|
Can we stop talking about nerfing things please? - 9:10 KST |
On August 24 2011 07:04 Razuik wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2011 06:56 LagT_T wrote:On August 24 2011 06:13 Razuik wrote:On August 24 2011 06:08 LagT_T wrote:On August 24 2011 05:56 Razuik wrote:On August 24 2011 05:51 Stratos_speAr wrote:On August 24 2011 05:48 _Search_ wrote:I honestly don't see how the 1/1/1 all-in is any different than any of the Protoss all-ins. Example: + Show Spoiler +Virus all-ins Genius in yesterday's GSL, so Genius responds by double void-ray all-ining Virus. What it basically comes down to is the game is still being figured out, to the point where specific unit combinations with specific timings will work surprisingly well, until a defense is figured out. Is it op? Definitely. Is it imba? Not so much, cause both races can do it. SC2 is much faster and more efficient than BW so these builds are bound to arise, and honestly, Protoss has had these 1-base all-in builds for months, so they really shouldn't be complaining. It's different because 1-1-1 is significantly harder for P to stop than for T to stop any P all-ins and 1-1-1 isn't even really an all-in. How do you know this? Unless you play both at a high level and have experienced both sides, you cannot make a claim like this. How can you even say that 1-1-1 is not an all-in when you pull about 13 scvs with it? Oh, lemme guess your answer "MULES, MULES ARE THE PROBLEM" The math regarding the economy of this opening in this matchup has already been discussed. Please refer to previous posts before posting retarded shit. Thank you very much. The math was done, but what is done on paper does not always reflect real in game scenarios. The MATH does not always take into account the MICRO ability of the defending protoss. I've posted about this before with no opposition, so please refer to my own previous posts before posting, please. What does micro has to do with minerals mined per second? Let me break down the problem for you, because it seems it is too hard for you to understand it all at once. Just follow the numbers: 1) SCVs + mules > CB + probes, economy-wise, during the early game. 2) Minerals mined per second translates into production capacity. 3) Because of 1) and 2) Terran 1/1/1 outproduces one basing Protoss. 4) The main DPS unit in this build is the marine, which costs only minerals. 5) The variety of support units (banshees, tanks, raven) in this build takes care of the Protoss responses to the marines. 6) Due to 3), 4) and 5), Terran will win after several waves of attack with even army trades because the economic advantage will turn into an army advantage. 7) Protoss fast expand builds counter 1/1/1, but are vulnerable to Terran early pressure. 8) Protoss can't scout in time to see if early pressure or 1/1/1 is coming. See? The problem is not an unbeatable unit combination, it is an economy timing. Let me put this simply like I have tons of times in this thread. The key to beating this build is a very safe tech expand. (1-gate-gate/2-gate robo expand). It will not be a big issue about how many units you have as long as you delay the push with your superior tech unit (colossus). You can take out scores of marines with a poke for only a few tank shots. As long as you micro correctly, you should only take shield damage from the tanks.
OMG 2gate robo! That is such a rare build I'm sure no one tried it! YOU ARE A GENIUS!
|
On August 24 2011 07:39 Khenra wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2011 07:32 Razuik wrote:On August 24 2011 07:21 Khenra wrote:
I agree that calling this build an all-in is ridiculous. You don't cut SCVs and the build is easy to transition out of. Are we going to call every build that delays your expansion an all-in now? We call a 4-gate all-in don't we? But you can TECHNICALLY build a nexus after an attack fails/succeeds. In your definition, nothing but a rush that pulls every single worker is the only thing that can be considered all-in. 4-gate cuts workers completely after 22. And you are stuck with 4 gates that you cannot produce out of if your attack fails. 6-rax off 1-base is an all-in. You cut SCVs after 18 and you're stuck with 6 rax you can't produce out of if your attack fails. Getting a barracks, factory, and then starport, all while continually producing SCVs, is NOT an all-in. In fact, this is the most normal thing in the world. Throwing down crazy fast expansions and holding off attacks with minimal units isn't something that even existed until 6 years after the release of StarCraft 1.
