Since this was originally posted I have now noticed how rare it is for me to play zvt. I feel like right now im around 70% zvz. 20% zvp and 10% zvt. I dont particularly mind it as I actually like zvz quite a bit but this has been feeling a bit ridiculous the last 2 weeks.
Doesn't matter, he claimed that 20 chargelots lose to 20 hellions unmicroed and it was a lie. Not my fault someone else is lying here. Hellions are bad in TvP everyone knows that, Jinro said it, give it a rest guys.
I even recorded a video just to prove that 20 chargelots beat 20 BFH hellions even with only 1-1 upgrades. I didn't lie, he did, and yes liard make me angry, because they contribute nothing to the discussion and direct the discussion to a misleading conclusion (obviously when you just make up facts). So yes, I get really angry at these people, because had I not checked everyone would now think that 20 chargelots lose to 20 BFH hellions, but they don't, it's a lie and I even recorded a video, so if you really want to keep disagreeing with me then fine, I'll upload it to youtube, it's gonna be a lot of fun for me to see you apologize then.
[quote]
First of all, I didn't insult you. Second of all, you lied, hence why I called you a liar. I have evidence, should I upload it to youtube, like do you really want to go there?
If the hellions are in a line they win most of the time, if they in a ball of course they are going to lose. Hellions shoot in lines.
Just tried 20vs20 with hellions in a straight line of 2 vs 20 chargelots clumped up. 10 chargelots survived. Want me to post that video aswell? I'll post both, or will you finally give it a rest. Your choice.
Uh go ahead....
All 3 scenarios we discussed:
In video 2 and 3 I had music coming through my speakers and I didn't realize that (they are not in order, I first recorder 3 and then 2 and then 1) so I aplogize for that noise, just mute the video. The quality is still bad since the videos are being processed but they should be 1080p once that's finished. I did this all for you tomato and for fig. You are welcome guys <3
On March 18 2012 16:05 TheTomato wrote:
On March 18 2012 16:00 ChaosTerran wrote:
On March 18 2012 15:56 TheTomato wrote:
On March 18 2012 15:39 ChaosTerran wrote: [quote]
And when will you ever have 20 hellions?? Do you have any idea how long it takes to build 20 hellions even with a reactor on the factory? And how long does it take to warp in 20 chargelots? You are absolutely ridiculous.
And by the way, I just tried 20 vs. 20 (even though this is obviously unrealistic and if you really build 20 hellions chances are you'll just get rolled by collossi, due to 40 supply being essentially useless against everything but chargelots) and 11 Chargelots survived. So yeah, keep lying, I have no idea what game you are playing but it definitely isn't Starcraft 2.
You need to relax, you sound like you have a stick up your ass.
Also BFH are really good against chargelots. With a slight amount of micro to prevent a full surround, they poop on charge-lots. If you go to a unit tester and just watch them a move its a toss up, depending on whether the chargelots get a random really good surround. That stupid though, you don't just a move hellions into chargelots in games.
The reason they don't work is the amount of tech to get them is just too much. You can't really mech in TvP (with in the bounds of this discussion) so the only way is bio/helion medivac. The helions just don't really fit and just make your army too fragile since they can't be healed. Its just not cost effective to get a 2 facts ( which you would need to pump out a decent number), pre ignitor and another set of upgrades. It cuts into your upgrade/viking/medivac timings too much to work out. The only way it would be viable is if the P went mass chargelots and you have god like micro to actually make the bfh cost efficient.
I remember when people tried it out before the nerf to helions, so its not like its unexplored.
Doesn't matter, he claimed that 20 chargelots lose to 20 hellions unmicroed and it was a lie. Not my fault someone else is lying here. Hellions are bad in TvP everyone knows that, Jinro said it, give it a rest guys.
I even recorded a video just to prove that 20 chargelots beat 20 BFH hellions even with only 1-1 upgrades. I didn't lie, he did, and yes liard make me angry, because they contribute nothing to the discussion and direct the discussion to a misleading conclusion (obviously when you just make up facts). So yes, I get really angry at these people, because had I not checked everyone would now think that 20 chargelots lose to 20 BFH hellions, but they don't, it's a lie and I even recorded a video, so if you really want to keep disagreeing with me then fine, I'll upload it to youtube, it's gonna be a lot of fun for me to see you apologize then.
On March 18 2012 15:59 Fig wrote:
On March 18 2012 15:45 ChaosTerran wrote: [quote]
So now we are up to 25 hellions, eh? 50 supply of hellions... that's really interesting, why not make 100 hellions vs. 100 chargelots? Because that is completely realistic. Point is that in no realistic scenario you will have 25 hellions and if you do you will just lose to the everything else.
Please be civil. All I have done is give advice and even did tests and checked statistics for you. If you don't like the information then so be it, but stop being insulting and accusing me of lying every other sentence. I realize this is the internet, but it is also a community site for Starcraft 2, a game which it is apparent we both care about. I'll stop suggesting hellions now, because this discussion isn't going anywhere. I'm sorry for upsetting you, and hope you enjoy the rest of your night.
First of all, I didn't insult you. Second of all, you lied, hence why I called you a liar. I have evidence, should I upload it to youtube, like do you really want to go there?
If the hellions are in a line they win most of the time, if they in a ball of course they are going to lose. Hellions shoot in lines.
Just tried 20vs20 with hellions in a straight line of 2 vs 20 chargelots clumped up. 10 chargelots survived. Want me to post that video aswell? I'll post both, or will you finally give it a rest. Your choice.
Thanks you very much for the videos. Can I suggest another scenario? 100 templar against 1 Marine. Micro both sides of the battle in the same way you did in the above videos. I don't want to jump the gun, but if 15,000 gas and 5,000 minerals loses to 50 minerals, I think we can both agree something is very much wrong with the matchup.
Edit: Looking back, there may have been an argument about unmicroed chargelots against unmicroed hellion. While this would be a stupid argument, completely unrelated to Starcraft 2 balance, if that was the argument you were having, your videos do make some sense.
