|
On February 05 2011 06:32 sadyque wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2011 06:25 PredY wrote:On February 05 2011 06:13 sadyque wrote:On February 05 2011 06:00 PredY wrote:i still find it funny people actually think terran is "weaker" after 10 or so minutes. that's just ridiculous. marine/marauder gives you edge in early/mid game. what do you expect when you don't win right away, that you can combat collosi/HTs with mainy T1 and T1.5 units? get real. how about trying to play to terran late game strengs as well - mech/air tech. the thing that it's not yet figured out doesn't mean "oohh terran won't win anything on big maps". cut the crap already, seriously getting sick of it. [ + Show Spoiler +QUOTE] On February 05 2011 05:58 FabledIntegral wrote:On February 05 2011 05:50 PredY wrote:
i've been playing those big maps for some time and i can tell you, we'll see more of 2/3 base timing pushes with big upgrades
also using fast units especially hellions and medivac drops, can even see some players using speed reapers. obviously it all depend on maps layout but that is the general idea. i hope all the scv+marine bitbybits terrans and i-can-only-4gate protoss players vanish. Larger maps only decrease the effectiveness of a 4gate marginally yep, but also you can more easily scout if he is going proxy pylons, also takes more time for his gateway units to get to your base, can't put that much early pressure so you can scout more etc.. 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) ok i'll try to explain and not argue since you're probably looking forward to it. i said gateway units, those are the first units that come out until you research warpgate tech. those units are later at your base, means more breathing room. every player now should tell when a protoss is going 4gate anyway so i kinda meant it like terrible protoss players. well top players that go marine marauder viking know how to play that and know they can get big advantage/win right away until deadly storm or mass collosi come, but most players dont know that and then die to collosi/ht and whine about balance. and i HOPE we won't see MMM viking in the future, because i don't know about you, but i don't watch GSL TvP because it's so fucking boring, unless MVP is playing because you can tell he knows what he is doing, but watching others play and also watching all the protoss failing as well, that's just painful. i just hope we will see more of a mech play because it's more fun to watch I dont want to argue at all  . I have seen you play and i know you are actually pretty good whereas im not even close to you ... Maybe you have 5-6 seconds more to prepare for the 4 gate cuz of the late units but thats it...maybe. Scouting is the same on any map size anyways so its up to the players to see the strat. Its not like i want to see mmm viking every god damn time vs toss ;( I want to see a lot of different stuff just like you. I just never seen it work consistently and my opinion is we wont see it on whatever sized maps...
no problem mate. i agree. i kinda meant bad protoss players, not really 4gate-ing protoss. :D cuz 4gate on some maps are pretty good. i hope we'll be pleasently surprised in the future
|
terran can still use two base play on big maps...they can also still harass on big maps...things like bunker rushes against zergs that take a quick hatch won't work as well...but banshees will be just as legitimate of a strategy as will drops and hellion harass...
they just wont win the game outright as much...
Edit: and this is not just for terrans, this is for zerg 7RRs, and baneling busts. even certain protoss stargate/robo builds would suffer (not 4 warp gate though D: )
|
I play T and have a lot of these concerns. My big hope is that the larger maps actually play out counter intuitively.
Here is what I mean.
suppose you are in mid game on xelnaga, you have two bases, Zerg has 2-3 with about 8 mutas out.
Xel naga is small enough, if you have some reapers out to harass, banshees, drops whatever. If the mutas are keeping you for the most part turtled, once he spots your harass, the map is small enough that he can get his mutas back quickly and either attack your harass units while they are attacking, or attack them when they fall back.
Now, say you have a map twice as wide twice as long as xelnaga. His mutas are flying around the borders of your base looking to pick off random units, your banshees hit/drop lands/reapers jump in. now it takes him 2-3 times longer to get his mutas back. Also instead of immediately heading right to your only retreat route, now you may have multiple ways to fall back, and therefor have more effective harass because you aren't losing units.
