|
On August 08 2013 15:32 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 14:26 Big J wrote:On August 08 2013 13:08 Rabiator wrote:To all the Zerg complaining about Terrans ... watch the game between MMA and Happy on Bel'Shir Vestige from their first set of matches in the Ro16. Both attack the others base at the same time, one going for the third base and wiping it out and the other for the production and killing it. Guess who won ... Now back to the drawing board, stop the whining.and change your tactics! + Show Spoiler +And for the people who didnt get it or are too lazy to watch the VOD ... SCVs is NOT the critical limitation for a Terran; the PRODUCTION is! Of course you might have to research the Overlord drop upgrades to get to the juicy target, but if it wins you the game .... So in a basetrde it's better to kill the enemy base. Attaboy! and now I have a tip for you if you ever struggle vs Zerg: dont destroy your own third base like in MMA vs Idra. woooooooooaaaah. mind is blown, right?! I know it is tempting, because MMA won that game. but it's really not clever! Not in a basetrade situation ... IN GENERAL it is better to go for a Terrans PRODUCTION than his ECONOMY. Attacking his economy doesnt hurt him ... killing his production does. MMA could still produce stuff and had a decently sized amount of units at home to defend when Happy was done with the third ... so it wasnt going to go well for him if he had gone for the production and started a basetrade situation. Lots of Zerg have been whining and moaning about how unfair the MULE is ... and my reply is simply: Dont attack the wrong target!
So why do all those Terrans build so many SCVs when they dont need the economy. Of course attacking eco is great. But like with any attacks onto stuff that isnt army, you dont want to just trade cost for cost if the opppnent has the potential to counter and win. like in SK vs Innovation, where running blings into scvs may not be the cleverest thing if you dont outright win, as you will be hardpressed to hold afterwards.
|
On August 08 2013 15:32 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 14:26 Big J wrote:On August 08 2013 13:08 Rabiator wrote:To all the Zerg complaining about Terrans ... watch the game between MMA and Happy on Bel'Shir Vestige from their first set of matches in the Ro16. Both attack the others base at the same time, one going for the third base and wiping it out and the other for the production and killing it. Guess who won ... Now back to the drawing board, stop the whining.and change your tactics! + Show Spoiler +And for the people who didnt get it or are too lazy to watch the VOD ... SCVs is NOT the critical limitation for a Terran; the PRODUCTION is! Of course you might have to research the Overlord drop upgrades to get to the juicy target, but if it wins you the game .... So in a basetrde it's better to kill the enemy base. Attaboy! and now I have a tip for you if you ever struggle vs Zerg: dont destroy your own third base like in MMA vs Idra. woooooooooaaaah. mind is blown, right?! I know it is tempting, because MMA won that game. but it's really not clever! Not in a basetrade situation ... IN GENERAL it is better to go for a Terrans PRODUCTION than his ECONOMY. Attacking his economy doesnt hurt him ... killing his production does. MMA could still produce stuff and had a decently sized amount of units at home to defend when Happy was done with the third ... so it wasnt going to go well for him if he had gone for the production and started a basetrade situation. Lots of Zerg have been whining and moaning about how unfair the MULE is ... and my reply is simply: Dont attack the wrong target!
So based on what you say Terrans don't need to put troops at their expansions. All they need to do is park their army at their ramp because they can never lose if they still have production, according to your logic.
I really don't understand your intuition... what's the point of production if you don't have the economy to make stuff out of them?
|
I know another situation that lots of Zerg don't seem to understand. If you blow up a planetary with banelings and he attacks you right away and you have no banelings left, you die. Same story. SoulKey was ahead in that game after the initial blow even taking into account he was down in upgrades.
What made him lose was continously rallying banelings into the 3rd blowing it up against a supply wall gaining nothing but with dimishing returns. If he used those potential units to flank instead of terribly engaging cost-inefficiently at the small choke, he could have won. In the first place, he needed every unit in place because he sacrificed his upgrades. In addition to those named factors, he was down in economy before his engagement as he put everything into units and didn't kill 50 scvs with one blow, but in a short period of time. INnoVation always had sustained enough economy to keep his production still in tact.
As a matter of fact, races are different and the smart choice for Zerg players if you have units left over after a big blow is to try to go for the heart of Terran (production) but he chose to destroy economy instead. Obviously that does also hurt Terran, as you have to rebuild it (does cost minerals yes.) but it doesn't hurt as much as losing units fresh out of production or even production capability.
|
On August 08 2013 16:29 5unrise wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 15:32 Rabiator wrote:On August 08 2013 14:26 Big J wrote:On August 08 2013 13:08 Rabiator wrote:To all the Zerg complaining about Terrans ... watch the game between MMA and Happy on Bel'Shir Vestige from their first set of matches in the Ro16. Both attack the others base at the same time, one going for the third base and wiping it out and the other for the production and killing it. Guess who won ... Now back to the drawing board, stop the whining.and change your tactics! + Show Spoiler +And for the people who didnt get it or are too lazy to watch the VOD ... SCVs is NOT the critical limitation for a Terran; the PRODUCTION is! Of course you might have to research the Overlord drop upgrades to get to the juicy target, but if it wins you the game .... So in a basetrde it's better to kill the enemy base. Attaboy! and now I have a tip for you if you ever struggle vs Zerg: dont destroy your own third base like in MMA vs Idra. woooooooooaaaah. mind is blown, right?! I know it is tempting, because MMA won that game. but it's really not clever! Not in a basetrade situation ... IN GENERAL it is better to go for a Terrans PRODUCTION than his ECONOMY. Attacking his economy doesnt hurt him ... killing his production does. MMA could still produce stuff and had a decently sized amount of units at home to defend when Happy was done with the third ... so it wasnt going to go well for him if he had gone for the production and started a basetrade situation. Lots of Zerg have been whining and moaning about how unfair the MULE is ... and my reply is simply: Dont attack the wrong target! So based on what you say Terrans don't need to put troops at their expansions. All they need to do is park their army at their ramp because they can never lose if they still have production, according to your logic. I really don't understand your intuition... what's the point of production if you don't have the economy to make stuff out of them?