...or you stop production on 4gates and make workers/expo?
you cut off marine production for scv/expo?
it all depends on the situation. the first initial move(attack) allows what can and cannot be done and the option of transitioning out is there. there are options, therefore, not an all in. all in is exactly that, all in, no way coming back if the last move does not work.
i'm just sayin all-in is determined by the player, not a specific build. all builds can be transitioned out unless you're sending all your workers on the initial attack. (terran can brings scvs thanks to mules)
(if a player 4gate rush and sends his first wave, sees walls of bunkers with scvs ready to repair, or some other sign that 4gate will not work but if attacking players still decides to go on with "all-in"(by this i mean spending every single resources on attacking instead of expanding or teching) then its the player's fault, not the build)
by this example, all-in is situational and spontaneous, not a specific build. if anything, the player can already have a set strategy to use and plan to use that strategy only to win the game, if it fails, he quits. other than these two situations, i wouldn't consider any specific build "all-in" and i'm including 6pool. unless you're 6pooling without even scouting for position...this is player error, not an "all in build"
i apologize for offtoipic, let us continue with original topic.
|
On August 24 2011 06:21 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2011 06:14 Cyrak wrote:On August 24 2011 05:58 Blazinghand wrote:On August 24 2011 05:55 DertoQq wrote:On August 24 2011 05:51 galivet wrote:
I wonder if the GSL looked to be filling up with terrans whether or not GOM would take steps somehow still broadcast protoss and zerg matches. Maybe they could use the handicap system built into the game?
It seems like GOM-TV risks losing around 2/3 of its viewership if the current balance trends continue. Not a lot of people will buy season tickets to watch GOM-TVT. They would never do such a thing. One way or another the problem will be fix, but its not the responsibility of GOM. either the players need to figure out builds or blizzard need to patch the game. That's reasonable; I think it's also worth noting that in Code S, there have been like 15-16 terran players out of 32 all year this year, and that hasn't really changed-- I'm not sure why GomTV would need to take sudden action now, especially since things haven't really changed that much and the current defending champion is Zerg. The ball is in the court of the players to develop a new strategy, and mayyyyybe blizzard for a balance deal... but i mean it's also in the court of mapmakers to not make maps for GSL that favor this build. Close spawns are close spawns  Agreed, none of this is GOM's problem at all. If it gets so bad that GOM starts losing subscribers en masse due to poor games and domination of X race then there will be a patch anyway. Show nested quote +On August 24 2011 06:11 galivet wrote:On August 24 2011 05:58 Blazinghand wrote:On August 24 2011 05:55 DertoQq wrote:On August 24 2011 05:51 galivet wrote:
I wonder if the GSL looked to be filling up with terrans whether or not GOM would take steps somehow still broadcast protoss and zerg matches. Maybe they could use the handicap system built into the game?
It seems like GOM-TV risks losing around 2/3 of its viewership if the current balance trends continue. Not a lot of people will buy season tickets to watch GOM-TVT. They would never do such a thing. One way or another the problem will be fix, but its not the responsibility of GOM. either the players need to figure out builds or blizzard need to patch the game. That's reasonable; I think it's also worth noting that in Code S, there have been like 15-16 terran players out of 32 all year this year, and that hasn't really changed-- I'm not sure why GomTV would need to take sudden action now, especially since things haven't really changed that much and the current defending champion is Zerg. The ball is in the court of the players to develop a new strategy, and mayyyyybe blizzard for a balance deal... but i mean it's also in the court of mapmakers to not make maps for GSL that favor this build. Close spawns are close spawns The problem is this: Let's say you're a zerg fan and you'll only watch matches where one player is zerg. You have far fewer matches of interest to you in the GSL than someone who is a terran fan and only watches matches where one player is terran. So terran fans end up getting a better deal out of a GOM season ticket because terrans play more matches overall than the other two races. I remember how pissed I was in the super tournament when I bought a season ticket early and there turned out to be very very few matches to watch that involved a protoss. After that I vowed to not buy a season ticket until the season finished, so I could see whether or not I would really get my money's worth of entertainment. TvT and TvZ hold no interest for me. If many people think this way then GOM's revenues will decline as their tournament lineup drifts more and more into a terran monoculture. I mean, it's not that there's nothing GOM can do about this btw; if this DOES turn out to be some sort of major imbalance, GOM can just use different maps that don't allow this kind of play to be successful. That being said, I think it's true that a Zerg player who only wants to watch Zerg games (or even moreso, a protoss player who only wants to watch protoss games) could be disappointing at times in the number of games available. Maybe in that case, as an entertainment group GOM could make the decisions to change the map pool. I'm sure they wouldn't let it come to that though as they want to retain viewers. Also, I think it's again worth noting that there's no new resurgence in terran monoculture in Code S; in the Ro32 there were 17 terrans instead of the more traditional 15, but this feels like more of a blip than a trend-- though we'll have to see the result of this season's up/downs, which has a lot of terran; though it's a tough up/down this season too with Leenock MC, Alicia, and Losira who will probably take up most of the slots for Code S.
