|
Can we stop talking about nerfing things please? - 9:10 KST |
On August 24 2011 02:01 Yaotzin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2011 01:57 somadbro wrote: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. Show nested quote +
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.
Final thought before I leave:
Puma played not-optimally, and with a build that supposedly 'crushes Protoss,' ended up far behind. I think that this shows a few things: 1) the build is hard to execute. 2) the build is not even close to imbalanced.
IF it was easy, he wouldn't have made mistakes. If it was super-imba, he would've won with the first push. Instead, he plays 'okay' and literally, if MC hadn't shat the bed just a little harder than Puma, would've actually lost.
This build is also incredibly unforgiving. If your all-in fails, you all-in again? That's basically a strat guaranteed to lose once you are scouted in time once a viable and repeatable response has been found.
|
On August 24 2011 02:03 Aletheia27 wrote:
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...
Don't you think things like not sieging (thorzain GSTL), giving 3 free banshees and clocking up 200 energy on your orbital (asd v puzzle) are Terran messing up?
Give an example of the push being held without the Terran screwing up and we can talk. If you think it exists, say where. If people say Terran screwed up, tell us why he didn't.
That fucking terrible execution like Thorzain and asd is all people can come up with when asked for 1/1/1 being held is pretty telling.
|
On August 24 2011 02:04 IVN wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2011 01:48 Medrea wrote: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.
Sometimes you can walk right in before siege is done and look like a genius. Or you can also wait until he gets across the map to jump him for more units. The call is yours. I like to poke and wait until he is at my natural choke. Then flank with zealots, and then jump him.
Usually very messy though, Immortals is a tad cleaner. Both the losses and the wins.
|
On August 24 2011 02:05 somadbro wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2011 02:01 Yaotzin wrote:On August 24 2011 01:57 somadbro wrote: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. Final thought before I leave: Puma played not-optimally, and with a build that supposedly 'crushes Protoss,' ended up far behind. I think that this shows a few things: 1) the build is hard to execute. 2) the build is not even close to imbalanced. IF it was easy, he wouldn't have made mistakes. If it was super-imba, he would've won with the first push. Instead, he plays 'okay' and literally, if MC hadn't shat the bed just a little harder than Puma, would've actually lost. This build is also incredibly unforgiving. If your all-in fails, you all-in again? That's basically a strat guaranteed to lose once you are scouted in time once a viable and repeatable response has been found.
"Builds" are not hard to execute. We're kind of beyond that. People know how to derp units out of one base. And 1-1-1 is a very thick build, thats why it has so many variations and up to 3 waves of allin potential.
|
On August 24 2011 02:04 Medrea wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2011 02:00 somadbro wrote: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:
[quote]
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-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.
No it isn't. I said TOP players. Most of those players aren't even close to the skill level I'm indicating.
Also, no one below 200 on that list besides, as I had previously mentioned, Thorzain, is any good relative to top korean pros.
There aren't any good pros who are inefficient. there are plenty of bad ones with high APM who ARE inefficient.
Also, out of the top 32 players, look at the top 3 in particular. I don't think coincidence is an explanation.
edit: you're forgetting that Losira, MMA and MC made everyone there look like scrubs. Like a high-school football team who had come out against the NFL. They crushed the competition for the most part, and almost without any trouble. Idra put up some tough games initially, but then he tilted and basically got lol'd late in the loser's bracket.
|
it's a pretty funny build. I saw the 3 tank variation so many times that I got used to it. Then I played vs a guy who pushed first with 3 tanks but then pulled back and waited for 5. got raven first, no cloak, no siege mode. Once it has 5 tanks, it's got 2 pdd's making the banshees LITERALLY invincible to stalkers.
I told time about it and he wanted to try to play against it so I offraced as terran and SMASHED him with it. This 2nd push requires a totally different response. It might be storm. It comes much later, but it's still awkward- You need mass units to hold the 3 tank push, but then suddenly have a lot of tech for the 5 tank variety. All because the terran decides to wait a minute or two. That is why this style of play is seen as "imbalanced," because the responses are much more meticulous than what precipitates them.
