|
On July 24 2012 01:54 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 01:27 Shiori wrote:On July 24 2012 01:19 Big J wrote:On July 24 2012 01:00 Shiori wrote:On July 24 2012 00:41 Big J wrote:On July 23 2012 23:58 Toadvine wrote:On July 23 2012 23:32 Big J wrote:On July 23 2012 23:05 Shiori wrote:On July 23 2012 22:56 Charon1979 wrote:they aren't required to do any significant micro compared with what Terran and Toss players need to do. They are. Its just not as visible or jaw dropping as terran micro. And in most cases not half as rewarding. To most players zerg micro looks like the AI at work. Yes, I am sure its not as demanding as Terran micro but on the other hand its not as rewarding either. Im all for "make zerg more microable", but I guess we would drown in a sea of ters then when 5 well microed roaches could beat 8 a-move stalkers. The thing is that your units function too well for how little micro goes into controlling them. I have no problem with the various Zerg compositions being as good as they are right now in the hands of a skilled micro player. It annoys me to see that basically any Masters player can make Infestor/BL work wonders whereas only the very best Terrans can work magic in the late game. I don't know what league you play, but I can tell you that those Master Terrans micro pretty hard and pretty well and you are going down whenever you 1a against them. Similar with Master Protoss players and their forcefields. If you 1a, you're done, because they always catch the right amount of units. Also it is a fact, that zerg players miss a ton of injects whenever something is going on. You know why? Because they have to concentrate on dealing with stuff and on getting their combats right. They can't just "1a" and do something else. Maybe in some gold or even platinum league, FFs and marinecontrol are as bad as you try to make people believe, but at Master level you need to control your stuff right, because your Protoss/Terran/Zerg opponent is going to control his stuff right more often than not. Ret is a pretty successful Zerg player, right? Well, he often just rallies his units in without so much as looking at them in ZvP. A lot of Zerg players do, actually, and it's really easy to see because once they engage, they have groups of Roaches hitting the Nexus and other random buildings instead of fighting the Protoss army, or even trying to kill probes. Ret even failed to kill a Nexus at like 200 hp in his game vs Puzzle @ NASL because he didn't look at his units even once. Then against Alicia he a-moved his army into a wall of forcefields and most of it died without killing anything. It happens very, very often with him, and he's supposed to be one of the best foreign Zerg players. I mean, this is the reason why Stephano is so successful while having average mechanics and using the same build every game. He actually does pay attention to his units and is always on top of simple micro techniques like target firing and pulling. To date, he is the only Zerg I ever saw pull back damaged Roaches when defending against a gateway all-in. Most Zerg players simply do not do this, and it's really easy to see in their games. you mean like the oldest zerg trick (vs Terran), to put a few zerglings on the attackpath to kill reinforcements, because they are just rallied in. You mean like anytime you see ranged units getting cleaned up and afterwards every building in the area being damaged. (especially visible after an MMM attack). You mean like zealots chasing after queens, while the juicy drones mine as if there was no attack happening? You mean like DTs that destroy a barracks, when all around them there are techlabs and reactors and scvs just waiting for their death? You mean drops that prefer to kill a refinery, rather than go for workers? Guess what, Ryung lost half his army against Stephano on Cloud Kingdom, because he messed up his unit control and left 3siege tanks too far behind that he brought for an attack. As if those things wouldn't happen all the time in every MU for every player. (I could give you quite a lot of zerg examples as well. But I guess they are just as easy to find as those P/T fails) Yes, people mess up their control, attack stray buildings and donate crucial units (mostly mutalisks, drops and banshees) Shit happens. For every race. Did you just compare multitasking harassment to Ret doing a frontal attack and not microing the only army he has? I haven't read that there was nothing else going on in the situation about Ret and how it was described, neither did I say that anything else was going on in any of my examples. If a Terran is just sitting on his hands doing nothing, he's going to be microing his drops. Same with warp prisms, DTs, etc. Ret was committing with his main army with relatively little else going on in the game aside from the norm (injects etc). The behaviour of his units indicates that he a-clicked into the Protoss army, and the Roaches that weren't so close aggroed onto buildings. I have no idea what's so challenging for Zerg that they can't box a group of units and tell it to join the fray, or in the case of Forcefields PULL BACK but it seems to happen an awful lot. There's absolutely nothing that could be happening that should mean you stop looking at your army for an entire battle. Even if there are two drops going on, the main battle still needs to be attended to. And I have no idea what's so challenging in accepting that "bad players" are not magically attracted by one race. Maybe in Narnia all the bad guys are ugly, but in the real world people are not retarted just because they play one race in one videogame.
