|
On February 26 2012 00:42 Snowbear wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2012 00:35 kiLen wrote:
Polt went marine tank vs BL/infestor, It has nothing to do with an imbalance there.
I think it shows the opposite, you dont need a dream comp to kill BL/inf, you can go marine tank vs it too.
gg
It showed that with marine tank vs broodlord infestor, you need to play like a GOD, and be AHEAD.
It also helps if the zerg maxes out on infestor/BL leaving it sit in the middle of the map, thereby leaving neither mobile nor static defense in the three bases he went BL:s off.
But the principle is correct. Starting to drop heavily has been standard for ages. Ghosts were to actually kill off the army.
|
On February 26 2012 00:50 zezamer wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2012 00:42 Snowbear wrote:
It showed that with marine tank vs broodlord infestor, you need to play like a GOD, and be AHEAD. Imo it looked more like Polt's standard play vs bloodlord/infestor. He's doing exactly the same thing in game 4.
Yes, but he was already miles ahead. Lucky is limited to 3 bases...
|
if you want to play rock when your opponent plays paper don't complain when you lose.
If he chooses to go Broodlord, go Bio drop
Don't complain when you have only one viable counter. Terrans swap to Viking when they see Colossi, and Protoss goes HT afterwards, and Terran goes Ghost afterwards, etc. There is a most effective counter for most strategy. If you choose to forego, be ready to have a very hard battle.
|
we might find that ravens hunterseeker missile is the answer to broods  and zerg in clumps, its hard to watch broods get devestated by seeker missile, ghosts still good vs infestors, 2 or 3 in ur late gamearmy cant be bad
|
On February 26 2012 00:30 CaptainCrush wrote:
Polt just put on a clinic in how to deal with it in his 3rd game vs lucky at winter assembly, but I have to say... it was IN NO WAY balanced. He supremely outplayed lucky in order to win, any mere mortal would never be able to do it. I really want to hear some comments from the devs on this issue as well as that game, it was insane!
it just showed terran with advantage for whole game along, better eco and upgrades almost lost to defwhoring zerg on 3 bases who rushed to bl/infestor 1a gayball
|
4713 Posts
Unfortunately we haven't had a proper late-game zerg vs a late game terran game to see how things pan out. Polt overtook Lucky in G3 and bought himself enough times with drops to have a response. In G4 Polt was miles ahead, he kept denying Lucky's 4th for what seems like ages, he established his own 4th and 5th, and he systematically kept destroying Lucky's mid game army, not allowing him to gather support with his Brood Lords.
What we really need to see is a late game repeat of Mvp vs NesTea, Lucky or Leenock, on a map like maybe Daybreak.
So far, we don't really know how to handle a proper late-game zerg once he gets rolling, what has worked so far was delaying it and destroying it before it happens, which isn't optimal, you need a backup plan for when early and mid-game stuff doesn't work.
|
I might be stupid, but I think the answer will be Planetaries. Planetaries are strong against everything that doesn't fly as zerg, Cannot be Fungal'ed or Neuraled. Give good Zone Control. Can put us in a good defensive position.
Here's the things. They should make Planetaries dismantlable/salvagable so we can lift it after salvaging the turret (can take a long time idc.) so I can relocate the planetaries to good defensive positions late game.
Anyways it'll be hell trying to set it up but I think once the planetaries go up at the chokes it'll put us in a good position against any infestor movement and use vikings to pick away at the brood lords. I don't know this is the best I can think of. Planetaries on the ground then go into a more air oriented army.
|
On February 25 2012 22:31 Big J wrote:
Costefficient means that in even cost scenarios you are well off. In a maxed scenario you will get destroyed by pure Thor with roaches, 100times in a row, because the maxed composition will just cost like 50% more.
Roaches and Zerglings are nice against Thors, until Terran has turtled up a good amount of them. If you haven't switched into Broodlords or Ultras until then you go basetrade or you are dead, because you can't fight the composition anymore.
I'm assuming those numbers are just there for show.
Anyway, Thors and Neural Parasite have the same range, and one army of maxed Thors is the equivalent of 3 or 4 remaxes on Roach, so here's a solution for example. You can add BLs too, they're very nice at stopping Thors from moving anywhere.
On February 25 2012 22:31 Big J wrote:
And if I have 5k in the bank and you are broke and can't produce properly, then you better get your macro straight before thinking about what composition to use. Hell, Mech is even way better than bio when it comes to reproducing units so you will have even less of a problem with a "remax" if you are in an even position.
Huh? Wait, can you back this up?
