|
sooooooo...with jinro's input, and everyone else's, and my own...SC2 TvZ/ZvT is boiled down to this right now:
Terran autoloses in macro game on bullshit maps like cross meta, shakuras, scrap, or any game where Zerg manages to make it into the same equivalent long game scenario. So in situations where Zerg can manage to get steppes, jungle, delta...into a long game...then Zerg can win...
Zerg autoloses on bullshit maps like jungle basin, steppes, delta quadrant, where the positions are close, and Terran can constantly keep the pressure to prevent the zerg "re-max macro machine." Or Zerg loses when Terran can miraculously turn those large maps into the equivalent short game scenarios by gaining momentum through drops, attacks, all-ins...then Terran can win....
This is pretty much what I've said all along  but it seems pretty shitty that the match-up is so based on these horrible maps, and that if the game is forced long, then Zerg wins, if it's kept short then Terran wins...
Sound accurate? though this is what I've pretty much said the entire time
Like sadist said above me...
+ Show Spoiler +...and as predicted...the Terran all-ins/aggro continue in GSL. And the map pool continues to rape Terrans/Zergs viciously. Though fruitdealer managed to get through his maps opponent miraculously.
|
Baa?21243 Posts
So...Zergs win, except when Terran does something and Zerg doesn't win.
Very astute.
|
On November 30 2010 05:06 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
So...Zergs win, except when Terran does something and Zerg doesn't win.
Very astute.
Nice try. But no. Not at all. You missed the entire point, or you just feel like more derailment is fun.
Anyways, the map pool is the huge issue right now.
And it's much different from brood war because in brood war there never was such a, "if Zerg defends they autowin."
Terran could compete in a passive macromanagement late game with mass science vessels, or even mass tank mech. Obv you wanted to delay or kill Zerg's third just as you do now, but there wasn't so much of a "if I don't kill the third then I lose from here."
That's how SC2 is right now...you have the situations on steppes, and jungle where T dominates, then you have every other situation where Z is dominating scrap and long distance positions by defending to late game then winning with re-maxed armys of broods/ultras.
Terran really doesn't have the same late game fighting power or efficiency because there's nothing like science vessels or sc1 tanks that are that cost effective. (Ravens suck).
So it's Terran -> suicide suicide suicide try to do damage get momentum -> have momentum mid-late game to win.
|
I agree with avilo, never account for player skill at all.
|
Baa?21243 Posts
On November 30 2010 04:20 avilo wrote:
Or Zerg loses when Terran can miraculously turn those large maps into the equivalent short game scenarios by gaining momentum through drops, attacks, all-ins...then Terran can win....
That's what you said. When Terrans decide to gain momentum as you say through whatever means, they can win.
Actually earlier you said
And do not expect Terrans to win even with this stuff
Hmm.
You're full of crap and now you're just backpedaling since other players are actually calling you on on it. And over the course of this thread when you realized that people knew you were full of crap, you tried to turn this conversation into one about the maps, which you made zero mention of in your original "bawwwww Terrans can't win against Zerg master race" post.
|
On November 30 2010 05:50 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 04:20 avilo wrote:
Or Zerg loses when Terran can miraculously turn those large maps into the equivalent short game scenarios by gaining momentum through drops, attacks, all-ins...then Terran can win....
That's what you said. When Terrans decide to gain momentum as you say through whatever means, they can win. Actually earlier you said Hmm. You're full of crap and now you're just backpedaling since other players are actually calling you on on it. And over the course of this thread when you realized that people knew you were full of crap, you tried to turn this conversation into one about the maps, which you made zero mention of in your original "bawwwww Terrans can't win against Zerg master race" post.
It's "gimmicky" though on how Terrans are able to get that momentum and a massive dice roll. The top Zergs and solid Zergs can defend it with ease into that invincible late game style.
I'm not backpedaling at all, the stuff I said earlier still holds true. Yes, I am including maps more into the convo, as their shittiness is coming more and more into the spotlight. As well as the fact that jinro mentioned them.
I think regardless of the map, once Z reaches that lategame stage...T dies. But obviously on steppes/jungle Z struggle to get there. All I pointed out is that Terrans are obviously trying to play the larger maps with the all-in/aggro gimmicks to turn those map into a steppes of war/jungle basin type of scenario so that it is possible to win...
