|
On February 05 2011 07:52 GinDo wrote: Many people are scared to play the Macro Terran game because they've dwelled to long on Bio Spam. Its gonna be hard as personally i believe Terran it the hardest race to play macro style because of our production style, but i would rather play the hard race then the QQ OP Race.
While I play zerg I would agree with you that when you get to 3-5 bases, terran are the hardest to macro with. While zerg macro is somewhat difficult, that difficulty doesn't truly ramp up over the course of the game. More hatcheries need to be injected, but other than that it's a relatively similar affair.
Terran on the other hand transform from a simple process into a complicated juggling act. Having 10-15+ production faciltiies of varying types with varying add-ons and keeping that macro up while keeping track of what are usually heavily positional battles is a daunting task, and takes a vastly different level of skill than the early game 1-2 base play.
Perhaps that steep skill increase need is what's causing such heavy "terran can't macro" sentiments.
|
I've known this for a while.
Terran needs more mobility to succeed in large maps.
|
On February 05 2011 07:55 Bagi wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2011 07:49 FrostedMiniWeet wrote:On February 05 2011 07:38 Bagi wrote:On February 05 2011 07:30 FrostedMiniWeet wrote: 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. To be honest, your post is alot of fluff but no real proof that terran would excel in macro games. Unexplored strategies? Masters of strategic innovation? Do these statements really have any weight to them? Terrans are using pretty much the same units and strategies they did at release, even after the nerfs. I mean, I hope you are right, I'm just not convinced. And neither should anyone else be until we actually see alot of meaningful terran macro innovation. Is it really such a problem if Terran do end up disadvantaged? They have been in the map pool advantage seat since release, and if they do end up being disadvantaged, then Blizzard can balance patch from there. I'm just saying its not the end of the world if suddenly Terrans have some map pool disadvantages for a while, and may actually do them some good, as they will be forced to stretch the race to its maximum potential, which I feel like is not happening at the moment as there is really no need or incentive to explore those kinds of playstyles with the strength of rush based all-ins. Taking an antagonistic view to the problem isnt going to help anyone. Terran does not "deserve" to be underpowered just because they've had a good run so far. What matters is getting a balanced end product. People advocate big maps for a more balanced game, but if introducing bigger maps creates more imbalanced than it solves, is it really worth it? I just think its a problem that could be acknowledged before rushing into the pool of big maps.
The problem right now with the game is small maps, pretty much everybody agrees on that. Fix the maps, then balance the game, in that order. Small maps encourage short cheesy all-in style games, and produce players like BitByBitPrime, and allow him to make it to the round of 16 in the GSL despite being a completely inferior player.
The game is easier to balance around large maps than small ones, as they produce longer games. Longer games allow the more skilled player to make more decisions which are superior to his opponents decisions, and this makes racial imbalance less important in larger maps as the games are not so volatile. Comebacks are more likely, and the outcome of a single battle isn't as likely to determine the outcome of the entire game. Basically, larger maps make it more likely that the superior player will win, and provide the superior player with more chances to overcome any imbalances that might exist. This is exactly what the game needs right now.
If Terran end up being UP, which I doubt btw, then balance the game from there. Saying they will be UP on large maps is complete speculation, and shouldn't stop the game from moving in the direction it needs to move.
|
On February 05 2011 08:05 Oceaniax wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2011 07:52 GinDo wrote: Many people are scared to play the Macro Terran game because they've dwelled to long on Bio Spam. Its gonna be hard as personally i believe Terran it the hardest race to play macro style because of our production style, but i would rather play the hard race then the QQ OP Race.
While I play zerg I would agree with you that when you get to 3-5 bases, terran are the hardest to macro with. While zerg macro is somewhat difficult, that difficulty doesn't truly ramp up over the course of the game. More hatcheries need to be injected, but other than that it's a relatively similar affair. Terran on the other hand transform from a simple process into a complicated juggling act. Having 10-15+ production faciltiies of varying types with varying add-ons and keeping that macro up while keeping track of what are usually heavily positional battles is a daunting task, and takes a vastly different level of skill than the early game 1-2 base play. Perhaps that steep skill increase need is what's causing such heavy "terran can't macro" sentiments.
i couldn't agree more.
|
On February 05 2011 08:05 Oceaniax wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2011 07:52 GinDo wrote: Many people are scared to play the Macro Terran game because they've dwelled to long on Bio Spam. Its gonna be hard as personally i believe Terran it the hardest race to play macro style because of our production style, but i would rather play the hard race then the QQ OP Race.
