|
Can we stop talking about nerfing things please? - 9:10 KST |
On August 22 2011 17:48 Zarahtra wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2011 17:33 Toadvine wrote:On August 22 2011 17:28 enecateReAP wrote:On August 22 2011 17:24 DertoQq wrote:On August 22 2011 17:12 rareh wrote:
1/1/1 has been defeated several times.
Recent examples:
xaiot did it against marineking in StarsWar Killer 6 .
Genius did it against thorzain in gstl.
MC did it against puma(1st wave, he lost to 2nd cause he built the nexus again instead of investing in his army, that is what u get for being greedy, MC deserved to lose.)
Haven't seen anyone lose to 1/1/1 when they play better then their opponent. You obviously don't understand simple things, how you can you even judge when "they play better than their opponent" ? I don't even know why I'm even trying to respond, ignorant comments like that are probably part of TL  Uhm...its true, he has observers out and chose to expand insted of commiting to staying alive, even though he had every opportunity to see Puma's army. Having a rough economy is better than just dying, beleive it or not. You know, if this is a one base all-in that you can defend, and still not be able to expand afterwards, then isn't that enough reason to nerf it? The fact that a Terran can force you to 1base till you mine out, isn't that absolutely fucking retarded? Seriously, even if this build was defendable off 1 base, it would still be stupid is as hell, and subject to a nerf because it fucks up the game too much. Stuff was nerfed for far less in the past. That game was retarded, but people cant really act like MC didn't make a mistake. He did insanely well holding off the first push, then the 2nd push he very much underestimated. He coudl've slowed the push insanely much, by not camping at his natural.if he had say stayed on Puma's Xel naga, he could've forced 2-3 sieges before puma got to his natural. Reason why he didn't do this is I believe banshee's, he was afraid to split his army up, but he could've gained like upto 2 warpins from this and ton of time to finish charge. Also the engagement itself was sloppy, the immos had to walk around the stalkers so didnt kill the tanks very fast, stalkers were hurt before the engagement and it just wasnt as insanely well played like he did at first push. That all being said, I as a terran player do find 1/1/1 a bit ridiculous, I just don't have any idea how Blizzard could possibly nerf it. All the units themselves are fine, the combination itself is fine, it's just this exact timing that toss simply cannot hold. Edit: Heck I hadn't even thought of ff on puma's ramp. It could've slowed puma down insanely much, though it would've been 1-2 sacrificial sentries(due to siege tanks), but on 4 gas, every 15 sec MC makes ~120 gas, so yer...
MC played way better than PuMa in the first game. He did underestimate the second push, but he was 30 supply ahead for christ's sake. Where else in SC2 can you see an all-in fail, and the follow-up win while being 30 supply behind? It's just ridiculous beyond all measure. PuMa's basically herpderping his one base army across the map after having invested in Cloak without doing any damage, MC has to play perfectly AND sac his natural in order to hold, and then he loses to the followup herpderp while being way ahead.
And let's assume the general idea of that game was correct. Do you think it's fine for the counter to a stupid one base all-in to be "Do a risky expand without knowing what he's doing, then sac your natural after the push comes, and afterwards you have a decent chance to win."?
On August 22 2011 17:55 Telcontar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2011 17:30 Jono7272 wrote:
Anyone able to translate MC's new twitter post on it?
"I felt that I did not have command over the game. I acknowledge that my situational awareness and hand speed is slow, and I will work on perfecting them. By the way, the reason why 1/1/1 is so strong against Protoss, is because our AoE units are all tier 3. If only we had banelings..... those marines would be nothing." Maybe Blizzard should give Zealots a researchable upgrade to put on a suicide vest?
It's more like it's terrible game design for a 50 Mineral T1 unit to specifically require splash damage. Though if Blizzard's past patching history is anything to go by, there will never be any kind of Marine nerf. They even keep changing the Bunker in order to nerf 2 rax....
|
MC played way better than PuMa in the first game. He did underestimate the second push, but he was 30 supply ahead for christ's sake
All that 30 supply was workers IIRC.
|
Just to throw this into the discussion, how long would a cookie cutter 1/1/1 push be delayed if I stole terran's 2nd gas?
|
On August 22 2011 18:29 Kuhva wrote:Show nested quote +MC played way better than PuMa in the first game. He did underestimate the second push, but he was 30 supply ahead for christ's sake All that 30 supply was workers IIRC.
