|
On September 12 2015 00:24 GeLaar wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2015 00:17 feckless wrote:On September 11 2015 22:32 zimp wrote:
This is a great example of a reason why korean players are better in general, and they have an advantage over foreigns. By understanding the casts, they learn a lot about the game.
As for the tank thing, kogeT's post has some extra info over the op and what Cyroc wrote. I don't know if they are correct, but if they are, then it goes like this:
If both players have extended vision (scanned or barracks, etc), and the tanks are sieged up at the same time, then tanks from the bottom right will shoot faster (because they don't have to turn), but if neither player has extended vision, and the tanks are sieged up at the right distance, then the tanks at the top left will shoot faster (because they can see them from a little further away). This way the two imbalances somewhat balance each other out. I had forgotten to consider this. But I'm actually exceedingly confused now, and I'm hoping someone can come in and translate the whole thing (from about 17:45 to 18:20). I think what people have written in this thread versus what I am hearing in the cast is bewildering my mind. With my subpar Korean, what I am gathering is that the attack range is longer. If I'm not mistaken, at 17:45,  trOt explains that tanks have greater (or longer) attack range (I think more accurately-translated: shooting or firing) from top to bottom and from left to right. He says "쏘는게". The "쏘" part means means "shoot" or "fire". Now, I'm not entirely sure what he says at 18:00 (halp), but at about 18:12 he explains about positioning. Again, if I'm not mistaken, he says that the best position to be is at your opponent's 11. I'm really hoping someone clears up my confusion. Honestly, maybe the best way to improve your game really is to learn Korean. I'm not a native Korean speaker myself, but I listened to the explanation again and it seems that Cryoc was right. The commentator says "시야" meaning outlook, view, sight. So it is the range of sight that is longer in two directions than in the respective opposite directions. Edit: Also, you got the part right, about the best attack position being at your opponent's 11 o'clock. But the additional comments given in this thread also need to be considered, about the tank cannon having to turn when attacking from 11 to 5.
You're correct. I listened again to his explanation at 18:00 and he does say "시야". I'm going to assume he was correcting himself. Honestly, I'm still hoping for a more complete translation. But now that I think about it, tanks having a greater attack range from one position versus another seems to be too massive an imbalance for any player to remain ignorant about, especially any Terran player. It makes more sense to give added sight range.
edit: I do wonder how this affects outcomes of non-mirror matchups though, noticeable or negligible? If the sight range is longer at two directions, it seems to be more advantageous to attack from the other two.
|
Really cool info. Thanks for sharing!
|
I listened to the video. Yes, Top side tank has the advantage, and left side tank has the advantage. It's more hard to calculate tank distance for the right side to attack left side. Units also get clumsy(is this the right word that I can describe?).
Therefore, 11 o'clock side tank will have the advantage.
|
|
|
Just to clear this up:
trOt seems to say that the attack range and sight range are longer in the video. But (and this is brought up in the thread) the attack range itself isn't longer, only sight range is increased. The attack range is only enhanced by the increased sight range. Added sight, added range. This is because the attack range of a sieged tank exceeds its sight range. Since sight range is longer at two directions, the sieged tank can leverage this added range. It's not far enough that the other player will be unable to siege without being blown to scrap metal, but it's still a useful advantage.
|
feckless, thank you
|
I wonder if anyone has used turret misdirection in a progame before and I just haven't noticed, because it's an idea I've been playing with for a long time. Here's the scenario (I play Protoss mostly so it's my idea in PvT but can be applied to other races potentially also). Let's say you let Terran contain you outside your 10 o'clock natural on FS. Let's say Terran has covered his Tank line with a lot of Turrets, but not as many elsewhere. His Siege Tank cannons are facing NW towards where your troops will be coming from.
To bust out, you can't risk your only/already damaged/slow/whatever Shuttle against the 5+ Turrets that are right on top of the Tanks. But, you can drop a Zealot, even a Probe within Siege range to the SE of the Tank line. The Siege Tank cannons turn, and fire off a round at the Zealot/Probe. Your troops have already been timed to start running at the Tank line as soon as the Probe drops.
I know that using SCVs to take the first few hits from Siege Tanks while the opposing Terran sieges HIS Tanks in range of the containing ones is a common strategy, as is bombing, but I wonder if this has been used as well. I guess in most situations, bombing the line is the better option as well, but what if it's no possible, like in the scenario I described above?
Is this tiny window possible to exploit in this way? Have progamers done this?
|
sounds like flanking lol
if you're going in a for a battle then usually you wanna commit everything anyway so might aswell chuck that shuttle in too to give your flanking zealots an extra few steps towards the tanks, imo
|
the tank range one is blowing my mind. I really want to play some TvT now...
|
I am not sure if the larva trick is 100% consitant in regard to the randomnes in larva pop.
|
On September 11 2015 06:34 Cryoc wrote:
Thanks for the knowledge, however the tidbit about the siege tank is not correct as you stated it. Siege tanks have the same attack range in every direction, but their sight range is a little bit bigger to the right and bottom than to the top and left.
