|
On April 21 2018 07:58 Fran_ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2018 06:41 aish wrote: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.
"play like X terran playing" is by far the worst balance whine in this community seems to think is ok to say.
but the fact is, there are just as many terran players playing in these diamond leagues as there is protoss players.
and my post wasn't even implying you play like maru, because if you did you would be GM. so what were you trying to say?
|
Diamond players like me must accept that a diverse race 3-race RTS can't be perfectly balanced at several different levels of play. 1 race is at a disadvantage in the Diamond league and players just have to accept it.
i think that race is terran. but, it really doesn't matter which race it is. perfect balance won't happen in this league and i am happy to give up some degree of balance in exchange for the fun of 3 diverse races.
|
I'd love to see the information they have on everything but GM, GSL, and WCS, and how much it lines up with whatever information from that they're basing their balance changes on.
And maybe it's just me, but more and more it feels like they're aiming for a game that is balanced according to winrates, not balanced according to, well, everything else. Another time when I really wonder what their internal discussions are actually like, what they're focused on, what they have written down in their notepads, how much of their decision-making is based on tournament statistics.
|
On April 21 2018 08:58 blunderfulguy wrote:
I'd love to see the information they have on everything but GM, GSL, and WCS, and how much it lines up with whatever information from that they're basing their balance changes on.
And maybe it's just me, but more and more it feels like they're aiming for a game that is balanced according to winrates, not balanced according to, well, everything else. Another time when I really wonder what their internal discussions are actually like, what they're focused on, what they have written down in their notepads, how much of their decision-making is based on tournament statistics.
David Kim released some of their internal metrics and went into the balance process during a Blizzcon (2014?) and the community basically rioted.
I really can't blame Blizzard for not opening that can of worms again.
|
Interesting observations from Blizz. I do think caution is warranted. Fixing PvT late midgame and TvZ lategame is no easy matter. One false move and the matchup just swings entirely the other way.
|
I would like to make note of a small sample size of games between Classic and Maru that have taken place over the course of the last several months, and here is why: They are both beasts in the MU historically, if not the best for their respective races in the MU atm.
TvP obviously has some serious issues at this moment, and has for some time now. I'm fairly certain even the highest level Protoss players can admit this. The last several offline series I have seen between Classic and Maru for example basically tend to go like this: Classic takes a quick 3rd base, (which he can comfortably manage to do - even if he's opted for early pressure via gateway units, oracles or whatnot), + double forge, all the while tech-ing up at an insane rate and just comfortably throwing down a few shield batteries if he feels at all threatened. Maru attempts some variation of a 2 base play (because really, what other option does he have?!) and as far as I can remember, Maru has only managed to take a map or two off of Classic in like the last 2-3 series I've seen them play.
After Maru loses to Classic's greedy 3-base-hold, the camera pans to Maru's face, and guess what Maru is doing? He's literally laughing. Now, I've been an avid follower of Maru's career since the WoL days, and typically Maru only laughs after a match for a number of reasons:
1: He has made a terrible blunder in the game resulting in a bad loss/lucky victory.
2: He has gone full-on boss-mode and easy rolled his opponent ftw (typically after humiliating them).
3: He has flat out lost because the MU is currently lopsided or even broken.
So, I hate to say this as it comes across as a blatant balance whine, but I guess at this point it actually is a balance complaint, seeing as Maru virtually has not chance vs Classic in a straight up Macro game.
Now, I think this is important to consider seeing as Classic has the best PvT in the world right now, and Maru has historically had some of the best TvP in the world if you go back even into HotS. Again, I think this is important, basically because if you have arguably the top two players in a specific mu going at it head-to-head (in this case Classic's PvT and Maru's TvP), then shouldn't the map or series score be close?! I would say yes, it should be close!!