You didn't understand his post.
When zerg launches full attack to hurt terran he always loses all of his units in an exchange to 'something'. What the previous post meant is - its better to exchange zerg army for terran's production facilities (depots, rax, factories) rather than workers. The reasoning behind this:
A. Core army of terran are marines and can be sustained by mules.
B. Medivacs usually don't die and terran doesn't actually need gas if his upgrades are done.
The best hypothetical scenario is, as stupid as it sounds, you kill terrans army and all depots/building and don't touch the workers. Therefore he will be supply blocked and can't produce army for a while. Workers gonna be busy building that again, hence economy will suffer too.
|
On August 08 2013 17:14 saddaromma wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 16:29 5unrise wrote:On August 08 2013 15:32 Rabiator wrote:On August 08 2013 14:26 Big J wrote:On August 08 2013 13:08 Rabiator wrote:To all the Zerg complaining about Terrans ... watch the game between MMA and Happy on Bel'Shir Vestige from their first set of matches in the Ro16. Both attack the others base at the same time, one going for the third base and wiping it out and the other for the production and killing it. Guess who won ... Now back to the drawing board, stop the whining.and change your tactics! + Show Spoiler +And for the people who didnt get it or are too lazy to watch the VOD ... SCVs is NOT the critical limitation for a Terran; the PRODUCTION is! Of course you might have to research the Overlord drop upgrades to get to the juicy target, but if it wins you the game .... So in a basetrde it's better to kill the enemy base. Attaboy! and now I have a tip for you if you ever struggle vs Zerg: dont destroy your own third base like in MMA vs Idra. woooooooooaaaah. mind is blown, right?! I know it is tempting, because MMA won that game. but it's really not clever! Not in a basetrade situation ... IN GENERAL it is better to go for a Terrans PRODUCTION than his ECONOMY. Attacking his economy doesnt hurt him ... killing his production does. MMA could still produce stuff and had a decently sized amount of units at home to defend when Happy was done with the third ... so it wasnt going to go well for him if he had gone for the production and started a basetrade situation. Lots of Zerg have been whining and moaning about how unfair the MULE is ... and my reply is simply: Dont attack the wrong target! So based on what you say Terrans don't need to put troops at their expansions. All they need to do is park their army at their ramp because they can never lose if they still have production, according to your logic. I really don't understand your intuition... what's the point of production if you don't have the economy to make stuff out of them? You didn't understand his post. When zerg launches full attack to hurt terran he always loses all of his units in an exchange to 'something'. What the previous post meant is - its better to exchange zerg army for terran's production facilities (depots, rax, factories) rather than workers. The reasoning behind this: A. Core army of terran are marines and can be sustained by mules. B. Medivacs usually don't die and terran doesn't actually need gas if his upgrades are done. The best hypothetical scenario is, as stupid as it sounds, you kill terrans army and all depots/building and don't touch the workers. Therefore he will be supply blocked and can't produce army for a while. Workers gonna be busy building that again, hence economy will suffer too.
Yes, you are catching it.
Let's do the math shall we?
Let's look at a basic mid-game setup. 6 rax, 2 TL 4 Reactors. 8 Marines and 2 Marauders per cycle.
A Protoss prism drops into the main, snipes all add-ons.
The Terran's production is now, 6 marines.
A 40% production loss of marines and a 100% loss of Marauder production.
|
On August 08 2013 17:51 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 17:14 saddaromma wrote:On August 08 2013 16:29 5unrise wrote:On August 08 2013 15:32 Rabiator wrote:On August 08 2013 14:26 Big J wrote:On August 08 2013 13:08 Rabiator wrote:To all the Zerg complaining about Terrans ... watch the game between MMA and Happy on Bel'Shir Vestige from their first set of matches in the Ro16. Both attack the others base at the same time, one going for the third base and wiping it out and the other for the production and killing it. Guess who won ... Now back to the drawing board, stop the whining.and change your tactics! + Show Spoiler +And for the people who didnt get it or are too lazy to watch the VOD ... SCVs is NOT the critical limitation for a Terran; the PRODUCTION is! Of course you might have to research the Overlord drop upgrades to get to the juicy target, but if it wins you the game .... So in a basetrde it's better to kill the enemy base. Attaboy! and now I have a tip for you if you ever struggle vs Zerg: dont destroy your own third base like in MMA vs Idra. woooooooooaaaah. mind is blown, right?! I know it is tempting, because MMA won that game. but it's really not clever! Not in a basetrade situation ... IN GENERAL it is better to go for a Terrans PRODUCTION than his ECONOMY. Attacking his economy doesnt hurt him ... killing his production does. MMA could still produce stuff and had a decently sized amount of units at home to defend when Happy was done with the third ... so it wasnt going to go well for him if he had gone for the production and started a basetrade situation. Lots of Zerg have been whining and moaning about how unfair the MULE is ... and my reply is simply: Dont attack the wrong target! So based on what you say Terrans don't need to put troops at their expansions. All they need to do is park their army at their ramp because they can never lose if they still have production, according to your logic. I really don't understand your intuition... what's the point of production if you don't have the economy to make stuff out of them? You didn't understand his post. When zerg launches full attack to hurt terran he always loses all of his units in an exchange to 'something'. What the previous post meant is - its better to exchange zerg army for terran's production facilities (depots, rax, factories) rather than workers. The reasoning behind this: A. Core army of terran are marines and can be sustained by mules. B. Medivacs usually don't die and terran doesn't actually need gas if his upgrades are done. The best hypothetical scenario is, as stupid as it sounds, you kill terrans army and all depots/building and don't touch the workers. Therefore he will be supply blocked and can't produce army for a while. Workers gonna be busy building that again, hence economy will suffer too. Yes, you are catching it. Let's do the math shall we? Let's look at a basic mid-game setup. 6 rax, 2 TL 4 Reactors. 8 Marines and 2 Marauders per cycle. A Protoss prism drops into the main, snipes all add-ons. The Terran's production is now, 6 marines. A 40% production loss of marines and a 100% loss of Marauder production.
