|
On December 12 2010 13:13 Cephei wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2010 13:00 Bowdy wrote:On December 12 2010 12:40 ShyRamen wrote:
i don't mean to start any argument here...
all i want to express is my opinion. i am an average diamond player, terran, 2k and i have to agree with people that complained about the QQing zergs
against zerg i have an incredible hard time during the late game due to the constant tech switch they are able to make, basically once the zergs hit tier3 and get up 3+ bases it becomes extremely hard to deal with them...
my highest win ratio is actually against zerg rather than T or P, and i don't "all-in" bringing my SCVs but i tend to set a plan that ends the game within the 15/20 mins mark. i always open 2 rax, force em into lings, possibly get his hatch deleted/destroyed or make him open roach. at that point i expand and then hit with a strong timing push off 2 bases while the zerg has been re-droning. i feel doing this is the only "safe" way i have to win against zerg because LOTS of time when i went into macro mode, their constant tech switch, crazy mobility (nydus, creep, mutas, etc.) made it too hard to deal with and an heavy mech army is just too expensive and risky to have... if you loose it, you are fucked.
all i am saying is that i can macro game against T and P but against Z is just too insane... and that is why maybe you see so many all ins and sick timing pushes against zerg.... because lots of T players feel the same.
my 2 cents I don't disagree with you. I'll be the first to admit that once I'm on 4 bases with map control and on my way to hive, I'm pretty confident that I'm going to win, but those games are at least fun to play and more importantly fun to watch no matter what the outcome. If blizzard wants to nerf zerg lategame thats fine. I don't blame T's for all-inning every game, I blame blizzard for making that the most viable way to play tvz. It's plain shitty to pay money to watch. SC2 wasn't made for spectators, or because it's fun to watch, you have to remember that.
sc2 wasn't made to be marines and scv's vs zerglings and drones, otherwise why would they have added all those other useless units.
|
On December 12 2010 10:37 Bowdy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2010 09:29 Cephei wrote:On December 12 2010 09:13 Bowdy wrote:On December 12 2010 09:03 Cephei wrote:On December 12 2010 08:35 my0s wrote:On December 12 2010 08:27 Cephei wrote:On December 12 2010 08:22 ThePieRate wrote:
I have to say that the 2 rax all in is a bit over powered. The rank 1 guy in my daimond league told me that he was silver and has terrible macro and micro. He then started only doing 2 rax and now he is a 2300 daimond. I looked at his match history recently and he probably has a 90% win ratio (for recent games). That rush is fucking absurd. It's powerful until it's figured out how to stop, just like anything else, it's still a relatively new strat, it's no reason to rebalance the game. I'm sorry but I'm kinda tired of this response/excuse. It's been out for quite awhile now and never has such a low skilled strat dominated this level of high level touraments. IdrA and ret spent over a week on this one thing and thier answer is a gamble at best, and a flat out accepted loss on some maps. I'm tired of this BS whining zergs like you do all the time every time Terran gets a good strategy it's whine whine whine until we get nerfed. Reapers whine whine whine....nerfed, Tanks whine whine whine... nerfed, early rax whine whine whine... nerfed. You whine about banshees, you whine about marines, you whine about marauders, you whine about vikings, you whine about PF's, you whine about turrets, you whine about mules, you whine about repair, all of these things I see zergs whining about regularly and i bet I've missed a few aswell, you zergs whine about nearly everything the terran has, you are all the same. maybe if reapers werent faster than everything zerg had, tanks didnt one shot everything zerg had, marines werent the highest dps per surface area unit and cost effective unit in the game, stim marauders didnt drop spawning pools in 3 seconds, vikings werent the longest ranged air unit in the game (not to mention they can just land if need be), planetary fortresses didnt nullify the need to ever defend an expo, and, well, i dont mind turrets or mules or repair. I kid I kid btw. I personally don't feel like marines are "imba", I just feel like I wasted 20$ on GSL to watch 2 rax scv all-ins every damn game. Speedlings were faster than speed reapers, a group of tanks 1 shot ground units anyway, creep to react to harassment like marauders dropping in, mutas kill drop play anyway, mutas > vikings, phoenix' > vikings. PF=Warp in=Creep etcetc. @Vodtoast, ok maybe there are exceptions to the rules but most are definitely whiners. Did you miss the part where I said I was joking? And btw, last time I checked mutas and pheonixes have far less range than vikings :p
I was actually about to write the same thing, then i read the end of your post XD
You write very convincingly lol
|
On December 12 2010 13:11 Cephei wrote:
The strategy can be stopped and did many times in the GSL, so don't talk crap about it being unstoppable which is what your getting at.
