|
On August 10 2011 09:43 Micket wrote:
Incontrol just said on inside the game that a 3 gate robo makes a 1-1-1 all in look silly. He says that it is purely a metagame thing to punish 1 gate expanders. I disagree with him but what does everyone else think?
I don't see any reason why this build should stop 1 gate expanders. 3gate robo is a horrible over-reaction to this build, in my opinion anyway. Huk has shown countless times that this can be defended with gateway/immortals after a 1gate expo (and, indeed, this is how I defend it on the ladder as well).
|
yes! i do this too, the attack comes very late so you can cut a bunch of corners very early robotics, very early expo, more chrono on probes and robotics, but i like to get a robotics bay 2 colossus maybe more depending on when he is attacking and a handful of zelots is more than enough you want some stalkers but that is what the terran is trying to lure you to make a lot stalkers! dont make a lot of stalkers! just make x2+2 of the number of banshees and micro them.
|
On August 09 2011 06:14 CuHz wrote:
How do you decipher between which all-in is coming?
I just go for 1 gate robo, then nexus instead of 1 gate FE. It gives you enough time to adapt your unit-composition to the all-in-version.
|
maruader is a huge tell. if there is no marauder, there has to be a bunker or a massive amount of marines, which is also a huge tell. Some terrans will make a marauder sometimes, to confuse a protoss, then quickly switch to cloak banshee.
|
I guess based on Tassadar's games in Code A tonight, we can see that if the terran pulls scvs as well, and is able to block your zealots, the marines and tanks will definitely eat your ground army. Some sort of flanking is needed..
|
On August 10 2011 09:43 Micket wrote:
Incontrol just said on inside the game that a 3 gate robo makes a 1-1-1 all in look silly. He says that it is purely a metagame thing to punish 1 gate expanders. I disagree with him but what does everyone else think?
If the only way to beat a 111 all-in is a build that is at a disadvantage against anything else but a 111 all-in (even being behind against a 111 expand) then this would be nothing but proof that this build is imbalanced.
Defensive economical builds are supposed to beat rush builds, that's how RTS have worked for the last 10 years. Rush builds are supposed to beat greedy openings that cut many corners that would get them ahead against conservative macro-openers. In SC2 this would be stuff like early colossus-tech with zero gateway-units, early third, etc.
Basicly, I don't really care if 3 gate robo beats 111 as it is nowadays widely regarded as a weak opening into a standard macro-game. And if terran goes for rax-expand or even the MVP 2-2-2 you are screwed because he can just put up defenses at home and lol at your one base play.
|
Hi QTIP, I appreciate the constructive effort to help solve a problem so many are whining about, thanks! :D
|
On August 11 2011 17:34 darkcloud8282 wrote:
I guess based on Tassadar's games in Code A tonight, we can see that if the terran pulls scvs as well, and is able to block your zealots, the marines and tanks will definitely eat your ground army. Some sort of flanking is needed..
Flanking works very well on my level (highish diamond), whenever Im able to scout it and get my army in to position.
You catch them in the open, tanks unsieged, and with lots of zealots + some good FFs you can usually cripple the push if not outright beat it.
But Im sure its harder to do against a better executed 1/1/1 than what I face on ladder.
Edit: I guess getting a good flank off kinda relies on the opponent to be unaware... It also depends a lot on the map. Crossfire is hell lol
|
On August 11 2011 18:15 dangerjoe wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2011 17:34 darkcloud8282 wrote:
I guess based on Tassadar's games in Code A tonight, we can see that if the terran pulls scvs as well, and is able to block your zealots, the marines and tanks will definitely eat your ground army. Some sort of flanking is needed.. Flanking works very well on my level (highish diamond), whenever Im able to scout it and get my army in to position. You catch them in the open, tanks unsieged, and with lots of zealots + some good FFs you can usually cripple the push if not outright beat it. But Im sure its harder to do against a better executed 1/1/1 than what I face on ladder. Edit: I guess getting a good flank off kinda relies on the opponent to be unaware... It also depends a lot on the map. Crossfire is hell lol
I just think it's really risky to attempt a flank when banshees are flying around, which seems to only work if you went a stargate opening to deny their vision
|
|
|
On August 10 2011 16:01 Crysack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2011 09:43 Micket wrote:
Incontrol just said on inside the game that a 3 gate robo makes a 1-1-1 all in look silly. He says that it is purely a metagame thing to punish 1 gate expanders. I disagree with him but what does everyone else think? I don't see any reason why this build should stop 1 gate expanders. 3gate robo is a horrible over-reaction to this build, in my opinion anyway. Huk has shown countless times that this can be defended with gateway/immortals after a 1gate expo (and, indeed, this is how I defend it on the ladder as well).