Since it has already been discussed to death, I will keep it brief. Terran HAS to get early economic damage done vs Toss to even have a chance going into mid-late game. Herein lies the problem. Even if the Terran can get some amount of econ damage done vs the Toss, the Toss is usually much further along with their upgrades, another expansion etc etc, plus the fact the chrono changes allow them to basically just catch back up in econ if they do take an early hit. Not needing quick obs early game (due the widow mine changes and the ease at which Toss can get Oracles), plus the option to throw SB's in mineral lines make it next to impossible for the Terran to put a dent in the Toss' march to a greedy 3 base, highly upgraded/tech'd-out-army.
If Toss wants to take a greedy third with minimal units, all the while going double forge and tech-ing up, Terran SHOULD be able to punish Toss for this greed. And since they currently can't, something NEEDS to be done.
|
On April 21 2018 05:30 pvsnp wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2018 05:28 DomeGetta wrote:On April 21 2018 02:08 Athenau wrote:On April 21 2018 01:02 Tyrhanius wrote:On April 20 2018 20:39 Athenau wrote:On April 20 2018 16:09 Tyrhanius wrote:On April 20 2018 07:15 Athenau wrote:On April 20 2018 05:18 Tyrhanius wrote: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. Here are the TvZ winrates you conveniently omitted: Aligulac for the last two complete periods: http://aligulac.com/periods/211/?sort=&race=ptzrs&nats=all 46.29%http://aligulac.com/periods/212/?sort=&race=ptzrs&nats=all 46.78%Last GSL including qualifiers: http://aligulac.com/results/events/77372-GSL-2018/ 47.39%This GSL including qualifiers: http://aligulac.com/results/events/80696-GSL-2018-Season-2/ 47.52%GSL Super Tournament: http://aligulac.com/results/events/80577-GSL-2018-Super-Tournament-/#1/ 48.68%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.
As i've quoted broodlord infestor area as example of lategame not balanced...
It's funny coming from the guy who creates a topic each week about which buffs we should give to terran. I remember aslo you admit when reapers OP was a thing right ? no, of course...
But yeah as i said above : 3 terrans players starts insulting me without even trying to argue, because of course they can't.
|
On April 21 2018 15:52 Tyrhanius wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2018 05:30 pvsnp wrote:On April 21 2018 05:28 DomeGetta wrote:On April 21 2018 02:08 Athenau wrote:On April 21 2018 01:02 Tyrhanius wrote:On April 20 2018 20:39 Athenau wrote:On April 20 2018 16:09 Tyrhanius wrote:On April 20 2018 07:15 Athenau wrote:On April 20 2018 05:18 Tyrhanius wrote: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. Here are the TvZ winrates you conveniently omitted: Aligulac for the last two complete periods: http://aligulac.com/periods/211/?sort=&race=ptzrs&nats=all 46.29%http://aligulac.com/periods/212/?sort=&race=ptzrs&nats=all 46.78%Last GSL including qualifiers: http://aligulac.com/results/events/77372-GSL-2018/ 47.39%This GSL including qualifiers: http://aligulac.com/results/events/80696-GSL-2018-Season-2/ 47.52%GSL Super Tournament: http://aligulac.com/results/events/80577-GSL-2018-Super-Tournament-/#1/ 48.68%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. As i've quoted broodlord infestor area as example of lategame not balanced... It's funny coming from the guy who creates a topic each week about which buffs we should give to terran. I remember aslo you admit when reapers OP was a thing right ? no, of course... But yeah as i said above : 3 terrans players starts insulting me without even trying to argue, because of course they can't.
Oh here we go, why don't you guys PM eachother instead of taking dick shots at eachother in passive aggressive posts?
On topic, I find ravens are rather strong, I feel like nerfing the missle range or making it so that it fizzles out like the old seeker would be better. Damage is fine, I think, just giving more access to counter play besides splitting would allow for some more fun engagements. .
|
Given the current meta and balance I agree with Blizzard stance of wait and see.
But if they do touch late game units they need to adress Carriers, Vipers and Ravens at the same time.
