|
So Iv been playing a bit on the new gsl maps, and some of the larger Iccup maps.
Beyond some of the observations I theorycrafted before even playing on the maps (4gate is still strong, 2rax requires 1 or both raxes be proxied but can still win games), there is one very very interesting (at least to me) change to the zerg vs terran lategame in the games I have played:
Broodlords are not nearly as effective as ultras lategame, and in fact, ultras with zergling support seems to be the ideal composition vs terran. once he gets spread out onto 4 or more bases.
Where on small maps, and on bigger maps vs a very very turtly player, broodlords excel in a sort of linear push against lots of tanks and static defense, when we are both on 4+ bases, and having to spread our armies around ultras are far superior as I can push forward and pull back in different spots across the map, as opposed to being dedicated to a very onedirectional and immobile push with broodlords.
I've actually had alot of fun vs terrans, balancing pushing different fields of the battle, making sure to constantly check saturation, stopping multi-drop harass, in a word; multitasking.
People have said that in a lategame ZvT, especially on these huge maps zerg will be imba, but I havent really noticed this at all, if the terran macros up and constantly expands, its still hard to push into an entrenched position, drop harass is even more effective, but the larger size allows you to meet his pushes on even ground, and trade armies effectively.
Im only 2500 Diamond, so perhaps Im not as qualified to judge these maps as many of the top level players who have already condemned them, but personally I am very much looking forward to seeing pros play them, lategame seems like it will be awesome.
TL;DR: Ultras/ling feels much better than broodlords on massive maps, games are very fun and not one sided at all
(I didnt find any threads with a similiar message, sorry if this has already been brought up)
From down the thread a bit:
Show nested quote +On January 24 2011 15:57 DaemonX wrote:
The point many people in this thread are missing is that 'current results' are not reliable for extrapolation to the new maps.
The reason T loses so many games proportionally on cross positions Meta/LT is that the current metagame does not emphasise that brand of terran style.
I am not saying I know what will happen on the larger maps - noone does. Terran may lose badly, maybe because of the very reasons people are saying. And they may not. But the reasons they lose currently are because large-scale macro is a more difficult and complex part of the game, and it is one which is not well understood yet - yes, even at the top levels.
The opinions of the top pros change wildly every season of GSL, and they are right for the time they are playing in. They will be wrong 1 year from now, unless the next true Bonjwa from 2013 borrows a time machine.
This isn't a secret - 4WG was unstoppable and needed nerfs two months ago. Now it's just something accessible for starting protoss to cut their teeth with the race on. But imagine what a current 2-base 6-gate all-in would have done to the same zergs qqing then? 4WG used to crush me, but now I handle it with ease, and I can do it even without roaches. 6-pool was debated to be OP only weeks prior, and sling/bling was the only way you could play ZvZ!
It is unfortunately more important to know how to all-in than it is to know how to manage 5 base macro in the current game state - at least if you want to win games. Sure the pros are better at macroing, and it's a pyramid of skill from bronze to S-class, but the base of the macro pyramid is very, very small currently. The pros have to play on SoW and close-pos DeltaQ more than the 3 possible macro game map spawns in the entire 15 or so possible spawn combos currently in the pool. So of course they can't be good at it, relatively - they would be stupid to focus their training on what is currently a tiny portion of the tournament situation.
It won't always be this way.
Brood war meta game is macro the majority of games, and cheese/all-ins a the minority. But we have a long way to go before the game is as mature as BW, and I don't know if the next-gen big maps will be a step on that road.
I can say the game will change with bigger maps. I don't claim to know how. You've hit the nail on the head as far as what I was trying to say in the OP in regards to current metagame vs future metagame. I do fully believe after playing on the new bigger maps that they are a very very large step in the 'right' direction as far as evolving the metagame. I feel alot of terrans/players of all races see/play/theorycraft these maps and think they are broken because their current strategys dont work as well if at all, but the main theme behind my OP was that new strategys (that startlingly resemble alot of BW strategies) do work quite well, and maintain a much more entertaining balance of power. When I was playing games on the largest of these maps, I would often beat higher ranked players on the ladder, 2800+ points, who would try and do a 2base timing attack all the way across the map, and then politely say something along the lines of "yeah these maps are way too big", but then I would lose to players ranked slightly lower than me who were doing very greedy, macro and harass strategies themselves. I think these new maps require a very different skillset than the one most players have developed for the blizzard maps, and im happy about it.
|
I have yet to try these maps out, but if what you say is true, then there is a bright future ahead.
Can't wait to see them on the ladder pool, I try to find games on iccup maps in Custom but no one joins on EU 
|
On January 24 2011 05:05 Akzever wrote:
So Iv been playing a bit on the new gsl maps, and some of the larger Iccup maps.