It's too early to tell IMO, but if it does turn out that the strategy has even a 50% chance of success, I think something has to be done about it, or we'll see most TvZ games becoming all-ins.
Whether that means buffing Terran late-game, nerfing Zerg late-game, or whatever, something ought to be done.
Oh yes btw, did you see the guy who 6 pooled his way into GSL? is 6 pool imba as well? LOL.
If it becomes a staple part of any ZvsX matchup, then yes, it ought to be nerfed.
|
On December 12 2010 12:14 AJMcSpiffy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2010 11:06 SuperBigFoot wrote:
Two rax SCV rush is not impossible to stop. The problem is Zerg players not willing to use any other strategy then going 14 hatch. I am getting sick of hearing that. Ret and IdrA have worked a lot harder with in-game practice, not just theorycrafting, and they have come to the conclusion that hatch first is a near necessity: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=174898Quoted from Ret (from that thread in case you don't want to click it) Show nested quote +people who keep talking about 'hatch first' really don't have a clue.. 2 rax constant marines dominates pool first so bad because there's only so few larve off 1 hatch untill after the first queen inject...the marines can just push you back non stop till that first inject finishes and you are in danger of being bunker blocked I'm not trying to insult you, but I take the word of two of the best Zerg foreigners over that of someone who I suspect does not play Zerg.
Pool first allows you to make spine crawlers in addition to lings. If you spot a two rax rush, pool first and make 2 spine crawlers in addition to lings. It's not that hard to stop. If you are 100% sure that it is a 2 rax rush then make Banelings instead of going 14 hatch. The problem is Zerg players such as yourself feel some type of entitlement to being economically greedy. Terrans have adapted to change and so should Zerg players. Why is it that you feel that 14 hatch should be unstoppable? Terran's can't 14 CC without the risk of getting Baneling busted. Protoss can't 14 Nexus without the risk of getting 7RR. Stop thinking that you are entitled to an easy win game and actually change up your build or rather "SCOUT" and build the correct counter instead of whining and crying to Blizzard every time the meta game changes.
|
Pool first allows you to make spine crawlers in addition to lings. If you spot a two rax rush, pool first and make 2 spine crawlers in addition to lings.
The main restriction of the spinecrawlers is creep. So if you're relying on spinecrawlers then you want the creep at you hatch as quickly as possible. That means going hatch first. I have no idea what you're saying.
That is what pros are saying. It has nothing to do with being greedy. It's that hatch-first is actually superior to holding off the all-in than pool-first.
I dunno. Maybe this is just a FotM kind of deal and it is actually reasonable to hold off. I'll leave that to Blizzard development to figure that out.
|
On December 12 2010 13:48 SuperBigFoot wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2010 12:14 AJMcSpiffy wrote:On December 12 2010 11:06 SuperBigFoot wrote:
Two rax SCV rush is not impossible to stop. The problem is Zerg players not willing to use any other strategy then going 14 hatch. I am getting sick of hearing that. Ret and IdrA have worked a lot harder with in-game practice, not just theorycrafting, and they have come to the conclusion that hatch first is a near necessity: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=174898Quoted from Ret (from that thread in case you don't want to click it) people who keep talking about 'hatch first' really don't have a clue.. 2 rax constant marines dominates pool first so bad because there's only so few larve off 1 hatch untill after the first queen inject...the marines can just push you back non stop till that first inject finishes and you are in danger of being bunker blocked I'm not trying to insult you, but I take the word of two of the best Zerg foreigners over that of someone who I suspect does not play Zerg. Pool first allows you to make spine crawlers in addition to lings. If you spot a two rax rush, pool first and make 2 spine crawlers in addition to lings. It's not that hard to stop. If you are 100% sure that it is a 2 rax rush then make Banelings instead of going 14 hatch. The problem is Zerg players such as yourself feel some type of entitlement to being economically greedy. Terrans have adapted to change and so should Zerg players. Why is it that you feel that 14 hatch should be unstoppable? Terran's can't 14 CC without the risk of getting Baneling busted. Protoss can't 14 Nexus without the risk of getting 7RR. Stop thinking that you are entitled to an easy win game and actually change up your build or rather "SCOUT" and build the correct counter instead of whining and crying to Blizzard every time the meta game changes.
I can't touch on the builds you suggested because they show a complete lack of experience with Zerg or defending a 2 rax. What I can talk about though is what you call zerg players' "feeling of entitlement" to get an early expansion. The zerg race can not keep up equal production on one hatchery to that of a Terran on one base. Like Ret pointed out, there are too few larvae off of one hatch until the first larvae inject finishes, and even then it is an uphill struggle. The zerg NEED an expansion not only for the income advantage, but for the necessity of producing units. A 14 hatch is not the same as a 14 CC or a 14 Nexus functionally or strategically.