That being said, testing I've done suggests that attack range /target acquisition range is not a perfect circle either. it is slightly larger in top left and top right directions than in bottom left/right directions... It's really hard to exactly quantify this, though...
Is the vision range discrepancy/asymmetry actually a Siege-Tank-specific thing? I would assume that it probably applies to all units, but does not have much effect as except for Siege Tanks, vision range is generally higher than attack/target acquisition range.
|
On September 14 2015 21:53 Jealous wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
I wonder if anyone has used turret misdirection in a progame before and I just haven't noticed, because it's an idea I've been playing with for a long time. Here's the scenario (I play Protoss mostly so it's my idea in PvT but can be applied to other races potentially also). Let's say you let Terran contain you outside your 10 o'clock natural on FS. Let's say Terran has covered his Tank line with a lot of Turrets, but not as many elsewhere. His Siege Tank cannons are facing NW towards where your troops will be coming from.
To bust out, you can't risk your only/already damaged/slow/whatever Shuttle against the 5+ Turrets that are right on top of the Tanks. But, you can drop a Zealot, even a Probe within Siege range to the SE of the Tank line. The Siege Tank cannons turn, and fire off a round at the Zealot/Probe. Your troops have already been timed to start running at the Tank line as soon as the Probe drops.
I know that using SCVs to take the first few hits from Siege Tanks while the opposing Terran sieges HIS Tanks in range of the containing ones is a common strategy, as is bombing, but I wonder if this has been used as well. I guess in most situations, bombing the line is the better option as well, but what if it's no possible, like in the scenario I described above?
Is this tiny window possible to exploit in this way? Have progamers done this?
The problem is that tank turrets will rotate back as soon as there is a new target (i.e. any unit of your breaking-out army) in acquisition (and vision) range of the tanks. Since the turret rotation delay is minuscule, compared to a tank's loooooooong attack cooldown, it's unlikely that you'd gain any additional advantage out of it (compared to just any other attack misdirection).
On September 17 2015 23:01 varsovie wrote:
I am not sure if the larva trick is 100% consitant in regard to the randomnes in larva pop.
There's a fixed respawn time for larvae as well as a fixed building time for units, no randomness at all.
So as long as a player does not mess up their timings (i.e. start unit morphing as soon as larva is available) or is on resource/supply block, this is reliable.
"Larva rick" is usually used to refer to  something else, though!
|
On September 19 2015 19:45 Freakling wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2015 23:01 varsovie wrote:
I am not sure if the larva trick [i.e. predicting what's in the eggs] is 100% consistent in regard to the randomness in larva pop. There's a fixed respawn time for larvae as well as a fixed building time for units, no randomness at all. So as long as a player does not mess up their timings (i.e. start unit morphing as soon as larva is available) or is on resource/supply block, this is reliable. "Larva trick" is usually used to refer to something else, though!
My understanding is that larvae respawn on average every 342 frames, aka 22.8 seconds on Normal game speed (14.25 secs on Fastest), and that there actually is a small bit of variability to it as well... plus or minus 24 frames/1.6 seconds on Normal (1 sec on Fastest).
Some guy figured it out:
http://www.staredit.net/topic/16810/#5
|
Yeah, I've just read that. But it still doesn't have much bearing here: This slight variation is almost completely negligible most of the time (~7% relative difference, at most), whereas the build time difference between Zerglings and Drones is always noticeable and significant (~40%).
|
On September 20 2015 18:13 Freakling wrote:
Yeah, I've just read that. But it still doesn't have much bearing here: This slight variation is almost completely negligible most of the time (~7% relative difference, at most), whereas the build time difference between Zerglings and Drones is always noticeable and significant (~40%).
No doubt. It's just that you don't want to post inaccurate info and have ppl read it and believe it. Thus the correction.
Granted, it's an inaccuracy that 99% of us have fallen for, myself included up 'til recently. I'm not sure even BWAPI has that one right.
|
I've watched bw matches in Korea with a friend who wished the commentators would just "shut up" because they talked so much about stuff "everybody knows about." This and many other seemingly esoteric things were probably common knowledge to the average Korean player/viewer when bw was at the height of its popularity. That's scary.
|
Nada recently offered this tip to viewers. It's a more entry-level tip, but it was new to me.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On September 22 2015 06:14 lemmata wrote:Nada recently offered this tip to viewers. It's a more entry-level tip, but it was new to me. + Show Spoiler +
Wow, that's cool. I actually never thought about that in terms of fighting mutas.
Vs lurkers, yes (obviously you'll get mowed down by the line splash if you go right at them), but not mutas.
|
|
|
On September 22 2015 06:14 lemmata wrote:Nada recently offered this tip to viewers. It's a more entry-level tip, but it was new to me. + Show Spoiler +
I read it a few times before realising that it wasn't a tip about controlling mutas :D
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/tzdyh0l.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/7O2x4Ba.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/5iu5Qud.png)
