EPT[D] Terran play in bigger maps? - Page 14
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
revy
United States1524 Posts
| ||
|
imbs
United Kingdom320 Posts
| ||
|
Aerakin
185 Posts
On February 05 2011 22:10 Mercury- wrote: Except that tanks cost more and do less now Except... no. Despite "inferior" stats, SC2 tank is wayyyyyyyyyy superior to the BW tank. Why? Smart targetting. Tanks don't overkill targets, meaning that all the fancy micro to beat tanks is gone or much less effective (remember, in BW you could drop a single unit on a tank, and all other tanks would shoot at it and kill the tank. In SC2, drop a unit and maybe the tank will get hit once or twice) On February 06 2011 03:48 Bommes wrote: Did you know that 2 siege tanks which are clumped up lose against a single colossus if they start attacking at the same time? Says everything about siege tank damage against armored units. "oh no, my two units lose against an higher tech, more expensive unit that requires more supply AND requires an expensive upgrade to even have more than half the range of my unit. Did I mention that this is only true in one particular position" Tanks should be spread out, to begin with | ||
|
Bagi
Germany6799 Posts
On February 06 2011 07:25 Aerakin wrote: "oh no, my two units lose against an higher tech, more expensive unit that requires more supply AND requires an expensive upgrade to even have more than half the range of my unit. Did I mention that this is only true in one particular position" Actually 2 tanks cost 300/250/6, thats 50 more gas than a colossus. They require an upgrade too. But yeah, its a pointless comparision. | ||
|
Aerakin
185 Posts
On February 06 2011 08:41 Bagi wrote: Actually 2 tanks cost 300/250/6, thats 50 more gas than a colossus. They require an upgrade too. But yeah, its a pointless comparision. Yes, yes it is =P Besides, a unit higher down the tech tree should be somewhat cost effective (at least, in theory. It is highly situational, in my cases) (also, extended thermal lances is twice as expensive as siege mode, and takes a full minute longer to research) | ||
|
Seam
United States1093 Posts
We wont know what will happen till these go out there. Worst case scenario we get a repeat of history, T is weak on these maps, Blizzard sees this, T gets buffed for these maps. | ||
|
5unrise
New Zealand646 Posts
On February 05 2011 17:40 PredY wrote: 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. my sentiments exactly, well answered, ty | ||
|
Bommes
Germany1226 Posts
On February 06 2011 09:07 Aerakin wrote: Yes, yes it is =P Besides, a unit higher down the tech tree should be somewhat cost effective (at least, in theory. It is highly situational, in my cases) (also, extended thermal lances is twice as expensive as siege mode, and takes a full minute longer to research) Yea and colossi have about 20 times more mobility. And you know how much mobility counts if you look at the raw base stats of the stalker, which are pretty bad, but it is still a good unit because of its mobility. I agree that this pure unit comparison isn't good. I just wanted to bring it up to show how much tanks SUCK against armored units, because I think most people don't really know that. They only see these 15+ tanks that evaporate everything because their splash is way too large, but they have never seen 7-8 tanks + support vanish on bigger maps where the enemy can get a reasonable concave without losing even a comparable amount of supply. Not to mention that they can just walk beside your tankline and you have no chance to catch them without losing half your economy by the time you are there (and you are way out of position then). And tanks take forever to replace. I just wanted to point out how much tanks suck on large maps and that you won't see tank-based strategies there because it is not cost-efficient. I'm not saying that terran will be bad on large maps, because that is just not true. Just the tank will be very hard to establish as a core unit, which is quite sad from my point of view. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On February 05 2011 20:51 Karn3 wrote: I watched a VOD the other of Idra V MVP on shakuras (biggest map in the pool atm) and it think it shows exactly how a terran should play on a big map and how zerg should respond. Its also an AMAZING game and well worth a watch for sheer entertainment value if nothing else. There is always something that is happening, the multitasking on both parts is simply mind boggling. Its also a really close game, i couldn't tell whow as going to win until the last 5 minutes or so of the near 40 minute game. http://www.justin.tv/24california/b/278893657 This match, in my eyes, is just proof of how things CAN and probably eventually will turn out for TvZ. Spoilers for people who want to be left in the dark by the match outcome. + Show Spoiler + Idra was able to control at least 70% of the map with a ball of 24 mutas. The size of the map actually forced MVP back because of how much of his forces he had to leave at home to fend off muta harass. In fact, MVP didn't even get the chance to push with his macro army. His best chance to push was early on off of what I can only assume was 2 base bio. He had to constantly drop, and even then, he didn't have great success until Idra switched from mutas to ultras to begin a full assault. At that point, Idra's ground forces couldn't completely keep up with the drops, but it was really too late for MVP by then. The amount of map control zerg can obtain through mutas, combined with how powerful lings and banelings are as "OH %&$^!" units makes zerg impossibly daunting to approach. (B)Lings and mutas are just so effective at punishing a terran for not being in perfect position. Increasing the area of the map simply increases the time the terran will be out of position. Once that happens, that durable, expensive terran mech vanishes and the terran finds himself in a very depressing situation, with easily countered bio by that stage of the game. | ||
