|
Big maps are becoming a hot topic with the new Blizzard maps as well as bigger maps from other parties. Most people are in the mindset that bigger maps would benefit the game greatly, as they would weaken gimmicky all-in builds and make a turn towards more macro (aka. skill according to some) based games.
But at the same time I feel theres something people do not consider: how much terran actually relies on 1-2 base plays and constant harass to win their games. In my humble opinion terran is in an awkward spot with how most of their strengths come from early game situations. Bigger maps would greatly downplay these strengths. I'm a ~3000 masters terran myself, so I will try to explain this by using my general "gameplans", and I think most terrans would agree with them.
Gameplan going into TvZ: if positions are close, push with marines/bunkers to prevent FE to gain that early advantage. If its long distances, harass with banshee/hellions/marines to force units and prevent heavy droning. If you let the zerg drone freely, you are as good as dead. Keep up pressure and try to finish the game before the larva mechanism overwhelms you.
Its obvious that all of these general ideas will become weaker in a large map. The zerg will be able to get a FE without trouble. Any harass will take longer to arrive in the zerg base and thus be much weaker. Much of the early game stuff we terrans are forced to do against zerg will be either weaker or completely negated.
Gameplan going into TvP: if positions are close, early pushing and poking with MM might be beneficial. One of the many timing pushes with a raven can really punish a toss that goes FE. Once medivacs come into play, drop drop drop drop. Dont let them get too many colossi. Once both colossi and templar are out, it becomes extremely difficult to deal with the protoss deathball.
Once again when we shift towards macro games, terran gets the short end of the stick. Trying to end the game early will become very, very hard against a competent protoss. Dustin Browder himself at Blizzcon said that terran generally wins before the 15 minute mark, and protoss wins after it.
Personally I feel that the only matchup where I can go into full macro mode and still feel like I am perfectly fine is TvT.
So if we would suddenly change into bigger maps, I think one of two things would happen. Either terran players succesfully learn new ways to play the races strengths and a new era of terran play will emerge. Or alternatively terran be completely outmatched by stuff like creep, superior zerg mobility and warped-in units + stronger armies. I've heard some talk about this issue, but for the most time its not really touched upon, big maps are universally considered to be a good thing. Its almost like people feel terrans deserve to have their strong points taken away from them just because bigger maps are plain better, and because some the current maps favor terran.
Some people have said that things like multiple simultaneous drops and nukes will become increasingly powerful in big macro games, and I do agree with that. I just wonder if it is enough.
I dunno... Discuss.
|
I think its about time we get new maps (bigger or smaller) just for new strats to emerge. Terran will learn to macro and play really well late game vs zerg+protoss. Just wait for strategies to emerge.
|
On February 05 2011 05:31 Lefthanded wrote:
I think its about time we get new maps (bigger or smaller) just for new strats to emerge. Terran will learn to macro and play really well late game vs zerg+protoss. Just wait for strategies to emerge.
@op
you see terran cant macro thats the hole point. Oo
I agree in every point of your post BUT:
Even when its a nice try to give a other opinion, i dont think its worth the time.
Most of the poster here are like lefthanded.
|
|
|
Would a strong advantage Terran has in the late macro game be that, at full saturation, their already very cost-effective army (at least vs. Z) is ~30 or so more supply due to mules? I don't play T, so take that with a grain of salt.
EDIT: ...Also try taking Dustin Browder's (lol) opinions about balance with a grain of salt. 
|
Im about 20 games into the PTR realm with new maps.
I honestly dont fear Z at all even on a bigger map. Tank/Rine/Thor/Medivac is just to deadly, Even on a bigger map I will never let a Z get a 4th base. Drops become quite better on larger maps too.
P on the other hand..... ugh its a nightmare on a big map. Im scared of P cuz all they need is 3 base to get their amulter templars and collsi going. With a practically guaranteed safe 1 gate FE on these new maps its very obtainable for P to get the 3rd base going. I just cant compete with their late game army and I cant do any damage early on either because of the map.
The only new build ive been able to do a bit of dmg with so far is a 2 rax FE into rauder/thor/ghost/medivac/viking.
Test map 3 is unbeliavable. That natural is a Force field heaven. It has two very narrow choke points which are perfect for splliting armies in half, not to mention all of the cliffs make collsus defense extremely hard to break.
|
The Terran game is all about positioning, especially in TvZ. Luckily for Terran, they have the best units for controlling space and dictating positioning in the game, along with the best static defenses. This is a huge strength for Terran that tends to get ignored.
|
Jinro.
User was warned for this post
|
On February 05 2011 05:39 Zrana wrote:
Jinro.
Yeah! QTF.
