I already was telling people as the patch came out how ZvT would end up, and it's finally there.
Every high level TvZ is an aggro all-in, or gimmick in order to not go late game versus Zerg (back to early beta status).
Do not expect it to change. And do not expect Terrans to win even with this stuff. It's not just a trend - it was inevitable. After all of these nerfs to Terran, not addressing Zerg's late game macro, which always has been invincible...
Except in the era of tvz mech. That's when Zergs whined because they were mad Terran could actually play a late game management game and not automatically lose. Although, just as an aside, mech was imba back then. Anyways
Terrans basically already exhausted all of the options for attempting macro management play...to no avail. A management game versus Zerg in lategame is never an equal game.
Foxer made marines popular TvZ, sure, but what he really made popular (if you want to call it a "trend" or "metagame shift") is the mass early marines to make it so you don't have to go late game versus Zerg.
People say I whine and am "arrogant" in my balance analysis...but I'm pretty sure the people that haven't hopped on board the ZvT ANALYSIS wagon are the ones being arrogant now.
How can people looking at balance or GSL games honestly look at the games and assess that "pros can't macro lategame with Terran," or "Terran players are bad," or "this is all gimmicky stuff."
To all of those people I say - get over yourselves. You can pretend Zerg is as underpowered as you want or that mules are too good (LOL). But look at the fucking games.
Every Terran, even goddamn intotherainbow, is doing marine/scv all-in variations. These players are not stupid. They understand the state of the game.
So please, especially general forum SC2 posters, stop acting like the progamers don't know what they're doing, or, in the more funny posts, acting like Terran's are abusing some mystical strategy that is uber good!
It's not. At all. All of these scv/marine all-ins are to completely avoid lategame.
Expect more of them. ALOT MORE. Good day!
and yes, I know I take a lot of flak for being outspoken on the boards about this stuff. That's fine. Bring it. But I wonder if people can manage to attack my arguments instead of me personally.
If you honestly feel Terran can compete with Zerg in a late game macro management game, I would be happy to see your arguments. I'm sure you'll have plenty of GSL games to back those up as well (LOL).
One more note to readers - if it seems like I've repeated myself over the course of the last 3 weeks or so...guess what? It's because everything I said back then applied, but the game was still developing up to this point, so people were quick to bash me instead of looking at the game and analyzing it more objectively.
edit: 11/29/2010: I still think the match-up is in the same state, but currently what's really killing this match-up, along with most GSL games...I think most people will agree is...
The maps are also raping players left and right. What the hell was GSL thinking?
edit: 12/6/2010: GSL RO8 Nestea VS TSL-Rain...more Terran all-ins...more 10-13 min+ Z macro wins... Do you really want chat rooms? Do you really want balanced TvZ/ZvT?
Yeah you could see that this was coming since 1.1.2 PvZ is exactly the same. Kill the zerg before late game or die. Fortunately Protoss have a lot more flexibility in how we decide to all in Terran don't have that luxury.
You know you can write as much as you want but people who doubt you arent gonna be convinced unless you switch your race to zerg and crush some top terrans in straight up macro games. Thats just the way it is, people need hard proof, they cant just trust someones words, and definitely not someone who seems so absurdly biased.
I'm not a top notch player so maybe I shouldn't speak, but from what I experience throughout my nooby game, is that if I don't end the game early with some marine rush or some crazy/lucky helion harass, zerg gets 3 + bases and I have to turtle and everything goes downhill from there.
Let's say i push with a decent force of marines and tanks, encounter his army while i'm marching WIN the fight, by the time I get to his base, the zerg has already a given birth to a bunch of stuff that faceroll my weakened army. If I wait for reinforcement, he gets even more time to get more stuff... yeah my ZvT needs some help.
On November 24 2010 04:10 TheAntZ wrote: You know you can write as much as you want but people who doubt you arent gonna be convinced unless you switch your race to zerg and crush some top terrans in straight up macro games. Thats just the way it is, people need hard proof, they cant just trust someones words, and definitely not someone who seems so absurdly biased.
Every top Terran I've talked to shares the same opinion.
On November 24 2010 04:10 TheAntZ wrote: You know you can write as much as you want but people who doubt you arent gonna be convinced unless you switch your race to zerg and crush some top terrans in straight up macro games. Thats just the way it is, people need hard proof, they cant just trust someones words, and definitely not someone who seems so absurdly biased.
That is wrong, actually, well chosen words are enough for most people. THey just need to hear what they want. But this isn't the issue.
I agree. Terrans all in versus zerg because late game it is unmanagable with our current knowledge. Maybe mech is the answer?
On November 24 2010 04:10 TheAntZ wrote: You know you can write as much as you want but people who doubt you arent gonna be convinced unless you switch your race to zerg and crush some top terrans in straight up macro games. Thats just the way it is, people need hard proof, they cant just trust someones words, and definitely not someone who seems so absurdly biased.
You remember the mass nydus network chains back in beta? That was me. I played Zerg entirely for the entire last month or so of beta.
People have short attention spans, so yes, the 20 post noobs will assemble and see I have a Terran icon and nitpick.
If you want hard proof, look at the trend of GSL games. Look at fruitdealer's win, not for the "OMG A ZERG WON 'IMBA' " but look at how he was playing in a patch that was clearly Terran favored. intotherainbow did play like trash in the finals, but how fruitdealer played was THE way to theoretically play Zerg the best - go to late game -> win.
Now, if you want more hard proof, look at post patch, GSL2. More and more Zergs were winning against Terran, and if you want to analyze the games that Terran did in fact win versus Zergs, it was with very, very gimmicky stuff. Out of all those games, only a few go to late game, and most of them that do Zerg of course won.
Now fast forward to present. TvZ GSL3. Mass scv/marine all-in variations on the korean server. So far in GSL3, I think I'm pretty in the clear to say that the TvZ games won by Terran have been before the 10 minute mark, or won outright with marine/scvs, or banshee play. I don't think there's been any equal footing macro games seen, unless you count the mass viking game, which was more of a "1 time strat" thing to catch someone off guard. (or maybe mass viking will develop...doubtful though. It's just another gimmick meant to take a win without a macro game).
So...yes, there's a lot of hard proof besides my own interjected opinion.
as always you're very astute. Just edited in your quote. Yes, it's more of the same as I mentioned above...because nothing has changed since the patch has released. It's just pros and others have reached the point where they realize a management game is not possible versus Zerg.
slayers boxer analyzed the same weeks back, and despite not being the "omg bonjwa" of SC2...he knows his shit when he's talking about balance.
Even before the most recent tank nerf, I've had problems against zergs who get away with 14 hatch and don't take econ damage (edit: extreme econ damage) from my attempted hellion/banshee/reaper (depending on the game) harass. It just seems that every time my army moves out it gets decimated as soon as it moves into creep territory, even if I open very economically and produce the right units. This happens most frequently to me on larger maps that have less territory to leverage, such as metalopolis or shakuras plateau.
why are you insisting that you called it and spouting that you were the mass nydus guy? I agree with ur opinion but your tone and attitude are worthless. fine, you called it. but so did everyone else who had a basic knowledge of how patches would affect the game.
Maybe no one is good enough to beat Zerg late game yet :U
In any case, what you're saying makes sense, so. -shrug-
Although, in a personal opinion, I don't think the game is imbalanced. I think it's just been adjusted, and people need to find a new way to beat what's been added and work with what's been nerfed. ;o Doesn't have much to do with this thread, but I wanted to share. ~_~''
Judging off some of Blizzard's past balance adjustments, I wouldn't be surprised if they did something stupid like making hatcheries require a spawning pool to make. >_>
On November 24 2010 04:30 mOnion wrote: why are you insisting that you called it and spouting that you were the mass nydus guy? I agree with ur opinion but your tone and attitude are worthless. fine, you called it. but so did everyone else who had a basic knowledge of how patches would affect the game.
A) I was responding to theantz about being t/z zerg biased B) Just speaking my mind. Not gonna sit here and pretend all is hunky dory in TvZ land. C) the majority of people still to this day have the idea that you can play a macro game versus Zerg in TvZ. Read the forums if you don't believe me.
D) Yes I did call it that's not the damn point though. Do people really like that a management/macro game versus Zerg is an inevitable loss for T? It's literally like playing against a clock. Or maybe everyone likes watching T's all-in vs Z every game to even have a chance to win games.
On November 24 2010 04:22 LuckyFool wrote: avilo u can't play TvZ like u play TvT sorry to disappoint.
LOL
lmao i know i wish a macro game were possible lol. I'm sure all the GSL Terrans do too.
On November 24 2010 04:36 Bibbit wrote: Judging off some of Blizzard's past balance adjustments, I wouldn't be surprised if they did something stupid like making hatcheries require a spawning pool to make. >_>
They cant make hatcheries require a spawning pool since
1. This would prevent people from rebuilding in team games. 2. It just seems funny that a spawning pool requires a Hatchery and a Hatchery requires a spawning pool =)
As much as I don't like SC2, I don't think you're a genius for pointing out that the balance of a game would be tumultuous in the first year of its release. I also think it was a mistake, from an enjoyability perspective, to have big tournaments so soon for a game that was obviously going to suffer through things like this.
In SC:BW revolutions come from changes in the maps, and from players going really deep into the game and figuring things out (these mutually affect each other). There is lasting significance to these changes, and players who use other races just have to evolve with it.
In SC2, right now, every time there is a perceived imbalance, Blizzard has to go in and fix it by changing critical values which mess with the whole game. It turns the GSL into a circus.
Achieving perfect balance in a game in a nearly impossible feat. Everyone calls SC:BW a fluke. How many patches will Blizzard release until they say 'close enough?' I don't know. But the game needs stability before players will have the motivation to really dig deep into themselves to find solutions for their race, instead of blaming the game.
I think there's lots of things Terran could do. I think Terran and Protoss are not playing intelligent economic games yet. But until the game is stable, all-ins are an easier way to deal with perceived unfairness.
Imagine if instead of players perfecting Protoss FE vs Zerg in BW, Blizzard had just given zealots shorter build time or something. The game would never be worth figuring out.
Granted all I do is watch the games and am new at even that, but I have to say that your posts are always very enlightening, Avilo. They're analytical and insightful. And even when people attack you for what they deem "whining" you back yourself with concrete proof.
Guess they don't call you Avilostradamus for nuttin. hehe
On November 24 2010 04:45 Oconomist wrote: They cant make hatcheries require a spawning pool since
1. This would prevent people from rebuilding in team games. 2. It just seems funny that a spawning pool requires a Hatchery and a Hatchery requires a spawning pool =)
Its the same way in PvZ, P has to do some sort of dedicated pressure early on or they risk getting ran over because gateway units scale so poorly in large numbers vs Z. I think its just the way the game is right now, if Z is not being aggressively harassed in some way Z is winning. Every successful PvZ at MLG was just gateway pressure for the longest time possible, any tech to colossi or HTs was just to deal with the inevitable hydras or mass roaches. At the very least being super aggressive with gateway units can deny mutalisk transitions .
I'm not gonna say anyone is OP, i think this really is just the way TvZ and PvZ will be played right now because of how strong Z is when Z is allowed to play economic games.
I do agree that Zerg late game is really hard to beat, the mix of lots of Banelings, Ultralisks/Broodlords (sometimes both), Mutalisks, then once all has been beaten the hatcheries 10+ larvae would be there ready to macro up and suddenly Zerg has a 200/200 army again.
Didn't Blizzard say something about when a Hatchery has more then 3 Larvae, that any extra Larvae would die over time when not in use? I suppose this would solve this end game 10+ Larvae on each Hatchery, unless Zergs keep constant Inject Larva up.
But more onto topic, I do agree that it is really difficult to beat Zerg late game, their army is so powerful, and they have so many units, the use of flanks, and lots of AoE damage just slaughters Terran. Since Terran are only powerful when there in one big ball. On there own they are so weak. Drops are not really an option any more especially if the Zerg has good Mutalisk micro and Overlord placement, your drop can possibly be neutralized immediately. If you do somehow manage to drop a bunch of infantry in the Zerg's base, the creep makes their units so fast that they get there before you do any real damage. In addition to that, if you try to pickup your dropped units and run away, the Mutalisks are there to pick off your defenceless dropships.
The answer people say could possibly be mech? But I say no, only because Mech are so damn immobile, the use of Thors to counter Mutalisks? Sure good when they are attacking the Thors head on out in the open, but most Zerg players will say 'bugger that' and move on to attacking somewhere else that is defenceless like the other side of the main. Do some damage, and leave before the Thors have even gotten passed the ramp to your main -.-
Sure tanks are really great! They do lots of damage, I mean who doesn't like damage right? But again, so immobile, if you unsiege at the wrong time the Zerg come in destroy everything before your tanks get up. Of course this can be solved with correct scouting so its not really as big of an issue, but still annoying.
Anyway I am not saying that I know what I am talking about, I am just saying what I believe seems to be what's happening at the moment.
On November 24 2010 04:10 TheAntZ wrote: You know you can write as much as you want but people who doubt you arent gonna be convinced unless you switch your race to zerg and crush some top terrans in straight up macro games. Thats just the way it is, people need hard proof, they cant just trust someones words, and definitely not someone who seems so absurdly biased.
Every top Terran I've talked to shares the same opinion.
i never said i disagree with his opinion I actually do agree with it just that people who do will not be won over by someone who appears to be so T biased
I actually think this will change very soon. I'm just waiting for a good terran in the GSL to prove this idea wrong. FE play into mass tanks/marines is extremely strong and someone in the GSL better do it or I am gonna be pissed. I think the matchup is balanced and I play terran.... these lame korean terrans are just all in every game and it is just retarded.
I don't care what people say about how good they are, it is just a stupid strategy to do every single game and they need to learn to play a macro game sometime...
Yeah, I think it's clear this is not what we want. The top zergs say Z is way overpowered now.
Funny when you play a macro game against zerg they are all always floating at 5000 minerals all the time when you have less than 400 the whole game. If you don't do something super abusing/cheese early on that's how it goes. Maybe overlords should be slower early on so zerg can't get the fast expanding / droning for granted, I dunno.
Even if the winrates are 50/50 in zerg matchups, the way the games play out is wrong. Especially the korean games. It's not fun!
E. The time when the reaper patch game was funny, it was just at the time when zergs actually learned how to deal with it. Go watch Day[9] Dailies around that time... then you get this patch that is a complete overkill on top of that. Now we get marine scv allins against hatch first builds and they are nowhere close to autowins to Terran still.
Anyone know why they didn't patch Roach to just 3.5 like originally planned? Although I don't see Roach as the main problem.
On November 24 2010 05:13 NonFactor wrote: Can you please explain in detail how Zerg can beat a macro Terran 100% the time, like your whine post seems to imply?
Despite noobies in random places thinking mules are the shit...they aren't. Mules actually keep Terran even with Zerg - yes even, not ahead. And barely even at that.
The reason you cannot play a management game versus Zerg is that if you go for economy...Zerg goes for more economy, and with larva inject they can easily create a 10-20, sometimes even 25 food worker gap.
When it reaches that point, it's a game of them countering your unit composition, suiciding into your army, and remaxing their army while taking the rest of the map.
Macro Terran is an oxymoron right now. You can't do it TvZ. Not just balance-wise, but even mathematically, you always are behind in TvZ if you go for a macro game.
That's why you see this shift now to the barracks mass marine early games. It lets you live in this window of time where you can get ahead of Zerg by forcing them to make some zerglings, and not drone whor3 while you are able to mule. tho most Terrans are hoping to outright kill the Z.
Everytime in GSL you hear artosis say about how dangerous 14 hatch is to do now...and you see the Zerg 14 hatch every game he says it...just roll your eyes like I do. It's only dangerous in the sense that the Terran is going to all-in you...but the Zerg knows they are going to be all-ined, and they know how to stop it, which is why they 14 hatch anyways.
I don't know if you played near the start of beta, but Zergs were known on the korean server for mass spine crawlering, and then drone whor3ing 40+ drones and such craziness, and then macroing. It was insane.
It's no where near as bad as that, but Zerg's lategame has always remained untouched throughout every patch. It's hard for people to see just how good Z lategame is now, because we had that period of time where "Terran was OP" as in - Terran would do random gimmicky all-ins and get away with them. But even then...if you let Zerg go to late game it was heavily Z favored.
On November 24 2010 04:09 Plexa wrote: Yeah you could see that this was coming since 1.1.2 PvZ is exactly the same. Kill the zerg before late game or die. Fortunately Protoss have a lot more flexibility in how we decide to all in Terran don't have that luxury.
I really don't mean to argue with this point, in fact, if you're truly correct I'd love to learn something. I actually struggle lategame ZvP unless I get a really large advantage in the mid-game. That being said, I've recently figured some timings out ZvP that have helped me a lot in the later part of the mid-game, but I honestly feel like my lategame units don't do well against the large protoss ball if its' controlled well. If I go roach or roach/hydra midgame if the protoss player gets to about 5 collosi I feel pretty stuck transitioning out of it. I've tried a few different things like broodlords or baneling drops without a tons of success because I feel like my upgrades aren't good for those units. And if go for a muta/ling transition I feel like I'm too vulnerable around the timing I'm taking my 3rd and I just die (or the protoss player will be able to take their 3rd first).
None of this is claiming that the match-up is balanced or imbalanced, but I really struggle either 1) getting to lategame or 2) in lategame. I'm not saying this is the ideal progression for ZvP, but I think whenever balance discussions revolve around "what does lategame look like" you can't really do it without discussing how lategame is reached and what the game situation looks like at that point.
On November 24 2010 04:09 Plexa wrote: Yeah you could see that this was coming since 1.1.2 PvZ is exactly the same. Kill the zerg before late game or die. Fortunately Protoss have a lot more flexibility in how we decide to all in Terran don't have that luxury.
I really don't mean to argue with this point, in fact, if you're truly correct I'd love to learn something. I actually struggle lategame ZvP unless I get a really large advantage in the mid-game. That being said, I've recently figured some timings out ZvP that have helped me a lot in the later part of the mid-game, but I honestly feel like my lategame units don't do well against the large protoss ball if its' controlled well. If I go roach or roach/hydra midgame if the protoss player gets to about 5 collosi I feel pretty stuck transitioning out of it. I've tried a few different things like broodlords or baneling drops without a tons of success because I feel like my upgrades aren't good for those units. And if go for a muta/ling transition I feel like I'm too vulnerable around the timing I'm taking my 3rd and I just die (or the protoss player will be able to take their 3rd first).
None of this is claiming that the match-up is balanced or imbalanced, but I really struggle either 1) getting to lategame or 2) in lategame. I'm not saying this is the ideal progression for ZvP, but I think whenever balance discussions revolve around "what does lategame look like" you can't really do it without discussing how lategame is reached and what the game situation looks like at that point.
Chances are you just aren't making a lot of drones. Zerg's biggest advantage is how easily they can use spawn larvae to generate an insurmountably large economy very fast
Except in the era of tvz mech. That's when Zergs whined because they were mad Terran could actually play a late game management game and not automatically lose. Although, just as an aside, mech was imba back then.
Why did mech suddenly become bad? Is it the +1 roach range?
On November 24 2010 05:14 xxpack09 wrote: Here's the issue, and its been an issue I've been talking about forever
YEAH I KILLED THIRTY DRONES WITH MY AWESOME HARASSMENT!!!
-> spawn larvae @ 4 bases with 4 queens -> 28 new drones
It's simply way too easy for zerg to out-power the other races with their macro mechanic
Yes, this also means he can't resupply with units. At a high level you realize that this is how you can beat zerg. It's actually not that hard, you just need to get them to play how you want them to play.
On November 24 2010 05:13 NonFactor wrote: Can you please explain in detail how Zerg can beat a macro Terran 100% the time, like your whine post seems to imply?
Despite noobies in random places thinking mules are the shit...they aren't. Mules actually keep Terran even with Zerg - yes even, not ahead. And barely even at that.
The reason you cannot play a management game versus Zerg is that if you go for economy...Zerg goes for more economy, and with larva inject they can easily create a 10-20, sometimes even 25 food worker gap.
When it reaches that point, it's a game of them countering your unit composition, suiciding into your army, and remaxing their army while taking the rest of the map.
Macro Terran is an oxymoron right now. You can't do it TvZ. Not just balance-wise, but even mathematically, you always are behind in TvZ if you go for a macro game.
That's why you see this shift now to the barracks mass marine early games. It lets you live in this window of time where you can get ahead of Zerg by forcing them to make some zerglings, and not drone whor3 while you are able to mule. tho most Terrans are hoping to outright kill the Z.
Everytime in GSL you hear artosis say about how dangerous 14 hatch is to do now...and you see the Zerg 14 hatch every game he says it...just roll your eyes like I do. It's only dangerous in the sense that the Terran is going to all-in you...but the Zerg knows they are going to be all-ined, and they know how to stop it, which is why they 14 hatch anyways.
I don't know if you played near the start of beta, but Zergs were known on the korean server for mass spine crawlering, and then drone whor3ing 40+ drones and such craziness, and then macroing. It was insane.
It's no where near as bad as that, but Zerg's lategame has always remained untouched throughout every patch. It's hard for people to see just how good Z lategame is now, because we had that period of time where "Terran was OP" as in - Terran would do random gimmicky all-ins and get away with them. But even then...if you let Zerg go to late game it was heavily Z favored.
It's only more so now.
ok so you're just equivocating. Mules keep Terran even with Zerg? so what's the problem? in fact almost everyone would agree an even economy scenario means Terran's ahead.
how about you actually give some specific reasons? all you've described is diversity with larva inject. yes, zerg operates differently. It was the exact same in BW: if you left Zerg alone they'd rape, but I virtually heard no imbalance claims about ZvT then
I really get the feeling people only didn't whine about imbalance like this in BW is because it was accepted to be a 'balanced game' and they'd come off as a moron, but now SC2's here people are gonna milk this as much as possible
Except in the era of tvz mech. That's when Zergs whined because they were mad Terran could actually play a late game management game and not automatically lose. Although, just as an aside, mech was imba back then.
Why did mech suddenly become bad? Is it the +1 roach range?
tanks: 60 -> 50 -> 35light(50armored) dmg
guess hard to harass 14hatch as a standard was kind of the final nail, it's still "somewhat viable sometimes", depends a lot on maps and stuff.
On November 24 2010 04:10 TheAntZ wrote: You know you can write as much as you want but people who doubt you arent gonna be convinced unless you switch your race to zerg and crush some top terrans in straight up macro games. Thats just the way it is, people need hard proof, they cant just trust someones words, and definitely not someone who seems so absurdly biased.
Every top Terran I've talked to shares the same opinion.
i never said i disagree with his opinion I actually do agree with it just that people who do will not be won over by someone who appears to be so T biased
He's not T biased. He just understands the game and posts the truth as a top player sees it. If reality seems T biased for you, then your definition of biased is wrong.
Now back to the topic: the problem could be addressed in several ways - either slightly nerfing larva inject or making terran tier 3 viable.
Atm terran tier 3 = 3/3 upgrades on marines, because both ravens and bcs are utter garbage.
On November 24 2010 05:37 dreamend wrote: It was the exact same in BW: if you left Zerg alone they'd rape, but I virtually heard no imbalance claims about ZvT then
I really get the feeling people only didn't whine about imbalance like this in BW is because it was accepted to be a 'balanced game' and they'd come off as a moron, but now SC2's here people are gonna milk this as much as possible
On November 24 2010 05:17 ThisIsJimmy wrote: I actually think this will change very soon. I'm just waiting for a good terran in the GSL to prove this idea wrong. FE play into mass tanks/marines is extremely strong and someone in the GSL better do it or I am gonna be pissed. I think the matchup is balanced and I play terran.... these lame korean terrans are just all in every game and it is just retarded.
I don't care what people say about how good they are, it is just a stupid strategy to do every single game and they need to learn to play a macro game sometime...
The alternative if 200/200 marine/tank push and hoping like hell they've been twiddling their thumbs for a while
Did you ever consider that maybe (just maybe here) the Koreans play a different style compared to the NA server?
So far from what I have seen of the Korean server (more then just GSL also) Korean players play hyper aggressive with all races almost all the time.
I don't think it's fair to claim "OMG THE KOREAN DO IT AND THE KOREANS ARE THE ONLY PPL THAT ARE RIGHT SO THUS THIS IS A FACT" based off just GSL games personally.
From what I have seen in your post you have absolutely no proof to back up your claims besides Koreans (who are known for being all in/aggressive players) are being all in/aggressive....
The GSL is a very small sampling on what is happening all over the world, and imo cannot be considered proof. It's just the Korean flavor of the month cheese which has been happening since the beginning of the beta.
Remember when Tozar found a Korean replay with the Korean 4 Warpgate Rush (pylons in the min line PvP) and all of a sudden NO ONE could beat it? I know I remember it. After a couple weeks however people realized there was a way to beat it (kill the scouting probe...) and it is now just another build out there that you know could be coming. I'm pretty sure this is what is happening here.
On November 24 2010 05:13 NonFactor wrote: Can you please explain in detail how Zerg can beat a macro Terran 100% the time, like your whine post seems to imply?
Despite noobies in random places thinking mules are the shit...they aren't. Mules actually keep Terran even with Zerg - yes even, not ahead. And barely even at that.
The reason you cannot play a management game versus Zerg is that if you go for economy...Zerg goes for more economy, and with larva inject they can easily create a 10-20, sometimes even 25 food worker gap.
When it reaches that point, it's a game of them countering your unit composition, suiciding into your army, and remaxing their army while taking the rest of the map.
Macro Terran is an oxymoron right now. You can't do it TvZ. Not just balance-wise, but even mathematically, you always are behind in TvZ if you go for a macro game.
That's why you see this shift now to the barracks mass marine early games. It lets you live in this window of time where you can get ahead of Zerg by forcing them to make some zerglings, and not drone whor3 while you are able to mule. tho most Terrans are hoping to outright kill the Z.
Everytime in GSL you hear artosis say about how dangerous 14 hatch is to do now...and you see the Zerg 14 hatch every game he says it...just roll your eyes like I do. It's only dangerous in the sense that the Terran is going to all-in you...but the Zerg knows they are going to be all-ined, and they know how to stop it, which is why they 14 hatch anyways.
I don't know if you played near the start of beta, but Zergs were known on the korean server for mass spine crawlering, and then drone whor3ing 40+ drones and such craziness, and then macroing. It was insane.
It's no where near as bad as that, but Zerg's lategame has always remained untouched throughout every patch. It's hard for people to see just how good Z lategame is now, because we had that period of time where "Terran was OP" as in - Terran would do random gimmicky all-ins and get away with them. But even then...if you let Zerg go to late game it was heavily Z favored.
It's only more so now.
ok so you're just equivocating. Mules keep Terran even with Zerg? so what's the problem? in fact almost everyone would agree an even economy scenario means Terran's ahead.
how about you actually give some specific reasons? all you've described is diversity with larva inject. yes, zerg operates differently. It was the exact same in BW: if you left Zerg alone they'd rape, but I virtually heard no imbalance claims about ZvT then
I really get the feeling people only didn't whine about imbalance like this in BW is because it was accepted to be a 'balanced game' and they'd come off as a moron, but now SC2's here people are gonna milk this as much as possible
zerg could actually be left alone in bw for a bit, that's the thing; without gaining a ridiculous economy lead.
On November 24 2010 05:37 dreamend wrote: It was the exact same in BW: if you left Zerg alone they'd rape, but I virtually heard no imbalance claims about ZvT then
I really get the feeling people only didn't whine about imbalance like this in BW is because it was accepted to be a 'balanced game' and they'd come off as a moron, but now SC2's here people are gonna milk this as much as possible
Anyone who has played BW knows it isn't the same.
really is when you just look at the general idea of things. ZvT Zerg was just defending all game until his Hive tech + expansions kicked in. And everyone was terrified of a 4 gas Zerg
On November 24 2010 05:17 ThisIsJimmy wrote: I actually think this will change very soon. I'm just waiting for a good terran in the GSL to prove this idea wrong. FE play into mass tanks/marines is extremely strong and someone in the GSL better do it or I am gonna be pissed. I think the matchup is balanced and I play terran.... these lame korean terrans are just all in every game and it is just retarded.
I don't care what people say about how good they are, it is just a stupid strategy to do every single game and they need to learn to play a macro game sometime...
The alternative if 200/200 marine/tank push and hoping like hell they've been twiddling their thumbs for a while
No reason to wait for 200/200. Tanks > banelings. Marines > everything else. This is prior to hive tech. Tanks focus fire banelings or infestor and terran wins. Someone in GSL is going to do this strat eventually and everyone will say its unbeatable. I will laugh =)
On November 24 2010 05:48 iCCup.Diamond wrote: Remember when Tozar found a Korean replay with the Korean 4 Warpgate Rush (pylons in the min line PvP) and all of a sudden NO ONE could beat it? I know I remember it. After a couple weeks however people realized there was a way to beat it (kill the scouting probe...) and it is now just another build out there that you know could be coming. I'm pretty sure this is what is happening here.
Clearly some PvPs are like this because PvP is imba if you get into the late game.
