|
Please try to keep the discussion civil. And while I can't ask everyone to write a huge essay like tree.hugger, try to write out your opinions in a substantive, well-thought way. |
On September 09 2011 04:49 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 04:45 Pandain wrote:
For something to be imbalanced, show me a game where the cheeser won and the losing player couldn't have. Simple. That isn't how you decide whether something is imbalanced or not. If you have to play absolutely perfectly to beat a cheese that any platinum player could pull off it is imbalanced. Something is imbalanced if the player who played best loses, which is what I saw time and time again with MC vs Puma.
Don't overexaggerate. There's a large difference between a subpar playing cheesing and a pro cheesing, just like how low level 4 gates are way less strong than high level 4 gates. Despite what you may think, they have to play perfectly with the only army that they will have.
And if you are going to be playing against Puma than fuck yes you are going to have to play absolutely perfectly.
Also by your reasoning here are things which are imbalanced:
Banelings(wtf is a split, targeting baneligns with tanks.) High templars( wtf I have to move away IMMEDIATELY when he storms me?) Drops(how can I react and know what he's doing in time. Damn those maruders.) 4 gate. Bunker rushes.
On September 09 2011 04:50 Olinim wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 04:45 Pandain wrote:On September 09 2011 04:40 Olinim wrote:On September 09 2011 04:34 Pandain wrote:Uh what is this. I think tree hugger you have either been raging while laddering too long(a dangerous combination) or visiting the battlenet forums. MC should've held a 1-1-1 against one of the top 3 terrans in the world. Yes, he should've. But he didn't. And not because of imbalance, but because he didn't play perfectly. And when playing against cheeses or allins, you hvae to react correctly, even if it means playing harder than your opponet(see marine splitting vs banelings.) Contrary to your article not only did he delay his charge tech unnecessarily(at least 20 seconds), he also lost many probes during a banshee harrass. And while Puma was basicaally out of resources in his main, MC still had a good amount. If MC had held that push, and he should've, he would've won. It's somewhat sad, yet in a way showing of changing times that even TL has balance complaints in its articles. When you cheese, you go for a quick win. And it may be a powerful cheese, but its a cheese nonetheless. And if you don't react correctly, you can lose. There is nothing imbalanced about that. I mean seriously you bring up previous GSL's. And you say that because players like "Inca and San" aren't performing as well as Nestea, Losira, and July, that that shows protoss is "truly" imbalanced. The truth is that Nestea, Losira, and July are a level above Inca and san. You make it sound like Puma vs MC is Nestea vs Rain. You make Puma, PUMA of all people, to be seen as a way inferior opponet to MC, that the only reason MC lost was because Puma allin'd him. That's a very misleading statement. When I get cheesed of course they only win because they cheesed me. After all, that's what happened. But just like me, MC could've held, and it saddens me that this very well written article is on news rather than general. Indeed my biggest complaint is that this article appears to be sensationalist rather than news. The quotes involved are just extreme and inherently misinforming. Against PuMa, a better BW pro but a worse SC2 player, MC rightly expected to face the Frankenstein child of Polt's old build that he lost his first GSL games against. In that three games series, MC faced the 1/1/1 twice with two different strategies, and was rendered utterly helpless in each game A funny change from being a better BW player yet a worse sc2 player. And the "certainty" to which the article asserts this just strikes the wrong chord. When MC lost his warp prism with 4 high templars in it , he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When MC wasted his whole army and delayed charge for more than 20 seconds AGAINST AN ALLIN he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When he got hit by massive emps, dropped again and again(and impressively held off a majority), made terrible strategic decisions which even YOU acknowledge, he was not being a better sc2 player. And as for utterly helpless it was because game 1 he delayed charge and hit before charge despite having the economic lead and the ability to wait. Game 3 he went for a stupid blink stalker phoenix base trade build. That said, an observer of MC's basic play would be hard pressed to find real signs of slumping. He still wins a good portion of his games, and it shouldn't be omitted that his IEM loss did indeed come in the final, after all.
There have been poor plays he's been doing, as I've shown in this post. And being an "elite" player, as you say, is not determined by winning " a good portion of his games." It comes from dominating. Nestea and MVP play on a level in which they are actively improving perfection. MC is trying to attain it. In his heyday, and even during his slumps, MC was a massive anomaly. Any casual observer of his play in the GSL could make that observation, yet statistics bear this out. MC's Korean winning percentage is 66%. The second best winning percentage from any protoss is Puzzle, who has a 62% win rate, a substantial part of it in weekly foreigner-run tournaments against vastly inferior competition. Alicia notches 54%. HongUn has a 51% win rate. San boasts the same. Look at MC's protoss contemporaries for yourself. There's no one even close to MC's winning percentages. You can't just use these games as "proof." Especially when progamers play games spread across vast spaces of time(weeks often.) When one player is doing good, he may have a sub-50% win rate(because of horrible early start, like San.) The TLPD has been shown, as of now, to be quote unquote "unreliable", at least in determining player skills. After all, I'm pretty sure Strelok, rank #2 right now, is not the #2 foreigner. You have to look at the games. And the games do not support your balance cries. in balance piles, protoss indisputably been terrible recently. Terrible, but not because of balance. The only reason that some gaping flaws in the protoss design have now been uncovered is because MC is no longer successful enough to cover them up. .... Is MC's level of play determinate of protoss balance? Even when there are clear mistakes, do we forgive them just because "he's the best protoss player. f you haven't noticed that protoss sucks against terran, and has profound cost-efficiency difficulties against zerg, it’s because you're blind. It has taken imbalance on such an appalling scale as the 1/1/1 family of builds to cast MC down, to make him look mortal and prove once and for all that protoss is absolutely trash at the highest level of competition. Stop visiting the battlenet forums. Yet he knew he could not breach PuMa's main, and retook his expo, racing for charge If by racing you mean not continuously chronoing as well as not upgrading it for >20 seconds after the twilight council finished, then I 100% agree with you. MC has been quoted on occasion as having said that, if he played terran, he'd have won five championships I think I've heard that somewhere. Something regarding stork, or Idra, or something. [b]Or every single pro player on the planet. After watching him out-micro his opponent at IEM and still lose, out-multitask his opponent at IEM and still lose, and then go absolutely nuts and use a strategy whose gaping flaws a platinum player could identify in the third game, I believe him. ... At least edit this out. This is so blatantly biased. If you don't feel that Puma can hold his own against MC(when he already showed he could in solid macro games at NASL,) then you need to read this. Not only that but you go from "omg MC played SO WELL AND STILL LOST" to "in game 3 he did a horrible strategy What has to happen for you to considered it to be imbalanced? Protoss winrates and and code s representation are at an all time low. The best protoss in the world dropped to code a, and hes the only protoss above a 50 percent winrate(not counting puzzle cuz his games are majority iccup weeklys). If absolutely no protoss can play at the level of even mid tier code s terrans and zergs, that means there is a fucking problem with the race. Or is there some force that only makes inferior sc2 players pick protoss? There have been 5 bonjwas with broodwar. Boxer, Nada, Iloveoov, Savior, and Flash. Four terrans and one zerg. People knew that the player was OP, not the race, because they played flawless. When I see Nestea play, he makes few if no mistakes. And he constantly improves. When I see MVP play, I see a clear understanding of the matchup, solid macro, and awe-inspiring micro. I used to see that with MC. But look at my post, see his flaws, and you can tell that the issues he faced was simply not playing as well. Protoss players aren't dominating in GSL because they don't have that "spark." And the mid tier ones, like Violet, for instance, are dominating instead of protoss counter parts because up and down matches came just as the 1-1-1 awful strength was discvoered so they were knocked out. Just like how back in the day zergs got marine scv allined(nestea even lost to rain), and so you saw few amounts of zergs. For something to be imbalanced, show me a game where the cheeser won and the losing player couldn't have. Simple. Sorry but that's an absolutely laughable definition of imbalance, so it has to be absolutely impossible to lose with to be too good? haha what shit. Also think about the repercussions 1/1/1 has on the matchup even when not used. The very fear of 1/1/1 already puts toss at a disadvantage, and requires immense preparation, usually to still lose. I mean, how the hell could MC improve with the matchup the way it is? [/b] That's it with bunker rushes. Zerg's complained so much about it(and still do), yet you CAN defend it. You just have to play better. Big whoop. It's not imbalanced. And right now the best move against 1-1-1 is what MC showed us. Did you know he would have won, would have CRUSHED puma if he had had charge? And did you know if he had just started it when the twilight council finished, that he would have had it and not even have to wait at all?