Dude, just let it go. It's a waste of time.
At bottom, this thread is little more than a bitching arena for why people think they lost, and why they should have won.
It is amusing reading at times, though. I'll give it that. Other times it has the macabre fascination of a train wreck.
User was warned for this post
|
On July 23 2012 05:10 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 04:54 plogamer wrote:On July 23 2012 04:37 Toadvine wrote:On July 23 2012 04:25 plogamer wrote:On July 23 2012 04:02 Toadvine wrote:On July 23 2012 03:39 sevencck wrote:On July 22 2012 23:00 Toadvine wrote:On July 22 2012 22:07 Sapphire.lux wrote:On July 21 2012 21:51 Coffee Zombie wrote:Reverting the Queen buff probably wouldn't make people all-in more often. If the buff is reverted, Zerg players have to invest something into defense again - some gas (Roaches), lots of larvae (Lings) or attention and time (Crawler reroots), so they end up playing fair instead of broken - the whole point of the Hellion expand was to force us to play fair - and make no mistake, unhindered Zerg economy is broken. It was ok beforehand because you needed to outplay the opponent to access it. That isn't the case anymore when Queens are better in combat than Roaches, cost no gas or Larvae and don't need that much micro. And then you get mass creep to nerf midgame pushes. It's easy and standardizes hilariously outrageous greed. I remember when insane creep spread was impressive. I remember being impressed by very greedy Lair and Hive timings. Not anymore. Because all that shit is safe and boring. What the hell is going on if you need an all-in to punish completely ludicrous greed? Not good games, of that I'm sure.* Buffing the Terran lategame a bit is a good idea, but for goodness' sake don't leave it at that. The game is already horrible to watch because it's so binary - as Jinro put it in a comment about toss, you choose to be a rabid monkey on speed or a sedated sloth. The middleground is evaporating because noncommittal pressure has been nerfed to hell and back. And it makes for some terribly dull games. So, if you want to keep Zerg a bit safer? (Unnecessary IMHO, there never was a problem, but anyway  Revert the Queen buff, perhaps revert some Terran early game nerfs. And then help those Zerg investments in defense work better in some way. The key is just thatb defending slows the Zerg economy back to sanity and that the defense investment allows Z to fend off the Terran harassment on equal terms. *Addendum: More than an SC2 enthusiast, I'm an MtG player. I like combo because hey, broken things feel fun. One thing I've noticed over the years is that straight up broken shit stays fun only for a while - when you're still amazed that omfg how is this even allowed. Then it becomes so very dull. The one deck I've stayed with over the years is a concoction that can occasionally do hilariously broken things, but usually ends up playing fair in an attempt to stay alive and then sneak the brokenness in somewhere as a finishing blow or as a calculated risk. This keeps the temptation and fun of brokenness (in SC2, the unhindered Zerg economy) but delivers actual games. Plus doing ridiculous things feels like an accomplishment. As another way to think about it, imagine if Marines automatically did the MKP thing and beat banelings? They can do that already, but it requires good calls and micro to do it. It's a ridiculous thing as a reward of great play. Standardizing antibling splits would just make that boring and stupid-feeling instead of amazing and the feeling of greatness would just wear off in short order. Great post this! I gues the biggest problem of SC2 is that games are very predictable, relatively speaking, and thus borring. EDIT: and i blame Blizzard for this with their way of patching the game. Wander how the game would have looked if we had half decent maps in BETA, when most of the changes took place. I actually blame Zerg players (well, the ones who complain about it, pros included) for the current state of the game. With pre-nerf Terran, even though they were overpowered, it was all on Blizzard and their bad decisions, and terrible maps. With the current state of the game, I wonder if it's