That's actually an interesting point. I'm kind of embarrassed that I didn't think about the map issue. The major problem there would be finding a balance between anti 1-1-1 maps (can only assume this would mean extremely large maps or in base expansion maps) and maps where Zerg wouldn't be at an advantage due to spatial control and macro.
It's also worth considering the virtue of game balance changes vs. manipulating balance via mapmaking since these are in essence two ways to approach the same problem. Part of me prefers patching the game until the widest possible variety of maps offer balanced games which in turn gives mapmakers more leeway to make interesting maps.
However, your point is well taken.
|
On August 24 2011 07:49 Cyrak wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2011 06:21 Blazinghand wrote:On August 24 2011 06:14 Cyrak wrote:On August 24 2011 05:58 Blazinghand wrote:On August 24 2011 05:55 DertoQq wrote:On August 24 2011 05:51 galivet wrote:
I wonder if the GSL looked to be filling up with terrans whether or not GOM would take steps somehow still broadcast protoss and zerg matches. Maybe they could use the handicap system built into the game?
It seems like GOM-TV risks losing around 2/3 of its viewership if the current balance trends continue. Not a lot of people will buy season tickets to watch GOM-TVT. They would never do such a thing. One way or another the problem will be fix, but its not the responsibility of GOM. either the players need to figure out builds or blizzard need to patch the game. That's reasonable; I think it's also worth noting that in Code S, there have been like 15-16 terran players out of 32 all year this year, and that hasn't really changed-- I'm not sure why GomTV would need to take sudden action now, especially since things haven't really changed that much and the current defending champion is Zerg. The ball is in the court of the players to develop a new strategy, and mayyyyybe blizzard for a balance deal... but i mean it's also in the court of mapmakers to not make maps for GSL that favor this build. Close spawns are close spawns Agreed, none of this is GOM's problem at all. If it gets so bad that GOM starts losing subscribers en masse due to poor games and domination of X race then there will be a patch anyway. On August 24 2011 06:11 galivet wrote:On August 24 2011 05:58 Blazinghand wrote:On August 24 2011 05:55 DertoQq wrote:On August 24 2011 05:51 galivet wrote:
I wonder if the GSL looked to be filling up with terrans whether or not GOM would take steps somehow still broadcast protoss and zerg matches. Maybe they could use the handicap system built into the game?
It seems like GOM-TV risks losing around 2/3 of its viewership if the current balance trends continue. Not a lot of people will buy season tickets to watch GOM-TVT. They would never do such a thing. One way or another the problem will be fix, but its not the responsibility of GOM. either the players need to figure out builds or blizzard need to patch the game. That's reasonable; I think it's also worth noting that in Code S, there have been like 15-16 terran players out of 32 all year this year, and that hasn't really changed-- I'm not sure why GomTV would need to take sudden action now, especially since things haven't really changed that much and the current defending champion is Zerg. The ball is in the court of the players to develop a new strategy, and mayyyyybe blizzard for a balance deal... but i mean it's also in the court of mapmakers to not make maps for GSL that favor this build. Close spawns are close spawns The problem is this: Let's say you're a zerg fan and you'll only watch matches where one player is zerg. You have far fewer matches of interest to you in the GSL than someone who is a terran fan and only watches matches where one player is terran. So terran fans end up getting a better deal out of a GOM season ticket because terrans play more matches overall than the other two races. I remember how pissed I was in the super tournament when I bought a season ticket early and there turned out to be very very few matches to watch that involved a protoss. After that I vowed to not buy a season ticket until the season finished, so I could see whether or not I would really get my money's worth of entertainment. TvT and TvZ hold no interest for me. If many people think this way then GOM's revenues will decline as their tournament lineup drifts more and more into a terran monoculture. I mean, it's not that there's nothing GOM can do about this btw; if this DOES turn out to be some sort of major imbalance, GOM can just use different maps that don't allow this kind of play to be successful. That being said, I think it's true that a Zerg player who only wants to watch Zerg games (or even moreso, a protoss player who only wants to watch protoss games) could be disappointing at times in the number of games available. Maybe in that case, as an entertainment group GOM could