|
On July 23 2012 07:58 RampancyTW wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 06:43 Rokoz wrote:
Why are people discussing about Terran's resource management?
It has nothing to do with balance. It has everything to do with balance. If Zergs were ever floating huge quantities of gas before maxing, and then losing on a regular basis, it would be one of the first things pointed to by the denizens of the ladder of all races. Being economically sub-optimal has simply become so commonplace for Terran that nobody bats an eye at it. Economic optimization through the midgame could strengthen said midgame and reveal that much of the problem was in inefficiency, and not in actual balance. Zerg lategame used to be considered the worst lategame of the 3 races. Their Hive-tech was considered super weak. You'll note that this appears not to be the case anymore.  Balance can't really be discussed until inefficiencies in play are removed. A few extra units in a midgame push can make a big difference in its effectiveness.
Still it has nothing to do with balance. These inefficiencies are part of the game and you can't theorycraft around them when you are balancing game but rather take them into account. If you are "economically sub-optimal" then that's the issue with player not with the game. You can't just imply that at the highest level of play Terran's somehow have worst economical management than the other races, it's just stupid.
And talking about your midgame pushes, you can't cut gas for that mid-game push or you will lack medivacs, upgrades, tanks and production facilities. You need to understand that Terran's are not floating full of gas at mid-game and you won't have any more marines in your mid-game push simply because gas is also limiting factor at that stage of the game.
|
On July 23 2012 17:04 Rokoz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 07:58 RampancyTW wrote:On July 23 2012 06:43 Rokoz wrote:
Why are people discussing about Terran's resource management?
It has nothing to do with balance. It has everything to do with balance. If Zergs were ever floating huge quantities of gas before maxing, and then losing on a regular basis, it would be one of the first things pointed to by the denizens of the ladder of all races. Being economically sub-optimal has simply become so commonplace for Terran that nobody bats an eye at it. Economic optimization through the midgame could strengthen said midgame and reveal that much of the problem was in inefficiency, and not in actual balance. Zerg lategame used to be considered the worst lategame of the 3 races. Their Hive-tech was considered super weak. You'll note that this appears not to be the case anymore. Balance can't really be discussed until inefficiencies in play are removed. A few extra units in a midgame push can make a big difference in its effectiveness. Still it has nothing to do with balance. These inefficiencies are part of the game and you can't theorycraft around them when you are balancing game but rather take them into account. If you are "economically sub-optimal" then that's the issue with player not with the game. You can't just imply that at the highest level of play Terran's somehow have worst economical management than the other races, it's just stupid. And talking about your midgame pushes, you can't cut gas for that mid-game push or you will lack medivacs, upgrades, tanks and production facilities. You need to understand that Terran's are not floating full of gas at mid-game and you won't have any more marines in your mid-game push simply because gas is also limiting factor at that stage of the game.
I agree with you completly, I just think it's very critical of a lot of people, that they seem to think it's OK to imply that Zerg proplayers have worse mechanics, control or micro.
|
Racial mechanics does not give Terrans enough reward for having alot of bases / alot of income
Problem: The mechanics for Zerg and Protoss translate well into the late-game. For Protoss the ability to warp-in gives the ability to instantly reinforce their army anywhere on the map, combine this with chrono boost and a Protoss player has an acceptable way of quickly converting their bank (early game advantage) into an army (late game advantage). The Zerg can pool larvae, combine this with the ability to build (almost) any unit from these larvae and a competent Zerg player has a great mechanic that translates their advantage in bases into an advantage in army.
Don't get me wrong, an advantage in bases is always preferable - no matter which race you play - and yes, Terran can of course build more production buildings. My personal feeling is that there should be an easy mechanic that rewards a player with good economy. Good play should be rewarded and as I see it the mechanics in place for Zerg and Protoss accomplishes this by also extending well into the late game.
