|
On December 01 2011 03:16 canikizu wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2011 02:53 pecore wrote:On December 01 2011 01:45 Honeybadger wrote:
I support this message. Terran is just a harder race to play, with more unforgiving macro mechanics and more rewarding micro mechanics (which have been balanced in such a way that failing to micro properly results in losing)
But I'm not whining for buffs or changes. I know I'm only diamond because I'm doing things wrong, not because my race is bad. I personally think it is quite of a stretch to call macro mechanics like the MULE and Supply Drop as "unforgiving". One might even argue and that's what I read all the time in the past, that is in fact the opposite of "unforgiving". Anyway even if the OP is right, and it is harder with terran too reach the maximum potential of the units, I think that this would not be a fundamental flaw in the terran race but in the other races. Mules is needed to balance out the economy. Terran always have slower workers production than Protoss and Zerg, and they even need to dedicate 1,2 workers to build stuffs the whole time. If you don't build stuff, you're doing something wrong. It's purely good mechanic coming from the Terran players to keep building scv all the time. I watched pro streams, such as Sage, MC, Huk.., and I don't think I see them building probes as mechanically as Terran players. So yes. Mules do break the game, but for good Terran only. Again, we return to the topic where the Terran race is designed to break the game at high level, but weak at low level. And Supply Drop is forgiving, but what about Zerg and Protoss? Supply block? No problem, just stockpile your money and larva, after having supply, build 100 stuff at once. And Protoss? It's less forgiving that zerg, but as long as you realize you're supply blocked, you make pylon, wait 25sec, then warp your units in 5 sec. That is still faster build time than most of Terran's units. Imagine if Terran don't have supply drop, he has to build supply for 25sec, then build units which take from 25sec to 60sec to come out again.
25 seconds is 13 seconds short of a full warp in cycle. This assumes that the pylon is built instantly when the supply block happens. If you miss a warp in cycle, you are down on supply. It is no different than terran. The protoss can chrono his gates to make up for it, but that is 2-3 chrono boosts that could have been spent elsewhere. Just like the mule that was taken up by the supply drop.
I don't see an issue at all. It appears both races have ability to make up for a supply drop in different ways.
|
On December 01 2011 02:52 heroofcanton wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2011 02:05 Umpteen wrote:Not sure if Polt said it 1-2 GSL's ago that once patch hits "all the bad terrans will drop out from GSL because of this" I could sympathise with the OP but for this. Here is Polt (I also think it was him) stating the GSL was oversubscribed with bad Terrans prior to a certain patch. Presumably bad Terrans don't have awesome micro and multitasking. Yet they were still able to eliminate top-notch Zergs and Protoss.To me, this undermines rather than reinforces the pillars supporting the OP's hypothesis. Polt didn't think the GSL was full of Terrans because Terran was balanced but rewarded great micro better. He thought they didn't deserve to be there. He didn't think they were as good as the Zergs and Protoss they were beating. If he's right, and the patch corrected an imbalance that was allowing inferior players to flourish, need we look further for an explanation of the distribution of races in the GSL? I think what Polt said makes a lot of sense. I remember Artosis saying on SotG that a lot of "bad Terrans" were going to suffer because of the EMP nerf, as they would not hit as many and they'd get stormed more. We saw that in that hour-long game between TOD and Happy at dreamhack (not shitting on Happy, just saying pre-nerf he would have left no templar un-EMPed), and that a lot of "bad terrans" who thought they were good were going to start losing more games TvP. I don't sympathize with a lot of the current threads that terran players have been making about the inherent "betterness" of Terran players. Terran micro is simply more rewarding, not more difficult. I don't think Terran has ANY fundamental problems. Furthermore- Terrans are still set on Bio play in TvP, and most refuse to mech instead focusing on Bio play which is going to be inherently weaker, especially to AoE attacks. If terrans want to play a more mobile style they need to accept that its going to be weaker and move on. There needs to be like, a Terran Bunker thread, where all the Terran players can go to post threads like this and they can all agree and have fun together with their marines and ghosts and shit.
Stop taking artosis words for granted. Artosis is a midmaster protoss player. What does he know about how terran is supposed to play tvp. WHen every korean player + even Goody says mech is useless vs toss, it probably is useless....