While I play zerg I would agree with you that when you get to 3-5 bases, terran are the hardest to macro with. While zerg macro is somewhat difficult, that difficulty doesn't truly ramp up over the course of the game. More hatcheries need to be injected, but other than that it's a relatively similar affair. Terran on the other hand transform from a simple process into a complicated juggling act. Having 10-15+ production faciltiies of varying types with varying add-ons and keeping that macro up while keeping track of what are usually heavily positional battles is a daunting task, and takes a vastly different level of skill than the early game 1-2 base play. Perhaps that steep skill increase need is what's causing such heavy "terran can't macro" sentiments.
Exactly. Alot of Terran play revolves around the 1-2 base play. The third is often very l8 which basically means your not really mining 3 bases but rather 2 since your Main will be mined out and you natural almost. I mostly blame the Map pool for making difficult 3rds that require big mobility to take.
The issue with this is:
TvP: getting a third just to spam Bio isn;t really game changing. Getting a third to spam more MEch is, but you require mobility for the third which isn;t often available.
TvZ: Terran compared to muta ling bling is very immobile(Siege Tank Marine). Army count is often low due to the constant trading of armies because of Blings, and defending a Third as Terran is very difficult as you have to be aggressive, not lose many units, and expand behind that. If you keep trading armies you won;t have enough troops to defend the third and be aggressive. Turtle to much and you get out macroed.
|
terran are really quite fine on large maps. jinro can compete with idra on big maps and idra is alot better than jinro at the macro. Im pretty amazed at all the terran whine about big maps before even trying/practising on them much at all. you have had a bunch of terrible small maps for ages surely its become boring by now?
|
United States7483 Posts
TvP: Ghost good Tank sucks Raven good Banshee good, though a bit niche Thor decent but slow BC bad
Tanks are actually great against protoss if used properly. Banshees are great in any composition for their dps (2 shots at fast rate at 12 damage per shot unupgraded? Yes please). Ravens are amazing, and are very underused. Auto-turrets are absurdly good harass and great for tanking damage/reinforcing, and PDD is absolutely great. Drop a few auto-turrets in a mineral line and see what I'm talking about. Plus, Seeker missile is very good at weakening colossus balls, and is very underused. Thors are fantastic, and demolish phoenix, which are often used to defeat and tank vikings. Battlecruisers you 'may' have a point, but I still feel they are a lot better than people give them credit for. Yamato cannon one shots void rays. One shots. Upgrades on those battlecruisers makes them absolute monsters to deal with, and protoss doesn't have much that can handle them (Blink stalkers and void rays are your only options, and neither are particularly good at it). Battlecruisers with a tank marine push are basically unstoppable, and can snipe important units/structures with yamato cannon.
Should seriously try the units out more often and in different ways before dismissing them.
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 BC bad
I don't know as much about the zerg matchup, but I feel snipe on ghosts is very underused, and nukes are underused in the game a lot. They can be great for positional control when playing mech, and can be fantastic late game harass when the zerg is on multiple bases. Cloak a ghost, snipe an important unit a few times like queens or infestors, walk out and laugh. Ravens are great against zerg too, and are also underused. Besides basically negating roach burrow, auto-turrets are still great (and can waste banelings while you pull your other troops back >_>), and seeker missile is fantastic in the late game vs. roach hydra or other big balls of zerg units. Banshees, again, are underused in your army composition, they do great single target damage and can be used to snipe infestors and queens mid-late game a lot more than they are. Thors also are better than you are giving them credit for. Drop a thor on a bunch of banelings and laugh as you annihilate their best chance at stopping your stimmed marines for example.
It seems to me that most terrans are simply unwilling to consider using a playstyle focused around air units or an immobile mech style in their matchups vs. protoss or zerg. Terran units are amazingly cost efficient.
|
I think once terran transitions into a more mechanical style, they will be very effective in larger maps. The thing is, when you invest a lot of money into barracks and infantry upgrades early on, it can be very hard to transition out of it. You essentially wasted your money if you don't continue getting these units. However, in a larger map, it will probably be easier to go mech early on.
No matter what anyone says, a 200/200 mech army pretty dominates every other ground composition in the game. Air is the only way to stop it effectively. Mech is scary. It's also really hard to get such an army, because you generally have to invest so much money in barracks for early game.