It makes no sense to nerf the only unit that gives Terran a chance in the late game. Even with the current Raven TvP late game is Protoss favored.
|
Imo the real ZvT problem is the ghost interaction. Snipes hardcounter Broodlords, Vipers, Ultras, Corruptors, Infestors and even Overseers. EMP quickly disable groups of Vipers or Infestors.
Snipes 1 shot Infestors, while it takes 4 chained fungals to kill a ghost.
Ghosts can cast their abilities while cloaked, while burrowed fungal has been nerfed because people said "it was too good".
The only real counter to ghosts is getting your army in their faces, so basicaly once Terran got enough to protect their ghosts it feels like nothing can be done.
|
On April 21 2018 22:56 xTJx wrote:
Imo the real ZvT problem is the ghost interaction. Snipes hardcounter Broodlords, Vipers, Ultras, Corruptors, Infestors and even Overseers. EMP quickly disable groups of Vipers or Infestors.
Snipes 1 shot Infestors, while it takes 4 chained fungals to kill a ghost.
Ghosts can cast their abilities while cloaked, while burrowed fungal has been nerfed because people said "it was too good".
The only real counter to ghosts is getting your army in their faces, so basicaly once Terran got enough to protect their ghosts it feels like nothing can be done.
Everyone seems to vocally complain about Ravens more, but I 100% agree with ghosts being the real problem.
|
On April 21 2018 22:56 xTJx wrote:
Imo the real ZvT problem is the ghost interaction. Snipes hardcounter Broodlords, Vipers, Ultras, Corruptors, Infestors and even Overseers. EMP quickly disable groups of Vipers or Infestors.
Snipes 1 shot Infestors, while it takes 4 chained fungals to kill a ghost.
Ghosts can cast their abilities while cloaked, while burrowed fungal has been nerfed because people said "it was too good".
The only real counter to ghosts is getting your army in their faces, so basicaly once Terran got enough to protect their ghosts it feels like nothing can be done.
Your infestors are not supposed to kill the ghosts. They should enable your army to kill the ghosts as you correctly identified. Similarly, the Zerg army is also used to protect your infestors/vipers against ghosts. If burrow costs energy and would be visible (like mines), I'd be okay with burrowed infestor casting.
|
On April 21 2018 22:56 xTJx wrote:
Imo the real ZvT problem is the ghost interaction. Snipes hardcounter Broodlords, Vipers, Ultras, Corruptors, Infestors and even Overseers. EMP quickly disable groups of Vipers or Infestors.
I don't think you know what "hardcounter" means.
Vipers and Infestors vs Ghosts is a micro game as they counter each other and vs Broodlings it's extremely hard to get off Snipes.
On April 21 2018 23:59 mierin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2018 22:56 xTJx wrote:
Imo the real ZvT problem is the ghost interaction. Snipes hardcounter Broodlords, Vipers, Ultras, Corruptors, Infestors and even Overseers. EMP quickly disable groups of Vipers or Infestors.
Snipes 1 shot Infestors, while it takes 4 chained fungals to kill a ghost.
Ghosts can cast their abilities while cloaked, while burrowed fungal has been nerfed because people said "it was too good".
The only real counter to ghosts is getting your army in their faces, so basicaly once Terran got enough to protect their ghosts it feels like nothing can be done. Everyone seems to vocally complain about Ravens more, but I 100% agree with ghosts being the real problem.
Before the Raven buff TvZ lategame was Zerg favored so that's definitely not true.
|
On April 22 2018 00:28 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2018 22:56 xTJx wrote:
Imo the real ZvT problem is the ghost interaction. Snipes hardcounter Broodlords, Vipers, Ultras, Corruptors, Infestors and even Overseers. EMP quickly disable groups of Vipers or Infestors.
