• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 00:50
CEST 06:50
KST 13:50
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
[ASL22] Ro24 Preview: Summer's End6Serral wins HomeStory Cup 2915Serral wins Maestros of the Game 243ByuL, and the Limitations of Standard Play3Team Liquid Map Contest #22: Results and Winners7
Community News
Weekly Cups (August 10-16): SHIN doubles0GSTL Returns in 2026!43Weekly Cups (Aug 3-9): Protoss get shut out7RSL goes to London! 2026 Offline Finals Nov 21-2212Weekly Cups (July 27-Aug 2): SHIN's big week0
StarCraft 2
General
Weekly Cups (August 10-16): SHIN doubles Balance hotfix patch 5.0.16b (July 16) GSTL Returns in 2026! SC4ALL: II Talent Announcement! Protoss AoE skill expression
Tourneys
PIG STY FESTIVAL 8.0! (13 - 23 August) WardiTV Mondays 2026 KungFu Cup Announcement Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament 2026 GSTL Announcement
Strategy
[G] Having the right mentality to improve
Custom Maps
Nexus Wars 2021 GUIDE [M] (2) Industrial Park
External Content
The PondCast: SC2 News & Results Mutation # 539 Thunder Dome Mutation # 538 Media Blackout Mutation # 537 Hostile Territory
Brood War
General
SC4ALL II: Brood War Player Announcement 3/4 - soO BW General Discussion Rush's Odyssey Controversy [ASL22] Ro24 Preview: Summer's End StarCraft 64 is coming to Philly at SC4ALL II
Tourneys
[ASL22] Ro24 Group B [ASL22] Ro24 Group A Small VOD Thread 2.0 CSLAN 4 is Coming!
Strategy
Odyssey Mineral Stack Saturation Fighting Spirit mining rates Any training maps people recommend? Simple Questions, Simple Answers
Other Games
General Games
General RTS Discussion Thread Nintendo Switch Thread Anyone here play Quakeworld back in the day? Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread EVE Corporation
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
[TL LoL EUW IHs] Teemo shall perish TSM pausing esports and CLG Dead
Heroes of the Storm
Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Deck construction bug
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Power Rank TL Mafia Community Thread NeO.D_StephenKing vs This Guy From 1 Million Dance
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread The Letting Off Steam Thread Artificial Intelligence Thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread
Fan Clubs
MarineLorD Fan Club The ShoWTimE Fan Club The herO Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
Movie Discussion! Anime Discussion Thread Series you have seen recently...
Sports
MLB/Baseball 2023 Football (Soccer) Thread TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NBA General Discussion Formula 1 Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread Simple Questions Simple Answers FPS when play League Of Legend on laptop
TL Community
The Automated Ban List Northern Ireland Global Starcraft
Blogs
LOCKPICKING NOOB
LUCKY_NOOB
Chinese Gen Z: Between Dream…
TrAiDoS
Cathedral Of CS And NY pizza a…
FuDDx
Please support my new stand…
Peanutsc
Hello guys!
LIN1s
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 8074 users

Understanding StarCraft: Map Control - Page 2

Blogs > Chef
Post a Reply
Prev 1 2 All
palanq
Profile Blog Joined December 2004
United States761 Posts
January 11 2011 06:41 GMT
#21
nice read, thanks.
time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana
wherebugsgo
Profile Blog Joined February 2010
Japan10647 Posts
January 11 2011 07:36 GMT
#22
On January 11 2011 15:36 emperorchampion wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 11 2011 15:06 wherebugsgo wrote:
On January 11 2011 14:43 emperorchampion wrote:
On January 11 2011 11:17 ToFu. wrote:
On January 11 2011 11:14 Advocado wrote:
Still speaking of map control, don't you think that Planetary Fortress are almost harmful to the strategic part of map control? I know it will become less of a problem next patch with scv's becoming a higher threat when repairing, but shouldn't bunkers be more of the main defensive strategy?

It's not even that planetary fortress are that good, it's just that even you finish off a terran force you can't go kill that PF cause it absolutely demolishes ground forces with siege tank like damage and massive splash.


wat is a planetary fortress? is this some custom map?


