|
Can we stop talking about nerfing things please? - 9:10 KST |
On August 23 2011 12:07 Razuik wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2011 12:01 Atasu wrote:
Okay so people keep saying that the 1/1/1 build is beatable as per the MC vs Puma game 1, however after watching that replay, MC had nearly PERFECT micro in holding off the first engagement, it was superb. Now not everyone has such amazing micro against an a move all in, and why should protoss be forced to even have perfect micro...we all know that is ludicrous. People need to stop arguing against the fact that it is not imbalanced, the fact of the matter is it is, and the koreans (who this community loves to provide as the final trump all evidence yet in this case are disregarding it at times) even consider it imbalanced, yet we have people here who do not devote their lives to SC2 making very ignorant statements and assumptions about it being just another allin. Although I always thought this build was hard to beat as I lost to it pretty much every time i encountered it (before its usage spread like wildfire). In the end people watch that game's replay, on MC's camera view, you'll be amazed what MC did to hold the first instance off.
On a side note, people are making arguments about protoss having higher initial army values, protoss has mostly gas heavy units that cannot be replenished as is the case with marines, so please shut up about that. No offense, but can you shut up about it being imbalanced and read the posts that I made completely refuting everything you just said. MC had the completely wrong unit composition for that particular version of the 1-1-1 all-in. His micro is irrelevant against the heavy marine/ low tank count of Puma.
Please tell me your the same skill level as Alicia or at least GM, if your not, your just someone with knowledge and facts. Play out your scenarios in a real game, and see what happens, I dont even have to read your posts because they are most likely baseless without any testing. Guess what else, Ive played against this build for a very long time so I have experience against it (albiet only diamond level) what im trying to say is though it is still powerful at the hands of people with limited skill ( as with any practiced all in), unless you play protoss and get your ass handed to this build, you dont feel the frustration/understand the community. This is bigger than you and your ego, its about people's lives and income, stop being so god damn selfish
|
Alright guys. I've done some experimenting in ladders in regards to all your claims.
First off, I must tell you guys the difference in 1/1/1 for 6 leagues (excluding GM, I don't have an account on GM).
In bronze/silver, the quality of 1/1/1 is so bad, all you need to do is just to have zealots and stalkers and you're fine.
Things start getting worse at gold. In gold, ravens with pdd are at least added in. All you seriously need is good stalker micro.
Things remain somewhat the same in platinium, except with a better micro.
However, at diamond, it spirals crazily. I've counted at least 5 different variations of 1/1/1 alone. I had no idea about how to face them, but luckily I read a thread from vVvtime. Its about his twilight expand. It works wonders when I tried it. Even on masters level, I have managed to hold 2/3 times. Try his strategy out.
Therefore, I would like you guys to stop arguing as you have not reached that level yet. Don't bother. Just try winning the terrans in your league. That's all.
|
people in Korea have already tried out 1 base colossus build to counter this. It does not work. End of story. Can you all stop saying 1 base 1 base 1 base and 1 base when it clearly does not work... so many ignorant fools denying facts. I repeat, 1 base colossus has already been tried so many times that people know it don't work. Do you think Korean PRO-gamers are stupid or something?
|
One thing I wished is to instantly warn people who start with:
"I don't play the game involved but I have seen...."
and
"I have seen on X or Y stream ...."
And then proceed to theorycraft why or not its IMBA. Seriously its getting kinda tiring and painful to see stream warriors try to pass their opinions as a fact.
Geez, I have already voiced my opinion on this(that we should wait a little longer to see if a solution pops up), but seriously the OP was an interesting opinion by Gisado and then the thread turned into mostly people theorycrafting and whining(some good ideas and insights but sadly they are the minority)
|
On August 23 2011 10:56 sekritzzz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2011 10:38 Techno wrote:On August 22 2011 06:03 Liquid`Tyler wrote:
Something like this was a possibility ever since so many protoss players began to rely on 15nexus and 1gate expand. I've never understood the economic necessity of expanding so soon. 1gate robo and 1gate star (for phoenix) builds can yield economically sound mid games without sacrificing early game information. I don't think there is such an economic necessity. I think protoss players saw that they could get away with really early expansions and so they did it. Now it's back to being a coinflip like it ought to be. Rushing to gather information remains the most reliable way to get to mid game on even ground or to win outright against opponents not intending to enter mid game. Of course, this requires perfect use of the information, so it is a more difficult way to play until all the necessary knowledge has been discovered, at which point it makes all the things it counters absolutely obsolete. I imagine 1-1-1 is one such thing. I'm just gonna routinely quote this for the crickets. Can we stop talking about nerfing things please? - 9:10 KST + Why 1/1/1 is considered to be imbalanced in Korea = Some sort of contradiction, no? Show nested quote +On August 23 2011 10:39 Razuik wrote:On August 23 2011 10:37 Doomwish wrote:On August 23 2011 10:35 ch33psh33p wrote:On August 23 2011 10:20 Doomwish wrote:
Maybe instead of getting like 3 immortals to be melted by marines MC should of just gotten 1-2 immortals and a 1-2 colossus+ range. MC didn't make colossus in a single one of those games. I heard colossus are pretty good against marines with no upgrades.
