EPT[D]Can Terran be played Macro Style? - Page 3
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Strategy |
|
lim1017
Canada1278 Posts
| ||
|
Slayer91
Ireland23335 Posts
You can play turtle mech with hellion harass as well. Macro and harass can go hand in hand. It's actually pretty stupid not to harass against zerg. Why? Terran: macro advantage: mules for free money (well, technically, its 150 mins for what mines the same as 3 scvs if your minerals are unsaturated, which is usually the case in early macro games, which would gave terran not that much of an advantage at all from mules if not used to get extra minerals off a lower base count. Of course people only see when T misses macro and makes 3 mules and complain about how imba they are. Really terran has much stronger things than mules. Zerg: macro advantage: can produce workers with 100% of money. So you use your extra money to make units so you can delay the zerg's droning. Otherwise you're just wasting units. The only theoretical way to match a zerg on workers is to mass expo//OC but then you're spending 400 minerals +worker cost and he's spending all his money on drones and then building hatches when he money floats for 300+1 worker. Basically zerg can macro harder in a shorter period of time, you need to harass with your units. | ||
|
zbedlam
Australia549 Posts
On October 12 2010 17:07 nailertn wrote: The replay you linked perfectly exemplifies why terran does NOT want to go into a macro game against zerg. Drops and nydus were enough to give Idra's opponent a tough time, never mind he skipped mutas altogether - the worst possible nightmare for a terran stretched that thin. Even if he defended his expos succesfully, he could not possibly have kept up with the ground / air switches nor the unit production rate. I disagree, it shows that terran CAN keep up with zergs economy if they try for it which is what i think the OP was getting at. Idra was spread fairly thin this game as well and the terran player didn't take advantage of that at all with drops. The zerg ground army is generally more mobile than the terran ground army, but i believe this is offset by planetary fortresses/turrets. Terran production off 3+ bases isn't bad at all, i agree it isn't as good as zerg AND zerg can switch techs far quicker, but this is offset by terrans unit efficiency. I don't think this terran lost because he played macro, i think he lost because idra outplayed him and he was extremely passive most of the game, which is something terran cannot afford to be. | ||
|
ChickenLips
2912 Posts
On October 12 2010 14:51 meRz wrote: In TvP it's basically death if you aim to take it to the long game. The warp in-mechanics and the super strong late game units (HT's with +25 energy & Colossus) are ridiculously cost effective once you start dipping into the late game. Tanks are not as good as they were in BW, having 6-10 tanks in your lategame army might actually hurt you more than help you in a 200 vs 200 in TvP. Trading armies is always a huge risk in a lategame TvP for the terran, at least on smaller maps like blistering sands or steppes, whereas protoss can have 10-15 units instantly replenished and CB any other tech unit they need to produce, while T has to macro back up from the start. TvZ lategame is kind of the same, if you trade armies in TvZ lategame you've already put yourself on the backfoot. While Zerg units are not instant, you can get more of them in a short period of time, so a lategame TvZ fight almost exclusively has to end in favor of the Terran in order for them to keep up. This is why Terran is played with a sort of "in your face" style right now, in both TvZ and TvP, the longer the game goes, the less cost effective the terrans are. Mules are a great way to maintain an economic lead/staying on the same level while harassing, but they are not all that great if you've just lost your entire army. Inject larva and CB both play important roles in long drawn out macro games. They allow you replenish a lot faster. There is of course the exception of mech in TvZ, a mech army if composed & upgraded right, can be extremely cost effective. Although that comes at the cost of no mobility at all except for hellion harass. Which is why Mech really only excells on maps where you basically don't have to move around a whole lot to engage your opponent head on, and there's not much room for flanking / countering(Xel Naga, Steppes, Blistering). Mech TvP is just... not good. This guy speaks the truth. I fucking hate how I have to fear every single battle in TvP and TvZ late game because it might just be gg if I make a mistake. | ||
|
nailertn
48 Posts