Anyway, could be wrong, just my hope.
|
I think people need to stop making assumptions about their race based on preconceptions E.g terran doing bad late, zerg not been aggressive, protoss not been able to tech switch. i think there is alot more experimentation needed before assuming stuff just doesnt work.
|
this is what happens when you focus on 2-base attacks rather than focusing on macro games...everyone knew that this game will soon become a long macro game yet people do these 1 or 2 base attacks and win a couple ladder games but once they step on a big map, they don't know when to expand and how to execute a long term build
Terran is fine as it is...
|
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.
|
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.
yep, perhaps MMM + raven build incoming? i've been trying it for few days and it's fun tho MMM tank is still better i feel but on larger maps, perhaps ravens will become stample TvZ unit
|
Looks like going to need to practice a lot of 1 rax FE builds and transitions to adjust. Going to be tough especially with the immobility of terran mech, but I'm sure we Terrans will find a way to adjust. It's just going to take a lot of practice on both timings/expands and multi-prong attacks I suspect. As well as never letting zerg or protoss max out so the squad based guerilla tactics will still be effective
|
One thing, in my opinion, to keep in mind is the power of the orbital command.
While I completely agree with many points in the OP, after seeing SlayerSBoxeR in the GSL show the power of mining purely from MULE's late game, it seems very likely to me that we'll see that over-max style from Terrans in the future.
Also, don't overlook the strength positional control play has shown. We may finally see that range upgrade for missile turrets come into use.
|
The elitist misconception that terran players do not want larger maps because they all universally suck at macro while zerg and protoss players are just so much better is really getting annoying.
There are countless good macro terrans, most top level terrans even on the ladder play macro games. The problem is that the way terran plays off zerg and protoss makes it fare worse on larger and on more open maps. Terran players do not hate TvZ on shakuras because we all just do not know how to expand a third time. We hate TvZ on shakuras because we don't know how to expand a third and fourth time and still be able to fend off the muta ball when you have the ridiculous run distance between the expansion down at the xel naga tower and the one on the highground behind the destructible rocks.
The fact that larger, more open maps most certainly favor zerg over terran has nothing to do with skill and everything to do with the mechanics of the races. But as long as there are banelings, infestors and the ability to spread creep over the entire map, terran has to play an immobile style against zerg, which means you are fucked on a large map.
|
From GSL 3, Nestea's Ro64 opponent did something like Banshee harass into double expand (taking the back base too IIRC) on Shakuras. We'll probably see more play in that line - using Terran's early harass ability not necessarily to do lots of damage, but to gain map control and allow a fast third time to grow into a PF. Then that in theory leads into a stronger mid game attack once it gets going.
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.
I think I play a pretty reasonable number of 20 minute+ games, but that doesn't make my guys any better against Amulet Templar or BL->Ultras. I don't think MvP is particularly lacking in the late game, but he still responded to Trickster's FE builds with all ins more often than with expansion builds himself.
A bigger map makes siege tanks worse, not better. Even assuming Terran can readily track enemy positions via Sensor Tower and scan, Siege Tanks are really slow. A siege push on steppes is really scary; it only takes 2 siege/unsieges to go from natural to natural, so it takes little time to attack even when pushing safely. On bigger maps, the push is either much lower (staggered siege the entire way), or risky because it tries to run as far possible before sieging - and still slow, because feints with fast units can force the army to stop and siege easily. So the defender has much more time to prepare. They're obviously better on defense if you have time to get out some tanks after expanding but before stim pushes kill you because of the map size. But attacking with them becomes more difficult.
Similarly, in a longer game, getting the tech to deal with Planetary Fortress becomes easier. If Protoss gets out Storm safely, then the protection offered to an expo by the PF is easily circumvented. With a longer distance, the window of vulnerability from a Zerg sacrificing a number of banelings for economic damage (either on SCVs or just to snipe out the PF) becomes less of an issue.
|
lol this thread is getting out of hand. A bunch of Z and P all calling Terrans 1-2 base noobs who can't macro lmao. Seriously, W click or 4s hold a button is hard?? Zergs were the ones who couldn't live w/o holding down a button to build units.
Terran plays the way it plays because of its inherent strengths and weaknesses. Giving P and Z easy bases and lategame tech is suicidal considering T's lategame sucks. The BC was nerfed for god knows what reason. Not to mention as you transition out of 4 rax vs P you'll get steamrolled because they will get colossi + storm before you can switch to anything useful. Don't even talk about upgrades as your new tech will start with 0-0 vs theirs probably already 2-1.
|
If I play Zerg on large maps (LT, Metal, Shakuras cross spawn), I force units but I put up planetary fortresses everywhere and try to keep up in expansions. It's amazing what a handful of siege tanks, blue flame hellions, and Thors can do in a fortified position.
|
I would like a clarification to be made: While large maps may be an issue, it is not so much of a problem with the size of the map, as much as it is an issue with how many technical factors are in the map.
