|
On November 24 2010 06:35 Durp wrote:I don't understand why the second in-base hatch isn't given more consideration. One of the main reasons zerg needs an extra base is so that they have the larvae to make both units and workers. Two in base hatches would be much easier to defend (natural creep spread), and provides you with the opportunity to immediately saturate your natural when you take it. I'd love to see someone with actual skill try the in-base out. My mid-level diamond theory crafting is only polluting this thread further... EDIT; http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=155749
The reason people don't 2 hatch in their main as zerg is because its completely pointless, you're just delaying tech and your expansion which you need to be on even footing with terran, due to more efficient army + mules. plus they have the option of just bunker containing you then your expansion is even more delayed
since you confessed to being "mid diamond" i'll let your ignorance slide :p
|
people should stop taking some trends so serious.
the game is still in a very early state. new strats and timings pop up all the time, it gets effective and gets abused alot. its just a fotm(/w) thing.dont call doomsday on a matchup just because of a few matches.
even with all the pros and high level play we see the game is still hugely evolving. look at Zs playstyle today which is mostly completly different then what we saw a month ago. give it time before calling "OMG IMBA BORING END OF DAYS IN THIS MACHUP!"
and really sc2 is a) not even close the beeing as figured out as bw is and b) seems to be way more rush/allin friendly and random.its only expected to see stuff like that popup.
|
It seems to me like high level terran player are basically forcing a meta game change by punishing zerg for being greedy. Both are being super greedy and with the terran all-in, it can end right there. I for one as a terran player is terrified of going against a zerg that has gotten 4+bases. Once they get that many bases the baneligns number are just to hard to control and the ultra will start to come. So, once the meta game shift and people stop doing 14 hatch, it should flow better into a longer macro game.
|
Tbh, people talking about 14hatch so much still don't even understand the problem. You still can't hold it off with 14pool 16hatch, and suggesting speedling expand is just awful :p thats a build for bronze bads
|
LOL, this is crazy.. So many pages and still the same thing again again and again. I wonder for how long this will go on.. :DD
|
Yeah the discussion should be about the Terran cheese. Not the 14hatch. The cheese is just as efficient vs 14pool. It forces zerg to stop droning to prepare for the push, and a smart Terran will just go back to his base while the zerg is stuck with useless zerglings and terran is way, way ahead in workers count AND probably forced the zerg to 1base for longer than he wanted to.
It's a win-win situation for the Terran no matter what build the zerg chooses.
|
On November 24 2010 06:04 Greentellon wrote: "YES I KNOW saying "protoss just need to learn and play" is not constructive"
No, I think this is pretty close to the right idea. It's ridiculous to suggest that ANY race knows how to play right now, and if there were any kind of balance issue that required some kind of "emergency" patching, I think it would be evident in hugely skewed numbers in high diamond ladder games. The more subtle imbalances that might exist will take more time to really be evident - there isn't enough data to confidently make claims about balance in this patch other than to say that if the game is broken, it's only a little broken.
|
I watched day 2 gsl as of now, u guys are really complaining about that ? =P
I mean there is a balance this or that team but I haven't seen one replay were one zerg actually lose to it in this thread (replay of YOU losing because of the tatic not bad decision making), and if I do the statics I think the scv + marine rush worked in less than 50% of the games of today's (since korea live in the future) games ....
U zergs should be happy when opponent goes marine + scv, and terran happy when z goes 7rr, this mean free wins ....
|
On November 24 2010 06:35 Durp wrote:I don't understand why the second in-base hatch isn't given more consideration. One of the main reasons zerg needs an extra base is so that they have the larvae to make both units and workers. Two in base hatches would be much easier to defend (natural creep spread), and provides you with the opportunity to immediately saturate your natural when you take it. I'd love to see someone with actual skill try the in-base out. My mid-level diamond theory crafting is only polluting this thread further... EDIT; http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=155749
for 2 reasons
1. the mineral gathering becomes more effective when you split your drones
2. you gain more map control and also the ability to have double the defence since your opponent usually have to destry your natural before coming to your main
|
On November 24 2010 06:08 ckw wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2010 06:05 TonyT123 wrote:
I feel like this is another annoying over reaction to a fast hatch at the natch. As a zerg player i can say it IS necessary to make a second hatch very fucking fast if you dont want to get steamrolled by the first push simply because the hatch is where we make all our units. the fact that the hatch is at the natural is often just out of convenience...ie, we would expand there eventually anyways so it makes more sense to put it there than in the base...really doesn't matter that much. most of those early fast expands never get close to saturated early on...they're for MAKING UNITS. Like offensive units. I played Zerg until recently as well and I can tell you that in the beginning of release it was impossible to 14 hatch and all the Zergs got a long just fine. I see things like this; the 14 hatch is a cookie and Zergs are the kids who don't want that cookie to be taken away. Sure, you produce units from you'r hatcheries but if it was such an issue making units from 1 hatch then how would builds like the 5 RR be so effective? You have to come up with something better than that man. Also, haven't you ever heard that after an early Zerg expo you can't even support units from both hatcheries because you aren't getting enough minerals so your point is completely invalid until the time in game that you would be making a SAFE expo and actually being able to use the extra larvae. Thats why when you 14 CC you use you'r queens first energy to make a creep tumor and not inject.
except this isnt purely an anti 14 hatch its simply two raxes producing marines, waiting for the opportune moment to allinn or expand.
|
is tvz late game any worse than tvz in bw?
|
On November 24 2010 06:55 weeeee wrote:
is tvz late game any worse than tvz in bw?
