|
On August 19 2013 03:04 Big J wrote:
Because the Infestor hasn't been nerfed specifically to adress how bio/tank got crushed by Infestor/Broodlord armies?
Bio/Tank is viable. But it's not worth it, because the only reason why you have to mix in Tanks/Mines into your MM or MMM is banelings. (Previously you also wanted them against infestors; and I guess Tanks are pretty vital against certain allins) So if you don't want a lot of Factory Units anyways... just build those that work better with the rest of your playstyle and are easier to build/replace, which means widow mines.
Towards the lategame you don't really need either of them as the bioballs just get to big for banelings to handle anyways and you will be fighting ultrabased armies. But you can still use mines (because they are quite versatile) while tankplay when you want to kite and drop mostly is pretty stupid. (though I guess tankplay transitions better into ravenbased play - which nobody has figured out up to this point, because right now there is no need to transition out of MMMM)
Narrowing the WoL problems to the Infestor is simplistic, the number one problem in TvZ was the Queen patch unlocking the exponential growth of Zerg's development, same as all TvP issues in HotS come down to the MSC considerably speeding up Protoss' tech development. In both cases, the upgrades or units statistics are the same as before, but what was OK before suddenly becomes problematic because it comes (much) earlier.
If bio/Tanks was viable against lings/banes/mutas, you would see many more Terrans playing this as a lot of them are not comfortable with Mines (which aren't an "ez mode unit" despite what people say). People play 4M because neither bio/Tanks (vs lings/banes/mutas) nor mech are able to slow down Zerg enough.
There is nothing to figure out about this mythical "Raven transition," when playing bio Terrans add Ravens vs broods/corruptors and that's all; there is no reason to go Ravens vs ultras.
|
Narrowing the TvZ issues of WOL to only the Z side is simplistic. Througout the major time of WOL Terran was way op towards Zerg. The Queen patch was necessary because Zergs frequently just died to earlygame blue flame helion harrass as well as other easy win mechanics of Terran like 2 rax rush, marine scv all-in, maurauder helion all-in and any kind of SCV pull all-ins. I don't deny that this caused some changes in the matchup that were addressed late.
What is all the same about you Terran guys is that you have an extremely biased range of view. The real issues existed BEFORE the queen change in this matchup because Zerg could hardly hold any of the dozen kinds of all-ins terran had (and some still has) during this time. We were constantly seeing and hearing "bit by bit prime" on pro-level which was nearly undefeatable. But sure you Terran guys liked this state of the game, where people with medium skills could easily win games after a few minutes with stuff like this on pro level.
p.s: btw, what is bitbybit prime doing nowadays? Anyone knows? He became invisible quite quickly after this op stuff didnt work anymore due to the queen patch. Or did he just change the name?
|
United States15275 Posts
Bio/tank doesn't allow a terran player to put on the type of consistent pressure that bio/widow mine does. Bio/tank is still viable in the current metagame but it is not the type of composition that allows terran to trade portions of their army and upgrade as quickly. Bio/widow mine is actually easier than bio/tank simply because losing a handful of widow mines (for any number of reasons) is not as impactful as losing a handful of tanks. You can make many more positional mistakes with widow mines and still continue the push.
BitByBit retired quite a long time ago.
|
The queen patch wasn't intended to counter 2 rax or blue flame hellions. In fact, those two builds became more popular after the patch (2 rax because it hits before queens are out, blue flame because queens being better against hellions lulled zergs into a false sense of security and they didn't make building blocks that were needed). Nor was it made for any other build you mentioned.
You forget that the same patch increase overlord speed to improve zerg scouting, this reduced the susceptibility of Z to all-ins. http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/5308170/Call_to_Action_Balance_Testing-5_4_2012#blog
The queen change was meant to create more creep spread against the standard reactor-hellion expand build. And, indeed, there was a whole lot more creep spread in the next year to come 
|
On August 19 2013 04:05 Ghanburighan wrote:The queen patch wasn't intended to counter 2 rax or blue flame hellions. In fact, those two builds became more popular after the patch (2 rax because it hits before queens are out, blue flame because queens being better against hellions lulled zergs into a false sense of security and they didn't make building blocks that were needed). Nor was it made for any other build you mentioned. You forget that the same patch increase overlord speed to improve zerg scouting, this reduced the susceptibility of Z to all-ins. http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/5308170/Call_to_Action_Balance_Testing-5_4_2012#blogThe queen change was meant to create more creep spread against the standard reactor-hellion expand build. And, indeed, there was a whole lot more creep spread in the next year to come
The Queen patch was old times WoL discussion, why do we still discuss about it?
|
The terrans in this thread continue to pull out old WOL balance issues and put them in a one sided way so I responded to this.