even fair to claim that Terran was particularly overpowered. Yes, there have been some key balance changes, but maps have also changed, metagame has changed, and I think Zerg play in particular has improved alot from what it once was. What was the balance change that altered Terran from being wildly overpowered to now being in a very questionable spot particularly in TvZ? Was it the stim nerf? The blue flame nerf (which was mostly for TvT as I recall)? The snipe nerf? The rax nerf? The bunker nerf? All of them? By that logic, then if you reverted those nerfs Terran would be OP again. Yet, I doubt it would be. I don't think Terran was particularly OP, I think there were simply some really poor maps back in 2010 and early 2011, and Zerg and Protoss only needed a couple strategic buffs in a couple areas. I'll admit there were some legitimately broken builds though (early reaper builds come to mind). I don't wanna weigh in too heavily in this debate, but in my opinion Terran has been overnerfed and Zerg overbuffed, all during a process wherein the Zerg meta was evolving more slowly than the other two races. We are now seeing the effects. I was referring to post-release Terran. Sure, some of the nerfs they've gotten since then could be reverted right now, and not unbalance the game a whole lot. Reapers could actually get speed before factory now with 5 range Queens, BC damage could go back to 10, snipe could be unnerfed, and a bunch of other small stuff. However, if you brought back something like BBS, EMP with 2.0 radius taking away all energy, 50 damage Tanks and 30 second Bunkers, Terran would be pretty powerful. They'd have some insanely strong cheese (it's hard enough for Protoss to defend 11/11 rax as is), 1/1/1 would be unstoppable, and endgame TvP would end with Protoss getting stomped after blanket EMPs over the whole army from three Ghosts. Not entirely sure how these things would affect TvZ, but proxies would kill hatch first openings 100% of the time. On July 23 2012 03:46 Big J wrote:On July 23 2012 03:20 Toadvine wrote:
So, what I'm getting from this is that it would be too difficult for Zerg players to deal with Mutas the way Protosses and Terrans do (without a single Fungal instantly shutting down infinity Mutas). I guess I can understand that. Zerg macro is so difficult, there's no way they'd be able to find the apm to move around their Corruptors and Hydras. Well, so do you think that mutas are defendable (without going mass muta), or don't you? Because your corruptor buff idea suggests, that they can't. Hydras/Queens don't have blink (stalkers), huge range+splash (thors), or the costefficiency + dps of marines. Corruptors don't have the speed, nor the damage to deal with mutas. I mean, phoenix aren't the greatest defense vs mutas, but they can be useful. Corruptors are basically like phoenix, just without micro capabilities, less dps, more armor and no antiground ability. ZvZ without air fungal or something to make up for it at least partially will degenerate into mass muta vs mass muta. I'm not saying that this has to be bad (though I love ling/roach/hydra/infestor with Broodlords and Ultras having roles - the ZvZ we have right now and that, even if you don't like zerg, produces some of the best games like Leenock vs DRG or Coca vs Hyun) I'm all for taking roles away from the infestor and distributing the things it does on different units, to make for a better game and less of a lategame mass infestors style that can deal with everything on it's own, but I absolutly don't think you can "just nerf it". Especially as Infestors are Zergs main antiair right now, it would break nearly every ZvX style, not just "nerf it". (and seeing how Protoss have very good winrates vs Zerg, I don't see why that matchup would need any change, apart from making carrier transitions smoother - while keeping the overall winrates the same) Hey, I'm all for buffing stuff, and open to suggestions. Giving Corruptors splash is the simplest idea I've come up with, and doesn't affect other parts of the game too much. But if you have a better one, fire away. I'm not even proposing this as a solution to balance problems, I think it'll make the game better overall. What I take issue with are these kneejerk "IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO DEAL WITH MUTAS WITHOUT FUNGAL" reactions. I wouldn't even mind a Spire vs Spire midgame in ZvZ, as long as there's incentive and means to transition out of it. Just to nitpick on the bolded parts: Protoss were beginning to figure out 1/1/1 and shutting it down before Blizzard nerfed 1/1/1. Currently, the Terran army gets stomped after getting blanket stormed by 3 HTs. Nobody was figuring out 1/1/1 with 50 dmg to everything Tanks. Blizzard didn't nerf 1/1/1 anyway, they buffed Immortals, which did help somewhat, but it wasn't gamebreaking. 