Now I expect you to say stuff like Artosis watches a lot of game, he is very intelligent, good at bw, or whatever nonsense you will come up.
|
On December 01 2011 02:54 Applesqt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2011 02:52 heroofcanton wrote:On December 01 2011 02:05 Umpteen wrote:Not sure if Polt said it 1-2 GSL's ago that once patch hits "all the bad terrans will drop out from GSL because of this" I could sympathise with the OP but for this. Here is Polt (I also think it was him) stating the GSL was oversubscribed with bad Terrans prior to a certain patch. Presumably bad Terrans don't have awesome micro and multitasking. Yet they were still able to eliminate top-notch Zergs and Protoss.To me, this undermines rather than reinforces the pillars supporting the OP's hypothesis. Polt didn't think the GSL was full of Terrans because Terran was balanced but rewarded great micro better. He thought they didn't deserve to be there. He didn't think they were as good as the Zergs and Protoss they were beating. If he's right, and the patch corrected an imbalance that was allowing inferior players to flourish, need we look further for an explanation of the distribution of races in the GSL? I think what Polt said makes a lot of sense. I remember Artosis saying on SotG that a lot of "bad Terrans" were going to suffer because of the EMP nerf, as they would not hit as many and they'd get stormed more. We saw that in that hour-long game between TOD and Happy at dreamhack (not shitting on Happy, just saying pre-nerf he would have left no templar un-EMPed), and that a lot of "bad terrans" who thought they were good were going to start losing more games TvP. I don't sympathize with a lot of the current threads that terran players have been making about the inherent "betterness" of Terran players. Terran micro is simply more rewarding, not more difficult. I don't think Terran has ANY fundamental problems. Furthermore- Terrans are still set on Bio play in TvP, and most refuse to mech instead focusing on Bio play which is going to be inherently weaker, especially to AoE attacks. If terrans want to play a more mobile style they need to accept that its going to be weaker and move on. There needs to be like, a Terran Bunker thread, where all the Terran players can go to post threads like this and they can all agree and have fun together with their marines and ghosts and shit. Mech isn't good in TvP, if you choose to go that you're basically asking to lose the game. Terrans don't choose to go bio, we're forced into it because we have no other good options.
protoss doesnt choose to go colossi AND templar
they are forced into it because otherwise they get raped
|
Not surprisingly, this thread has devolved into flame wars and passive-aggressive balance qq.
|
On December 01 2011 03:27 robih wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2011 02:54 Applesqt wrote:On December 01 2011 02:52 heroofcanton wrote:On December 01 2011 02:05 Umpteen wrote:Not sure if Polt said it 1-2 GSL's ago that once patch hits "all the bad terrans will drop out from GSL because of this" I could sympathise with the OP but for this. Here is Polt (I also think it was him) stating the GSL was oversubscribed with bad Terrans prior to a certain patch. Presumably bad Terrans don't have awesome micro and multitasking. Yet they were still able to eliminate top-notch Zergs and Protoss.To me, this undermines rather than reinforces the pillars supporting the OP's hypothesis. Polt didn't think the GSL was full of Terrans because Terran was balanced but rewarded great micro better. He thought they didn't deserve to be there. He didn't think they were as good as the Zergs and Protoss they were beating. If he's right, and the patch corrected an imbalance that was allowing inferior players to flourish, need we look further for an explanation of the distribution of races in the GSL? I think what Polt said makes a lot of sense. I remember Artosis saying on SotG that a lot of "bad Terrans" were going to suffer because of the EMP nerf, as they would not hit as many and they'd get stormed more. We saw that in that hour-long game between TOD and Happy at dreamhack (not shitting on Happy, just saying pre-nerf he would have left no templar un-EMPed), and that a lot of "bad terrans" who thought they were good were going to start losing more games TvP. I don't sympathize with a lot of the current threads that terran players have been making about the inherent "betterness" of Terran players. Terran micro is simply more rewarding, not more difficult. I don't think Terran has ANY fundamental problems. Furthermore- Terrans are still set on Bio play in TvP, and most refuse to mech instead focusing on Bio play which is going to be inherently weaker, especially to AoE attacks. If terrans want to play a more mobile style they need to accept that its going to be weaker and move on. There needs to be like, a Terran Bunker thread, where all the Terran players can go to post threads like this and they can all agree and have fun together with their marines and ghosts and shit. Mech isn't good in TvP, if you choose to go that you're basically asking to lose the game. Terrans don't choose to go bio, we're forced into it because we have no other good options. protoss doesnt choose to go colossi AND templar they are forced into it because otherwise they get raped
same reason we are forced not to go stargate.. the aforementioned rape would ensue
|
On December 01 2011 03:23 keglu wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2011 03:10 Plansix wrote:On December 01 2011 02:54 Applesqt wrote:On December 01 2011 02:52 heroofcanton wrote:On December 01 2011 02:05 Umpteen wrote:Not sure if Polt said it 1-2 GSL's ago that once patch hits "all the bad terrans will drop out from GSL because of this" I could sympathise with the OP but for this. Here is Polt (I also think it was him) stating the GSL was oversubscribed with bad Terrans prior to a certain patch. Presumably bad Terrans don't have awesome micro and multitasking. Yet they were still able to eliminate top-notch Zergs and Protoss.To me, this undermines rather than reinforces the pillars supporting the OP's hypothesis. Polt didn't think the GSL was full of Terrans because Terran was balanced but rewarded great micro better. He thought they didn't deserve to be there. He didn't think they were as good as the Zergs and Protoss they were beating. If he's