|
On September 09 2011 04:52 farnham wrote: san is awful ? orly? This assertion does make me very sad.
He's one of the best macro Protosses out there, and people are calling him terrible because he was nerfed out of the GSL. Sigh.
|
On September 09 2011 04:45 Pandain wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 04:40 Olinim wrote:On September 09 2011 04:34 Pandain wrote:Uh what is this. I think tree hugger you have either been raging while laddering too long(a dangerous combination) or visiting the battlenet forums. MC should've held a 1-1-1 against one of the top 3 terrans in the world. Yes, he should've. But he didn't. And not because of imbalance, but because he didn't play perfectly. And when playing against cheeses or allins, you hvae to react correctly, even if it means playing harder than your opponet(see marine splitting vs banelings.) Contrary to your article not only did he delay his charge tech unnecessarily(at least 20 seconds), he also lost many probes during a banshee harrass. And while Puma was basicaally out of resources in his main, MC still had a good amount. If MC had held that push, and he should've, he would've won. It's somewhat sad, yet in a way showing of changing times that even TL has balance complaints in its articles. When you cheese, you go for a quick win. And it may be a powerful cheese, but its a cheese nonetheless. And if you don't react correctly, you can lose. There is nothing imbalanced about that. I mean seriously you bring up previous GSL's. And you say that because players like "Inca and San" aren't performing as well as Nestea, Losira, and July, that that shows protoss is "truly" imbalanced. The truth is that Nestea, Losira, and July are a level above Inca and san. You make it sound like Puma vs MC is Nestea vs Rain. You make Puma, PUMA of all people, to be seen as a way inferior opponet to MC, that the only reason MC lost was because Puma allin'd him. That's a very misleading statement. When I get cheesed of course they only win because they cheesed me. After all, that's what happened. But just like me, MC could've held, and it saddens me that this very well written article is on news rather than general. Indeed my biggest complaint is that this article appears to be sensationalist rather than news. The quotes involved are just extreme and inherently misinforming. Against PuMa, a better BW pro but a worse SC2 player, MC rightly expected to face the Frankenstein child of Polt's old build that he lost his first GSL games against. In that three games series, MC faced the 1/1/1 twice with two different strategies, and was rendered utterly helpless in each game A funny change from being a better BW player yet a worse sc2 player. And the "certainty" to which the article asserts this just strikes the wrong chord. When MC lost his warp prism with 4 high templars in it , he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When MC wasted his whole army and delayed charge for more than 20 seconds AGAINST AN ALLIN he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When he got hit by massive emps, dropped again and again(and impressively held off a majority), made terrible strategic decisions which even YOU acknowledge, he was not being a better sc2 player. And as for utterly helpless it was because game 1 he delayed charge and hit before charge despite having the economic lead and the ability to wait. Game 3 he went for a stupid blink stalker phoenix base trade build. That said, an observer of MC's basic play would be hard pressed to find real signs of slumping. He still wins a good portion of his games, and it shouldn't be omitted that his IEM loss did indeed come in the final, after all.
There have been poor plays he's been doing, as I've shown in this post. And being an "elite" player, as you say, is not determined by winning " a good portion of his games." It comes from dominating. Nestea and MVP play on a level in which they are actively improving perfection. MC is trying to attain it. In his heyday, and even during his slumps, MC was a massive anomaly. Any casual observer of his play in the GSL could make that observation, yet statistics bear this out. MC's Korean winning percentage is 66%. The second best winning percentage from any protoss is Puzzle, who has a 62% win rate, a substantial part of it in weekly foreigner-run tournaments against vastly inferior competition. Alicia notches 54%. HongUn has a 51% win rate. San boasts the same. Look at MC's protoss contemporaries for yourself. There's no one even close to MC's winning percentages. You can't just use these games as "proof." Especially when progamers play games spread across vast spaces of time(weeks often.) When one player is doing good, he may have a sub-50% win rate(because of horrible early start, like San.) The TLPD has been shown, as of now, to be quote unquote "unreliable", at least in determining player skills. After all, I'm pretty sure Strelok, rank #2 right now, is not the #2 foreigner. You have to look at the games. And the games do not support your balance cries. in balance piles, protoss indisputably been terrible recently. Terrible, but not because of balance. The only reason that some gaping flaws in the protoss design have now been uncovered is because MC is no longer successful enough to cover them up. .... Is MC's level of play determinate of protoss balance? Even when there are clear mistakes, do we forgive them just because "he's the best protoss player. f you haven't noticed that protoss sucks against terran, and has profound cost-efficiency difficulties against zerg, it’s because you're blind. It has taken imbalance on such an appalling scale as the 1/1/1 family of builds to cast MC down, to make him look mortal and prove once and for all that protoss is absolutely trash at the highest level of competition. Stop visiting the battlenet forums. Yet he knew he could not breach PuMa's main, and retook his expo, racing for charge If by racing you mean not continuously chronoing as well as not upgrading it for >20 seconds after the twilight council finished, then I 100% agree with you. MC has been quoted on occasion as having said that, if he played terran, he'd have won five championships I think I've heard that somewhere. Something regarding stork, or Idra, or something. [b]Or every single pro player on the planet. After watching him out-micro his opponent at IEM and still lose, out-multitask his opponent at IEM and still lose, and then go absolutely nuts and use a strategy whose gaping flaws a platinum player could identify in the third game, I believe him. ... At least edit this out. This is so blatantly biased. If you don't feel that Puma can hold his own against MC(when he already showed he could in solid macro games at NASL,) then you need to read this. Not only that but you go from "omg MC played SO WELL AND STILL LOST" to "in game 3 he did a horrible strategy What has to happen for you to considered it to be imbalanced? Protoss winrates and and code s representation are at an all time low. The best protoss in the world dropped to code a, and hes the only protoss above a 50 percent winrate(not counting puzzle cuz his games are majority iccup weeklys). If absolutely no protoss can play at the level of even mid tier code s terrans and zergs, that means there is a fucking problem with the race. Or is there some force that only makes inferior sc2 players pick protoss? There have been 5 bonjwas with broodwar. Boxer, Nada, Iloveoov, Savior, and Flash. Four terrans and one zerg. People knew that the player was OP, not the race, because they played flawless. When I see Nestea play, he makes few if no mistakes. And he constantly improves. When I see MVP play, I see a clear understanding of the matchup, solid macro, and awe-inspiring micro. I used to see that with MC. But look at my post, see his flaws, and you can tell that the issues he faced was simply not playing as well. [b]Protoss players aren't dominating in GSL because they don't have that "spark." And the mid tier ones, like Violet, for instance, are dominating instead of protoss counter parts because up and down matches came just as the 1-1-1 awful strength was discvoered so they were knocked out. Just like how back in the day zergs got marine scv allined(nestea even lost to rain), and so you saw few amounts of zergs. For something to be imbalanced, show me a game where the cheeser won and the losing player couldn't have. Simple. [/b]
"Protoss player's aren't dominating in GSL, because they don't have that "spark".
