EPTSTC vs Tester
not to mention u can kill colossii with marines :o xD. Stop whining guyz!!
TvP – A Terran’s view - Page 18
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Strategy |
|
Rammstorm
Germany1434 Posts
STC vs Tester not to mention u can kill colossii with marines :o xD. Stop whining guyz!! | ||
|
Lurk
Germany359 Posts
On December 16 2010 21:30 MegaTerran wrote: I just cant understand one thing. If toss is so OP why Blizz increase their power in new patch making phonix build time faster? This has little to do with the current state of the game in TvP as phoenix are rarely seen in the matchup as it is (and if, mostly only in the early game). | ||
|
Rassy
Netherlands2308 Posts
Have had alot of trouble finding the right unit composition (and still have) but after watching manny streams and reading treads i realy think terran has only 1 good unit against toss and 2 reasonable units. The best terran unit against toss is the marauder and it is in general the unit that should be massed and upgraded i think The marine is just to weak and dies to fast in general against toss, they are good to counter a specific unit (immortal void ray) but think terran should only make them in midgame if toss goes mass void ray or mass immortal The strongest toss ability storm is an aoe spell wich is somewhat countered by big units (since then there sinply less units effected in the area) Best unit composition to blindly go for as terran i think is mass marauder and then vikings as needed against voidray/colossus and medivacs if no vikings needed (try make as least vikings as possible but just enough to counter colossus/void/carrier) This unit composition has had the most succes in the t vs p i watched on streams in midgame and later. It has the advantage of beeing able to rebuild fast and in general it beats the protos units wich can be rebuild fast (gateway units) Other good unit for terran beside marauder and viking is the thor i think It can just take several storms head on while dealing good damage Bad units are imo the tank mostly Seen spades use tanks alot in tvp on his stream (in combo with raven and marine) and often they just dont seem to work out well against toss Think terran should avoid tanks at all cost and instead go for tors if they want make something from factory Banshee is a ok unit (specially if you good with micro and harras) but i dont find it so effective when you have a big mid/late game army bulk and want to 1a  It doesnt deal well with colossus since it gets targetted by the stalkers (unlike viking) and its not that great cost for cost against stalkers Also going banshee doesnt give anti air like viking and you would then need marine (wich you want to avoid) or still vikings Ghost is a verry good unit off course Emp is awesome and it can do more damage in hp then the dreaded storm.. you need skills though to use it efficiently and if you not so good with micro (like me  you can maybe better focus on macro and more marauders/viking-medi | ||
|
Lazyass
4 Posts
I think you cherry picked the replays, but so this doesn’t just degenerate into a flame, I’ll treat the questions seriously. In the Mana v ServyOa Skarukas game, Mana fast expands with a 16 Nexus. This works against Terran, but it is a huge risk. With regard to balance issues, it is (1) strategy specific, (2) most likely map specific, and possibly even (3) map and strategy specific. Mana pulled it off easily on a huge map, when ServyOa was teching. You can fast expand on other maps, but only if they don’t apply early pressure. So usually you are FEing into their one rax FE, or double port Banshee; both are roughly equivalent positions. The blowout works the other way if you face a Marauder ball of death. Teching isn’t unusual for large maps, but contrarian Maka rax play, or even riskier proxy play would have just destroyed it. I’m not even sure regular three rax wouldn’t have successfully busted it, even on this huge map. However, even if we assume that it would not, you have a RE with a strategy that only works on one map. Terran have their fair (rather excessive) share of T-favoured, MU specific maps. With regards to what ServyOa could have done differently: (1) scout properly, (2) not run a single hellion into enemy units for no gain, (3) not sacrifice four marines, (4) bunker. I’m not flaming you, because I am giving you the respect of answering your questions, and of trying to help you improve, but it really looks like the games are cherry picked because ServyOa played terribly. He got so greedy by not bunkering on a pure (double port Banshee) tech build, until after he was in trouble. If that bunker was started slightly earlier then he probably could have defended. It might have been busted, but if ServyOa was playing well, he could hold that with SCVs auto repairing the bunker, even after feeding Mana five units. (Opinion