|
Can we stop talking about nerfing things please? - 9:10 KST |
How long would a gas steal (or double gas steal) delay the 1-1-1? Would it force them into another opening that the protoss can better prepare for or delay the 1-1-1 enough for the protoss to get the right units?
|
On August 23 2011 09:41 Yaotzin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2011 09:37 VirgilSC2 wrote:On August 23 2011 09:33 Yaotzin wrote:On August 23 2011 09:28 VirgilSC2 wrote:
Perhaps an early expand isn't the way to counter 1/1/1.
If you can get away with expanding and having it pay for itself in time, you should expand. This is an obvious rule when talking about any push in the game. Given that you can FE and get away with it against a 1/1/1, you should of course FE.
According to many top Korean players, the Marine Count is the hardest thing to deal with in the 1/1/1 timing push,
Correct. The other units are support units which kill off/nullify Protoss usual response to mass marine.
by reducing the insane income advantage a Terran player has in a 1-base to 1-base income situation, the 1/1/1 build has less marines, and therefore becomes more manageable in a 1-base vs 1-base situation with proper preparation from the Protoss player.
And Terran becomes worse overall. That may or may not be a good thing, but it is not for this thread. You are proposing a general change for a specific problem. It would have ramifications far and beyond the scope of this thread. The problem is, Protoss cannot safely FE against a Terran player intending to 1/1/1 Terran can scout a 1 Gate FE or a Nexus first, or a Forge FE well before committing to their 1/1/1 all-in, and then easily punish it. The reason people try to FE so extremely fast seems lost on you though. It's not because they're trying to keep up with the almighty MULE or something. It's because the Terran composition works so much better than anything they can come up with, that they try to win by simply having an overwhelming economic advantage. The obvious issue in this situation is the unit composition and timing, not to...nerf Terran's economy?
Ah, but you see, the unit composition and timing is a direct result of Terran's economy. In a 1-base vs 1-base situation, if you look at it, this build is actually a direct result of Terran having BETTER income at max saturation on one base against Protoss.
Leaving the metagame to sort it out will most likely eventually lead to: FE? Lose to 3 Rax all-in. No FE? Lose to 1-1-1 all in.
|
On August 23 2011 09:43 Pseudoku wrote:
How long would a gas steal (or double gas steal) delay the 1-1-1? Would it force them into another opening that the protoss can better prepare for?
a single gas steal just makes it so cloak is unlikely. It won't delay the push if they choose to go no cloak by more than 20 seconds. A double gas steal would invite a 4rax scv allin of certain doom, even if you do get there in time to steal both.
|
On August 23 2011 09:43 Pseudoku wrote:
How long would a gas steal (or double gas steal) delay the 1-1-1? Would it force them into another opening that the protoss can better prepare for?
This is another solution from the Protoss end that players seem to forget. IF you can get your probe to their base before they wall-off, a gas steal DOES hinder the 1-1-1 all-in, and I would be surprised if more people don't start doing it.
It's not much, but I believe it does limit the amount of Banshee's/Tanks or forces a choice between siege mode or cloak, etc.