I don't think you know what "hardcounter" means. Vipers and Infestors vs Ghosts is a micro game as they counter each other and vs Broodlings it's extremely hard to get off Snipes. Show nested quote +On April 21 2018 23:59 mierin wrote:On April 21 2018 22:56 xTJx wrote:
Imo the real ZvT problem is the ghost interaction. Snipes hardcounter Broodlords, Vipers, Ultras, Corruptors, Infestors and even Overseers. EMP quickly disable groups of Vipers or Infestors.
Snipes 1 shot Infestors, while it takes 4 chained fungals to kill a ghost.
Ghosts can cast their abilities while cloaked, while burrowed fungal has been nerfed because people said "it was too good".
The only real counter to ghosts is getting your army in their faces, so basicaly once Terran got enough to protect their ghosts it feels like nothing can be done. Everyone seems to vocally complain about Ravens more, but I 100% agree with ghosts being the real problem. Before the Raven buff TvZ lategame was Zerg favored so that's definitely not true.
Dont forget the spore / spine wall that can move with creep. The late game balance isnt a problem now with ghosts and ravens being able to compete with hive tech..the problem is that both comps promote turtling ..so you will get stupid long games. I honestly think the problem started with the baneling and hydra buffs..previously it made sense that hive tech was stronger than tier 3 terran units because terran had an adv in the midgame so zerg couldnt just comfortably go up to 80 drones and hive tech.. hydra ling bane makes that possible now so we are going to see more and more stalemate type games..neither player has incentive to take aggressive risks. 2 1 1 is really the only aggro style and we have seen it used with success vs top level zergs by only 1 player. Even with that we saw foreign zergs like reynor go into a late game with a decisive lead after countering properly. I think a raven nerf would be ok if they revert banes and hydras to force the zerg player to play less greedy or be punished and we are way closer to the best era of tvz imo pre bl infestor wol. Obviously would have to consider the zvp implications and compensate properly. Tvp honestly i think the SB aggro stuff is cancer make it need a nearby nexus to build. Chrono also needs a look if we ever want to see terran macro style again. The stuff in demuslims post is spot on..bias or not if you actually read it its difficult to make a good counter arguement.
|
On April 21 2018 15:52 Tyrhanius wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2018 05:30 pvsnp wrote:On April 21 2018 05:28 DomeGetta wrote:On April 21 2018 02:08 Athenau wrote:On April 21 2018 01:02 Tyrhanius wrote:On April 20 2018 20:39 Athenau wrote:On April 20 2018 16:09 Tyrhanius wrote:On April 20 2018 07:15 Athenau wrote:On April 20 2018 05:18 Tyrhanius wrote: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. Here are the TvZ winrates you conveniently omitted: Aligulac for the last two complete periods: http://aligulac.com/periods/211/?sort=&race=ptzrs&nats=all 46.29%http://aligulac.com/periods/212/?sort=&race=ptzrs&nats=all 46.78%Last GSL including qualifiers: http://aligulac.com/results/events/77372-GSL-2018/ 47.39%This GSL including qualifiers: http://aligulac.com/results/events/80696-GSL-2018-Season-2/ 47.52%GSL Super Tournament: http://aligulac.com/results/events/80577-GSL-2018-Super-Tournament-/#1/ 48.68%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. As i've quoted broodlord infestor area as example of lategame not balanced... It's funny coming from the guy who creates a topic each week about which buffs we should give to terran. I remember aslo you admit when reapers OP was a thing right ? no, of course... But yeah as i said above : 3 terrans players starts insulting me without even trying to argue, because of course they can't.
If you can't defend your own character, just assassinate the other guy's right? Nice.
And of course anyone who disagrees with you is a "Terran whiner" because it is obviously completely impossible for any reasonable person to look at a TvZ winrate of 46% and conclude that Terran and Zerg are balanced against each other.