Excuse me? all the "protoss" does in that situation is a-move, why should the terran HAVE to micro to win if he has the "counter unit" hellion
Uhm thats the dumbest argument ever? If a protoss is fighting lings with stalkers why does he have to micro while the Z can just A move?! Why do i have to micro my sentries to place my "counter Z" forcefields? Quit being stupid plz and get back on topic.
I suggest you do the same. The videos present you pretty much the biggest problem in terran gameplay in general. Your units dont do shit against anything, without micro. Thats goes not just for hellions, but every frikkin unit. Comparing that to forcefields (had a good laugh, thank you) its, well, at least "naive".
Yeah, microed Hellions with a lot of space would devour the zealots. So? You dont have the luxury to kite zealots in a big fight. Protoss a-moves his army into yours, and goes back to macro. A terran has to rotate like a tornado with at least 250apm+ to beat "a-leftclick". Even your "counterarguments" are wrong, lings have to be microed vs stalker (especially earlygame) to surround them. Smartcasting forcefields has nothing to do with real micro. At all. It doesnt even need high apm, you could CLICK them vs T without using a hotkey and it still would be enough.
So, conclusion: yeah. Hellions can roast zealots. In theory. In theory, a warp-engine would be possible in reallife (the math proves it). Problem is, [i] theres no practical way to do it. Unless of course you want to sac the whole rest of your army, because you kited zealots - while collossi and every other a-move unit just smashes the rest of your unmicroed army.
let's play a quiz game I call: the answer is micro! This episode will be about Protoss (vs Terran) gameplay. (It's pretty easy, though in this thread one gets to the point to believe that some Terran players simply won't be able to answer those questions correctly)
1) Marines beat stalkers (and zealots) early on in a move duels (later on even harder, but that's not a realistic scenario most of the time). Question: How come Protoss pressures Terran with stalkers at that periode of time?
2) MMM (or just MM) demolish any kind of Protoss Gateway (or gateway + Immortal or gateway + void ray) allin, bunkers make this difference even bigger. So how come, there are Protoss "Immortal busts" or 6-8gates or blink allins etc against bunkered Terrans?
3) Marines beat any Protoss nonsplash composition early on on amove, so how come that Protoss can defend against such Terran pressure/allin strategies at that time?
1)Stalkers have higher range and are faster, also regenerate shield out of battle. As long as you cannot harm the stalker with enough damage per shot he can and will kite you.
2) The truth is, you will most likely not have a high enough medivac count to counter immortal / gateway allins IF at all have them. Bunkers are very good, if you could actually repair them. A competent Protoss will not allow you to get repair on your bunkers and even so, the damage output of the Protoss army such as an immortal allin is insane, you cannot counter-repair it.
Monchi for example beats very good Terrans and he said he can play very well with Sentry/Zealot/Immortal against MMM as long as his economy is ahead eventually having to transition out of it, but it can work if you are spot on with forcefields. The current builds allow Protoss to play greedy, as 1 gate expansion is a very tricky thing to punish. If he follows it up with 4 gate pressure you can end up losing all your units for barely anything
3)Forcefields and the double-nexus chronoboost all into units instead of economy. Its like countering a non-splash allin with double or tripple reactors to get a high unit count with high damage output.
I understand the point you want to make, yet you have to understand that forcefields, especially in a situation where you have to defend an allin will not allow for a lot of micro. Ofcourse you can counter it, but its very hard, especially against those allins. You will not have ghosts by that time and a good Protoss can either push all your units out of range, or in a circle so they actually cannot attack.
Forcefields are a huge design flaw in my opinion. Good forcefields will leave your opponent nearly without a chance even with a superior army, while bad forcefields can lose you a game when you acutally would be perfectly fine. Protoss relies on forcefields way too much, but unfortunately I cannot see that change.
To get this discussion back on track, a summary of where we are:
The frustration of Terran is not coming from absolute imbalance. As stated many times Korean terrans are still doing well. The frustration is from a relative imbalance in terms of the APM/unit control required of the terran vs the protoss in the late game.
It appears to the terrans posting here that terran requires a significant amount more unit control skill to trade effectively vs Protoss in the late game with Bio. Other units with less APM requirements (mech/air) don't work as well vs Protoss, Whether this is fair or not is somewhat of a separate discussion.
It seems reasonable that mid-high level terrans would become frustrated by losing games because of unit control when their opponent is not effected in the same way. They would perceive an unfairness (whether real or not) and possibly give up the game or switch races. This is maybe "where they went".
Personal opinions: Unit control seems more important for terran then for protoss at the mid-high levels of unprofessional play in the late game. This is frustrating and appears unfair. However races are balanced differently. It's hard to say if things are actually unfair.
To answer the OP's question: TvP at least appears unfair for terran, whether true or not (an opinion the 70+ pages of previous posts will show). Frustration with this apparent unfairness may explain "where the went" (quitting / another race / playing less).
Solution? Give terran a less APM / fragile style of play vs protoss.
If the hellions are in a line they win most of the time, if they in a ball of course they are going to lose. Hellions shoot in lines.
Just tried 20vs20 with hellions in a straight line of 2 vs 20 chargelots clumped up. 10 chargelots survived. Want me to post that video aswell? I'll post both, or will you finally give it a rest. Your choice.
In video 2 and 3 I had music coming through my speakers and I didn't realize that (they are not in order, I first recorder 3 and then 2 and then 1) so I aplogize for that noise, just mute the video. The quality is still bad since the videos are being processed but they should be 1080p once that's finished. I did this all for you tomato and for fig. You are welcome guys <3
On March 18 2012 16:05 TheTomato wrote:
On March 18 2012 16:00 ChaosTerran wrote:
On March 18 2012 15:56 TheTomato wrote: [quote]
You need to relax, you sound like you have a stick up your ass.
Also BFH are really good against chargelots. With a slight amount of micro to prevent a full surround, they poop on charge-lots. If you go to a unit tester and just watch them a move its a toss up, depending on whether the chargelots get a random really good surround. That stupid though, you don't just a move hellions into chargelots in games.
