|
Can we stop talking about nerfing things please? - 9:10 KST |
On August 29 2011 02:40 wei2coolman wrote:
Extreme hypothetical but, you guys will see what I'm saying.
So assuming 1/1/1 is really good, and that Protoss have developed a counter for it. But lets say the counter only works 50% of the time. So should terran go 1/1/1, he'll have a 50% winrate against a protoss that'll counter it really well.
Now, lets say you're someone of MVP's caliber, in which if you do play standard/macro style your chance of winning quickly shoots up to 80%, but if you go 1/1/1 your winrate is only 50%. Why take the unnecessary risk of 1/1/1? The only time it would justify you to go 1/1/1 is if you're ahead 3-0 or 3-1 in a bo7, and you want a fast/easy win against protoss.
This is simply the exact same case in PvP for the longest time. In which there would be a 4gate vs 3gate variation, and 4gates almost always won, but eventually pvp got to the point in which 3gate variation could hold off 4gate easily (i'd say around 6-0-70% of the time, not accurate but just from what i've seen). (because protoss figured out how to defend against it). Now we're seeing protoss's shift away from 4gate and into 3gate variation, and into colossus. Its no longer quite as stupid as it once was before.
Protoss just need to figure this stuff out, and eventually this matchup will be balanced again.
Problem is it's actually the other way round. Just watch what puma did to kiwi kaki. When kiwikaki was playing better than him , puma does a 1/1/1. The only reason he didn't do it from game one is probably because he knows it's imbalanced and loses him a lot of fans. He doesn't use it except when he feels threatened by is opponent, which says a lot about this build. Demuslim did the same thing. When his tournament life was on the line he went for a 1/1/1 and took out tester despite tester botching it, but all the pro players relying on 1/1/1 for their tournament life says a lot in itself.
|
On August 29 2011 02:46 Ravomat wrote:
He wouldn't have held that with 3 more stalkers and an additional immortal, that's right but he had the opportunity to get 2(3) colossus (without range), some additional probes and up to 6 gates out. The second push came approximately 4 minutes after he held the first one. This is enough time to tech up and prepare adequately especially if you crush the push like he did. Instead he stayed on immortal/stalker and threw units carelessly away while expanding. It was clearly not optimal play from Puzzle. We know Protoss needs AoE damage to deal with masses of marines and Puzzle just totally neglected it. Though I think you can do well if you go for 6gate blink but haven't had the chance to go for it.
6gate Blink dies to any 1-1-1 variation with Cloak, and because you have no Robo you can't scout that Cloak is being researched so you turn the matchup into a coin-flip.
|
On August 29 2011 02:40 wei2coolman wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Extreme hypothetical but, you guys will see what I'm saying.
So assuming 1/1/1 is really good, and that Protoss have developed a counter for it. But lets say the counter only works 50% of the time. So should terran go 1/1/1, he'll have a 50% winrate against a protoss that'll counter it really well.
Now, lets say you're someone of MVP's caliber, in which if you do play standard/macro style your chance of winning quickly shoots up to 80%, but if you go 1/1/1 your winrate is only 50%. Why take the unnecessary risk of 1/1/1? The only time it would justify you to go 1/1/1 is if you're ahead 3-0 or 3-1 in a bo7, and you want a fast/easy win against protoss.
This is simply the exact same case in PvP for the longest time. In which there would be a 4gate vs 3gate variation, and 4gates almost always won, but eventually pvp got to the point in which 3gate variation could hold off 4gate easily (i'd say around 6-0-70% of the time, not accurate but just from what i've seen). (because protoss figured out how to defend against it). Now we're seeing protoss's shift away from 4gate and into 3gate variation, and into colossus. Its no longer quite as stupid as it once was before.
Protoss just need to figure this stuff out, and eventually this matchup will be balanced again.
1. There is a difference in having a very strong strategy for a mirror matchup (here, 4gate in pvp) and a very strong strategy in a non-mirror matchup (1/1/1 in tvp). In a mirror matchup, you always have the possibility to counter his "broken" strategy by doing it yourself, and then the best micro or the defender wins. In 4gate battles, the defender almost always has the advantage, and this is why we still see 4gate nowadays: because it is still the best way to counter it, and you almost insta win if someone 4gates you.
Now, in a non-mirror matchups, there is not the ability to mimic the broken strategy to be able to crush it. I can agree on the fact that the strategy hasn't been on the scene for a very long time and there may be variations of the defense that haven't been tried out yet, but for the time being, there is no solution. And even if there was one, it cannot be a solution where the Protoss has to play basically like a machine and make 0 mistake to be able to survive.
