EPTWhy 1/1/1 is considered to be imbalanced in Korea - Page 13
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
Can we stop talking about nerfing things please? - 9:10 KST | ||
|
hugman
Sweden4644 Posts
| ||
|
Percutio
United States1672 Posts
On August 22 2011 07:00 KWest wrote: Have people tried the TTone build rush that rushes for +1 armor? The Marine DPS makes the 1-1-1 build scary and +1 armor and sentries mitigate that. I'm not a protoss player, but I'd rather see this thread suggest how to fix it then assume its already imbalanced. This can work if you can manage the economy and get charge out, but in order to do it right you would still lack the scouting information as others have pointed out. Then if the terran scouts your build he can just go banshee heavy and win that way. Essentially it has the same flaws as a lot of the theoretical solutions. | ||
|
Lordwar
Finland243 Posts
On August 22 2011 07:06 hugman wrote: Even if Tyler isn't among the top pros he's still better than anyone else in this thread so why even begin to question his knowledge? If he can't debate then no one else can Never pay attention to who is making the argument, always pay attention to argument itself. | ||
|
kheldorin
Singapore539 Posts
On August 22 2011 07:05 Razuik wrote: If you're going for 3-gate robo with an extremely late expo, you should not let him build those bunkers. If you do then it's an extreme blunder on the protoss' part. With what exactly? With a pdd down and siege tanks protecting it, the bunkers will go down. Once the bunkers are down, the scvs will return and they will switch to viking production. | ||
|
Medrea
10003 Posts
On August 22 2011 07:06 hugman wrote: Even if Tyler isn't among the top pros he's still better than anyone else in this thread so why even begin to question his knowledge? If he can't debate then no one else can That's true. But people like IMMVP are also saying it is unfair to the point where he won;t do it because he believes it invalidates his results. That's the dudes active career he is staking there. MVP could just 1-1-1 every protoss he comes across but he won't because he feels its unfair and unprofessional. And he plays terran. | ||
|
Razuik
United States409 Posts
On August 22 2011 07:04 blooblooblahblah wrote: This would be true if there was a reactive 1base build tht could actually hold it off. I'm quite certain that 3-gate robo wrecks the 1-1-1 allin unless you engage in a TERRIBLE position or let him bunker up (which there is no reason you should let him). | ||
|
TheRealPaciFist
United States1049 Posts
edit: Oh, I'm guessing this has something to do with IEM and Puma. (I didn't watch IEM 'cause of DotA 2) | ||
|
Meta
United States6225 Posts
 I think the reason why people are using this strat these days is that it's very hard to beat a good protoss with bio, it's impossible to beat any protoss with mech and banshee openings are highly variable. Mix in all three and you get a unit composition that's as diverse as the protoss army and equally hard to kill. | ||
|
Huntz
164 Posts
If you're going for 3-gate robo with an extremely late expo, you should not let him build those bunkers. If you do then it's an extreme blunder on the protoss' part. that's where you lose to the second wave/in base CC floats out and secured via seige tank reinforcements, bunkers and possibility of banshee harass | ||
|
Cyber_Cheese
Australia3615 Posts
give it a while and protoss will figure out a way as to whether thats balanced or not? well 4 gates eventually got nerfed so maybe, but at that point they were only a problem in PvP | ||
|
illsick
United States1770 Posts
On August 22 2011 07:00 TRAP[yoo] wrote: im sure terran would scout the forge expand and still do 111... dude please stop trolling he was being sarcastic to Lordwar's cute tips lol | ||
|
Medrea
10003 Posts
On August 22 2011 07:08 Cyber_Cheese wrote: this reminds me of the early days of 4-gateing give it a while and protoss will figure out a way Nerfs happened. So nerfs should happen now? | ||
|
blooblooblahblah
Australia4163 Posts
On August 22 2011 07:02 ProxyKnoxy wrote: @Jayrod If you're only in here to bash Tyler (which you have been doing in most of these posts) then take your opinions elsewhere.. I don't understand why you don't respect his opinion as he is well known to be an extremely knowledgeable player. I believe Cella actually said that 1 gate robo expand is the best way to hold off the 111, and as Cella is the coach of a ton of very high level Terrans, his opinion seems pretty good to me. Another example I saw was Killer vs Select, where SelecT went for the 111 on close air positions on Metalopolis. Killer went 15 nexus, and after scouting the 111 (I think) he went for blink stalkers. Due to their mobility he was able to delay the push a lot, and picked off a few tanks. When the push finally came he crushed it pretty easily. So, with good control, are blink stalkers an option? Although I suppose it depends on the Terran's mistakes and if they leave the tanks unguarded as they move across the map/siege. In tht particular game, Select went gas so he couldn't punish the Nexus first (like the other two games where he demolished SangHo). Nexus first is good against 1-1-1 and SangHo was able to delay the push so much tht his economy was just too good. I believe there is a blink expand which can get u 1 storm in time for the 1-1-1 so tht may be a possibility. But going Nexus first every time has obvious flaws. | ||