or the same drop kills 55scvs instead ;-)
|
On August 08 2013 18:44 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 17:51 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On August 08 2013 17:14 saddaromma wrote:On August 08 2013 16:29 5unrise wrote:On August 08 2013 15:32 Rabiator wrote:On August 08 2013 14:26 Big J wrote:On August 08 2013 13:08 Rabiator wrote:To all the Zerg complaining about Terrans ... watch the game between MMA and Happy on Bel'Shir Vestige from their first set of matches in the Ro16. Both attack the others base at the same time, one going for the third base and wiping it out and the other for the production and killing it. Guess who won ... Now back to the drawing board, stop the whining.and change your tactics! + Show Spoiler +And for the people who didnt get it or are too lazy to watch the VOD ... SCVs is NOT the critical limitation for a Terran; the PRODUCTION is! Of course you might have to research the Overlord drop upgrades to get to the juicy target, but if it wins you the game .... So in a basetrde it's better to kill the enemy base. Attaboy! and now I have a tip for you if you ever struggle vs Zerg: dont destroy your own third base like in MMA vs Idra. woooooooooaaaah. mind is blown, right?! I know it is tempting, because MMA won that game. but it's really not clever! Not in a basetrade situation ... IN GENERAL it is better to go for a Terrans PRODUCTION than his ECONOMY. Attacking his economy doesnt hurt him ... killing his production does. MMA could still produce stuff and had a decently sized amount of units at home to defend when Happy was done with the third ... so it wasnt going to go well for him if he had gone for the production and started a basetrade situation. Lots of Zerg have been whining and moaning about how unfair the MULE is ... and my reply is simply: Dont attack the wrong target! So based on what you say Terrans don't need to put troops at their expansions. All they need to do is park their army at their ramp because they can never lose if they still have production, according to your logic. I really don't understand your intuition... what's the point of production if you don't have the economy to make stuff out of them? You didn't understand his post. When zerg launches full attack to hurt terran he always loses all of his units in an exchange to 'something'. What the previous post meant is - its better to exchange zerg army for terran's production facilities (depots, rax, factories) rather than workers. The reasoning behind this: A. Core army of terran are marines and can be sustained by mules. B. Medivacs usually don't die and terran doesn't actually need gas if his upgrades are done. The best hypothetical scenario is, as stupid as it sounds, you kill terrans army and all depots/building and don't touch the workers. Therefore he will be supply blocked and can't produce army for a while. Workers gonna be busy building that again, hence economy will suffer too. Yes, you are catching it. Let's do the math shall we? Let's look at a basic mid-game setup. 6 rax, 2 TL 4 Reactors. 8 Marines and 2 Marauders per cycle. A Protoss prism drops into the main, snipes all add-ons. The Terran's production is now, 6 marines. A 40% production loss of marines and a 100% loss of Marauder production. or the same drop kills 55scvs instead ;-)
Please describe your scenario. Sounds like a fantastic scenario from the wood league.
12 1/1 zealots (4 initial + 8 warped in) can easily achieve the above by a Masters league P with good game sense on a large map.
Edit: The time needed to kill off all add-ons can be achieved by keeping the Terran's main army busy by either threatening/camping/attacking their 3rd or readying a warp prism before a common Terran attack timing.
|
On August 08 2013 17:14 saddaromma wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 16:29 5unrise wrote:On August 08 2013 15:32 Rabiator wrote:On August 08 2013 14:26 Big J wrote:On August 08 2013 13:08 Rabiator wrote:To all the Zerg complaining about Terrans ... watch the game between MMA and Happy on Bel'Shir Vestige from their first set of matches in the Ro16. Both attack the others base at the same time, one going for the third base and wiping it out and the other for the production and killing it. Guess who won ... Now back to the drawing board, stop the whining.and change your tactics! + Show Spoiler +And for the people who didnt get it or are too lazy to watch the VOD ... SCVs is NOT the critical limitation for a Terran; the PRODUCTION is! Of course you might have to research the Overlord drop upgrades to get to the juicy target, but if it wins you the game .... So in a basetrde it's better to kill the enemy base. Attaboy! and now I have a tip for you if you ever struggle vs Zerg: dont destroy your own third base like in MMA vs Idra. woooooooooaaaah. mind is blown, right?! I know it is tempting, because MMA won that game. but it's really not clever! Not in a basetrade situation ... IN GENERAL it is better to go for a Terrans PRODUCTION than his ECONOMY. Attacking his economy doesnt hurt him ... killing his production does. MMA could still produce stuff and had a decently sized amount of units at home to defend when Happy was done with the third ... so it wasnt going to go well for him if he had gone for the production and started a basetrade situation. Lots of Zerg have been whining and moaning about how unfair the MULE is ... and my reply is simply: Dont attack the wrong target! So based on what you say Terrans don't need to put troops at their expansions. All they need to do is park their army at their ramp because they can never lose if they still have production, according to your logic. I really don't understand your intuition... what's the point of production if you don't have the economy to make stuff out of them? You didn't understand his post. When zerg launches full attack to hurt terran he always loses all of his units in an exchange to 'something'. What the previous post meant is - its better to exchange zerg army for terran's production facilities (depots, rax, factories) rather than workers. The reasoning behind this: A. Core army of terran are marines and can be sustained by mules. B. Medivacs usually don't die and terran doesn't actually need gas if his upgrades are done. The best hypothetical scenario is, as stupid as it sounds, you kill terrans army and all depots/building and don't touch the workers. Therefore he will be supply blocked and can't produce army for a while. Workers gonna be busy building that again, hence economy will suffer too.
