|
Can we stop talking about nerfing things please? - 9:10 KST |
They made the problem (by nerfing toss) it's up to them to fix it now.
usually, the impressive part of a terran push is about the positioning and timing, and specifically in the case of this 1-1-1 all-in, it's both. the timing - once widespread - becomes less impressive, but the positioning and unit control are still jaw-dropping when done right and at a high level, as puma does in that game. definitely not in any way shape or form what I would call 'unimpressive.'
watch the replay again, and several times over if you have to, and you will understand what I mean.
Moving tanks to the standard abusive places on Xel'naga that every Terran in diamond knows about, is not impressive. In fact his second tank was in a bad position, easily hit by immortals.
Puma is a really good player and has shown plenty of impressive moves. None of them were in that game, which he was actually pretty poor in. He should've lost it really but MC screwed up badly.
|
On August 24 2011 01:34 IVN wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2011 01:28 Medrea wrote:On August 24 2011 01:23 IVN wrote:On August 24 2011 01:18 Medrea wrote:On August 24 2011 01:15 IVN wrote:
I have an idea.
What about a 1gt FE, into forge and blink, + 3 more gates?
What I'm thinking about is only building blink stalkers and 1 cannon per mineral line, so that the cloakshees can be spotted and taken out by blink stalkers.
Obviously one would have to make many blink stalkers and engage several times, in order to try to decimate the marines force and make the terran use his PDD. One engagement at terran's natural, one in the middle of the map, and the last one at one own's natural. While constantly warping in more blink stalkers.
Obviously this is a very micro intensive build. And since stalkers always leave you with a mineral surplus, one could add more cannons. Its good against the non scv version. Not so great with like 20 SCV's right there. Why not? I think it would be even better with all the SCVs there. Remember - I'm obviously pulling these numbers out of my ass - if you have 10-15 blink stalkers by the time he comes down his ramp, he would have to siege up every time you engage, because blink stalkers can never be owned by rines and banshees. And if the SCVs are there, this means that for every second that you can stall, you get a much greater force compared to the terran (2 base vs 1 base + pulled SCVs). Too much shit to shoot. Stalkers arent none for being baller in the damage department. Also 300 minerals in cannons that aren't helping in the fight is a real drag. When going stalkers minerals are key. Well on 2 base with only 2 gases, you will have a huge excess of minerals. And I know that stalkers have abysmal DPS, but with blink they are the most mobile unit in the game, and the unit with the highest retention rate. And if you look at the terran composition, it is immobile as fuck. So the logical conclusion would be to engage with something fast and retreat. Chipping away at his units and buying time so you can outproduce him. Show nested quote +On August 24 2011 01:34 somadbro wrote:On August 24 2011 01:25 IVN wrote:On August 24 2011 01:23 somadbro wrote:On August 24 2011 01:06 IVN wrote:
Well then try playing 1 base blink stalker against terran, and awe at the micro you have to do, compared to the terran, in order to beat him.
I could care less how hard it is to beat you or your gold league opponents. Only games at the highest levels are relevant. Have you watched the replay of the MC vs Puma game on XNC from the most recent IEM and from Puma's perspective? Yeah, ultra easy. Hands down the easiest all in in the game. Even easier than 4gt - by far - and thats saying a lot. what's his sustained apm in the minute right before the push reaches MC's base? That is not important. Many players spam APM like crazy, w/o even doing anything. If the APM tab was any indicator of real, sensible actions, Goody would never win a game. (because his opponents always have 2-3x more APM)
Honestly Blink+forge is one of my favorite ways of tackling this solution. And I think pro's would consider this a not too far away second place.
The bullet points of this approach is that if you want, you can just attempt to maul the terran immediately anytime you want once blink is done. Just try to flank with some zealots and blink right in as they engage. You will be nowhere to ontop of him instantly.
Only problem is, you tend to lose everything, or almost everything. And all-in number two comes and kills you. Thats why immortals are the standard route. If they survive, the future all-ins won;t be a threat.
|
On August 24 2011 01:35 Yaotzin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2011 01:34 somadbro wrote:On August 24 2011 01:25 IVN wrote:On August 24 2011 01:23 somadbro wrote:On August 24 2011 01:06 IVN wrote:
Well then try playing 1 base blink stalker against terran, and awe at the micro you have to do, compared to the terran, in order to beat him.
I could care less how hard it is to beat you or your gold league opponents. Only games at the highest levels are relevant. Have you watched the replay of the MC vs Puma game on XNC from the most recent IEM and from Puma's perspective? Yeah, ultra easy. Hands down the easiest all in in the game. Even easier than 4gt - by far - and thats saying a lot. what's his sustained apm in the minute right before the push reaches MC's base? APM? Seriously? Pros spam. A lot. Their APM means fuckall. Look at what they actually do. Sometimes it's impressive, sometimes it's not. You could've picked far, far better examples. Someone like MVP would put that shitty allin of his to shame.
name a top pro who spams inefficiently.
pros have high apm, and there is some spam, but it's mostly efficient APM.
