced the mass raven camping in ladder, 70% of my games vs T are like that, Terran with passive play little harass, mass tanks so you can't attack and they look for lategame with mass raven...
We have seen it on GSL, on challenger, on TvZ or on TvT.
Late game is so bad balanced in this game since the beginning. Only mid-game is good in this game, the early is quite boring but ok, the lategame is just super lame.
Also, LOL at 80% for "this code S". Yeah, those 5 games are super representative. What's next, claiming Terran has a 100% winrate when they win the first game of a set?
I know i wasn't saying look 80% winrates, Terran is imba. I was saying where the tendancy where Z is favored ? I know it's a small sample of games, but at least there are relevant because it's the best players of the world fighting each over.
You include qualifiers which is totally irrelevant. Do you take games of diamond vs master to take about balance ? "Look the diamond terran lost vs the master Zerg, it's imba !"
No, i don't think so. So why do you include some qualifiers where guys who have some 200 MMR difference and sometimes more are fighting ? The winrates of theses games means nothing at all.
Qualifiers always shows : the best and well known players usually qualify, the only thing interesting is if some top players meet each other in the qualifier.
Also taking everygames is stupid, if the question is "does ravens are imba vs Z", why taking account of non-raven games ?
If you want to answer the question, you need : equal level progamers fighting, at best the best progamers, only lategame games where someone hasn't a huge lead at the beginning.
And if you do, i bet the winrates for T will be some 80-90% maybe more.
As it's hard to find some games like that, we can reason by the absurd.
If the lategame is balanced (50% winrates) you have to find at least few games where Zerg wins (with equal skill, not a huge lead etc...).
If not, it's the proof it's imbalanced.
Feel free to upload theses games, i would be glad to learn how to defeat mass raven.
Ah yes, qualifiers are irrelevant, yet you cite Aligulac that includes every game played. But not _all_ of Aligulac, just the one incomplete period that happens to show what you want. Oh, and only games with Ravens matter? Then why are you including winrates that include a bunch of games without Ravens? And of course, the icing on your cake is your incredibly dishonest "80%" number based on a sample of five games played between three players, meanwhile you discount the super tournament results because "because solar beat gumiho and dark beat alive... but innovation beat rogue, maru beat soo, and dark avoid maru thx to classic", which isn't even an argument. So it's "80% winrate" instead of "Byun beats Leenock and Elazer" but when it comes to an entire tournament that doesn't fit your narrative, then it's "because solar beat gumiho and dark beat alive" not "48% winrate". Right.
I knew you were going to double-down on your disingenuous and dumb cherry-picking, but the heroic contortions you're resorting to somehow justify what you wrote are...something else.
I'm not even going to get into your "lategame imba" diversion. That was never Blizzard's assertion, your transparent attempt to move the goalposts aside. I will, however, note the hypocrisy of complaining about the lategame when apparently it was fine for the entirety of LotV for zerg to camp to their cancerous hive deathball, but as soon as things don't look favorable it's now an urgent problem, despite winrates saying otherwise.
Obviously you haven't read what i've sayed but just want to whine.
Like always on TL/reddit/battle net there are ten terrans saying "Terran so weak let's discuss how many buffs we should have".
Mid game is already terran favored, zerg can't harass terrans, can't trade well of creep, etc... There is no kill it before he reachs lategame, there isn't windows to attack Terran that camps.
And Ghosts are fine to deal with every lategame agression, they can be protected by tanks, range lib and it's already 50/50 in lategame just with ghosts.
With raven, it's unwinable, the only possible unit with the same range than raven is infestor which is outranged by tanks, emp by ghost.
Like every broken composition the only thing zerg could try is mass spores, broodlords infestors +SH and wait for 1hours+ games.
Problem, the SH, the only units that can reach tanks without beeing crushed by ghosts/raven (broodlords can't) cost too much supply to be good on lategame (+long cooldown).
Add to that mule power in late game and T have more army supply.