I did understand his post. The key sentence being: "attacking his economy doesn't actually hurt him". This statement is not up for interpretation.
|
On August 08 2013 16:23 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 15:32 Rabiator wrote:On August 08 2013 14:26 Big J wrote:On August 08 2013 13:08 Rabiator wrote:To all the Zerg complaining about Terrans ... watch the game between MMA and Happy on Bel'Shir Vestige from their first set of matches in the Ro16. Both attack the others base at the same time, one going for the third base and wiping it out and the other for the production and killing it. Guess who won ... Now back to the drawing board, stop the whining.and change your tactics! + Show Spoiler +And for the people who didnt get it or are too lazy to watch the VOD ... SCVs is NOT the critical limitation for a Terran; the PRODUCTION is! Of course you might have to research the Overlord drop upgrades to get to the juicy target, but if it wins you the game .... So in a basetrde it's better to kill the enemy base. Attaboy! and now I have a tip for you if you ever struggle vs Zerg: dont destroy your own third base like in MMA vs Idra. woooooooooaaaah. mind is blown, right?! I know it is tempting, because MMA won that game. but it's really not clever! Not in a basetrade situation ... IN GENERAL it is better to go for a Terrans PRODUCTION than his ECONOMY. Attacking his economy doesnt hurt him ... killing his production does. MMA could still produce stuff and had a decently sized amount of units at home to defend when Happy was done with the third ... so it wasnt going to go well for him if he had gone for the production and started a basetrade situation. Lots of Zerg have been whining and moaning about how unfair the MULE is ... and my reply is simply: Dont attack the wrong target! So why do all those Terrans build so many SCVs when they dont need the economy. Of course attacking eco is great. But like with any attacks onto stuff that isnt army, you dont want to just trade cost for cost if the opppnent has the potential to counter and win. like in SK vs Innovation, where running blings into scvs may not be the cleverest thing if you dont outright win, as you will be hardpressed to hold afterwards.
Obviously you need to get a few Orbitals first and for that you need SCVs at the start. You also need quite a lot of SCVs to actually build your production. Later on it doesnt really matter anymore if you lose them ... SCVs become expendable and having them is just a "bonus"; even killing a MULE doesnt really do that much damage IMO, because it is more easily replaced than an SCV.
|
On August 08 2013 16:29 5unrise wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 15:32 Rabiator wrote:On August 08 2013 14:26 Big J wrote:On August 08 2013 13:08 Rabiator wrote:To all the Zerg complaining about Terrans ... watch the game between MMA and Happy on Bel'Shir Vestige from their first set of matches in the Ro16. Both attack the others base at the same time, one going for the third base and wiping it out and the other for the production and killing it. Guess who won ... Now back to the drawing board, stop the whining.and change your tactics! + Show Spoiler +And for the people who didnt get it or are too lazy to watch the VOD ... SCVs is NOT the critical limitation for a Terran; the PRODUCTION is! Of course you might have to research the Overlord drop upgrades to get to the juicy target, but if it wins you the game .... So in a basetrde it's better to kill the enemy base. Attaboy! and now I have a tip for you if you ever struggle vs Zerg: dont destroy your own third base like in MMA vs Idra. woooooooooaaaah. mind is blown, right?! I know it is tempting, because MMA won that game. but it's really not clever! Not in a basetrade situation ... IN GENERAL it is better to go for a Terrans PRODUCTION than his ECONOMY. Attacking his economy doesnt hurt him ... killing his production does. MMA could still produce stuff and had a decently sized amount of units at home to defend when Happy was done with the third ... so it wasnt going to go well for him if he had gone for the production and started a basetrade situation. Lots of Zerg have been whining and moaning about how unfair the MULE is ... and my reply is simply: Dont attack the wrong target! So based on what you say Terrans don't need to put troops at their expansions. All they need to do is park their army at their ramp because they can never lose if they still have production, according to your logic. I really don't understand your intuition... what's the point of production if you don't have the economy to make stuff out of them?
All I am saying is that killing SCVs hurts FAR LESS than killing Reactors, Tech Labs, Barracks and Factories and even Supply Depots (favorably with supply drop). Thus people should try to kill the Terran production instead of going for a third/fourth which is a Planetary Fortress and might need an inefficiently large effort to kill.
If you attack a Terran during the "grow to 200 supply" phase and kill lots of Supply Depots (without risking your own units, but Terrans do have a tendency to wall off with Supply Depots which are rather weak compared with Barracks) you might bait him into using Supply Drop on one of his remaining ones ... which makes that one an even juicier target next time.
Harvesters can be replaced relatively easily by MULEs to get back to a "normal mineral production", so you actually dont reduce the Terran income most of the time. Usually they dont spend all energy to have energy for scans, so they will have enough energy for several MULEs.