Solution: Some new mechanic that kicks in at 200/200. My first idea was drop-pods but I would prefer it to be someting "unique" to Terran. My suggestion at this time is to give Terran the ability to pre-build. Basicly Terran production buildings would be able to produce even when the terran is maxed. The unit wouldn't emerge until there is enough supply for it but when the supply does get available it would emerge instantaneously.
I have no idea how good or bad this mechanic would be and, yes, it is a variation on "warp-in" (any units, not any place). Hopefully it would at least feel different. This is just an idea, there are probably more creative solutions that would be more fun and fit better into the game. The important thing is not this specific solution but the problem.
Side Effects: Terran will get a stronger late-game, I am quite honestly not qualified to speculate on whether it would be OP or UP. Other side effects include an added incentive for unit trading when maxed and faster tech-switches for Terrans.
Notes: It has been suggested that terrans already have a late-game mechanic, macro orbitals, and that this potential to have a larger supply in army, while still maintaining a good income, makes up for the advantages that the other races have. I don't find macro-orbitals comparable due primarily to the fact that they require a huge investment in both minerals and time. This has been sort-of discussed here.
|
^ i think In have seen this trice already?
I'd be more a fan of techreactor like structures, allowing all structures to build either 2 reactor units OR 1 techunit...
Prebuilt is to similar to WG, as well as highly unflexie vs techswotches.
|
On July 23 2012 19:27 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 17:04 Rokoz wrote:On July 23 2012 07:58 RampancyTW wrote:On July 23 2012 06:43 Rokoz wrote:
Why are people discussing about Terran's resource management?
It has nothing to do with balance. It has everything to do with balance. If Zergs were ever floating huge quantities of gas before maxing, and then losing on a regular basis, it would be one of the first things pointed to by the denizens of the ladder of all races. Being economically sub-optimal has simply become so commonplace for Terran that nobody bats an eye at it. Economic optimization through the midgame could strengthen said midgame and reveal that much of the problem was in inefficiency, and not in actual balance. Zerg lategame used to be considered the worst lategame of the 3 races. Their Hive-tech was considered super weak. You'll note that this appears not to be the case anymore. Balance can't really be discussed until inefficiencies in play are removed. A few extra units in a midgame push can make a big difference in its effectiveness. Still it has nothing to do with balance. These inefficiencies are part of the game and you can't theorycraft around them when you are balancing game but rather take them into account. If you are "economically sub-optimal" then that's the issue with player not with the game. You can't just imply that at the highest level of play Terran's somehow have worst economical management than the other races, it's just stupid. And talking about your midgame pushes, you can't cut gas for that mid-game push or you will lack medivacs, upgrades, tanks and production facilities. You need to understand that Terran's are not floating full of gas at mid-game and you won't have any more marines in your mid-game push simply because gas is also limiting factor at that stage of the game. I agree with you completly, I just think it's very critical of a lot of people, that they seem to think it's OK to imply that Zerg proplayers have worse mechanics, control or micro.
Zerg players have good control and mechanics, depending on the player, just like anyone else. In general, though, except perhaps in ZvZ, they aren't required to do any significant micro compared with what Terran and Toss players need to do.
|
can someone tell me, why ghosts, battlecruisers, vikings wouldnt work against zerg?
too much gas?
i rarely see terrans using their anti-caster unit against zerg
|
On July 23 2012 22:44 Oroboros wrote:
can someone tell me, why ghosts, battlecruisers, vikings wouldnt work against zerg?
too much gas?
i rarely see terrans using their anti-caster unit against zerg
BCs take ages to transition into and are not particularily good, if the zerg is on ultralisks. At least that is my experience with them. Top level terrans use them sometimes, but it takes like 30mins until you are stable enough with them and you have to force the zerg to go Broodlord, which is not the easiest task to start with and to survive.
|
they aren't required to do any significant micro compared with what Terran and Toss players need to do.