So no, it is not at all like 4gate in PvP where a strategy, even if broken, does not break the balance of the game. But, you can compare it to the 2 gate rush or 4gate in PvZ, wich both have been nerfed quite a number of times. There were counters to 2gate or 4gate as well, but the zergs had to micro their asses off and do no mistake, as well as not overreacting, to survive. This was simply not fair.
|
On August 29 2011 02:53 PatouPower wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2011 02:40 wei2coolman wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Extreme hypothetical but, you guys will see what I'm saying.
So assuming 1/1/1 is really good, and that Protoss have developed a counter for it. But lets say the counter only works 50% of the time. So should terran go 1/1/1, he'll have a 50% winrate against a protoss that'll counter it really well.
Now, lets say you're someone of MVP's caliber, in which if you do play standard/macro style your chance of winning quickly shoots up to 80%, but if you go 1/1/1 your winrate is only 50%. Why take the unnecessary risk of 1/1/1? The only time it would justify you to go 1/1/1 is if you're ahead 3-0 or 3-1 in a bo7, and you want a fast/easy win against protoss.
This is simply the exact same case in PvP for the longest time. In which there would be a 4gate vs 3gate variation, and 4gates almost always won, but eventually pvp got to the point in which 3gate variation could hold off 4gate easily (i'd say around 6-0-70% of the time, not accurate but just from what i've seen). (because protoss figured out how to defend against it). Now we're seeing protoss's shift away from 4gate and into 3gate variation, and into colossus. Its no longer quite as stupid as it once was before.
Protoss just need to figure this stuff out, and eventually this matchup will be balanced again. 1. There is a difference in having a very strong strategy for a mirror matchup (here, 4gate in pvp) and a very strong strategy in a non-mirror matchup (1/1/1 in tvp). In a mirror matchup, you always have the possibility to counter his "broken" strategy by doing it yourself, and then the best micro or the defender wins. In 4gate battles, the defender almost always has the advantage, and this is why we still see 4gate nowadays: because it is still the best way to counter it, and you almost insta win if someone 4gates you. Now, in a non-mirror matchups, there is not the ability to mimic the broken strategy to be able to crush it. I can agree on the fact that the strategy hasn't been on the scene for a very long time and there may be variations of the defense that haven't been tried out yet, but for the time being, there is no solution. And even if there was one, it cannot be a solution where the Protoss has to play basically like a machine and make 0 mistake to be able to survive. So no, it is not at all like 4gate in PvP where a strategy, even if broken, does not break the balance of the game. But, you can compare it to the 2 gate rush or 4gate in PvZ, wich both have been nerfed quite a number of times. There were counters to 2gate or 4gate as well, but the zergs had to micro their asses off and do no mistake, as well as not overreacting, to survive. This was simply not fair.
Actually, it has been around for a very long time. Its been out since beta.
|
True but its extensive use and refinment is recent. Especially since Protoss have to expand against Terran (or get bunker/tank contain and die).
|
On August 29 2011 02:52 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2011 02:46 Ravomat wrote:
He wouldn't have held that with 3 more stalkers and an additional immortal, that's right but he had the opportunity to get 2(3) colossus (without range), some additional probes and up to 6 gates out. The second push came approximately 4 minutes after he held the first one. This is enough time to tech up and prepare adequately especially if you crush the push like he did. Instead he stayed on immortal/stalker and threw units carelessly away while expanding. It was clearly not optimal play from Puzzle. We know Protoss needs AoE damage to deal with masses of marines and Puzzle just totally neglected it. Though I think you can do well if you go for 6gate blink but haven't had the chance to go for it. 6gate Blink dies to any 1-1-1 variation with Cloak, and because you have no Robo you can't scout that Cloak is being researched so you turn the matchup into a coin-flip.
You didn't watch the game I was referring to. It's this one here: http://de.twitch.tv/fxopenesports/b/289875478
In this game Puzzle does a 1-base robo build with 3 or 4 gates, catches MKP horribly out of position, just crushes the push and expands.