Note the game between Genius vs sSKS on Caverns from GOMTV All-Star tournament. A lot of Korean PvP games still use 4-gate styles because late game Colossus are just too strong.
There isn't a way to beat a Colossus build in a macro game. So the only way to win is 4gate.
This is fact, I have lots of proof, don't flame me, flame the facts, etc. etc.
On November 24 2010 05:17 ThisIsJimmy wrote: I actually think this will change very soon. I'm just waiting for a good terran in the GSL to prove this idea wrong. FE play into mass tanks/marines is extremely strong and someone in the GSL better do it or I am gonna be pissed. I think the matchup is balanced and I play terran.... these lame korean terrans are just all in every game and it is just retarded.
I don't care what people say about how good they are, it is just a stupid strategy to do every single game and they need to learn to play a macro game sometime...
The alternative if 200/200 marine/tank push and hoping like hell they've been twiddling their thumbs for a while
No reason to wait for 200/200. Tanks > banelings. Marines > everything else. This is prior to hive tech. Tanks focus fire banelings or infestor and terran wins. Someone in GSL is going to do this strat eventually and everyone will say its unbeatable. I will laugh =)
Infestors > tank marine easily. Threaten to attack every time they unsiege, throw down fungals, stall their push forever until hive tech. Ultras > marine, BL > tank.
But yeah, Tank/marine is probably Terran's best bet, BUT they have to be 1 upgrade ahead of zerg at ALL times, or they just get overrun by pure ling.
On November 24 2010 05:48 iCCup.Diamond wrote: Remember when Tozar found a Korean replay with the Korean 4 Warpgate Rush (pylons in the min line PvP) and all of a sudden NO ONE could beat it? I know I remember it. After a couple weeks however people realized there was a way to beat it (kill the scouting probe...) and it is now just another build out there that you know could be coming. I'm pretty sure this is what is happening here.
Clearly some PvPs are like this because PvP is imba if you get into the late game.
Note the game between Genius vs sSKS on Caverns from GOMTV All-Star tournament. A lot of Korean PvP games still use 4-gate styles because late game Colossus are just too strong.
There isn't a way to beat a Colossus build in a macro game. So the only way to win is 4gate.
This is fact, I have lots of proof, don't flame me, flame the facts, etc. etc.
I'm talking the Korean 4 Warpgate when you put the gate down on 10, and cut probes and units while the other 3 gates are making to drop 4+ pylons in the enemies mineral line to warp in zealots. That build is stupid easy to stop and you don't see much use of it anymore. But when people first caught wind of it, it was the build used in 90% of PvP's.
Now it's just a normal 4 Warpgate, (first gate goes down on 12, and pylon outside base, no cutting of probes or military units) which is still wayyyyyy too strong but you also see builds that at the time unthinkable being used such as 2 gate robo, 3 gate expand, etc.... When the Korean 4 Warpgate was all the rage those builds were considered suicide, until people adjusted to the new 4 warpgate style of Protoss and figured out the value in killing a scouting probe.
On November 24 2010 04:09 Plexa wrote: Yeah you could see that this was coming since 1.1.2 PvZ is exactly the same. Kill the zerg before late game or die. Fortunately Protoss have a lot more flexibility in how we decide to all in Terran don't have that luxury.
I really don't mean to argue with this point, in fact, if you're truly correct I'd love to learn something. I actually struggle lategame ZvP unless I get a really large advantage in the mid-game. That being said, I've recently figured some timings out ZvP that have helped me a lot in the later part of the mid-game, but I honestly feel like my lategame units don't do well against the large protoss ball if its' controlled well. If I go roach or roach/hydra midgame if the protoss player gets to about 5 collosi I feel pretty stuck transitioning out of it. I've tried a few different things like broodlords or baneling drops without a tons of success because I feel like my upgrades aren't good for those units. And if go for a muta/ling transition I feel like I'm too vulnerable around the timing I'm taking my 3rd and I just die (or the protoss player will be able to take their 3rd first).
None of this is claiming that the match-up is balanced or imbalanced, but I really struggle either 1) getting to lategame or 2) in lategame. I'm not saying this is the ideal progression for ZvP, but I think whenever balance discussions revolve around "what does lategame look like" you can't really do it without discussing how lategame is reached and what the game situation looks like at that point.
Chances are you just aren't making a lot of drones. Zerg's biggest advantage is how easily they can use spawn larvae to generate an insurmountably large economy very fast
No, I have no problem getting a large economic advantage, but if I don't push it at around a 3-base timing all-in (or some 2-base all-ins depending on the Protoss composition), I can't ever seem to beat a Protoss who gets onto 3 bases. I can produce infinity units IN THEORY, but IN PRACTICE, the 2nd wave on reinforcements is just too little too late.
On November 24 2010 05:17 ThisIsJimmy wrote: I actually think this will change very soon. I'm just waiting for a good terran in the GSL to prove this idea wrong. FE play into mass tanks/marines is extremely strong and someone in the GSL better do it or I am gonna be pissed. I think the matchup is balanced and I play terran.... these lame korean terrans are just all in every game and it is just retarded.
I don't care what people say about how good they are, it is just a stupid strategy to do every single game and they need to learn to play a macro game sometime...
The alternative if 200/200 marine/tank push and hoping like hell they've been twiddling their thumbs for a while
No reason to wait for 200/200. Tanks > banelings. Marines > everything else. This is prior to hive tech. Tanks focus fire banelings or infestor and terran wins. Someone in GSL is going to do this strat eventually and everyone will say its unbeatable. I will laugh =)
On November 24 2010 05:17 ThisIsJimmy wrote: I actually think this will change very soon. I'm just waiting for a good terran in the GSL to prove this idea wrong. FE play into mass tanks/marines is extremely strong and someone in the GSL better do it or I am gonna be pissed. I think the matchup is balanced and I play terran.... these lame korean terrans are just all in every game and it is just retarded.
I don't care what people say about how good they are, it is just a stupid strategy to do every single game and they need to learn to play a macro game sometime...
The alternative if 200/200 marine/tank push and hoping like hell they've been twiddling their thumbs for a while
No reason to wait for 200/200. Tanks > banelings. Marines > everything else. This is prior to hive tech. Tanks focus fire banelings or infestor and terran wins. Someone in GSL is going to do this strat eventually and everyone will say its unbeatable. I will laugh =)
For Terran to win with Tank Marine they need to severely outclass the Zerg player, or the Zerg needs to make mistakes. Terran FE is easier to punish for Zerg than it has ever been for T on Z since 5 Rax Reaper.
I've been thinking a lot about this match up, and been looking for ways to play a macro game vs zerg. As Jimmy has mentioned, marines/tank are strong but the pendulum of the game changes in matters of seconds from losing your sizable forces, which seems to happen way too often. brief rant: + Show Spoiler +
The problem is even after terran puts up sizable amount of static defences such as turrets and moves out, zerg can swoop back in to terran base and pick off turrets,workers and important building structures like reactors on barracks, tech labs, etc. By this time the terran's force is usually somewhere in the middle and they are setting up position with their tanks and marines. After the mutalisk are done with their harassment without taking much damage they scoot back in time to meetup with their ground force and clean up the terrans army. Now you can see how this process repeats and re-building terrans force takes longer while zerg gets more ahead economically and army force wise. To a certain extent terran can minimize damage from the mutalisk harass by leaving some marines at home to defend as well, but that would make their attacking army weaker. I really wish the raven hsm spell gets removed and replaced with irradiate, because it can help in so many more cirumstances in tvz battles. Yes, pdd is good as well but it doesn't really help that the zerg can retreat their army, then terran needs to move a forward again and re-setup. It is this "setting up" your army time that they get the big flank on you and leaves you helpless. Also it is hard to retreat from a baneling mutalisk army while mutalisks are getting free hits on your army while running away. I’ve been playing a lot of bio versus zerg since beta, and before banelings became a big it I played a lot of 1 rax fe versus fez erg. I would use marine/marauder/tank/medviac and zerg would use zerglings/roaches/hydras/infestors/mutalisk. Even at this point of the game the battles were quite even, and the winner of the games would basically have a marginal better army and better upgrades. My suggestion towards this would be to either give back irradiate to hsm or reduce the mutalisk ground dmg. In most tvz games we end up seeing mutalisk with 0 weapon upgrade 2 armor upgrade, I think this would have them reconsider what upgrade to pick. Or, by putting back irradiate it will help tremendously as both static defence and offensive attacks. This could lead to potential outcry though as a clumped group of banelings get aoed to death.
I'm attaching with my current play style versus zerg, I do not do 2 rax or all-in builds, instead different variation of FE depending on spawning locations. The most success I've had is by doing a 1/1/1 fe build with one of every unit basically to put the pressure on zerg to create units instead of drones. Yes, these are wins but I would like to point out how in most cases the wins are largely because zerg didn't keep up with upgrades, or they did some heavy aggressive build that didn't pay off. Also note at the macro and money pileup as well.
I would recommend the 21+ minute games for more full blown macro games. Aside from 2 or 3? all opponents were 2-2.6k zergs, and I was either evenly paired of slightly un/favored versus them. o.o i also have reason to believe one of them is a prime member on a shared account
I think people underestimate the rate that they can get workers out. If you're playing a zerg that is droning you have the ability to expand quickly and make a lot of workers as well. While a zerg that is droning has to use larva to make units or risk getting pushed, a terran and toss can make probes with chrono and pump scvs with mules consistently and pump out units too. If they zerg has no units they can take a big hit from a push. This seems like common knowledge?
When I get into a macro game vs a toss its scary, because they chrono out a lot of probes. I will be honest though in saying that 80% of toss stick to 2base for longer than they should. For that period they will be near even on probes even when im trying to get the very minimal amount of units if they chrono workers consistently with a 3gate build expand build. A toss that knows when he can quickly take his 3rd is seriously scary, I am just waiting till its more mainstream. Sure you can argue that later game gateway units become less effective, but it seems fine to me? It seems like you get a lot of the good gas units off a 6gas build. Like triple robo or double robo stargate.
Terran is a little different but I think people are focusing on this marine / tank all in play and just getting confused when the zerg holds it. I don't see the problem with a zerg that is trying to mostly defend himself and working towards a 4base play beating a terran who is trying to win the game off 2base. People claim its because they cant play a late game, but I personally think its more the execution of how players do it. I remember seeing in GSL2 a Nada game on shakuras where he takes his 3rd rather quickly and goes mech and he dominated his opponent. I have only played a few games versus this but it is pretty scary. Bio can be scary but its vulnerable to infestors.
On November 24 2010 04:05 avilo wrote: If you honestly feel Terran can compete with Zerg in a late game macro management game, I would be happy to see your arguments. I'm sure you'll have plenty of GSL games to back those up as well (LOL).
Leenock vs Nada, Shakuras Plateu. Nothing else.
EDIT: And stop being a stupid Terran fanboy. Srsly, I've spent a lot of time being banned at TL because of writing this kind of shit. Doesn't this guy get banned ever?
While it's good to force the zerg to make units instead of Drones, is it necessarily better than just expanding again sooner yourself? I think Terran in SC2 can reach a critical number of orbital commands in which their money just becomes insane from 1 gold expansion with 4 mules shooting down every minute.
The pressure you put on Zerg if you don't intend to kill an expo should cost very little to you, and just take advantage of a Zerg who can't spread himself too thin. In SC:BW it was speedvultures and dropships (well a lot of other things too). I don't see why in SC2 it can't be flying ranged DTs. Just don't rush to them so you're not at a huge econ disadvantage.
On November 24 2010 04:05 avilo wrote: If you honestly feel Terran can compete with Zerg in a late game macro management game, I would be happy to see your arguments. I'm sure you'll have plenty of GSL games to back those up as well (LOL).
Leenock vs Nada, Shakuras Plateu. Nothing else.
EDIT: And stop being a stupid Terran fanboy. Srsly, I've spent a lot of time being banned at TL because of writing this kind of shit. Doesn't this guy get banned ever?
On November 24 2010 04:05 avilo wrote: If you honestly feel Terran can compete with Zerg in a late game macro management game, I would be happy to see your arguments. I'm sure you'll have plenty of GSL games to back those up as well (LOL).
Leenock vs Nada, Shakuras Plateu. Nothing else.
EDIT: And stop being a stupid Terran fanboy. Srsly, I've spent a lot of time being banned at TL because of writing this kind of shit. Doesn't this guy get banned ever?
Please have some respect for people who know what they are talking about, there is a reason no one listens to you.
I really don't see how ranks have anything to do with this discussion.
There are players higher than avilo that have diverse opinions on the matter. NEXGenius, Loner, and Boxer all made comments about balance in the previous GSL. And they all had a different stance (mostly) of how the races compared to each other.
Plus the reason why everything avilo posts is a joke is because of his attitude. If someone wanted to have a discussion or post something that was well-thought out and not insulting, it wouldn't turn into a flame war. Avilo instead spent his earlier months making fun of Zerg users for crying, and now in turn is doing the exact same thing, while trying to piss people off in the crossfire. Like you can't HAVE a discussion with him. I don't care if Avilo is the #1 player in the world, he doesn't productively get any point across. (Not trying to flatter him, I've seen his games and they weren't flattering either).
3 terrans in top4 last gsl season, also look up overall TvZ stats pls
if you think zerg lategame is too strong maybe you shouldnt let them get to lategame with 80 drones, theres a million ways to kill or damage zerg early, i cant believe u still havent figured this out yet,
and even then marine/tank is a good option. in the ogs house terrans are doing fine vs zerg, lategame too
On November 24 2010 04:05 avilo wrote: If you honestly feel Terran can compete with Zerg in a late game macro management game, I would be happy to see your arguments. I'm sure you'll have plenty of GSL games to back those up as well (LOL).
Leenock vs Nada, Shakuras Plateu. Nothing else.
EDIT: And stop being a stupid Terran fanboy. Srsly, I've spent a lot of time being banned at TL because of writing this kind of shit. Doesn't this guy get banned ever?
Please have some respect for people who know what they are talking about, there is a reason no one listens to you.
I really don't see how ranks have anything to do with this discussion.
There are players higher than avilo that have diverse opinions on the matter. NEXGenius, Loner, and Boxer all made comments about balance in the previous GSL. And they all had a different stance (mostly) of how the races compared to each other.
Plus the reason why everything avilo posts is a joke is because of his attitude. If someone wanted to have a discussion or post something that was well-thought out and not insulting, it wouldn't turn into a flame war. Avilo instead spent his earlier months making fun of Zerg users for crying, and now in turn is doing the exact same thing, while trying to piss people off in the crossfire. Like you can't HAVE a discussion with him. I don't care if Avilo is the #1 player in the world, he doesn't productively get any point across. (Not trying to flatter him, I've seen his games and they weren't flattering either).
Ah, I wasn't aware of his previous history, I just know he was a recognizable name- my bad. However that said, Metalwing's post was far from constructive as well.
I think a major problem with late game isn't the fact that Terran can't keep up economically, but the "tech switch" that Zerg has available. Basically they can swap between broodlords and within one supply cycle, and there is no way Terran can match it.
ughhh im with you avilo. Feel the exact same way about the matchup.
I don't want to call it imbalanced- but it just seems funny to me that a terran absolutely must seriously hurt the zerg early to have a shot at winning in the mid game. I WANT to be able to just play a standard game against zerg, but end up resorting to really gimmicky tactics early game be on level heading.
it is the combination of map control and larva inject that make zerg so powerful late game, once a sufficient number of mutas are out as terran you are stuck on 2 base, while the zerg is more or less free to take the map without worrying about drops or your immobile tank/marine force causing any threat.
I've been trying so hard to understand what i need to do to win a late game TvZ with my practice buddy, but i really just dont see it. I can be macroing absolutely brilliantly, but that doesnt mean much when its 2 base vs 4-5 base. I don't really know what the key to victory is- all that i could really think of is turtling hard until 200/200 with a heavy mech force and hoping he doesnt fungal/neural parasite or have hive tech ready to go, but even that seems futile. Maybe someone will discover some brilliant unit composition that is nigh unstoppable, but when the zerg can just insta-respawn the perfect counter to whatever you make= :\
i guess if early "gimmicks" or whatever you want to call then is how the matchup was meant to be played, that is fine, and i'll just have to figure something out. I'm more frustrated just with being able to see what i need to do to win late game, because usually i can see blantant errors that can be corrected- and i cannot in this case.
on the plus side, i'm sure i've gotten much better even if i just get rolled late game :D
On November 24 2010 07:38 Liquid`Ret wrote: 3 terrans in top4 last gsl season, also look up overall TvZ stats pls
if you think zerg lategame is too strong maybe you shouldnt let them get to lategame with 80 drones
I'll respond for avilo on this one because I heard him say this like 50,000 times.
"The reason why there was 3 Terrans in the top 4 is because Terran had more representation in the GSL, it doesn't mean Terran is OP LOL"
Yes, Terran had more "representation" in GSL 2, but how does that make any sense? How can people listen and agree to this guy when he can't even fathom a simple point? How did Terran get the most representation in GSL 2? Oh wait! Because the Terran players are the ones who made it past the qualifiers, more so than their Zerg and Protoss counter-parts!
Yes, it is true that according to a released Blizzard statistic (this was a LONG time ago though...) Zerg users as a whole had less representation on Battle.net 2.0. I believe this statistic was released BEFORE the Reaper nerf, so we can only assume it has increased. I'd be very interested in how many Zerg players and Terran players were in the qualifiers for GSL 2 / 3. I'm not aware of a more recent statistic released by Blizzard of the percentages of how much each race is played.
Avilodamus also made an amazing "balance" post on why the Blizzard released TvZ stats don't mean anything. Despite it being around 50%, he did manage to say in his last blog that the only place that stats matter are where the pros are - mainly the GSL. Avilo, you can go edit your post real quick because I'm not going to quote it. I'm not here to make anyone look bad, but it is just funny that with the Terran results in GSL 2, you had to then bring up your "representation" argument after basing Zerg's reign over the Korean tournament as the reason why 50% TvZ stats was bullshit and didn't mean a thing. Awkward how "Z>T GSL 2 (ez)" didn't work out so good for you.
But people still seem to think you know what you're talking about lol.
I'm not arguing a balance issue, I'm just stating facts. Flame the facts Avilo, not me man.
I'm not even a Terran or Zerg player, nor do I care much about them.
A good argument game is simply game 1 of NesTea vs Jys.
Jys had a good feint with 2port banshee into double expand. Forcing spore crawlers and forcing the zerg to be defensive.
What does NesTea do? Take the whole map anyway. Manages to max out 200/200. Attacks into the terran mech army. Loses, but who cares. Makes broodlords/infestors, forces vikings, and tech switches to 10 ultralisks 50 zerglings.
There is no Terran late-game. Ravens? BCs? It doesn't matter, no matter what Terran does late-game, unless he manages to cut the map in half theres nothing he can do. Unless he wants to wall-in with planetary fortresses and play "let's mine out the map and see who has leftovers".
The state of the Terran's game will change again with its upcoming patch which will try to adjust TvP, so its going to get worse before it gets any better.
I don't get why everyone is having such a rough time with scv/marine all-in. Sure it makes tvz boring in some ways since they end so fast at the current state. I'm going to get flamed for what I'm going to say but this is just my perspective on the matter.
Why would you not want to end the game if you could? Put yourself in the terran's shoe, if you stand a chance to win 80k hell i would 6 pool all game if i knew the opponent wasn't ready for it.
Terran's are using their race's strength to their advantage by ending the game early when they see the zerg 14-15 hatch and not building an army. I don't know what economical disadvantage a zerg will be if they throw down an earlier pool or some spine crawlers but I think it certainly helps losing and throwing away ur chance of winning.
We are just currently in a phase much like when terrans 5 rax'd reaper every game, Near the end of it zergs found a way to defend against it. Now its the terran turn to find a way to counter zerg FE.
Edit: I remember a funny game where terran rushed BC against a zerg ( I think it was idra in GSL2) the bc arrives at idra's base and idra is caught completely off guard. What happens? A queen kites the bc down on creep. I find it funny when that is a representation of terran tier 3.
On November 24 2010 08:06 te3l wrote: We are just currently in a phase much like when terrans 5 rax'd reaper every game, Near the end of it zergs found a way to defend against it. Now its the terran turn to find a way to counter zerg FE.
Zergs way to "defend against it" was reapers being nerfed to hell and back.
On November 24 2010 08:06 te3l wrote: We are just currently in a phase much like when terrans 5 rax'd reaper every game, Near the end of it zergs found a way to defend against it. Now its the terran turn to find a way to counter zerg FE.
Zergs way to "defend against it" was reapers being nerfed to hell and back.
Not really true, It was micro your units correctly using speedling surround and good queen placement
You said that zerg is invincible in late game, which is completely wrong. Zergs have been trying to fight to get to late game since the game has been released and know how to win in the late game.
But with all the gimicks and all-ins terran has been doing and never revolve around late game macro play just means they haven't tried to. Since they are able to win early game with all-ins and various types of cheeses why even try to go to the late game when they can win early on?
So once the zerg is able to defend off this nonsense terran has no idea how to play the late game and the zerg will roll over them because they have to be able to macro very well to be able to survive at that point.
The scary thing here is that these threads that scream "Zerg imba" are almost identical to the threads from Zergs that screamed "Terran imba" only a month or two ago. But you had to realize, as a Zerg player, that you needed to deal with it and try something, because stating the obvious wasn't really going to do anything. Over time, we saw a couple high level Zergs practice hard against the mass reaper shit and the like, and they overcame the "imbalance" simply by learning how to playing against it. And even though a few problems remained, we had to end up just waiting for the patch - all while practicing hard against a very aggressive Terran early game.
The ultimatum for Zerg whiners was - deal with it; play the game and get better.
I can't see it being a good thing for these forums when these threads explode everytime there is a shift in the metagame. Why can't you just play the game and try to figure something out?
Maybe playing against Zerg late game is hard (for you), but what do you really hope to accomplish from these threads? They certainly aren't constructive.
I see an awful lot of "zerg lategame imba" or "terran too weak to compete lategame" without any actual explanation of what specific parts of late game zerg is overpowered.
There's a perfectly good chance that zerg is a bit too strong late game (though I am undecided), but i'm also wondering if maybe IdrA was right (gasp!) when he said that once terran aren't overbalanced, a lot of top players may react very negatively to the sudden increase in difficulty.
I'm certainly no expert, but I do feel like the original post is a little... dramatic.
I remember you had a thread like this back in beta about tvp and immortals. You refused to build marines because you decided they were terrible vs sentries. Good times, good times.
Isn't TvZ also ridiculously hard in BW once you hit lategame when defilers and cows came? o_O
To be honest, I think Zerg has always had the strongest lategame out of all three races. Zerg is inherently the race that can pump the most shit with the least amount of resources, and that's most important in lategame when resources become thin and you're getting tired out big huge battles.
Zerg just has massive production capabilities that the other two races don't have. *shrug* I guess that's where all-ins are going to be coming from.
On November 24 2010 07:48 SCC-Faust wrote: But people still seem to think you (Avilo) know what you're talking about lol.
This is really the worst tragedy of all, it's such a shame this is true.
I still am interested to see him try to respond to what I said earlier, because as usual, Avilo is wrong.
Remember people, this is the same guy that suggested the easy and best way to break a turtling Terran is to drop 20 Nydus Worms all at once in the Terran main late game.... Seriously. No, seriously, I could not even make this stuff up....
On November 24 2010 11:06 IdrA wrote: hey avilo you lose because you're fucking awful not because your race is hard
Hello, that's debateable, you lose to players you shouldn't because you're immature and stubborn, so what?
Put up some arguments, or do something more useful, like practice ZvZ for GSL.
you're impossible to argue with because you just say things that are flat out wrong since you approach the game believing you aren't terrible and thus it confounds you when you lose. '2 rax pressure is easy to deal with' 'tvz late game is impossible' no, your micro is bad and you dont know how to macro.
I believe avilo has a point and evidence to back it up. Look at the TvZ at GSL3 where a lot of terrans have been going marine/scv all-ins vs zerg. The pros are not there to entertain, they want to win, and thus will use the strategy they feel is most effective.
I myself think that it's possible for the terran to play a defensive macro game against the zerg, by utilising banshees and turtling. Also, it's only possible on maps where it's easy to take the third base (e.g. shakuras). On other maps like scrap station, I feel that it's best to do some kind of 1 (or 2) base timing build.
On November 24 2010 11:06 IdrA wrote: hey avilo you lose because you're fucking awful not because your race is hard
Hello, that's debateable, you lose to players you shouldn't because you're immature and stubborn, so what?
Put up some arguments, or do something more useful, like practice ZvZ for GSL.
you're impossible to argue with because you just say things that are flat out wrong since you approach the game believing you aren't terrible and thus it confounds you when you lose. '2 rax pressure is easy to deal with' 'tvz late game is impossible' no, your micro is bad and you dont know how to macro.
On November 24 2010 12:26 Azzur wrote: I believe avilo has a point and evidence to back it up. Look at the TvZ at GSL3 where a lot of terrans have been going marine/scv all-ins vs zerg. The pros are not there to entertain, they want to win, and thus will use the strategy they feel is most effective.
I myself think that it's possible for the terran to play a defensive macro game against the zerg, by utilising banshees and turtling. Also, it's only possible on maps where it's easy to take the third base (e.g. shakuras). On other maps like scrap station, I feel that it's best to do some kind of 1 (or 2) base timing build.
He has evidence to back up which point? It's obvious to everyone that a lot of ZvTs right now involve Terran all-ins. Does that mean that this is the be-all end-all of ZvT? Most likely, no. Does this imply Zerg is impossible to beat in the late game? No. And I'd like to see evidence that suggests otherwise. Remember, this is Starcraft 2, a game that's been out for less than 4 months in retail. Unique strategies are formed every day. Players are getting better and understanding the game better.
Avilo suggests that "Terrans basically already exhausted all of the options for attempting macro management play." Is this a joke? How can you make such a bold claim and expect anyone to take you seriously?
On November 24 2010 11:06 IdrA wrote: hey avilo you lose because you're fucking awful not because your race is hard
Hello, that's debateable, you lose to players you shouldn't because you're immature and stubborn, so what?
Put up some arguments, or do something more useful, like practice ZvZ for GSL.
you're impossible to argue with because you just say things that are flat out wrong since you approach the game believing you aren't terrible and thus it confounds you when you lose. '2 rax pressure is easy to deal with' 'tvz late game is impossible' no, your micro is bad and you dont know how to macro.
The irony.
As a devout stalker of IdrA, I don't recall IdrA every being confounded when he lost. I guess you can say he gets confounded when he faces a new timing attack, but that is because it is new. And then he finds a way to deal with it eventually.
On November 24 2010 11:06 IdrA wrote: hey avilo you lose because you're fucking awful not because your race is hard
Hello, that's debateable, you lose to players you shouldn't because you're immature and stubborn, so what?
Put up some arguments, or do something more useful, like practice ZvZ for GSL.
you're impossible to argue with because you just say things that are flat out wrong since you approach the game believing you aren't terrible and thus it confounds you when you lose. '2 rax pressure is easy to deal with' 'tvz late game is impossible' no, your micro is bad and you dont know how to macro.
The irony.
As a devout stalker of IdrA, I don't recall IdrA every being confounded when he lost. I guess you can say he gets confounded when he faces a new timing attack, but that is because it is new. And then he finds a way to deal with it eventually.
On November 24 2010 11:06 IdrA wrote: hey avilo you lose because you're fucking awful not because your race is hard
I've watched a lot of good Terran players struggle with Zerg in late game. Terrans definitely have to find their ground since the new patch, just as Zergs had to find theirs. One thing I know for certain, having watched many of Avilo's games is that he's an excellent player, even when he loses.
What really impresses me is the fact that he's a GOOD loser. Never once saw him rage or cry after losing a game, but even better is the fact that he's a gracious winner.
On November 24 2010 11:06 IdrA wrote: hey avilo you lose because you're fucking awful not because your race is hard
I've watched a lot of good Terran players struggle with Zerg in late game. Terrans definitely have to find their ground since the new patch, just as Zergs had to find theirs. One thing I know for certain, having watched many of Avilo's games is that he's an excellent player, even when he loses.
What really impresses me is the fact that he's a GOOD loser. Never once saw him rage or cry after losing a game, but even better is the fact that he's a gracious winner.
How is avilo a good loser when he spends all his time crying that his race is broken on internet forums
On November 24 2010 11:06 IdrA wrote: hey avilo you lose because you're fucking awful not because your race is hard
I've watched a lot of good Terran players struggle with Zerg in late game. Terrans definitely have to find their ground since the new patch, just as Zergs had to find theirs. One thing I know for certain, having watched many of Avilo's games is that he's an excellent player, even when he loses.
What really impresses me is the fact that he's a GOOD loser. Never once saw him rage or cry after losing a game, but even better is the fact that he's a gracious winner.
How is avilo a good loser when he spends all his time crying that his race is broken on internet forums
I think us Terran needs to learn timing drops (like best time to drop 8 marines in minerals, best time to drop on his 3rd hatchery, best time to do a 2 pronged attack while dropping marines in Zerg gold)
yes, it does feel it's prone to being chased and killed by mutalisk but if you do know the correct way or should I say opportunity to drop on their bases I think zerg will have a hard time against it.
