|
OK, this was inspired by 1) FA's reflective thread about zerg, and more importantly 2) watching some very new replays and some old, 'classic' replays.
In your opinion, has BW become what so many people without a real grasp of the game have called it: a mass unit game? Has dependence on a stable economy replaced reliance on micro and timing? I'm debating it in my mind. It seems to me that thanks partly to nada but moreso to the oov generation of terran, predictable macro builds are becoming the norm. Of course on the pro level we can see variety, but then again, I would venture to say that on the pro level too macro fights have become significantly more common.
Perhaps it is merely the games I have recently watched/played, but I am somewhat saddened by the rise of predictability across the board and the huge economy battles. Some people like it. How about you? Do you agree with my analysis? Do you like the rise of macro (if you agree that there has been such a rise?)
|
yes bw has turn into a very common style id like to call boring, with a few rare players. Maybe its just me, but watching terran's mass for 20 min till there 200/200 3/3 tvp is pretty boring, PvP has always been pretty macro intensive, Todays TvT looks less micro intensive too, its pretty much like the TvP's Mass up enough tanks to defend a new expo, intill you expo enough and hi 200/200 then slowely take over there expansions... 
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
The reason you think this is because of the huge influx (spelling?) of FE for p/t. Namely with maps like Luna this has become familiarized and common. From there i would contend that p's and t's try to do that on alot of the other maps and it works out ok (some not so much ie P on Rush Hour = they bitch about it being a z map cause they forgot how to play outside of FE). I dont think its become fully a macro game, nobody will go anywhere STILL solely on macro. You have to have control of the stuff you make. YES this game features more macro now that P/T's think they have to get an expo as fast as the zerg does.
|
Much harder to get at a top level nowadays because of that, everyone knows how to play safe with good macro. Was more fun when Terrans were easy to beat, just going dt drop, then pump units off 1 expand with 7 gates, i would win all the time, now everyone plays safe, Testiish, bleh
|
.... yes
imo is very boring when players wait 200/200
when im in bnet i prefer to quit when players only expand and wait ... very booring
old school was very interesting a lot of micro and funny matches
|
Norway28665 Posts
timing is just as important as before. in fact most really good players just have so good timing that their builds are timed to counter everything. or at least that's how it goes for terrans. toss still needs to alter their play.
zvt is fun as hell though because it's possible to play a non-macro style of play there. problem is just that one tiny micro mistake can cost you the game then.. but then again, that's part of why bw is so cool, tiny details can decide the outcome.
but yeah, pvt and tvp are sooooooooo much less fun now than before, which is mostly caused by the maps. I feel zvt/tvz have evolved in a positive way though, even if you play more of a macro style zvt it's still very cool because there's a lot of micro involved even then. (for example with mutas as zerg or m&m vs lurk as terran)
zvp is more balanced than before and I like how that has developed. although I don't really like how every map has 2 ways to leave your base so lurker containment becomes void, as it is no longer overpowered anyway. (due to protoss players improving. )
|
The old ways of playing are less effective, it's not like people today have inferior micro than before, they just learned to effectively get alot of units and spend better.
|
I like to play a macro game myself, but I agree that games with alot of harrass, drops, and micro are usually more entertaining. PvT is maybe the exception, but PvT just isn't exciting to watch at all IMO. I've been playing War3 lately, and I've found that I now enjoy War3 replays more than BW games. It feels like there is more creativity and less win-by-execution than BW, which in turns makes many BW players think it's easy.
I agree with control, Luna hugely popularized fast expansions for P/T. After a few months of all Luna, P/T players now play macro games everywhere unless it is strictly impossible. Just an example of the metagame changing, which is bound to happen over time, even though many feel BW has nearly reached strategic perfection.
|
On January 23 2006 13:40 Fayth[pG] wrote:
Was more fun when Terrans were easy to beat, just going dt drop, then pump units off 1 expand with 7 gates, i would win all the time, now everyone plays safe, Testiish, bleh
yeah, when Terrans were easy to beat you were considered one of the best players of the world, picked as a favourite in every WCG since 2001.
|
I thought about that too. Games were cooler before. But I think it's more of a trend.
If you look at ygclan replays for a period of time ...lets say ~~6 months for example, you see pretty much the same type of games...like lately. FD Terran toss, FE tvZ...and the game goes on pretty much the same. And if you look like a year ago everyone played differently, but all did the same thing. maybe it's mostly because those replays on ygclan etc are practicegames and those semi-pros or whatever they are, are just trying to improve their general gameplayu, not winning by/revealing cool strats.
