|
Terran has the slowest economic growth, and it's the slowest to reinforce (overall--hydras off creep reinforce at the same speed as bio). So big, open maps hurt. But the GSL maps for instance aren't that big, and there is terrain that you can control in order to make your army cost-effective enough.
|
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. 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.
Terrans are *too* strong right now on small maps, even Foxer says this, so to say that they "rely on such things" is saying that Terran need small maps in order to retain their current advantage. But that is the entire point of making larger maps, to balance the game by weakening Terran.
You say the game has been balanced around small maps, but the game is clearly not balanced at all for small maps, they are still heavily Terran favored despite the nerfs, and even some large maps are Terran favored like JB simply because of its layout, despite having very long rush distances. This in itself is evidence that even maps with very long rush distances can heavily favor Terran.
You seem to be arguing that the game is balanced as it is with small maps, and thus using larger maps will make Terran completely disadvantaged. The reality is that the game is Terran favored right now under the current map pool, and adding larger maps will remedy that problem, and at the same time make the game more entertaining and skill based.
The only reason to be against such a thing is that you are the kind of player who depends on 1 or 2 base all-in style strategies, as these new maps will make that style of playing weaker. I imagine BitByBitPrime is against these new maps as well.
|
On February 05 2011 05:43 freetgy wrote:
well terrans will need to learn to play
and have a Gameplan that goes further than a Early/Mid-Game Timing Attack.
Players like Jinro, Sjow, Demuslim seem to do and fare well with their Mech/Macro orientated Play which is definitly the future of Late Game Terran.
Especially the whole Mass Mule Macromechanic seems very interesting.
Could you provide me with atleast two replays of their mech/macro aorientated play ? :DD
I mean Jinro ye, but Sjow and Demuslim ? seriously ? You got to be joking... all their wins come from good harass.... Drops/Banshee harass, timing push ? Thats exacly what i'm expecting to see from these two players....
|
On February 05 2011 08:49 Oceaniax wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2011 08:44 Bagi wrote:On February 05 2011 08:35 Oceaniax wrote:On February 05 2011 08:29 Bagi wrote:On February 05 2011 08:24 WickedBit wrote:On February 05 2011 08:21 Bagi wrote: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:
[quote]
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. People call them bad because of short rush distances etc, but I'd say terran kinda needs those, at least for the time being. I'm legimately curiously about what you think terran needs for short rush distances to NOT be necessary. Is it not obvious? Short rush distances -> ability to pressure -> current strategies are still viable. For them not to be necessary, I think the terran macro game needs to prove that it can convincingly be on the level of the other 2. If that fails, more tools to stay viable in a macro game. These maps allow current play but also have enough bases to support macro-oriented plays, hence they can be a good place for terran strategies to evolve. If we would add a map pool where every map only supported macro games, terran would feel like a fish out of water, at least for some time. I think the current model is more productive. On the flip side, how can we prove that a macro terran using dashes of harassment isn't viable on large, macro maps, if all you want are maps with short rush distances?
Personally I feel that baby steps are needed towards the bigger map goal. Imagine if these new maps were implemented in place of the most disliked "terran" maps like SOW and DQ. While the new maps do not have very long rush distances, they'd still be significantly longer in than in the maps mentioned above, especially if you spawn crossmap.
We'd already have a map pool that is much more macro oriented than the current one. Maybe add one map that is bigger than everything else to further develop this change (although it might just become the terran version of what SOW is to zergs). If terran macro truly has potential in it, and we have lots of maps that support macro play, I would be surprised if we didnt see much more of it.
|
On February 05 2011 08:50 koppik wrote:
Terran has the slowest economic growth, and it's the slowest to reinforce (overall--hydras off creep reinforce at the same speed as bio). So big, open maps hurt. But the GSL maps for instance aren't that big, and there is terrain that you can control in order to make your army cost-effective enough.
What do you mean slowest econ growth? They have mules and the famous PF to protect their 3rd or 4th expo.
The bigger maps would either make Terrans more aggressive ( more bunker/proxy rushes) or Turtle while doing drops hurting the opponent's econ.