The reason they don't work is the amount of tech to get them is just too much. You can't really mech in TvP (with in the bounds of this discussion) so the only way is bio/helion medivac. The helions just don't really fit and just make your army too fragile since they can't be healed. Its just not cost effective to get a 2 facts ( which you would need to pump out a decent number), pre ignitor and another set of upgrades. It cuts into your upgrade/viking/medivac timings too much to work out. The only way it would be viable is if the P went mass chargelots and you have god like micro to actually make the bfh cost efficient.
I remember when people tried it out before the nerf to helions, so its not like its unexplored.
Doesn't matter, he claimed that 20 chargelots lose to 20 hellions unmicroed and it was a lie. Not my fault someone else is lying here. Hellions are bad in TvP everyone knows that, Jinro said it, give it a rest guys.
I even recorded a video just to prove that 20 chargelots beat 20 BFH hellions even with only 1-1 upgrades. I didn't lie, he did, and yes liard make me angry, because they contribute nothing to the discussion and direct the discussion to a misleading conclusion (obviously when you just make up facts). So yes, I get really angry at these people, because had I not checked everyone would now think that 20 chargelots lose to 20 BFH hellions, but they don't, it's a lie and I even recorded a video, so if you really want to keep disagreeing with me then fine, I'll upload it to youtube, it's gonna be a lot of fun for me to see you apologize then.
On March 18 2012 15:59 Fig wrote: [quote] Please be civil. All I have done is give advice and even did tests and checked statistics for you. If you don't like the information then so be it, but stop being insulting and accusing me of lying every other sentence. I realize this is the internet, but it is also a community site for Starcraft 2, a game which it is apparent we both care about. I'll stop suggesting hellions now, because this discussion isn't going anywhere. I'm sorry for upsetting you, and hope you enjoy the rest of your night.
First of all, I didn't insult you. Second of all, you lied, hence why I called you a liar. I have evidence, should I upload it to youtube, like do you really want to go there?
If the hellions are in a line they win most of the time, if they in a ball of course they are going to lose. Hellions shoot in lines.
Just tried 20vs20 with hellions in a straight line of 2 vs 20 chargelots clumped up. 10 chargelots survived. Want me to post that video aswell? I'll post both, or will you finally give it a rest. Your choice.
Thanks you very much for the videos. Can I suggest another scenario? 100 templar against 1 Marine. Micro both sides of the battle in the same way you did in the above videos. I don't want to jump the gun, but if 15,000 gas and 5,000 minerals loses to 50 minerals, I think we can both agree something is very much wrong with the matchup.
Edit: Looking back, there may have been an argument about unmicroed chargelots against unmicroed hellion. While this would be a stupid argument, completely unrelated to Starcraft 2 balance, if that was the argument you were having, your videos do make some sense.
Excuse me? all the "protoss" does in that situation is a-move, why should the terran HAVE to micro to win if he has the "counter unit" hellion
Uhm thats the dumbest argument ever? If a protoss is fighting lings with stalkers why does he have to micro while the Z can just A move?! Why do i have to micro my sentries to place my "counter Z" forcefields? Quit being stupid plz and get back on topic.
I suggest you do the same. The videos present you pretty much the biggest problem in terran gameplay in general. Your units dont do shit against anything, without micro. Thats goes not just for hellions, but every frikkin unit. Comparing that to forcefields (had a good laugh, thank you) its, well, at least "naive".
Yeah, microed Hellions with a lot of space would devour the zealots. So? You dont have the luxury to kite zealots in a big fight. Protoss a-moves his army into yours, and goes back to macro. A terran has to rotate like a tornado with at least 250apm+ to beat "a-leftclick". Even your "counterarguments" are wrong, lings have to be microed vs stalker (especially earlygame) to surround them. Smartcasting forcefields has nothing to do with real micro. At all. It doesnt even need high apm, you could CLICK them vs T without using a hotkey and it still would be enough.
So, conclusion: yeah. Hellions can roast zealots. In theory. In theory, a warp-engine would be possible in reallife (the math proves it). Problem is, theres no practical way to do it. Unless of course you want to sac the whole rest of your army, because you kited zealots - while collossi and every other a-move unit just smashes the rest of your unmicroed army.
let's play a quiz game I call: the answer is micro! This episode will be about Protoss (vs Terran) gameplay. (It's pretty easy, though in this thread one gets to the point to believe that some Terran players simply won't be able to answer those questions correctly)
1) Marines beat stalkers (and zealots) early on in a move duels (later on even harder, but that's not a realistic scenario most of the time). Question: How come Protoss pressures Terran with stalkers at that periode of time?
2) MMM (or just MM) demolish any kind of Protoss Gateway (or gateway + Immortal or gateway + void ray) allin, bunkers make this difference even bigger. So how come, there are Protoss "Immortal busts" or 6-8gates or blink allins etc against bunkered Terrans?
3) Marines beat any Protoss nonsplash composition early on on amove, so how come that Protoss can defend against such Terran pressure/allin strategies at that time?
1)Stalkers have higher range and are faster, also regenerate shield out of battle. As long as you cannot harm the stalker with enough damage per shot he can and will kite you.
2) The truth is, you will most likely not have a high enough medivac count to counter immortal / gateway allins IF at all have them. Bunkers are very good, if you could actually repair them. A competent Protoss will not allow you to get repair on your bunkers and even so, the damage output of the Protoss army such as an immortal allin is insane, you cannot counter-repair it.
Monchi for example beats very good Terrans and he said he can play very well with Sentry/Zealot/Immortal against MMM as long as his economy is ahead eventually having to transition out of it, but it can work if you are spot on with forcefields. The current builds allow Protoss to play greedy, as 1 gate expansion is a very tricky thing to punish. If he follows it up with 4 gate pressure you can end up losing all your units for barely anything
3)Forcefields and the double-nexus chronoboost all into units instead of economy. Its like countering a non-splash allin with double or tripple reactors to get a high unit count with high damage output.
