|
Can we stop talking about nerfing things please? - 9:10 KST |
On August 22 2011 06:42 Carbonthief wrote:
I have a question. Liquid'Tyler has stated his belief that the economic advantage of fast expanding is not incredibly necessary, and others have followed this statement up by basically saying the 111 is just Terran responding to Protoss FE metagame, and that maybe Protoss shouldn't FE.
Well. How does fast expanding hurt your chances of holding off a 111? It seems completely irrelevant to me to blame it on a Protoss FE. The 111 hits AFTER, long after, the FE has already kicked in and payed for itself. It seems like the FE can ONLY help. I don't understand what possible benefit you could reap by not FEing.
Less important tech units.
|
On August 22 2011 06:41 Medrea wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2011 06:40 Sprouter wrote:
what happened to hallucination? was it removed in a balance patch? You have to get warp gate first. By the time the hallucination is done and in the terran base, you need to have already committed to a defense against the 1-1-1. Basically Hallucination is worthless against 1-1-1.
This may sound a lot like a "use more nydus" strat... but what about double cybercore? You actually COULD get both hallucination and warp gate in time. Of course, that is a ridiculous cost to do it.
|
On August 22 2011 06:34 TERRANLOL wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2011 06:33 MeanMike wrote:On August 22 2011 05:55 Badfatpanda wrote:On August 22 2011 05:55 MeanMike wrote:
master P here, it requires minimal skill to pull off and has a 90%+ winrate, seems pretty imbalanced to me. Link to 90% stat? 100% win rate in gsl im sure it's higher than 90% but im being generous That's actually wrong. Thorzain lost to Genius in the GSTL. I know you'll probably back up and say you meant the GSL and not the GSTL but I see no reason for making that distinction.
Thorzain did maybe the worst 1/1/1 ive ever seen in that game. He even built his units out of order so he didnt have energy for PDD.
|
On August 22 2011 06:41 DooMDash wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2011 06:39 Jinivus wrote:On August 22 2011 06:36 DooMDash wrote:On August 22 2011 06:34 Medrea wrote:On August 22 2011 06:30 DooMDash wrote:On August 22 2011 06:28 Medrea wrote:
Koreans and Korean pro's are also complaining of this, even the terrans, and I mean more than just IMMVP though I will differ to him for example. He even has a nickname for NOT 1-1-1 ing all of his protoss opponents.
Come on. When your terran buddy has 400 APM you can have infinite APM and you won't stop it. If a well executed 1-1-1 was stoppable we would be seeing it happen way more than we are. If top level Korean protosses haven't figured it out after playing 12 hours a day then what happens?
Even if there was a protoss build that stops 1-1-1, the mere THREAT of the 1-1-1 boxes you into a very very small corridor. And it just so happens that corridor is vulnerable to OTHER terran one base all-ins? That is a bit silly.
Im gonna stick with Korean pro-level opinion on this one. They also lost to 2 rax all ins like every game for 1 month straight, with nothing changed its no longer a problem. Crazy I know right ? That was with stim iirc. And thats why they nerfed stim. 2 rax is still strong, and it can kill your anti 1-1-1. That is not why they nerfed stim. They nerfed stim for TvP ramp run ups. And all those Z's having problems were dead before stim, most of the time the Terrans never even got gas. It happened for easily a month. Just saying this is not much different. Time will tell. The build has been owning MC and for a while now with no answers emerging. Time has told. Awhile now? How long is awhile to you? I don't remember this 1-1-1 non-sense going on for more than a month. NASL finals 1-1-1 wasn't even being used.
puma vs squirtle. 1/1/1 all in, NASL finals.
|
Well. How does fast expanding hurt your chances of holding off a 111? It seems completely irrelevant to me to blame it on a Protoss FE. The 111 hits AFTER, long after, the FE has already kicked in and payed for itself. It seems like the FE can ONLY help. I don't understand what possible benefit you could reap by not FEing.