1/1/1 got partially figured out, and new maps did the rest. But I doubt it'd be easy with pre-nerf Tanks. And really, since Storm and EMP now have the same radius, blanket EMPs are about as effective as blanket Storms. You could experiment with having EMP take away all energy again, but giving it both that and the old radius back would lead to TvP looking the same as it did during the fall of 2011. Incidentally Fungal still has a radius of 2.0 for whatever reason. I was talking about the final blizzard nerf to 1/1/1. If you dont think the 1 extra range to immortal made them from a situational unit to a staple unit, then I don't know what to say. Seige tanks in their current incarnation are useless in TvP. EMPs and Storms are just so different in mechanic. Same goes for the Protoss army and Terran army. A) EMP has to be cast first and foremost. Any EMP when HTs already blow their spells, units already take shield-damage is useless. Zealots don't even have 100 shield. Making EMP half as effective against them. Storms have the luxury of being casted on a damage army to finish them off. B) Protoss army units are generally larger. That means that a 1.5 radius storm hits more Terran units than a 1.5 EMP hits Protoss units. /edit I'm not advocating for a full revert. But seriously, Terrans are at a bad bad spot. Terrans are actually doing pretty well in TvP. No idea what you're even talking about. Maybe not on the ladder, sure, but when you have Taeja's micro and can take minimal damage from storms, it's quite balanced.
No idea what I'm talking about? I was just responding to a post talking about blanket EMPs and blanket storms.
|
On July 24 2012 04:11 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 04:08 Tuczniak wrote:
Didn't Stephano said he has chosen Z, because he thought it requires fast reactions as did humans in WC3? It doesn't sound like playing T or P would make a problem because of reasons above mentioned. No idea. I'd say Stephano's style is basically entirely down to decision making and reaction. He has 1 build that's he really refined to a point where he can scout anything and knows which reaction to do. I think Stephano's unit control is pretty good (though no better than any Korean's) but it's not what wins him games. Stephano usually rolls over his opponent or gets totally smashed, because his reactions are basically designed to hard counter what he scouts his opponent doing. It's a very smart way to play the game, and I respect his skill for that. That said, it is a problem when 1 build can be adapted to deal with every single Protoss opener without so much as a stumble away from perfect efficiency. I think this is something that even Stephano has acknowledged/hinted at when he talks about ZvP being Zerg favoured or the matchup being easy. Of course, we shouldn't read into interview comments too much, but it definitely bears thinking about.
Yea, Stephano has 1 build which counters every protoss opener (1)
|
On July 23 2012 03:57 RampancyTW wrote:
Proper economy management is what allows Zerg to be as powerful as it is right now. It took a longgg time of strategy development to get everything just right.
And by strategy development we mean big maps with easy thirds and buffed Queens.
|
On July 24 2012 13:35 dvorakftw wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 03:57 RampancyTW wrote:
Proper economy management is what allows Zerg to be as powerful as it is right now. It took a longgg time of strategy development to get everything just right. And by strategy development we mean big maps with easy thirds and buffed Queens.