I understand the point you want to make, yet you have to understand that forcefields, especially in a situation where you have to defend an allin will not allow for a lot of micro. Ofcourse you can counter it, but its very hard, especially against those allins. You will not have ghosts by that time and a good Protoss can either push all your units out of range, or in a circle so they actually cannot attack.
Forcefields are a huge design flaw in my opinion. Good forcefields will leave your opponent nearly without a chance even with a superior army, while bad forcefields can lose you a game when you acutally would be perfectly fine. Protoss relies on forcefields way too much, but unfortunately I cannot see that change.
Honestly, I'm not sure you understood it. I was implying that the Protoss player has to micro to make those things work, because basically in all those situations the Terran army wins the a-move battle. (to show that Protoss is not just "a-move") (I agree that things like FF, and some other abilities that don't allow for any countermicro if properly done feel very "random" and unfair)
If the hellions are in a line they win most of the time, if they in a ball of course they are going to lose. Hellions shoot in lines.
Just tried 20vs20 with hellions in a straight line of 2 vs 20 chargelots clumped up. 10 chargelots survived. Want me to post that video aswell? I'll post both, or will you finally give it a rest. Your choice.
In video 2 and 3 I had music coming through my speakers and I didn't realize that (they are not in order, I first recorder 3 and then 2 and then 1) so I aplogize for that noise, just mute the video. The quality is still bad since the videos are being processed but they should be 1080p once that's finished. I did this all for you tomato and for fig. You are welcome guys <3
On March 18 2012 16:05 TheTomato wrote:
On March 18 2012 16:00 ChaosTerran wrote:
On March 18 2012 15:56 TheTomato wrote: [quote]
You need to relax, you sound like you have a stick up your ass.
Also BFH are really good against chargelots. With a slight amount of micro to prevent a full surround, they poop on charge-lots. If you go to a unit tester and just watch them a move its a toss up, depending on whether the chargelots get a random really good surround. That stupid though, you don't just a move hellions into chargelots in games.
The reason they don't work is the amount of tech to get them is just too much. You can't really mech in TvP (with in the bounds of this discussion) so the only way is bio/helion medivac. The helions just don't really fit and just make your army too fragile since they can't be healed. Its just not cost effective to get a 2 facts ( which you would need to pump out a decent number), pre ignitor and another set of upgrades. It cuts into your upgrade/viking/medivac timings too much to work out. The only way it would be viable is if the P went mass chargelots and you have god like micro to actually make the bfh cost efficient.
I remember when people tried it out before the nerf to helions, so its not like its unexplored.
Doesn't matter, he claimed that 20 chargelots lose to 20 hellions unmicroed and it was a lie. Not my fault someone else is lying here. Hellions are bad in TvP everyone knows that, Jinro said it, give it a rest guys.
I even recorded a video just to prove that 20 chargelots beat 20 BFH hellions even with only 1-1 upgrades. I didn't lie, he did, and yes liard make me angry, because they contribute nothing to the discussion and direct the discussion to a misleading conclusion (obviously when you just make up facts). So yes, I get really angry at these people, because had I not checked everyone would now think that 20 chargelots lose to 20 BFH hellions, but they don't, it's a lie and I even recorded a video, so if you really want to keep disagreeing with me then fine, I'll upload it to youtube, it's gonna be a lot of fun for me to see you apologize then.
On March 18 2012 15:59 Fig wrote: [quote] Please be civil. All I have done is give advice and even did tests and checked statistics for you. If you don't like the information then so be it, but stop being insulting and accusing me of lying every other sentence. I realize this is the internet, but it is also a community site for Starcraft 2, a game which it is apparent we both care about. I'll stop suggesting hellions now, because this discussion isn't going anywhere. I'm sorry for upsetting you, and hope you enjoy the rest of your night.
First of all, I didn't insult you. Second of all, you lied, hence why I called you a liar. I have evidence, should I upload it to youtube, like do you really want to go there?
[i] If the hellions are in a line they win most of the time, if they in a ball of course they are going to lose. Hellions shoot in lines.
Just tried 20vs20 with hellions in a straight line of 2 vs 20 chargelots clumped up. 10 chargelots survived. Want me to post that video aswell? I'll post both, or will you finally give it a rest. Your choice.
Thanks you very much for the videos. Can I suggest another scenario? 100 templar against 1 Marine. Micro both sides of the battle in the same way you did in the above videos. I don't want to jump the gun, but if 15,000 gas and 5,000 minerals loses to 50 minerals, I think we can both agree something is very much wrong with the matchup.
Edit: Looking back, there may have been an argument about unmicroed chargelots against unmicroed hellion. While this would be a stupid argument, completely unrelated to Starcraft 2 balance, if that was the argument you were having, your videos do make some sense.
Excuse me? all the "protoss" does in that situation is a-move, why should the terran HAVE to micro to win if he has the "counter unit" hellion
Uhm thats the dumbest argument ever? If a protoss is fighting lings with stalkers why does he have to micro while the Z can just A move?! Why do i have to micro my sentries to place my "counter Z" forcefields? Quit being stupid plz and get back on topic.
I suggest you do the same. The videos present you pretty much the biggest problem in terran gameplay in general. Your units dont do shit against anything, without micro. Thats goes not just for hellions, but every frikkin unit. Comparing that to forcefields (had a good laugh, thank you) its, well, at least "naive".
Yeah, microed Hellions with a lot of space would devour the zealots. So? You dont have the luxury to kite zealots in a big fight. Protoss a-moves his army into yours, and goes back to macro. A terran has to rotate like a tornado with at least 250apm+ to beat "a-leftclick". Even your "counterarguments" are wrong, lings have to be microed vs stalker (especially earlygame) to surround them. Smartcasting forcefields has nothing to do with real micro. At all. It doesnt even need high apm, you could CLICK them vs T without using a hotkey and it still would be enough.