Such bull shit. "That spark"? What the hell is that even supposed to mean? Protoss has been limited for a few GSLs now. Frankly, I think there has been 2 Protoss that reached the RO4 in the past few GSLs. Alicia and HongUn both got there within my recent memory. MC? Has been nowhere to be found for a few months. Huk? Has improved vastly, but still can't make it past RO8. Puzzle? A potential dark horse for GSL, can't let him out of your sight, but still went out in RO16.
|
Whilst the article documents the slump of MC, and to some extent, the topic of game balance is mandatory for a fully encompassing review. In my opinion it strayed too far from a reasoned discussion detailing how MC has been under-performing and the likely causes of this, into an overly aggressive balance whine: "If you haven't noticed that protoss sucks against terran, and has profound cost-efficiency difficulties against zerg, it’s because you're blind." Rather than illustrating specific situations in which Protoss are currently struggling against Terran, such as when dealing with 1-1-1 builds, the author absurdly announces that Protoss as a whole suck against Terran. Labelling those of us who aren't yet ready to reach that conclusion as blind. The author attempts to use the series between MC and PuMa at IEM Cologne as further evidence of Terran imbalance. The only thing more glaring than the prejudiced review, petulantly labelling PuMa's army as the 'terran imba-ball', was the absence of any mention of game 2 between the players in the write up. Clearly this game would have undermined the notion that MC outplayed everybody and still lost, something the author tried so hard to make us believe.
On a more general level, I think the article is an extreme exaggeration of where Protoss is at. It should be mentioned that Protoss took two of the top 3 spots at Cologne. Despite what the author would claim, I find it highly contentious to call MC a superior player to PuMa.
Although it is correct to draw a large amount of inference from GSL code S regarding the state of Protoss, it is still wrong to ignore other tournament results. The author is of the opinion that Protoss doesn't have a fighting chance in the big tournaments. How does this opinion hold when looking outside of Korea? The winner of IPL season 2 was White Ra, who didn't drop a game until the winners bracket final, incidentally to another Protoss. Admittedly, these tournament games were broadcasted well after the games were played. Huk won Homestory and Dreamhack fairly recently, to my knowledge there haven't been any balance changes since those tournaments.
I tentatively suggest that too much weight is being placed on GSL results when making deductions concerning balance. Mainly due to the volatility of the GSL format and the bottleneck players wanting to gain entry to code S must overcome. The champion of code S is potentially 4 games away from dropping to code A, and one simply has to look at the amount of players arguably superior to some of those in code S who consistently fail to gain entry. Instead, I argue that when walking the razor thin tightrope between success and failure in the GSL, dealing with nerves and who makes the least mistakes in their play are the major determinants of success, or lack of, not balance.
|
Great article ;P, really cool iviews as well and your welcome sase! :D Anytime <3
|
Sigh... I wish I could see David Kim and Dustin Browder's reaction to this post and thread. Do they even realize how bad protoss are at this stage?
|
For what it is worth, idra still agrees that protoss is OP
Youtube link in spoiler: + Show Spoiler +
+ Show Spoiler +I like the use of the Immortal Stalker Templar in PvZ - Hopefully we see some advanced strategies coming out of patch 1.4. Personally I have not tried it since the amulet nerf
|
On September 09 2011 04:55 Agnosthar wrote: Whilst the article documents the slump of MC, and to some extent, the topic of game balance is mandatory for a fully encompassing review. In my opinion it strayed too far from a reasoned discussion detailing how MC has been under-performing and the likely causes of this, into an overly aggressive balance whine: "If you haven't noticed that protoss sucks against terran, and has profound cost-efficiency difficulties against zerg, it’s because you're blind." Rather than illustrating specific situations in which Protoss are currently struggling against Terran, such as when dealing with 1-1-1 builds, the author absurdly announces that Protoss as a whole suck against Terran. Labelling those of us who aren't yet ready to reach that conclusion as blind. The author attempts to use the series between MC and PuMa at IEM Cologne as further evidence of Terran imbalance. The only thing more glaring than the prejudiced review, petulantly labelling PuMa's army as the 'terran imba-ball', was the absence of any mention of game 2 between the players in the write up. Clearly this game would have undermined the notion that MC outplayed everybody and still lost, something the author tried so hard to make us believe.
On a more general level, I think the article is an extreme exaggeration of where Protoss is at. It should be mentioned that Protoss took two of the top 3 spots at Cologne. Despite what the author would claim, I find it highly contentious to call MC a superior player to PuMa.
Although it is correct to draw a large amount of inference from GSL code S regarding the state of Protoss, it is still wrong to ignore other tournament results. The author is of the opinion that Protoss doesn't have a fighting chance in the big tournaments. How does this opinion hold when looking outside of Korea? The winner of IPL season 2 was White Ra, who didn't drop a game until the winners bracket final, incidentally to another Protoss. Admittedly, these tournament games were broadcasted well after the games were played. Huk won Homestory and Dreamhack fairly recently, to my knowledge there haven't been any balance changes since those tournaments.
I tentatively suggest that too much weight is being placed on GSL results when making deductions concerning balance. Mainly due to the volatility of the GSL format and the bottleneck players wanting to gain entry to code S must overcome. The champion of code S is potentially 4 games away from dropping to code A, and one simply has to look at the amount of players arguably superior to some of those in code S who consistently fail to gain entry. Instead, I argue that when walking the razor thin tightrope between success and failure in the GSL, dealing with nerves and who makes the least mistakes in their play are the major determinants of success, or lack of, not balance. Because as soon as they faced korean terrans the toss got destroyed? IPL doesnt count for balance because White-ra didnt beat any high level koreans. He would go to korea and get stomped.
|
Protoss players did really well in the Code A qualifiers last weekend. A Protoss is going to win Code A next season after another sick PvP finals and the whining will settle down.
