|
Big maps are becoming a hot topic with the new Blizzard maps as well as bigger maps from other parties. Most people are in the mindset that bigger maps would benefit the game greatly, as they would weaken gimmicky all-in builds and make a turn towards more macro (aka. skill according to some) based games.
But at the same time I feel theres something people do not consider: how much terran actually relies on 1-2 base plays and constant harass to win their games. In my humble opinion terran is in an awkward spot with how most of their strengths come from early game situations. Bigger maps would greatly downplay these strengths. I'm a ~3000 masters terran myself, so I will try to explain this by using my general "gameplans", and I think most terrans would agree with them.
Gameplan going into TvZ: if positions are close, push with marines/bunkers to prevent FE to gain that early advantage. If its long distances, harass with banshee/hellions/marines to force units and prevent heavy droning. If you let the zerg drone freely, you are as good as dead. Keep up pressure and try to finish the game before the larva mechanism overwhelms you.
Its obvious that all of these general ideas will become weaker in a large map. The zerg will be able to get a FE without trouble. Any harass will take longer to arrive in the zerg base and thus be much weaker. Much of the early game stuff we terrans are forced to do against zerg will be either weaker or completely negated.
Gameplan going into TvP: if positions are close, early pushing and poking with MM might be beneficial. One of the many timing pushes with a raven can really punish a toss that goes FE. Once medivacs come into play, drop drop drop drop. Dont let them get too many colossi. Once both colossi and templar are out, it becomes extremely difficult to deal with the protoss deathball.
Once again when we shift towards macro games, terran gets the short end of the stick. Trying to end the game early will become very, very hard against a competent protoss. Dustin Browder himself at Blizzcon said that terran generally wins before the 15 minute mark, and protoss wins after it.
Personally I feel that the only matchup where I can go into full macro mode and still feel like I am perfectly fine is TvT.
So if we would suddenly change into bigger maps, I think one of two things would happen. Either terran players succesfully learn new ways to play the races strengths and a new era of terran play will emerge. Or alternatively terran be completely outmatched by stuff like creep, superior zerg mobility and warped-in units + stronger armies. I've heard some talk about this issue, but for the most time its not really touched upon, big maps are universally considered to be a good thing. Its almost like people feel terrans deserve to have their strong points taken away from them just because bigger maps are plain better, and because some the current maps favor terran.
Some people have said that things like multiple simultaneous drops and nukes will become increasingly powerful in big macro games, and I do agree with that. I just wonder if it is enough.
I dunno... Discuss.
|
United States67 Posts
I think its about time we get new maps (bigger or smaller) just for new strats to emerge. Terran will learn to macro and play really well late game vs zerg+protoss. Just wait for strategies to emerge.
|
On February 05 2011 05:31 Lefthanded wrote:
I think its about time we get new maps (bigger or smaller) just for new strats to emerge. Terran will learn to macro and play really well late game vs zerg+protoss. Just wait for strategies to emerge.
@op
you see terran cant macro thats the hole point. Oo
I agree in every point of your post BUT:
Even when its a nice try to give a other opinion, i dont think its worth the time.
Most of the poster here are like lefthanded.
|
|
|
Would a strong advantage Terran has in the late macro game be that, at full saturation, their already very cost-effective army (at least vs. Z) is ~30 or so more supply due to mules? I don't play T, so take that with a grain of salt.
EDIT: ...Also try taking Dustin Browder's (lol) opinions about balance with a grain of salt. 
|
Im about 20 games into the PTR realm with new maps.
I honestly dont fear Z at all even on a bigger map. Tank/Rine/Thor/Medivac is just to deadly, Even on a bigger map I will never let a Z get a 4th base. Drops become quite better on larger maps too.
P on the other hand..... ugh its a nightmare on a big map. Im scared of P cuz all they need is 3 base to get their amulter templars and collsi going. With a practically guaranteed safe 1 gate FE on these new maps its very obtainable for P to get the 3rd base going. I just cant compete with their late game army and I cant do any damage early on either because of the map.
The only new build ive been able to do a bit of dmg with so far is a 2 rax FE into rauder/thor/ghost/medivac/viking.
Test map 3 is unbeliavable. That natural is a Force field heaven. It has two very narrow choke points which are perfect for splliting armies in half, not to mention all of the cliffs make collsus defense extremely hard to break.
|
The Terran game is all about positioning, especially in TvZ. Luckily for Terran, they have the best units for controlling space and dictating positioning in the game, along with the best static defenses. This is a huge strength for Terran that tends to get ignored.
|
Jinro.
User was warned for this post
|
On February 05 2011 05:39 Zrana wrote:
Jinro.
Yeah! QTF.
Jinro doesn't know how to macro.
/sarcasm
|
This has been discussed to death, I feel, nothing new. At the very least, Terran might be represented less in tournaments. Regardless of whether or not T is OP, I'd like to see more of a 33-33-33 distribution in tournies. This might help achieve that. It's not like Terrans are going to disappear completely with the amount of them that we have. Maybe this might cause some to even switch races, which would be awesome.
|
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.
|
On February 05 2011 05:39 Zrana wrote:
Jinro.
Believe me, Jinro is an inspiration. But not even pros can seem replicate his strategies.
Even Jinro does lot of banshee play and other smart harass in his matchups. All of it will be harder to execute with larger maps.
|
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
|
your basing this of your own experiences of course but i for one dont rely on "1 or 2 base plays" with "most of my strength coming in early game". terran have some of the best tools for long macro games on bigger maps.. seige tanks, sensor towers, planetary fortress, very cost efficient drop play capability to name just a few.
i think the real problem lies in the mentality passed on by a lot of current "pros" who use early aggression on few bases to cover up the lack of macro managment they have and hopefully bigger maps will seperate the few terrans, in my eyes, that are actually good starcraft players from the many who just seem to be good at taking advantage of the chances they are given due to the current map pool
|
On February 05 2011 05:38 mierin wrote:
Would a strong advantage Terran has in the late macro game be that, at full saturation, their already ludicrously cost-effective army is ~30 or so more supply due to mules? I don't play T, so take that with a grain of salt.
the point is that a t maxed army is weaker than a maxed army of z or p
and even if have enough eco to reproduce mostly the enemy loose so less units in the big fight that he can instand kill you after.
its not like after a big tvp fight both loose there army mostly.
If you go bio he have 160 sup left and you 80. if you go mech he have a huge timing window in transition where he can kill you. so the strategie to fight p is to nonstop trade armys so that he never gets over 120-160 sup. i dont say its imbalanced at moment. i think its balanced. t is strong at the start and can use this to kill p early. if the protoss can hold and mass a 200 army he pretty much won the game.
same with z if harazz dont work he have such a big eco that he overrun you late game.
i go 5 base vs 5 base often in games. IF im in big advantage. than i secure my advantage with expansion. if we are equal there is no point of me going into mass basses because im behind in "equal" situations lategame. thats how the matchups work. bigger maps means we are not longer able to harazz or trade armys. so we are forced into a equal macro game where we are behind.
droping a z who have mutas dont really work anymore in master lige.
and droping a p who have templer either.
|
On February 05 2011 05:39 Zrana wrote:
Jinro.
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.
|
Macro Terrans do exist! I think we'll see them really stand out with new maps while people that relied on early game aggression will have to adjust their game play or will they will struggle.
|
On February 05 2011 05:38 mierin wrote:EDIT: ...Also try taking Dustin Browder's (lol) opinions about balance with a grain of salt.
Hehe.
I'm pretty sure that quote was based on actual bnet statistics, not just his opinion.
|
i can tell that it is perfectly possible to play macro games vs toss, just try to stay ahead in bases/expand faster than the toss, and when medicavs are out alot of dangerous marauder drops will happen to keep the toss defensive.
like MVP in GSL vs Genius i belive
|
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.
post like this and the 1 just shows that you (me) waste your time here.
you really think a master t never played a macro game? never dit it, allways go allin out of 1 or 2 base?
I really think a discussion over any kind of game strategie (at sc2) is not possible on TL.
signing out...
|
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.
|
On February 05 2011 05:49 skeldark wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2011 05:46 Chise wrote:On February 05 2011 05:39 Zrana wrote:
Jinro. 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. post like this and the 1 just shows that you (me) waste your time here. you really think a master t never played a macro game? never tryed it allways go allin in every game? i really think a discussion over any kind of game strategie about sc2 is not possible on tl, signing out...
Did you even read my post?
I never said that a Master T never played a Macro game. But I'm pretty sure there are some (maybe even a lot?) of Master Terrans out there who prefer 1 or 2 Base play. This means, they are less experienced in long Macro games. It's as simple as that.
|
You seem to think larger maps make drops/banshee harass harder. Larger maps wont necessarily make it harder. If anything, it may make it better at certain times because of the fact that the opponents army (if not in a super defensive position inside the base) will have to move further to come to the rescue of a base being dropped, or they will have to invest more in static defense the more they expand, meaning their army size will be smaller, still giving you the ability to move around the map easier.
|
On February 05 2011 05:43 Bagi wrote:Believe me, Jinro is an inspiration. But not even pros can seem replicate his strategies. Even Jinro does lot of banshee play and other smart harass in his matchups. All of it will be harder to execute with larger maps.
What makes you think they can't replicate his strategies? You know they have tried? You know they even want to?
It will be interesting to see how it plays out, but I don't think a terran macro style is out of the question on huge maps. They way I see it zerg can drone up all he wants, he still is not going to offensively attack a 200/200 terran army. Meanwhile terran can slow push around the map to take base after base, putting PFs and turrets all over, then eventually stacking up production facilities before pushing.
Currently it's just that terran is so powerful at winning a shorter game, they have little incentive to even try to drag the game out and still have an advantage.
|
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.
Do you really think thats good logic?? Every T just decides to not play a macro game??
Theres a reason why we 1/2 base attack, because every T knows that as the game goes longer the chances of winning grow shorter.
This has been discussed to death, but the point is now that the discussion and debate over the past few months has become a reality as the new PTR is showing what maps are to come.
|
On February 05 2011 05:44 love.less wrote:
your basing this of your own experiences of course but i for one dont rely on "1 or 2 base plays" with "most of my strength coming in early game". terran have some of the best tools for long macro games on bigger maps.. seige tanks, sensor towers, planetary fortress, very cost efficient drop play capability to name just a few.
i think the real problem lies in the mentality passed on by a lot of current "pros" who use early aggressive on few bases to cover up the lack of macro managment they have and hopefully bigger maps will seperate the few terrans, in my eyes, that are actually good starcraft players from the many who just seem to be good at taking advantage of the chances they are given due to the current map pool
I have no idea why you guys think pro terran players cant macro.
MarineKing never won/lost a game in GSL before 3 bases. IMMvP has some of the most awesome macro out there. Jinro went for macro games vs Idra. The best part of Sjow's play is his macro(and game sense -.-).
Good terrans CAN macro. Crap players (zerg protoss or terran) CANT macro. It has nothing to do with the maps.
The one thing terrans cant do is warp in crap anywhere or have awesome mobility like the zerg army. And dont say medivacs. They were good when they were faster. Now sometimes is better to move ur shit on the ground , w8 for the medivac then load and drop...
I do agree that terran is stronger in the first 10 minutes of the game mostly because of the short rush distances and crappy all ins with scvs...But after 10 minutes we are screwed. I believe that after a few months (when protoss and zerg learn how to use the map distances..cuz they dont now) terrans will be screwed big time.
|
On February 05 2011 05:51 Somoner wrote:
You seem to think larger maps make drops/banshee harass harder. Larger maps wont necessarily make it harder. If anything, it may make it better at certain times because of the fact that the opponents army (if not in a super defensive position inside the base) will have to move further to come to the rescue of a base being dropped, or they will have to invest more in static defense the more they expand, meaning their army size will be smaller, still giving you the ability to move around the map easier.
This is true, and I tried to address it towards the end of my post, not very clearly though. Still, its a lategame thing.
The current early game harass that aims for a lead however will be much less efficient. And its one of the more important things in the current terran play.
|
infinity21
Canada6683 Posts
I think new strategies may be designed to combat zerg's economy. Things like 4 oc builds may become more popular.
However, warpgate technology allows 4 gates to be just as strong on bigger maps which means Terran has to spend just as much on their defense. I think this us fundamentally flawed and you can't really have maps of varying rush distances. Maybe the only upside is that robo and stargate units come a bit later but those can be proxied as well.
|
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.
|
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.
On February 05 2011 05:58 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +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..
|
On February 05 2011 05:42 FabledIntegral wrote:
This has been discussed to death, I feel, nothing new. At the very least, Terran might be represented less in tournaments. Regardless of whether or not T is OP, I'd like to see more of a 33-33-33 distribution in tournies. This might help achieve that. It's not like Terrans are going to disappear completely with the amount of them that we have. Maybe this might cause some to even switch races, which would be awesome.
Why would it be awesome of they switched races? Most likely they would fall out of the pro scene if they did.
|
i think no protoss would mind a warpgate nerf, if gateways armies wouldn't suck against mid game compositions of either Zerg/Terran/Protoss.
|
On February 05 2011 05:39 PBJ wrote:
The Terran game is all about positioning, especially in TvZ. Luckily for Terran, they have the best units for controlling space and dictating positioning in the game, along with the best static defenses. This is a huge strength for Terran that tends to get ignored.
The issue is that these strong points will get weaker on larger maps. Perhaps, as day[9] suggested, there should be some playing around with allowing maximum 300 food.
At any rate, Terran also has very strong harass options, which should get stronger on larger maps, and hopefully balance out the change for Terran
|
On February 05 2011 05:43 Bagi wrote:Believe me, Jinro is an inspiration. But not even pros can seem replicate his strategies. Even Jinro does lot of banshee play and other smart harass in his matchups. All of it will be harder to execute with larger maps.
As maps get bigger, units must be spread thinner to defend the wide area and more vulnerabilities open. While very, very early game harassment will likely become harder, have you considered the possibility that mid to late game harassment will become signifigantly easier for terran to exploit?