Edit: How is that fair? Why does Terran get so many -easy- fall back positions after terrible plays?) I don’t like the games you’ve picked. Your general methodology is suspect. The logic seems to be, look at these huge blowouts, and from pros.... Your being “...100% sure that they would win.” doesn’t mean anything. You can’t just arbitrarily decide one player is better and then assume it is imba when they get blown out. In the case of G1 it is laughable – of course a Terran should be blown out when they’ve sacrificed five units early game and don’t even put up a bunker. ServyOa lost G1 because he played terribly regardless of your opinion of him. On the more charitable interpretation, I suspect you are talking about G2. That game was a good game. ServyOa played well. It would be an excellent game for you to model your TvP MU off of. ServyOa played to a position where he enjoyed a massive advantage and then took a blindside loss because he over extended himself. (I’m also assuming this is the game you couldn’t figure out how the loss occurred – he over extended himself and lost the tech production about 1-2 minutes before completely breaking Mana) That was an excellent game, and I think would be very instructive for you in learning to play TvP. The fact that he lost shouldn’t discourage you or suggest imbalance, because it was somewhat of a fluke and the result of an easily correctable play error. | ||
|
Moriarity
United States91 Posts
On December 13 2010 23:03 Mercury- wrote: There's nothing to gain in a true macro game for T because of amulet templars + warpin. Yeah you can fast expand and all that stuff but once the Templar archives starts the research you might as well pull all SCVs and push because your situation isn't gonna get any better. I'm not saying P>T because there are certain timing windows T can exploit (and if those are exploited correctly it can make T look really imba) but in a true macro game Toss will most likely win the game. So yeah if by balanced you mean one race has a really good chance of winning early game and the other will probably win if the game goes late then you're right. Ghosts are incredibly effective against HT's for a reason. | ||
|
Blyadischa
419 Posts
On December 17 2010 08:18 Moriarity wrote: Ghosts are incredibly effective against HT's for a reason. Incredibly effective at EMPing spread out HT's that can be replenish given that there is a nearby pylon... | ||
|
Snowbear
Korea (South)1925 Posts
On December 17 2010 08:15 Lazyass wrote: In the Mana v ServyOa Skarukas game, Mana fast expands with a 16 Nexus. This works against Terran, but it is a huge risk. With regard to balance issues, it is (1) strategy specific, (2) most likely map specific, and possibly even (3) map and strategy specific. Mana pulled it off easily on a huge map, when ServyOa was teching. You can fast expand on other maps, but only if they don’t apply early pressure. So usually you are FEing into their one rax FE, or double port Banshee; both are roughly equivalent positions. The blowout works the other way if you face a Marauder ball of death. Teching isn’t unusual for large maps, but contrarian Maka rax play, or even riskier proxy play would have just destroyed it. I’m not even sure regular three rax wouldn’t have successfully busted it, even on this huge map. However, even if we assume that it would not, you have a RE with a strategy that only works on one map. Terran have their fair (rather excessive) share of T-favoured, MU specific maps. Servy was on 6base, mana on 2. Servy lost. There is nothing more to say imo | ||
|
Tastinggood
28 Posts
On December 17 2010 08:24 Blyadischa wrote: Incredibly effective at EMPing spread out HT's that can be replenish given that there is a nearby pylon... thats why you should outnumber your oppenents ht's with your ghosts and emp the new ones aswell dont expect to be fine with just 2-3 ghosts while he uses ~10 ht's | ||
|
statikg
Canada930 Posts
| ||
|
PhiliBiRD
United States2643 Posts
On December 16 2010 22:43 Lurk wrote: This has little to do with the current state of the game in TvP as phoenix are rarely seen in the matchup as it is (and if, mostly only in the early game). actually alot of toss started adding phoenix when terran gets viking for colussi, its been proven to be effective. the biggest issue with the new patch is that toss can do this off 1 sgate now instead of 2. also it makes 1 sgate phx much better period. | ||
|
HalfAmazing
Netherlands402 Posts
On December 17 2010 11:21 PhiliBiRD wrote: actually alot of toss started adding phoenix when terran gets viking for colussi, its been proven to be effective. the biggest issue with the new patch is that toss can do this off 1 sgate now instead of 2. also it makes 1 sgate phx much better period. The Phoenix buff is gigantic. It destroys all terran expo or tech play. :-) | ||
|
j.schnieder