|
On September 09 2011 04:55 Cloud9157 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 04:45 Pandain wrote:On September 09 2011 04:40 Olinim wrote:On September 09 2011 04:34 Pandain wrote:Uh what is this. I think tree hugger you have either been raging while laddering too long(a dangerous combination) or visiting the battlenet forums. MC should've held a 1-1-1 against one of the top 3 terrans in the world. Yes, he should've. But he didn't. And not because of imbalance, but because he didn't play perfectly. And when playing against cheeses or allins, you hvae to react correctly, even if it means playing harder than your opponet(see marine splitting vs banelings.) Contrary to your article not only did he delay his charge tech unnecessarily(at least 20 seconds), he also lost many probes during a banshee harrass. And while Puma was basicaally out of resources in his main, MC still had a good amount. If MC had held that push, and he should've, he would've won. It's somewhat sad, yet in a way showing of changing times that even TL has balance complaints in its articles. When you cheese, you go for a quick win. And it may be a powerful cheese, but its a cheese nonetheless. And if you don't react correctly, you can lose. There is nothing imbalanced about that. I mean seriously you bring up previous GSL's. And you say that because players like "Inca and San" aren't performing as well as Nestea, Losira, and July, that that shows protoss is "truly" imbalanced. The truth is that Nestea, Losira, and July are a level above Inca and san. You make it sound like Puma vs MC is Nestea vs Rain. You make Puma, PUMA of all people, to be seen as a way inferior opponet to MC, that the only reason MC lost was because Puma allin'd him. That's a very misleading statement. When I get cheesed of course they only win because they cheesed me. After all, that's what happened. But just like me, MC could've held, and it saddens me that this very well written article is on news rather than general. Indeed my biggest complaint is that this article appears to be sensationalist rather than news. The quotes involved are just extreme and inherently misinforming. Against PuMa, a better BW pro but a worse SC2 player, MC rightly expected to face the Frankenstein child of Polt's old build that he lost his first GSL games against. In that three games series, MC faced the 1/1/1 twice with two different strategies, and was rendered utterly helpless in each game A funny change from being a better BW player yet a worse sc2 player. And the "certainty" to which the article asserts this just strikes the wrong chord. When MC lost his warp prism with 4 high templars in it , he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When MC wasted his whole army and delayed charge for more than 20 seconds AGAINST AN ALLIN he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When he got hit by massive emps, dropped again and again(and impressively held off a majority), made terrible strategic decisions which even YOU acknowledge, he was not being a better sc2 player. And as for utterly helpless it was because game 1 he delayed charge and hit before charge despite having the economic lead and the ability to wait. Game 3 he went for a stupid blink stalker phoenix base trade build. That said, an observer of MC's basic play would be hard pressed to find real signs of slumping. He still wins a good portion of his games, and it shouldn't be omitted that his IEM loss did indeed come in the final, after all.
There have been poor plays he's been doing, as I've shown in this post. And being an "elite" player, as you say, is not determined by winning " a good portion of his games." It comes from dominating. Nestea and MVP play on a level in which they are actively improving perfection. MC is trying to attain it. In his heyday, and even during his slumps, MC was a massive anomaly. Any casual observer of his play in the GSL could make that observation, yet statistics bear this out. MC's Korean winning percentage is 66%. The second best winning percentage from any protoss is Puzzle, who has a 62% win rate, a substantial part of it in weekly foreigner-run tournaments against vastly inferior competition. Alicia notches 54%. HongUn has a 51% win rate. San boasts the same. Look at MC's protoss contemporaries for yourself. There's no one even close to MC's winning percentages. You can't just use these games as "proof." Especially when progamers play games spread across vast spaces of time(weeks often.) When one player is doing good, he may have a sub-50% win rate(because of horrible early start, like San.) The TLPD has been shown, as of now, to be quote unquote "unreliable", at least in determining player skills. After all, I'm pretty sure Strelok, rank #2 right now, is not the #2 foreigner. You have to look at the games. And the games do not support your balance cries. in balance piles, protoss indisputably been terrible recently. Terrible, but not because of balance. The only reason that some gaping flaws in the protoss design have now been uncovered is because MC is no longer successful enough to cover them up. .... Is MC's level of play determinate of protoss balance? Even when there are clear mistakes, do we forgive them just because "he's the best protoss player. f you haven't noticed that protoss sucks against terran, and has profound cost-efficiency difficulties against zerg, it’s because you're blind. It has taken imbalance on such an appalling scale as the 1/1/1 family of builds to cast MC down, to make him look mortal and prove once and for all that protoss is absolutely trash at the highest level of competition. Stop visiting the battlenet forums. Yet he knew he could not breach PuMa's main, and retook his expo, racing for charge If by racing you mean not continuously chronoing as well as not upgrading it for >20 seconds after the twilight council finished, then I 100% agree with you. MC has been quoted on occasion as having said that, if he played terran, he'd have won five championships I think I've heard that somewhere. Something regarding stork, or Idra, or something. [b]Or every single pro player on the planet. After watching him out-micro his opponent at IEM and still lose, out-multitask his opponent at IEM and still lose, and then go absolutely nuts and use a strategy whose gaping flaws a platinum player could identify in the third game, I believe him. ... At least edit this out. This is so blatantly biased. If you don't feel that Puma can hold his own against MC(when he already showed he could in solid macro games at NASL,) then you need to read this. Not only that but you go from "omg MC played SO WELL AND STILL LOST" to "in game 3 he did a horrible strategy What has to happen for you to considered it to be imbalanced? Protoss winrates and and code s representation are at an all time low. The best protoss in the world dropped to code a, and hes the only protoss above a 50 percent winrate(not counting puzzle cuz his games are majority iccup weeklys). If absolutely no protoss can play at the level of even mid tier code s terrans and zergs, that means there is a fucking problem with the race. Or is there some force that only makes inferior sc2 players pick protoss? There have been 5 bonjwas with broodwar. Boxer, Nada, Iloveoov, Savior, and Flash. Four terrans and one zerg. People knew that the player was OP, not the race, because they played flawless. When I see Nestea play, he makes few if no mistakes. And he constantly improves. When I see MVP play, I see a clear understanding of the matchup, solid macro, and awe-inspiring micro. I used to see that with MC. But look at my post, see his flaws, and you can tell that the issues he faced was simply not playing as well. [b]Protoss players aren't dominating in GSL because they don't have that "spark." And the mid tier ones, like Violet, for instance, are dominating instead of protoss counter parts because up and down matches came just as the 1-1-1 awful strength was discvoered so they were knocked out. Just like how back in the day zergs got marine scv allined(nestea even lost to rain), and so you saw few amounts of zergs. For something to be imbalanced, show me a game where the cheeser won and the losing player couldn't have. Simple. "Protoss player's aren't dominating in GSL, because they don't have that "spark". Such bull shit. "That spark"? What the hell is that even supposed to mean? Protoss has been limited for a few GSLs now. Frankly, I think there has been 2 Protoss that reached the RO4 in the past few GSLs. Alicia and HongUn both got there within my recent memory. MC? Has been nowhere to be found for a few months. Huk? Has improved vastly, but still can't make it past RO8. Puzzle? A potential dark horse for GSL, can't let him out of your sight, but still went out in RO16. [/b]
Huk had the ability to make round of 4(even finals) if he was constantly training and not moving around, and even constantly traveling he still managed to make it to round of 8 where he got defeated by none other than MVP. JYP has shown signs of brilliance, as well as sage, and I'm very interested to see where they progress.
On a more general level, the spark if the ability to play perfectly on a constant basis. I see that with Losira, MVP, and Nestea. I don't see that with players like Inca. Really? Inca?
|
On September 08 2011 17:42 susySquark wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2011 17:36 MandoRelease wrote: I'm surprised to see such a cry for imbalance at the front page of TL. Not that I disagree with it entirely. It's a good thing to say "at the highest level of competition" but a lot of people will miss these few very important words. Exactly. Its not worth talking about balance unless you're talking about the top. As a diamond player myself, anything I lose to is not imbalanced, because there are people out there who are clearly better than me who would stomp all over my opponents. There's always room for improvement... it does mean that you could be losing to people worse than you though. I agree that if you're really dedicated it would do you some good to ignore it... but someone needs to bitch, because as u get better the more imbalance annoys you.