|
murkk
Canada154 Posts
| ||
|
ShyRamen
United States322 Posts
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. i am 2500 master terran and i completely agree with you i understand concerns for some maps that are extremely small like steppes of war and so on but i am sure terran will have an extremely hard time if the map pool changes too drastically. i believe a "solution" to this would be make the 3rd expo more accessible, there's some maps where taking the 3rd is extremely hard (like jungle basin etc.), maybe if they somehow changed those to make the timing for the third easier to defend it could work. but maps that go on for kms and kms... not sure about that. sure you can play macro games as T, but the strength of our race is that is harass based.. | ||
|
Aerakin
185 Posts
On February 06 2011 19:31 Bommes wrote: I just wanted to bring it up to show how much tanks SUCK against armored units, because I think most people don't really know that. True, but a unit cannot be good against everything. Besides, I don't think it is that bad. And, as much as I hate to compare to BW, the maps in that game were huge (and tanks still immobile), but tanks were still very well used (stuff like dropships to move your tanks around). On February 07 2011 07:53 ShyRamen wrote:sure you can play macro games as T, but the strength of our race is that is harass based.. As it's already been said, harass might as well be EASIER on bigger maps. More bases means more places to harass. | ||
|
-miDnight-
Taiwan455 Posts
However it's not unstoppable, Jinro did it. But it will require more strength from terran side. Which may balance the game a little more. we will just have to wait and see. | ||
|
Consummate
Australia191 Posts
I am all for maps like Shakuras Plateau size, but iirc, there was a few enormous GSL maps that I just don't see Terran winning 5 of 10 games on in TvP and TvZ since they will be largely macro games and Terran can't win in a 200/200 battle against zerg/protoss (even if they beat the zerg army, zerg reinforces quicker) | ||
|
Acritter
Syria7637 Posts
I think Sensor Towers will end up being crucial for Terran, as will Raven play. Maybe we'll even get Turreted Mechballs back, a Marine+Tank+Turret build. Maybe Thors in the mix as well. | ||
|
rift
1819 Posts
| ||
|
LoLAdriankat
United States4307 Posts
I think if Terran got a cheap way to delay an enemy similar to spider mines, Terran players would be more inclined to play long macro games instead of strong timing pushes. | ||
|
PeaNuT_T
Sweden326 Posts
Terran is a lovely macro race with pf's and siege tanks. | ||
|
Ponyo
United States1231 Posts
| ||
|
terranghost
United States980 Posts
On February 06 2011 23:48 murkk wrote: I agree with the OP here. Making larger maps doesn't just help skilled players, but also nerfs Terran indirectly. If you've played the game, you know that Terran is far weaker on larger maps. Most zerg and protoss players think Terran is still way too overpowered. However, there is a limit on how much you can directly nerf them, so you make the maps larger. I don't know about you but my favorite map so far is Shukuras plateau because macro games are much much more enjoyable for me even as terran. And no one ever said that every single map in the ladder pool had to be big. Blizzard I said (I believe it was a while back that I heard this) that the reason for the map pool being as it is is to give it variety so having some maps z favored and some t favored and some p favored to me is not a bad thing. I don't vote down maps on the ladder because its good to play on challenging maps for your build of choice too. + Show Spoiler + If I had to choose however I would downturn Steps, delta, and scrap. Also when you think about in tournaments the spoils go to the victor. Players that play in tournaments want a fair game but more importantly they play this game to win. If you win the first map and have the option of selecting the next map since you won the first map how many people do you think are gonna choose a map that works against their style of play. The first map should always be a someone balanced map other than that having maps favored for one race I don't think is a bad thing so long as its not extremally stacked in one races favor and tournaments allow at least one veto. (Yes I'm looking at you jungle basin) + Show Spoiler + On February 06 2011 08:41 Bagi wrote: Actually 2 tanks cost 300/250/6, thats 50 more gas than a colossus. They require an upgrade too. But yeah, its a pointless comparision. Not to be anal or anything but for that comparison taking all other units out of the equation meaning it was just 2 tanks vs 1 collosus you wouldn't need the siege mode upgrade. Tanks do more damage to single targets in tank mode than in siege mode the advantage of siegemode is range plus splash. | ||
| ||