In any case, I think we should wait and see how things go. Back in beta, larger maps were a death sentence to terran, in my opinion. However, things are a lot different now. Roaches cost 2 food, immortals build slower, hellions have greater range, thors are smaller and shoot more often, etc. Even with nerfed siege tanks, I think mech is a lot stronger now than it was in beta, and thus should allow terran to play big maps.
Seeing the game of Jinro vs OGSMC truly makes me believe that mech is the way of the future for large games. At least vs protoss.
|
On February 05 2011 08:07 Zombo Joe wrote: I've known this for a while.
Terran needs more mobility to succeed in large maps.
terran is very mobile if they are going bio especially if your using medivacs to drop multiple locations at once. Dunno how you can say their not mobile O_O.
|
how bigger maps affect multiple drops? i mean you can hardly compete with terran mobility so like toss has to sit and defend then multiple drops happen, the map being bigger it advantage even more terran so lik i thought the maps were the bouc emissaire for not stating the obvious advantage one race might have upponanother so like they made it even more important?
|
On February 05 2011 08:11 FrostedMiniWeet wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2011 07:55 Bagi wrote:On February 05 2011 07:49 FrostedMiniWeet wrote:On February 05 2011 07:38 Bagi wrote:On February 05 2011 07:30 FrostedMiniWeet wrote: 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. To be honest, your post is alot of fluff but no real proof that terran would excel in macro games. Unexplored strategies? Masters of strategic innovation? Do these statements really have any weight to them? Terrans are using pretty much the same units and strategies they did at release, even after the nerfs. I mean, I hope you are right, I'm just not convinced. And neither should anyone else be until we actually see alot of meaningful terran macro innovation. Is it really such a problem if Terran do end up disadvantaged? They have been in the map pool advantage seat since release, and if they do end up being disadvantaged, then Blizzard can balance patch from there. I'm just saying its not the end of the world if suddenly Terrans have some map pool disadvantages for a while, and may actually do them some good, as they will be forced to stretch the race to its maximum potential, which I feel like is not happening at the moment as there is really no need or incentive to explore those kinds of playstyles with the strength of rush based all-ins. Taking an antagonistic view to the problem isnt going to help anyone. Terran does not "deserve" to be underpowered just because they've had a good run so far. What matters is getting a balanced end product. People advocate big maps for a more balanced game, but if introducing bigger maps creates more imbalanced than it solves, is it really worth it? I just think its a problem that could be acknowledged before rushing into the pool of big maps. The problem right now with the game is small maps, pretty much everybody agrees on that. Fix the maps, then balance the game, in that order. Small maps encourage short cheesy all-in style games, and produce players like BitByBitPrime, and allow him to make it to the round of 16 in the GSL despite being a completely inferior player. Large maps are easier to balance than small ones, as they produce longer games. Longer games allow the more skilled player to make more decisions which are superior to his opponents decisions, and this makes racial imbalance less important in larger maps as the games are not so volatile. Comebacks are more likely, and the outcome of a single battle isn't as likely to determine the outcome of the entire game. Basically, larger maps make it more likely that the superior player will win, which is exactly what the game needs right now. I have heard the marketing speech for bigger maps enough times, and I dont disagree with it.
What I think is that the current balance is a result of balancing for small (terran-favored) maps, but it does not mean the game is balanced for bigger maps. You constantly hear zerg players call bigger attack distances and bigger maps "more balanced", but I have been trying to make discussion whether or not this is actually the truth. Terrans are the race that would need to completely change their game to accommodate bigger maps, and at this point and time there is little proof that terrans could even pull off such a paradigm shift, especially after they've been nerfed again and again due to their excellence on smaller maps.
Bigger maps willl probably make for more interesting games in the future, but I dont think the game is necessarily ready to embrace them just yet. Terrans are just the most glaring example of this.
As a matter of fact, I'd say Blizzard adding maps that are a little bigger is a good first step towards bigger maps, as its not too extreme of a change. I think calling the new maps "bad" because of short rush distances and such is kinda ignorant at the moment, as terrans still rely on such things, whether zerg players like it or not.
|
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. 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.
