|
On June 25 2011 12:05 Quochobao wrote:
When I go chargelot templar, how should I micro my army so that I don't storm my own chargelot?
My problem is that my zealot will run in first, get kited, and T simply back up when my templar get in range, and kite my zealot again.
Any tips to have my storm hit right when my chargelots approach the bioball?
There is a few ways
A. Zealot Flank, They can't retreat. Feel Free to Storm
B. Force field, Same as Zealot Flank except you won't have to split up your force. Will lower your Templar count though
C. Terrain use, They can't back up into cliffs or Buildings.
|
What Korean pop beat game does kawaiirice always play?
|
|
|
Osu is such a good game. Kawaiirice has great taste
|
What is the initial timing when terran usually does a banshee harras?
If a zerg doesnt make a hatchery after 3:00, would it be smart to 4 gate as protoss?
What counters Banshee and Viking Mix? as Protoss
|
1) For a player new to SC2 and RTS in general (so no previous macro/mechanics experience) what should be the primary focus in order to develop viable long-term skills and become "good" (mid-masters)?
2) Should the player be mass-gaming with the goal of improving mechanics and macro in order to become, in the long term, a better player? (i.e. any player can cheese to diamond, but will not be 'good' at anything but cheese)
3) Should a new player pick one (and only one) race in order to best develop mechanics and also become competent at macro? (although improving macro might depend more on build order instead of player's race)
4) If one advises the player to pick one singular race (not random), then which race should the player pick? (suppose that the player has no personal preference) Or is there no difference other than some players will 'fit' into different race's playstyles better than others.
5) Once a race has been chosen (whether one race is definitively better or all are equal is irrelevant) should the player focus on as few builds per possible (i.e. one build vs all races, or one build per matchup) or attempt many different builds (depending on map size, spawn positions, etc.)
and:
6) should the build(s) and/or general style of play almost always include an expansion before five minutes? (i.e. hatch first, 1 gate FE, 1 rax FE regardless of map, positions, or - generally speaking - the opposite player's build) Or would mechanics and macro be more efficiently improved by a Protoss / Terran player who get a more 'normal' expansion timing with builds like 2 gate+robo and 1-1-1?
7) If there is an answer, then what is the build(s) or general play-style that can be considered 'the best' for a player trying to focus on long-term 1v1 improvement? (i.e. terran - 1 rax FE, z - hatch first, etc.) Or, is it better to alter play-style depending on the map size and spawn positions?
|
I was watching one of my reps today and toss canceled a dark shrine. In the units lost tab it says he loses all the resources it takes to build the dark shrine instead of 25% of them. Has anyone else noticed this?
|
On June 25 2011 19:09 guitarizt wrote:
I was watching one of my reps today and toss canceled a dark shrine. In the units lost tab it says he loses all the resources it takes to build the dark shrine instead of 25% of them. Has anyone else noticed this?
That's a common bug. It happens with a lot of stuff in the replay menus.
|
1) For a player new to SC2 and RTS in general (so no previous macro/mechanics experience) what should be the primary focus in order to develop viable long-term skills and become "good" (mid-masters)?
Macro
2) Should the player be mass-gaming with the goal of improving mechanics and macro in order to become, in the long term, a better player? (i.e. any player can cheese to diamond, but will not be 'good' at anything but cheese)
Mass gaming with the goal of improving mechanics (I include macro within this). It will be very tough to focus on macro in the beginning because it will be boring. Just focussing on macro takes quite a lot of focus and multitasking that it hardly leaves any time for a beginner to focus on battle positioning micro and other stuff which you will have the higher league you're playing at.
3) Should a new player pick one (and only one) race in order to best develop mechanics and also become competent at macro? (although improving macro might depend more on build order instead of player's race)
I suggest playing with 1 race. As it's faster to develop mechanics for that race. It will be disadvantageous when you switch races since it will require new mechanics and such that it will be hard to get out of your previous race. Furthermore playing 1 race could be boring for most people after a while.
4) If one advises the player to pick one singular race (not random), then which race should the player pick? (suppose that the player has no personal preference) Or is there no difference other than some players will 'fit' into different race's playstyles better than others.
This is just a personal thing for each player. I like to multitask and be able to micro and macro at same time. (like stutter stepping with your bio army while you're making units with your raxes and CC's).
5) Once a race has been chosen (whether one race is definitively better or all are equal is irrelevant) should the player focus on as few builds per possible (i.e. one build vs all races, or one build per matchup) or attempt many different builds (depending on map size, spawn positions, etc.)
