|
On January 17 2011 21:27 Zealot Lord wrote:
Its very sad to see that so many of the games are still 1 base plays precisely because an all-in counter to fast expansion is just so punishing and unforgiving =/
Against a build like that, I'm really not sure if you can ever fast expand - hellions/marines/raven is simply too devastating of a combo early game for gateway units to hold up against. I'm not crying imba or anything, but does anyone else think PDD is too strong or is it fine as it is? Legitimately curious what the general TL public think about it.
200 gas and u still have to make it 60 seconds before attacking to save energy; nulfying 10 x 14 damage shots of stalkers ...
dun think it's too strong for the price ....
|
Terran isn't OP. Tester just defends bad against 1 base allins. He spreads his ressources too much: he builds a stargate and only make 1 phoenix out of it (wtf?). He should just add gates after his robo and produce mass gate units. Oh, and pull your frikkin probes when terran pulls scvs. His control was somewhat off, especially on SP
+ Show Spoiler +where he lost his two first units for free
|
On January 17 2011 21:05 Providence wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2011 20:52 sleepingdog wrote:On January 17 2011 20:46 Providence wrote:On January 17 2011 20:40 sleepingdog wrote:On January 17 2011 20:24 Providence wrote:
is what easily comes to mind that I can find Thank's for the effort...but...really? I mean this game was played ages ago, demuslim made 3 rax ghosts. Maybe I haven't made myself clear enough, I HAVE seen one gate stargate voidray play, but not: a) in a style that is not all-in b) recently c) successfully (MC tried it vs TOP and failed; one game of his 0-4) Sorry for being so jerky, but I've played with one gate stargate voidray a lot in the past and always found that I kinda had to outplay any terran going for 2 rax expo. What do you expect when you make the claim implying WhiteRa's never done it and believing others who have should have on hand stellar replays or VoDs to fit stringent criteria you never mentioned? Plus why would it matter if it's recent or not? For one I DID say he PIONEERED it, and two all the changes since then haven't made it an unviable strategy. I also recall MC v MarineKing on LostTemple where it was quite strong. Sorry, but I expect when people make claims that they could back them up. Also I think I didn't quote you initially, but a guy who quoted "whitera did it all the time on saturday". And since I watched the homestory cup pretty much the whole time with the exception of a 2 hour running-break I was curious to which games these might have been. Specificly to your argument: your claim that the "changes haven't made it unvaible" is kinda of an empty statement if there are no games saying otherwise. That's the same as saying NEXGenius pinoeered the 2 gate robo FE into fast colossi.....with the problem that everybody who does it nowadays just dies because people have figured out the timings. Just because something has worked several months ago, doesn't mean it would work today. The criteria are hardly "stringent" - because what's so strange about recent games that aren't all-ins and where toss actually wins? And yes, the build of MC vs MKP on LT was a stalker/voidray (semi-)allin off 3 gates. If you don't see the implications of this: it would mean that voidray-openings are useless unless you go a one base attack. And that can't be the solution to PvT now, can it? The criteria are stringent considering you hadn't mentioned them prior, and specifically tied into WhiteRa. Since it seems you originally quoted someone else, I'll just leave it as having been miscommunication on the part of my entering a debate towards the end.
Just to add one more sentence to this: Yes, my criteria was stringent tied to whitera specificly because the other poster mentioned whitera doing this "the whole saturday", therefore I expected him to post at least one rep/vod, nothing more.
As for the LT game, he only continued to push the strategy because he had an opening to do so. I'm almost certain had he not, we would have expanded instead (and I'm almost certain the push was with zealot/VR heavier than stalkers). You mentioned having to outplay terran going 2rax expand when you go VR--are you implying there should be a build for PvT where you can actually play worse than your opponent and win? It just sounds to me that you're expecting a mild voidray attack should deal enough damage to cripple a Terran. It's like with any other strategy--the more you commit to the strategy, the more the strategy itself will win, but doing so means you're less likely to transition to lots of other strategies. You can't be focused and flexible at the same time. It would be like a zerg 6 pooling, and only making 2 lings so he can catch up on economy.