On November 24 2010 07:38 Liquid`Ret wrote: 3 terrans in top4 last gsl season, also look up overall TvZ stats pls
if you think zerg lategame is too strong maybe you shouldnt let them get to lategame with 80 drones, theres a million ways to kill or damage zerg early, i cant believe u still havent figured this out yet,
and even then marine/tank is a good option. in the ogs house terrans are doing fine vs zerg, lategame too
The point is that there shouldn't be a an issue of T > Z early and Z > T late, that Z should have equal ways to pressure terran early and T should be able to hang in macro late to make the matchup more interesting
On November 24 2010 07:38 Liquid`Ret wrote: 3 terrans in top4 last gsl season, also look up overall TvZ stats pls
if you think zerg lategame is too strong maybe you shouldnt let them get to lategame with 80 drones, theres a million ways to kill or damage zerg early, i cant believe u still havent figured this out yet,
and even then marine/tank is a good option. in the ogs house terrans are doing fine vs zerg, lategame too
The point is that there shouldn't be a an issue of T > Z early and Z > T late, that Z should have equal ways to pressure terran early and T should be able to hang in macro late to make the matchup more interesting
Yes, make it so T cannot wall-in and give terran invisible flyers that kill drones in 2 shots or healing dropships, oh wait
On November 24 2010 04:05 avilo wrote: If you honestly feel Terran can compete with Zerg in a late game macro management game, I would be happy to see your arguments. I'm sure you'll have plenty of GSL games to back those up as well (LOL).
Leenock vs Nada, Shakuras Plateu. Nothing else.
EDIT: And stop being a stupid Terran fanboy. Srsly, I've spent a lot of time being banned at TL because of writing this kind of shit. Doesn't this guy get banned ever?
Please have some respect for people who know what they are talking about, there is a reason no one listens to you.
I remember his past blogs, and this has nothing to do with his ranking. If he claims that Terran can't win past early game against Zerg, and I show him an example game of Terran keeping up with Zerg in base race and macro, it has nothing to do with rankings.
Besides, game 2&3 of Leenock vs Nada series were good macro games and game 1 was 6pool. You can look up on who won which game.
Speaking of rankings,
On November 24 2010 07:38 Liquid`Ret wrote: 3 terrans in top4 last gsl season, also look up overall TvZ stats pls
if you think zerg lategame is too strong maybe you shouldnt let them get to lategame with 80 drones, theres a million ways to kill or damage zerg early, i cant believe u still havent figured this out yet,
and even then marine/tank is a good option. in the ogs house terrans are doing fine vs zerg, lategame too
On November 24 2010 11:06 IdrA wrote: hey avilo you lose because you're fucking awful not because your race is hard
Do I have to look up on these guys' rankings? Or GSL do qualifier results speak for themselves?
Again, there are games that people keep up with zerg in terms of base numbers and win one-sidedly. But i can't give you vod links because I don't search youku and I'm not a premium member of GOM.
On November 24 2010 16:48 thesighter wrote: Thread title should be "expect more avilo whining in sc2"
I was thinking of "Hey I'm back and whining as ever" but yours is better.
There is a common thing among Terrans, they try to finish the game on 1 or 2 base and this gets as stupid as possible when Zerg gets 5 bases vs 2 base Terran and becomes able to defend all of these bases.
But what did Nada do against Leenock? He expanded as Leenock expanded. Because he knew that Leenock wouldn't make enough units because he's too busy making drones for his expoes and hoping that Nada doesn't attack right away. Leenock takes his third, Nada scouts that and he takes his own third. Leenock takes 4th, Nada wins an engagement, takes his own 4th, attacks and finishes. I don't actually think that Terran can't macrowin Zerg. I think that Terran doesn't try macrowinning Zerg.
On November 24 2010 18:35 KurtistheTurtle wrote: i would like to point out chef's insightful post on the first page
On November 24 2010 05:13 NonFactor wrote: Can you please explain in detail how Zerg can beat a macro Terran 100% the time, like your whine post seems to imply?
It's no where near as bad as that, but Zerg's lategame has always remained untouched throughout every patch. It's hard for people to see just how good Z lategame is now, because we had that period of time where "Terran was OP" as in - Terran would do random gimmicky all-ins and get away with them. But even then...if you let Zerg go to late game it was heavily Z favored.
It's only more so now.
What about that huge ultralisk nerf that makes ultras outright lose to thors ? Instead of hitting 1-4 thors at a time, they only hit 1 and only ever 1 Dx
On November 24 2010 14:17 Obscura.304 wrote: Kyrix vs. JSL game 1.
What's that about Terran not being able to win past the early game?
Staying away from the rest of this thread, I don't think citing a game in which one player played extremely solid and the other player suicided maybe 50+ banelings for no good reason over the course of the game (between the initial attack, the embarrassing PF suicide, etc) is a good way to claim that something is balanced.
On November 24 2010 14:17 Obscura.304 wrote: Kyrix vs. JSL game 1.
What's that about Terran not being able to win past the early game?
Staying away from the rest of this thread, I don't think citing a game in which one player played extremely solid and the other player suicided maybe 50+ banelings for no good reason over the course of the game (between the initial attack, the embarrassing PF suicide, etc) is a good way to claim that something is balanced.
So you're picking out a specific mistake the Zerg did when a Terran wins, awesome. Are you suggesting that the Terran doesn't make mistakes when he loses?
And this is exactly what the people who claim "Zerg imba" are doing - showing specific games to show "imbalances" while ignoring that the Terrans aren't playing well or even trying to make it to the late game. Not to mention that in many cases, the Zerg just outplays them. It's not just one game. There are so many factors that go into every game, and the fact that late game is hard for some Terrans isn't an excuse to start whining about it.
Watch Leenock vs. Nada Watch Kyrix vs. JSL Watch Clide vs. Leenock
It's easily doable. Great games of TvZ can be played, and the whining is extremely off-putting.
On November 24 2010 14:17 Obscura.304 wrote: Kyrix vs. JSL game 1.
What's that about Terran not being able to win past the early game?
Staying away from the rest of this thread, I don't think citing a game in which one player played extremely solid and the other player suicided maybe 50+ banelings for no good reason over the course of the game (between the initial attack, the embarrassing PF suicide, etc) is a good way to claim that something is balanced.
So you're picking out a specific mistake the Zerg did when a Terran wins, awesome. Are you suggesting that the Terran doesn't make mistakes when he loses?
And this is exactly what the people who claim "Zerg imba" are doing - showing specific games to show "imbalances" while ignoring that the Terrans aren't playing well or even trying to make it to the late game. Not to mention that in many cases, the Zerg just outplays them. It's not just one game. There are so many factors that go into every game, and the fact that late game is hard for some Terrans isn't an excuse to start whining about it.
Watch Leenock vs. Nada Watch Kyrix vs. JSL Watch Clide vs. Leenock
It's easily doable. Great games of TvZ can be played, and the whining is extremely off-putting.
As I said in my first line ("staying away from the rest of the thread"), I wasn't trying to make any comments on balance, just that it was a horrible game to cite to try to make any statement on balance.
(Also, it was a collection of about 4 or 5 really really bad mistakes in the first game, although the second game was a little sloppy but more due to DQ being lame)
On November 24 2010 08:01 HalfAmazing wrote: Stats are irrelevant. Results are irrelevant. Play the game, watch the games, and tell me if you like what you see. I know I don't.
i can't believe nobody's quoted this yet. there are still a lot of good games to watch, but it's kind of a situation where i have to cross my fingers and hope the game will last longer than 10 minutes.
i wish there were less of an incentive to try to finish the game early so that games would be more interesting to watch. most games in BW become macro games but it feels like most games in SC2, regardless of length, are decided after the first attack (for some reason i noticed the opposite in MLG games [which were incredible] so i have no idea what's going on, maybe it's just the GSL or korean scene?)
On November 24 2010 08:01 HalfAmazing wrote: Stats are irrelevant. Results are irrelevant. Play the game, watch the games, and tell me if you like what you see. I know I don't.
i can't believe nobody's quoted this yet. there are still a lot of good games to watch, but it's kind of a situation where i have to cross my fingers and hope the game will last longer than 10 minutes.
i wish there were less of an incentive to try to finish the game early so that games would be more interesting to watch. most games in BW become macro games but it feels like most games in SC2, regardless of length, are decided after the first attack (for some reason i noticed the opposite in MLG games [which were incredible] so i have no idea what's going on, maybe it's just the GSL or korean scene?)
It comes with the evolution of the game and how much money is on the line. There are no sure fire ways to approach the game that will guarantee a huge amount of sucess. The all in build in TvZ is a high percentage chance to win for the Terran player. With the GSL that is a lot of money so you will do what you can to hopefully get a high percentage chance to advance further into the tournaments.
It is the map size which makes this build really powerful. The success of this finishing off a zerg player early in the game on a map like Shakuras plateau is really not that high.
The macro games will come in time. For the late game TvZ I feel it will get better as the macro game is touched on more. With terran a good unit composition is what you need to deal with the erratic tech switches zerg can throw at you. The days of massing one or two units to win the late game should be a thing of the past.
Terran air isn't used that much late game except for vikings. Well the zerg army lategame doesn't really seem to be able to shoot up and banshee's are a unit that can plow through ground units really fast. (Forcing the Zerg to have to make Mutalisks or Hydras to deal with the banshee's effectively will delay the Ultralisk push on your base.)
On November 24 2010 14:17 Obscura.304 wrote: Kyrix vs. JSL game 1.
What's that about Terran not being able to win past the early game?
I think that was more due to Kyrixdoing a 2 hatch no lair baneling bust on Terran main and doing absolutely 0 damage.
A lot of these bad zergs are doing these all-in baneling busts. Terran has easily the best chances to win against aggro zergs. The really toughness comes in when you're playing a good macro zerg that knows how to use infestors and re-max.
Not these 1 dimensional baneling busters. kyrix somehow won that gstar tournament tho...lol.
On November 25 2010 07:04 Chill wrote: Yes, I agree, the real toughness does come from when you play good players that know how to play well...
Did you actually just say that?
People keep trying to cite GSL games where "Terran won" as evidence that Terran doesn't have a tough time, which is not true. The easiest Z style to beat is aggressive baneling busting. You defend -> win.
Avilo, do you think you have any credibility when it comes to balance discussions? You are one of the very few terran players who saw absolutely no problem with 60 dmg siege tanks and the ability of terran to literally have an unkillable army. And by unkillable, I mean it could destroy maxed ultras or maxed broodlords without losing any units. Your argument was this: "Obviously! Zerg is not supposed to even let terran get maxed out on mech, this was the same case in BW! Obviously terran is going to win when he is maxed with siege tanks!" Now you have the exact same argument except you are whining the exact reverse. "You can't beat zerg late game! I have to beat zerg in early/mid game. This game is broken!" source: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=129070
Why are people bashing avilo? Can't we all see that a good zerg is almost unbeatable? Are you really serious Idra? I don't want to be a dick, but have you guys actually watched the 2 GSL finals? Maybe it's just me being retarded, but is it really coincidence that the 2 winner zergs are so much better then their final opponent? GSL finals 1: fruitdealer destroyed his opponent. He actually tried to play a macro game. GSL finals 2: the games won by boxer were not macro games.
Is it so wrong to call a good zerg unbeatable? Zerg is MUCH harder to play then terran, but when played right, zerg is just amazing. Morrow and TLO explained a few weeks ago that they felt too limited with terran. A perfect terran <<< a perfect zerg, always imo.
On November 25 2010 07:34 Dente wrote: Why are people bashing avilo? Can't we all see that a good zerg is almost unbeatable? Are you really serious Idra? I don't want to be a dick, but have you guys actually watched the 2 GSL finals? Maybe it's just me being retarded, but is it really coincidence that the 2 winner zergs are so much better then their final opponent? GSL finals 1: fruitdealer destroyed his opponent. He actually tried to play a macro game. GSL finals 2: the games won by boxer were not macro games.
You should really read the posts in this thread.
And Rainbow's TvZ is by far his weakest match-up. Artosis and Tasteless made this comment during GSL 1, and I believe during GSL 2 also.
If I remember correctly Rainbow didn't hit a single Zerg in GSL 1 all the way up until Fruit Dealer. Which is sort of ironic because avilo used this point in his defense, saying "Even Rainbow is using all-in rushes because TvZ late game is impossible". Funny that, I must say, considering that he probably did feel it was his best chance, because his TvZ is definitely lacking. I'd love to be able to pull up the interviews Rainbow had during GSL 1.
And how exactly does a 4-3 qualify as "so much better" than Fake Boxer?
If you want to argue that Zerg is impossible to beat in late game, just watch Clide vs Leenock. Clide was comfortable playing late game, he even OPTED TO. His build was intentionally for it. And he did amazing. If you even watched the last game of the set, Clide was 2-3 bases behind all game but was holding on and fighting. His SCV count was also somewhat low from the constant Mutalisk harass. I think both players played amazing that game.
On November 25 2010 07:04 Chill wrote: Yes, I agree, the real toughness does come from when you play good players that know how to play well...
Did you actually just say that?
People keep trying to cite GSL games where "Terran won" as evidence that Terran doesn't have a tough time, which is not true. The easiest Z style to beat is aggressive baneling busting. You defend -> win.
No, Terrans winning in the GSL is evidence that it's not imossible at all for a Terran to keep up with a Zerg, which you seem to think.
avilo wrote: Terrans basically already exhausted all of the options for attempting macro management play...to no avail. A management game versus Zerg in lategame is never an equal game. ... not addressing Zerg's late game macro, which always has been invincible...
You claim that every possible strategy versus Zerg in a macro game has been tried. Can't you see how ludicrous this claim is in a game like Starcraft?
You are claiming that Zerg's late game is impossible to beat. In fact, it's doable quite clearly, which is evidenced by several GSL games, like Nada games, Clide vs. Leenock, JSL vs. Kyrix, etc. You have not given evidence that it's impossible to take Zerg on in a macro game. You have not given evidence that TvZ leans heavily in the favor of Z. You are examining a trend in TvZs that you don't like and taking it to be the be-all end-all of the matchup.
You pick specific games, and claim it as fact, without taking into account the skills of the players or any flaws the Terran makes.
avilo wrote: Every Terran, even goddamn intotherainbow, is doing marine/scv all-in variations. These players are not stupid. They understand the state of the game.
Not every Terran is doing marine/scv all-in variations. Are you even watching these games? Some players are doing it because it's a current popular trend right now. This does not imply that it is impossible to beat Zerg in a macro game, at all.
Your problem Avilo is that you grossly overestimate the state of Zerg and problems concerning TvZ, and you come off as completely wrong. The reason you're called arrogant by people is because you seem to think you know everything about this matchup and you've concluded that it's impossible for Terran to beat Zerg, ignoring all of the evidence against it.
Do yourself a favor - start working out strategies to take Zerg on in a macro game. If you fail while executing your pinnacle strategy perfectly, show us the replay, and tell us why it was impossible to win. Then you'll have an argument based on evidence.
On November 25 2010 07:46 SCC-Faust wrote: If you want to argue that Zerg is impossible to beat in late game, just watch Clide vs Leenock. Clide was comfortable playing late game, he even OPTED TO. His build was intentionally for it. And he did amazing. If you even watched the last game of the set, Clide was 2-3 bases behind all game but was holding on and fighting. His SCV count was also somewhat low from the constant Mutalisk harass. I think both players played amazing that game.
Maybe Leenock his weakest matchup is zvt? Maybe that's the only reason why Clide did so well (I am reffering to your post about GSL 1 finals).
So those 2 final zergs being so much better (yes, boxer won 3 games, but with cheeses and allins!) is just coincidence? I'm looking forward to this GSL final. I really got the feeling that ret will actually win this tournament. His zergplay is so amazing and I just don't see a terran / protoss beating it.
On November 25 2010 07:46 SCC-Faust wrote: If you want to argue that Zerg is impossible to beat in late game, just watch Clide vs Leenock. Clide was comfortable playing late game, he even OPTED TO. His build was intentionally for it. And he did amazing. If you even watched the last game of the set, Clide was 2-3 bases behind all game but was holding on and fighting. His SCV count was also somewhat low from the constant Mutalisk harass. I think both players played amazing that game.
Maybe Clide his opponent his weakest matchup is zvt? Maybe that's the only reason why Clide did so well (I am reffering to your post about GSL 1 finals).
So those 2 final zergs being so much better (yes, boxer won 3 games, but with cheeses and allins!) is just coincidence? I'm looking forward to this GSL final. I really got the feeling that ret will actually win this tournament. His zergplay is so amazing and I just don't see a terran / protoss beating it.
Maybe, I don't know. I thought Leenock played very good though.
And I don't know what Boxer's thought process was in cheesing. He proved he can play late-game TvZ in the round of 8 against Kyrix. Just as Clide proved he could play late game TvZ last night. You're definitely looking at this wrong though. You are saying Terran can't play late game against Zerg because some Terran opted to do rushes. There are some games where Terran DID play late game against Zerg and won. Why are you just throwing out half of the games? Do you not want them to count?
Another one: qxc vs catz where qxc tries to play a macro game vs his teammate. Nice and cute try imo. Can I say that qxc is better then catz? http://www.sc2rep.com/replays/show/id/3177
Funny fact: people always say "ye the terran played crap in that game". The problem is that they never say how the terran should have played.
On November 25 2010 08:16 Dente wrote: Since no one is actually posting replays, I want to invite people to watch this TvZ between select and haypro: http://www.sc2rep.com/replays/show/id/3154
To be fair, select did play like crap in that game. Look at his macro and decision making carefully, also check when he gets his upgrades.
He was trying to play it like TvP, but you can't do that since zerg is almost twice as mobile as P.
On November 25 2010 08:30 Sadistx wrote: To be fair, select did play like crap in that game. Look at his macro and decision making carefully, also check when he gets his upgrades.
He was trying to play it like TvP, but you can't do that since zerg is almost twice as mobile as P.
Can you explain what select should have done then? He tried to pressure the zerg, because if you don't, the zerg will be on 5 base and 80 drones.
You guys don't think that the Zerg's ability to win in a macro game is their overwhelming urge to fast expand? When the game was first released, just about everybody and their mothers were either 4 gating of 3 raxing. People loved to all in. However, the Zerg doesn't have any good busting units that can take down a well defended T or P early. So what do they do? They try to win in the mid to late game.
When someone tries to do a cannon rush or a 6 pool against you, you can comfortably call them cheesy players because they aren't actually learning the game. Once learning how to defend these becomes standard, they will have nothing. If it's considered cheese to perform either of those all in attacks, why do Terran and Protoss players keep focusing on their own all ins? I want you to consider this:
When the game first comes out, Terran is 3 raxing. It works well for a while, but after some time, Zerg learns to defend against this. They think, "Well that isn't working. Let's try mech!" I think it's accepted now that mech play used to be overpowered, but that's beside the point. It took Zerg players a few months to be able to crack this style of play, but ultimately, Zerg players found strategies that could defend against Mech. "Well, if neither mech nor bio work, then I must get creative!" After a while, 5 rax reaper was developed. "Ahah! A new way to 1 base a Zerg to death!" I don't think this was necessarily overpowered, but Blizzard decided that this was not how they wanted TvZ to be played, so 5 rax reaper was nerfed. "Well maybe if I delay tech and take half my SCVs with me to fight, I will be able to 1 base them!" Do you see the problem here?
It seems like while all of these fancy builds were happening, Zerg was adamantly focused on learning what it took to hold these off while gaining an economic advantage. Now Terran is having a hard time holding up due to the fact that they don't know how to do things that aren't 1 base plays, which is exactly the same wall cheesers hit once they reach a certain level of play. Has it not occurred to anyone that Terran, in fact, has 3 of the best defensive abilities in the game? Between being able to put down (essentially free) bunkers, abusing high ground with range 13 tanks, and building Planetary Fortresses which can single handedly hold off an entire Zerg army, it baffles me to think that Terran players haven't begun experimenting with bolder expansion timings.
Maybe when the game was still new and 1 base play was very prevalent, it would not have been safe to fast expand as Terran. However, now that Zerg players have become comfortable with going hatch before pool, I'd say it is definitely time for Terran players to adopt the mentality that Zerg players have had from the start. Try to figure out ways of taking earlier expansions. See how little it takes to actually defend incoming pressure. I know that I (as Zerg) will get legitimately upset with myself when I make too many units to defend a push. "Those units could have been drones!" The same can be said for Protoss players, but I feel like they are a little bit ahead and behind in some regards. Their 1 base all ins (fast Collosi) are still working (to a point), but on the other hand, I've seen a lot of forge expand ingenuity from them, as well.
TL;DR Perhaps the correct response to Zerg players who take early expansions is not to find more innovative ways of punishing their expansion, but to find ways of more efficiently taking your own.
On November 25 2010 07:04 Chill wrote: Yes, I agree, the real toughness does come from when you play good players that know how to play well...
Did you actually just say that?
People keep trying to cite GSL games where "Terran won" as evidence that Terran doesn't have a tough time, which is not true. The easiest Z style to beat is aggressive baneling busting. You defend -> win.
Exactly, other people keep trying to cite GSL games where "Zerg won" as evidence that Terran has a tough time, which may or may not be true. The easiest T styles to beat are all these stupid one-base all-ins that terran come up with because they can't be bothered to try experimenting late game. You defend -> win.
About Select vs Haypro: Select was 20 food behind Haypro the whole game, he never tried to attain any sort of critical mass until it was far too late, he was just tossing units for fun and only ever got +1 infantry weapons at like 18 minutes in.
I also remember something Select said in-game at MLG DC finals where he mentioned something about not having any Zerg practice partners :/
About Catz vs qxc: I love what qxc is doing, a little bit of better positioning and this could be awesome, he just wouldn't stop getting caught with all his tanks unsieged or with his army abandoning them, or without missile turrets, thors attacking lings instead of blowing up like 20 mutas.
On November 25 2010 08:30 Sadistx wrote: To be fair, select did play like crap in that game. Look at his macro and decision making carefully, also check when he gets his upgrades.
He was trying to play it like TvP, but you can't do that since zerg is almost twice as mobile as P.
Can you explain what select should have done then? He tried to pressure the zerg, because if you don't, the zerg will be on 5 base and 80 drones.
Yes, but he never actually killed a Z hatchery or sniped enough drones for the amount of infantry that he lost. That's why you're supposed to use banshees or hellions, unless you're absolutely sure you can kill a hatch, because once u step on creep - u commit that infantry force to do or die, and select never did enough dmg with his marines.
His mistakes should be evident to any decent mid-diamond tvz-er.
On November 25 2010 07:34 Dente wrote: Why are people bashing avilo? Can't we all see that a good zerg is almost unbeatable? Are you really serious Idra? I don't want to be a dick, but have you guys actually watched the 2 GSL finals? Maybe it's just me being retarded, but is it really coincidence that the 2 winner zergs are so much better then their final opponent? GSL finals 1: fruitdealer destroyed his opponent. He actually tried to play a macro game. GSL finals 2: the games won by boxer were not macro games.
You should really read the posts in this thread.
And Rainbow's TvZ is by far his weakest match-up. Artosis and Tasteless made this comment during GSL 1, and I believe during GSL 2 also.
If I remember correctly Rainbow didn't hit a single Zerg in GSL 1 all the way up until Fruit Dealer. Which is sort of ironic because avilo used this point in his defense, saying "Even Rainbow is using all-in rushes because TvZ late game is impossible". Funny that, I must say, considering that he probably did feel it was his best chance, because his TvZ is definitely lacking. I'd love to be able to pull up the interviews Rainbow had during GSL 1.
And how exactly does a 4-3 qualify as "so much better" than Fake Boxer?
If you want to argue that Zerg is impossible to beat in late game, just watch Clide vs Leenock. Clide was comfortable playing late game, he even OPTED TO. His build was intentionally for it. And he did amazing. If you even watched the last game of the set, Clide was 2-3 bases behind all game but was holding on and fighting. His SCV count was also somewhat low from the constant Mutalisk harass. I think both players played amazing that game.
On November 25 2010 07:46 SCC-Faust wrote: If you want to argue that Zerg is impossible to beat in late game, just watch Clide vs Leenock. Clide was comfortable playing late game, he even OPTED TO. His build was intentionally for it. And he did amazing. If you even watched the last game of the set, Clide was 2-3 bases behind all game but was holding on and fighting. His SCV count was also somewhat low from the constant Mutalisk harass. I think both players played amazing that game.
Maybe Clide his opponent his weakest matchup is zvt? Maybe that's the only reason why Clide did so well (I am reffering to your post about GSL 1 finals).
So those 2 final zergs being so much better (yes, boxer won 3 games, but with cheeses and allins!) is just coincidence? I'm looking forward to this GSL final. I really got the feeling that ret will actually win this tournament. His zergplay is so amazing and I just don't see a terran / protoss beating it.
Maybe, I don't know. I thought Leenock played very good though.
And I don't know what Boxer's thought process was in cheesing. He proved he can play late-game TvZ in the round of 8 against Kyrix. Just as Clide proved he could play late game TvZ last night. You're definitely looking at this wrong though. You are saying Terran can't play late game against Zerg because some Terran opted to do rushes. There are some games where Terran DID play late game against Zerg and won. Why are you just throwing out half of the games? Do you not want them to count?
I hope you're kidding. "He proved he can play late-game TvZ vs kyrix?" That's a joke. Kyrix does 2 base baneling bust every single ZvT.
That's the style that Terran CAN beat. No one has any doubts about that. It's the defensive zerg infestor/baneling + muta harrass style into army re-maxes that is unkillable.
It's fine if you want to say clyde played a macro game last night versus leenock...because he did...but leenock built all baneling muta with like 3 infestor versus mass tanks marines....yeah...
fruitdealer, cool, even idra, knows how to make more units than just baneling mutas when they see all tank marine. Usually the response is to get broodlords asap and use infestors to grab onto any viking clumps they get.
It was a good macro game...but look at the map too. lol. jungle basin...
And boxer's thought process in cheesing is the same as all other terrans right now. Win the game b4 they go into invincible mode.
On November 25 2010 07:46 SCC-Faust wrote: If you want to argue that Zerg is impossible to beat in late game, just watch Clide vs Leenock. Clide was comfortable playing late game, he even OPTED TO. His build was intentionally for it. And he did amazing. If you even watched the last game of the set, Clide was 2-3 bases behind all game but was holding on and fighting. His SCV count was also somewhat low from the constant Mutalisk harass. I think both players played amazing that game.
Maybe Clide his opponent his weakest matchup is zvt? Maybe that's the only reason why Clide did so well (I am reffering to your post about GSL 1 finals).
So those 2 final zergs being so much better (yes, boxer won 3 games, but with cheeses and allins!) is just coincidence? I'm looking forward to this GSL final. I really got the feeling that ret will actually win this tournament. His zergplay is so amazing and I just don't see a terran / protoss beating it.
Maybe, I don't know. I thought Leenock played very good though.
And I don't know what Boxer's thought process was in cheesing. He proved he can play late-game TvZ in the round of 8 against Kyrix. Just as Clide proved he could play late game TvZ last night. You're definitely looking at this wrong though. You are saying Terran can't play late game against Zerg because some Terran opted to do rushes. There are some games where Terran DID play late game against Zerg and won. Why are you just throwing out half of the games? Do you not want them to count?
I hope you're kidding. "He proved he can play late-game TvZ vs kyrix?" That's a joke. Kyrix does 2 base baneling bust every single ZvT.
That's the style that Terran CAN beat. No one has any doubts about that. It's the defensive zerg infestor/baneling + muta harrass style into army re-maxes that is unkillable.
It's fine if you want to say clyde played a macro game last night versus leenock...because he did...but leenock built all baneling muta with like 3 infestor versus mass tanks marines....yeah...
fruitdealer, cool, even idra, knows how to make more units than just baneling mutas when they see all tank marine. Usually the response is to get broodlords asap and use infestors to grab onto any viking clumps they get.
It was a good macro game...but look at the map too. lol. jungle basin...
And boxer's thought process in cheesing is the same as all other terrans right now. Win the game b4 they go into invincible mode.
Fruitdealer, cool and IdrA are two very good Zerg players indeed.
Edit: I hope you understood the implications of what you said, Avilo :/
And clearly, if all the Zerg in GSL are doing the wrong things, maybe you should switch to Zerg and head over for GSL 4. That or become apart of the profitable part of SC2 and offer Zerg lessons. I'd sure like to be taught by someone who knows how to play an undefeatable ZvT strategy. Why are you such a self-defeatist? Obviously I'm not going to debate against someone who knows the metagame perfectly and understands progamer styles better than themselves (cause honestly I don't think Kyrix has any idea he is playing the easiest build to counter for Terran if he keeps doing it, maybe you should shoot him a message).
On November 24 2010 04:05 avilo wrote: and yes, I know I take a lot of flak for being outspoken on the boards about this stuff. That's fine. Bring it. But I wonder if people can manage to attack my arguments instead of me personally.