if APM is efficient then looking at the APM required to execute a build or push is absolutely a measure of the skill to some degree. it's not necessarily the best, nor is it the most effective, but it is objective, easily quantifiable, and always comparable
|
Blazinghand
United States25557 Posts
On August 24 2011 01:41 Aletheia27 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2011 01:14 QTIP. wrote:On August 24 2011 00:58 TimeSpiral wrote:On August 24 2011 00:52 IVN wrote:On August 24 2011 00:31 TimeSpiral wrote:On August 23 2011 23:54 IVN wrote:On August 23 2011 23:38 TimeSpiral wrote:On August 23 2011 23:18 Deadlyfish wrote:On August 23 2011 22:54 Yaotzin wrote:On August 23 2011 22:51 momonami5 wrote:
why is people crying about 1-1-1 now it's been a year and this build has not been changed in anyway. the units used in 1-1-1 have not changed at all in patches. Like many zerg players who started facing new 2 rax, or new blue flame builds, will have to adapt, most players will look to the pro's for new builds. If pro's have no new builds everyone crys nerf? wth. Protoss got nerfed is what changed. The usual responses to a greedy build like 1/1/1 got gutted. People do have a new build, it just dies if the Terran scouts you and responds correctly. What changes did protoss go through that affected their ability to hold the 1/1/1? Not saying there arent any, i just cant remember them. Certainly they're not talking about the Flux Veins ... That would be outrageous. They are certainly not talking about the KA nerf, because that would also be silly. They are probably just talking about the classic 4gate all-in (warpgate timing). From a Terran's perspective: (1) Tech builds are super greedy and are almost always countered by early aggression from the Toss. In this particular build, the Terran typically rushes for a reactor. (2) The Terran has to wall otherwise early Zealot Stalker Probe pressure can do massive damage. (3) The wall becomes a very real liability very quickly. 3gate Stargate punishes tech builds so hard, and you end up losing two SD's, a rax, and probably your reactor. (4) This particular army composition is not very strong until it reaches a certain number and combination of units. The composition is strongest when set up in a contain which includes bunkers, towers, etc ... Keeping the fight in the middle of the map or at the Terran's front door will slow this push so incredibly badly.(5) Stargate units pose the greatest threat, from what I've seen. Tanks cannot kill Zealots, and you will not have enough DPS to deal with the GS'd Zealots and VRs. You may even throw a phoenix or two in the mix the GB the tanks. Open 1gate Stargate on maps where you are expecting the 111 all-in. From a person's perspectiveThe classic rebuttal to a post like mine is to grab some pro replay that supports your argument and say, "Look, if MC cannot do it, how do you expect us to do it?" Unless you're at the pro level you're playing scrubs like me and yourself. They will mess up. You can force them to mess up. You can screw with their plan by pressuring, flanking, setting up ambushes, or doing anything except waiting at your base for the tide of death to sweep you away. It's really not your concern how, when or if the pros figure it out. What is your concern is how you're going to deal with it. Now, I realize that the vast majority of the metagame on the ladder in SC2 is just pro copycatting, and that is why referencing pros is so prevalant, but don't use the fact that they're struggling as a crutch for your own game. I struggle versus tons of stuff and get great enjoyment out of troll-raging imbaimba ezmode, but when it truly comes down to it, we choose to play SC2 and have to deal with balance issues. Sometimes we get the nerfs we want, sometimes we get the buffs we want, but these tweaks will never address fundamental game-design issues that are at the heart of a lot of these debates. Actually I enjoy watching pro matches far more than playing on ladder. And since watching protoss gosus get owned by an a-move build is no fun at all, it is my concern. Calling this all-in an a+move victory is just a slap in the face. No it is not. Compared to all ins which actually require great execution and micro (like blink stalkers of one base), this is easy mode. *genuine chuckle* TimeSpiral's posts in this thread have either been a) about nothing in particular b) nicely formatted with no relevant content. Though I agree that there is nothing fantastic about one base-blink play, you taking offense ("slap in the face") to the 1-1-1 being called an A-move victory is also comical. We get it TimeSpiral. You play Terran. You don't like infestors. You didn't like KA. You thought the EMP nerf was significant and game-changing. You (self-proclaimed) play at low diamond level. Instead of you championing your "wait and see" philosophy regarding the 1-1-1, perhaps you should apply the same restraint when complaining about TvZ? Not that it particularly matters...but I think time spirla's post is one of the most mature and practical approaches here. Instead of idiotic balance whine. And by the way, I'm a high masters random player so you can stfu before you start talking about bias.
I think that's a valid point. That being said, I'm not sure rushing out a void ray against a terran player who's rushing for starport is going to work, just because he could make a viking or something. I guess he'd be hesitant to all-in you and would probably just expand behind a viking or two; but it's hard to deal damage against a terran player with a viking using the void ray.
That being said, here's what I've seen beat 1/1/1 when watching some high master terran streams:
1) Terran player moves out with his 1/1/1, and when he's halfway across the map, 5 void rays show up in his base. hilarity ensues!
2) Terran player is trying to 1/1/1 and gets 4gated. 4gaters gonna 4gate. He actually stabilizes post-4gate, despite losing hella scvs, and tries some banshee harass but fails, and then tries to all-in but it's pretty weak.
3) Terran player tries to 1/1/1 and protoss player just has a lot of goddamn zealots. I dunno where they came from but they were everywhere. He used a base-edge pylon for low-ground warpins and got a sick nasty flank on the marines and tanks. He was kinda low on AA though and lost some probes before he could fend off the banshees. He won though.
|
|
|
On August 24 2011 01:45 Yaotzin wrote:They made the problem (by nerfing toss) it's up to them to fix it now. Show nested quote +
usually, the impressive part of a terran push is about the positioning and timing, and specifically in the case of this 1-1-1 all-in, it's both. the timing - once widespread - becomes less impressive, but the positioning and unit control are still jaw-dropping when done right and at a high level, as puma does in that game. definitely not in any way shape or form what I would call 'unimpressive.'
watch the replay again, and several times over if you have to, and you will understand what I mean.
Moving tanks to the standard abusive places on Xel'naga that every Terran in diamond knows about, is not impressive. In fact his second tank was in a bad position, easily hit by immortals. Puma is a really good player and has shown plenty of impressive moves. None of them were in that game, which he was actually pretty poor in. He should've lost it really but MC screwed up badly.
lol, okay, you don't know what you're talking about thanks for trying 
except for
He should've lost it really but MC screwed up badly.
which I totally agree on.
The fact that puma did not play this build well in this game is actually supporting my point. you realize that right? i didn't point to puma's execution as flawless by any means. he actually, after the first engagement starts, plays poorly for almost the rest of the game - but MC doesn't respond well either, and ends up playing even worse.
|
From the up and down matches yeah.
That was another terrible 1-1-1. He sieges his tanks in range of practically nothing. Lets protoss build shit and roll him.
|
On August 24 2011 01:49 somadbro wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2011 01:35 Yaotzin wrote:On August 24 2011 01:34 somadbro wrote:On August 24 2011 01:25 IVN wrote:On August 24 2011 01:23 somadbro wrote:On August 24 2011 01:06 IVN wrote:
Well then try playing 1 base blink stalker against terran, and awe at the micro you have to do, compared to the terran, in order to beat him.