They are. Its just not as visible or jaw dropping as terran micro. And in most cases not half as rewarding. To most players zerg micro looks like the AI at work. Yes, I am sure its not as demanding as Terran micro but on the other hand its not as rewarding either.
Im all for "make zerg more microable", but I guess we would drown in a sea of ters then when 5 well microed roaches could beat 8 a-move stalkers.
|
On July 23 2012 22:44 Oroboros wrote:
can someone tell me, why ghosts, battlecruisers, vikings wouldnt work against zerg?
too much gas?
i rarely see terrans using their anti-caster unit against zerg
Ghosts are useless against everything except Infestors and for the odd positional Nuke. Terrans generally eventually integrate them into their composition but they're not worth including in an army since they don't do any damage. Battlecruisers are extremely weak for what you pay and take a huge amount of infrastructure to get on the field. Vikings do work against Zerg, to some extent, and Terrans regularly integrate them against BL-centric armies. In general, though, Terran players are reluctant to invest in gas-heavy, long build-time units because of the way Fungal Growth works. Even if you manage to mass up several Ravens, it always seems to occur that at some point in the game the Zerg will manage to get a Fungal off on most or all of them, which basically means they're dead. Since Ravens take so long to make and charge up energy, this makes them pretty much useless except as a sort of last resort. Some Terrans make them because they feel that there's nothing else to make, but it's unrealistic to expect that Ravens will be perfectly spread for the entirety of the game and leave no window for Fungal, which has a longer range than the Raven's spells.
Zergs generally argue that Terran players should spread their Ravens, but what they don't understand is the magnitude of what they're asking. Most Terran players -do- make an effort to keep their Ravens in a safe position. The problem is that a single Fungal means those Ravens are going to die. Imagine if Terrans lost the game if they ate one bad Fungal on a group of Marines in the entire game. That's what happens with Ravens. You can have 3 great engagements with HSM and then get caught by a Fungal and your advantage is completely gone, because Ravens can't be rebuilt quickly or economically.
Put another way, if it were feasible to play in such a manner so as to never get hit by a bad Fungal no matter what, nobody would make anything other than Marines.
|
On July 23 2012 22:56 Charon1979 wrote:Show nested quote +they aren't required to do any significant micro compared with what Terran and Toss players need to do. They are. Its just not as visible or jaw dropping as terran micro. And in most cases not half as rewarding. To most players zerg micro looks like the AI at work. Yes, I am sure its not as demanding as Terran micro but on the other hand its not as rewarding either. Im all for "make zerg more microable", but I guess we would drown in a sea of ters then when 5 well microed roaches could beat 8 a-move stalkers.
The thing is that your units function too well for how little micro goes into controlling them. I have no problem with the various Zerg compositions being as good as they are right now in the hands of a skilled micro player. It annoys me to see that basically any Masters player can make Infestor/BL work wonders whereas only the very best Terrans can work magic in the late game. It's not that micro needs to be made more rewarding for Zerg; it's that zero micro needs to be made more punishing. As it is, all Zerg units are operating at a pretty strong level with the exception of the Hydralisk. I don't think there needs to be an option to make the units much stronger if you have good micro. Rather, I'd see the baseline strength of these units lowered but the micro ceiling enhanced. That way, completely unmicroed Roaches, for example, wouldn't be as cost-efficient as they are now, but microed Roaches would be. The reason this is so huge is that it would allow players to capitalize on the mistakes of their opponents. Imagine if defending a Roach/Ling 200/200 max could be achieved by stretching your opponent's multitasking to the point where they don't micro properly and thir Roaches sink to 80% of their current effectiveness.
Do you see how this would be good for the game? The problem is that Zerg players right now get all the benefit of micro without really needing to do as much as anyone else. Even against a really good micro Protoss or Terran player, the Zerg units hold their own pretty damn well, which basically means that even in a situation of minimal Zerg micro, your units are being as effective as those of your opponent. That's a problem.