Hmm...maybe we are talking about different games, I have to check VODs when I get home. On the VR-opening. No, of course I'm not expecting the VR to cripple terran and give me a free win. But I'd like to go into midgame on kinda even footing.
Let's compare it to the mutalisk harassment. A zerg-player knows he has to do "some" damage, but that he'll most likely be able to. He doesn't have to completely outplay terran to have a chance of winning. When I do a VR-harassment, I often have to split the VRs in 2 control groups doing multi-pronged harassment with hold-position micro at the edge of the base, while putting up another base, constantly warping in units (meaning: change of screen) and teching to templar because colossi will be automaticly countered by the vikings that every terran will add. Going back to zerg: zerg can go into banelings, which is so very standard and an easier transition than templars.
I feel like VR is too inefficient on the harassment-side unless you are really putting much more micro effort into it than the terran puts into defense - basicly this means you have to play "better" than the terran to keep up with him.
But by no means do I think the VR is "bad" in general, quite contrary I like the VR-opening because it is challenging to me. I hate sitting back, camping, waiting for the opponent to kill me. The most problematic aspect of the VR-opening for me is the transition. When to get templars, how many gateways to get at which exact point in time, and so on. This is why I'm desperately watching all PvT pro-replays I can get my hands on recently, to see if anybody does it, to get some new incentives.
|
On January 17 2011 21:23 Deckkie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2011 21:20 .kv wrote:On January 17 2011 21:15 Deckkie wrote:
Okey, I am obviously not a Protoss and think that this raven push is abnormally strong to the point that it could be broken. But I do want to point out that the Raven is pretty much at the end of the tech tree. Saying that its unfair that u need higher tech units to beat a t1 terran army just sounds so weird while there is a raven out. Please explain Ravens are 100 minerals and 200 gas Protoss has to get a robo bay whereas Terrans can switch their buildings and put the starport on a techlab. Colossus are 300/200 or Protoss has to get a twilight council then templar archives then research storm HTs are 50/175 Raven isn't at the end of the tech tree. The end of the tech tree for Starport is Battlecruisers its not the point I am trying to make. but I think in this argument u should consider that T needs to make an factorie (150/100) and a starport (150/100) and at least one tech lab (50/25) as well.
ok well Protoss has to make a Robo (200/100) and a Robo Bay (200/200)/Twilight Council (150/100) and a Templar Archives (150/100) and Research Storm (200/200).
And I'm excluding Cybernetics Core.
|
On January 17 2011 21:27 Senx wrote:
This is so exciting, we'll either have a repeat champion ( nestea ) or our very first terran champion. This GSL is real good.
or EGIdrA?
|
On January 17 2011 20:56 Elefanto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2011 20:38 Providence wrote:On January 17 2011 20:36 Elefanto wrote:On January 17 2011 20:33 Providence wrote:On January 17 2011 20:25 2l84that wrote:
I am not going to say MVP is a bad player (or thrash him like some other posters here), but I would have respected him more, if he showed us a macro game like the one he had against that zerg opponent in Ro16.(which was a sick match)
MVP is a good player with lots of skill, but neither rushin (ie 3 rd game), or all-ins (1st and 2nd ones) are barely skillful. I was expecting much more than this. IMHO this series was as lame as it gets.
And don't get me started on the skill issue by saying, "but he kited."
Half-decent plats can kite with stimmed MM balls, Oh god.