If you kill the production instead you give yourself a window where the Terran cant (re)produce stuff as fast. Just imagine the Terran as Bill Gates, BUT he is on a small island somewhere in the South Seas ... and cant buy anything with his money. The money doesnt really matter then.
|
On August 08 2013 17:14 saddaromma wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 16:29 5unrise wrote:On August 08 2013 15:32 Rabiator wrote:On August 08 2013 14:26 Big J wrote:On August 08 2013 13:08 Rabiator wrote:To all the Zerg complaining about Terrans ... watch the game between MMA and Happy on Bel'Shir Vestige from their first set of matches in the Ro16. Both attack the others base at the same time, one going for the third base and wiping it out and the other for the production and killing it. Guess who won ... Now back to the drawing board, stop the whining.and change your tactics! + Show Spoiler +And for the people who didnt get it or are too lazy to watch the VOD ... SCVs is NOT the critical limitation for a Terran; the PRODUCTION is! Of course you might have to research the Overlord drop upgrades to get to the juicy target, but if it wins you the game .... So in a basetrde it's better to kill the enemy base. Attaboy! and now I have a tip for you if you ever struggle vs Zerg: dont destroy your own third base like in MMA vs Idra. woooooooooaaaah. mind is blown, right?! I know it is tempting, because MMA won that game. but it's really not clever! Not in a basetrade situation ... IN GENERAL it is better to go for a Terrans PRODUCTION than his ECONOMY. Attacking his economy doesnt hurt him ... killing his production does. MMA could still produce stuff and had a decently sized amount of units at home to defend when Happy was done with the third ... so it wasnt going to go well for him if he had gone for the production and started a basetrade situation. Lots of Zerg have been whining and moaning about how unfair the MULE is ... and my reply is simply: Dont attack the wrong target! So based on what you say Terrans don't need to put troops at their expansions. All they need to do is park their army at their ramp because they can never lose if they still have production, according to your logic. I really don't understand your intuition... what's the point of production if you don't have the economy to make stuff out of them? You didn't understand his post. When zerg launches full attack to hurt terran he always loses all of his units in an exchange to 'something'. What the previous post meant is - its better to exchange zerg army for terran's production facilities (depots, rax, factories) rather than workers. The reasoning behind this: A. Core army of terran are marines and can be sustained by mules. B. Medivacs usually don't die and terran doesn't actually need gas if his upgrades are done. The best hypothetical scenario is, as stupid as it sounds, you kill terrans army and all depots/building and don't touch the workers. Therefore he will be supply blocked and can't produce army for a while. Workers gonna be busy building that again, hence economy will suffer too.
Exchanging your army for the production facilities is bad, because the Terran still has his army and simply crushes your base. People (of all races) should just use small strike teams (drops) to attack that production. Its the same as Terrans dropping the mining bases of a Zerg + Show Spoiler +which basically is the same, since a lot of the larvae available have to be spent to make more Drones instead of army units ... thus the unit production is reduced for the Zerg
|
On August 08 2013 20:16 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 16:29 5unrise wrote:On August 08 2013 15:32 Rabiator wrote:On August 08 2013 14:26 Big J wrote:On August 08 2013 13:08 Rabiator wrote:To all the Zerg complaining about Terrans ... watch the game between MMA and Happy on Bel'Shir Vestige from their first set of matches in the Ro16. Both attack the others base at the same time, one going for the third base and wiping it out and the other for the production and killing it. Guess who won ... Now back to the drawing board, stop the whining.and change your tactics! + Show Spoiler +And for the people who didnt get it or are too lazy to watch the VOD ... SCVs is NOT the critical limitation for a Terran; the PRODUCTION is! Of course you might have to research the Overlord drop upgrades to get to the juicy target, but if it wins you the game .... So in a basetrde it's better to kill the enemy base. Attaboy! and now I have a tip for you if you ever struggle vs Zerg: dont destroy your own third base like in MMA vs Idra. woooooooooaaaah. mind is blown, right?! I know it is tempting, because MMA won that game. but it's really not clever! Not in a basetrade situation ... IN GENERAL it is better to go for a Terrans PRODUCTION than his ECONOMY. Attacking his economy doesnt hurt him ... killing his production does. MMA could still produce stuff and had a decently sized amount of units at home to defend when Happy was done with the third ... so it wasnt going to go well for him if he had gone for the production and started a basetrade situation. Lots of Zerg have been whining and moaning about how unfair the MULE is ... and my reply is simply: Dont attack the wrong target! So based on what you say Terrans don't need to put troops at their expansions. All they need to do is park their army at their ramp because they can never lose if they still have production, according to your logic. I really don't understand your intuition... what's the point of production if you don't have the economy to make stuff out of them? All I am saying is that killing SCVs hurts FAR LESS than killing Reactors, Tech Labs, Barracks and Factories and even Supply Depots (favorably with supply drop). Thus people should try to kill the Terran production instead of going for a third/fourth which is a Planetary Fortress and might need an inefficiently large effort to kill. If you attack a Terran during the "grow to 200 supply" phase and kill lots of Supply Depots (without risking your own units, but Terrans do have a tendency to wall off with Supply Depots which are rather weak compared with Barracks) you might bait him into using Supply Drop on one of his remaining ones ... which makes that one an even juicier target next time. Harvesters can be replaced relatively easily by MULEs to get back to a "normal mineral production", so you actually dont reduce the Terran income most of the time. Usually they dont spend all energy to have energy for scans, so they will have enough energy for several MULEs. If you kill the production instead you give yourself a window where the Terran cant (re)produce stuff as fast. Just imagine the Terran as Bill Gates, BUT he is on a small island somewhere in the South Seas ... and cant buy anything with his money. The money doesnt really matter then.
Nope, you said "attacking his economy doesn't hurt him". Doesn't = does not =/= hurts far less. You also fail to take into account that without mining bases he can't actually mine, mules or not, so taking out a base matters more than you are admitting.
|
I really want to see what "blunder" will make keen lose now.
|
On August 08 2013 08:56 GhostOwl wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 05:57 ImperialFist wrote:
As a Terran I just want to apologize to every Zerg player out there. TvZ is Terran favored if it goes into a standard macro game.
I am aware, I have a conscience. I have no idea how Zerg will be good at this rate, Protoss is completely god-mode vs everything and bio-mine is a bit too strong in TvZ.
I am fucking sorry guys T_T
You are awesome dude. I didn't have time to read the other lengthy responses at the moment and I can't write a long paragraph but major props for admitting it unlike many other Terrans here.
Yeah well, I whined like a bitch about Infestors for most part of WOL so I know how it feels. The community is progressing though I've even seen a bunch of Protoss admit how their race is easier to play and that PvT is P favored.