On October 12 2010 18:16 zbedlam wrote: I disagree, it shows that terran CAN keep up with zergs economy if they try for it which is what i think the OP was getting at. Idra was spread fairly thin this game as well and the terran player didn't take advantage of that at all with drops. The zerg ground army is generally more mobile than the terran ground army, but i believe this is offset by planetary fortresses/turrets. Terran production off 3+ bases isn't bad at all, i agree it isn't as good as zerg AND zerg can switch techs far quicker, but this is offset by terrans unit efficiency. I don't think this terran lost because he played macro, i think he lost because idra outplayed him and he was extremely passive most of the game, which is something terran cannot afford to be. Idra stopped all early harassment attempts cold with infestors and speedlings. Factor in the vision and speed provided by creep + ovies and there is a defense I would not have felt comfortable poking at on this particular map if I were in his shoes. A slow tank push would have been asking to be backstabbed considering the number and layout of the bases. I think these explain the terran's passivity. Maybe you are right and he could have been more agressive but if so, I am lost as to how. Anyway the real question is not whether terrans can keep up with zerg economy or not but if they should. So ask this: Was the terran even with zerg in income? Maybe. Was the terran even in production capacity? Maybe. (Although a switch to air and it goes downhill.) Was he ahead? Definately not. Does he have an advantage in the early game? Definately yes. Gearing for a late-game where he might be even but surely not ahead instead of exploiting an obvious early advantage sounds like a bad plan. Indeed army efficiency should make up for these shortcomings but this is where ultra / infestor comes into the picture. I just don't feel terran has the right answer to them. Though I would love to be proven wrong because I despise treating zerg like an enrage timer just as much as any zerg must hate terran 1 / 2 base pushes but right now this seems to be the logical way to play TvZ. | ||
|
OutlaW-
Czech Republic5053 Posts
| ||
|
bobcat
United States488 Posts
On October 12 2010 12:56 noveyak wrote: 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. I disagree in TvP you get plenty of powerful units by choosing to go into the upper tiers. Ghosts wreck Templar play if you are on the ball, Ravens are one of the greatest casters in the game, and Siege Tanks are still a great unit. Even with the nerf to their damage vs. light, they still hit a pack of zealots for as much as they would a pack of stalkers due to the frame size of zealots. The reason a lot of terran players like to keep the game at 1.5 is because that is where they rule the game. TvP Marauders own first tier protoss pretty hard. | ||
|
TyrantPotato
Australia1541 Posts
not being biased but zerg players overall tend to have better late game sense then terrans. just because they literally play to get to late game. if you watch any top level zvt. the game always goes like this if the zerg wins. survive harass. reach late game. macro-roll terran. win 20 minutes later. there is litterally no way around it. unless the terran makes gamechangeing mistakes. and most loses from zergs are before late game. where as terran plays to end it before late game then rather then to take the lead into late game and continue it. one main reason for this is perhaps the small sized maps just scream "15 MINUTE MATCH PLOX!" so imo its not that terran is weak late game or too strong early game. its just how players currently are playing terran like that. and how blizzard is to bloody stuborn to accept that the Iccup maps will develop sc2 exponentially fast. and help it survive as an e sport | ||
|
KaiserJohan
Sweden1808 Posts
On October 12 2010 14:51 meRz wrote: In TvP it's basically death if you aim to take it to the long game. The warp in-mechanics and the super strong late game units (HT's with +25 energy & Colossus) are ridiculously cost effective once you start dipping into the late game. Tanks are not as good as they were in BW, having 6-10 tanks in your lategame army might actually hurt you more than help you in a 200 vs 200 in TvP. Trading armies is always a huge risk in a lategame TvP for the terran, at least on smaller maps like blistering sands or steppes, whereas protoss can have 10-15 units instantly replenished and CB any other tech unit they need to produce, while T has to macro back up from the start. TvZ lategame is kind of the same, if you trade armies in TvZ lategame you've already put yourself on the backfoot. While Zerg units are not instant, you can get more of them in a short period of time, so a lategame TvZ fight almost exclusively has to end in favor of the Terran in order for them to keep up. This is why Terran is played with a sort of "in your face" style right now, in both TvZ and TvP, the longer the game goes, the less cost effective the terrans are. Mules are a great way to maintain an economic lead/staying on the same level while harassing, but they are not all that great if you've just lost your entire army. Inject larva and CB both play important roles in long drawn out macro games. They allow you replenish a lot faster. There is of course the exception of mech in TvZ, a mech army if composed & upgraded right, can be extremely cost effective. Although that comes at the cost of no mobility at all except for hellion harass. Which is why Mech really only excells on maps where you basically don't have to move around a whole lot to engage your opponent head on, and there's not much room for flanking / countering(Xel Naga, Steppes, Blistering). Mech TvP is just... not good. This post pretty much nails it. Implement Terratron, like the toss mothership! ;D | ||