So, conclusion: yeah. Hellions can roast zealots. In theory. In theory, a warp-engine would be possible in reallife (the math proves it). Problem is, [i] theres no practical way to do it. Unless of course you want to sac the whole rest of your army, because you kited zealots - while collossi and every other a-move unit just smashes the rest of your unmicroed army.
let's play a quiz game I call: the answer is micro! This episode will be about Protoss (vs Terran) gameplay. (It's pretty easy, though in this thread one gets to the point to believe that some Terran players simply won't be able to answer those questions correctly)
1) Marines beat stalkers (and zealots) early on in a move duels (later on even harder, but that's not a realistic scenario most of the time). Question: How come Protoss pressures Terran with stalkers at that periode of time? 2) MMM (or just MM) demolish any kind of Protoss Gateway (or gateway + Immortal or gateway + void ray) allin, bunkers make this difference even bigger. So how come, there are Protoss "Immortal busts" or 6-8gates or blink allins etc against bunkered Terrans? 3) Marines beat any Protoss nonsplash composition early on on amove, so how come that Protoss can defend against such Terran pressure/allin strategies at that time? 4) Casters on a-move don't do anything apart from attack (if they can), so how come that storms and FFs occur in battles? 5) In bigger army compositions, melee units like zealots tend to get stuck behind the other units, so how come that most of the time we see zealots in the front of the other units?
Sentry guardian shield makes gateway units decent in a move battles and FF makes bunkers less efective. Zealots are good in late game because of basic unit positioning.
If you are trying to implay that these situations are the same with needing to kite half the map to make mmm (or hellions) good, then you are wrong. One click micro (unit positioning, spells, etc ) is completly different from constant kiting. Most people can do one of these with resonable succes while they have big trouble with the other until they reach a certain skill level.
yup, seeing how kiting was pretty much the first micro that was invented somewhat back in the beta and proper forcefielding took pretty much until GSL season 3, I can definatly see how people fail with one of those things (FF) nearly always on the ladder and do the other thing quite decently (kiting). Completly agree.
On March 19 2012 01:44 Xirroh wrote: To get this discussion back on track, a summary of where we are:
The frustration of Terran is not coming from absolute imbalance. As stated many times Korean terrans are still doing well. The frustration is from a relative imbalance in terms of the APM/unit control required of the terran vs the protoss in the late game.
It appears to the terrans posting here that terran requires a significant amount more unit control skill to trade effectively vs Protoss in the late game with Bio. Other units with less APM requirements (mech/air) don't work as well vs Protoss, Whether this is fair or not is somewhat of a separate discussion.
It seems reasonable that mid-high level terrans would become frustrated by losing games because of unit control when their opponent is not effected in the same way. They would perceive an unfairness (whether real or not) and possibly give up the game or switch races. This is maybe "where they went".
Personal opinions: Unit control seems more important for terran then for protoss at the mid-high levels of unprofessional play in the late game. This is frustrating and appears unfair. However races are balanced differently. It's hard to say if things are actually unfair.
To answer the OP's question: TvP at least appears unfair for terran, whether true or not (an opinion the 70+ pages of previous posts will show). Frustration with this apparent unfairness may explain "where the went" (quitting / another race / playing less).
Solution? Give terran a less APM / fragile style of play vs protoss.
On March 19 2012 01:44 Xirroh wrote: To get this discussion back on track, a summary of where we are:
The frustration of Terran is not coming from absolute imbalance. As stated many times Korean terrans are still doing well. The frustration is from a relative imbalance in terms of the APM/unit control required of the terran vs the protoss in the late game.
It appears to the terrans posting here that terran requires a significant amount more unit control skill to trade effectively vs Protoss in the late game with Bio. Other units with less APM requirements (mech/air) don't work as well vs Protoss, Whether this is fair or not is somewhat of a separate discussion.
It seems reasonable that mid-high level terrans would become frustrated by losing games because of unit control when their opponent is not effected in the same way. They would perceive an unfairness (whether real or not) and possibly give up the game or switch races. This is maybe "where they went".
Personal opinions: Unit control seems more important for terran then for protoss at the mid-high levels of unprofessional play in the late game. This is frustrating and appears unfair. However races are balanced differently. It's hard to say if things are actually unfair.
To answer the OP's question: TvP at least appears unfair for terran, whether true or not (an opinion the 70+ pages of previous posts will show). Frustration with this apparent unfairness may explain "where the went" (quitting / another race / playing less).
Solution? Give terran a less APM / fragile style of play vs protoss.
Or
Terrans could man up.
or make protoss harder to play?
nah, I like my hard terran, but give me more mech viability, give me that 0 supply AoE splash damage detector zoning tool that's like a miniature nuke
On March 18 2012 16:11 ChaosTerran wrote: [quote] Just tried 20vs20 with hellions in a straight line of 2 vs 20 chargelots clumped up. 10 chargelots survived. Want me to post that video aswell? I'll post both, or will you finally give it a rest. Your choice.
In video 2 and 3 I had music coming through my speakers and I didn't realize that (they are not in order, I first recorder 3 and then 2 and then 1) so I aplogize for that noise, just mute the video. The quality is still bad since the videos are being processed but they should be 1080p once that's finished. I did this all for you tomato and for fig. You are welcome guys <3
On March 18 2012 16:05 TheTomato wrote:
On March 18 2012 16:00 ChaosTerran wrote: [quote]
Doesn't matter, he claimed that 20 chargelots lose to 20 hellions unmicroed and it was a lie. Not my fault someone else is lying here. Hellions are bad in TvP everyone knows that, Jinro said it, give it a rest guys.
I even recorded a video just to prove that 20 chargelots beat 20 BFH hellions even with only 1-1 upgrades. I didn't lie, he did, and yes liard make me angry, because they contribute nothing to the discussion and direct the discussion to a misleading conclusion (obviously when you just make up facts). So yes, I get really angry at these people, because had I not checked everyone would now think that 20 chargelots lose to 20 BFH hellions, but they don't, it's a lie and I even recorded a video, so if you really want to keep disagreeing with me then fine, I'll upload it to youtube, it's gonna be a lot of fun for me to see you apologize then.