Don't be a fool, this is a STARCRAFT site- which includes both games. Obviously the same principles apply throughout both games, and all RTSs for that matter. Manner up!

Advocado, I'm not totally sure what you mean, but I will do the best to explain what I think (please comment, because I am not that familiar with SC2). A strategic decision has to be made, based on favoring resources vs safety (OC vs PF). Obviously, main bases and natural expansions are made into OC, I don't think I need to explain why. However, when taking thirds and onwards, often PFs are made. I think this is mostly convention, and I'm sure as the game evolves OCs may become more popular (OCs are inherently "better", as you gain additional resources, which can be used to make additional units and attack or defend- instead of just defense). So, in this regard the game isn't "dumbed down" (in my opinion). I'm not sure if it makes it easier either, because it is a huge disadvantage to make a PF- this may be why a lot of Terrans find themselves out-macroed in lategame TvZ. I guess what I'm getting at is that you may actually be giving up map control my making a PF, because you have less army (you gain greater control over a small area, in sacrifice for lesser control over the whole map). Again, this is all theory, and I hope someone more qualified will make better post :p

edit: What's with all the fucking high-handed bw players in this thread?! Get a grip yo~ Also, to whoever said this has nothing to do with SC2 is very, very misinformed. This has everything to do with SC2, and every other RTS for that matter.

btw, great blog Chef


I disagree, SC2 currently is not in a state where "map control" means anything.

The maps are too small, and the game is dominated by 1 and 2 base all-ins. There is very little notion of map control outside the Z matchups because Protoss players ignore map size with warp-ins and no top Terrans ATM really do much other than 2 base plays.

In TvZ, for example, it's very possible for a Zerg player in SC2 to have complete map awareness, better income, better production, etc, but get destroyed by a random all-in simply because the map is too small.

This is true even for the larger maps like Shakuras because of the map structure.

In short, yes, this is right now a concept that is more or less useless in SC2. The closest to "map control" one can get is controling the watch towers, but that's more vision than "control" anyway.


Assuming you agree with Chef's argument here:
Show nested quote +
Let's think of another example. You've just killed a Zerg army. You're really happy about it, and you think 'well I killed his army, so what's stopping me from killing his expo LOL.' You're right, you should go make a move on his expo. But the logic of this move is not to kill his expo. The logic of this move is to force Zerg to spend a lot of money building sunkens and army. If you can kill it anyway, that's great, but it you can't, it will be the critical failure in your game. Let's say Zerg didn't lose his army, and responded correctly. He pulled back and Protoss rightfully realised he has map control. So Protoss moves out to threaten the Zerg expo, and expands himself in the mean time, because what the hell is Zerg gonna do about it while he has map control. But then Protoss loses all or most of his army attacking the Zerg expo in a misjudgement of army size. The reason this is a critical failure is because he has given up the map control he just gained. Zerg can then respond by playing the move Protoss just did, in other words, expanding while threatening the expo Protoss doesn't have an army to defend.


Your points here:
Show nested quote +
The maps are too small, and the game is dominated by 1 and 2 base all-ins. There is very little notion of map control outside the Z matchups because Protoss players ignore map size with warp-ins and no top Terrans ATM really do much other than 2 base plays.

In TvZ, for example, it's very possible for a Zerg player in SC2 to have complete map awareness, better income, better production, etc, but get destroyed by a random all-in simply because the map is too small.


Are in direct contradiction. "Vision" is an illusion of map control, map control was defined (I agree with this definition btw) basically as "whoever has the ability to control the map, ie. kill the opposing army". If a Terran player all-ins, they, by definition, have map control because of a more powerful army, therefore I don't understand your argument here- as obviously in this case Zerg was not playing properly (ignoring any apparent, or real balance issues). Warp-ins contribute to map control, but not by extending it- but by reinforcing existing spots of control. I don't really understand your argument here. I think the notion of "map control" is a varying one, ie. a player can have map control, but that doesn't mean that they control every area of the map (unless of course, they have complete map control, via an intense contain or something of the like)- I think this is where you got confused here. The Protoss player won't magically have a more powerful army, but can reinforce it quicker, for whatever it's worth.