Do you think before you post? What makes you think changing 2 immortals equals getting 1-2 collosus + range? He would NEVER EVER have gotten collosi in time, much less range. The math has been done in this thread, it'd do you best to read them before posting blindly. You can get colossus if you 1 gate robo in time. Wait! Are you suggesting a safe and smart expand build based on good scouting and responding?! Bonjwa. No but seriously, this is the perfect opening vs 1-1-1. This has been said so many times in this thread on possibly every single page so i'll repeat it in underline and bold!!!!!!!
Building anything other than 15 Nexus or 1gate, Nexus will always lose you the game unless the terran is horrible and decides to give 3 banshees to charity by suicide. The problem is that protoss units are less effecient AND protoss gets less minerals/minute than the terran. The only solution to this is expanding but anything other than a 15 nexus or 1gate FE will die to this pushp.s. I respect Tyler but I honestly think he misunderstood the claims of the OP. I dont get how 3 gate robo is safe?
That is the major issue I have with the OP. The "15 nexus" or "1-gate expand" is considered "fact", rather than "theory". Yes, many pros do hold that opinion, but many people have taken it to be fact.
It may be correct, but there are enough high level dissenting arguments (e.g. Tyler) to show that people should at least be looking at viable responses other than the "15 nexus" or "1-gate expand".
History has shown enough examples where a "proven fact" is later on shown to be only part of the story. If people limit themselves in the search of the solution, then one may never be found.
|
On August 23 2011 12:40 Atasu wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2011 12:07 Razuik wrote:On August 23 2011 12:01 Atasu wrote:
Okay so people keep saying that the 1/1/1 build is beatable as per the MC vs Puma game 1, however after watching that replay, MC had nearly PERFECT micro in holding off the first engagement, it was superb. Now not everyone has such amazing micro against an a move all in, and why should protoss be forced to even have perfect micro...we all know that is ludicrous. People need to stop arguing against the fact that it is not imbalanced, the fact of the matter is it is, and the koreans (who this community loves to provide as the final trump all evidence yet in this case are disregarding it at times) even consider it imbalanced, yet we have people here who do not devote their lives to SC2 making very ignorant statements and assumptions about it being just another allin. Although I always thought this build was hard to beat as I lost to it pretty much every time i encountered it (before its usage spread like wildfire). In the end people watch that game's replay, on MC's camera view, you'll be amazed what MC did to hold the first instance off.
On a side note, people are making arguments about protoss having higher initial army values, protoss has mostly gas heavy units that cannot be replenished as is the case with marines, so please shut up about that. No offense, but can you shut up about it being imbalanced and read the posts that I made completely refuting everything you just said. MC had the completely wrong unit composition for that particular version of the 1-1-1 all-in. His micro is irrelevant against the heavy marine/ low tank count of Puma. Please tell me your the same skill level as Alicia or at least GM, if your not, your just someone with knowledge and facts. Play out your scenarios in a real game, and see what happens, I dont even have to read your posts because they are most likely baseless without any testing. Guess what else, Ive played against this build for a very long time so I have experience against it (albiet only diamond level) what im trying to say is though it is still powerful at the hands of people with limited skill ( as with any practiced all in), unless you play protoss and get your ass handed to this build, you dont feel the frustration/understand the community. This is bigger than you and your ego, its about people's lives and income, stop being so god damn selfish
How am I being selfish when 10000s of protoss players are calling for balance changes instead of actually learning how to beat the build? VERY few pro gamers have commented on it's balance, but none of them have gone into any kinds of specifics. Am I so selfish that I am denied the right to post counter examples to the OP's non-specific and apparently "factual" information?
|
On August 23 2011 12:49 Razuik wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2011 12:40 Atasu wrote:On August 23 2011 12:07 Razuik wrote:On August 23 2011 12:01 Atasu wrote:
Okay so people keep saying that the 1/1/1 build is beatable as per the MC vs Puma game 1, however after watching that replay, MC had nearly PERFECT micro in holding off the first engagement, it was superb. Now not everyone has such amazing micro against an a move all in, and why should protoss be forced to even have perfect micro...we all know that is ludicrous. People need to stop arguing against the fact that it is not imbalanced, the fact of the matter is it is, and the koreans (who this community loves to provide as the final trump all evidence yet in this case are disregarding it at times) even consider it imbalanced, yet we have people here who do not devote their lives to SC2 making very ignorant statements and assumptions about it being just another allin. Although I always thought this build was hard to beat as I lost to it pretty much every time i encountered it (before its usage spread like wildfire). In the end people watch that game's replay, on MC's camera view, you'll be amazed what MC did to hold the first instance off.