Those Terran whiners, man, how dare they refuse to admit Terran is OP when Blizzard outright says "Win rates, overall, slightly favor Zerg in this matchup." Nah, Blizzard is clearly just Terran-biased amirite?
|
Queen and spore have nullified Banshee almost completely. Yet, the spore was buffed
to deal with Protoss.... oracle, was it??
|
On April 21 2018 09:13 pvsnp wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2018 08:58 blunderfulguy wrote:
I'd love to see the information they have on everything but GM, GSL, and WCS, and how much it lines up with whatever information from that they're basing their balance changes on.
And maybe it's just me, but more and more it feels like they're aiming for a game that is balanced according to winrates, not balanced according to, well, everything else. Another time when I really wonder what their internal discussions are actually like, what they're focused on, what they have written down in their notepads, how much of their decision-making is based on tournament statistics. David Kim released some of their internal metrics and went into the balance process during a Blizzcon (2014?) and the community basically rioted. I really can't blame Blizzard for not opening that can of worms again.
this is good point.
its also interesting to note that the new lead game designer/balancer introduced himself at Blizzcon as the guy who represents the balance team. he didn't acknowledge whether or not he is the team leader. The crap said by some "sc2 fans" about Browder and Kim was brutal. i can't blame the Blizzard employee for presenting his position on the SC2 design/balance team in such an oblique manner. notice i'm not naming him in this post either. LOL. 
|
On April 22 2018 02:53 pvsnp wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2018 15:52 Tyrhanius wrote:On April 21 2018 05:30 pvsnp wrote:On April 21 2018 05:28 DomeGetta wrote:On April 21 2018 02:08 Athenau wrote:On April 21 2018 01:02 Tyrhanius wrote:On April 20 2018 20:39 Athenau wrote:On April 20 2018 16:09 Tyrhanius wrote:On April 20 2018 07:15 Athenau wrote:On April 20 2018 05:18 Tyrhanius wrote:
[quote]
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. Here are the TvZ winrates you conveniently omitted: Aligulac for the last two complete periods: http://aligulac.com/periods/211/?sort=&race=ptzrs&nats=all 46.29%http://aligulac.com/periods/212/?sort=&race=ptzrs&nats=all 46.78%Last GSL including qualifiers: http://aligulac.com/results/events/77372-GSL-2018/ 47.39%This GSL including qualifiers: http://aligulac.com/results/events/80696-GSL-2018-Season-2/ 47.52%GSL Super Tournament: http://aligulac.com/results/events/80577-GSL-2018-Super-Tournament-/#1/ 48.68%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. As i've quoted broodlord infestor area as example of lategame not balanced... It's funny coming from the guy who creates a topic each week about which buffs we should give to terran. I remember aslo you admit when reapers OP was a thing right ? no, of course... But yeah as i said above : 3 terrans players starts insulting me without even trying to argue, because of course they can't. If you can't defend your own character, just assassinate the other guy's right? Nice. And of course anyone who disagrees with you is a "Terran whiner" because it is obviously completely impossible for any reasonable person to look at a TvZ winrate of 46% and conclude that Terran and Zerg are balanced against each other. Those Terran whiners, man, how dare they refuse to admit Terran is OP when Blizzard outright says "Win rates, overall, slightly favor Zerg in this matchup." Nah, Blizzard is clearly just Terran-biased amirite?
So aligulac stats matter now, but only the reports when TvZ is below 50%?