I could care less how hard it is to beat you or your gold league opponents. Only games at the highest levels are relevant. Have you watched the replay of the MC vs Puma game on XNC from the most recent IEM and from Puma's perspective? Yeah, ultra easy. Hands down the easiest all in in the game. Even easier than 4gt - by far - and thats saying a lot. what's his sustained apm in the minute right before the push reaches MC's base? APM? Seriously? Pros spam. A lot. Their APM means fuckall. Look at what they actually do. Sometimes it's impressive, sometimes it's not. You could've picked far, far better examples. Someone like MVP would put that shitty allin of his to shame. name a top pro who spams inefficiently. pros have high apm, and there is some spam, but it's mostly efficient APM. if APM is efficient then looking at the APM required to execute a build or push is absolutely a measure of the skill to some degree. it's not necessarily the best, nor is it the most effective, but it is objective, easily quantifiable, and always comparable
Er, it's much easier to name the ones who don't - I can only think of White-Ra. The rest all spam move 20 times clicking in the same place over and over and such. That might well help them be fast when it matters, but don't pretend that it's not a load of irrelevant clicks.
Look at the list of top APM players at Dreamhack - it got published. There was pretty much no correlation to how good they are or how well they did there.
lol, okay, you don't know what you're talking about thanks for trying
Dude, he should've lost with a build that is, at worst, really fucking good. That indicates he didn't play all that great.
|
On August 24 2011 01:52 Yaotzin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2011 01:49 somadbro wrote:On August 24 2011 01:35 Yaotzin wrote:On August 24 2011 01:34 somadbro wrote:On August 24 2011 01:25 IVN wrote:On August 24 2011 01:23 somadbro wrote:On August 24 2011 01:06 IVN wrote:
Well then try playing 1 base blink stalker against terran, and awe at the micro you have to do, compared to the terran, in order to beat him.
I could care less how hard it is to beat you or your gold league opponents. Only games at the highest levels are relevant. Have you watched the replay of the MC vs Puma game on XNC from the most recent IEM and from Puma's perspective? Yeah, ultra easy. Hands down the easiest all in in the game. Even easier than 4gt - by far - and thats saying a lot. what's his sustained apm in the minute right before the push reaches MC's base? APM? Seriously? Pros spam. A lot. Their APM means fuckall. Look at what they actually do. Sometimes it's impressive, sometimes it's not. You could've picked far, far better examples. Someone like MVP would put that shitty allin of his to shame. name a top pro who spams inefficiently. pros have high apm, and there is some spam, but it's mostly efficient APM. if APM is efficient then looking at the APM required to execute a build or push is absolutely a measure of the skill to some degree. it's not necessarily the best, nor is it the most effective, but it is objective, easily quantifiable, and always comparable Er, it's much easier to name the ones who don't - I can only think of White-Ra. The rest all spam move 20 times clicking in the same place over and over and such. That might well help them be fast when it matters, but don't pretend that it's not a load of irrelevant clicks. Look at the list of top APM players at Dreamhack - it got published. There was pretty much no correlation to how good they are or how well they did there.
Merz heh.
Merz is good though. But yeah. I can get up to 9600 APM, put me in GSTL.
|
On August 24 2011 01:52 Yaotzin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2011 01:49 somadbro wrote:On August 24 2011 01:35 Yaotzin wrote:On August 24 2011 01:34 somadbro wrote:On August 24 2011 01:25 IVN wrote:On August 24 2011 01:23 somadbro wrote:On August 24 2011 01:06 IVN wrote:
Well then try playing 1 base blink stalker against terran, and awe at the micro you have to do, compared to the terran, in order to beat him.
I could care less how hard it is to beat you or your gold league opponents. Only games at the highest levels are relevant. Have you watched the replay of the MC vs Puma game on XNC from the most recent IEM and from Puma's perspective? Yeah, ultra easy. Hands down the easiest all in in the game. Even easier than 4gt - by far - and thats saying a lot. what's his sustained apm in the minute right before the push reaches MC's base? APM? Seriously? Pros spam. A lot. Their APM means fuckall. Look at what they actually do. Sometimes it's impressive, sometimes it's not. You could've picked far, far better examples. Someone like MVP would put that shitty allin of his to shame. name a top pro who spams inefficiently. pros have high apm, and there is some spam, but it's mostly efficient APM. if APM is efficient then looking at the APM required to execute a build or push is absolutely a measure of the skill to some degree. it's not necessarily the best, nor is it the most effective, but it is objective, easily quantifiable, and always comparable Er, it's much easier to name the ones who don't - I can only think of White-Ra. The rest all spam move 20 times clicking in the same place over and over and such. That might well help them be fast when it matters, but don't pretend that it's not a load of irrelevant clicks. Look at the list of top APM players at Dreamhack - it got published. There was pretty much no correlation to how good they are or how well they did there.
actually, the stats from MLG anaheim disprove your theory.
the player with higher APM wins 60% of the time. the player with +50 apm over their opponent wins almost 63% of the time.
you may not like it, but APM is a metric and a useful one.
source: http://www.majorleaguegaming.com/news/mlg-anaheim-sc2-stats
|
On August 24 2011 01:54 somadbro wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2011 01:52 Yaotzin wrote:On August 24 2011 01:49 somadbro wrote:On August 24 2011 01:35 Yaotzin wrote:On August 24 2011 01:34 somadbro wrote:On August 24 2011 01:25 IVN wrote:On August 24 2011 01:23 somadbro wrote:On August 24 2011 01:06 IVN wrote:
Well then try playing 1 base blink stalker against terran, and awe at the micro you have to do, compared to the terran, in order to beat him.