You can also add nukes to kill the mass spores and expansions, can even one shot all zerg army if lucky, and the lategame is perfectly design to give no solution to win as zerg.
Of course, i expect to be insulted again, and ten terrans telling me it's winnable, only the god terrans can do this style (funny when one terran wins he immediatly become a god and it's never balance).
I don't know what the point of this word salad is or why you're addressing it to me--it certainly doesn't bear any relation to anything I said.
Win rates, overall, slightly favor Zerg in this matchup so we want to be cautious about changes here. We want to focus more on Terran’s mid-game power that scales into the late game. Increasing options for a race in the mid game can also improve their late game through having greater control over pacing of the game. Mid-game options can also encourage more counterplay, as options in the late game usually trend towards closing out the match rather than providing control over transitioning. Ongoing results from GSL and WCS will better inform our decisions, and we do have to be careful overall, as this matchup seems to be trending in a good direction.
I have no idea which games bliz look to say "Zerg slightly favored" ? Serral vs Terran foreigner lol ?
Aligulac winrate : 50.3% for T this code S : 80% for T last GSL : 58% for T WESG : 52% for for T
so you just have GSL super tournament : with 46% for T... because solar beat gumiho and dark beat alive... but innovation beat rogue, maru beat soo, and dark avoid maru thx to classic.
Every zerg have experienced the mass raven camping in ladder, 70% of my games vs T are like that, Terran with passive play little harass, mass tanks so you can't attack and they look for lategame with mass raven...
We have seen it on GSL, on challenger, on TvZ or on TvT.
Late game is so bad balanced in this game since the beginning. Only mid-game is good in this game, the early is quite boring but ok, the lategame is just super lame.
Also, LOL at 80% for "this code S". Yeah, those 5 games are super representative. What's next, claiming Terran has a 100% winrate when they win the first game of a set?
I know i wasn't saying look 80% winrates, Terran is imba. I was saying where the tendancy where Z is favored ? I know it's a small sample of games, but at least there are relevant because it's the best players of the world fighting each over.
You include qualifiers which is totally irrelevant. Do you take games of diamond vs master to take about balance ? "Look the diamond terran lost vs the master Zerg, it's imba !"
No, i don't think so. So why do you include some qualifiers where guys who have some 200 MMR difference and sometimes more are fighting ? The winrates of theses games means nothing at all.
Qualifiers always shows : the best and well known players usually qualify, the only thing interesting is if some top players meet each other in the qualifier.
Also taking everygames is stupid, if the question is "does ravens are imba vs Z", why taking account of non-raven games ?
If you want to answer the question, you need : equal level progamers fighting, at best the best progamers, only lategame games where someone hasn't a huge lead at the beginning.
And if you do, i bet the winrates for T will be some 80-90% maybe more.
As it's hard to find some games like that, we can reason by the absurd.
If the lategame is balanced (50% winrates) you have to find at least few games where Zerg wins (with equal skill, not a huge lead etc...).
If not, it's the proof it's imbalanced.
Feel free to upload theses games, i would be glad to learn how to defeat mass raven.
Ah yes, qualifiers are irrelevant, yet you cite Aligulac that includes every game played. But not _all_ of Aligulac, just the one incomplete period that happens to show what you want. Oh, and only games with Ravens matter? Then why are you including winrates that include a bunch of games without Ravens? And of course, the icing on your cake is your incredibly dishonest "80%" number based on a sample of five games played between three players, meanwhile you discount the super tournament results because "because solar beat gumiho and dark beat alive... but innovation beat rogue, maru beat soo, and dark avoid maru thx to classic", which isn't even an argument. So it's "80% winrate" instead of "Byun beats Leenock and Elazer" but when it comes to an entire tournament that doesn't fit your narrative, then it's "because solar beat gumiho and dark beat alive" not "48% winrate". Right.
I knew you were going to double-down on your disingenuous and dumb cherry-picking, but the heroic contortions you're resorting to somehow justify what you wrote are...something else.