right, and the patch corrected an imbalance that was allowing inferior players to flourish, need we look further for an explanation of the distribution of races in the GSL? I think what Polt said makes a lot of sense. I remember Artosis saying on SotG that a lot of "bad Terrans" were going to suffer because of the EMP nerf, as they would not hit as many and they'd get stormed more. We saw that in that hour-long game between TOD and Happy at dreamhack (not shitting on Happy, just saying pre-nerf he would have left no templar un-EMPed), and that a lot of "bad terrans" who thought they were good were going to start losing more games TvP. I don't sympathize with a lot of the current threads that terran players have been making about the inherent "betterness" of Terran players. Terran micro is simply more rewarding, not more difficult. I don't think Terran has ANY fundamental problems. Furthermore- Terrans are still set on Bio play in TvP, and most refuse to mech instead focusing on Bio play which is going to be inherently weaker, especially to AoE attacks. If terrans want to play a more mobile style they need to accept that its going to be weaker and move on. There needs to be like, a Terran Bunker thread, where all the Terran players can go to post threads like this and they can all agree and have fun together with their marines and ghosts and shit. Mech isn't good in TvP, if you choose to go that you're basically asking to lose the game. Terrans don't choose to go bio, we're forced into it because we have no other good options. I think a lot of Protoss would argue that Mech was not used beause Bio was far more effective and faster. Since the launch, terrans have been floating the factory around as the most expensive scout in SC2. Although I understant that pure mech may not be the way to go, but terrans could start by building units out of the factory and see who they work out. Also, players continue to use Goody as an example of a terran player who gave up mech vs protoss. Although I do like Goody and his style, other pros have been critical of his mechanics. He is known for having lack luster macro and decision making. I think an MMA or MVP could find a way to make factory units work as support for bio. Just like protoss were forced to figure out how to make zealots work in PvZ. I never used zealots in that match up 5 months ago and they were widely considered horrible(Day 9 said protoss feel stupid building them). Now they are one of my main units that I use all the time. There is this guy called MVP, he is best Terran player, best mech player in TvT and TvZ, he has one weaker matchup - TvP, yet he still doesnt use mech in this matchup. So i would argue that MVP knows more about viablity of mech in TvP than a "lot of Protoss"
I don't have any direct quotes from him on the topic. If he said mech was horrible and not viable, I would likely agree with him, as he is one of the best terrans in the world. However, just because he isn't doing it does not me it is not possible to factory units viable in the match up.
And lets be clear, none of the terran players in this thread are MVP, so their points are no more valid than mine. I didn't use zealots in PvZ until I saw Liquid Hero ripping zergs appart with them. I bet if MVP started using tanks and ravens with his MMM tomorrow, we would all be in awe and terrans would start to follow suite.
|
lol @ tl.net what has it become  cant go more than a couple of posts before diamond/low masters flame war starts.
|
On December 01 2011 02:54 Bagi wrote:
Do people really think mech is the answer in TvP?
Even Goody stopped meching in TvP after the immortal buff for gods sake. Get your heads out of your asses.
Adding tanks and ravens is overkill right?
|
On December 01 2011 03:33 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2011 03:23 keglu wrote:On December 01 2011 03:10 Plansix wrote:On December 01 2011 02:54 Applesqt wrote:On December 01 2011 02:52 heroofcanton wrote:On December 01 2011 02:05 Umpteen wrote:Not sure if Polt said it 1-2 GSL's ago that once patch hits "all the bad terrans will drop out from GSL because of this" I could sympathise with the OP but for this. Here is Polt (I also think it was him) stating the GSL was oversubscribed with bad Terrans prior to a certain patch. Presumably bad Terrans don't have awesome micro and multitasking. Yet they were still able to eliminate top-notch Zergs and Protoss.To me, this undermines rather than reinforces the pillars supporting the OP's hypothesis. Polt didn't think the GSL was full of Terrans because Terran was balanced but rewarded great micro better. He thought they didn't deserve to be there. He didn't think they were as good as the Zergs and Protoss they were beating. If he's right, and the patch corrected an imbalance that was allowing inferior players to flourish, need we look further for an explanation of the distribution of races in the GSL? I think what Polt said makes a lot of sense. I remember Artosis saying on SotG that a lot of "bad Terrans" were going to suffer because of the EMP nerf, as they would not hit as many and they'd get stormed more. We saw that in that hour-long game between TOD and Happy at dreamhack (not shitting on Happy, just saying pre-nerf he would have left no templar un-EMPed), and that a lot of "bad terrans" who thought they were good were going to start losing more games TvP. I don't sympathize with a lot of the current threads that terran players have been making about the inherent "betterness" of Terran players. Terran micro is simply more rewarding, not more difficult. I don't think Terran has ANY fundamental problems. Furthermore- Terrans are still set on Bio play in TvP, and most refuse to mech instead focusing on Bio play which is going to be inherently weaker, especially to AoE attacks. If terrans want to play a more mobile style they need to accept that its going to be weaker and move on. There needs to be like, a Terran Bunker thread, where all the Terran players can go to post threads like this and they can all agree and have fun together with their marines and ghosts and shit. Mech isn't good in TvP, if you choose to go that you're basically asking to lose the game. Terrans don't choose to go bio, we're forced into it because we have no other good options. I think a lot of Protoss would argue that Mech was not used beause Bio was far more effective and faster. Since the launch, terrans have