I don't think it's necessary for terran to be successful with early game gimmicky harrassments to be successful.
While i'm not accusing anyone here in particular, the amount of highly ranked people that have gotten to where they are merely because they've smoothed out some harrassment at the 6 minute mark followed up by a 1-2 base timing push is rather astounding.
|
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 nested 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..
Have you tried going mech against colossus ball + HT? I would like a replay where that works.
|
Does anyone else think that if Terran didnt have the nerfs blizz put on them after release that Terran would be better on larger maps? (ie tank nerf, depot before rax ect)
I think alot of the balance changes are because of the shitty maps we've been playing on. And larger maps might bring out the larger imbalances.
|
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 nested 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..
This is so bias, it gave me aids. I don't think you understand the fundamental reasoning behind going MMM, Terran's need it to survive the mid game. It gives us the ability to pressure and keep expanding keeping the game on an even footing. If you go straight mech from the start you will die to most common col/stalker midgames or you are force to turtle with tanks and then the Protoss will just out macro you. If you try at any point to trans from bio to mech, the Protoss will kill you. my 2 cents prolly just as bias 
User was warned for this post
|
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.
sums it up quite well for me.
the game has to evolve, we have had small maps for long enough now, im interested to see how things will change on the larger maps.
|
there is a huge misconception that terran can't macro
against zerg yeah you dont wanna get in a worker building contest, but even then, builds that pressure while you take a fast 3rd and get up to like 180-200 with marine/tank/thor are completely awesome. yeah you can't win with 2 rax or other pressure builds, but the bigger maps will just reward players who can transition into a longterm plan more, rather than just making it so that terran can basically win/get a gigantic lead in the stupidly close positions on like metal.
|
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 nested 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..
Haha hence the marginally part.
|
post like this and the 1 just shows that you (me) waste your time here.
you really think a master t never played a macro game? never dit it, allways go allin out of 1 or 2 base?
I really think a discussion over any kind of game strategie (at sc2) is not possible on TL.
signing out...
Its starting to look that way, everytime a thread opens on game discussion the only responses people can muster are
On February 05 2011 05:39 Zrana wrote:
Jinro.
On February 05 2011 05:40 shabinka wrote:Yeah! QTF. Jinro doesn't know how to macro. /sarcasm
Don't get me wrong, jinro is a great player and obviously successful, but peoples only argument towards any kind of game discussion is l2p X players is currently doing good, its been degrading every thread in the sc2 section.
Every GSL Whatever race wins is suddenly "balanced" because X player won a single tournament. l2p zergs fruitdealer did it, l2p toss MC did it...so on so forth. At this point every race has won a GSL now, should blizzard just stop releasing patches now, just close the book and say alright every race can win now we are done, because thats the kind of attitude people put out on the forums.
|
I expect terran to move to more of a BW style turtle base play on larger maps. Terran has every tool necessary to be great in any situation. Is 2 base play powerful? Yes. Will terrans have to change their play? Yes. Is that a bad thing? Fuck no.
|
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)
|
On February 05 2011 06:08 kodas wrote:Show nested quote +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. 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.. This is so bias, it gave me aids. I don't think you understand the fundamental reasoning behind going MMM, Terran's need it to survive the mid game. It gives us the ability to pressure and keep expanding keeping the game on an even footing. If you go straight mech from the start you will die to most common col/stalker midgames or you are force to turtle with tanks and then the Protoss will just out macro you. If you try at any point to trans from bio to mech, the Protoss will kill you. my 2 cents prolly just as bias
well...yes that's what i meant. you use your early/mid game strenght = MMM, then transition into late game strenght = mech/air. or straight away mech with good upgrades could work as well i feel kinda like in bw with fast 3base fast armory upgrades but that's for another topic.
btw i'm terran as well, no bias, but kinda annoyed by all the arguments about terran being weak lategame
|
On February 05 2011 06:10 uSnAmplified wrote:Show nested quote +
post like this and the 1 just shows that you (me) waste your time here.
you really think a master t never played a macro game? never dit it, allways go allin out of 1 or 2 base?
I really think a discussion over any kind of game strategie (at sc2) is not possible on TL.
signing out...
Its starting to look that way, everytime a thread opens on game discussion the only responses people can muster are Show nested quote +On February 05 2011 05:40 shabinka wrote:On February 05 2011 05:39 Zrana wrote:
Jinro. Yeah! QTF. Jinro doesn't know how to macro. /sarcasm Don't get me wrong, jinro is a great player and obviously successful, but peoples only argument towards any kind of game discussion is l2p X players is currently doing good, its been degrading every thread in the sc2 section. Every GSL Whatever race wins is suddenly "balanced" because X player won a single tournament. l2p zergs fruitdealer did it, l2p toss MC did it...so on so forth. At this point every race has won a GSL now, should blizzard just stop releasing patches now, just close the book and say alright every race can win now we are done, because thats the kind of attitude people put out on the forums.
Excellent post.
|
On February 05 2011 06:13 sadyque wrote:
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)
Please use your head. It's nothing more than common sense.
1. You see the probe leave his main to make the proxy pylon, it also has to leave earlier to get there in time meaning you have an easier chance to see it when you're initially scouting.
2. It's mindboggling that you can't realize that you're producing units before warpgates finish and you need to use those units as well in the attack.
|
On February 05 2011 06:08 DyEnasTy wrote:
Does anyone else think that if Terran didnt have the nerfs blizz put on them after release that Terran would be better on larger maps? (ie tank nerf, depot before rax ect)
I think alot of the balance changes are because of the shitty maps we've been playing on. And larger maps might bring out the larger imbalances.
...How would the depot before rax nerf, if reversed, make terrans better on larger maps?
|
Defensive macro terran is pretty strong, just look at jinro.
|
Terran has both incredibly defensive, and incredibly mobile offensive options. I can't possibly imagine how they wouldn't be able to figure something out on bigger maps. Pretty much everything in their arsenal from siege tanks, to PF's, to sensor towers, to drops/banshees/hellions/MMM and mech seems to scream that they are incredibly versatile in whatever style a map leans towards.
|
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.
i guess you've never seen jinro during the beta? the only games that i can remember of him then were mostly macro games =/ and not many people knew of him then.
and how is jinro the answer to this...? i love him as much as anyone else, but it's not like his macro is the most impressive i.e. being the most consistent, etc., e.g. last night jinro vs select in their ace match for the gcpl. if there's any terran player to go to it would be mvp atm, considering his play adapts very well, e.g. using foxer's play style against foxer during the gsl finals and 4-0ing him.
|
On February 05 2011 06:17 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2011 06:13 sadyque wrote:
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)
Please use your head. It's nothing more than common sense. 1. You see the probe leave his main to make the proxy pylon, it also has to leave earlier to get there in time meaning you have an easier chance to see it when you're initially scouting. 2. It's mindboggling that you can't realize that you're producing units before warpgates finish and you need to use those units as well in the attack.
1. Very true if you are watching a replay. How can you see a 9 pylon probe leave his base to make a pylon....Im pretty sure there are no maps currently or in the near future where a probe takes 4 minutes to go from one base to the other and build a pylon.
2. Ye its mind bogling that you think protoss attack when they dont have the wpgates ready. By the time everything is upgraded the units built by the gateways are already near the proxy pylon gathering dust and w8ting for their breteren to join them from the warp...
|
On February 05 2011 06:16 PredY wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2011 06:08 kodas 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. 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.. This is so bias, it gave me aids. I don't think you understand the fundamental reasoning behind going MMM, Terran's need it to survive the mid game. It gives us the ability to pressure and keep expanding keeping the game on an even footing. If you go straight mech from the start you will die to most common col/stalker midgames or you are force to turtle with tanks and then the Protoss will just out macro you. If you try at any point to trans from bio to mech, the Protoss will kill you. my 2 cents prolly just as bias well...yes that's what i meant. you use your early/mid game strenght = MMM, then transition into late game strenght = mech/air. or straight away mech with good upgrades could work as well i feel kinda like in bw with fast 3base fast armory upgrades but that's for another topic. btw i'm terran as well, no bias, but kinda annoyed by all the arguments about terran being weak lategame
Thats where the problem is tho man, How do you transfer from a 6 rax/1 Fact/2 Starport into a full mech build??? Are you going to spend another 1000/500 on production buildings? where are you going to fit everything?
|
On February 05 2011 06:01 gogogadgetflow wrote:At any rate, Terran also has very strong harass options, which should get stronger on larger maps, and hopefully balance out the change for Terran
This.
Chances are that if maps are bigger, expansions are a bit more more spread out. You have to remember that harrass becomes so much more effective the more spread out the opponent is.
Especially against protoss. Remember: a split protoss army is a dead protoss army.
|
On February 05 2011 06:13 sadyque wrote:Show nested quote +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
|
Terran wins a lot as is. And big maps allow for faster expansions with good harass. Last time I checked getting a bunch of orbital commands was a good thing. The only thing it should affect is early ground rushes, excluding proxy and warp-gate rushes.
|
If your worried about macro games not possible for tvz/tvp watch Gisado's on the new GSL maps. Terrans are winning just fine in macro games. If you play for the macro game you'll realize terran can do it just like the other races without being "behind".
|
On February 05 2011 06:28 Wrongspeedy wrote:
Last time I checked getting a bunch of orbital commands was a good thing.
There's this, too. There's nothing that says that terrans can't be a bit more creative with their macro.
|
On February 05 2011 06:24 XXXSmOke wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2011 06:16 PredY wrote:On February 05 2011 06:08 kodas 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. 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.. This is so bias, it gave me aids. I don't think you understand the fundamental reasoning behind going MMM, Terran's need it to survive the mid game. It gives us the ability to pressure and keep expanding keeping the game on an even footing. If you go straight mech from the start you will die to most common col/stalker midgames or you are force to turtle with tanks and then the Protoss will just out macro you. If you try at any point to trans from bio to mech, the Protoss will kill you. my 2 cents prolly just as bias well...yes that's what i meant. you use your early/mid game strenght = MMM, then transition into late game strenght = mech/air. or straight away mech with good upgrades could work as well i feel kinda like in bw with fast 3base fast armory upgrades but that's for another topic. btw i'm terran as well, no bias, but kinda annoyed by all the arguments about terran being weak lategame Thats where the problem is tho man, How do you transfer from a 6 rax/1 Fact/2 Starport into a full mech build??? Are you going to spend another 1000/500 on production buildings? where are you going to fit everything?
yep mate that's the problem indeed. as i said, it's not figured out yet. i still believe you can do very well with just 3 OR 4rax tops + a factory + port, until you take your 3rd and then transition. obviously on maps like taldarim altar it's easier to take third, and there are only 2 chokes that you can acutally defend well with bunkers, if you try to really be in your opponent's face you don't need more than 3 or 4 rax and you can use those to wall chokes later on etc. tho i'm still not sure about when to get upgrades for your mech, tho it's definately cool to have some marauders all the time to drop them and kill buildings, if you find good timings to kill protoss tech buildings your transition will be much smoother. just some thoughts.
|
On February 05 2011 06:25 PredY wrote:Show nested quote +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...
|
On February 05 2011 05:44 love.less wrote:
your basing this of your own experiences of course but i for one dont rely on "1 or 2 base plays" with "most of my strength coming in early game". terran have some of the best tools for long macro games on bigger maps.. seige tanks, sensor towers, planetary fortress, very cost efficient drop play capability to name just a few.
i think the real problem lies in the mentality passed on by a lot of current "pros" who use early aggression on few bases to cover up the lack of macro managment they have and hopefully bigger maps will seperate the few terrans, in my eyes, that are actually good starcraft players from the many who just seem to be good at taking advantage of the chances they are given due to the current map pool
QFT. There's a reason why pro Terrans like IMMVP seem so scary good; it's because he isn't reliant on 1-2 base early game strategies. Sure, we see it from time to time, but players of that calibre have a much more rounded and solid understanding of the race, which allows them to compete where these 1-2 basers end up failing.
Just one example: when and how to take a third base as Terran. 1-2 basers don't know because they almost never take a third, and in the rare chance they do (i.e. their 1-2 base play has failed), they get stomped. Leads these kinds of Terrans to have the wrong mentality, "Terran can't take a third because we lose when we try!"
I used to get stomped in TvZ because I always tried for the macro game instead of gimmicky things like cliff drops or 1-2 base all-ins. Now I find myself slowly evening out in the matchup as I begin to understand what's needed to play a macro game against Zerg. I'm currently experimenting with lots of turrets + turret upgrades when I encounter mutalisks (i.e. 99% of my TvZ games). Seems to be working out for me so far.
|
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.
|
Wow! I'm not sure I understand all this talk about terran not able to macro. Players in the GSL like MVP,Jinro etc got there due to good macro. There seem to be a ton of strategies that are as yet unexplored from Terrans since their 1 or 2 base timing pushes are so strong. So far P and Z have not had an option apart from somehow surviving till late game where most terran players seem to have a problem. But as others have shown that is not a problem with the race but rather due to terrans unfamiliarity being there. Of course larger maps mean that current 3100+ master league terrans would soon start losing to zerg/protoss of greater skill instead of pulling of wins against them... Maybe that is what is behind all these alarmist posts from terrans in TL.
|
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.
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.
|
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.
|
United States7483 Posts
Terran will have to learn to rely on using strats other than early aggression and all-ins for an early advantage. I don't think it's a problem, Terran has such good tech that is rarely used because of how easy it is to get stuck on marines and marauders all game long.
And where did the idea that terran has to have mobility to expand come from? From what I've seen, slow mech pushes are still incredibly strong, and because of their cost efficiency, allow for all sorts of defensive structures to go down like Sensor towers (an incredibly underused structure) and missile turrets to stop harass. Hellions are incredibly fast too, and maybe terran air will get more use now other than the occasional banshee harass, medivacs for only drops/healing and vikings to stop other people from using air. Banshees are great as part of an army composition with awesome dps, and Battlecruisers could see more use on a bigger map where you have more time to tech due to rush distance and don't feel like you have to be AS aggressive.