It's easier to worry about someone who didn't deserve to beat you winning anyway, than it is to ignore it and realize that it doesn't matter if you want to be the best, hope that blizzard sorts shit out.
|
Very, very well said.
If you haven't noticed that protoss sucks against terran, and has profound cost-efficiency difficulties against zerg, it’s because you're blind. It has taken imbalance on such an appalling scale as the 1/1/1 family of builds to cast MC down, to make him look mortal and prove once and for all that protoss is absolutely trash at the highest level of competition. Perfectly stated in my opinion.
|
On September 08 2011 17:28 Gary Oak wrote: Very good article. I'm hoping that Protoss will get fixed sometime soon. As far as I'm concerned, SC2 is a 2-race game. It's very rapidly becoming a 1-race game O_o
63% of players in Code S are Terran... all major tournaments have only Terrans in top 4 for like the last 2 months. It's getting a little out of hand.
|
On September 09 2011 04:58 bcmc wrote: Protoss players did really well in the Code A qualifiers last weekend. A Protoss is going to win Code A next season after another sick PvP finals and the whining will settle down.
People thought that would happen with Puzzle. Guess what? He got to RO16.
This isn't going to be fixed all of a sudden. When I see a few GSLs with increased Protoss placing consistently higher (like 8-10 Protoss in RO32) and perhaps some new way to play the match ups, then I will consider Protoss fine.
|
On September 09 2011 04:59 Pandain wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 04:55 Cloud9157 wrote:On September 09 2011 04:45 Pandain wrote:On September 09 2011 04:40 Olinim wrote:On September 09 2011 04:34 Pandain wrote:Uh what is this. I think tree hugger you have either been raging while laddering too long(a dangerous combination) or visiting the battlenet forums. MC should've held a 1-1-1 against one of the top 3 terrans in the world. Yes, he should've. But he didn't. And not because of imbalance, but because he didn't play perfectly. And when playing against cheeses or allins, you hvae to react correctly, even if it means playing harder than your opponet(see marine splitting vs banelings.) Contrary to your article not only did he delay his charge tech unnecessarily(at least 20 seconds), he also lost many probes during a banshee harrass. And while Puma was basicaally out of resources in his main, MC still had a good amount. If MC had held that push, and he should've, he would've won. It's somewhat sad, yet in a way showing of changing times that even TL has balance complaints in its articles. When you cheese, you go for a quick win. And it may be a powerful cheese, but its a cheese nonetheless. And if you don't react correctly, you can lose. There is nothing imbalanced about that. I mean seriously you bring up previous GSL's. And you say that because players like "Inca and San" aren't performing as well as Nestea, Losira, and July, that that shows protoss is "truly" imbalanced. The truth is that Nestea, Losira, and July are a level above Inca and san. You make it sound like Puma vs MC is Nestea vs Rain. You make Puma, PUMA of all people, to be seen as a way inferior opponet to MC, that the only reason MC lost was because Puma allin'd him. That's a very misleading statement. When I get cheesed of course they only win because they cheesed me. After all, that's what happened. But just like me, MC could've held, and it saddens me that this very well written article is on news rather than general. Indeed my biggest complaint is that this article appears to be sensationalist rather than news. The quotes involved are just extreme and inherently misinforming. Against PuMa, a better BW pro but a worse SC2 player, MC rightly expected to face the Frankenstein child of Polt's old build that he lost his first GSL games against. In that three games series, MC faced the 1/1/1 twice with two different strategies, and was rendered utterly helpless in each game A funny change from being a better BW player yet a worse sc2 player. And the "certainty" to which the article asserts this just strikes the wrong chord. When MC lost his warp prism with 4 high templars in it , he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When MC wasted his whole army and delayed charge for more than 20 seconds AGAINST AN ALLIN he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When he got hit by massive emps, dropped again and again(and impressively held off a majority), made terrible strategic decisions which even YOU acknowledge, he was not being a better sc2 player. And as for utterly helpless it was because game 1 he delayed charge and hit before charge despite having the economic lead and the ability to wait. Game 3 he went for a stupid blink stalker phoenix base trade build. That said, an observer of MC's basic play would be hard pressed to find real signs of slumping. He still wins a good portion of his games, and it shouldn't be omitted that his IEM loss did indeed come in the final, after all.
There have been poor plays he's been doing, as I've shown in this post. And being an "elite" player, as you say, is not determined by winning " a good portion of his games." It comes from dominating. Nestea and MVP play on a level in which they are actively improving perfection. MC is trying to attain it. In his heyday, and even during his slumps, MC was a massive anomaly. Any casual observer of his play in the GSL could make that observation, yet statistics bear this out. MC's Korean winning percentage is 66%. The second best winning percentage from any protoss is Puzzle, who has a 62% win rate, a substantial part of it in weekly foreigner-run tournaments against vastly inferior competition. Alicia notches 54%. HongUn has a 51% win rate. San boasts the same. Look at MC's protoss contemporaries for yourself. There's no one even close to MC's winning percentages. You can't just use these games as "proof." Especially when progamers play games spread across vast spaces of time(weeks often.) When one player is doing good, he may have a sub-50% win rate(because of horrible early start, like San.) The TLPD has been shown, as of now, to be quote unquote "unreliable", at least in determining player skills. After all, I'm pretty sure Strelok, rank #2 right now, is not the #2 foreigner. You have to look at the games. And the games do not support your balance cries. in balance piles, protoss indisputably been terrible recently. Terrible, but not because of balance. The only reason that some gaping flaws in the protoss design have now been uncovered is because MC is no longer successful enough to cover them up. .... Is MC's level of play determinate of protoss balance? Even when there are clear mistakes, do we forgive them just because "he's the best protoss player. f you haven't noticed that protoss sucks against terran, and has profound cost-efficiency difficulties against zerg, it’s because you're blind. It has taken imbalance on such an appalling scale as the 1/1/1 family of builds to cast MC down, to make him look mortal and prove once and for all that protoss is absolutely trash at the highest level of competition. Stop visiting the battlenet forums. Yet he knew he could not breach PuMa's main, and retook his expo, racing for charge If by racing you mean not continuously chronoing as well as not upgrading it for >20 seconds after the twilight council finished, then I 100% agree with you. MC has been quoted on occasion as having said that, if he played terran, he'd have won five championships I think I've heard that somewhere. Something regarding stork, or Idra, or something. [b]Or every single pro player on the planet. After watching him out-micro his opponent at IEM and still lose, out-multitask his opponent at IEM and still lose, and then go absolutely nuts and use a strategy whose gaping flaws a platinum player could identify in the third game, I believe him. ... At least edit this out. This is so blatantly biased. If you don't feel that Puma can hold his own against MC(when he already showed he could in solid macro games at NASL,) then you need to read this. Not only that but you go from "omg MC played SO WELL AND STILL LOST" to "in game 3 he did a horrible strategy What has to happen for you to considered it to be imbalanced? Protoss winrates and and code s representation are at an all time low. The best protoss in the world dropped to code a, and hes the only protoss above a 50 percent winrate(not counting puzzle cuz his games are majority iccup weeklys). If absolutely no protoss can play at the level of even mid tier code s terrans and zergs, that means there is a fucking problem with the race. Or is there some force that only makes inferior sc2 players pick protoss? There have been 5 bonjwas with broodwar. Boxer, Nada, Iloveoov, Savior, and Flash. Four terrans and one zerg. People knew that the player was OP, not the race, because they played flawless. When I see Nestea play, he makes few if no mistakes. And he constantly improves. When I see MVP play, I see a clear understanding of the matchup, solid macro, and awe-inspiring micro. I used to see that with MC. But look at my post, see his flaws, and you can tell that the issues he faced was simply not playing as well. [b]Protoss players aren't dominating in GSL because they don't have that "spark." And the mid tier ones, like Violet, for instance, are dominating instead of protoss counter parts because up and down