EPTThe NonY Fan Club - Page 199
| Forum Index > Fan Clubs |
|
Chrispy
Canada5878 Posts
| ||
Wodger
Scotland380 Posts
| ||
|
blackone
Germany1314 Posts
On November 21 2013 12:16 Antisocialmunky wrote: Because you did not have an apostrophe, I mentally for some reason read Jaedongs like a unit of measurement and then realized that if there were a unit of measure (SI) for awesome, it would be in Jaedongs. Haha, I just can't get used to the possessive apostrophe. | ||
|
Shebuha
Canada1335 Posts
| ||
|
Heat_023
Canada160 Posts
| ||
|
Gofarman
Canada648 Posts
| ||
|
SigmaoctanusIV
United States3313 Posts
| ||
|
Hoender
South Africa382 Posts
 | ||
|
Antisocialmunky
United States5912 Posts
Honestly, I've always just wanted Terran to have more viable tech options late game. They have some fun toys high in the tech tree but they aren't viable because they all have energy bars or otherwise are hard countered. | ||
NonY
8751 Posts
On December 05 2013 06:45 Antisocialmunky wrote: It is an interesting thought that if Terran has multiple viable compositions then Protoss has to be reactive. Honestly, I've always just wanted Terran to have more viable tech options late game. They have some fun toys high in the tech tree but they aren't viable because they all have energy bars or otherwise are hard countered. Yeah but many protoss are gonna be proactive rather than reactive. Terrans wanting buffs for mech are so focused on late game, but the point of the video is to plant the idea that a large portion of mech games might ultimately come down to early game, defending against protoss all-ins and early high tech harass. Reading some of the comments, it doesn't seem like most people picked up that point, since I spent more time giving background about it than emphasizing it. | ||
|
Antisocialmunky
United States5912 Posts
I guess I'm just confused about what distinguishes 'reactive' and 'proactive' play since: a) English is crappy and these aren't actually antonyms. b) Wouldn't a 'proactive' Protoss just be 'reacting' to the fact that Terran mech might be really strong on a certain map? | ||
|
L_Master
United States8017 Posts
On December 05 2013 09:08 Antisocialmunky wrote: Yeah, I get that Protoss might just react to playing a Terran on a Mech favored map by just killing him. That is a good point that most people haven't picked up on. People also don't pick up on the fact that bio was completely useless in BW TvP and it would be been ridiculous if bio was viable in BW TvP.for the same reasons. I guess I'm just confused about what distinguishes 'reactive' and 'proactive' play since: a) English is crappy and these aren't actually antonyms. b) Wouldn't a 'proactive' Protoss just be 'reacting' to the fact that Terran mech might be really strong on a certain map? Perhaps too off topic, but hiyA has been winning some games recently against good players with rax FE bio recently. + Show Spoiler [hiyA Bio] + | ||
|
Antisocialmunky
United States5912 Posts
| ||
|
pestilenz
Denmark379 Posts
| ||
|
Nedereden
777 Posts
| ||
|
Hoender
South Africa382 Posts
| ||
|
mihajovics
179 Posts
you assume it is impossible to determine from P's perspective T's composition in time and T is the one that dictates the game and P has to be reactive. why is it impossible to have a P macro build that defends all terran strategies? especially with the MSC and all the scouting possibilities. | ||
|
Hoender
South Africa382 Posts
 BUT!!! Nony will appear on Unfiltered later today http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=405217 | ||
|
Kiarip
United States1835 Posts
On December 04 2013 06:53 Hoender wrote: Here you go Sigmao, posted by Nony a few hours ago. Couple of interesting ideas mentioned in there https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTJGVhUkHXc I don't agree with this analysis, even as a protoss player. When Terran commits to either bio or mech it's so obvious that mech vs anti-bio and bio vs anti-mech can't be made as arguments against buffing mech unless Terran is all-inning (although admittedly Terran all-ins is my main concern regarding buffing Mech.) Also in terms of composition I think it's fair to say that anti-bio Protoss is stronger than bio terran late-game. Terran makes up for this by having a more mobile army and counter-attacking and harassing options with drops while being able to keep their scv count lower than protoss's probe count by building extra Orbitals and using mules to get a mineral advantage. Meanwhile protoss, while being more gas expensive becomes almost unstoppable in a head-on engagement once they have are able to macro off of 3+ gas-mining bases, 2 robos, 2 forges and a lot of gateways. The challenge for protoss is to survive to that point without fallign too far behind and then being able to deal with the economy that Terran has been able to develop while defending counter-attacks and possible base-trades. In Protoss vs mech you would think that Mech should be in the situation that Protoss is in, defending until they get all the right tech pieces, but it seems like in the late-game having all the correct tech still isn't enough for Terran to get a composition that's cost-effective enough to have a chance against high economy anti-mech protoss composition. | ||
|
NonY
8751 Posts
On December 11 2013 01:45 mihajovics wrote: you assume it is impossible to determine from P's perspective T's composition in time and T is the one that dictates the game and P has to be reactive. not at all | ||
| ||