On a side note, people are making arguments about protoss having higher initial army values, protoss has mostly gas heavy units that cannot be replenished as is the case with marines, so please shut up about that. No offense, but can you shut up about it being imbalanced and read the posts that I made completely refuting everything you just said. MC had the completely wrong unit composition for that particular version of the 1-1-1 all-in. His micro is irrelevant against the heavy marine/ low tank count of Puma. Please tell me your the same skill level as Alicia or at least GM, if your not, your just someone with knowledge and facts. Play out your scenarios in a real game, and see what happens, I dont even have to read your posts because they are most likely baseless without any testing. Guess what else, Ive played against this build for a very long time so I have experience against it (albiet only diamond level) what im trying to say is though it is still powerful at the hands of people with limited skill ( as with any practiced all in), unless you play protoss and get your ass handed to this build, you dont feel the frustration/understand the community. This is bigger than you and your ego, its about people's lives and income, stop being so god damn selfish How am I being selfish when 10000s of protoss players are calling for balance changes instead of actually learning how to beat the build? VERY few pro gamers have commented on it's balance, but none of them have gone into any kinds of specifics. Am I so selfish that I am denied the right to post counter examples to the OP's non-specific and apparently "factual" information?
so you dont think the 20+ pro protoss players getting raped by their teamates in practice games by the 1-1-1 build haven't tried to find a build that beats the 1-1-1 build? are you suggesting pros like alicia or puzzle haven't even tried to find a build that beats it? are you suggesting that, knowing puma would 1-1-1, MC hasn't tried to create a build that would counter it? wrong.
|
I do not understand what is there so good to argue about. All you guys do is theorycraft anyway. I bet none of you have ever fought the real 1/1/1 or some variations of it. Even if you did, I bet you lost with some cranky build of yours and have to scream OP! after you lose. Seriously guys, stfu. Its pointless. I thought like you guys yesterday, screaming how 1/1/1 is op after mc lost. However, after trying it out on ladder, it isn't as bad. Sure, you can say the quality of 1/1/1 is bad in ladder, but do you ever fight Koreans? No you don't. So will you ever experience a well executed 1/1/1? Nope. Just focus on how to beat 1/1/1 on your damned ladder. If anyone still think I'm joking,
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=257168
|
On August 23 2011 12:54 koolaid1990 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2011 12:49 Razuik wrote:On August 23 2011 12:40 Atasu wrote:On August 23 2011 12:07 Razuik wrote:On August 23 2011 12:01 Atasu wrote:
Okay so people keep saying that the 1/1/1 build is beatable as per the MC vs Puma game 1, however after watching that replay, MC had nearly PERFECT micro in holding off the first engagement, it was superb. Now not everyone has such amazing micro against an a move all in, and why should protoss be forced to even have perfect micro...we all know that is ludicrous. People need to stop arguing against the fact that it is not imbalanced, the fact of the matter is it is, and the koreans (who this community loves to provide as the final trump all evidence yet in this case are disregarding it at times) even consider it imbalanced, yet we have people here who do not devote their lives to SC2 making very ignorant statements and assumptions about it being just another allin. Although I always thought this build was hard to beat as I lost to it pretty much every time i encountered it (before its usage spread like wildfire). In the end people watch that game's replay, on MC's camera view, you'll be amazed what MC did to hold the first instance off.
On a side note, people are making arguments about protoss having higher initial army values, protoss has mostly gas heavy units that cannot be replenished as is the case with marines, so please shut up about that. No offense, but can you shut up about it being imbalanced and read the posts that I made completely refuting everything you just said. MC had the completely wrong unit composition for that particular version of the 1-1-1 all-in. His micro is irrelevant against the heavy marine/ low tank count of Puma. Please tell me your the same skill level as Alicia or at least GM, if your not, your just someone with knowledge and facts. Play out your scenarios in a real game, and see what happens, I dont even have to read your posts because they are most likely baseless without any testing. Guess what else, Ive played against this build for a very long time so I have experience against it (albiet only diamond level) what im trying to say is though it is still powerful at the hands of people with limited skill ( as with any practiced all in), unless you play protoss and get your ass handed to this build, you dont feel the frustration/understand the community. This is bigger than you and your ego, its about people's lives and income, stop being so god damn selfish How am I being selfish when 10000s of protoss players are calling for balance changes instead of actually learning how to beat the build? VERY few pro gamers have commented on it's balance, but none of them have gone into any kinds of specifics. Am I so selfish that I am denied the right to post counter examples to the OP's non-specific and apparently "factual" information? so you dont think the 20+ pro protoss players getting raped by their teamates in practice games by the 1-1-1 build haven't tried to find a build that beats the 1-1-1 build? are you suggesting pros like alicia or puzzle haven't even tried to find a build that beats it? are you suggesting that, knowing puma would 1-1-1, MC hasn't tried to create a build that would counter it? wrong.
