|
On May 08 2013 07:36 Qikz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2013 07:16 Usernameffs wrote:On May 08 2013 06:39 iky43210 wrote:
good thing blizz did not nerf terran because of zerg tears a few weeks ago. They seem to do perfectly fine if not too fine atm There is no reason for hellbat drops to be so good and its not something terran does all the time so its easy to fix. And mines aren't op but there is no reason for them to be invisible on creep for example it can work for terran but has nothing to do with skill or planning. Sometimes terran doesn't even know what the mines do after the first attack. Its just bad design. Terran forces an overseer to spot mines witch is easy then if you forget overseer they can kill a lot is that good? The strength of the mines aren't that they are invisible except for drops. The reasons why mines are invisible is to force the other players to finally have to pay attention when moving around the map. The big issue with WoL is there wasn't anything to really force the zerg player to actually do anything with his army, it felt like watching and playing (a little bit, not all the time) of zerg late game was just spawn a load of zerglings and rally them into the enemy base and forget about them. That's bad design. Players should have to think about their army movements and not just lololol a-move around the map in my opinion. They give a little bit (not a great) deal of space control which was needed as small amounts of tanks (unless protected on highground or behind a wall) can't really punish a-moving.
It's actually a really silly way to force players to pay attention while moving around the map. Making players look at the minimap is understandable, but having to physically have your screen focused on every single group of units you have on the map is absurd. This actually hurts and discourages offensive multitasking which is stupid. They should make mines visible on the minimap before they go off at the very least; it would be such a small dot anyways I don't think it would hurt the mine's effectiveness except against very aware players (which you seem to be suggesting is the point of mines anyways).
|
I haven't been playing a lot lately. How is the perceived balance going? Last time I checked with my friends terran was the "OP" race. Just wondering what everyone else thinks or if it's just people complaining about window mines
|
On May 08 2013 14:11 gamerdude12345 wrote:
I haven't been playing a lot lately. How is the perceived balance going? Last time I checked with my friends terran was the "OP" race. Just wondering what everyone else thinks or if it's just people complaining about window mines Depends who you ask. Zergs will say Terran and Protoss are broken. Protoss will say Terran and Zerg are Broken. Terrans will say Protoss and Zerg are broken. So overall I would say things aren't going too badly, at least compared to WoL.
|
On May 08 2013 15:51 Ben... wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2013 14:11 gamerdude12345 wrote:
I haven't been playing a lot lately. How is the perceived balance going? Last time I checked with my friends terran was the "OP" race. Just wondering what everyone else thinks or if it's just people complaining about window mines Depends who you ask. Zergs will say Terran and Protoss are broken. Protoss will say Terran and Zerg are Broken. Terrans will say Protoss and Zerg are broken. So overall I would say things aren't going too badly, at least compared to WoL.
It'll be more like saying the race who's kind of harder to play against with race x is broken , ignoring the mirror matchups obviously.
P: PvZ is broken! / PvT is fine!
T: TvP is broken! / TvZ is fine!
Z: ZvT is broken! / ZvP is fine!
|
On May 08 2013 03:00 Jinky wrote:+ Show Spoiler +The thing about Zerg is that you have to lose something initially to gain anything. You lose drones to create structures. You lose army units while maneuvering in close enough to attack enemy forces. It seems to me to be a race of "1 step back to get 2 steps forward." This means that Zerg must be very certain of their builds, strategies, and especially of their battle engagements. Otherwise, Zerg will have taken 1 step back but not gotten 2 steps forward.
A Zerg army must be large enough to overwhelm an enemy army or else it will not be trading efficiently. This is why I feel that Muta Ling/bling is wrong vs bio+mines, because it cant overwhelm the massive massive amounts of bio (unless the Terran makes a major micro mistake, which obviously should not be a part of the Zerg's strategy).