been floating the factory around as the most expensive scout in SC2. Although I understant that pure mech may not be the way to go, but terrans could start by building units out of the factory and see who they work out. Also, players continue to use Goody as an example of a terran player who gave up mech vs protoss. Although I do like Goody and his style, other pros have been critical of his mechanics. He is known for having lack luster macro and decision making. I think an MMA or MVP could find a way to make factory units work as support for bio. Just like protoss were forced to figure out how to make zealots work in PvZ. I never used zealots in that match up 5 months ago and they were widely considered horrible(Day 9 said protoss feel stupid building them). Now they are one of my main units that I use all the time. There is this guy called MVP, he is best Terran player, best mech player in TvT and TvZ, he has one weaker matchup - TvP, yet he still doesnt use mech in this matchup. So i would argue that MVP knows more about viablity of mech in TvP than a "lot of Protoss" I don't have any direct quotes from him on the topic. If he said mech was horrible and not viable, I would likely agree with him, as he is one of the best terrans in the world. However, just because he isn't doing it does not me it is not possible to factory units viable in the match up. And lets be clear, none of the terran players in this thread are MVP, so their points are no more valid than mine. I didn't use zealots in PvZ until I saw Liquid Hero ripping zergs appart with them. I bet if MVP started using tanks and ravens with his MMM tomorrow, we would all be in awe and terrans would start to follow suite.
wait.. hold on a second.. when did zealots become viable against zerg?
i thought they can only kill zerglings and are decent fodder against ultras?
|
On December 01 2011 03:35 Roxy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2011 03:33 Plansix wrote:On December 01 2011 03:23 keglu wrote:On December 01 2011 03:10 Plansix wrote:On December 01 2011 02:54 Applesqt wrote:On December 01 2011 02:52 heroofcanton wrote:On December 01 2011 02:05 Umpteen wrote:Not sure if Polt said it 1-2 GSL's ago that once patch hits "all the bad terrans will drop out from GSL because of this" I could sympathise with the OP but for this. Here is Polt (I also think it was him) stating the GSL was oversubscribed with bad Terrans prior to a certain patch. Presumably bad Terrans don't have awesome micro and multitasking. Yet they were still able to eliminate top-notch Zergs and Protoss.To me, this undermines rather than reinforces the pillars supporting the OP's hypothesis. Polt didn't think the GSL was full of Terrans because Terran was balanced but rewarded great micro better. He thought they didn't deserve to be there. He didn't think they were as good as the Zergs and Protoss they were beating. If he's right, and the patch corrected an imbalance that was allowing inferior players to flourish, need we look further for an explanation of the distribution of races in the GSL? I think what Polt said makes a lot of sense. I remember Artosis saying on SotG that a lot of "bad Terrans" were going to suffer because of the EMP nerf, as they would not hit as many and they'd get stormed more. We saw that in that hour-long game between TOD and Happy at dreamhack (not shitting on Happy, just saying pre-nerf he would have left no templar un-EMPed), and that a lot of "bad terrans" who thought they were good were going to start losing more games TvP. I don't sympathize with a lot of the current threads that terran players have been making about the inherent "betterness" of Terran players. Terran micro is simply more rewarding, not more difficult. I don't think Terran has ANY fundamental problems. Furthermore- Terrans are still set on Bio play in TvP, and most refuse to mech instead focusing on Bio play which is going to be inherently weaker, especially to AoE attacks. If terrans want to play a more mobile style they need to accept that its going to be weaker and move on. There needs to be like, a Terran Bunker thread, where all the Terran players can go to post threads like this and they can all agree and have fun together with their marines and ghosts and shit. Mech isn't good in TvP, if you choose to go that you're basically asking to lose the game. Terrans don't choose to go bio, we're forced into it because we have no other good options. I think a lot of Protoss would argue that Mech was not used beause Bio was far more effective and faster. Since the launch, terrans have been floating the factory around as the most expensive scout in SC2. Although I understant that pure mech may not be the way to go, but terrans could start by building units out of the factory and see who they work out. Also, players continue to use Goody as an example of a terran player who gave up mech vs protoss. Although I do like Goody and his style, other pros have been critical of his mechanics. He is known for having lack luster macro and decision making. I think an MMA or MVP could find a way to make factory units work as support for bio. Just like protoss were forced to figure out how to make zealots work in PvZ. I never used zealots in that match up 5 months ago and they were widely considered horrible(Day 9 said protoss feel stupid building them). Now they are one of my main units that I use all the time. There is this guy called MVP, he is best Terran player, best mech player in TvT and TvZ, he has one weaker matchup - TvP, yet he still doesnt use mech in this matchup. So i would argue that MVP knows more about viablity of mech in TvP than a "lot of Protoss" I don't have any direct quotes from him on the topic. If he said mech was horrible and not viable, I would likely agree with him, as he is one of the best terrans in the world. However, just because he isn't doing it does not me it is not possible to factory units viable in the match up. And lets be clear, none of the terran players in this thread are MVP, so their points are no more valid than mine. I didn't use zealots in PvZ until I saw Liquid Hero ripping zergs appart with them. I bet if MVP started using tanks and ravens with his MMM tomorrow, we would all be in awe and terrans would start to follow suite. wait.. hold on a second.. when did zealots become viable against zerg? i thought they can only kill zerglings and are decent fodder against ultras?