Good thing Terrans are retarded enough to play 2base all-ins still.
|
On July 24 2012 13:35 dvorakftw wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 03:57 RampancyTW wrote:
Proper economy management is what allows Zerg to be as powerful as it is right now. It took a longgg time of strategy development to get everything just right. And by strategy development we mean big maps with easy thirds and buffed Queens. It took a long, long time for Zergs to realize that they could get away with a fast third vs. Protoss, even with maps with easily available thirds. The sheer number of economy and defensive timings that Zergs collectively figured out to get to the point they're at now is pretty absurd.
Changes in maps certainly helped, but frankly changes in map sizes have benefited ALL races in terms of allowing the better player to showcase their skills.
|
and yet another round for P and T in Code A. some people will be surprised by the high winrate of P in july and hopefully stop whining about TvZ. cant wait for TLPD stats.
|
|
|
On July 24 2012 19:06 monkybone wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 16:33 RampancyTW wrote:
And by strategy development we mean big maps with easy thirds and buffed Queens.
It took a long, long time for Zergs to realize that they could get away with a fast third vs. Protoss, even with maps with easily available thirds. The sheer number of economy and defensive timings that Zergs collectively figured out to get to the point they're at now is pretty absurd. Changes in maps certainly helped, but frankly changes in map sizes have benefited ALL races in terms of allowing the better player to showcase their skills. I don't really remember, but how long did it take for protoss to figure out they could FFE? It's not like 3 base works vs whatever opening toss does. Some time ago a protoss could even 1 base it vs zerg.
Protoss knew they could FFE from the beginning of Beta, and indeed you'd see it on the likes of Blistering Sands sometimes. It started to be standard once maps stopped featuring extremely open naturals - around the second part of 2011 roughly, when XNC was removed from the GSL map pool.
|
On July 24 2012 19:06 monkybone wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 16:33 RampancyTW wrote:
And by strategy development we mean big maps with easy thirds and buffed Queens.
It took a long, long time for Zergs to realize that they could get away with a fast third vs. Protoss, even with maps with easily available thirds. The sheer number of economy and defensive timings that Zergs collectively figured out to get to the point they're at now is pretty absurd. Changes in maps certainly helped, but frankly changes in map sizes have benefited ALL races in terms of allowing the better player to showcase their skills. I don't really remember, but how long did it take for protoss to figure out they could FFE? It's not like 3 base works vs whatever opening toss does. Some time ago a protoss could even 1 base it vs zerg.
As far as I know, Zerg 3 hatch Roach builds with an earlier warren and drone cut hold 1 base Protoss...
?
|
On July 24 2012 19:24 Toastie.NL wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 19:06 monkybone wrote:On July 24 2012 16:33 RampancyTW wrote:
And by strategy development we mean big maps with easy thirds and buffed Queens.
It took a long, long time for Zergs to realize that they could get away with a fast third vs. Protoss, even with maps with easily available thirds. The sheer number of economy and defensive timings that Zergs collectively figured out to get to the point they're at now is pretty absurd. Changes in maps certainly helped, but frankly changes in map sizes have benefited ALL races in terms of allowing the better player to showcase their skills. I don't really remember, but how long did it take for protoss to figure out they could FFE? It's not like 3 base works vs whatever opening toss does. Some time ago a protoss could even 1 base it vs zerg. As far as I know, Zerg 3 hatch Roach builds with an earlier warren and drone cut hold 1 base Protoss... ?
You can hold 4gate with speedlings if you stay ~15drones (though I don't know why you would want to hold 4gate with 3hatch and 15drones, when you can do it with ~25 and two base as well)
Not sure if you can do it with roaches, as a stalkerheavy 4gate can micro against that all day and your eco will suck so hard if you have to build the roach warren as well and continue mining gas.
But you can definatly not hold if you don't know exactly what's coming, though I think if you know you can, if you stay low enough on eco. Especially proxy Voidray rushes are a bitch, because to get the 3bases of a pool opening, you have to delay your second queen.
|
On July 24 2012 13:44 Pinna wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 13:35 dvorakftw wrote:On July 23 2012 03:57 RampancyTW wrote:
Proper economy management is what allows Zerg to be as powerful as it is right now. It took a longgg time of strategy development to get everything just right. And by strategy development we mean big maps with easy thirds and buffed Queens. Good thing Terrans are retarded enough to play 2base all-ins still.