After showing it to time a few times he managed to stop the 3 tank push like I said, and then was able to transition into either chargelot/archon or have a storm or 2 ready for the 5 tank push; once you get a storm off on the marines, it's a free win 
ps. the guy that was doing this on ladder was sgxtapeless, some guy who lets his gosu kr friend play on his account and get #3 GM for him :p
pps. I played against him 3 times and lost to the same push all 3 times 
edit: if you say "colossus" and you're against a 1 base 1/1/1 and you didn't ALREADY open 1g robo into 3g or 2g robo (for some reason....), don't bother saying anything
|
On August 24 2011 02:07 Yaotzin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2011 02:03 Aletheia27 wrote:
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...
Don't you think things like not sieging (thorzain GSTL), giving 3 free banshees and clocking up 200 energy on your orbital (asd v puzzle) are Terran messing up? Give an example of the push being held without the Terran screwing up and we can talk. If you think it exists, say where. If people say Terran screwed up, tell us why he didn't. That fucking terrible execution like Thorzain and asd is all people can come up with when asked for 1/1/1 being held is pretty telling.
You're going to site Thorzain...as you primary example for a terran 1/1/1? I'm sorry, but after watching thorzain's games against guineapig, it's gonna take me a while to think he was good enough to not make mistakes. What about the page of videos of players holding it? Or the guide in the strat forum? Even the OP claims there ARE openings capable of holding it.
Please stop being so absurdly biased.
|
The top 3 are Vibe, Select, and MMA. Only one of these is a top player.
|
On August 24 2011 02:04 IVN wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2011 01:48 Medrea wrote: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.
Or you could cut 3-4 stalkers and get out your first colossus! That's a gamechanger.
|
On August 24 2011 02:12 Yaotzin wrote:
The top 3 are Vibe, Select, and MMA. Only one of these is a top player.
you are not reading what i'm saying...
it's a metric when looking at TOP players. not looking at people with highest APM.
look at top players and tell me who has low APM or who spams inefficiently.
don't tell me who sucks and has a high apm. that doesn't refute my argument in any way.
the anaheim infographic will explain my point. Look at that infographic and you will realize that the top APM players aren't all good. all the good players, generally speaking, have very high APM when it matters. That's why the guys with the highest sustained averages aren't always the best: they are ALWAYS spamming.
I am guessing here, but Boxer probably never spams, similar to White-Ra and maybe Naniwa too. However, DRG, MVP, MMA, Huk and SeleCT (who isn't top either, but had recent success at NA invitational) all have high APM.
|
On August 24 2011 02:05 somadbro wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2011 02:01 Yaotzin wrote:On August 24 2011 01:57 somadbro wrote: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. Final thought before I leave: Puma played not-optimally, and with a build that supposedly 'crushes Protoss,' ended up far behind. I think that this shows a few things: 1) the build is hard to execute. 2) the build is not even close to imbalanced. IF it was easy, he wouldn't have made mistakes. If it was super-imba, he would've won with the first push. Instead, he plays 'okay' and literally, if MC hadn't shat the bed just a little harder than Puma, would've actually lost. This build is also incredibly unforgiving. If your all-in fails, you all-in again? That's basically a strat guaranteed to lose once you are scouted in time once a viable and repeatable response has been found.
I think of the main points of this thread is that there isn't any. Unless you think it should be what MC did that game, in which case the Terran win ratio with this build will continue to hover above 80%.
Finally, it's not hard to execute if your opponent expanded. Setting up a proper contain and transitioning out of it safely if the opponent is 1 basing is a bit more complicated, which is why people can beat it with 1 base Colossus at Masters level. But killing the natural is quite easy and straightforward.
|
On August 24 2011 02:02 TimeSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2011 01:57 QTIP. wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Let's end this on a high-note. Actual discussion happened. [/spoiler]
Yes it did.
|
On August 24 2011 02:12 Gummy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2011 02:04 IVN wrote:On August 24 2011 01:48 Medrea wrote: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. Or you could cut 3-4 stalkers and get out your first colossus! That's a gamechanger.