|
Trusty
New Zealand520 Posts
On August 22 2011 06:08 naggerNZ wrote: Perhaps, much like how Zerg handle a 2rax bunker rush, Protosses do need to take some risks in their build order. A 15 Nexus or a 1gate expand will be more vulnerable to other all-ins, early aggression, but surely pulling probes and microing against a 2rax expand or a marine+scv all-in are worth it if you manage to survive. We have been doing this for ages, it is a requirement to stand a chance vs 1-1-1. 1 base collosus beats bad 1-1-1 players. Correct response for terran when they see 1 base collosus, is to siege up outside p's main, and build some viking. - collo range won't be done. On big maps, like TD, it can be much easier to stop 1-1-1 if you're in X positions. On the rest of the ladder maps, it's pretty hard.. | ||
|
JackDanger
United States37 Posts
On August 22 2011 07:07 Razuik wrote: I'm quite certain that 3-gate robo wrecks the 1-1-1 allin unless you engage in a TERRIBLE position or let him bunker up (which there is no reason you should let him). What exactly makes you so certain of this. | ||
|
Razuik
United States409 Posts
On August 22 2011 07:07 kheldorin wrote: With what exactly? With a pdd down and siege tanks protecting it, the bunkers will go down. Once the bunkers are down, the scvs will return and they will switch to viking production. You should have enough units if you're doing 3-gate robo. And why would you let him get a free siege at the bottom of your ramp? | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On August 22 2011 06:47 Jayrod wrote: you're 100% correct. That's why no one can back up the claim the 1 basing is the best response. Tyler says the economic advantage is not necessary... well lets see a high level even match where that is true and the terran hasnt gifted the game. I know he's never done it in a televised match. Maybe hes talking about ladder players? Or the CPUs he practices his 111 defense against. I think his point was kind of deeper. He stated that he thinks that safe non-FE play will with more knowledge and practice and better execution be better solution to 111 than FE. | ||
|
Vul
United States685 Posts
On August 22 2011 06:52 Liquid`Tyler wrote: I say these openings "yield economically sound mid games" and you say that they "put you astronomically behind". What's the point? What's the point of simply contradicting my assessment of the strength of a robo or star opening's economy? By the way, I'm pretty sure that lack of practice is the thing holding me back, not build orders. If anything, you should take a careful and respectful look at how I approach the game because I'm able to hang with pros despite playing maybe a tenth or a fifth of the amount they do. Hell, if you don't count games played to get back in shape as practice, then I practice even less than a tenth. As for Artosis, I hate to say it but the guy has a really hard time getting good enough mechanics to do his knowledge and understanding justice. Artosis and I are two of the very few people that, for objective reasons, ought to be listened to despite not being the current best players in the world. I'm sure there are many others but we have the public history. But you can just leave it. You don't have to give my posts any more notice than any other poster here if you don't want to. However, making a misinformed argument to especially ignore my posts is not cool. But certainly IMMVP should be listened to as well, and he thinks it's imbalanced. This has me wondering what progamers would say if you took a poll, especially in Korea. Like does Team Slayers think this is imbalanced? I really want to hear MC's opinion on this topic, actually. ed: typo | ||
|
zarepath
United States1626 Posts
On August 22 2011 06:52 ProxyKnoxy wrote: 300 minerals + 150 gas for what you're proposing. 225 minerals (I think) + 100 gas for Robo + Obs. I think they would come at roughly the same time as well... Not worth it at all just for a scout, whereas if you have robo you have tech + perm scout You're making the first cyber core either way. So the costs are actually: 250 min/100 gas to get warp gates at normal time and a very fast halluc for early enough scout 225 min/175 gas for warp gates at normal time and a perm invisi detector scout later, as well as tech for immo and collossi Frankly I think the obs is needed for cloak banshees and the immo tech for tanks, but there IS a cost you can pay for the super early scouting. | ||
|
Medrea
10003 Posts
I don't want to see 1-1-1 killed by a patch, the game would be less interesting that way. But can most of us at least agree that the build needs to be merely toned down a bit? | ||
| ||