make the decisions to change the map pool. I'm sure they wouldn't let it come to that though as they want to retain viewers. Also, I think it's again worth noting that there's no new resurgence in terran monoculture in Code S; in the Ro32 there were 17 terrans instead of the more traditional 15, but this feels like more of a blip than a trend-- though we'll have to see the result of this season's up/downs, which has a lot of terran; though it's a tough up/down this season too with Leenock MC, Alicia, and Losira who will probably take up most of the slots for Code S. That's actually an interesting point. I'm kind of embarrassed that I didn't think about the map issue. The major problem there would be finding a balance between anti 1-1-1 maps (can only assume this would mean extremely large maps or in base expansion maps) and maps where Zerg wouldn't be at an advantage due to spatial control and macro. It's also worth considering the virtue of game balance changes vs. manipulating balance via mapmaking since these are in essence two ways to approach the same problem. Part of me prefers patching the game until the widest possible variety of maps offer balanced games which in turn gives mapmakers more leeway to make interesting maps. However, your point is well taken.
If I'm not mistaken, Blizzard will still have a say on the maps. One of the things they ensure is that the maps have a Xel'Naga tower and even when destructible rocks were unpopular, they insist that maps have them. I'm not sure whether a gold base is required but the point is that Blizzard does not want the maps to deviate from what they wish the game to be like. And they've said many times they want a diverse range of maps.
Personally, changing the maps just because of one build is overkill. Why should other matchups or even other builds be affected just because of this OP build? For example, would they revert the delayed stim timing and bunker timing in favor of bigger maps? Of course not.
|
The problem with the idea of fixing the maps to fix the problem is that this would require you to have only large maps in the map pool. Sure, we don't want any more Steppes of War, but we shouldn't be completely ruling out maps that are smaller that Tal'Darim Alter just because 1-1-1 screws up TvP so badly. If it screws up the match up on so many maps, it's something wrong with the build, not just the maps.
|
2-3 warpgate + vr should deal with 1/1/1 ok until they get pdd.
|
I see a lot of flawed arguments in this thread. This post has nothing to do with the coinflip issue, so I'd appreciate it if you'd refrain from using that as an argument in this context.
You are supposed to have to play better than your opponent in order to win. Saying that a matchup is imbalanced because you have to play better than your opponent or because it is harder for you to execute the counter than it is for your opponent to execute the attack, is nonsensical.
Take TvP in SC:BW as an example; while P can easily (from a mechanical standpoint) get an arbiter and recall inside the T base, it is much harder for T to counter this. T has to patrol vessels, build turrets, place mine fields, and can instantly lose the game if he doesn't watch the minimap for a few seconds. As you can see, the attack is much easier to execute than the defense, but I have yet to encounter even a single respectable Terran player who thinks TvP in SC:BW is imbalanced because T has to play better than P in order to win.
|
On August 24 2011 08:02 kheldorin wrote:
If I'm not mistaken, Blizzard will still have a say on the maps. One of the things they ensure is that the maps have a Xel'Naga tower and even when destructible rocks were unpopular, they insist that maps have them. I'm not sure whether a gold base is required but the point is that Blizzard does not want the maps to deviate from what they wish the game to be like. And they've said many times they want a diverse range of maps.
Ye, and they have good reasons for that. They want to be able to balance the game like they want and since maps are part of balance, it wouldn't make too much sense if companies like GSL had a say on balance.
|
im astounded by how many retards think 3gate VR counters 1-1-1
3gate VR is actually a build order loss to 1-1-1. the reason protoss seem to be going 3gate VR alot now is because its the strongest all-in available (5gate or 4gate isnt good, but 3gate VR can actually win games if the terran ISNT going 1-1-1)
actually, on second thought, i think if the protoss plays it perfectly he could turn a game into a equal scenario if the enemy goes 1-1-1 and he goes 3gate VR, the secret would be to not try to break the terrans bunkers and instead expand slowly and try to get charge asap
|
On August 24 2011 08:10 I_PROTOSSED_MY_HW wrote:
I see a lot of flawed arguments in this thread. This post has nothing to do with the coinflip issue, so I'd appreciate it if you'd refrain from using that as an argument in this context.