If you honestly feel Terran can compete with Zerg in a late game macro management game, I would be happy to see your arguments. I'm sure you'll have plenty of GSL games to back those up as well (LOL).
We're reaching a point where there is evidence that Terran can compete with Zerg in late game macro; yes, it's hard, but no, it isn't unfair. There have been GSL games to back it up (LOL).
You haven't been presenting further arguments. Kyrix's style is "one-dimensional" even after showing he can play macro games, but Foxer apparently showed Terrans the way with marine and SCV all-ins -- which is still trendy, but is becoming steadily more stoppable/predictable.
I also agree with SCC-Faust above in that it seems like you didn't watch Clide vs Leenock -- you're really missing out, the games were damned good.
You're saying the same things (omg terran can't even play lategame vs zerg might as well quit) but there's practically no evidence of that now -- you're basing your entire remaining argument on "lol. jungle basin" and the aggressive early game style of a few players, suggesting that that's the only way to play the game because Zerg is broken.
Terran is strong early game, Zerg is strong lategame. It's an uphill battle for Zerg to survive in the early game, and it's uphill for Terran to survive later on, but for some reason this is being interpreted as "The only way for Terran to win is to all-in ASAP".
IdrA, and others here have made really strong points. It's time to get away from the defeatist mentality that Zerg is unstoppable in TvZ lategame and start using your damned skills at this game to push the meta forward.
The game is young enough for there to be some room to innovate, and you're clearly good enough to do so. Jump on it.
On November 24 2010 04:05 avilo wrote: and yes, I know I take a lot of flak for being outspoken on the boards about this stuff. That's fine. Bring it. But I wonder if people can manage to attack my arguments instead of me personally.
If you honestly feel Terran can compete with Zerg in a late game macro management game, I would be happy to see your arguments. I'm sure you'll have plenty of GSL games to back those up as well (LOL).
We're reaching a point where there is evidence that Terran can compete with Zerg in late game macro; yes, it's hard, but no, it isn't unfair. There have been GSL games to back it up (LOL).
You haven't been presenting further arguments. Kyrix's style is "one-dimensional" even after showing he can play macro games, but Foxer apparently showed Terrans the way with marine and SCV all-ins -- which is still trendy, but is becoming steadily more stoppable/predictable.
I also agree with SCC-Faust above in that it seems like you didn't watch Clide vs Leenock -- you're really missing out, the games were damned good.
You're saying the same things (omg terran can't even play lategame vs zerg might as well quit) but there's practically no evidence of that now -- you're basing your entire remaining argument on "lol. jungle basin" and the aggressive early game style of a few players, suggesting that that's the only way to play the game because Zerg is broken.
Terran is strong early game, Zerg is strong lategame. It's an uphill battle for Zerg to survive in the early game, and it's uphill for Terran to survive later on, but for some reason this is being interpreted as "The only way for Terran to win is to all-in ASAP".
IdrA, and others here have made really strong points. It's time to get away from the defeatist mentality that Zerg is unstoppable in TvZ lategame and start using your damned skills at this game to push the meta forward.
The game is young enough for there to be some room to innovate, and you're clearly good enough to do so. Jump on it.
Chill wrote that pre-release. Since the game is much more figured out now...that's why TvZ is in the state it's in. Zergs know how to be untouched later into the game now = hello massive economy advantage.
Basically chill called it before the game was out and once the early game imbalances were patched (reapers, then hellions through roach range) zergs realized you can infestor turtle until tier 3, at which point you proceed to hold down the Z button, make a few broodlords and laugh as terran tanks kill their own marines near broodlings.
Funny thing is most people think banelings are imbalanced or broodlords or ultras, which is all wrong. Upgraded lings coupled with infestors are what's scary, because they can both stall the terran army forever.
Now I'm not saying it's impossible to win or anything, but people have to realize that terran tier 3 is actually garbage and one of the main reasons terrans are able to win is due to better upgrades than Z. Terran tier 3 = 3/3 upgrades on infantry, and honestly it's just not enough against infestor/ling/BL + Larva inject.
Avilo, please teach alivefou how to play tvz. he clearly has not gotten the memo + Show Spoiler +
i mean seriously, i dont know how else to respond to a petty argument except with my own pettiness terran has always needed to do 2 base timing attacks on zerg's third since bw. i see no difference in sc2
Since you've made this post, Terrans have gone 3-1 against Zerg with 1 scv/allin occuring, and several of the games reaching the late game.
You're undoubtedly wrong. Be humble, accept that you don't know everything about this matchup (nobody does), and practice your macro strategies. Or, continue to be willfully ignorant.
On November 25 2010 13:42 billyX333 wrote: Avilo, please teach alivefou how to play tvz. he clearly has not gotten the memo + Show Spoiler +
i mean seriously, i dont know how else to respond to a petty argument except with my own pettiness terran has always needed to do 2 base timing attacks on zerg's third since bw. i see no difference in sc2
On November 25 2010 13:57 Swixi wrote: Are you even watching the GSL games, Avilo? + Show Spoiler +
Since you've made this post, Terrans have gone 3-1 against Zerg with 1 scv/allin occuring, and several of the games reaching the late game.
You're undoubtedly wrong. Be humble, accept that you don't know everything about this matchup (nobody does), and practice your macro strategies. Or, continue to be willfully ignorant.
jungle basin, banelings vs tanks, impossible to secure third. Don't let GOMTV's shitty map rules fool you. Most series that start with T winning game 1, and then jungle basin being game 2...are gonna be T win.
Just like tvz series that have Z winning game one and then scrap station being game 2...yeah...
Compare the two maps. One of those two lets Zerg play into lategame macro game, T loses, guess which map of those two that is?
The other map makes it impossible for Zerg to secure a third...guess which map?
Enough said. Next time b4 you post something inane thinking "omg i'm so witty i'll just post the recent GSL tvz games" try analyzing them before you post.
like sadist said, wait till you see some good infestor turtle zvt players...instead of these idiotic..."i'm gonna keep massing MOAR LING BANELING vs siege tanks!"
also if you notice game 2 of leenock on jungle basin, he knew just like every other zerg what breaks marine tank easily - broodlords. But he could never get there because ZvT is broken in favor of T on that map...he never had a secure third almost all game long.
so yeh...if you're gonna be smartasses and post "so n so gsl game" analyze them, otherwise it's just like me going "did you just fuckin see moon vs butterflyeffect EL O EL"
On November 24 2010 04:05 avilo wrote: and yes, I know I take a lot of flak for being outspoken on the boards about this stuff. That's fine. Bring it. But I wonder if people can manage to attack my arguments instead of me personally.
If you honestly feel Terran can compete with Zerg in a late game macro management game, I would be happy to see your arguments. I'm sure you'll have plenty of GSL games to back those up as well (LOL).
We're reaching a point where there is evidence that Terran can compete with Zerg in late game macro; yes, it's hard, but no, it isn't unfair. There have been GSL games to back it up (LOL).
You haven't been presenting further arguments. Kyrix's style is "one-dimensional" even after showing he can play macro games, but Foxer apparently showed Terrans the way with marine and SCV all-ins -- which is still trendy, but is becoming steadily more stoppable/predictable.
I also agree with SCC-Faust above in that it seems like you didn't watch Clide vs Leenock -- you're really missing out, the games were damned good.
You're saying the same things (omg terran can't even play lategame vs zerg might as well quit) but there's practically no evidence of that now -- you're basing your entire remaining argument on "lol. jungle basin" and the aggressive early game style of a few players, suggesting that that's the only way to play the game because Zerg is broken.
Terran is strong early game, Zerg is strong lategame. It's an uphill battle for Zerg to survive in the early game, and it's uphill for Terran to survive later on, but for some reason this is being interpreted as "The only way for Terran to win is to all-in ASAP".
IdrA, and others here have made really strong points. It's time to get away from the defeatist mentality that Zerg is unstoppable in TvZ lategame and start using your damned skills at this game to push the meta forward.
The game is young enough for there to be some room to innovate, and you're clearly good enough to do so. Jump on it.
Chill wrote that pre-release. Since the game is much more figured out now...that's why TvZ is in the state it's in. Zergs know how to be untouched later into the game now = hello massive economy advantage.
On November 24 2010 04:05 avilo wrote: and yes, I know I take a lot of flak for being outspoken on the boards about this stuff. That's fine. Bring it. But I wonder if people can manage to attack my arguments instead of me personally.
If you honestly feel Terran can compete with Zerg in a late game macro management game, I would be happy to see your arguments. I'm sure you'll have plenty of GSL games to back those up as well (LOL).
We're reaching a point where there is evidence that Terran can compete with Zerg in late game macro; yes, it's hard, but no, it isn't unfair. There have been GSL games to back it up (LOL).
You haven't been presenting further arguments. Kyrix's style is "one-dimensional" even after showing he can play macro games, but Foxer apparently showed Terrans the way with marine and SCV all-ins -- which is still trendy, but is becoming steadily more stoppable/predictable.
I also agree with SCC-Faust above in that it seems like you didn't watch Clide vs Leenock -- you're really missing out, the games were damned good.
You're saying the same things (omg terran can't even play lategame vs zerg might as well quit) but there's practically no evidence of that now -- you're basing your entire remaining argument on "lol. jungle basin" and the aggressive early game style of a few players, suggesting that that's the only way to play the game because Zerg is broken.
Terran is strong early game, Zerg is strong lategame. It's an uphill battle for Zerg to survive in the early game, and it's uphill for Terran to survive later on, but for some reason this is being interpreted as "The only way for Terran to win is to all-in ASAP".
IdrA, and others here have made really strong points. It's time to get away from the defeatist mentality that Zerg is unstoppable in TvZ lategame and start using your damned skills at this game to push the meta forward.
The game is young enough for there to be some room to innovate, and you're clearly good enough to do so. Jump on it.
Chill wrote that pre-release. Since the game is much more figured out now...that's why TvZ is in the state it's in. Zergs know how to be untouched later into the game now = hello massive economy advantage.
Yeah, and in the article they link from that one, they claim that 1-hatch Hydra is a great ZvT build, lol.
They also claim that Terrans will always MULE instead of scan, unless forced to do otherwise by cloaked units.
Articles based on pre-public builds of the game have absolutely no relevance to what we're playing now.
On June 03 2010 10:16 avilo wrote: This thread is just going to promote more whining and "NERF MECH" instead of actually looking for gameplay + strategic solutions. Idra and Artosis are good Zergs but they themselves are not beyond the "it's imba" as well. I remember them complaining severely about the roach nerf, yet they were entirely 100% elation pre-roach nerf where ZvT was autowin late game. How strange!
Instead of making threads trying to fear monger the "omg it's imba, nerf it blizzard," start proposing late game styles and things to do in the game, such as more nydus usage. Obviously Blizzard knows what they are doing and mech is not going to be nerfed, but here is something they can do:
There is still more to be explored ZvT is all i'm saying. If there's anything you should be looking at for a legitmate nerf, it should not be the actual units right now, perhaps sensor towers are actually too powerful and their radius of vision should be slightly reduced
avilo - top players in this thread have disagreed with your arguments. Statistics from high level play also indicate that ZvT is much more balanced than you make it out to be. Your past advice to zerg players (ie shut up and play better) was good.
Similar solution to what you provided zerg players: just drop more
I think avilo's style of arguing invalidates his points. basically he writes some stuff that is correct but then as a direct consequence of blatant exaggeration it actually becomes incorrect. (as "zerg is advantaged if they reach the lategame unpunished" is a very different statement from "zerg is invincible unless they're killed early". )
and watching someone butcher their own valid arguement like this is to me quite saddening.
the fact is that the new special abilities of all the races (queen+ creep bonus for zerg, mule for terran and chrono boost for protoss) are all overpowered at certain stages of the game. mules are ridiculously good in situations where both players are short on peons (meaning that terran players should inherently be aiming for a low-econ style of play.. this is something that has been mentioned many times, but apparently not sufficiently grasped by some - 50 peons vs 50 peons means that each mule is hardly of any importance, 6 peons vs 6 peons means one mule gives one player twice the income.) creep suddenly being a resource means that zerg units have to be either too good on creep or not good enough away from creep - now that zergs are finally starting to do a good job creeping we see the consequences. additionally, this obviously is a lategame boost because more creep will normally be spread the further into the game we go. queens being worth more than a hatchery in production capabilities, and being able to make infinite larvea in late game, is definitely overpowered in a situation where both players are at limit and where both players have a lot of resources saved up. there's no question about this.
as for protoss, chrono boost has left protoss fucked over because the one area where chrono boost really shines - allowing them to tech to something or attain a unit combination really really fast - has been nerfed through increased build time or nerfing of those units.. in late game it's practically worthless compared to what mules and queens can do.
but, this is nothing new to the starcraft franchise. for years of brood war the counter to mass carrier in tvp was "don't let him get there". a mere couple months ago the counter to a turtled 200 200 terran in zvt sc2 was "don't let him get there". on destination in bw the exact same scenario also had the same counter, "don't let him get there". prior to 3/3 200/200 mech becoming popular in bw, terrans on the other hand had to play a "don't let him get there" style of play with regard to zergs having 4+ gas mining with defiler tech.
so basically, deal with it. if you're unhappy with your chosen race happening to be one that needs to rely upon harassment and which thrives in low-econ style games, change race. the game is a couple months old and is aiming at a lifespan nearing eternity. when races are as different as they are in bw or sc2, they will be stronger in different scenarios. zerg's biggest singular advantage compared to terran or protoss is their ability to spend huge amounts of resources in a short amount of time, terran has the advantage that it's impossible to attack them cost-efficiently and that all of their crap can be healed or repaired quickly, protoss has the ability to warp units anywhere on the map.. avilo has a point but he's arguing it in such an off-putting way that he's actually de-convincing people and I can't say I'm very sympathetic towards him.
Lets Zerg take half the map with little resistance then cries imba when he loses.
"All that harass!" = 2 fail banshees and 2 fail dropships.
"you can't say I can't play a macro game" = bunkrush into fail 2port harass and expanding to nat when Zerg takes a third after losing nat and making 4 spines early on.
On November 26 2010 05:32 koreasilver wrote: rofl that replay
Lets Zerg take half the map with little resistance then cries imba when he loses.
"All that harass!" = 2 fail banshees and 2 fail dropships.
"you can't say I can't play a macro game" = bunkrush into fail 2port harass and expanding to nat when Zerg takes a third after losing nat and making 4 spines early on.
okay yo.
Zerg so imba.
It seriously tilts me that someone can play like that then blame their loss on imbalance.
and it wasnt like either player was pressuring an attack or anything else was going on either. he just was 100% on base management only for all that time. and that wasnt the first time he supply blocked himself
also those 15 production facilities are my selection in the replay just to show how every single one was idle but with plenty of money to build (but ya he did have 13 production buildings on 1 hotkey, i just added 2 command centers to it)
On November 25 2010 08:16 Dente wrote: Since no one is actually posting replays, I want to invite people to watch this TvZ between select and haypro: http://www.sc2rep.com/replays/show/id/3154
Another one: qxc vs catz where qxc tries to play a macro game vs his teammate. Nice and cute try imo. Can I say that qxc is better then catz? http://www.sc2rep.com/replays/show/id/3177
Funny fact: people always say "ye the terran played crap in that game". The problem is that they never say how the terran should have played.
I recently watched a game between qxc and catz on the same map, so I'm assuming its the same match.
To be honest, qxc was very close to winning towards the end. He was doing amazing drops, taking out expos. At one point it was one base (high yield) terran vs one base (also high yield zerg). Very very close. qxc put up a base at the 11 o clock, catz put down a base on the opposite side of the map. However, qxc did a bad job defending his last mining base. Watching the army, qxc had a larger army at that point, not to mention the fact that both players had pretty much no income. After attacking the expansion, zerg moved his entire army into the 12 o clock high ground area and hid it in the vents. qxc knew that there was an army up there(even sent an scv scout, which got picked off by lings), but apparently forgot about it. He could have taken it out and gone on to win the game with mules and an army advantage.
Either way it was really close. I don't see how it demonstrates that terran is absolutely boned in the late game.
Just checked the rep and I noticed something really funny. Every time avilo would get supply blocked, he'd hesitate on what to do. End up that the first time he was supply blocked, he thought about doing a command center, canceled the order, waited a bit to then end up building 3 barracks more (on 1 base when he had double starport tech lab, 3 rax and a fac) AND THEN build a command center. Don't really know when he built a supply.... then at 129, he eventually builds 3 facts at his 2nd expo before getting extra supply. Note: He build like 11 missile turrets almost at once around the 19 mark, not necessarily "horrible", maybe he wanted to move out of his base and was afraid of muta backstabs... but still :/
Oh avilo, you are so funny when you want =D Continue
Yes, I was having a horrible day on ladder. Who cares. It doesn't invalidate my arguments, everyone loses games. I've beaten lots lots of top names, many of them on sponsored teams, many who rage at me when they lose, but I don't come here, call them out on it, and brag/post every single one of those replays and make overarching balance claims about single games.
It says something when you try so hard to derail a thread with a few screenshots. I remember you raging some in the "T OP era" Zelniq...who cares.
I said it when I started this blog, people are going to be quick to start directing things personally at me instead of attacking my arguments. It happens, this is the internet after all
Bash me all you want...it doesn't change the state of the game.
On November 26 2010 11:29 avilo wrote: Yes, I was having a horrible day on ladder. Who cares. It doesn't invalidate my arguments, everyone loses games. I've beaten lots lots of top names, many of them on sponsored teams, many who rage at me when they lose, but I don't come here, call them out on it, and brag/post every single one of those replays and make overarching balance claims about single games.
It says something when you try so hard to derail a thread with a few screenshots. I remember you raging some in the "T OP era" Zelniq...who cares.
I said it when I started this blog, people are going to be quick to start directing things personally at me instead of attacking my arguments. It happens, this is the internet after all
Bash me all you want...it doesn't change the state of the game.
The "T OP" era you're referencing is the state of the game which immediately preceded a balance patch, right? kthx.
You're making "overarching balance claims" about a very limited number of games where it's become noticeably trendy to marine&scv all-in -- other posts and high-profile games have shown that it isn't the norm, nor is it the "only way" to win.
You haven't got any arguments left to attack, might as well attack an example where you apparently played terribly (by your own admission) and then cried "zerg imba" -- because it calls into question your credibility, which in turn damages your initial argument further. This is, as you said, the internet, after all. Incidentally, you trying to inject "I've beaten lots of top names" to save face as a response does more to hurt your credibility than anything else posted here; it insists that you "aren't terrible" (as IdrA put it) in lieu of evidence to the contrary (Zelniq's post, with pictures and replay).
Regardless, you're utterly wrong that we should expect more all-in TvZ style. The style will more likely continue to be refined to permit early aggression while minimizing the amount of commitment to the point that a certain level of aggression becomes expected. This is the predictable, possibly inevitable progression of the game; it's unfortunate you likely won't contribute.
On November 26 2010 04:28 Liquid`Drone wrote: I think avilo's style of arguing invalidates his points. basically he writes some stuff that is correct but then as a direct consequence of blatant exaggeration it actually becomes incorrect. (as "zerg is advantaged if they reach the lategame unpunished" is a very different statement from "zerg is invincible unless they're killed early". )
and watching someone butcher their own valid arguement like this is to me quite saddening.
the fact is that the new special abilities of all the races (queen+ creep bonus for zerg, mule for terran and chrono boost for protoss) are all overpowered at certain stages of the game. mules are ridiculously good in situations where both players are short on peons (meaning that terran players should inherently be aiming for a low-econ style of play.. this is something that has been mentioned many times, but apparently not sufficiently grasped by some - 50 peons vs 50 peons means that each mule is hardly of any importance, 6 peons vs 6 peons means one mule gives one player twice the income.) creep suddenly being a resource means that zerg units have to be either too good on creep or not good enough away from creep - now that zergs are finally starting to do a good job creeping we see the consequences. additionally, this obviously is a lategame boost because more creep will normally be spread the further into the game we go. queens being worth more than a hatchery in production capabilities, and being able to make infinite larvea in late game, is definitely overpowered in a situation where both players are at limit and where both players have a lot of resources saved up. there's no question about this.
as for protoss, chrono boost has left protoss fucked over because the one area where chrono boost really shines - allowing them to tech to something or attain a unit combination really really fast - has been nerfed through increased build time or nerfing of those units.. in late game it's practically worthless compared to what mules and queens can do.
but, this is nothing new to the starcraft franchise. for years of brood war the counter to mass carrier in tvp was "don't let him get there". a mere couple months ago the counter to a turtled 200 200 terran in zvt sc2 was "don't let him get there". on destination in bw the exact same scenario also had the same counter, "don't let him get there". prior to 3/3 200/200 mech becoming popular in bw, terrans on the other hand had to play a "don't let him get there" style of play with regard to zergs having 4+ gas mining with defiler tech.
so basically, deal with it. if you're unhappy with your chosen race happening to be one that needs to rely upon harassment and which thrives in low-econ style games, change race. the game is a couple months old and is aiming at a lifespan nearing eternity. when races are as different as they are in bw or sc2, they will be stronger in different scenarios. zerg's biggest singular advantage compared to terran or protoss is their ability to spend huge amounts of resources in a short amount of time, terran has the advantage that it's impossible to attack them cost-efficiently and that all of their crap can be healed or repaired quickly, protoss has the ability to warp units anywhere on the map.. avilo has a point but he's arguing it in such an off-putting way that he's actually de-convincing people and I can't say I'm very sympathetic towards him.
no he's actually just flat out wrong mules+pf's+terran unit efficiency and defensive capabilities means that properly played terran is just fine, at worst, in a macro game. as a ton of terrans in gsl are starting to show. its not a 'dont let him get there' its a 'learn how to play the game instead of being dependent on allins'
any good point you may have is completely smothered by your gross exaggerations and aggressive arguing and stubbornness.
And idra is completely right. we have SEEN good terrans in GSL showing strong, strong macro play. their sheer defensive capabilities makes it very easy for them to macro hard.
watch Clide vs Leenock. Leenock can't take out a single missile turret with 20 mutas becos SCVs form a little repair ring. You can't kill a PF without Tier 3 units, or at an enormous cost (like 25 banelings). I don't know how with this kind of enormously strong defensive capability, along with MULEs, terran can say that they cant win a macro game.
On November 24 2010 05:14 xxpack09 wrote: Here's the issue, and its been an issue I've been talking about forever
YEAH I KILLED THIRTY DRONES WITH MY AWESOME HARASSMENT!!!
-> spawn larvae @ 4 bases with 4 queens -> 28 new drones
It's simply way too easy for zerg to out-power the other races with their macro mechanic
I can't even begin to explain how much posts like this make me rage. I see this ALL THE TIME. Can people please, please get it into their heads THAT WE USE LARVA FOR ARMY AND WORKERS.
If I just make 28 drones np, I am making ZERO army whatsoever. So while I'm trying to replenish my workers, I am completely unable to make army.
People need to realise larva is a RESOURCE. And by killing drones that I have to remake, you are costing me that resource. This is exactly why its good to pressure Zerg into making units. It's not to make him spend 200 minerals on 8 lings or whatever, noone gives a shit about 200 minerals, its the 4 larva that is so costly.
On November 26 2010 12:22 DoctorHelvetica wrote: well zelniq just owned this blog
gg avilo
Not really. And the macro games people keep referencing are TvZs on jungle basin...lol. This is like me trying to support my argument and only referencing ZvT's on scrap station...
edit: also i hope people realize players practice things on ladder...yes, that's right, what a strange concept!
On November 26 2010 12:22 DoctorHelvetica wrote: well zelniq just owned this blog
gg avilo
Not really. And the macro games people keep referencing are TvZs on jungle basin...lol. This is like me trying to support my argument and only referencing ZvT's on scrap station...
The game people keep referencing was a TvZ on shakuras plateau. Seriously.
Well, pretty bad macro game by avilo there. Once you deny their expo you have to expo and get a few hellion/banshees to defend the counter attack. Then you're way ahead in macro. In my experience 2 port banshee follow-up rarely works.
On November 26 2010 12:22 DoctorHelvetica wrote: well zelniq just owned this blog
gg avilo
Not really. And the macro games people keep referencing are TvZs on jungle basin...lol. This is like me trying to support my argument and only referencing ZvT's on scrap station...
What about the "macro" game referenced on Metalopolis? Your "macro" game.
You can say "i was having a bad game" and thats fine, it happens. It would be wrong to judge you off a single game.
BUT...
You were QQ'ing hard in that game, claiming your macro was good etc. and Zelniq just won 'cause he was Zerg. If you're blaming balance in that game, then you could be blaming balance in this thread on other games like that one.
Which means the problem is probably with your own inability to recognise your flaws and improve the holes in your game, and not to do with balance.
I suggest you stop posting in the strategy section avilo, your posts as of late are not not positive for strategic growth. All i see from you is a guy carried by his race now suddenly finding its hard to play.
Why cant you guys relax and just play the game for fun? Yes it isnt balanced yet, but what would you expect from a game that came out not too long ago? Liquid'Drone is right in the sense that if you dont like the way your race current plays out, just change race.
TvZ is difficult but no where near imbalanced. The most important thing Terran's have to keep in mind is that we can produce SCV's constantly, whereas zerg must choose between drones/units. There is no excuse for T to not be pushing out randomly and turning back constantly throughout a match. Honestly if you just push towards a watchtower on your side of the map and kill off the zergling there, he will produce more units and have no clue you turned back.
Knowing timings is pretty important as well. For example if you go 1 rax expo into mass barracks, you have a pretty strong timing window to damage the zerg just as mutas pop and baneling speed is not completed(kind of like the 9 minute push in BW without a full tech tree).
If you go to the lategame on even terms with a Zerg, you really aren't behind at all. Once both races hit 70-80 workers it just comes down to map control, army engagement, and being aware of possible tech switches. Yes you have to outplay the zerg a lot of the time since they have the speedy harass units.
"defend into free-win" makes no sense. Watch your replays and you'll know there are a millions things you could have done better.
On November 26 2010 12:22 DoctorHelvetica wrote: well zelniq just owned this blog
gg avilo
Not really. And the macro games people keep referencing are TvZs on jungle basin...lol. This is like me trying to support my argument and only referencing ZvT's on scrap station...
The game people keep referencing was a TvZ on shakuras plateau. Seriously.
You mean nada's game where he got an early game advantage from aggro?
On November 26 2010 12:22 DoctorHelvetica wrote: well zelniq just owned this blog
gg avilo
Not really. And the macro games people keep referencing are TvZs on jungle basin...lol. This is like me trying to support my argument and only referencing ZvT's on scrap station...
The game people keep referencing was a TvZ on shakuras plateau. Seriously.
You mean nada's game where he got an early game advantage from aggro?
On November 25 2010 01:55 Swixi wrote: Watch Leenock vs. Nada Watch Kyrix vs. JSL Watch Clide vs. Leenock
It's easily doable. Great games of TvZ can be played, and the whining is extremely off-putting.
On November 25 2010 07:46 SCC-Faust wrote: If you want to argue that Zerg is impossible to beat in late game, just watch Clide vs Leenock. Clide was comfortable playing late game, he even OPTED TO. His build was intentionally for it. And he did amazing. If you even watched the last game of the set, Clide was 2-3 bases behind all game but was holding on and fighting. His SCV count was also somewhat low from the constant Mutalisk harass. I think both players played amazing that game.
On November 25 2010 11:26 MinusPlus wrote: I also agree with SCC-Faust above in that it seems like you didn't watch Clide vs Leenock -- you're really missing out, the games were damned good.
On November 26 2010 12:15 Subversion wrote: watch Clide vs Leenock
By the way, I think you should watch Clide vs Leenock.
And sure, the nada game works, too -- as long as you aren't saying "oh that one where he got an early advantage from aggro?" as if Terran isn't supposed to be trying for an early game advantage with aggro.
when players much much better than you (ret and idra) say you are bad and wrong about everything and then zelniq posts a replay proving your macro is awful then it might just be time to throw in the towel and admit you have some improvements to make and that you just might not be great at this game
So when's the $1000 bo7 with you as Z and ret as T going down.
If Zerg is so imba you should win easily, right? Should be an easy 1k for you. After all, you are the one that challenged him, not the other way around.
On October 26 2010 00:28 avilo wrote: How coincidental Considering how imba Z is right now, especially versus T, I have been experimenting with mass ravens, marines/med/tank as well...as it's the only thing that really seems viable long term...and even then, it still gets raped from Zergs.
The only problem of why this will never work versus a good Zerg is because HSM is so slow that they always can run their entire ling/muta/baneling/roach ball directly into your army and suicide it, and the HSMs actually help them more than you.
It has some potential though...
Here are some replays: Starting into mass raven if I remember right. Manage to kill lots of banelings with HSM, but that was more or less the Zerg's bad control than me doing something good.
Unlike irradiate, HSM leaves the game in the hands of your opponent after it's cast
I think I didn't pay attention for 1 split second, if I remember right...and lost 5000 marines. Otherwise this replay might be a mech replay lol. Can't remember. If it's mech, you can lol @ how hard zerg can crush that now too with late game ultras + neural.