Yes, he showed that greatly at MLG when he got slaughtered by Boxer's badly executed 1-1-1. Unless he means Nexus first into 3 Gate Robo into 7 Gates, in which case I would agree with him.
|
On August 11 2011 17:41 sleepingdog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2011 09:43 Micket wrote:
Incontrol just said on inside the game that a 3 gate robo makes a 1-1-1 all in look silly. He says that it is purely a metagame thing to punish 1 gate expanders. I disagree with him but what does everyone else think? If the only way to beat a 111 all-in is a build that is at a disadvantage against anything else but a 111 all-in (even being behind against a 111 expand) then this would be nothing but proof that this build is imbalanced. Defensive economical builds are supposed to beat rush builds, that's how RTS have worked for the last 10 years. Rush builds are supposed to beat greedy openings that cut many corners that would get them ahead against conservative macro-openers. In SC2 this would be stuff like early colossus-tech with zero gateway-units, early third, etc. Basicly, I don't really care if 3 gate robo beats 111 as it is nowadays widely regarded as a weak opening into a standard macro-game. And if terran goes for rax-expand or even the MVP 2-2-2 you are screwed because he can just put up defenses at home and lol at your one base play.
Agreed. I think Incontrol is silly :D
|
On August 12 2011 01:55 Anihc wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2011 17:41 sleepingdog wrote:On August 10 2011 09:43 Micket wrote:
Incontrol just said on inside the game that a 3 gate robo makes a 1-1-1 all in look silly. He says that it is purely a metagame thing to punish 1 gate expanders. I disagree with him but what does everyone else think? If the only way to beat a 111 all-in is a build that is at a disadvantage against anything else but a 111 all-in (even being behind against a 111 expand) then this would be nothing but proof that this build is imbalanced. Defensive economical builds are supposed to beat rush builds, that's how RTS have worked for the last 10 years. Rush builds are supposed to beat greedy openings that cut many corners that would get them ahead against conservative macro-openers. In SC2 this would be stuff like early colossus-tech with zero gateway-units, early third, etc. Basicly, I don't really care if 3 gate robo beats 111 as it is nowadays widely regarded as a weak opening into a standard macro-game. And if terran goes for rax-expand or even the MVP 2-2-2 you are screwed because he can just put up defenses at home and lol at your one base play. Agreed. I think Incontrol is silly :D
I have to back up sleepingdog + Anihc here.
"If the only way to beat a 111 all-in is a build that is at a disadvantage against anything else but a 111 all-in (even being behind against a 111 expand) then this would be nothing but proof that this build is imbalanced."
Pretty much sums it up perfectly.
|
On August 11 2011 17:42 LicH. wrote:
Hi QTIP, I appreciate the constructive effort to help solve a problem so many are whining about, thanks! :D
Why - thank you ^_^
|
http://www.mediafire.com/?0zxouzyh6rnh8n8
Replay of me beating 1/1/1 after a 1GFE. His banshees weren't with his army though, but I still think that I would have been able to defend (warp in stalkers when battle is over).
|
On August 12 2011 04:14 iChau wrote:http://www.mediafire.com/?0zxouzyh6rnh8n8Replay of me beating 1/1/1 after a 1GFE. His banshees weren't with his army though, but I still think that I would have been able to defend (warp in stalkers when battle is over).
I watched the game and the terran executed the attack really poorly. His tanks did not siege up in the entire fight, and his banshees were hitting your nexus instead of participating in the fight..
|
Incontrol's comment makes 0 sense.
If you expand after 6m, you are shooting yourself in the foot because you stand to barely break even by the time the attack comes at 9m.
If you expand at 4-5m, you will have 1-2m of income after you break even. The question is: do you get robo, or just blind counter with cannons?
|
What do people think about gas stealing in PvT? I find it really negates the possibility of a 1-1-1 all-in, however it obviously requires you to get the probe into his base (hard on 4p maps), and weakens your defense of any 2-rax pressure. But honestly, I much rather prefer dealing with a lot of marines and rauders with 1 less zealot rather than this 1-1-1 push which I lose to 4/5 times.
|
You are a god among mere mortals, sir. This is the 1 build that I, under any circumstance, cannot stand up to. Hopefully your guide changes that! :D
|
Gas steal is pretty pointless IMO. I mentioned it before that a lot of the current meta revolves around delaying the second gas until the marine is out and clearing his base. The only reaction gas steal should trigger is "ok, ill get more marines sooner(to kill this), and get my factory a bit earlier, I'll have maybe two fewer marines in the end in delaying the reactor".
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