You sir, have missed out. You need to watch Liquid Hero's and Incontrols stream and be inspired(there are others, but those are the ones I watch). They are not good all the time, but they are amazing if the zerg is relying on lings and are amazing in drops once they have charge.
But they require really good scouting. I have had some silly losses from miss reading my opponent.
|
On December 01 2011 03:27 robih wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2011 02:54 Applesqt wrote:On December 01 2011 02:52 heroofcanton wrote:On December 01 2011 02:05 Umpteen wrote:Not sure if Polt said it 1-2 GSL's ago that once patch hits "all the bad terrans will drop out from GSL because of this" I could sympathise with the OP but for this. Here is Polt (I also think it was him) stating the GSL was oversubscribed with bad Terrans prior to a certain patch. Presumably bad Terrans don't have awesome micro and multitasking. Yet they were still able to eliminate top-notch Zergs and Protoss.To me, this undermines rather than reinforces the pillars supporting the OP's hypothesis. Polt didn't think the GSL was full of Terrans because Terran was balanced but rewarded great micro better. He thought they didn't deserve to be there. He didn't think they were as good as the Zergs and Protoss they were beating. If he's right, and the patch corrected an imbalance that was allowing inferior players to flourish, need we look further for an explanation of the distribution of races in the GSL? I think what Polt said makes a lot of sense. I remember Artosis saying on SotG that a lot of "bad Terrans" were going to suffer because of the EMP nerf, as they would not hit as many and they'd get stormed more. We saw that in that hour-long game between TOD and Happy at dreamhack (not shitting on Happy, just saying pre-nerf he would have left no templar un-EMPed), and that a lot of "bad terrans" who thought they were good were going to start losing more games TvP. I don't sympathize with a lot of the current threads that terran players have been making about the inherent "betterness" of Terran players. Terran micro is simply more rewarding, not more difficult. I don't think Terran has ANY fundamental problems. Furthermore- Terrans are still set on Bio play in TvP, and most refuse to mech instead focusing on Bio play which is going to be inherently weaker, especially to AoE attacks. If terrans want to play a more mobile style they need to accept that its going to be weaker and move on. There needs to be like, a Terran Bunker thread, where all the Terran players can go to post threads like this and they can all agree and have fun together with their marines and ghosts and shit. Mech isn't good in TvP, if you choose to go that you're basically asking to lose the game. Terrans don't choose to go bio, we're forced into it because we have no other good options. protoss doesnt choose to go colossi AND templar they are forced into it because otherwise they get raped
Protoss go like that in all 3 MU, what's the problem? At least Protoss knows those units are usable and viable.
|
On December 01 2011 03:35 ceaRshaf wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2011 02:54 Bagi wrote:
Do people really think mech is the answer in TvP?
Even Goody stopped meching in TvP after the immortal buff for gods sake. Get your heads out of your asses. Adding tanks and ravens is overkill right?
Tanks are worthless outside timing pushes. Once you have upgrades like charge and blink, even pure gateway units can deal with tanks no problem. Don't even get me started on the new immortal.
Feedback outranges all raven abilities, PDD does jack shit against zealot/archon/colossus. Ravens are absolutely worthless in comparision to ghosts.
I'm sorry, but if you believe tanks can solve lategame TvP you truly do not understand this game at all.
