|
On October 13 2011 03:09 ChristianS wrote:
Okay. So what kind of 1-1-1 are we talking about? A cloakshee rush can be held easily enough. If you really want to be safe against both, get a forge and a pylon in your main minerals, then throw down a forge if you see the banshee out. If we're talking some kind of banshee-thor-marine all-in, then those are certainly harder to hold, but they hit a lot later.
I think it's fairly obvious which 1-1-1 people complain about (although yes, there are many, requiring different responses).
The 1-1-1 people complain about most is a mix of Marine/Tank/Banshee. Lots of marines off 1 reactored barracks (or 2 non-reactored, sometimes even 1 reactored and 1 not for even more 1-1-1 excitement!), 2-3 Seige Tanks and 2-3 Banshees (cloaked is up to personal preference - hits later, needs Protoss to get Observers to defend etc). It REQUIRES a fast expand to beat, followed by a 4/5gate + Robo. Anything else (apart from 2base Phoenix builds at a push) straight up dies. Often, SCVs are pulled by the dozen, although if the push fails Terran can always use MULEs/the remaining SCVs to rebuild and push again.
On October 13 2011 03:09 ChristianS wrote:After a certain point you should know that a 2rax is not coming, since those generally hit before a certain point, and if he expanded, you should be able to scout that when he moves the CC down to his expansion, if not earlier.
To beat the 1-1-1, you have to expand before you know whether a 2rax is coming or not. If you wait after that timing, you die. You won't have recieved the income from your 2 bases by the time the 1-1-1 hits to make up the deficit of building a second Nexus + probes, and you die. You can gamble scouting with Zealot/Stalker to check if there is a timing push coming, but if there is those units will die if there are Marauders out, and then you die.
I don't really care about expansions from Terran at the moment - that isn't what I was talking about. I don't think I even mentioned them, but regardless: I am concerned about 1base attacks, not expansions. They might be an issue, but it's far less clear cut at the moment.
On October 13 2011 03:09 ChristianS wrote:Replays? Those are always really great.
1) look up any GM or tournament game involving a 2rax TvP.
2) Note the timing when it hits.
3) Look up pretty much any PvT oGsMC plays where he doesn't open up Stargate. Note his expansion timings, as well as scout timings.
4) Look up any PvT in GM or above where Protoss doesn't expand (or expands later than a 1gate FE or a Nexus first) and Terran goes 1-1-1 as I described. See how any decently executed 1-1-1 crushes a Protoss that doesn't expand.
5) Note the timings. A 2rax hits before Protoss can scout whether or not there is one. Protoss must expand BEFORE the 2rax hits to hold off the 1-1-1 (which may or may not be coming).
6) Gape in awe as you realise that PvT has some serious coinflip elements.
|
On October 13 2011 04:29 Belial88 wrote:
^ Aggressive pool builds don't work well against Protoss in general, unless they go nexus first. Against FFE forge first, they will be slightly behind but still in the game.
The problem with what you're suggesting is that no more FFE play. Personally I don't think FFE is that good, but a lot of Protoss do, and it would limit Protoss' options. On maps like Tal Darim where there is no ramp, FFE is really preferable for defensive reasons. Cannon rushes can be easily held off with workers, if you are losing to cannon rushes then you are probably just playing at a low level or making blunders you should be able to identify. It looks like you play Protoss, so I would suggest you scout with your pylon or gateway warping probe and make sure the opponent has a gateway in his base, otherwise you know he's doing some kind of cheese. Always be aware of the enemy probe in your base, you should know when he comes in because your pylon in your base is by the ramp.
Carriers are fine, it's just the unit they counter (siege tanks) aren't used in late-game PvT like in BW.
Agreed. As a Protoss player, I think FFE is actually a pretty terrible build in terms of exploitability, but we need it in order to get economic footing against Zerg on large macro maps, because we don't have much ability to put early pressure.
|
Complaint
Problem:
The immortal is not effective against Marauders and Roaches (not to mention when lings/marines are present) and is very rarely the optimal decision when you have the option for a colossus
My Proposed Solution:
An upgrade (from the robotics) that gives it a piercing attack that allows it to attack every unit in a line (up to 6 range - similar to a hellion)
Side Effects
The game will evolve into more dynamic play (possibly less colosus in certain situations)
The Immortal would increase its presence as a harass unit (Imagine two immortals in a prism - a 500/200 + 200/0 investment) that may very well give protoss a viable harass option.
Quick robo timing will allow for a safer defence against a PvP 4-gate
Terran will be given more incentive to just target fire the immortal rather than a-move into it
The Immortal will be stronger counter to 1-1-1 build because it will hit the marines sitting infront of the tank (even though marines focusing on the immortal should reasonably rip it apart by the time it gets about 1 shot off)
Currently roaches are about even with immortals as far as cost effectiveness in a straight up fight (4 roaches [300/100]> 1 immortal [250/100]). Immortal are supposed to be the counter to Roaches and thus should demolish them.
At 4 range, roaches should take a proper amount of damage from a 6 pierce damage immortal.
As a bonus, IMO, the attack animation for immortals provides for this to be to visually retarded
Suggested Nerf:
Because of this buff, I think it would be reasonable that colosus deal less damage to armored units (but same to light units)
|
On October 13 2011 04:47 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2011 03:09 ChristianS wrote:
Okay. So what kind of 1-1-1 are we talking about? A cloakshee rush can be held easily enough. If you really want to be safe against both, get a forge and a pylon in your main minerals, then throw down a forge if you see the banshee out. If we're talking some kind of banshee-thor-marine all-in, then those are certainly harder to hold, but they hit a lot later. God, you really haven't played a lot recently, have you? Or watching GSL, or reading the forums. I think it's fairly obvious which 1-1-1 people complain about (although yes, there are many, requiring different responses). The 1-1-1 people complain about most is a mix of Marine/Tank/Banshee. Lots of marines off 1 reactored barracks (or 2 non-reactored, sometimes even 1 reactored and 1 not for even more 1-1-1 excitement!), 2-3 Seige Tanks and 2-3 Banshees (cloaked is up to personal preference - hits later, needs Protoss to get Observers to defend etc). It REQUIRES a fast expand to beat, followed by a 4/5gate + Robo. Anything else (apart from 2base Phoenix builds at a push) straight up dies. Often, SCVs are pulled by the dozen, although if the push fails Terran can always use MULEs/the remaining SCVs to rebuild and push again. Show nested quote +On October 13 2011 03:09 ChristianS wrote:After a certain point you should know that a 2rax is not coming, since those generally hit before a certain point, and if he expanded, you should be able to scout that when he moves the CC down to his expansion, if not earlier. To beat the 1-1-1, you have to expand before you know whether a 2rax is coming or not. If you wait after that timing, you die. You won't have recieved the income from your 2 bases by the time the 1-1-1 hits to make up the deficit of building a second Nexus + probes, and you die. You can gamble scouting with Zealot/Stalker to check if there is a timing push coming, but if there is those units will die if there are Marauders out, and then you die. I don't really care about expansions from Terran at the moment - that isn't what I was talking about. I don't think I even mentioned them, but regardless: I am concerned about 1base attacks, not expansions. They might be an issue, but it's far less clear cut at the moment. Show nested quote +On October 13 2011 03:09 ChristianS wrote:Replays? Those are always really great. 1) look up any GM or tournament game involving a 2rax TvP. 2) Note the timing when it hits. 3) Look up pretty much any PvT oGsMC plays where he doesn't open up Stargate. Note his expansion timings, as well as scout timings. 4) Look up any PvT in GM or above where Protoss doesn't expand (or expands later than a 1gate FE or a Nexus first) and Terran goes 1-1-1 as I described. See how any decently executed 1-1-1 crushes a Protoss that doesn't expand. 5) Note the timings. A 2rax hits before Protoss can scout whether or not there is one. Protoss must expand BEFORE the 2rax hits to hold off the 1-1-1 (which may or may not be coming). 6) Gape in awe as you realise that PvT has some serious coinflip elements.