You are supposed to have to play better than your opponent in order to win. Saying that a matchup is imbalanced because you have to play better than your opponent or because it is harder for you to execute the counter than it is for your opponent to execute the attack, is nonsensical.
Take TvP in SC:BW as an example; while P can easily (from a mechanical standpoint) get an arbiter and recall inside the T base, it is much harder for T to counter this. T has to patrol vessels, build turrets, place mine fields, and can instantly lose the game if he doesn't watch the minimap for a few seconds. As you can see, the attack is much easier to execute than the defense, but I have yet to encounter even a single respectable Terran player who thinks TvP in SC:BW is imbalanced because T has to play better than P in order to win.
There is a difference between that BW situation and what people are describing here, though. When you find a build/strat that requires a masters player to beat a diamond player executing it (obviously exaggerated example), that masters player is most probably going to lose when another masters player uses it against him. This becomes a problem when you extrapolate to the top of the skill levels. Defending Protoss would have to be much better than the Terrans executing this attack - except they probably aren't. This creates a situation where Terran dominates.
Even when not looking at the top level, regular ladder players are going to be affected by this as well. Since the matchmaking doesn't utilize different MMR's for different matchups, your MMR is going to be pulled down by that one matchup that you just cannot win reliably. You're going to be stomping players in PvP and PvZ while losing most of your matches in PvT, and your MMR will not adjust for this.
Personally I don't believe the situation is this extreme, but I have found 1/1/1 exceptionally hard to deal with. Defending it is just a very tedious and fragile process, where the slightest misstep means a loss. I'm sure with some experience and build adjustments, P can overcome this hurdle, but the coinflip issue at the start of the game is a problem that I'm not sure we can fix.
At lower leagues this is an even worse problem, since players don't always execute the builds they use as efficiently as possible, so any scouting information you may get is probably inaccurate. Only at the top levels can you read your opponent's build from their ramp.
|
On August 24 2011 08:10 I_PROTOSSED_MY_HW wrote:
I see a lot of flawed arguments in this thread. This post has nothing to do with the coinflip issue, so I'd appreciate it if you'd refrain from using that as an argument in this context.
You are supposed to have to play better than your opponent in order to win. Saying that a matchup is imbalanced because you have to play better than your opponent or because it is harder for you to execute the counter than it is for your opponent to execute the attack, is nonsensical.
Take TvP in SC:BW as an example; while P can easily (from a mechanical standpoint) get an arbiter and recall inside the T base, it is much harder for T to counter this. T has to patrol vessels, build turrets, place mine fields, and can instantly lose the game if he doesn't watch the minimap for a few seconds. As you can see, the attack is much easier to execute than the defense, but I have yet to encounter even a single respectable Terran player who thinks TvP in SC:BW is imbalanced because T has to play better than P in order to win.
recall play is not hard to stop with already planted mines and few turrets here and there to force hallucination. but then again, mines would be placed if terran saw the recall coming. then this is just tactical information which then applies to any other tech/tactics out there like dt, ghost, reaver, other drops, w/e.
just sayin, defense vs offence isn't so offset in bw as you described.
in sc2, i think its fairly balanced but balanced on a tip of a needle.
|
On August 24 2011 06:43 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2011 06:40 CikaZombi wrote:
What I've found that works for me is actually hallucination. I prefer mass gate play with zarchon and storm later rather than any other build anyway so this way I can rely on it afterwards. What I get is mass sentry while fast expanding, then mass zealot with a quick +1 armor and hallucination when on 2 bases. Then charge is done and the t.archives should be going down right as the 1/1/1 hits. What hallucination does for me is give me the scouting and high ground vision (when I retaliate) and also wastes charges on the PDD quickly, while still keeping me on my build order. Charge wrecks tanks and in combo with FF's, armor upgrade and guardian shield it destroys marines. Sentries can maybe take of the banshees but another wave of stalkers should seal the deal. So what happens if the Terran does either: a) A cloak version with banshee harass first, or b) just standard banshee harassment before he moves out with the whole army? You will have Sentry/Zealot only, and Hallucination won't be able to scout a first banshee moves out.