matches came just as the 1-1-1 awful strength was discvoered so they were knocked out. Just like how back in the day zergs got marine scv allined(nestea even lost to rain), and so you saw few amounts of zergs. For something to be imbalanced, show me a game where the cheeser won and the losing player couldn't have. Simple. "Protoss player's aren't dominating in GSL, because they don't have that "spark". Such bull shit. "That spark"? What the hell is that even supposed to mean? Protoss has been limited for a few GSLs now. Frankly, I think there has been 2 Protoss that reached the RO4 in the past few GSLs. Alicia and HongUn both got there within my recent memory. MC? Has been nowhere to be found for a few months. Huk? Has improved vastly, but still can't make it past RO8. Puzzle? A potential dark horse for GSL, can't let him out of your sight, but still went out in RO16. Huk had the ability to make round of 4(even finals) if he was constantly training and not moving around, and even constantly traveling he still managed to make it to round of 8 where he got defeated by none other than MVP. JYP has shown signs of brilliance, as well as sage, and I'm very interested to see where they progress. [/b] You are just incessantly nitpicking protoss players play as if it's possible to play perfect. If you are actually realistic you can look at 1/1/1 and the state of protoss and admit they are too weak, even if you want them to play like God to beat a simple all in. Why would anyone play protoss when they can switch to terran and win easily with a simple all in, which according to you is perfectly fair and balanced?
|
On September 09 2011 04:45 Pandain wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 04:40 Olinim wrote:On September 09 2011 04:34 Pandain wrote:Uh what is this. I think tree hugger you have either been raging while laddering too long(a dangerous combination) or visiting the battlenet forums. MC should've held a 1-1-1 against one of the top 3 terrans in the world. Yes, he should've. But he didn't. And not because of imbalance, but because he didn't play perfectly. And when playing against cheeses or allins, you hvae to react correctly, even if it means playing harder than your opponet(see marine splitting vs banelings.) Contrary to your article not only did he delay his charge tech unnecessarily(at least 20 seconds), he also lost many probes during a banshee harrass. And while Puma was basicaally out of resources in his main, MC still had a good amount. If MC had held that push, and he should've, he would've won. It's somewhat sad, yet in a way showing of changing times that even TL has balance complaints in its articles. When you cheese, you go for a quick win. And it may be a powerful cheese, but its a cheese nonetheless. And if you don't react correctly, you can lose. There is nothing imbalanced about that. I mean seriously you bring up previous GSL's. And you say that because players like "Inca and San" aren't performing as well as Nestea, Losira, and July, that that shows protoss is "truly" imbalanced. The truth is that Nestea, Losira, and July are a level above Inca and san. You make it sound like Puma vs MC is Nestea vs Rain. You make Puma, PUMA of all people, to be seen as a way inferior opponet to MC, that the only reason MC lost was because Puma allin'd him. That's a very misleading statement. When I get cheesed of course they only win because they cheesed me. After all, that's what happened. But just like me, MC could've held, and it saddens me that this very well written article is on news rather than general. Indeed my biggest complaint is that this article appears to be sensationalist rather than news. The quotes involved are just extreme and inherently misinforming. Against PuMa, a better BW pro but a worse SC2 player, MC rightly expected to face the Frankenstein child of Polt's old build that he lost his first GSL games against. In that three games series, MC faced the 1/1/1 twice with two different strategies, and was rendered utterly helpless in each game A funny change from being a better BW player yet a worse sc2 player. And the "certainty" to which the article asserts this just strikes the wrong chord. When MC lost his warp prism with 4 high templars in it , he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When MC wasted his whole army and delayed charge for more than 20 seconds AGAINST AN ALLIN he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When he got hit by massive emps, dropped again and again(and impressively held off a majority), made terrible strategic decisions which even YOU acknowledge, he was not being a better sc2 player. And as for utterly helpless it was because game 1 he delayed charge and hit before charge despite having the economic lead and the ability to wait. Game 3 he went for a stupid blink stalker phoenix base trade build. That said, an observer of MC's basic play would be hard pressed to find real signs of slumping. He still wins a good portion of his games, and it shouldn't be omitted that his IEM loss did indeed come in the final, after all.
There have been poor plays he's been doing, as I've shown in this post. And being an "elite" player, as you say, is not determined by winning " a good portion of his games." It comes from dominating. Nestea and MVP play on a level in which they are actively improving perfection. MC is trying to attain it. In his heyday, and even during his slumps, MC was a massive anomaly. Any casual observer of his play in the GSL could make that observation, yet statistics bear this out. MC's Korean winning percentage is 66%. The second best winning percentage from any protoss is Puzzle, who has a 62% win rate, a substantial part of it in weekly foreigner-run tournaments against vastly inferior competition. Alicia notches 54%. HongUn has a 51% win rate. San boasts the same. Look at MC's protoss contemporaries for yourself. There's no one even close to MC's winning percentages. You can't just use these games as "proof." Especially when progamers play games spread across vast spaces of time(weeks often.) When one player is doing good, he may have a sub-50% win rate(because of horrible early start, like San.) The TLPD has been shown, as of now, to be quote unquote "unreliable", at least in determining player skills. After all, I'm pretty sure Strelok, rank #2 right now, is not the #2 foreigner. You have to look at the games. And the games do not support your balance cries. in balance piles, protoss indisputably been terrible recently. Terrible, but not because of balance. The only reason that some gaping flaws in the protoss design have now been uncovered is because MC is no longer successful enough to cover them up. .... Is MC's level of play determinate of protoss balance? Even when there are clear mistakes, do we forgive them just because "he's the best protoss player. f you haven't noticed that protoss sucks against terran, and has profound cost-efficiency difficulties against zerg, it’s because you're blind. It has taken imbalance on such an appalling scale as the 1/1/1 family of builds to cast MC down, to make him look mortal and prove once and for all that protoss is absolutely trash at the highest level of competition. Stop visiting the battlenet forums. Yet he knew he could not breach PuMa's main, and retook his expo, racing for charge If by racing you mean not continuously chronoing as well as not upgrading it for >20 seconds after the twilight council finished, then I 100% agree with you. MC has been quoted on occasion as having said that, if he played terran, he'd have won five championships I think I've heard that somewhere. Something regarding stork, or Idra, or something. [b]Or every single pro player on the planet. After watching him out-micro his opponent at IEM and still lose, out-multitask his opponent at IEM and still lose, and then go absolutely nuts and use a strategy whose gaping flaws a platinum player could identify in the third game, I believe him. ... At least edit this out. This is so blatantly biased. If you don't feel that Puma can hold his own against MC(when he already showed he could in solid macro games at NASL,) then you need to read this. Not only that but you go from "omg MC played SO WELL AND STILL LOST" to "in game 3 he did a horrible strategy What has to happen for you to considered it to be imbalanced? Protoss winrates and and code s representation are at an all time low. The best protoss in the world dropped to code a, and hes the only protoss above a 50 percent winrate(not counting puzzle cuz his games are majority iccup weeklys). If absolutely no protoss can play at the level of even mid tier code s terrans and zergs, that means there is a fucking problem with the race. Or is there some force that only makes inferior sc2 players pick protoss? For something to be imbalanced, show me a game where the cheeser won and the losing player couldn't have. Simple. One game doesn't define balance, all games do, nor is your example even an example of overall game balance. The current stats are a result of all competitive games played by the top players. The result is that 9 out of the top 10 on the Korean ladder are Terran and that almost all in Code S are Terran. You seem to think that is somehow due to the players who pick Terran as their race has some kind of magic gene pool advantage that simply makes them much better at Starcraft. However, I think I'd rather trust the hard stats than your spaced magic terran-theory.