You are wrong for assuming all of these things. The build wasn't as strong when robo expands were more popular. You argue on 1 liners from pros that have no implication on their actual knowledge of the build. If MVP went and said randomly "5-gate on one base is imbalanced and nearly unstoppable!", does that make it fact? NO, the answer is NO. Pro gamers need to supply factual information when arguing just like everyone else. For all we know, Alicia's one liner comment could be a simple joke he made to all of his friends that he wasn't at all serious about.
|
This thread is going nowhere fast.
Pros are just people, guys. Yes, they are much, much better than we are at this game, but their opinions are not infallible. In this scene the pros are often young kids, young adults, and sometimes grown men. I would agree that their opinions are more relevant in many ways, because they play the game 8 hours per day, which is just an insane amount of Starcraft 2, but they are just people. There are plenty of examples of pros putting their foot's in their mouths on balance issues.
You cannot just say things like, "thousands of protosses are getting raped by the 111 all-in, don't you think they'd have figured it out by now?"
No. Just because they are pro, and awesome, does not mean they should instantly figured out every situation. A strategy game against other people as obsessed as you should be a difficult thing.
If it comes down to the build being impossible to beat, or way too demanding to beat, then Blizzard will most certainly nerf Terran again. You know how Blizzard loves to nerf Terran!
|
On August 23 2011 12:59 Razuik wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2011 12:54 koolaid1990 wrote:On August 23 2011 12:49 Razuik wrote:On August 23 2011 12:40 Atasu wrote:On August 23 2011 12:07 Razuik wrote:On August 23 2011 12:01 Atasu wrote:
Okay so people keep saying that the 1/1/1 build is beatable as per the MC vs Puma game 1, however after watching that replay, MC had nearly PERFECT micro in holding off the first engagement, it was superb. Now not everyone has such amazing micro against an a move all in, and why should protoss be forced to even have perfect micro...we all know that is ludicrous. People need to stop arguing against the fact that it is not imbalanced, the fact of the matter is it is, and the koreans (who this community loves to provide as the final trump all evidence yet in this case are disregarding it at times) even consider it imbalanced, yet we have people here who do not devote their lives to SC2 making very ignorant statements and assumptions about it being just another allin. Although I always thought this build was hard to beat as I lost to it pretty much every time i encountered it (before its usage spread like wildfire). In the end people watch that game's replay, on MC's camera view, you'll be amazed what MC did to hold the first instance off.
On a side note, people are making arguments about protoss having higher initial army values, protoss has mostly gas heavy units that cannot be replenished as is the case with marines, so please shut up about that. No offense, but can you shut up about it being imbalanced and read the posts that I made completely refuting everything you just said. MC had the completely wrong unit composition for that particular version of the 1-1-1 all-in. His micro is irrelevant against the heavy marine/ low tank count of Puma. Please tell me your the same skill level as Alicia or at least GM, if your not, your just someone with knowledge and facts. Play out your scenarios in a real game, and see what happens, I dont even have to read your posts because they are most likely baseless without any testing. Guess what else, Ive played against this build for a very long time so I have experience against it (albiet only diamond level) what im trying to say is though it is still powerful at the hands of people with limited skill ( as with any practiced all in), unless you play protoss and get your ass handed to this build, you dont feel the frustration/understand the community. This is bigger than you and your ego, its about people's lives and income, stop being so god damn selfish How am I being selfish when 10000s of protoss players are calling for balance changes instead of actually learning how to beat the build? VERY few pro gamers have commented on it's balance, but none of them have gone into any kinds of specifics. Am I so selfish that I am denied the right to post counter examples to the OP's non-specific and apparently "factual" information? so you dont think the 20+ pro protoss players getting raped by their teamates in practice games by the 1-1-1 build haven't tried to find a build that beats the 1-1-1 build? are you suggesting pros like alicia or puzzle haven't even tried to find a build that beats it? are you suggesting that, knowing puma would 1-1-1, MC hasn't tried to create a build that would counter it? wrong. You are wrong for assuming all of these things. The build wasn't as strong when robo expands were more popular. You argue on 1 liners from pros that have no implication on their actual knowledge of the build. If MVP went and said randomly "5-gate on one base is imbalanced and nearly unstoppable!", does that make it fact? NO, the answer is NO. Pro gamers need to supply factual information when arguing just like everyone else. For all we know, Alicia's one liner comment could be a simple joke he made to all of his friends that he wasn't at all serious about.
lol alicia has tweeted much info on this, made comments on its virtually strength verse all protoss builds, ....he thinks its imba. so stop trying to sound smart
|
It's just another rush that is far easier to execute than it is to defend. This seems to be a trend in sc2.....5 gate zealot sentry from beta. 3 rax marine/marauder (stim research time nerfed). 4 gate. bane busts (they buffed hp of depots). Roach rushes (how many times were roaches nerfed during beta?). Proxy rax ANYTHING was so overpowered they just made it so you can't even build a rax without a depot. Void rays were nerfed presumably because of 3 gate void ray all ins vs terran. They nerfed 2 gate zealot rushes by increasing zealot build time.....Surely I'm missing some.....