|
PanzerKing
United States483 Posts
On October 12 2010 21:47 bobcat wrote: I disagree in TvP you get plenty of powerful units by choosing to go into the upper tiers. Ghosts wreck Templar play if you are on the ball, Ravens are one of the greatest casters in the game, and Siege Tanks are still a great unit. Even with the nerf to their damage vs. light, they still hit a pack of zealots for as much as they would a pack of stalkers due to the frame size of zealots. The reason a lot of terran players like to keep the game at 1.5 is because that is where they rule the game. TvP Marauders own first tier protoss pretty hard. Huh? Ghosts are a possible counter to HTs, if you land good EMPs, but they're not going to cut it once P is on 3 bases and can insta-warp 75 energy HTs. Ravens are a joke against P - one is ok early game for a PDD, but lategame feedback is just LOL and PDD doesn't do anything against a colossus/zealot army. Siege tanks are not great against P, they're not even good - any good T player will agree on this point. Gretorp even went so far as to call them "worthless" in TvP, if I remember correctly. They don't cut it against speedlots, blink stalkers or, surprisingly, Archons - I had to dramatically outmacro to squeeze out a win earlier using hellions+tanks+ghosts against Archon/Zealot, like 5 bases to 3 outmacro, and it was still a stupidly close game. Also, they soak up your gas and can't hit P's strong air units. T keeps the game at 1.5 because it's where they're strongest, yes. But it's not like they really have any other choice in a serious TvP. | ||
|
noD
2230 Posts
On October 12 2010 22:12 PanzerKing wrote: Huh? Ghosts are a possible counter to HTs, if you land good EMPs, but they're not going to cut it once P is on 3 bases and can insta-warp 75 energy HTs. Ravens are a joke against P - one is ok early game for a PDD, but lategame feedback is just LOL and PDD doesn't do anything against a colossus/zealot army. Siege tanks are not great against P, they're not even good - any good T player will agree on this point. Gretorp even went so far as to call them "worthless" in TvP, if I remember correctly. They don't cut it against speedlots, blink stalkers or, surprisingly, Archons - I had to dramatically outmacro to squeeze out a win earlier using hellions+tanks+ghosts against Archon/Zealot, like 5 bases to 3 outmacro, and it was still a stupidly close game. Also, they soak up your gas and can't hit P's strong air units. T keeps the game at 1.5 because it's where they're strongest, yes. But it's not like they really have any other choice in a serious TvP. He called them useless, at wednesday's day 9... With all words... Tho 35 isnt a bad damage, the 3 seconds per shot is, it's not like the protoss will stay still for 30 seconds while he is being siege shoted =X | ||
|
Samhax
1054 Posts
Maybe TLO can show us how to use them in a standard way  | ||
|
noD
2230 Posts
On October 12 2010 22:17 Samhax wrote: I think Raven and Ghost are really underused in terran gameplay; You can't pretend to go toe to toe with other races late game when you don't fully exploit the casters of your race. Maybe TLO can show us how to use them in a standard way Tlo has the best harasses/early pushes I ever saw, except for the game against white ra that made him famous that he nuked him like 11 times .... | ||
|
Samhax
1054 Posts
| ||
|
Zarahtra
Iceland4053 Posts
On October 12 2010 16:42 crms wrote: Not at this stage of the game in its current form. A terran that sits back and tries to macro leaving a Z unharrassed will get run over. You can see it clear as day in GSL finals. What makes T so hard as Z is to get into the midgame healthy enough to win in the late game after Terrans early abuse. This makes it a balance nightmare though... If zerg(and to lesser extend toss) are stronger lategame than terran, terran has to have a good ability to hurt the zerg before that time(which terran has atm). The problem I feel is that if they touch this ability(medivacs and hellions, reapers and marauder nexus sniping) then terran will be in trouble, since on even footing, they are behind in straight up macro game. If terran was to play BW TvP style, then tanks would need to be a lot stronger. I personally don't feel this would be OP if the base map would be like 2-4times bigger, since it'd be A LOT harder to use them. Hence I'd personally want the base map size to be made bigger and then they should've balanced the game, but I suppose they want SC2 to be more of a 'inyourface'' game than BW's huge huge maps. | ||
|
Jermstuddog
United States2231 Posts
Terran macro mechanics are disgusting,. The MULE helps you pump up minerals crazy fast through the first half of the game, then you can dedicate energy for scans completely as you get to the point where minerals aren't an issue. Reactors make marines, hellions, and vikings come out with such speed, there really is no reason not to be including at least 2 of these units in any army comp. PFs and super-turrets make base harassment a non-issue. The Terran army is more cost efficient anyway. These 4 things add up to a stupid late game, and we all know how effective Terran early game is. The fact of the matter is that Terran doesn't need to play macro style. Other people have said it, and I will repeat the same: "why give your opponent a chance to get his good units out when you have the brawn to win 90% of your games in 15 minutes or less?" | ||