The queen range increase was directly addressing the weakness of Zergs vs any kinds of all-ins as well as improving the ability to creep vs helions.
|
Or we are talking about WOL because LSN and BigJ brought up an inaccurate view of the balancing of WOL. The real bio-tank discussion cannot continue until misconceptions are removed from among the premises. Unfortunately, LSN only repeated what he already wrote rather than taking into account what was responded.
|
On August 19 2013 03:40 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2013 03:04 Big J wrote:
Because the Infestor hasn't been nerfed specifically to adress how bio/tank got crushed by Infestor/Broodlord armies?
Bio/Tank is viable. But it's not worth it, because the only reason why you have to mix in Tanks/Mines into your MM or MMM is banelings. (Previously you also wanted them against infestors; and I guess Tanks are pretty vital against certain allins) So if you don't want a lot of Factory Units anyways... just build those that work better with the rest of your playstyle and are easier to build/replace, which means widow mines.
Towards the lategame you don't really need either of them as the bioballs just get to big for banelings to handle anyways and you will be fighting ultrabased armies. But you can still use mines (because they are quite versatile) while tankplay when you want to kite and drop mostly is pretty stupid. (though I guess tankplay transitions better into ravenbased play - which nobody has figured out up to this point, because right now there is no need to transition out of MMMM) Narrowing the WoL problems to the Infestor is simplistic, the number one problem in TvZ was the Queen patch unlocking the exponential growth of Zerg's development, same as all TvP issues in HotS come down to the MSC considerably speeding up Protoss' tech development. In both cases, the upgrades or units statistics are the same as before, but what was OK before suddenly becomes problematic because it comes (much) earlier. If bio/Tanks was viable against lings/banes/mutas, you would see many more Terrans playing this as a lot of them are not comfortable with Mines (which aren't an "ez mode unit" despite what people say). People play 4M because neither bio/Tanks (vs lings/banes/mutas) nor mech are able to slow down Zerg enough. There is nothing to figure out about this mythical "Raven transition," when playing bio Terrans add Ravens vs broods/corruptors and that's all; there is no reason to go Ravens vs ultras.
I disagree with this Queen Patch sentiment. You are right that the queen patch shook up the matchup. But I believe Terrans overcame those problems after the first 2 months, after playing around with pressure openings (4rax shield attacks etc.) and figured out how to play CC first into hellions (or hellion/banshee) + 3rd instead of the former hellion into CC.
If you look at the most important stats of WoL ZvT (income, army value, supply...) there was no huge gap or anything like that. There was nothing that would indicate any fundamental imbalance in economy, which is what you are claiming happened after the queen patch.
Before Hivetech hit the field, the matchup was very well balanced, and both sides could win (and play a lot of styles). The Infestor and its interaction with Terran units was the big problem. Because the Infestor was such an incredible combat unit that Terrans were forced to go into a lot of tanks towards the lategame. Which was well-countered by going Broodlords. Which was not well countered by building vikings, because the Infestor was already on the field.
Zergs were just naturally one step ahead of Terrans when they got out Broodlords. Or few tanks didn't counter a lot of infestors well enough (with upgraded ITs, the Infestor wasn't a counter to the tank, but it was still far from inefficient), however you want to put it.
We do see bio/tank from time to time pop up, even at GSL level. But it's basically the reverse situation to ling/bling/muta in WoL, which was also viable.
But why play it, when you don't want/need mutas/tanks in the lategame anyways and can just play with more infestors(due to opening with infestor play)/MMM(due to less investment into mines) to begin with? Basically ling/bling/muta play only came back as 2-2 timing attack in WoL when Terrans were only preparing for infestor play. And I think midgame tankplay could fullfill the same role - then you'd still transition into MMM or 4M.
But I wouldn't say it was not viable - it was just unnecessary as you'd naturally step away from it anyways in the lategame.
And the "mythical Raven transition" is exactly what you say: When a Zerg goes Broodlords, you go Ravens. And why does a Zerg go Broodlords? Because - I believe if defensively played - neither player is able to kill the other one without artillery, which means zerg needs broodlords. (though Vipers may do the job against any form of defensive play as well)
On August 19 2013 05:13 Ghanburighan wrote:
Or we are talking about WOL because LSN and BigJ brought up an inaccurate view of the balancing of WOL. The real bio-tank discussion cannot continue until misconceptions are removed from among the premises. Unfortunately, LSN only repeated what he already wrote rather than taking into account what was responded.