17. It was 19 SCVs vs 36 Probes.
|
On August 22 2011 05:49 CryingPoo wrote:So sum up, 1/1/1 is possible to defend against using above 2 strategies however that leave Protoss vulnerable for other Terran builds which Protoss can only figure out by guessing.
Welcome to every ZvX game on any map?
|
One thing I think is worth adding, is that due to threat of the 1-1-1 push, Protoss builds are being compromised as they need to blind counter.
I feel this was evident in Game2 of the Puma MC series, when MC essentially went the same build as Game1, i.e. an early expand, into 5gates robo, so he has few units early but plenty of unit producing structures. However, as Puma didn't do a 1-1-1 in Game2, I feel this gave him an advantage as MC was committed to the tech tree he went, which put him behind reacting to Pumas build. Once MC was sure it wasn't a 1-1-1 he did transition into other tech (HT), but just felt he had compromised himself so much defending the potential 1-1-1.
I think this is why the 3rd game he went for the completely alternate approach, which I can't help but feel like it was his way of saying "screw it, lets have a messy game and see what happens". If he had got that raven, it would've been GG as Puma had no CC.
Some interesting suggestions in this thread regarding what could be changed and also what builds could be tried. I agree that we should give it a few more weeks to see what the top Protoss come up with to deal with it, but it does seem like either the PDD, or banshee's need to be altered in some way to make the build slightly more defendable. I have 0% success against it on the ladder, and that included trying Puzzles 1-1-1 protoss counter (gates, robo, SG).
|
On August 22 2011 18:34 VegaNZ wrote:
One thing I think is worth adding, is that due to threat of the 1-1-1 push, Protoss builds are being compromised as they need to blind counter.
I feel this was evident in Game2 of the Puma MC series, when MC essentially went the same build as Game1, i.e. an early expand, into 5gates robo, so he has few units early but plenty of unit producing structures. However, as Puma didn't do a 1-1-1 in Game2, I feel this gave him an advantage as MC was committed to the tech tree he went, which put him behind reacting to Pumas build. Once MC was sure it wasn't a 1-1-1 he did transition into other tech (HT), but just felt he had compromised himself so much defending the potential 1-1-1.
I think this is why the 3rd game he went for the completely alternate approach, which I can't help but feel like it was his way of saying "screw it, lets have a messy game and see what happens". If he had got that raven, it would've been GG as Puma had no CC.
Some interesting suggestions in this thread regarding what could be changed and also what builds could be tried. I agree that we should give it a few more weeks to see what the top Protoss come up with to deal with it, but it does seem like either the PDD, or banshee's need to be altered in some way to make the build slightly more defendable. I have 0% success against it on the ladder, and that included trying Puzzles 1-1-1 protoss counter (gates, robo, SG).
I felt MC's compromise was well worth it however. Once he scouted what Puma did he actually became aggressive and did some great plays to snipe 2 barracks,etc. Puma also reacted nicely by putting a supply depot wall in front of his barracks otherwise he might have died.
However I get the feeling MC wasn't confident with his play/read the game wrongly. That attempt at a hidden 4th base made me go "What?!"; it just seems to me MC wasn't confident in his position. Also, banking 2k/2k without adding more tech was a mistake I felt.
Replay for the your try of Puzzle's counter please.
|
On August 22 2011 18:22 Toadvine wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2011 17:48 Zarahtra wrote:On August 22 2011 17:33 Toadvine wrote:On August 22 2011 17:28 enecateReAP wrote:On August 22 2011 17:24 DertoQq wrote:On August 22 2011 17:12 rareh wrote:
1/1/1 has been defeated several times.
Recent examples:
xaiot did it against marineking in StarsWar Killer 6 .
Genius did it against thorzain in gstl.
MC did it against puma(1st wave, he lost to 2nd cause he built the nexus again instead of investing in his army, that is what u get for being greedy, MC deserved to lose.)