I'm not even going to get into your "lategame imba" diversion. That was never Blizzard's assertion, your transparent attempt to move the goalposts aside. I will, however, note the hypocrisy of complaining about the lategame when apparently it was fine for the entirety of LotV for zerg to camp to their cancerous hive deathball, but as soon as things don't look favorable it's now an urgent problem, despite winrates saying otherwise.
Obviously you haven't read what i've sayed but just want to whine.
Like always on TL/reddit/battle net there are ten terrans saying "Terran so weak let's discuss how many buffs we should have".
Mid game is already terran favored, zerg can't harass terrans, can't trade well of creep, etc... There is no kill it before he reachs lategame, there isn't windows to attack Terran that camps.
And Ghosts are fine to deal with every lategame agression, they can be protected by tanks, range lib and it's already 50/50 in lategame just with ghosts.
With raven, it's unwinable, the only possible unit with the same range than raven is infestor which is outranged by tanks, emp by ghost.
Like every broken composition the only thing zerg could try is mass spores, broodlords infestors +SH and wait for 1hours+ games.
Problem, the SH, the only units that can reach tanks without beeing crushed by ghosts/raven (broodlords can't) cost too much supply to be good on lategame (+long cooldown).
Add to that mule power in late game and T have more army supply.
You can also add nukes to kill the mass spores and expansions, can even one shot all zerg army if lucky, and the lategame is perfectly design to give no solution to win as zerg.
Of course, i expect to be insulted again, and ten terrans telling me it's winnable, only the god terrans can do this style (funny when one terran wins he immediatly become a god and it's never balance).
I don't know what the point of this word salad is or why you're addressing it to me--it certainly doesn't bear any relation to anything I said.
Yah it smelled a bit like troll from the get go..but this last one shows either 100% troll or very young guy mad at his ladder experience. There is a whole community of these zerg players who truly believe if they cant turtle to hive tech and amove to victory the game is broken.
Win rates, overall, slightly favor Zerg in this matchup so we want to be cautious about changes here. We want to focus more on Terran’s mid-game power that scales into the late game. Increasing options for a race in the mid game can also improve their late game through having greater control over pacing of the game. Mid-game options can also encourage more counterplay, as options in the late game usually trend towards closing out the match rather than providing control over transitioning. Ongoing results from GSL and WCS will better inform our decisions, and we do have to be careful overall, as this matchup seems to be trending in a good direction.
I have no idea which games bliz look to say "Zerg slightly favored" ? Serral vs Terran foreigner lol ?
Aligulac winrate : 50.3% for T this code S : 80% for T last GSL : 58% for T WESG : 52% for for T
so you just have GSL super tournament : with 46% for T... because solar beat gumiho and dark beat alive... but innovation beat rogue, maru beat soo, and dark avoid maru thx to classic.
Every zerg have experienced the mass raven camping in ladder, 70% of my games vs T are like that, Terran with passive play little harass, mass tanks so you can't attack and they look for lategame with mass raven...
We have seen it on GSL, on challenger, on TvZ or on TvT.
Late game is so bad balanced in this game since the beginning. Only mid-game is good in this game, the early is quite boring but ok, the lategame is just super lame.
Also, LOL at 80% for "this code S". Yeah, those 5 games are super representative. What's next, claiming Terran has a 100% winrate when they win the first game of a set?
I know i wasn't saying look 80% winrates, Terran is imba. I was saying where the tendancy where Z is favored ? I know it's a small sample of games, but at least there are relevant because it's the best players of the world fighting each over.
You include qualifiers which is totally irrelevant. Do you take games of diamond vs master to take about balance ? "Look the diamond terran lost vs the master Zerg, it's imba !"
No, i don't think so. So why do you include some qualifiers where guys who have some 200 MMR difference and sometimes more are fighting ? The winrates of theses games means nothing at all.
Qualifiers always shows : the best and well known players usually qualify, the only thing interesting is if some top players meet each other in the qualifier.