[quote]
First of all, I didn't insult you. Second of all, you lied, hence why I called you a liar. I have evidence, should I upload it to youtube, like do you really want to go there?
If the hellions are in a line they win most of the time, if they in a ball of course they are going to lose. Hellions shoot in lines.
Just tried 20vs20 with hellions in a straight line of 2 vs 20 chargelots clumped up. 10 chargelots survived. Want me to post that video aswell? I'll post both, or will you finally give it a rest. Your choice.
Thanks you very much for the videos. Can I suggest another scenario? 100 templar against 1 Marine. Micro both sides of the battle in the same way you did in the above videos. I don't want to jump the gun, but if 15,000 gas and 5,000 minerals loses to 50 minerals, I think we can both agree something is very much wrong with the matchup.
Edit: Looking back, there may have been an argument about unmicroed chargelots against unmicroed hellion. While this would be a stupid argument, completely unrelated to Starcraft 2 balance, if that was the argument you were having, your videos do make some sense.
Excuse me? all the "protoss" does in that situation is a-move, why should the terran HAVE to micro to win if he has the "counter unit" hellion
Uhm thats the dumbest argument ever? If a protoss is fighting lings with stalkers why does he have to micro while the Z can just A move?! Why do i have to micro my sentries to place my "counter Z" forcefields? Quit being stupid plz and get back on topic.
I suggest you do the same. The videos present you pretty much the biggest problem in terran gameplay in general. Your units dont do shit against anything, without micro. Thats goes not just for hellions, but every frikkin unit. Comparing that to forcefields (had a good laugh, thank you) its, well, at least "naive".
Yeah, microed Hellions with a lot of space would devour the zealots. So? You dont have the luxury to kite zealots in a big fight. Protoss a-moves his army into yours, and goes back to macro. A terran has to rotate like a tornado with at least 250apm+ to beat "a-leftclick". Even your "counterarguments" are wrong, lings have to be microed vs stalker (especially earlygame) to surround them. Smartcasting forcefields has nothing to do with real micro. At all. It doesnt even need high apm, you could CLICK them vs T without using a hotkey and it still would be enough.
So, conclusion: yeah. Hellions can roast zealots. In theory. In theory, a warp-engine would be possible in reallife (the math proves it). Problem is, theres no practical way to do it. Unless of course you want to sac the whole rest of your army, because you kited zealots - while collossi and every other a-move unit just smashes the rest of your unmicroed army.
let's play a quiz game I call: the answer is micro! This episode will be about Protoss (vs Terran) gameplay. (It's pretty easy, though in this thread one gets to the point to believe that some Terran players simply won't be able to answer those questions correctly)
1) Marines beat stalkers (and zealots) early on in a move duels (later on even harder, but that's not a realistic scenario most of the time). Question: How come Protoss pressures Terran with stalkers at that periode of time?
2) MMM (or just MM) demolish any kind of Protoss Gateway (or gateway + Immortal or gateway + void ray) allin, bunkers make this difference even bigger. So how come, there are Protoss "Immortal busts" or 6-8gates or blink allins etc against bunkered Terrans?
3) Marines beat any Protoss nonsplash composition early on on amove, so how come that Protoss can defend against such Terran pressure/allin strategies at that time?
1)Stalkers have higher range and are faster, also regenerate shield out of battle. As long as you cannot harm the stalker with enough damage per shot he can and will kite you.
2) The truth is, you will most likely not have a high enough medivac count to counter immortal / gateway allins IF at all have them. Bunkers are very good, if you could actually repair them. A competent Protoss will not allow you to get repair on your bunkers and even so, the damage output of the Protoss army such as an immortal allin is insane, you cannot counter-repair it.
Monchi for example beats very good Terrans and he said he can play very well with Sentry/Zealot/Immortal against MMM as long as his economy is ahead eventually having to transition out of it, but it can work if you are spot on with forcefields. The current builds allow Protoss to play greedy, as 1 gate expansion is a very tricky thing to punish. If he follows it up with 4 gate pressure you can end up losing all your units for barely anything
3)Forcefields and the double-nexus chronoboost all into units instead of economy. Its like countering a non-splash allin with double or tripple reactors to get a high unit count with high damage output.
I understand the point you want to make, yet you have to understand that forcefields, especially in a situation where you have to defend an allin will not allow for a lot of micro. Ofcourse you can counter it, but its very hard, especially against those allins. You will not have ghosts by that time and a good Protoss can either push all your units out of range, or in a circle so they actually cannot attack.
Forcefields are a huge design flaw in my opinion. Good forcefields will leave your opponent nearly without a chance even with a superior army, while bad forcefields can lose you a game when you acutally would be perfectly fine. Protoss relies on forcefields way too much, but unfortunately I cannot see that change.
Honestly, I'm not sure you understood it. I was implying that the Protoss player has to micro to make those things work, because basically in all those situations the Terran army wins the a-move battle. (to show that Protoss is not just "a-move") (I agree that things like FF, and some other abilities that don't allow for any countermicro if properly done feel very "random" and unfair)
On March 18 2012 16:11 ChaosTerran wrote: [quote] Just tried 20vs20 with hellions in a straight line of 2 vs 20 chargelots clumped up. 10 chargelots survived. Want me to post that video aswell? I'll post both, or will you finally give it a rest. Your choice.
In video 2 and 3 I had music coming through my speakers and I didn't realize that (they are not in order, I first recorder 3 and then 2 and then 1) so I aplogize for that noise, just mute the video. The quality is still bad since the videos are being processed but they should be 1080p once that's finished. I did this all for you tomato and for fig. You are welcome guys <3
On March 18 2012 16:05 TheTomato wrote:
On March 18 2012 16:00 ChaosTerran wrote: [quote]
Doesn't matter, he claimed that 20 chargelots lose to 20 hellions unmicroed and it was a lie. Not my fault someone else is lying here. Hellions are bad in TvP everyone knows that, Jinro said it, give it a rest guys.