|
On August 23 2011 09:41 VirgilSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2011 09:37 Razuik wrote:On August 23 2011 09:31 IVN wrote:On August 23 2011 09:21 aksfjh wrote:On August 23 2011 09:14 IVN wrote:On August 23 2011 08:59 Yaotzin wrote:On August 23 2011 08:54 VirgilSC2 wrote:
Well then maybe Terrans should find a way to counter Zerg without being reliant on purely marines. Nerfing MULEs is probably the one thing that should be done to bring every race's macro mechanic in line with eachother, in order to provide a more equal footing in high level play, as it is, Terrans gain a huge economic advantage for no reason other than picking Terran against Zerg or Protoss players. I can't tell you how many times I've heard a caster say "well X is ahead on Workers, but Y is getting more income because of MULEs"
They may well be imba at the point where making more workers isn't useful anymore. They aren't before that though, at least not noticeably, and most importantly they have very little bearing on the push this thread is about. This push happens when making more workers is still very good. MC lost game 1 despite having like 10 more workers the whole time. That's better than a mule. Ergo the issue ain't the mule. You are wrong. Look at this screen shot. It's from the 1st MC v Puma game on XNC. ![[image loading]](http://www.abload.de/img/mulesxrv7.jpg) Full saturation at 5:50. Push begins at 9. And I've counted. He has used additional 3 MULEs before the push. How much is that? 3 * 270 minerals? Equals 16 marines.Now imagine those 3 MULEs could only bring only a 1/2 or a 1/4 of minerals back, because the mineral line is already saturated and they have to wait on SCVs to finish mining. Suddenly the 111 push becomes easily holdable, assuming you scout it and you are not playing stupidly greedy. And now, suddenly Terran can't hold off a 4 gate, baneling bust, or even a 3 gate pressure expand. This mule nonsense is horrendously shortsighted and doesn't seem to take into account ANYTHING other than this stupid "1-1-1" timing. I'm sorry, but it does take into account. When is the last time you saw a terran die to a 4gt? I cant seem to remember seeing that in like ages. Maybe its time that an all in from protoss is actually able to kill a terran if he isnt prepared. I can cite many of my ladder matches where 5-gates, 4-gates, void allins, baneling busts, blink allins, and other allins that I may have forgotten have caused me a loss because I simply did not have the necessary amount of units. The difference is I analyze where I cut corners and played greedy. I do not make ridiculous balance suggestions because I want to be able to cut more corners. This isn't about your play. I'm going to just make an assumption which is something I hate to do, but I'm going to go ahead and say that your macro pales in comparison to that of a professional gamer. Therefore, citing examples from YOUR GAMES does absolutely no good in balance discussion.
You completely missed the point of my post. My macro ability has almost no relevance when I am getting allin'd. I'm saying that protoss players should stop suggesting balance changes to each other and start suggesting more safe builds to each other.
|
On August 23 2011 09:43 Pseudoku wrote:
How long would a gas steal (or double gas steal) delay the 1-1-1? Would it force them into another opening that the protoss can better prepare for or delay the 1-1-1 enough for the protoss to get the right units?
Double gas steal is impossible unless your opponent is terrible, as soon as they see you steal the first gas they'll just take the second, and it'll normally be about the time they take their first gas any ways (and on some maps you'll get into their base after they take it any ways).
|
On August 23 2011 09:38 Bagi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2011 09:35 rpgalon wrote:
graviton beam should be 25 energy for light units, so mass phoenix can at least do something against marines... It would hurt hydras more than marines.
the phoenix x hydras fight is almost always over before they run out of energy, one phoenix can lift 4 hydras, it is much more hydras than one phoenix can handle. you can only fight hydras with phoenix if you have at least the same amount of phoenix as hydras, energy is not that big of a factor. 1 spore crawler deny phoenix harras, and corruptors hard counter mass phoenix...
I really think 25 energy graviton beam when used in light units would make for a better game.
the way it is now, when protoss goes phoenix, he has to choose between using it as a harass unit or a combat unit, you don't have enought energy to do both.
|
On August 23 2011 09:41 IVN wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2011 09:35 Deadlyfish wrote:
I remember when this was really popular back like a year ago or something. It died out. Now it's back and it's as if people forgot what happened to it the last time.
Builds die out, the game changes without nerfs or buffs or anything. A month ago TvT was bio/tank, now it's mech all the way. Let the game grow and stop getting upset just because one of the best terrans beat one of the best protosses. It happens you know?
I know i'm terran so i must be biased, but i'll say this in any situation, even when it's terrans turn to lose. Stop having so short term memory and look at the big picture please. And so now we have a bunch of random people suggesting silly changes just because a build has been popular for like a month? Come on.
I also agree with what Tyler said earlier. This build was around since beta. It was strong the whole time, and the only real counter was 4gt. But back then, 4gts were much stronger and came much earlier. Now, terrans can defend a 4gt even while executing this crazy ultra tech build.
