|
Recently Idra in an MLG interview stated the following
Terran is more gimmicky and harass-based,
Once the game is balanced, I feel Zerg and Terran will probably be equally difficult to play, in very different ways. Zerg is mechanically difficult, trying to hit every larva injection and manage creep spread while taking advantage of Zerg’s mobility to buy time. That takes a lot more speed and accuracy than the other races. But Terran will require very intelligent play because they have so many options for aggression, but they have to make something happen with them or they'll just be overwhelmed by the more macro-oriented races. So everything will come down to decision making and harass-based multitasking.
I remember BW being about Protoss being the harasser race, and Terran just turtled and built up. Terran now can turtle better then ever and mech is still possible, just more demanding then Bio(Although has the potential in becoming a viable option in the future IMHO)(Hellion Tank Raven).
My question is what has changed from Starcraft BW to SC2 that makes Terran a non-macro race? Is it possible to play a heavy macro style Terran? And what makes Protoss more of a macro race then Terran in SC2?
/discuss
Edit: Forgot to put [D] can a mod edit the title?
|
My guess is the maps arent really large enough to have a macro style terran.
|
I don't think so. Terran can't handle either infestor+ultra or ht/zealot/stalker spam lategame cost-effectively. In addition, zerg can out-macro terran when left undisturbed, and protoss' anti-harassment lategame with mass cannons and templar warping in anywhere on the map is incredibly hard to break. Tanks are terrible since the patch in TvP so map control is hard to establish and and ultras already beat tanks.
Terran needs to successfully apply pressure throughout the game to come out even in the lategame. There was a drewbie quote that I agree with about TvP lategame, essentially about how protoss units are more cost effective later on and the t player needs to harass and out-macro early on to be on even footing.
I don't think there is any reason to play a Terran style that macros without aggression.
+ Show Spoiler +See the GSL finals for examples.
|
Doesn't it all have to do with worker production capabilities? My RTS experience starts with Wc3, so I can only imagine how BW was played, but Queen Inject and Chrono Boost just allow to produce workers in a breath-taking speed compared to what I remember of BW, allowing to get your economy/new bases going much faster.
I know from my experience that it's at least at my lvl of play (1900 Europe) very possible in TvZ to play without the early "gimmicky" harass and skip to pure macro while staying defensive and macroing up - the slower macro mechanics are partly compensated fore by a lot more cost effective units (mainly because of the aoe abilities and hard counters for basically everything)
You have to begin using drop play sometime in the midgame so that the Z can't just take as many bases as he wants to, but in my play book it isn't less of a 'macro' style if you just deny expansions of your opponent using small forces.
|
On October 12 2010 11:47 iEchoic wrote:I don't think so. Terran can't handle either infestor+ultra or ht/zealot/stalker spam lategame cost-effectively. In addition, zerg can out-macro terran when left undisturbed, and protoss' anti-harassment lategame with mass cannons and templar warping in anywhere on the map is incredibly hard to break. Tanks are terrible since the patch in TvP so map control is hard to establish and and ultras already beat tanks. Terran needs to successfully apply pressure throughout the game to come out even in the lategame. There was a drewbie quote that I agree with about TvP lategame, essentially about how protoss units are more cost effective later on and the t player needs to harass and out-macro early on to be on even footing. I don't think there is any reason to play a Terran style that macros without aggression. + Show Spoiler +See the GSL finals for examples.
Well Tanks don't seem to bad when you have hellions with pre igniter. The only issue i have with TvP mech is Voids.
Maybe what we need is for NaDa to pull off a crazy Terran Macro style like he did in BW.
And against Zerg, NOBODY can out Macro a zerg even in BW. Terran if he meched would push off off to bases with a massive army and force a Third and possible fourth in one push.
|
In pvt atleast it simply comes down to the addition of the marauder. By effectively shutting down the usage of Protoss earliest units it puts them in a commanding position until later in the game. I certainly think FE/macro style Terran is very viable in this matchup because it is very hard for a Protoss to apply pressure until t3
I don't have much experience in tvz but I'd imagine it has a lot to do with zerglings being much weaker overall and mutalisks not what they were in BW.
|
On October 12 2010 11:44 raf3776 wrote:
My guess is the maps arent really large enough to have a macro style terran.
Yeah i think the issue has to do with maps. Personally i feel Jungle basin is very Terran Favored and great for TvP Mech.due to the safe natural and the a Third that can be taken on a 2 base push. And theirs no way the protoss can NOT engage the mech.
|
The main difference I think is in the way the races defend.