See, here's where I get skeptical. I've heard plenty of people talking about the 1-1-1 going out of style because it's been fairly figured out. What's more, personal experience (admittedly limited) suggests to me that a one-base immortal-stalker-zealot force can kill either one in a straight-up fight. But protoss don't get immortal-stalker-zealot because they don't even need to do that to hold early Terran pushes.
This is why specific replays are good, so we can watch a specific game and decide what the real causes of the loss really were. Many come down to a clear misread or badly microed battle, rather than some inherent game flaw.
|
On October 13 2011 06:05 ChristianS wrote: What's more, personal experience (admittedly limited) suggests to me that a one-base immortal-stalker-zealot force can kill either one in a straight-up fight. But protoss don't get immortal-stalker-zealot because they don't even need to do that to hold early Terran pushes.
Emphasis mine.
If you think that Protoss can get an Immortal/Stalker/Zealot force out BEFORE a 2rax hits (I assume that's what you meant by "either one" - 1-1-1 or 2rax) then there really isn't much point discussing balance with you.
On October 13 2011 06:05 ChristianS wrote:
This is why specific replays are good, so we can watch a specific game and decide what the real causes of the loss really were. Many come down to a clear misread or badly microed battle, rather than some inherent game flaw.
I will try and get some replays/VODs for you, but your last sentence is flawed.
Unless both players are playing ABSOLUTELY perfectly, both will make mistakes. These mistakes can have different consequences - for a Terran, thinking your Zerg opponent is roach-busting so that you put down a bunker and build a Marauder or two has competely different consequences from the Zerg thinking the Terran is going for a 2base all-in and making non-stop units for nearly 5 minutes in preparation, as an example.
What loses a battle or a game for one race won't for another race, which makes claiming that evidence cannot have any misreads or bad micro at some point for it to function ridiculous, as there may be many mistakes you didn't notice or deem important, simply because they had less impact.
Code S Spoiler:
+ Show Spoiler +I reckon that IMMVP mismicroed a ton of Hellions yesterday vs Nestea - Nestea misread IMMVP's build for a 2base Thor push in one game. I would hypothesise that as a Protoss, micro as poor as some of MVP's with Hellions would outright cost you the game. As a viewer, you are unlikely to notice MVP's poor control, because it had little impact. If MC mismicroed a couple of Void Rays/Phoenix in the same fashion and they were quickly sniped, as a viewer that would be noticed a lot more because it would have a far greater impact on the game.
Basically, for you to take into account EVERY alleged misread or bad piece of micro requires a completely objective viewer, and we don't have that, so we have to work with what we have. In the end, it will come down to opinion, trying to back those opinions up with what little hard evidence we can find. As I said, I'll get some replays/VODs for you, but don't expect to get a miracle change of perspective.
|
On October 12 2011 15:44 ChristianS wrote:
On the old IdrA scouting imbalance argument:
Yeah, Terran can wall off pretty easily. Reapers and scans being pretty impractical for most purposes, I don't actually see how Terran can scout his opponents better than they can scout him. Reapers can be denied as easily as an overlord scout. Scan can be denied by... well, not putting your buildings in predictable places. Terrans don't use scan for scout so often largely because it's a big cost and it's too much of a coin-flip as to whether you will actually see something useful.
To look at the early game scouting we have to consider what each race needs to see in order to play safe or do a build that is meant to punish that play. Workers scouting is incredibly useful for both terran and zerg but I would argue that it is more useful for terran. When scouting as a terran you look for a couple things, you check for an expo, gas and pool timings. You also look for bane nests and roach warrens, which you can either scout or delay because the non-speed ling won't kill fast immediately. Now, if we look at scouting for the zerg player, they are looking for gas, double gas or 1/2 rax. double gas and 2 rax are ez to decipher but 1 gas and no gas are much harder, the 1 rax is harder because the terran should have the second supply depot down. If we are looking at gas builds you have hellion play, tank pushes, banshees, mm push, the hellion/marauder allin, quick cc's w/ tanks etc.
The second scouting point for zerg is the lings after the pool pops. At this point you won't see the gas timings and you won't see that far into the base, you are essentially going to see what the terran is ok with you seeing, whether that is based off of build order timings (reactor hellions) or don't care/sloppy play. So when you scout with the lings, you are looking for the amount of marines, the buildings close, the tech/reactor on the rax at front, the clear indications typically are- more than 3 marines when the initial ling arrives, they have more than 1 rax; factory on reactor, 4-6 hellions, possibly into mech play (should be expecting a 21 cc); tech lab on rax, 1 base bio push; lastly is any buildings that they build too close to their wall-off. If you don't see any of these things then you are effectively in the dark on most maps until you can get an overlord to their base, at this point they should be able to just kill it before it sees anything important, this isn't going to be the case all the time, but most of the time it SHOULD.
The second scouting point for Terran is dependent on the build that they are doing, it can range from saccing a worker to scan to 5 marines pushing out to the initial hellion push or just waiting in the dark until the all-in or tank/marine push that they go for. The things that scare a terran opponent is typically bane busts, they fix that by making a better wall; They want to know about muta plays, and the opponents macro. Because of the wide variety of builds, general use of marines and the way that a terran eco works they can eliminate most of the things they need to scout for in order to play safe. Muta play is generally countered by the 9 minute push that terrans make in order to catch zergs off guard hwne preparing for mutas (and at lower leagues the blind placement of turrets). Macro is kind of stymied by the boost that terran economy gets from the mule, I can't make a real chart right now but....
40| * `
38| * `
36| * `
34| * `
32| `
30| `
28| * `
26| * `
24| * `
22| * `
20|* `
18| `
16|`
-----------------------------------------------
This is essentially what happens in the ZvT MU. Both economies will hit 40 at about 6 mins (terran getting expo at 21), up until that point coupled with the mule the terran is ahead in eco. The terran makes oc at 16 and that jumps them up to 21 workers effectively and after the 21 cc finishes the terran eco jumps up by another 5 workers and then double worker production afterwards. The economies will meet each other about the 6 minute mark and after that point the Zerg overtakes the terran slowly for another minute and then jumps by a large amount the next minute or 2. Looking at specific builds we can see how most terran builds right now are fairly unharmed by this and how they catch up and/or avoid dealing with the repercussions of this.