You are not obliged to build only sentries. One of the reasons is the initial poke with a stalker at his wall to scout the number of marines and whatnot. The banshee is a problem tho but i tend to spend a couple of extra bucks on cannons. It could fail miserably tho, but this build is so good that I've seen terrans do the non-cloak variation almost exclusively because it's so effective. Hallucination can and will actually spot the fist banshee coming out of starport or on it's way to the base (the research time is minimal) so i can react with the initial stalker + 1/2 warpin. Banshee w/o cloak can be dealt with easily.
|
On August 24 2011 03:41 DertoQq wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2011 03:38 IVN wrote:On August 24 2011 02:58 jackalope1234 wrote:
you guys realize someone made a build to counter this right? I've won everygame vs 1/1/1 now and its not all in and most times they dont even get the chance to move out. I basically have higher level tech more econ and can still kill him. Really? Sounds interesting. Maybe you should give MC some lessons. Instead of just saying that, could you actually give us the build/link ?
MC isnt omnipotent he doesnt know of everything....
The build is in the sc2 strategy forum by vvvtime. Im serious It wrecks so much and you dont even have to use a scout on 2 player maps. If you can micro well enough you can do some serious damage and find out exactly what terran is doing and respond effectively. The only problem with the build is a techlab first 2 rax in which case I dont go into the twilight as he has stated. The first 3 terrans I played on ladder all tried the 1/1/1 and i killed all of them before the even had a chance to move out and I had an expo and a ton of tech. The build really freaks out a lot of terrans and can force mistakes which allow you to get even more ahead. I favor getting more stalkers out for more harass but his way relies more on the engage that will come. I've even beaten close spawn shattered 1/1/1 with the build.
|
On August 24 2011 08:46 jackalope1234 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2011 03:41 DertoQq wrote:On August 24 2011 03:38 IVN wrote:On August 24 2011 02:58 jackalope1234 wrote:
you guys realize someone made a build to counter this right? I've won everygame vs 1/1/1 now and its not all in and most times they dont even get the chance to move out. I basically have higher level tech more econ and can still kill him. Really? Sounds interesting. Maybe you should give MC some lessons. Instead of just saying that, could you actually give us the build/link ? MC isnt omnipotent he doesnt know of everything.... The build is in the sc2 strategy forum by vvvtime. Im serious It wrecks so much and you dont even have to use a scout on 2 player maps. If you can micro well enough you can do some serious damage and find out exactly what terran is doing and respond effectively. The only problem with the build is a techlab first 2 rax in which case I dont go into the twilight as he has stated. The first 3 terrans I played on ladder all tried the 1/1/1 and i killed all of them before the even had a chance to move out and I had an expo and a ton of tech. The build really freaks out a lot of terrans and can force mistakes which allow you to get even more ahead. I favor getting more stalkers out for more harass but his way relies more on the engage that will come. I've even beaten close spawn shattered 1/1/1 with the build.
replays please. the one in his thread against 1-1-1 was kind of bad
|
First off, the point of this post was confusing. I wont try to be an english teacher but Cryingpoop needs an actual argument throughout (besides the title). I think the difference in perspectives between the author and quoted korean is that the author may be basing his theory on both opponents knowing nothing about each other (in which case I agree). But, if prior knowledge of opponents capability given the map is known (as it probably was during the fore-mentioned comment by Gisado), i agree with the quoted comment that that protoss has a harder time concealing building information and an even harder time in concealing units without suspicion/instant-awareness of strategy.
|
There is a big problem with this build in my opinion.
It is possible to stop but you need to be ultra prepared for it, now the problem:
It's very hard too actually scout, until u get an obs in his base (at that point it's allready too late) u have no idea what's going on.
The only thing you know is that he didn't expand yet, but that doesn't mean much, his CC might be in his main still or stuff like that.
So you have to prepare for a build blind, which puts you far behind if they happen to not do it.
Also even with good preparation the chance the Terran actually wins is still 50/50, hence why every1 uses it.