Plus, in large spread out maps, nukes might see more use due to how spread out things are (harder to figure out where it's coming down etc.)
|
On February 05 2011 07:26 MegaBUD wrote:
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.
I don't want to get into a bitching fest here, but have you considered that the reason toss and zerg macro early against terrans is because their early harrassment tools are widely considered to be all-inish?
Terran has lower risk when associated with harassment options in terms of being behind in economy and investing in unecessary tech, so it's become quite viable (and even optimal) to perform these attacks, since the risk/reward ratio is signifigantly safer.
Two rax, reactor hellion, BF hellion drop, banshee harass, stimmed marine drops, and positional play like tank/thor drops are hard to predict, inflict signifigant damage, and are inexpensive enough in both time and resources to allow macro play in tandem.
|
On February 05 2011 07:33 Somnolence wrote:Show nested quote +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
Which points? The ones where VanGarde is calling out people posting nothing but "Jinro" and "Terran just need to learn to macro, they've 2-based for the past 6 months"?
Or the Open Map -> Disadvantage for Terran one?
I'd like to see larger maps, just because close positions is ridicilous for zerg to deal with. However, all of his points are quite valid. (Definitely more valid then blanket criticism of them, with no counter-arguments to support it)
|
United States7483 Posts
I don't want to get into a bitching fest here, but have you considered that the reason toss and zerg macro early against terrans is because their early harrassment tools are widely considered to be all-inish?
Terran has lower risk when associated with harassment options in terms of being behind in economy and investing in unecessary tech, so it's become quite viable (and even optimal) to perform these attacks, since the risk/reward ratio is signifigantly safer.
Two rax, reactor hellion, BF hellion drop, banshee harass, stimmed marine drops, and positional play like tank/thor drops are hard to predict, inflict signifigant damage, and are inexpensive enough in both time and resources to allow macro play in tandem.
Like Oceanix said here, Terran has the best harassment units in the entire game, and the most cost efficient. He didn't even mention reapers, which I've seen mid-late game a few times in small numbers used to snipe very important tech structures while tanks defend. A lot of terran units are fantastic on large maps that just haven't been getting used.
|
So what you're saying is, bigger maps will benefit the race that is currently weakest the most, the race that is currently in the middle less, and the race that is currently the strongest the least?
My god! This must be stopped!
|
On February 05 2011 07:38 Bagi wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
I think us terrans will definitely need to figure out new strategies. Whether there are any that can combat the macro mechanics of Z/P is yet to be seen.
Atleast for the start we'll be seeing a lot more hellions/drops I think. If those units can effect the early game well enough, terran might be fine.
Other than that, I'm fearful. No matter what anyone says, terrans t3 is weaker than z/p and the reason is obviously that terran can get theirs a lot earlier than z/p, but it still leaves the fact that in a 200/200 army the terran t3 units are rather lackluster. I'm more afraid of TvP though, since when toss gets rolling it's almost impossible to stop. Zerg is similar, but atleast the 300/200 will be slower due to distance, so it might give the terran enough time to gather himself for the next confrontation(aswell as in general it's easier to do drops/hellion roast on zerg than toss).
I think balance patches will have to follow the map size change though, mainly changing the supply cost of the tank to 2 from 3. But I mean it's anyone's guess right now, maybe we've just been missing something incredibly obvious all this time... Or bigger maps gives us some advantage that isn't easily noticeable...
|
I kind of feel that Terran lategame only feels weak because of the current metagame.
Terran has a lot more ways to harass than Protoss and Zerg, yet the way most Terrans play is still by going for straight attacks where they mostly use T1/T1,5 units, that are supposed to lose to T3 units. Harassing will become even stronger on larger maps. I can't tell for sure if this kind of playstyle will be good for Terran, but it sounds like a possibility to me.
|
All you talk about is punishing FEs. Bigger Maps means its easier for you to FE your self. Derr.
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.
Heck we might even get some L8 game buff come HOTs, but w/e in the end its just a game. HF
EDIT:
P.S. Ever played +3 Base Mech Terran? Its Frikkin Scary. Or +3 Terran Air? Imagine +6 Starport Pumping Banshees and harassing everywhere. L8 game Terran is an unexplored region, and i hope these more Turtle +3 base maps promote that. Not only will it kill alot of gimmicky 1 base plays, but will also allow the macro Terran which depends on 3 or more bases, which has beec limited by crap maps with difficult thirds and backdoors.
|
Terran can sustain so many different play styles its quite amazing actually. I think they'll adapt rather quickly.
|
United States7483 Posts
I really wish people would stop using the term tier to describe units, every unit in the game has a purpose in end game play and is useful in some way (or should be). Further, there's a world of difference between a zealot at the start of the game and a zealot with charge after twilight council and upgrade time. There's an incredible leap in usefulness from a zergling to a zergling with speed and attack speed upgrades from hive tech. Every unit is weak against some other unit and strong against some other, and ideally, at end game, units will have changed from their early game forms (like marines with 3/3 ups, stim and combat shields).
The structure a unit is produced from is meaningless in the end game, the only distinction between tech requirements is how early in the game they can be produced.
|
On February 05 2011 07:49 FrostedMiniWeet wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On February 05 2011 07:48 Lysdexia wrote:
So what you're saying is, bigger maps will benefit the race that is currently weakest the most, the race that is currently in the middle less, and the race that is currently the strongest the least?
My god! This must be stopped!
I lol'd
|
Which points? The ones where VanGarde is calling out people posting nothing but "Jinro" and "Terran just need to learn to macro, they've 2-based for the past 6 months"?
Or the Open Map -> Disadvantage for Terran one?
ALL of them. When you click on any balance thread you can assume that majority of the posts will be like that and any good posts or insight from the pros will be buried under this trash.
|
On February 05 2011 07:36 mahnini wrote:Show nested quote +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. 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.
Trying to balance the game off imbalanced maps. I really have no idea what is going on at Blizzard. It's like Blizzard balance team has no control over the maps so whenever they're asked about maps they're like "durr make your own maps?" I guess maybe the idea was to balance the game across a variety of maps. At least they're finally making an attempt to address the map issue.
|
On February 05 2011 07:49 Chise wrote:
I kind of feel that Terran lategame only feels weak because of the current metagame.
Terran has a lot more ways to harass than Protoss and Zerg, yet the way most Terrans play is still by going for straight attacks where they mostly use T1/T1,5 units, that are supposed to lose to T3 units. Harassing will become even stronger on larger maps. I can't tell for sure if this kind of playstyle will be good for Terran, but it sounds like a possibility to me.
What annoys me a bit when talking about terran is the fact z/p think terran players actually want to use rine/rauder. The problem is, further down the line, there is very little to be thrilled getting. This acts differently between the MUs.
TvP:
Ghost good
Tank sucks
Raven good
Banshee good, though a bit niche
Thor decent but slow
BC bad
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(ugh always forget the term )
BC bad
There's nothing really that we've got that makes me think "ohh if I get this unit, I'm in good shape". Heck I'm by far more turned on by my +attack upgrades than any of those units. Especially TvZ, we don't have anything except t1 to deal with mutas anyway(ok thors guarded by turrets...) so that forces t1 anyway(and on bigger maps = mutas are better, so go figure...).
Edit: Btw I'm glad we're getting bigger maps. I just don't think it's very bright balancing the races to small maps and then expecting everything to be fine on huge maps.
|
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.
It is simple, really. If e-sports need longer matches and only bigger maps can provide them then we need to start using them and balance the game around them.
|
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.
|
United States1869 Posts
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.
|
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.
I agree, the ultimate goal is balance, not to drive the design of the game in favour of zerg just because terrans had the map pool advantage. (not that I'm saying large maps will do that necessarily)
|
On February 05 2011 08:24 WickedBit 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. 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.
My edit explained a bit on that, I think the new Blizzard maps are a good start because they are slightly bigger yet not overwhelmingly so.
People call them bad because of short rush distances etc, but I'd say terran kinda needs those, at least for the time being.
|
On February 05 2011 08:14 imbs wrote:
jinro can compete with idra on big maps and idra is alot better than jinro at the macro.
Contradictory statements.
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?
BM.
|
Looks like some Terrans will have to learn how to macro instead of just relying on all-ins and cheeses... OH NO!
But in all seriousness, many people have stated this and I will say it as well. There are many amazing macro terrans out there, but most of them *cough* bitbybitprime *cough* tslrain *cough* don't actually know how to macro that well, and thats the simple truth. I predict a big change in metagame when these bigger maps come out (its about time!)
|
...
Macro maps are still good for Terran. There's really nothing to stop you from fast expanding against a zerg.
|
I started SC2 as a Terran to learn the basics, with the full intention of switching over to Zerg full time (lots of people told me Zerg were more difficult to understand for someone new to SC). So I feel like I have some experience playing both races, and can honestly say close position/short rush distance maps are very unbalanced for Z playing Terran, the margin of error on the zerg's part is so small, and a slight mistake cost us the game. Now I'm a mid-level player (gold league) so debating the pro-level balance of races/maps really doesn't apply, and the reality is that 99percent of us aren't pros.
I really believe Blizzard is trying to address this in these maps, I do believe initially Terran are going to feel under-balanced, but they have way many more tools to help adapt then zeros currently do.
|
On February 05 2011 08:25 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote + 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.
Not so. Please read Tyler's thought on this
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=7713315
Large maps do discourage 4 gates also as explained by the post above.
|
On February 05 2011 08:20 traca wrote:
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?
actually i think larger maps are a welcome change in TvP. protoss don't have to worry about dying to 2 marauders and 3 marines if they don't open 2 gate and terran will actually have the ability to have some control during battles. larger maps means more flanking room, more room to avoid forcefields, chase down colossus for longer, and attack multiple locations like others have said.
|
On February 05 2011 08:29 Bagi wrote:Show nested quote +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: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. 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.
|
I hate to repeat myself, but seriously, why is everyone ignoring the fact that Kulas IS a big map, and well known for being heavily terran favored?
"Big Maps" in terms of expansions circling a large expanse of space such as python, are different from what is ideal for SC2. In order for big maps to be good for balance in SC2, mapmakers should be much more creative.
|
On February 05 2011 08:35 Mr.Minionman wrote:
I hate to repeat myself, but seriously, why is everyone ignoring the fact that Kulas IS a big map, and well known for being heavily terran favored?
"Big Maps" in terms of expansions circling a large expanse of space such as python, are different from what is ideal for SC2. In order for big maps to be good for balance in SC2, mapmakers should be much more creative.
kulas is no where near a big map, it takes about a 10 second walk to get from natural to natural.
|
with bigger maps and more spread out expansions marine drops are going to become even more effective in tvz
|
On February 05 2011 08:04 Zarahtra wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2011 07:49 Chise wrote:
I kind of feel that Terran lategame only feels weak because of the current metagame.
Terran has a lot more ways to harass than Protoss and Zerg, yet the way most Terrans play is still by going for straight attacks where they mostly use T1/T1,5 units, that are supposed to lose to T3 units. Harassing will become even stronger on larger maps. I can't tell for sure if this kind of playstyle will be good for Terran, but it sounds like a possibility to me. What annoys me a bit when talking about terran is the fact z/p think terran players actually want to use rine/rauder. The problem is, further down the line, there is very little to be thrilled getting. This acts differently between the MUs. TvP: Ghost good Tank sucks Raven good Banshee good, though a bit niche Thor decent but slow BC bad 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(ugh always forget the term ) BC bad There's nothing really that we've got that makes me think "ohh if I get this unit, I'm in good shape". Heck I'm by far more turned on by my +attack upgrades than any of those units. Especially TvZ, we don't have anything except t1 to deal with mutas anyway(ok thors guarded by turrets...) so that forces t1 anyway(and on bigger maps = mutas are better, so go figure...). Edit: Btw I'm glad we're getting bigger maps. I just don't think it's very bright balancing the races to small maps and then expecting everything to be fine on huge maps.
i disagree, tanks are good in tvp
|
The only thing that worries me is the lack of "controlling space" options. Particularly the 3 supply Tank and "lack" of mines (BW stile) in combination with the larvae mechanic and "warp in". Maybe the PF can make up for some of this but IDK.
|
On February 05 2011 05:35 skeldark wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2011 05:31 Lefthanded wrote:
I think its about time we get new maps (bigger or smaller) just for new strats to emerge. Terran will learn to macro and play really well late game vs zerg+protoss. Just wait for strategies to emerge. @op you see terran cant macro thats the hole point. Oo I agree in every point of your post BUT: Even when its a nice try to give a other opinion, i dont think its worth the time. Most of the poster here are like lefthanded.
Terran can't macro but Protoss and Zerg can right? Read what you are typing and tell me if that makes any sense. The OP is quite accurate in his post if you ask me.. I guess the blanket statement: "Terrans can't macro" is more accurate though.. *sigh*
|
On February 05 2011 08:35 Oceaniax wrote:Show nested quote +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: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. 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.
|
Terran has been doing well with the current map setup, so obviously there is going to be some apprehension about anything that could change balance. It is really more the fear of the unknown and you can't blame Terran players for being a bit defensive.
With that said, the health of the game with the current map pools isn't really good and that is the core issue. Some people might like those shorter games, and I think Blizzard feels that way so they've kept those maps around for variety, but I actually think in the long run it is frustrating for everyone. The players that don't want to macro/learn the depths of the game end up on fastest money maps anyway. At this point, with the people I hang around with and OBS games/KOTH none like Steps of War. Doesn't matter the race, the map sucks.
I enjoy some of the small maps from time to time but in the end I want the spectrum to be something around the size of Met/Shakuras and a touch bigger for 4 player, and something similar to Xel for 2 player maps.
That setup seems to be a balance that gets enjoyable games. Nobody likes to be "cheesed" and cheesing over and over will get boring. I have to imagine at this point some Terran players are probably getting sick of having to open 2 rax bunker EVERY game vs. zerg. The results are positive so they aren't stopping but a map change would force some new strategies. I just feel like the big maps still allow harass but you can macro too. You get both options. On small maps you are really telling the players, "hey the game is going to be played in this way so deal with it."