This one is an incredibly long TvZ with marine/tank/raven/medivac into -> Zerg macros and defends -> muta harrasses you -> into you lose. Which is basically every TvZ this patch.
You seem to have gone for a 1-1-1 with a FE. The thing about that vs mass marine is that you can't apply pressure. :-\
Look at the third replay. We see that avilo was doing quite okay (he even brought the drone count down to 11 with an early hellion drop), the only issue is that he transitioned into herp derping and that is never what a terran should do, we clearly see him staying in the middle of the map stimming marines that, in the end, made it so that his marines died automatically to fungal growth when Z decided to do something (60-80 marines stationed at 15 health =D ), not to mention he did not even try to defend the expos he tried to set up. I haven't watched the other replays he posted in the said thread ( http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=163605¤tpage=18#348) , but they are most likely just as bad...
On November 26 2010 14:42 koreasilver wrote: So when's the $1000 bo7 with you as Z and ret as T going down.
If Zerg is so imba you should win easily, right? Should be an easy 1k for you. After all, you are the one that challenged him, not the other way around.
Ia ret's TvZ in sc2 good? I remember he had the best TvZ in the foreigner scene in BW.
On November 26 2010 14:42 koreasilver wrote: So when's the $1000 bo7 with you as Z and ret as T going down.
If Zerg is so imba you should win easily, right? Should be an easy 1k for you. After all, you are the one that challenged him, not the other way around.
Ia ret's TvZ in sc2 good? I remember he had the best TvZ in the foreigner scene in BW.
I dunno, I haven't actually watched one sc2 ret game. But avilo will probably get overlord blocked for 90seconds and not inject larva for 2 minutes or something and let the T take half the map so I don't think ret will lose if avilo doesn't dodge.
On November 26 2010 14:42 koreasilver wrote: So when's the $1000 bo7 with you as Z and ret as T going down.
If Zerg is so imba you should win easily, right? Should be an easy 1k for you. After all, you are the one that challenged him, not the other way around.
Ia ret's TvZ in sc2 good? I remember he had the best TvZ in the foreigner scene in BW.
rets tvz in sc2 is definitely better than most 2500 terrans, especially going by mechanics
It says something when you try so hard to derail a thread with a few screenshots.
Its not a derail when one very key assumption of your argument -- your ability to objectively separate bad gameplay from inherent balance issues -- is getting thrown into question. Seeing as half your counter-arguments to TvZ wins disproving your predicted 'trend' stem from 'that zerg played bad/has a terrible playstyle'.
Is it that difficult to admit that you may be wrong? Its not going to damage your e-credibility any more than straight denial, or suggesting 10 simultaneous Nydus worms as a viable strategy.
lol, I finally found this (worth not getting that hour of sleep before school). I got my first taste of avilo when watching him text yelling on the chat that Sheth should be making nyduses all over the map instead of getting roflstomped by tanks. I believe the day after that game we all remember, I came across this post.
On June 03 2010 10:16 avilo wrote: This thread is just going to promote more whining and "NERF MECH" instead of actually looking for gameplay + strategic solutions.
LOOOOOOOOOOL.
Wow I'm starting to think avilo is just a troll. That post is absolutely drenched in hilarious irony.
You heard it here Terrans: avilodamus predicted 10 nydus worms were the answer to ZvT back then, so surely you should listen to him now. He UNDERSTANDS the "metagame".
Not really. And the macro games people keep referencing are TvZs on jungle basin...lol. This is like me trying to support my argument and only referencing ZvT's on scrap station...
edit: also i hope people realize players practice things on ladder...yes, that's right, what a strange concept!
Yeah, cause a map that is 55% in favor of T in TvZ obviously means that it's Zerg imba (am speaking of Scrap Station in the foreigner scene, as per TLPD statistics) :/
On June 03 2010 10:16 avilo wrote: This thread is just going to promote more whining and "NERF MECH" instead of actually looking for gameplay + strategic solutions.
LOOOOOOOOOOL.
Wow I'm starting to think avilo is just a troll. That post is absolutely drenched in hilarious irony.
You heard it here Terrans: avilodamus predicted 10 nydus worms were the answer to ZvT back then, so surely you should listen to him now. He UNDERSTANDS the "metagame".
Didn't he also falsely predict both of the last two GSLs?
I don't know if that qualifies him as a troll in that case. >.>
On November 26 2010 12:22 DoctorHelvetica wrote: well zelniq just owned this blog
gg avilo
Not really. And the macro games people keep referencing are TvZs on jungle basin...lol. This is like me trying to support my argument and only referencing ZvT's on scrap station...
edit: also i hope people realize players practice things on ladder...yes, that's right, what a strange concept!
How did practicing not macroing for 90 seconds work out for you?
I also noticed your parting comments were not "Wow this build doesn't work" and were all directed outward rather than inward. This leads me to believe you weren't practicing anything.
I didn't realize posting some images from a shitty ladder game suddenly allowed all the posters to become giant assholes and bash avilo.
Hey zerg and drone iconed kids/players, he's still 100x better than you and understands the game well enough to make his opinion count more than yours ever will. Guess what, top players exaggerate things sometimes.
Artosis: "UNSCOUTABLE 2 RAX, if u make speedlings non stop, you can't even put a dent in it"
Idra: "14 hatch is dead"
Lolololol, look, I can do this all day.
On November 26 2010 18:17 eLiE wrote: lol, I finally found this (worth not getting that hour of sleep before school). I got my first taste of avilo when watching him text yelling on the chat that Sheth should be making nyduses all over the map instead of getting roflstomped by tanks. I believe the day after that game we all remember, I came across this post.
That post is 100% correct. The amount of unwarranted whining by zergs in beta about mech was inexcusable, but they whined enough and blizzard nerfed mech. Guess what. Now mech is useless in TvP as a result.
On November 27 2010 00:51 Sadistx wrote: Hey zerg and drone iconed kids/players, he's still 100x better than you and understands the game well enough to make his opinion count more than yours ever will. Guess what, top players exaggerate things sometimes.
There's 2 huge problems with this: 1. Some top players in Brood War were retarded at game knowledge. Being a great player means it's more likely that you understand the game better, but it's not a certainty. His posts on the forum show (in my eyes) that he doesn't fully understand the match. 2. If your logic of a better player's opinion completely invalidating a less player's is true, then IdrA's post means we should no longer listen to avilo.
On November 27 2010 00:51 Sadistx wrote: Hey zerg and drone iconed kids/players, he's still 100x better than you and understands the game well enough to make his opinion count more than yours ever will. Guess what, top players exaggerate things sometimes.
There's 2 huge problems with this: 1. Some top players in Brood War were retarded at game knowledge. Being a great player means it's more likely that you understand the game better, but it's not a certainty. His posts on the forum show (in my eyes) that he doesn't fully understand the match. 2. If your logic of a better player's opinion completely invalidating a less player's is true, then IdrA's post means we should no longer listen to avilo.
Regarding 1, I agree, and avilo does tend to exaggerate things (Like Liquid Drone said, instead of "impossible to win late game" you could say zerg "has a macro advantage late game"), but I wouldn't call any top player "retarded" at game knowledge. Maybe they were bad at putting their knowledge into a forum post, but none of them were flat out retarded (except Ps who went DTs every game).
2. This depends on the gap in skill. Because skill is a curve, the difference between top players is actually quite small. So someone like IdrA would invalidate opinions of most non top200 players, but not avilo's. Same way avilo's opinion exists alongside IdrA's without invalidating it.
How big should the gap be, before one's opinion invalidates another? Pretty big, probably as big as between top200 and mid diamond, it's hard to put in numbers because of point inflation.
I'm really curious... is Avilo trolling us really hard? I think at this point we can start being suspicious =O
I mean even IdrA stepped in to say that Avilo is completely wrong. I think we can trust a legitimate pro to give the best opinion rather than a person who is busy making blogs like these instead of practicing for something like the GSL.
On November 27 2010 00:51 Sadistx wrote: Hey zerg and drone iconed kids/players, he's still 100x better than you and understands the game well enough to make his opinion count more than yours ever will. Guess what, top players exaggerate things sometimes.
There's 2 huge problems with this: 1. Some top players in Brood War were retarded at game knowledge. Being a great player means it's more likely that you understand the game better, but it's not a certainty. His posts on the forum show (in my eyes) that he doesn't fully understand the match. 2. If your logic of a better player's opinion completely invalidating a less player's is true, then IdrA's post means we should no longer listen to avilo.
Regarding 1, I agree, and avilo does tend to exaggerate things (Like Liquid Drone said, instead of "impossible to win late game" you could say zerg "has a macro advantage late game"), but I wouldn't call any top player "retarded" at game knowledge. Maybe they were bad at putting their knowledge into a forum post, but none of them were flat out retarded (except Ps who went DTs every game).
2. This depends on the gap in skill. Because skill is a curve, the difference between top players is actually quite small. So someone like IdrA would invalidate opinions of most non top200 players, but not avilo's. Same way avilo's opinion exists alongside IdrA's without invalidating it.
How big should the gap be, before one's opinion invalidates another? Pretty big, probably as big as between top200 and mid diamond, it's hard to put in numbers because of point inflation.
I don't believe skill ever invalidates an opinion. There's plenty of people who can put pen to paper at the highest level but can't execute it. When I say "retarded" top level games, obviously that wasn't my true meaning. I mean players who can execute at the highest level, but could never sit down and say why that works. Players who don't (and can't) adapt. And there are many of those kinds of players. So when someone is top200, it means I'll listen more carefully, but I'm not going to take everything they say to be true.
On November 27 2010 00:51 Sadistx wrote: I didn't realize posting some images from a shitty ladder game suddenly allowed all the posters to become giant assholes and bash avilo.
Hey zerg and drone iconed kids/players, he's still 100x better than you and understands the game well enough to make his opinion count more than yours ever will. Guess what, top players exaggerate things sometimes.
Artosis: "UNSCOUTABLE 2 RAX, if u make speedlings non stop, you can't even put a dent in it"
On November 26 2010 18:17 eLiE wrote: lol, I finally found this (worth not getting that hour of sleep before school). I got my first taste of avilo when watching him text yelling on the chat that Sheth should be making nyduses all over the map instead of getting roflstomped by tanks. I believe the day after that game we all remember, I came across this post.
That post is 100% correct. The amount of unwarranted whining by zergs in beta about mech was inexcusable, but they whined enough and blizzard nerfed mech. Guess what. Now mech is useless in TvP as a result.
What happened to not complaining about how things are useless and working to find solutions to your race's problems? May I suggest using 5-10 nydus worms to make your mech more useful? EDIT: I won't be lazy, I'll personalize it to Terran. Why don't you do 5-10 tank/thor drops at once to make your units more useful?
I believe it does if the skill gap is big enough (i.e. let's say IdrA and some random bronze league player, what would you say then?). I cannot imagine a situation where I'd listen to someone worse than myself (and i'm pretty terrible). Why would I listen to someone in plat, when I can go on ladder myself and actually TEST it at a higher level ? Why would Idra? Why would anyone?
There's plenty of people who can put pen to paper at the highest level but can't execute it.
With SC2 I don't agree with that at all. Execution is easier than ever, units aren't stupid, macro is easy and if you have correct theorycrafting, you will be able to execute it at least at a high enough level that you can take games off top diamond players.
On November 27 2010 00:51 Sadistx wrote: I didn't realize posting some images from a shitty ladder game suddenly allowed all the posters to become giant assholes and bash avilo.
Hey zerg and drone iconed kids/players, he's still 100x better than you and understands the game well enough to make his opinion count more than yours ever will. Guess what, top players exaggerate things sometimes.
Artosis: "UNSCOUTABLE 2 RAX, if u make speedlings non stop, you can't even put a dent in it"
Idra: "14 hatch is dead"
Lolololol, look, I can do this all day.
On November 26 2010 18:17 eLiE wrote: lol, I finally found this (worth not getting that hour of sleep before school). I got my first taste of avilo when watching him text yelling on the chat that Sheth should be making nyduses all over the map instead of getting roflstomped by tanks. I believe the day after that game we all remember, I came across this post.
That post is 100% correct. The amount of unwarranted whining by zergs in beta about mech was inexcusable, but they whined enough and blizzard nerfed mech. Guess what. Now mech is useless in TvP as a result.
What happened to not complaining about how things are useless and working to find solutions to your race's problems? May I suggest using 5-10 nydus worms to make your mech more useful? EDIT: I won't be lazy, I'll personalize it to Terran. Why don't you do 5-10 tank/thor drops at once to make your units more useful?
You seem to have mistaken me for avilo. However if you'd like a 1000$ bo7 showmatch against me, I'd be happy to oblige.
On November 27 2010 00:51 Sadistx wrote: I didn't realize posting some images from a shitty ladder game suddenly allowed all the posters to become giant assholes and bash avilo.
Hey zerg and drone iconed kids/players, he's still 100x better than you and understands the game well enough to make his opinion count more than yours ever will. Guess what, top players exaggerate things sometimes.
Artosis: "UNSCOUTABLE 2 RAX, if u make speedlings non stop, you can't even put a dent in it"
Idra: "14 hatch is dead"
Lolololol, look, I can do this all day.
On November 26 2010 18:17 eLiE wrote: lol, I finally found this (worth not getting that hour of sleep before school). I got my first taste of avilo when watching him text yelling on the chat that Sheth should be making nyduses all over the map instead of getting roflstomped by tanks. I believe the day after that game we all remember, I came across this post.
That post is 100% correct. The amount of unwarranted whining by zergs in beta about mech was inexcusable, but they whined enough and blizzard nerfed mech. Guess what. Now mech is useless in TvP as a result.
What happened to not complaining about how things are useless and working to find solutions to your race's problems? May I suggest using 5-10 nydus worms to make your mech more useful? EDIT: I won't be lazy, I'll personalize it to Terran. Why don't you do 5-10 tank/thor drops at once to make your units more useful?
You seem to have mistaken me for avilo. However if you'd like a 1000$ bo7 showmatch against me, I'd be happy to oblige.
lol, why would I do that? I'm fucking terrible at this game. But just because I can't execute perfectly, don't play all day, and have a zergling portrait doesn't mean I don't know anything about the game. In fact, I follow the SC2 extremely closely. I think I'm like the player Chill described. Usually I know what I'm talking about, but I may be off every now and then. Sue me, or call me a nub and tell me to shut up (or challenge me to a bo7. I'd do it for honour only, but I'm drowning in school atm), Don't really care either way.
Terran just can't turtle or play passive in TvZ at all. It's just matchup flow that terran needs to harass and/or be agressive in TvZ right now. I guess if you want to call that allin you could. I don't see 2rax marine pressure into expanding as allin. Now it is trending lately towards more allins by terran but EVERY game isn't allin and the matchup isn't completely broken/bad.
You saw similar things in PvT in broodwar in my opinion, Protoss couldn't just sit there and allow a terran to max and attack with 200/200 3/3 army, you would lose. Yet we didn't see them proxy gating or going "allin every game." You saw it some of the time. They needed to deny 3rd, recall, fight better smaller fights, go carriers or other surprise/special tactics. I view TvZ very similar to that, I think you will see terrans fall into allining some of the time (more than zerg obviously). Because I do agree you can't sit there or enter a late game with a fully macoring zerg on 3-4 bases unchecked. Now of course I agree you will probably see more allins because of that but there are plenty of midgame timings I think that can be very powerful that many terran players simply haven't discovered yet or aren't really using.
I thought TvZ was broken initially after the depot before rax patch but in the past 3-4 weeks I really don't think it's all that bad at all. And to conclude I thin It's also really hard to form judgments about TvZ right now period when there are probably less than 5 actually good zergs on the entire north American server at the moment and such a dynamic/changing game from patch to patch.
I believe it does if the skill gap is big enough (i.e. let's say IdrA and some random bronze league player, what would you say then?).
Artosis and Idra said tons of wrong shit in Brood War because they're insanely biased. Like "oh he went 14 Nexus and I went Siege expand this timing is nearly impossible to beat" and shit like that.
Who says it determines how closely I will listen to what they are saying, and nothing more. If IdrA said something I thought was wrong, I would take the time to double check if he's wrong or I'm wrong. If it was a bronze player, I would also check for mistakes in his opinion, but probably not as hard. That's it. You don't have to be a top player to form a justified opinion based on theory or evidence. It just takes time and logical thinking, that's all.
I was referring to last night, but what??? somewhere 4 months ago you sneak into one of my game too? i don't remember that! Did I manage to impress you in any of those games ? :D
I believe it does if the skill gap is big enough (i.e. let's say IdrA and some random bronze league player, what would you say then?).
Artosis and Idra said tons of wrong shit in Brood War because they're insanely biased. Like "oh he went 14 Nexus and I went Siege expand this timing is nearly impossible to beat" and shit like that.
While they were quite biased, some of their statements tended to contain truth, though extremely exaggerated - a 14 nexus did have many advantages to a siege expanding player, though it isn't impossible to beat. So while they shouldn't be taken literally, they still tend to make sense. IE - in the current state of the game, it IS difficult for zerg players to 15 hatch. Is it impossible? Probably not, but where we are at now, a player who 15 hatches has a pretty difficult disadvantage (at least how its played out at the moment) to a well played 2 raxing terran. In fact, artosis and idra should probably have a translator for them that automatically de-amplifies most of their words .
What happened to not complaining about how things are useless and working to find solutions to your race's problems? May I suggest using 5-10 nydus worms to make your mech more useful? EDIT: I won't be lazy, I'll personalize it to Terran. Why don't you do 5-10 tank/thor drops at once to make your units more useful?
4000/3000, costs only 2000 minerals more than the 10 nydus worms and damage is insured. The analogy stands.
That post is 100% correct. The amount of unwarranted whining by zergs in beta about mech was inexcusable, but they whined enough and blizzard nerfed mech. Guess what. Now mech is useless in TvP as a result.
except it was justifiably nerfed in relation to how zvt operated at the time and because of short map sizes mech became too strong, besides that terrans are experimenting with mass thors to battle the collossii balls so biomech is perfectly fine.
As for Avilo, he dosnt actually say anything intelligent. Basing everything on the games on gsl forgetting that koreans are so insanely agressive that they essentially have very few players who want the game to go into the lategame and when they end up in the lategame the terran is insanely behind because he has attempted to allinn rather than play for the lategame.
YOu cant allinn and play lategame in the same game.
I have a hard time following this blog, it has gone from trying to state something is wrong with the game to bashing players. What we need is a new post that has more thought in it then inane ramblings about how something is imbalanced with very little proof given other than look at this game he lost the late game. (I am sorry that is pretty easy to do when 50% of the people playing this match up lose the game) How about you give it some time to rethink this "imbalance" play some games on the ladder and use those replays to show us the issue. Then we can see the replays and be like wow you had no way to win that late game match! Or you had the same chance to win as he did but you made a stupid mistake in getting supply blocked or you backed off your pressure because you thought you were ahead.
This is an interesting topic but it needs to be brought forward in a more logical approach. Replays & a not so biased whine fest about how you will never be able to beat a late game zerg.
On November 27 2010 02:05 LuckyFool wrote: Terran just can't turtle or play passive in TvZ at all. It's just matchup flow that terran needs to harass and/or be agressive in TvZ right now. I guess if you want to call that allin you could. I don't see 2rax marine pressure into expanding as allin. Now it is trending lately towards more allins by terran but EVERY game isn't allin and the matchup isn't completely broken/bad.
You saw similar things in PvT in broodwar in my opinion, Protoss couldn't just sit there and allow a terran to max and attack with 200/200 3/3 army, you would lose. Yet we didn't see them proxy gating or going "allin every game." You saw it some of the time. They needed to deny 3rd, recall, fight better smaller fights, go carriers or other surprise/special tactics. I view TvZ very similar to that, I think you will see terrans fall into allining some of the time (more than zerg obviously). Because I do agree you can't sit there or enter a late game with a fully macoring zerg on 3-4 bases unchecked. Now of course I agree you will probably see more allins because of that but there are plenty of midgame timings I think that can be very powerful that many terran players simply haven't discovered yet or aren't really using.
I thought TvZ was broken initially after the depot before rax patch but in the past 3-4 weeks I really don't think it's all that bad at all. And to conclude I thin It's also really hard to form judgments about TvZ right now period when there are probably less than 5 actually good zergs on the entire north American server at the moment and such a dynamic/changing game from patch to patch.
Ya, Rob, that's why u made this blog rite? http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/blogitems.php?site=luckyfool&page=22 How can u be such a traitor to the terran race. You can't just abandon ur bw roots and say that shit. P 200/200 army was just as strong as T's, even stronger if they had carriers and HTs and arbiters and all that ridiculously imbalanced stuff.
I believe it does if the skill gap is big enough (i.e. let's say IdrA and some random bronze league player, what would you say then?).
Who says it determines how closely I will listen to what they are saying, and nothing more. If IdrA said something I thought was wrong, I would take the time to double check if he's wrong or I'm wrong. If it was a bronze player, I would also check for mistakes in his opinion, but probably not as hard. That's it. You don't have to be a top player to form a justified opinion based on theory or evidence. It just takes time and logical thinking, that's all.
Ok, I can agree with that. For example if Luckyfool says something, I never listen, cuz he's my renegade student and I just tell him to shut up and tech switch.
On November 27 2010 02:05 LuckyFool wrote: Terran just can't turtle or play passive in TvZ at all. It's just matchup flow that terran needs to harass and/or be agressive in TvZ right now. I guess if you want to call that allin you could. I don't see 2rax marine pressure into expanding as allin. Now it is trending lately towards more allins by terran but EVERY game isn't allin and the matchup isn't completely broken/bad.
You saw similar things in PvT in broodwar in my opinion, Protoss couldn't just sit there and allow a terran to max and attack with 200/200 3/3 army, you would lose. Yet we didn't see them proxy gating or going "allin every game." You saw it some of the time. They needed to deny 3rd, recall, fight better smaller fights, go carriers or other surprise/special tactics. I view TvZ very similar to that, I think you will see terrans fall into allining some of the time (more than zerg obviously). Because I do agree you can't sit there or enter a late game with a fully macoring zerg on 3-4 bases unchecked. Now of course I agree you will probably see more allins because of that but there are plenty of midgame timings I think that can be very powerful that many terran players simply haven't discovered yet or aren't really using.
I thought TvZ was broken initially after the depot before rax patch but in the past 3-4 weeks I really don't think it's all that bad at all. And to conclude I thin It's also really hard to form judgments about TvZ right now period when there are probably less than 5 actually good zergs on the entire north American server at the moment and such a dynamic/changing game from patch to patch.
Ya, Rob, that's why u made this blog rite? http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/blogitems.php?site=luckyfool&page=22 How can u be such a traitor to the terran race. You can't just abandon ur bw roots and say that shit. P 200/200 army was just as strong as T's, even stronger if they had carriers and HTs and arbiters and all that ridiculously imbalanced stuff.
That post is 100% correct. The amount of unwarranted whining by zergs in beta about mech was inexcusable, but they whined enough and blizzard nerfed mech. Guess what. Now mech is useless in TvP as a result.
except it was justifiably nerfed in relation to how zvt operated at the time and because of short map sizes mech became too strong, besides that terrans are experimenting with mass thors to battle the collossii balls so biomech is perfectly fine.
As for Avilo, he dosnt actually say anything intelligent. Basing everything on the games on gsl forgetting that koreans are so insanely agressive that they essentially have very few players who want the game to go into the lategame and when they end up in the lategame the terran is insanely behind because he has attempted to allinn rather than play for the lategame.
YOu cant allinn and play lategame in the same game.
Maybe they were insanely aggressive b/c Terran is behind late game? Iono....
And you CAN play lategame after an all-in. Sounds kinda contradictory, but enough damage to the Zerg should be enough to bring you back from the damage taken from all-in.
To me, it sounds like the biggest problem is just Zerg is just outmassing the shit out of everybody in lategame. To be honest, that just sounds like a poor excuse for "fuck, I couldn't kill enough expos against Z, it's imba!"
Back in BW, a Zerg that was on four gas was SUPER strong in TvZ. And if you were a Zerg on FIVE bases, you could trash anything with your Sauron Zerg tactics. In SC2, Zerg's macro dynamics make it so easy for Zerg to take a lot of expansions, and with larvae inject, it makes SC2 Sauron Zerg style so much more threatening.
T's just gotta learn how to take down expoes like they did in BW. Once that happens, TvZ all-ins should lessen.
The difference is that I don't claim to know better and I am fully aware that I'm not good at the game (I don't even own the game), and I don't say outrageous things, challenge people that are obviously better than me and then wuss out when the person calls me out. At the moment avilo isn't really much different from AzureEye and he deserves all the ridicule he receives.
On November 27 2010 04:34 koreasilver wrote: The difference is that I don't claim to know better and I am fully aware that I'm not good at the game (I don't even own the game), and I don't say outrageous things, challenge people that are obviously better than me and then wuss out when the person calls me out. At the moment avilo isn't really much different from AzureEye and he deserves all the ridicule he receives.
lol...mass bashing, hate, etc. i beat ret in brood war a game on iccup when i came back with 1 week of practice. PvZ...that's my off race, i'm a terran player. Yes, it's just one fucking game, but if people are gonna post "1 game" of me losing to zelniq and then say jack shit yeah...my point is, who cares, it's 1 game, a damn ladder game. Lots of people use ladder to practice different things.
And the skill gap between top foreigners is not huge at all like some people here think. A lot of the top 200 period can beat lots of the GSL competitors. No exaggeration...people aren't gods you know, everyone plays this game.
Anyways, the point of me making this was to discuss how Zerg has an advantage late game, and yes, Terran cannot play passive. You have to play "bad" by trading units, doing suicide drops, to take your next expo, etc.
I'm not saying I myself am not still learning this game...that's fucking ridiculous. Everyone here is still learning, but I'd think I know some things and can point them out.
Yes, I brought up nydus worms a lot during beta because no one was using them...like at all. The amount of Terran "balance whining" right now is no where goddamn near how bad idra and the other Zergs were whining when Zerg had a tough time.
But I hope people realize throughout the entire beta, Zerg's lategame has always been the absolute strongest. There's a reason why Zerg was the strongest race the first months of beta, and that's because of turtling and then drone whoring.
Chill's "e-sports science graphs" show what happens when Zerg defends until he can drone whore safely - their economy goes up exponentially while protoss/terran only go up linearly? Something like that eh?
So yes, the balance shifted, Terrans got ridiculously strong (see: OP) for a time, but Zergs knew that if they defended into lategame...they won. Nothing about lategame Zerg ever changed throughout any of the patches, economy-wise that is.
That's all I'm saying, pretty much how drone said i should have worded it - zerg has an advantage late-game. I don't understand how any good player can deny that.
And the people that say, "just use more ravens/HSM" are just as bad as I was about saying use nydus worms, FYI
On November 27 2010 04:34 koreasilver wrote: The difference is that I don't claim to know better and I am fully aware that I'm not good at the game (I don't even own the game), and I don't say outrageous things, challenge people that are obviously better than me and then wuss out when the person calls me out. At the moment avilo isn't really much different from AzureEye and he deserves all the ridicule he receives.
If you read that thread, avilo didn't "wuss" out...Ret wanted a grand to play him, because according to Huk, Ret is Kolbe Bryant. Avilo stated that he's a college student and doesn't have the funds - otherwise he would have played him without hesitation, I'm sure.
Right or wrong, someone’s opinion cannot be invalidated. It’s theirs. And like they say “opinions are like @$$holes, everyone has one.” If a person wants to vent (whine, as you call it) it’s their right; however, there’s no excuse for attacking someone’s integrity. It’s easy to follow the leader in a gang bashing, when you, yourself (collective) are a follower. It’s easy to laugh at someone else’s mistakes. Oh what fun!
Zelnig posts one replay of a bad game and suddenly it’s food for fodder. All the sheep having a good laugh at avilo’s expense for experimenting, or trying something new/different, or just maybe losing focus and attention atm due to something happening in his personal life. I’ve seen excellent “team” players lose for doing something stupid. They kick themselves enough; no one has to do it for them. But everyone is so geared on attacking avilo that they’ve lost all humanity and have become like a pack of ravenous wolves hell bent on ripping their prey to shreds. It’s sad really.
Harem jokingly mentioned earlier in this thread, “That's his girlfriend posting” as if one human being can’t defend another when she/he sees injustices perpetrated upon a fellow man.
If you fear so much zerg 300 push or outmacroing you in late stages of the game, why don't you regularly trade army with him? Terran units while more costly (exept marines), are cost-effective. What it means is that it's a big investment to make it be it in time (or production capability), or in resources, they are more efficient for their food cost than other units. Although the "costly" part is obviously debatable (especially when facing a marine / tank build because of reactor rax and the little tank needed), the efficiency can be proven by simple excel sheets (see maraudeurs vs roach, marine vs ling, tanks vs anything ground, thor vs ultralisk). Food for food there is a big provable difference there.
So terrans should aim to be aggressive and keep food counts equal (I know the concept is not new at all). It doesn't mean though that the terran should all in every chance they get . It means be aggressive.