Your last sentence shows me that you're looking at this the wrong way. Zerg units don't need to become stronger than they are now with micro; they need to become as strong as they are now, but only if you micro them. This is a huge deal because it would probably fix a lot of the balance problems. Why? Because multitasking would have a direct effect on engagements much like it does in TvP. If there's a drop in my main, I need to look away from the battle. While I'm looking away from the battle, my units perform less optimally because I'm not there to make sure Stalkers are shooting Vikings, Colossi are attacking clumps, Storms are going down, Temps aren't getting EMPed, and so on.
|
On July 23 2012 22:08 Toastie.NL wrote:
^ i think In have seen this trice already?
I'd be more a fan of techreactor like structures, allowing all structures to build either 2 reactor units OR 1 techunit...
Prebuilt is to similar to WG, as well as highly unflexie vs techswotches.
I've posted it twice, I felt that it got drowned in the Terran resource management discussion last time and I understand that I'm not allowed to make it into a separate topic. Tech-reactors would be an alternative of course! Like I said earlier, I'm not married to a specific solution, but I feel that the problem warrants some attention. How would you prefer to integrate the tech-reactor? Would it simply be placed high in the tech-tree, like requiring a fusion core to be built? Should ordinary addons be able to be upgraded to tech reactors or do you have to build it from scratch?
|
they need to become as strong as they are now, but only if you micro them.
and there ist the point where you are wrong. I already covered this, but you are just ignorant.
"If I dont see it, its not there"
You know that splitting banelings to react to splitted marines is harder than to split marines as your time window is way smaller? Or du you think they autospread and auto target different marine grounps? If there is no micro present guess what happens -> all banelings run into 2 tanks -> zerg dead. We see this from time to time when attention is divided. This is as devastating as banelings running into an unsplitted marine ball.
Even your last statement shows your total ignorance and bias...
While I'm looking away from the battle, my units perform less optimally because I'm not there to make sure Stalkers are shooting Vikings, Colossi are attacking clumps, Storms are going down, Temps aren't getting EMPed, and so on.
While when Zerg looks away to inject or is dropped and you are not there Fungals get laid down by the AI Corruptors use corruption and focus automatically and the AI pulls them back if they get to close to Marines... everything on autopilot, in fact Im not playing myself AI handles everything. And to handle the drop I just send 100 Lings with a-move because hey... they autosurround... they never ever get stuck up in the minerals and wes see 20 Kills on each marine because you know... the AI handles that for me perfectly.
As I said make micro more rewarding and more visible and even you will see that its WAY less a-move than everything we see from toss (yey! jumped at your level for an useles rant!)
|
On July 23 2012 23:05 Shiori wrote:
Do you see how this would be good for the game? The problem is that Zerg players right now get all the benefit of micro without really needing to do as much as anyone else. Even against a really good micro Protoss or Terran player, the Zerg units hold their own pretty damn well, which basically means that even in a situation of minimal Zerg micro, your units are being as effective as those of your opponent. That's a problem.
The problem is that Terran players right now don't have to have perfect macro mechanics. They can call down supply, they can accumulate a bunch of energy and belated call down MULEs. They can float away buildings if they find they've expanded too soon. Even against a really good macro Protoss or Zerg player, the Terran's macro mechanics can hold their own pretty damn well.
|
On July 23 2012 23:16 Charon1979 wrote:and there ist the point where you are wrong. I already covered this, but you are just ignorant. "If I dont see it, its not there" You know that splitting banelings to react to splitted marines is harder than to split marines as your time window is way smaller? Or du you think they autospread and auto target different marine grounps? If there is no micro present guess what happens -> all banelings run into 2 tanks -> zerg dead. We see this from time to time when attention is divided. This is as devastating as banelings running into an unsplitted marine ball. Even your last statement shows your total ignorance and bias... Show nested quote +While I'm looking away from the battle, my units perform less optimally because I'm not there to make sure Stalkers are shooting Vikings, Colossi are attacking clumps, Storms are going down, Temps aren't getting EMPed, and so on.