No, the build just sorta died out. A few people did it in the GSL as well but without success. 4 gate was not the counter to this build. Plenty of people held it off while expanding. Nothing is different now than it was back then (i mean situation wise, i know there have been buffs/nerfs, though mostly irrelevant). I will bet that in 1 month this build will not be nearly as popular as it is now, even if blizzard does nothing. Seriously, are you gonna say that in 1 month nothing will have changed and 1/1/1 will still be as powerful? Because if so, i'll come back in a month and quote you 
|
On August 23 2011 09:44 VirgilSC2 wrote:
Ah, but you see, the unit composition and timing is a direct result of Terran's economy. In a 1-base vs 1-base situation, if you look at it, this build is actually a direct result of Terran having BETTER income at max saturation on one base against Protoss.
No it's just...a quirk. They happen to be able to get a collection of units that Protoss is uniquely vulnerable to at a specific timing. You don't nerf something as general as mules because of that. You fiddle with timings, make the attack slower, maybe nerf a unit involved in the attack. You don't mess up their economy. That has so many more effects than just hurting this build.
Leaving the metagame to sort it out will most likely eventually lead to: FE? Lose to 3 Rax all-in. No FE? Lose to 1-1-1 all in.
Well we agree on one thing :p Although it's 4rax. If you're gonna FE unsafely go all the way and 15nexus, I say.
Seriously, are you gonna say that in 1 month nothing will have changed and 1/1/1 will still be as powerful? Because if so, i'll come back in a month and quote you
It'll be more popular then than now, if it isn't patched or the community intervenes by banning it as MVP called for. Progamers play for dollars, and this build wins thousands of them.
|
On August 23 2011 09:41 Yaotzin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2011 09:37 VirgilSC2 wrote:On August 23 2011 09:33 Yaotzin wrote:On August 23 2011 09:28 VirgilSC2 wrote:
Perhaps an early expand isn't the way to counter 1/1/1.
If you can get away with expanding and having it pay for itself in time, you should expand. This is an obvious rule when talking about any push in the game. Given that you can FE and get away with it against a 1/1/1, you should of course FE.
According to many top Korean players, the Marine Count is the hardest thing to deal with in the 1/1/1 timing push,
Correct. The other units are support units which kill off/nullify Protoss usual response to mass marine.
by reducing the insane income advantage a Terran player has in a 1-base to 1-base income situation, the 1/1/1 build has less marines, and therefore becomes more manageable in a 1-base vs 1-base situation with proper preparation from the Protoss player.
And Terran becomes worse overall. That may or may not be a good thing, but it is not for this thread. You are proposing a general change for a specific problem. It would have ramifications far and beyond the scope of this thread. The problem is, Protoss cannot safely FE against a Terran player intending to 1/1/1 Terran can scout a 1 Gate FE or a Nexus first, or a Forge FE well before committing to their 1/1/1 all-in, and then easily punish it. The reason people try to FE so extremely fast seems lost on you though. It's not because they're trying to keep up with the almighty MULE or something. It's because the Terran composition works so much better than anything they can come up with, that they try to win by simply having an overwhelming economic advantage. The obvious issue in this situation is the unit composition and timing, not to...nerf Terran's economy?
In addition to having some movement for surrounds, retreats and warp ins. When you're trapped in a small base with a small ramp you have zero options & they start sieging your main which is why I've never seen a 1 base turtle work.
|
Well technically you don't have to expand to move outside your base, but yeah. If you're gonna be doing it anyway, and you aren't going to be punished for expanding, why the hell wouldn't you?
|
On August 23 2011 09:45 Amui wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2011 09:43 Pseudoku wrote:
How long would a gas steal (or double gas steal) delay the 1-1-1? Would it force them into another opening that the protoss can better prepare for? a single gas steal just makes it so cloak is unlikely. It won't delay the push if they choose to go no cloak by more than 20 seconds. A double gas steal would invite a 4rax scv allin of certain doom, even if you do get there in time to steal both.