The only purpose of going Muta versus Terran bio+mines is to deal with Medivacs (to shut down drops), but Mutas cost so much (compared to bio+mines) and don't do well against the main bio army. The Zerg finds themselves being overrun by Tier 1 Terran units (with a few Medivacs and mines) because so many resources are tied up in Mutas (for example, 1000/1000 for 10 mutas versus 400/400 for 4 Medivacs or even 600/600 for 6 Medivacs), Mutas that are supposed to be dealing with drops but must be pulled into main battles just for the Zerg to survive, meanwhile the drops happen anyway. The Mutas can't even reliably kill the Medivacs in main battles because the Marines tear them up. The Mutas can't reliably kill the drops because the Terran can just speed-boost away to fight another day. So the Zerg has invested in useless Mutas, wasted a painful amount of time defending in vain instead of denying the Terran's expansions, and then eventually the Zerg just crumbles.
Do I even need to mention how ineffective banelings are against bio+mines? But banelings cost so much, which when coupled with the cost of also-ineffective Mutas, creates a losing scenario for Zerg.
Sure, pro Zergs can do Muta Ling/bling and survive well enough, without taking too much in the way of losses, but it is super difficult to manage even that. Meanwhile, in the background, Terran is taking a 4th base that the Zerg has no way to pressure because they were just trying to survive with MutaLing versus mass bio + mines and constant peripheral drops. This style buys the Terran so much time to expand. Little Zergling runbys do nothing against even light defense.
I feel that ultimately simple Muta Ling/bling is not the answer. Zerg needs a way to take control of the game in the mid-game, not "try to survive on 3 or 4-base until Hive-tech" while the Terran expands freely.
Although i kinda agree with your point about ling bling mutas not being the best composition vs bio mine (as a low/mid master i struggle a lot vs roach hydra with bio mine because they kinda outrange mines and hydras have that cool ability called DPS  ), i'm not ok with the rest.
You can overwhelm terran bio mine army with zerg. I see no map in the ladder / tournaments map pool that doesn't allow zergs to flank terrans armies (well except maybe for klontas mire, but it should be vetoed anyway :p ). The thing is you can't as a zerg "just" move command behind bio mines armies to circle. You have to separate your army to strike from multiple angles. Moreover, vs bio mine, zergs will need to start using micro to split their army in fights, making banes more effective (did you know that if a bane explodes on top of a bunch of mines they will die aswell? Banelings can be very cost effective vs mines, if you can get a hit. Just like mines vs ling bling). Plus if you can get lings in contact, mines will hurts his marines a lot.
Furthermore, mutas cost just as much as medivacs, and ling/bling cost less than marines maraudeurs mines (2 lings = 1 rine, and 1 bane + 1 ling = 1 marauder in costs i think) so this is not really a problem. Plus if you spread your ovies right and you make just a bunch of static defenses at your bases you dont need 20 mutas to shut down the drops before they unload too much.
But then again, unless you play as good as Life, i think roach hydra are batter composition vs bio mine.
|
On May 08 2013 17:23 HellNino wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2013 03:00 Jinky wrote:+ Show Spoiler +The thing about Zerg is that you have to lose something initially to gain anything. You lose drones to create structures. You lose army units while maneuvering in close enough to attack enemy forces. It seems to me to be a race of "1 step back to get 2 steps forward." This means that Zerg must be very certain of their builds, strategies, and especially of their battle engagements. Otherwise, Zerg will have taken 1 step back but not gotten 2 steps forward.
A Zerg army must be large enough to overwhelm an enemy army or else it will not be trading efficiently. This is why I feel that Muta Ling/bling is wrong vs bio+mines, because it cant overwhelm the massive massive amounts of bio (unless the Terran makes a major micro mistake, which obviously should not be a part of the Zerg's strategy).
The only purpose of going Muta versus Terran bio+mines is to deal with Medivacs (to shut down drops), but Mutas cost so much (compared to bio+mines) and don't do well against the main bio army. The Zerg finds themselves being overrun by Tier 1 Terran units (with a few Medivacs and mines) because so many resources are tied up in Mutas (for example, 1000/1000 for 10 mutas versus 400/400 for 4 Medivacs or even 600/600 for 6 Medivacs), Mutas that are supposed to be dealing with drops but must be pulled into main battles just for the Zerg to survive, meanwhile the drops happen anyway. The Mutas can't even reliably kill the Medivacs in main battles because the Marines tear them up. The Mutas can't reliably kill the drops because the Terran can just speed-boost away to fight another day. So the Zerg has invested in useless Mutas, wasted a painful amount of time defending in vain instead of denying the Terran's expansions, and then eventually the Zerg just crumbles.