Well this is an extremely ignorant thing to say that Most Terrans don't play macro games. A guy see's Terrans All-In in a tournament a lot and assumes they never play macro games. Well if you watch Terran streamers and such you'll understand that Terrans play a ton of macro games just as many as the next guy. In fact I'm pretty sure Zerg's Baneling-Bust and Protoss 4 gate or proxy gate just as much as Terran 2 rax all-in or 3 rax timing push (not an allin but people say it is for soem dumb reason).
I myself have only ever tried to go All-In 4 TIMES! in my ENTIRE time playing Starcraft 2 I've went all-in 4 times and 2 of those times were in the beta copying Cauthonluck's quick banshee strat he did against Idra. And if you've ever watched Jinro Pre-Korea he was still a "Macro Terran" then? lol. As well as he Meched vs Protoss and all that shenanigans only thing that's changed was that he learned to mix in an All-In every now and then from the Koreans and also just generally improved in play.
Also the OP has a point that Bigger maps will hurt Terran. I mean think of Mech vs Protoss, that would be damn near impossible to do on larger maps. Believe me I think Mech is fine now as I've never completely stopped using Mech in TvP since the beta started but on larger maps it just doesn't seem like it would be remotely do-able.
|
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.
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?
|
On February 05 2011 05:42 FabledIntegral wrote: Maybe this might cause some to even switch races, which would be awesome. Yea its awesome when pros decide to dump all theyve put into a race because they feel it's not worth it....
I agree to some extent, but on the other hand, I disagree.
I'm a Terran and I am totally down for getting engineering bay bunker upgrades and splitting that map in 2, then nuking my way to victory.
Unfortunately, I feel like bunkers are nigh worthless against protoss.
I think TvZ on huge maps would be awesome, but I think TvP would only get harder for me on larger maps (and it's already my hardest earned victories- by a long shot... rank 10 diamond).
|
On February 05 2011 08:21 Bagi wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2011 08:11 FrostedMiniWeet wrote:On February 05 2011 07:55 Bagi wrote:On February 05 2011 07:49 FrostedMiniWeet wrote:On February 05 2011 07:38 Bagi wrote:On February 05 2011 07:30 FrostedMiniWeet wrote: 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. To be honest, your post is alot of fluff but no real proof that terran would excel in macro games. Unexplored strategies? Masters of strategic innovation? Do these statements really have any weight to them? Terrans are using pretty much the same units and strategies they did at release, even after the nerfs. I mean, I hope you are right, I'm just not convinced. And neither should anyone else be until we actually see alot of meaningful terran macro innovation. Is it really such a problem if Terran do end up disadvantaged? They have been in the map pool advantage seat since release, and if they do end up being disadvantaged, then Blizzard can balance patch from there. I'm just saying its not the end of the world if suddenly Terrans have some map pool disadvantages for a while, and may actually do them some good, as they will be forced to stretch the race to its maximum potential, which I feel like is not happening at the moment as there is really no need or incentive to explore those kinds of playstyles with the strength of rush based all-ins. Taking an antagonistic view to the problem isnt going to help anyone. Terran does not "deserve" to be underpowered just because they've had a good run so far. What matters is getting a balanced end product. People advocate big maps for a more balanced game, but if introducing bigger maps creates more imbalanced than it solves, is it really worth it? I just think its a problem that could be acknowledged before rushing into the pool of big maps. The problem right now with the game is small maps, pretty much everybody agrees on that. Fix the maps, then balance the game, in that order. Small maps encourage short cheesy all-in style games, and produce players like BitByBitPrime, and allow him to make it to the round of 16 in the GSL despite being a completely inferior player. Large maps are easier to balance than small ones, as they produce longer games. Longer games allow the more skilled player to make more decisions which are superior to his opponents decisions, and this makes racial imbalance less important in larger maps as the games are not so volatile. Comebacks are more likely, and the outcome of a single battle isn't as likely to determine the outcome of the entire game. Basically, larger maps make it more likely that the superior player will win, which is exactly what the game needs right now. I have heard the marketing speech for bigger maps enough times, and I dont disagree with it. What I think is that the current balance is a result of balancing for small (terran-favored) maps, but it does not mean the game is balanced for bigger maps. You constantly hear zerg players call bigger attack distances and bigger maps "more balanced", but I have been trying to make discussion whether or not this is actually the truth. Terrans are the race that would need to completely change their game to accommodate bigger maps, and at this point and time there is little proof that terrans could even pull off such a paradigm shift, especially after they've been nerfed again and again due to their excellence on smaller maps. Bigger maps willl probably make for more interesting games in the future, but I dont think the game is necessarily ready to embrace them just yet. Terrans are just the most glaring example of this.