You're right basically, but to answer your question: TECH, and possibly quicker scouting. Problem is you scout it and you still lose, and collosus/stargate only work if the terran seriously screws up. Like forgetting seige mode and donating 3 banshees screws up. And even then its close.
|
On August 22 2011 06:44 zarepath wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2011 06:41 Medrea wrote:On August 22 2011 06:40 Sprouter wrote:
what happened to hallucination? was it removed in a balance patch? You have to get warp gate first. By the time the hallucination is done and in the terran base, you need to have already committed to a defense against the 1-1-1. Basically Hallucination is worthless against 1-1-1. This may sound a lot like a "use more nydus" strat... but what about double cybercore? You actually COULD get both hallucination and warp gate in time. Of course, that is a ridiculous cost to do it.
At that expense (250-100) you can get a robo with obs (275-175). Not exact, but similar.
|
On August 22 2011 06:41 Dommk wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2011 06:40 TERRANLOL wrote:On August 22 2011 06:36 Huntz wrote:That's actually wrong. Thorzain lost to Genius in the GSTL.
I know you'll probably back up and say you meant the GSL and not the GSTL but I see no reason for making that distinction. GSTL or no, if your response to 100% (or 90%) winrate is "That's not true, this 1 guy beat it" and not "lol troll QQer gfto" I think we have a problem. Lol. I'm not defending the whole of the terran race. I don't even use this build. I just hate when people make stupid exaggerated arguments like "NOBODY HAS EVER BEATEN THIS BUILD... EVER" LOL what if we did have a problem??? No offense dude, but did you watch the game? Thorzain didn't even siege his tanks and got caught, if all Terrans did this build without siege mode then I think Protoss wouldn't be complaining
That's debatable. Thorzain had one tank sieged. The other two weren't. He may have pushed like that on purpose, but he wasn't completely out of position. He got forcefielded while 2 of his tanks were pushing forward.
Separate from that though, a sort of side statement of "there is a 100% winrate of this on the GSL" is that the build is completely unstoppable regardless of mistakes. Otherwise why would exactly 100% matter?
|
Protoss need to try Nydus.
That's how these threads work, right?
|
On August 22 2011 06:42 Carbonthief wrote:
I have a question. Liquid'Tyler has stated his belief that the economic advantage of fast expanding is not incredibly necessary, and others have followed this statement up by basically saying the 111 is just Terran responding to Protoss FE metagame, and that maybe Protoss shouldn't FE.
Well. How does fast expanding hurt your chances of holding off a 111? It seems completely irrelevant to me to blame it on a Protoss FE. The 111 hits AFTER, long after, the FE has already kicked in and payed for itself. It seems like the FE can ONLY help. I don't understand what possible benefit you could reap by not FEing.
you're 100% correct. That's why no one can back up the claim the 1 basing is the best response. Tyler says the economic advantage is not necessary... well lets see a high level even match where that is true and the terran hasnt gifted the game. I know he's never done it in a televised match. Maybe hes talking about ladder players? Or the CPUs he practices his 111 defense against.
|
On August 22 2011 06:46 TERRANLOL wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2011 06:41 Dommk wrote:On August 22 2011 06:40 TERRANLOL wrote:On August 22 2011 06:36 Huntz wrote:That's actually wrong. Thorzain lost to Genius in the GSTL.
I know you'll probably back up and say you meant the GSL and not the GSTL but I see no reason for making that distinction. GSTL or no, if your response to 100% (or 90%) winrate is "That's not true, this 1 guy beat it" and not "lol troll QQer gfto" I think we have a problem. Lol. I'm not defending the whole of the terran race. I don't even use this build. I just hate when people make stupid exaggerated arguments like "NOBODY HAS EVER BEATEN THIS BUILD... EVER" LOL what if we did have a problem??? No offense dude, but did you watch the game? Thorzain didn't even siege his tanks and got caught, if all Terrans did this build without siege mode then I think Protoss wouldn't be complaining That's debatable. Thorzain had one tank sieged. The other two weren't. He may have pushed like that on purpose, but he wasn't completely out of position. He got forcefielded while 2 of his tanks were pushing forward. Separate from that though, a sort of side statement of "there is a 100% winrate of this on the GSL" is that the build is completely unstoppable regardless of mistakes. Otherwise why would exactly 100% matter?
"I hope the terran doesnt fire his tanks" is not a real strategy though. Discount blunders. It's not like we are counting the times protoss forgot warp gate research against 1-1-1.
|
On August 22 2011 06:40 TERRANLOL wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2011 06:36 Huntz wrote:That's actually wrong. Thorzain lost to Genius in the GSTL.