Anyways incoming 1/1/1 nerf because it's yet another rush that people just can't deal with.
|
On August 23 2011 13:04 SuperYo1000 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2011 12:59 Razuik wrote:On August 23 2011 12:54 koolaid1990 wrote:On August 23 2011 12:49 Razuik wrote:On August 23 2011 12:40 Atasu wrote:On August 23 2011 12:07 Razuik wrote:On August 23 2011 12:01 Atasu wrote:
Okay so people keep saying that the 1/1/1 build is beatable as per the MC vs Puma game 1, however after watching that replay, MC had nearly PERFECT micro in holding off the first engagement, it was superb. Now not everyone has such amazing micro against an a move all in, and why should protoss be forced to even have perfect micro...we all know that is ludicrous. People need to stop arguing against the fact that it is not imbalanced, the fact of the matter is it is, and the koreans (who this community loves to provide as the final trump all evidence yet in this case are disregarding it at times) even consider it imbalanced, yet we have people here who do not devote their lives to SC2 making very ignorant statements and assumptions about it being just another allin. Although I always thought this build was hard to beat as I lost to it pretty much every time i encountered it (before its usage spread like wildfire). In the end people watch that game's replay, on MC's camera view, you'll be amazed what MC did to hold the first instance off.
On a side note, people are making arguments about protoss having higher initial army values, protoss has mostly gas heavy units that cannot be replenished as is the case with marines, so please shut up about that. No offense, but can you shut up about it being imbalanced and read the posts that I made completely refuting everything you just said. MC had the completely wrong unit composition for that particular version of the 1-1-1 all-in. His micro is irrelevant against the heavy marine/ low tank count of Puma. Please tell me your the same skill level as Alicia or at least GM, if your not, your just someone with knowledge and facts. Play out your scenarios in a real game, and see what happens, I dont even have to read your posts because they are most likely baseless without any testing. Guess what else, Ive played against this build for a very long time so I have experience against it (albiet only diamond level) what im trying to say is though it is still powerful at the hands of people with limited skill ( as with any practiced all in), unless you play protoss and get your ass handed to this build, you dont feel the frustration/understand the community. This is bigger than you and your ego, its about people's lives and income, stop being so god damn selfish How am I being selfish when 10000s of protoss players are calling for balance changes instead of actually learning how to beat the build? VERY few pro gamers have commented on it's balance, but none of them have gone into any kinds of specifics. Am I so selfish that I am denied the right to post counter examples to the OP's non-specific and apparently "factual" information? so you dont think the 20+ pro protoss players getting raped by their teamates in practice games by the 1-1-1 build haven't tried to find a build that beats the 1-1-1 build? are you suggesting pros like alicia or puzzle haven't even tried to find a build that beats it? are you suggesting that, knowing puma would 1-1-1, MC hasn't tried to create a build that would counter it? wrong. You are wrong for assuming all of these things. The build wasn't as strong when robo expands were more popular. You argue on 1 liners from pros that have no implication on their actual knowledge of the build. If MVP went and said randomly "5-gate on one base is imbalanced and nearly unstoppable!", does that make it fact? NO, the answer is NO. Pro gamers need to supply factual information when arguing just like everyone else. For all we know, Alicia's one liner comment could be a simple joke he made to all of his friends that he wasn't at all serious about. lol alicia has tweeted much info on this, made comments on its virtually strength verse all protoss builds, ....he thinks its imba. so stop trying to sound smart
You are just another person missing my points... I'm getting tired of repeating myself over and over. TimeSpiral stated it perfectly.. this thread is going in circles because new people come in and try to argue things that other people and myself have refuted before.
|
On August 23 2011 13:04 SuperYo1000 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2011 12:59 Razuik wrote:On August 23 2011 12:54 koolaid1990 wrote:On August 23 2011 12:49 Razuik wrote:On August 23 2011 12:40 Atasu wrote:On August 23 2011 12:07 Razuik wrote:On August 23 2011 12:01 Atasu wrote:
Okay so people keep saying that the 1/1/1 build is beatable as per the MC vs Puma game 1, however after watching that replay, MC had nearly PERFECT micro in holding off the first engagement, it was superb. Now not everyone has such amazing micro against an a move all in, and why should protoss be forced to even have perfect micro...we all know that is ludicrous. People need to stop arguing against the fact that it is not imbalanced, the fact of the matter is it is, and the koreans (who this community loves to provide as the final trump all evidence yet in this case are disregarding it at times) even consider it imbalanced, yet we have people here who do not devote their lives to SC2 making very ignorant statements and assumptions about it being just another allin. Although I always thought this build was hard to beat as I lost to it pretty much every time i encountered it (before its usage spread like wildfire). In the end people watch that game's replay, on MC's camera view, you'll be amazed what MC did to hold the first instance off.