When all ins are too powerfull it kills the game because it's not counterable. It's poker build order. It's bad for the game (imagine if most terran builds except one or two could be flat out beaten by a baneling bust allin?). When macro "seems" too powerfull, it means it can be solved via tactics (being a better player) until the very very very top (it's true in most rps).
On November 26 2010 18:17 eLiE wrote: lol, I finally found this (worth not getting that hour of sleep before school). I got my first taste of avilo when watching him text yelling on the chat that Sheth should be making nyduses all over the map instead of getting roflstomped by tanks. I believe the day after that game we all remember, I came across this post.
To be fair to me, I was also saying that all the whining was going to get mech nerfed, rather than fixing Zerg or buffing them up early game to match Terran. Obv, blizzard nerfed Terran early game which has turned out OK, except they haven't kept Zerg lategame in check/
Here we are today, there's a problem lategame ZvT where they have an advantage, but I'm not advocating nerfing any Zerg strategies like every Zerg was when the match-up was Terran favored in the early game build order poker.
Huge difference. I don't want Terran buffed, I don't want Zerg strats nerfed - me, like many other Terrans, want a game where it's possible to play a macro management game on even footing, whether that's passive or aggressive.
The only way to legitimately do that right now is to play "bad" and trade units over and over again, which is ridiculous.
and btw, hope you realize quoting that thread that the thread starter made that huge "OMG MECH TOO STRONG imba thread!" based off of ONE game on STEPPES OF WAR. I don't know how people can say I'm being Terran biased when you have crazy threads like that.
Zergs whined enough, they got their race problems fixed, now they're singing songs and patting each other on the back on a job well done by blizzard leaving Zerg lategame alone.
On November 27 2010 02:05 LuckyFool wrote: Terran just can't turtle or play passive in TvZ at all. It's just matchup flow that terran needs to harass and/or be agressive in TvZ right now. I guess if you want to call that allin you could. I don't see 2rax marine pressure into expanding as allin. Now it is trending lately towards more allins by terran but EVERY game isn't allin and the matchup isn't completely broken/bad.
You saw similar things in PvT in broodwar in my opinion, Protoss couldn't just sit there and allow a terran to max and attack with 200/200 3/3 army, you would lose. Yet we didn't see them proxy gating or going "allin every game." You saw it some of the time. They needed to deny 3rd, recall, fight better smaller fights, go carriers or other surprise/special tactics. I view TvZ very similar to that, I think you will see terrans fall into allining some of the time (more than zerg obviously). Because I do agree you can't sit there or enter a late game with a fully macoring zerg on 3-4 bases unchecked. Now of course I agree you will probably see more allins because of that but there are plenty of midgame timings I think that can be very powerful that many terran players simply haven't discovered yet or aren't really using.
I thought TvZ was broken initially after the depot before rax patch but in the past 3-4 weeks I really don't think it's all that bad at all. And to conclude I thin It's also really hard to form judgments about TvZ right now period when there are probably less than 5 actually good zergs on the entire north American server at the moment and such a dynamic/changing game from patch to patch.
Ya, Rob, that's why u made this blog rite? http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/blogitems.php?site=luckyfool&page=22 How can u be such a traitor to the terran race. You can't just abandon ur bw roots and say that shit. P 200/200 army was just as strong as T's, even stronger if they had carriers and HTs and arbiters and all that ridiculously imbalanced stuff.
I believe it does if the skill gap is big enough (i.e. let's say IdrA and some random bronze league player, what would you say then?).
Who says it determines how closely I will listen to what they are saying, and nothing more. If IdrA said something I thought was wrong, I would take the time to double check if he's wrong or I'm wrong. If it was a bronze player, I would also check for mistakes in his opinion, but probably not as hard. That's it. You don't have to be a top player to form a justified opinion based on theory or evidence. It just takes time and logical thinking, that's all.
Ok, I can agree with that. For example if Luckyfool says something, I never listen, cuz he's my renegade student and I just tell him to shut up and tech switch.
I'm not a traitor to the terran race. I was just bad in broodwar so I raged about that stupid shit all the time. T_T
And I mentioned protoss needs carriers/recalls to fight terran in my first post so you're not really doing anything but trying to time warp into the past by linking to old blogposts.
Huge difference. I don't want Terran buffed, I don't want Zerg strats nerfed - me, like many other Terrans, want a game where it's possible to play a macro management game on even footing, whether that's passive or aggressive.
I quite sincerely want to know what this means.
Are you advocating a change of the map pool (as you said: loljunglebasin)?
Otherwise, the statement seems like a self-contradicting mess...
Huge difference. I don't want Terran buffed, I don't want Zerg strats nerfed - me, like many other Terrans, want a game where it's possible to play a macro management game on even footing, whether that's passive or aggressive.
and idra says it is possible you just need to learn to play for the lategame.
either that or you are indeed advocating nerfs to zerg lategame and that in itself is mocking to all the great terran players out there like clide and nada.
On November 27 2010 07:16 avilo wrote: Lots of people use ladder to practice different things.
No matter what 'thing' you claim you were practicing that game, 90 second supply block is a fundamental flaw in your game that should prove pretty clearly that you aren't good enough at the game to make claims about imbalance based on your own play.
Secondly, no one is bashing you for one ladder game. They're bashing you for having 13 production facilities on one hotkey, idling for 90 seconds, and whining once the game was lost. I'm sure Ret did none of these things when you beat him offrace.
On November 27 2010 09:11 Chill wrote: Please stop citing my 6-month old beta article.
Secondly, no one is bashing you for one ladder game. They're bashing you for having 13 production facilities on one hotkey, idling for 90 seconds, and whining once the game was lost. I'm sure Ret did none of these things when you beat him offrace.
wait wtf are you talking about? I didn't come here after that "1 game." Are you kidding me? You say no one is bashing me for a ladder game. Then you bash me for that one random ladder game?
Come on man, i'm not talking about 1 damn game, i'm talking about the match-up period. He de-railed meh blog nicely with that post tho =/ dirty Zerg players
edit: also, your 6 month old article was very telling of what would happen eventually with the macro mechanics.
On November 27 2010 02:05 LuckyFool wrote: Terran just can't turtle or play passive in TvZ at all. It's just matchup flow that terran needs to harass and/or be agressive in TvZ right now. I guess if you want to call that allin you could. I don't see 2rax marine pressure into expanding as allin. Now it is trending lately towards more allins by terran but EVERY game isn't allin and the matchup isn't completely broken/bad.
You saw similar things in PvT in broodwar in my opinion, Protoss couldn't just sit there and allow a terran to max and attack with 200/200 3/3 army, you would lose. Yet we didn't see them proxy gating or going "allin every game." You saw it some of the time. They needed to deny 3rd, recall, fight better smaller fights, go carriers or other surprise/special tactics. I view TvZ very similar to that, I think you will see terrans fall into allining some of the time (more than zerg obviously). Because I do agree you can't sit there or enter a late game with a fully macoring zerg on 3-4 bases unchecked. Now of course I agree you will probably see more allins because of that but there are plenty of midgame timings I think that can be very powerful that many terran players simply haven't discovered yet or aren't really using.
I thought TvZ was broken initially after the depot before rax patch but in the past 3-4 weeks I really don't think it's all that bad at all. And to conclude I thin It's also really hard to form judgments about TvZ right now period when there are probably less than 5 actually good zergs on the entire north American server at the moment and such a dynamic/changing game from patch to patch.
Ya, Rob, that's why u made this blog rite? http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/blogitems.php?site=luckyfool&page=22 How can u be such a traitor to the terran race. You can't just abandon ur bw roots and say that shit. P 200/200 army was just as strong as T's, even stronger if they had carriers and HTs and arbiters and all that ridiculously imbalanced stuff.
Mister Blind 2 facter, lose all ur scvs in a TvT with blue hellions and still somehow win with f-in sieged tanks. Arghhhhhh!
Actually what you say about SC2 tvz makes sense.
On November 27 2010 02:07 Chill wrote:
On November 27 2010 01:26 Sadistx wrote:
I don't believe skill ever invalidates an opinion
I believe it does if the skill gap is big enough (i.e. let's say IdrA and some random bronze league player, what would you say then?).
Who says it determines how closely I will listen to what they are saying, and nothing more. If IdrA said something I thought was wrong, I would take the time to double check if he's wrong or I'm wrong. If it was a bronze player, I would also check for mistakes in his opinion, but probably not as hard. That's it. You don't have to be a top player to form a justified opinion based on theory or evidence. It just takes time and logical thinking, that's all.
Ok, I can agree with that. For example if Luckyfool says something, I never listen, cuz he's my renegade student and I just tell him to shut up and tech switch.
I'm not a traitor to the terran race. I was just bad in broodwar so I raged about that stupid shit all the time. T_T
And I mentioned protoss needs carriers/recalls to fight terran in my first post so you're not really doing anything but trying to time warp into the past by linking to old blogposts.
On November 27 2010 07:16 avilo wrote: Lots of people use ladder to practice different things.
No matter what 'thing' you claim you were practicing that game, 90 second supply block is a fundamental flaw in your game that should prove pretty clearly that you aren't good enough at the game to make claims about imbalance based on your own play.
holy shit dudes. This is like the fucking time incontrol attacked an assimilator and everyone's fucking posting "OMG SO BAD HERP DE DERP" (lol sorry to bring it up). Seriously, no one fucking plays perfect every single damn game. Jesus christ, get off the random ladder game.
It's like some noobie makes a shiny bash post, and every other lil kiddo on TL sees, "OH SHINY ME BASH TOO!" lmao! Come on TL kiddos, you're better than that. -> TvZ - DISCUSS.
On November 27 2010 02:05 LuckyFool wrote: Terran just can't turtle or play passive in TvZ at all. It's just matchup flow that terran needs to harass and/or be agressive in TvZ right now. I guess if you want to call that allin you could. I don't see 2rax marine pressure into expanding as allin. Now it is trending lately towards more allins by terran but EVERY game isn't allin and the matchup isn't completely broken/bad.
You saw similar things in PvT in broodwar in my opinion, Protoss couldn't just sit there and allow a terran to max and attack with 200/200 3/3 army, you would lose. Yet we didn't see them proxy gating or going "allin every game." You saw it some of the time. They needed to deny 3rd, recall, fight better smaller fights, go carriers or other surprise/special tactics. I view TvZ very similar to that, I think you will see terrans fall into allining some of the time (more than zerg obviously). Because I do agree you can't sit there or enter a late game with a fully macoring zerg on 3-4 bases unchecked. Now of course I agree you will probably see more allins because of that but there are plenty of midgame timings I think that can be very powerful that many terran players simply haven't discovered yet or aren't really using.
I thought TvZ was broken initially after the depot before rax patch but in the past 3-4 weeks I really don't think it's all that bad at all. And to conclude I thin It's also really hard to form judgments about TvZ right now period when there are probably less than 5 actually good zergs on the entire north American server at the moment and such a dynamic/changing game from patch to patch.
Ya, Rob, that's why u made this blog rite? http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/blogitems.php?site=luckyfool&page=22 How can u be such a traitor to the terran race. You can't just abandon ur bw roots and say that shit. P 200/200 army was just as strong as T's, even stronger if they had carriers and HTs and arbiters and all that ridiculously imbalanced stuff.
Mister Blind 2 facter, lose all ur scvs in a TvT with blue hellions and still somehow win with f-in sieged tanks. Arghhhhhh!
Actually what you say about SC2 tvz makes sense.
On November 27 2010 02:07 Chill wrote:
On November 27 2010 01:26 Sadistx wrote:
I don't believe skill ever invalidates an opinion
I believe it does if the skill gap is big enough (i.e. let's say IdrA and some random bronze league player, what would you say then?).
Who says it determines how closely I will listen to what they are saying, and nothing more. If IdrA said something I thought was wrong, I would take the time to double check if he's wrong or I'm wrong. If it was a bronze player, I would also check for mistakes in his opinion, but probably not as hard. That's it. You don't have to be a top player to form a justified opinion based on theory or evidence. It just takes time and logical thinking, that's all.
Ok, I can agree with that. For example if Luckyfool says something, I never listen, cuz he's my renegade student and I just tell him to shut up and tech switch.
I'm not a traitor to the terran race. I was just bad in broodwar so I raged about that stupid shit all the time. T_T
And I mentioned protoss needs carriers/recalls to fight terran in my first post so you're not really doing anything but trying to time warp into the past by linking to old blogposts.
On November 27 2010 07:16 avilo wrote: Lots of people use ladder to practice different things.
No matter what 'thing' you claim you were practicing that game, 90 second supply block is a fundamental flaw in your game that should prove pretty clearly that you aren't good enough at the game to make claims about imbalance based on your own play.
holy shit dudes. This is like the fucking time incontrol attacked an assimilator and everyone's fucking posting "OMG SO BAD HERP DE DERP" (lol sorry to bring it up). Seriously, no one fucking plays perfect every single damn game. Jesus christ, get off the random ladder game.
It's like some noobie makes a shiny bash post, and every other lil kiddo on TL sees, "OH SHINY ME BASH TOO!" lmao! Come on TL kiddos, you're better than that. -> TvZ - DISCUSS.
except incontrol does not make blogposts saying zerg lategame needs to be nerfed while brandishing his top 200 ladder rank as if it mattered. There is nothing further to discuss, you are wrong and Idra posted why.
On November 27 2010 02:05 LuckyFool wrote: Terran just can't turtle or play passive in TvZ at all. It's just matchup flow that terran needs to harass and/or be agressive in TvZ right now. I guess if you want to call that allin you could. I don't see 2rax marine pressure into expanding as allin. Now it is trending lately towards more allins by terran but EVERY game isn't allin and the matchup isn't completely broken/bad.
You saw similar things in PvT in broodwar in my opinion, Protoss couldn't just sit there and allow a terran to max and attack with 200/200 3/3 army, you would lose. Yet we didn't see them proxy gating or going "allin every game." You saw it some of the time. They needed to deny 3rd, recall, fight better smaller fights, go carriers or other surprise/special tactics. I view TvZ very similar to that, I think you will see terrans fall into allining some of the time (more than zerg obviously). Because I do agree you can't sit there or enter a late game with a fully macoring zerg on 3-4 bases unchecked. Now of course I agree you will probably see more allins because of that but there are plenty of midgame timings I think that can be very powerful that many terran players simply haven't discovered yet or aren't really using.
I thought TvZ was broken initially after the depot before rax patch but in the past 3-4 weeks I really don't think it's all that bad at all. And to conclude I thin It's also really hard to form judgments about TvZ right now period when there are probably less than 5 actually good zergs on the entire north American server at the moment and such a dynamic/changing game from patch to patch.
Ya, Rob, that's why u made this blog rite? http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/blogitems.php?site=luckyfool&page=22 How can u be such a traitor to the terran race. You can't just abandon ur bw roots and say that shit. P 200/200 army was just as strong as T's, even stronger if they had carriers and HTs and arbiters and all that ridiculously imbalanced stuff.
Mister Blind 2 facter, lose all ur scvs in a TvT with blue hellions and still somehow win with f-in sieged tanks. Arghhhhhh!
Actually what you say about SC2 tvz makes sense.
On November 27 2010 02:07 Chill wrote:
On November 27 2010 01:26 Sadistx wrote:
I don't believe skill ever invalidates an opinion
I believe it does if the skill gap is big enough (i.e. let's say IdrA and some random bronze league player, what would you say then?).
Who says it determines how closely I will listen to what they are saying, and nothing more. If IdrA said something I thought was wrong, I would take the time to double check if he's wrong or I'm wrong. If it was a bronze player, I would also check for mistakes in his opinion, but probably not as hard. That's it. You don't have to be a top player to form a justified opinion based on theory or evidence. It just takes time and logical thinking, that's all.
Ok, I can agree with that. For example if Luckyfool says something, I never listen, cuz he's my renegade student and I just tell him to shut up and tech switch.
I'm not a traitor to the terran race. I was just bad in broodwar so I raged about that stupid shit all the time. T_T
And I mentioned protoss needs carriers/recalls to fight terran in my first post so you're not really doing anything but trying to time warp into the past by linking to old blogposts.
TRAITOR!!!!!! :p lol
On November 27 2010 09:07 Lemonwalrus wrote:
On November 27 2010 07:16 avilo wrote: Lots of people use ladder to practice different things.
No matter what 'thing' you claim you were practicing that game, 90 second supply block is a fundamental flaw in your game that should prove pretty clearly that you aren't good enough at the game to make claims about imbalance based on your own play.
holy shit dudes. This is like the fucking time incontrol attacked an assimilator and everyone's fucking posting "OMG SO BAD HERP DE DERP" (lol sorry to bring it up). Seriously, no one fucking plays perfect every single damn game. Jesus christ, get off the random ladder game.
It's like some noobie makes a shiny bash post, and every other lil kiddo on TL sees, "OH SHINY ME BASH TOO!" lmao! Come on TL kiddos, you're better than that. -> TvZ - DISCUSS.
except incontrol does not make blogposts saying zerg lategame needs to be nerfed while brandishing his top 200 ladder rank as if it mattered. There is nothing further to discuss, you are wrong and Idra posted why.
I never brandished anything. I made my points. People bashed me instead of the points. I understand it's difficult though for people to make coherent arguments about lategame ZvT, it's easier to not talk about the problems for some people.
so what exactly changed about zvt? It went from impossible for zerg to impossible for terran. Yes, mass reapers were taken out, but it was T>>Z for a while before that was discovered too. The only other significant change I can think of is roach range (duh) but most tvzs zerg will go muta ling bling anyway. Did zerg just finally stop whining and figure out how to play the matchup?
On November 27 2010 11:02 vica wrote: In 3 years people will look back at this, and laugh. Just like they always do.
We don't need three years. Blizzard is probably gonna roll out with some crappy ass patch in a few months, completely nerf some shit and change the entire meta-game but still not balance the game or make it require more skill in any way.
On November 27 2010 11:22 SubtleArt wrote: so what exactly changed about zvt? It went from impossible for zerg to impossible for terran. Yes, mass reapers were taken out, but it was T>>Z for a while before that was discovered too. The only other significant change I can think of is roach range (duh) but most tvzs zerg will go muta ling bling anyway. Did zerg just finally stop whining and figure out how to play the matchup?
no. the only thing about roach buff is that it makes hellion builds riskier. tank nerf is really the only meaningful change. now 0/0 tanks dont rofflestomp upgraded banelings anymore
To think that weapons 3 tanks (used to be 60+15 = 75) used to be able to kill lings in one hit and kill others in it's first two circles of splash damage :/
Edit: armor level 3 lings would survive with .5 +1 hp left however Dx
why are you so proud of this video? Honestly i can't believe this thread hasn't been closed with how many times this thread has been derailed and how much fighting that goes on here.
If you are unable to put words on paper (on tl) in good form how are you expecting this video to go over, when you say its what you have been discussing.
I'll watch the video and comment latter, but atm im baffled with your decision to make one.
Lol avilo, you are much more likable in video format. I can't be angry at anything you say anymore. a1 here, last time I played sc2 was during beta when you trounced me with mech like 3 times in a row. Was really furious at your "mech isn't OP" comments back then (obviously you were a better player).
Maybe if you dedicated all your spare time to playing mnm style games you would start winning more. I really don't think mech should be the standard way to play tvz, speaking from pure entertainment perspective.
On November 28 2010 11:49 StorrZerg wrote: why are you so proud of this video? Honestly i can't believe this thread hasn't been closed with how many times this thread has been derailed and how much fighting that goes on here.
If you are unable to put words on paper (on tl) in good form how are you expecting this video to go over, when you say its what you have been discussing.
I'll watch the video and comment latter, but atm im baffled with your decision to make one.
There's a difference between being able to put words onto TL, and others taking every opportunity to bash the person writing them rather than reading the words.
Pretty sure I am able to put words on paper pretty well...re-read most of this blog post and a huge percentage of it has been trolled and de-railed like you said, which is pretty sad, especially for TL, but it happens, especially with touchy things like talking about balance.
And I didn't meet with a bunch of executives to "make a decision to make a video..." come on storrzerg...lmao.
On November 28 2010 12:06 LuckyFool wrote: you have to play bad to play good! Better start playing bad then avilo (*cough* ATTACK MORE *cough*)
and you can't even enjoy thanksgiving without raging about TvZ?! what's next, nightmares about lategame TvZ when you sleep too?
in other news I'm doing great TvZ lately.... it's prolly my favorite mu.
yah lmao. I've been working on it. I'm so used to T from SC1, and well SC1 period where you could play a defensive macro game...Zerg probably fits my style more in SC2, but I love T too much to switch
I'm not the best player in the world. Like everyone else I have flaws in my play and am getting better (h8ters gonna hate), but that doesn't invalidate the points I'm trying to make about TvZ lategame =/
On November 28 2010 12:11 News wrote: Lol avilo, you are much more likable in video format. I can't be angry at anything you say anymore. a1 here, last time I played sc2 was during beta when you trounced me with mech like 3 times in a row. Was really furious at your "mech isn't OP" comments back then (obviously you were a better player).
Maybe if you dedicated all your spare time to playing mnm style games you would start winning more. I really don't think mech should be the standard way to play tvz, speaking from pure entertainment perspective.
well...I did say some naive stuff in beta, like the entire "USE MOAR NYDUS WORMS" lol. So people are pretty quick to dig up those posts and bash me @_@. But by the end of the reaper era, I started to play Zerg myself, and I made quite a few posts saying that Zerg needed to be buffed, or something changed so scouting were more possible...and I was agreeing with the Zergs. No one will dig those up though lol.
It's just annoying that now we're at a point where everything is opposite, with Zerg having a clear advantage lategame and everyone is content to keep their mouths shut.
If you notice, every major Zerg whiner from beta has completely shut their mouth since this last patch
Zerg has always had a major advantage late game, even throughout beta. The reason it's coming to light now is because a lot of terran options have been removed or nerfed (reapers, tanks, bunker rush), thus making late game much more likely. With late game being so much more likely with standard play, it seems rather obvious that terran would be doing these weird all in builds.
Let's be clear. This problem has been here since beta, we just couldn't see it clearly with games ending at the midpoint. And to be honest, with the amount of people on this forum that want bigger maps and more epic games.... it's obviously a problem that should be addressed. Unless you just want to keep playing on small maps.
I wish everyone would post video rants, was pretty entertaining.
The issue is what the issue use to be for Zerg; back in beta it use to be Don't let Terran mass tanks or you lose. From my understanding now it is don't let Zerg sit at 200/200 food because for every minute they sit there; each hatchery gets another hatcher worth of larva(BW). So once you hit that 200/200 army mark and a Terran player is still turtleling -- You have as much unit production as your econ will allow.
To explain Avilo's point better about Jungle Basin; it is near impossible for a Zerg to get a 3rd base. This means in the late game the Zerg will only be on 1 mining base and the Terran will be on 1.25(mules) or 2.5; which makes it relatively easy to keep up with Zerg Unit Production.
Overall, the issue is that people treat SC2 like SC1; early game they are similar but in late game it is very different. In Broodwar you saw: **lots of hatcheries because there are no queens. A queen basically gives an extra hatchery worth of larvae every minute. **Protoss can't just summon forces anywhere, giving insta-reinforcements and more importantly stormss **Terran can sac SCV's and depend on mules late game letting their army be larger.
There are a lot of things you can't let your opponent do in SC2 and I personally don't mind it as it creates versatile match ups. Being Terran shouldn't mean you can turtle against any MU; you need to have an aggressive play style. Until there is a Zerg player that can stop an All-In 75% of the time; I would say the match up is fair overall but it does suck for the few Terrans out there who don't go bio.
On November 28 2010 12:19 LuckyFool wrote: storrzerg plays protoss anyway don't expect him to be able to relate to terran pain.
Your right, i probably won't be able to relate to "terran" pain (btw you should be in bed if your sick )
Well i watched the video. I had a little trouble understanding you since your pronunciation (maybe diction) of words wasn't super (where you drunk? if so that explains a lot)
I have seen a few tvz late games where terran wins on jungle basin. I recall one of the interviews the terran was talking about if the zerg goes for a center expansion its auto loss as long as the terran does what you said (tank up and push) Is it possible zergs are just playing wrong on that map and jungle basin isn't as imbalanced as you say?
I also find it hard to judge you as an expert on the tvz match up when you struggle with basics in that match up. Yet, i understand fully what you mean about 200z > 200t with being able to remax as op. When you play, you let the zerg get to that point. You let zerg control the game in every game i've seen of you play (few replays, a game or two vs catz on stream). In bw terran was all over the map with mnm pressuring the 3rd and the main/nat at the same time, never sitting. tvz had a really interesting way of evolving from the midgame to the late game. Can you imagine if a terran opened up bio and sat on 2 base vs 3 base/3gas zerg and waited for zerg to move out? That scenario is how you play tvz in sc2, You constantly sit which results in HUGE trouble late game. (no shit your going to have problems)
If you really think your a top player, why don't you try evolving your play around what you've said. Don't play with the intention of letting zerg max out and sit for 10 mins. (I'm not saying proxy rax every game, though thats a perfectly fine opening, just don't count on that as a win if you force a canceled hatch.)
I'd be more interested with what you have to say after playing with a different focus rather than your current whine about balance and map "poop"
it's basically my TvZ discussion/rage posts in video format ^_^
What I can suggest:
Knowledge on what the Zerg is doing, good unit positioning and good micro. That is must what be done on the even maps while going into the mid/late game with a terran macro build. With more economic builds being possible on Zs part and the possibility to maybe get to late-game seemingly easier than before, Terran needs to make better usage of their units than previously. I'm not saying that it's an easy style to get used to, but wasn't terran mech play in broodwar a lot about harass and army positioning ?
If you do a slow push and can make it near the Z base when you engage, Zerg wont have time to remax and you should be able to continue pumping units out to reinforce (You should have a ton of buildings ready to pump out units, possibly even 1 unit on each queued for when you start losing units if you have the resources for it, waypoint them directly to reinforce). Progressively destroy creep tumors with the aid of scan/raven (remember that it's the tumor that gives vision, not the creep) and avoid engaging on creep as much as possible since it's much harder to get flanked off-creep, you may sometimes be forced to engage on creep if you want to be close enough to cause damage after he spends his max army on you.
Z forces will be seperated between his bases and it will take time for the units to mass up/position against your army (Ultralisks take 70 seconds, roaches 27 but die to tank fire and need to be massed to cause any form of damage, banelings 44, broodlords 74, the last two are if Z transforms them right away) so you could push on with reinforcements and cause quite a bit of damage while catching Z out of position. I'm not saying run in and try to destroy a few of his bases, just get positioning on a hatch or two or split Zs bases as you get reinforces to push furthur/take out an expo/mining base because you do have a period before Z remaxes.
If you do end up engaging Zs max army near your base, then yes, Z will most likely be able to remax and tech switch without you being able cause that much damage against his bases. I'm pretty sure that it would still be possible to drop expos during that time to pick off a mining/production base while he tries to spawn units. He won't have mutas to deny drops and won't have the forces to destroy your drops. When you see you've caused the damage, may it be the mining or hatchery/tech or even part of the army that just spawned from one of his expos, pick up and go back to your main army to make sure you don't lose your main force.
Every time I see qxc in a TvZ, I see him trying to go macro and honestly I see it having quite a bit of potential, he just has quite a few issues with unit positioning that he must sort out before being able to do something truly great. I would have checked a few more of his games before posting, but I've already surpassed by download limit, I could try to find a few reps of this style however and post them.
At least I'm glad you also think the map pool is pretty shitty ^^
I'm also going to send this by PM, since by now you mustn't read my posts very often since most of the time (I admit) I just bash you.
Edit: It may be possible to get forward bunkers/turrets when creep has receded enough, even just random buildings to make it harder to engage with his mainly low range/melee forces. Another thing I must add: in mid-late game situations, if he has amassed a muta army, don't be afraid to get a raven or two for defensive purpouses: PDD + Turrets make mutas life a living hell to engage a base because they won't be able to fend off the turrets easily until the PDD is down, and by that time your SCVs will be in position to repair. I think it would be best to test this out with the Unit tester beforehand though, I see it having a good defensive potential because it could deny muta harass and even whittle them down if they insist on attacking the base, PDDs last for quite a long time if their energy is not expended.
it's basically my TvZ discussion/rage posts in video format ^_^
Can we expect a song from you on christmas? something like 'Tis the season to nerf zergies imba-ba-ba-ba-ba, ba-ba-balanced'
I'm expecting a little different christmas song than yours:
Imbalanced imbalanced imba imba lanced Oh what fun it is to 1 base allin against zerg, sleigh Imbalanced imbalanced imba imba lanced FUCK YOU BLIZZ THIS IS THE SEASON TO NERF THESE ZERGIES YEAH !!!
But seriously, avilo has a point on 1 thing: that game was on jungle joke basin. But still whatever. Watch Nada vs Leenock on Shakuras Plateu, where Terran wins a macro game vs Zerg on a non-joke map.