Somewhere deep inside people must understand that one widow mine taking out 40 banelings is wrong. Was the same with the Infestor WOL, most Zergs did not admit, but they must have known. The mothersip-core and widow mines needs some kind of tweaking. And I still think that templars are completely ridiculous for their cost. It's essentially a free unit considering their incredible spells, it's extremely easy to control and very hard for your opponent to counter.
I am very sure that I do not deserve my 70% win rate TvZ and I'm even more sure that my 30% TvP is equally stupid if not even more so.
|
What level do you play on? 70% TvZ lol
|
On August 08 2013 18:53 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 18:44 Big J wrote:On August 08 2013 17:51 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On August 08 2013 17:14 saddaromma wrote:On August 08 2013 16:29 5unrise wrote:On August 08 2013 15:32 Rabiator wrote:On August 08 2013 14:26 Big J wrote:On August 08 2013 13:08 Rabiator wrote:To all the Zerg complaining about Terrans ... watch the game between MMA and Happy on Bel'Shir Vestige from their first set of matches in the Ro16. Both attack the others base at the same time, one going for the third base and wiping it out and the other for the production and killing it. Guess who won ... Now back to the drawing board, stop the whining.and change your tactics! + Show Spoiler +And for the people who didnt get it or are too lazy to watch the VOD ... SCVs is NOT the critical limitation for a Terran; the PRODUCTION is! Of course you might have to research the Overlord drop upgrades to get to the juicy target, but if it wins you the game .... So in a basetrde it's better to kill the enemy base. Attaboy! and now I have a tip for you if you ever struggle vs Zerg: dont destroy your own third base like in MMA vs Idra. woooooooooaaaah. mind is blown, right?! I know it is tempting, because MMA won that game. but it's really not clever! Not in a basetrade situation ... IN GENERAL it is better to go for a Terrans PRODUCTION than his ECONOMY. Attacking his economy doesnt hurt him ... killing his production does. MMA could still produce stuff and had a decently sized amount of units at home to defend when Happy was done with the third ... so it wasnt going to go well for him if he had gone for the production and started a basetrade situation. Lots of Zerg have been whining and moaning about how unfair the MULE is ... and my reply is simply: Dont attack the wrong target! So based on what you say Terrans don't need to put troops at their expansions. All they need to do is park their army at their ramp because they can never lose if they still have production, according to your logic. I really don't understand your intuition... what's the point of production if you don't have the economy to make stuff out of them? You didn't understand his post. When zerg launches full attack to hurt terran he always loses all of his units in an exchange to 'something'. What the previous post meant is - its better to exchange zerg army for terran's production facilities (depots, rax, factories) rather than workers. The reasoning behind this: A. Core army of terran are marines and can be sustained by mules. B. Medivacs usually don't die and terran doesn't actually need gas if his upgrades are done. The best hypothetical scenario is, as stupid as it sounds, you kill terrans army and all depots/building and don't touch the workers. Therefore he will be supply blocked and can't produce army for a while. Workers gonna be busy building that again, hence economy will suffer too. Yes, you are catching it. Let's do the math shall we? Let's look at a basic mid-game setup. 6 rax, 2 TL 4 Reactors. 8 Marines and 2 Marauders per cycle. A Protoss prism drops into the main, snipes all add-ons. The Terran's production is now, 6 marines. A 40% production loss of marines and a 100% loss of Marauder production. or the same drop kills 55scvs instead ;-) Please describe your scenario. Sounds like a fantastic scenario from the wood league. 12 1/1 zealots (4 initial + 8 warped in) can easily achieve the above by a Masters league P with good game sense on a large map. Edit: The time needed to kill off all add-ons can be achieved by keeping the Terran's main army busy by either threatening/camping/attacking their 3rd or readying a warp prism before a common Terran attack timing.
Killing 55SCVs is no more fantastical than "sniping" 6addons, each with 400HP. You are in no way more capable of pinning a Terran army at the front and kill all of those addons, then you are capable of pinning the army and killing the SCVs.
Even more, from watching actual highlevel PvTs I'd say that zealot runbies that attack workerlines have been doing amazing.
On August 08 2013 20:05 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 16:23 Big J wrote:On August 08 2013 15:32 Rabiator wrote:On August 08 2013 14:26 Big J wrote:On August 08 2013 13:08 Rabiator wrote:To all the Zerg complaining about Terrans ... watch the game between MMA and Happy on Bel'Shir Vestige from their first set of matches in the Ro16. Both attack the others base at the same time, one going for the third base and wiping it out and the other for the production and killing it. Guess who won ... Now back to the drawing board, stop the whining.and change your tactics! + Show Spoiler +And for the people who didnt get it or are too lazy to watch the VOD ... SCVs is NOT the critical limitation for a Terran; the PRODUCTION is! Of course you might have to research the Overlord drop upgrades to get to the juicy target, but if it wins you the game .... So in a basetrde it's better to kill the enemy base. Attaboy! and now I have a tip for you if you ever struggle vs Zerg: dont destroy your own third base like in MMA vs Idra. woooooooooaaaah. mind is blown, right?! I know it is tempting, because MMA won that game. but it's really not clever! Not in a basetrade situation ... IN GENERAL it is better to go for a Terrans PRODUCTION than his ECONOMY. Attacking his economy doesnt hurt him ... killing his production does. MMA could still produce stuff and had a decently sized amount of units at home to defend when Happy was done with the third ... so it wasnt going to go well for him if he had gone for the production and started a basetrade situation. Lots of Zerg have been whining and moaning about how unfair the MULE is ... and my reply is simply: Dont attack the wrong target! So why do all those Terrans build so many SCVs when they dont need the economy. Of course attacking eco is great. But like with any attacks onto stuff that isnt army, you dont want to just trade cost for cost if the opppnent has the potential to counter and win. like in SK vs Innovation, where running blings into scvs may not be the cleverest thing if you dont outright win, as you will be hardpressed to hold afterwards. Obviously you need to get a few Orbitals first and for that you need SCVs at the start. You also need quite a lot of SCVs to actually build your production. Later on it doesnt really matter anymore if you lose them ... SCVs become expendable and having them is just a "bonus"; even killing a MULE doesnt really do that much damage IMO, because it is more easily replaced than an SCV.