I could care less how hard it is to beat you or your gold league opponents. Only games at the highest levels are relevant. Have you watched the replay of the MC vs Puma game on XNC from the most recent IEM and from Puma's perspective? Yeah, ultra easy. Hands down the easiest all in in the game. Even easier than 4gt - by far - and thats saying a lot. what's his sustained apm in the minute right before the push reaches MC's base? APM? Seriously? Pros spam. A lot. Their APM means fuckall. Look at what they actually do. Sometimes it's impressive, sometimes it's not. You could've picked far, far better examples. Someone like MVP would put that shitty allin of his to shame. name a top pro who spams inefficiently. pros have high apm, and there is some spam, but it's mostly efficient APM. if APM is efficient then looking at the APM required to execute a build or push is absolutely a measure of the skill to some degree. it's not necessarily the best, nor is it the most effective, but it is objective, easily quantifiable, and always comparable Er, it's much easier to name the ones who don't - I can only think of White-Ra. The rest all spam move 20 times clicking in the same place over and over and such. That might well help them be fast when it matters, but don't pretend that it's not a load of irrelevant clicks. Look at the list of top APM players at Dreamhack - it got published. There was pretty much no correlation to how good they are or how well they did there. actually, the stats from MLG anaheim disprove your theory. the player with higher APM wins 60% of the time. the player with +50 apm over their opponent wins almost 63% of the time. you may not like it, but APM is a metric and a useful one. source: http://www.majorleaguegaming.com/news/mlg-anaheim-sc2-stats
60 percent is not really an overwhelming amount and the sample size is too small anyway -.-
|
On August 24 2011 01:32 TimeSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2011 01:14 QTIP. wrote:On August 24 2011 00:58 TimeSpiral wrote:On August 24 2011 00:52 IVN wrote:On August 24 2011 00:31 TimeSpiral wrote:On August 23 2011 23:54 IVN wrote:On August 23 2011 23:38 TimeSpiral wrote:On August 23 2011 23:18 Deadlyfish wrote:On August 23 2011 22:54 Yaotzin wrote:On August 23 2011 22:51 momonami5 wrote:
why is people crying about 1-1-1 now it's been a year and this build has not been changed in anyway. the units used in 1-1-1 have not changed at all in patches. Like many zerg players who started facing new 2 rax, or new blue flame builds, will have to adapt, most players will look to the pro's for new builds. If pro's have no new builds everyone crys nerf? wth. Protoss got nerfed is what changed. The usual responses to a greedy build like 1/1/1 got gutted. People do have a new build, it just dies if the Terran scouts you and responds correctly. What changes did protoss go through that affected their ability to hold the 1/1/1? Not saying there arent any, i just cant remember them. Certainly they're not talking about the Flux Veins ... That would be outrageous. They are certainly not talking about the KA nerf, because that would also be silly. They are probably just talking about the classic 4gate all-in (warpgate timing). From a Terran's perspective: (1) Tech builds are super greedy and are almost always countered by early aggression from the Toss. In this particular build, the Terran typically rushes for a reactor. (2) The Terran has to wall otherwise early Zealot Stalker Probe pressure can do massive damage. (3) The wall becomes a very real liability very quickly. 3gate Stargate punishes tech builds so hard, and you end up losing two SD's, a rax, and probably your reactor. (4) This particular army composition is not very strong until it reaches a certain number and combination of units. The composition is strongest when set up in a contain which includes bunkers, towers, etc ... Keeping the fight in the middle of the map or at the Terran's front door will slow this push so incredibly badly.(5) Stargate units pose the greatest threat, from what I've seen. Tanks cannot kill Zealots, and you will not have enough DPS to deal with the GS'd Zealots and VRs. You may even throw a phoenix or two in the mix the GB the tanks. Open 1gate Stargate on maps where you are expecting the 111 all-in. From a person's perspectiveThe classic rebuttal to a post like mine is to grab some pro replay that supports your argument and say, "Look, if MC cannot do it, how do you expect us to do it?" Unless you're at the pro level you're playing scrubs like me and yourself. They will mess up. You can force them to mess up. You can screw with their plan by pressuring, flanking, setting up ambushes, or doing anything except waiting at your base for the tide of death to sweep you away. It's really not your concern how, when or if the pros figure it out. What is your concern is how you're going to deal with it. Now, I realize that the vast majority of the metagame on the ladder in SC2 is just pro copycatting, and that is why referencing pros is so prevalant, but don't use the fact that they're struggling as a crutch for your own game. I struggle versus tons of stuff and get great enjoyment out of troll-raging imbaimba ezmode, but when it truly comes down to it, we choose to play SC2 and have to deal with balance issues. Sometimes we get the nerfs we want, sometimes we get the buffs we want, but these tweaks will never address fundamental game-design issues that are at the heart of a lot of these debates. Actually I enjoy watching pro matches far more than playing on ladder. And since watching protoss gosus get owned by an a-move build is no fun at all, it is my concern. Calling this all-in an a+move victory is just a slap in the face. No it is not. Compared to all ins which actually require great execution and micro (like blink stalkers of one base), this is easy mode. *genuine chuckle* TimeSpiral's posts in this thread have either been a) about nothing in particular b) nicely formatted with no relevant content. Though I agree that there is nothing fantastic about one base-blink play, you taking offense ("slap in the face") to the 1-1-1 being called an A-move victory is also comical. We get it TimeSpiral. You play Terran. You don't like infestors. You didn't like KA. You thought the EMP nerf was significant and game-changing. You (self-proclaimed) play at low diamond level. Instead of you championing your "wait and see" philosophy regarding the 1-1-1, perhaps you should apply the same restraint when complaining about TvZ? Show nested quote +From a Terran's perspective:
(1) Tech builds are super greedy and are almost always countered by early aggression from the Toss. In this particular build, the Terran typically rushes for a reactor.
(2) The Terran has to wall otherwise early Zealot Stalker Probe pressure can do massive damage.
(3) The wall becomes a very real liability very quickly. 3gate Stargate punishes tech builds so hard, and you end up losing two SD's, a rax, and probably your reactor.
(4) This particular army composition is not very strong until it reaches a certain number and combination of units. The composition is strongest when set up in a contain which includes bunkers, towers, etc ... Keeping the fight in the middle of the map or at the Terran's front door will slow this push so incredibly badly.