Hellions- doing a reactored factory hellion play the terran will come out w/ hellions at about 6:30 and if the zerg doesn't have the appropriate defenses it will kill a couple drones/delay droning giving the terran a larger time to macro up to stay even.
tank pushes at 9:30 are fairly efficient, because of the tanks splash damage and the stim upgrade you can fight ling/bane fairly well and trade up with the zerg, however, the terran should have a gameplan afterwards or do economic damage. If terrans rely on eco damage then there will be quite a bit of losses where terrans feel like they coulnd't have done anything to the opponent. if the terran builds a cc during the push then they can fully stop the zerg from droning and possibly take down one of the zergs bases while boosting their eco (limited knowledge from a zerg player, just a concept)
stim marine pushes are fairly damaging and they come right at 7 minutes while the zerg is still trying to drone and doesn't want to spare gas for banelings, theoretically if you do a 21 expo behind this push it could be devastating in my opinion.
One thing to note is that any 1 base plays have an exaggerated time decay because the terran economy gets a boost when they finish the second cc. This time decay starts at about 5 minutes and after the zerg gets about 30-35 drones it will be very hard for any non-banshee allins to win if the zerg plays correctly. Banshee if not scouted could be very damaging (almost crushing) until the zerg gets an evo chamber and spores or lair.
On October 12 2011 15:44 ChristianS wrote:
But the argument, as I understand it, is not that Terran can scout his opponents better than they can scout him, but that Terran has so many options, each requiring a different response, so that Terran can afford to play blind where his opponents cannot.
At the start of a game, neither player has scouting information on the other. Then they both have scouting information for as long as they can keep their scout worker in the opponent's base (zergs used to use the extractor steal and cancel to extend this period; don't know why that stopped). Then both players are limited to partial scouts (scouting the front, keeping map awareness) until they can get something into the opponent's base (overlord, overseer, observer, some air unit). In this time period, both players have relative scouting immunity. If they attack or reveal any units during this time, they sacrifice their scouting immunity by revealing those units; the more units they reveal, the more they have sacrificed their scouting immunity.
Scouting immunity can be broken by sneaking a unit into the enemy base (suicide overlord/suicide reaper/scouting the front), but those options are risky/do not give you a full picture. If you do a large attack during this period, you sacrifice scouting immunity, but also force your opponent to give up scouting immunity, since they have to bring their units forward to defend.
Yes and no. yes because tech units show your gameplan and no because there are units that are not build dependant like the ling and the marine. Probably a more important thing to note about "scout immunity" is that it is automatically null when a player becomes aggressive in hopes to do economic damage (like most terran pushes). Another point to note is that terran automatically denies scouting via wall-offs (same with protoss) whereas zerg doesn't.
On October 12 2011 15:44 ChristianS wrote:
So if any race has options which are unscoutable, since they are indistinguishable from other builds at early stages and make their hit before the scouting immunity period ends, and the response to this build would mean a loss for the opponent if they did it against another build, that would constitute a coin flip (which is possibly imbalance and probably bad game design). This is the allegation against Terran.
But if that is the case, there needs to be proof:
-What Terran builds fall in this category?
-What response is required?
-What position does it put you in if you do this response blind and he doesn't do this build? If you don't do this response and he does the build? If you do the response as a reaction once he moves out with the build?
-Are there any attacks you could use based on early game scout that would come in time to scout this?
-What information could scouting the front provide re. this build?
It's not enough to say "Terran has such a wide variety of possibilities." To make an extraordinary claim like "imbalance," you need to specify what the build(s) is/are and answer the above questions, ideally with replays for supporting evidence (so people can't say "no, that's not what happens with that build").
Simple, Any build that you can hide the tech requirements for while only taking 1 gas at the beginning of the game. You can literally hide your marines and any other tech on most bases and the larger ones, it is impossible to scout with an overlord at least 66% of the time. You also make a bad argument in the "proof" department because starcraft revolves around the notion of a metagame. Because of this builds take shape to replicate other builds to add anonymity and autonomy.
I would contend that a lot of the responses required are quite different. If you have to prepare for something you can't scout and then decide to prepare for marine or hellion push, YOU WILL die to cloaked banshees if the opponent pushes out before the 8 minute mark. If you make 4 queens, and an evo chamber you will lack the money to fully drone and will die to marine push. Because of the build time of spinecrawlers is so long you could effectively die before the spines finish (it happens more than zergs would like to admit) especially if you keep your money count low, a lot of the time you will need to make 2+ spines plus a bunch of lings and have 30 minerals when you start. That scenario spells death if the person doing the all-in is competent.
I already touched on point three a lil above but if you prepare for everything then your economy is crap and you WILL lose to a terran that built a cc behind their defenses instead of this all-in that you are going for. Also, terran tend to not take their expo for the first 6-7 minutes anyways and you are left in the dark. Bottom line is that with the scouting being virtually non-existent (prior to lair, which at that point it won't matter) the MU can seem like a coin flip most of the time.
If you see a terran doing a 1 gas opening then you can open roaches or even bane bust and hope to do enough damage to pay for the roaches, these will guarantee that you see what your opponent is doing and if they are playing too greedy it could win the game.
Again, I pointed this out in my responses above. I think a general thing to note is that terrans are not hiding their tech nearly enough. They have this the easiest out of all 3 races and should use that to their advantage.
I would argue that you can use builds as examples but the problem is not with those builds, it is not with the terran race. the terran race is not imbalanced when it comes to zerg scouting, the zerg race was designed poorly and there is not enough scouting for the emphasis that is put on it. I think that one of the reasons for this in sc2 is that blizzard seems to love smaller maps when competitive broodwar thrived on larger maps. The reason why I think you can't use builds as an example is because the metagame will change and a patch to one part fo the mu wouldn't fix it in general. I would propose to having ovie speed be 50/50 at hatch tech. If this makes Zerg overpowered then do what is needed to rebalance from there, this will reduce randomness because it will make scouting easier for the reactive race (remember that if terran really needs tos cout then they can see everything always before lair and can see most things afterwards).