And if there is any of the 3 races that would adapt to bigger maps it is Terran. I think it will be much easier for Terran players to figure out how to compete on big maps, then it will in our current pace of watching Zerg players try to compete on small maps.
|
On February 05 2011 08:30 justindab0mb wrote:
Looks like some Terrans will have to learn how to macro instead of just relying on all-ins and cheeses... OH NO!
But in all seriousness, many people have stated this and I will say it as well. There are many amazing macro terrans out there, but most of them *cough* bitbybitprime *cough* tslrain *cough* don't actually know how to macro that well, and that's the simple truth. I predict a big change in metagame when these bigger maps come out (its about time!)
I kinda hate this and I think i used to be one of these types of posters but like people who just sit here and go oh well Terrans will just have to "learn to macro". It's disgusting the generalization from these people. They think they are Pros or something and they call out pros for having bad macro when those guys are way more skilled than they will ever be.
And you think there will be a big change in the meta game but to what, other than Terran's not being able to All-In OR Proxy Rax anymore (basically no more suprise when playing against Terran which is retarded)? Explain.
|
If anything bigger maps will encourage much more drop//multi harass play. Which I think is terrans really good strong point. Big phoenix/muta balls can be very strong, but if you split them up they are a lot less effective, where as terran can do 2-50 drops at once
|
On February 05 2011 08:44 Bagi wrote:Show nested quote +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: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. 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?
|
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.
|
On February 05 2011 09:35 [SNIPECLAN]_BoNJoVi_ wrote:
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
If terrans will have trouble on larger Blizzard-made maps, I am sure Blizz will rebalance terrans a bit to help them, as more and more games go macro and reach end game.
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.
|
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 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).
|
I'm a terran player, only diamond not master level but I don't think large distances will make harass impossible. terran have great immobile defense which already shine, they will just be given more of a chance to do so.
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)
|
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.
|
My only worry is that the races are balanced for Blizzard maps, and the large GSL simply won't be balanced.
|
mmm not so much concerned by bigger maps, 2 base pushes are stronger on those maps, since your expansion can be so fast (kinda hope not to see to many zerg 2 base pushes as those are deadly if done right). Also can be saver to get more orbitals. Just don't like that towers are 100 minerals, just because they are so damn strong after the upgrades. Makes dealing with mutas annyoing.
|
All that fekking +attack to armor that Blizzard flung around everywhere simply makes using Terran mech to hold key locations and expansions not viable at all. THAT's the reason for why Terran will not be very good in the late game. Expect many 2 base pushes with many bioballs. When the anti-bioball units start coming out off of 3-4 bases, expect Terran to get rolled.
|
Australia8532 Posts
You are forgetting the most important point; Terrans aren't playing the way they are now because they are lesser players or don't care about macro - they using what they believe to be the most efficient and deadly strategies given the current metagame..
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
|
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.
|
maps are going to get bigger, you should probably just accept that maps as small as metalopolis close and steppes of war and cliff harass at the natural on lt are completely imbalanced and start trying to get better late game right now. the only difference between terran's position now and zerg's position in beta is that zerg realized that the early game is a near impossible win if they want to be aggressive because the other races had walls and they didn't (therefore they could be attacked early with reckless abandon while their attacks always involved loss of resources or luck that the non-zerg weren't walled properly), so there's over year's worth of refinement to the entire zerg community's macro game since that's 90% of all you can do, and protoss is not far behind. long distance maps with proper scouting are the zerg equivelant of a wall
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
|
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
|
i wanna see bigger maps regardless of imbalances that may occur.
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.
|
The OP's reasoning is perfectly correct, and valid.
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
|
ALLEYCAT BLUES49626 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.
|
Also, keep in mind that just because right now, early rushes and all-ins are super strong from terran, and very successful, that doesnt mean that its the only way to play, only that its the most popular.
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.
|
On February 05 2011 08:57 DarkRise wrote:Show nested quote +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. 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.
|
Im not sure we're able to predict what's going to happen.
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.
|
I have been thinking about this a lot lately. With larger maps both Zergs and Protosses will get greedier. Additionally, their map vision at the beginning will not be very large. This means that they will not have a lot of defending units and not be able to tell if harass/attack is coming. However, with larger rush distances a full-attack would be impractical. Therefore harassment will increase. The three units that can be used for this are Hellions, Banshees and Dropships. Both Dropships and Hellions will be able to transition from with a lot of tech already up. Banshees will be more of an all-in harassment. Additionally, both Hellions and Dropships are useful throughout the game for both matchups. Therefore I feel that the standard opening will be either a 1-rax FE or a quick Blue-flame Hellion Harass or Octodrop while expanding. I feel that Terran will not be too badly off in getting up in the early game, and with changes to the meta-game they will be able to grain extra bases more easily as well.
|
I agree with the OP on every point, couldnt have said it better myself. Each race prefers their maps different. Zerg want them big, protoss wants them narrow and terran wants them small. Thats just the way it is. You just have to take this into consideration when choosing a map and not just think bigger is better since it supports macro play!
|
On February 05 2011 13:28 Peterblue wrote:
I have been thinking about this a lot lately. With larger maps both Zergs and Protosses will get greedier. Additionally, their map vision at the beginning will not be very large. This means that they will not have a lot of defending units and not be able to tell if harass/attack is coming. However, with larger rush distances a full-attack would be impractical. Therefore harassment will increase. The three units that can be used for this are Hellions, Banshees and Dropships. Both Dropships and Hellions will be able to transition from with a lot of tech already up. Banshees will be more of an all-in harassment. Additionally, both Hellions and Dropships are useful throughout the game for both matchups. Therefore I feel that the standard opening will be either a 1-rax FE or a quick Blue-flame Hellion Harass or Octodrop while expanding. I feel that Terran will not be too badly off in getting up in the early game, and with changes to the meta-game they will be able to grain extra bases more easily as well.
You are exactly right. The game will become more harass heavy. People will become do more greedy builds on bigger maps which means stuff like proxy banshee, proxy voidray, proxy dt so much more powerful.
The game will become more broodwar-esque. The player with the better mechanics/adaptability will usually win. With the odd occasion of a player being caught off guard by a unique timing push or punished for being greedy.
|
Terran MM pushouts are less devastating on larger maps because they give the opposing player more time to bet more units and more energy. So Terrans generally shift from that kind of play into more Macro up X army vs X race and then attack and X predetermined time because with these all ins map distance does not effect the end result very much. Also Drop Play should be more devastating on larger maps.
|
Yes it is interesting and I wonder how things will turn out. I think Terran does have potential in these "macro" maps. Terran have so many different ways to harass (Ghosts, Banshees, Hellions, Reapers, Drops, etc), but obviously it takes a lot of apm to keep macro'ing while also doing harassment. I believe a pro player can handle it ofc (think SC BW and how much action there is going around the map), but I think Terran might become the "hard" race for everyone below pro level. Then again, perhaps it might be better to let macro slip a bit and instead focus on the execution of multi pronged attacks and harassments. There has to be a balance that would work, otherwise this is what I believe would be called imbalanced.
Also a note, I assume you use gimmicky because you've heard it from others and therefore haven't put much thought into it (if I'm wrong, sorry ignore this), but please don't use gimmicky like that. That's not what a gimmick means. A gimmick is something that looks appealing but really it's not that effective. Is an all-in effective? I think so. A gimmick would be something like canceling your natural hatch and putting a Baneling Nest there (like JulyZerg in GSL4 Code A) to trick your opponent so that he would assume it's a Hatch and not a Bling Nest; he would be unprepared for a bling bust.
Also, perhaps mech play will prove to be more useful in these bigger maps? idk though, mech is supposed to be better on "smaller" maps though right? But I guess there are many factors to consider so perhaps necessarily it isn't. I do think mech needs some improvement though.
|
On February 05 2011 14:41 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
Yes it is interesting and I wonder how things will turn out. I think Terran does have potential in these "macro" maps. Terran have so many different ways to harass (Ghosts, Banshees, Hellions, Reapers, Drops, etc), but obviously it takes a lot of apm to keep macro'ing while also doing harassment. I believe a pro player can handle it ofc (think SC BW and how much action there is going around the map), but I think Terran might become the "hard" race for everyone below pro level. Then again, perhaps it might be better to let macro slip a bit and instead focus on the execution of multi pronged attacks and harassments. There has to be a balance that would work, otherwise this is what I believe would be called imbalanced.
Also a note, I assume you use gimmicky because you've heard it from others and therefore haven't put much thought into it (if I'm wrong, sorry ignore this), but please don't use gimmicky like that. That's not what a gimmick means. A gimmick is something that looks appealing but really it's not that effective. Is an all-in effective? I think so. A gimmick would be something like canceling your natural hatch and putting a Baneling Nest there (like JulyZerg in GSL4 Code A) to trick your opponent so that he would assume it's a Hatch and not a Bling Nest; he would be unprepared for a bling bust.
Also, perhaps mech play will prove to be more useful in these bigger maps? idk though, mech is supposed to be better on "smaller" maps though right? But I guess there are many factors to consider so perhaps necessarily it isn't. I do think mech needs some improvement though.
Mech should be stronger on larger maps. You can slowly push and get more expansions and there's not much another player can do.
|
Mech should be stronger on larger maps. You can slowly push and get more expansions and there's not much another player can do.
But then again, the time it takes to push is longer and the ground you cover with your mech army is less than if you are on a smaller map.
|
One thing Terran is bad is its mobility. Ah sure, you can argue that medivac is a great unit, but its basic function is the same as overlord or warp prism, and it cost so much more. In a big map, P can still move around easily with warp gate/warp prism, while Zerg will begin to take advantage of nidus worm. What does Terran have to let their units move around fast? Nothing.
Watching the game on drewbie's stream where he played against Seth on a GSL map. Terran can't do anything but turtle up, and when he finally move out and reach the center of the map, Seth nidused drewbie's base and destroy everything. And what's next? When drewbie continued with the attack and reached Seth's base, Seth has already moved most of his units back to the worm and wait for drewbie at the base. This kind of thing makes me wonder if big colossal maps are balanced. This game is not BW, Races' mobility, ability, features are much different.
Don't get me wrong. I know that Terran can macro, but its macro comes from the form of turtle (defend/turtle to expand), while zerg's is harass to expand, and protoss is mapcontrol to expand. Right now because of the small/medium maps, we can see Terran pressure to expand, but I doubt it will be the case with the big maps.
I like playing Terran because the first time I saw pro played Terran, I love how aggressive this race is, but if Terran becomes such a turtle race later on, I think I will change race.
|
On February 05 2011 05:17 Bagi wrote:
But at the same time I feel theres something people do not consider: how much terran actually relies on 1-2 base plays and constant harass to win their games. In my humble opinion terran is in an awkward spot with [b]how most of their strengths come from early game situations.
This is exactly why bigger maps are needed. SC2s design process was fundamentally flawed. They built a terran-based single player game with multi as an afterthought. The fact that terran is poorly designed to the point where it sucks on big maps is representative of the poor choices of the design team.
Game balance needs a complete overhaul. Just look at how many units go unused.
|
On February 05 2011 15:13 canikizu wrote:
Ah sure, you can argue that medivac is a great unit, but its basic function is the same as overlord or warp prism, and it cost so much more.
Medivac is second only to the mule for "things that make T ridiculous"
The should have never made the dropship do so much.
|
I think Terrans are focused on 1/2 base allins/timing attacks because they are so strong. Its not that the terran race cannot play a macro game, people simply have not figured out enough strategies for it. I have seen plenty of long games where terran wins. I think Terrans can win macro games because of the massive mobility of their bioball in addition to safer expos with Pforts. In the lategame, you can consistently drop their spread out expos, forcing the other player to waste time/effort defending his multiple expansions. He cannot harass you back because your distant expansions have Pforts. I think this mobility will allow Terrans to compete with the other races lategame.
|
On February 05 2011 15:13 canikizu wrote:
One thing Terran is bad is its mobility. Ah sure, you can argue that medivac is a great unit, but its basic function is the same as overlord or warp prism, and it cost so much more. In a big map, P can still move around easily with warp gate/warp prism, while Zerg will begin to take advantage of nidus worm. What does Terran have to let their units move around fast? Nothing.
Watching the game on drewbie's stream where he played against Seth on a GSL map. Terran can't do anything but turtle up, and when he finally move out and reach the center of the map, Seth nidused drewbie's base and destroy everything. And what's next? When drewbie continued with the attack and reached Seth's base, Seth has already moved most of his units back to the worm and wait for drewbie at the base. This kind of thing makes me wonder if big colossal maps are balanced. This game is not BW, Races' mobility, ability, features are much different.
Don't get me wrong. I know that Terran can macro, but its macro comes from the form of turtle (defend/turtle to expand), while zerg's is harass to expand, and protoss is mapcontrol to expand. Right now because of the small/medium maps, we can see Terran pressure to expand, but I doubt it will be the case with the big maps.
I like playing Terran because the first time I saw pro played Terran, I love how aggressive this race is, but if Terran becomes such a turtle race later on, I think I will change race.
Terran have lots of ways to harass early game. That is where the agression comes from. You can still have mobility of MMM and be aggressive denying/delaying expansions, harassing mineral lines. But you shouldnt expect that MMM be stronger than a protoss ball that has spent gas on teching into collosus and HT. or expect late game MMM to be as strong as a zerg that continually trades armies with you.
|
On February 05 2011 05:17 Bagi wrote:
Big maps are becoming a hot topic with the new Blizzard maps as well as bigger maps from other parties. Most people are in the mindset that bigger maps would benefit the game greatly, as they would weaken gimmicky all-in builds and make a turn towards more macro (aka. skill according to some) based games.
But at the same time I feel theres something people do not consider: how much terran actually relies on 1-2 base plays and constant harass to win their games. In my humble opinion terran is in an awkward spot with how most of their strengths come from early game situations. Bigger maps would greatly downplay these strengths. I'm a ~3000 masters terran myself, so I will try to explain this by using my general "gameplans", and I think most terrans would agree with them.
