EPTThanks,
InfO
TvZ matches in the GSL - Page 5
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Strategy |
|
InfO
United States58 Posts
Thanks, InfO | ||
|
Firereaver
India1701 Posts
On October 28 2010 03:17 Bluest wrote: Stopping what Fauxer did is super easy for zerg. Fruit didn't scout and put himself in an awful position. Fauxer watched Fruit's replays a bizillion times and played him perfectly. Honestly that game had almost nothing to do with the TvZ matchup it was all about Fruit as an individual player. Fauxer found his playstyles faults and exploited them however Fruit's playstyle holes are not zergs play style holes. That attack would never even touch Idra for example or even many good but far lesser overall zergs than Fruit. To conclude, the Fauxer v Fruit game demonstrates very little useful information concerning balance. Any player who plays the same most every game for the first 10 minutes who was super blind hard countered would die in such a way if he doesn't scout or adapt at all. Yeah. If only fruitdealer had read your post... Hindsight is always 20/20. Please don't talk lightly of Fruitdealer! (Good grief, I didn't know this is wat the SC2 Strat forum had on offer..) In case you didn't know, Grack and Fruit have very similar macro styles. That strat alone is going to give Grack nightmares, just w8 and see. P.S: Did you even see game2 ? | ||
|
EmilA
Denmark4618 Posts
| ||
|
Bluest
133 Posts
On October 28 2010 03:25 Alphasquad wrote: and other zerg watch replays of other terrans to discover playstyles and weaknesses its just that terrans dont seem to adapt anymore and most arent aware of the key in this matchup which is taking out the banelings which are the only option to take down bio I'm sure if Fruit had studied Fauxer a lot and Fauxer had shown that build consistently then Fruit would have been prepared. Either Fauxer was saving that/hiding it somehow or Fruit simply thought he would roll and did not put in a lot of study time specifically on Fauxer as opposed to just practicing vs Terran in general. Here's the problem, even if what Fauxer did works the majority of the time to stop a FE then what does that say? The only way a Terran can win is for a timing push off 1 base vs zerg? How effing boring is that. Would be a terrible way to balance the game. You take out half the fun stuff in the game if Terran has to win before 10 minutes every bloody time. Secondly, I contend that even with what Fauxer did, Fruit would crush that strat even today and certainly in the future 9 times out of 10. Fruit played as poorly as Idra did when he lost in GSL1 by not scouting. EVEN WITH HIS FE only the closeness of their positions in game 1 and Fruitdealers complete lack of scouting made Fauxer's strat viable. FruitDealer could have FE'd in most other positions on most maps and still been fine in game 1 even with no scouting. In game 2 Fruit played incredibly poorly by not scouting then trying to get 6 upgrades at the same time or whatever it was. He could have stomped what Fauxer did easily if he wasn't so greedy. Fauxer vs Fruit game is a little blip in the metagame not a reflection of actual balance. Fruit was simply not prepared for whatever reason on a strategic level for Fauxer's strat and because it relies purely on suprise it is not viable consistently. If Fauxer tries that build vs the next zerg he plays if he gets one he'll get rolled like a little girl. The point being, a zerg can easily prepare for what Fauxer threw at Fruit by being not quite so greedy and still being way way ahead of his terran opponent. Therefore, the strat does not reflect balance but merely a big flaw in Fruit's game that is probably already closed for the future. Also, Fruit is an amazing lategame player however people treat him like he's invincible. He should have lost in the ro16 last GSL to Top if Top hadn't made an all time level blunder. Just because Fruit lost doesn't mean something especially more than another zerg losing. I would contend that Idra's playstyle is more stable and if his ZvZ is as good as his TvZ he'll run away with this tourny and we'll have back to back Zerg winners. More than that, Fruit winning last tourny when people though Zerg is underpowered is far more reflective on how wrong people were about balance 2 weeks ago then todays argument. Part of Fruitdealers reputation is built on winning when no other zerg could. That however was never the case. Zerg had a flawed playstyle and now their metagame has shifted dramatically and they were fine even before the new patch. No Terran was mass reapering in GSL1 anyway. | ||
|
Firereaver
India1701 Posts