Also taking everygames is stupid, if the question is "does ravens are imba vs Z", why taking account of non-raven games ?
If you want to answer the question, you need : equal level progamers fighting, at best the best progamers, only lategame games where someone hasn't a huge lead at the beginning.
And if you do, i bet the winrates for T will be some 80-90% maybe more.
As it's hard to find some games like that, we can reason by the absurd.
If the lategame is balanced (50% winrates) you have to find at least few games where Zerg wins (with equal skill, not a huge lead etc...).
If not, it's the proof it's imbalanced.
Feel free to upload theses games, i would be glad to learn how to defeat mass raven.
Ah yes, qualifiers are irrelevant, yet you cite Aligulac that includes every game played. But not _all_ of Aligulac, just the one incomplete period that happens to show what you want. Oh, and only games with Ravens matter? Then why are you including winrates that include a bunch of games without Ravens? And of course, the icing on your cake is your incredibly dishonest "80%" number based on a sample of five games played between three players, meanwhile you discount the super tournament results because "because solar beat gumiho and dark beat alive... but innovation beat rogue, maru beat soo, and dark avoid maru thx to classic", which isn't even an argument. So it's "80% winrate" instead of "Byun beats Leenock and Elazer" but when it comes to an entire tournament that doesn't fit your narrative, then it's "because solar beat gumiho and dark beat alive" not "48% winrate". Right.
I knew you were going to double-down on your disingenuous and dumb cherry-picking, but the heroic contortions you're resorting to somehow justify what you wrote are...something else.
I'm not even going to get into your "lategame imba" diversion. That was never Blizzard's assertion, your transparent attempt to move the goalposts aside. I will, however, note the hypocrisy of complaining about the lategame when apparently it was fine for the entirety of LotV for zerg to camp to their cancerous hive deathball, but as soon as things don't look favorable it's now an urgent problem, despite winrates saying otherwise.
Obviously you haven't read what i've sayed but just want to whine.
Like always on TL/reddit/battle net there are ten terrans saying "Terran so weak let's discuss how many buffs we should have".
Mid game is already terran favored, zerg can't harass terrans, can't trade well of creep, etc... There is no kill it before he reachs lategame, there isn't windows to attack Terran that camps.
And Ghosts are fine to deal with every lategame agression, they can be protected by tanks, range lib and it's already 50/50 in lategame just with ghosts.
With raven, it's unwinable, the only possible unit with the same range than raven is infestor which is outranged by tanks, emp by ghost.
Like every broken composition the only thing zerg could try is mass spores, broodlords infestors +SH and wait for 1hours+ games.
Problem, the SH, the only units that can reach tanks without beeing crushed by ghosts/raven (broodlords can't) cost too much supply to be good on lategame (+long cooldown).
Add to that mule power in late game and T have more army supply.
You can also add nukes to kill the mass spores and expansions, can even one shot all zerg army if lucky, and the lategame is perfectly design to give no solution to win as zerg.
Of course, i expect to be insulted again, and ten terrans telling me it's winnable, only the god terrans can do this style (funny when one terran wins he immediatly become a god and it's never balance).
I don't know what the point of this word salad is or why you're addressing it to me--it certainly doesn't bear any relation to anything I said.
Yah it smelled a bit like troll from the get go..but this last one shows either 100% troll or very young guy mad at his ladder experience
Tyrhanius wouldn't say anything against Zerg even if we were still in the BL/Infestor era. There's no point in trying to convince him otherwise, speaking from experience here.
He's not as bad as hiroshOne though, and he's reasonably polite about it.
On April 21 2018 01:42 LoneYoShi wrote: I have played this game pretty much non stop since launch, but I've stopped for the last 3 months. As a bio-loving terran (dia1 for reference), I'm just not enjoying the game anymore really.