Once build for each matchup. This is in order for the player executing the build to familiarize with all the weaknesses and strengths vs all builds in a specific matchup. This makes it easier for the player to gain experience when to use the build or not on certain maps.
6) should the build(s) and/or general style of play almost always include an expansion before five minutes? (i.e. hatch first, 1 gate FE, 1 rax FE regardless of map, positions, or - generally speaking - the opposite player's build) Or would mechanics and macro be more efficiently improved by a Protoss / Terran player who get a more 'normal' expansion timing with builds like 2 gate+robo and 1-1-1?
In my opinion it doesn't really matter. You will have to macro in all scenario's you mentioned.
All of them have strenghts and weaknesses. The only way for you to find out what is best in each situation is by trying them all out. But I suggest just pick one and use it for like 50-100 games and see where you end up with and note down what you've learned from the build. Like the timings when you are weak or strong etc.
7) If there is an answer, then what is the build(s) or general play-style that can be considered 'the best' for a player trying to focus on long-term 1v1 improvement? (i.e. terran - 1 rax FE, z - hatch first, etc.) Or, is it better to alter play-style depending on the map size and spawn positions?
Map size and spawn positions influence build orders greatly as well as match ups of course.
From my general experience from 1400 master league games I have as a T all matchups close positions (like close position meta) is always some kind of 1base all-in as that seems to be the most effective.
Hope you got all your questions answered and know enough :p
|
On June 25 2011 19:06 somadbro wrote:
1) For a player new to SC2 and RTS in general (so no previous macro/mechanics experience) what should be the primary focus in order to develop viable long-term skills and become "good" (mid-masters)?
2) Should the player be mass-gaming with the goal of improving mechanics and macro in order to become, in the long term, a better player? (i.e. any player can cheese to diamond, but will not be 'good' at anything but cheese)
3) Should a new player pick one (and only one) race in order to best develop mechanics and also become competent at macro? (although improving macro might depend more on build order instead of player's race)
4) If one advises the player to pick one singular race (not random), then which race should the player pick? (suppose that the player has no personal preference) Or is there no difference other than some players will 'fit' into different race's playstyles better than others.
5) Once a race has been chosen (whether one race is definitively better or all are equal is irrelevant) should the player focus on as few builds per possible (i.e. one build vs all races, or one build per matchup) or attempt many different builds (depending on map size, spawn positions, etc.)
and:
6) should the build(s) and/or general style of play almost always include an expansion before five minutes? (i.e. hatch first, 1 gate FE, 1 rax FE regardless of map, positions, or - generally speaking - the opposite player's build) Or would mechanics and macro be more efficiently improved by a Protoss / Terran player who get a more 'normal' expansion timing with builds like 2 gate+robo and 1-1-1?
7) If there is an answer, then what is the build(s) or general play-style that can be considered 'the best' for a player trying to focus on long-term 1v1 improvement? (i.e. terran - 1 rax FE, z - hatch first, etc.) Or, is it better to alter play-style depending on the map size and spawn positions?
This isn't a simple question, but I will try to provide some simple answers as much as I can 
1: Macro is the easiest skill to learn, and the most useful in almost all cases.
2: both yes and no. Cheese is also a viable way to play this game, and its equally important to learn to stop cheese. I suggest do both. Most important in my opinion is to play to win, then look over your replay to find your own flaws. As long as you can still ifnd flaws in your game, you can improve. In the end, the only way to get good is to play a lot.
3: Yes. But a new player should also play the other races now and then to simply understand their mechanics, their weaknesses and strengths. But to simply improve mechanics, stick with one race.
4: Self answered question. Pick a race that suits his style. Don't be afraid to change if you later learn that a his playstyle doesn't fit with the race he first picked.
5: I think there are varying opinions about this. I'd say stick with one build pr matchup and get good at them. Most people learn their new builds by knowing their old and knowing where and how to deviate. Once you get good and start playing in tournaments, you might want to start learning more builds, if only for the variations so your opponent doesn't "figure you out" after game 1. The ladder does not have this problem.
EDIT: Sniped! Damn you shannn!
EDIT2: Fuck it, I'll finish my thoughts anyways  More opinions isn't a bad thing.
6: I personally always fast expand, and have done so since as far back as I remember (which, with my goldfish memory is probably since I hit platinum). Because I have done it so much, I know when I can and can't do it. Equally, if you always play more standard builds like 1-1-1, you'll still learn when and when you can not expand. So in my opinion, both path crosses eachother.
