|
On March 29 2012 22:47 Ra.Xor.2 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2012 22:36 pOnarreT wrote:On March 29 2012 21:39 monkybone wrote:On March 29 2012 21:16 DoubleReed wrote:On March 29 2012 20:00 monkybone wrote:
Zone control for Terran is extremely expensive (tanks and planetaries), much more so that for Zerg and Protoss, which have cheaper alternatives. Including: Creep (free), spines (cheap), pylons for warp in (free in the sense that you need them anyway), cannons.
It's not practical to put down planetaries before very very late game. The alternative for Terran is bunkers, but since they need to be filled with units, they are in effect a costly alternative (at least 300 resources, 4 supply). Are you for real? Pylons are zone control? Creep is like tanks? Seriously, what game are you playing? Tanks are fantastic in this game. Let's see a replay of your tanks being bad. Zerg zone control is broodlords, infestors and burrow. Protoss is storm, collosus, sentries, and mothership. These are not cheap units. Plus you're getting the Shredder. We're clearly using different notions of zone control. I'm not talking about AoE damage like you are implying here, and I doubt anyone else is either. Zone control is local map control. And creep is an excellent way to control space on the map, as it gives room for reaction. No terran will walk straight across areas with creep. Pylons are used defensively as well by warp in, to intercept drops, runbys and so on. You're basically having control over the area, and that's all there is to it. A single pylon can an entire expansion from ling runbys for example.And I didn't imply that tanks are bad, where did you get that notion? I'm saying that they are an expensive alternative. It isn't e.g. practical to have several tanks at each expansion. You clearly don't know how Protoss defense works. You can't protect an expansion with a single pylon even if you have 10 Warpgates. That single pylon would be destroyed before any warp ins occur. Especially when Terran drops with stim. This is a really flimsy point. What if you have two pylons? The point is, the fact that pylons are essentially a 100 min arbiter in a matchup where the main Protoss army is much more immobile than the Terran's is beyond ridiculous. A deathball should not have more zone control than a mmm army.
Sorry but no. This is an exaggeration if ever there were one. Calling a Pylon a 100 min arbiter just reeks of QQ to the point that I wonder about the quality of your TvP.
|
On March 30 2012 00:05 Mehukannu wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2012 22:59 Roachu wrote:On March 29 2012 21:39 monkybone wrote:On March 29 2012 21:16 DoubleReed wrote:On March 29 2012 20:00 monkybone wrote:
Zone control for Terran is extremely expensive (tanks and planetaries), much more so that for Zerg and Protoss, which have cheaper alternatives. Including: Creep (free), spines (cheap), pylons for warp in (free in the sense that you need them anyway), cannons.
It's not practical to put down planetaries before very very late game. The alternative for Terran is bunkers, but since they need to be filled with units, they are in effect a costly alternative (at least 300 resources, 4 supply). Are you for real? Pylons are zone control? Creep is like tanks? Seriously, what game are you playing? Tanks are fantastic in this game. Let's see a replay of your tanks being bad. Zerg zone control is broodlords, infestors and burrow. Protoss is storm, collosus, sentries, and mothership. These are not cheap units. Plus you're getting the Shredder. We're clearly using different notions of zone control. I'm not talking about AoE damage like you are implying here, and I doubt anyone else is either. Zone control is local map control. And creep is an excellent way to control space on the map, as it gives room for reaction. No terran will walk straight across areas with creep. Pylons are used defensively as well by warp in, to intercept drops, runbys and so on. You're basically having control over the area, and that's all there is to it. A single pylon can an entire expansion from ling runbys for example. And I didn't imply that tanks are bad, where did you get that notion? I'm saying that they are an expensive alternative. It isn't e.g. practical to have several tanks at each expansion. I might be thinking of something else but what about sensor towers? They are good, but they are expensive to make especially in early-mid game. Whereas creep tumor is basically free and makes zerg units on it faster. Sensor tower doesn't really do anything else expect give detection, but it is still quite huge so it really isn't a problem. Still you can only really afford to make them at late game where terran has more than 3 bases and all the production facilities needed to pump out units to replace dead units faster.
Creep tumors aren't exactly free. Either a) use a would-be inject cycle (for each tumor), sacrificing 4 larvae per tumor, or b) build another queen for creep tumors for 150 minerals and 2 supply, not to mention taking a hatch out of commission while it builds (as far as delaying lair tech, burrow, whatevs).
|
|
|
|
|
Queens are pretty sweet though. And queens really don't delay stuff that much, if you actually plan using them. Just watch a replay and look at how idle your hatches are throughout the game. You can easily make queens.
