|
On February 14 2011 12:40 Kindred wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2011 11:12 manicshock wrote:
So salvage. What does it do? It allows me to either move a bunker or remove it without penalty. That's about it.
No. Salvage allows Terran to Bunker rush an opponent very early in the game for a high reward situation and should it fail, salvaging returns most of the resources spent for that attack and hardly sets them back . Low Risk - High RewardThis early in the game, No race can do that without suffering huge set backs if they fail. That's the problem with Bunker salvaging. Terran can throw 150 minerals early game with no consequences.
The consequence is that we are out 100 minerals + mining time for the time being. This isn't a huge consequence, but it is definitely a consequence (i.e. it could have been a barracks).
It gives our defenses some mobility in that we can "move" bunkers, but it isn't cost free and it's simply an advantage a bunker has over other buildings. Note that the disadvantage is that it costs us supply to use it (4-6 supply).
|
On February 14 2011 13:00 OmegaSyrus wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2011 12:40 Kindred wrote:On February 14 2011 11:12 manicshock wrote:
So salvage. What does it do? It allows me to either move a bunker or remove it without penalty. That's about it.
No. Salvage allows Terran to Bunker rush an opponent very early in the game for a high reward situation and should it fail, salvaging returns most of the resources spent for that attack and hardly sets them back . Low Risk - High RewardThis early in the game, No race can do that without suffering huge set backs if they fail. That's the problem with Bunker salvaging. Terran can throw 150 minerals early game with no consequences. The consequence is that we are out 100 minerals + mining time for the time being. This isn't a huge consequence, but it is definitely a consequence (i.e. it could have been a barracks). It gives our defenses some mobility in that we can "move" bunkers, but it isn't cost free and it's simply an advantage a bunker has over other buildings. Note that the disadvantage is that it costs us supply to use it (4-6 supply).
building a spine crawler or building extra lings to dry and stop that bunker rush is a extra queen or extra drone loss and larva loss for zerg. 100 minerals u invested in a bunker rush may have been a consequence "for the time being" but you just cost a zerg long term damage. a zerg cannot get the larva/money he has spent into lings to stop the bunker rush back. a zerg cannot get the extra minerals he spent into a spine crawler to hold off the bunker rush back. a zerg cannot get the minerals that he loss from a queen dying back.
sure that bunker could have been a barracks. but i think any terran would just rater block off a zergs ramp with bunkers, have the zerg invest a large amount of minerals to prevent it, and then salvage the bunkers and terran gets 100% of his money back and falls back to his base. at that point terran will obviously be in the lead unless he failed to salvage.
and how does a bunker cost you supply? that is just ridiculous. it cost no supply. you are building marines ANYWAY so why not put them into a bunker, have them safe and sound, and then unload them and salvage the bunker when the pressure is to great? saying a bunker costs supply is just lol.
|
On February 14 2011 14:01 Ballistixz wrote:
building a spine crawler or building extra lings to dry and stop that bunker rush is a extra queen or extra drone loss and larva loss for zerg. 100 minerals u invested in a bunker rush may have been a consequence "for the time being" but you just cost a zerg long term damage. a zerg cannot get the larva/money he has spent into lings to stop the bunker rush back. a zerg cannot get the extra minerals he spent into a spine crawler to hold off the bunker rush back. a zerg cannot get the minerals that he loss from a queen dying back.
sure that bunker could have been a barracks. but i think any terran would just rater block off a zergs ramp with bunkers, have the zerg invest a large amount of minerals to prevent it, and then salvage the bunkers and terran gets 100% of his money back and falls back to his base. at that point terran will obviously be in the lead unless he failed to salvage.
and how does a bunker cost you supply? that is just ridiculous. it cost no supply. you are building marines ANYWAY so why not put them into a bunker, have them safe and sound, and then unload them and salvage the bunker when the pressure is to great? saying a bunker costs supply is just lol.
