EPTWe should be glad more protoss players are doing this, and thus scaring terrans into going more rax with marines to open the game, making 111 obsolete.
[GSL] Aug Code S RO16 Day 1 - Page 155
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Tournaments |
|
poorcloud
Singapore2748 Posts
We should be glad more protoss players are doing this, and thus scaring terrans into going more rax with marines to open the game, making 111 obsolete. | ||
|
TolEranceNA
Canada434 Posts
Poor zenio... | ||
|
CeriseCherries
6170 Posts
| ||
|
Tweleve
United States644 Posts
On August 24 2011 00:17 TolEranceNA wrote: At least i got genius right! : ) Poor zenio... Ya I thought Zenio was going to roll TOP  | ||
|
aebriol
Norway2066 Posts
On August 23 2011 23:55 eYeball wrote: Stop talking balance and stop spreading lies and misinformation in the live thread. There's a reason why we see the 1 gate robo +expo/Nexus first/1g+FE kind of style instead of a one base thing. It's because it's works and is more standard. I don't know what league you are in but if it was that easy don't you think people would already had figured it out? I have done some testing also and colossus with all those is one of the more worse compositions to get since your gateway army will be so small and tiny. Banshees will eat you alive. So again please don't "The easiest way to hold the 1-1-1 is by going straight into colossus and stay on one base" because it's JUST wrong. All in engagement start: 8:40 Terran: 25 SCV 3 tanks 21 marines 60 supply. Protoss: 42 probes. 2 observers 8 zealots. 1 stalker 4 sentries. 74 supply. Looking at that, I don't see why people think that making 1 more nexus, 17 probes, but having a smaller army and slower tech, should mean a win for protoss. Especially when he starts out by failing to split the army and wasting forcefields. Big engagement: 9:42 67 supply terran 94 supply protoss 25 SCV to 42. SCV's AND probes brought to battle. 2 observers for protoss. Total of: 44 non-army supply for protoss. Total of: 25 non-army supply for terran. 67-25 = 42 army supply for terran 1 medivac 25 marines 3 tanks Protoss: 97 - 42 = 55 army supply for protoss. 14 zealots, 2 immortals, 1 stalker, 4 sentries. Protoss not targeting down the tanks or flanking. Engaging in a big clump. Not target firing the immortal (last tank is kept alive until the end - immortal killing scv's and marines after first tanks). Tech: - Terran had siege mode, stim, combat shield. - Protoss had warp gate ... Terran did a really simple build, but Protoss simply didn't play well either. And he needed to, because his build has much slower tech, and ... I just can't see this game as anything other than a properly executed all in to punish someone that way overfocus on econ early game. Also, I think it was well played and executed all ins in game 2 and 3. Which T wasn't prepared for. | ||
|
wklbishop
United States1286 Posts
| ||
|
Mattchew
United States5684 Posts
On August 24 2011 00:24 aebriol wrote: + Show Spoiler + All in engagement start: 8:40 Terran: 25 SCV 3 tanks 21 marines 60 supply. Protoss: 42 probes. 2 observers 8 zealots. 1 stalker 4 sentries. 74 supply. Looking at that, I don't see why people think that making 1 more nexus, 17 probes, but having a smaller army and slower tech, should mean a win for protoss. Especially when he starts out by failing to split the army and wasting forcefields. Big engagement: 9:42 67 supply terran 94 supply protoss 25 SCV to 42. SCV's AND probes brought to battle. 2 observers for protoss. Total of: 44 non-army supply for protoss. Total of: 25 non-army supply for terran. 67-25 = 42 army supply for terran 1 medivac 25 marines 3 tanks Protoss: 97 - 42 = 55 army supply for protoss. 14 zealots, 2 immortals, 1 stalker, 4 sentries. Protoss not targeting down the tanks or flanking. Engaging in a big clump. Not target firing the immortal (last tank is kept alive until the end - immortal killing scv's and marines after first tanks). Tech: - Terran had siege mode, stim, combat shield. - Protoss had warp gate ... Terran did a really simple build, but Protoss simply didn't play well either. And he needed to, because his build has much slower tech, and ... I just can't see this game as anything other than a properly executed all in to punish someone that way overfocus on econ early game. Also, I think it was well played and executed all ins in game 2 and 3. Which T wasn't prepared for. (this is not smarmy or sarcastic) So you feel that the toss should have won the big engagement with proper micro? Because in that case the early nexus does benefit, it would be similar armies to 2 base vs 1 base. | ||