|
On October 13 2011 06:08 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2011 06:05 ChristianS wrote: What's more, personal experience (admittedly limited) suggests to me that a one-base immortal-stalker-zealot force can kill either one in a straight-up fight. But protoss don't get immortal-stalker-zealot because they don't even need to do that to hold early Terran pushes. Emphasis mine. If you think that Protoss can get an Immortal/Stalker/Zealot force out BEFORE a 2rax hits (I assume that's what you meant by "either one" - 1-1-1 or 2rax) then there really isn't much point discussing balance with you. Show nested quote +On October 13 2011 06:05 ChristianS wrote:
This is why specific replays are good, so we can watch a specific game and decide what the real causes of the loss really were. Many come down to a clear misread or badly microed battle, rather than some inherent game flaw. I will try and get some replays/VODs for you, but your last sentence is flawed. Unless both players are playing ABSOLUTELY perfectly, both will make mistakes. These mistakes can have different consequences - for a Terran, thinking your Zerg opponent is roach-busting so that you put down a bunker and build a Marauder or two has competely different consequences from the Zerg thinking the Terran is going for a 2base all-in and making non-stop units for nearly 5 minutes in preparation, as an example. What loses a battle or a game for one race won't for another race, which makes claiming that evidence cannot have any misreads or bad micro at some point for it to function ridiculous, as there may be many mistakes you didn't notice or deem important, simply because they had less impact. Code S Spoiler: + Show Spoiler +I reckon that IMMVP mismicroed a ton of Hellions yesterday vs Nestea - Nestea misread IMMVP's build for a 2base Thor push in one game. I would hypothesise that as a Protoss, micro as poor as some of MVP's with Hellions would outright cost you the game. As a viewer, you are unlikely to notice MVP's poor control, because it had little impact. If MC mismicroed a couple of Void Rays/Phoenix in the same fashion and they were quickly sniped, as a viewer that would be noticed a lot more because it would have a far greater impact on the game. Basically, for you to take into account EVERY alleged misread or bad piece of micro requires a completely objective viewer, and we don't have that, so we have to work with what we have. In the end, it will come down to opinion, trying to back those opinions up with what little hard evidence we can find. As I said, I'll get some replays/VODs for you, but don't expect to get a miracle change of perspective.
Given that so many posts on this thread consist of "I lost to this strat, so it's strong, which means its imba," I hardly feel bad about acknowledging my own experience with some builds. But in the absence of a VOD for support, your claim that 2-rax can only be held by one base gateway, and 1-1-1 can only be held by early expand -> robo is just a statement of your personal experience.
Mis-micro has varying consequences depending on the situation in which the micro is done badly. Mis-micro'ing fungals can lose you all your infestors. Mis-micro'ing ghosts can lose you all your ghosts. Mis-micro'ing colossi can result in them being off in the open without stalker support, often losing you your colossi. As a rule, the more mobile the unit, the less it hurts to mis-micro. So hellions don't hurt too much, nor do zerglings. But Terran hardly has an advantage here, since they are hardly the most mobile race. Hellions are an exception to a rule of T armies that are either: mech (perhaps the least mobile army in SC2), bio (more mobile than colossi force, less mobile than mass gateway), or sky terran (more mobile than ground forces, but less mobile than any other race's air). Conc shell punishes bad micro more. But if you see that a Terran has conc shell, you can pretty much cross off 1-1-1. And FG and force field punish bad micro more than conc shell does.
Of course everyone makes mistakes. But if a game was lost because a Protoss couldn't scout a Terran between 1-1-1 and 2-rax, and guessed wrong because there was no way they could have differentiated between the two, then that would be evident in the replay. It would not appear that they lost because of a mis-micro or a bad read on available information; it would appear that the information was not there, and they had no other choice.
As a side note, what kind of 2rax are we talking about? I assume you don't mean the gasless 11rax-12 rax. That opening is a joke against Protoss. So do you mean a push with a couple marauders and 3-5 marines, maybe a couple pulled SCV's? Combat shield push? Stim push? Fast ghost push? These hit at different times. I'm almost certain a 2gate robo can get out immortals by the time a stim push happens, but of course it can't against an 11rax-12rax. Specificity about the build you are having trouble with is really flat out necessary in a balance discussion.
|
On October 13 2011 07:37 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2011 06:08 SeaSwift wrote:On October 13 2011 06:05 ChristianS wrote: What's more, personal experience (admittedly limited) suggests to me that a one-base immortal-stalker-zealot force can kill either one in a straight-up fight. But protoss don't get immortal-stalker-zealot because they don't even need to do that to hold early Terran pushes. Emphasis mine. If you think that Protoss can get an Immortal/Stalker/Zealot force out BEFORE a 2rax hits (I assume that's what you meant by "either one" - 1-1-1 or 2rax) then there really isn't much point discussing balance with you. On October 13 2011 06:05 ChristianS wrote:
This is why specific replays are good, so we can watch a specific game and decide what the real causes of the loss really were. Many come down to a clear misread or badly microed battle, rather than some inherent game flaw. I will try and get some replays/VODs for you, but your last sentence is flawed. Unless both players are playing ABSOLUTELY perfectly, both will make mistakes. These mistakes can have different consequences - for a Terran, thinking your Zerg opponent is roach-busting so that you put down a bunker and build a Marauder or two has competely different consequences from the Zerg thinking the Terran is going for a 2base all-in and making non-stop units for nearly 5 minutes in preparation, as an example. What loses a battle or a game for one race won't for another race, which makes claiming that evidence cannot have any misreads or bad micro at some point for it to function ridiculous, as there may be many mistakes you didn't notice or deem important, simply because they had less impact. Code S Spoiler: + Show Spoiler +I reckon that IMMVP mismicroed a ton of Hellions yesterday vs Nestea - Nestea misread IMMVP's build for a 2base Thor push in one game. I would hypothesise that as a Protoss, micro as poor as some of MVP's with Hellions would outright cost you the game. As a viewer, you are unlikely to notice MVP's poor control, because it had little impact. If MC mismicroed a couple of Void Rays/Phoenix in the same fashion and they were quickly sniped, as a viewer that would be noticed a lot more because it would have a far greater impact on the game. Basically, for you to take into account EVERY alleged misread or bad piece of micro requires a completely objective viewer, and we don't have that, so we have to work with what we have. In the end, it will come down to opinion, trying to back those opinions up with what little hard evidence we can find. As I said, I'll get some replays/VODs for you, but don't expect to get a miracle change of perspective. Given that so many posts on this thread consist of "I lost to this strat, so it's strong, which means its imba," I hardly feel bad about acknowledging my own experience with some builds. But in the absence of a VOD for support, your claim that 2-rax can only be held by one base gateway, and 1-1-1 can only be held by early expand -> robo is just a statement of your personal experience. Mis-micro has varying consequences depending on the situation in which the micro is done badly. Mis-micro'ing fungals can lose you all your infestors. Mis-micro'ing ghosts can lose you all your ghosts. Mis-micro'ing colossi can result in them being off in the open without stalker support, often losing you your colossi. As a rule, the more mobile the unit, the less it hurts to mis-micro. So hellions don't hurt too much, nor do zerglings. But Terran hardly has an advantage here, since they are hardly the most mobile race. Hellions are an exception to a rule of T armies that are either: mech (perhaps the least mobile army in SC2), bio (more mobile than colossi force, less mobile than mass gateway), or sky terran (more mobile than ground forces, but less mobile than any other race's air). Conc shell punishes bad micro more. But if you see that a Terran has conc shell, you can pretty much cross off 1-1-1. And FG and force field punish bad micro more than conc shell does. Of course everyone makes mistakes. But if a game was lost because a Protoss couldn't scout a Terran between 1-1-1 and 2-rax, and guessed wrong because there was no way they could have differentiated between the two, then that would be evident in the replay. It would not appear that they lost because of a mis-micro or a bad read on available information; it would appear that the information was not there, and they had no other choice. As a side note, what kind of 2rax are we talking about? I assume you don't mean the gasless 11rax-12 rax. That opening is a joke against Protoss. So do you mean a push with a couple marauders and 3-5 marines, maybe a couple pulled SCV's? Combat shield push? Stim push? Fast ghost push? These hit at different times. I'm almost certain a 2gate robo can get out immortals by the time a stim push happens, but of course it can't against an 11rax-12rax. Specificity about the build you are having trouble with is really flat out necessary in a balance discussion.