I didn't mention WoL at all, apart from mentioning that Broodlord/Infestor armies used to crush bio/tank based play. But if you think I'm wrong, you can PM me about how bio/tank used to get even or ahead in WoL. 
I don't believe bio/tank is underpowered. But it's a sidekick composition, because the tank is still not a good lategame option. If Terrans could have skipped tanks to begin with in WoL, they would not have built them either. They just couldn't. The tank has always been the MMMs little support sidekick, and this role is now either filled by the mine (counter banelings/zerglings) or obsolete (specific infestorcounters are not needed anymore).
|
ovipatch was fine obv since ovis couldnt even reach opponents base safely on bigger maps and even if they did on some maps they couldnt scout anything.
queenpatch was introduced since T often took their 3rd earlier than Z which was just stupid.
blizz just fucked up in nerfing infestors wayyyyy too late. it wasnt like after queen patch ling bane muta was suddenly OP. it was a viable option. so all the queen buff did was make ling bane muta viable again. what it also did was making ecoplay into infestors into BL infestor OP which wasnt the queens fault but WoL infestors simply being way OP.
now move on to HOTS. marine tank is in a bad spot, so is mech, so is roach hydra, so is SHs, so is ling infestor...leaves ling bane muta and bio mine in ZvT = boring and T favored thanks to WMs. solution would be to buff tanks, nerf blinding cloud vs mech, buff blinding cloud vs bio, buff Z harrass so non-muta comps get better.
|
On August 18 2013 20:07 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2013 07:55 TheRabidDeer wrote:Generally speaking, when Z has mutas left when ultras pop it isnt because they "retained" mutas, its that they kept producing to stay at a certain number so that they have drop defense. Also, why do people ignore me  "How many times do you see Z get 90 drones with mutaling bling? You say standard like it happens all the time, but I very rarely see it happen... Usually it is 3 base near saturation and then maybe the 4th has gas drones (and they pull drones from their main/nat to get minerals there as the main at least will be running out of minerals)." And why is Z the only race that is making it supposedly standard to get 90 workers? Theoretically, T would be ideal for 90 workers. 4-5 bases worth of workers + mules and you can have 50+ supply army production every 35 seconds. Or even protoss warpgates.... pushing out 20 zealots on the front line. Every race benefits from higher income, but generally Z is the only one that uses it... why? No, it cannot work. Even Protoss with their huge supply-efficiency in lategame PvT would get rolled if they tried 90 probes in this scenario. Warping 20 zealots isn't interesting if your army got bashed so badly Terran still has 15 Ghosts 30 Marines 10 Medivacs left from the previous engagement. You also forgot to factor the cost of production; Zerg's production costs nothing, while the other races need to invest more resources to increase their production (the Terran one in particular is expensive with add-ons). Neither Terran nor Protoss can build 15 workers at once to instantly jump from 75 to 90. Games like the one you saw in which jjakji produce out of 15 rax are extremely rare, and it only happened because jjakji had already won. The three races don't have the same ability to secure expansions, the same supply-efficiency and overall the same dynamics. Show nested quote +On August 18 2013 16:19 ReMinD_ wrote:
I'm gonna steer this discussion to a different direction for a sec.
I've been playing this game for 3 months and last night I realized something. All those matches and I haven't made a single Nydus Network. Not once. I didn't even think about doing it. I also watch a lot of streams and I can't recall the last time someone made that building. Then I looked at Liquipedia.
Nydus Network - 150 minerals, 200 gas.
Nydus Worm - 100 minerals, 100 gas. Build time: 20 secs, HP: 200
'Upon completion of the Nydus Worm, a global sound effect will be heard from all players.'
That reminded me why it's so bad. An investment of 250 minerals and 300 gas that can be killed by workers. And the global sound effect that warns your opponent.
Would it be game-breaking to make Nydus Worm cost 150 or 200 minerals and no gas? It seems like an interesting tool, one that would make the game more dynamic while not really affecting the balance too much. It could always be limited in other ways, like adding a cooldown so you can't just build one after the other. Yes, cheaper Nydus to buff horrible gimmicks like 2-bases Roach Nydus in TvZ is exactly what SC2 needs. More coinflips! Yes, morphing Nydus can be killed by workers, and fortunately so, because otherwise they would be unstoppable. Still, workers don't auto-pull to kill them, so it requires attention, and you can easily distract your opponent (see Bomber vs Symbol, Daybreak, for instance; or FanTaSy vs TRUE, Akilon Wastes; the first Nydus are denied, but Zerg keeps trying while attacking head-on and eventually one goes through). The global sound effect is irrelevant most of the time because in TvZ you've already lost if a Nydus completes in your base anyway, unless you were going for a 2-bases timing or something.