Here's what I will say about your builds though. I'm pretty sure Ret and IdrA have tried those things in their practice sessions. They know what they're doing, playing this game is their job. Without the larvae from a 2nd hatch, a 2 rax will roll over the Zerg, and without the income from an expansion the Zerg can't afford to use the larvae from a 2nd hatchery.
|
I love maining toss and watching the cold war of the Terran/Zerg. Us toss just brotossing it out. On a serious note, the game is completely mechanical. It's not absolutely 100% impossible to stop 2rax.
|
In-base hatch is a good way to alleviate the problem. I believe fruitdealer showed this in a couple of his games.
July's pool first was also pretty strong. I think early aggression to beat back early Terran aggression is a strong way to play. Kyrix showed that against Foxer, pulling two games off of him in a best of 5, and while Nestea's style in the finals was different, that worked too.
There are multiple ways of stopping or slowing down 2 rax aggression and all in builds, as shown by pros. I think the "best" way comes down to the style of the Zerg, as opposed to the game itself. Nestea was able to hold off all-ins by stalling long enough to get the spine crawler up, while fruitdealer has been able to do it with good drone and ling surrounds, etc etc.
|
Going to discontinue some other lines of discussion from previous posts as I feel its a waste of my time to argue with uninformed people who feel their general gold league logic is irrefutable fact. Moving on...
On December 12 2010 15:04 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +Pool first allows you to make spine crawlers in addition to lings. If you spot a two rax rush, pool first and make 2 spine crawlers in addition to lings. The main restriction of the spinecrawlers is creep. So if you're relying on spinecrawlers then you want the creep at you hatch as quickly as possible. That means going hatch first. I have no idea what you're saying. That is what pros are saying. It has nothing to do with being greedy. It's that hatch-first is actually superior to holding off the all-in than pool-first. I dunno. Maybe this is just a FotM kind of deal and it is actually reasonable to hold off. I'll leave that to Blizzard development to figure that out.
On December 12 2010 15:06 AJMcSpiffy wrote:
Here's what I will say about your builds though. I'm pretty sure Ret and IdrA have tried those things in their practice sessions. They know what they're doing, playing this game is their job. Without the larvae from a 2nd hatch, a 2 rax will roll over the Zerg, and without the income from an expansion the Zerg can't afford to use the larvae from a 2nd hatchery.
Mostly this.
You have to realize both the mechanics of zerg as well as the economical state it puts the zerg player in when you suggest solutions. Its not the fact that it cannot be held off, although some maps it almost seems like that anyway, its the fact that it cannot be done reasonably and with any kind of reliability. When you know exactly what your opponent is doing, and you cannot respond in a way, such that with equal skill you, with a very high amount of certainty, will be ahead of your opponent. Then it really ceases to be a strategy game.
No I do not proclaim to be certain that it is both unstoppable and imbalanced. But it sure as hell looking that way so far. And when two of the top, if not exactly THE top, english speaking pros sit down for an entire week and try and work it out, I'm going to take heed to their conclusions and advice. And I suggest the rest of you weekend warriors in here do the same, as they are playing this game for their living and at the highest level. And you simply, are not.
It would be nice if a single person arguing against this strat being likely overpowered had any sense of the game at all. YES, it is possible to throw down all kinds of spine crawlers, cut drones, bane tech, or whatever else and hold off the initial attack. But then Terran cuts marine production at like 5 after spotting it, throws down a fast CC with bunkers and rolls you over a few minutes later with an even more powerful force.
Early hatch is not greedy, its just so far the best discovered option of having a chance to deal with this, and not coming out completely eco screwed. And with the way larva works, possibly the best way of trying to deal with this in general. Maybe a good way to handle this is out there, maybe, who knows. But people need to stop sweepingly generally saying QQ zerg you just suck, and pretending they know better than the professionals at this point with zero credibility or justification thereof.