On October 28 2010 03:15 ChickenLips wrote: You've obviously never played Zerg. From being a 1.7k Terran before switching to Zerg I can tell that you for one Z is SO MUCH HARDER OMFG. I can understand the whole breadth of Zerg QQ. The toughness of Z has just made Zergs much better than Terrans since it forced them to exhaust all the resources of their race instead of being able to rely on one strat to get that nice 55% win rate that puts you in top diamond. -lol yeah Terran only has those 3 builds. Very funny. No scouting before lair remains true since good Terrans have a huge amount of BOs that require different counters and it takes much greater skill to fend some stuff off than to stupidly do the BO while denying scouting. -is a bad decision. marine with stim is so fucking cost-effective. ONE stimmed marine is more than SIX TIMES as cost efficient as a mutalisk INCLUDING its bounce damage. Even the Blizz panel said that marine stim is the most fucking broken skill in the game. The only way to fight off marines is with splash and if you don't have it in the necessary quantities it's gg, while the Terran can still micro his way around splash. I think they should nerf the marine + stim while buffing it against splash damage so it just becomes a much more stable unit (I can remember the days of frustration vs. Colossus) -medivacs are one of the least risky investments of the game. They give you map control (drop your enemy once and he's paranoid for the next 5 minutes), they heal your stuff, they allow for cliff play, they allow you taking island expansions. There's almost no instance where getting medivacs Cost efficient!??!! O.M.G. Different unit types cannot be compared. I can understand if you compare marines and marauder or stalker or sumting like that... But why the heck have you bought up cost-efficiency here!??! Mutas are extremely versatile flying units with glaive damage and potential for harass and straight-up fights... I'm not saying Zerg is easy to play, but if you practice its ceiling is effectively higher than terran. Which is the reason Grack chose to play zerg... But please acknowledge that Fauxers timing was so impeccable(and so was his picking off the overlord both times) . A timing push is a thing of great beauty when it works and is as difficult if not more to do as play Macro-Zerg. Please do not give such vehement opinions regarding balance when both you and I are noone to talk about such things. Leave it to the pros. This is why the BW strat forum is actually a useful and non-QQ place! | ||
|
Bluest
133 Posts
On October 28 2010 04:12 Firereaver wrote: Yeah. If only fruitdealer had read your post... Hindsight is always 20/20. Please don't talk lightly of Fruitdealer! (Good grief, I didn't know this is wat the SC2 Strat forum had on offer..) In case you didn't know, Grack and Fruit have very similar macro styles. That strat alone is going to give rack nightmares, just w8 and see. P.S: Did you even see game2 ? And no, I disagree completely. Idra will roll over Fauxer is he tries that vs him. Fruit himself would roll over Fauxer if they played again I suspect. I'm not saying Fruit is a bad player. I'm saying he lost because he ran up against something he wasn't prepared for. If a player of his calibre is aware of that strat and practices vs it they will not lose to it. I suspect we'll never see Fruit be that greedy again vs T and that he'll scout more. | ||
|
cmgillett
United States335 Posts
On October 28 2010 04:21 Bluest wrote: I'm sure if Fruit had studied Fauxer a lot and Fauxer had shown that build consistently then Fruit would have been prepared. Either Fauxer was saving that/hiding it somehow or Fruit simply thought he would roll and did not put in a lot of study time specifically on Fauxer as opposed to just practicing vs Terran in general. Here's the problem, even if what Fauxer did works the majority of the time to stop a FE then what does that say? The only way a Terran can win is for a timing push off 1 base vs zerg? How effing boring is that. Would be a terrible way to balance the game. You take out half the fun stuff in the game if Terran has to win before 10 minutes every bloody time. Secondly, I contend that even with what Fauxer did, Fruit would crush that strat even today and certainly in the future 9 times out of 10. Fruit played as poorly as Idra did when he lost in GSL1 by not scouting. EVEN WITH HIS FE only the closeness of their positions in game 1 and Fruitdealers complete lack of scouting made Fauxer's strat viable. FruitDealer could have FE'd in most other positions on most maps and still been fine in game 1 even with no scouting. In game 2 Fruit played incredibly poorly by not scouting then trying to get 6 upgrades at the same time or whatever it was. He could have stomped what Fauxer did easily if he wasn't so greedy. Fauxer vs Fruit game is a little blip in the metagame not a reflection of actual balance. Fruit was simply not prepared for whatever reason on a strategic level for Fauxer's strat and because it relies purely on suprise it is not viable consistently. If Fauxer tries that build vs the next zerg he plays if he gets one he'll get rolled like a little girl. The point being, a zerg can easily prepare for what Fauxer threw at Fruit by being not quite so greedy and still being way way ahead of his terran opponent. Therefore, the strat does not reflect balance but merely a big flaw in Fruit's game that is probably already closed for the future. Also, Fruit is an amazing lategame player however people treat him like he's invincible. He should have lost in the ro16 last GSL to Top if Top hadn't made an all time level blunder. Just because Fruit lost doesn't mean something especially more than another zerg losing. I would contend that Idra's playstyle is more stable and if his ZvZ is as good as his TvZ he'll run away with this tourny and we'll have back to back Zerg winners. More than that, Fruit winning last tourny when people though Zerg is underpowered is far more reflective on how wrong people were about balance 2 weeks ago then todays argument. Part of Fruitdealers reputation is built on winning when no other zerg could. That however was never the case. Zerg had a flawed playstyle and now their metagame has shifted dramatically and they were fine even before the new patch. No Terran was mass reapering in GSL1 anyway. Very well said | ||