As example, i'd like to show a well known large map Terran has an advantage in:
![[image loading]](http://replaysc2.com/img/maps/KulasRavine.jpg)
Speak for itself? As such, I believe it's more of an issue with terran's having problems fighting without terrain to abuse.
|
I don't get why the TvP late game is THAT hard. MMM+Vikings/Ghosts and proper control is pretty strong against the deathball, and Thors can also be quite good. Just always stay even on bases, use your mules well early and your scans well later to get the positioning advantage. It's not simple, but beating Toss in the late game should be a bit tricky because they're generally vulnerable in the midgame because they rely on the high-tier baddies like Colossi and HT.
Try transitioning to a mass air approach against Z as T. It's actually a crazy strong late game if you're evenly skilled as your opponent. I'd be surprised if it doesn't start getting more usage as maps get bigger and map control becomes more important
|
To clarify on whether terrans can macro or not: I love macro games. I win at least 75% of the TvT's that go lategame. If I could, I'd do a "protoss" every damn game and sit in my base while conjuring up a ball of destruction. I just feel like all the actual evidence we have points towards terran not being built for this kinda play, in fact its the total opposite. By actual evidence I mean how the race is generally being played at pretty much every level.
Saying that "meh, terrans will figure something out" isnt really a solid base to build a house on. This problem might be a big enough that it warrants an expansion (HOTS) to fix.
|
I might get ban for this opinion but: If a map is not terran favored, it is zerg/toss favored.
Terran cant move... we are slowwwwww... and we cant macro as easy as zerg/toss. Sure we have mules for gold expo... except than that...
We need that early harass more than any other race... we have to do economic damage.
Toss and even more zerg, can sit passively in their base macroing... We cant affort that.
Oh well... enjoy 5min all in and mass marines before the 10min mark.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
So you're afraid that Terran might be at some sort of disadvantage? I find that somewhat funny considering Zerg players have been playing with map disadvantages since release, and now that there is a possibility that Terran might have some this concerns you? I think people forgot the diversity of the Terran race, and the shear number of unexplored strategies. This is why Terran's continue to succeed despite all the nerfs, they simply have so many options available that the race is still somewhat unexplored compared to Zerg and to a lesser extent Protoss. I'm confident that Terrans WILL find successful strategies on large maps, it will just be completely different from current play styles because there is currently no drive to create them. Necessity is the mother of innovation, and Terran are the masters of Strategic innovation hands down.
|
On February 05 2011 06:57 VanGarde wrote:
The elitist misconception that terran players do not want larger maps because they all universally suck at macro while zerg and protoss players are just so much better is really getting annoying.
There are countless good macro terrans, most top level terrans even on the ladder play macro games. The problem is that the way terran plays off zerg and protoss makes it fare worse on larger and on more open maps. Terran players do not hate TvZ on shakuras because we all just do not know how to expand a third time. We hate TvZ on shakuras because we don't know how to expand a third and fourth time and still be able to fend off the muta ball when you have the ridiculous run distance between the expansion down at the xel naga tower and the one on the highground behind the destructible rocks.
The fact that larger, more open maps most certainly favor zerg over terran has nothing to do with skill and everything to do with the mechanics of the races. But as long as there are banelings, infestors and the ability to spread creep over the entire map, terran has to play an immobile style against zerg, which means you are fucked on a large map.
I love Starcraft and I love TL but these kind of points make TL balance threads equivalent in quality to Battle.NET cesspool 
|
On February 05 2011 07:22 Bagi wrote:
To clarify on whether terrans can macro or not: I love macro games. I win at least 75% of the TvT's that go lategame. If I could, I'd do a "protoss" every damn game and sit in my base while conjuring up a ball of destruction. I just feel like all the actual evidence we have points towards terran not being built for this kinda play, in fact its the total opposite. By actual evidence I mean how the race is generally being played at pretty much every level.
Saying that "meh, terrans will figure something out" isnt really a solid base to build a house on. This problem might be a big enough that it warrants an expansion (HOTS) to fix.
We terrans play like that not because it's the only way possible, but because it's so damn easy to start a bunker and hope it finishes (and if it doesn't just cancel), memorize a 1 base timing build order, or spam MM off 2 bases and go for a quick win.
Watch Jinro or NaDa and you will see that our race is more than capable of multi-base play. Yes, it is harder than the stim-1a we are accustomed to, but they show that it is possible. Besides, even if the maps does end up nerfing terran a little (I doubt it though), I'm fine with that because we are a little overpowered anyway in the current map pool, just look at recent tournament statistics. TvT's all around zzzzz.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