Well technically, to have a bunker be effective you have to fill it with supply, which is in juxtaposition to the other races static defenses, and whether you would like to believe it or not... building a bunker is an investment of minerals which you could've spent to get an earlier CC or Barracks (as an example) and therefore could be a worker or army loss as well as you have less unit producing structures.
|
On February 14 2011 14:09 bennyaus wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2011 14:01 Ballistixz wrote:
building a spine crawler or building extra lings to dry and stop that bunker rush is a extra queen or extra drone loss and larva loss for zerg. 100 minerals u invested in a bunker rush may have been a consequence "for the time being" but you just cost a zerg long term damage. a zerg cannot get the larva/money he has spent into lings to stop the bunker rush back. a zerg cannot get the extra minerals he spent into a spine crawler to hold off the bunker rush back. a zerg cannot get the minerals that he loss from a queen dying back.
sure that bunker could have been a barracks. but i think any terran would just rater block off a zergs ramp with bunkers, have the zerg invest a large amount of minerals to prevent it, and then salvage the bunkers and terran gets 100% of his money back and falls back to his base. at that point terran will obviously be in the lead unless he failed to salvage.
and how does a bunker cost you supply? that is just ridiculous. it cost no supply. you are building marines ANYWAY so why not put them into a bunker, have them safe and sound, and then unload them and salvage the bunker when the pressure is to great? saying a bunker costs supply is just lol. Well technically, to have a bunker be effective you have to fill it with supply, which is in juxtaposition to the other races static defenses, and whether you would like to believe it or not... building a bunker is an investment of minerals which you could've spent to get an earlier CC or Barracks (as an example) and therefore could be a worker or army loss as well as you have less unit producing structures. Your point about the opportunity cost is correct, but the part about needing to fill the bunkers doesn't carry much weight. There isn't a single Terran who won't make marines or marauders so it's not like that's really an issue
|
I understand that there is an oppurtunity cost since you spend the minerals now and dont get them back until later, but Z and P don't ever get the minerals back... We cant turn that cannon into an extra stalker after we're done with it.
|
On February 14 2011 14:09 bennyaus wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2011 14:01 Ballistixz wrote:
building a spine crawler or building extra lings to dry and stop that bunker rush is a extra queen or extra drone loss and larva loss for zerg. 100 minerals u invested in a bunker rush may have been a consequence "for the time being" but you just cost a zerg long term damage. a zerg cannot get the larva/money he has spent into lings to stop the bunker rush back. a zerg cannot get the extra minerals he spent into a spine crawler to hold off the bunker rush back. a zerg cannot get the minerals that he loss from a queen dying back.
sure that bunker could have been a barracks. but i think any terran would just rater block off a zergs ramp with bunkers, have the zerg invest a large amount of minerals to prevent it, and then salvage the bunkers and terran gets 100% of his money back and falls back to his base. at that point terran will obviously be in the lead unless he failed to salvage.
and how does a bunker cost you supply? that is just ridiculous. it cost no supply. you are building marines ANYWAY so why not put them into a bunker, have them safe and sound, and then unload them and salvage the bunker when the pressure is to great? saying a bunker costs supply is just lol. Well technically, to have a bunker be effective you have to fill it with supply, which is in juxtaposition to the other races static defenses, and whether you would like to believe it or not... building a bunker is an investment of minerals which you could've spent to get an earlier CC or Barracks (as an example) and therefore could be a worker or army loss as well as you have less unit producing structures.
building a barracks/cc or shutting down a zerg FE with a bunker rush, then salvaging and getting 100% of minerals back and forcing him into a 1 base build. most terrans will choose the ladder. you just effectively shut down a zerg FE and forced him to waste larva and minerals on zerglings that could have otherwise been drones. terran can then immediately do w/e he wants after that from the minerals he has gotten back from salvage.
you are right that it delays a cc or some barracks. but it shuts down zerg FEs so hard that it doesnt matter cuz a terran can salvage and expand immediately himself. the bunkers done its job. now all he has to do is follow up with the minerals from the salvage. zerg in the meantime will be forced to cope with what just happened.
in other words, terran has control over that FE build and decides what happens just by a simple bunker rush. that shouldn't happen.
|
On February 14 2011 12:40 Kindred wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2011 11:12 manicshock wrote:
So salvage. What does it do? It allows me to either move a bunker or remove it without penalty. That's about it.