I'm left here wondering why you even think you should be discussing this, if you need to ask what people mean by 1/1/1, and what version of 2 rax they're referring to... This isn't the "provide multiple replays, so ChristianS can educate himself on popular TvP builds" thread. You seem to think statements like "a 2 rax will almost always kill the natural Nexus against 1 Gate FE" or "the Protoss needs an expansion to be able to hold a 1/1/1 all-in" are somehow controversial. They really aren't. They're pretty much an accepted consensus among decent players. Yet you come in here and not only do you not know these builds, but you demand that we provide you with educational material and proof that this is indeed the case.
These is a certain base level of knowledge required for a discussion to be possible. You can't discuss astronomy with someone demanding proof that the Earth is round.
|
On October 11 2011 12:15 Belial88 wrote:Reaper is an amazing unit. Sure it has an extremely limited role, but I don't think any other unit in the game can do so much damage and always pay for itself, guaranteed, and then also be capable of doing so much damage. If Terran goes 1 rax reaper expand, there's nothing Zerg can do against it. There's no busts you can do, but I'm not talking about that, I'm just talking about the fact that the reaper gets a full scout off, and will kill a few lings or drones, always, or at least deny mining. It's just such an efficient unit. Whereas, say, hellions can be denied and be killed, and so can banshees (which are very expensive). I've also seen Terran go 5 rax reaper against Masters+. It's kind of a cheesy built, but it looks like a reaper expand and if Zerg didn't get roaches and played macro, they will instantly die to 20 reapers. Kind of a funny cheese. I'm just saying the reaper has a very limited, but amazing role. You have no idea how much Zerg would love to have a reaper, or Protoss. Show nested quote +Also, zerg can lose 30 workers in early/mid game due to hellion pressure and re-make them COMPLETELY in one cycle using 3 hatchs. Think of what will happen to terran or protoss losing their 30 workers. Hell, losing even 10 as a Terran is almost surely a lost game. So, my point is, zerg has a huge advantage when it comes to resource gathering. That is why usually we see zerg maxed out before other races and already banking huge amounts of resources. I assure you, Zerg will *always* lose to someone competent if they lose 30 workers before the 15 minute mark. The same isn't true about Terran. That said, I've seen plenty of mid masters and lower games where Zerg won against a bad opponent. But you are just outright wrong. Roaches also take up an inordinate amount of supply for balance reasons (they are more appropriate as 1 supply but that lead to roach rushes every.single.game in the beta that were always impossibly difficult to hold), and maxing out on lings is like maxing out on marines or zealots, the other races can hit 200/200 very quickly too if they only make t1 units. As for banking money, bad macro is bad macro. I don't know why you think that a zerg having bad macro is a good thing. 2. As for map awareness, Zerg has a lot of utility in it, but it requires good play for them to do so (creep spread, overlords, etc). There are even code S players who don't spread overlords properly (leenock, july, etc). That said, with proper pressure you can always drop even if there are mass mutas because you are forcing an engagement where the mutas are needed. Also, it's also a huge vulnerability, you can always just kill the overlords. There's nothing stopping Terran or Protoss from making depots/pylons all over the map in the same fashion. It's because Terran and Protoss have things like cannons and PF's, and Zerg can make infinite spines and they still won't prevent 2 dropships from killing a hatchery in 10 seconds. Zerg lacks static defense, and is expected to use their army to defend drops, which has more speed than the other races. Don't confuse game design with balance. 3. It's really obnoxious when people talk about cost effectiveness. 1 siege tank, 1 colossi, a few sentries, changes the entire equation. If cost effectiveness is everything, why don't Zerg just mass roaches and always win, or why doesn't Terran just make only marines in TvZ? Oh yea, because it's really stupid against someone competent (all lolmassmarine jokes aside, marines are terrible on their own). How about you mention the fact that Roach/hydra/Corruptor has zero cost efficiency against a VR/Colossi deathball? Oh, because that's complicated and the game is much more than roach>stalker. 4. So Zerg can remax on Roaches instead of zerglings. Really useful in the end-game when the opponent is massing t3 insane armies. Zerg remaxing and tech switching is not nearly as useful as people make it out to be, that's why you rarely see someone go from one composition to another in any game. Sometimes you see a Zerg open roaches and is actually upgrading melee to 2/2 and not missile attacks, but it's never an 'instant' switch. For Zerg to 'tech switch' it requires a long time of deliberation and planning, and all to tech to units that are all crap anyways. I'm not QQing by that, what I mean is that in general, Zerg units are weaker than P/T counterparts.You know, the whole 'zerg is a swarm, protoss is super strong, terran is middle ground and has strong defence" of the races thing. If you mean remaxing on Ultras after losing your army of 20 broodlords, you should realize how much supply these things suck up and money they cost. 8 Broodlords cost 2k in gas. You rarely see pro players bank more than 1k gas even when they mine out the entire map (Stephano vs Kiwi for example), and usually no more than 300 at any time in the game. Also, 125 supply means you can have about what, 10 broodlords, 20 roaches, and a few infestors or hydras, with about 90 supply sucked up in drones/queens. So whoopdedoo, we can remax on 40 roaches, or 15 ultras, against opponents who can make extremely supply efficient armies when cost efficiency doesn't mean jack shit anymore. Again, I'm not saying Zerg is UP at all here. I'm simply saying you're wrong. I'm glad you beat your mid-masters friend and used those games to form opinions on balance (let me guess, in none of the games neither of you made glaring macro mistakes or made a blunder like letting lings run in, and they were all super long macro games rather than stupid shit like proxies or rushes or baneling busts?), but I'd argue that Terran is the harder race to play, not Zerg. Also, posting results of tournaments to back-up balance claims is just asinine, and is exactly what Protoss QQers are doing (they are counting games like Losira vs Anypro, or games like Oz where he tried to proxy 2 gate and in another game tried to hide an expansion by taking a super fast third and both times failed). But, I would like to point out to you that Terran is actually owning Zerg in the tournaments recently. Do I think ZvT is Terran OP because of this? Fuck no, I personally think the match-up is extremely balanced, if not Zerg favored (for reasons other than what you said though). But tournament results, as opposed to the actual games, is a horrible way to gauge balance, and even then, Zerg is the one losing. Which I stress, again, means absolutely shit-all, but according to your logic, should prove that your wrong. To yourself, I guess. Show nested quote +I, sir, am open for discussion. You, sir, did not provide any arguments. I assume you feel a certain way about balance, but having no words behind your arguments, I will assume you are utterly and completely wrong, and a bit funny in my eyes. And yeah, your arguments are just invalid, cause they are not there.