Gameplan going into TvZ: if positions are close, push with marines/bunkers to prevent FE to gain that early advantage. If its long distances, harass with banshee/hellions/marines to force units and prevent heavy droning. If you let the zerg drone freely, you are as good as dead. Keep up pressure and try to finish the game before the larva mechanism overwhelms you.
Its obvious that all of these general ideas will become weaker in a large map. The zerg will be able to get a FE without trouble. Any harass will take longer to arrive in the zerg base and thus be much weaker. Much of the early game stuff we terrans are forced to do against zerg will be either weaker or completely negated.
Gameplan going into TvP: if positions are close, early pushing and poking with MM might be beneficial. One of the many timing pushes with a raven can really punish a toss that goes FE. Once medivacs come into play, drop drop drop drop. Dont let them get too many colossi. Once both colossi and templar are out, it becomes extremely difficult to deal with the protoss deathball.
Once again when we shift towards macro games, terran gets the short end of the stick. Trying to end the game early will become very, very hard against a competent protoss. Dustin Browder himself at Blizzcon said that terran generally wins before the 15 minute mark, and protoss wins after it.
Personally I feel that the only matchup where I can go into full macro mode and still feel like I am perfectly fine is TvT.
So if we would suddenly change into bigger maps, I think one of two things would happen. Either terran players succesfully learn new ways to play the races strengths and a new era of terran play will emerge. Or alternatively terran be completely outmatched by stuff like creep, superior zerg mobility and warped-in units + stronger armies. I've heard some talk about this issue, but for the most time its not really touched upon, big maps are universally considered to be a good thing. Its almost like people feel terrans deserve to have their strong points taken away from them just because bigger maps are plain better, and because some the current maps favor terran.
Some people have said that things like multiple simultaneous drops and nukes will become increasingly powerful in big macro games, and I do agree with that. I just wonder if it is enough.
I dunno... Discuss.
um if you think terran is only powerful early game you are wrong, But on a serious note how do you find storm difficult, if it is that much of an issue than A you don't have enough vikings, or b your emp is not up to par.... JUST saying. but i think the new maps will hurt terran early game.... but terrans potential isn't only early game
|
On February 05 2011 15:48 yoplate wrote:
I think Terrans are focused on 1/2 base allins/timing attacks because they are so strong. Its not that the terran race cannot play a macro game, people simply have not figured out enough strategies for it. I have seen plenty of long games where terran wins. I think Terrans can win macro games because of the massive mobility of their bioball in addition to safer expos with Pforts. In the lategame, you can consistently drop their spread out expos, forcing the other player to waste time/effort defending his multiple expansions. He cannot harass you back because your distant expansions have Pforts. I think this mobility will allow Terrans to compete with the other races lategame.
Exactly, Terran can build a PF with 4 - 5 turrets and be safe from any form of attack that is below 30 food.
|
On February 05 2011 13:28 Peterblue wrote:
I have been thinking about this a lot lately. With larger maps both Zergs and Protosses will get greedier. Additionally, their map vision at the beginning will not be very large. This means that they will not have a lot of defending units and not be able to tell if harass/attack is coming. However, with larger rush distances a full-attack would be impractical. Therefore harassment will increase. The three units that can be used for this are Hellions, Banshees and Dropships. Both Dropships and Hellions will be able to transition from with a lot of tech already up. Banshees will be more of an all-in harassment. Additionally, both Hellions and Dropships are useful throughout the game for both matchups. Therefore I feel that the standard opening will be either a 1-rax FE or a quick Blue-flame Hellion Harass or Octodrop while expanding. I feel that Terran will not be too badly off in getting up in the early game, and with changes to the meta-game they will be able to grain extra bases more easily as well.
terran will be greedier also????
|
In theory the Terran I fear doesn't win early, but conquers late.
Part of the reason Terrans win is because of MMM, part of the reason they lose is because of MMM. I think when they start adapting new builds, we will see why Terran is still the strongest race in SC2.
|
Like many people from what I can read, I also believe T's have been sort of "lazy" so far due to the fact that it is (and I'm not whining or anything) just so easy to win early or early'ish with T due to the amount of options you have. Once proper macro maps come out, I'm confident there will be some good builds coming out after a while, the race itself doesn't seem to lack anything to me. It probably will look a bit more like BW, I guess, with better positioned tank lines, turrets covering drops/mutas, and now some vikings as well additionally
|
On February 05 2011 14:47 stangstang wrote:
Mech should be stronger on larger maps. You can slowly push and get more expansions and there's not much another player can do.
Mech on a large map = passive playstyle. You can't punish your opponent for taking 6 bases. And you're going to get dropped/nydused into - really not much mech can do to stop that.
|
I think it is stupid that you think that because terran has been 1-2 basing all ins on maps that it should continue to be that way, and therefore new maps are bad.
Zerg and Protoss both have undergone huge metagame changes in respect to reacting to the strategies that are the flavor of the month. Bunker rushes and early pressure force pool first, for one example.
The fact that you think that Terran's should be able to stay 1-2 basing on small maps seems ill-informed. "These are our game tools, the only tools terran will ever be able to use, and therefore we should be able to abuse them, and screw large maps."
Terrans will find a way to play better, for example, Jinro plays macro games against zerg, and ends up winning. No reason that other terrans can't figure out those ways either.
|
ALLEYCAT BLUES49626 Posts
On February 05 2011 16:53 Nightfall.589 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2011 14:47 stangstang wrote:
Mech should be stronger on larger maps. You can slowly push and get more expansions and there's not much another player can do. Mech on a large map = passive playstyle. You can't punish your opponent for taking 6 bases. And you're going to get dropped/nydused into - really not much mech can do to stop that.
The Mech Doom Push is actually very strong and methodical.Its like a contain in the middle of the map that is pushing towards the opponents base while setting up strong defense in your base.
|
Yeah, I think it will be almost impossible to push against a zerg late game on a really big map. However, most of the GSL maps have nice features like chokes or destructible rocks that shorten the distance that make them very appealing.
|
|
|
I'm not so worried about zerg actually, more protoss. I feel that mech + ghost will start to shine late game on these big maps. Ghosts are just too good against p to not use, and with templars going to be there almost every game, bio will perhaps become more of a make a few of a couple rax, harass. Will definitely be interesting to see what happens.
|
On February 05 2011 08:23 5unrise wrote:Show nested quote +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?
well i think it's gonna be always viable, same is in BW, you can always proxy rax and go for marine all-in even on those new maps. the point is and i hope i'm right, the larger and better map the more defenders advantage, thus the zerg will be able to prepare and if he has good ovie positioning, he will scout it in advance and can hold if of well if he puts a spine or two, because the natural isn't wide open.
it's not like on steppes where you scout terran going down the ramp with scvs and you can't even put up a spine because it won't finish in time. i still hope cheese will be around, but the players will have to be more tricky, which i like.
|
Good Terran macro is harassing so the other race doesn't get an advantage.
|
On February 05 2011 06:13 sadyque wrote:Show nested quote +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)
So you don't think you can go Anything but bio vs protoss /facepalm so many things come to mind... like jinro vs mc if you have ever watched gsl....... also Drewbie goes BC alot vs toss if the game alows it, so open your mind and don't think that there is only one style.
|
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.
that sir is one of the only valid points made on this thread, but i guess time will tell ^_^
|
Terran will be more than fine. Bigger maps will make their lategame harrassment options even more powerful.
Those who still think that Terran can't actually macro well need to understand that just because their own ability to macro sucks, doesn't mean there aren't plenty of Terrans macroing like bosses and winning as we speak.
I play at least one awesome macro Terran on ladder each day.
|
On February 05 2011 08:04 Zarahtra wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2011 07:49 Chise wrote:
I kind of feel that Terran lategame only feels weak because of the current metagame.
Terran has a lot more ways to harass than Protoss and Zerg, yet the way most Terrans play is still by going for straight attacks where they mostly use T1/T1,5 units, that are supposed to lose to T3 units. Harassing will become even stronger on larger maps. I can't tell for sure if this kind of playstyle will be good for Terran, but it sounds like a possibility to me. What annoys me a bit when talking about terran is the fact z/p think terran players actually want to use rine/rauder. The problem is, further down the line, there is very little to be thrilled getting. This acts differently between the MUs. TvP: Ghost good Tank sucks Raven good Banshee good, though a bit niche Thor decent but slow BC bad 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(ugh always forget the term ) BC bad There's nothing really that we've got that makes me think "ohh if I get this unit, I'm in good shape". Heck I'm by far more turned on by my +attack upgrades than any of those units. Especially TvZ, we don't have anything except t1 to deal with mutas anyway(ok thors guarded by turrets...) so that forces t1 anyway(and on bigger maps = mutas are better, so go figure...). Edit: Btw I'm glad we're getting bigger maps. I just don't think it's very bright balancing the races to small maps and then expecting everything to be fine on huge maps.
Tanks are good PVT Battle cruisers are good PVT, i mean watch jinro play GSL or watch Drewbies stream you will learn that all units have a place.. and when you say thor decent, i feel that thors are actually amazing since they eat the whole colossi splash.
|
It is actually hilarious how many people think that this nerfs terran in any sort of way, all races are are subject to less effective all ins... Even the 4 gate will take much longer, especially if you kill the probe/pylon. i think people should take the new maps with stride... since lets be honest everyone hates a good 3-4 of the current maps, especially zerg.
|
lets think about wat makes or breaks a big map macro game.
harass; terran easily has best
defenders advantage/ability to turtle; terran easily has best
highest effective army food; terran easily has best (w/ mules)
unit efficiency; toss barely best, terran only second best
mobility; zerg best, terran only second best ;_;
its actually a joke that terran whine about it. their truest fear about bigmaps is that a bunch of their freewin builds lose effectiveness.
|
i've been playing a lot of games on the PTR and let me say it is bad for terran right now. i'm a protoss player at the low-master level and i have no love for terran at the moment. i cant remember the last terran i beat on the retail ladder i'm that serious, i have beaten very high master level zergs and protoss i'm not just a garbage player im just struggling greatly against T on the ladder currently, however these maps on the PTR really do just cripple a terran player, and with wider chokes the best answer, which is a macro oriented map creep with siege tanks, is less of an option as well. i am tempted to agree with most posters and say terran players are getting their just desserts, but really it'd probly be better if terran bio just got a nerf and they made siege tanks a little big stronger, not as strong as they used to be but de-neuter them, and bigger maps are in order, but not this big, i really think if they switched positions of the main/natural on metalopolis, used the new lost temple, and just get rid of junk like delta quadrant, it would be much better than putting terran in a far-away corner where they can't hope to harass you until they have medivacs.
|
On February 05 2011 18:46 Yamulo wrote:
It is actually hilarious how many people think that this nerfs terran in any sort of way, all races are are subject to less effective all ins... Even the 4 gate will take much longer, especially if you kill the probe/pylon. i think people should take the new maps with stride... since lets be honest everyone hates a good 3-4 of the current maps, especially zerg. You only mentioned 4 gate, which is easily dependable by competent Terrans. The most "all in" race is still Terran, because unless we are seriously ahead in the early game, late game is nearly unplayable.
|
New maps are a tactical nightmare for any mech play. so many 2nd routes, impossible to have a contain up by the opponent's expo. "No more MMM" they said, how about setting a camp site with tanks, some PDDs, maybe bunkers and turrets and watch the other go past it?
I mean seriously, all those P players with 1 control group mobile ball wondering around and swarming Z players, just play for once a Custom as T vs your own race and try to leapfrog tanks on a small map. You might notice it's more demanding than attack move. then try it on these ridiculous new ones.
Last but not least I really facepalm seeing the overall conception that terran can't macro as if protoss or zerg are some kind of masterminds at expanding. Ever come to notice "immobility" and expanding are somewhat opposed terms?
|
Firstly, even if Terran will become Up, I strongly prefer balance around bigger maps before balance around small maps. So for me this is a good thing no matter how I think about it.
Scondly, the maps arrnt even out yet, we dont know hoe it will turn out, IMO no reason to worry about the balance just yet.
Lastly, if it turns out that Terran really needs his harrasment, I would like the dropships being faster again. (this I would like on both small and big maps)
edit: typo
|
I agree with a lot of what has been said in this thread concerning Terran relying on strong early-mid game advantages to win games. Larger maps certainly causes this to become less effective because of the distances involved. Although people regularly complain about Terran's aggressive style, that is the style that Terran must use due to the nature of their macro mechanic and production facilities.
Unlike Zerg and Protoss, Terran cannot use their macro mechanic to increase their production. This means fewer SVCs, slower teching, and slower replenishment. True, mules can more than make up for the deficit of SCVs, but their macro mechanic cannot be used to bolster their army like Protoss and Zerg can. As such, longer maps will mean that Terran will need to CRUSH their opposing Zerg or Protoss first army in late game battles in order to defeat the '300 food army' style that Zerg can use, and Protoss can also use to an extent with warp gates. Terran simply cannot reinforce their attacks the same way Zerg and Protoss can, particularly if mutas are on the field. Even if they could, things like siege tanks and thors aren't produced fast enough to be useful as reinforcements. Terran must rely on their army there and then.
So, can a late game Terran army compete with a late game Protoss or Zerg army? This will, of course, come down to the terrain of the particular map. Take Zerg for example. Some terrain features (e.g. gold base on metal) can be highly abusable with broodlords, forcing Terran into viking. Zerg can tech switch into ultralisk relatively easily at that point, assuming (s)he has the foresight to put down an ultra den earlier. In maps with alot of cliffs, I see Terran potentially having huge trouble crushing an army like they really need to to make up for that reinforce problem. Protoss late game units also seem to be more than a match for Terran late game units. Once both colossus and HTs are on the field, the Terran will be hard pressed to crush that army.
But we just need to wait and see how the metagame evolves with large maps. I hope I made sense here and didn't sound like I had no idea what I was talking about.
|
Hai, i am a zerg player who was at around 2700 diamond and was about to get promoted into masters.