Beyond some of the observations I theorycrafted before even playing on the maps (4gate is still strong, 2rax requires 1 or both raxes be proxied but can still win games), there is one very very interesting (at least to me) change to the zerg vs terran lategame in the games I have played:
Broodlords are not nearly as effective as ultras lategame, and in fact, ultras with zergling support seems to be the ideal composition vs terran. once he gets spread out onto 4 or more bases.
Where on small maps, and on bigger maps vs a very very turtly player, broodlords excel in a sort of linear push against lots of tanks and static defense, when we are both on 4+ bases, and having to spread our armies around ultras are far superior as I can push forward and pull back in different spots across the map, as opposed to being dedicated to a very onedirectional and immobile push with broodlords.
I've actually had alot of fun vs terrans, balancing pushing different fields of the battle, making sure to constantly check saturation, stopping multi-drop harass, in a word; multitasking.
People have said that in a lategame ZvT, especially on these huge maps zerg will be imba, but I havent really noticed this at all, if the terran macros up and constantly expands, its still hard to push into an entrenched position, drop harass is even more effective, but the larger size allows you to meet his pushes on even ground, and trade armies effectively.
Im only 2500 Diamond, so perhaps Im not as qualified to judge these maps as many of the top level players who have already condemned them, but personally I am very much looking forward to seeing pros play them, lategame seems like it will be awesome.
TL;DR: Ultras/ling feels much better than broodlords on massive maps, games are very fun and not one sided at all
(I didnt find any threads with a similiar message, sorry if this has already been brought up)
Key word trade armies effectively This is exactly what you dont want late game vs Z. I will admit tho people are being a tad over reactive of the auto-win on big maps for Z. Multi-dropping would be very strong and that alone can be a game changer. I definately fear ling+ultra+bling+infestor tho. That is one hell of an army and if Z is on 5 base, it is very very hard to stop.
|
It should be interesting as it will be more of a mass expand sort of game. But tanks will be much weaker so you'll be more bio based I think.
Marine/Tank/Raven FTW :D
|
Wow sounds nice. I'm looking forward to play and watch games on these maps. 
|
Does the new larger maps have some cliffs-stufs that allows for tank favored play or stuff like that? Because right now t will be at a huge disadvantage on larger maps.
|
@XXXSmoke
Yes but you are also on 4base if Z is on 5. And if you have been harassing all game you will have that damage to your advantage. By trade armies I mean your push isnt stopped outright, but if you dont have proper siege spreads, unit control and reinforcements, my sourrounds and reinforcements can push you back at about an even cost to both of us. FUrthermore I dont see trading armies as that bad for T, especially when the majority of your army is marines(minerals) of which there are a plenty on a big map, and with 4+ OC's Minerals shouldnt be a limiting factor for you. Also, neither of us can concentrate our full 200/200 on any one position if we are both harassing eachother.
I fondly remember many BW games where there would be two sets of largish armies fighting eachother on different parts of the map, and just as the zerg manages to push through, the obs goes to one of his expos where drones are getting slaughtered by a marine drop. These are the sorts of trends im starting to notice in my games on these maps, and Im very, VERY happy about it.
On January 24 2011 05:19 Hider wrote:
Does the new larger maps have some cliffs-stufs that allows for tank favored play or stuff like that? Because right now t will be at a huge disadvantage on larger maps.
Tal'Darim Altar is the main one I played on, and yes, apart from an open center area, the side areas are rife with chokes and cliffs that drastically favour entrenched terrans, but not pushing terrans. I believe that difference Entrenched vs Pushing is one of the keys to fun late games. The terran army is invincible if he plays passive or I slip in my multitasking and let him move forward across a dangeroush(advantage zerg) zone without taking losses and into another advantage terran zone. THis happens on multiple fronts, and its awesome.
On many blizzard maps, Terrans can continuosly be Entrenched AND Pushing, see recent ZvT on shakuras platuea.
|
well, isn't the T income going through the roof ? Because of supply cap Z is limited to mine from 3 bases at a time (75..90 drones) while T can have loads of orbitals and mules .. in fact i think T will be the macro race once players figure this out ..
|
I noticed that too. I saw a game on Taldarim Altar between a master zerg and master terran and it was awesome. After a 30minute fight the terran won because of superior harrassment. looking forward to the gsl playing these maps
|
Canada1637 Posts
Please explain to me how a large map makes drop harass more effective. Any good Z has nice overlord placement and drop play is nullified by the mid game once any mutas are out, and trying to clean up spotting OLs with vikings just becomes a waste of money.
|
^ Because of the ridiculous amount of multitasking and the spread-out-ness of bases on bigger maps, making reacting quite tough!
|
Its not like you just sneak dropships around for drop harass. You start pushing forward and make the zerg fight your mid push (or die), and while hes microing his banes against your marines, your dropship beelines for the most exposed expo. Terrans drop harass in brood war all game, it is NOT nullified by mutas or overlord placement.
|
On January 24 2011 06:27 Adebisi wrote:
Please explain to me how a large map makes drop harass more effective. Any good Z has nice overlord placement and drop play is nullified by the mid game once any mutas are out, and trying to clean up spotting OLs with vikings just becomes a waste of money.