Do I even need to mention how ineffective banelings are against bio+mines? But banelings cost so much, which when coupled with the cost of also-ineffective Mutas, creates a losing scenario for Zerg.
Sure, pro Zergs can do Muta Ling/bling and survive well enough, without taking too much in the way of losses, but it is super difficult to manage even that. Meanwhile, in the background, Terran is taking a 4th base that the Zerg has no way to pressure because they were just trying to survive with MutaLing versus mass bio + mines and constant peripheral drops. This style buys the Terran so much time to expand. Little Zergling runbys do nothing against even light defense.
I feel that ultimately simple Muta Ling/bling is not the answer. Zerg needs a way to take control of the game in the mid-game, not "try to survive on 3 or 4-base until Hive-tech" while the Terran expands freely. Although i kinda agree with your point about ling bling mutas not being the best composition vs bio mine (as a low/mid master i struggle a lot vs roach hydra with bio mine because they kinda outrange mines and hydras have that cool ability called DPS ), i'm not ok with the rest. You can overwhelm terran bio mine army with zerg. I see no map in the ladder / tournaments map pool that doesn't allow zergs to flank terrans armies (well except maybe for klontas mire, but it should be vetoed anyway :p ). The thing is you can't as a zerg "just" move command behind bio mines armies to circle. You have to separate your army to strike from multiple angles. Moreover, vs bio mine, zergs will need to start using micro to split their army in fights, making banes more effective (did you know that if a bane explodes on top of a bunch of mines they will die aswell? Banelings can be very cost effective vs mines, if you can get a hit. Just like mines vs ling bling). Plus if you can get lings in contact, mines will hurts his marines a lot. Furthermore, mutas cost just as much as medivacs, and ling/bling cost less than marines maraudeurs mines (2 lings = 1 rine, and 1 bane + 1 ling = 1 marauder in costs i think) so this is not really a problem. Plus if you spread your ovies right and you make just a bunch of static defenses at your bases you dont need 20 mutas to shut down the drops before they unload too much. But then again, unless you play as good as Life, i think roach hydra are batter composition vs bio mine.
roach/hydra is good vs bio/mine. It is just crap against pure bio or biotank. Roach/hydra hardly counters any of the bio units in it's pure form. It's a power build where you defend techharass and punish your opponent when he tries to go on the map in the midgame or try to end it with one big midgame timing. It just falls apart in the lategame against bio, as it cannot engage big bio armies to begin with, but has to spread out greatly to defend drops and can't transition very well into a lategame army (lack of melee upgrades, lack of finished spire, lack of mineraldump while getting out the gasheavy units).
I don't think it's a good style to play on the ladder where people either cheese very early or go for the very long game.
And you really don't have to play as good as Life to beat bio/mine. As you said, banes can be very costefficient vs mines and as long as you don't lose track of were the mines are and how many they are - and you get a bit of experience with the burrow times and how long it takes for them to get the shot off - you should be able to turtle through the midgame and punish a Terran who does not know what to do when marine/mine stops working.
|
On May 08 2013 17:23 HellNino wrote:and hydras have that cool ability called DPS ),
Haha yea, good old Hydras. ^^ Yay for move speed, now we can use them.
|
On May 08 2013 06:39 iky43210 wrote:
good thing blizz did not nerf terran because of zerg tears a few weeks ago. They seem to do perfectly fine if not too fine atm
Pro Zergs are doing great, yes, but non-pro-Zergs are not. The skill required to stop bio-mine with muta-ling-bling is higher than the skill to perform bio-mine well, which is why you're seeing all the Zerg QQ, yet not seeing top Zerg's fail.
|
On May 09 2013 00:43 Graven wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2013 06:39 iky43210 wrote:
good thing blizz did not nerf terran because of zerg tears a few weeks ago. They seem to do perfectly fine if not too fine atm Pro Zergs are doing great, yes, but non-pro-Zergs are not. The skill required to stop bio-mine with muta-ling-bling is higher than the skill to perform bio-mine well, which is why you're seeing all the Zerg QQ, yet not seeing top Zerg's fail.