|
bobcat
United States488 Posts
On October 12 2010 14:51 meRz wrote: In TvP it's basically death if you aim to take it to the long game. The warp in-mechanics and the super strong late game units (HT's with +25 energy & Colossus) are ridiculously cost effective once you start dipping into the late game. Tanks are not as good as they were in BW, having 6-10 tanks in your lategame army might actually hurt you more than help you in a 200 vs 200 in TvP. Trading armies is always a huge risk in a lategame TvP for the terran, at least on smaller maps like blistering sands or steppes, whereas protoss can have 10-15 units instantly replenished and CB any other tech unit they need to produce, while T has to macro back up from the start. TvZ lategame is kind of the same, if you trade armies in TvZ lategame you've already put yourself on the backfoot. While Zerg units are not instant, you can get more of them in a short period of time, so a lategame TvZ fight almost exclusively has to end in favor of the Terran in order for them to keep up. This is why Terran is played with a sort of "in your face" style right now, in both TvZ and TvP, the longer the game goes, the less cost effective the terrans are. Mules are a great way to maintain an economic lead/staying on the same level while harassing, but they are not all that great if you've just lost your entire army. Inject larva and CB both play important roles in long drawn out macro games. They allow you replenish a lot faster. There is of course the exception of mech in TvZ, a mech army if composed & upgraded right, can be extremely cost effective. Although that comes at the cost of no mobility at all except for hellion harass. Which is why Mech really only excells on maps where you basically don't have to move around a whole lot to engage your opponent head on, and there's not much room for flanking / countering(Xel Naga, Steppes, Blistering). Mech TvP is just... not good. Disagreement on a few points there. 1. We can chronoboost our tech units out faster than you can rebuild after a big conflict. However, keeping in mind that chronoboost saves 10 seconds off of a units build time. Colossus: 300m200g 75sec Thor: 300m200g 60 sec Immortal: 250m100g 55 sec Siege Tank: 150m125g 45 sec Medivac: 100m100g 42 sec Warp Prism: 200m 00g 50 sec Viking: 150m 75g 42 sec Phoenix 150m100g 45 sec Banshee: 150m100g 60sec Void Ray: 250m150g 60sec BC: 400m300g 90 sec Carrier: 350m250g 120 sec With the exception of phoenixes which build equivalently with vikings, and void rays which cannot compose an army, every single other non gateway unit we have takes longer to build Every single unit in our arsenal that is meant for combat takes considerably longer to build than yours. A colossus needs 1.5 chronoboosts to come out in the same time as a thor. A warp prism needs one to beat a medivac out by 2 seconds. An immortal needs one to come out on par with a siege tank. And a carrier needs 3 to come out at the same time as a BC. Blizzard has accounted for chrono boost in the late game by making all of our units build incredibly slow without it. 2. Gateway units and cooldowns. Marine: 50m 25sec Marauder: 100m25g 30 sec Ghost: 150m150g 40 sec (parenthesis are WG cooldowns as opposed to regular build time) Zealot 100m 38sec(28) Sentry 50m100g 42sec(32) Stalker 125m50g 42sec (32) High Temp 50m150g 55sec(45) Dark Temp 125m125g 55sec(45) Since we're talking about late game here it's fair for me to assum that marines will be constructed out of a barracks with a reactor on it. Now lets assume that the protoss player has 8 warpgates. Lets assume that the terran player kept up with him and build 8 barracks (which they almost never do even though they have the "slowest" build times) Toss warps in 2 templar, 2 stalkers, and 4 zealots. Two 45sec cd's. Two 32 secs Four 28 secs. 2 of the Raxes have reactors, 4 have tech labs and the other two are naked. The two reactor raxes and the two naked raxes can make 6 marines in 25 secs, before the gateways for zeals have cooled down. The other 4 raxes will pump out two marauders and two ghosts before the stalker and HT gates cooldown leaving the raxes with 3 seconds, 2 seconds, and 5 seconds to spare respectively. Army values for the toss gate units are 750m400g. For the terran units 800m350g. Thats seems pretty even to me. I understand and sympathize that you would have trouble if I warped those units in at your doorstep, but if I have a proxy pylon that close to your base, it's on you. It has been my experience, that most often, terran cannot rebuild as quickly not because they lack warp gates, but because they do not bother to build enough production structures to match the toss player. I know scv's have to build the raxes, but you have mules. 