No. Salvage allows Terran to Bunker rush an opponent very early in the game for a high reward situation and should it fail, salvaging returns most of the resources spent for that attack and hardly sets them back . Low Risk - High RewardThis early in the game, No race can do that without suffering huge set backs if they fail. That's the problem with Bunker salvaging. Terran can throw 150 minerals early game with no consequences.
Pretty much sums up the only real problem people have with bunkers.
It's really not that hard to understand guys, it's a cannon rush/contain where if you get stopped you still come out ahead since you got your resources back from the bunker and the other player didn't get them back from breaking it.
Make salvage require a factory. It stops the semi-free nature of bunker rushes, it allows you to still bunker up outside a FE and salvage them long before you move out, it still allows you to bunker rush, but puts a real cost risk on it. I think that would, quite easily, stop almost all complaints about bunkers people have.
|
I don't really get this.
Photon Cannons are many times more powerful early game than Bunkers, against Zerg. You don't need to build any unit producing structure and can pretty much get a free FE, whilst denying the Zergs FE to some extent, if you go forge first, unless the zerg manages to execute a 1base all-in against you. All the while, you are actually forcing the zerg to spend more minerals dealing with it, than you invested... yet the qq is about bunkers, which actually require a unit producing structure, some amount of micro ability, and require units to be effective. Not to mention that Protoss is stronger off 2 base against Z than Terran is, for sure....
|
yet the qq is about bunkers, which actually require a unit producing structure, some amount of micro ability, and require units to be effective.
You really can't understand the difference between a cannon contain and a bunker rush?
Cannons require a forge first; bunkers require a barracks. Going forge first means not having mobile offensive units in any number. So the forge allows for a defensive structure (the cannon), but prevents any offense. You don't have to sacrifice offense to build bunkers - it's granted right with the rax you were building anyway.
Cannons cost a firm 150 minerals, and require a pylon. It's 250 to get even 1 cannon down, and thereafter, cannons are REALLY slow. It's like they don't even move  Bunkers cost 100, you can halt construction and it costs 25, or salvage and it costs 0. Whilst it cannot cause any damage on its own, it turns your marines from 45 HP units to 350 HP units through bunker hopping.
TLDR: Bunkers are much, much, much, cheaper, don't require a divergence from your unit-producing structures, and allow for a hit-and run mobile offense, whilst cannons do not. A forge FE is a defensive macro strategy; a bunker rush is an aggressive rush. A cannon contain is also far easier to deal with than a bunker rush in light of patch 1.2.
TLDR the TLDR: Bunkers = risk-free rush. Cannons = super-expensive.
|
On February 14 2011 16:05 bennyaus wrote:
I don't really get this.
Photon Cannons are many times more powerful early game than Bunkers, against Zerg. You don't need to build any unit producing structure and can pretty much get a free FE, whilst denying the Zergs FE to some extent, if you go forge first, unless the zerg manages to execute a 1base all-in against you. All the while, you are actually forcing the zerg to spend more minerals dealing with it, than you invested... yet the qq is about bunkers, which actually require a unit producing structure, some amount of micro ability, and require units to be effective. Not to mention that Protoss is stronger off 2 base against Z than Terran is, for sure....
you are right, you DONT get it.
also the qq isnt about the bunkers themselves. bunker rushing a FE is not a issue ppl have. its the fact that after the rush is over or if the rush fails you can get 100% of your minerals back from salvage and thus no risk would have been involved. if it fails then good for you, you still forced zerg to make more units that could have been drones and maybe even forced some spines.