|
On December 01 2011 02:52 heroofcanton wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2011 02:05 Umpteen wrote:Not sure if Polt said it 1-2 GSL's ago that once patch hits "all the bad terrans will drop out from GSL because of this" I could sympathise with the OP but for this. Here is Polt (I also think it was him) stating the GSL was oversubscribed with bad Terrans prior to a certain patch. Presumably bad Terrans don't have awesome micro and multitasking. Yet they were still able to eliminate top-notch Zergs and Protoss.To me, this undermines rather than reinforces the pillars supporting the OP's hypothesis. Polt didn't think the GSL was full of Terrans because Terran was balanced but rewarded great micro better. He thought they didn't deserve to be there. He didn't think they were as good as the Zergs and Protoss they were beating. If he's right, and the patch corrected an imbalance that was allowing inferior players to flourish, need we look further for an explanation of the distribution of races in the GSL? I think what Polt said makes a lot of sense. I remember Artosis saying on SotG that a lot of "bad Terrans" were going to suffer because of the EMP nerf, as they would not hit as many and they'd get stormed more. We saw that in that hour-long game between TOD and Happy at dreamhack (not shitting on Happy, just saying pre-nerf he would have left no templar un-EMPed), and that a lot of "bad terrans" who thought they were good were going to start losing more games TvP. I don't sympathize with a lot of the current threads that terran players have been making about the inherent "betterness" of Terran players. Terran micro is simply more rewarding, not more difficult. I don't think Terran has ANY fundamental problems. Furthermore- Terrans are still set on Bio play in TvP, and most refuse to mech instead focusing on Bio play which is going to be inherently weaker, especially to AoE attacks. If terrans want to play a more mobile style they need to accept that its going to be weaker and move on. There needs to be like, a Terran Bunker thread, where all the Terran players can go to post threads like this and they can all agree and have fun together with their marines and ghosts and shit.
Bolded part shows how much you know about game, mech in TvP - okay.
On December 01 2011 03:03 Roxy wrote:
I completely disagree with so many things here.
I fell like terran is not well equipped to deal with mutalisks. I think these problems will be addressed in HOTS.
I feel like terran is fully equipped to deal with protoss. Especially if they capitalize on their advantages in the early game.
PF with turrets is much more difficult to kill than a comparable amount of canons or spine/spores+queen.
Terran has the most rewarding harass, especially when takign into account that they dont need to diverge from their regular tech path to get medivac/marine or hellions or banshees. The only possible costs wasted on failed harass could be the research of cloak or Blue flame (which could very well end up being useful later in the game). how often do we see a banshee go out and multi-prong mineral lines in the late game. All you have to do is put it close to the mineral line but out of range of any static defenses and hold position until you have the time to attend more micro to it.
Terran has the most unexplored units/upgrades (specifically the raven in all matchups, and thor/tank with bio in tvp). Not to mention, how often do you see terran players repairing their vikings/medivacs in the late game.
They go into large engagements with an army that is injured or damage, medivacs with depleted energy, and often attack into bad angles.
Yes, if you attack up a ramp into zealot/sentry/stalker/colosus/archon.. you shoudl lose... dont do it...
if you attack way in the open, ya you will probably win.. or kill a ton of zealots for only the cost of a stim
You heard it here first, banshees and helions are regular tech path in TvP.
Terran having most unexplored units - not sure if you are trolling, thor/tank/bio in tvp? really?
More than half of people here are posting stuff like: OMG BUT TERRAN IS GOOD RACE NOOB GTFO!!
You should read the thread first, thread isnt about terran being WEAK race, thread is about that terran is more time consuming race because its micro is more difficult than the other 2 races which results in people quiting terran or changing to other race. If you are thinking "well who cares about lower leagues", you should probably re-think again. Terran is already STILL the most hated race from beta which doesnt help new players coming into game or help the old ones stick to their race.
I will post again for those people saying "terran was winning before because they were OP and now when they lose terrans suck and zergs and toss are better", sure can you tell me why terrans never won anything outside Korea? You actually want to say that out of over million people that wasnt ONE talented terran player?
What terrans want is not their race being boosted, I like my race as it is and I want it to be hard, but I use a lot of time on this game, terrans want the other 2 races to be given MORE options in terms of micro making them not HARDER to use but having the potential to do better, very good example of this are blink stalkers and mutas. Bad example of this is zealot/archon army, the strenght in it is too much for its ..micro - and we need less of those for SC2 to be better game.
Also Roxy stop posting you are melting my brain with your posts, newest one "when did zealots become viable vs zerg?". /facepalm
|
On December 01 2011 03:44 Bagi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2011 03:35 ceaRshaf wrote:On December 01 2011 02:54 Bagi wrote:
Do people really think mech is the answer in TvP?
Even Goody stopped meching in TvP after the immortal buff for gods sake. Get your heads out of your asses. Adding tanks and ravens is overkill right? Tanks are worthless outside timing pushes. Once you have upgrades like charge and blink, even pure gateway units can deal with tanks no problem. Don't even get me started on the new immortal. Feedback outranges all raven abilities, PDD does jack shit against zealot/archon/colossus. Ravens are absolutely worthless in comparision to ghosts. I'm sorry, but if you believe tanks can solve lategame TvP you truly do not understand this game at all.
Positioning and slow pushing make tanks worth their price. Ravens can have a free roam if ghosts are used against templars.
And nobody even tried bio+ tanks + ravens + vikings.
|
On December 01 2011 03:25 Multifail wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2011 03:15 gillon wrote:On December 01 2011 03:09 Multifail wrote:
It is largely situational. Different situations require more or less micro from different races. Lets take 1-1-1 vs protoss. For terran, they need to get their siege tanks into position, control their marine ball, and handle their banshee(s). For protoss, they need to have their army spread out, use guardian shield, try to trap marines with ff, keep zealots up front, have immortals (or phoenix) focus tanks, and micro stalkers back and forth. I'd say more is asked of protoss in that situation.