Actually, it takes a lot of skill to know when to all-in and when to not. In the first game Tester goes Nexus off of one gate before cyber core and MVP scouted it. Why would you not time an all in right as the expo finishes? Third game MVP macro'd way better than tester. I'm not sure what you're basing your comments off of Lol? Skill to know when to all-in? You wait until you got enough units and your wanted mix, a-click into enemy with scvs, if he was too greedy you'll win handily, if he has a big army, your chances are still fucking huge? Since all-ins seem to be so strong, we'll be seeing you in next season's GSL amiright? So if you encounter someone who disagrees with your opinion you just say "go and do it better"? Pretty sick debatting skills you got there. But just to point some things out for you. Game 2 on Xel'Naga. That's a Build EVERY FUCKING DIAMOND CAN EXECUTE. He opted for a blue-flame hellion drop after seeing tester going fast expand. Legit response, it might win him the game right there if he gets 2/3 shots off. It fails through fantastic defense by tester. So you would assume tester is ahead, got his expansion running, deflected a teched harass off of 1-base. What is MVP doing so marvelous? He sits in his base, builds his army consisting of ravens and banshees and marines / marauder with, pulls scvs and a-clicks into his enemy and still manages to CRUSH him. What's tester supposed to do? Get Colossi out asap and die even harder? Get Storm after he had to go Robo for Observer? I don't want to whine about TvP, i want to fucking point out how fucking ridiculous it is in this game to get an expansion and beeing able to defend it. There are easy to execute builds that demolish faster expansions when your enemy isn't playing ten times better than you. If you want to congratulate MVP for his "fantastic stratecial play", to go all-in with a push you know has a fucking huge winning chance without you playing better, just simply a-clicking, you have no clue about stracraft
So if you encounter someone who disagrees with you, you first make sarcastic asinine comments, and when they disagree with you again you start capslocking words to make your point louder?
Since you seem to begrudge the second game, Tester lost a probe and sentry for 2 helions, made 3 observers, a stargate, and voidray, all of which diverted from actual units that could have crushed the attack. Furthermore, his two nexus were high on energy. Clearly his play wasn't focused. It's true I may not know as much about starcraft as you seem to think you do, but it's quite well known that teching is strong against expanding in a general sense. What was he supposed to do? The most solid thing is to mass low tier units after you expand. It doesn't get you super ahead, but in all three games Tester took high risks hoping to gain high rewards, and it didn't work out for him. I'm not quite sure what a "stratecial play" is, but I will congratulate MVP for winning.
PS - next time you say that you "don't want to whine about" something, don't whine right after saying that.
|
On January 17 2011 21:34 .kv wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2011 21:27 Senx wrote:
This is so exciting, we'll either have a repeat champion ( nestea ) or our very first terran champion. This GSL is real good. or EGIdrA?
If by miracle he beats MKP (idra will beat nada if nada wins MKP), he'll never beat MVP or Nestea in the finals. And he still has to beat Jinro, who has a winning record against him. The path is still long for idra =) But bitbybit, GSLbyGSL, he goes farer each time.
|
The MvP vs Tester games were simply an example of an already well-known problem with PvT. You cannot expand if T plays 1/1/1. You simply have to either allin and kill him early or get an obs and react to his army (which 99% of the time involves going colossus).
The problem with the marine/raven/banshee pushes is not just 1 problem, but a culmination of all of protoss' shortcomings and terrans' strength.
-Protoss has no capability of scouting a terran without getting a robo and and obs.
-Stalkers are really bad units in direct combat but you need them to stop any air, harass, or early pressure.
-The necessary counters to different units require teching in completely opposite directions, which is not possible while maintaining any sort of reasonable army.
-Mules allow terran to "supersaturate" and support more production on 1 base than they're supposed to be able to support
-Marines are ridiculously strong earlygame and are only dealt with by colossi and storm
-Banshee/marine kills equal costs of stalkers easily
-SCVs tank shots for zealots while allowing the ranged T army to dish out full damage from safety.
-T can literally make any combo of bio/factory/starport units and as long as they push on a good timing window and pull scvs protoss has little way to live if they expanded.
It's not just 1 specific allin that kills P FE's - it's any random assortment of units. It's difficult to scout from early on where, as a protoss, you have to decide whether to allin, play defensive 1 base, or FE.
SC2 TvP is stupid build order poker.
|
I'm not sure I really want to walk into this, but anyway.
Third game, Tester totally failed at defending basic 1rax pressure. gg. Nothing to see here.