if it succeeds then thats even better since the zerg just lost 300 minerals worth in of a hatch and is forced to 1 base. that puts terran in a even better spot since he lost no money at all because he can just salvage the bunks.
and i think jgelling explained the cannon rush vs bunker rush thing. oh and lets not forget, cannons dont have salvage. and did i mentioned that bunkers can be repaired making lings nearly useless to take them out if a terran blocked off your ramp with them? that means you will have to get roaches or banelings to break the bunker contain because lings just wont cut it. theres not enough surface area for the lings to atk if the bottom ramp is blocked off.
|
It's pretty clear that Bunker salvaging needs to be revised. It gives an unfair advantage to Terrans early game.
Also I have problems with the MULE.
Its a macro mechanic (like chrono boost and larva inject) that doesn't have consequences if forgotten.
You can't double inject a hatchery, and you cant double chrono boost a building. Yet if you miss a mule, you can just drop 2. Also they allow a Terran to send out most of his SCV and using mules he can stay in the game and not be set back.
I'm not saying remove mules, but I think some kind of cooldown should be in place.
|
On February 14 2011 23:39 Kindred wrote:
It's pretty clear that Bunker salvaging needs to be revised. It gives an unfair advantage to Terrans early game.
Also I have problems with the MULE.
Its a macro mechanic (like chrono boost and larva inject) that doesn't have consequences if forgotten.
You can't double inject a hatchery, and you cant double chrono boost a building. Yet if you miss a mule, you can just drop 2. Also they allow a Terran to send out most of his SCV and using mules he can stay in the game and not be set back.
I'm not saying remove mules, but I think some kind of cooldown should be in place.
you miss the fact that chrono and inject are way more flexible than mules.
I also do not agree with the statement that chrono is less forgivable than mules. The fact that players intentionally save chronoboosts for production/upgrades shows how flexible and forgivable chrono boost is compared to mules because leaving out a mule is pretty much the same thing as banking minerals which is considered as a very bad thing.
the only two circumstances where ppl save OC energy is for
a) scans to simply not die to baneling bombs/DTs/banshees or to support tanks
b) if they get a gold base up very very soon.
The only little issue I have with mules is the fact that you have to use it 1/2 times as much as chrono/inject per base but that is probably balanced out with the fact that it really only provides minerals which makes it a more predictable mechanic and because its harder to balance out intel with economy as terran, while Z and P have cheaper (over time) and probably also more effective ways to scout during the mid and lategame (observers, overseers, creep, lings, hallus)
|
But Zerg can build a hatchery for 300 minerals vs the 400 of other races, and regardless of what you think the 'true' cost of a hatchery is, that means Zerg can throw it down faster than any other race possibly can. In response, the other 2 races have a greater means to prevent expansions than Zerg does. In a way, Zerg is more defensive.
As for the viability of 1 base builds, there have been great videos of Zerg counter-attacking failed contains but I don't know whether or not Zerg's 1 base play is gimped or not in total.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On February 10 2011 16:41 Whitewing wrote:
They kind of glossed over the really big problem with this matchup. Terran is very strong with almost any type of build they choose to go with: whether it be bio, mech, or air (banshees) etc. Every one of these requires a pretty skewed response from Protoss to deal with, or Protoss is in a world of trouble. Because terran has so many strong build options, Protoss needs good scouting information to be able to respond. The problem is, Protoss has terrible scouting early game. Once the observers are out they are fine, but that requires a robo which takes a while, and early aggression builds are already hitting. Once the first rax is done and out, your probe is either dying or is gone, and a terran who walls off basically denies you even the opportunity to scout before observer. You 'can' scout with hallucinate, but the fact that they could be getting cloaked banshees means you NEED to get the robo and get observers anyway (throwing the robo down after hallucinate is done and you've scouted a cloaked banshee play is too late). You can scout up the ramp with a stalker, but if they have 'a' marauder with concussive shells, you could easily lose that unit.