I do think terran usually has the "micro advantage" in a lot of situations. What I mean by this is that it is up to the terran to succeed or fail on particular micro tasks, and if they succeed the other two races do not have a "micro counter play" to try to over come what the terran did, they just lose that micro engagement. This is a little theoretical, but I'll try to give an example.
I think Ghost vs. HT is a good example of this. Snipe has range 10, feedback has range 9. 1 range isn't a huge margin for error, ghosts could easily be hit with feedback if terran isn't really on point that instant. However, if they are, 10 range will always beat 9 range, and there is nothing protoss can do about it. Of course you could say well use blink stalkers, lead with chargelots, etc. Then the terran ball could lead instead of ghosts, and on and on. There are other situations that I think this is true as well (marines vs. banelings), and I think the point stands. Terran are usually in a situation where if they micro correctly, the other two races don't have a real response to the micro play, however the requirement put on terran is pretty difficult, and if they fail, they will probably lose. Snipe has a built in casttime and delay between fires, and it requires 2 to kill the HT. Feedback is instantaneous with zero cooldown and incapacitates the ghost with one hit. The time it takes for the snipe to go off is 100% enough time for the HT to get that 1 range closer. I mean, if you're gonna do proper theorycrafting, you ought to have the facts straight. You are assuming it is 1 ht vs 1 ghost. I never said that was the case, as it usually isn't. If you send 2 ghost vs 2 ht, the ghosts will both snipe the targeted HT, and he will die before his FB goes off, every time. If you add more numbers, the results are the same. Pretty much anything beyond 1 vs 1, ghosts will win. And I'm not going to even get into the use of cloak. The delay isn't enough time for FB to go off, I have no clue where you got that idea. It is just plain wrong. Try a unit tester before you start trying to sound smart.
sounds like you're the one that needs unit testing. feedback and snipe will land at the same time.
But because of having no cooldown on feedback, you can always feedback 2 ghosts before 2 snipes go off if you have vision
|
On December 01 2011 03:47 ceaRshaf wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2011 03:44 Bagi wrote:On December 01 2011 03:35 ceaRshaf wrote:On December 01 2011 02:54 Bagi wrote:
Do people really think mech is the answer in TvP?
Even Goody stopped meching in TvP after the immortal buff for gods sake. Get your heads out of your asses. Adding tanks and ravens is overkill right? Tanks are worthless outside timing pushes. Once you have upgrades like charge and blink, even pure gateway units can deal with tanks no problem. Don't even get me started on the new immortal. Feedback outranges all raven abilities, PDD does jack shit against zealot/archon/colossus. Ravens are absolutely worthless in comparision to ghosts. I'm sorry, but if you believe tanks can solve lategame TvP you truly do not understand this game at all. Positioning and slow pushing make tanks worth their price. Ravens can have a free roam if ghosts are used against templars. And nobody even tried bio+ tanks + ravens + vikings.
What you are describing is a 1-2 base timing push, which are quite common. But the longer the game the less you can rely on tanks, which is why you usually see marauder transitions after it. Protoss just has too many units that effectively counter tanks, especially once you have upgrades for them.
Once the protoss has a maxed army, your cute little tank army just gets rolled over unless you have perfect positioning. This is not BW where tank lines could break entire armies, don't delude yourself.
Lots of people do bio/tanks/ravens/vikings as a timing push, and they know its not viable in a long game. That's why they are progamers and you are not.
|
On December 01 2011 03:47 iky43210 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2011 03:25 Multifail wrote:On December 01 2011 03:15 gillon wrote:On December 01 2011 03:09 Multifail wrote:
It is largely situational. Different situations require more or less micro from different races. Lets take 1-1-1 vs protoss. For terran, they need to get their siege tanks into position, control their marine ball, and handle their banshee(s). For protoss, they need to have their army spread out, use guardian shield, try to trap marines with ff, keep zealots up front, have immortals (or phoenix) focus tanks, and micro stalkers back and forth. I'd say more is asked of protoss in that situation.
I do think terran usually has the "micro advantage" in a lot of situations. What I mean by this is that it is up to the terran to succeed or fail on particular micro tasks, and if they succeed the other two races do not have a "micro counter play" to try to over come what the terran did, they just lose that micro engagement. This is a little theoretical, but I'll try to give an example.