I recently started laddering as terran out of boredom, got demoted to plat and I am currently matched against gold-silver opponents. That my terran sucks is to be expected, but that I lose to gold players is not. My macro is OK, I know how to keep my money low and how to expand and get upgrades. after all I am a zerg player. But if I am not able to set up and maintain a stranglehold position right in front of the zerg's natural I simply get overwhelmed in the late game. It is just impossible to keep up with zerg's mobility, so you have to be in their face forcing them to devote all their resources to deal with your push/contain.
If you sit in your half of the map and keep up in bases you will get harassed to death. No static defense can keep up with 30+mutas that are instantly replenished as they lose them, and you can't really leave 20 food at each base to avoid instantly losing them as soon as you move out.
What idra says about "turtle terran", it is strong but is just another sort of all-in. instead of a 2 base timing push you are preparing a 3 or 4 base allin, you harass and defend harass until you push and if that fails you lose.
My problem with this game is that there are units that once in a critical mass are an instant game winner, so the only way you can deal with that is preventing their number from getting too high. mutas, colossi and to an extent thors and void rays are examples.
All the zerg players that go "terran QQ learn how macro", what do you have to say about protoss lategame which is right now stronger than zerg's? learn to macro better? Machine says he needs to prevent the toss from getting a 4th in zvp, otherwise it will be very hard for z to win the game. This is exactly what terrans have to say about zerg. It's easy to say "learn how to play lategame" when it's the others that have to do it. You don't have many options, although I would like to be proven wrong.
|
You should notice most balanced maps or at least situations are the ones with expo-as-you-advance. But somehow Blizzard insists on having absolutely awkward placements and routes for anything that comes after natural and these new ones are a perfect example.
And these ridiculous ULTIMATE BATTLE-like centers more suited for Braveheart showdowns.
|
On February 05 2011 05:37 Vezex wrote:
Terran will likely end up developing into a turtle and mass (off 2 or 3 base) into a big push style.
You can already see hints of it on shakuras.
Things like drops and banshee harass will still be good, but much more difficult to do since the obvious thing for a protoss or zerg player to do is get phoenix or mutas out and take map control on larger maps.
Agreed.
Terran is being used very gimmicky right now. it will develop into huge pushes and go into crazy defensive macro games with a large amount of medivac/banshee/hellion harassment everywhere.
also note, that as the maps get bigger, expansions are farther apart.. therefore defending expansions from harass will be much more difficult, terran players should take note of that fact ^^.
|
It's hilarious how some people think that mech will be the key on these big maps. Watch goody and strelok getting destroyed with mech by naniwa (collo + mech) on lost temple, a small map.
I can't imagine how much immobility abuse there can be on these big maps. Even with all your tanks together, you have a hard time against a protoss army (blink stalkers, zealots with legspeed, liftphoenixes, immortals). You need perfect emp and perfect positioning. Imagine that you need to spread your tanks out to defend. Protoss would just roll over it.
Maybe thor + MMM will be the future. For me Battlecruisers and tanks feel very weak, while thors feel a little bit less weak (but still awefull). I would love to be able to play anything else then the boring MMM!
|
I watched a VOD the other of Idra V MVP on shakuras (biggest map in the pool atm) and it think it shows exactly how a terran should play on a big map and how zerg should respond. Its also an AMAZING game and well worth a watch for sheer entertainment value if nothing else. There is always something that is happening, the multitasking on both parts is simply mind boggling. Its also a really close game, i couldn't tell whow as going to win until the last 5 minutes or so of the near 40 minute game.
http://www.justin.tv/24california/b/278893657
|
i agree with the op, with new, large maps, terran needs tweaks to be able to compete.
|
On February 05 2011 20:56 r3d33m3r wrote:
i agree with the op, with new, large maps, terran needs tweaks to be able to compete.
Why?
Terrans can still compete on Shakuras Plateau, and it is a pretty large map.
To me it seems that people severely over-estimate the power of chronoboost for protoss.
Besides, terrans could explore the the usage of 'macro' OCs. Maybe not something extreme like 5 additionnal OCs, but one or two more than you have bases. After all, they can still be lifted off when you actually need to expend.
Anyhow, I'd rather say we don't have enough data. The only real 'big' ladder map is Shakuras. I mean, if after a somewhat long period of time terran has like a 35-40% win rate on these maps, tweak.
But don't mindlessly tweak. Kinda how Blizzard wasn't mindlessly buffing zerg. It takes time to discover new strategies. What if terran started out weak on these maps and someone found a great way to abuse these maps and THEN Blizzard buffed Terran? Goodbye balance >_>
|
it blows my mind that people seem sure that terran will need to be tweaked to compensate for map size.
it's based on nothing at this point
and is sort of depressing that people seem to think the race is capable of so little.
|
14 Rumpleforeskin wrote:
Unlike Zerg and Protoss, Terran cannot use their macro mechanic to increase their production.
wat? u clearly dont understand the game very well if you think this. let me spell it out for you. mules = more income = more production buildings :D
|
On February 05 2011 08:57 DarkRise wrote:Show nested quote +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. PF doesn't help you build workers any faster, unlike chrono or larva mechanics. Think please...
|
On February 05 2011 20:44 Dente wrote:
It's hilarious how some people think that mech will be the key on these big maps. Watch goody and strelok getting destroyed with mech by naniwa (collo + mech) on lost temple, a small map.
I can't imagine how much immobility abuse there can be on these big maps. Even with all your tanks together, you have a hard time against a protoss army (blink stalkers, zealots with legspeed, liftphoenixes, immortals). You need perfect emp and perfect positioning. Imagine that you need to spread your tanks out to defend. Protoss would just roll over it.
Maybe thor + MMM will be the future. For me Battlecruisers and tanks feel very weak, while thors feel a little bit less weak (but still awefull). I would love to be able to play anything else then the boring MMM!
Ya agreed, I'm loling at those people who say 'just mech, it worked for Jinro vs MC', it worked for Jinro on LT close and Scrap stations, maps where you can easily make a siege tank beeline to your opponents base. Meching with ineffective 3 food tanks without spider mine support on big maps will be just about impossible. If anything those big maps will favor MMM even more just to keep a semblance of mobility.
|
On February 05 2011 05:17 Bagi wrote:
: how much terran actually relies on 1-2 base plays and constant harass to win their games.
Then dont rely on 1-2 base plays. It's not like terran is bad at macro, it's just their all in strats are fast and easy ways to win as terran if the map allows it. Terran could easily be a turtle race like in BW.
|
On February 05 2011 22:04 ibreakurface wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2011 05:17 Bagi wrote:
: how much terran actually relies on 1-2 base plays and constant harass to win their games. Then dont rely on 1-2 base plays. It's not like terran is bad at macro, it's just their all in strats are fast and easy ways to win as terran if the map allows it. Terran could easily be a turtle race like in BW. Except that tanks cost more and do less now, spider mines are gone and vikings are more expensive goliaths with less armor.
|
On February 05 2011 21:49 Mercury- wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2011 08:57 DarkRise wrote: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. PF doesn't help you build workers any faster, unlike chrono or larva mechanics. Think please...
NO protoss is going to chrono their probes past the earlygame, chronoing tech units or upgrades is far better. Think please.
Not to mention that you don't really need more than 50 workers as T because of mules, and that you can get in under 15 minutes.
|
Terrans will find a way to deal with it, I imagine. And if they don't, a couple months of being underrepresented can't hurt, zerg has been dealing with that because of small maps.
I imagine if there's a genuine terran imbalance on large maps (can't deal with zerg/toss late game), either we'll go back to small maps, and some big balance changes will happen, or we'll stay on big maps (I hope), and some big balance changes will happen there.
And humbug to the browder comment. There's plenty of examples of terran winning macro games against protoss. You just need to look for macro terran players, instead of the ones that are overreliant on early pushes/pressure. For example: Jinro beat oGsMC past 15 minutes, multiple times, and oGsMC beat jinro before 15 minutes multiple times (at the GSL season 4/3 respectively). Certain players have their strengths and weaknesses, and it doesn't surprise me at all that terran players are just better at the early game, since they always seem to want to end games early, and never bother with a macro game.
|
Not that your example weighs anything in the discussion about lategame TvP but Ogsmc played poorly vs Jinro and positions were ideal for mech play. That's why it seemed ZOMG MECH PWNS.
|
This discussion is based upon speculation and theorycrafting. Whereas the reason we are getting. big maps is based upon current trends. Some ppl are so hypocritical when z loses due to close pos or bad maps they are consoled with "don't worry bigger maps will fix z" then finally. We get a map change and t is up? There is not sufficient evidence that t will be up on larger maps but there is sufficient evidence to prove they are the most favored on smaller maps.
|
regardless of how terran is affected, i think play on smaller maps is less diverse and larger maps should be used more often for the good of the game. Units can always be rebalanced, theres still 2 expansions to come as well.
|
I would love to play more macro terran..
|
I like new maps being introduced. But I enjoy variety in size. If they just make big 4 player maps, that will suck. This game was never intended for every match to be a 45 min macro fest. Early pressure and all in builds are also apart of the game.
|
Sry.... this was a double post.
|
Not to mention that you don't really need more than 50 workers as T because of mules, and that you can get in under 15 minutes.
Rofl, have u ever played SC2? Amount of workers, like with every race. Is base dependant.
|
In the long run terran will always find ways to make zerg weep.
|
I dont even think that large maps are bad for T in TvP because its easyer for Ts to splitt up their army. also an endgame transition with adding orbitals and killing SCVs to free up supply is a way to strengthen the T army in a very long game.
heres what I generally think about tvp: on small maps its early game T favored and late game P favored because of obvious reasons. on large maps its early game even because of longer rush distances for T which doesnt hurt P so much and late game is also evened out because P tends to become less mobile as the game progresses and T becomes more mobile and since P wants to attack with one huge ball, its easyer to pick him off with drops and multi attacks.
|
On February 05 2011 22:10 Mercury- wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2011 22:04 ibreakurface wrote:On February 05 2011 05:17 Bagi wrote:
: how much terran actually relies on 1-2 base plays and constant harass to win their games. Then dont rely on 1-2 base plays. It's not like terran is bad at macro, it's just their all in strats are fast and easy ways to win as terran if the map allows it. Terran could easily be a turtle race like in BW. Except that tanks cost more and do less now, spider mines are gone and vikings are more expensive goliaths with less armor.
It's a different game sweetheart. Why does everyone assume terran can't turtle?
|
On February 05 2011 05:17 Bagi wrote:
But at the same time I feel theres something people do not consider: how much terran actually relies on 1-2 base plays and constant harass to win their games.
That is EXACTLY why almost EVERYONE wants bigger maps. Generally games with more than 1-2 bases are more exciting because we get more action time instead of early game. Also, your argument is chicken-or-egg. Terrans rely on 1-2 base pushes BECAUSE they are so strong on current maps, not because the race will be too weak if we get bigger and better maps.
Watch the latest game Idra vs MVP on Artosis YouTube. Wouldn't you rather watch games like that instead of 1-2 base near all-ins? Well then, we need more maps as big (or slightly bigger) as Shakuras Plateau.
|
I think players will also adapt and develop new strategies with the tools that are given to them. Every time a patch change occurs or a new map arrives, there is very little certainty at first. But over time, people devise powerful strategies, and if it turns out that those strategies cause a racial imbalance, then changes need to be made.
Bigger maps might be harder for Terran to adjust to than the other races at first, but players will inevitably create new styles of play which work, and if one of the new big maps shows a significant win rate for a certain race, then we can say it is "imbalanced."
The real issue is allowing enough time for strategies to develop, rather than changing everything as soon as somebody exploits some new build. Look at the 7rr or the 2 rax scv all-in or the 4-gate. Everyone screamed imbalance when these strategies arose but over time they adjusted and found solutions. The same principle can be applied to new maps. Let's try some bigger maps and give them some time. If we find that they are imbalanced then lets fix them or get rid of them.
|
I think on a larger map people might be able to switch up unit comps for terran. On larger maps adding more tanks, thors and banshees with become much more common. A lot of terran play right now is base off of early mid game, but I think terran has the units to go for mid game if they just add in a lot more of those units.
|
@OP: Terran didn't have any trouble att all to drop harass in SC:BW and I don't see harass being any more difficult on larger maps. What you are talking about is the time for the first banshee/hellion to reach the enemy base. Terran has to re-think their game style and create new timings and strategies. I think hellions will become the pillar of Terran on larger maps, just like vultures are in SC:BW. Larger maps also means it is harder to defend all locations and to spot an incomming drop.
|
God I hope that big maps move Terran from general purpose do everything race to actually having a lock down the map and push slowly style. I don't know if that's possible because the entire reason that style was successful in BW in TvT and TvP was down to spider mines being great at controlling space.
I really miss there being units that were capable of controlling space, with lurkers and spider mines, I thought with the force field protoss would have a similar ability but now they're the only ones who can do it and they're probably the race who need it least due to warp-in and their reasonable mobility.
|
Did you know that 2 siege tanks which are clumped up lose against a single colossus if they start attacking at the same time?
Says everything about siege tank damage against armored units.
edit:
Imo reduce splash and increase damage against armored.
|
On February 06 2011 03:48 Bommes wrote:
Did you know that 2 siege tanks which are clumped up lose against a single colossus if they start attacking at the same time?
Says everything about siege tank damage against armored units.
edit:
Imo reduce splash and increase damage against armored.
If you unsiege your tanks it reduces their splash and increases their damage to armoured!
|
Big maps = macro games.
I dont see terran being able to compete against Z and P on the bigger maps unless they make thors air dmg same for armored as light and buff the tank back to 50 dmg.
|
On February 06 2011 03:52 philcorp wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2011 03:48 Bommes wrote:
Did you know that 2 siege tanks which are clumped up lose against a single colossus if they start attacking at the same time?