|
Roflhaxx
Korea (South)1244 Posts
On October 28 2010 02:27 2FresH wrote: you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. you've gone through all the interviews eh? let me take a fragment out of boxer/fruitdealer's interview: "How do you view the recent patches? Boxer: I'm very weird, in every patch it's the units I love to use that are nerfed. Before, I liked to use tanks, and now they are nerfed. I also liked 3rax, but that strategy was nerfed. More unsettling is that not only was Terran nerfed, Zerg was buffed. I spent two hours writing a letter to David Kim (dayvie). Every time, the new patches are hard to adjust to, so I hope in the future the changes aren't cataclysmic. Fruitdealer: In terms of Zerg, aside from defense, right now playing is more comfortable due to less early problems. But it seems that the special aspects of SC2 have been decreasing. Even though I'm doing well, other players might consider it bad." Matbe its me that just missed something but where in that interview does any of them say that the matchup is imbalanced? they do say that its less early problems = more balanced??? | ||
|
sYstim
Canada161 Posts
On October 28 2010 03:15 ChickenLips wrote: You've obviously never played Zerg. From being a 1.7k Terran before switching to Zerg I can tell that you for one Z is SO MUCH HARDER OMFG. I can understand the whole breadth of Zerg QQ. The toughness of Z has just made Zergs much better than Terrans since it forced them to exhaust all the resources of their race instead of being able to rely on one strat to get that nice 55% win rate that puts you in top diamond. -lol yeah Terran only has those 3 builds. Very funny. No scouting before lair remains true since good Terrans have a huge amount of BOs that require different counters and it takes much greater skill to fend some stuff off than to stupidly do the BO while denying scouting. -marine with stim is so fucking cost-effective. ONE stimmed marine is more than SIX TIMES as cost efficient as a mutalisk INCLUDING its bounce damage. Even the Blizz panel said that marine stim is the most fucking broken skill in the game. The only way to fight off marines is with splash and if you don't have it in the necessary quantities it's gg, while the Terran can still micro his way around splash. I think they should nerf the marine + stim while buffing it against splash damage so it just becomes a much more stable unit (I can remember the days of frustration vs. Colossus) -medivacs are one of the least risky investments of the game. They give you map control (drop your enemy once and he's paranoid for the next 5 minutes), they heal your stuff, they allow for cliff play, they allow you taking island expansions. There's almost no instance where getting medivacs is a bad decision. i never once stated T is easier or underpowered compared to zerg. please find where i said that. all i stated was what this other dude said that "stimmed marines are op; medvacs op" etc and argued against him. i agree that zerg is harder to play than terran. | ||
|
blade55555
United States17423 Posts
On October 28 2010 04:12 Firereaver wrote: Yeah. If only fruitdealer had read your post... Hindsight is always 20/20. Please don't talk lightly of Fruitdealer! (Good grief, I didn't know this is wat the SC2 Strat forum had on offer..) In case you didn't know, Grack and Fruit have very similar macro styles. That strat alone is going to give Grack nightmares, just w8 and see. P.S: Did you even see game2 ? But he's right. If fruitdealer had positioned his overlords for drops in game 2 he wouldn't have had as much damage given to him if any at all. In game 1 if he had scouted and saw that proxy 2nd rax he wouldn't have had that damage dealt to him like he did. Do realize he made 1-2 drones and 1 pair of zerglings so if he had scouted that, that would have been 6 lings against 3 marines when fake boxer pushed with them. Fruit I think was over confident as he must have watched fake boxer's RO64's terrible performance and thought it was an easy win for him is what it seems to me because normally he should have overlords at those positions for drops in G2 and what not. | ||
|
sYstim
Canada161 Posts