I wonder how non-pro zergs could do with swarm host play, it seems easier to execute at that level.
|
On May 09 2013 00:43 Graven wrote:
The skill required to stop bio-mine with muta-ling-bling is higher than the skill to perform bio-mine well
Where is your evidence for that?
|
On May 09 2013 00:43 Graven wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2013 06:39 iky43210 wrote:
good thing blizz did not nerf terran because of zerg tears a few weeks ago. They seem to do perfectly fine if not too fine atm Pro Zergs are doing great, yes, but non-pro-Zergs are not. The skill required to stop bio-mine with muta-ling-bling is higher than the skill to perform bio-mine well, which is why you're seeing all the Zerg QQ, yet not seeing top Zerg's fail.
lol stop spreading misinformation, terrans have been like this for over a year with only the top korean terrans doing good but every other terran struggling. Saying muta ling bane is harder to execute is bs, you just need to run small packs of lings to detonate the mines and then attack with a good surface area and the remaining mines could end up hurting the terran more then the zerg if you spread your lings even a little bit and not just 1a in a clump.
|
Seems pretty clear to me that Protoss can't go the long haul in terms of the meta-game.
Oracle is just a bit of early game cheese and after it gets shut down they're good for nothing but reveal. Any half-competent Zerg or Terran will have 1 or 2 missile turrets per expansion in the late game, so they're not viable harassment units.
Protoss still doesn't have effective harassment that works in the late game. Zealots are simply laughable compared with medivacs and mutas.
Terran is ridiculously overpowered in every way. They simply have a cheek giving Terran this many new capabilities after the emergency supply depots, supply depots that they can lift, flying command centres that you can recycle, bunkers they can refund, and the simplest unit composition in the game.
One gets the impression more and more than Terran is a race designed for X-Box kiddies who think they're soldiers...and that is the only thing holding them back.
Protoss is dead to me and I'm no longer playing them.
|
On May 08 2013 17:59 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2013 17:23 HellNino wrote:On May 08 2013 03:00 Jinky wrote:+ Show Spoiler +The thing about Zerg is that you have to lose something initially to gain anything. You lose drones to create structures. You lose army units while maneuvering in close enough to attack enemy forces. It seems to me to be a race of "1 step back to get 2 steps forward." This means that Zerg must be very certain of their builds, strategies, and especially of their battle engagements. Otherwise, Zerg will have taken 1 step back but not gotten 2 steps forward.
A Zerg army must be large enough to overwhelm an enemy army or else it will not be trading efficiently. This is why I feel that Muta Ling/bling is wrong vs bio+mines, because it cant overwhelm the massive massive amounts of bio (unless the Terran makes a major micro mistake, which obviously should not be a part of the Zerg's strategy).
The only purpose of going Muta versus Terran bio+mines is to deal with Medivacs (to shut down drops), but Mutas cost so much (compared to bio+mines) and don't do well against the main bio army. The Zerg finds themselves being overrun by Tier 1 Terran units (with a few Medivacs and mines) because so many resources are tied up in Mutas (for example, 1000/1000 for 10 mutas versus 400/400 for 4 Medivacs or even 600/600 for 6 Medivacs), Mutas that are supposed to be dealing with drops but must be pulled into main battles just for the Zerg to survive, meanwhile the drops happen anyway. The Mutas can't even reliably kill the Medivacs in main battles because the Marines tear them up. The Mutas can't reliably kill the drops because the Terran can just speed-boost away to fight another day. So the Zerg has invested in useless Mutas, wasted a painful amount of time defending in vain instead of denying the Terran's expansions, and then eventually the Zerg just crumbles.
Do I even need to mention how ineffective banelings are against bio+mines? But banelings cost so much, which when coupled with the cost of also-ineffective Mutas, creates a losing scenario for Zerg.