While when Zerg looks away to inject or is dropped and you are not there Fungals get laid down by the AI Corruptors use corruption and focus automatically and the AI pulls them back if they get to close to Marines... everything on autopilot, in fact Im not playing myself AI handles everything. And to handle the drop I just send 100 Lings with a-move because hey... they autosurround... they never ever get stuck up in the minerals and wes see 20 Kills on each marine because you know... the AI handles that for me perfectly. As I said make micro more rewarding and more visible and even you will see that its WAY less a-move than everything we see from toss (yey! jumped at your level for an useles rant!)
Stopped reading at splitting banes being harder than splitting Marines. btw, you can't amove anything at a high level as toss vs terran or zerg, with the possible exception of harassment chargelots.
@jdsowa that's just really not true and is a massive exaggeration of what happens. supply drop hurts you because you don't have that MULE/Scan. not muleing hurts you because you missed out on producing units in the time you didn't mule. the floating is just a way for terran to keep an expansion alive against harassment since they don't have creep or warp in.
|
On July 23 2012 20:08 HobitSeducer wrote:Racial mechanics does not give Terrans enough reward for having alot of bases / alot of incomeProblem: The mechanics for Zerg and Protoss translate well into the late-game. For Protoss the ability to warp-in gives the ability to instantly reinforce their army anywhere on the map, combine this with chrono boost and a Protoss player has an acceptable way of quickly converting their bank (early game advantage) into an army (late game advantage). The Zerg can pool larvae, combine this with the ability to build (almost) any unit from these larvae and a competent Zerg player has a great mechanic that translates their advantage in bases into an advantage in army. Don't get me wrong, an advantage in bases is always preferable - no matter which race you play - and yes, Terran can of course build more production buildings. My personal feeling is that there should be an easy mechanic that rewards a player with good economy. Good play should be rewarded and as I see it the mechanics in place for Zerg and Protoss accomplishes this by also extending well into the late game. Solution: Some new mechanic that kicks in at 200/200. My first idea was drop-pods but I would prefer it to be someting "unique" to Terran. My suggestion at this time is to give Terran the ability to pre-build. Basicly Terran production buildings would be able to produce even when the terran is maxed. The unit wouldn't emerge until there is enough supply for it but when the supply does get available it would emerge instantaneously. I have no idea how good or bad this mechanic would be and, yes, it is a variation on "warp-in" (any units, not any place). Hopefully it would at least feel different. This is just an idea, there are probably more creative solutions that would be more fun and fit better into the game. The important thing is not this specific solution but the problem. Side Effects: Terran will get a stronger late-game, I am quite honestly not qualified to speculate on whether it would be OP or UP. Other side effects include an added incentive for unit trading when maxed and faster tech-switches for Terrans. Notes: It has been suggested that terrans already have a late-game mechanic, macro orbitals, and that this potential to have a larger supply in army, while still maintaining a good income, makes up for the advantages that the other races have. I don't find macro-orbitals comparable due primarily to the fact that they require a huge investment in both minerals and time. This has been sort-of discussed here.
My feeling on this is it flips the problem from terran having the worst to the best macro mechanic for late game. When the game gets to the lategame, terrans have the ability to build OCs and throw away SCVs to make their army larger. Protoss has the ability to make a bunch of warpgates to be able to effectively match the terran army with faster reinforcement in middle of combat. And Zerg has the ability to build up huge reserve of larva for very quick reinforcement to deal with the remaining terran/protoss army that should be winning be the engagement since they have a large army. I think the problem is that terran has nothing that can win the first fight against a BL/infestor army even with the bigger army. Terran can't win the first fight to combat the fact that their reinforcement is slower, so their macro mechanic doesn't even help like it is suppose to.
|
On July 23 2012 23:20 jdsowa wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 23:05 Shiori wrote:
Do you see how this would be good for the game? The problem is that Zerg players right now get all the benefit of micro without really needing to do as much as anyone else. Even against a really good micro Protoss or Terran player, the Zerg units hold their own pretty damn well, which basically means that even in a situation of minimal Zerg micro, your units are being as effective as those of your opponent. That's a problem.