(5) Stargate units pose the greatest threat, from what I've seen. Tanks cannot kill Zealots, and you will not have enough DPS to deal with the GS'd Zealots and VRs. You may even throw a phoenix or two in the mix the GB the tanks. Open 1gate Stargate on maps where you are expecting the 111 all-in. Are these not relevant points to this discussion? I've no problem with self-proclaiming my skill-level. The ladder feels too "committal" for me. I'm not down with that anymore, like I used to be back in the good ol' days. [/spoiler]
I don't have a problem with your rebuttal.
Let me address your points regarding gameplay.
1) How are tech builds always countered by Toss? A wall-in and initial marine denies all scouting information from Protoss until an observer is produced. The real problem, as addressed by multiple pro Protoss players is that they simply DO NOT know what is coming. 2 Rax / 1 Rax Reactor CC / 1-1-1 / 3-1-1/ Marine Tank / Marine SCV All-in. If you mean that 4-gate counters tech builds, well then sure it does. 99% of the time it is executed, it is a blind-all-in. Just like a 3-rax counters tech builds / greedy plays of other races. There is nothing unique to Terran when it comes to the relationship between tech builds and early aggression / all-ins.
2) /3) Terran does not always have to wall-in vs Protoss. Zealot Stalker pressure can do great damage, but it is not entirely safe. A reaper opening hits right as a the Zealot-Stalker combo is walking across the map and leads to excellent scouting information and almost guaranteed probe kills. Additionally, you mention losing your reactor to 3-Gate-Stargate. Terrans I play in Master (not trying to be condescending) are very reluctant to wall in with a Barracks for this very reason. Instead, I have seen 3 Depots - 1 Bunker in the back, 2 Depot - 1 Bunker (much more common) or just 1 bunker. Putting your Barracks and Reactor at your wall is an INVITATION to Protoss players to charge their VR on it.
4)The Terran army composition is extremely strong. The trouble in fighting 1-1-1 as a Protoss is having the perfect composition in dealing with 1-1-1. Because all Protoss splash damage is T3 tech and Stalkers are pure shit vs 1-1-1, we are reliant on Zealot / Sentry / Immortal. Our first engagement is purely geared toward dealing with Marine / Tank, while the a secondary stalker warp-in is intended to deal with the banshees. If tanks and a huge clump of Marines survive the initial engagement, then the Protoss player is in a terrible position. PDD shuts down Stalkers. Tanks rape stalkers. SCV's buffer zealots. Marines + Raven can snipe an observer and end the game. What part of this composition seems weak to you? In what games has this composition looked easy to deal with at the 8:00~9:30 mark for Protoss?
(5) Opening Phoenix vs a Terran who opens Banshee is a build order advantage, but does not always play out well. Though they shut down the Raven / Banshee part of the composition, lifting tanks isn't easy with a large number of marines as support. MC used this opening vs Thorzain at MLG, who simply switched to vikings and continued his push for the win. Also, opening Stargate is somewhat risky as well. If you don't do enough damage, you will die to any kind of 2 base timing with MMG.
|
On August 24 2011 01:52 Yaotzin wrote:
Dude, he should've lost with a build that is, at worst, really fucking good. That indicates he didn't play all that great.
no. the game does not end after the first push. MC is far ahead.
don't make an argument based on external factors when we are considering one stage of the game. we are talking about the point up until the point where the 1-1-1 either wins or does not.
MC loses well after that fact.
|
On August 24 2011 01:55 Medrea wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2011 01:54 somadbro wrote:On August 24 2011 01:52 Yaotzin wrote:On August 24 2011 01:49 somadbro wrote:On August 24 2011 01:35 Yaotzin wrote:On August 24 2011 01:34 somadbro wrote:On August 24 2011 01:25 IVN wrote:On August 24 2011 01:23 somadbro wrote:On August 24 2011 01:06 IVN wrote:
Well then try playing 1 base blink stalker against terran, and awe at the micro you have to do, compared to the terran, in order to beat him.
I could care less how hard it is to beat you or your gold league opponents. Only games at the highest levels are relevant. Have you watched the replay of the MC vs Puma game on XNC from the most recent IEM and from Puma's perspective? Yeah, ultra easy. Hands down the easiest all in in the game. Even easier than 4gt - by far - and thats saying a lot. what's his sustained apm in the minute right before the push reaches MC's base? APM? Seriously? Pros spam. A lot. Their APM means fuckall. Look at what they actually do. Sometimes it's impressive, sometimes it's not. You could've picked far, far better examples. Someone like MVP would put that shitty allin of his to shame. name a top pro who spams inefficiently. pros have high apm, and there is some spam, but it's mostly efficient APM. if APM is efficient then looking at the APM required to execute a build or push is absolutely a measure of the skill to some degree. it's not necessarily the best, nor is it the most effective, but it is objective, easily quantifiable, and always comparable Er, it's much easier to name the ones who don't - I can only think of White-Ra. The rest all spam move 20 times clicking in the same place over and over and such. That might well help them be fast when it matters, but don't pretend that it's not a load of irrelevant clicks. Look at the list of top APM players at Dreamhack - it got published. There was pretty much no correlation to how good they are or how well they did there. actually, the stats from MLG anaheim disprove your theory. the player with higher APM wins 60% of the time. the player with +50 apm over their opponent wins almost 63% of the time. you may not like it, but APM is a metric and a useful one. source: http://www.majorleaguegaming.com/news/mlg-anaheim-sc2-stats 60 percent is not really an overwhelming amount and the sample size is too small anyway -.-
I agree with you criticisms based on the sample size. However, the percentages are overwhelming in a game where a player who wins 55% of their games is considered successful, and very successful at the highest level.
Of note: the player with the higher APM won the game 58.46% of the time. If one player's APM was at least 50 greater than the other's, that player won 65.7% of the time.
That is from MLG Columbus. I think there's a trend here, what about you?
http://www.majorleaguegaming.com/news/mlg-columbus-sc2-stats-breakdown
Whatever you claim, the best players consistently have very APM. There are bad players with very high APM, but no top pros are inefficient or have low apm's. Thorzain is among the few notable exceptions of very good players with 'low' APM, but he isn't what I would call 'top' quite yet.