Sure, pro Zergs can do Muta Ling/bling and survive well enough, without taking too much in the way of losses, but it is super difficult to manage even that. Meanwhile, in the background, Terran is taking a 4th base that the Zerg has no way to pressure because they were just trying to survive with MutaLing versus mass bio + mines and constant peripheral drops. This style buys the Terran so much time to expand. Little Zergling runbys do nothing against even light defense.
I feel that ultimately simple Muta Ling/bling is not the answer. Zerg needs a way to take control of the game in the mid-game, not "try to survive on 3 or 4-base until Hive-tech" while the Terran expands freely. Although i kinda agree with your point about ling bling mutas not being the best composition vs bio mine (as a low/mid master i struggle a lot vs roach hydra with bio mine because they kinda outrange mines and hydras have that cool ability called DPS ), i'm not ok with the rest. You can overwhelm terran bio mine army with zerg. I see no map in the ladder / tournaments map pool that doesn't allow zergs to flank terrans armies (well except maybe for klontas mire, but it should be vetoed anyway :p ). The thing is you can't as a zerg "just" move command behind bio mines armies to circle. You have to separate your army to strike from multiple angles. Moreover, vs bio mine, zergs will need to start using micro to split their army in fights, making banes more effective (did you know that if a bane explodes on top of a bunch of mines they will die aswell? Banelings can be very cost effective vs mines, if you can get a hit. Just like mines vs ling bling). Plus if you can get lings in contact, mines will hurts his marines a lot. Furthermore, mutas cost just as much as medivacs, and ling/bling cost less than marines maraudeurs mines (2 lings = 1 rine, and 1 bane + 1 ling = 1 marauder in costs i think) so this is not really a problem. Plus if you spread your ovies right and you make just a bunch of static defenses at your bases you dont need 20 mutas to shut down the drops before they unload too much. But then again, unless you play as good as Life, i think roach hydra are batter composition vs bio mine. roach/hydra is good vs bio/mine. It is just crap against pure bio or biotank. Roach/hydra hardly counters any of the bio units in it's pure form. It's a power build where you defend techharass and punish your opponent when he tries to go on the map in the midgame or try to end it with one big midgame timing. It just falls apart in the lategame against bio, as it cannot engage big bio armies to begin with, but has to spread out greatly to defend drops and can't transition very well into a lategame army (lack of melee upgrades, lack of finished spire, lack of mineraldump while getting out the gasheavy units). I don't think it's a good style to play on the ladder where people either cheese very early or go for the very long game. And you really don't have to play as good as Life to beat bio/mine. As you said, banes can be very costefficient vs mines and as long as you don't lose track of were the mines are and how many they are - and you get a bit of experience with the burrow times and how long it takes for them to get the shot off - you should be able to turtle through the midgame and punish a Terran who does not know what to do when marine/mine stops working.
The style I've been using, and with quite a bit of success, is to open up with Roach/Hydra and consistent pressure with a transition to Swarm Host/Viper with plenty of static defense to make up for my lack of mobility. Roach/Hydra generally allows you to contain the Terran player pretty well and Swarm Hosts are a VERY underrated unit at this point imo, even against pure bio.
If it goes into super late game then you start putting up nydus networks at different locations on the map so that you have a super cost-effective and mobile army which is capable of punishing various forms of lategame Terran.
|
On May 09 2013 01:26 EleanorRIgby wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 00:43 Graven wrote:On May 08 2013 06:39 iky43210 wrote:
good thing blizz did not nerf terran because of zerg tears a few weeks ago. They seem to do perfectly fine if not too fine atm Pro Zergs are doing great, yes, but non-pro-Zergs are not. The skill required to stop bio-mine with muta-ling-bling is higher than the skill to perform bio-mine well, which is why you're seeing all the Zerg QQ, yet not seeing top Zerg's fail. lol stop spreading misinformation, terrans have been like this for over a year with only the top korean terrans doing good but every other terran struggling. Saying muta ling bane is harder to execute is bs, you just need to run small packs of lings to detonate the mines and then attack with a good surface area and the remaining mines could end up hurting the terran more then the zerg if you spread your lings even a little bit and not just 1a in a clump.