I think Ghost vs. HT is a good example of this. Snipe has range 10, feedback has range 9. 1 range isn't a huge margin for error, ghosts could easily be hit with feedback if terran isn't really on point that instant. However, if they are, 10 range will always beat 9 range, and there is nothing protoss can do about it. Of course you could say well use blink stalkers, lead with chargelots, etc. Then the terran ball could lead instead of ghosts, and on and on. There are other situations that I think this is true as well (marines vs. banelings), and I think the point stands. Terran are usually in a situation where if they micro correctly, the other two races don't have a real response to the micro play, however the requirement put on terran is pretty difficult, and if they fail, they will probably lose. Snipe has a built in casttime and delay between fires, and it requires 2 to kill the HT. Feedback is instantaneous with zero cooldown and incapacitates the ghost with one hit. The time it takes for the snipe to go off is 100% enough time for the HT to get that 1 range closer. I mean, if you're gonna do proper theorycrafting, you ought to have the facts straight. You are assuming it is 1 ht vs 1 ghost. I never said that was the case, as it usually isn't. If you send 2 ghost vs 2 ht, the ghosts will both snipe the targeted HT, and he will die before his FB goes off, every time. If you add more numbers, the results are the same. Pretty much anything beyond 1 vs 1, ghosts will win. And I'm not going to even get into the use of cloak. The delay isn't enough time for FB to go off, I have no clue where you got that idea. It is just plain wrong. Try a unit tester before you start trying to sound smart. sounds like you're the one that needs unit testing. feedback and snipe will land at the same time. But because of having no cooldown on feedback, you can always feedback 2 ghosts before 2 snipes go off if you have vision
The ghost has sight 11 compaired to the HTs 10. Feedback had range 9 and snipe has range 10. The ghost is faster than the HT.
Links:
Ghost
Snipe
High Templar
Feedback
The only way this would happen is if 2 ghosts happened to wander into the HTs range and they both noticed and cued up their abilities at the exact same time. If that happens, you should avoid it. If the terran can see the HTs and cues up 2 snipes, there is a pretty good chance it will go off before the HT gets into range.
|
If only we had some ex BW players in SC2, like MVP, Boxer,Nada, ForGG to show us how to mech TvP. With their BW experience they'd be mad not to use their skills in positioning, timings, etc.
I can understand race bias, ignorance, being down right mean, but some of the comments here look like they are made by people that never played a SC2 game in their life.
Unless you can play mech at a high level stop with the retarded "suggestions" of "exploring" and what not. I'm sure MVP would bite your hand of if you can show him how to mech. Mech is broken in TvP and EVERY top terran player can tell you that.
/rant :p
|
You could also just, ya know, cloak, and the ghosts just troll the HT. The bottom line is ghosts alone > HT alone. This is getting way off-topic at this point.
|
On December 01 2011 03:27 robih wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2011 02:54 Applesqt wrote:On December 01 2011 02:52 heroofcanton wrote:On December 01 2011 02:05 Umpteen wrote:Not sure if Polt said it 1-2 GSL's ago that once patch hits "all the bad terrans will drop out from GSL because of this" I could sympathise with the OP but for this. Here is Polt (I also think it was him) stating the GSL was oversubscribed with bad Terrans prior to a certain patch. Presumably bad Terrans don't have awesome micro and multitasking. Yet they were still able to eliminate top-notch Zergs and Protoss.To me, this undermines rather than reinforces the pillars supporting the OP's hypothesis. Polt didn't think the GSL was full of Terrans because Terran was balanced but rewarded great micro better. He thought they didn't deserve to be there. He didn't think they were as good as the Zergs and Protoss they were beating. If he's right, and the patch corrected an imbalance that was allowing inferior players to flourish, need we look further for an explanation of the distribution of races in the GSL? I think what Polt said makes a lot of sense. I remember Artosis saying on SotG that a lot of "bad Terrans" were going to suffer because of the EMP nerf, as they would not hit as many and they'd get stormed more. We saw that in that hour-long game between TOD and Happy at dreamhack (not shitting on Happy, just saying pre-nerf he would have left no templar un-EMPed), and that a lot of "bad terrans" who thought they were good were going to start losing more games TvP. I don't sympathize with a lot of the current threads that terran players have been making about the inherent "betterness" of Terran players. Terran micro is simply more rewarding, not more difficult. I don't think Terran has ANY fundamental problems. Furthermore- Terrans are still set on Bio play in TvP, and most refuse to mech instead focusing on Bio play which is going to be inherently weaker, especially to AoE attacks. If terrans want to play a more mobile style they need to accept that its going to be weaker and move on. There needs to be like, a Terran Bunker thread, where all the Terran players can go to post threads like this and they can all agree and have fun together with their marines and ghosts and shit. Mech isn't good in TvP, if you choose to go that you're basically asking to lose the game. Terrans don't choose to go bio, we're forced into it because we have no other good options. protoss doesnt choose to go colossi AND templar they are forced into it because otherwise they get raped
And terrans aren't suggesting you to do anything else, so your point was...?
I'd have to agree with you OP. There is also another issue however you didn't mention, if we assume you are indeed correct and terran does reward micro better, the best terrans(assuming equal skill improvement) will always end up as the best players(eventually). This in turn will force Blizzard to do another terran nerf to equalize the game again.
But I guess with HotS, terran will be a lot better off, since it does seem like we're loosing a bit of harassment options to being able to fight a straight up fight(without _having_ to neutralize all the aoe of the opponent first).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