Can the protoss hold off the 4 rax with sentries on maps with a small ramp?
|
On August 23 2011 09:47 Razuik wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2011 09:41 VirgilSC2 wrote:On August 23 2011 09:37 Razuik wrote:On August 23 2011 09:31 IVN wrote:On August 23 2011 09:21 aksfjh wrote:On August 23 2011 09:14 IVN wrote:On August 23 2011 08:59 Yaotzin wrote:On August 23 2011 08:54 VirgilSC2 wrote:
Well then maybe Terrans should find a way to counter Zerg without being reliant on purely marines. Nerfing MULEs is probably the one thing that should be done to bring every race's macro mechanic in line with eachother, in order to provide a more equal footing in high level play, as it is, Terrans gain a huge economic advantage for no reason other than picking Terran against Zerg or Protoss players. I can't tell you how many times I've heard a caster say "well X is ahead on Workers, but Y is getting more income because of MULEs"
They may well be imba at the point where making more workers isn't useful anymore. They aren't before that though, at least not noticeably, and most importantly they have very little bearing on the push this thread is about. This push happens when making more workers is still very good. MC lost game 1 despite having like 10 more workers the whole time. That's better than a mule. Ergo the issue ain't the mule. You are wrong. Look at this screen shot. It's from the 1st MC v Puma game on XNC. Full saturation at 5:50. Push begins at 9. And I've counted. He has used additional 3 MULEs before the push. How much is that? 3 * 270 minerals? Equals 16 marines.Now imagine those 3 MULEs could only bring only a 1/2 or a 1/4 of minerals back, because the mineral line is already saturated and they have to wait on SCVs to finish mining. Suddenly the 111 push becomes easily holdable, assuming you scout it and you are not playing stupidly greedy. And now, suddenly Terran can't hold off a 4 gate, baneling bust, or even a 3 gate pressure expand. This mule nonsense is horrendously shortsighted and doesn't seem to take into account ANYTHING other than this stupid "1-1-1" timing. I'm sorry, but it does take into account. When is the last time you saw a terran die to a 4gt? I cant seem to remember seeing that in like ages. Maybe its time that an all in from protoss is actually able to kill a terran if he isnt prepared. I can cite many of my ladder matches where 5-gates, 4-gates, void allins, baneling busts, blink allins, and other allins that I may have forgotten have caused me a loss because I simply did not have the necessary amount of units. The difference is I analyze where I cut corners and played greedy. I do not make ridiculous balance suggestions because I want to be able to cut more corners. This isn't about your play. I'm going to just make an assumption which is something I hate to do, but I'm going to go ahead and say that your macro pales in comparison to that of a professional gamer. Therefore, citing examples from YOUR GAMES does absolutely no good in balance discussion. You completely missed the point of my post. My macro ability has almost no relevance when I am getting allin'd. I'm saying that protoss players should stop suggesting balance changes to each other and start suggesting more safe builds to each other. It does have relevance, as even in the early game, especially as Terran, even waiting 1-2 game seconds to start your next unit has drastic repercussions when responding to an all-in and then complaining about not having enough units.
|
Maybe with MC micro :p It doesn't matter though, double gas steal isn't a reliable counter to anything. If your opponent screws up and lets you and you feel you can hold the inevitable allin go ahead. But it's not reliable.
|
I like the idea to make pdd researchable and give hsm for free.
Or something like giving Stalker 2 attacks against air. Like 2x 5 +3 vs armored. Would help vs pdd a lot and slightly help vs banshees.
|
On August 23 2011 09:49 Yaotzin wrote:Show nested quote +
Seriously, are you gonna say that in 1 month nothing will have changed and 1/1/1 will still be as powerful? Because if so, i'll come back in a month and quote you
It'll be more popular then than now, if it isn't patched or the community intervenes by banning it as MVP called for. Progamers play for dollars, and this build wins thousands of them.