I even recorded a video just to prove that 20 chargelots beat 20 BFH hellions even with only 1-1 upgrades. I didn't lie, he did, and yes liard make me angry, because they contribute nothing to the discussion and direct the discussion to a misleading conclusion (obviously when you just make up facts). So yes, I get really angry at these people, because had I not checked everyone would now think that 20 chargelots lose to 20 BFH hellions, but they don't, it's a lie and I even recorded a video, so if you really want to keep disagreeing with me then fine, I'll upload it to youtube, it's gonna be a lot of fun for me to see you apologize then.
[quote]
First of all, I didn't insult you. Second of all, you lied, hence why I called you a liar. I have evidence, should I upload it to youtube, like do you really want to go there?
[i] If the hellions are in a line they win most of the time, if they in a ball of course they are going to lose. Hellions shoot in lines.
Just tried 20vs20 with hellions in a straight line of 2 vs 20 chargelots clumped up. 10 chargelots survived. Want me to post that video aswell? I'll post both, or will you finally give it a rest. Your choice.
Thanks you very much for the videos. Can I suggest another scenario? 100 templar against 1 Marine. Micro both sides of the battle in the same way you did in the above videos. I don't want to jump the gun, but if 15,000 gas and 5,000 minerals loses to 50 minerals, I think we can both agree something is very much wrong with the matchup.
Edit: Looking back, there may have been an argument about unmicroed chargelots against unmicroed hellion. While this would be a stupid argument, completely unrelated to Starcraft 2 balance, if that was the argument you were having, your videos do make some sense.
Excuse me? all the "protoss" does in that situation is a-move, why should the terran HAVE to micro to win if he has the "counter unit" hellion
Uhm thats the dumbest argument ever? If a protoss is fighting lings with stalkers why does he have to micro while the Z can just A move?! Why do i have to micro my sentries to place my "counter Z" forcefields? Quit being stupid plz and get back on topic.
I suggest you do the same. The videos present you pretty much the biggest problem in terran gameplay in general. Your units dont do shit against anything, without micro. Thats goes not just for hellions, but every frikkin unit. Comparing that to forcefields (had a good laugh, thank you) its, well, at least "naive".
Yeah, microed Hellions with a lot of space would devour the zealots. So? You dont have the luxury to kite zealots in a big fight. Protoss a-moves his army into yours, and goes back to macro. A terran has to rotate like a tornado with at least 250apm+ to beat "a-leftclick". Even your "counterarguments" are wrong, lings have to be microed vs stalker (especially earlygame) to surround them. Smartcasting forcefields has nothing to do with real micro. At all. It doesnt even need high apm, you could CLICK them vs T without using a hotkey and it still would be enough.
So, conclusion: yeah. Hellions can roast zealots. In theory. In theory, a warp-engine would be possible in reallife (the math proves it). Problem is, [i] theres no practical way to do it. Unless of course you want to sac the whole rest of your army, because you kited zealots - while collossi and every other a-move unit just smashes the rest of your unmicroed army.
let's play a quiz game I call: the answer is micro! This episode will be about Protoss (vs Terran) gameplay. (It's pretty easy, though in this thread one gets to the point to believe that some Terran players simply won't be able to answer those questions correctly)
1) Marines beat stalkers (and zealots) early on in a move duels (later on even harder, but that's not a realistic scenario most of the time). Question: How come Protoss pressures Terran with stalkers at that periode of time? 2) MMM (or just MM) demolish any kind of Protoss Gateway (or gateway + Immortal or gateway + void ray) allin, bunkers make this difference even bigger. So how come, there are Protoss "Immortal busts" or 6-8gates or blink allins etc against bunkered Terrans? 3) Marines beat any Protoss nonsplash composition early on on amove, so how come that Protoss can defend against such Terran pressure/allin strategies at that time? 4) Casters on a-move don't do anything apart from attack (if they can), so how come that storms and FFs occur in battles? 5) In bigger army compositions, melee units like zealots tend to get stuck behind the other units, so how come that most of the time we see zealots in the front of the other units?
Sentry guardian shield makes gateway units decent in a move battles and FF makes bunkers less efective. Zealots are good in late game because of basic unit positioning.
If you are trying to implay that these situations are the same with needing to kite half the map to make mmm (or hellions) good, then you are wrong. One click micro (unit positioning, spells, etc ) is completly different from constant kiting. Most people can do one of these with resonable succes while they have big trouble with the other until they reach a certain skill level.
yup, seeing how kiting was pretty much the first micro that was invented somewhat back in the beta and proper forcefielding took pretty much until GSL season 3, I can definatly see how people fail with one of those things (FF) nearly always on the ladder and do the other thing quite decently (kiting). Completly agree.
I really think all those who say Protoss doesn't require skill/micro simply QQ. It only hurts them but no player that is actually just a bit skilled would say Protoss doesn't need micro.
On March 18 2012 16:11 ChaosTerran wrote: [quote] Just tried 20vs20 with hellions in a straight line of 2 vs 20 chargelots clumped up. 10 chargelots survived. Want me to post that video aswell? I'll post both, or will you finally give it a rest. Your choice.
In video 2 and 3 I had music coming through my speakers and I didn't realize that (they are not in order, I first recorder 3 and then 2 and then 1) so I aplogize for that noise, just mute the video. The quality is still bad since the videos are being processed but they should be 1080p once that's finished. I did this all for you tomato and for fig. You are welcome guys <3
On March 18 2012 16:05 TheTomato wrote:
On March 18 2012 16:00 ChaosTerran wrote: [quote]
Doesn't matter, he claimed that 20 chargelots lose to 20 hellions unmicroed and it was a lie. Not my fault someone else is lying here. Hellions are bad in TvP everyone knows that, Jinro said it, give it a rest guys.
I even recorded a video just to prove that 20 chargelots beat 20 BFH hellions even with only 1-1 upgrades. I didn't lie, he did, and yes liard make me angry, because they contribute nothing to the discussion and direct the discussion to a misleading conclusion (obviously when you just make up facts). So yes, I get really angry at these people, because had I not checked everyone would now think that 20 chargelots lose to 20 BFH hellions, but they don't, it's a lie and I even recorded a video, so if you really want to keep disagreeing with me then fine, I'll upload it to youtube, it's gonna be a lot of fun for me to see you apologize then.