The reason this balance thread is here is to spark a discussion about balance. An argumented discussion, where people say stuff and then defend it. I know you are in the Idra fanclub and have a warm fuzzy feeling towards zerg, but that warm and fuzzy feeling you should express to Idra in a letter, and not blindly defend the race. I don't know why you even bother posting such a post. This is TL, we discuss stuff, we talk about things. Simply denying what I said without saying why doesn't make you cool, makes you lose credibility. Think about this before embarrassing yourself next time. Nice post. I actually agreed with that guy that said 'u kno nothin about balance', but I do think the way he said it was asinine and he should've probably just kept his mouth shut. I mean, some of what you said did sound so .... ahem, bad, that my initial reaction was to agree with him and maybe even post the same thing lol. But I agree with this post, and I hope you read my post and react to my counter-arguments.
Well, better late than never, I guess. Here it goes.
About your argument that a zerg with 30 drones lost before the 15 minute mark always loses, while the same is not true for terran, I don't know what to say. It is clear to me we are playing a different game, because in the game I play, if terran loses 10 workers, he is behind about 15 workers. And in the game I play that means terran is 5 minutes from being totally crushed. As for your other points, here it goes.
Zerglings and mutas and tumors are fragile units...Marines are also fragiie, of course I am not going to keep a turret with a Thor. The only real choice I have is a marine/marauder/reaper. However, upon being spotted, the marine/reaper/marauder will die to the appropriate amount of lings just a couple of seconds later. What I am getting at is the speed with which zerg can occupy towers which are a key source of scouting.
Creep tumors are invisible, require scan/raven to destroy and can be rebuilt immediately. Actually, as far as I can see, for the cost of 75 energy (3 tumors), in 5 minutes a good zerg should be able to have PERMANENT vision over the entire map. Compare that to terran, who has to use 50 energy (and is 30 workers behind, mind you) in order to have zerg non-guaranteed (cause you don't know where they are) and TEMPORARY (cause it expires) army movement information, you will know what I mean.
Mutas also deny every prodding/forward scouting with marines if marines are not in the proper amount. Of course, if marines are the proper amount to deal with mutas, they can't actually go deal with the mutas, as somewhere up front there lies a green mass of goo that is just waiting for you to clump up and be away from siege tanks. Of course, zerg sometimes doesn't bother to engage you in the middle, and just goes with his 20 mutas and kills all the workers you have in any base. I have to admit that I always loved the bias against terran when casters are super silent while 20+ scvs and 5 turrets go down in a second, but when a muta dies to those turrets, its ''OOOH he lost a muta'..
Overlords' spewiing creep ability, combined with a burrowed zergling can really hold your expansions timings by 30+ seconds, and zerg will ACTUALLY know you are expanding. Placing a marine over a zer'gs possible expansion will just give you a second or two delay at best, while the juicy marine is being eaten up by a pack of fragile lings. The proposition of buidling rax and flying them around seems really nice, but somehow the idea of being behind in workers AND occupying one of my not-so-many workers for 65 seconds doesn't seem that appealing to me. So no, thanks, I will not mass produce rax in order to scout.
About the tech swiching.I disagree completely. It MATTERS a lot to what you max out in late game after trading armies. If terran trades army with zerg, and terran had 12 rax, 2 factories and 1/2 starports, terran will max out again on bio+tank+medivac. If zerg loses his ling/bling muta, he can remax on ROACHES and do drops. He can remax on Broodlords and swipe the whole map. He can remax on more of the same stuff. He can remax on infestor/ultra. And for the terran there is no way to guess what units will be the zerg making, unless terran spends scans continuously until he finds the zerg army. Then it would be too late. I just feel zerg's flexibility in late game to switch army compositons is too big and requires NO infrastructure. To your argument that the zerg has t ech structures that can be sniped, I can respond with this : MAKE THEM AGAIN. If a terran can make 6 factories, each of which costs a crap load of gas, or 12 rax with addons only to make units out of them, why can't the zerg place a second spire? So they can float minerals and gas? I don't get your point. Other races have to make buildings and spend tons of resources on them just to be able to produce units, and zerg can't even make a second spawning pool? So, in a way, I feel your argument about tech switching is a bit off.
About the static defenses, I disagree again. Spine crawlers are more powerful than both bunkers and cannons, and CAN RELOCATE. Same applies for spore crawlers.Since zergs float minerals (and don't say they don't cause in every progame I see, lategame zerg floats 1/2k), they can kinda spend that on static defense and not qq so much about harass. A drop full of marines does to an undefended base what a drop full of banelings (actually a drop full of banelings does far more, because if you don't see it coming, all your workers are gone). or a zerglings drop on an undefended base. Zerg has better static defense than both protoss or terran. An infestor in the mineral line and two spine crawlers and 2 drops full of marines might die if terran doesn't spread. My point is, if I have to spend minerals for 4-5 turrets on every base, why shouldn't zerg spend at least that much for defense? In addition, zerg's macro mechanics require zergs to keep 1+ queen at every hatch they have and queens auto expire drops after a while, since they do damage to the medivac. And marines can't kill the queen cause there are spines protecting it. Also, queens mess up targeting priority and reduce damage dealt to workers.
As far as battles go, terran is at a clear disadvantage in skill required against effectiveness.
1, Good battles always happen if you have some pre-information. I think I already made my point that zerg has dominant map control and presence, faster units and can quickly force an engagement or retreat with minimal losses. Creep spread makes zerg SEE constantly where terran army is, which gives the zerg time to position and prepare for the battle, even flank and or/ counterattack terran's bases or cut reinforcements. When is the last time you saw a terran position itself between zerg and its base to cut reinforcements? Overlords upon high ledges can clearly see unit compositions and army paths. Burrowed units are an addition to the abysmal advantage zerg has in the scouting department. Terran can only scan, which, again, is an eco suicide, since terran is severly behind in workers. Or terran can send a marine which will be insta denied by his muta/ling and get zero information, since zerg will surely relocate immediately and his main army (blings/infestor) is lurking somewhere else. So, in the department of preparing your concave and composition for the battles, forcing engagements at favorable spots or running out of engagements (impossible for terran), zerg is clearly the superior race.
2. Let's talk more about the battle itself and how each race approach it. I will talk about the two common unit compositions: muta/ling/bling vs marine/tank +1/2 thor. In my honest opinion, if zerg catches terran unsieged, the battle is over. Considering the superiority that zerg has in the department of scouting, it is not a surprise that sometimes zerg does catch terran unsieged, it happens in thousands of pro/not pro games. So, basically, the terran has to be patient. Engaging on creep is a suicide, moving too fast is a suicide, so terran has to leapfrog. On larger maps this just means zerg ignores your army sitting in the middle, goes to kill your main/natural with his muta/ling and then you all-in and die to banelings/spines and his main army attacking you in the back.