Creep is very limited though. Easy to clear, and takes a while to setup. It's more about time than money.
|
|
|
|
|
On March 30 2012 01:01 monkybone wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2012 22:09 DoubleReed wrote:
Honestly a PF and a single tank is incredibly hard to break. You can always make an extra oc for mules. Yes, but compare the investment: PF is 150/150, and a tank is 150/125 --> a 300/275 investment. You're also sacrificing an OC, and income equivalent to 4 SCV's. A zerg on the other hand can for the same purposes invest in a couple of spine crawlers. So the argument is still that Terran has to invest more in order to control space.
Uhm no. Spines are not as good as a planetary not even close. Spines cost drones too, I should mention. Bunkers do fine for basic defense and can always be salvaged. 300/275 + repair vs 500+5drones and can broken reasonably. No, you're just being silly.
|
|
|
|
|
On March 30 2012 01:09 monkybone wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2012 01:06 DoubleReed wrote:On March 30 2012 01:01 monkybone wrote:On March 29 2012 22:09 DoubleReed wrote:
Honestly a PF and a single tank is incredibly hard to break. You can always make an extra oc for mules. Yes, but compare the investment: PF is 150/150, and a tank is 150/125 --> a 300/275 investment. You're also sacrificing an OC, and income equivalent to 4 SCV's. A zerg on the other hand can for the same purposes invest in a couple of spine crawlers. So the argument is still that Terran has to invest more in order to control space. Uhm no. Spines are not as good as a planetary not even close. Spines cost drones too, I should mention. Bunkers do fine for basic defense and can always be salvaged. 300/275 vs 500+5drones. No, you're just being silly. Note that I bolded the phrase "the same purposes". Zerg doesn't need a 300/275 investment in static defence, a few spine crawlers is sufficient for zerg to react. Hence the phrase. The purpose is to shut down harass. At minimum a bunker defence will cost you 300 minerals, and 4 supply, a costly investment as well.
So that's two spinecrawlers. Or maybe a spinecrawler and a queen. This does not seem so unreasonable.
|
On March 30 2012 00:32 DarK[A] wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2012 00:05 Mehukannu wrote:On March 29 2012 22:59 Roachu wrote:On March 29 2012 21:39 monkybone wrote:On March 29 2012 21:16 DoubleReed wrote:On March 29 2012 20:00 monkybone wrote:
Zone control for Terran is extremely expensive (tanks and planetaries), much more so that for Zerg and Protoss, which have cheaper alternatives. Including: Creep (free), spines (cheap), pylons for warp in (free in the sense that you need them anyway), cannons.
It's not practical to put down planetaries before very very late game. The alternative for Terran is bunkers, but since they need to be filled with units, they are in effect a costly alternative (at least 300 resources, 4 supply). Are you for real? Pylons are zone control? Creep is like tanks? Seriously, what game are you playing? Tanks are fantastic in this game. Let's see a replay of your tanks being bad. Zerg zone control is broodlords, infestors and burrow. Protoss is storm, collosus, sentries, and mothership. These are not cheap units. Plus you're getting the Shredder. We're clearly using different notions of zone control. I'm not talking about AoE damage like you are implying here, and I doubt anyone else is either. Zone control is local map control. And creep is an excellent way to control space on the map, as it gives room for reaction. No terran will walk straight across areas with creep. Pylons are used defensively as well by warp in, to intercept drops, runbys and so on. You're basically having control over the area, and that's all there is to it. A single pylon can an entire expansion from ling runbys for example. And I didn't imply that tanks are bad, where did you get that notion? I'm saying that they are an expensive alternative. It isn't e.g. practical to have several tanks at each expansion. I might be thinking of something else but what about sensor towers? They are good, but they are expensive to make especially in early-mid game. Whereas creep tumor is basically free and makes zerg units on it faster. Sensor tower doesn't really do anything else expect give detection, but it is still quite huge so it really isn't a problem. Still you can only really afford to make them at late game where terran has more than 3 bases and all the production facilities needed to pump out units to replace dead units faster. Creep tumors aren't exactly free. Either a) use a would-be inject cycle (for each tumor), sacrificing 4 larvae per tumor, or b) build another queen for creep tumors for 150 minerals and 2 supply, not to mention taking a hatch out of commission while it builds (as far as delaying lair tech, burrow, whatevs).