Now I wondered what the best transition is at this point. Note Puzzle already has a Robo so that's not an issue.
|
On August 29 2011 02:46 Ravomat wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2011 23:18 pretensile wrote:On August 28 2011 20:54 Ravomat wrote:On August 28 2011 18:34 pretensile wrote:
I cite this game as a case study in 1-1-1 defense a lot, because I've never seen the first push defended so well, though MKP surely aided him with his errors (losing his first banshee, engaging about as badly as possible in the choke, never sieging up, allowing Puzzle's observer to follow his army the whole time). But it didn't seem to do much good, because MKP simply rolled him with the second push. Puzzle lost quite a lot of units (1 sentry, 3 immortals, ~6 stalkers) unnecessarily when he sniped those tanks on the ramp which put him in a 12 supply deficit. Ideally he should have only moved his immortals forward, sniped those and gone back and wait for the 2nd push to come. Puzzle tried to contain MKP, over-committed and lost most of his army for 3 tanks and some marines. This game doesn't show any imbalance whatsoever. All it does is showing that marines are really really good against immortal/stalker compositions. To be fair, you can do the math for the units lost in the followup pressure Puzzle did. MKP lost 3 siege tanks, 2 banshees, 2 SCVs, and at least 7 marines: 1200/575 in resources. Puzzle lost 3 immortals, 2 sentries, 6 stalkers, and a zealot: 1700/800 in resources. We'll be kind and round up and say the difference is roughly 5 stalkers' worth of resources, or 3 stalkers and an immortal. You can't look at the final engagement and honestly say Puzzle would have held with an additional 5 stalkers, or 3 stalkers and an immortal. And something kooky is going on for both the food count and worker count to be so equal after Puzzle's great hold, which was extremely one-sided in his favor. He wouldn't have held that with 3 more stalkers and an additional immortal, that's right but he had the opportunity to get 2(3) colossus (without range), some additional probes and up to 6 gates out. The second push came approximately 4 minutes after he held the first one. This is enough time to tech up and prepare adequately especially if you crush the push like he did. Instead he stayed on immortal/stalker and threw units carelessly away while expanding. It was clearly not optimal play from Puzzle. We know Protoss needs AoE damage to deal with masses of marines and Puzzle just totally neglected it. Though I think you can do well if you go for 6gate blink but haven't had the chance to go for it.
The funny thing is, he didn't crush the push at all, objectively speaking. They were at equal supply and equal harvester count after those two engagements. Puzzle thought he had crushed it, and that's why he aggressively traded his units for Tanks at MKP's ramp. But he really didn't. That's my point about that game, the near-perfect defense of Puzzle against the streak of failures by MKP only resulted in them breaking even.
If Puzzle tried to tech to Colossus after that, his small army with very little anti-air would've been smashed by MKP's second push.
Again, if that game doesn't convince you that this shit is broken, then you're either willfully ignorant, or wanting to retain your free wins on the ladder.
|
On August 29 2011 04:28 Toadvine wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2011 02:46 Ravomat wrote:On August 28 2011 23:18 pretensile wrote:On August 28 2011 20:54 Ravomat wrote:On August 28 2011 18:34 pretensile wrote:
I cite this game as a case study in 1-1-1 defense a lot, because I've never seen the first push defended so well, though MKP surely aided him with his errors (losing his first banshee, engaging about as badly as possible in the choke, never sieging up, allowing Puzzle's observer to follow his army the whole time). But it didn't seem to do much good, because MKP simply rolled him with the second push. Puzzle lost quite a lot of units (1 sentry, 3 immortals, ~6 stalkers) unnecessarily when he sniped those tanks on the ramp which put him in a 12 supply deficit. Ideally he should have only moved his immortals forward, sniped those and gone back and wait for the 2nd push to come. Puzzle tried to contain MKP, over-committed and lost most of his army for 3 tanks and some marines. This game doesn't show any imbalance whatsoever. All it does is showing that marines are really really good against immortal/stalker compositions. To be fair, you can do the math for the units lost in the followup pressure Puzzle did. MKP lost 3 siege tanks, 2 banshees, 2 SCVs, and at least 7 marines: 1200/575 in resources. Puzzle lost 3 immortals, 2 sentries, 6 stalkers, and a zealot: 1700/800 in resources. We'll be kind and round up and say the difference is roughly 5 stalkers' worth of resources, or 3 stalkers and an immortal. You can't look at the final engagement and honestly say Puzzle would have held with an additional 5 stalkers, or 3 stalkers and an immortal. And something kooky is going on for both the food count and worker count to be so equal after Puzzle's great hold, which was extremely one-sided in his favor. He wouldn't have held that with 3 more stalkers and an additional immortal, that's right but he had the opportunity to get 2(3) colossus (without range), some additional probes and up to 6 gates out. The second push came approximately 4 minutes after he held the first one. This is enough time to tech up and prepare adequately especially if you crush the push like he did. Instead he stayed on immortal/stalker and threw units carelessly away while expanding. It was clearly not optimal play from Puzzle. We know Protoss needs AoE damage to deal with masses of marines and Puzzle just totally neglected it. Though I think you can do well if you go for 6gate blink but haven't had the chance to go for it. The funny thing is, he didn't crush the push at all, objectively speaking. They were at equal supply and equal harvester count after those two engagements. Puzzle thought he had crushed it, and that's why he aggressively traded his units for Tanks at MKP's ramp. But he really didn't. That's my point about that game, the near-perfect defense of Puzzle against the streak of failures by MKP only resulted in them breaking even. If Puzzle tried to tech to Colossus after that, his small army with very little anti-air would've been smashed by MKP's second push. Again, if that game doesn't convince you that this shit is broken, then you're either willfully ignorant, or wanting to retain your free wins on the ladder.
