[D] Terran play in bigger maps? - Page 10

On February 05 2011 13:28 Peterblue wrote:
I have been thinking about this a lot lately. With larger maps both Zergs and Protosses will get greedier. Additionally, their map vision at the beginning will not be very large. This means that they will not have a lot of defending units and not be able to tell if harass/attack is coming. However, with larger rush distances a full-attack would be impractical. Therefore harassment will increase. The three units that can be used for this are Hellions, Banshees and Dropships. Both Dropships and Hellions will be able to transition from with a lot of tech already up. Banshees will be more of an all-in harassment. Additionally, both Hellions and Dropships are useful throughout the game for both matchups. Therefore I feel that the standard opening will be either a 1-rax FE or a quick Blue-flame Hellion Harass or Octodrop while expanding. I feel that Terran will not be too badly off in getting up in the early game, and with changes to the meta-game they will be able to grain extra bases more easily as well.

On February 05 2011 14:41 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
Yes it is interesting and I wonder how things will turn out. I think Terran does have potential in these "macro" maps. Terran have so many different ways to harass (Ghosts, Banshees, Hellions, Reapers, Drops, etc), but obviously it takes a lot of apm to keep macro'ing while also doing harassment. I believe a pro player can handle it ofc (think SC BW and how much action there is going around the map), but I think Terran might become the "hard" race for everyone below pro level. Then again, perhaps it might be better to let macro slip a bit and instead focus on the execution of multi pronged attacks and harassments. There has to be a balance that would work, otherwise this is what I believe would be called imbalanced.

Also a note, I assume you use gimmicky because you've heard it from others and therefore haven't put much thought into it (if I'm wrong, sorry ignore this), but please don't use gimmicky like that. That's not what a gimmick means. A gimmick is something that looks appealing but really it's not that effective. Is an all-in effective? I think so. A gimmick would be something like canceling your natural hatch and putting a Baneling Nest there (like JulyZerg in GSL4 Code A) to trick your opponent so that he would assume it's a Hatch and not a Bling Nest; he would be unprepared for a bling bust.

Also, perhaps mech play will prove to be more useful in these bigger maps? idk though, mech is supposed to be better on "smaller" maps though right? But I guess there are many factors to consider so perhaps necessarily it isn't. I do think mech needs some improvement though.

Mech should be stronger on larger maps. You can slowly push and get more expansions and there's not much another player can do.

On February 05 2011 05:17 Bagi wrote:

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 [b]how most of their strengths come from early game situations.

On February 05 2011 15:13 canikizu wrote:
Ah sure, you can argue that medivac is a great unit, but its basic function is the same as overlord or warp prism, and it cost so much more.

On February 05 2011 15:13 canikizu wrote:
One thing Terran is bad is its mobility. Ah sure, you can argue that medivac is a great unit, but its basic function is the same as overlord or warp prism, and it cost so much more. In a big map, P can still move around easily with warp gate/warp prism, while Zerg will begin to take advantage of nidus worm. What does Terran have to let their units move around fast? Nothing.

Watching the game on drewbie's stream where he played against Seth on a GSL map. Terran can't do anything but turtle up, and when he finally move out and reach the center of the map, Seth nidused drewbie's base and destroy everything. And what's next? When drewbie continued with the attack and reached Seth's base, Seth has already moved most of his units back to the worm and wait for drewbie at the base. This kind of thing makes me wonder if big colossal maps are balanced. This game is not BW, Races' mobility, ability, features are much different.

Don't get me wrong. I know that Terran can macro, but its macro comes from the form of turtle (defend/turtle to expand), while zerg's is harass to expand, and protoss is mapcontrol to expand. Right now because of the small/medium maps, we can see Terran pressure to expand, but I doubt it will be the case with the big maps.

I like playing Terran because the first time I saw pro played Terran, I love how aggressive this race is, but if Terran becomes such a turtle race later on, I think I will change race.

On February 05 2011 05:17 Bagi wrote:
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.

On February 05 2011 15:48 yoplate wrote:
I think Terrans are focused on 1/2 base allins/timing attacks because they are so strong. Its not that the terran race cannot play a macro game, people simply have not figured out enough strategies for it. I have seen plenty of long games where terran wins. I think Terrans can win macro games because of the massive mobility of their bioball in addition to safer expos with Pforts. In the lategame, you can consistently drop their spread out expos, forcing the other player to waste time/effort defending his multiple expansions. He cannot harass you back because your distant expansions have Pforts. I think this mobility will allow Terrans to compete with the other races lategame.

On February 05 2011 13:28 Peterblue wrote:
I have been thinking about this a lot lately. With larger maps both Zergs and Protosses will get greedier. Additionally, their map vision at the beginning will not be very large. This means that they will not have a lot of defending units and not be able to tell if harass/attack is coming. However, with larger rush distances a full-attack would be impractical. Therefore harassment will increase. The three units that can be used for this are Hellions, Banshees and Dropships. Both Dropships and Hellions will be able to transition from with a lot of tech already up. Banshees will be more of an all-in harassment. Additionally, both Hellions and Dropships are useful throughout the game for both matchups. Therefore I feel that the standard opening will be either a 1-rax FE or a quick Blue-flame Hellion Harass or Octodrop while expanding. I feel that Terran will not be too badly off in getting up in the early game, and with changes to the meta-game they will be able to grain extra bases more easily as well.

On February 05 2011 14:47 stangstang wrote:
Mech should be stronger on larger maps. You can slowly push and get more expansions and there's not much another player can do.