21 Posts
| ||
|
Lazyass
4 Posts
It was 2.5 bases to 1.5 as both players were mining out one, about to go to 3 to 1 as ServyOa was moving a new CC to the expo on the right, and soon would have been 3 to 0, completely breaking Mana. The problem with your opinion is it doesn’t give any insight into what happened. How did ServyOa lose? Magic? ServyOa over extended. He got a little careless with his units. Mana laid some money storms and ServyOa showed poor control after his otherwise stellar game. He thought his next wave would be large enough to counter what was left of Mana’s force, or most likely, he didn’t even consider Mana would attack since Mana was getting crushed and had been on the defensive for so long. Mana went for one last desperation all-in (which is a different type of attack than the normal attacks that seek to undermine the economy – clearly ServyOa was expecting attacks at the tanked PDF) and luckily managed to get to the production. At that point, economy is meaningless as each wave has below threshold and eventually ServyOa would lose his production. We see Hail Mary plays all the time and sometimes they work. All-in SVC attacks, desperation DTs, desperation Void Rays. It doesn’t mean anything. The only thing that is exceptional about the ServyOa loss is that it wasn’t to one of the typical knock out techs. So Mana got a fluke win by losing most battles except the last and taking the production away from an overwhelming economic advantage. So what? The point still stands, your the base theory of win, isn’t very intelligent – ‘ZOMG, Zerg didn’t a single combat unit, but did rapid expanded 7 times, and he still lost! Imba!!’ Does anyone who has seen the RE really think that ServyOa would have lost if he had just kept his army in tank range at the PDF for just a few more production cycles? | ||
|
donkkk
44 Posts
On December 17 2010 08:15 Lazyass wrote: The win percentages favouring Protoss are for Bronze and Silver. Bronze league stats for bronze league players. Please don’t balance the game off Silver calibre plays. get your facts straight before u spread bulshit http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/1136961#blog | ||
|
Thrombozyt
Germany1269 Posts
On December 17 2010 20:09 Lazyass wrote: "Servy was on 6base, mana on 2. Servy lost. There is nothing more to say imo" It was 2.5 bases to 1.5 as both players were mining out one, about to go to 3 to 1 as ServyOa was moving a new CC to the expo on the right, and soon would have been 3 to 0, completely breaking Mana. The problem with your opinion is it doesn’t give any insight into what happened. How did ServyOa lose? Magic? ServyOa over extended. He got a little careless with his units. Mana laid some money storms and ServyOa showed poor control after his otherwise stellar game. He thought his next wave would be large enough to counter what was left of Mana’s force, or most likely, he didn’t even consider Mana would attack since Mana was getting crushed and had been on the defensive for so long. Mana went for one last desperation all-in (which is a different type of attack than the normal attacks that seek to undermine the economy – clearly ServyOa was expecting attacks at the tanked PDF) and luckily managed to get to the production. At that point, economy is meaningless as each wave has below threshold and eventually ServyOa would lose his production. We see Hail Mary plays all the time and sometimes they work. All-in SVC attacks, desperation DTs, desperation Void Rays. It doesn’t mean anything. The only thing that is exceptional about the ServyOa loss is that it wasn’t to one of the typical knock out techs. So Mana got a fluke win by losing most battles except the last and taking the production away from an overwhelming economic advantage. So what? The point still stands, your the base theory of win, isn’t very intelligent – ‘ZOMG, Zerg didn’t a single combat unit, but did rapid expanded 7 times, and he still lost! Imba!!’ Does anyone who has seen the RE really think that ServyOa would have lost if he had just kept his army in tank range at the PDF for just a few more production cycles? At one point - after servyOa took out the gold - Mana was on 2 base, main mined out and expo nearly mined out. His opponent was on 5 bases, with main and natural mined out and the gold soon to follow. You say that Mana lost most his battles except the last one. Still 2 bases worth of resources kept even against 3 bases worth of resources, one of them a gold. So despite having only converted less than two thirds of the resources into units, protoss was still even. Even though terran had so far done a great job fighting his battles and denying expansions. So much for P whining about the "ridiculous cost efficiency". It also showcases the (in my eyes) major problems: P and T battle in the middle of the map. If T wins the engagement with ~25-40% of forces left), he can't do shit, because when he manages to approach any expansion, warpgates have cooled down and deliver a zealot HT force spot on that is enough to keep most remaining forces at bay. Terran is forced to retreat and can most of the time only trade his survivors to try and snipe a nexus. If P wins by the same margin, he can just walk up to the production facilities and end the game, as the units trickle out and are crushed 1 by 1 never doing ANY damage, because they usually fail to penetrate shields and shields regenerate faster than they can be shot down by the lonely reinforcements. A proxy pylon just seals the deal. | ||