This is wrong. A good Terran will be defending their mines with a significant ball of bio. If Zerg runs a "small pack" of lings to trigger mines, the lings die from bio gunfire before the mines are even set off. Because of the way mines target/re-target to trigger, none of the lings survive long enough to trigger the mines. Now the Zerg has lost a handful of lings, which is more significant than people like to think (as if lings are free and fall from the sky), but without gaining anything, not even mine triggers.
The only way to trigger well-defended mines with Muta/ling is to run a significant number of lings into them, and yes, the mines will trigger, but then the Zerg has lost a large number of lings and the Terran has lost nothing except cooldown on their mines.
I'm not saying it is imbalanced. I am saying ling/bling/muta is not the answer to bio-mine + drops.
I just watched Stephano vs Krass at WCS EU. I won't give spoilers, but I will say that Krass did the bio-mine drop style in every game. Now, Stephano did Muta/Ling/bling in one game and was struggling, barely surviving the entire game (and that is because Stephano is good!). He did roach/hydra in another game and he had instant control of the game, especially in dealing with bio drops.
|
On May 09 2013 01:19 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 00:43 Graven wrote:On May 08 2013 06:39 iky43210 wrote:
good thing blizz did not nerf terran because of zerg tears a few weeks ago. They seem to do perfectly fine if not too fine atm Pro Zergs are doing great, yes, but non-pro-Zergs are not. The skill required to stop bio-mine with muta-ling-bling is higher than the skill to perform bio-mine well, which is why you're seeing all the Zerg QQ, yet not seeing top Zerg's fail. I wonder how non-pro zergs could do with swarm host play, it seems easier to execute at that level.
I find Swarm Host play to be incredibly ineffective against competant bio-mine play. They're just too mobile. It works great if the Terran is relying on a mech-heavy army though.
|
Protoss is "broken," not necessary underpowered, but the race is designed more towards timing attacks rather than macro games, unlike broodwar. The most successful builds are very kitchy--relying on tricks and not being scouted.
Problem: mothership core is useless
Solution: get rid of the mothership core, replace with nexus cannon with same effects that costs 100 energy at the nexus--causing the protoss to choose between defense and macro (similar to orbital / planetary fortress). Nexus cannon requires core to prevent super cheesy stuff. Replace core with a stargate unit that performs some of the other functions (slow, recall, cloak) that can be produced from the stargate (will encourage stargate play more).
Problem: colossus often seem like disposable units, hoping that they will do enough damage before they die to vikings or corruptors.
Solution: give the toss better splash options (such as higher range on storm / storm stacking like broodwar / Tempest splash mode like thor) so that other tech paths are more viable, will result in less timing attacks (like before vikings etc).
Problem: stargate is not viable as a long-term build choice, other than harassment.
solution: give a stargate unit splash (like the tempest--give it a tank mode with splash that it can switch into, kind of like the thor).
|
On May 09 2013 02:10 Jinky wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 01:26 EleanorRIgby wrote:On May 09 2013 00:43 Graven wrote:On May 08 2013 06:39 iky43210 wrote:
good thing blizz did not nerf terran because of zerg tears a few weeks ago. They seem to do perfectly fine if not too fine atm Pro Zergs are doing great, yes, but non-pro-Zergs are not. The skill required to stop bio-mine with muta-ling-bling is higher than the skill to perform bio-mine well, which is why you're seeing all the Zerg QQ, yet not seeing top Zerg's fail. lol stop spreading misinformation, terrans have been like this for over a year with only the top korean terrans doing good but every other terran struggling. Saying muta ling bane is harder to execute is bs, you just need to run small packs of lings to detonate the mines and then attack with a good surface area and the remaining mines could end up hurting the terran more then the zerg if you spread your lings even a little bit and not just 1a in a clump. This is wrong. A good Terran will be defending their mines with a significant ball of bio. If Zerg runs a "small pack" of lings to trigger mines, the lings die from bio gunfire before the mines are even set off. Because of the way mines target/re-target to trigger, none of the lings survive long enough to trigger the mines. Now the Zerg has lost a handful of lings, which is more significant than people like to think (as if lings are free and fall from the sky), but without gaining anything, not even mine triggers. The only way to trigger well-defended mines with Muta/ling is to run a significant number of lings into them, and yes, the mines will trigger, but then the Zerg has lost a large number of lings and the Terran has lost nothing except cooldown on their mines. I'm not saying it is imbalanced. I am saying ling/bling/muta is not the answer to bio-mine + drops. I just watched Stephano vs Krass at WCS EU. I won't give spoilers, but I will say that Krass did the bio-mine drop style in every game. Now, Stephano did Muta/Ling/bling in one game and was struggling, barely surviving the entire game (and that is because Stephano is good!). He did roach/hydra in another game and he had instant control of the game, especially in dealing with bio drops.