I have to go offline for a bit, could you PM me any responses you want me to read and respond to personally? This is a good discussion and it will be washed away by the flood of posts between now and when I can again read the thread.
|
On August 24 2011 01:57 somadbro wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2011 01:52 Yaotzin wrote:
Dude, he should've lost with a build that is, at worst, really fucking good. That indicates he didn't play all that great. no. the game does not end after the first push. MC is far ahead.
Right. So after this supposedly impressive play from Puma, using a build that gives Protoss nightmares, he ends up far behind. That's um, great.
don't make an argument based on external factors when we are considering one stage of the game. we are talking about the point up until the point where the 1-1-1 either wins or does not.
MC loses well after that fact.
Right, he blows a big advantage. He held the initial push and should've won. That he did so indicates Puma did not play well at all.
|
On August 24 2011 01:57 QTIP. wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2011 01:32 TimeSpiral wrote:On August 24 2011 01:14 QTIP. wrote:On August 24 2011 00:58 TimeSpiral wrote:On August 24 2011 00:52 IVN wrote:On August 24 2011 00:31 TimeSpiral wrote:On August 23 2011 23:54 IVN wrote:On August 23 2011 23:38 TimeSpiral wrote:On August 23 2011 23:18 Deadlyfish wrote:On August 23 2011 22:54 Yaotzin wrote:
[quote]
Protoss got nerfed is what changed. The usual responses to a greedy build like 1/1/1 got gutted.
People do have a new build, it just dies if the Terran scouts you and responds correctly. What changes did protoss go through that affected their ability to hold the 1/1/1? Not saying there arent any, i just cant remember them. Certainly they're not talking about the Flux Veins ... That would be outrageous. They are certainly not talking about the KA nerf, because that would also be silly. They are probably just talking about the classic 4gate all-in (warpgate timing). From a Terran's perspective: (1) Tech builds are super greedy and are almost always countered by early aggression from the Toss. In this particular build, the Terran typically rushes for a reactor. (2) The Terran has to wall otherwise early Zealot Stalker Probe pressure can do massive damage. (3) The wall becomes a very real liability very quickly. 3gate Stargate punishes tech builds so hard, and you end up losing two SD's, a rax, and probably your reactor. (4) This particular army composition is not very strong until it reaches a certain number and combination of units. The composition is strongest when set up in a contain which includes bunkers, towers, etc ... Keeping the fight in the middle of the map or at the Terran's front door will slow this push so incredibly badly.(5) Stargate units pose the greatest threat, from what I've seen. Tanks cannot kill Zealots, and you will not have enough DPS to deal with the GS'd Zealots and VRs. You may even throw a phoenix or two in the mix the GB the tanks. Open 1gate Stargate on maps where you are expecting the 111 all-in. From a person's perspectiveThe classic rebuttal to a post like mine is to grab some pro replay that supports your argument and say, "Look, if MC cannot do it, how do you expect us to do it?" Unless you're at the pro level you're playing scrubs like me and yourself. They will mess up. You can force them to mess up. You can screw with their plan by pressuring, flanking, setting up ambushes, or doing anything except waiting at your base for the tide of death to sweep you away. It's really not your concern how, when or if the pros figure it out. What is your concern is how you're going to deal with it. Now, I realize that the vast majority of the metagame on the ladder in SC2 is just pro copycatting, and that is why referencing pros is so prevalant, but don't use the fact that they're struggling as a crutch for your own game. I struggle versus tons of stuff and get great enjoyment out of troll-raging imbaimba ezmode, but when it truly comes down to it, we choose to play SC2 and have to deal with balance issues. Sometimes we get the nerfs we want, sometimes we get the buffs we want, but these tweaks will never address fundamental game-design issues that are at the heart of a lot of these debates. Actually I enjoy watching pro matches far more than playing on ladder. And since watching protoss gosus get owned by an a-move build is no fun at all, it is my concern. Calling this all-in an a+move victory is just a slap in the face. No it is not. Compared to all ins which actually require great execution and micro (like blink stalkers of one base), this is easy mode. *genuine chuckle* TimeSpiral's posts in this thread have either been a) about nothing in particular b) nicely formatted with no relevant content. Though I agree that there is nothing fantastic about one base-blink play, you taking offense ("slap in the face") to the 1-1-1 being called an A-move victory is also comical. We get it TimeSpiral. You play Terran. You don't like infestors. You didn't like KA. You thought the EMP nerf was significant and game-changing. You (self-proclaimed) play at low diamond level. Instead of you championing your "wait and see" philosophy regarding the 1-1-1, perhaps you should apply the same restraint when complaining about TvZ? From a Terran's perspective:
(1) Tech builds are super greedy and are almost always countered by early aggression from the Toss. In this particular build, the Terran typically rushes for a reactor.
(2) The Terran has to wall otherwise early Zealot Stalker Probe pressure can do massive damage.
(3) The wall becomes a very real liability very quickly. 3gate Stargate punishes tech builds so hard, and you end up losing two SD's, a rax, and probably your reactor.
(4) This particular army composition is not very strong until it reaches a certain number and combination of units. The composition is strongest when set up in a contain which includes bunkers, towers, etc ... Keeping the fight in the middle of the map or at the Terran's front door will slow this push so incredibly badly.