Puzzle still had enough stalkers left from the initial engagement to deal with the banshees. So no, he did have sufficient anti-air. I still think this game doesn't show any imbalance because of all the units Puzzle lost for very little gain after he held the first push.
It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if Puzzle didn't throw his units away and MKP didn't lose those 3 tanks.
Yes, they were even in supply after the push but MKP was 20 supply up to begin with. Did you even watch the game?
I play Protoss by the way.
|
On August 28 2011 14:01 Hidden_MotiveS wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2011 13:28 Leoneri wrote:On August 28 2011 13:25 ReignFayth wrote:On August 28 2011 13:22 Leoneri wrote:On August 28 2011 13:16 ReignFayth wrote:On August 28 2011 13:13 Leoneri wrote:On August 28 2011 13:11 ReignFayth wrote:On August 28 2011 13:05 Tokadub wrote:
Ya actually I am and have been a Master in every division for every season. I have played all races, and can play them all easily at a master level 1v1.
I don't understand why people are hating. I'm actually giving you very good advice and if you don't understand what I'm saying then it is you that actually has a faulty understanding of this game... master isn't an achievement Shouldn't you be a highlighted poster? what's a highlighted poster lol Hmm. I thought TL had implemented a feature where pro player's names were highlighted so people didn't have to scroll through pages and pages checking each name to find somebody's opinion that actually meant something. oh I think these players are those who participate a lot in the strategy section so they get highlighted, such as minigun right? Oh that makes more sense, my fault. That makes the hi-lighting even more worthless. I mean they say that the hilighted posters just need to stand out in the crowd of worthless comments, but I find their opinions to be just as subjective and bold (no good backup) as the average comment. Show nested quote +On August 28 2011 13:45 dooraven wrote:On August 28 2011 13:43 CortoMontez wrote:
AFAIK that was a bug fix, and a reduction from 35 damage to 33 damage in a limited area is hardly a significant change. No but Immortals taking 8 damage instead of 10 is actually pretty big. Immortals will still take the same damage from marines, the main damage dealer towards them. Show nested quote +On August 28 2011 13:41 jinorazi wrote:On August 28 2011 13:37 CortoMontez wrote:
Personally I suspect that patch 1.4 wasn't intended to address the 1-1-1, since Blizzard would have spent a lot of time since the last patch coming up with these ideas, whilst the 1-1-1 issue only came up a few weeks before the PTR notes were released.
The only two parts of the patch which could affect the 1-1-1 are:
5 second build time increase on barracks; which in my opinion won't have any effect upon the potency of the 1-1-1 because there is such a large timing window where this build wins that a 5 second delay will make no difference.
+1 range on immortals; I also think this will have no effect upon the ability of protoss to hold off the 1-1-1, since it seemed that the main problem wasn't that immortals couldn't reach the tanks , but that the immortals melted so fast to the marines. Although the immortals would outrange marines, there will almost definitely be marines INFRONT of the tanks, meaning that they still have to go into marine attack range to kill the tanks.