Also the pro-level is a LOT higher then korean semi-pros, or "top foregners" which is very clear if you watched the blizzcon games etc.,.
Korean pros just played a lot more microintense and ..more perfect, not any mad macro games.
Well playing "perfect" would obviosly involve more micro, since a "perfect" player can do that at the same time as macroing.
|
bw isnt fun anymore with terran.
If it wasnt so old id play another race = ) (zerg)
i dont like doing predictable builds everygame, fact port is worthless tvp now on most maps, aswell as alot of tvt builds being non viable unless they are used in a specific situation because of maps. Its pretty much all vulture/fast exp nowadays with the occasional fact port/2 port wraith. removing cliffs from maps i believe has greatly hindered the variety of play and caused much more games to involve fast expoing and such.
|
BW hasn't turned into a macro game, people have just gotten a lot better at macro.
Instead of microing smaller groups of units, we see people microing huge armies more. Strong micro is still nothing short of vital, and people will have to learn how to enjoy micro on the macro scale as opposed to it being as simple as one handful of units against another handful.
I do think maps like Luna and Nostalgia strongly encourage (basically force) one specific style of play with absolutely no deviation, though, and that definitely gets boring. You could probably find a few pro TvP on Luna replays that looked identical down to starting locations and timing and unit counts and everything.
|
CruiseR
Poland4014 Posts
I agree.
It can be seen in modern TvP's.
But i prefer Micro style (most of my tvps are 10-20minutes long;o) - like 1 exp then mass harrass -> go
|
Well I definitely think that it now strongly emphasizes safe macro builds. But that's what the maps everybody uses now force you into more or less. You have to play the maps as much as anything else in a game so on something like luna you just simply can't play much else.
That's part of the reason I'm starting to tire of the game. PvT is almost the safe thing every game to me now, it's grown tedious. But legitimately a terran player just can't use a lot of old openings on these new maps.
IMO, what has happened recently is that BW has been "dumbed down" to an extent. PvT on luna (or basically any new map) you can do the same build every single freaking game and be fine. A lot of elements of the game have been removed, making it far easier for lower level players to perform. Hell, I've always hated LT and now I look at playing on it as a welcome change.
Obviously these maps are great for pro's to use, and I like most of them alot but it's quite annoying how almost all of the maps are made from basically the same mold. A lot of it has been done in the name of balance I understand, but I it's sucked a lot of fun out of a matchup I always loved the most.
PvZ I really don't notice it becoming that much different. Z still has plenty of things to do on all maps so the spice is still there. ZvP I do notice a lot more P's going fast expand (even on rush hour wtfh) but then again I remember lots of P's liked to do it on nost too. Bad P's think they have to fe so you're fine because they are bad and most likely would fe whether the maps were good for it or not. Good P's will mix it up so you're still fine.
|
Everyones macro is so strong now that although its not a macro game, you cant capitilize on mistakes or a player being wide open for a minute as much. Particularly vs T, who always seem to have a backup defense setup quickly.
And the macro maps that are popular right now dont help. I think ZvT is pretty boring to play now since T just fast expands nearly every game.
|
Vatican City State1872 Posts
the only matchup that is seriously fucked up is tvp, I'm fucking sick of playing this bullshit 200/200 take half the map than attack style terran's. In fact as soon as that started becoming a trend i started 5 zealot rushing everyone becuase i hate that boring shit. I did it so much (and was very successful with it) that I actually suck ass at pvt now, fuck you whoever made luna you killed my pvt.
|
Norway10161 Posts
A lot of people say things I agree with, esp. Sadist. Part of the reason I'm not playing anymore is the lack of crativity among players and a lot of maps are just .. bad. Luna is the worst map introduced to bw since blizzard released BGH.
|
UMS is the only way to go in 2006
|
On January 23 2006 15:14 ToKoreaWithLove wrote:
A lot of people say things I agree with, esp. Sadist. Part of the reason I'm not playing anymore is the lack of crativity among players and a lot of maps are just .. bad. Luna is the worst map introduced to bw since blizzard released BGH.