Says everything about siege tank damage against armored units.
edit:
Imo reduce splash and increase damage against armored. If you unsiege your tanks it reduces their splash and increases their damage to armoured!
By the time you unsieged your tanks they are already dead against the colossus.
I know that unsieged dps against armored is pretty good. But sieged DPS against armored is really really bad for their mobility, while splash is too good against zerglings/banelings/marines even in small tank numbers. And a stimmed marauder does every little thing better than an unsieged tank.
It's just already really really hard to hold a position with tanks under 160 supply, if maps get bigger it will be nearly impossible and you won't see a lot of tank play even in TvT.
I'm not saying that terran will be bad on large maps, because that's not the case, but tanks will be very hard to pull off properly.
|
On February 05 2011 22:13 Shikyo wrote:
Not to mention that you don't really need more than 50 workers as T because of mules, and that you can get in under 15 minutes.
So, you're trying to say that Terran only need 2 saturated bases?
Wouldn't that imply that they are disadvantaged on larger maps, as they wouldn't make the workers necessary to take advantage of more bases?
(I personally don't believe that's the case. I also don't believe that Terran only needs 50 workers.)
|
On February 05 2011 20:51 Karn3 wrote:I watched a VOD the other of Idra V MVP on shakuras (biggest map in the pool atm) and it think it shows exactly how a terran should play on a big map and how zerg should respond. Its also an AMAZING game and well worth a watch for sheer entertainment value if nothing else. There is always something that is happening, the multitasking on both parts is simply mind boggling. Its also a really close game, i couldn't tell whow as going to win until the last 5 minutes or so of the near 40 minute game. http://www.justin.tv/24california/b/278893657
MVP would have been better served just a-moving up Idra's ramp at the 9:20 minute mark. 6 lings, 1 spine crawler, 1 queen would not have done much to 30 food of marine/marauder. I think that was an excellent demonstration of how despite amazing harass by MVP, Terran still struggles in the post-infestor late game. (Not to deride Idra's play, or anything - his control and macro was solid.)
Idra himself said about it: "Early game luck. If marine/marauder attacked, I woulda died."
Mods: Apologies for double post... I didn't realise it at the time.
|
Terran will adapt; we have through all the patches.
I actually perfer a macro game my self(I play Terran) even if things do get a bit tricky in the midgame with Zerg and the endgame with Protoss.
We NEED to come away from with onebase/allin style that has been so rampant if we want the game to survive and have the longevity that Brood War did.
How long do you really think one/twobase plays will continue to stay fun for both the spectator AND the player?
No, Terrans will adapt like we always have. Going towards bigger maps is only a good thing, even for us Terran players. If there's anything broken, it will be patched; until then practice makes perfect. Get off your allins and start really playing the game
|
It's pretty sad when you get to count all-ins as part of the process of balancing the meta game, dude.
|
On February 06 2011 06:03 danielsan wrote:
It's pretty sad when you get to count all-ins as part of the process of balancing the meta game, dude.
None of the strategies I listed are all-ins.
Theres a difference between an all-in and early harass/aggressive play being viable.
|
i'm totally ok with your point, makes total sense. i was talking to moosesoup and his steering away from all-ins as if they were some kind of strategy. and more than that, as if they were terran specific.
|
lol these news made me QQ the whole day :D :D :D
I hope my all-ins dont become obsolete, because I am one of those soulless people who all-in every single game...
Hmmm
|
On February 06 2011 06:52 DestroManiak wrote:
lol these news made me QQ the whole day :D :D :D
I hope my all-ins dont become obsolete, because I am one of those soulless people who all-in every single game...
Hmmm
Yeah they will so you will probably fall down a rank or 2 if you rely on all ins to win any games. Can't wait till that comes hopefully then being in masters league half of them don't' all in -_-.
|
Macro terrans are scary. Everytime something dies, it's already replaced. What's scarrier is when terrans mix in more mech and turtle perfectly, so they'll never lose economy. But i'm sure the more creative players will be able to get thru the turtle to get some damage done  . But a super push 3 base 200/200 terran is definitely going to be scary.
|
On February 06 2011 06:56 blade55555 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2011 06:52 DestroManiak wrote:
lol these news made me QQ the whole day :D :D :D
I hope my all-ins dont become obsolete, because I am one of those soulless people who all-in every single game...
Hmmm Yeah they will so you will probably fall down a rank or 2 if you rely on all ins to win any games. Can't wait till that comes hopefully then being in masters league half of them don't' all in -_-.
Hmm maybe 4 gate all in could be a viable option for me :D
Because that ignores distance right?
|
Don't forget that bigger maps make it easier to harass an opponent. On a small map it's easy for an opponent to rush back to defend a drop in base but on a really big map their army can really only be in one place at a time.
|
ok drewbie beat idra on shakuras. wat a joke if anything terran needs nerfs even on big maps. drewbie is awful losing marines to blings coz he doesnt actually move them etc..... its actually hilarious that anyone thinks terran needs any kind of buff in any kind of situation. look at the terrible players terran carries in every tournament. people like tsl rain gettin to finals of the gsl....
|
On February 05 2011 22:10 Mercury- wrote:
Except that tanks cost more and do less now
Except... no.
Despite "inferior" stats, SC2 tank is wayyyyyyyyyy superior to the BW tank.
Why? Smart targetting.
Tanks don't overkill targets, meaning that all the fancy micro to beat tanks is gone or much less effective (remember, in BW you could drop a single unit on a tank, and all other tanks would shoot at it and kill the tank. In SC2, drop a unit and maybe the tank will get hit once or twice)
On February 06 2011 03:48 Bommes wrote:
Did you know that 2 siege tanks which are clumped up lose against a single colossus if they start attacking at the same time?
Says everything about siege tank damage against armored units.
"oh no, my two units lose against an higher tech, more expensive unit that requires more supply AND requires an expensive upgrade to even have more than half the range of my unit. Did I mention that this is only true in one particular position"
Tanks should be spread out, to begin with
|
On February 06 2011 07:25 Aerakin wrote:
"oh no, my two units lose against an higher tech, more expensive unit that requires more supply AND requires an expensive upgrade to even have more than half the range of my unit. Did I mention that this is only true in one particular position"
Actually 2 tanks cost 300/250/6, thats 50 more gas than a colossus. They require an upgrade too.
But yeah, its a pointless comparision.
|
On February 06 2011 08:41 Bagi wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2011 07:25 Aerakin wrote:
"oh no, my two units lose against an higher tech, more expensive unit that requires more supply AND requires an expensive upgrade to even have more than half the range of my unit. Did I mention that this is only true in one particular position"
Actually 2 tanks cost 300/250/6, thats 50 more gas than a colossus. They require an upgrade too. But yeah, its a pointless comparision.
Yes, yes it is =P
Besides, a unit higher down the tech tree should be somewhat cost effective (at least, in theory. It is highly situational, in my cases)
(also, extended thermal lances is twice as expensive as siege mode, and takes a full minute longer to research)
|
I find it interesting how this is turning out. It literally looks like a discussion that happened a few months back, but change all the Zerg players to Terran, and all the Terran to Zerg, and instead of short maps, it's large maps.
We wont know what will happen till these go out there. Worst case scenario we get a repeat of history, T is weak on these maps, Blizzard sees this, T gets buffed for these maps.
|
On February 05 2011 17:40 PredY wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2011 08:23 5unrise 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. 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? well i think it's gonna be always viable, same is in BW, you can always proxy rax and go for marine all-in even on those new maps. the point is and i hope i'm right, the larger and better map the more defenders advantage, thus the zerg will be able to prepare and if he has good ovie positioning, he will scout it in advance and can hold if of well if he puts a spine or two, because the natural isn't wide open. it's not like on steppes where you scout terran going down the ramp with scvs and you can't even put up a spine because it won't finish in time. i still hope cheese will be around, but the players will have to be more tricky, which i like.
my sentiments exactly, well answered, ty
|
On February 06 2011 09:07 Aerakin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2011 08:41 Bagi wrote:On February 06 2011 07:25 Aerakin wrote:
"oh no, my two units lose against an higher tech, more expensive unit that requires more supply AND requires an expensive upgrade to even have more than half the range of my unit. Did I mention that this is only true in one particular position"
Actually 2 tanks cost 300/250/6, thats 50 more gas than a colossus. They require an upgrade too. But yeah, its a pointless comparision. Yes, yes it is =P Besides, a unit higher down the tech tree should be somewhat cost effective (at least, in theory. It is highly situational, in my cases) (also, extended thermal lances is twice as expensive as siege mode, and takes a full minute longer to research)
Yea and colossi have about 20 times more mobility. And you know how much mobility counts if you look at the raw base stats of the stalker, which are pretty bad, but it is still a good unit because of its mobility.
I agree that this pure unit comparison isn't good. I just wanted to bring it up to show how much tanks SUCK against armored units, because I think most people don't really know that. They only see these 15+ tanks that evaporate everything because their splash is way too large, but they have never seen 7-8 tanks + support vanish on bigger maps where the enemy can get a reasonable concave without losing even a comparable amount of supply. Not to mention that they can just walk beside your tankline and you have no chance to catch them without losing half your economy by the time you are there (and you are way out of position then). And tanks take forever to replace.
I just wanted to point out how much tanks suck on large maps and that you won't see tank-based strategies there because it is not cost-efficient. I'm not saying that terran will be bad on large maps, because that is just not true. Just the tank will be very hard to establish as a core unit, which is quite sad from my point of view.
|
On February 05 2011 20:51 Karn3 wrote:I watched a VOD the other of Idra V MVP on shakuras (biggest map in the pool atm) and it think it shows exactly how a terran should play on a big map and how zerg should respond. Its also an AMAZING game and well worth a watch for sheer entertainment value if nothing else. There is always something that is happening, the multitasking on both parts is simply mind boggling. Its also a really close game, i couldn't tell whow as going to win until the last 5 minutes or so of the near 40 minute game. http://www.justin.tv/24california/b/278893657
This match, in my eyes, is just proof of how things CAN and probably eventually will turn out for TvZ. Spoilers for people who want to be left in the dark by the match outcome.
+ Show Spoiler +Idra was able to control at least 70% of the map with a ball of 24 mutas. The size of the map actually forced MVP back because of how much of his forces he had to leave at home to fend off muta harass. In fact, MVP didn't even get the chance to push with his macro army. His best chance to push was early on off of what I can only assume was 2 base bio. He had to constantly drop, and even then, he didn't have great success until Idra switched from mutas to ultras to begin a full assault. At that point, Idra's ground forces couldn't completely keep up with the drops, but it was really too late for MVP by then.
The amount of map control zerg can obtain through mutas, combined with how powerful lings and banelings are as "OH %&$^!" units makes zerg impossibly daunting to approach. (B)Lings and mutas are just so effective at punishing a terran for not being in perfect position. Increasing the area of the map simply increases the time the terran will be out of position. Once that happens, that durable, expensive terran mech vanishes and the terran finds himself in a very depressing situation, with easily countered bio by that stage of the game.
|
I agree with the OP here. Making larger maps doesn't just help skilled players, but also nerfs Terran indirectly. If you've played the game, you know that Terran is far weaker on larger maps. Most zerg and protoss players think Terran is still way too overpowered. However, there is a limit on how much you can directly nerf them, so you make the maps larger.
|
On February 05 2011 05:17 Bagi wrote:
Big maps are becoming a hot topic with the new Blizzard maps as well as bigger maps from other parties. Most people are in the mindset that bigger maps would benefit the game greatly, as they would weaken gimmicky all-in builds and make a turn towards more macro (aka. skill according to some) based games.
But at the same time I feel theres something people do not consider: how much terran actually relies on 1-2 base plays and constant harass to win their games. In my humble opinion terran is in an awkward spot with how most of their strengths come from early game situations. Bigger maps would greatly downplay these strengths. I'm a ~3000 masters terran myself, so I will try to explain this by using my general "gameplans", and I think most terrans would agree with them.
Gameplan going into TvZ: if positions are close, push with marines/bunkers to prevent FE to gain that early advantage. If its long distances, harass with banshee/hellions/marines to force units and prevent heavy droning. If you let the zerg drone freely, you are as good as dead. Keep up pressure and try to finish the game before the larva mechanism overwhelms you.
Its obvious that all of these general ideas will become weaker in a large map. The zerg will be able to get a FE without trouble. Any harass will take longer to arrive in the zerg base and thus be much weaker. Much of the early game stuff we terrans are forced to do against zerg will be either weaker or completely negated.
Gameplan going into TvP: if positions are close, early pushing and poking with MM might be beneficial. One of the many timing pushes with a raven can really punish a toss that goes FE. Once medivacs come into play, drop drop drop drop. Dont let them get too many colossi. Once both colossi and templar are out, it becomes extremely difficult to deal with the protoss deathball.
Once again when we shift towards macro games, terran gets the short end of the stick. Trying to end the game early will become very, very hard against a competent protoss. Dustin Browder himself at Blizzcon said that terran generally wins before the 15 minute mark, and protoss wins after it.
Personally I feel that the only matchup where I can go into full macro mode and still feel like I am perfectly fine is TvT.
So if we would suddenly change into bigger maps, I think one of two things would happen. Either terran players succesfully learn new ways to play the races strengths and a new era of terran play will emerge. Or alternatively terran be completely outmatched by stuff like creep, superior zerg mobility and warped-in units + stronger armies. I've heard some talk about this issue, but for the most time its not really touched upon, big maps are universally considered to be a good thing. Its almost like people feel terrans deserve to have their strong points taken away from them just because bigger maps are plain better, and because some the current maps favor terran.
Some people have said that things like multiple simultaneous drops and nukes will become increasingly powerful in big macro games, and I do agree with that. I just wonder if it is enough.
I dunno... Discuss.
i am 2500 master terran and i completely agree with you
i understand concerns for some maps that are extremely small like steppes of war and so on but i am sure terran will have an extremely hard time if the map pool changes too drastically.
i believe a "solution" to this would be make the 3rd expo more accessible, there's some maps where taking the 3rd is extremely hard (like jungle basin etc.), maybe if they somehow changed those to make the timing for the third easier to defend it could work.
but maps that go on for kms and kms... not sure about that.
sure you can play macro games as T, but the strength of our race is that is harass based..
|
On February 06 2011 19:31 Bommes wrote:
I just wanted to bring it up to show how much tanks SUCK against armored units, because I think most people don't really know that.
