EPTOn February 05 2011 09:35 [SNIPECLAN]_BoNJoVi_ wrote:
The macro in this game will never rival that of brood war
The macro in this game will never rival that of brood war
That's a pretty bold claim for a game that is less than a year old.
[D] Terran play in bigger maps? - Page 9
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
terranghost
United States980 Posts
That's a pretty bold claim for a game that is less than a year old. | ||
|
zhouzhou
Canada138 Posts
This coming from a random. | ||
|
Scrimpton
United Kingdom465 Posts
On February 05 2011 09:45 zhouzhou wrote: Fact is, the terran ball is the most immobile of the 3 races. If the map is too big, they can see the ball coming way ahead of time. Too big and Terran is at a disadvantage, too small and T is at an advantage. This coming from a random. So you know equally little about all races. cu in 3-7 days User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
Deleted User 124618
1142 Posts
Now, custom maps are a different story altogether. An example: Tal'Darim Altar, GSL map that has 16 normal bases and 4 golds, 20 bases total. Biggest Blizz made maps right now have around..humm, 7 bases per player = 14 bases total. That is one of the reasons why I am bit afraid of the big map mania this community seems to have: who knows what happens to game balance when map sizes get ridicilously huge? Blizzard will not take these gigantic community-made maps into account when balancing the game. | ||
|
Pl4t0
United States103 Posts
Perhaps some balancing is required, but this would come in the form of minor tweaks and adjustments (nothing near as major as the Reaper-speed nerf, which threw the matchup into turmoil for a month or so). I think that Terran is in a state of flux - we know that there are these great mixes against Zerg (Marine/Tank/Thor, Mech, Marine/Raven), we just don't know how to do anything exceptionally effective with them yet (I'm talking us regular ladder-ites). | ||
|
Vari
United States532 Posts
the term 'doom push' exists for a reason and I don't believe there is a map big enough that a great terran can't cross it with tanks, bunkers, marines, thors and turrets. while harassing with medivacs and blue flame helions. think of how amazing that will be to watch or execute. the types of pushes we see now but going across vast reaches into the heart of the alien swarm rather than through small side canals (like shakuras) | ||
|
Cofo
United States1388 Posts
On February 05 2011 10:03 Pl4t0 wrote: While my heart sides with the OP, my brain says that Terran are going to learn fundamentally new playstyles. I think TvZ is in ridiculous shape right now, but that's mostly because I just don't know how to play it very well. It requires a certain, unique finesse that the other matchups just don't seem to possess. Perhaps some balancing is required, but this would come in the form of minor tweaks and adjustments (nothing near as major as the Reaper-speed nerf, which threw the matchup into turmoil for a month or so). I agree with this. If it's imbalanced, Blizzard will tweak it. But you also have to remember that current Terran playstyle may just have to change to accommodate larger maps. It seems like bigger maps will favor defensive turtling and super slow push mech positional play (a la BW), rather than the ultra aggressive bio-oriented style that is so popular/powerful right now. | ||
|
KevinIX
United States2472 Posts
| ||
|
FeyFey
Germany10114 Posts
| ||
|
LunarC
United States1186 Posts
| ||
bkrow
Australia8532 Posts
Once the maps change, the strategies and build orders will change with it; Korean teams are famous for sitting down and crunching out incredible builds and honing mechanics of their members.. as the game changes, so will Terran gameplay; nothing to be worried about.. Here is me praying for some revolutionary sky Terran  | ||
|
zhouzhou
Canada138 Posts
Looking at the new maps Blizzard released, they seem to be taking into account the map sizes. Keeping them big enough for a macro game, but small enough to be balanced. | ||
|
Herculix
United States946 Posts
it was tough to swallow but many zergs realized very quickly that their early attacks were shit and felt quite pidgeon-holed for some time. many top zergs were very close to race switching. but as time went on, people realized it was a difficult but not impossible task, and in retrospect, no one could do it not because of maps or imbalance, though those made it harder obviously, but because everyone just had little practice with developing zerg from early to mid to late game. it's hard to play that straight up when non-zergs do perfectly fine with the cheesiest and most all in builds imaginable. practice your sim city with terran, including depot and barracks and bunker walls, refine turret placement etc, and it won't be so bad i'm sure if terran macro is such a huge issue it will obviously get patched, but i think you're heavily overexaggerating things to think they "can't macro." you probably can't macro, but that's not to say the terran race isn't capable of winning late game because the best players demonstrate quite the opposite, the terrans who keep getting high placing in GSL usually have some form of 3+ base game against zerg, jinro and mvp especially | ||
|
imbs
United Kingdom320 Posts
People call them bad because of short rush distances etc, but I'd say terran kinda needs those, at least for the time being. honestly this is so stupid. short rush distances actually make things so terran favored that they should never actually lose | ||
|
charlie420247
United States692 Posts
if there are imbalances on bigger maps. maybe these things can be looked at, patched if needed. and then we can see if these changes alter the same matchup on a smaller map. and hopefully find a good middle ground. this is obviously gonna take some time. lets let it unfold though and we will see whats what. personally i think bigger maps WOULD kill certain play styles from terran while strengthening most popular builds by zerg. this is not imbalance. terrans will simply have to play differently and focus less on gimmicky allin 1 base behavior. | ||