Exactly. Luna is what makes it boring.
|
intrigue
Washington, D.C9933 Posts
i agree with chris307. the macro aspect of starcraft was existent back in the day, but just sorely undeveloped. maybe we can expect another aspect that people haven't considered at all to come about.
|
This is a phaze and it is healthy. If you study the history of Chess you will know what I mean. The players are maturing and becoming more intuned to the subtle things in the game much more than before. Also, it may seem boring to many people because their brain is not thinking at a level where they would "SEE" all of the exciting action taking place right in front of them. From a Macro perspective (the overall view) it jsut looks like the players are just massing but from a Micro view ( all the little things the pros do the we can't see) there is so much going on that makes the game awsome.
|
WTF? BGH rocks. There's way more creativity involved in BGH than on Luna. And you don't see FE every game like on Luna.
|
A mass unit game as opponsed to what what a non mass unit game?
You can obvisouly see which is better. The game played well always been mainly macro with smaller incidences of micro.
Decision making and overall game plan is still the most important factor though. Like others have said maps play a role as does a general improvement of the players. People try to play the best way and they see this way as the best.
Now i dont know what the game was like before, when macro was generally worse. Was it smaller armies and more frequent battles? What would you like to see it as now? What map alteratinos would help?
|
It really comes down to the players. Bad players have to play macro because they're too crappy to go on the offensive. Great players can attack non stop with varied attacks everywhere... and mass macro at the same time.
|
On January 23 2006 13:39 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
The reason you think this is because of the huge influx (spelling?) of FE for p/t. Namely with maps like Luna this has become familiarized and common. From there i would contend that p's and t's try to do that on alot of the other maps and it works out ok (some not so much ie P on Rush Hour = they bitch about it being a z map cause they forgot how to play outside of FE). I dont think its become fully a macro game, nobody will go anywhere STILL solely on macro. You have to have control of the stuff you make. YES this game features more macro now that P/T's think they have to get an expo as fast as the zerg does.
should we mapmakers start striving from getting out of the standard LT 8-8-6 pattern and create different expansion layouts? Would a map like that be accepted?
|
make maps with cliffs... allows for more builds. also maps with small ass chokes = fe every game
so boring
|
How about releasing more starved maps. The problem though will be to balance the game for zerg, since they are dependant on a natural, where as terran and protoss are not.
Blizzard botched things a bit with balance when they made zerg units expensive, and cheap infrastructure and the need for sunkens for defense early rather than units, larva spawn rate considerations etc etc.
Protoss and Terran are similar, but zerg has more considerations than the other races, which limits map creation.
That is why we always see these macro orientated main, natural, mineral only maps nowadays I'd say. Zerg basically needs to be altered to allow a change in the maps and game style I feel. Perhaps it was a mistake to go with reduced larva spawn rate, cheaper hatcheries and increased sunken defense.
But, perhaps there's still someone out there who will discover another twist to the game to shake things up once again, but it doesn't seem likely right now. Changes today are pretty minor, and the largest was the Boxer rush TvZ that certainly didn't help zerg at all that already was struggling against T, though perhaps not on all skill levels.
|
Hmmm, that's a good idea. A map with only one normal mineral amount base would be kill. Every unit would be precious.
|
Zergs can play just fine without a natural. Just goes to show how every "pro" map has warped our view of this game by introducing constants: ramps and naturals you can defend with a fast expo no prob.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On January 23 2006 13:34 Kaotu wrote:
OK, this was inspired by 1) FA's reflective thread about zerg, and more importantly 2) watching some very new replays and some old, 'classic' replays.
In your opinion, has BW become what so many people without a real grasp of the game have called it: a mass unit game? Has dependence on a stable economy replaced reliance on micro and timing? I'm debating it in my mind. It seems to me that thanks partly to nada but moreso to the oov generation of terran, predictable macro builds are becoming the norm. Of course on the pro level we can see variety, but then again, I would venture to say that on the pro level too macro fights have become significantly more common.
Perhaps it is merely the games I have recently watched/played, but I am somewhat saddened by the rise of predictability across the board and the huge economy battles. Some people like it. How about you? Do you agree with my analysis? Do you like the rise of macro (if you agree that there has been such a rise?)
Hm, it's just that things that used to work before don't work anymore because people are more well-rounded.
There's still a LOT of timing/cheese tho, and AnyTime represents this even newer generation of players quite well.. (timing/strategy) Tho I guess that might be less evident in replays posted on sites and more so in actual tournaments of some importance :o
Oh.