A robo. A bay. And a twilight council. And blink. In 9 minutes?
Yeah ok good luck with that.
|
On August 24 2011 02:11 Aletheia27 wrote:
You're going to site Thorzain...as you primary example for a terran 1/1/1?
I mentioned it because it was one of the 1/1/1 defences offered by people.
What about the page of videos of players holding it?
Of holding it against good players? Where are these pages?
Or the guide in the strat forum?
Nope, no good players there either.
Even the OP claims there ARE openings capable of holding it.
Yes, sorry, I should technically write "a defence that doesn't involve using a ridiculously unsafe build that has multiple BO losses if scouted". But I'm lazy, I leave that part out.
|
Any instructional video that I've seen which has told people how to hold off the 1-1-1 has defended a terribly executed 1-1-1. The main thing that defeats the push is time. Some pushes are arriving at 11 minutes or longer. Of course thats 10 times easier to hold than a push coming at 9:30.
I can hold a 4 gate in pvp with 1 gate stargate if the push arrived at 7:00 instead of 5:45.
|
On August 24 2011 02:14 somadbro wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2011 02:12 Yaotzin wrote:
The top 3 are Vibe, Select, and MMA. Only one of these is a top player. you are not reading what i'm saying... it's a metric when looking at TOP players. not looking at people with highest APM. look at top players and tell me who has low APM or who spams inefficiently. don't tell me who sucks and has a high apm. that doesn't refute my argument in any way.
A metric that doesn't measure the vast majority of players.... I don't see how you can really consider that a metric...except over your incredibly small subspace. So either it's not a metric...or not particularly relevant >_>
|
On August 24 2011 02:14 QTIP. wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2011 02:02 TimeSpiral wrote:On August 24 2011 01:57 QTIP. wrote: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:
[quote]
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 perspective
The 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. Let's end this on a high-note. Actual discussion happened. Yes it did. [/spoiler]
Hmm, you guys are right, and i agree with that big post.
Good then. I'm out then ok?
|
On August 24 2011 02:14 somadbro wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2011 02:12 Yaotzin wrote:
The top 3 are Vibe, Select, and MMA. Only one of these is a top player. you are not reading what i'm saying... it's a metric when looking at TOP players. not looking at people with highest APM. look at top players and tell me who has low APM or who spams inefficiently. don't tell me who sucks and has a high apm. that doesn't refute my argument in any way.
Hey you said look at the top 3, I looked at them.
Top players with low APM: White-ra, Sjow. Spam inefficiently: everyone else. They'll happily tell you they spam inefficiently themselves, you know. Just ask any of them.
|
On August 24 2011 02:10 somadbro wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2011 02:04 Medrea wrote:On August 24 2011 02:00 somadbro wrote: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:
[quote]
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-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? Thats all over the damn place. No it isn't. I said TOP players. Most of those players aren't even close to the skill level I'm indicating. Also, no one below 200 on that list besides, as I had previously mentioned, Thorzain, is any good relative to top korean pros. There aren't any good pros who are inefficient. there are plenty of bad ones with high APM who ARE inefficient. Also, out of the top 32 players, look at the top 3 in particular. I don't think coincidence is an explanation. edit: you're forgetting that Losira, MMA and MC made everyone there look like scrubs. Like a high-school football team who had come out against the NFL. They crushed the competition for the most part, and almost without any trouble. Idra put up some tough games initially, but then he tilted and basically got lol'd late in the loser's bracket.
Korean spam a lot that's all and they win a lot because they are good, but both are not really related.
Watch a player like HuK when he streams, it's pretty obvious that he spam a lot. (Don't get me wrong, i'm a huge HuK's fan, but still)
|
On August 24 2011 02:03 Aletheia27 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 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.
I don't disagree with you and I agree that I was at fault. Simply pointing fingers and gauging opinions based on skill doesn't encourage constructive debate nor possible solutions.
I shouldn't have used TimeSpiral's league as a basis for arguing against him -- though I still believe his points were regarding Terran's POV were a result of it. I did give him a post detailing explicitly why his arguments were inferior / invalid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