So basically, Protoss is playing blind, and has to either get a build order win or loss most of the time. And it's very unfortunate that this is the case, because of how strong terran early aggression is.
And on the other end, if the protoss lives to the late game without being at a massive disadvantage, it's extremely hard for terran to keep up, because of how terran production facilities work. If you've got a ton of rax churning out bio, you pretty much have to keep going bio even after toss has storm/colossi out. Protoss tends to be very strong late game against terran, due to the AoE mechanics vs. bio and how easy it is to stop terran heavy air play. I think well executed mech is terran's best chance, but it's extremely difficult to play that well and most terrans I don't think have the ability or the patience (not that it's a balance issue, like IdrA and artosis said: some styles are just easier than others, but that doesn't make the tougher to play one weaker). In general, late game Protoss seems to be stronger than late game Terran, so the game either turns into protoss walking over terran or terran doing 1 million drops to try to force small engagements.
The race with lower aggression needs to have better scouting, and it's not the case in this matchup. It's fine in ZvP because of how easy it is to sacrifice an overlord (it's not free, but it's not difficult to do for the most part).
These two things you brought up seem critical:
Terran is very strong with almost any type of build they choose to go with: whether it be bio, mech, or air (banshees) etc. Every one of these requires a pretty skewed response from Protoss to deal with, or Protoss is in a world of trouble.
The race with lower aggression needs to have better scouting, and it's not the case in this matchup.
|
Watching this for the first time, IdrA calls the Colossus fast, when it's the same speed as Hydra off creep. I've never understood complaining about hydra speed.
|
On February 17 2011 20:18 ComusLoM wrote:
Watching this for the first time, IdrA calls the Colossus fast, when it's the same speed as Hydra off creep. I've never understood complaining about hydra speed.
Colossus is "quicker" in the way that it just walks over smaller units and terrain.
Thats an actual factor that matters a lot, as you rarely have a big free field and zerg has tons of units that block each other / colossus will just freely walk around in your "ball of death".
So while its not true that Colossus is faster (its 2.25 speed, the same as hydra off creep) its still "faster" in terms of mobility on the terrain (Cliffwalking).
*But Hydras are for sure super slow; it just plays out that way.
|
On February 14 2011 23:39 Kindred wrote:
It's pretty clear that Bunker salvaging needs to be revised. It gives an unfair advantage to Terrans early game.
Also I have problems with the MULE.
Its a macro mechanic (like chrono boost and larva inject) that doesn't have consequences if forgotten.
You can't double inject a hatchery, and you cant double chrono boost a building. Yet if you miss a mule, you can just drop 2. Also they allow a Terran to send out most of his SCV and using mules he can stay in the game and not be set back.
I'm not saying remove mules, but I think some kind of cooldown should be in place.
The problem with mules is IMO another, while chronobost and larva are there to support, enhance the speed of producing workers/units/tech, mules are totally different.
For Z / P, without workers / ressources, you cant use your macro mechanic.
The T macro mechanic gives you free income, means you enhance your mineral income. (be it with the mules or supply calldown)
Z / P macro mechanics become obsolte without ressources, while terran is completely independent of actual ressources to use theirs (apart from transforming a cc into an orbital)
That's what should be fixed, not the cooldown IMO.
|
On February 17 2011 01:42 Blacklizard wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 10 2011 16:41 Whitewing wrote:
They kind of glossed over the really big problem with this matchup. Terran is very strong with almost any type of build they choose to go with: whether it be bio, mech, or air (banshees) etc. Every one of these requires a pretty skewed response from Protoss to deal with, or Protoss is in a world of trouble. Because terran has so many strong build options, Protoss needs good scouting information to be able to respond. The problem is, Protoss has terrible scouting early game. Once the observers are out they are fine, but that requires a robo which takes a while, and early aggression builds are already hitting. Once the first rax is done and out, your probe is either dying or is gone, and a terran who walls off basically denies you even the opportunity to scout before observer. You 'can' scout with hallucinate, but the fact that they could be getting cloaked banshees means you NEED to get the robo and get observers anyway (throwing the robo down after hallucinate is done and you've scouted a cloaked banshee play is too late). You can scout up the ramp with a stalker, but if they have 'a' marauder with concussive shells, you could easily lose that unit.
