On April 16 2011 03:16 brum wrote: Do progamers know that shift queueing a patrol command's start to it's end (eg. in a circle around the enemy's base) creates an infinite loop instead of a back and forth route? This makes scouting way less bothersome. How come i don't see progamers do this?
1) Some programers may not know about this, or know about it but just aren't used to doing it.
2) You should be manually controlling your scout for the most part anyway, or at least checking back on it every few seconds. Its rare that you would leave it alone on patrol/waypoints for an extended period of time.
3) By setting patrol waypoints, you don't actually run circles - once you reach the end of the waypoint, you start heading in reverse. This can be bad for example if you are being chased by a zealot, and if you're not watching you could easily lose your scout.
As i have stated before it doesn't create a back and forth movement. It will go in an infinite circle without making 180 degree turns. just try it. end the patrol route on the same cell where it starts. It automatically snaps together the two ends. I have found this method particularly useful in zvp, where you can keep your scout in the enemy base for a long time. You can be well around 20 supply and you still dont have to pay attention to ordering new movement commands. Ofcourse you still have to look at it from time to time for scouting, but you dont have to waste and actions on the movement.
Woah, I did not know that. I bet actually a lot of progamers do not know about this either. Thanks, I learned something :p
Although pros probably still prefer to manually control their scout, I can see this being a pretty useful trick.
People might find other uses for it. I'm not really at a pro level, but i have 150 avgapm, and i only really use it in ZvP for scouting, because that's the only scenario i can think of where you want your worker to move in circles for a relatively long time.
This is a pretty simply question that I had trouble searching for in the forums due to the words required.
If I bind two barracks to the same hot key (say 5), and then hit '5aa', each barracks will build a marine. However if I do this with my CC's, ie: '4ss', it results in one of the command center building and SCV and queuing up the other one while the second CC doesn't build one. I have to manually click on the second CC and build an SCV.
On April 16 2011 05:50 sunbeam22 wrote: This is a pretty simply question that I had trouble searching for in the forums due to the words required.
If I bind two barracks to the same hot key (say 5), and then hit '5aa', each barracks will build a marine. However if I do this with my CC's, ie: '4ss', it results in one of the command center building and SCV and queuing up the other one while the second CC doesn't build one. I have to manually click on the second CC and build an SCV.
On April 16 2011 05:50 sunbeam22 wrote: This is a pretty simply question that I had trouble searching for in the forums due to the words required.
If I bind two barracks to the same hot key (say 5), and then hit '5aa', each barracks will build a marine. However if I do this with my CC's, ie: '4ss', it results in one of the command center building and SCV and queuing up the other one while the second CC doesn't build one. I have to manually click on the second CC and build an SCV.
Is there a way around this?
No
Specifically, command centers, orbitals, and planetaries are considered their own types when grouped together, so commands (namely building an scv) will only go to the current subgroup in that selection. To change subgroups, you hit tab. So if you have 2 orbitals and 1 planetary in your group, to build a scv at each you would press 4ss`tab`s. The same logic applies to putting raxes/factories/starports in the same group as well.
On April 16 2011 05:50 sunbeam22 wrote:If I bind two barracks to the same hot key (say 5), and then hit '5aa', each barracks will build a marine. However if I do this with my CC's, ie: '4ss', it results in one of the command center building and SCV and queuing up the other one while the second CC doesn't build one. I have to manually click on the second CC and build an SCV.
Is there a way around this?
This only happens if the CCs in the group have different morphs, i.e. if a control group has one OC and one CC, or two OCs and on PF, etc. If there are two OCs, hit 's' twice each to build one SCV at each.
Hit the "next subgroup" hotkey (default: TAB) to get to the next CC type.
On April 16 2011 00:35 Absentia wrote: If I'm going roach/baneling/infestor in ZvP (vs typical Toss death ball) , is it generally more efficient to upgrade ranged attack or melee attack? Are there any recent threads which discuss this? I did search but nothing obvious turned up...
Unfortunately not. The two major threads on baneling play in zvp (aquanda's zvp pack and spanishiwa's gasless zvx) both focus on ling/baneling instead roach/baneling. I think the build is still in development by a few folk (I've seen both sheth and aquanda go with this style) so hopefully they or their followers will post a guide in the coming weeks.