(5) Stargate units pose the greatest threat, from what I've seen. Tanks cannot kill Zealots, and you will not have enough DPS to deal with the GS'd Zealots and VRs. You may even throw a phoenix or two in the mix the GB the tanks. Open 1gate Stargate on maps where you are expecting the 111 all-in. Are these not relevant points to this discussion? I've no problem with self-proclaiming my skill-level. The ladder feels too "committal" for me. I'm not down with that anymore, like I used to be back in the good ol' days. I don't have a problem with your rebuttal. Let me address your points regarding gameplay. 1) How are tech builds always countered by Toss? A wall-in and initial marine denies all scouting information from Protoss until an observer is produced. The real problem, as addressed by multiple pro Protoss players is that they simply DO NOT know what is coming. 2 Rax / 1 Rax Reactor CC / 1-1-1 / 3-1-1/ Marine Tank / Marine SCV All-in. If you mean that 4-gate counters tech builds, well then sure it does. 99% of the time it is executed, it is a blind-all-in. Just like a 3-rax counters tech builds / greedy plays of other races. There is nothing unique to Terran when it comes to the relationship between tech builds and early aggression / all-ins. 2) /3) Terran does not always have to wall-in vs Protoss. Zealot Stalker pressure can do great damage, but it is not entirely safe. A reaper opening hits right as a the Zealot-Stalker combo is walking across the map and leads to excellent scouting information and almost guaranteed probe kills. Additionally, you mention losing your reactor to 3-Gate-Stargate. Terrans I play in Master (not trying to be condescending) are very reluctant to wall in with a Barracks for this very reason. Instead, I have seen 3 Depots - 1 Bunker in the back, 2 Depot - 1 Bunker (much more common) or just 1 bunker. Putting your Barracks and Reactor at your wall is an INVITATION to Protoss players to charge their VR on it. 4) The Terran army composition is extremely strong. The trouble in fighting 1-1-1 as a Protoss is having the perfect composition in dealing with 1-1-1. Because all Protoss splash damage is T3 tech and Stalkers are pure shit vs 1-1-1, we are reliant on Zealot / Sentry / Immortal. Our first engagement is purely geared toward dealing with Marine / Tank, while the a secondary stalker warp-in is intended to deal with the banshees. If tanks and a huge clump of Marines survive the initial engagement, then the Protoss player is in a terrible position. PDD shuts down Stalkers. Tanks rape stalkers. SCV's buffer zealots. Marines + Raven can snipe an observer and end the game. What part of this composition seems weak to you? In what games has this composition looked easy to deal with at the 8:00~9:30 mark for Protoss? (5) Opening Phoenix vs a Terran who opens Banshee is a build order advantage, but does not always play out well. Though they shut down the Raven / Banshee part of the composition, lifting tanks isn't easy with a large number of marines as support. MC used this opening vs Thorzain at MLG, who simply switched to vikings and continued his push for the win. Also, opening Stargate is somewhat risky as well. If you don't do enough damage, you will die to any kind of 2 base timing with MMG. [/spoiler]
Let's end this on a high-note. Actual discussion happened.
|
On August 24 2011 01:54 somadbro wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2011 01:52 Yaotzin wrote:On August 24 2011 01:49 somadbro wrote:On August 24 2011 01:35 Yaotzin wrote:On August 24 2011 01:34 somadbro wrote:On August 24 2011 01:25 IVN wrote:On August 24 2011 01:23 somadbro wrote:On August 24 2011 01:06 IVN wrote:
Well then try playing 1 base blink stalker against terran, and awe at the micro you have to do, compared to the terran, in order to beat him.
I could care less how hard it is to beat you or your gold league opponents. Only games at the highest levels are relevant. Have you watched the replay of the MC vs Puma game on XNC from the most recent IEM and from Puma's perspective? Yeah, ultra easy. Hands down the easiest all in in the game. Even easier than 4gt - by far - and thats saying a lot. what's his sustained apm in the minute right before the push reaches MC's base? APM? Seriously? Pros spam. A lot. Their APM means fuckall. Look at what they actually do. Sometimes it's impressive, sometimes it's not. You could've picked far, far better examples. Someone like MVP would put that shitty allin of his to shame. name a top pro who spams inefficiently. pros have high apm, and there is some spam, but it's mostly efficient APM. if APM is efficient then looking at the APM required to execute a build or push is absolutely a measure of the skill to some degree. it's not necessarily the best, nor is it the most effective, but it is objective, easily quantifiable, and always comparable Er, it's much easier to name the ones who don't - I can only think of White-Ra. The rest all spam move 20 times clicking in the same place over and over and such. That might well help them be fast when it matters, but don't pretend that it's not a load of irrelevant clicks. Look at the list of top APM players at Dreamhack - it got published. There was pretty much no correlation to how good they are or how well they did there. actually, the stats from MLG anaheim disprove your theory. the player with higher APM wins 60% of the time. the player with +50 apm over their opponent wins almost 63% of the time. you may not like it, but APM is a metric and a useful one. source: http://www.majorleaguegaming.com/news/mlg-anaheim-sc2-stats
well...techniquely, if the other poster's stats are true, then he disproved your claim. You can't claim that APM is a clear metric if another example disproves it either.
On topic. @blazing hand: The problem with those examples is that it seems terran had no reaction to the toss player's builds. Which is part of what makes the 1/1/1 so devasting. That ability to quickly react in a defensive fashion as well as having a powerful timing/attack.
I like however though the idea of positioning zealots. (That's what I use at least)
I also find it amusing that everyone who sites counter examples of toss beating 1/1/1 just keep saying terran messed up. Although in the tvp examples, toss couldn't do anything...
I think it's important reitterating one of TimeSpiral's points: That everyone coming into this thread is incredibly biased as to one side of the argument but fails to portray with explicit reason why the other arguments are invalid or inferior. Instead we resort to ad hominem or saying that their skill level isn't high enough or that we should just listen to the pros for everything. Which is detrimental to each player's growth and doesn't help their personal gameplay/understanding.
|
Hmm...did anyone else notice that Polt basically did 1/1/1 in TvT against MMA in their first game yesterday? Still looked pretty strong in this matchup too...
|
On August 24 2011 02:00 somadbro wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2011 01:55 Medrea wrote:On August 24 2011 01:54 somadbro wrote:On August 24 2011 01:52 Yaotzin wrote:On August 24 2011 01:49 somadbro wrote:On August 24 2011 01:35 Yaotzin wrote:On August 24 2011 01:34 somadbro wrote:On August 24 2011 01:25 IVN wrote:On August 24 2011 01:23 somadbro wrote:On August 24 2011 01:06 IVN wrote:
Well then try playing 1 base blink stalker against terran, and awe at the micro you have to do, compared to the terran, in order to beat him.