I know you'll probably back up and say you meant the GSL and not the GSTL but I see no reason for making that distinction. GSTL or no, if your response to 100% (or 90%) winrate is "That's not true, this 1 guy beat it" and not "lol troll QQer gfto" I think we have a problem. Lol. I'm not defending the whole of the terran race. I don't even use this build. I just hate when people make stupid exaggerated arguments like "NOBODY HAS EVER BEATEN THIS BUILD... EVER" LOL what if we did have a problem???
its even funnier because 2 days ago mc won with puma 2-0 despite of puma going 111 on xelnaga caverns
|
Knowing that it won't happen, I still wanna throw this suggestion in:
Switch Hunter Seeker Missile and Point Defense Drone (so PDD needs to be researched first).
At the very least I think the duration has to go DOWN. Breaking a siege contain is hard enough. With 3 minutes duration in which your stalkers do Zero damage should you dare to engage it's absolutely impossible.
|
On August 22 2011 06:41 fraktoasters wrote:
I can't believe Blizzard hasn't modified the bunker even once and now no single Zerg ever loses to a bunker rush. Zergs lose 0% of the time now, you can't even find a game in gsl recently where a Zerg loses because of a 2 rax, especially with the really good Zergs like Losira.
I agree with your sentiments but I just wanted to point out
+ Show Spoiler +Losira vs oGsEnsnare, Losira never recovers from a painful 2 rax
|
On August 22 2011 06:44 Jinivus wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2011 06:41 DooMDash wrote:On August 22 2011 06:39 Jinivus wrote:On August 22 2011 06:36 DooMDash wrote:On August 22 2011 06:34 Medrea wrote:On August 22 2011 06:30 DooMDash wrote:On August 22 2011 06:28 Medrea wrote:
Koreans and Korean pro's are also complaining of this, even the terrans, and I mean more than just IMMVP though I will differ to him for example. He even has a nickname for NOT 1-1-1 ing all of his protoss opponents.
Come on. When your terran buddy has 400 APM you can have infinite APM and you won't stop it. If a well executed 1-1-1 was stoppable we would be seeing it happen way more than we are. If top level Korean protosses haven't figured it out after playing 12 hours a day then what happens?
Even if there was a protoss build that stops 1-1-1, the mere THREAT of the 1-1-1 boxes you into a very very small corridor. And it just so happens that corridor is vulnerable to OTHER terran one base all-ins? That is a bit silly.
Im gonna stick with Korean pro-level opinion on this one. They also lost to 2 rax all ins like every game for 1 month straight, with nothing changed its no longer a problem. Crazy I know right ? That was with stim iirc. And thats why they nerfed stim. 2 rax is still strong, and it can kill your anti 1-1-1. That is not why they nerfed stim. They nerfed stim for TvP ramp run ups. And all those Z's having problems were dead before stim, most of the time the Terrans never even got gas. It happened for easily a month. Just saying this is not much different. Time will tell. The build has been owning MC and for a while now with no answers emerging. Time has told. Awhile now? How long is awhile to you? I don't remember this 1-1-1 non-sense going on for more than a month. NASL finals 1-1-1 wasn't even being used. puma vs squirtle. 1/1/1 all in, NASL finals.
But one or two specific matches through out the history of SC doesn't say much. It's always been around, but in the last few weeks its all of a sudden imba? I don't believe that, I believe Protoss players kept playing greedier and greedier and the meta game made 1-1-1 as effective as it is today.
|
On August 22 2011 06:43 Mylkyjo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2011 06:33 MeanMike wrote:
100% win rate in gsl
im sure it's higher than 90% but im being generous Watching GSL August and GSTL I've seen a few 1/1/1 builds defeated by Protoss in the past couple of weeks. Once the Protoss' worked out what was happening, they delayed the Terran advance with clever force fields and feints, to buy time to get enough units out before the push hit. MC even held off a 1/1/1 by Puma this morning, but lost his lead through incorrect decisions. Also, to a couple of posts saying "Protoss can't beat a 1/1/1 unless they outplay their opponent"; does anyone deserve a win if they can't outplay their opponent?
the problem is that 1-1-1 takes very little skill to pull off
whereas protoss has to pray for a miracle and have a perfect response
It's not unbeatable but it's very imbalanced
|
Excuse my ignorance, why is 1-1-1 called an "all in-build"? If I'm not mistaken it will always do damage and it cant be impossible to follow up? :O looks more like a timing attack even if you pull a few scv from the line.
|
On August 22 2011 06:47 Jayrod wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2011 06:42 Carbonthief wrote:
I have a question. Liquid'Tyler has stated his belief that the economic advantage of fast expanding is not incredibly necessary, and others have followed this statement up by basically saying the 111 is just Terran responding to Protoss FE metagame, and that maybe Protoss shouldn't FE.