Another thing we agree on. Perhaps the MULE change isn't the proper way to deal with something THIS PATCH (It's something I think will be addressed with HotS) SOMETHING needs to be done about this build.
|
On August 23 2011 09:55 VirgilSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2011 09:47 Razuik wrote:On August 23 2011 09:41 VirgilSC2 wrote:On August 23 2011 09:37 Razuik wrote:On August 23 2011 09:31 IVN wrote:On August 23 2011 09:21 aksfjh wrote:On August 23 2011 09:14 IVN wrote:On August 23 2011 08:59 Yaotzin wrote:On August 23 2011 08:54 VirgilSC2 wrote:
Well then maybe Terrans should find a way to counter Zerg without being reliant on purely marines. Nerfing MULEs is probably the one thing that should be done to bring every race's macro mechanic in line with eachother, in order to provide a more equal footing in high level play, as it is, Terrans gain a huge economic advantage for no reason other than picking Terran against Zerg or Protoss players. I can't tell you how many times I've heard a caster say "well X is ahead on Workers, but Y is getting more income because of MULEs"
They may well be imba at the point where making more workers isn't useful anymore. They aren't before that though, at least not noticeably, and most importantly they have very little bearing on the push this thread is about. This push happens when making more workers is still very good. MC lost game 1 despite having like 10 more workers the whole time. That's better than a mule. Ergo the issue ain't the mule. You are wrong. Look at this screen shot. It's from the 1st MC v Puma game on XNC. Full saturation at 5:50. Push begins at 9. And I've counted. He has used additional 3 MULEs before the push. How much is that? 3 * 270 minerals? Equals 16 marines.Now imagine those 3 MULEs could only bring only a 1/2 or a 1/4 of minerals back, because the mineral line is already saturated and they have to wait on SCVs to finish mining. Suddenly the 111 push becomes easily holdable, assuming you scout it and you are not playing stupidly greedy. And now, suddenly Terran can't hold off a 4 gate, baneling bust, or even a 3 gate pressure expand. This mule nonsense is horrendously shortsighted and doesn't seem to take into account ANYTHING other than this stupid "1-1-1" timing. I'm sorry, but it does take into account. When is the last time you saw a terran die to a 4gt? I cant seem to remember seeing that in like ages. Maybe its time that an all in from protoss is actually able to kill a terran if he isnt prepared. I can cite many of my ladder matches where 5-gates, 4-gates, void allins, baneling busts, blink allins, and other allins that I may have forgotten have caused me a loss because I simply did not have the necessary amount of units. The difference is I analyze where I cut corners and played greedy. I do not make ridiculous balance suggestions because I want to be able to cut more corners. This isn't about your play. I'm going to just make an assumption which is something I hate to do, but I'm going to go ahead and say that your macro pales in comparison to that of a professional gamer. Therefore, citing examples from YOUR GAMES does absolutely no good in balance discussion. You completely missed the point of my post. My macro ability has almost no relevance when I am getting allin'd. I'm saying that protoss players should stop suggesting balance changes to each other and start suggesting more safe builds to each other. It does have relevance, as even in the early game, especially as Terran, even waiting 1-2 game seconds to start your next unit has drastic repercussions when responding to an all-in and then complaining about not having enough units.
So why are we not analyzing the perfection of macro for all high level protoss players before and during the push? We just assume it was perfect. I thought you didn't like to assume! -_-
|
On August 23 2011 09:58 Razuik wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2011 09:55 VirgilSC2 wrote:On August 23 2011 09:47 Razuik wrote:On August 23 2011 09:41 VirgilSC2 wrote:On August 23 2011 09:37 Razuik wrote:On August 23 2011 09:31 IVN wrote:On August 23 2011 09:21 aksfjh wrote:On August 23 2011 09:14 IVN wrote:On August 23 2011 08:59 Yaotzin wrote:On August 23 2011 08:54 VirgilSC2 wrote:
Well then maybe Terrans should find a way to counter Zerg without being reliant on purely marines. Nerfing MULEs is probably the one thing that should be done to bring every race's macro mechanic in line with eachother, in order to provide a more equal footing in high level play, as it is, Terrans gain a huge economic advantage for no reason other than picking Terran against Zerg or Protoss players. I can't tell you how many times I've heard a caster say "well X is ahead on Workers, but Y is getting more income because of MULEs"