Last time I checked, Thors had a 60 second build time, and a maxed Thor army requires something like 4000 gas. How in hell can you afford that off 3 bases? And just... I mean how Mech is more replaceable than Bio? It seems simple common sense to say that Bio can be reproduced easier and faster...
|
Ghosts are still good against broodlord/infestor, the only change is 4 more snipe shots, which isn't a big deal when you have 15+ ghosts in the lategame. So the answer to you beating it is to do the same exact thing you have been doing.
The ghost nerf makes it worse vs the ultra switch, which is good. 1 unit shouldn't beat 2 comps all on its own. Ultras are not that great and proper bio control when they make the switch will still kill the ultras.
Biomech with Ghosts is still pretty good. Just weak vs ultras, and will require you to possibly add some rauders in with the biomech. The change is good imo. It could have been done better, and it makes snipe suck vs alot of things it shouldn't (zealots/banes/etc) but the ghost change doesn't break the game.
|
On February 26 2012 01:42 Kukaracha wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2012 22:31 Big J wrote:
Costefficient means that in even cost scenarios you are well off. In a maxed scenario you will get destroyed by pure Thor with roaches, 100times in a row, because the maxed composition will just cost like 50% more.
Roaches and Zerglings are nice against Thors, until Terran has turtled up a good amount of them. If you haven't switched into Broodlords or Ultras until then you go basetrade or you are dead, because you can't fight the composition anymore. I'm assuming those numbers are just there for show. Anyway, Thors and Neural Parasite have the same range, and one army of maxed Thors is the equivalent of 3 or 4 remaxes on Roach, so here's a solution for example. You can add BLs too, they're very nice at stopping Thors from moving anywhere.
Well, that was my original point, wasn't it? That you need BLs and Infestors (or Ultras) to combat mass Thor. I was originally responding to a guy that said Zerg T3 vs Thors is bullshit and a Zerg just has to go Roaches or Zerglings to win against mass Thor.
So I guess we agree: you need the T3, at least to a certain extend.
And yeah, the numbers are just for the show. Sorry about that, but another response to my post was that a Zerg could just send a hundred waves of roaches. I guess I somewhat confused that with your reasonable response. Still 2-3 waves of roaches won't break a good Mech composition with its reinforcements and repair, unless you can rely on your opponent moving into a very bad position. (which is possible on some - old - maps like Tal'darim and Terminus, but the superior - newer - tournament maps like Daybreak Cloud Kingdom, Metropolis, Ohana, Korhal Compound all don't have those huge open walk distances anymore)
On February 26 2012 01:42 Kukaracha wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2012 22:31 Big J wrote:
And if I have 5k in the bank and you are broke and can't produce properly, then you better get your macro straight before thinking about what composition to use. Hell, Mech is even way better than bio when it comes to reproducing units so you will have even less of a problem with a "remax" if you are in an even position. Huh? Wait, can you back this up? Last time I checked, Thors had a 60 second build time, and a maxed Thor army requires something like 4000 gas. How in hell can you afford that off 3 bases? And just... I mean how Mech is more replaceable than Bio? It seems simple common sense to say that Bio can be reproduced easier and faster...
Why would you only have 3bases? Mech can be played of more bases as well, watch Thorzain or MVP. They expand with it just as fast as they do with biocentered builds. (at least if they don't go for a prehive timing, but for a macrogame that tries to combat Zerg lategame)
The remax comparison to bio:
A factory with reactor produces 8supply of hellions in a minute, a Barracks with reactor only 4,8supply of marines.
A factory with tech lab produces 4 supply of tanks or 6 supply of thors in a minute, a Barracks with tech lab 4supply of marauders or 2,5supply of ghosts in a minute.
A Starport produces 2,85supply of medivacs in a minute.
As bio will be centered mostly around marine/medivac/tank, a build that is centered around Thors and Hellions as mineral dump will just outproduce that composition of an even amount of production facilities, on the other hand the 100extra gas for the factories will lead to less production facilities to begin with. So I guess it is an overstatement to say that Mech surely outproduces bio, yet I think those two are at least compareable, especially as bio needs factories as well and maybe an extra starport for medivac production. (also note that a barracks with addon costs 200/50 or 200/25 compared to 200/150 or 200/125 for a factory, which is less of a difference in percentage of money in infrastructure, than it would be if you forget about the addons and only think about the 100gas difference)
Also note that you can't compare Mech vs Zerg production with Mech vs Bio production, as bio is being played by outexpanding the Mech player and then whittling the mech player down costinefficiently, while Zerg vs Mech usually focuses on getting a hightech army itself of a rather similiar economy. (just a footnote on why I think bio TvZ does not necessarily have to have more production than Mech, just because bio has more production than Mech in TvT)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