3. Colossi and HT's are cost efficient late game. HT's after you get psi storm and khaydarin amulet yes the protoss finally gets a unit that is cost efficient, all we had to do was create a 3 minute window where we are incredibly vulnerable, followed by another 1 minute before we have more than 1 templar with storm. Considering how mega powerful your tier 1.5 is against ours, we can't go into templar early in the game and expect to survive any kind of timing push without first going robo for immortals. So yes, in the late game templar are well worth the cost of their production. Colossi however.... only against MMM and by that I mean really only against marines and so so against marauders. For 300m200g and 75 seconds of build time (without chrono) These guys do a lot of damage to clustered ground units. 30damage on up to three targets when clustered every 1.65 seconds from 9 range. Two siege tanks in siege mode fire at a little less than half that speed(3). They do 50 damage to their target if armored. 100% .4687 50% .7812 25% 1.25 A ball of zealots is going to get hit for about 105 if they are hit from the front (35+35+1/2(35+35)) If they are hit in the middle (35+35+35+ 1/2(35+35) +1/4 35+35+35) 165. Less stalkers will get hit for more damage. From the front: (50+50 + 1/2(50)) 125. In the middle (50+50 + 1/2(50+50) + 1/4(50+50) 175. This is a rough estimate of damage done based on the number of tightly balled units a siege tank could hit in the unit test map. Best case scenario a colossus hits 3 targets twice doing 180 damage slower than the siege tank by .3 seconds. 3 stimmed marauders are doing 180 damage back to the colossus at the same speed. I know it takes time to siege (4 seconds game time), but it is still easily worth it if you keep the tanks in the back and leap frog. I realize that this dabbles in theorycraft (much like the idea of a colossus always having 3 targets to burn) but regardless that is a lot of damage for a unit that costs half as much as a colossus to do. When arguing efficiency, siege tanks cannot be beat. They are one of the only units in the game that are so efficient that it is literally suicide to rush an army with sieged tanks unless you severely outnumber them. In closing, I am not arguing that early pressure is a bad strategy for terran. In fact it is a great strategy that uses your greatest advantages to prevent the other player from probing/droning excessively and outmacroing you. However, protoss cannot re-army faster than you if you have a similar number of structures. The high templar is our only very efficient late game unit. Colossi only if you create a marine heavy ball. And using units other than bio ball is a good thing. | ||
|
Payout
45 Posts
| ||
|
Yaotzin
South Africa4280 Posts
On October 12 2010 22:44 Jermstuddog wrote: Terran macro mechanics are disgusting,. In lategame mule is pretty meh. More minerals? What you gonna do, make more marines for my colossi/templar/infestors/ultras to eat? Yeah whatever. The MULE helps you pump up minerals crazy fast through the first half of the game, then you can dedicate energy for scans completely as you get to the point where minerals aren't an issue. Scans don't really help you do anything though.. PFs and super-turrets make base harassment a non-issue. They can't stop storm/blings, but really it's beside the point. Even if the P or Z doesn't harass your workers at all, they're still ahead lategame. The Terran army is more cost efficient anyway. Not lategame it isn't. Ultras, infestors, templar, colossi, carriers, speed rays etc etc are incredibly difficult for T to stop in a cost efficient manner. And even if you do we can replenish our army or just hard tech switch far faster than T. The fact of the matter is that Terran doesn't need to play macro style. Other people have said it, and I will repeat the same: "why give your opponent a chance to get his good units out when you have the brawn to win 90% of your games in 15 minutes or less?" Nah, they have to win or do real damage early. As the game goes on P and Z unlock their very powerful, very cost efficient units. You unlock, uh, BCs? Many bases for T just means...more of the same stuff. Many bases for Z and P means new, better units can be produced. | ||
|
Grebliv
Iceland800 Posts
The reason it kind of worked now in sc2 is that it was just that cost effective, you could afford to spread your stuff a bit but now after people have figured out the appropriate counters and well the tank got nerfed quite a bit. It's a really shaky style. bw recall in the back +mines = blue goo sc2 blinkstalkers in the back = gg Bio while great early/mid game does not really hold a candle to an untouched Z or P later on. There might be a reason T was the "horrible race (yes like 1 in 10 zotac finalists was a T on a good day)" until they beefed tanks up with the splash fix and made stim/conc/shields/speed take way less $$, they then now put tanks back in their place pretty much and the only difference to bio from those times is the time it takes to get those upgrades, hence all those pesky 1base pushes and harassment. Terran can be played "macro" style but it has to have some pressure/harassment/specific timing it really seems. | ||
| ||