Hence all the TvZ all-ins, and "beta-like" gimmicks, which is what this thread is about too. So no, not full of crap at all.
|
Its only in the past year that Terrans have really learned how to play lategame against a 4gas Zerg in BW. For years and years before that a 4gas Zerg was considered to be unbeatable in standard TvZ. The whole lategame mass tank transition didn't exist until very recently. So yes, there really was a "if I let him stabilize his fourth then I'm going to autolose to ultras and swarm"
|
On November 30 2010 06:00 koreasilver wrote:
Its only in the past year that Terrans have really learned how to play lategame against a 4gas Zerg in BW. For years and years before that a 4gas Zerg was considered to be unbeatable in standard TvZ. The whole lategame mass tank transition didn't exist until very recently. So yes, there really was a "if I let him stabilize his fourth then I'm going to autolose to ultras and swarm"
Now imagine 4 gas SC1 Zerg with larva inject, and SC1 ultras that demolish SC1 tanks. And also imagine that instead of uber goliaths you have goliaths 4x the size that deal barely any damage to guardians.
oh, and defilers now are at tier2 and plague also ensnares
|
Baa?21243 Posts
On November 30 2010 07:50 avilo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 06:00 koreasilver wrote:
Its only in the past year that Terrans have really learned how to play lategame against a 4gas Zerg in BW. For years and years before that a 4gas Zerg was considered to be unbeatable in standard TvZ. The whole lategame mass tank transition didn't exist until very recently. So yes, there really was a "if I let him stabilize his fourth then I'm going to autolose to ultras and swarm" Now imagine 4 gas SC1 Zerg with larva inject, and SC1 ultras that demolish SC1 tanks. And also imagine that instead of uber goliaths you have goliaths 4x the size that deal barely any damage to guardians. oh, and defilers now are at tier2 and plague also ensnares
And Goliathes do 10x the damage to everything else and are 10x as durable, and Dark Swarm doesn't exist.
Yeah I can pick and choose to make stupid comparisons too ~_~
|
On November 30 2010 08:03 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 07:50 avilo wrote:On November 30 2010 06:00 koreasilver wrote:
Its only in the past year that Terrans have really learned how to play lategame against a 4gas Zerg in BW. For years and years before that a 4gas Zerg was considered to be unbeatable in standard TvZ. The whole lategame mass tank transition didn't exist until very recently. So yes, there really was a "if I let him stabilize his fourth then I'm going to autolose to ultras and swarm" Now imagine 4 gas SC1 Zerg with larva inject, and SC1 ultras that demolish SC1 tanks. And also imagine that instead of uber goliaths you have goliaths 4x the size that deal barely any damage to guardians. oh, and defilers now are at tier2 and plague also ensnares And Goliathes do 10x the damage to everything else and are 10x as durable, and Dark Swarm doesn't exist. Yeah I can pick and choose to make stupid comparisons too ~_~
Actually you could have included your comparisons with the ones I made, and it'd still be a "wow" type of point.
The economics of SC1 Zerg/Terran and SC2 Zerg/Terran are completely different. That was the point I was trying to make. Try not to nit pick it please 
|
Yeah, but his comparisons are actually right.
As anti-air, thors are garbage against anything but muta/phoenix/banshee, and there's no way terran can reinforce thors at the same speed as Z can reinforce ultras.
I'm not sure why you're arguing with a better player CS. You're known to have terran hateposts in bw live report threads as well and now you're obviously continuing this tradition to sc2, even though you probably don't even play it and have no idea about the gameflow.
Can we see a link to your bnet profile please?
|
On November 30 2010 08:43 Sadistx wrote:
Can we see a link to your bnet profile please?
Why do you come in here ever so often to start shit?
Someone already used this argument back a few pages.
And it was retorted too - when ret replied, and IdrA replied also, do I need to link YOU to their bnet profile page?
|
On November 30 2010 08:47 SCC-Faust wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 08:43 Sadistx wrote:
Can we see a link to your bnet profile please? Why do you come in here ever so often to start shit? Someone already used this argument back a few pages. And it was retorted too - when ret replied, and IdrA replied also, do I need to link YOU to their bnet profile page?
Hilarious that you're actually accusing ME of starting shit when there are dozens of drone iconed posters blatantly bashing a top player.
Idra and ret can do it, because they are IdrA and ret. Is CS a top player? I didn't think so.
I come in here often, because it's a thread that interests me greatly and I'm hoping to see someone good reply to avilo aside from IdrA or ret. Unfortunately all I see is more bashing.
|
Hilarious that you're actually accusing ME of starting shit when there are dozens of drone iconed posters blatantly bashing a top player.
Seriously?
"Your post count on TL directly impacts your ability to put together a cogent argument." (If that were true, CharlieMurphy would be President)
Also, interestingly, one's Bnet rank doesn't correlate with the ability to spot logical errors, overreach, or backpedaling in posts. For example:
-"every high level TvZ will involve gimmicks" isn't equivalent to "every high level TvZ except on non-bullshit maps involves gimmicks"
-All counter evidence attacking my ability to objectively separate player skill and inherent imbalance = derail
-All reductio ad absurdums that make me look bad = derail
and in the interests of repeatedly beating a long dead horse:
-"Zerg doesn't use nydus enough" isn't equivalent to "Zerg should put down 10 nyduses at once"
-A constantly fluctuating standard of "good terran" and "good zerg" that to some verges on a double standard (any zerg that loses is automatically bad bad bad, any terran wins are immediately chalked up to bullshit maps)
etc.