Well. How does fast expanding hurt your chances of holding off a 111? It seems completely irrelevant to me to blame it on a Protoss FE. The 111 hits AFTER, long after, the FE has already kicked in and payed for itself. It seems like the FE can ONLY help. I don't understand what possible benefit you could reap by not FEing. you're 100% correct. That's why no one can back up the claim the 1 basing is the best response. Tyler says the economic advantage is not necessary... well lets see a high level even match where that is true and the terran hasnt gifted the game. I know he's never done it in a televised match. Maybe hes talking about ladder players? Or the CPUs he practices his 111 defense against.
This sounds like a massive Tyler bash than anything else. Don't really understand it. Tyler is saying the lack of scouting information from such an early expand doesn't outweigh the economic advantage you could get. The whole OP is also talking about scouting information and how if you do fast expand you can deal with 1/1/1 but you could lose to other things hence you in this strange situation. Tyler says you can get that scouting information early and still be find on eco in midgame.
Don't bash people so aggressively for absolutely no reason.
|
On August 22 2011 06:45 Medrea wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2011 06:44 zarepath wrote:On August 22 2011 06:41 Medrea wrote:On August 22 2011 06:40 Sprouter wrote:
what happened to hallucination? was it removed in a balance patch? You have to get warp gate first. By the time the hallucination is done and in the terran base, you need to have already committed to a defense against the 1-1-1. Basically Hallucination is worthless against 1-1-1. This may sound a lot like a "use more nydus" strat... but what about double cybercore? You actually COULD get both hallucination and warp gate in time. Of course, that is a ridiculous cost to do it. At that expense (250-100) you can get a robo with obs (275-175). Not exact, but similar.
But you can start the cyber core before you'd be able to start the robo. The issue isn't so much cost as it is time, as I gather from this thread. I'm just theorycrafting, though, and I should probably stop. I'll echo my earlier sentiment that I'd love to see some replays illustrating why Tyler's so wrong if he IS wrong.
|
On August 22 2011 06:48 humbre wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2011 06:40 TERRANLOL wrote:On August 22 2011 06:36 Huntz wrote:That's actually wrong. Thorzain lost to Genius in the GSTL.
I know you'll probably back up and say you meant the GSL and not the GSTL but I see no reason for making that distinction. GSTL or no, if your response to 100% (or 90%) winrate is "That's not true, this 1 guy beat it" and not "lol troll QQer gfto" I think we have a problem. Lol. I'm not defending the whole of the terran race. I don't even use this build. I just hate when people make stupid exaggerated arguments like "NOBODY HAS EVER BEATEN THIS BUILD... EVER" LOL what if we did have a problem??? its even funnier because 2 days ago mc won with puma 2-0 despite of puma going 111 on xelnaga caverns
I saw XaioT hold off a pretty good 1-1-1 with a zealot flank and stalker delay. He came out ahead.
|
On August 22 2011 06:48 FeiLing wrote:
Knowing that it won't happen, I still wanna throw this suggestion in:
Switch Hunter Seeker Missile and Point Defense Drone (so PDD needs to be researched first).
At the very least I think the duration has to go DOWN. Breaking a siege contain is hard enough. With 3 minutes duration in which your stalkers do Zero damage should you dare to engage it's absolutely impossible.
I dont think that's something you want to deal with lol, then Terran will start using this vs zerg too. OH SUP 500 ZERGLINGS HUNTER SEEKER MISSLE + SIEGE TANK GG LOLOL
While it's a neat idea, I dont think that would be good. Siege tanks + HSM on a protoss army would be equally as painful I imagine, especially when T cut a banshee to make 2x raven and then it can get silly fast imo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