On a side note, people are making arguments about protoss having higher initial army values, protoss has mostly gas heavy units that cannot be replenished as is the case with marines, so please shut up about that. No offense, but can you shut up about it being imbalanced and read the posts that I made completely refuting everything you just said. MC had the completely wrong unit composition for that particular version of the 1-1-1 all-in. His micro is irrelevant against the heavy marine/ low tank count of Puma. Please tell me your the same skill level as Alicia or at least GM, if your not, your just someone with knowledge and facts. Play out your scenarios in a real game, and see what happens, I dont even have to read your posts because they are most likely baseless without any testing. Guess what else, Ive played against this build for a very long time so I have experience against it (albiet only diamond level) what im trying to say is though it is still powerful at the hands of people with limited skill ( as with any practiced all in), unless you play protoss and get your ass handed to this build, you dont feel the frustration/understand the community. This is bigger than you and your ego, its about people's lives and income, stop being so god damn selfish How am I being selfish when 10000s of protoss players are calling for balance changes instead of actually learning how to beat the build? VERY few pro gamers have commented on it's balance, but none of them have gone into any kinds of specifics. Am I so selfish that I am denied the right to post counter examples to the OP's non-specific and apparently "factual" information? so you dont think the 20+ pro protoss players getting raped by their teamates in practice games by the 1-1-1 build haven't tried to find a build that beats the 1-1-1 build? are you suggesting pros like alicia or puzzle haven't even tried to find a build that beats it? are you suggesting that, knowing puma would 1-1-1, MC hasn't tried to create a build that would counter it? wrong. You are wrong for assuming all of these things. The build wasn't as strong when robo expands were more popular. You argue on 1 liners from pros that have no implication on their actual knowledge of the build. If MVP went and said randomly "5-gate on one base is imbalanced and nearly unstoppable!", does that make it fact? NO, the answer is NO. Pro gamers need to supply factual information when arguing just like everyone else. For all we know, Alicia's one liner comment could be a simple joke he made to all of his friends that he wasn't at all serious about. lol alicia has tweeted much info on this, made comments on its virtually strength verse all protoss builds, ....he thinks its imba. so stop trying to sound smart
I didn't know Alicia changed his teamliquid name to superyo1000... Or else how would you know what Alicia was thinking at that time? He can tweet that 'terran must be removed and will you agree with him? Sure, he practices alot with pros and ballers, but tweets are tweets. They hold novwater. Unless you put up 10 replays of you losing to 1/1/1 and EXPLAIN why you lost on the fine details, or your theorycraft holds as much water as my finger can.
|
On August 23 2011 11:32 Asmodeusz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2011 05:49 CryingPoo wrote:
As a Protoss player there are two possible ways to hold off 1/1/1.
1. 15 Nexus
2. 1 Gate into an expo
It's huge ignorance to say that. Not only there are other ways to stop it that we know of, but there is also potential for much more unexplored solutions to this build. On GM+ level i've seen various strategies beating it Phenix + DT harass (warping from low ground with vision from phenixes) Taking hidden expo far away and counter attacking with warp prism Zealot/immortal with flanking from 2-3 directions flanking with zealots and immortals and force fielding marines, so they can't reach immortals and are left to fight with stalker/sentry/zealot without ability to kite (and it was done on 1 base, just very good positioning) Most of those builds abuse position and the fact that without marines, other units in this push are vunerable to certain units. I myself deal with it by getting maximum saturation on one base and perfect army composition off 4 gates and robo, i also position my units in best location for the engagement, assuming, my enemy is going to a-move from his base, straight into my natural. Usually i'll have 3-4 immortals, 3 sentries (full energy), 5-6 stalkers and as much zealots as possible. Also proxy pylon, to reinforce near the engagement area. This discussion raised after MC losing to Puma. In his case, he simply made too much probes, otherwise we would crush first push and counter attack, or contain T in his base forcing him to get medivacs. Instances of protoss players beaing 3-1-1 stay unnoticed, but when terran wins with this build people cry "IMBA IMBA". Mentality of the weak. I play both, protoss and terran, and while i think that this build is silly and too strong in comparison to execution it requires, it's still very possible to beat it without blind countering. Learn to play against it, just like you have to learn how to play against 4 gate, 3rax, roach/ling allin.
Shh..you're ruining the fun. Don't you know when somebody repeats something many times in bold and underline that is automatically becomes true?
|
There is no objective criteria by which anything can be found to be imbalanced. If protoss could only build probes and no other attacking units, the thread would be about "Well have you tried rushing out three fast nexuses? Maybe then you can hold one rax marines! Don't post imba until you've tried it at least 60 times to ensure you're doing it optimally!"