Haven't seen anyone lose to 1/1/1 when they play better then their opponent. You obviously don't understand simple things, how you can you even judge when "they play better than their opponent" ? I don't even know why I'm even trying to respond, ignorant comments like that are probably part of TL Uhm...its true, he has observers out and chose to expand insted of commiting to staying alive, even though he had every opportunity to see Puma's army. Having a rough economy is better than just dying, beleive it or not. You know, if this is a one base all-in that you can defend, and still not be able to expand afterwards, then isn't that enough reason to nerf it? The fact that a Terran can force you to 1base till you mine out, isn't that absolutely fucking retarded? Seriously, even if this build was defendable off 1 base, it would still be stupid is as hell, and subject to a nerf because it fucks up the game too much. Stuff was nerfed for far less in the past. That game was retarded, but people cant really act like MC didn't make a mistake. He did insanely well holding off the first push, then the 2nd push he very much underestimated. He coudl've slowed the push insanely much, by not camping at his natural.if he had say stayed on Puma's Xel naga, he could've forced 2-3 sieges before puma got to his natural. Reason why he didn't do this is I believe banshee's, he was afraid to split his army up, but he could've gained like upto 2 warpins from this and ton of time to finish charge. Also the engagement itself was sloppy, the immos had to walk around the stalkers so didnt kill the tanks very fast, stalkers were hurt before the engagement and it just wasnt as insanely well played like he did at first push. That all being said, I as a terran player do find 1/1/1 a bit ridiculous, I just don't have any idea how Blizzard could possibly nerf it. All the units themselves are fine, the combination itself is fine, it's just this exact timing that toss simply cannot hold. Edit: Heck I hadn't even thought of ff on puma's ramp. It could've slowed puma down insanely much, though it would've been 1-2 sacrificial sentries(due to siege tanks), but on 4 gas, every 15 sec MC makes ~120 gas, so yer... MC played way better than PuMa in the first game. He did underestimate the second push, but he was 30 supply ahead for christ's sake. Where else in SC2 can you see an all-in fail, and the follow-up win while being 30 supply behind? It's just ridiculous beyond all measure. PuMa's basically herpderping his one base army across the map after having invested in Cloak without doing any damage, MC has to play perfectly AND sac his natural in order to hold, and then he loses to the followup herpderp while being way ahead. And let's assume the general idea of that game was correct. Do you think it's fine for the counter to a stupid one base all-in to be "Do a risky expand without knowing what he's doing, then sac your natural after the push comes, and afterwards you have a decent chance to win."?
He was ahead 30 supply, but he was very heavy ahead in workers(which were long distance mining), heck even the worker count of Puma was engaging in the battle, so the army values were pretty even. Like i said earlier, I do find it redicilous, but it still annoys me when people exaggerate so much. MC could've held it, had he not overestimated his advantage and played better.
Again like I said I'm not a fan of the 1/1/1, though like I said, I have no idea how Blizzard can deal with it. You can't nerf range of rines(like people have suggested), then they can't deal with stalkers(Even while in a bunker, so all tech play goes straight out the window), tanks already suck in TvP, banshees are just really a harrash unit that can be shut down rather easily, raven isn't necessary in the push, so nerf to it(such as making PDD the research and HSM not, idea which I found interesting) won't change anything. It's very complicated to try make this push worse, I think it requires a buff to toss rather, since they aren't doing so well in PvZ either and PvP isn't even *that* great after WG nerf.
|
On August 22 2011 18:31 kedinik wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2011 05:49 CryingPoo wrote:So sum up, 1/1/1 is possible to defend against using above 2 strategies however that leave Protoss vulnerable for other Terran builds which Protoss can only figure out by guessing. Welcome to every ZvX game on any map?
why do so many zerg players chime in and say this? if zerg KNOWS an allin is coming, you just stop drone production, save larva and produce a shitton of units. Protoss can't do shit against 1-1-1 even if they know it's coming. That's the problem.
|
just asking, when the 1-1-1 push comes, if the protoss is going for fast templars, what would he have in time for the push?
hts ready? storm ready? how many gates?
cause i feel like hts could do so well with fb on pdd and storm, but i'm pretty sure that would be too late to stop the push.
btw the 3rd game with the air of mc was really good, the terran losing his raven had to wait a for 100energy on his 2nd raven so it's a nice way to delay the push.
|
On August 22 2011 18:54 Mandalor wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2011 18:31 kedinik wrote:On August 22 2011 05:49 CryingPoo wrote:So sum up, 1/1/1 is possible to defend against using above 2 strategies however that leave Protoss vulnerable for other Terran builds which Protoss can only figure out by guessing. Welcome to every ZvX game on any map? why do so many zerg players chime in and say this? if zerg KNOWS an allin is coming, you just stop drone production, save larva and produce a shitton of units. Protoss can't do shit against 1-1-1 even if they know it's coming. That's the problem.