Speedoverlords/overseers are exremly good at triggering mines. Like, one great way to use speedoverlords is to charge with all your army towards the moving Terran army and force a burrow (this is especially powerful before mines have the burrow upgrade). Then back off once you see the burrow (or win the combat if he burrows late). Next thing you do is to draw your army back into a concave in front of his army, far enough that if he steps forward, your overlords/overseers can come in from a flank and trigger the mines behind his bio army.
I think one of the main things lower league players have to learn vs mines is to force burrows sooner and don't let a Terran walk all the way to your base, burrow and then you get forced into engagements or you lose bases. You don't want to play tug of war with a terran, because you will always lose. You want to force him into very slow timing attacks attacks that give you time to tech and build more army.
|
Zerg player to Terrans during the last year of WoL-era:
"Just learn to split your forces, kite with the vikings, avoid all fungals, drop at the same time and build ghost and you will be fine. Stop QQ about imba Instant fungals, 5-range queens, 3/3 Infested Terrans and GG-lords, your skill is just to low"
Zerg players during HoTS:
"Widow mines forces me to micro my forces, the game is f***cking stupid and Terran is imba"
In all seriousness, we had a Zerg winning MLG, we had a Zerg winning Dreamhack and we have Zerg as the most represanted race in GSL Top16 (and 8?) so I find it extremly funny Zerg claiming T to be OP ATM ^^
I would understand Protoss raising a voice claiming both T and Z to be to strong. But Zerg complaining? Really?
|
On May 09 2013 02:58 Glorfindel! wrote:
In all seriousness, we had a Zerg winning MLG, we had a Zerg winning Dreamhack and we have Zerg as the most represanted race in GSL Top16 (and 8?) so I find it extremly funny Zerg claiming T to be OP ATM ^^ Well, considering that Terran gets so many luxuries that they don't need...from emergency supply depots to command centres that they can recycle to bunkers that they can salvage...you can understand why people are seething that Terran is once again the race with all the perks.
Frankly, David Kim doesn't know what he's doing. How does losing all your units to widow mines increase the enjoyment of the game?
Terran should have to work for their widow mines and they should have to target manually...rather like Zerg has to do with their own baneling mines. And to make things fair, Protoss should be given a mine of their own -- preferably on the oracle.
|
On May 09 2013 03:33 Morlock wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 02:58 Glorfindel! wrote:
In all seriousness, we had a Zerg winning MLG, we had a Zerg winning Dreamhack and we have Zerg as the most represanted race in GSL Top16 (and 8?) so I find it extremly funny Zerg claiming T to be OP ATM ^^ Well, considering that Terran gets so many luxuries that they don't need...from emergency supply depots to command centres that they can recycle to bunkers that they can salvage...you can understand why people are seething that Terran is once again the race with all the perks. Frankly, David Kim doesn't know what he's doing. How does losing all your units to widow mines increase the enjoyment of the game?Terran should have to work for their widow mines and they should have to target manually...rather like Zerg has to do with their own baneling mines. And to make things fair, Protoss should be given a mine of their own -- preferably on the oracle.
Let me rephrase the bolder part: How does losing your units increase the enjoyment of the game? It doesn't matter if you lose them to WM or marines or BC. You lose. And people hate losing (unless you give them achievements for it.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