Every protoss is getting kicked out of Code A GSL this season. I don't care if 1-1-1 is "objectively" imbalanced or not; it's ruining the entertainment value of tournaments and hurting e-sports. It's making the game boring. That's enough reason for an adjustment. Once pros start migrating away from protoss to get a better shot at collecting tournament prizes, how will the game survive as an e-sport?
|
Zerg player here, just looking for a clarification.
Is 1/1/1 actually an all-in? If it is stopped or if the Terran is forced to pull back, is he pretty much dead? Or is it like the 2rax bunker rush where the risk vs reward is pretty disjointed?
|
i would prefer if the players figured a counter out, but i've thought the marine has needed changes for a while. i think the marine makes the 1/1/1 build and other terran all-ins strong, not mules or other units. maybe the other terran units support the marine too well. i don't know, but i think in general the marine's relationship vs. other low tech units is very bad. the relationship being bad is not a balance problem if other races can get good low tech unit mixes or tech to deal with the marines + their supporting units, but if over a long period of time this build is still winning too much, then i think blizzard should look at the marine.
the marine reminds me of the archer in wc3. large numbers of archers were very strong but vulnerable to aoe. blizzard nerfed archers to be weaker vs. similarly tiered units but gave them dmg reduction vs. aoe spells while also nerfing a few aoes. it seemed like an overly complicated set of changes, but the idea is good.
|
They can do 3 waves before they have to stop. The second and third waves, they have to pick between either banshees or tanks. Yes, even though they bring SCVs with the first wave. MULEs. vOv
|
United States7483 Posts
On August 23 2011 11:45 Razuik wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2011 11:41 Whitewing wrote:On August 23 2011 11:38 Razuik wrote:On August 23 2011 11:35 sekritzzz wrote:On August 23 2011 11:28 Razuik wrote:On August 23 2011 11:11 sekritzzz wrote:On August 23 2011 11:00 Razuik wrote:On August 23 2011 10:56 sekritzzz wrote:On August 23 2011 10:38 Techno wrote:On August 22 2011 06:03 Liquid`Tyler wrote:
Something like this was a possibility ever since so many protoss players began to rely on 15nexus and 1gate expand. I've never understood the economic necessity of expanding so soon. 1gate robo and 1gate star (for phoenix) builds can yield economically sound mid games without sacrificing early game information. I don't think there is such an economic necessity. I think protoss players saw that they could get away with really early expansions and so they did it. Now it's back to being a coinflip like it ought to be. Rushing to gather information remains the most reliable way to get to mid game on even ground or to win outright against opponents not intending to enter mid game. Of course, this requires perfect use of the information, so it is a more difficult way to play until all the necessary knowledge has been discovered, at which point it makes all the things it counters absolutely obsolete. I imagine 1-1-1 is one such thing. I'm just gonna routinely quote this for the crickets. Can we stop talking about nerfing things please? - 9:10 KST + Why 1/1/1 is considered to be imbalanced in Korea = Some sort of contradiction, no? On August 23 2011 10:39 Razuik wrote:On August 23 2011 10:37 Doomwish wrote:
[quote]
You can get colossus if you 1 gate robo in time.
Wait! Are you suggesting a safe and smart expand build based on good scouting and responding?! Bonjwa. No but seriously, this is the perfect opening vs 1-1-1. This has been said so many times in this thread on possibly every single page so i'll repeat it in underline and bold!!!!!!!
Building anything other than 15 Nexus or 1gate, Nexus will always lose you the game unless the terran is horrible and decides to give 3 banshees to charity by suicide. The problem is that protoss units are less effecient AND protoss gets less minerals/minute than the terran. The only solution to this is expanding but anything other than a 15 nexus or 1gate FE will die to this pushp.s. I respect Tyler but I honestly think he misunderstood the claims of the OP. I dont get how 3 gate robo is safe? I have also said many times that I question the validity of the OP. He does not really say what versions of the build he played against so.... non-specification leads to my doubting. How can the OP being wrong when what he is saying is so simple? Point 1: Terran makes more money than protoss per minute: Mules. This point doesn't even need arguing since is straight forward. Point 2: Terran units are more cost-efficient than protoss units: You can test it if you want, but its almost common knowledge that Marines, tanks, and banshees are amongst the best dps units whilst stalkers/sentries are the worst whilst zealots barely touch the marines/tanks before dying. Protoss could camp in his base and get collusi with range but by that time the terran already has bunkers/vikings on the field. Any protoss knows its not wise to attack a bunker;d/sieged up line. Point 3: Protoss cannot expand because terran will constantly deny it due to point 1/2. reasoning is mentioned above. On August 23 2011 11:02 Sabu113 wrote:On August 23 2011 10:56 sekritzzz wrote:On August 23 2011 10:38 Techno wrote:On August 22 2011 06:03 Liquid`Tyler wrote:
Something like this was a possibility ever since so many protoss players began to rely on 15nexus and 1gate expand. I've never understood the economic necessity of expanding so soon. 1gate robo and 1gate star (for phoenix) builds can yield economically sound mid games without sacrificing early game information. I don't think there is such an economic necessity. I think protoss players saw that they could get away with really early expansions and so they did it. Now it's back to being a coinflip like it ought to be. Rushing to gather information remains the most reliable way to get to mid game on even ground or to win outright against opponents not intending to enter mid game. Of course, this requires perfect use of the information, so it is a more difficult way to play until all the necessary knowledge has been discovered, at which point it makes all the things it counters absolutely obsolete. I imagine 1-1-1 is one such thing. I'm just gonna routinely quote this for the crickets. Can we stop talking about nerfing things please? - 9:10 KST + Why 1/1/1 is considered to be imbalanced in Korea = Some sort of contradiction, no? On August 23 2011 10:39 Razuik wrote:On August 23 2011 10:37 Doomwish wrote:
[quote]
You can get colossus if you 1 gate robo in time.