Where are the positional wars, the tug-of-wars, the mid-game multitask ? Winrates may be decent when all you do as terran is turtle up, camp and don't do shit before having an unbeatable army, but I find that absolutely no fun at all (which is why I've always played bio rather than mech). Playing vs mech every TvT saddens me and frustrates me to no end. Not being able to do shit against a protoss is also depressing. And playing bio against zerg right now... well, let's just say that you feel behind all game, hydra + bane makes a Z pretty much unkillable midgame with bio + tanks, so you have to face Hive tech. And if you don't have the right units (which cost a fortune, requiring you to pretty much not trade units earlier on in the game), you die. So back to camping. Sigh.
Anyway, there are other nice games to play.
Hey man. Sorry u are having a hard time.. being terran bio player myself i been there..i would encourage u to watch as many pro vods / reps as u can of maru and byun..bio is not impossible to play currently..and u dont need their level of control to get at least m1 even low gm. Style is a bit different now and the raven can be very helpful early on in tvt to hit strong timing on mech player..watch some of innovation tvt from nation wars....wesg and code s maru for tvz...tvp on the other hand i dont have any advice except cyclone push into 2 base 5 rax all ins can win games lol..anyways no quit! No other good rts.
On April 20 2018 03:32 ZigguratOfUr wrote: I sympathize with Blizzard's difficulty with finding a PvT change that doesn't screw up the other match-ups, but it really shouldn't have taken them this long to realize that there was a problem and that terrans have been forced into two base all-inning every game for the past two-three months.
And Blizzard's reluctance in nerfing the raven just because the match-up doesn't favour terran is nonsense. Balance arguments shouldn't prop up egregious design problems.
Just want to give 100% opposite feedback of this! Blizz is (imo) doing the right thing by putting balance as a priority over "game design". Sc2 evolves because its played professionally..if we want it to stay that way then balance has to take priority. I am not in disagreement whatsoever that late game overall has a design issue, but I do find it hilarious that people continue to pretend that the raven is the only unit that creates static boring games..zerg and toss comps highlighted in multiple posts on this thread (Spore/Viper/BL/corrupter/infestor) Carrier tempest HT. Both accomplish the same thing. So stop sending incomplete bias whines @ Blizzard and be honest. If you want that shit gone it all has to go period. Otherwise the meta evolves where the races that do have it figure out how to stay alive long enough to get it and the opposite has no counter..winrates get skewed hard and forums ignite with whineflames.
On April 20 2018 22:01 xTJx wrote: I would suggest a whole late game review for all matchups, mass air/spellcaster fiesta is just lame imo, but i know that the community only cares about winrates, not gameplay.
Not always though, these days people like to talk about ravens which is mostly a design problem. I agree with your opinion, lategame in sc2 is bad in pretty much every matchup, way too much about air armies + spellcasters. Though i guess other people might actually like this part because it is different from the other stages of the game, who knows.
I feel that the real problem here is not that these interactions in the late-game are so much different, but that this situation cam be played for 30 minutes without much is happening.
On April 20 2018 22:01 xTJx wrote: I would suggest a whole late game review for all matchups, mass air/spellcaster fiesta is just lame imo, but i know that the community only cares about winrates, not gameplay.
Not always though, these days people like to talk about ravens which is mostly a design problem. I agree with your opinion, lategame in sc2 is bad in pretty much every matchup, way too much about air armies + spellcasters. Though i guess other people might actually like this part because it is different from the other stages of the game, who knows.
I feel that the real problem here is not that these interactions in the late-game are so much different, but that this situation cam be played for 30 minutes without much is happening.
The problem with that is long range and energy trading. If theres few/no resources being lost the game can go on for hours.
On April 21 2018 01:42 LoneYoShi wrote: I have played this game pretty much non stop since launch, but I've stopped for the last 3 months. As a bio-loving terran (dia1 for reference), I'm just not enjoying the game anymore really.
