|
On May 05 2010 00:37 MorroW wrote:
also im 100% positive t is worst race right now. EU players like lucifron only manages to win because the zergs we have practice too little so they dont have experience beating his rush luck builds. whenever a top terran does something twice he has lost while zerg players play same all the time. it clearly shows that t can only win by luck or surprise while zerg win whenever hes playing decent imo. ive tried pretty much every single fe build possible and game composition in all points of the game rather than spent my time rushing and winning tournaments and i promise u, zerg own t by far
This is my experience as well. I've tried all sorts of builds and tactics but nothing feels safe and solid. The only play I can get to work is pure mech play with tank/thor/hellion into vikings. The problem is getting the timing attacks before broodlords are out. However, a lot of maps are not conducive to mech play.
Bio is not viable until they fix the baneling problem.
|
has anyone thought to figure that the asian terran and protoss are not at lvl of EU and NA ?
|
On May 10 2010 16:21 Oodama wrote:
has anyone thought to figure that the asian terran and protoss are not at lvl of EU and NA ?
Yeah, I've said it many times over, as well as others, but people (and Blizzard) still seem to believe that Koreans are inherently better than the rest of us, despite the fact that this is a new game. Granted, it has MANY similarities to BW, but it is actually a new game.
|
On May 04 2010 11:48 VarsityUser wrote:
This is just side-talk... Korean z's are not better than usa/europeans atm. in fact I think they play stubborn and worse. I haven't lost vs a single zerg as terran in probably 15 games. If korean t's cant figure out the formula its sad. Anyone wanting to see the strats I use PM me or ask for link.
Are you playing on the Asia server? Your location says United States...
|
On May 03 2010 16:27 teamsolid wrote:
Example of Korean Zergs --> watch Idra or Artosis play Z. Very solid macro oriented play (Machine also plays similar style, though he is US), usually based on outproducing their opponent rather than cheesing, etc.
I think that is the key to having really great success with Zerg.
If you compare the units of each race you will notice, that Zerg units may be nice and powerful, they usually require A LOT to make things happen. An example:
- To one-shot a Roach you need just three Immortals and that is very little "attack space".
- To one-shot an immortal you need 23 Roaches.
Now you might argue that these numbers arent equal in resources, but that is not the point. The real point is that the tougher / more expensive units usually survive the battle and can fight again. As a Zerg you have pretty weak units - individually speaking - and require swarms of units to overrun the opposition. For this you need three resources: Minerals, Gas and Larvae.
Securing many expansions is pretty easy for Zerg, because they have the toughest static defense and it is mobile as well. You can also heal this "building" instantly with a queen to keep it alive during a battle, something the other two races cant do. Spine Crawlers are neat to defend choke points against a regular infantry attack, but once you enter the mid-game they might be outranged by Siege Tanks and Colossi. They even have a bigger range and higher rate of fire than a Planetary Fortress ... Even though it takes a lot of time to build a Spine Crawler you can determine how many you will need with your scouting of the opponent. Getting an extra queen or two isnt a bad idea either, since there are many air attack strategies AND you may want to save up some energy on them for Transfusion or Creep Tumors.
The problem for most Zerg players is that they have only one mindset: "I must be aggressive" and dont like playing defensively early on. This still works most of the time, but it isnt ideal for the race. Players like IdrA and Artosis demonstrate it very nicely each time that it is much better to start pretty defensively and "macro up" and only then switch to aggression when you can replace your losses almost instantly and go for a contain and killing blow.
IMO Zerg have the least requirement for planning, since their units have only a minute amount of bonus damage, so they are good overall against everything. Thus you dont have to bother with really needing hard counters only with avoiding the enemies hard counters to your units. Zerg are consequently the easiest race to play well with IMO if you can control your urge to win in less than 10 minutes ...
|
On May 10 2010 22:10 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2010 16:27 teamsolid wrote:
Example of Korean Zergs --> watch Idra or Artosis play Z. Very solid macro oriented play (Machine also plays similar style, though he is US), usually based on outproducing their opponent rather than cheesing, etc. I think that is the key to having really great success with Zerg. If you compare the units of each race you will notice, that Zerg units may be nice and powerful, they usually require A LOT to make things happen. An example: - To one-shot a Roach you need just three Immortals and that is very little "attack space". - To one-shot an immortal you need 23 Roaches.
Are you serious here? Why would you use a unit that is completely unique and unlike any other when it comes to taking damage as your comparison for how many of x unit you need to one shot y, and base your argument of zerg needing "a lot to make things happen" on that. Why would comparing how many units it takes to one shot something even if you didn't choose the most moronic comparison outside of an air unit that can't hit ground even prove anything about either race
|
I saw Artosis playing in go4wc3 on europe server. And i have to say he wasnt good at all. No way he could actually win or go deep in go4. Very weird and 100% not working buildorders vs good opponents.