So, because the P made ~20-25 extra probes suddenly the T will have 80 army supply more left after the battle even though you are warping things in AT the battle? And they dont have to be zealots, it was just an example.
I just dont understand why 3 base economy is the end all be all, especially in the day and age of TvZ parade pushes where you arent pushing at 200 supply, you are consistently below that. So higher production would help you. And the production cost isnt that high, it is the time it makes to get the production up. If production building costs were so high then Z would always be winning by the end of the midgame because they didnt have to invest in these buildings.
|
United States15275 Posts
If I recall correctly it was mathematically proven that 3 base economy was the optimal economy in SC2.
|
On August 19 2013 05:13 Ghanburighan wrote:
Or we are talking about WOL because LSN and BigJ brought up an inaccurate view of the balancing of WOL. The real bio-tank discussion cannot continue until misconceptions are removed from among the premises. Unfortunately, LSN only repeated what he already wrote rather than taking into account what was responded.
even the link you posted clearly says
"Zerg at the pro-level are slightly too susceptible to all-in rushes."
and
"We want to make the general zerg defense slightly stronger in the early game."
which I was talking about and as a matter of fact zergs were dieing randomly to all-ins and to blue flame helions as well.
But I am going to stop to respond your provocations as you just try to hide and can't admit that TvZ was kind of broken before the queen patch in the very early stages but pretty much enjoy to talk about how much op BL/infestor was after 20 minutes of playing all day long :p
lets proceed to talk about current issues
|
On August 19 2013 06:25 CosmicSpiral wrote:
If I recall correctly it was mathematically proven that 3 base economy was the optimal economy in SC2.
Except for Zergs? Or are they infact lying about 90 drones being standard?
|
On August 19 2013 06:35 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2013 06:25 CosmicSpiral wrote:
If I recall correctly it was mathematically proven that 3 base economy was the optimal economy in SC2. Except for Zergs? Or are they infact lying about 90 drones being standard?
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=390265
I believe this is where that idea originated.
It's not necessarily that 3 base is optimal, but rather that distributing ~60 workers past three bases will not increase your income. In other words,
3 bases, 60 workers = 4 bases, 60 workers = 5 bases, 60 workers
However, 4 bases 90 workers definitely outstrips 3 base 60 workers. Perhaps the greatest reason why this is not done more is because of snowballing army sizes. If your army is 110 supply and your opponent's army is 130 supply, your opponent will not simply win the engagement... he will win by a large margin and retain a lot of his army while you will retain very little.
In the case of Widow Mine parade pushes, perhaps full 4 base saturation (with lots of macro hatches) would indeed be viable, but can Zergs actually get to 4 base saturation without dying first?
|
United States15275 Posts
On August 19 2013 06:45 Entirety wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2013 06:35 TheRabidDeer wrote:On August 19 2013 06:25 CosmicSpiral wrote:
If I recall correctly it was mathematically proven that 3 base economy was the optimal economy in SC2. Except for Zergs? Or are they infact lying about 90 drones being standard? http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=390265I believe this is where that idea originated. It's not necessarily that 3 base is optimal, but rather that distributing ~60 workers past three bases will not increase your income. In other words, 3 bases, 60 workers = 4 bases, 60 workers = 5 bases, 60 workers However, 4 bases 90 workers definitely outstrips 3 base 60 workers. Perhaps the greatest reason why this is not done more is because of snowballing army sizes. If your army is 110 supply and your opponent's army is 130 supply, your opponent will not simply win the engagement... he will win by a large margin and retain a lot of his army while you will retain very little. In the case of Widow Mine parade pushes, perhaps full 4 base saturation (with lots of macro hatches) would indeed be viable, but can Zergs actually get to 4 base saturation without dying first?
Yes that was the post.