I don't mind the current balance myself when I play, as I am Terran. However, the Terranfest in Code S makes it very uninteresting to watch and as such I would prefer it if the game was actually balanced.
|
On September 09 2011 04:52 Pandain wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 04:49 SeaSwift wrote:On September 09 2011 04:45 Pandain wrote:
For something to be imbalanced, show me a game where the cheeser won and the losing player couldn't have. Simple. That isn't how you decide whether something is imbalanced or not. If you have to play absolutely perfectly to beat a cheese that any platinum player could pull off it is imbalanced. Something is imbalanced if the player who played best loses, which is what I saw time and time again with MC vs Puma. Don't overexaggerate. There's a large difference between a subpar playing cheesing and a pro cheesing, just like how low level 4 gates are way less strong than high level 4 gates. Despite what you may think, they have to play perfectly with the only army that they will have.
I didn't say that the 1-1-1 was a cheese any Plat player could pull off. That was an example highlighting your logical inconsistency.
On September 09 2011 04:52 Pandain wrote:And if you are going to be playing against Puma than fuck yes you are going to have to play absolutely perfectly.
Yes, because all those players in the Code A qualifiers who prevent Puma from getting into Code A played absolutely perfectly... or not, or else surely they would be in Code S? Your logic is falling down here again.
Also by your reasoning here are things which are imbalanced:
Banelings(wtf is a split, targeting baneligns with tanks.) High templars( wtf I have to move away IMMEDIATELY when he storms me?) Drops(how can I react and know what he's doing in time. Damn those maruders.) 4 gate. Bunker rushes.
Some of them I disagree that they take more skill to defend than execute. 4gate has gone out of fashion like Georgian ruffs in all match-ups apart from PvP, and if you are talking about PvP then fuck yes 4gate is overpowered.
About banelings/drops/bunker rushes, yes, if you want to be pedantic they are all slightly imbalanced. But because the most important level is the highest level of play, at the highest level of play the imbalance is minimal (because of the skill ceiling inherent in most cheeses) and therefore they are pretty much fine. If the highest level of play was Diamond or Platinum, yes. They would be imbalanced.
Also, like to note that Blizzard thinks that Bunker rushes may be imbalanced because of the 5sec delay in the PTR which nerfs the 11/11 Barracks play, as well as most Terran tech in general (although 5 sec is minimal once you reach Starport times and so on).
|
On September 09 2011 04:59 Pandain wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 04:55 Cloud9157 wrote:On September 09 2011 04:45 Pandain wrote:On September 09 2011 04:40 Olinim wrote:On September 09 2011 04:34 Pandain wrote:Uh what is this. I think tree hugger you have either been raging while laddering too long(a dangerous combination) or visiting the battlenet forums. MC should've held a 1-1-1 against one of the top 3 terrans in the world. Yes, he should've. But he didn't. And not because of imbalance, but because he didn't play perfectly. And when playing against cheeses or allins, you hvae to react correctly, even if it means playing harder than your opponet(see marine splitting vs banelings.) Contrary to your article not only did he delay his charge tech unnecessarily(at least 20 seconds), he also lost many probes during a banshee harrass. And while Puma was basicaally out of resources in his main, MC still had a good amount. If MC had held that push, and he should've, he would've won. It's somewhat sad, yet in a way showing of changing times that even TL has balance complaints in its articles. When you cheese, you go for a quick win. And it may be a powerful cheese, but its a cheese nonetheless. And if you don't react correctly, you can lose. There is nothing imbalanced about that. I mean seriously you bring up previous GSL's. And you say that because players like "Inca and San" aren't performing as well as Nestea, Losira, and July, that that shows protoss is "truly" imbalanced. The truth is that Nestea, Losira, and July are a level above Inca and san. You make it sound like Puma vs MC is Nestea vs Rain. You make Puma, PUMA of all people, to be seen as a way inferior opponet to MC, that the only reason MC lost was because Puma allin'd him. That's a very misleading statement. When I get cheesed of course they only win because they cheesed me. After all, that's what happened. But just like me, MC could've held, and it saddens me that this very well written article is on news rather than general. Indeed my biggest complaint is that this article appears to be sensationalist rather than news. The quotes involved are just extreme and inherently misinforming. Against PuMa, a better BW pro but a worse SC2 player, MC rightly expected to face the Frankenstein child of Polt's old build that he lost his first GSL games against. In that three games series, MC faced the 1/1/1 twice with two different strategies, and was rendered utterly helpless in each game A funny change from being a better BW player yet a worse sc2 player. And the "certainty" to which the article asserts this just strikes the wrong chord. When MC lost his warp prism with 4 high templars in it , he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When MC wasted his whole army and delayed charge for more than 20 seconds AGAINST AN ALLIN he wasn't being a better sc2 player. When he got hit by massive emps, dropped again and again(and impressively held off a majority), made terrible strategic decisions which even YOU acknowledge, he was not being a better sc2 player. And as for utterly helpless it was because game 1 he delayed charge and hit before charge despite having the economic lead and the ability to wait. Game 3 he went for a stupid blink stalker phoenix base trade build. That said, an observer of MC's basic play would be hard pressed to find real signs of slumping. He still wins a good portion of his games, and it shouldn't be omitted that his IEM loss did indeed come in the final, after all.