Here's some vods to study from the protoss perspective (a coaching session with incontrol and unaliased vs. aquanda doing this style).
I'm looking through the archives to find some old BW casts from Tasteless Day9 and Artosis from non-korean tournaments... any tips where to find them and any recommendations from the old schoolers what events are must-see? I want to refresh my memory on the BW foreign tournament history a bit so any help would be great
Sorry this might be obvious but I'm really lost in between all the korean events in the vod section...
hello every1, I have serious issues with tvp. My best mu is tvz for which I have a comfortable style, tvt is OK, kinda discovering it, but tvp is just a pain in the ass. I would like some1 to point me to appropriate threads/guides or something cause I cant really find what im looking for. I still need to figure out basic things like, how many rax I need for bio play at certain timings, at which rate protoss can replenish army, correct micro in a battle etc. Level is mid diamond. thanx in advance
Hey all, got some great responses to my first Q; thanks!
Here are two more:
1) in a 1/1/1 build against Terran, should I ever get 2-4 medivacs before i start viking production or will that get me screwed long term? I usually probe the front with 5 rines and 1 hellion, so I either do some damage or run away realizing they're going for a bio heavy build. But is that already too late if they're going for marine/tank?
2) Where, if anywhere on TL.net with the new strategy guidelines, can I post a thread asking: "Here is my replay. How bad/awful is my macro, because I've been working on it, compared to my macro in "replay 2"?
In PvZ, are you supposed to let the zerg get economically ahead while you're building your ball? If so, to what extent? Sometimes I feel pressured to attack or do damage when I feel like the zerg is getting greedy, but a lot of times they're able to hold off my attack or go even even though they spent more money on drones/bases than me.
Which leads me to the next question.... How invincible is protoss endgame PvZ? Enough to the point where a 1base (fully saturated) economic advantage to the zerg is meaningless?
As Zerg, when taking expansions outside of your natural in ZvT and ZvP with the aid of a nydus worm, is it more beneficial l to take a main or natural on a four player map? I see benefits to both, but at the moment I'm taking the natural, because your fourth is defended by virtue of your third being being defended, however it's much easier to defend a second main at first than a second natural.
On April 16 2011 10:13 Autofire2 wrote: 2) Where, if anywhere on TL.net with the new strategy guidelines, can I post a thread asking: "Here is my replay. How bad/awful is my macro, because I've been working on it, compared to my macro in "replay 2"?
Sorry, I can't answer the first one because I play zerg. >_<
For the second question, there really isn't anywhere you can post this besides as a blog. The reason is that macro is a relatively easy metric to analyze on your own. Generally, you can look at two replays, look at worker counts, army, income, production, etc. and get a sense of how well you're doing (relative to the other replay) and what needs to improve (e.g., focus on constantly producing during a battle).
That being said, the reason the change was made to the strategy forums was to pre-filter out help posts that the op ought to be able to answer on their own. If your post isn't about these sorts of "easy" macro questions, then you should feel free to post it. If there's any ambiguity about it, you can (probably) pm saracen to make sure it's ok.
On April 16 2011 16:37 Nashun wrote: In PvZ, are you supposed to let the zerg get economically ahead while you're building your ball? If so, to what extent? Sometimes I feel pressured to attack or do damage when I feel like the zerg is getting greedy, but a lot of times they're able to hold off my attack or go even even though they spent more money on drones/bases than me.
Which leads me to the next question.... How invincible is protoss endgame PvZ? Enough to the point where a 1base (fully saturated) economic advantage to the zerg is meaningless?
A common mistake that many people make is that when they push out, they think that their army must commit to an attack and do damage. The reality is that the simple act of pushing and then backing off (or even posturing that you are attacking by moving out, killing scouting lings, and then never doing so) forces zerg to make units instead of drones. This in of itself is one of the most effective forms of limiting the zerg's economy while you build up your army.