So basically, Protoss is playing blind, and has to either get a build order win or loss most of the time. And it's very unfortunate that this is the case, because of how strong terran early aggression is.
And on the other end, if the protoss lives to the late game without being at a massive disadvantage, it's extremely hard for terran to keep up, because of how terran production facilities work. If you've got a ton of rax churning out bio, you pretty much have to keep going bio even after toss has storm/colossi out. Protoss tends to be very strong late game against terran, due to the AoE mechanics vs. bio and how easy it is to stop terran heavy air play. I think well executed mech is terran's best chance, but it's extremely difficult to play that well and most terrans I don't think have the ability or the patience (not that it's a balance issue, like IdrA and artosis said: some styles are just easier than others, but that doesn't make the tougher to play one weaker). In general, late game Protoss seems to be stronger than late game Terran, so the game either turns into protoss walking over terran or terran doing 1 million drops to try to force small engagements.
The race with lower aggression needs to have better scouting, and it's not the case in this matchup. It's fine in ZvP because of how easy it is to sacrifice an overlord (it's not free, but it's not difficult to do for the most part). These two things you brought up seem critical: Terran is very strong with almost any type of build they choose to go with: whether it be bio, mech, or air (banshees) etc. Every one of these requires a pretty skewed response from Protoss to deal with, or Protoss is in a world of trouble. The race with lower aggression needs to have better scouting, and it's not the case in this matchup.
So the Terran is always "better" and has more options compared to the Protoss? Really? Protoss can be aggressive early on as well and if the Terran is trying to tech he is in trouble. Both sides can be aggressive or passive.
Early scouting is called "Xel'Naga tower(s)" and Probe / SCV. Obviously Terrans will spend their first energy on scans in the Protoss base to see whatever he has hidden anywhere on the map, oh and obviously the dumb Robo Factory is useless after making that one Observer. I hope you noticed the sarcasm here. Neither race can complain about the other having too much, because either can screw up with a bad build order.
|
Bunker rushing definitely has a risk associated with it. If you don't do much damage with it, even if you salvage, you can still end up behind vs a competent zerg that knows how to macro.
Terran cannot produce economy at the rate a zerg can. This is why terran overcompensates with unit effectiveness (marine/tank) vs low tier zerg units (ling/roach/baneling).
I've done TONS of practice games TvZ and typically its "safer" to not even build the bunker, and just to micro marines properly. If you fail the bunker rush, your production is behind, your CC is late, and zerg will just drone whore.
|
On February 17 2011 23:43 Masq wrote:
Bunker rushing definitely has a risk associated with it. If you don't do much damage with it, even if you salvage, you can still end up behind vs a competent zerg that knows how to macro.
Terran cannot produce economy at the rate a zerg can. This is why terran overcompensates with unit effectiveness (marine/tank) vs low tier zerg units (ling/roach/baneling).
I've done TONS of practice games TvZ and typically its "safer" to not even build the bunker, and just to micro marines properly. If you fail the bunker rush, your production is behind, your CC is late, and zerg will just drone whore.
After reading some comments on this page, I was going to post something to this effect. I support this very much. Sometimes it's not right to look at a situation and say, "oh I can salvage minerals from the failed rush that means there is no risk associated with it", wrong.
Think about it this way. If all you do is force more combat units then yes, the zerg has not droned. However, he has regained map control and can now put pressure on you with the units he has out while he can drone freely because at this point you can spend the 400 minerals you still don't have on either tech to reapply pressure at which point you're dead if it doesn't work or on a command center which means you'll be behind on econ going into the mid game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