The problem with bigger maps is that their mech is slow so turtling and pushing with a max army is the way to go.
Maps doesn't affect Terrans that much, their so versatile.
|
On February 05 2011 08:52 FrostedMiniWeet wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2011 08:21 Bagi wrote: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. 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. Terrans are *too* strong right now on small maps, even Foxer says this, so to say that they "rely on such things" is saying that Terran need small maps in order to retain their current advantage. But that is the entire point of making larger maps, to balance the game by weakening Terran. You say the game has been balanced around small maps, but the game is clearly not balanced at all for small maps, they are still heavily Terran favored despite the nerfs, and even some large maps are Terran favored like JB simply because of its layout, despite having very long rush distances. This in itself is evidence that even maps with very long rush distances can heavily favor Terran. You seem to be arguing that the game is balanced as it is with small maps, and thus using larger maps will make Terran completely disadvantaged. The reality is that the game is Terran favored right now under the current map pool, and adding larger maps will remedy that problem, and at the same time make the game more entertaining and skill based. The only reason to be against such a thing is that you are the kind of player who depends on 1 or 2 base all-in style strategies, as these new maps will make that style of playing weaker. I imagine BitByBitPrime is against these new maps as well.
Cool ad hominems bro. I'm starting to think arguing with you was a mistake.
No, I am not saying we should keep maps like SOW, which is where the biggest imbalances are. What I am saying that a better approach would be adding "medium" size maps like the new maps that people hate on for being too small.
|
United States7166 Posts
I think terrans will play more defensive/expansive and also will be doing more strong/larger timing attacks. Ravens will be used more zvt, for burrowed baneling spotting/tumor clearing (and of course their abilities) but this may take a long time to come around. 1 base or small army/early 2 base attacks will become much less popular.
Also a lot of terrans are already starting to aggressively upgrade on both bio and mech vs zerg (most commonly 3-0 on both, or 3-3 bio 3-0 tank), this will be even more popular. Fully upgraded tanks and marines are pretty amazing you should try it if you haven't been
|
On February 05 2011 08:15 Whitewing wrote:
Should seriously try the units out more often and in different ways before dismissing them.
And you shouldn't assume I haven't. Since you mention snipe playing being underused, it really ain't, it's just bad. I had a decent enough TvZ ghost strat lined up. Early on it's amazing, but like I said, without shift+snipe working, you cannot use energy fast enough along with microing the rest of your units, so it becomes bad really fast(not to mention spine > ghost).
Someone quoted you and pointed out the bad parts of tanks in TvP, so I won't mention them. But yer I standby what I said, I've actually tested a lot of unit combos(since I really dislike MMM). In general those are my findings. All the terran units are so misleading to a non-terran player, since at their particular strength, they are amazing, but all the units have such gaping weaknesses that you need another unit to compliment that unit. Hence fx. tank+rine for TvZ, they compliment each other perfectly.
|
This must be a joke topic?
No race is inherently unable to macro.
Try using more missile turrets and better positioning.
I'd imagine that if we looked at win %'s, terran win on big maps just as often, if not more often, than the other two races. So terran win more often on small maps, and equally often on big ones? You sad you have to fight on fair grounds i guess?
|
I personally believe that 1 rax expand will become the norm, and that terrans will probably be doing some funky things like getting a fast 3rd OC for mule production, building 6-8 reactored barracks at once, and THEN we'll see who can reinforce the fastest : P
|
I think it is time to realize that sc2 at the current state of the game is meant to be played in a gimmicky all in way as stuff for spacecontroll, (Spidermines, arbiter etc have been removed).
Otherwise Terrans could start playing nomad, secureing 2 bases, never attack directly and try to prevent expands, then start hopping from expansion to expansion as a base gets mined out, but more and more CCs need to be created the longer the game goes on, because supplydepots can't lift.
Actually I kinda play like that on crossspots on shakuras vs toss and wait until he has to take bases next to mine so attacking gets easier...hopefully i am wrong and game won't all be so long and drawn out.
|
On February 05 2011 09:00 Zarahtra wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2011 08:15 Whitewing wrote:
Should seriously try the units out more often and in different ways before dismissing them.