On October 28 2010 04:09 InfO wrote: TooFresh, I'm wondering what you do in a Best of X series against Zerg? This build seems to be fine, but it seems to be sorta all in-ish as well. If the hellions dont do huge economic damage, you're behind because you just spent you 'army' doing nothing. Say, in there were roaches in position an the Zerg actaully had ovies positioned to scout the drop? What do you do against a zerg who has already played against this strategy, and knows it is coming? It seems to be a good ladder strategy, but a bad one to use more than once in a Best of X series. Thanks, InfO actually you're right. or at least I agreed with you at one point. in tournaments (I recently played in the vancouver lan charity and finished in the ro8) I played FireZerg and used this strat vs him. I won, then assuming using it again wouldn't work, I lost the next 2 in a BO3. People watching me play said I should stick to this strat as it seems solid and I am good with it; so I did and never lost another zerg match after that (went to losers bracket). one thing you're wrong about is the 3 hellion. this build is in NO way all-in at any point realistically. The only factor that seems all in is the insane investment into ravens --> you lose them and you're in bad shape. In fact, this build is the least "all-in" build I've seen terran come up with with mech being closely nearby. marine/tank is so risky with no room for marginal error that it seems more "all-in" to me than this build. with investment into tech, (+1 range/+2 armor for ex.), you can expo much much easier with less worry about zerg versatility raping your ability to extend your economy (dont believe me, watch almost any blizzcon/gsl/iem tvz and observer how hard it can be for a terran to expo a 2nd time -- boxer vs fruitdealer is a good ex. of this). Losing the 3 hellions (which you shouldnt be losing if you have a medvac nearby with decent micro) isnt even a big deal. if he spots it, no worries. I've actually played a few players more than once at high diamond and they msged me for tips afterwards how to beat the strat (as they lost to it more than once and remember I do this strat lol). The hellions are more or less a mineral sink+scout that reveals to me what starport build I should be proceding to... roaches (a significant amount at least) will prompt a ~4+ banshee rush. I got some replays where the zerg did spot my drops and even had 2-3 spine crawlers in his mineral line that owned my hellions and I still went on to win; but those games aren't as high level nor as ideal when it comes to my play, the opponents play and my execution of the strat. i only uploaded these 2 replays to show its viability. | ||
|
Alphasquad
Austria505 Posts
On October 28 2010 03:53 positron. wrote: Those changes don't matter a lot? I can't even tell if you are serious or trolling. Looking at the change itself it is not a lot. But put it in game context where +1 range roach can fend off hellions easier and help Z take that 2nd base safely is a very HUGE change. roaches killed hellions with 3 range and now with 4 range - the hellion harass seems to be outdated simply because everyone would go for roaches more range or not (ofc roaches are now better against everything on the ground but that doesnt mean they were bad before), this way im saying the reason why zerg players beat terrans is because the terrans just used their strats over and over and zergs adapted to and now the terrans have do adapt but they didnt do yet even though terrans have the most variability | ||
|
xSuperflyTnT
United States55 Posts
I'm sure you all remember small units taking half damage from explosive attacks and large units taking full damage. Well it is essentially like this now with most large units considered armored however units like zealots whitch are medium and light armored are taking far to little damage. Protoss already has immortals to deal with sieged implacements Makign zealots tank proof seems a bit overkill forcing terran into MMM play with VERY few if any tanks whitch also means you dont have the vikings / ghost you need later. God forbid you allow a toss to get collossi + templar its basically GG ok Protoss aside the issues I am seeing in the TvZ matchup from a purely objective opinion is that zerg macro is the issue. I have a replay in whitch I make a critical mistake and do not emply ghosts late to at least try and counter his infestors (only thing I havent really tried to beat infestors) The glaring issue I saw this game was the zerg had about HALF the workers I had, (45 to my 70-80) and was able to keep up with me in supply count and army size all game now the insult to injury was that he had about 1000-1200 minerals and an equal amount of gas in the bank all game while I kept my minerals under 500 with a bit of excess gas because I went with a very big marauder hellion ball with a few marines to deal with his mass roach ling I failed to see... an ultralisk cavern as I was focusing much of my scouting and harrassment on preventing his 3rd expansion whitch I kept him from getting until well after I had mine ( blistering sands gold expo) while still spending all of my insane Income and basically out macroing this zerg in terms of skill I was still crushed by a handful of ultralisks a massive ball of roaches and some infestors.. all game his income is 400-500 less than mine in the income tab. Now I do not claim to be pro and My rating is only 1470 or so as I play mostly custom melee 1v1s with 2000+ friends and rarely ladder When I do ladder I win probably 60% of my games .. the 40%? Well thats the zerg games >.