MVP's build in the second, though, was really quite brilliant. I've never seen hellion drop -> raven/rauder done like that, and it works horrifyingly well.
For everyone comparing the raven push to a 4gate, there's a fundamental difference. Both are all-in, yes, but the build for a strong 4gate requires that you commit to it before you find the Terran's expansion, especially as Terrans can build the CC in their bases. The raven push, comparatively, can be selected halfway through a relatively standard 1/1/1, in direct response to a scouted FE. It's not blind at all, making it far safer than a 4gate.
Also as to people saying Tester teched too hard with both a robo and stargate, it does look like that, but really, that's one of the things that makes the raven push so deadly. The best composition to beat it is phoenix/sentry/lot. The nix are critical, so Tester HAD to get a stargate as soon as he saw the raven. You pretty much can't hold it without them.
Unfortunately, because of cloakshees (which look almost exactly the same until the raven is scouted), toss is obligated to get a robo up straight after the expo. By the time you suspect it's a raven push, you've usually got the now-useless robo anyway, and colossi are just too far away.
I don't know. Tester didn't really do a lot wrong in game 2. The raven push is just flat out brutal, and MVP executed it perfectly. Maybe this just means the outright end of PvT 1gate FE.
|
I did enjoy the synergy that the blue flame hellions gave to the scvs so that it nullified zealots and from tester trying to block with his own probes. More Ts should incorporate hellions into their unit comps.
|
On January 17 2011 21:38 MrCon wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2011 21:34 .kv wrote:On January 17 2011 21:27 Senx wrote:
This is so exciting, we'll either have a repeat champion ( nestea ) or our very first terran champion. This GSL is real good. or EGIdrA? If by miracle he beats MKP (idra will beat nada if nada wins MKP), he'll never beat MVP or Nestea in the finals. And he still has to beat Jinro, who has a winning record against him. The path is still long for idra =) But bitbybit, GSLbyGSL, he goes farer each time.
Nestea loses plenty of ZvZs so Idra definitely would have a chance against him. ZvT is hopeless though against someone like MVP. Also haha@Jinro's "winning record" against Idra
|
On January 17 2011 21:32 .kv wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2011 21:23 Deckkie wrote:On January 17 2011 21:20 .kv wrote:On January 17 2011 21:15 Deckkie wrote:
Okey, I am obviously not a Protoss and think that this raven push is abnormally strong to the point that it could be broken. But I do want to point out that the Raven is pretty much at the end of the tech tree. Saying that its unfair that u need higher tech units to beat a t1 terran army just sounds so weird while there is a raven out. Please explain Ravens are 100 minerals and 200 gas Protoss has to get a robo bay whereas Terrans can switch their buildings and put the starport on a techlab. Colossus are 300/200 or Protoss has to get a twilight council then templar archives then research storm HTs are 50/175 Raven isn't at the end of the tech tree. The end of the tech tree for Starport is Battlecruisers its not the point I am trying to make. but I think in this argument u should consider that T needs to make an factorie (150/100) and a starport (150/100) and at least one tech lab (50/25) as well. ok well Protoss has to make a Robo (200/100) and a Robo Bay (200/200)/Twilight Council (150/100) and a Templar Archies (150/100) and Research Storm (200/200). And I'm excluding Cybernetics Core.
true, so forgetting gateways and barracks for short range collosus u pay ccore 150 (if im correct) robo (200/100) and robo bay (200/200) = 550/300
or ccore (150), twilight council, (150/100), archives (150/100) and storm (200/200) = 650/400
terran makes: factorie (150/100) starport (150/100) I think around 3 techlabs (3x 50/25= 150/75) stim (100/100) and cshells (50/50) = 600/425
I dont see the difference.
|
God, each time a protoss dies in GSL, balance talks come back ><
This weekend we had 2 protoss champions in 2 big tourneys, with one PvP final, and in the other one the P roflstomped a 3-0..