|
On December 12 2010 15:06 AJMcSpiffy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2010 13:48 SuperBigFoot wrote:On December 12 2010 12:14 AJMcSpiffy wrote:On December 12 2010 11:06 SuperBigFoot wrote:
Two rax SCV rush is not impossible to stop. The problem is Zerg players not willing to use any other strategy then going 14 hatch. I am getting sick of hearing that. Ret and IdrA have worked a lot harder with in-game practice, not just theorycrafting, and they have come to the conclusion that hatch first is a near necessity: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=174898Quoted from Ret (from that thread in case you don't want to click it) people who keep talking about 'hatch first' really don't have a clue.. 2 rax constant marines dominates pool first so bad because there's only so few larve off 1 hatch untill after the first queen inject...the marines can just push you back non stop till that first inject finishes and you are in danger of being bunker blocked I'm not trying to insult you, but I take the word of two of the best Zerg foreigners over that of someone who I suspect does not play Zerg. Pool first allows you to make spine crawlers in addition to lings. If you spot a two rax rush, pool first and make 2 spine crawlers in addition to lings. It's not that hard to stop. If you are 100% sure that it is a 2 rax rush then make Banelings instead of going 14 hatch. The problem is Zerg players such as yourself feel some type of entitlement to being economically greedy. Terrans have adapted to change and so should Zerg players. Why is it that you feel that 14 hatch should be unstoppable? Terran's can't 14 CC without the risk of getting Baneling busted. Protoss can't 14 Nexus without the risk of getting 7RR. Stop thinking that you are entitled to an easy win game and actually change up your build or rather "SCOUT" and build the correct counter instead of whining and crying to Blizzard every time the meta game changes. I can't touch on the builds you suggested because they show a complete lack of experience with Zerg or defending a 2 rax. What I can talk about though is what you call zerg players' "feeling of entitlement" to get an early expansion. The zerg race can not keep up equal production on one hatchery to that of a Terran on one base. Like Ret pointed out, there are too few larvae off of one hatch until the first larvae inject finishes, and even then it is an uphill struggle. The zerg NEED an expansion not only for the income advantage, but for the necessity of producing units. A 14 hatch is not the same as a 14 CC or a 14 Nexus functionally or strategically. Here's what I will say about your builds though. I'm pretty sure Ret and IdrA have tried those things in their practice sessions. They know what they're doing, playing this game is their job. Without the larvae from a 2nd hatch, a 2 rax will roll over the Zerg, and without the income from an expansion the Zerg can't afford to use the larvae from a 2nd hatchery.
Here we go again, back to the sense of entitlement. Zerg do not "NEED" to 14 hatch. They can make a spawn pool first because it gives the Zerg player the option of plotting down spine crawlers to help defend against a 2 rax rush.
You also seem to be confused as to what I'm saying. I am not saying for you to make 1 spawn pool and stop playing the game right there. I am saying the safer build to close spawn positions against Terran players is to build a spawn pool first and then you can make you're second hatchery if you do not scout a 2 rax rush. Is that really hard to understand?
Also, talking about what Ret and Irda might or might not have done is like fairy tale land. It's basically complete and utter nonsense to use an assumption as an argument. The only need that I am sensing from you is the need to have Blizzard spoon feed you an automatic win. The reality is that the meta game changed to counter a greedy 14 hatch and so should you.
On December 12 2010 15:04 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +Pool first allows you to make spine crawlers in addition to lings. If you spot a two rax rush, pool first and make 2 spine crawlers in addition to lings. The main restriction of the spinecrawlers is creep. So if you're relying on spinecrawlers then you want the creep at you hatch as quickly as possible. That means going hatch first. I have no idea what you're saying. That is what pros are saying. It has nothing to do with being greedy. It's that hatch-first is actually superior to holding off the all-in than pool-first. I dunno. Maybe this is just a FotM kind of deal and it is actually reasonable to hold off. I'll leave that to Blizzard development to figure that out.
Again, you are thinking in a sense of entitlement. What in the world is wrong with putting spine crawlers up in your main base if you scout a 2 rax rush? You have creep in your base, use it Seriously? How greedy are you?
|
On December 12 2010 15:40 SuperBigFoot wrote:
Also, talking about what Ret and Irda might or might not have done is like fairy tale land. It's basically complete and utter nonsense to use an assumption as an argument. The only need that I am sensing from you is the need to have Blizzard spoon feed you an automatic win. The reality is that the meta game changed to counter a greedy 14 hatch and so should you.
So when IdrA and Ret said they tried every build they could think of, in your mind its not reasonable to assume that such an obvious build was not included in that entire WEEK of practice.
But it is rather, reasonable that we should assume they do not know what they are doing, and follow instead your ideas. Which are in fact credited by an entire 33 posts of intense gaming wisdom.
I dont feel it happens all that often, but let me be the first to admit when I'm wrong. There is clearly no arguing with this line of reasoning. You sir have saved my zvt, thank you.
|
The biggest difference between the pace of SC2 and BW, is larva inject, chrono boosting probes, and mules. These mechanics, which I personally don't like speed up the game. BW is actually very slow, even the fastest all in strats...say a hydra push vs protoss, isn't as fast as your average SC2 rush.