I believe I made my point. I believe a good zerg should never ever get dropped after he gets mutalisks, I think they have over the top advantages in terms of economy and scouting compared to other races. As far as army compositions go, I think zerg maxed t3 army having a lot of broodlords and infestors is far superior to terran t2.5 army (tanks,vikings,thors,marines,ghosts).
I am looking forward to your replies.
|
On October 13 2011 07:37 ChristianS wrote:
Given that so many posts on this thread consist of "I lost to this strat, so it's strong, which means its imba," I hardly feel bad about acknowledging my own experience with some builds. But in the absence of a VOD for support, your claim that 2-rax can only be held by one base gateway, and 1-1-1 can only be held by early expand -> robo is just a statement of your personal experience.
Mis-micro has varying consequences depending on the situation in which the micro is done badly. Mis-micro'ing fungals can lose you all your infestors. Mis-micro'ing ghosts can lose you all your ghosts. Mis-micro'ing colossi can result in them being off in the open without stalker support, often losing you your colossi. As a rule, the more mobile the unit, the less it hurts to mis-micro. So hellions don't hurt too much, nor do zerglings. But Terran hardly has an advantage here, since they are hardly the most mobile race. Hellions are an exception to a rule of T armies that are either: mech (perhaps the least mobile army in SC2), bio (more mobile than colossi force, less mobile than mass gateway), or sky terran (more mobile than ground forces, but less mobile than any other race's air). Conc shell punishes bad micro more. But if you see that a Terran has conc shell, you can pretty much cross off 1-1-1. And FG and force field punish bad micro more than conc shell does.
Of course everyone makes mistakes. But if a game was lost because a Protoss couldn't scout a Terran between 1-1-1 and 2-rax, and guessed wrong because there was no way they could have differentiated between the two, then that would be evident in the replay. It would not appear that they lost because of a mis-micro or a bad read on available information; it would appear that the information was not there, and they had no other choice.
As a side note, what kind of 2rax are we talking about? I assume you don't mean the gasless 11rax-12 rax. That opening is a joke against Protoss. So do you mean a push with a couple marauders and 3-5 marines, maybe a couple pulled SCV's? Combat shield push? Stim push? Fast ghost push? These hit at different times. I'm almost certain a 2gate robo can get out immortals by the time a stim push happens, but of course it can't against an 11rax-12rax. Specificity about the build you are having trouble with is really flat out necessary in a balance discussion. Someone already asked it but I will again, have you played the PvT/TvP matchup in the last couple months at any level (the builds discussed are used at all levels)? You would know exactly what everyone is talking about if you do. The 2rax typically used only usually has a few units sent, usually at least one marauder with concussive shell (the key is concussive shell, if they only have a zealot, and sentry they can't attack at all and they die), and a few marines and hits super early (I've seen it with or without reactor. I think I saw MMA do it with a reactor). A 1gate expand will not survive this without pulled probes, and even then the Protoss is far behind, usually having to either cancel or lose their expansion, or lose probes along with the precious few gateway units they have to keep their expansion. It's basically a build-order loss depending on the map, and the only way to scout a 2rax before it hits is if the Terran is dumb enough to but their second barracks near their wall-off or show a marauder really early, which again, is a mistake you shouldn't count on.
|
On October 13 2011 08:11 WickedSkies wrote:
Creep tumors are invisible, require scan/raven to destroy and can be rebuilt immediately. Actually, as far as I can see, for the cost of 75 energy (3 tumors), in 5 minutes a good zerg should be able to have PERMANENT vision over the entire map.
This is where you lost me. Feel free to watch the best creep-spread games in the world (http://www.gomtv.net/2011gstls1/vod/65787 set 6) and look at the time, energy, and passivity from your opponent that it takes to develop decent creep coverage. Then look at how hard it is to re-establish once the tumors get killed.
You'll find that your estimate of 3 tumors and 5 minutes is ridiculous.
|
On October 13 2011 05:24 Roxy wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Complaint
Problem:
The immortal is not effective against Marauders and Roaches (not to mention when lings/marines are present) and is very rarely the optimal decision when you have the option for a colossus
My Proposed Solution:
An upgrade (from the robotics) that gives it a piercing attack that allows it to attack every unit in a line (up to 6 range - similar to a hellion)
Side Effects
The game will evolve into more dynamic play (possibly less colosus in certain situations)
The Immortal would increase its presence as a harass unit (Imagine two immortals in a prism - a 500/200 + 200/0 investment) that may very well give protoss a viable harass option.
Quick robo timing will allow for a safer defence against a PvP 4-gate
Terran will be given more incentive to just target fire the immortal rather than a-move into it
The Immortal will be stronger counter to 1-1-1 build because it will hit the marines sitting infront of the tank (even though marines focusing on the immortal should reasonably rip it apart by the time it gets about 1 shot off)
Currently roaches are about even with immortals as far as cost effectiveness in a straight up fight (4 roaches [300/100]> 1 immortal [250/100]). Immortal are supposed to be the counter to Roaches and thus should demolish them.
At 4 range, roaches should take a proper amount of damage from a 6 pierce damage immortal.
As a bonus, IMO, the attack animation for immortals provides for this to be to visually retarded
Suggested Nerf:
Because of this buff, I think it would be reasonable that colosus deal less damage to armored units (but same to light units)
I can't help but think that the immortal is pretty damn good already. I'm almost sure the 'buff the immortal' camp is a very small one.
|
Sigh. I get it now. I get why TL Mods hate Balance Discussion. It brings about this mindset that will stagnate evolution of the game.
What is this mindset you speak of? Because even the worst forum arguments bring about results.
|
On October 13 2011 08:50 The KY wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2011 05:24 Roxy wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Complaint
Problem:
The immortal is not effective against Marauders and Roaches (not to mention when lings/marines are present) and is very rarely the optimal decision when you have the option for a colossus
My Proposed Solution:
An upgrade (from the robotics) that gives it a piercing attack that allows it to attack every unit in a line (up to 6 range - similar to a hellion)
Side Effects
The game will evolve into more dynamic play (possibly less colosus in certain situations)
The Immortal would increase its presence as a harass unit (Imagine two immortals in a prism - a 500/200 + 200/0 investment) that may very well give protoss a viable harass option.
Quick robo timing will allow for a safer defence against a PvP 4-gate
Terran will be given more incentive to just target fire the immortal rather than a-move into it
The Immortal will be stronger counter to 1-1-1 build because it will hit the marines sitting infront of the tank (even though marines focusing on the immortal should reasonably rip it apart by the time it gets about 1 shot off)
Currently roaches are about even with immortals as far as cost effectiveness in a straight up fight (4 roaches [300/100]> 1 immortal [250/100]). Immortal are supposed to be the counter to Roaches and thus should demolish them.
At 4 range, roaches should take a proper amount of damage from a 6 pierce damage immortal.