Why can't you just accept that some players are better than others ? MVP has the highest ELO of all SC2 players, he made all of his GSL opponents since ro32 looks like scrubs, terrans, protosses or zergs, he's on a 9-0 streak in "official" games. He's just better than tester, yeah, he killed him with 2 one base play, but he could have killed him in many other ways...he tried to outmacro him in game 3, but too bad, tester died to a one marine one marauder poke..why drag balance into this ?
|
BTW, just wanna inform that you can never get people to stop arguing about cheesy ugly plays by saying "he did what he had to do to win", it's as useless as trying to stop fellas from flaming talentless chaps like justin bieber by saying "he does what it has to do to make a living".
|
On January 17 2011 21:28 bearhug wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2011 21:27 Senx wrote:
This is so exciting, we'll either have a repeat champion ( nestea ) or our very first terran champion. This GSL is real good. Don't forget Nada/MKP.
iDRa will win.
|
On January 17 2011 21:41 syllogism wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2011 21:38 MrCon wrote:On January 17 2011 21:34 .kv wrote:On January 17 2011 21:27 Senx wrote:
This is so exciting, we'll either have a repeat champion ( nestea ) or our very first terran champion. This GSL is real good. or EGIdrA? If by miracle he beats MKP (idra will beat nada if nada wins MKP), he'll never beat MVP or Nestea in the finals. And he still has to beat Jinro, who has a winning record against him. The path is still long for idra =) But bitbybit, GSLbyGSL, he goes farer each time. Nestea loses plenty of ZvZs so Idra definitely would have a chance against him. ZvT is hopeless though against someone like MVP. Also haha@Jinro's "winning record" against Idra
Nestea loses plenty of ZvZ ? Where ? He's 8-0 in ZvZ
vZ: 8-0 (100.00%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W W W W W W
http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-korean/players/29_ZergBong
|
On January 17 2011 21:31 sleepingdog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2011 21:05 Providence wrote:On January 17 2011 20:52 sleepingdog wrote:On January 17 2011 20:46 Providence wrote:On January 17 2011 20:40 sleepingdog wrote:On January 17 2011 20:24 Providence wrote:
is what easily comes to mind that I can find Thank's for the effort...but...really? I mean this game was played ages ago, demuslim made 3 rax ghosts. Maybe I haven't made myself clear enough, I HAVE seen one gate stargate voidray play, but not: a) in a style that is not all-in b) recently c) successfully (MC tried it vs TOP and failed; one game of his 0-4) Sorry for being so jerky, but I've played with one gate stargate voidray a lot in the past and always found that I kinda had to outplay any terran going for 2 rax expo. What do you expect when you make the claim implying WhiteRa's never done it and believing others who have should have on hand stellar replays or VoDs to fit stringent criteria you never mentioned? Plus why would it matter if it's recent or not? For one I DID say he PIONEERED it, and two all the changes since then haven't made it an unviable strategy. I also recall MC v MarineKing on LostTemple where it was quite strong. Sorry, but I expect when people make claims that they could back them up. Also I think I didn't quote you initially, but a guy who quoted "whitera did it all the time on saturday". And since I watched the homestory cup pretty much the whole time with the exception of a 2 hour running-break I was curious to which games these might have been. Specificly to your argument: your claim that the "changes haven't made it unvaible" is kinda of an empty statement if there are no games saying otherwise. That's the same as saying NEXGenius pinoeered the 2 gate robo FE into fast colossi.....with the problem that everybody who does it nowadays just dies because people have figured out the timings. Just because something has worked several months ago, doesn't mean it would work today. The criteria are hardly "stringent" - because what's so strange about recent games that aren't all-ins and where toss actually wins? And yes, the build of MC vs MKP on LT was a stalker/voidray (semi-)allin off 3 gates. If you don't see the implications of this: it would mean that voidray-openings are useless unless you go a one base attack. And that can't be the solution to PvT now, can it? The criteria are stringent considering you hadn't mentioned them prior, and specifically tied into WhiteRa. Since it seems you originally quoted someone else, I'll just leave it as having been miscommunication on the part of my entering a debate towards the end. Just to add one more sentence to this: Yes, my criteria was stringent tied to whitera specificly because the other poster mentioned whitera doing this "the whole saturday", therefore I expected him to post at least one rep/vod, nothing more. Show nested quote +As for the LT game, he only continued to push the strategy because he had an opening to do so. I'm almost certain had he not, we would have expanded instead (and I'm almost certain the push was with zealot/VR heavier than stalkers). You mentioned having to outplay terran going 2rax expand when you go VR--are you implying there should be a build for PvT where you can actually play worse than your opponent and win? It just sounds to me that you're expecting a mild voidray attack should deal enough damage to cripple a Terran. It's like with any other strategy--the more you commit to the strategy, the more the strategy itself will win, but doing so means you're less likely to transition to lots of other strategies. You can't be focused and flexible at the same time. It would be like a zerg 6 pooling, and only making 2 lings so he can catch up on economy.