And you shouldn't assume I haven't. Since you mention snipe playing being underused, it really ain't, it's just bad. I had a decent enough TvZ ghost strat lined up. Early on it's amazing, but like I said, without shift+snipe working, you cannot use energy fast enough along with microing the rest of your units, so it becomes bad really fast(not to mention spine > ghost). Someone quoted you and pointed out the bad parts of tanks in TvP, so I won't mention them. But yer I standby what I said, I've actually tested a lot of unit combos(since I really dislike MMM). In general those are my findings. All the terran units are so misleading to a non-terran player, since at their particular strength, they are amazing, but all the units have such gaping weaknesses that you need another unit to compliment that unit. Hence fx. tank+rine for TvZ, they compliment each other perfectly.
Tanks aren't bad in TvP....and I'm not even going to just say oGsMC vs Jinro but just type in TvP Mech and you might be astonished at how good Mech is. btw Fenix used Mech a few days ago as well as you can watch avilo's stream where he crushes face with Mech as a Terran in Masters that's 1 in his division. Anyone who says Tanks are bad is just out of their mind. Yeah they are "Counter-able" but what isn't in Starcraft 2?
|
On February 05 2011 08:59 Bagi wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2011 08:52 FrostedMiniWeet wrote:On February 05 2011 08:21 Bagi wrote: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. 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. Terrans are *too* strong right now on small maps, even Foxer says this, so to say that they "rely on such things" is saying that Terran need small maps in order to retain their current advantage. But that is the entire point of making larger maps, to balance the game by weakening Terran. You say the game has been balanced around small maps, but the game is clearly not balanced at all for small maps, they are still heavily Terran favored despite the nerfs, and even some large maps are Terran favored like JB simply because of its layout, despite having very long rush distances. This in itself is evidence that even maps with very long rush distances can heavily favor Terran. You seem to be arguing that the game is balanced as it is with small maps, and thus using larger maps will make Terran completely disadvantaged. The reality is that the game is Terran favored right now under the current map pool, and adding larger maps will remedy that problem, and at the same time make the game more entertaining and skill based. The only reason to be against such a thing is that you are the kind of player who depends on 1 or 2 base all-in style strategies, as these new maps will make that style of playing weaker. I imagine BitByBitPrime is against these new maps as well. Cool ad hominems bro. I'm starting to think arguing with you was a mistake. No, I am not saying we should keep maps like SOW, which is where the biggest imbalances are. What I am saying that a better approach would be adding "medium" size maps like the new maps that people hate on for being too small.
Actually, the biggest imbalances exist on Jungle Basin, one of the maps with the largest rush distances. This is why it was taken out of the map pool, and SOW wasn't. Just because a map is large with long rush distances doesn't mean it can't be Terran favored. 2 Rax SCV all-ins are still very strong even on "medium" sized maps like Meta and LT, especially if close positions are spawned in which case the rush distances are no different than SOW. This is why people complain and want larger maps. Medium sized maps don't discourage 1 or 2 base all-in style play whatsoever, especially if taking a third is nearly impossible like Meta close, LT close, or JB. Larger maps are where the game needs to go right now, and Terran players will just have to learn to adapt to macro style strategies like Jinro.
|
Remember people said bigger no one ever said anything about changing the layout of the maps. Think about it if lost temple was just blown up you could still abused the zergs early natural with tanks and/or thors but it would take you longer to get there allowing more time for the zerg to react.
Also I think that is just a step the terran players need to take is to learn to play macro games. Reasons that allins are so particularly seen is not because you have to do it but because its the easy way out. Tournaments are eventually going to start using big maps altogether I think it would be best for blizzard to take the initiative in making bigger maps so they can make sure the game is balanced for big maps. If nothing else setup a PTR that only tests out maps. So you can see how the matchups perform.