In any case TheRabidDeer, 90 workers is not standard for zerg. Most games you will want to stay between 70-80 workers. You mainly take the fourth base for gas income.
|
On August 19 2013 06:49 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2013 06:45 Entirety wrote:On August 19 2013 06:35 TheRabidDeer wrote:On August 19 2013 06:25 CosmicSpiral wrote:
If I recall correctly it was mathematically proven that 3 base economy was the optimal economy in SC2. Except for Zergs? Or are they infact lying about 90 drones being standard? http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=390265I believe this is where that idea originated. It's not necessarily that 3 base is optimal, but rather that distributing ~60 workers past three bases will not increase your income. In other words, 3 bases, 60 workers = 4 bases, 60 workers = 5 bases, 60 workers However, 4 bases 90 workers definitely outstrips 3 base 60 workers. Perhaps the greatest reason why this is not done more is because of snowballing army sizes. If your army is 110 supply and your opponent's army is 130 supply, your opponent will not simply win the engagement... he will win by a large margin and retain a lot of his army while you will retain very little. In the case of Widow Mine parade pushes, perhaps full 4 base saturation (with lots of macro hatches) would indeed be viable, but can Zergs actually get to 4 base saturation without dying first? Yes that was the post. In any case TheRabidDeer, 90 workers is not standard for zerg. Most games you will want to stay between 70-80 workers. You mainly take the fourth base for gas income.
This is what I originally said, but TheDwf keeps emphasizing that zergs get 90 drones vs him and other T's are making the claim too. I am but a lowly masters zerg and TheDwf is GM (supposedly?) so who am I to argue with his knowledge... I digress though, I still think T should look into more SCVs against Z. T usually only gets ~5 gases right? So when you get that 4th up you can make some more SCV's and not take the gases. Say... 12 SCVs more and you will be waaaay beyond Z in income and can have the most ridiculous parade of marines ever, and can sacrifice SCV's if the game goes later to the point where you are hitting 200 supply.
|
On August 19 2013 02:32 saddaromma wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2013 02:20 Bagi wrote:On August 19 2013 01:24 Wingblade wrote:On August 19 2013 00:20 a3den wrote:
Sometimes, I wonder if there is a reason for the immortal being so good now that 1/1/1 is more or less negated by the MSC. Because the MSC is more or less negated by a single PDD. Photon overcharge lasts way longer than a single PDD. Not that it matters, 1-1-1 was figured out way before it. Immortals were given +1 range to counter it. Not exactly "figured out".
Shutup. We can just wait for the metagame to solve all problems!
|
On August 19 2013 05:35 Big J wrote:
I disagree with this Queen Patch sentiment. You are right that the queen patch shook up the matchup. But I believe Terrans overcame those problems after the first 2 months, after playing around with pressure openings (4rax shield attacks etc.) and figured out how to play CC first into hellions (or hellion/banshee) + 3rd instead of the former hellion into CC.
CC rax gas was not even fully viable in WoL as it would suffer critical damage against some Roaches attacks. Terrans were simply going greed into crossing fingers that Zerg would play 4 or 6 queens because they had to compensate their disadvantage with riskier builds. At any rate the post-Queen patch problems were so solved that mediocre EU Zerg players were still competitive against Code S Terrans by executing the same Hive rush every game.
If you look at the most important stats of WoL ZvT (income, army value, supply...) there was no huge gap or anything like that. There was nothing that would indicate any fundamental imbalance in economy, which is what you are claiming happened after the queen patch.
No, I wrote that the Queen patch unlocked Zerg's development. Remember the Hive timings pre-patch? Something like 17' Hive at the earliest when going lings/banes/mutas, and even Infestor play wasn't going Hive earlier than 14' from memory. After the Queen patch, 11' Hive was fully standard. Zergs were sometimes even building Infestors after starting the Hive. Yes, Terran could match Zerg's economy, but it didn't matter since Zergs were allowed to enter lategame 5+ minuts before Terran, which means Zerg's economy could produce the insanely efficient broods/infests while the Terran one could only give Marines/Tanks and some emergency Vikings. You also forgot to mention how 60-70% of the map could be covered with creep when Terran was moving out for his pre-broods timing.
The Infestor and its interaction with Terran units was the big problem.
Then explain why broods/infests wasn't as much as a problem pre-patch, even after Blizzard killed Snipe? Same composition, same stats.
We do see bio/tank from time to time pop up, even at GSL level.
Only when Terran fears or scouts some kind of Roach-centric attack or play, and even then Terran immediately transitions into Mines when scouting a muta transition. Marines/Tanks is never played as a standard vs straight lings/banes/mutas. The last high level TvZ game I saw featuring Marines/Tanks vs lings/banes/mutas was Bomber vs Life, Bel'shir Vestige, Ritmix RSL V, with Bomber being ahead from the opening because of a failed Baneling bust.
And the "mythical Raven transition" is exactly what you say: When a Zerg goes Broodlords, you go Ravens.