Other statements:
Terrans already "know how to use their units" very well.
I'm going to go out on a prophetic limb here and say that come a few months that will be proved quite wrong (re: Sadistx, no, "show me your bnet profile" is not a valid counterargument).
I don't actually disagree with the thrust of your points, its just that the way you present it is...just bad. If you took the time to qualify your points, it leaves you less vulnerable to what you call 'derails'.
|
On November 30 2010 09:07 Sadistx wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 08:47 SCC-Faust wrote:On November 30 2010 08:43 Sadistx wrote:
Can we see a link to your bnet profile please? Why do you come in here ever so often to start shit? Someone already used this argument back a few pages. And it was retorted too - when ret replied, and IdrA replied also, do I need to link YOU to their bnet profile page? Hilarious that you're actually accusing ME of starting shit when there are dozens of drone iconed posters blatantly bashing a top player.
hes not a top player. he cheeses, takes his percentage wins, then spends all his time bitching about the fact that he cant win after his bullshit fails.
|
Calling out 'logical errors, overreach, or backpedaling' doesn't do shit for developing the discussing except boost ego.
I'd rather see good players discuss the topic and tear it down if inaccurate than a sea of 'hurr look ur bad' from randoms. A few posts from ret/idra are worth a lot more.
|
Yeah it's a bit early to throw "top player" around, I don't think anyone who played bw or wc3 for at least 4-5 years and wasn't relevant can just claim to be that. If you played bw for years and never broke B on iccup you cannot suddenly become a "top player" on sc2 either. Maybe you still can maintain a decent percent win ratio but time will settle everything. Matchups get figured out now, superior mechanics and multitasking will eventually outweight "gimmicky" plays. That's why TLO and huk and many others are starting to have problems. If avilo (or any of them) was anywhere close to his full potential while playing bw it will be problematic for him to break that ceiling. If they weren't - potentially sky is the limit, but it will take time.
Also sadistx needs to calm down, guy has anger issues. Would be sweet if he was any good himself.
|
On November 30 2010 06:00 koreasilver wrote:
Its only in the past year that Terrans have really learned how to play lategame against a 4gas Zerg in BW. For years and years before that a 4gas Zerg was considered to be unbeatable in standard TvZ. The whole lategame mass tank transition didn't exist until very recently. So yes, there really was a "if I let him stabilize his fourth then I'm going to autolose to ultras and swarm"
I don't think that is accurate about BW... TvZ before ultra macro Flash mode was more about keeping the Vessel cloud alive than anything. I don't think anyone considered 4gas Zerg unbeatable (unless they were a whining C level player), but certainly the style popular in the proscene was two-base heavy army heavy harass terran, which by it's nature requires successful attacks. But you can back pretty far and see Terrans playing very macro heavy styles, especially on maps like Arcadia which is about 5 years ago now.
What was really happening with BW was that Zergs were teching super fast to defilers because of Savior, so leaving the Zerg alone was much more dangerous. These days Zergs are staying on Lair tech a little longer cause Terrans have gotten really good vs fast defiler play...
To be honest you need a few 100 pages to talk about how BW has evolved... Blanket statements like '200/200 terran is unbeatable TvP" and "4gas zerg is the end of the road TvZ" is just over simplified and wrong. The important factors in BW are not that the zerg has 4 gas, but how he got to it and where is opponent is at that point in time.
|
On November 30 2010 11:57 IdrA wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 09:07 Sadistx wrote:On November 30 2010 08:47 SCC-Faust wrote:On November 30 2010 08:43 Sadistx wrote:
Can we see a link to your bnet profile please? Why do you come in here ever so often to start shit? Someone already used this argument back a few pages. And it was retorted too - when ret replied, and IdrA replied also, do I need to link YOU to their bnet profile page? Hilarious that you're actually accusing ME of starting shit when there are dozens of drone iconed posters blatantly bashing a top player. hes not a top player. he cheeses, takes his percentage wins, then spends all his time bitching about the fact that he cant win after his bullshit fails.
what or who are you talking about? lol? funny you just come into threads and randomly say something about so and so is bad and never actually input anything.
|
Calling out 'logical errors, overreach, or backpedaling' doesn't do shit for developing the discussing except boost ego.
Of course it does, unless "discussion" is really just a disguised form of "diamond points e-peen battle" (if it is, kindly inform me and I'll get out of the thread).
I agree that 'top players' are more likely to have correct arguments than terrible people like me, but they certainly aren't immune to bad logic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