Where are the positional wars, the tug-of-wars, the mid-game multitask ? Winrates may be decent when all you do as terran is turtle up, camp and don't do shit before having an unbeatable army, but I find that absolutely no fun at all (which is why I've always played bio rather than mech). Playing vs mech every TvT saddens me and frustrates me to no end. Not being able to do shit against a protoss is also depressing. And playing bio against zerg right now... well, let's just say that you feel behind all game, hydra + bane makes a Z pretty much unkillable midgame with bio + tanks, so you have to face Hive tech. And if you don't have the right units (which cost a fortune, requiring you to pretty much not trade units earlier on in the game), you die. So back to camping. Sigh.
Anyway, there are other nice games to play.
have you considered getting better?
have you considered different strategies or builds like the pros use?
have you considered that the game has changed to make the other races more fun to play, not just yours?
your mindset is the exact thing that shows weakness in starcraft players; you won't be missed.
On April 21 2018 01:42 LoneYoShi wrote: I have played this game pretty much non stop since launch, but I've stopped for the last 3 months. As a bio-loving terran (dia1 for reference), I'm just not enjoying the game anymore really.
Where are the positional wars, the tug-of-wars, the mid-game multitask ? Winrates may be decent when all you do as terran is turtle up, camp and don't do shit before having an unbeatable army, but I find that absolutely no fun at all (which is why I've always played bio rather than mech). Playing vs mech every TvT saddens me and frustrates me to no end. Not being able to do shit against a protoss is also depressing. And playing bio against zerg right now... well, let's just say that you feel behind all game, hydra + bane makes a Z pretty much unkillable midgame with bio + tanks, so you have to face Hive tech. And if you don't have the right units (which cost a fortune, requiring you to pretty much not trade units earlier on in the game), you die. So back to camping. Sigh.
Anyway, there are other nice games to play.
have you considered getting better?
have you considered different strategies or builds like the pros use?
have you considered that the game has changed to make the other races more fun to play, not just yours?
your mindset is the exact thing that shows weakness in starcraft players; you won't be missed.
If the lategame is balanced (50% winrates) you have to find at least few games where Zerg wins (with equal skill, not a huge lead etc...).
If not, it's the proof it's imbalanced.
Feel free to upload theses games, i would be glad to learn how to defeat mass raven.
Spot on. And no, Dark winning against Maru after a failed proxy rax doesn't really count.
Just build more Vipers and infestors. Chip away at the raven and viking count with parasitic bomb. Use blinding cloud in combination with swarmhosts and fungals on clumps of ghosts or infantry for free trades. No one is doing this yet because they haven't thought of it.
On April 21 2018 01:42 LoneYoShi wrote: I have played this game pretty much non stop since launch, but I've stopped for the last 3 months. As a bio-loving terran (dia1 for reference), I'm just not enjoying the game anymore really.
Where are the positional wars, the tug-of-wars, the mid-game multitask ? Winrates may be decent when all you do as terran is turtle up, camp and don't do shit before having an unbeatable army, but I find that absolutely no fun at all (which is why I've always played bio rather than mech). Playing vs mech every TvT saddens me and frustrates me to no end. Not being able to do shit against a protoss is also depressing. And playing bio against zerg right now... well, let's just say that you feel behind all game, hydra + bane makes a Z pretty much unkillable midgame with bio + tanks, so you have to face Hive tech. And if you don't have the right units (which cost a fortune, requiring you to pretty much not trade units earlier on in the game), you die. So back to camping. Sigh.
Anyway, there are other nice games to play.
have you considered getting better?
have you considered different strategies or builds like the pros use?
have you considered that the game has changed to make the other races more fun to play, not just yours?
your mindset is the exact thing that shows weakness in starcraft players; you won't be missed.
A glorified "Play like Maru" post.
on rare occasions i've been able to catch a Korean Code "S" terran stream on twitch. when they're in the heat of the mid-game the terran guy will move his screen to do some micro of his army then go someplace else 0.7 seconds later and i'll say to myself.. "ummm, exactly what did he just do there?"
half the time i can't even follow the micro watching it on twitch much less execute it myself. my APM is ~125.
EPT