No the game is not balanced by any means. But I am not sure what you mean by the game is not ready to embrace bigger maps part ? The only way to balance for bigger maps is to include bigger maps as part of ladder, tournies etc, wait a while to see what evolves and then balance around that. So I would say the game is ready for all types of maps and its good to see everyone experimenting around with this.
|
Im a T player and I love larger maps as much as any zerg player, I think there fun and allow for lots of harrass, and great play. Maybe it's just cause im not that high compared to most (2700 point diamond) but I LOVE big maps like shakuras and meta, I hvae the most fun those ones =D.
|
On February 05 2011 05:49 skeldark wrote: you really think a master t never played a macro game? never dit it, allways go allin out of 1 or 2 base?
Uh the "live user streams" to the right hand side of this post would beg to differ.Cheese/all-in players exist at the master level.
|
i hope all the scv+marine bitbybits terrans and i-can-only-4gate protoss players vanish.
I'm sorry to say, but larger map distances will never remove the i-can-only-4gate protoss players. Warpgate research makes map distances essentially non-factor.
|
On February 05 2011 08:13 GinDo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2011 08:05 Oceaniax wrote:On February 05 2011 07:52 GinDo wrote: Many people are scared to play the Macro Terran game because they've dwelled to long on Bio Spam. Its gonna be hard as personally i believe Terran it the hardest race to play macro style because of our production style, but i would rather play the hard race then the QQ OP Race.
While I play zerg I would agree with you that when you get to 3-5 bases, terran are the hardest to macro with. While zerg macro is somewhat difficult, that difficulty doesn't truly ramp up over the course of the game. More hatcheries need to be injected, but other than that it's a relatively similar affair. Terran on the other hand transform from a simple process into a complicated juggling act. Having 10-15+ production faciltiies of varying types with varying add-ons and keeping that macro up while keeping track of what are usually heavily positional battles is a daunting task, and takes a vastly different level of skill than the early game 1-2 base play. Perhaps that steep skill increase need is what's causing such heavy "terran can't macro" sentiments. Exactly. Alot of Terran play revolves around the 1-2 base play. The third is often very l8 which basically means your not really mining 3 bases but rather 2 since your Main will be mined out and you natural almost. I mostly blame the Map pool for making difficult 3rds that require big mobility to take.
That's.......not quite what I meant/said. Terran play does revolve currently around 1-2 bases for most people, but I don't believe it's because it's better or needed, but because it's signifigantly easier than the macro alternative.
This isn't necessarily an insult to terran players, it's natural to go for the path of less resistance, but that doesn't mean the more difficult path isn't viable.
|
On February 05 2011 08:15 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote + TvP: Ghost good Tank sucks Raven good Banshee good, though a bit niche Thor decent but slow BC bad
Tanks are actually great against protoss if used properly. Banshees are great in any composition for their dps (2 shots at fast rate at 12 damage per shot unupgraded? Yes please). Ravens are amazing, and are very underused. Auto-turrets are absurdly good harass and great for tanking damage/reinforcing, and PDD is absolutely great. Drop a few auto-turrets in a mineral line and see what I'm talking about. Plus, Seeker missile is very good at weakening colossus balls, and is very underused. Thors are fantastic, and demolish phoenix, which are often used to defeat and tank vikings. Battlecruisers you 'may' have a point, but I still feel they are a lot better than people give them credit for. Yamato cannon one shots void rays. One shots. Upgrades on those battlecruisers makes them absolute monsters to deal with, and protoss doesn't have much that can handle them (Blink stalkers and void rays are your only options, and neither are particularly good at it). Battlecruisers with a tank marine push are basically unstoppable, and can snipe important units/structures with yamato cannon. tanks are great in every matchup, the difficulty is finding a proper complementary unit combo that gives you support against light units, supportive dps, the necessary mobility to harass, and defensive capability against air. the hellion works decently against zealots and for harass but for everything else it is terrible. a benefit of larger maps though is that hellions will finally have a chance to stretch their legs against P, but then again pylon walls + warpin could negate that fairly well. basically, going mech in TvP is going mech with worse units (no mines ) than you had in bw against better P units than in BW (stalkers, colossus, sentry, void ray). tank, thor, hellion, marine works ok but that falls apart rather quickly when you lose too many of one type of unit.
|
|
|
|