Terrans : "we should buff vikings, BC, revert marauder and WM nerf, and liberator one, give hellbat + shield, buff neosteel upgrade, also nerf queens range revert baneling and hydras buffs, remove queing inject, while nerfing parasite bomb, and remove recall, nerf chronoboost, revert the add of ht auto-attack, nerf chargelots"
Zerg : "raven is too strong based on Dark vs Maru games and top progamers games"
Terrans : "stop trolling, and whining we give legit feedbacks about the game and we're really objective, you're just a very young mad rager, stop talking"
|
On April 22 2018 03:51 Tyrhanius wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2018 02:53 pvsnp wrote:On April 21 2018 15:52 Tyrhanius wrote:On April 21 2018 05:30 pvsnp wrote:On April 21 2018 05:28 DomeGetta wrote:On April 21 2018 02:08 Athenau wrote:On April 21 2018 01:02 Tyrhanius wrote:On April 20 2018 20:39 Athenau wrote:On April 20 2018 16:09 Tyrhanius wrote: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. As i've quoted broodlord infestor area as example of lategame not balanced... It's funny coming from the guy who creates a topic each week about which buffs we should give to terran. I remember aslo you admit when reapers OP was a thing right ? no, of course... But yeah as i said above : 3 terrans players starts insulting me without even trying to argue, because of course they can't. If you can't defend your own character, just assassinate the other guy's right? Nice. And of course anyone who disagrees with you is a "Terran whiner" because it is obviously completely impossible for any reasonable person to look at a TvZ winrate of 46% and conclude that Terran and Zerg are balanced against each other. Those Terran whiners, man, how dare they refuse to admit Terran is OP when Blizzard outright says "Win rates, overall, slightly favor Zerg in this matchup." Nah, Blizzard is clearly just Terran-biased amirite? So aligulac stats matter now, but only the reports when TvZ is below 50%? Terrans : "we should buff vikings, BC, revert marauder and WM nerf, and liberator one, give hellbat + shield, buff neosteel upgrade, also nerf queens range revert baneling and hydras buffs, remove queing inject, while nerfing parasite bomb, and remove recall, nerf chronoboost, revert the add of ht auto-attack, nerf chargelots" Zerg : "raven is too strong based on Dark vs Maru games and top progamers games" Terrans : "stop trolling, and whining we give legit feedbacks about the game and we're really objective, you're just a very yound mad rager, stop talking"
Dude stop, just stop.
|
On April 22 2018 03:51 Tyrhanius wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2018 02:53 pvsnp wrote:On April 21 2018 15:52 Tyrhanius wrote:On April 21 2018 05:30 pvsnp wrote:On April 21 2018 05:28 DomeGetta wrote:On April 21 2018 02:08 Athenau wrote:On April 21 2018 01:02 Tyrhanius wrote:On April 20 2018 20:39 Athenau wrote:On April 20 2018 16:09 Tyrhanius wrote: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. As i've quoted broodlord infestor area as example of lategame not balanced... It's funny coming from the guy who creates a topic each week about which buffs we should give to terran. I remember aslo you admit when reapers OP was a thing right ? no, of course... But yeah as i said above : 3 terrans players starts insulting me without even trying to argue, because of course they can't. If you can't defend your own character, just assassinate the other guy's right? Nice. And of course anyone who disagrees with you is a "Terran whiner" because it is obviously completely impossible for any reasonable person to look at a TvZ winrate of 46% and conclude that Terran and Zerg are balanced against each other. Those Terran whiners, man, how dare they refuse to admit Terran is OP when Blizzard outright says "Win rates, overall, slightly favor Zerg in this matchup." Nah, Blizzard is clearly just Terran-biased amirite? So aligulac stats matter now, but only the reports when TvZ is below 50%? Terrans : "we should buff vikings, BC, revert marauder and WM nerf, and liberator one, give hellbat + shield, buff neosteel upgrade, also nerf queens range revert baneling and hydras buffs, remove queing inject, while nerfing parasite bomb, and remove recall, nerf chronoboost, revert the add of ht auto-attack, nerf chargelots" Zerg : "raven is too strong based on Dark vs Maru games and top progamers games" Terrans : "stop trolling, and whining we give legit feedbacks about the game and we're really objective, you're just a very young mad rager, stop talking"
.............you were the one who started this entire discussion by quoting Aligulac stats. Now you're attacking Aligulac?
I was countering your claims before, but seeing as you've decided to do that yourself now, I clearly don't need to be here. Good luck, have fun.
(The ridiculous strawman you constructed doesn't even deserve a comment, and it undermines your argument far more than anything I could ever say)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