Terran defense is the most static (relying on turrets, tanks, pfs) and the army needs to stay together to defend harass (having 4-5 marines per base just makes them muta fodder or gets them killed by 8 zealots warping in, whereas 8 zealots can warp in to take out a drop). Zerg has a mobile defense due to creep and a lot of fast units (and queens). Protoss can warp in defensive units if needed.
As the most static it is also the defense that suffers the most from being spread out. This means that a Zerg on 2 bases defends about the same way as a Zerg on 5 bases (in fact with creep spreading out the 5 base Zerg can be better defended because he will get more warning and surrounds). On the other hand a 5 base Terran is just asking to get hit by speedlings, banelings (I now regularly use 30+ banelings to annihilate a Terran base) mutas or infested Terrans. PFs are good at compensating for this but can die (to banelings mostly) and cut into the Terran macro advantage (which is due to MULEs). The static defenses are also a lot of economy put into units with absolutely no offensive potential.
Because of this Terran is better off having 2 (maybe 3) bases at a time so they can defend effectively.
Again, to compare, Zerg can have 5 active mining bases (and preferably 6-8 hatcheries to produce from) and just keep pummeling any weak spot on the Terran front. Zerg is already wide open and vulnerable so has little to lose by spreading out.
To take a clear example, say you are on LT, close positions. The ideal Terran Third base is the Gold so they can block the opposing natural and only have a small area exposed (as all their bases are adjacent). To them the short air position main is a poor choice because it opens up a whole new access by land and gives a giant gap to fly mutas/BLs into between the 3rd and the main. For Zerg the ideal expansion is the short air. The extra access is far from the opponent meaning more time to react and better surrounds from the main. The gold is near useless as it would just get shelled and destroyed by the Terran from his natural.
Hope I helped.
Edit for another example:
The double expands at 2 mains on DQ the way Cool was pulling them off are great for Zerg. They split the opposing forces, force a commitment and allow surrounds. For Terran this would be suicide, opening many avenues of attack and a lot of undefendable surface. So the Terran is better off with a slow and progressive style rather than a crazy macro mode.
|
I feel that I can't win anygame (except mirror) without making at least 1 harass successful, be a hellion drop iechoic style, be a banshee cloaker or not, be marine drop, be nuke, be sieged tank into cliff, something that exploits range visibility or anything I do feel that If me and my opponent just say let's not attack each other for 10 minutes I will always lose, badly ...
|
I think terran can definitely play macro style, but mostly with mech.
However, harassment options are so strong in the early game, and medivac drops are incredibly powerful. It seems silly not to utilize such powerful tools.
|
I think idra makes a somewhat valid point. Terran units, excluding the battlecruiser are really not super impact units when used on other races. On the other hand, protoss and zerg both have very powerful units (broodlord/ultralisk/collosi/HT). Most of terran games against protoss revolve around MMM and then either ghost to counter HT or vikings to counter collosi. But the fact is terran would probably he happier delaying the HT/Collosi tech and continue using MMM rather than making units that specifically counter those.
TvZ is a bit different since the Thor is actually a pretty good unit in the matchup and really is not bad against too much (excluding Broodlords and maybe mass lings unsupported). However, the zerg macro mechanic is just much stronger in the sense that Zerg can tech switch really fast (from mutas to ultras), while Terran does not have this flexibility. This would show that Terran would probably be better off ending the game earlier or just making sure they have a lead when going in to the end game.
TvT I feel is a bit different. It is definitely very harass heavy in the beginning, but the macro game is generally more apparent here because building BCs after you have the air advantage generally wins you the game. So there is an advantage to late game macro.
It just seems like that although Terran could play a macro game, it is much more productive to abuse their mobility and strong harass mechanics so they have an advantage when it gets to the point where protoss and zerg can build units that are either much more powerful or produce powerful units at a much faster rate.
|
Yes terran can play macro style, see http://sc2rep.com/replays/show/id/2007
The reason why the majority of terrans choose not to play macro style is terran 1-2 base play is extremely effective and they can often end games quicker than if they were to play a macro style game.
|
I think the problem is that T's late-game units are just less cost-effective than T's earlier game units. Thus, there's no real reason to turtle and macro when T is just putting himself in an increasingly disadvantageous position.
While P's army becomes exponentially stronger with additional HTs and Colossi, or Z's army becomes exponentially stronger with more bases and thus more production/tech swap capability, T's only exponentially-scaling late-game unit is the battlecruiser, which has been nerfed and needs upgrades to reach max effectiveness.
However, unlike the Mutalisk, there isn't really an all-purpose T air unit that can transition into BCs - Vikings and banshees are just too niche to get the job done, and neither is viable against Z in the midgame.