As a bonus, IMO, the attack animation for immortals provides for this to be to visually retarded
Suggested Nerf:
Because of this buff, I think it would be reasonable that colosus deal less damage to armored units (but same to light units) I can't help but think that the immortal is pretty damn good already. I'm almost sure the 'buff the immortal' camp is a very small one.
I agree. As a protoss, I can say that the immortal is a very good unit already. The problem is not in our units (well maybe the high templar needs to be looked at, it's quite weak in its current form), but in the global gameplay and mechanics of Protoss.
|
On October 13 2011 05:24 Roxy wrote:
Complaint
Problem:
The immortal is not effective against Marauders and Roaches (not to mention when lings/marines are present) and is very rarely the optimal decision when you have the option for a colossus
I think Immortals are just unexplored. They are actually great against Marauders. Try going double robo immortal on 2 base instead of going single robo Colossus. Try it about 5-10 times. Have the report on my desk by Monday 
On October 13 2011 09:07 BarbieHsu wrote:Show nested quote + Sigh. I get it now. I get why TL Mods hate Balance Discussion. It brings about this mindset that will stagnate evolution of the game. What is this mindset you speak of? Because even the worst forum arguments bring about results.
The mindset that the game should never evolve is what Im talking about. I think it's exciting that Protoss is getting their shit wrecked in GSL ( )cause it means it is more exciting when a Protoss wins. How awesome would an LiquidHero win be right now compared to 6 months ago?
A 1gate expand will not survive [a 2 rax] without pulled probes, and even then the Protoss is far behind,
Unless your HuK, then you can hold a Marine King Prime 3 rax with a 1 gate expand without using probes.
for a Terran, thinking your Zerg opponent is roach-busting so that you put down a bunker and build a Marauder or two has competely different consequences from the Zerg thinking the Terran is going for a 2base all-in and making non-stop units for nearly 5 minutes in preparation, as an example.
Actually, when I think a Zerg is roach busting me, I neither take a fast third nor move out, so this becomes a huge problem when they are playing standard and have a third base/mutalisks. The mutas delay my third and my push even further. Missinterpreting a Zerg player as Terran has consequences only the Terran player can speak to.
|
Wow, all this QQ about Terran. I'm not here to write a Uni paper so I'm going to get straight to the point.
OK, everyone complains early game Terran has a scouting advantage. Now I'm going to consider the early game 0 - 8 minutes.
How many options does a Terran really have in regards to early pressure that is so threatening that P or Z dosen't?
If Terran uses scans, simply... that costs mules. Less mules = less production if he is doing some type of early timing. Not to mention it will hurt him later on in the game. Now generally speaking, Protoss and Zerg both produce workers at a faster rate then Terran, if he is going to drop in your base in the early game and you need to take workers off your mineral line.... guess what! Your still in most cases;
1. Still even with him
2. If you take the drop out, ahead of him
There are many ways of dealing with Terran early game. Seriously, Terran is not as versatile as what most people think. Do you guys have any idea how hard it is to tech switch effeciently as compared to Protoss or Zerg? Once you scout what army comp Terran is going for, that is it... from that point on if you want to switch as a P or Z, you now have the upper advantage. IMO, Terran at least needs that small scouting advantage because of this. If P or Z can effectively null out Terran early pressure, in most cases this puts Terran in a difficult position.
I mean c'mon, protoss complaining.... you have a god damn permanet cloaked scout at your disposal. Don't come on here and QQ if you can't damn well use it properly!
Zerg, wow.... really .... once that creep spread is up, you have the hugest advantage out of all three races. Map control + the ability to transition whenever you want whilst being the most effective at it!
I couldn't be bothered going down to all the nitty and gritty details of this, but really.... when it all comes down to it. What I just said is straight to the point and how it is.
Gosh, imagine if Terran had an 1 upgrade that could upgrade ALL units armour/attack.
If you ask me, I think at this point in time before HoTs..... the game is balanced. I couldn't care less what tourny results say, there will always be a race who seems to be clearly "on top" of the others... and as long as this happens, that race will always be considered as the OP race. It will be never-ending. It's not like Terran has a 90% win rate against other races whilst Zerg and Protoss has a 10% win rate against Terran. We are talking about a 4 - 8% difference in win rate here! What do you expect, a perfect 50% win rate for each race?
|
On October 13 2011 09:12 Techno wrote:I think Immortals are just unexplored. They are actually great against Marauders. Try going double robo immortal on 2 base instead of going single robo Colossus. Try it about 5-10 times. Have the report on my desk by Monday
Interesting build. But don't you think it has a time limit? If Terran gets any type of MMM ball going, or god forbid ghosts, wouldn't the lack of splash damage make the Z, Se, St, Imm army disintegrate?
At best, wouldn't a double robo be good for one timing attack? As you can't exactly fly around the map with those clunky immortals.
|
On October 13 2011 09:25 ZorBa.G wrote:
If you ask me, I think at this point in time before HoTs..... the game is balanced. I couldn't care less what tourny results say, there will always be a race who seems to be clearly "on top" of the others... and as long as this happens, that race will always be considered as the OP race. It will be never-ending. It's not like Terran has a 90% win rate against other races whilst Zerg and Protoss has a 10% win rate against Terran. We are talking about a 4 - 8% difference in win rate here! What do you expect, a perfect 50% win rate for each race?
Regardless of actual gameplay, what annoys people is that although you're right in saying that the game will never be 50-50, it has always been Terran at >55%, and GSL is now Terran Palace. There has never been such a domination for Zerg or Protoss. That's just false.
And regarding winrates, Protoss is at like 30% at the GSL, that's as close to 50% at it is to your 10%.
It's not obvious that the game is balanced. In fact, it takes quite a self-restraint mind (or a Terran one of course) to consider that Terran is not the strongest race.
And obviously, maybe Terran players are far better than their zerg and protoss counter-parts, that's a theory Terran players are very fond of. It may be true. Maybe.
|
For anyone having trouble in PvT, I highly recommend this guide http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=250379
You'd be surprised how many terrans give away their build because I'm able to keep my probe alive for long enough after the 1st marine is out. As I've worked with Qtip's guide, I've been finding that when I'm unsure of the terrans build after my probe scout, I get a fast obs (with gate robo gate) but I don't pump units. I'll usually have a stalker a zealot and a sentry when my obs gets to their base. Then I decide if I need units or I can expand. Sometimes even when I guess wrong, it works out okay because terrans are sometimes way to greedy with 1 rax expands. So I'm able to realize this early with the obs, make my nexus and force a liftoff with a forward pylon 2 gates of units and nonstop immortal production.
But in the situations where I feel really sure what build the terran is doing, I stick to the guide. GREAT SUCCESS!
|
I've been doing very well recently with switching out stalkers and going with immortal / templar / zealot / archon against terran. i think the main reason toss sucks is because people try to get a ton of stalkers, and stalkers suck balls. lowest dps/cost in the game. even worse than drones (that's true, i've checked)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