Wait! Are you suggesting a safe and smart expand build based on good scouting and responding?! Bonjwa. No but seriously, this is the perfect opening vs 1-1-1. This has been said so many times in this thread on possibly every single page so i'll repeat it in underline and bold!!!!!!!
Building anything other than 15 Nexus or 1gate, Nexus will always lose you the game unless the terran is horrible and decides to give 3 banshees to charity by suicide. The problem is that protoss units are less effecient AND protoss gets less minerals/minute than the terran. The only solution to this is expanding but anything other than a 15 nexus or 1gate FE will die to this pushp.s. I respect Tyler but I honestly think he misunderstood the claims of the OP. I dont get how 3 gate robo is safe? The 1gate fe is ideal because the pressure doesn't punish you before 9/10 minutes. As such an extremely greedy fe is "safe" to THIS build and allows the max unit production to meet it. (It should be noted that if being super greedy doesn't work you would assume other builds would do worse) However, Puzzle in his group stage match on Crossfire nearly won the game by one basing with phoenix. The phoenix kept the terran pinned while it prevented the necessity of getting a robo so you can just mass chargelots. I do think there was some astrix with his opponents execution but a phoenix 1base 4gate defense has some legs. Its funny you mention'd the Puzzle game because that was the game his opponent played horribly and gave away 3 banshees. Okay, let me give you a specific example of how the OP could be flawed. Say someone is going 1-gate robo expand and scouts the version of 1-1-1 that puma was doing (heavy marine style). If the protoss utilizes the fact that he got robo tech before expand, he will immediately rush up to colossus. That would be the correct response. The incorrect response would be to get more gates and go for a Stalker/zealot/immortal/sentry comp. I'm simply stating that MC had an improper follow up. You may say that he did not have enough time to get colossus; however, with a safe 1-gate robo expand... he would have enough time. The heavier tank/lower marine version is what you pull the Stalker/zealot/immortal/sentry comp out for. Even if its marine heavy, by the time you have your collusus up, he already is sieged up in natural (assuming you arent down the ramp). How do you attack into a siege'd up position without getting murdered? Because the siege tank count is so low, you can afford to take a few tank shots to roast a score of marines. It requires some micro, but much easier to defend. And if he pulls the marines back behind the tanks? And has a PDD ready? 2-3 tanks will do a ton of damage if you randomly wander units in to try to get at the marines. It all depends on what kind of 1-1-1 he's doing, problem is, you can't scout him early enough to make an appropriate decision, you have to guess right and get lucky to even have a chance, and then if you guessed right, you have to out-micro him. The problem is that terran has a superior unit composition and more money in his army, that combination is almost impossible to deal with. At least by having two bases early you can at least have more money in your army to try to beat the superior unit comp by throwing money at it. You must have not read my previous post. You DO have enough time to respond if you open with 1-gate robo. You don't have to guess if you do this opening. The scouting is essential. You ARE correct in that you have to micro a lot, but hey, all-ins are famously harder to hold than to execute. That's just the nature playing vs 1 base.
Again, assuming you have the best unit comp possible and have a colossus out, if the terran plays correctly, you never get the chance to kill the marines with it, the tanks will cover for them and you still have to deal with the banshees (your stalker count suffers greatly) and PDD (the better versions of the all-in use a raven IMO). Assuming you do okay and trade well, you still need to deal with the follow up waves, and your unit production simply isn't as good. It's exceptionally hard to hold when you KNOW exactly the best way to hold it, and that's the definition, in my opinion, of imbalance. If you have perfect (or near perfect) information about what your opponent is doing and can't respond in a manner which allows you to defeat it at least 50% of the time assuming equal skill, it's overpowered.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