EDIT: Also, the main reason that i think the 1-1-1 is imbalanced is because it is uniquely unable to be blind countered, since as far as I know there is a blind counter build to every other all-in in the game. (Feel free to correct me on this point). sentry also helps with guardian shield vs tank splash. No,
From Liquipedia:Show nested quote +The effect is limited to ranged attacks; splash attacks are not subject to the reduction. If you look at the OP's pictures you quickly see that there aren't that many resources to spend, and while you may think "I'll be able to counter it with a single robo and six collosi", that means that you will have no defense in the early game. I'm not even talking about whether it's possible to get six collosi out at that point. The question then becomes: what protoss unit can adequately counter the marine in the early game? Well zealots with leg speed, guardian shield, and an armor upgrade on the way seem like a good idea to me. (zealot armor = 1, guardian shield = 2, 1 armor will negate marine +1 attack, 3 damage per hit, and no kiting). Just leave some zealots outside so you can flank, and keep the medivac energy low with something like feedback once the terran gets too many. Just some theorycraft.
patch 1.4
Sentry Guardian Shield now correctly reduces damage from Hellion, Void ray, and Colossus attacks as well as the Siege Tank’s sieged attack.
i was continuing cortomontez's post regarding patch 1.4 and its effect on 1/1/1.
however, i do not know the actual numbers of the tank's main damage + the area damage and how much GS will reduce its damage to know if its an effective change, nor if it only reduces the main damage or the splash damage too(it reduces col and hellion so i'd assume it reduces tank splash too) its for the better though.
|
On August 22 2011 06:32 RusHXceL wrote:
just go 3 gate+ stargate and u win beat 1/1/1 :D
it works masters here/
I would like to say that MVPgenius did my build and destroy the 1/1/1 in GSL today/
|
On August 31 2011 04:06 RusHXceL wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2011 06:32 RusHXceL wrote:
just go 3 gate+ stargate and u win beat 1/1/1 :D
it works masters here/ I would like to say that MVPgenius did my build and destroy the 1/1/1 in GSL today/
Gsl spoilers.
+ Show Spoiler +
Well not really, top didn't do a very good job... listen to the casters.
Besides that, he still had to *blindly* go for an all in to counter another all in that might have not been coming.
And finally, in the end he still lost the match.
|
Change thread name to why , 2-1 is considered imbalanced in korea. Another terran won using 1 base so it is imbalanced.
|
I just saw HwangSin defend 1-1-1 without 1 gate FE/15 nexus.
2 immortals in a warp prism (drop next to tanks) while fighting with the rest army. He's owning NA ladder atm. 
|
I saw HwangSin use this build twice. However you have to take into consideration the fact that it's done by HwangSin (#7 ranked GM on NA ladder last time I saw) vs opponents on ladder means that in all likelihood, he's a better player than his opponents. This comes into effect in many aspects of the game. Macro upto the engagements, and micro during engagements. I want to see a Protoss holds a 1-1-1 in GSL / GSTL by dropping immortals from a warp prism before I'll make up my mind on the viability of this strat.
To emphasize my point, I've seen other top Protoss players stop 1-1-1s on streams in various methods, most of them more conventional than immortal drops near the sieged tanks. It's just something you can do when you're a better player than your opponent.
|
I countered the 1-1-1 for the very first time ever today. So proud of myself~!
I blindly went Phoenix and he forgot to bring his scvs so yeah... I don't think it really counts lol
|
Best case scenario guardian shield will double dip on the protection, reducing the direct hit, and then applying a second time to the splash.
|
in my opinion it's still the option of bringing all the SCV's that seems to be the problem, or at least a good chunk of them. being able to repair the tanks AND the banshees when EVERY BIT OF DPS IS CRUCIAL is just too much - it wouldn't necessarily be too much if you had the option of bringing your probes to the fight, but you don't really because terran has mules, and the # of workers he brings will be proportional to the # of probes you will need to add to crush his push. mules are so fucking stupid.
|
This build has been around for a really long time. Suddenly now it became OP. I remember learning this build from some TL thread when I first started. It was named raven opening or something like that. Granted there was no SCV pull back then but I guess it doesn't take much imagination to do that.
|
On August 22 2011 05:52 Archs wrote:![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/pLEzA.jpg) User was warned for this postUser was banned for this post.
I'm sorry I don't get this... The text on the bottle is too small to read and I tried to google it/find it to no avail. Can someone please explain what it means? Really curious, this guy got banned. Thanks!
|
On August 31 2011 18:30 JediGamer wrote:
Change thread name to why , 2-1 is considered imbalanced in korea. Another terran won using 1 base so it is imbalanced.
1-1-1 might be pretty stupid right now but 2-1 isn't imbalanced :|
It used to be really popular in Europe for awhile, the only reason it is working is because of the necessity to fast expand in PvT right now. If you Protoss weren't so pressured to get a quick expand and sentries then it wouldn't be a problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