|
FataLe
New Zealand4501 Posts
Wait what. | ||
|
sleepingdog
Austria6145 Posts
On December 17 2010 20:57 Thrombozyt wrote: At one point - after servyOa took out the gold - Mana was on 2 base, main mined out and expo nearly mined out. His opponent was on 5 bases, with main and natural mined out and the gold soon to follow. You say that Mana lost most his battles except the last one. Still 2 bases worth of resources kept even against 3 bases worth of resources, one of them a gold. So despite having only converted less than two thirds of the resources into units, protoss was still even. Even though terran had so far done a great job fighting his battles and denying expansions. So much for P whining about the "ridiculous cost efficiency". ServyOa would have won the game if he hadn't suicided many units during mid/lategame. Also his macro was awful later in the game, what's the point if you are ahead in bases if you stack 1,5k+ ressources? People picking only replays where terran loses is one thing, but people picking games where the terran even has plain and simple terrible macro is ridiculous. What's next, somebody complaining about uber-imba voidrays raping his only-marauder army? | ||
|
Thrombozyt
Germany1269 Posts
Apart from that specific match, my point about the outcome of late game battles still stands. | ||
|
Arcanefrost
Belgium1257 Posts
On December 16 2010 22:43 Lurk wrote: This has little to do with the current state of the game in TvP as phoenix are rarely seen in the matchup as it is (and if, mostly only in the early game). Havent watched a lot korean pvt i guess. Tester and sangho both use a phoenix colossi build, hence it's pretty popular on the ladder aswell. | ||
|
Thezzy
Netherlands2117 Posts
On December 17 2010 12:27 j.schnieder wrote: I have been experimenting with early tanks vs toss, and i have had some great sucess with it, i think that mech has its place, but may need some ghost reinforcments! Ghost and Tank production is more gas than you can get out of 2 base, let alone 1 base. Especially Tanks (won't need consant Ghost production) are very gas heavy for their role and build time. Bio and Mech don't scale well in value in relation to the Protoss tech. Bio scales the worst, generally losing to Chargelots, Colossi or Storm with Gateway units. Just Gateway units get demolished by Bio, although it can delay a Bio push with FF very effectively. Mech does a little better, but especially Chargelots/Upgraded Colossi tear through it. With only 35 damage to Light it takes five sieged shots to kill one whole charging Zealot. Once the Zealot surrounds a Tank, any shots on it hurt the Tank more than the Zealot. In the Dreamhack finale (game 4 I think it was) the Terran player got critical mass Siege Tanks in the number of 10-12+ and got demolished by Chargelots and Storm. I've been trying Air (into mass Air) and it seems to have some promise although the upcoming Observer/Phoenix changes worry me. The main problem I see in TvP is how things scale as the game progresses. Early game T has an advantage with Bio, but if P stays alive (which isn't THAT hard) the advantage P has is huge because Bio scales terribly. Going Bio as T generally means you have to really hurt P within 10-12 minutes or be at a disadvantage. Mech probably shines the most in the midgame, when the scariest stuff isn't as scary yet. Just Chargelots vs Tanks could be dealt with by Marine/Hellion support. The downside is Mech is so immobile. Thors are so slow and Hellions can't do much on their own aside from a drop. Lategame though, a combination of Storm, Chargelots and Colossi vaporize anything on the ground. Anything the Colossi can't kill (e.g. the Siege Tank) the Chargelots will deal with. Maybe Protoss has too many 'key' upgrades that throw the balance off. The only real 'key' upgrade for Terran is Stimpack. Siege Mode, Combat Shield, Concussive Shells are all good upgrades but aren't essential. Zealot speed, Thermal Lance and Storm, although all so expensive, change the game completely. Until they get them, P struggles with a lot of stuff. When P gets all of them, there is no real weakness for T to exploit anymore. T can't tech to something to balance that out. | ||
| ||