Then why do you say it isn't figured out? The theory about this transition is known since the twilight of WoL.
|
Yeah, the Hive timing was the big thing. The patch killed non-allin pressure because Queens became AA-capable Roaches that could defend anything in small numbers => More gas for teching => Quick swell of Infestors faster, killing traditional midgame => Fast Hive, timings sped up from 17 minute mark to ~12 minute mark. Terran's MMMVG comp was kinda able to hold against Infestor-Broodlord even if Infestor-Broodlord was better.
But Terran infrastructure is flexible only in the early game. Lategame it is very, very rigid and expensive, while Zerg's is pretty cheap and very flexible. Moreover, Terran infra makes counters, Zerg makes basically pure threats. But that is all manageable pre-patch. The 5 minute Hive timing speedup did Terrans in because they didn't have time to establish the large infrastructure to deal with Zerg's tech switches, plus mech is just plain generally slow to reproduce. You need a ton of stuff up, and post-patch you just didn't have the time anymore. Queens killed early pressure that previously necessitated speedlings or Roaches, Infestor swell halted tank pushes, you just couldn't slow Zerg down anywhere near as much.
EDIT: Also, the patch was stupidly unnecessary, and the reasoning total bs. Just because Blizzard says something doesn't make it absolute truth. They can very easily be mistaken and were pretty provably so with that patch, given that TvZ was balanced pre-patch (if admittedly annoying to play as Zerg), and a monotonous boring shitfest where you could barely tell DRG apart from some random competent Zerg after the patch.
And yes, I saw the games. Properly prepared/walled, the risk of a runby was small. Some Zergs didn't wall in, and got burnt.
Like, dunno, every Terran that doesn't wall off in TvZ, except that everyone does. Imagine some T player saying Zerglings needed to be nerfed because a runby could end the game. He'd be laughed out of the room. The wallin wasn't 100% proof, I know, but still helped insanely much. I remember people being affronted by the idea of building a safety Warren. Heaven forbid they do something else than press sdddddddd. I guess in retrospect the Terran players should've whined about having to build the safety Lab on their rax in case of Roaches in the 4 Hellion opener. Seems like that might've gotten us half a year of Blizzard's genius supermarauder Warhounds. The sddd players' tears would've been delicious, though the game would've sadly been a similar shitfest to what it was with the Queen patch.
There was also a big risk on both sides - bigger for Z, yes, but miscontrol or undue greed from Terran early on was a quick ticket to allowing Zerg to snipe the Hellions and then drone like mad and get map control for a long, long time. Not a game loss, but still a pretty big deal given how much more difficult Zerg having a good resource base made the midgame.
|
On August 19 2013 05:56 TheRabidDeer wrote:
So, because the P made ~20-25 extra probes suddenly the T will have 80 army supply more left after the battle even though you are warping things in AT the battle? And they dont have to be zealots, it was just an example.
Yes, lacking 15-20 army supply tied up in workers will result in very bad situations. Protoss' army can already be 30 supply weaker than Terran's one due to 10-20 more workers (when going a standard Probe count, i. e. ~70-75) and some Zealots/Templars scattered across the map, so by further weakening it by 15+ supply Protoss would risk being stomped so hard that even a supersonic remax wouldn't matter. I have played only once a TvP lategame in which Protoss had 90 Probes, and I won because his army at the first engagement was too weak.
I just dont understand why 3 base economy is the end all be all, especially in the day and age of TvZ parade pushes where you arent pushing at 200 supply, you are consistently below that. So higher production would help you. And the production cost isnt that high, it is the time it makes to get the production up. If production building costs were so high then Z would always be winning by the end of the midgame because they didnt have to invest in these buildings.
Parade pushes rely on initiating a momentum, which you simply won't have if you get an early (say before 13') fourth and more than 75 SCVs. Quite on the contrary, the less SCVs you have (while optimally taking advantage of your third mineral line, of course), the more lethal the parade push is; 65 SCVs variants are way more brutal than the 75 ones, because you can get your extra production earlier, you don't build a fourth until "later on" and thus the bio starts streaming earlier in higher numbers.
On August 19 2013 07:35 TheRabidDeer wrote:
This is what I originally said, but TheDwf keeps emphasizing that zergs get 90 drones vs him and other T's are making the claim too.
Check the VODs at the bottom of p. 703, Zergs were around 85 drones (94 for the one with Symbol). Give or take a few depending on how the game goes, the map, static defence, casualties and the age of the captain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