< TvP is challenging and feels balanced as when our armies meet we both suffer roughly equivalent losses and both have about the same issues with replinishing and micro etc as long as our base count is fairly equal and we are both harrassing correctly etc TvZ however is entirely different in that even with perfect micro ( i dont claim to have it all the time but occasionally I do) The zerg ALWAYS comes out ahead in that terran requires time to really create an army that consists of Many many unit types in order to attempt to counter a 3-4 unit type army that instantly replenishes because the zerg can essentially expand at will. I dont feel as if the units are particularly imbalanced in stats or useage what I feel is that zerg econamy is way to strong and that roaches for instance are way to cheap. After much analysis the way the 45 drone zerg kept up with me was the roaches. Those roaches at 2 food with 145 life 4 range 16 damage and insane burrow abilities for such a low cost is rather silly. roughly equivalent to burrowing regenerating marauders with no stim only their damage is superior in that they do a full 16 to any target whereas marauders do 10-20 based on armor value ( I believe) I know the common argument is range difference between marauders and roaches but lets be honest on creep does it matter? roaches have rockets in their asses and with proper ling micro the marauders end up running like scared children unless they have some hellions But I digress. I feel as if the matchup would be ALOT more balanced if the economical advantages of zerg were less extreme, Pre patch the ability to harrass and try to keep the zerg econamy at reasonable levels was how you won. Now it is next to impossible to do so meaning that zerg gets a massive advantage compound this with the fact that zerg really doesnt even NEED that econamy to beat you and ends up with insane amounts of cash sitting idle while your struggling to squeeze everything you can out of your 2-3 bases and you have instant replenishment for zerg I cannot really think of any way to balance it as of now but I feel that larvae injection has a great deal to do with it as zerg essentially just spreads hatcheries at expansions and larvae injects In 15 replays I have watched to test this theory I see that terranon average around the 8 minute mark has spent roughly 1500 or so minerals on unit structures and anywhere from 400 to 700 gas on them as well ( including essential upgrades) where zerg has spent roughly 750... including queens in minerals 850 for ling speed upgrade and a varied amount of gas 100 for ling speed or 100 + 50 baneling nest cost) Ok so all that extra money goes into drones with larvae inject Until the zerg gets wind of terran moving then he can dump into whatever counter he likes ( the ability to instantly counter compounded with economical advantage) I feel zerg not having to make extra hatcheries for production really offsets the balance early to mid game. to much droning that we can do essentially nothing about without some very lucky harrass You all may disagree but I feel that queens should maybe require lair tech or somethign giving them the SWARM feel later but making early production require hatcheries and more balance between econamy and drones making a 3rd hatch is not to much different than 2 queens and makes the zerg have to squeeze those units out and do it correctly rather than drone drone drone and instantly produce a sizeable army when he sees movement. Now I understand the arguments against this thoroughly but as we can no longer do any kind of real early aggression any longer and lets face it protoss is just hosed , I think it would put the races on equal footing coming into mid to late game making the battles for our expansions and such a bit more balanced. then the cheapness of roaches and such would be alot less prevalent. Hydras should be a little cheaper as their usefulness off creep is limited at best and they die to basically everything. ( gotta throw zerga bone to cut down on the tears) :D I'm sure I'm going to hear a million posts as to why this is wrogn and im an idiot etc... but I honestly feel the zerg is having to spend entirely to little on infrastructure and able to dump that cash into units and drones giving them the ability to take 5 bases to terrans 2 and virtually impossible to take 3rd force them to make units and grow economically like toss and terran and you have it fixed. Otherwise buff Terran back to be able to handle mass units effectively again ! Terrans strength in bw was the ability to do alot with a little .. now it seems they cant do much with alot. They ramped up slow and had to fight with small armies and keep the fights small but that was their strength now it feels like every matchup is macro macro macro macro oh shit... banelings FML ... regardless thats enough from me, I felt it was well balanced pre patch but now they went to far. They shouldve buffed zerg OR nerfed terran. NOT both .. and see how it played out.. NOT both | ||