And its not like zerg is having too much problems those days ^^
|
On August 22 2011 18:54 Wawarox wrote:
just asking, when the 1-1-1 push comes, if the protoss is going for fast templars, what would he have in time for the push?
hts ready? storm ready? how many gates?
cause i feel like hts could do so well with fb on pdd and storm, but i'm pretty sure that would be too late to stop the push.
btw the 3rd game with the air of mc was really good, the terran losing his raven had to wait a for 100energy on his 2nd raven so it's a nice way to delay the push.
Having collossus with range and a "decent" gateway army is not possible, so I would say storm isn't really an option.
|
I dont really get it. The 1-1-1 has been played out for quite a while now. Even though bio seemed to be more popular in the last few weeks/months, there was a time when 1-1-1 had been encountered on a daily basis. So why do people talk about it now and why not before? O.o Im confused.
|
On August 22 2011 19:03 Fleshcut wrote:
I dont really get it. The 1-1-1 has been played out for quite a while now. Even though bio seemed to be more popular in the last few weeks/months, there was a time when 1-1-1 had been encountered on a daily basis. So why do people talk about it now and why not before? O.o Im confused.
Warpgate and Voidray nerf changed the matchup considerably.
Also the 1-1-1 played today is a lot more refined and variable than what we've seen in beta.
|
On August 22 2011 19:03 Fleshcut wrote:
I dont really get it. The 1-1-1 has been played out for quite a while now. Even though bio seemed to be more popular in the last few weeks/months, there was a time when 1-1-1 had been encountered on a daily basis. So why do people talk about it now and why not before? O.o Im confused.
To paraphrase the seven hundred people who've answered this question elsewhere in the thread: toss has taken a series of nerfs over the last few months for other reasons (the most notable being warpgate research time) and those have made it harder and harder to hold. I personally didn't think holding it was ever easy, but it's a lot worse now.
|
On August 22 2011 19:03 Fleshcut wrote:
I dont really get it. The 1-1-1 has been played out for quite a while now. Even though bio seemed to be more popular in the last few weeks/months, there was a time when 1-1-1 had been encountered on a daily basis. So why do people talk about it now and why not before? O.o Im confused.
they talk about it because it's the almighty MC that lost. and when mc looses, according to the community, it's not because the other player was better, it's because of imbalance.
|
Beta 1-1-1 was shit version of this. Raven+cloak and amove with your army. This is imba, because it comes much earlier, you can go aggressive at ~9min with some sieges, banshees and marines and build bunkers and slowly increase siege and banshee count and slow pushing. When there is 6 siegs and 5 banshees and 4 bunkers its impossible to break even if you have twice the economy.
|
On August 22 2011 18:29 Kuhva wrote:Show nested quote +MC played way better than PuMa in the first game. He did underestimate the second push, but he was 30 supply ahead for christ's sake All that 30 supply was workers IIRC.
He was roughly 10 workers ahead. He lost because of a slight upgrade advantage and losing 4 HT which I can only assume had full energy.
Edit: I'm an idiot. Thought you guys were referring to the second game.
|
It is possible to hold this push, and I think phoenix or colossi are better choices than immortal support for your gateway units.
However, I don't think Terran should be able to win games when they are down 30 supply and 10+ workers. Protoss simply cannot win games with similar supply or worker deficits. The second a zerg deters a terran push, he is safe to to drone up, but chronoboosting probes off 1 or 2 bases is too slow to come back.
I think PDD should be removed or observers should train from a different building to make this a fair fight. PDD/raven along with cloaked banshees is very micro intensive to deal with, and there is no protoss mechanic that can deny all of terran's detection in the same manner. Ravens can float safely over a group of marines, and the PDD will protect itself from stalkers.
It's obvious that the number of immortals or colossi will be crucial to defending. Any observers that are killed and that need to be replaced will delay colossus/immortal production. Blizz definitely came to the aid of zergs to deal with all the strategies that were being abused against them. As far as detection goes, they made spores root faster to help them deal with dts, banshees, and stargate pressure (ok stargate isn't detection but you get the idea). It's time for Blizzard to reevaluate balance, or we will only see 1/1/1 against toss and BFH against zerg at the pro level. TvT aside, being a pro gamer shouldn't mean only having to rely on just a couple builds that are low risk, high reward. Watch any recent MLG or GSL and you will notice there isn't much the other race can do to affect the execution of these builds.
Terrancraft = sadface..
|
It so fun to see that two pros give their opinion about the build and thorzain even comment on the games that was played but people just keep rambling on without even reading it 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