I honestly cannot imagine how you can say map control is useless in SC2. In games on Steppes of War, map control is extremely important. Any amount of tanks in the middle ground gives almost immediate control of the entire map to a Terran player, allowing him to freely move about behind the contain. Now, that said, I don't endorse Steppes as a map- and I think the whole map pool is pretty much garbage to be honest. But, you have to work with what is presented, and to say that map control isn't important- or non-existent even- is flat out wrong. Obviously there is a lot of evolution in SC2 still, and to endorse notions such as that hampers the process.

Please look into your arguments more, instead of just posting "what you feel to be true".


Again, I disagree.

Look at any of the P matchups in SC2. 4 gate is viable in all matchups, and it's the most common in PvP. The winning player never wins because of map control, it's just the player who executes his build better. In PvP the most important part is getting a proxy pylon up and denying your opponent's proxy, not an expansion, not control of possible mining bases, not control of different avenues of movement, and certainly not control of any significant portion of the map.

As for your assertion that a Terran player who all-ins has map control, no, I disagree. There is absolutely nothing that a Zerg player can do to prevent a Terran player from all-inning with all his SCVs after Stim finishes. Only impeccable micro will save the Zerg, and it's because the maps are too small. In BW map control is important here because if a Terran all-ins, the Zerg loses an expo if he's unaware and does not have map awareness or at least some map control. If the Zerg does have map control, an all-in move will fail because the Zerg player has enough time to react.

The only map currently that rewards players for good map control in SC2 is Shakuras. All-ins very rarely work against good Zerg players who value map control here because it actually means something, as opposed to any of the other maps in the pool.

As for Steppes, I disagree with you again. You can literally do anything on that map and win. Map control is moot, all you need to know is a good timing attack. I have never seen a GSL game on that map go beyond 1 base vs 2 base, and almost always the player with the first attack wins. That's not due to superior map control, it's due to the map being so small it only rewards aggression.

The exception was last night, when a poorly executed 4 gate lost to Marineking's marine+tank build. The Toss player should have won but he microed poorly. However, there was no map control to speak of in that game.

Compare all these situations to brood war. The maps are big enough that games routinely go to 3+ bases and we see fights in different areas of the map simultaneously. Greedy players are punished for taking expos when they don't have map control. Spheres of influence are important because it takes time to shift units from one part of the map to another. Expansion trades are common because it's too risky to attempt to defend something in a part of the map you have little control over, where it would be more beneficial instead to simultaneously sabotage your opponent in an area where he is weak.

None of this happens in SC2 right now. None of the maps are big enough for it, and the game mechanics don't help. ZvT is the only matchup where we sometimes see flashes of BW-like map control, like Clide vs Leenock on Shakuras. Clide ultimately lost because he couldn't keep up with Leenock's ability to simultaneously defend his own expansions while denying Clide's own. Leenock had total map control at certain points, despite being threatened by a split down the middle. It was beautiful to watch, unlike most of the 1basing that happens, simply because it actually showcased map control in SC2.



Crazyeyes
Profile Blog Joined March 2008
Canada1342 Posts
January 11 2011 08:01 GMT
#23
That was a very good read. It makes me sad that SC2 is so far off from where BW is (was?).

Going to go watch some BW.
WeeEEeeEEEeeEEEeeeEEee!!
Comeh
Profile Blog Joined July 2008
United States18919 Posts
January 11 2011 08:12 GMT
#24
Great read Chef - map control of course is one of the most difficult to apply skills in the game (when you realize you can take it and when you realize you should back off, of course) While it replays its very observable, its hard to have the sense of when map control should exchange between players, and when its appropriate to push and whatnot (unless, of course, you are blindly following a korean build, which you might get consistently lucky if you time it well)
ヽ(⌐■_■)ノヽ(⌐■_■)ノヽ(⌐■_■)ノヽ(⌐■_■)ノヽ(⌐■_■)ノヽ(⌐■_■)ノDELETE ICEFROGヽ(⌐■_■)ノヽ(⌐■_■)ノヽ(⌐■_■)ノヽ(⌐■_■)ノヽ(⌐■_■)ノヽ(⌐■_■)ノヽ(
Advocado
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
Denmark994 Posts
January 12 2011 02:19 GMT
#25
I'm sorry, I should have noticed that the topic was mainly aimed towards Brood War and not SC2.