There shouldn't be builds in this game with such a high winrate that is so easy to execute.
|
Hmm I agree that the 1/1/1 being strong only because it can surprise you. I dont think theres is any imbalance in the races but i do think that there must be some well timed all-ins that are pretty darn difficult to hold off if you dont perfectly prepare for it. I think its really important how you mentioned at INFORMATION is actually a very important resource and a race's ability to gather information should be considered
|
On August 24 2011 09:14 Aquilla wrote:
Hmm I agree that the 1/1/1 being strong only because it can surprise you. I dont think theres is any imbalance in the races but i do think that there must be some well timed all-ins that are pretty darn difficult to hold off if you dont perfectly prepare for it. I think its really important how you mentioned at INFORMATION is actually a very important resource and a race's ability to gather information should be considered
Simple way to agree with me lol... Exactly Right
(but only for pros imo)
|
On August 24 2011 09:11 hugedong wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2011 08:46 jackalope1234 wrote:On August 24 2011 03:41 DertoQq wrote:On August 24 2011 03:38 IVN wrote:On August 24 2011 02:58 jackalope1234 wrote:
you guys realize someone made a build to counter this right? I've won everygame vs 1/1/1 now and its not all in and most times they dont even get the chance to move out. I basically have higher level tech more econ and can still kill him. Really? Sounds interesting. Maybe you should give MC some lessons. Instead of just saying that, could you actually give us the build/link ? MC isnt omnipotent he doesnt know of everything.... The build is in the sc2 strategy forum by vvvtime. Im serious It wrecks so much and you dont even have to use a scout on 2 player maps. If you can micro well enough you can do some serious damage and find out exactly what terran is doing and respond effectively. The only problem with the build is a techlab first 2 rax in which case I dont go into the twilight as he has stated. The first 3 terrans I played on ladder all tried the 1/1/1 and i killed all of them before the even had a chance to move out and I had an expo and a ton of tech. The build really freaks out a lot of terrans and can force mistakes which allow you to get even more ahead. I favor getting more stalkers out for more harass but his way relies more on the engage that will come. I've even beaten close spawn shattered 1/1/1 with the build. replays please. the one in his thread against 1-1-1 was kind of bad
Well I've always just killed the terran while expoing and teching slower to ht by making more stalkers when they tried to do it vs me. Do you still want reps? The early pressure also is nice cause in some of my reps when there wasnt a bunker right away it makes them unable to get a reactor or slows the reactor as they need the extra marines and cant wait for a reactor to build.
|
On August 24 2011 09:24 jackalope1234 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2011 09:11 hugedong wrote:On August 24 2011 08:46 jackalope1234 wrote:On August 24 2011 03:41 DertoQq wrote:On August 24 2011 03:38 IVN wrote:On August 24 2011 02:58 jackalope1234 wrote:
you guys realize someone made a build to counter this right? I've won everygame vs 1/1/1 now and its not all in and most times they dont even get the chance to move out. I basically have higher level tech more econ and can still kill him. Really? Sounds interesting. Maybe you should give MC some lessons. Instead of just saying that, could you actually give us the build/link ? MC isnt omnipotent he doesnt know of everything.... The build is in the sc2 strategy forum by vvvtime. Im serious It wrecks so much and you dont even have to use a scout on 2 player maps. If you can micro well enough you can do some serious damage and find out exactly what terran is doing and respond effectively. The only problem with the build is a techlab first 2 rax in which case I dont go into the twilight as he has stated. The first 3 terrans I played on ladder all tried the 1/1/1 and i killed all of them before the even had a chance to move out and I had an expo and a ton of tech. The build really freaks out a lot of terrans and can force mistakes which allow you to get even more ahead. I favor getting more stalkers out for more harass but his way relies more on the engage that will come. I've even beaten close spawn shattered 1/1/1 with the build. replays please. the one in his thread against 1-1-1 was kind of bad Well I've always just killed the terran while expoing and teching slower to ht by making more stalkers when they tried to do it vs me. Do you still want reps?
Replays are useful to determine whether the reason it was held of was due to the build itself or if it's attributed more to the opponent doing a bad job at executing their build. If it would turn out to be a viable strategy, then a replay can explain far more than a forum post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