And maps as everyone else said (they are the no.1 contributor, but I imagine that some of the older maps would be quite impossible in PvsT vs a terran of oov's caliber, yes?).
|
Agree with all, maps, and the fact ppl like to copy not think what is less time consuming still i think it will change in time. Like it always do, just w8 for pros do some other builds  I am zerg player and i cant complain. I like to fight T/P fast exp everygame... cos there is so many choices zerg can counter tham
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On January 23 2006 16:18 Starparty wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2006 13:39 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
The reason you think this is because of the huge influx (spelling?) of FE for p/t. Namely with maps like Luna this has become familiarized and common. From there i would contend that p's and t's try to do that on alot of the other maps and it works out ok (some not so much ie P on Rush Hour = they bitch about it being a z map cause they forgot how to play outside of FE). I dont think its become fully a macro game, nobody will go anywhere STILL solely on macro. You have to have control of the stuff you make. YES this game features more macro now that P/T's think they have to get an expo as fast as the zerg does. should we mapmakers start striving from getting out of the standard LT 8-8-6 pattern and create different expansion layouts? Would a map like that be accepted?
Rpoint is 8-7-.. Uh second nat is 7 too? Or 8? In any case, the second nat gas is only 2500.
|
early expanding + safe play + macroing is the easiest way to play honsetly
that's part of the reason why its so common
but once you get higher up and start playing w/ people who realize more interesting dynamics of the game, you realize how many people oftentimes favor extremely aggressive play. I encounter just as many 1 base Protoss/Terran players in the A PGT range as i do fast expoers, yet at the lower levels its almost exclusively fast expoing/cheesing Terrans.
Again, just easier to win when you fast expo
|
I think as a zerg player, it gives us a lot of freedom to not go purely macro defensive style unless we are stuck with a turtling bitch!!!!!!!! or camping outside base
|
this is a really interesting question/thread by the way
i think i'll write an extended essay on this, as to why i think the answer is a solid "no, BW isn't a macro game," despite the fact that it seems like BW has developed into a macro game.
: ]
|
Norway28665 Posts
it's very very possible to win without being a "macro player"
the problem is just that you end up being far less consistent, because as a micro player, one slight fuckup might get you raped. while if you macro and you accidentially press 4sj instead of 4sh a couple times during a game it really won't kill you.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
There is more room for development macro and strategy wise than micro/ministrat wise. Strategy changes gradually through trial and error, discovery and failure, while macro is something that requires a complete grasp of the game, knowing what to do at every moment. Sure the best micro is still distinguishable from the general pro level micro, but this difference does not translate into general superiority in nearly the same degree as a good macro, simply because as armies get larger micro becomes more cumbersome, and there is only so much attention a player can give to his units, see the idle workers mid/late game.
We can generally see macro as maintaining maximum productive efficiency, while strat determines the shape of this curve.
|
UPKEEP *gasp*!
|
I've always ment that the reason why koreans generally were better than nonkoreans was the fact that they played microintensive from the very start, while nonkoreans played completely opposite relying more on macro. Boxer is a perfect example on that. Nada is a player who managed to combine these, doing the micro WHILE macroing(i.e his TvP) THEN making the massive attack afterwards. Oov is the player who focused more on the macro part and less on the harrass/micro part. Yet Oov has a less predictable style than for example Nada who has a tendency to follow the same forumula in each matchup. Boxer = micro/strategy Nada = micro/macro Oov = macro/strategy. This is of course not perfectly true and can be argued over, but to me those players have made the OVERALL impression to let me categorize them in such way. To me the perfect player is the one able to combine these three aspects equally in his game.
I have to agree with Day[9]s post on that it is EASIER to learn and play macro style, and it doesnt require that much of you as including harrass in your game, and that's the reason you'll encounter such players in about every level. As soon as you reach the very top tier players however you'll see the players focusing more on harrass yet still they're able to uphold the usual macro.
The timing part is also an important thing, but to me that goes under macro. Decisions go under strategy however, but it wont help you to make the right decisions if your timing and macro is off. I dont feel BW has become a macro game. The lower level of players have discovered that it's easier to play this way and just make more units than your opponent, but if you look at how the best players play you'll see that fundamental things such as macro/timing/micro are there, while it's the decisions and strategies that seal the outcome of the game.
An example is Oovs recent game against JJu at Rush Hour, where Oov was 90% sure his opponent would drop him, and adapted perfectly to that. Would JJu have enough to stop Oovs push if he hadnt wasted those units ? Maybe, most likely not though since he got hurt early on by Oovs M&M killing drones and his gas. Did JJu adjust his gameplan to doing a drop after that happened because he thought his chances were slim to stop Oovs push straight up ? Most likely since those drones WILL hurt later in the game, but Oov read his thoughts, and figured he'd only have to wait for that counterattack before attacking himself. This wouldnt have been the case if it werent for that HARRASS that oov did though. If Oov woulda just sat in his base waiting for his 10 tanks to be done I dont think JJu would have done what he did. Some players have their gameplan ready before the game though and will do it no matter what the opponent does. Nada even said he does this in an interview.