When he played vs a decent opponent who exploited his bo he was absolutely without a chance.
He simply left without saying gg. And he bitched at twitter that he was "owned by a noob" lol while he was definitely the one who was outplayed there. He lost to a guy who already won vs dimaga and TLO and other players of that level so he definitely didnt loose vs a noob.
I think overall the good mechanics are a bit overrated its alot about adepting in sc2 this is not bw. The replays of the "top asian" zergs werent very impressive either. While there are certainly exceptions like freedom.werra who is ahead of the curve.
|
On May 10 2010 22:40 floor exercise wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2010 22:10 Rabiator wrote:On May 03 2010 16:27 teamsolid wrote:
Example of Korean Zergs --> watch Idra or Artosis play Z. Very solid macro oriented play (Machine also plays similar style, though he is US), usually based on outproducing their opponent rather than cheesing, etc. I think that is the key to having really great success with Zerg. If you compare the units of each race you will notice, that Zerg units may be nice and powerful, they usually require A LOT to make things happen. An example: - To one-shot a Roach you need just three Immortals and that is very little "attack space". - To one-shot an immortal you need 23 Roaches. Are you serious here? Why would you use a unit that is completely unique and unlike any other when it comes to taking damage as your comparison for how many of x unit you need to one shot y, and base your argument of zerg needing "a lot to make things happen" on that. Why would comparing how many units it takes to one shot something even if you didn't choose the most moronic comparison outside of an air unit that can't hit ground even prove anything about either race
Yes I am serious, but maybe I failed in explaining my thoughts clear enough. Lets try it again:
- Protoss needs less attack space to deal the same damage. (Using the Immortal vs Roach example was taking it to the extreme, but it works the same way for Zealot vs Zerglings and we see the result every time in PvZ in the early Zealot aggression ... Zerglings NEED to surround or they wont kill the Zealots)
- Concentrated firepower will always give you an advantage over spread out firepower.
- As a result an agile Protoss can ALWAYS nibble at the army of a Zerg and kill units without losing the same value of resources himself.
- Consequently the Zerg will have to replace parts of his army more often than the Protoss and therefore he needs more bases to mine more resources.
- Since you already need to get more resources you might as well go "over the top" with it to get an advantage which other races will have problems of keeping up with.
- Thus: Macroing Zerg = easy win with 1a2a3a in the end since it almost doesnt matter how much you lose ...
I hope that helps clearing up the simple logic.
|
T.O.P.
Hong Kong4685 Posts
On May 04 2010 15:36 condoriano wrote:
I'm not going to dig out Artosis interviews, I simply feel that what I'm providing is more than enough. He said while casting TSL that JF made more money off bw than some of the progamers.
Neither him nor Nony ever said anything about progamer salary for those who don't even make A teams roster. Your quotes are irrelevant, you lose again. Free making 8k a year - that's 167$ a week payed to one of the top players on his team (he sure was one in 2008) Just to give you an idea, someone like oversky would be the best foreign player hands down, he makes nothing at a progamer house, he could've made at the very least 500$+ a month being the best foreigner.
That was back when the Stars were sponsored by Hanbit. Since they got sponsored by Woongjin, they got a brand new dorm. Free got his salary upgraded to what team pays their aces.
|
On May 10 2010 16:04 Floophead_III wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2010 00:37 MorroW wrote:
also im 100% positive t is worst race right now. EU players like lucifron only manages to win because the zergs we have practice too little so they dont have experience beating his rush luck builds. whenever a top terran does something twice he has lost while zerg players play same all the time. it clearly shows that t can only win by luck or surprise while zerg win whenever hes playing decent imo. ive tried pretty much every single fe build possible and game composition in all points of the game rather than spent my time rushing and winning tournaments and i promise u, zerg own t by far This is my experience as well. I've tried all sorts of builds and tactics but nothing feels safe and solid. The only play I can get to work is pure mech play with tank/thor/hellion into vikings. The problem is getting the timing attacks before broodlords are out. However, a lot of maps are not conducive to mech play. Bio is not viable until they fix the baneling problem.
Mech vs Z works if you are good and play it sc1 style.
|
Germany886 Posts
On May 10 2010 16:21 Oodama wrote:
has anyone thought to figure that the asian terran and protoss are not at lvl of EU and NA ?
Well lets say it kinda feels unlikely given the experience Asian players in general do have with Broodwar and partially Warcraft 3.
Also, from what I've seen in replays so far, those guys max out their builds and every single units effectiviness more than almost any western player does. And I do not really believe that they have weaker tactics in general.
|
Maybe the reason we think they have "weird" builds is because their metagame has evolved completely differently from ours? >.>
|
Korean metagame just allows for every Zerg to play a macro build, which is where they shine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