So, I'm gonna have an answer someday, Avilo ? I thought you wanted people to discuss I didn't even bash you that time. I addressed part of your TvZ issues and I'm wondering what you think of it :[
On November 29 2010 07:58 Kurt_Russell wrote: So, I'm gonna have an answer someday, Avilo ? I thought you wanted people to discuss I didn't even bash you that time. I addressed part of your TvZ issues and I'm wondering what you think of it :[
"see baneling bust noobs"
thats his comment to everything lately He clearly doesn't want to further this discussion and would rather talk to people baiting him with stupid comments.
it's basically my TvZ discussion/rage posts in video format ^_^
What I can suggest:
Knowledge on what the Zerg is doing, good unit positioning and good micro. That is must what be done on the even maps while going into the mid/late game with a terran macro build. With more economic builds being possible on Zs part and the possibility to maybe get to late-game seemingly easier than before, Terran needs to make better usage of their units than previously. I'm not saying that it's an easy style to get used to, but wasn't terran mech play in broodwar a lot about harass and army positioning ?
If you do a slow push and can make it near the Z base when you engage, Zerg wont have time to remax and you should be able to continue pumping units out to reinforce (You should have a ton of buildings ready to pump out units, possibly even 1 unit on each queued for when you start losing units if you have the resources for it, waypoint them directly to reinforce). Progressively destroy creep tumors with the aid of scan/raven (remember that it's the tumor that gives vision, not the creep) and avoid engaging on creep as much as possible since it's much harder to get flanked off-creep, you may sometimes be forced to engage on creep if you want to be close enough to cause damage after he spends his max army on you.
Z forces will be seperated between his bases and it will take time for the units to mass up/position against your army (Ultralisks take 70 seconds, roaches 27 but die to tank fire and need to be massed to cause any form of damage, banelings 44, broodlords 74, the last two are if Z transforms them right away) so you could push on with reinforcements and cause quite a bit of damage while catching Z out of position. I'm not saying run in and try to destroy a few of his bases, just get positioning on a hatch or two or split Zs bases as you get reinforces to push furthur/take out an expo/mining base because you do have a period before Z remaxes.
If you do end up engaging Zs max army near your base, then yes, Z will most likely be able to remax and tech switch without you being able cause that much damage against his bases. I'm pretty sure that it would still be possible to drop expos during that time to pick off a mining/production base while he tries to spawn units. He won't have mutas to deny drops and won't have the forces to destroy your drops. When you see you've caused the damage, may it be the mining or hatchery/tech or even part of the army that just spawned from one of his expos, pick up and go back to your main army to make sure you don't lose your main force.
Every time I see qxc in a TvZ, I see him trying to go macro and honestly I see it having quite a bit of potential, he just has quite a few issues with unit positioning that he must sort out before being able to do something truly great. I would have checked a few more of his games before posting, but I've already surpassed by download limit, I could try to find a few reps of this style however and post them.
At least I'm glad you also think the map pool is pretty shitty ^^
I'm also going to send this by PM, since by now you mustn't read my posts very often since most of the time (I admit) I just bash you.
Edit: It may be possible to get forward bunkers/turrets when creep has receded enough, even just random buildings to make it harder to engage with his mainly low range/melee forces. Another thing I must add: in mid-late game situations, if he has amassed a muta army, don't be afraid to get a raven or two for defensive purpouses: PDD + Turrets make mutas life a living hell to engage a base because they won't be able to fend off the turrets easily until the PDD is down, and by that time your SCVs will be in position to repair. I think it would be best to test this out with the Unit tester beforehand though, I see it having a good defensive potential because it could deny muta harass and even whittle them down if they insist on attacking the base, PDDs last for quite a long time if their energy is not expended.
The stuff you're talking about is very general...Terrans already "know how to use their units" very well. On the even maps what you call "better unit usage" boils down to purposely sending out multiple drops and suiciding them in the hope you can do damage somewhere.
That's why I said "you have to play bad to play good." When you suicide random drops to places, you try to use that little harrass to expo yourself or get ahead momentum-wise so you win a little bit after that. The mid-late game is in a pretty bad state though that you have to play like that to be able to win.
As for "slow pushing," it's non-existent. Unless you're looking at games mostly on steppes of war, where yeah, you can slow tank push with marines, same on jungle basin...
On the bigger maps though...slow push means zerg gets their third...or just macros all their larva to kill your one push...which lets them immediately have that period to re-drone ahead of you while you're scrambling to defend after having your "slow push" broken.
The situations you're saying never come up in the way you're describing them in an actual game. When the game reaches mid-game, when Z has deflected all the damage, they're always ahead in workers and that's when muta harrass comes...which makes any push you describe impossible or destined to be picked apart.
The problem is you can't "avoid engaging on creep." You will always have to engage on creep TvZ, and when you do is when the Zerg has pumped just enough units to stop your army and then -> pump drones.
In beta and previously, Zergs were horrible with creep spread. Now you see top Zergs doing even x2-x4 creep tumors at once specifically for their creep spread.
The stuff you point out would be absolutely great if that's how the game worked. But the good Zergs know how to make just barely enough to stop your army, and drone up.
I agree with what you said about using ravens/scans for creep tumors - more Terrans need to use the raven to clear that out...but that's another fundamental problem. You don't always have the teched starport, and getting just 1 raven makes it easily snipeable.
A lot of T do use scans to clear tumors, I do myself as well...but that's T's macro mechanic too, so you use a scan, while they are droning...suddenly your economy being even with Z due to mules is not as good (despite what forum kids say about mules being OP...mules barely keep T even with Z/P worker counts - except versus players that are aggro noob zergs, or P's that never chrono probes, then yes, mules put you slightly ahead).
And yah, the Terran drops doing damage, and immediately picking up to go back with your main force is ideally what every Terran now should be doing and wants to do...the problem is...versus these infestor turtle zergs, your drop is never gonna get back home, or even land a lot of times.
So it's a bit of a dice roll on whether you're gonna do damage or if they are really good with infestors / mutas to stop your drops. And the good zergs do stop them...so yeah...
PDD are good against muta/corruptor late game...but you're usually not going to have 5 million ravens...mass raven right now is something in theory that should work (just like lots of nydus worms ) but it just doesn't work out so well as you think it would -> unless you somehow get up to that point unscathed.
And back to your slow pushes...the only time they work are on the small maps, or on close positions on metalopolis or what not imo. Most games i've watched, and replays, and vods of when T's slow push Z, the Z ends up dedicating all of their larva to roach/ling/muta/baneling until they can crush the push and then go safely into late game...
Or maybe all of this doesn't matter and the maps just suck lol
On November 29 2010 07:58 Kurt_Russell wrote: So, I'm gonna have an answer someday, Avilo ? I thought you wanted people to discuss I didn't even bash you that time. I addressed part of your TvZ issues and I'm wondering what you think of it :[
"see baneling bust noobs"
thats his comment to everything lately He clearly doesn't want to further this discussion and would rather talk to people baiting him with stupid comments.
I agree with avilo that if you allow the Zerg to get to late game in a position that they can comfortably max out and stockpile resources/larvae a competent Zerg will steamroll just about any Terran. This, along with the fact that Reaper/Hellion early game pressure has been severely nerfed means that many Terrans are resorting to a double barracks play to try and stomp the zerg early game to punish fast expanding or other greedy plays.
However, I do NOT think that TvZ is as imbalanced as he thinks it is. I think avilo's idea of a 'macro game' needs to be changed in this circumstance. I don't think you can play a passive macro game as Terran. You absolutely must find ways to pressure the Zerg. I think as tha game progresses Terrans are going to become much better at finding ways to force drops to work, limit the spread of creep and create good timing pushes to punish greedy Zerg play.
After reading a few of avilo's posts and watching his video, he talks about how you need to play Terran 'badly' to win. I think that avilo just should accept and adapt to the limits of Terran's weaknesses and to try and play to exploit their strengths because right now he is literally playing into the Zergs hands, so to speak.
Its fine as long as the map allows for it. If its a map where you cant touch the zerg at all during the early and midgame, then yes, terran stands no chance whatsoever, but fortunately theres not very many of these maps (cross positions on metal, arguably scrap station).
As long as you can present some kind of threat early game, and its possible to credibly threaten to kill the zergs 3rd when he takes it, the game is fine. Zerg cant be left unchecked, perhaps even more so than in brood war, but with proper maps the game would still be balanced.
Unfortunately we have very few maps that arent complete bullshit (T favoured like Steppes or Delta, or Z favoured like Scrap or cross pos metal).
On November 27 2010 11:22 SubtleArt wrote: so what exactly changed about zvt? It went from impossible for zerg to impossible for terran. Yes, mass reapers were taken out, but it was T>>Z for a while before that was discovered too. The only other significant change I can think of is roach range (duh) but most tvzs zerg will go muta ling bling anyway. Did zerg just finally stop whining and figure out how to play the matchup?
As Ive been saying for a long time, when a lot of T gameplay is revolved around gimmicks, theres gonna be a point where the pros of the other two races are just too well prepared for them for them to work with as high a success rate as they used to.
Pretty sure theres some room for terrans to "stop whining and figure out the matchup" as well, just like zergs did (it wasnt only the balance changes that helped them IMO, they also became better), but we will see.
Its still mostly map dependant anyway-,-
Anyways, the point of me making this was to discuss how Zerg has an advantage late game, and yes, Terran cannot play passive. You have to play "bad" by trading units, doing suicide drops, to take your next expo, etc.
I dont see whats bad about this, as long as the maps make it possible to play this way (ie not cross position metal).
Oh and about ravens, let me quote (well, paraphrase) Junwi:
IMJunwiPirme: Raven make... you lose -_-
Not sure I think its THAT bad TvZ, but its certainly a gimped unit compared to what it once was.
In many of my practice games i've been trying a lot of new things to try and figure out what the key is to winning a macro game with zerg, and i think i've been making some headway but still feel pretty gimped late game :/
I've simply been FORCING passive, macro games against my zerg buddies to see how well i can really perform just trying to get my third (and 4th if its a favorable map) up. I've gotten to a point where i can easily be on PAR with them for food count, they'll max out just slightly before i do.
With astounding control, you can easily win the fight with tank/marine- but thats about as far as it goes. even if zerg is only on 4-5 base themselves, they can easily just remax while you have a gimped army to fight whatever they produce- and they can keep this up for AGES. eventually youre bound to get just ONE bad siege or ONE bad missclick and its really just all over. That or they know how to make broods :D
i really think "gimmicky" tactics are the way to fight a zerg. It sucks, because most 2 rax builds are extremely allin- even if they spend larva on a ton of zerglings they can still be OK. the 2 rax does transition well IF you do decent damage, though, so i think thats the best bet for TvZ right now.
Hopefully a GSL terran will show me something revolutionary in the next few days!!!
To comment on Jinro's post, I have to agree that maps right now are as big of a deciding factor as actual race balance. This is why some of the best games tend to happen on Xel Naga, where there's a choice between a more risky expo and a safer one.
Ravens are...situational. I guess you could get 1 for creep control, but other than that every time I saw terran use ravens like casters (i.e. like infestors or HTs), they ended up being too light on tanks or upgrades, and got rolled easily by Z ground. Also you're unlikely to have more than 1 starport in most of your TvZs so making a raven cuts into your medivac production or u really cant even make ravens since u have a reactor on it.
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
...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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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
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 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
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 08:43 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 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 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.
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.
Yeah, it was all about the vessel clouds but the general idea of a 4gas Zerg being a death sentence in TvZ was a pretty widely held idea for a long time and it was expressed quite a bit amongst the MSL/OGN casters and high level players on TL. Progamers usually don't say these things overtly but it was very much expressed by how the way Terrans played. This mentality has been pretty apparent since around when Jaedong and Flash began to tear up the scene after Bisu lost to Mind and it carried on until basically this year when Flash went into bonjwa-mode. The whole thing is a bit over-simplified but it really was a general thought that was in the matchup for years, and this isn't an exaggeration.
Especially for the use of tanks in the lategame. If we look at TvZs in the time frame of the post-Savior era up to before Flash's god-mode phase (Fantasy did the mass tanks thing earlier but he never took it into a standard lategame management strategy), then all we are going to see is lategame SK play. A personal anecdote for me is when I suggested that it would have been better for Flash to add a factory rather than a third starport in his game against Jaedong in RH3 which was met with wide disapproval amongst other people. It is true that most people in LR threads are idiots but then again, it was Flash's own decision to put more and more resources into vessels rather than tanks even when Jaedong started using hydras with his defilers. This mentality was seen in basically every Terran which then led to seeing most Terrans just crumble if the Zerg secured his fourth gas without taking horrendous damage.
Obviously even this didn't consider people to find the game imbalanced and still in favour of the Terran in TvZ for various other reasons, but the whole 4-gas-Zerg-omg was something I heard pretty often from people that are very respected. I really agree that all this is very, very generalized and I might be wrong in some areas. This is something that Ver would know really, really well.
Moon thought roaches were a good tech choice on scrap station and apparently doesn't know about hive tech or infestors. That's why he lost, not because of "amazing Jinro macro". It's SC2, I'd be surprised if someone didn't have near perfect macro with MBS.
On December 01 2010 20:02 NeVeR wrote: yeah.. jinro vs moon kinda debunks this whole thread, lol.
To be honest Moon isn't playing that well, he was really sloppy in game 1 and made some poor decisions.
FA on the other hand played GREAT.
Yep.
B4 I say anything btw...jinro played great
But let's look at the games. Game 1: Terran turtles. Moon builds mutas...to run from two turrets and a thor. They do nothing. Then he decides to suicide a lot of banelings/muta/roach into a choke vs a turtling terran, instead of taking his 4th, droning up, and getting infestors to get the Z re-max macro machine going.
This game was more jinro being way better than moon, than it having anything to do with zvt problems here.
Game 2: Jinro does the same thing, except with banshee expo this game. After game1, to anyone watching, it's clear jinro skilll-wise is leagues ahead of moon.
That is verified when jinro is turtling taking his natural, moon decides instead of droning up and taking his third, to build 20+ zerglings that do absolutely nothing.
jinro was simply the better player. and moon was completely indecisive and as a player, very underwhelming. Which isn't surprising, as he is not nestea or check. His war3 background pretty much shined through, as well as his lack of practice or what not.
The maps didn't matter much here because jinro completely outclassed moon. Wait until we see a higher caliber of tvz coming up soon.
Btw, 1 series later, Terran MVP wins vs idra with two games both under 13 minutes. The game idra wins is a very unorthodox one on steppes where MVP made mistakes early where he could have won, but idra also played the map very good, getting his creep to the center and massing up to stop any push on his nat.
So yeah...MVP vs idra showed my "Terran wins b4 13 mins" is still pretty accurate analysis. And jinro basically outclassed moon b4 the series even started. Jinro is the only TvZ person that I've liquibetted to win out of every liquibet i've had sooo... pretty sure most people here knew jinro was way better than moon. dunno why so many people think he's godly at sc2 just because he owned at war3.
On December 02 2010 10:27 Subversion wrote: Seems like everytime a T beats a Z in GSL you have an excuse.
Everytime a Z beats a T its imbalanced.
You're so crazy-biased dude.
Same thing I was thinking. Reminds me of the GSL 1 finals when Fruitdealer won. Everyone was suddenly like "OMG ZERG IS FINE" despite how terrible the terran played.
On December 02 2010 10:27 Subversion wrote: Seems like everytime a T beats a Z in GSL you have an excuse.
Everytime a Z beats a T its imbalanced.
You're so crazy-biased dude.
Seems like everytime I throw out objective analysis you guys are the ones whining, not me. Look at the games - analyze them. I just did.
I did not even mention the maps much in that last tid bit I posted.
If you go look at the LR thread for GSL, and jinro's post in here, even Jinro doesn't dellude himself about cross position tvz metalopolis.
But two posts after he says that, you have noobies even ignoring what he just said and throwing a party "OMG T CAN DO MACRO GAME!!!" I think that's on page 204-205ish of that thread if you want some LuLZ
avilo is going to be 70 years old in his rocking chair at the old folks home explaining to orderlies why zerg is imba in sc2 long after sc4 has been released.
On December 02 2010 10:50 Lemonwalrus wrote: avilo is going to be 70 years old in his rocking chair at the old folks home explaining to orderlies why zerg is imba in sc2 long after sc4 has been released.
He might relapse and go back to explaining why Empire is imba in RA3.
On December 02 2010 10:27 Subversion wrote: Seems like everytime a T beats a Z in GSL you have an excuse.
Everytime a Z beats a T its imbalanced.
You're so crazy-biased dude.
Seems like everytime I throw out objective analysis you guys are the ones whining, not me. Look at the games - analyze them. I just did.
I did not even mention the maps much in that last tid bit I posted.
If you go look at the LR thread for GSL, and jinro's post in here, even Jinro doesn't dellude himself about cross position tvz metalopolis.
But two posts after he says that, you have noobies even ignoring what he just said and throwing a party "OMG T CAN DO MACRO GAME!!!" I think that's on page 204-205ish of that thread if you want some LuLZ
lol...
Cool, now analyze a macro game where a terran loses (that is not your own, preferably).
On December 02 2010 10:45 avilo wrote: If you go look at the LR thread for GSL, and jinro's post in here, even Jinro doesn't dellude himself about cross position tvz metalopolis.
But two posts after he says that, you have noobies even ignoring what he just said and throwing a party "OMG T CAN DO MACRO GAME!!!" I think that's on page 204-205ish of that thread if you want some LuLZ lol...
You seriously have a warped sense of perception.
The reason why everyone thinks your a lunatic isn't because you're constantly trying to make Terran look worse than they are by changing your initial argument many times throughout the thread... It is because most people in this thread are capable of a legitimate discussion and you don't even respond to them.
No one ever said Terran won't have it very hard on some maps. Just like Zerg has it hard on some maps. And Protoss. Get over yourself. People aren't here to say Terran is overpowered or anything.
They are trying to get your head out of the clouds. I'm not saying TvZ win ratio is 66% in GSL 3 because I think Terran is overpowered. I'm saying it so maybe you'll understand nothing is wrong with your race.
avilo you can't really call yourself objective man.
We all have our races, we all have our own interests, every single one of us at least a little subjective, some more than others.
The fact that you get so passionate and upset and angry or whatever just shows you're not objective. Someone completely objective doesn't get emotional about an issue.
The only people who can really be objective about this are random players, or people who don't play the game, but the latter's opinion probably isn't that important.
All this being said, to call your analysis "objective"... do you even manage to fool yourself? You're one of the most biased posters on TL, and I don't think many people would argue that. Being biased doesn't necessarily make you wrong, but people have to take what you say with a pinch of salt, and while there may be elements of truth in it, you tend to layer it with gross exaggerations that undermine your credibility.
On December 02 2010 19:46 SCC-Faust wrote: I wonder if avilo watched Nestea vs Maka game 2.
While it was an exciting game... Nestea was veerrrryyyy inefficient with his army. Maka came back in that game because Nestea lost most of his first 200/200 army of ling/baneling/muta without trading efficiently.
On December 02 2010 19:46 SCC-Faust wrote: I wonder if avilo watched Nestea vs Maka game 2.
While it was an exciting game... Nestea was veerrrryyyy inefficient with his army. Maka came back in that game because Nestea lost most of his first 200/200 army of ling/baneling/muta without trading efficiently.
zerg never trades efficiently vs late game t and p armies, the whole 'herpdy derp just insta remax' is pretty meaningless when lair armies trade for 3 marines. and if you can insta max on ultras or broods, well for one the units arent gonna be out for 2 minutes anyway, and if you can stockpile that many resources t/p did something wrong to get to that point in the game.
On December 02 2010 19:46 SCC-Faust wrote: I wonder if avilo watched Nestea vs Maka game 2.
While it was an exciting game... Nestea was veerrrryyyy inefficient with his army. Maka came back in that game because Nestea lost most of his first 200/200 army of ling/baneling/muta without trading efficiently.
Yeah losing the Brood Lords was careless.
But still, even though I disagree with Maka's play (he didn't even drop or harass the Zerg until he was 200/200) - he managed to fight pretty damn good for being 3 bases against 6. I don't think he ever really had a chance once the Zerg took the map like that, but he held off and fought pretty damn long.
As Tasteless showed when Maka was setting up his third, in Maka's vision only, he didn't even scout 3 of the Zerg bases that were up and running for a portion of that game (being two on the sides and the expansion behind the gold, Zerg took the gold after Maka took his gold). The only problem that game in my eyes was how great and efficient Mutalisks are. They kept him from harassing for the most part and it stops Terran in a lot of positions from doing their pushes when they want to.
If Terran finds a way to deal with Mutalisk-heavy styles it'll definitely be easier imo. Although Maka could have definitely harassed... it just would've ended up as the typical sacrifice units to get Zerg's economy down.
There were 24 mutas out on the map, I don't think drops would have done much damage. You need at least 2 medivacs of 16 marines to take out an expansion before the mutas come back and wipe that out.
But yes, the key I think will be to employ a strategy that can mitigate the muta ball in the later part of the midgame (sort of the irradiate timing in BW stopping muta harass), so that the Terran can move out and pressure the zerg 3rd/4th
On December 02 2010 19:46 SCC-Faust wrote: I wonder if avilo watched Nestea vs Maka game 2.
While it was an exciting game... Nestea was veerrrryyyy inefficient with his army. Maka came back in that game because Nestea lost most of his first 200/200 army of ling/baneling/muta without trading efficiently.
zerg never trades efficiently vs late game t and p armies, the whole 'herpdy derp just insta remax' is pretty meaningless when lair armies trade for 3 marines. and if you can insta max on ultras or broods, well for one the units arent gonna be out for 2 minutes anyway, and if you can stockpile that many resources t/p did something wrong to get to that point in the game.
You dont need to remax on ultras and broodlords. After you trade armies, all you need is a ton of lings and 20 banelings to "herpdy derp sucide" into any terran expo and force 100 seconds of lost income.
Zerg may not trade efficiently against a sieged and spread out 200/200 army, but they are pretty fucking efficient against expos, reinforcements and hatch sniping armies that aren't 100 supply, i.e. everything else. T is only efficient if they are ahead on upgrades.
I'm still waiting for terrans to start adding more blue flame hellions late game though, because that's the only real way to deal with broodlings and zerglings cost efficiently late game (marines suck vs speedlings if you are not ahead on upgrades)
On December 02 2010 10:52 koreasilver wrote: avilo should be put in a cage with AzureEye so we could make bets on who kills the other in mortal imba-combat.
lol, I thought he WAS AzureEye ^^ Then, he would have been already banned if it was really him
I watched the nestea vs maka games. The games maka won, did he win in less than 13 minutes with a timing push? Hmm...answer is yes.
Did he lose the longer drawn out macro games...
I'd say this thread and the analysis behind it are still very relevant. Jinro versus moon you can consider an outlier, mainly because moon is a war3 player that also has little practice, and jinro outclassed him b4 the games even started...so the maps weren't as much of a factor, let alone late game.
A more refined zerg like nestea or check isn't gonna randomly build 20 zerglings to attempt an allin baneling bust versus sieged tanks. And then be indecisive and cancel them all or not do anything with them. Zerg like nestea would have known better to have made those lings in the first place.
Then we just saw nestea vs maka...went exactly how I have described since page 1. Idra's series versus MVP also went the same way, with the weird steppes game in there too. He mainly had horrible luck with spawn points on meta though. So people are gonna chalk that up as another Terran win and forget about how Terran actually won that series.
On December 02 2010 10:56 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
On December 02 2010 10:50 Lemonwalrus wrote: avilo is going to be 70 years old in his rocking chair at the old folks home explaining to orderlies why zerg is imba in sc2 long after sc4 has been released.
He might relapse and go back to explaining why Empire is imba in RA3.
Very funny. But I don't think you've played ra3, or have read what i've ever said about the game, as I never once said empire was imbalanced in that game. If you wanna bring it up, empire was the weakest army up until the latest patch, where EA actually got something right and now RA3 is pretty much more balanced than SC2 is right now, especially in phases of the game like early, mid, late.
In terms of pure theory-craft I disagree with you Avilo.
I play protoss so I don't know much about TvZ, but your reasons for why Zerg > Terran in lategame should apply to Zerg being > Protoss in late-game, and I really don't feel like this is the case.
Obviously, Protoss's most cost-effective units are mobile 1 ball units which don't suffer too much from getting fungaled, have lots of health, can regen, and don't need to deploy, but Terran also has strengths to make up for this.
I think with mules (not taking up supply and all,) even if at some point if zerg has 80 drones, then their main army will be only 120 pop worht of units, and if you cut scvs you can have a huge maxed army which will take out the entire 120 pop Zerg army with small casualties. Obviously, this army is probably not going to be super mobile, as it's gonna include tanks, thors, and etc. but I'm sure that there's a 160 pop terran army that with good positioning can take out just about any 120 pop zerg army regardless of its composition with minimal casualties, thus making the game balanced.
edit:
and even if this isn't so at the moment it's definitely possible theoretically, so Zerg's strong ability to reproduce their economy and army doesn't have to directly lead to their late-game being imbalanced. If zerg units are cost-ineffective enough in large armies the game can be balanced in the late-game, is what I'm saying.
On December 02 2010 19:46 SCC-Faust wrote: I wonder if avilo watched Nestea vs Maka game 2.
While it was an exciting game... Nestea was veerrrryyyy inefficient with his army. Maka came back in that game because Nestea lost most of his first 200/200 army of ling/baneling/muta without trading efficiently.
zerg never trades efficiently vs late game t and p armies, the whole 'herpdy derp just insta remax' is pretty meaningless when lair armies trade for 3 marines. and if you can insta max on ultras or broods, well for one the units arent gonna be out for 2 minutes anyway, and if you can stockpile that many resources t/p did something wrong to get to that point in the game.
I never stipulated that in a typical scenario zerg armies will be able to trade efficiently (and what is efficient in terms of numbers with zerg is not the same for terran or protoss) with terran armies lategame. In retrospect, I think I shouldn't have used the term "efficiently", and more that he chose to attack in a very non-optimal position and came out much worse than had he chose to attack better (drops in the main maybe, even if his original intent was just to sac his first lower-tech army to free up supply for broods and ultras).
Just that in that instance (that game 2 on Xel Naga), Nestea attack into the gold 3rd with bunkers and staggered tanks in that small chokepoint, hence he lost his whole army without doing much dmg to anything at all (maka still had most of his tanks). I think most zerg armies could come out better than that if they dont attack into small chokes like that.
It's no mystery that the later the game goes on, the higher the zerg's advantage. It was the same in BW. The pros get far in tournaments based on how much they win, not how "fair" they play. Since this is their living there's a lot of money, and potentially their future, on the line. Marine/SCV all-ins are winning a lot of games, so why on Earth would a pro Terran NOT jump on that bandwagon?
I predict what always tends to happen in these circumstances - the other race adapts to the new strategy. If it really is overpowered Blizzard will eventually patch it, even if its not on the time scale we want.
Is sadistx avilo's like troll protege or something?
just seems like his head is always 3-feet deep in avilo's ass.
basically just repeating what avilo says, but in an inflammatory and obnoxious manner.
I don't even see the point of this thread actually. Basically avilo is crying that he can't win a game against Zerg that goes longer than 20 mins. But it seems more like he can't win a game where Zerg is 6-base to his 3-base, which shouldn't really be a surprise.
If Zerg has control of 6-bases, its because you've been outplayed, not because Zerg is OP.
terrans can win early is simply because they wanna win early with all these all-in are too strong and mules make the all-in works so well (helps alot in marines+scv allin). foxer has terrible macro management once the game passed 13mins (early-mid game), he never allin pull scv with him but he showed that how insane marines can be in the early game. people do argue that if he pull scv with him in some game then he prob won. and not soon later we see all these new in players in gsl3 play some marine all-in fest. but who says terran cant play a 'standard' game? jinro played all straight up macro games (with reasonable early harasse). moon maybe not the strongest zerg atm but he still a beast ffs.
these people are competing a 1st prize of $80k and most of them terran (90%) will do watever they can, or may i put it properly: 'abuse the game's imbalanceness' as best as they could to win. there is a reason of why not every zerg play like kyrix do early bling(which hurt the econ so much) but instead of build up strong econ to own mid/late game. same reason goes to all these kamikaze early scv all-in players - they have no/low macro skill anyway, why not just abuse the imba early pressure of terran.
On December 06 2010 13:00 Servius_Fulvius wrote: It's no mystery that the later the game goes on, the higher the zerg's advantage. It was the same in BW.
that's definitely not true. the longer the game goes on, the more vessels terran gets, the more irradiates he has (i fucking hate eraser, i never have enough scourge around my bases to stop it), and he has the option of switching into an invincible mech army.
Terrans don't play allin all the time because they want to avoid lategame... They avoid the lategame because they cannot play it because they allin all the time
And I am serious with that! Consider the following: How much effort does it take to master mid and late game of a matchup and compare that with the effort of learning one build order and practise some marine micro .... Allins are really effective and an easy way to make a lot of ca$$$h in GSL
I know you cannot take one game as an example (Jinro beating Moon with a macro based playstyle) BUT jinro practised his strategies against oGs member and idra/ret so he MUST have performed well in these games, otherwise he would not have chosen them!!