That's simply bullshit. If a Terran had more income than he needs later on he'd simply build more production and produce more. Anything else would mean that he just macros badly and would stockpile money.
You are just falling the same trap that all those whiney zerg babies fall into with their "omg, so many SCVs killed and Terran still wins"-shit comments. A Terran with 3 Orbitals may not be capable of rebuilding 20drones at once or have a fancy animation that signals to everybody that the Protoss "really tries to macro back up". But he can still produce 10SCVs per minute, which means that even after a brutal loss of 20SCVs he will be back on full income in only 2mins. And if he has any other advantage (like army advantage) due to the opponent sacrificing troops on workers and plays his card right he has a good chance of ending up equal again.
On August 08 2013 20:05 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 16:23 Big J wrote:On August 08 2013 15:32 Rabiator wrote:On August 08 2013 14:26 Big J wrote:On August 08 2013 13:08 Rabiator wrote:To all the Zerg complaining about Terrans ... watch the game between MMA and Happy on Bel'Shir Vestige from their first set of matches in the Ro16. Both attack the others base at the same time, one going for the third base and wiping it out and the other for the production and killing it. Guess who won ... Now back to the drawing board, stop the whining.and change your tactics! + Show Spoiler +And for the people who didnt get it or are too lazy to watch the VOD ... SCVs is NOT the critical limitation for a Terran; the PRODUCTION is! Of course you might have to research the Overlord drop upgrades to get to the juicy target, but if it wins you the game .... So in a basetrde it's better to kill the enemy base. Attaboy! and now I have a tip for you if you ever struggle vs Zerg: dont destroy your own third base like in MMA vs Idra. woooooooooaaaah. mind is blown, right?! I know it is tempting, because MMA won that game. but it's really not clever! Not in a basetrade situation ... IN GENERAL it is better to go for a Terrans PRODUCTION than his ECONOMY. Attacking his economy doesnt hurt him ... killing his production does. MMA could still produce stuff and had a decently sized amount of units at home to defend when Happy was done with the third ... so it wasnt going to go well for him if he had gone for the production and started a basetrade situation. Lots of Zerg have been whining and moaning about how unfair the MULE is ... and my reply is simply: Dont attack the wrong target! So why do all those Terrans build so many SCVs when they dont need the economy. Of course attacking eco is great. But like with any attacks onto stuff that isnt army, you dont want to just trade cost for cost if the opppnent has the potential to counter and win. like in SK vs Innovation, where running blings into scvs may not be the cleverest thing if you dont outright win, as you will be hardpressed to hold afterwards. Obviously you need to get a few Orbitals first and for that you need SCVs at the start. You also need quite a lot of SCVs to actually build your production. Later on it doesnt really matter anymore if you lose them ... SCVs become expendable and having them is just a "bonus"; even killing a MULE doesnt really do that much damage IMO, because it is more easily replaced than an SCV.
That's simply bullshit. If a Terran had more income than he needs later on he'd simply build more production and produce more. Anything else would mean that he just macros badly and would stockpile money.
On August 08 2013 16:31 NarutO wrote:
I know another situation that lots of Zerg don't seem to understand. If you blow up a planetary with banelings and he attacks you right away and you have no banelings left, you die. Same story. SoulKey was ahead in that game after the initial blow even taking into account he was down in upgrades.
What made him lose was continously rallying banelings into the 3rd blowing it up against a supply wall gaining nothing but with dimishing returns. If he used those potential units to flank instead of terribly engaging cost-inefficiently at the small choke, he could have won. In the first place, he needed every unit in place because he sacrificed his upgrades. In addition to those named factors, he was down in economy before his engagement as he put everything into units and didn't kill 50 scvs with one blow, but in a short period of time. INnoVation always had sustained enough economy to keep his production still in tact.
As a matter of fact, races are different and the smart choice for Zerg players if you have units left over after a big blow is to try to go for the heart of Terran (production) but he chose to destroy economy instead. Obviously that does also hurt Terran, as you have to rebuild it (does cost minerals yes.) but it doesn't hurt as much as losing units fresh out of production or even production capability.
Please NarutO, don't start with this shit too. Yes, of course if you kill the whole army first in a bust and have a good junk of units left over the killing move is to get them into the production. But it's not as Rabiator writes that the clever way to play XvT is to prioritize attacking the heart of the base with beefy buildings, instead of juicy mineral lines with low HP targets and low risk. Roach/ling drops onto barracks are NOT the way to play ZvT against bio. Seriously, if you next to a mineral line of a zerg and the spawning pool is around, what is the stable choice? Target the spawning pool and hope the opponent won't safe it in time with troops and transfuses, or do you raid the mineral line which will give you a certain amount of drone kills and if he doesn't safe them, kill the whole droneline? Of course you go for the drones, because you get a certain return, while dropping with the intention to kill the pool is not a stable strategy, unless you can be certain that zerg is way out of position (and usually only useful if you are 2/2 or 3/3 against a 0 upgraded pool). Yes, if the mineral line has been evacuated or mined out or is defended with spines, you still kill the pool. Just like a mutapack that can't harass a mineral line because of turrets will still kill a reactor before retreating. But if you have the choice, you don't choose to harass the high HP, low cost targets and you surely don't base a strategy of that.