In terms of esports; the future of the entertainment value of SC2 benefits from longer games. If the games are short, then opponents shouldn't die so quickly but at least appear that they have options to survive. Many times in Sc2 it seems that the opponent doesn't stand a chance if he doesn't scout something.
For spectating I think the number of all ins should be reduced. Zerg so far has the least if any, and I believe this difference has made zerg players more focused on what's important...long safe Macro games. Zerg has won both GSL so far.
|
To the guy above who said put spine crawlers down in the main
-There is too much surface area in the main which will make spine crawlers ineffective.
-My personal belief is if you think your late game is good sacrifice the economy early and put down 3 spines at the natural after having built them in your main and then proceed doing your normal strategy. At the moment zergs are playing too greedily and they suffer because of it, but the FE is necessary on all maps there is no way around it.
As far as the All-In's are concerned I feel that the changes that have been made by the patches are done too hastily and without cause. The players currently are no where near the ceiling cap for skill level and lose to X strategy because they don't know everything there is to know about Y build order. That even breaks down to how many probes are mining what and the exact number units 2 marines can make a difference. I think that patches should only affect anything that is clearly IMBA and I mean clearly like the 4pool in SC1 before the patch. There is another reason to patch, but they should have been implemented earlier if X unit has no use in a game like carriers or the mothership. Sure they could do well, but the sacrifices you make for them will leave you dead in almost every game against a player of equal skill.
When openings reach a standard level of play then you look at the late games and the final results of XvsY and see if there are imbalances in the late game armies, but until this new game reaches a standard level of play I think blizzard should back off instead of making a patch for every flavor of the week strategy.
|
Again, you are thinking in a sense of entitlement. What in the world is wrong with putting spine crawlers up in your main base if you scout a 2 rax rush? You have creep in your base, use it Seriously? How greedy are you?
No, that's not entitlement. That's saying that hatch-first works fends off the rush better than pool-first in a practical sense. There's no entitlement in what I said.
Suggesting a 1base is perfectly sensible... until they bunker up your ramp and prevent you from any kind of early expanding, forcing an inbase hatch anyway (cause you won't be able to use your money). Which means you would have been better off going hatch-first! There is NO advantage in 1basing. There is NO advantage to pool-firsting. It will actually put you in a much weaker position.
This has absolutely nothing to do with greed. Hatch-first is better at fending off the rush.
Why is this so hard to get through?
|
On December 12 2010 16:01 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +Again, you are thinking in a sense of entitlement. What in the world is wrong with putting spine crawlers up in your main base if you scout a 2 rax rush? You have creep in your base, use it Seriously? How greedy are you? No, that's not entitlement. That's saying that hatch-first works fends off the rush better than pool-first in a practical sense. There's no entitlement in what I said. Suggesting a 1base is perfectly sensible... until they bunker up your ramp and prevent you from any kind of early expanding, forcing an inbase hatch anyway (cause you won't be able to use your money). Which means you would have been better off going hatch-first! There is NO advantage in 1basing. There is no advantage to pool-firsting. This has absolutely nothing to do with greed. Hatch-first is better at fending off the rush.
I've heard this school of thought from many people, and its funny because hat first is better for defending and for economy. It might be an intrinsic problem in the design of the two races rather than something that can be tweaked .
|
I believe it really only relates to ZvT, however. It certainly isn't true in ZvZ or ZvP, where the early attack can come much earlier but much weaker.
|
On December 12 2010 16:01 DoubleReed wrote:
Why is this so hard to get through?
He's trolling, he absolutely has to be. He can't really be that dumb.
|
I've yet to play the Double-Rax All-In, but have any Zergs tried building their second Hatchery at the top of the ramp, properly placed a Spine Crawler or two, and played accordingly?
|
Zergs are greedy they have to hatch first. Any roach build will crush 2 rax....
Y cant you just get some roach out and then expand?
Roach build can really pressure terran and force them to make at least 1 bunker.
|
I don't think this is a balance issue or Blizzard's fault or that blizzard could do anything to fix this...
All-in strategies are widely used because it is easier and our community's psychological stance on the game...
Also, all-in strategies have the potential to end up not being all-in strategies, that is for example, two opponents go all-in and fail to break the front lines and thus resort to extending their strategy into the macro/mid-game and go from there...
"ALL-IN" is part of the game... just because one player goes "all-in" while playing poker, doesn't mean that he's going to get called to show-down every hand or that he's scv bum rushing... its just another tool in the arsenal.
Its not like my average SC2 games are under 10 minutes long... I don't know what this thread is really bitching about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