Hmm...maybe we are talking about different games, I have to check VODs when I get home. On the VR-opening. No, of course I'm not expecting the VR to cripple terran and give me a free win. But I'd like to go into midgame on kinda even footing. Let's compare it to the mutalisk harassment. A zerg-player knows he has to do "some" damage, but that he'll most likely be able to. He doesn't have to completely outplay terran to have a chance of winning. When I do a VR-harassment, I often have to split the VRs in 2 control groups doing multi-pronged harassment with hold-position micro at the edge of the base, while putting up another base, constantly warping in units (meaning: change of screen) and teching to templar because colossi will be automaticly countered by the vikings that every terran will add. Going back to zerg: zerg can go into banelings, which is so very standard and an easier transition than templars. I feel like VR is too inefficient on the harassment-side unless you are really putting much more micro effort into it than the terran puts into defense - basicly this means you have to play "better" than the terran to keep up with him. But by no means do I think the VR is "bad" in general, quite contrary I like the VR-opening because it is challenging to me. I hate sitting back, camping, waiting for the opponent to kill me. The most problematic aspect of the VR-opening for me is the transition. When to get templars, how many gateways to get at which exact point in time, and so on. This is why I'm desperately watching all PvT pro-replays I can get my hands on recently, to see if anybody does it, to get some new incentives.
I think I get what you're trying to get at now. Perhaps it could be that VRs aren't really a harassing unit. I mean they can be used that way, but at the end of the day, they aren't very fast, and don't do quick damage (i.e. they need to fully charge before they're monstrous). I see them as more of a pressure unit than a harass unit, the difference being that pressure units are strong because you know exactly where they are (e.g. tanks outside your natural, or marines within vision of a hatch first zerg) as opposed to deriving their power from you not knowing where they are (e.g. mutas for the reasons you give, phoenix, reapers, etc.) I think one thing I may be able to suggest, is that charge is a very important transition step into HTs, and are very strong against MM. In fact, if it weren't for the possibility of helions, chargelot/sentry is ridiculous good against MM, and painfully strong once HTs make it to the scene. I'm not sure if you're skipping charge to get to HTs faster as you don't mention it. If so, I think you may find that this makes the transition a lot smoother. My personal opinion (I am by no means a pro) is that most these protoss players in the GSL are getting knocked out on 2 bases because there's a window when they just tech too hard to HTs or colossus and get killed, or win because the window closes and they just crush their opponents. It's a high risk, high reward thing, similar to when fruit dealer was knocking out terrans with his 2 base into muta ling, into double expand, into hard tech for ultras, and next season foxer just said, "lol i'll just attack and kill him when he hard techs". Same with MC crushing terrans as they'd try to bunker and tech.
