EPT[D] Terran play in bigger maps? - Page 11
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
theBOOCH
United States832 Posts
| ||
|
Skogsbaret
Sweden45 Posts
| ||
|
infinitely
Canada89 Posts
| ||
|
PredY
Czech Republic1731 Posts
On February 05 2011 08:23 5unrise wrote: Predy, do you think that big maps will compeletely negate the marine scv allin? I personally don't think so but I want to know the opinions of a high level terran. I like how it makes the allin less powerful, but in my opinion that should always remain a viable cheese. Do you think it would still have potential on these maps? well i think it's gonna be always viable, same is in BW, you can always proxy rax and go for marine all-in even on those new maps. the point is and i hope i'm right, the larger and better map the more defenders advantage, thus the zerg will be able to prepare and if he has good ovie positioning, he will scout it in advance and can hold if of well if he puts a spine or two, because the natural isn't wide open. it's not like on steppes where you scout terran going down the ramp with scvs and you can't even put up a spine because it won't finish in time. i still hope cheese will be around, but the players will have to be more tricky, which i like. | ||
|
tainted muffin
United States158 Posts
| ||
|
Yamulo
United States2096 Posts
On February 05 2011 06:13 sadyque wrote: So what you are saying the 99% of pro players are stupid enough to go marine/marauder/viking in late game vs zealot/stalker/collosi and they should try tanks and bc/banshee? Really? I would love to see one try. And what are you talking about 4 gate scouting ??? How is it easier to scout a proxy pylon that can hide anywhere on a larger map or the 4 gate or what? And how exactly does it take more time for his units to get to your base if they warp in shit at a PROXY pylon (proxy!=in-base-500squares-away-pylon) So you don't think you can go Anything but bio vs protoss /facepalm so many things come to mind... like jinro vs mc if you have ever watched gsl....... also Drewbie goes BC alot vs toss if the game alows it, so open your mind and don't think that there is only one style. | ||
|
Yamulo
United States2096 Posts
On February 05 2011 06:48 mahnini wrote: my biggest concern with larger maps is how siege pushes will work over large distances. with the way banelings work, it doesn't require a significant investment to threaten an attack and can stall a push for a pretty long time. that sir is one of the only valid points made on this thread, but i guess time will tell ^_^ | ||
|
Sniffy
Australia290 Posts
Those who still think that Terran can't actually macro well need to understand that just because their own ability to macro sucks, doesn't mean there aren't plenty of Terrans macroing like bosses and winning as we speak. I play at least one awesome macro Terran on ladder each day. | ||
|
Yamulo
United States2096 Posts
On February 05 2011 08:04 Zarahtra wrote: What annoys me a bit when talking about terran is the fact z/p think terran players actually want to use rine/rauder. The problem is, further down the line, there is very little to be thrilled getting. This acts differently between the MUs. TvP: Ghost good Tank sucks Raven good Banshee good, though a bit niche Thor decent but slow BC bad TvZ: Ghost bad(if they fixed shift+snipe it'd be sooo awesome...) Tank good Raven niche good Banshee niche good Thor good for 1 role, controlling surrounding air space/forcing multi box(ugh always forget the term  )BC bad There's nothing really that we've got that makes me think "ohh if I get this unit, I'm in good shape". Heck I'm by far more turned on by my +attack upgrades than any of those units. Especially TvZ, we don't have anything except t1 to deal with mutas anyway(ok thors guarded by turrets...) so that forces t1 anyway(and on bigger maps = mutas are better, so go figure...). Edit: Btw I'm glad we're getting bigger maps. I just don't think it's very bright balancing the races to small maps and then expecting everything to be fine on huge maps. Tanks are good PVT Battle cruisers are good PVT, i mean watch jinro play GSL or watch Drewbies stream you will learn that all units have a place.. and when you say thor decent, i feel that thors are actually amazing since they eat the whole colossi splash. | ||
|
Yamulo
United States2096 Posts
| ||
|
imbs
United Kingdom320 Posts
harass; terran easily has best defenders advantage/ability to turtle; terran easily has best highest effective army food; terran easily has best (w/ mules) unit efficiency; toss barely best, terran only second best mobility; zerg best, terran only second best ;_; its actually a joke that terran whine about it. their truest fear about bigmaps is that a bunch of their freewin builds lose effectiveness. | ||
|
carbon_based
United States46 Posts
| ||
|
Touch
Canada475 Posts
On February 05 2011 18:46 Yamulo wrote: You only mentioned 4 gate, which is easily dependable by competent Terrans. The most "all in" race is still Terran, because unless we are seriously ahead in the early game, late game is nearly unplayable. It is actually hilarious how many people think that this nerfs terran in any sort of way, all races are are subject to less effective all ins... Even the 4 gate will take much longer, especially if you kill the probe/pylon. i think people should take the new maps with stride... since lets be honest everyone hates a good 3-4 of the current maps, especially zerg. | ||
|
danielsan
Romania399 Posts
I mean seriously, all those P players with 1 control group mobile ball wondering around and swarming Z players, just play for once a Custom as T vs your own race and try to leapfrog tanks on a small map. You might notice it's more demanding than attack move. then try it on these ridiculous new ones. Last but not least I really facepalm seeing the overall conception that terran can't macro as if protoss or zerg are some kind of masterminds at expanding. Ever come to notice "immobility" and expanding are somewhat opposed terms? | ||