7: Personal opinion from a protoss player: PvT: 1gate 1gas expand. PvZ: 3gate sentry expand. PvP: 3gate robo. Map sizes and position will of course play a huge role. But these are things you'll learn as you go a long.
|
On June 25 2011 16:14 Skrillex90 wrote:
What is the initial timing when terran usually does a banshee harras?
If a zerg doesnt make a hatchery after 3:00, would it be smart to 4 gate as protoss?
What counters Banshee and Viking Mix? as Protoss
I don't have the timinig in my head right now. maybe someone else will answer that one for you. For me its generaly right after I get my first obs when I go fast expand then 3gate robo.
Sounds like a onebase allin. if you are unsure if you can hold it, then you might want to consder going 4gate. If you feel sure enough of your own skills, go 3gate and add an extra gas. this way you will be ahead of him in tech, and he will have no way of catching up to you afterwards.
Tons of units. Seriously, banshee / viking mix is not a viable option for a terran, if the protoss simply makes a ton of units. Make sure to remember upgrades!
|
Really simple one here.
what unit composition do you suggest for ZvT for the Zerg when the Terran goes marine tank into marine thor?
|
On June 25 2011 20:22 leloup wrote:
Really simple one here.
what unit composition do you suggest for ZvT for the Zerg when the Terran goes marine tank into marine thor?
Pretty much the usual. Depends on on map and playstyle. But ling/bling mutalisk will work. Maybe mix in some roaches.
|
I'm a gold zerg and I've tried to be a mass expand and econ style player when I get a lead or when I slip on macro and have the extra minerals to take relatively safe bases. However, when I get to 4+ bases, I have a hard time organizing my queens and hotkeys and the drone saturation and gas geyer saturation.
Should I just not expand as much or is there something that will help me to organize and not be overwhelmed by the upkeep of so many bases? When you factor in injects, army movement and creep spread, it's too much for my gold-level apm to deal with.
Also, somewhat relatedly, I am really weak with harass and I will usually send units into position and just forget about them. Is there a zerg who regularly streams that is solid on macro but has a really intense harass style throughout the game, especially in the midgame? My first thought was Idra, but I wasn't sure if he was big on harass and he doesn't stream very often anyways.
|
On June 25 2011 20:26 Excludos wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 25 2011 20:22 leloup wrote:
Really simple one here.
what unit composition do you suggest for ZvT for the Zerg when the Terran goes marine tank into marine thor? Pretty much the usual. Depends on on map and playstyle. But ling/bling mutalisk will work. Maybe mix in some roaches.
Alright, just depends on micro then I suppose. Got to work on that.
|
Recently I have been theorycrafting about a late game raven transition TvP. If the terran goes marine/marauder/viking/medivac vs a colossus/stalker/zealot ball, ravens with pdd will stop stalker shots, allowing to pick off colossus with vikings. In fact, the only protoss antiair not affected by pdd is void rays, which fail against vikings. My question is, why don't pros do this? late game TvP there is plenty of gas available, and vs a templar transition you can use ravens as detectors to snipe observers.
|
On June 25 2011 22:58 starcranium wrote:
Recently I have been theorycrafting about a late game raven transition TvP. If the terran goes marine/marauder/viking/medivac vs a colossus/stalker/zealot ball, ravens with pdd will stop stalker shots, allowing to pick off colossus with vikings. In fact, the only protoss antiair not affected by pdd is void rays, which fail against vikings. My question is, why don't pros do this? late game TvP there is plenty of gas available, and vs a templar transition you can use ravens as detectors to snipe observers.
Ravens are much more potent midgame than lategame in TvP. You mentioned templars, but forget the main issue with High templars. One feedback and your raven is either dead, near dead, or at the very least useless. The gas spent on those ravens are usually much more preffered spent on ghosts, as ghosts can be hard to spot, and in either case outranges the templars.
Thats not to say ravens arent viable thought. If you can drop a few pdd,s behind your line and micro the protoss army into them, you might be able to do some serious damage.
|
EDIT: nvm, i answered my own question
|
When should I stop constant probe production on my main?
|
On June 26 2011 01:30 Shinro wrote:
When should I stop constant probe production on my main?
when you have around 80 probes. The general rule is to never stop probe production, even if you are fully saturated. Because when you expand, you want as many workers as you can between the bases after you have transfered. Any more than 80 workers though, and you start eating into your lategame armysize
If you are going for a timing attack, the general rule is 20 workers on minerals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