Getting a extra queen is hardly a big commitment to make at early game. Seeing that most zergs tend to get that queen to deal with banshees/hellions/bunker rushes early in the game, which saves larvae for drones due to there not being a need to make big mass of zerglings early. It is not like that the queen won't be a cost effective choice to do early either.
|
Bunker costs 150 minerals at minimum, you dont have to put all 4 marines in there.
Tanks are bad in zone control specially in tvz because lings are totally out of control unless you have many siege tanks in the range which you cant afford because then your army is too spread out. Planetaries are baneling busted too easily.
There is maps in ladder pool where even third base is incredibly hard to secure as terran against zerg.
|
|
|
On March 30 2012 01:32 monkybone wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2012 01:31 Mongolbonjwa wrote:
Bunker costs 150 minerals at minimum, you dont have to put all 4 marines in there.
Yes, and Zerg can have 1 zergling (25 minerals) for defence. What do you think a marine is going to do?
What
|
On March 30 2012 01:31 Mongolbonjwa wrote:
Bunker costs 150 minerals at minimum, you dont have to put all 4 marines in there.
Tanks are bad in zone control specially in tvz because lings are totally out of control unless you have many siege tanks in the range which you cant afford because then your army is too spread out. Planetaries are baneling busted too easily.
There is maps in ladder pool where even third base is incredibly hard to secure as terran against zerg.
Whine me a river. Do you understand the investment that baneling busting a planetary is? Especially considering how cheap planetaries are? Not to mention a single sieged tank completely destroys such a bust. If the bust fails, the Terran can repair and Zerg has done zero damage.
Tanks scale much greater in this game. It sounds like a macro issue you're having where you don't have enough tanks.
|
Its not about how cheap planetary is, its about whole terran economy. If you manage to keep terran limited to two base while taking your third or even fourth, it certainly is worth it to use banelings to take down that planetary. This often times happen even in pro game matches.
One tank is not enough to protect planetary fortress from lingbanelingbust.
Terran just lacks proper zone control, lings run around the map like crazy and mutalisks keep your marines running around and you need to invest a lot in turrets. Once the game goes to late mid game or late game its almoust certain that zerg has already won the match unless zerg makes big error. Terran is forced to spread their armies in too wide area which gives zerg and opportunity to just snipe your costly units one by one because other tanks are not in range when zerg engages at the other end of the siege tank line.
In order to secure your all expansions, it probably diminishes your effective firepower even by half. Also, all this give zerg precious time to tech up and getting to their end game goals.
This game is just fuckd up when it comes to TvZ. You cannot win macro game against zerg without great advantage from the start.
But there are maps which make tvz easier, like antiga shipyard where you have basicly risk-free third and even fourth is fairly easy to take because it is secured by the tank lines which you are gonna set up anyway in the middle of the map. Map size is also small enough for that.
But anyway, if the game has gone so far that you are on four base then zerg is also in pretty good shape too and they are just gonna roll over you.
|
TvZ is tough, but not really for the reasons you mentioned (above poster that is).
Most maps allow terran to get 3 bases very comfortably. Well-placed tanks are super cost-effective against zerg ground forces, and marine/medivac rips mutas apart. What comes to the midgame, TvZ is really fun, balanced and really a test of decisionmaking and unit control for both sides.
However its the lategame where terran suffers, especially against the BL/infestor unit comp and the constant tech switching a zerg can do. You are right when you say that you need to deal damage in the early/midgame as terran, but thats simply because how powerful zerg hive units and infestors are. What terran really lacks is late-game options to deal with zerg tech switches and the BL/infestor deathball. Ghosts used to be that option, but right now you have to rely on being hyper-aggressive and keeping the BL count low while dropping every zerg base at once, while avoiding a direct engagement at all costs. Pulling this off takes a ton of skill.
|
Mongol, it really sounds like you're having general problems with the matchup rather than just "zone control" or whatever. Maybe post some replays in a help thread or something.
|
All those zone control issues of terran what I mentioned, come in to the play in the later stages of the game. Besides broodlords and tech switches which also are potential balance issue.
In my opinion, terran should be able to fully secure their all bases, which is not possible in current sc2 game design/maps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