|
Chicane
United States7875 Posts
| ||
|
annedeman
Netherlands350 Posts
On August 23 2011 23:32 Eufouria wrote: I can't believe the thread turned into this. The only TvP all-in we saw today was a stim timing. but we do see tvp devolve into a who has the leetest 1 base all-in, 1 PvP mu is quite enough for me | ||
|
Disquiet
Australia628 Posts
edit: oo firebat icon now :D | ||
|
Yaotzin
South Africa4280 Posts
| ||
|
red4ce
United States7313 Posts
| ||
|
covetousrat
2109 Posts
On August 24 2011 00:11 Yaotzin wrote: 1st game Virus did a marine/tank/(late)medivac stim allin which killed Genius. Next game Virus did some weird 2rax with marauders into 1/1/1 allin which died to Genius's proxy void allin. Third game Virus did marauder expand which died to Genius's proxy void allin. Sadly void allin chances > surviving 1/1/1 chances so.. Lol thanks. You fight cheese with cheese!! | ||
|
QTIP.
United States2113 Posts
| ||
|
Stanlot
United States5742 Posts
| ||
|
rakoth
Greece55 Posts
On August 23 2011 23:40 Xercen wrote: i think the game is balanced now. I used to play terran in diamond league and i just saw genius counter 1-1-1 That's a great idea! All those scrub P pros, Korean and foreign, must take notes from the genious EU diamond league players you encountered, in order to beat 1-1-1, so simple! | ||
|
eviltomahawk
United States11135 Posts
On August 24 2011 00:42 QTIP. wrote: Wait? Bomber lost to Keen? :S Blew my mind as well. Question: Did Keen do a ceremony this time, and if so, is there a .gif of it? | ||
|
MechKing
United States3004 Posts
| ||
|
aebriol
Norway2066 Posts
On August 24 2011 00:28 Mattchew wrote: (this is not smarmy or sarcastic) So you feel that the toss should have won the big engagement with proper micro? Because in that case the early nexus does benefit, it would be similar armies to 2 base vs 1 base. Actually I feel that he had the wrong unit composition for what he was facing. In particular, too low tech, and he engaged too early before he could take out the tanks at the start of the engagement. He needed a damn near perfect forcefield and engagement against unsieged tanks to make it work, because he had too many zealots, and slow tech and no splash and very few units that could take out the medivac. He could have won if he had split the marines on the right side of forcefields and whittled them down without the tanks being sieged, and then pulled back and engaged later on with a flanking maneuver. The other chance he had was waiting for his 2nd immortal, move that behind the nexus, move them in from one side with maybe 1 sentry and 1 zealot, to target the tanks and forcefield between tanks and marines, and move in zealots from the other side to engage the marines up against the forcefields. But that would have been much harder to pull off, both flanking spells and timing needing to be perfect. Overall I just feel that the main problem was that he way overfocused on econ: - Optimal mining per worker is 16 for minerals and 3 for gas on each base. He was already at 42. He probably should have stayed at around 30-34. That's the same dilemma zerg faces ... as long as you are on two bases, you can't just keep building workers when your opponent isn't, you just need to stay enough ahead that you have a slightly bigger income and then either rush tech or mass units. I don't think he cut workers at all until the all in was allready on it's way, and because of the fast nexus and late robo, he scouted it late. Unfortunate for him. | ||
|
Choboo
Sweden2088 Posts
| ||
| ||