No zergs even made it to Ro4. Obviously this means zergs need buffs and TvZ is way too easy for terran. GSL 3 is obvious and irrefutable proof of this. /s
No zergs even made it to Ro4. Obviously this means zergs need buffs and TvZ is way too easy for terran. GSL 3 is obvious and irrefutable proof of this. /s
There must be an explanation to this. Games probably went the wrong way, I didn't watch but they had to. I'm sure we will hear why soon enough.
No zergs even made it to Ro4. Obviously this means zergs need buffs and TvZ is way too easy for terran. GSL 3 is obvious and irrefutable proof of this. /s
i don't understand. avilo was saying expect more all in games and that's exactly what we saw. at this point i dont know whether zerg lategame is overpowered or not, but we know for a fact that all-ining is less of a risk than taking it to mid/lategame
No zergs even made it to Ro4. Obviously this means zergs need buffs and TvZ is way too easy for terran. GSL 3 is obvious and irrefutable proof of this. /s
i don't understand. avilo was saying expect more all in games and that's exactly what we saw. at this point i dont know whether zerg lategame is overpowered or not, but we know for a fact that all-ining is less of a risk than taking it to mid/lategame
No zergs even made it to Ro4. Obviously this means zergs need buffs and TvZ is way too easy for terran. GSL 3 is obvious and irrefutable proof of this. /s
i don't understand. avilo was saying expect more all in games and that's exactly what we saw. at this point i dont know whether zerg lategame is overpowered or not, but we know for a fact that all-ining is less of a risk than taking it to mid/lategame
He's also been saying Z>T
How is it not 100% obvious to people at this point? Terran is fine as long as they win it early. After that Z is massively favored to win (assuming they are around the same skill level). Anybody that has been watching the last two GSLs (2-3) can see this. The rare exceptions (Nada last season, and Jinro this season) aren't actually exceptions... they are one player outplaying the other. Virtually every other game has Terran winning early or losing late game.
The pattern is so clear - I don't understand why anybody would try to deny this.
I don't think Terran and toss has found all the ways to win early vs Zerg once they find strong pushes then macro styles will become more popular because Zerg will have to account for all the pushes they can't scout.
No zergs even made it to Ro4. Obviously this means zergs need buffs and TvZ is way too easy for terran. GSL 3 is obvious and irrefutable proof of this. /s
Expect more all-in TvZ games in SC2
Basically everyone agrees that T>Z early game, but terrans are saying Z>T late game, and Z's are saying terrans should learn to play.
People can hate on me all they want, but look at the damn games.
Read the title of this thread. Read the thread. Expect more all-in TvZ games in SC2.
Zergs are whining because they're losing to BS coinflip all-ins, but they are perfectly content that the game stay in a state where they have a massive advantage late game and almost never lose there.
Every time some tip top Zerg like idra/ret complain about the recent two raxes they usually leave out that, "oh btw, once [if] they patch this Zerg will never lose late game! ahahahaa!"
A reason I made this thread is because I saw this bs happening, and inane forum posters hopping back on the bandwagons. Everyone was going to see massive amounts of TvZ all-ins, aggro games in GSL, and stupidly think "OMG TERRAN IS BROKEN AGAIN!"
When the truth is that the match-up itself is pretty broken right now. The 2 rax and other weird all-ins seem very powerful early game, but virtually every game that Zerg has defended and stabilized they've won decidedly...Terrans are not just doing all-ins to "win"...it's because that's the best chance you have of winning a TvZ.
You play a coin flippy all-in...you give yourself a nice percentage chance to win the game.
You play a macro game versus Zerg...you're slowly going to your death. Sure, you'll stay in the game 15 minutes and Zerg noobs on the forum will applaud you, and Terrans will go "oh that was so close," but nah...Zerg has like 90% chances to win the game when it goes to that.
So yeah...if people still think there is no problem with this match-up I do not know what to say.
I was watching those GSL games last night realizing how boring it is to even watch TvZ now too. Long games that zergs win feel lame half the time, they basically just drone up and become unbeatable, short games terran just scv/rine bunker rush allins which is stupid to watch so much too. both ends of the spectrum for TvZ just feel really bad now both to play and watch.
I'd much prefer watching any other matchup or mirror matchup over TvZ at the moment.
game quality is so much worse than an average TvZ in broodwar.
No zergs even made it to Ro4. Obviously this means zergs need buffs and TvZ is way too easy for terran. GSL 3 is obvious and irrefutable proof of this. /s
i don't understand. avilo was saying expect more all in games and that's exactly what we saw. at this point i dont know whether zerg lategame is overpowered or not, but we know for a fact that all-ining is less of a risk than taking it to mid/lategame
He's also been saying Z>T
How is it not 100% obvious to people at this point? Terran is fine as long as they win it early. After that Z is massively favored to win (assuming they are around the same skill level). Anybody that has been watching the last two GSLs (2-3) can see this. The rare exceptions (Nada last season, and Jinro this season) aren't actually exceptions... they are one player outplaying the other. Virtually every other game has Terran winning early or losing late game.
The pattern is so clear - I don't understand why anybody would try to deny this.
I highly disagree. If anything, the people with the better skill usually always win+ Show Spoiler +
with the exception of Nestea and Fruit dealer, who lost to terrans mind you!
. Jinro wins vs lesser zergs, FD and Nestea pwn their way through GSL because they are just that, better. And clide vs leenoch, two players that I would say are of equal skill, had epic games in a 2-1 result.
I believe the assumption that "Zerg is OP late game" is very flawed and a diluted point. Yes, a zerg allowed to macro up to 5 bases tier 3 tech is very hard to beat, but that's why you don't let it go there. You harras, you force lings with a small push, you expand yourself and go for a timing push. All inning is just an indication that your'e worse than them, not that Z is OP.+ Show Spoiler +
(For example TSL Rain said he was going to do more macro games but didn't have the time.
When zerg wins, its usually because of just solid fundamentals, not some funky all in strats. And that's just what they are, all in. So obviously when a terran fails in his early push he will be way behind. Note there are plenty of macro games where people CAN compete with zerg, because they don't all in, they don't play risky because of a flawed belief that Zerg is unbeatable late game. Clide was behind like 50 food in game 3 of Clide vs. Leenoch and still managed to come back, even in front of food supply, because he just played solid, didn't go for the all in, and macroed.
Jinro can beat plenty of zergs because he didn't all in, he plays standard, and is just funkilicious.
Since most tvz/zvt games have all in's, its really that that determines the game, since terrans will be far behind if it fails and zerg far behind if it succedes. So games that go on further from that must be discounted.
Yes there are games where terran attempts to play standard That's the difference. I really do believe that the macro aspect of zerg has contributed to just us becoming more solid, more safe. Rather than what I believe is just a confused stage in TvZ for terrans. Are all in's effective? Of course! Does that prove that you can't win a macro game(and not just a macro game, obviously put pressure) vs zerg??? NO!
There's a reason why Fruit Dealer won GSL despite being like the only zerg in the Ro8, representing a "weak" race and still won. It's because he was just simply better. And that's why many zergs have fallen, because they either failed to the all in(which sadly doesn't indicate skill either) or just are worse.
Even the all in's terrans do is determined by micro, not by some "all inish" things. That's one of the advantages terran has, they can really micro much better than zerg(barring mutalisks). You split marines, us splitting banelings usually isn't cost effective(1-1). You stim and kite, we run away. The only thing we really can do is hit, run back, hit, run back and snipe units(such as roaches and mutalisks.) Burrow is there, but really unused.
This is getting longwinded so I guess I'll just close it now. Hope you at least understood my thoughts, and saw my side. Also @ Avilo, I would think if the zerg defends the ALL IN and stabilizes they would be in a massive advantage
On December 07 2010 07:44 LuckyFool wrote: I was watching those GSL games last night realizing how boring it is to even watch TvZ now too. Long games that zergs win feel lame half the time, they basically just drone up and become unbeatable, short games terran just scv/rine bunker rush allins which is stupid to watch so much too. both ends of the spectrum for TvZ just feel really bad now both to play and watch.
I'd much prefer watching any other matchup or mirror matchup over TvZ at the moment.
game quality is so much worse than an average TvZ in broodwar.
I pretty much agree with this, I haven't bothered watching a TvZ, apart from Jinro, since like ro32, every series is the exact same. Thank God there are some Protoss this time around, or I wouldn't be watching at all.
I honestly think that Korean Terrans have completely forgotten how to play mid or late game (if they knew in the first place lol xD), Jinro isn't the most exciting player at the moment because he's the only foreigner- but because he's one of the only people that I've seen that actually understands the game.
I don't agree that Terran is underpowered in the late game, it's been demonstrated many times that they are pretty even at that point- it's just that they have a stupid advantage early on, and yeah it makes sense to exploit it. Terran all-ins really killed the GSL for me this season
On December 07 2010 07:44 LuckyFool wrote: I was watching those GSL games last night realizing how boring it is to even watch TvZ now too. Long games that zergs win feel lame half the time, they basically just drone up and become unbeatable, short games terran just scv/rine bunker rush allins which is stupid to watch so much too. both ends of the spectrum for TvZ just feel really bad now both to play and watch.
I'd much prefer watching any other matchup or mirror matchup over TvZ at the moment.
game quality is so much worse than an average TvZ in broodwar.
...I honestly think that Korean Terrans have completely forgotten how to play mid or late game (if they knew in the first place lol xD), ....
just FYI, people that say something equivalent to the above ridiculous statement will disappear into the void from meh blog... Go trash up gen SC2 discussion with "Korean Progamer Terrans who play 8 hrs a day obviously don't know how to play late game or never have considered it" if you want. ANd you prob shouldn't do that there either -_-
Seriously...
Also, you obviously think TvZ lategame is balanced if the only series you watched is jinro vs moon lol...I'd look up some other games if you wanna get good support for that argument. I think most people are chalking that up to moon's war3 macro/training < jinro's SC1+SC2 training+macro.
Sorta makes me chuckle when people cite leenock vs clide, jinro vs moon for lategame references lol. It's like me citing the idra steppes of war game and then trying to claim " SEE ZERG IS FINE ON THAT MAP!"
Maybe the reason we don't see a terran dominating lategame is because of the lack of creativity. We haven't seen cattlebruisers or anything. Maybe the Terrans right now are so focused on winning early/mid game that they don't formulate strong late game strategies, and I don't think it's fair to see "because there are none because zerg dominate so hard". It's because we see the same thing... marines, thors, siege tanks...if we saw like ghost snipes or something we could easily see a new game where Zerg dominates.
Leenock vs clide reference is valid... I mean why not? Even the news in teamliquid rated those games as some of the best games in GSL.
On December 07 2010 09:16 adeezy wrote: What about leenock vs Nada in GSL2.
Maybe the reason we don't see a terran dominating lategame is because of the lack of creativity. We haven't seen cattlebruisers or anything. Maybe the Terrans right now are so focused on winning early/mid game that they don't formulate strong late game strategies, and I don't think it's fair to see "because there are none because zerg dominate so hard". It's because we see the same thing... marines, thors, siege tanks...if we saw like ghost snipes or something we could easily see a new game where Zerg dominates.
Leenock vs clide reference is valid... I mean why not? Even the news in teamliquid rated those games as some of the best games in GSL.
Well...it's pretty naive to think top level koreans have never played into late game TvZ...or that others haven't. It's very favorable for Zerg.
And you bring up some good points about BC/ghosts not being used much...but all of those things feel and seem very gimmicky. They just aren't too good, I do not think it's a matter of Terran's having not tried them - I'm sure they have. But most of the stuff is just horribly inefficient or bad.
Like, mass ravens should be great in theory right...? But in actual games, Zerg can just run away from HSM, and the splash was nerfed to hell, as well as it's almost impossible to get up to a critical number of ravens and then accumulate 125 energy, as all that gas takes away from tank count, upgrades, etc.
I think everything has honestly been tried and tested, and that's why we're seeing the games we are now. I really doubt it's a lack of creativity.
And as for nada vs leenock or what not...that shakuras game...didn't he aggro and gain a good advantage from that early game? And leenock vs clyde...leenock won. Clyde won on jungle basin...not that hard to do that TvZ
I don't think you can "honestly say" everything has been tried and tested only 4 months after the game has been out. We constantly see new trends every GSL. And terran has been just as successful for the past few seasons regardless of the trends. I see your posts everywhere and they basically say that yeah TvZ is late game imba.... but it's not always the case and even when you do see even late game TvZ you say it's because the zerg sucks.... it's not fair arguing.
Ghosts I think can see more play... i mean they have light dmg bonus so even just there auto attack rapes zerglings and mutas, but snipe play I think will hopefully show in the gsl (it's also very entertaining)
It's hard to say definitively if there is anything wrong with TvZ lategame when they all go for 8 minute victories. I think this thread is strong evidence to support further nerfs to terran early game options. If they had to eco then we could really see if there is was a huge problem with the late game, since every terran would be forced into it instead of their acceptably high percentage all-ins.
Maybe require one supply depot per barracks to stop 12/14 rax
But on a more serious note, the games just suck to watch. It's really boring to see the same cheesy shit game after game.
Every time some tip top Zerg like idra/ret complain about the recent two raxes they usually leave out that, "oh btw, once [if] they patch this Zerg will never lose late game! ahahahaa!"
That's because they find that most terrans are skill-less noobies who only know how to all-in Dx
I still say sample-size of non all-in high-level terran is too small. By seeing a few of the lategame Zerg nerfs (nerf to 300 supply army, fungal growth no longer affecting air units), Terrans will see more of a reason to take it to later stages of the game because it won't be (alledgedly) as easy.
No zergs even made it to Ro4. Obviously this means zergs need buffs and TvZ is way too easy for terran. GSL 3 is obvious and irrefutable proof of this. /s
i don't understand. avilo was saying expect more all in games and that's exactly what we saw. at this point i dont know whether zerg lategame is overpowered or not, but we know for a fact that all-ining is less of a risk than taking it to mid/lategame
He's also been saying Z>T
How is it not 100% obvious to people at this point? Terran is fine as long as they win it early. After that Z is massively favored to win (assuming they are around the same skill level). Anybody that has been watching the last two GSLs (2-3) can see this. The rare exceptions (Nada last season, and Jinro this season) aren't actually exceptions... they are one player outplaying the other. Virtually every other game has Terran winning early or losing late game.
The pattern is so clear - I don't understand why anybody would try to deny this.
My comment wasn't about balance (/S means /sarcasm. I was being sarcastic).
My post was about how Avilo is obviously biased and makes knee-jerk reaction threads. A few months ago when terrans were dominating with reapers Avilo had a massive thread talking about how TvZ only *looked* imbalanced because zerg players hadn't learned how to play yet.
When zergs talked about the problems with ZvT, here was Avilo's reply:
On September 09 2010 09:47 avilo wrote: solution: play the game it is and get better at it.
And then of course a month later terrans got nerfed and Avilo has been QQing nonstop ever since. Whenever anything in GSL goes zerg's way he acts like it's undeniable proof of how OP zerg are, so now when there aren't even any zerg left this early it's just soooo tempting to turn it around on him
so now when there aren't even any zerg left this early it's just soooo tempting to turn it around on him
You must really not like reading, because zergs were eliminted by allins, which is the only thing he was trying to say. You have nothing to turn around "on him". He called a zerg win in GSL2 and tons of tvz allins in GSL 3. He was right.
Accusations of bias = lulz. I can similarly accuse all zergs in this thread of bias. Hey zergs, you're biased. Every time you say Z > T late game isn't true, it's just your personal bias talking!
Damn, and here I thought I'd have to argue for my position. Nope, just gotta accuse the other person of being biased and whine until the other race gets nerfed.
On December 07 2010 09:47 floor exercise wrote: It's hard to say definitively if there is anything wrong with TvZ lategame when they all go for 8 minute victories. I think this thread is strong evidence to support further nerfs to terran early game options.
That's wrong. If you can't definitively say there's anything wrong with TvZ lategame, then you also can't definitively say T early game is too strong.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either call it like it is, i.e. T>Z early, Z>T late (supported by GSL games) or don't say anything (then you don't have to defend your position)
You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either call it like it is, i.e. T>Z early, Z>T late (supported by GSL games) or don't say anything (then you don't have to defend your position)
But that kind of sucks to say that Z>T late, when most of the games that advance beyond 2 rax play advance there because the zerg has miraculously managed to survive the aggression which obviously was most of the terrans game plan. If you aim for a short game, it is clear you should lose to someone who can barely defend there and aims for more economy/tech... This and the fact every zerg that has lost to terran past early game obviously "sucked" regarding to many posters - I don't agree there btw - does not really make the late game statistics easy to read.
I'm not saying terran > zerg late game either, but I'm saying there's really not enough high level terran players who aim to win at the late game since they know zerg is at it's weakest early on and they have such great early aggression, and as a result nobody really knows the late game balance in this matchup too well at the moment. There's a lot more decisions to make until late game also, which makes it even more difficult to see whether a player was just worse or if the other player got a 'racewin' or whatever. It is easy to see these early game all-ins are race wins indeed, as they require so little to pull off and even the most skilled players struggle defending against them. And this does not go well with competitive gaming or make for a good entertainment for watchers in my opinion.
Best solution in my opinion would be to nerf every early all-in for all races to the ground (not aggression / harrasment ofc) and then balance the late game according to the results a few months later, and then add a balanced early game. This will obviously never happen since most terrans would prolly just rage quit or race change and it would not be beneficial to anyone.
Oh and HI to YOU, who are about to rant about punishing the greedy zerg - that just isn't a valid argument really.
Okay, so after reading just like 3-4 pages I now have a serious problem with this thread. Logic is COMPLETELY abandoned roughly midway through the second page, which is really cool and all but that isn't ever going to get shit done. I'll try to address some of the responses that seem bogus to me: ThisIsJimmy: "I actually think this will change very soon. I'm just waiting for a good terran in the GSL to prove this idea wrong. FE play into mass tanks/marines is extremely strong and someone in the GSL better do it or I am gonna be pissed. I think the matchup is balanced and I play terran.... these lame korean terrans are just all in every game and it is just retarded.
I don't care what people say about how good they are, it is just a stupid strategy to do every single game and they need to learn to play a macro game sometime..."
I actually do not think this is bogus at all, but probably one of the more actual "discussion" rather than "flaming" or just saying stupid shit posts out of the whole thing. The idea that T just hasn't adapted enough yet it very possible. The only problems I have with this is "lame korean terrans all in every game......" which implies that its just what they do instead of they actually want to do whats best to win. I don't believe that for a second, because when All-ins start producing better results than any kind of solid play then something is wrong. The second is this is very much just a hopeful post. Its assuming that the game does not have an irreparable (through strategy) flaw that prevents it from happening, which I wouldn't think you could just come across without playing a ton and actually looking for a solution. I am not saying there is or isn't a flaw, or that T can or can't find a solution without changes, but its just very much "I hope they do" instead of actually pointing in a direction. Iccup.Diamond: "Remember when Tozar found a Korean replay with the Korean 4 Warpgate Rush (pylons in the min line PvP) and all of a sudden NO ONE could beat it? I know I remember it. After a couple weeks however people realized there was a way to beat it (kill the scouting probe...) and it is now just another build out there that you know could be coming. I'm pretty sure this is what is happening here."
The problem with that is that after only a couple of weeks, the answer was sorted out from all the possibilities and standard play resumed. This has been going on for far longer than a couple of weeks, and no one has found an answer yet. If anything thinks they have the answer, please, let us know.
Liquid`Ret: "3 terrans in top4 last gsl season, also look up overall TvZ stats pls
if you think zerg lategame is too strong maybe you shouldnt let them get to lategame with 80 drones, theres a million ways to kill or damage zerg early, i cant believe u still havent figured this out yet,
and even then marine/tank is a good option. in the ogs house terrans are doing fine vs zerg, lategame too"
Honestly, I can not even believe this is coming from a player lauded as one of the best. It blows my mind. 3 Terran in the top 4 of last GSL AND overall TvZ stats are heavily skewed by the entire main basis of the balance post in the first place. It isn't hidden, it isn't some kind of puzzle or trick, it was stated pretty openly. Pretty much avilo states that Terran are forced to all-in (or, heavy aggression with no plan for the late game) because of the impossible circumstances they are faced with late game (barring irreparable early game damage). So if the problem is Terrans All-inning all the time because it is the only way they can win, then it is only natural that the win percentages and Terrans placed would be much higher. If half of all terrans All-in all the time, and the other half play for the late game, then the win stats and and placement of terrans would fall dramatically, because of the fact that terran cannot compete late game IS THE MAIN ARGUMENT. So instead of playing for the late game, losing, and killing TvZ stats / their chance at actually winning tournaments, they all-in so that they CAN have a chance of winning.
Idra: you're impossible to argue with because you just say things that are flat out wrong since you approach the game believing you aren't terrible and thus it confounds you when you lose. '2 rax pressure is easy to deal with' 'tvz late game is impossible' no, your micro is bad and you dont know how to macro.
Hey thanks idra, you have, in your infinite wisdom and in a well mannered fashion exposed to us how AVILO loses his TvZ games. That's cool. Now, since you are on a helpful streak, why don't you explain how EVERYONE ELSE (top level players included) loses then? Hell, maybe you can solve this for us? All of Terrans ever have bad macro and micro? Maybe the bad macro is because the drone mechanics allow Zerg to have an advantage theoretically build into the game that forces the extra aggression early on which puts T in such a position late game (once again, THE MAIN ARGUMENT)? Maybe T has bad micro because creep is free to spread, gives zerg the ability to be on your army like BM on, well, you, and because its hard to focus tanks so they only fire on banelings/infestors while moving/spreading your marines so that 3 banelings do not kill 20 of them while the zerg just hits a move his army and selects all his banelings so he can just move them into the general area of the marines?
Zelniq: Useless screenshots.
Once again, we have discovered how AVILO loses his games. That's real damn helpful. It's not that he was saying in context, "I cannot play a macro game against zerg", because its not fucking obvious at all. Clearly he was stating that he can't macro at all. It was a wonder he had more than 5 SCV's.
I'm going to level with everyone here. I only read to page like 9 for the exact same reason that I can't watch the news anymore, and that's because its full of stupid shit and flaming. So this may have all ready been addressed. But for reference:
Avilo states in the opening post that essentially TvZ is just a series of all ins and heavy heavy aggression with no plans for late game due to the fact that they can not win late game against a macro heavy zerg without an edge.
What we get from this: -(implied: Top level Terran's have tried and can not find a way to answer zergs late game, forcing them to all-in and heavy aggression so that they can win games/tournaments, which is kind of their job.) -A corollary of this is statistics and tournament participation will be skewed due to the use of these builds. The initial argument is that if people don't want these all-ins to be used every single TvZ (more or less, as if nothing is found that works, then top level players will either switch races or keep all-inning to fulfill their obligations to win and stay competitive) then the underlying cause needs to be fixed.
As for the multitudes of people who claimed that it is possible, that T can compete late game on even footing (again, the problem is that essentially it would seem that if it goes to late game, T is already behind and not on 'even footing'), then lets see some replays. I want to see replays and lots of them of high level players playing long games against zerg with a semi-stable or at the very least related build where the T and the Z both play well and it isn't just a curb stomp. I think some of the people referenced Clyde vs. Leenock (?), well cool, thats 1 set of games. How bout some more? If every top level player is all-inning, then we need to fess up and say there is a big problem somewhere. If its not in the matchup, then people are saying its the players (IE: top level terrans are not really good, they just all-in every game), so that would mean there are essentially no top level Terrans, which also says there is a big problem with the game.
but you're wrong.. it's not impossible to play with two thoughts in your mind at the same time : harass and power. this should be the terran mindset; kill as many drones as you can, force as many larveas to become units as possible, while you yourself build as many scvs as you can. meanwhile the zerg mindset should be; build as many drones as you can while defending harass with as few units as you can.
there's nothing inherently broken about this. races play out differently in sc2. yes, you should not let zerg have 80 drones vs your 50 scvs for 5 minutes. yes, zerg can recreate a force faster than terran can. yes, zerg can mass drones faster than terran or protoss.
yes, terran gets 6 scvs for free for every OC they have. (meaning that the 3 OC terran with 50 scvs is only 12 peons short of the zerg with 80 - meaning he can have 30 supply more worth of units. yes, terran can defend using bunkers for then to salvage them later on leading to no loss of mining. yes, terran is actually impossible to attack cost efficiently at _any_ point of the game.
it's not really that I don't agree that terran is disadvantaged cross position on metalopolis or that I think terran can win a majority of games vs zerg if both terran and zerg do nothing but build peons for 10 minutes before they start massing units and then they start clashing in the middle.. absolutely, zerg has an advantage if that is how the game plays out.. but there's nothing broken about this. IF different races have different abilities and different units, they will always be better at different stages of the game. impossible to get around this. zerg for example, should not engage outside creep because then they have no option of retreat, and they spend longer time getting close to the protoss or terran units that inevitably have longer range. this leads to zerg's preferred style of play being a reactionary style. sure, it's possible to harass with mutalisks. and maybe with nyduses, but that largely depends upon your opponents sloppyness. but I mean, come on, compare zerg's harass opportunity with terran; you have banshees, you have hellions, you have mmm drops or just quick stimsquads.
terran does not need to go allin to win tvz. this is a hyperbole to such a degree that it's complete bullshit. terran does need to harass. zerg needs to defend harass. this being the nature of the game is a natural consequence of several abilities of each race, and there's nothing wrong with this. if you want to be a defender rather than aggressor, pick a different race.
On December 08 2010 09:02 Liquid`Drone wrote: and maybe with nyduses, but that largely depends upon your opponents sloppyness. but I mean, come on, compare zerg's harass opportunity with terran; you have banshees, you have hellions, you have mmm drops or just quick stimsquads.
terran does not need to go allin to win tvz. this is a hyperbole to such a degree that it's complete bullshit. terran does need to harass. zerg needs to defend harass. this being the nature of the game is a natural consequence of several abilities of each race, and there's nothing wrong with this. if you want to be a defender rather than aggressor, pick a different race.
I have to argue with some of this :/.
If I am reading this right, you are comparing racial advantages to say that every race has its pros/cons at different stages of the game and this is a natural part of having variety, then you go on list things such as:
-Terran gets parity with zergs economy through mules, which frees up supply allowing a larger army. -Terran has better harass options to help facilitate this harassing game style. -Zerg has limitations based on the fact that they have the strong late game, notable having to play reactive and be more careful about where/when the engage.
But there is a difference between pros and cons of racial differences and just not being able to handle what is there. T may get the bigger army through mules, but they will never be able to recreate it as fast or with the tech diversity as Zerg. T has better harassment options, but the question then becomes are Z's defense options too good? The problem in my eyes of forcing harassment is that if it gets to the point where if you don't harass you lose, how are they supposed to balance that? If the T harasses the Z, and its too powerful, then the Z can say it is too strong, there is no way for them to win because they would be forced to come back from a bad position (example of this is the old reapers) or just lose outright. The mirror of this is that if T must harass to stay equal, then if the harass because too ineffective from defensive measures, then they will never do enough damage, and will always lose or at least have a much harder game than they should (which I suppose is the argument now).
Harass too good (due to say unit imbalance or lack of defensive measures)----> Z can't defend it (knowing its coming or not) -------> Z is at a disadvantage regardless as nothing they can do will mitigate the damage they are taking (example old reapers)
Harass too bad (due to lack of unit effectiveness or too strong defensive measures against it)----> T can't catch up to a macro zerg just because of the way Z works -----> T is at a disadvantage regardless because there is nothing they can do that will damage the zerg to bring them to equal footing.
Things that would break this chain would be if T could fight zerg without harassing them (Aka: macro game, response being taking bases. I would like to differentiate this by the example of: for harassment, you drop marines in their base primarily to do damage, while for macro you are dropping in their base so that they are forced to focus on other things, hoping their macro slips so you can gain a lead) but there is no proof of this being viable, or at least none I have seen. I am not saying that there isn't something out that there has not been found yet, but there is also the possibility that there isn't.
Also, while playstyle should definitely determine which race you play, I don't think late game viability / inviability should ever be a determining factor. I'll reference back to Bw (I know how much people hate that, but this is the sequel....) in which no race was really just dead in the water playing a macro game. Sure there were strong/weak points, but every single matchup could be played late game without this horrible stigma of "uh oh i'm in trouble now" just for being there in the portion of the game. (With I guess the exception of ZvZ, but that's always strange).
EPT
PvZ is exactly the same. Kill the zerg before late game or die. Fortunately Protoss have a lot more flexibility in how we decide to all in 
Terran don't have that luxury. 
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Cx3Zg.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/BxWIn.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/sEGOj.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/L4V4X.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/6RrVV.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/CWyRb.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/crZrF.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.gamereplays.org/community/uploads/repimgs/repimg-33-160483.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.gamereplays.org/community/uploads/repimgs/repimg-33-160487.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.gamereplays.org/community/uploads/repimgs/repimg-33-160488.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/tUWns.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/mOfyP.png)