JJu vs Nada a couple of weeks ago showed another example on decisionmaking being important as JJu hurt Nada early on and forced Nada to lift his CC. Nada tried to continue playing normal, but I think he knew JJu would take the time to get the adventage and outmacro him. However I noticed JJu made some STRANGE decisions and actually LOST some battles which WOULD most likely have cost him the game if it werent for Nada being set back early and this is imo the difference between good and great players. A player like GoRush would probably avoid any contact before his 3 defilers were finished, ultra cavern being down and 8 scourges ready along with one and a half group with lurkers + 3 groups of lings before attacking. SAFING it in(i.e Gorushs game vs Nada in KT-KTF groups@Luna in 2004 I think)
This is my thoughts on how BW has evolved. Macro is where it's been for a while. At it's peak. The decisions and strategy is still evolving, and as someone mentioned Anytime being an example on that. Harrass is always going to be evolving, but I can understand players not willing to rely on it because a missclick can be so fatal.
|
On January 23 2006 16:34 EAGER-beaver wrote:
Zergs can play just fine without a natural. Just goes to show how every "pro" map has warped our view of this game by introducing constants: ramps and naturals you can defend with a fast expo no prob.
2 base zvt is soooooo much easier than 1 base
|
lol 1 base zerg is so easy to beat with 1 base terran if you dont get caught completely offguard not having the expo really isnt much of an option = )
|
completely disagreed with the most of you.
i'm terran on C level pgt, i can always choose if i want fast game or macrobased game... and as most of us in a ladder, i often choose for some kind of rush - excluding some map tvt, where it's basically impossible to force something-... sure the level of play is more "equal" nowadays with vods-replays-culture and those who loss to a dt drop are called noob, but what about all the toss who lost to a nada/joyo push ? all noobs? and all the zerg loosing to a 8raxtech on r-point? all noobs again ? dont think so...
i'm from italy and played since 99, only in the last 2 years i started to play "seriously" - meaning not only 3v3 sc ita-1, as most of my country does- and when i discovered the magic of the korean skilled pro i've watched a lot of vods,1st person vods and replays: i was amazed!
then i started to want to understand where i'd could positioned myself in that world, so i started watchin european replays and play a lot 1v1, i wasn't absolutely amazed... every game ppl wait to come out with huge army, no micro intensive harass, no "strange" technics, nothing... and that's just because the game its 8 yrs old... those who one days were called noob got better and better and nowadays we're just skilled noobS, so we're scared, we lack of creativity, we choose to play safe huge macro battle and so on... we too worried of being watched as some who can lost to or because strange strat
gl brood war !
|
I just played 3 games going faster tech later expo less sunk more lings. It was kind of fun but failed miserably.
|
fuck macro players. Just cheese them! :D
|
I think the major problem is the maps these days. They have become very simple, with gas nats and big open middles for fighting which pretty much leaves heavy macro as the only option to win.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
As a protoss, we have to adapt all the time. So when a terran decides to fe and play a macro game, we sort of have no choice but to follow or be left behind or pull some mean damage with reaver/darktem. So when a terran decides to go and play a micro game, usually as a protoss i will follow and micro against him while expanding.
In regards to maps, imho, the best map ive seen last year was requiem. This has produced some kickass games as you would have seen on saturday. And luna is pretty boring, so map makers make more interesting maps like requiem. A style played is heavily dependant on the map, so creative map -> creative play?
|
On January 23 2006 18:52 decafchicken wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2006 16:34 EAGER-beaver wrote:
Zergs can play just fine without a natural. Just goes to show how every "pro" map has warped our view of this game by introducing constants: ramps and naturals you can defend with a fast expo no prob. 2 base zvt is soooooo much easier than 1 base
Yeah one base is just rolling the dice, all your opponent has to do is go "ok lemme just wait this out and get him when I am ready and not lose anything to his strat." Its really not viable as anything but a one-shot strat vs good players on normal maps(Something like bifrost being an exception).
|
This might be difficult for many to understand but i'll try to say it anyways
1 base zerg is extremely viable vs 1 base terran as long as its a map that doesn't favor 2base zerg.
on maps that favor 2base zerg, 1basing vs a terran is not a good choice. For example, why would you ever want to 1base on Luna when you can ALWAYS early expand and pull it off?