There have been poor plays he's been doing, as I've shown in this post. And being an "elite" player, as you say, is not determined by winning " a good portion of his games." It comes from dominating. Nestea and MVP play on a level in which they are actively improving perfection. MC is trying to attain it. In his heyday, and even during his slumps, MC was a massive anomaly. Any casual observer of his play in the GSL could make that observation, yet statistics bear this out. MC's Korean winning percentage is 66%. The second best winning percentage from any protoss is Puzzle, who has a 62% win rate, a substantial part of it in weekly foreigner-run tournaments against vastly inferior competition. Alicia notches 54%. HongUn has a 51% win rate. San boasts the same. Look at MC's protoss contemporaries for yourself. There's no one even close to MC's winning percentages. You can't just use these games as "proof." Especially when progamers play games spread across vast spaces of time(weeks often.) When one player is doing good, he may have a sub-50% win rate(because of horrible early start, like San.) The TLPD has been shown, as of now, to be quote unquote "unreliable", at least in determining player skills. After all, I'm pretty sure Strelok, rank #2 right now, is not the #2 foreigner. You have to look at the games. And the games do not support your balance cries. in balance piles, protoss indisputably been terrible recently. Terrible, but not because of balance. The only reason that some gaping flaws in the protoss design have now been uncovered is because MC is no longer successful enough to cover them up. .... Is MC's level of play determinate of protoss balance? Even when there are clear mistakes, do we forgive them just because "he's the best protoss player. f you haven't noticed that protoss sucks against terran, and has profound cost-efficiency difficulties against zerg, it’s because you're blind. It has taken imbalance on such an appalling scale as the 1/1/1 family of builds to cast MC down, to make him look mortal and prove once and for all that protoss is absolutely trash at the highest level of competition. Stop visiting the battlenet forums. Yet he knew he could not breach PuMa's main, and retook his expo, racing for charge If by racing you mean not continuously chronoing as well as not upgrading it for >20 seconds after the twilight council finished, then I 100% agree with you. MC has been quoted on occasion as having said that, if he played terran, he'd have won five championships I think I've heard that somewhere. Something regarding stork, or Idra, or something. [b]Or every single pro player on the planet. After watching him out-micro his opponent at IEM and still lose, out-multitask his opponent at IEM and still lose, and then go absolutely nuts and use a strategy whose gaping flaws a platinum player could identify in the third game, I believe him. ... At least edit this out. This is so blatantly biased. If you don't feel that Puma can hold his own against MC(when he already showed he could in solid macro games at NASL,) then you need to read this. Not only that but you go from "omg MC played SO WELL AND STILL LOST" to "in game 3 he did a horrible strategy What has to happen for you to considered it to be imbalanced? Protoss winrates and and code s representation are at an all time low. The best protoss in the world dropped to code a, and hes the only protoss above a 50 percent winrate(not counting puzzle cuz his games are majority iccup weeklys). If absolutely no protoss can play at the level of even mid tier code s terrans and zergs, that means there is a fucking problem with the race. Or is there some force that only makes inferior sc2 players pick protoss? There have been 5 bonjwas with broodwar. Boxer, Nada, Iloveoov, Savior, and Flash. Four terrans and one zerg. People knew that the player was OP, not the race, because they played flawless. When I see Nestea play, he makes few if no mistakes. And he constantly improves. When I see MVP play, I see a clear understanding of the matchup, solid macro, and awe-inspiring micro. I used to see that with MC. But look at my post, see his flaws, and you can tell that the issues he faced was simply not playing as well. [b]Protoss players aren't dominating in GSL because they don't have that "spark." And the mid tier ones, like Violet, for instance, are dominating instead of protoss counter parts because up and down matches came just as the 1-1-1 awful strength was discvoered so they were knocked out. Just like how back in the day zergs got marine scv allined(nestea even lost to rain), and so you saw few amounts of zergs. For something to be imbalanced, show me a game where the cheeser won and the losing player couldn't have. Simple. "Protoss player's aren't dominating in GSL, because they don't have that "spark". Such bull shit. "That spark"? What the hell is that even supposed to mean? Protoss has been limited for a few GSLs now. Frankly, I think there has been 2 Protoss that reached the RO4 in the past few GSLs. Alicia and HongUn both got there within my recent memory. MC? Has been nowhere to be found for a few months. Huk? Has improved vastly, but still can't make it past RO8. Puzzle? A potential dark horse for GSL, can't let him out of your sight, but still went out in RO16. Huk had the ability to make round of 4(even finals) if he was constantly training and not moving around, and even constantly traveling he still managed to make it to round of 8 where he got defeated by none other than MVP. JYP has shown signs of brilliance, as well as sage, and I'm very interested to see where they progress. On a more general level, the spark if the ability to play perfectly on a constant basis. I see that with Losira, MVP, and Nestea. I don't see that with players like Inca. Really? Inca? [/b]
Inca is a cheesy player that only has solid PvP. When he faced Nestea, I didn't cheer him on once, because he was embarrassing towards Protoss.
And you still don't think balance could be influencing the ability of Protoss players?
|
On September 09 2011 04:52 Pandain wrote: That's it with bunker rushes. Zerg's complained so much about it(and still do), yet you CAN defend it. You just have to play better. Big whoop. It's not imbalanced.
yeah thats why bunker rushes didnt get nerfed and arent getting nerfed in the next patch.....
oh wait they did/are (if barracks time increase stays in the patch)
|
On September 09 2011 04:58 Olinim wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 04:55 Agnosthar wrote: Whilst the article documents the slump of MC, and to some extent, the topic of game balance is mandatory for a fully encompassing review. In my opinion it strayed too far from a reasoned discussion detailing how MC has been under-performing and the likely causes of this, into an overly aggressive balance whine: "If you haven't noticed that protoss sucks against terran, and has profound cost-efficiency difficulties against zerg, it’s because you're blind." Rather than illustrating specific situations in which Protoss are currently struggling against Terran, such as when dealing with 1-1-1 builds, the author absurdly announces that Protoss as a whole suck against Terran. Labelling those of us who aren't yet ready to reach that conclusion as blind. The author attempts to use the series between MC and PuMa at IEM Cologne as further evidence of Terran imbalance. The only thing more glaring than the prejudiced review, petulantly labelling PuMa's army as the 'terran imba-ball', was the absence of any mention of game 2 between the players in the write up. Clearly this game would have undermined the notion that MC outplayed everybody and still lost, something the author tried so hard to make us believe.
On a more general level, I think the article is an extreme exaggeration of where Protoss is at. It should be mentioned that Protoss took two of the top 3 spots at Cologne. Despite what the author would claim, I find it highly contentious to call MC a superior player to PuMa.
Although it is correct to draw a large amount of inference from GSL code S regarding the state of Protoss, it is still wrong to ignore other tournament results. The author is of the opinion that Protoss doesn't have a fighting chance in the big tournaments. How does this opinion hold when looking outside of Korea? The winner of IPL season 2 was White Ra, who didn't drop a game until the winners bracket final, incidentally to another Protoss. Admittedly, these tournament games were broadcasted well after the games were played. Huk won Homestory and Dreamhack fairly recently, to my knowledge there haven't been any balance changes since those tournaments.
I tentatively suggest that too much weight is being placed on GSL results when making deductions concerning balance. Mainly due to the volatility of the GSL format and the bottleneck players wanting to gain entry to code S must overcome. The champion of code S is potentially 4 games away from dropping to code A, and one simply has to look at the amount of players arguably superior to some of those in code S who consistently fail to gain entry. Instead, I argue that when walking the razor thin tightrope between success and failure in the GSL, dealing with nerves and who makes the least mistakes in their play are the major determinants of success, or lack of, not balance. Because as soon as they faced korean terrans the toss got destroyed? IPL doesnt count for balance because White-ra didnt beat any high level koreans. He would go to korea and get stomped.
What question are you even answering? I wasn't trying to argue White Ra winning IPL 2 meant Protoss was balanced. I referenced IPL as something to consider in response to the author's claim Protoss didn't have a fighting chance in big tournaments, irrespective of nationality.
As a general rule, if you find yourself responding to a page long post with 2 lines then you're probably oversimplifying.
|
|
|
|