|
Deckkie
Netherlands1595 Posts
Scondly, the maps arrnt even out yet, we dont know hoe it will turn out, IMO no reason to worry about the balance just yet. Lastly, if it turns out that Terran really needs his harrasment, I would like the dropships being faster again. (this I would like on both small and big maps) edit: typo | ||
|
Rumpleforeskin
Australia16 Posts
Unlike Zerg and Protoss, Terran cannot use their macro mechanic to increase their production. This means fewer SVCs, slower teching, and slower replenishment. True, mules can more than make up for the deficit of SCVs, but their macro mechanic cannot be used to bolster their army like Protoss and Zerg can. As such, longer maps will mean that Terran will need to CRUSH their opposing Zerg or Protoss first army in late game battles in order to defeat the '300 food army' style that Zerg can use, and Protoss can also use to an extent with warp gates. Terran simply cannot reinforce their attacks the same way Zerg and Protoss can, particularly if mutas are on the field. Even if they could, things like siege tanks and thors aren't produced fast enough to be useful as reinforcements. Terran must rely on their army there and then. So, can a late game Terran army compete with a late game Protoss or Zerg army? This will, of course, come down to the terrain of the particular map. Take Zerg for example. Some terrain features (e.g. gold base on metal) can be highly abusable with broodlords, forcing Terran into viking. Zerg can tech switch into ultralisk relatively easily at that point, assuming (s)he has the foresight to put down an ultra den earlier. In maps with alot of cliffs, I see Terran potentially having huge trouble crushing an army like they really need to to make up for that reinforce problem. Protoss late game units also seem to be more than a match for Terran late game units. Once both colossus and HTs are on the field, the Terran will be hard pressed to crush that army. But we just need to wait and see how the metagame evolves with large maps. I hope I made sense here and didn't sound like I had no idea what I was talking about. | ||
|
dementrio
678 Posts
I recently started laddering as terran out of boredom, got demoted to plat and I am currently matched against gold-silver opponents. That my terran sucks is to be expected, but that I lose to gold players is not. My macro is OK, I know how to keep my money low and how to expand and get upgrades. after all I am a zerg player. But if I am not able to set up and maintain a stranglehold position right in front of the zerg's natural I simply get overwhelmed in the late game. It is just impossible to keep up with zerg's mobility, so you have to be in their face forcing them to devote all their resources to deal with your push/contain. If you sit in your half of the map and keep up in bases you will get harassed to death. No static defense can keep up with 30+mutas that are instantly replenished as they lose them, and you can't really leave 20 food at each base to avoid instantly losing them as soon as you move out. What idra says about "turtle terran", it is strong but is just another sort of all-in. instead of a 2 base timing push you are preparing a 3 or 4 base allin, you harass and defend harass until you push and if that fails you lose. My problem with this game is that there are units that once in a critical mass are an instant game winner, so the only way you can deal with that is preventing their number from getting too high. mutas, colossi and to an extent thors and void rays are examples. All the zerg players that go "terran QQ learn how macro", what do you have to say about protoss lategame which is right now stronger than zerg's? learn to macro better? Machine says he needs to prevent the toss from getting a 4th in zvp, otherwise it will be very hard for z to win the game. This is exactly what terrans have to say about zerg. It's easy to say "learn how to play lategame" when it's the others that have to do it. You don't have many options, although I would like to be proven wrong. | ||
|
danielsan
Romania399 Posts
And these ridiculous ULTIMATE BATTLE-like centers more suited for Braveheart showdowns. | ||
|
Smigi
United States328 Posts
On February 05 2011 05:37 Vezex wrote: Terran will likely end up developing into a turtle and mass (off 2 or 3 base) into a big push style. You can already see hints of it on shakuras. Things like drops and banshee harass will still be good, but much more difficult to do since the obvious thing for a protoss or zerg player to do is get phoenix or mutas out and take map control on larger maps. Agreed. Terran is being used very gimmicky right now. it will develop into huge pushes and go into crazy defensive macro games with a large amount of medivac/banshee/hellion harassment everywhere. also note, that as the maps get bigger, expansions are farther apart.. therefore defending expansions from harass will be much more difficult, terran players should take note of that fact ^^. | ||
|
Snowbear
Korea (South)1925 Posts
I can't imagine how much immobility abuse there can be on these big maps. Even with all your tanks together, you have a hard time against a protoss army (blink stalkers, zealots with legspeed, liftphoenixes, immortals). You need perfect emp and perfect positioning. Imagine that you need to spread your tanks out to defend. Protoss would just roll over it. Maybe thor + MMM will be the future. For me Battlecruisers and tanks feel very weak, while thors feel a little bit less weak (but still awefull). I would love to be able to play anything else then the boring MMM! | ||
| ||