...
He was rude and borderline complaining, but at least he raised a valid point. You're just being rude and insulting Terran players for playing midgame when the race itself was built upon the idea of having a weaker lategame.
|
On July 24 2012 19:34 RancidTurnip wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 13:44 Pinna wrote:On July 24 2012 13:35 dvorakftw wrote:On July 23 2012 03:57 RampancyTW wrote:
Proper economy management is what allows Zerg to be as powerful as it is right now. It took a longgg time of strategy development to get everything just right. And by strategy development we mean big maps with easy thirds and buffed Queens. Good thing Terrans are retarded enough to play 2base all-ins still. ... He was rude and borderline complaining, but at least he raised a valid point. You're just being rude and insulting Terran players for playing midgame when the race itself was built upon the idea of having a weaker lategame.
no it was not; it just happens that the balancing and metagame kind of make Terran vulnerable to tech switches and explosive production.
If the metagame/balancing would be more about keeping units alive instead of trading and playing of a lesser economy with fewer bases, Terran lategame with very costefficient mech units would be the complete opposite to what it is now, as you wouldn't be able to do attacks with multiple follow up attacks and huge reinforcement rounds and therefore the race that wins the initial battle (which is nearly always mech) would be better off than it is now.
|
On July 24 2012 19:40 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 19:34 RancidTurnip wrote:On July 24 2012 13:44 Pinna wrote:On July 24 2012 13:35 dvorakftw wrote:On July 23 2012 03:57 RampancyTW wrote:
Proper economy management is what allows Zerg to be as powerful as it is right now. It took a longgg time of strategy development to get everything just right. And by strategy development we mean big maps with easy thirds and buffed Queens. Good thing Terrans are retarded enough to play 2base all-ins still. ... He was rude and borderline complaining, but at least he raised a valid point. You're just being rude and insulting Terran players for playing midgame when the race itself was built upon the idea of having a weaker lategame. no it was not; it just happens that the balancing and metagame kind of make Terran vulnerable to tech switches and explosive production. If the metagame/balancing would be more about keeping units alive instead of trading and playing of a lesser economy with fewer bases, Terran lategame with very costefficient mech units would be the complete opposite to what it is now, as you wouldn't be able to do attacks with multiple follow up attacks and huge reinforcement rounds and therefore the race that wins the initial battle (which is nearly always mech) would be better off than it is now.
You as a Zerg player clearly know how Terran should play... Switch races and be the next GSL champ !?
Also, I doubt if you know what 'metagame' means, you use the word very freely...
|
On July 24 2012 19:43 Toastie.NL wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 19:40 Big J wrote:On July 24 2012 19:34 RancidTurnip wrote:On July 24 2012 13:44 Pinna wrote:On July 24 2012 13:35 dvorakftw wrote:On July 23 2012 03:57 RampancyTW wrote:
Proper economy management is what allows Zerg to be as powerful as it is right now. It took a longgg time of strategy development to get everything just right. And by strategy development we mean big maps with easy thirds and buffed Queens. Good thing Terrans are retarded enough to play 2base all-ins still. ... He was rude and borderline complaining, but at least he raised a valid point. You're just being rude and insulting Terran players for playing midgame when the race itself was built upon the idea of having a weaker lategame. no it was not; it just happens that the balancing and metagame kind of make Terran vulnerable to tech switches and explosive production. If the metagame/balancing would be more about keeping units alive instead of trading and playing of a lesser economy with fewer bases, Terran lategame with very costefficient mech units would be the complete opposite to what it is now, as you wouldn't be able to do attacks with multiple follow up attacks and huge reinforcement rounds and therefore the race that wins the initial battle (which is nearly always mech) would be better off than it is now. You as a Zerg player clearly know how Terran should play... Switch races and be the next GSL champ !? Also, I doubt if you know what 'metagame' means, you use the word very freely...