And trying to force this kind of stuff has cost more than one Zerg player the game. Life vs Sjow, trying to checkmate the production before it was time, just as an example.
|
I wonder if terran's mech unita got buffed. Maybe TvP won't be P favored :D
|
You missed my point. If you win the engagement and can choose between destroying economy or camping the production, you camp the production. Terran has no way to use his income when his production is camped but he can use parts of the income if you ravage the economy.
Both things can put you ahead but the smarter move is get to the production if you can. So dont say 'dont start with this shit' if you
A) miss my point
B) seemingly not understood it
I am Terran and I can tell you I never came back from sufficient units in my production yet often times I did with low economy.
Edit. I also never said it should be your goal to play like that and especially I never mentioned roach ling drops. Wtf
|
killing terran production is just theoretical talking in ZvT. Z does not have the tools to do this. Most units are cost inefficient. Mutalisks are needed for drop defense, they can of course pick an add-on here and there. Banelings are anyways cost inefficient in killing buildings if you are not far ahead, no matter what and with terran lift off capabilities. Zerglings need too long to do anything and probably do just better in killing what pops out of terran production instead of attacking 3 add-ons, kill 1 and leave behind the other 2 for terran repair. Anyway everybody tries to pick up add-ons of terrans whenever its possible. This is nothing new but also its hardly possible to do enaugh significant damage with this in most situations and the trade off costs for zergs are high in any way.
It is cool how some ppl in this forums think they figured out how to play properly while all the pros didn't yet. Sure its easy to say that in this TvT one Terran dropped the other Terran with highly effective Terran units and killed the production for the win. This can not be applied to ZvT the same way because Zergs don't have marines to drop that also shoot down lifted buildings and have ranged & high microable units + liftoff boost drop away capabilities. If zerg drops alot of stuff into terran base its more likely that all zerg units die to 50% of their own army value of terran units which are in for defense while lifted buildings of course survive always and at the same time or a minute later zerg dies to the terran push/drop straight away, the same applies to runbies to a certain extend.
What you are instead admitting is that current metagame ZvT is not balanced well. Otherwise you would not have to come up with always new (but old) ideas and methods and explain how Zergs could and should play to do this and that better as a logical consequence.
Just deal with it, the matchup is in a bad shape and I said this already months ago. I even predicted winrates going down for Z in ZvT as the future potential in this matchup lies at the terran side not at the zerg side.
and especially for you naruto I dedicate these lines:
you are the one raging, not me, 15k+ posts full of rage, I don't even have to read every single post of you, its enaugh to guess it and it will be right.
I describe what I see in and where I see the reasons for it.
You basically come up with alot of bullshit, whine about infestors of WOL and HOTS TvP in every second post. While you think you have to blame TvP for imbalance where your own race Terran is behind a bit you don't accept that zergs for good reasons see terran ahead in TvZ and want to discuss the reasons here. Man reasons dont' mean many ahead u kno? Talking with you is like talking with a 6 year old child that cannot accept that other people have a different opinion.
I gave a mixture of design flaws that I think have a bad impact on general/some cases balance in current TvZ metagame, I am going to repeat them here:
- terran needs basically no spellcasters in TvZ even tho they have ghosts and ravens
- terran metal is not good enaugh to be an alternative to bio/mine, too many zerg units counter metal, bio counters too many zerg compositions
- terran needs no gas after some tech/upgrades are settled for bio/mine, usually 2k+ is banked after a short period and gas doesnt limit the abilities of terran as basically only low tier low gas units and no spellcasters are needed to fight and win vs zerg
- terran builds in every game the same unit composition no matter what zergs come up with, there is only a low variation in it that counters it all
- terran builds same units for attack and harrassment that puts him ahead automatically as there is always the threat of being harrassed at the same time with being overrun by the same type of units
- terran usually gets far ahead when zerg is doing a tiny little mistake
- zergs can get ahead vs terrans but terran can easily come back with a single engagement/action
- zerg can hardly come back in this matchup after being behind vs bio/mine as there is not much you can do to force the terran into doing a major mistake while defending constantly vs terran bio/mine rally. Many things that are considered as a game-losing mistake for other races are not for terran. So killing 30 of his scv's would set the terran further ahead as you swap your fighting units for his economy/production and then are just gonna be killed cause you can't defend the drops/attacks anymore
instead of just agreeing on these obvious things that can easily be observed by everyone but can be considered with a different wieght on game balance of course, you are fighting to your death and claim the matchup is 100% balanced and everything in design is just fine, zergs just need to l2p and adapt and kill add-ons. And in the next post you write about all what you consider imbalanced in TvP again.
You offended me first for stating my opinion. You ask for grudge matches but I am only here to talk and discuss about balance. I play broodwar since 98 (after wc2) and can probably judge about balance better than you even if you are a 1000 games per season GM player and I am only an inactive master player. You know why? Cause some distance helps to see more clearly than you ever could with your thinking of a half semi-pro player being, that has his own interests (his own race terran to be strong). But please stop raging around in this forums and thread. You are not the one to decide who is right or wrong in any matter or who is allowed to write certain things and other things that you don't want to hear not and therefore attack people. I feel like I took the toy of a 6 year old child when I actually just stated my opinion about current game balance and its potential reasons.
|
On August 08 2013 21:40 NarutO wrote:
What level do you play on? 70% TvZ lol
lol what a smackdown, well clearly not at your level, masters mid-low with P and T. Funny side-note is how I have 2k games more played with T than P but my P is stronger. Playing at my level I can't really comment on TvZ balance but at lower levels I can say that T is favored but if that carries over into gm where there is more skill I don't know.
Though TvP is blatant at every level, the mothership core is broken. I'm not only talking the defensive capabilities but even as an offensive piece it's really good. It allows retardation to enter PvT and you get up your 3-3 aoe a-move +storm deatball (Mass Zealot warp-in) so easy.
You can literally lick your keyboard and win PvT if the T isn't twice as good and take risks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