The problem is that Terran players right now don't have to have perfect macro mechanics. They can call down supply, they can accumulate a bunch of energy and belated call down MULEs. They can float away buildings if they find they've expanded too soon. Even against a really good macro Protoss or Zerg player, the Terran's macro mechanics can hold their own pretty damn well.
the most heavy part of terran macro mechanics is making and placing units and buildings. OB's energy is not that big part of terran macro mechanics, nor is floating away building except for swapping addons
|
On July 23 2012 23:05 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 22:56 Charon1979 wrote:they aren't required to do any significant micro compared with what Terran and Toss players need to do. They are. Its just not as visible or jaw dropping as terran micro. And in most cases not half as rewarding. To most players zerg micro looks like the AI at work. Yes, I am sure its not as demanding as Terran micro but on the other hand its not as rewarding either. Im all for "make zerg more microable", but I guess we would drown in a sea of ters then when 5 well microed roaches could beat 8 a-move stalkers. The thing is that your units function too well for how little micro goes into controlling them. I have no problem with the various Zerg compositions being as good as they are right now in the hands of a skilled micro player. It annoys me to see that basically any Masters player can make Infestor/BL work wonders whereas only the very best Terrans can work magic in the late game.
I don't know what league you play, but I can tell you that those Master Terrans micro pretty hard and pretty well and you are going down whenever you 1a against them. Similar with Master Protoss players and their forcefields. If you 1a, you're done, because they always catch the right amount of units.
Also it is a fact, that zerg players miss a ton of injects whenever something is going on. You know why? Because they have to concentrate on dealing with stuff and on getting their combats right. They can't just "1a" and do something else.
Maybe in some gold or even platinum league, FFs and marinecontrol are as bad as you try to make people believe, but at Master level you need to control your stuff right, because your Protoss/Terran/Zerg opponent is going to control his stuff right more often than not.
|
On July 23 2012 23:32 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 23:05 Shiori wrote:On July 23 2012 22:56 Charon1979 wrote:they aren't required to do any significant micro compared with what Terran and Toss players need to do. They are. Its just not as visible or jaw dropping as terran micro. And in most cases not half as rewarding. To most players zerg micro looks like the AI at work. Yes, I am sure its not as demanding as Terran micro but on the other hand its not as rewarding either. Im all for "make zerg more microable", but I guess we would drown in a sea of ters then when 5 well microed roaches could beat 8 a-move stalkers. The thing is that your units function too well for how little micro goes into controlling them. I have no problem with the various Zerg compositions being as good as they are right now in the hands of a skilled micro player. It annoys me to see that basically any Masters player can make Infestor/BL work wonders whereas only the very best Terrans can work magic in the late game. I don't know what league you play, but I can tell you that those Master Terrans micro pretty hard and pretty well and you are going down whenever you 1a against them. Similar with Master Protoss players and their forcefields. If you 1a, you're done, because they always catch the right amount of units. Also it is a fact, that zerg players miss a ton of injects whenever something is going on. You know why? Because they have to concentrate on dealing with stuff and on getting their combats right. They can't just "1a" and do something else. Maybe in some gold or even platinum league, FFs and marinecontrol are as bad as you try to make people believe, but at Master level you need to control your stuff right, because your Protoss/Terran/Zerg opponent is going to control his stuff right more often than not.