I could care less how hard it is to beat you or your gold league opponents. Only games at the highest levels are relevant. Have you watched the replay of the MC vs Puma game on XNC from the most recent IEM and from Puma's perspective? Yeah, ultra easy. Hands down the easiest all in in the game. Even easier than 4gt - by far - and thats saying a lot. what's his sustained apm in the minute right before the push reaches MC's base? APM? Seriously? Pros spam. A lot. Their APM means fuckall. Look at what they actually do. Sometimes it's impressive, sometimes it's not. You could've picked far, far better examples. Someone like MVP would put that shitty allin of his to shame. name a top pro who spams inefficiently. pros have high apm, and there is some spam, but it's mostly efficient APM. if APM is efficient then looking at the APM required to execute a build or push is absolutely a measure of the skill to some degree. it's not necessarily the best, nor is it the most effective, but it is objective, easily quantifiable, and always comparable Er, it's much easier to name the ones who don't - I can only think of White-Ra. The rest all spam move 20 times clicking in the same place over and over and such. That might well help them be fast when it matters, but don't pretend that it's not a load of irrelevant clicks. Look at the list of top APM players at Dreamhack - it got published. There was pretty much no correlation to how good they are or how well they did there. actually, the stats from MLG anaheim disprove your theory. the player with higher APM wins 60% of the time. the player with +50 apm over their opponent wins almost 63% of the time. you may not like it, but APM is a metric and a useful one. source: http://www.majorleaguegaming.com/news/mlg-anaheim-sc2-stats 60 percent is not really an overwhelming amount and the sample size is too small anyway -.- I agree with you criticisms based on the sample size. However, the percentages are overwhelming in a game where a player who wins 55% of their games is considered successful, and very successful at the highest level. Show nested quote +Of note: the player with the higher APM won the game 58.46% of the time. If one player's APM was at least 50 greater than the other's, that player won 65.7% of the time. That is from MLG Columbus. I think there's a trend here, what about you? http://www.majorleaguegaming.com/news/mlg-columbus-sc2-stats-breakdownWhatever you claim, the best players consistently have very APM. There are bad players with very high APM, but no top pros are inefficient or have low apm's. Thorzain is among the few notable exceptions of very good players with 'low' APM, but he isn't what I would call 'top' quite yet. I have to go offline for a bit, could you PM me any responses you want me to read and respond to personally? This is a good discussion and it will be washed away by the flood of posts between now and when I can again read the thread.
So this graphics then?
![[image loading]](http://wordpress.tools.majorleaguegaming.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/players.jpg)
Thats all over the damn place.
|
On August 24 2011 01:48 Medrea wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2011 01:34 IVN wrote:On August 24 2011 01:28 Medrea wrote:On August 24 2011 01:23 IVN wrote:On August 24 2011 01:18 Medrea wrote:On August 24 2011 01:15 IVN wrote:
I have an idea.
What about a 1gt FE, into forge and blink, + 3 more gates?
What I'm thinking about is only building blink stalkers and 1 cannon per mineral line, so that the cloakshees can be spotted and taken out by blink stalkers.
Obviously one would have to make many blink stalkers and engage several times, in order to try to decimate the marines force and make the terran use his PDD. One engagement at terran's natural, one in the middle of the map, and the last one at one own's natural. While constantly warping in more blink stalkers.
Obviously this is a very micro intensive build. And since stalkers always leave you with a mineral surplus, one could add more cannons. Its good against the non scv version. Not so great with like 20 SCV's right there. Why not? I think it would be even better with all the SCVs there. Remember - I'm obviously pulling these numbers out of my ass - if you have 10-15 blink stalkers by the time he comes down his ramp, he would have to siege up every time you engage, because blink stalkers can never be owned by rines and banshees. And if the SCVs are there, this means that for every second that you can stall, you get a much greater force compared to the terran (2 base vs 1 base + pulled SCVs). Too much shit to shoot. Stalkers arent none for being baller in the damage department. Also 300 minerals in cannons that aren't helping in the fight is a real drag. When going stalkers minerals are key. Well on 2 base with only 2 gases, you will have a huge excess of minerals. And I know that stalkers have abysmal DPS, but with blink they are the most mobile unit in the game, and the unit with the highest retention rate. And if you look at the terran composition, it is immobile as fuck. So the logical conclusion would be to engage with something fast and retreat. Chipping away at his units and buying time so you can outproduce him. On August 24 2011 01:34 somadbro wrote:On August 24 2011 01:25 IVN wrote:On August 24 2011 01:23 somadbro wrote:On August 24 2011 01:06 IVN wrote:
Well then try playing 1 base blink stalker against terran, and awe at the micro you have to do, compared to the terran, in order to beat him.
I could care less how hard it is to beat you or your gold league opponents. Only games at the highest levels are relevant. Have you watched the replay of the MC vs Puma game on XNC from the most recent IEM and from Puma's perspective? Yeah, ultra easy. Hands down the easiest all in in the game. Even easier than 4gt - by far - and thats saying a lot. what's his sustained apm in the minute right before the push reaches MC's base? That is not important. Many players spam APM like crazy, w/o even doing anything. If the APM tab was any indicator of real, sensible actions, Goody would never win a game. (because his opponents always have 2-3x more APM) Honestly Blink+forge is one of my favorite ways of tackling this solution. And I think pro's would consider this a not too far away second place. The bullet points of this approach is that i f you want, you can just attempt to maul the terran immediately anytime you want once blink is done. Just try to flank with some zealots and blink right in as they engage. You will be nowhere to ontop of him instantly. Only problem is, you tend to lose everything, or almost everything. And all-in number two comes and kills you. Thats why immortals are the standard route. If they survive, the future all-ins won;t be a threat.
Well, I think that is bad idea. The purpose of the blink should be to stall. If you can get the terran to siege 3 times - once at his natural, once in the middle and once at your natural (parallel to blink cooldown) - you should be able to get one extra minute. In that minute you could get 8 more stalkers (with chrono), and maybe build a couple of cannons at your natural to stall even more. And while he is sieging your natural you could be positioning your blink stalker n a way, so you can cut off reinforcements, like zergs do with their lings when defending a 2rax bunker push. When he kills the nexus, the protoss should be able to have around 25 stalkers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