Dis regard what I have said.
http://www.twitch.tv/advocadosc2
Funnytoss
Profile Blog Joined August 2007
Taiwan1471 Posts
January 12 2011 02:40 GMT
#26
On January 12 2011 11:19 Advocado wrote:
I'm sorry, I should have noticed that the topic was mainly aimed towards Brood War and not SC2.

Dis regard what I have said.


It's not that the topic of map control is inherently irrelevant to SC2 - it's just that overall, SC2 isn't at the level *yet* where it matters like it did in BW. And yes, I would argue that because of things like PF, Warpgates, and small maps, map control isn't as important right now in SC2, but that's not necessarily set in stone.

Hopefully we'll see SC2 develop into a game where this topic will be quite relevant
AIV_Funnytoss and sGs.Funnytoss on iCCup
Storm[PT]
Profile Joined March 2010
120 Posts
January 12 2011 03:08 GMT
#27
Very insightful. It has been enlightening to read this.
Toss ftw; For the Revolutionist!
emperorchampion
Profile Blog Joined December 2008
Canada9496 Posts
January 12 2011 03:54 GMT
#28
On January 11 2011 16:36 wherebugsgo wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 11 2011 15:36 emperorchampion wrote:
On January 11 2011 15:06 wherebugsgo wrote:
On January 11 2011 14:43 emperorchampion wrote:
On January 11 2011 11:17 ToFu. wrote:
On January 11 2011 11:14 Advocado wrote:
Still speaking of map control, don't you think that Planetary Fortress are almost harmful to the strategic part of map control? I know it will become less of a problem next patch with scv's becoming a higher threat when repairing, but shouldn't bunkers be more of the main defensive strategy?

It's not even that planetary fortress are that good, it's just that even you finish off a terran force you can't go kill that PF cause it absolutely demolishes ground forces with siege tank like damage and massive splash.


wat is a planetary fortress? is this some custom map?


Don't be a fool, this is a STARCRAFT site- which includes both games. Obviously the same principles apply throughout both games, and all RTSs for that matter. Manner up!

Advocado, I'm not totally sure what you mean, but I will do the best to explain what I think (please comment, because I am not that familiar with SC2). A strategic decision has to be made, based on favoring resources vs safety (OC vs PF). Obviously, main bases and natural expansions are made into OC, I don't think I need to explain why. However, when taking thirds and onwards, often PFs are made. I think this is mostly convention, and I'm sure as the game evolves OCs may become more popular (OCs are inherently "better", as you gain additional resources, which can be used to make additional units and attack or defend- instead of just defense). So, in this regard the game isn't "dumbed down" (in my opinion). I'm not sure if it makes it easier either, because it is a huge disadvantage to make a PF- this may be why a lot of Terrans find themselves out-macroed in lategame TvZ. I guess what I'm getting at is that you may actually be giving up map control my making a PF, because you have less army (you gain greater control over a small area, in sacrifice for lesser control over the whole map). Again, this is all theory, and I hope someone more qualified will make better post :p

edit: What's with all the fucking high-handed bw players in this thread?! Get a grip yo~ Also, to whoever said this has nothing to do with SC2 is very, very misinformed. This has everything to do with SC2, and every other RTS for that matter.

btw, great blog Chef


I disagree, SC2 currently is not in a state where "map control" means anything.

The maps are too small, and the game is dominated by 1 and 2 base all-ins. There is very little notion of map control outside the Z matchups because Protoss players ignore map size with warp-ins and no top Terrans ATM really do much other than 2 base plays.