They may well be imba at the point where making more workers isn't useful anymore. They aren't before that though, at least not noticeably, and most importantly they have very little bearing on the push this thread is about. This push happens when making more workers is still very good. MC lost game 1 despite having like 10 more workers the whole time. That's better than a mule. Ergo the issue ain't the mule. You are wrong. Look at this screen shot. It's from the 1st MC v Puma game on XNC. Full saturation at 5:50. Push begins at 9. And I've counted. He has used additional 3 MULEs before the push. How much is that? 3 * 270 minerals? Equals 16 marines.Now imagine those 3 MULEs could only bring only a 1/2 or a 1/4 of minerals back, because the mineral line is already saturated and they have to wait on SCVs to finish mining. Suddenly the 111 push becomes easily holdable, assuming you scout it and you are not playing stupidly greedy. And now, suddenly Terran can't hold off a 4 gate, baneling bust, or even a 3 gate pressure expand. This mule nonsense is horrendously shortsighted and doesn't seem to take into account ANYTHING other than this stupid "1-1-1" timing. I'm sorry, but it does take into account. When is the last time you saw a terran die to a 4gt? I cant seem to remember seeing that in like ages. Maybe its time that an all in from protoss is actually able to kill a terran if he isnt prepared. I can cite many of my ladder matches where 5-gates, 4-gates, void allins, baneling busts, blink allins, and other allins that I may have forgotten have caused me a loss because I simply did not have the necessary amount of units. The difference is I analyze where I cut corners and played greedy. I do not make ridiculous balance suggestions because I want to be able to cut more corners. This isn't about your play. I'm going to just make an assumption which is something I hate to do, but I'm going to go ahead and say that your macro pales in comparison to that of a professional gamer. Therefore, citing examples from YOUR GAMES does absolutely no good in balance discussion. You completely missed the point of my post. My macro ability has almost no relevance when I am getting allin'd. I'm saying that protoss players should stop suggesting balance changes to each other and start suggesting more safe builds to each other. It does have relevance, as even in the early game, especially as Terran, even waiting 1-2 game seconds to start your next unit has drastic repercussions when responding to an all-in and then complaining about not having enough units. So why are we not analyzing the perfection of macro for all high level protoss players before and during the push? We just assume it was perfect. I thought you didn't like to assume! -_- I haven't seen any point where people say "MC's macro was perfect" or "PuMa's macro slipped" as the excuse for success/failure.
I'm going to go ahead and say that it's pretty widely accepted that results from JoeForumer's ladder games have no place in Balance Discussion.
|
On August 23 2011 09:49 Deadlyfish wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2011 09:41 IVN wrote:On August 23 2011 09:35 Deadlyfish wrote:
I remember when this was really popular back like a year ago or something. It died out. Now it's back and it's as if people forgot what happened to it the last time.
Builds die out, the game changes without nerfs or buffs or anything. A month ago TvT was bio/tank, now it's mech all the way. Let the game grow and stop getting upset just because one of the best terrans beat one of the best protosses. It happens you know?
I know i'm terran so i must be biased, but i'll say this in any situation, even when it's terrans turn to lose. Stop having so short term memory and look at the big picture please. And so now we have a bunch of random people suggesting silly changes just because a build has been popular for like a month? Come on.
I also agree with what Tyler said earlier. This build was around since beta. It was strong the whole time, and the only real counter was 4gt. But back then, 4gts were much stronger and came much earlier. Now, terrans can defend a 4gt even while executing this crazy ultra tech build. No, the build just sorta died out. A few people did it in the GSL as well but without success. 4 gate was not the counter to this build. Plenty of people held it off while expanding. Nothing is different now than it was back then (i mean situation wise, i know there have been buffs/nerfs, though mostly irrelevant). I will bet that in 1 month this build will not be nearly as popular as it is now, even if blizzard does nothing. Seriously, are you gonna say that in 1 month nothing will have changed and 1/1/1 will still be as powerful? Because if so, i'll come back in a month and quote you
Yes, this build is he most imba build in the history of SC2.
And yes 4gt was the counter to this.
|
3gate void was the best counter. That got nerfed too though..hmm..
Maybe I'll just 4gate/robo allin everyone. They don't ever seem to expect that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