Jinro doesn't know how to macro.
/sarcasm
|
This has been discussed to death, I feel, nothing new. At the very least, Terran might be represented less in tournaments. Regardless of whether or not T is OP, I'd like to see more of a 33-33-33 distribution in tournies. This might help achieve that. It's not like Terrans are going to disappear completely with the amount of them that we have. Maybe this might cause some to even switch races, which would be awesome.
|
well terrans will need to learn to play
and have a Gameplan that goes further than a Early/Mid-Game Timing Attack.
Players like Jinro, Sjow, Demuslim seem to do and fare well with their Mech/Macro orientated Play which is definitly the future of Late Game Terran.
Especially the whole Mass Mule Macromechanic seems very interesting.
|
On February 05 2011 05:39 Zrana wrote:
Jinro.
Believe me, Jinro is an inspiration. But not even pros can seem replicate his strategies.
Even Jinro does lot of banshee play and other smart harass in his matchups. All of it will be harder to execute with larger maps.
|
Terran's lategame gets easily raped by Protoss 1a blanket storm + colossi splash killing everything in 2 secs. Only the pros that can multi-task and harass everywhere will stand a good chance of winning. I'm not one of them so T.T
|
your basing this of your own experiences of course but i for one dont rely on "1 or 2 base plays" with "most of my strength coming in early game". terran have some of the best tools for long macro games on bigger maps.. seige tanks, sensor towers, planetary fortress, very cost efficient drop play capability to name just a few.
i think the real problem lies in the mentality passed on by a lot of current "pros" who use early aggression on few bases to cover up the lack of macro managment they have and hopefully bigger maps will seperate the few terrans, in my eyes, that are actually good starcraft players from the many who just seem to be good at taking advantage of the chances they are given due to the current map pool
|
On February 05 2011 05:38 mierin wrote:
Would a strong advantage Terran has in the late macro game be that, at full saturation, their already ludicrously cost-effective army is ~30 or so more supply due to mules? I don't play T, so take that with a grain of salt.
the point is that a t maxed army is weaker than a maxed army of z or p
and even if have enough eco to reproduce mostly the enemy loose so less units in the big fight that he can instand kill you after.
its not like after a big tvp fight both loose there army mostly.
If you go bio he have 160 sup left and you 80. if you go mech he have a huge timing window in transition where he can kill you. so the strategie to fight p is to nonstop trade armys so that he never gets over 120-160 sup. i dont say its imbalanced at moment. i think its balanced. t is strong at the start and can use this to kill p early. if the protoss can hold and mass a 200 army he pretty much won the game.
same with z if harazz dont work he have such a big eco that he overrun you late game.
i go 5 base vs 5 base often in games. IF im in big advantage. than i secure my advantage with expansion. if we are equal there is no point of me going into mass basses because im behind in "equal" situations lategame. thats how the matchups work. bigger maps means we are not longer able to harazz or trade armys. so we are forced into a equal macro game where we are behind.
droping a z who have mutas dont really work anymore in master lige.
and droping a p who have templer either.
|
On February 05 2011 05:39 Zrana wrote:
Jinro.
Well, this is pretty much the answer.
The main problem I see is that most Terrans don't even try to play Macro games. Obviously, if only one out of 10 games you play is a Macro game, you will lose to people who play Macro games as often as they can, simply because they are more experienced.
Jinro spent more than 2 months on learning how to effectively play Macro Terran. He didn't manage to qualify for 2 GSL. Then, he finally learnt to play Macro Terran and reached RO4 twice in a row.
|
Macro Terrans do exist! I think we'll see them really stand out with new maps while people that relied on early game aggression will have to adjust their game play or will they will struggle.
|
On February 05 2011 05:38 mierin wrote:EDIT: ...Also try taking Dustin Browder's (lol) opinions about balance with a grain of salt.
Hehe.
I'm pretty sure that quote was based on actual bnet statistics, not just his opinion.
|
i can tell that it is perfectly possible to play macro games vs toss, just try to stay ahead in bases/expand faster than the toss, and when medicavs are out alot of dangerous marauder drops will happen to keep the toss defensive.
like MVP in GSL vs Genius i belive
|
On February 05 2011 05:46 Chise wrote:Well, this is pretty much the answer. The main problem I see is that most Terrans don't even try to play Macro games. Obviously, if only one out of 10 games you play is a Macro game, you will lose to people who play Macro games as often as they can, simply because they are more experienced.
post like this and the 1 just shows that you (me) waste your time here.
you really think a master t never played a macro game? never dit it, allways go allin out of 1 or 2 base?
I really think a discussion over any kind of game strategie (at sc2) is not possible on TL.
signing out...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