In TvZ, for example, it's very possible for a Zerg player in SC2 to have complete map awareness, better income, better production, etc, but get destroyed by a random all-in simply because the map is too small.

This is true even for the larger maps like Shakuras because of the map structure.

In short, yes, this is right now a concept that is more or less useless in SC2. The closest to "map control" one can get is controling the watch towers, but that's more vision than "control" anyway.


Assuming you agree with Chef's argument here:
Let's think of another example. You've just killed a Zerg army. You're really happy about it, and you think 'well I killed his army, so what's stopping me from killing his expo LOL.' You're right, you should go make a move on his expo. But the logic of this move is not to kill his expo. The logic of this move is to force Zerg to spend a lot of money building sunkens and army. If you can kill it anyway, that's great, but it you can't, it will be the critical failure in your game. Let's say Zerg didn't lose his army, and responded correctly. He pulled back and Protoss rightfully realised he has map control. So Protoss moves out to threaten the Zerg expo, and expands himself in the mean time, because what the hell is Zerg gonna do about it while he has map control. But then Protoss loses all or most of his army attacking the Zerg expo in a misjudgement of army size. The reason this is a critical failure is because he has given up the map control he just gained. Zerg can then respond by playing the move Protoss just did, in other words, expanding while threatening the expo Protoss doesn't have an army to defend.


Your points here:
The maps are too small, and the game is dominated by 1 and 2 base all-ins. There is very little notion of map control outside the Z matchups because Protoss players ignore map size with warp-ins and no top Terrans ATM really do much other than 2 base plays.

In TvZ, for example, it's very possible for a Zerg player in SC2 to have complete map awareness, better income, better production, etc, but get destroyed by a random all-in simply because the map is too small.


Are in direct contradiction. "Vision" is an illusion of map control, map control was defined (I agree with this definition btw) basically as "whoever has the ability to control the map, ie. kill the opposing army". If a Terran player all-ins, they, by definition, have map control because of a more powerful army, therefore I don't understand your argument here- as obviously in this case Zerg was not playing properly (ignoring any apparent, or real balance issues). Warp-ins contribute to map control, but not by extending it- but by reinforcing existing spots of control. I don't really understand your argument here. I think the notion of "map control" is a varying one, ie. a player can have map control, but that doesn't mean that they control every area of the map (unless of course, they have complete map control, via an intense contain or something of the like)- I think this is where you got confused here. The Protoss player won't magically have a more powerful army, but can reinforce it quicker, for whatever it's worth.

I honestly cannot imagine how you can say map control is useless in SC2. In games on Steppes of War, map control is extremely important. Any amount of tanks in the middle ground gives almost immediate control of the entire map to a Terran player, allowing him to freely move about behind the contain. Now, that said, I don't endorse Steppes as a map- and I think the whole map pool is pretty much garbage to be honest. But, you have to work with what is presented, and to say that map control isn't important- or non-existent even- is flat out wrong. Obviously there is a lot of evolution in SC2 still, and to endorse notions such as that hampers the process.

Please look into your arguments more, instead of just posting "what you feel to be true".


+ Show Spoiler +
Again, I disagree.

Look at any of the P matchups in SC2. 4 gate is viable in all matchups, and it's the most common in PvP. The winning player never wins because of map control, it's just the player who executes his build better. In PvP the most important part is getting a proxy pylon up and denying your opponent's proxy, not an expansion, not control of possible mining bases, not control of different avenues of movement, and certainly not control of any significant portion of the map.

As for your assertion that a Terran player who all-ins has map control, no, I disagree. There is absolutely nothing that a Zerg player can do to prevent a Terran player from all-inning with all his SCVs after Stim finishes. Only impeccable micro will save the Zerg, and it's because the maps are too small. In BW map control is important here because if a Terran all-ins, the Zerg loses an expo if he's unaware and does not have map awareness or at least some map control. If the Zerg does have map control, an all-in move will fail because the Zerg player has enough time to react.

The only map currently that rewards players for good map control in SC2 is Shakuras. All-ins very rarely work against good Zerg players who value map control here because it actually means something, as opposed to any of the other maps in the pool.