But what I'm saying is that pretty much no Masters Terran/Protoss (essentially, a minority of them) has the ability to micro well enough to be in a good position in the lategame in most matchups. I mean, TvP is notoriously difficult below a certain micro ceiling just because of the amount of shit you need to do to avoid losing the game to a couple of Storms. PvZ often rests on missing or landing a set of Forcefields, which, while not in itself impossible, is definitely something even the best Protoss players mess up regularly. Compare that to Zerg. Most Masters Zergs that I play maintain a pretty strong winrate even with abysmal or nonexistent micro. The most "control" I see is doing a double pronged 3base Roach push or focus firing Immortals. The point is that the ceiling is very low for these sorts of things. Protoss players in Masters have pathetic micro compared to MC. Zerg players in Masters have worse micro than Stephano, but the real difference between pro Zergs and mediocre Zergs is decision making and reaction, not micro.
Seems like you're trying to pretend that the average Masters player splits as well as MKP. APM-intensive micro just isn't necessary to do well as Zerg because in a straight up fight, Roach/Ling is good against Stalker comps, Infestors have synergy with everything, and BLs are basically the biggest a-move unit here is. Like I said earlier, the micro you attach to Zerg players is literally Micro 101 for Terran and Protoss players. We wouldn't even get out of Diamond league if we didn't know how to position our units.
Having good Injects and Creep Spread with decent reactions is utterly sufficient to get into Masters league. I know from personal experience. Obviously a Bronze player can't do it because their control is so bad that it huts them, but Zerg players don't really need to worry about their unit control outside of ZvZ. The other matchups are often overwhelming victories for the Zerg or blindsiding all-ins which cause them to lose. Very rarely are games close enough that the Zerg's unit control is the difference between success and failure.
|
On July 23 2012 23:32 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 23:05 Shiori wrote:On July 23 2012 22:56 Charon1979 wrote:they aren't required to do any significant micro compared with what Terran and Toss players need to do. They are. Its just not as visible or jaw dropping as terran micro. And in most cases not half as rewarding. To most players zerg micro looks like the AI at work. Yes, I am sure its not as demanding as Terran micro but on the other hand its not as rewarding either. Im all for "make zerg more microable", but I guess we would drown in a sea of ters then when 5 well microed roaches could beat 8 a-move stalkers. The thing is that your units function too well for how little micro goes into controlling them. I have no problem with the various Zerg compositions being as good as they are right now in the hands of a skilled micro player. It annoys me to see that basically any Masters player can make Infestor/BL work wonders whereas only the very best Terrans can work magic in the late game. I don't know what league you play, but I can tell you that those Master Terrans micro pretty hard and pretty well and you are going down whenever you 1a against them. Similar with Master Protoss players and their forcefields. If you 1a, you're done, because they always catch the right amount of units. Also it is a fact, that zerg players miss a ton of injects whenever something is going on. You know why? Because they have to concentrate on dealing with stuff and on getting their combats right. They can't just "1a" and do something else. Maybe in some gold or even platinum league, FFs and marinecontrol are as bad as you try to make people believe, but at Master level you need to control your stuff right, because your Protoss/Terran/Zerg opponent is going to control his stuff right more often than not.
Ret is a pretty successful Zerg player, right? Well, he often just rallies his units in without so much as looking at them in ZvP. A lot of Zerg players do, actually, and it's really easy to see because once they engage, they have groups of Roaches hitting the Nexus and other random buildings instead of fighting the Protoss army, or even trying to kill probes. Ret even failed to kill a Nexus at like 200 hp in his game vs Puzzle @ NASL because he didn't look at his units even once. Then against Alicia he a-moved his army into a wall of forcefields and most of it died without killing anything. It happens very, very often with him, and he's supposed to be one of the best foreign Zerg players.
I mean, this is the reason why Stephano is so successful while having average mechanics and using the same build every game. He actually does pay attention to his units and is always on top of simple micro techniques like target firing and pulling. To date, he is the only Zerg I ever saw pull back damaged Roaches when defending against a gateway all-in. Most Zerg players simply do not do this, and it's really easy to see in their games.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