|
deeshoo
United States319 Posts
Also, you seem to get marine upgrades, especially stim, pretty late, despite having enough money to do so at any point. Is there a reason for this? | ||
|
TERRANLOL
United States626 Posts
On October 27 2010 21:13 Alphasquad wrote: T dominated Z for a long time, now T got nerfs for reapers and Z got +1 range for roaches - did those changes really matter a lot?i seriously think no Bio was already outdated a long time ago because of creep+banelings but now i see it more and more on pro level - doesnt make sense to me; i remember T mech play ot be the hardest challenge to Z since...ever; also in game T players go for marines and tanks for the entire game no matter how many times it gets killed; i really dont understand the point of going for FE and then make such an army too - i always thought you go marine/tank with one base for an early push before the Z has muta or you expand to support mech and use superior tech Yeah they did. Before, T needed to harass the Z to win. And it wasn't all that difficult to do so. You could make hellions and try to harass, and they weren't completely useless against roaches because you could kite. You could make reapers and it would be viable almost all of the time... They could work against roaches at least in that you could stay alive. Additionally, Z was forced to be more cautious in going expo before spawning pool. Now that the roach range has increased, if you make hellions and your harassment doesn't work, you've wasted ~500-700 minerals on hellions. They're useless if your opponent focuses on roaches (And most zergs do now). Same thing for reapers. Banshee harass is just plain easy to fend off. Now that there are no options for early harass, and Z gets up FE super early, the Z economy mid game becomes super strong. Aside from that problem by itself, the roach range increase along with the economy buff assures that a large enough number of roaches needs to be countered by tank/marauder rather than thor marine. Unfortunately, this makes any sort of mutalisk harassment particularly viable. This is the situation right now for Terrans. Maybe some sort of viable strategy will come out in the future, but this is how things are now. Personally, I've been doing an early expand (although not 15CC... I just have a really strong feeling that that will fail to any zerg who knows how to react to it, which makes it cheesy IMO), along with a double hellion harass and banshee harass simultaneously. This has me at about a ~40% W/L ratio vs zerg... If the hellion harass works I just win, but there are certain things a zerg can do that are easy that just nullify this... the zergs who lose are the ones who don't know how to get 4 roaches and block ramp.. The banshee harass helps because I can occasionally snipe queens or get a couple drones, and after doing so I'm still fighting an uphill battle. If neither works... the zerg can just make stupid mistakes like lose a muta ball to a couple thor shots or attack my thors with banelings and still just push through for victory and it feels retarded losing to people who make mistakes like that or just don't care. | ||
|
xSuperflyTnT
United States55 Posts
the zerg can just make stupid mistakes like lose a muta ball to a couple thor shots or attack my thors with banelings and still just push through for victory and it feels retarded losing to people who make mistakes like that or just don't care. *applaud* I salute you sir | ||
|
TERRANLOL
United States626 Posts
Lol. Thanks. I try really hard. | ||
|
scojac
United States99 Posts
On October 28 2010 03:25 Alphasquad wrote: and other zerg watch replays of other terrans to discover playstyles and weaknesses its just that terrans dont seem to adapt anymore and most arent aware of the key in this matchup which is taking out the banelings which are the only option to take down bio And just how do you suggest a T takes out banelings? It's not that simple, and the matchup is far more complicated than "LOL just focus down his banelings!!!" | ||
|
Alphasquad
Austria505 Posts
On October 28 2010 06:24 scojac wrote: And just how do you suggest a T takes out banelings? It's not that simple, and the matchup is far more complicated than "LOL just focus down his banelings!!!" nowhere i said its simple but as a matchup is like ping-pong and now the terrans are at the point to return properly unless the Z is really overpowered and there is no way but i dont think so sure the matchup is far more complicated but everyone here acts like zerg would be sooo far ahead of terrans that it would allow heavy mistakes like loosing a muta ball which is certainly not true | ||
|
iEchoic
United States1776 Posts
On October 28 2010 04:06 Shikyo wrote: I really think that instead of tanks, the Terran players should be replacing them with Thors. Something like Thor-Banshee-Marine is incredibly strong that's really difficult to deal with. Infestors hard-counter that composition. Fungal the marines, NP the thors, kill banshees with thors/queens/whatever. | ||
| ||