So many maps allow for an easy natural that most people figure 2base zerg is the only viable strategy. Why is this so? Well, the terran player can easily take his own natural expansion, whether it be earlier or later, thus a 2base zerg strategy makes sense because it helps to counter the easy set of resources the terran is sure to get.
Thus, the abundance of 2base-favoring maps is the main reason why so many people claim that 1basing zerg is impossible Luna is clearly a 2base favoring map, for the both zerg AND the terran. So, assuming that the zerg goes 1base, the terran EASILY has his own 2nd base right around the corner.
But lets this theoretical map:
Paranoid Androide where the first gas and mineral natural expansions do not exist. Therefore, the only expansions on the map are the mains, the high ground gas expansions, and the bottom left gas expansion.
In this circumstance, clearly an early expand is not favored for the zerg player. However, many 1base strategies would work well, as the terran player would have an EXTREME difficulty securing a 2nd expansion, thus an aggressive 1basing zerg player could succeed in swinging an advantage in the early and midgames.
Also, this overly ingrained "2base mindset" is largely the reason why so many players think that terran "own" zerg on island maps. Most players figure that a zerg player simply cannot compete with a terran on an island map, as the zerg and terran are even in resources in the early game. Again, this is simply not true.
etc etc i'd write more but its bed time
|
On January 23 2006 13:49 Liquid`Drone wrote:
timing is just as important as before. in fact most really good players just have so good timing that their builds are timed to counter everything. or at least that's how it goes for terrans. toss still needs to alter their play.
zvt is fun as hell though because it's possible to play a non-macro style of play there. problem is just that one tiny micro mistake can cost you the game then.. but then again, that's part of why bw is so cool, tiny details can decide the outcome.
but yeah, pvt and tvp are sooooooooo much less fun now than before, which is mostly caused by the maps. I feel zvt/tvz have evolved in a positive way though, even if you play more of a macro style zvt it's still very cool because there's a lot of micro involved even then. (for example with mutas as zerg or m&m vs lurk as terran)
zvp is more balanced than before and I like how that has developed. although I don't really like how every map has 2 ways to leave your base so lurker containment becomes void, as it is no longer overpowered anyway. (due to protoss players improving. )
Very good points, and I'd like to elaborate on them.
TvZ has really evolved for the btter. You can't complain about missing the micro because it's there, and in fact, it's harder now than ever before. Okay, you don't see 1 rine vs 1 lurk anymore, but it's actually much trickier microing 4-5 groups of m&m is massive battles against well-micro'd ling/lurk/filer than it is to micro 1 rine vs 1 lurk anyway. So, when push comes to shove, we're talking about a match thats arguably more micro dependent as ever. Just, you don't notice that fact because you're too busy multitasking and dividing that micro among different groups. Oov is the only player I've seen pull off a first rate SK Terran with less than 250 apm, and I find that telling. Even fast players like Asserm have serious flaws in their game. Watch his minerals as they hit 200 and watch his rax as the lights go out and stay out for long periods of time.
But in the same regard, it's more strategic than ever as well. Old fashioned TvZ often meant macro Zerg against a terran with a timed early attack who would then percede to play a defensive expansion killing game afterwards. Now, we see players using poor zerg into the long game, relying heavily on defiler tech. We see smart scourge use to kill dropships and zerg drops being used to get in the face of the terran. We see terrans countering with a much more diverse selection of builds, the inherant question of tank/vessel ratio and figuring out how to get aggressive in the late game. I like it.
And I think these changes are largely due to the maps we play. Play pure Luna PvT and then go back to LT. All of a sudden, 2 gate gooning becomes a lot weaker. You need that robotics because drops are VERY viable as an option. Then play paranoid. Everyone complains about macro games, but if you want to stop with macro games, you need to stop with macro maps. Move away from Luna and R-Point into more rush based maps like paranoid, etc.
And before I go to bed, I will just address one more fact: I have yet to lose with my recent fact/port build. Why? Because I use it when I'm in a spot where it will work fairly well, and because nobody is used to dealing with it anymore. They all get aggressive with their goons outside my base. Then 4 rines and a tank start raping their mining. Then they clear it and head back out as 4 vults and 2 tanks come back and finish the job. Of course, I reserve this build in most of my games, but if the opportunity is right, it's always there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