The effectiveness of the protoss ball is not necessarily in proportion to the zerg's economic advantage (and yes, a 1 base lead is expected on the zerg's part in zvp to stay even with protoss) but has more to do with the protoss's ability to sustain the critical mass that makes the ball cost-effective in the first place. For example, a 1 base "deathball" is not scary because even though protoss built up the army in the first place, they don't have the economy to sustain it. Contrast this with a 4 base protoss that has the production facilities and economy to remax their army in a few production cycles. Any zerg will tell you that the base advantage they have at that point (be it a one, two, or more base advantage) is much harder to capitalize on because protoss can sustain their army.
On April 16 2011 16:55 Arisen wrote: As Zerg, when taking expansions outside of your natural in ZvT and ZvP with the aid of a nydus worm, is it more beneficial l to take a main or natural on a four player map? I see benefits to both, but at the moment I'm taking the natural, because your fourth is defended by virtue of your third being being defended, however it's much easier to defend a second main at first than a second natural.
Ultimately it's map dependent (and to some degree, it's a more arbitrary/stylistic choice), but if you have nydus worms up, it is likely more beneficial to you to be taking mains rather than naturals. The advantage you exploit with the nydus is effectively having your army at the satellite expo (provided you have enough time to load/unload) so you can maximize that advantage by placing the expo as far away from your opponent as possible.
Contrast this to not having a nydus worm. If your opponent reaches your satellite expo at your main before you, they can exploit the ramp (with FFs or just superior positioning) unless you are able to get there first. Furthermore, if your army is coming in to defend the expo, the naturals usually end up being better engagement spots than the mains via their ramps.
How do people generally defend their natural on Xel'Naga Caverns
I was playing Vs Zerg and they harrassed me so easily. First by spamming lings to my natural to the extent I couldn't hold it. I mean there are THREE routes to get in (not including air)
So after I made significant effort bolstering the natural with bunkers & siege, he attacked my main with lots of mutas. So much that my turrets & stimmed marines could not cope.
Sorry, but I just feel this map is far too easy to harrass terran
On April 16 2011 23:32 KissMyArse wrote: Nice thread for a noob like me (terran)
How do people generally defend their natural on Xel'Naga Caverns
I was playing Vs Zerg and they harrassed me so easily. First by spamming lings to my natural to the extent I couldn't hold it. I mean there are THREE routes to get in (not including air)
So after I made significant effort bolstering the natural with bunkers & siege, he attacked my main with lots of mutas. So much that my turrets & stimmed marines could not cope.
Sorry, but I just feel this map is far too easy to harrass terran
Terran typically chose do some combination of bunker/rax wall from ramp to your nat cc and constricting space by spreading out bunkers and raxes around the nat. In particular, any wall is usually not complete since it is sufficient to just leave chokes to funnel lings into your marines and tanks. Protoss in contrast almost also create a full wall from ramp to nat because their units are much less capable of stopping lings quickly.
The other extreme is the great wall of thorzain but that is less common:
Also, you should throw down two depots past the grass guarding tasteless's sekrut hallway to eliminate the possibility of ling backstabs and allow you to spot backdoor bling busts.
How can a protoss deal with a zerg that gets hatch first then spine crawlers, speedlings, and 3-4 queens? i try to rush air to negate the crawlers but queens with transfuse take out my 3-4 void rays. basically I am losing to the fact that they get this expo up so fast and I havent found a good way to punish it.
Hey guys i know this might sound dumb, but i dunno why today i couldnt do this..
so i have my maurders + medivacs in hotkey 【1】, but the medivacs (right panel) healing ability kept on showing up whenever i pressed 【1】, and when i had to micro in fights its very incovinent to have to press 【tab】to get to the maurders and use stim...
whats the way to get maurders in the main choice of the subgroup and medivacs not the main?
Hi. I dunno if someone already asked this before, I think its probable because its been in my mind for a long time.
Why is it, that when a scouting worker walks straight throgh the mineral line of the enemy, pros seldom select many probes to surround and kill the worker? Its such an easy thing to do, its so advantageous. Ive thought that maybe the mining time they lose doesnt compensate for the 50m the worker cost, but it really does. 5 (tops) probes off the line for 4 seconds is less than 50 minerals lost. So why do some pro's let them walk by freely without trying to kill?
EPT