I said in a different balancing (which then leads to a different metagame)! Like in (a properly balanced) FRB-mod. Or in a game called Broodwar, where Terran is quite strong in the lategame, even though it has the same design. (squishy bio, solid mech, variety of air support - little production, lots of tech choices early on)
I'm not saying that Terran should be played like that. Terrans have had very good winrates (apart from TvZ right now), so why would you play differently? I'm saying that Terran is not weak by design, but by how the metagame evolved (due to balancing), it seems like Terran is played best if you try to hit hard earlier. But that's not a question of design and intention, but by how the game was figured out.
|
It's clear sc2 has become zerg, protoss, and koreans. Besides the nordic hero Thorzain, the lack of good foreign koreans shows what it takes to be a championship material korean. You all will quote random korean names and say they are good but results matter, and not online results which could easily be tainted with hacking. Notice how there are quite a few guys who win these petty online tournies but are double out guys in offline? Nerves... that must be it.
Another lame excuse for the lack of foreign koreans tournament results is they don't have time to travel. Well then they shouldn't be that good anyways at the pro level if they cannot travel to a tournament. At the pro level, part time pro-gamers should get their heads smashed in by people devoted a career to this.
That's what is bad and good about this game. Part-timers like Stephano and other foreigners can make deep runs in tournaments which can be good to keep the scene fresh and give non-pros a chance to take out a name or two in a tournament.
The bad is what happened to koreans. They are the race that needs the 8 hours a day to make results at the top level. Some of you will troll yourself and say foreigners train just as much but are you serious? All foreigners besides CJ Idra left Korea due to training requirements just to play BW. What makes you think that's changed?
I bet a week in a foreign team house is a few games of sc2 in the morning, hang out and eat with your friends. A little more sc2 in the afternoon before going out for girls/(hookers maybe if they are in Korea) then calling it a night. A few days before a tourney train for 8 hours a day. That sounds more fun and I'd play zerg or toss over having to grind 8 hours a day to stay competitive with korean.
|
On July 24 2012 20:50 Instigata wrote:
It's clear sc2 has become zerg, protoss, and koreans. Besides the nordic hero Thorzain, the lack of good foreign koreans shows what it takes to be a championship material korean. You all will quote random korean names and say they are good but results matter, and not online results which could easily be tainted with hacking. Notice how there are quite a few guys who win these petty online tournies but are double out guys in offline? Nerves... that must be it.
Another lame excuse for the lack of foreign koreans tournament results is they don't have time to travel. Well then they shouldn't be that good anyways at the pro level if they cannot travel to a tournament. At the pro level, part time pro-gamers should get their heads smashed in by people devoted a career to this.
That's what is bad and good about this game. Part-timers like Stephano and other foreigners can make deep runs in tournaments which can be good to keep the scene fresh and give non-pros a chance to take out a name or two in a tournament.
The bad is what happened to koreans. They are the race that needs the 8 hours a day to make results at the top level. Some of you will troll yourself and say foreigners train just as much but are you serious? All foreigners besides CJ Idra left Korea due to training requirements just to play BW. What makes you think that's changed?
I bet a week in a foreign team house is a few games of sc2 in the morning, hang out and eat with your friends. A little more sc2 in the afternoon before going out for girls/(hookers maybe if they are in Korea) then calling it a night. A few days before a tourney train for 8 hours a day. That sounds more fun and I'd play zerg or toss over having to grind 8 hours a day to stay competitive with korean.
This is pretty spot on. Unfortunately, your probably about to be bombarded by the "Well Korean is still balanced at the top level". At some point, players returning to the game (good and bad) are just going to switch from Korean to protoss or zerg. Hell, it's already happened if you look at sc2ranks. I've been working on my offraces seriously for the first time in prep for HOTS because it just isn't practical for me to play Korean anymore.
|
Problem: Late game Zerg with infestor / brood lord with quick tech-switches to infestor - ultra makes it extraordinarily difficult for Terran to properly combat Zerg armies. Ghosts are rarely used anymore due to the EMP radius nerfs, making it hard to EMP more than 2-3 infestors at a time, as well as the snipe nerfs.