You know somehow protoss were able to sneak in reavers against master multtaskers like Jaedong...I think that people will manage some how.
|
|
|
Finally someone actually played on these maps and can give us some impressions. The complains in advance concerning Z were kind of annyoing. I'd still like to hear from Ts or Ps what their experiences are on the New Large Maps.
|
On January 24 2011 06:52 Jayme wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2011 06:27 Adebisi wrote:
Please explain to me how a large map makes drop harass more effective. Any good Z has nice overlord placement and drop play is nullified by the mid game once any mutas are out, and trying to clean up spotting OLs with vikings just becomes a waste of money. You know somehow protoss were able to sneak in reavers against master multtaskers like Jaedong...I think that people will manage some how.
He probably has no clue who you are talking about now :p.
Ontopic: I like the thought that zerg will be able to make good flankattacks with the increased size in maps. And as the OP said, it'll provoke a more strategic attackstyle more similar to BW where Zerg always tried to catch the terran off-guard or when he is moving. And in general too, armies will have to be more controlled, not just in ZvX. This tactical maneuvering is something that, in my opinion, will increase 1)the pleasure of the viewer and 2) the number of totally awesome epic games.
Anyway waiting for protoss and terran experiences. (Not that gay theory crafting kutshit "dropharras won't be possible mimimimimiimimimimi")
|
i think terran will do just fine since they only need like 18 scvs late game (on gas) because of mules
|
On January 24 2011 05:25 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:
well, isn't the T income going through the roof ? Because of supply cap Z is limited to mine from 3 bases at a time (75..90 drones) while T can have loads of orbitals and mules .. in fact i think T will be the macro race once players figure this out ..
this. atm alot of T's just allin or do some crazy bull shit, but once everyone knows how good turtle terrans are, meta game will FLIP FFFFFUUU
|
this is the exact response i thought we would see with playing these larger maps. players who could multi task better would excel and those with their army as one control group would suffer.
this should contribute to some exciting play in the near future if GSL adopts some of these larger maps as well as Blizzard changing their map pool as well with new large sized maps.
im excited :D
|
Canada1637 Posts
On January 24 2011 07:14 DwmC_Foefen wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2011 06:52 Jayme wrote:On January 24 2011 06:27 Adebisi wrote:
Please explain to me how a large map makes drop harass more effective. Any good Z has nice overlord placement and drop play is nullified by the mid game once any mutas are out, and trying to clean up spotting OLs with vikings just becomes a waste of money. You know somehow protoss were able to sneak in reavers against master multtaskers like Jaedong...I think that people will manage some how. He probably has no clue who you are talking about now :p. Ontopic: I like the thought that zerg will be able to make good flankattacks with the increased size in maps. And as the OP said, it'll provoke a more strategic attackstyle more similar to BW where Zerg always tried to catch the terran off-guard or when he is moving. And in general too, armies will have to be more controlled, not just in ZvX. This tactical maneuvering is something that, in my opinion, will increase 1)the pleasure of the viewer and 2) the number of totally awesome epic games. Anyway waiting for protoss and terran experiences. (Not that gay theory crafting kutshit "dropharras won't be possible mimimimimiimimimimi")
I know very well who Jaedong is, thanks though.
There's really no need to wait to post experiences, if you want to know how ZvP and ZvT will work with the new maps get off your lazy ass go look up and aggregate results from how TvZ/PvZ goes on cross spawn Metal/Shakuras and compare it to how it works on closer spawns, the topic is about how late game TvZ goes on bigger maps as compared to the smaller ones currently in the pool and it doesn't take a genius to realize as the map gets bigger it gets more challenging for Terran.
You can call it "gay theorcrafting kutshit" if you want but I'm pretty sure that with the current trend of basically every Z and their mother favouring Mutalisks, and Mutalisks having even better synergy the larger the map, I don't think drop play is really what TvZ is going to be about for Terran and that relying on slow pushes more, alot of turrets. tanks and possibly even leapfrogging bunkers is what Terran needs to rely on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