As for Steppes, I disagree with you again. You can literally do anything on that map and win. Map control is moot, all you need to know is a good timing attack. I have never seen a GSL game on that map go beyond 1 base vs 2 base, and almost always the player with the first attack wins. That's not due to superior map control, it's due to the map being so small it only rewards aggression.

The exception was last night, when a poorly executed 4 gate lost to Marineking's marine+tank build. The Toss player should have won but he microed poorly. However, there was no map control to speak of in that game.

Compare all these situations to brood war. The maps are big enough that games routinely go to 3+ bases and we see fights in different areas of the map simultaneously. Greedy players are punished for taking expos when they don't have map control. Spheres of influence are important because it takes time to shift units from one part of the map to another. Expansion trades are common because it's too risky to attempt to defend something in a part of the map you have little control over, where it would be more beneficial instead to simultaneously sabotage your opponent in an area where he is weak.

None of this happens in SC2 right now. None of the maps are big enough for it, and the game mechanics don't help. ZvT is the only matchup where we sometimes see flashes of BW-like map control, like Clide vs Leenock on Shakuras. Clide ultimately lost because he couldn't keep up with Leenock's ability to simultaneously defend his own expansions while denying Clide's own. Leenock had total map control at certain points, despite being threatened by a split down the middle. It was beautiful to watch, unlike most of the 1basing that happens, simply because it actually showcased map control in SC2.



Ok, I see your point now. I'm not throughly convinced that map-control is mostly useless, but whatever. I'm curious on how you think SC2 will develop in the future. Do you think the new GSL maps will create more dynamic game play, or is it more of an issue with the game it self? Personally, I'm not really sure how it will play out- some of the maps seem to encourage expanding and longer games, but I don't know if that will stop these powerful all-ins.
TRUEESPORTS || your days as a respected member of team liquid are over
xarthaz
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
1704 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-01-12 12:16:24
January 12 2011 12:08 GMT
#29
On January 11 2011 10:58 Chef wrote:
Probably a more insightful example of mapcontrol than anything I wrote up there occurs in low level TvZs all the time. Terran has a big army that can beat Zergs army directly. Terran thinks 'ok, time to mess with the Zerg' and he attacks a fringe expo. Zerg counters his main and does way more damage than losing his one expo cost him. This is Terran thinking he has map control, but he's actually giving his map control up by putting his army out of position. Zerg just counters and expos somewhere else, and it's a really strong move because of this. Of course, if Terran can defend his base and attack at the same time, then that is truer, or at least stronger map control.

This is a great example of how real game map control is much more complex than the binary model of either one player or the other having it.

You see, the unit/ball movement speeds, or reaction speeds are what define map control in game, and because of their large variance, map control in real game is a very complex nonlinear system. IE the crackling raids/doom drops that zerg can do in late game even if not having direct army vs army map control, purely because of the insane movement speed of cracklings/ultras or hidden large number of overlords.