|
On January 17 2011 21:42 Deckkie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2011 21:32 .kv wrote:On January 17 2011 21:23 Deckkie wrote:On January 17 2011 21:20 .kv wrote:On January 17 2011 21:15 Deckkie wrote:
Okey, I am obviously not a Protoss and think that this raven push is abnormally strong to the point that it could be broken. But I do want to point out that the Raven is pretty much at the end of the tech tree. Saying that its unfair that u need higher tech units to beat a t1 terran army just sounds so weird while there is a raven out. Please explain Ravens are 100 minerals and 200 gas Protoss has to get a robo bay whereas Terrans can switch their buildings and put the starport on a techlab. Colossus are 300/200 or Protoss has to get a twilight council then templar archives then research storm HTs are 50/175 Raven isn't at the end of the tech tree. The end of the tech tree for Starport is Battlecruisers its not the point I am trying to make. but I think in this argument u should consider that T needs to make an factorie (150/100) and a starport (150/100) and at least one tech lab (50/25) as well. ok well Protoss has to make a Robo (200/100) and a Robo Bay (200/200)/Twilight Council (150/100) and a Templar Archies (150/100) and Research Storm (200/200). And I'm excluding Cybernetics Core. true, so forgetting gateways and barracks for short range collosus u pay ccore 150 (if im correct) robo (200/100) and robo bay (200/200) = 550/300 or ccore (150), twilight council, (150/100), archives (150/100) and storm (200/200) = 650/400 terran makes: factorie (150/100) starport (150/100) I think around 3 techlabs (3x 50/25= 150/75) stim (100/100) and cshells (50/50) = 600/425 I dont see the difference.
3 tech labs for what? Terran needs only 2 for this timing push and short range collosus isn't what you want to fend off a MM push btw...I was just being generous...colossus shoot just as far as stalkers without range which makes them basically useless
|
On January 17 2011 21:39 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:
The MvP vs Tester games were simply an example of an already well-known problem with PvT. You cannot expand if T plays 1/1/1. You simply have to either allin and kill him early or get an obs and react to his army (which 99% of the time involves going colossus).
The problem with the marine/raven/banshee pushes is not just 1 problem, but a culmination of all of protoss' shortcomings and terrans' strength.
-Protoss has no capability of scouting a terran without getting a robo and and obs.
-Stalkers are really bad units in direct combat but you need them to stop any air, harass, or early pressure.
-The necessary counters to different units require teching in completely opposite directions, which is not possible while maintaining any sort of reasonable army.
-Mules allow terran to "supersaturate" and support more production on 1 base than they're supposed to be able to support
-Marines are ridiculously strong earlygame and are only dealt with by colossi and storm
-Banshee/marine kills equal costs of stalkers easily
-SCVs tank shots for zealots while allowing the ranged T army to dish out full damage from safety.
-T can literally make any combo of bio/factory/starport units and as long as they push on a good timing window and pull scvs protoss has little way to live if they expanded.
It's not just 1 specific allin that kills P FE's - it's any random assortment of units. It's difficult to scout from early on where, as a protoss, you have to decide whether to allin, play defensive 1 base, or FE.
SC2 TvP is stupid build order poker.
I'm just thinking out loud here but, wouldn't hallucinate eliminate a great number of these problems?
|
On January 17 2011 21:52 MrCon wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2011 21:41 syllogism wrote:On January 17 2011 21:38 MrCon wrote:On January 17 2011 21:34 .kv wrote:On January 17 2011 21:27 Senx wrote:
This is so exciting, we'll either have a repeat champion ( nestea ) or our very first terran champion. This GSL is real good. or EGIdrA? If by miracle he beats MKP (idra will beat nada if nada wins MKP), he'll never beat MVP or Nestea in the finals. And he still has to beat Jinro, who has a winning record against him. The path is still long for idra =) But bitbybit, GSLbyGSL, he goes farer each time. Nestea loses plenty of ZvZs so Idra definitely would have a chance against him. ZvT is hopeless though against someone like MVP. Also haha@Jinro's "winning record" against Idra Nestea loses plenty of ZvZ ? Where ? He's 8-0 in ZvZ vZ: 8-0 (100.00%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W W W W W W http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-korean/players/29_ZergBong
No one can have that high winrate in ZvZ; the sample size isn't large enough and it's against only 3 players. Obviously he is the favourite probably against anyone currently in ZvZ, but it's extremely unlikely he wins more than 60-70% of his ZvZs against top opponents and he could have a bad day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