Solution: Make snipe do +20 damage (or +25 damage) vs. Massive.
This stops the abuse of using snipe vs every Zerg unit, while maintaining it's usefulness. I also propose that snipe keep its +25 damage vs. Psionic to keep it useful vs both HT and Infestors. (edit: and I guess other ghosts? Lol.)
Side Effects:
Pros:
- Increases skill cap of both Terran and Zerg
- Balances out late-game TvZ
- Promotes necessity of micro
- Gives Terran a good multipurpose spellcaster instead of highly delegated roles of straight counters
Cons:
- Balances out late-game ZvT
- May temporarily put balance of ZvT in Terran favor until slightly different end game compositions are standard. (eg. use of roaches, adrenal-gland lings, etc.)
|
On July 25 2012 00:43 Lagcraft wrote:
Problem: Late game Zerg with infestor / brood lord with quick tech-switches to infestor - ultra makes it extraordinarily difficult for Terran to properly combat Zerg armies. Ghosts are rarely used anymore due to the EMP radius nerfs, making it hard to EMP more than 2-3 infestors at a time, as well as the snipe nerfs.
Solution: Make snipe do +20 damage (or +25 damage) vs. Massive.
This stops the abuse of using snipe vs every Zerg unit, while maintaining it's usefulness. I also propose that snipe keep its +25 damage vs. Psionic to keep it useful vs both HT and Infestors. (edit: and I guess other ghosts? Lol.)
Side Effects:
Pros:
- Increases skill cap of both Terran and Zerg
- Balances out late-game TvZ
- Promotes necessity of micro
- Gives Terran a good multipurpose spellcaster instead of highly delegated roles of straight counters
Cons:
- Balances out late-game ZvT
- May temporarily put balance of ZvT in Terran favor until slightly different end game compositions are standard. (eg. use of roaches, adrenal-gland lings, etc.)
snipe was nerfed specifically because ghosts were too good vs broodlords and ultralisks ^.< sadly it cannot kill a baneling in its current state -.-
|
On July 25 2012 00:50 Naphal wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 00:43 Lagcraft wrote:
Problem: Late game Zerg with infestor / brood lord with quick tech-switches to infestor - ultra makes it extraordinarily difficult for Terran to properly combat Zerg armies. Ghosts are rarely used anymore due to the EMP radius nerfs, making it hard to EMP more than 2-3 infestors at a time, as well as the snipe nerfs.
Solution: Make snipe do +20 damage (or +25 damage) vs. Massive.
This stops the abuse of using snipe vs every Zerg unit, while maintaining it's usefulness. I also propose that snipe keep its +25 damage vs. Psionic to keep it useful vs both HT and Infestors. (edit: and I guess other ghosts? Lol.)
Side Effects:
Pros:
- Increases skill cap of both Terran and Zerg
- Balances out late-game TvZ
- Promotes necessity of micro
- Gives Terran a good multipurpose spellcaster instead of highly delegated roles of straight counters
Cons:
- Balances out late-game ZvT
- May temporarily put balance of ZvT in Terran favor until slightly different end game compositions are standard. (eg. use of roaches, adrenal-gland lings, etc.)
snipe was nerfed specifically because ghosts were too good vs broodlords and ultralisks ^.< sadly it cannot kill a baneling in its current state -.-
Guess what the problem is right now in TvZ? Broodlords supported by infestors, into tech switches with 3/5 Ultralisks are too good vs any kind of army Terran can throw at it. You need to have marauders (useless vs. Broods) to counter Ultralisks and you need mass vikings (useless vs. Ultralisks) to counter brood / infestor / corrupter.
I guess another option would to be reverse this buff and instead make it do +20 vs. all units except massive but I'm not sure how much that would help.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