In fact, utilizing the binary model of map control is the reason why many zergs lose, even at pro level. They fail to understand that despite not having ability to take on enemy army, because of insane damage and speed of cracklings/positional control of lurker defiler, they can get around it because of racial advantage. Look at the latest game of JD vs Baby for example of this. JD was almost dead, baby couldve crushed his army in a head on battle, but utilizing position control of lurker swarm(and other godly multitasking of the few units he had) and slow reaction due to slow movement of m&m ball, he could deny baby's nat from mining and come back into the game
Aah thats the stuff..
djcube
Profile Blog Joined July 2009
United States985 Posts
January 12 2011 13:53 GMT
#30
I love this topic because bw TvZ is such an awesome match up. I think the example you gave of lower level TvZ is just more about the natural shifts in flow of standard bio TvZ, though. I'm sure everyone knows this but, zerg intially has map control because bare marines generally can't do anything vs speedlings. Then terran somewhat gains map control once academy tech is out (barring any kind of speedling backstab threat). Then map control shifts back to zerg when mutas are out, depending on terran's build. I mean, terran should at some point gain map control again during the muta harass (before lurkers are out) and pressure or deny zerg's third and I wouldn't necessarily say they're giving up map control by doing so. It's just a window of time in which the terran has the advantage that he is making use of. I guess the issue is that "lower level" terrans don't think of the possibility of a main counter and don't prepare a well enough defense. And zerg still will not have complete map control at this point b/c terran will have MM still roaming around the map.
kiero
Profile Joined May 2007
Canada136 Posts
January 15 2011 19:35 GMT
#31
Very well thought out and well written. Yet the concept is amazingly hard to apply, and I'm not sure even the pros know how to word it like this. This should be in liquidpedia somewhere.
agarangu
Profile Blog Joined November 2010
Chile274 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-02-25 03:36:54
February 25 2011 03:36 GMT
#32
OMG Awesome!!! This blog is a light to the complete darkness of my noobie existence.
Thanks a lot!
What's a quote anyway?
~ava
Profile Blog Joined October 2009
Canada379 Posts
February 25 2011 15:56 GMT
#33
I enjoyed the article, I don't think it was too low-level. The explanations were solid.
Prev 1 2 All
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 5h 10m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
Nina 109
RuFF_SC2 88
StarCraft: Brood War
Rain 3737
GuemChi 2011
Leta 198
ZergMaN 20
Noble 19
Icarus 9
Dota 2
NeuroSwarm180
League of Legends
JimRising 710
Counter-Strike
summit1g7527
Coldzera 1201
taco 378
minikerr60
Heroes of the Storm
Trikslyr31
Other Games
singsing698
hungrybox422
WinterStarcraft419
C9.Mang0414
m0e_tv352
Hui .101
ROOTCatZ37
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick1018
BasetradeTV39
[ Show 14 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Berry_CruncH368
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• Migwel
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
Dota 2
• lizZardDota2124
League of Legends
• Rush1293
• Lourlo1037
• Stunt538
Other Games
• Scarra1077
Upcoming Events
Afreeca Starleague
5h 10m
Sharp vs Shinee
Action vs Shine
GSL
6h 10m
PiGosaur Cup
19h 10m
Replay Cast
1d 4h
Afreeca Starleague
1d 5h
BeSt vs Paralyze
Jaedong vs Speed
Kung Fu Cup
1d 6h
Replay Cast
1d 19h
The PondCast
2 days
KCM Race Survival
2 days
Replay Cast
2 days
[ Show More ]
PiG Sty Festival
3 days
CranKy Ducklings
4 days
PiG Sty Festival
4 days
Sparkling Tuna Cup
5 days
PiG Sty Festival
5 days
The Patches Monday
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

CSLAN 4
CranK Gathers Season 4: BW vs SC2 Team League
Eternal Conflict S2 Finale

Ongoing

KCM Race Survival 2026 Season 3
K-JUNGMAN
ASL Season 22
Super Anchor Qualifying S3
RSL Revival: Season 6
PiG Sty Festival 8.0
META DYMY #4
Esports World Cup 2026
Esports World Cup 2026: LCQ
BLAST Bounty Summer 2026
BLAST Bounty Summer Qual
Stake Ranked Episode 3
XSE Pro League 2026
IEM Cologne Major 2026

Upcoming

CSL Season 22: Qualifier 1
Escore Tournament S3: W8
CSL Season 22: Qualifier 2
CSL 2026 AUTUMN (S22)
Acropolis #5
Acropolis #5 - TRS
Blizzard Classic Cup 2026
HSC XXX
SC4ALL II: StarCraft II
Kung Fu Cup 2026 Grand Finals
RSL Offline Finals
Big Dog Cup 2026 Div 1
Stake Ranked Episode 5
PGL Masters Bucharest 2026
Thunderpick World Champ. '26
ESL Pro League Season 24
Stake Ranked Episode 4
1win Private Club #1
Logitech G Connect 2026
SL StarSeries Fall 2026
FISSURE Playground #5
BLAST Open Fall 2026
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2026 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.