You could say that tanks become exponentially more effective as you stack them up, but it's just too easy to techswap against a large tank army with Z. Attack, see what you manage to kill, then techswap into the right combination to kill the remainder. Did T lose more thors? Pump out a ton of muta/ling and finish the remaining bio/tank army. Did he lose a lot of tanks? Roach/ling to finish the remainder off. Did your armies wipe each other out? Field some ultras, which will eat whatever ragtag group he can cobble together before his numbers are large enough to reach critical mass.
Tanks are obviously much more difficult to use against P, simply because P air is so strong and tanks have been nerfed heavily against Zealots. Moreover, surviving the early/midgame is much more difficult when meching against Protoss, as opposed to bio.
So basically, there's no real reason to play a macro-style game as T when you're just putting yourself further and further behind the higher the opponent can climb up the tech tree.
I honestly prefer to play a macro game (and I really enjoy TvT for this reason) but I've found that it's just too difficult to survive against heavy, heavy mutalisk/ling harass or void/warp prism harass without the vision/mobility of creep or the ability to instantly warp in units anywhere on the map. Having too many bases just makes my immobile army overextended and my workers vulnerable to harass (baneling drops, HT drops, DTs, etc.) Massing off of 2 bases, or macroing while engaging in constant aggression to keep the enemy's foodcount low, have worked out much better for me.
|
I think "macro management" can have enough leeway to incorporate the vital terran harass into the scope of things.
Sure, short term terrans can focus on working off of 2 bases, but the eventual goal of SC2 is constantly being able to secure expansions. Personally, I think TvT is where terran macro is best seen, that MU all about building up you're forces with the right composition.
Short answer- watch more TvT's
|
drewbie has a macro oriented game, so yeah you can, but with the obvious easy harass that medivacs provide it would be stupid not to use them... banshees are pretty effective when used at the right time... so yeah you don't need to be super agressive all game long, some harass here and there and proper macro and u shud be fine
|
The problem is never macroing, the prob is get a 200/200 supply, terran will lose to P and probably to Z (except for bizarre combinations like 15 ravens with hsm or 25 cloaked banshees ....
|
On October 12 2010 13:28 noD wrote:
The problem is never macroing, the prob is get a 200/200 supply, terran will lose to P and probably to Z (except for bizarre combinations like 15 ravens with hsm or 25 cloaked banshees ....
Pretty sure 200/200 terran with marines/thors and vikings if the zerg is using broodlords will at least come out even with any zerg 200/200 army. The reason terrans lose their lategames to zerg normally is they spent the first 20 minutes focusing on killing the zerg instead of building SCV's/expanding. If the zerg does manage to survive this period they are generally ahead.
|
The problem with terran lategame isnt inherent in the race, it's a by-product of typical terran playstyle. As players get better at holding off early terran aggression terrans will probably start playing towards late game more, and its only then we should be considering any imbalances. Right now it's laughable to suggest that because aoe counters bio the entire TvP/Z matchup is imbalanced. It's just ludicrous to say such a thing with any kind of objectivity.
Edit: beaten XD
|
personal experience tells me that terran late game army is significantly worse in head on battles than protoss or zerg. I could be wrong, but I would not be surprised if that was the case.
|
Hmm, this is interesting. Its not a long time ago that everyone was like - 200/200 Terran is unbeateable, you cant let them get there.
Of course the most recent patches affected this to some degree. But still I think TvZ its pretty strong to play mech/macro oriented game. I still see a lot of players having success with good old Hellion/Tank/Thor + Viking..
And I just dont get it. It seems like if you cant end the game fast enough and refuse to play mech, its the worst nightmare to play against Muta/Ling/Bling.. I personally hate bio vs Zerg as I just refuse to endlessly pump bio from raxes only to get FGed and teared apart. Speaking for myself.
Against P its way more difficult to mech or play a macro oriented game. The biggest problem here is the air. Voids and Phoenixes early/mid game forces Terran to play extra safe, which often result in turtling. And if you get behind against protoss in base count, its downhill right from there. Still I like to mech against P at least on several maps, because dodging storm forever is not that funny.
Im amazed, how GoOdy actually go mech every game against P and he makes it look so easy. However, he is probably the only one Ive seen meching against P in like month.
Lastly, Blizzard stated, they are going to do something in TvP and I cant imagine something other, than making mech a bit more playable against Protoss, because buffing bio would erase mech from this matchup forever. Maybe something like sieged tanks cant be lifted off by Phoenixes? Makes at least same sense, like Stalkers cant escape from FG.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