|
morimacil
France921 Posts
Hoever though, the base assumptions are flawed, and most of his statements lack some key piece of information. For example: 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. That, in itself, isnt correct. But if we modify it a bit, to say: If you let the zerg drone freely from 2 bases, while you stay on 1 base as terran, you are as good as dead. Keep up pressure and try to finish the game before the larva mechanism overwhelms you. Now it is correct. And it also makes a lot more sense. And its easier to see how to fight back. And it probably explains the OP's feeling better. The rest of the reasoning after that, on how all early game harrass will be weaker, and thus it will be much harder to fight a 2base zerg as a 1 base terran, is completely true. It completely skips over the fact that the terran has the option of expanding too, and that terran only really needs to get a gigantic early game advantage when they stay on a very low amount of bases for extended amounts of time, though. Tere is no race problem here, only a playstyle problem. A ton of terran players aim at ending the game or getting a giant advantage in the early game, or early midgame. For all those players, bigger maps is terrible news. A few aim to win in the lategame, and are confident in their lategame and macro abilities. for those, bigger maps is great news This doesnt just apply to terran though, it applies to every race. For all the zerg players out there who just baneling bust, 3/5/7 roach rush, 6 pool, and so on, bigger maps is also terrible news. For all those who play aimed at the lategame, bigger maps are great. It just so happens that a lot more terrans like to rush, all-in, and do all sorts of things based upon winning very early, while a lot of zerg players like to play for the lategame. But its not really a race thing, all races can cheese and all-in early on. And any race can play for the lategame | ||
BLinD-RawR
ALLEYCAT BLUES50118 Posts
On February 05 2011 10:36 zhouzhou wrote: sky Terran is just too gas heavy to be viable. Looking at the new maps Blizzard released, they seem to be taking into account the map sizes. Keeping them big enough for a macro game, but small enough to be balanced. by the time you really get serious on playing Sky Terran you would probably get your third and beisdes you are better off playing SK Terran 2.0 because it has a solid transition to mech. | ||
|
morimacil
France921 Posts
Imagine for example that suddenly, zerglings had the possibility to morph into ultralings for 5 minerals each, this only requires spawning pool tech. Ultralings are zerglings that can fly, are super fast, each have 200 health, and a very high damage cleave attack. That would make zerg all-ins super popular and strong, but zerg macro would still be just as strong as it is now. It would probably be a lot less popular though, nearly no one would use it. Currently, terran is in a similar spot. At below pro levels, early game rushes and all-ins are super strong, and quite easy to do thanks to the very small maps, with tons of abusable cliffs. That doesnt mean that the other playstyle isnt possible, it just means that its a whole lot less popular, compared to the easy fast wins of early game rushes and all-ins. The smaller the rush distances, and the bigger the amount of abusable cliffs, the better and the more popular terran all-ins will be. But that doesnt mean that macro cannot work. And just as in the ultraling example, where we know that zerg would do just fine without those (since they do just fine now), we also happen to know that a macro style for terran can work super well, since some pros are incredibly successful with it. | ||
|
koppik
United States676 Posts
On February 05 2011 08:57 DarkRise wrote: Mules are great, but its a fixed boost to worker count,. Chronoboost and larva inject instead give a contribution to the growth of worker count. You're right that it's more complicated than that, but terran will usually have an economy that grows more slowly than the other two races if both players are focusing hard on economy.What do you mean slowest econ growth? They have mules and the famous PF to protect their 3rd or 4th expo. | ||
|
red_b
United States1267 Posts
The reason I say that is that I think the design team really only thought through early and mid game and they dont really understand late game or else have a very strange understanding of how it's supposed to work. Right now the game is "balanced" in the sense that Terran is favored early, Zerg in the midgame and Protoss in the late game. T wants to establish a lead early and keep applying pressure to keep Z and P from growing Z wants to survive into their window where they can own the map with super mobile muta armies or strong non-maxed roach armies P is a little more stable between early and mid game but really theyre trying to go off. if I had to make an analogy it would be to different types of magic decks. T is like a sneak attack deck that wants to burst early and make you play from behind and has powerful units that stay on the field a short time and will blow up anything you try and put down. Z is like a dragonstorm deck; it wants to hold on as best it can with it's very limited offensive capability then go off but tends to peter out at the end when it runs out of it's big guns. And P is like a tooth and nail deck that is stable but not super strong early and wants to get it's 3 bases up (urzatron) then go off late and just keep going off continuously with nearly indestructible titans. anyway I think there is much work to be done before each race has a fair chance to win in every phase of the game. | ||
| ||