On February 05 2011 05:44 vnlegend wrote:
Terran's lategame gets easily raped by Protoss 1a blanket storm + colossi splash killing everything in 2 secs. Only the pros that can multi-task and harass everywhere will stand a good chance of winning. I'm not one of them so T.T
Metagame evolves as time moves on mech is seeing more action as time goes on and it is more resilient to things like storm.
|
On February 05 2011 05:44 vnlegend wrote:
Terran's lategame gets easily raped by Protoss 1a blanket storm + colossi splash killing everything in 2 secs. Only the pros that can multi-task and harass everywhere will stand a good chance of winning. I'm not one of them so T.T
And how long does it take for us to achieve that?
Bye?
|
I reject the notion that terran has been struggling in macro games already, thus I don't feel its possible to say they will struggle on larger more macro-orientated maps. I don't think Terran has been struggling on Shakuras in the slightest. In fact I can't think of a map in the current pool which I would say 'oh man sucks to be Terran on that map'. It will be a wait and see scenario on the new maps but it wouldn't be shocking if they end up helping or hindering terrans.
|
On February 05 2011 08:59 Zelniq wrote:
I think terrans will play more defensive/expansive and also will be doing more strong/larger timing attacks. Ravens will be used more zvt, for burrowed baneling spotting/tumor clearing (and of course their abilities) but this may take a long time to come around. 1 base or small army/early 2 base attacks will become much less popular.
Also a lot of terrans are already starting to aggressively upgrade on both bio and mech vs zerg (most commonly 3-0 on both, or 3-3 bio 3-0 tank), this will be even more popular. Fully upgraded tanks and marines are pretty amazing you should try it if you haven't been
I've been playing Marine Tank for a long Time. Getting vikings for collosi, quick attack ups, and marine spreading to fight Storm(sorta like Fungu and Bling dodging). Its really good. I hope what you say is true, i was a long time Terran BW player and miss the Classic Terran Feel.
|
On February 05 2011 09:08 Raiznhell wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2011 09:00 Zarahtra wrote:On February 05 2011 08:15 Whitewing wrote:
Should seriously try the units out more often and in different ways before dismissing them.
And you shouldn't assume I haven't. Since you mention snipe playing being underused, it really ain't, it's just bad. I had a decent enough TvZ ghost strat lined up. Early on it's amazing, but like I said, without shift+snipe working, you cannot use energy fast enough along with microing the rest of your units, so it becomes bad really fast(not to mention spine > ghost). Someone quoted you and pointed out the bad parts of tanks in TvP, so I won't mention them. But yer I standby what I said, I've actually tested a lot of unit combos(since I really dislike MMM). In general those are my findings. All the terran units are so misleading to a non-terran player, since at their particular strength, they are amazing, but all the units have such gaping weaknesses that you need another unit to compliment that unit. Hence fx. tank+rine for TvZ, they compliment each other perfectly. Tanks aren't bad in TvP....and I'm not even going to just say oGsMC vs Jinro but just type in TvP Mech and you might be astonished at how good Mech is. btw Fenix used Mech a few days ago as well as you can watch avilo's stream where he crushes face with Mech as a Terran in Masters that's 1 in his division. Anyone who says Tanks are bad is just out of their mind. Yeah they are "Counter-able" but what isn't in Starcraft 2?
The problem with people is that they only got Tanks. You need hellions etc etc to support the tanks. Also alot of people played Mech without Harass of anykind and rushed around like Bio. Tanks are good you just need to be smart about them.
|
On February 05 2011 07:36 mahnini wrote:
terran aggression has been nerfed for small maps, zerg defense has been buffed for small maps. what that usually means is zerg is able to defend on very short notice and relatively quickly, terran's attack options on the other hand have been delayed because they were exceptionally strong on small maps. now if we take these stipulations and apply them to a larger map, zerg can still defend and has more time to, but terran attacks will be delayed due to distance.
how it actually pans out is still to be seen but it was definitely a mistake to balance sc2 on blizzard ladder maps if larger maps are what the community wants.
I believe enough is said by the part in bold. If blizzard were to do a poll even divide it up by race to see if any race would object to bigger maps. IMO terran would be the closest but still favor bigger maps. + Show Spoiler +Something like 60-40 or 55-45 and no I don't have any numbers what soever to back that up but it to me sounds logical as to what the numbers would pan out to be
|
The macro in this game will never rival that of brood war
User was temp banned for this post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