True, but a unit cannot be good against everything. Besides, I don't think it is that bad. And, as much as I hate to compare to BW, the maps in that game were huge (and tanks still immobile), but tanks were still very well used (stuff like dropships to move your tanks around).
On February 07 2011 07:53 ShyRamen wrote:sure you can play macro games as T, but the strength of our race is that is harass based..
As it's already been said, harass might as well be EASIER on bigger maps. More bases means more places to harass.
|
there are many style of terran, there are in fact some of the macro style that doesn't require close spawn. the thing i worry about is protoss hiding tech and zerg get a fast third and use muta ling contain you getting safe 4th into infestor/broodlard.
However it's not unstoppable, Jinro did it. But it will require more strength from terran side. Which may balance the game a little more. we will just have to wait and see.
|
Bigger maps allow Terran to harass more places, but remember that Terran will have their army spread out between their bases because of harass themselves, the more spread out they are the easier it is to destroy them with a frontal attack since Terran has the weakest army late game.
I am all for maps like Shakuras Plateau size, but iirc, there was a few enormous GSL maps that I just don't see Terran winning 5 of 10 games on in TvP and TvZ since they will be largely macro games and Terran can't win in a 200/200 battle against zerg/protoss (even if they beat the zerg army, zerg reinforces quicker)
|
My guess? EXTREMELY awkward transition period for Terran, followed by either buffs or rethinking of the matchups, probably both. Result: much healthier metagame with more interesting and fun games. I really hate the way TvP (from P perspective) seems to just be an exercise in all-in timing pushes.
I think Sensor Towers will end up being crucial for Terran, as will Raven play. Maybe we'll even get Turreted Mechballs back, a Marine+Tank+Turret build. Maybe Thors in the mix as well.
|
I've seen at least 30 VODs on the new GSTL maps, and I can categorically state that Terran STILL can all-in on these maps, and can play with great success throughout the late game as well.
|
The thing about macro Terran is that delaying an enemy involves risking expensive units, whereas Zerg has mutas and baneling mines while Protoss units are meaty enough to hold the line and retreat with little loss. In Brood War, you could buy tons of time to expand and build an army simply by laying spider mines with vultures, which was very cheap to do so. Now in Starcraft 2, Terran has to risk their units to put themselves in a good enough position to macro. Risking units would mean offensive siege tanks, bunkers, constant medivac drops, all of which could put you in a bad enough position to not be able to expand if you fail.
I think if Terran got a cheap way to delay an enemy similar to spider mines, Terran players would be more inclined to play long macro games instead of strong timing pushes.
|
So what you are saying you are worried that your cheesy all-ins wont work anymore and you're gonna have to actually play the game?
Terran is a lovely macro race with pf's and siege tanks.
|
yea while were busy "macroing" up well get rolled by a 300 fewd bane push or something ridiculous like that.
|
On February 06 2011 23:48 murkk wrote:
I agree with the OP here. Making larger maps doesn't just help skilled players, but also nerfs Terran indirectly. If you've played the game, you know that Terran is far weaker on larger maps. Most zerg and protoss players think Terran is still way too overpowered. However, there is a limit on how much you can directly nerf them, so you make the maps larger.
I don't know about you but my favorite map so far is Shukuras plateau because macro games are much much more enjoyable for me even as terran. And no one ever said that every single map in the ladder pool had to be big. Blizzard I said (I believe it was a while back that I heard this) that the reason for the map pool being as it is is to give it variety so having some maps z favored and some t favored and some p favored to me is not a bad thing. I don't vote down maps on the ladder because its good to play on challenging maps for your build of choice too.
+ Show Spoiler +If I had to choose however I would downturn Steps, delta, and scrap.
Also when you think about in tournaments the spoils go to the victor. Players that play in tournaments want a fair game but more importantly they play this game to win. If you win the first map and have the option of selecting the next map since you won the first map how many people do you think are gonna choose a map that works against their style of play. The first map should always be a someone balanced map other than that having maps favored for one race I don't think is a bad thing so long as its not extremally stacked in one races favor and tournaments allow at least one veto. (Yes I'm looking at you jungle basin)
+ Show Spoiler +On February 06 2011 08:41 Bagi wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2011 07:25 Aerakin wrote:
"oh no, my two units lose against an higher tech, more expensive unit that requires more supply AND requires an expensive upgrade to even have more than half the range of my unit. Did I mention that this is only true in one particular position"
Actually 2 tanks cost 300/250/6, thats 50 more gas than a colossus. They require an upgrade too. But yeah, its a pointless comparision. Not to be anal or anything but for that comparison taking all other units out of the equation meaning it was just 2 tanks vs 1 collosus you wouldn't need the siege mode upgrade. Tanks do more damage to single targets in tank mode than in siege mode the advantage of siegemode is range plus splash.
|
I really cannot understand all the theory crafting and internet wars on this thread .
simple facts are : on gisado maps the winning precentage of races on the new VERY big maps
is around 50%.
farther more the new ladder maps are on ptr , blizz will check the race satistics before moving the maps into the ladder , and i am pretty sure they will not release a map in which terran cannot win .
team gsl start today , if you like me and not experianced / gifted enough to figure solutions on your own , lets watch and see how the pro's do it .
just really simple truth is if you cannot find a solution to a problem , it doesnt mean there isnt one .
|
Saw a comment earlier in the thread that tier 1 or 1.5 units have uses in the late game.
Examples given were lings once they get movement and attack speed upgrades, zealots with charge, etc.
I think this is one issue with T. They don't have late game unit specific upgrades.
I'll throw out some suggestions:
Something out of fusion core that improves thor move speed. Helps T mobility, but if you are heavy mech, you need to go down the entire air tech tree to get it.
Another suggestion would be something that halves tank siege/unsiege time.
I'm not sure what it would be, but you could have something bio related that you research from the ghost academy that requires a fusion core. Something to keep late game bio a little more useful.
|
On February 08 2011 00:05 Phillydilly wrote:
Saw a comment earlier in the thread that tier 1 or 1.5 units have uses in the late game.
Examples given were lings once they get movement and attack speed upgrades, zealots with charge, etc.
I think this is one issue with T. They don't have late game unit specific upgrades.
I'll throw out some suggestions:
Something out of fusion core that improves thor move speed. Helps T mobility, but if you are heavy mech, you need to go down the entire air tech tree to get it.
Another suggestion would be something that halves tank siege/unsiege time.
I'm not sure what it would be, but you could have something bio related that you research from the ghost academy that requires a fusion core. Something to keep late game bio a little more useful.
Not sure if you are trolling or not but if you dont you realize bio also gets upgrades and stim/medivacs makes them super-mobile. Terran tier 1-1.5 is probably the most useful of any races, how many games isn't the terran massing bio all game, even in the late game it's their core units + Show Spoiler +(even in the GSTL played today on huge maps mmm was almost exclusively used).
Terran already got late-game upgrades which probably isnt used enough like hunter seeker missile, yamato cannon and thor cannon. I don't understand your reasoning behind adding more.
|
On February 05 2011 06:30 PredY wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2011 06:24 XXXSmOke wrote:On February 05 2011 06:16 PredY wrote:On February 05 2011 06:08 kodas 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. 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.. This is so bias, it gave me aids. I don't think you understand the fundamental reasoning behind going MMM, Terran's need it to survive the mid game. It gives us the ability to pressure and keep expanding keeping the game on an even footing. If you go straight mech from the start you will die to most common col/stalker midgames or you are force to turtle with tanks and then the Protoss will just out macro you. If you try at any point to trans from bio to mech, the Protoss will kill you. my 2 cents prolly just as bias well...yes that's what i meant. you use your early/mid game strenght = MMM, then transition into late game strenght = mech/air. or straight away mech with good upgrades could work as well i feel kinda like in bw with fast 3base fast armory upgrades but that's for another topic. btw i'm terran as well, no bias, but kinda annoyed by all the arguments about terran being weak lategame Thats where the problem is tho man, How do you transfer from a 6 rax/1 Fact/2 Starport into a full mech build??? Are you going to spend another 1000/500 on production buildings? where are you going to fit everything? yep mate that's the problem indeed. as i said, it's not figured out yet. i still believe you can do very well with just 3 OR 4rax tops + a factory + port, until you take your 3rd and then transition. obviously on maps like taldarim altar it's easier to take third, and there are only 2 chokes that you can acutally defend well with bunkers, if you try to really be in your opponent's face you don't need more than 3 or 4 rax and you can use those to wall chokes later on etc. tho i'm still not sure about when to get upgrades for your mech, tho it's definately cool to have some marauders all the time to drop them and kill buildings, if you find good timings to kill protoss tech buildings your transition will be much smoother. just some thoughts.
+ Show Spoiler +sorry gotta quote myself here, seems like MVP is reading my posts! lol no j/k obv
SET 8 GSTL finals MVP vs Squirtle
as you can see, on a good map with fast 3base you can get bio for harass, MVP doing drops all over the place, even sniping templar archives, while getting his mech army. A mistake was not good enough upgrades for MVP because 2-0 vs 3/3 toss is not what you want, also would love to see a bit more hellions running around the map (obviously VERY hard since protoss had blink). otherwise best SC2 game i've ever seen definately the way i want TvP to go, i almost cried even tho MVP lost it was so fcking sick.
edit: oh and ghosts would do a lot of work too
|
On February 10 2011 21:24 PredY wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2011 06:30 PredY wrote:On February 05 2011 06:24 XXXSmOke wrote:On February 05 2011 06:16 PredY wrote:On February 05 2011 06:08 kodas 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. 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.. This is so bias, it gave me aids. I don't think you understand the fundamental reasoning behind going MMM, Terran's need it to survive the mid game. It gives us the ability to pressure and keep expanding keeping the game on an even footing. If you go straight mech from the start you will die to most common col/stalker midgames or you are force to turtle with tanks and then the Protoss will just out macro you. If you try at any point to trans from bio to mech, the Protoss will kill you. my 2 cents prolly just as bias well...yes that's what i meant. you use your early/mid game strenght = MMM, then transition into late game strenght = mech/air. or straight away mech with good upgrades could work as well i feel kinda like in bw with fast 3base fast armory upgrades but that's for another topic. btw i'm terran as well, no bias, but kinda annoyed by all the arguments about terran being weak lategame Thats where the problem is tho man, How do you transfer from a 6 rax/1 Fact/2 Starport into a full mech build??? Are you going to spend another 1000/500 on production buildings? where are you going to fit everything? yep mate that's the problem indeed. as i said, it's not figured out yet. i still believe you can do very well with just 3 OR 4rax tops + a factory + port, until you take your 3rd and then transition. obviously on maps like taldarim altar it's easier to take third, and there are only 2 chokes that you can acutally defend well with bunkers, if you try to really be in your opponent's face you don't need more than 3 or 4 rax and you can use those to wall chokes later on etc. tho i'm still not sure about when to get upgrades for your mech, tho it's definately cool to have some marauders all the time to drop them and kill buildings, if you find good timings to kill protoss tech buildings your transition will be much smoother. just some thoughts. + Show Spoiler +sorry gotta quote myself here, seems like MVP is reading my posts! lol no j/k obv
SET 8 GSTL finals MVP vs Squirtle
as you can see, on a good map with fast 3base you can get bio for harass, MVP doing drops all over the place, even sniping templar archives, while getting his mech army. A mistake was not good enough upgrades for MVP because 2-0 vs 3/3 toss is not what you want, also would love to see a bit more hellions running around the map (obviously VERY hard since protoss had blink). otherwise best SC2 game i've ever seen definately the way i want TvP to go, i almost cried even tho MVP lost it was so fcking sick.
+ Show Spoiler +yeah, thats something you can build on, for instance also adding ghosts, image if he had ghosts, or ravens with hsm etc. spellcaster are necessary in the lategame IMO
there is so much unexplored stuff on the terran side, just cause it wasn't needed until now
so bigger maps are going to force it imo.
|
Just a note PredY that your above post counts as a GSTL spoiler. So fix that. But, referring to that thing you just wrote...
SPOILER WARNING!
+ Show Spoiler +Whilst it's east (fun too!) to backseat general, yeah it's quite possible bio into mech transitions might be the TvP strategy on the new larger more macro favourable maps. Pure bio suffers when the protoss death ball just becomes too varied and economically fuelled to be combatted with MMM+ ghost and/or viking so our only possible alternative is heavy mech usage. Pure mech, I dunno, but definitely more factories being planted. Also note that I kinda think MVP could have slotted in some ghosts to flesh that out a bit better, particularly against the mship and the immortals, which both pose huge threats to the heavier mech stylings, but that's just shabby speculation on an otherwise amazing fucking game from the best SC2 series we've seen so far.
It's funny, SC2 is becoming more like it's predecessor every few months it seems.
Oh, and 4gate will never die. That I definitely predict! Unless they change a huge fundamental of the game, like some sort of range restriction on warpgates warp in radius (or something else similar, not saying that they should!) then there's no reason that shifty little gateway timing attacks like 4 gate or 3 gate FE or 1 gate FE, 6 gate timing should ever really fall out of style. And that's ok.
|
I think the new maps are way too young. If anything happens then a new era for Terrans is on its way where they have to play the game straight up to the end. Protoss and Zerg have been trying to do that against Terran since the start of the game. So I dont see how exactly it should be different for Terrans now.
I can tell you right now that Jinro will do good, because he never feared the lategame against any race. The amount of effort he puts into mid to lategame is what sadly most other Terrans lack. There is alot more to the race than just emp, stim 1a. Yes the moment will come when Terran have to techswitch as much as the other two races.
I have absolutely no doubts that Terran will do good and that some people will realise that their gameplan has to change. That's why we want these new maps in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