There is no TvsZ late game in SC2. There is only GG from Terran once Zerg reaches late game.
|
On November 24 2010 05:56 Coolcatqt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2010 05:51 FlamingTurd wrote:
Personally I think this new T rush is ridiculously strong and I really hope this gets patched out of existence. /signed. Its a lame strategy and its overpowered
I think Blizzard needs to seriously nerf Zerg. Zerg have won 3 major GOM tournaments (GSL 1, GSL 2, GSL All Star), and now it's 27 Zerg out of 64 players in GSL 3.
I would start with a Roach Nerf - either reduce the range by 0.5 or raise the cost of Roaches. Next, I would raise the cost of hatcheries - Zerg macro is ridiculous for the cheap cost of their armies. Banelings may need a nerf because the amount of micro a Terran has to do to avoid banelings is ridciulous - for Zerg, it's just A-click on a Terran bio army.
|
lol i just saw those cannon plays, funny that the protoss answer to 14 hatch could be photon cannons, lol.
hopefulyl it'll turn into an effective trend.
|
An FE is dangerous as zerg, you are foolish if you expect to get it for free every game. It is risky to throw down a 14 hatch blindly.
Most of the time you can scout early enough to see the second rax, and then just drop a bling nest and be a-ok.
Further, this is not cheese, because it made to counter a specific B/O, and if they see you have enough defense, they can back off and/or not bring scv's.
|
On November 24 2010 06:00 klauz619 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2010 05:51 FlamingTurd wrote:
Personally I think this new T rush is ridiculously strong and I really hope this gets patched out of existence. Yeah everytime zerg loses a new patch should be addressed so that the zerg who haven't improved at all since beta retains their 65% win rate. Seems to be the trend now.
Try 100% win rate for GOM tournaments. Zerg have won GSL 1, GSL 2, and the GOM All Star invitational. Also, Zerg make up 27 of 64 players at GSL 3.
If that isn't OP, I don't know what is.
|
On November 24 2010 07:06 StarcraftMan wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2010 06:00 klauz619 wrote:On November 24 2010 05:51 FlamingTurd wrote:
Personally I think this new T rush is ridiculously strong and I really hope this gets patched out of existence. Yeah everytime zerg loses a new patch should be addressed so that the zerg who haven't improved at all since beta retains their 65% win rate. Seems to be the trend now. Try 100% win rate for GOM tournaments. Zerg have won GSL 1, GSL 2, and the GOM All Star invitational. Also, Zerg make up 27 of 64 players at GSL 3. If that isn't OP, I don't know what is.
Yeah and a Terran won IEM, MLG and there were 24 out of 64 players in GSL 3 as terran. If that isn't' close to balanced then I don't' know what is.
|
On November 24 2010 07:08 blade55555 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2010 07:06 StarcraftMan wrote:On November 24 2010 06:00 klauz619 wrote:On November 24 2010 05:51 FlamingTurd wrote:
Personally I think this new T rush is ridiculously strong and I really hope this gets patched out of existence. Yeah everytime zerg loses a new patch should be addressed so that the zerg who haven't improved at all since beta retains their 65% win rate. Seems to be the trend now. Try 100% win rate for GOM tournaments. Zerg have won GSL 1, GSL 2, and the GOM All Star invitational. Also, Zerg make up 27 of 64 players at GSL 3. If that isn't OP, I don't know what is. Yeah and a Terran won IEM, MLG and there were 24 out of 64 players in GSL 3 as terran. If that isn't' close to balanced then I don't' know what is.
That's like comparing the olympics to college football.
|
On November 24 2010 07:08 blade55555 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2010 07:06 StarcraftMan wrote:On November 24 2010 06:00 klauz619 wrote:On November 24 2010 05:51 FlamingTurd wrote:
Personally I think this new T rush is ridiculously strong and I really hope this gets patched out of existence. Yeah everytime zerg loses a new patch should be addressed so that the zerg who haven't improved at all since beta retains their 65% win rate. Seems to be the trend now. Try 100% win rate for GOM tournaments. Zerg have won GSL 1, GSL 2, and the GOM All Star invitational. Also, Zerg make up 27 of 64 players at GSL 3. If that isn't OP, I don't know what is. Yeah and a Terran won IEM, MLG and there were 24 out of 64 players in GSL 3 as terran. If that isn't' close to balanced then I don't' know what is.
IEM and MLG are totally the same level tournaments as the GSL and GOM All Star Invitational. Also, while there may be 24 Terran players compared to 27 zerg, that's not even considering the fact that so many more Terran and Protoss players tried out, compared to Zerg.
|
such a lame way to play, allinning every game...pretty boring to watch.
btw, call it Bankrush please - too big to fail.
And about that 100% win rate in GOM tournaments:
Fruitdealer VASTLY outplayed every terran there, partly because of their lack of training in ZvT.
NesTea adapted to the extremely cheesy and allin playstyle of FoxeR, which led to his failure.
I dont see any imbalance there, just a superior ability to adapt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