[quote]
First of all, I didn't insult you. Second of all, you lied, hence why I called you a liar. I have evidence, should I upload it to youtube, like do you really want to go there?
If the hellions are in a line they win most of the time, if they in a ball of course they are going to lose. Hellions shoot in lines.
Just tried 20vs20 with hellions in a straight line of 2 vs 20 chargelots clumped up. 10 chargelots survived. Want me to post that video aswell? I'll post both, or will you finally give it a rest. Your choice.
Thanks you very much for the videos. Can I suggest another scenario? 100 templar against 1 Marine. Micro both sides of the battle in the same way you did in the above videos. I don't want to jump the gun, but if 15,000 gas and 5,000 minerals loses to 50 minerals, I think we can both agree something is very much wrong with the matchup.
Edit: Looking back, there may have been an argument about unmicroed chargelots against unmicroed hellion. While this would be a stupid argument, completely unrelated to Starcraft 2 balance, if that was the argument you were having, your videos do make some sense.
Excuse me? all the "protoss" does in that situation is a-move, why should the terran HAVE to micro to win if he has the "counter unit" hellion
Uhm thats the dumbest argument ever? If a protoss is fighting lings with stalkers why does he have to micro while the Z can just A move?! Why do i have to micro my sentries to place my "counter Z" forcefields? Quit being stupid plz and get back on topic.
I suggest you do the same. The videos present you pretty much the biggest problem in terran gameplay in general. Your units dont do shit against anything, without micro. Thats goes not just for hellions, but every frikkin unit. Comparing that to forcefields (had a good laugh, thank you) its, well, at least "naive".
Yeah, microed Hellions with a lot of space would devour the zealots. So? You dont have the luxury to kite zealots in a big fight. Protoss a-moves his army into yours, and goes back to macro. A terran has to rotate like a tornado with at least 250apm+ to beat "a-leftclick". Even your "counterarguments" are wrong, lings have to be microed vs stalker (especially earlygame) to surround them. Smartcasting forcefields has nothing to do with real micro. At all. It doesnt even need high apm, you could CLICK them vs T without using a hotkey and it still would be enough.
So, conclusion: yeah. Hellions can roast zealots. In theory. In theory, a warp-engine would be possible in reallife (the math proves it). Problem is, theres no practical way to do it. Unless of course you want to sac the whole rest of your army, because you kited zealots - while collossi and every other a-move unit just smashes the rest of your unmicroed army.
let's play a quiz game I call: the answer is micro! This episode will be about Protoss (vs Terran) gameplay. (It's pretty easy, though in this thread one gets to the point to believe that some Terran players simply won't be able to answer those questions correctly)
1) Marines beat stalkers (and zealots) early on in a move duels (later on even harder, but that's not a realistic scenario most of the time). Question: How come Protoss pressures Terran with stalkers at that periode of time?
2) MMM (or just MM) demolish any kind of Protoss Gateway (or gateway + Immortal or gateway + void ray) allin, bunkers make this difference even bigger. So how come, there are Protoss "Immortal busts" or 6-8gates or blink allins etc against bunkered Terrans?
3) Marines beat any Protoss nonsplash composition early on on amove, so how come that Protoss can defend against such Terran pressure/allin strategies at that time?
1)Stalkers have higher range and are faster, also regenerate shield out of battle. As long as you cannot harm the stalker with enough damage per shot he can and will kite you.
2) The truth is, you will most likely not have a high enough medivac count to counter immortal / gateway allins IF at all have them. Bunkers are very good, if you could actually repair them. A competent Protoss will not allow you to get repair on your bunkers and even so, the damage output of the Protoss army such as an immortal allin is insane, you cannot counter-repair it.
Monchi for example beats very good Terrans and he said he can play very well with Sentry/Zealot/Immortal against MMM as long as his economy is ahead eventually having to transition out of it, but it can work if you are spot on with forcefields. The current builds allow Protoss to play greedy, as 1 gate expansion is a very tricky thing to punish. If he follows it up with 4 gate pressure you can end up losing all your units for barely anything
3)Forcefields and the double-nexus chronoboost all into units instead of economy. Its like countering a non-splash allin with double or tripple reactors to get a high unit count with high damage output.
I understand the point you want to make, yet you have to understand that forcefields, especially in a situation where you have to defend an allin will not allow for a lot of micro. Ofcourse you can counter it, but its very hard, especially against those allins. You will not have ghosts by that time and a good Protoss can either push all your units out of range, or in a circle so they actually cannot attack.
Forcefields are a huge design flaw in my opinion. Good forcefields will leave your opponent nearly without a chance even with a superior army, while bad forcefields can lose you a game when you acutally would be perfectly fine. Protoss relies on forcefields way too much, but unfortunately I cannot see that change.
Honestly, I'm not sure you understood it. I was implying that the Protoss player has to micro to make those things work, because basically in all those situations the Terran army wins the a-move battle. (to show that Protoss is not just "a-move") (I agree that things like FF, and some other abilities that don't allow for any countermicro if properly done feel very "random" and unfair)
On March 18 2012 16:11 ChaosTerran wrote: [quote] Just tried 20vs20 with hellions in a straight line of 2 vs 20 chargelots clumped up. 10 chargelots survived. Want me to post that video aswell? I'll post both, or will you finally give it a rest. Your choice.
In video 2 and 3 I had music coming through my speakers and I didn't realize that (they are not in order, I first recorder 3 and then 2 and then 1) so I aplogize for that noise, just mute the video. The quality is still bad since the videos are being processed but they should be 1080p once that's finished. I did this all for you tomato and for fig. You are welcome guys <3
On March 18 2012 16:05 TheTomato wrote:
On March 18 2012 16:00 ChaosTerran wrote: [quote]
Doesn't matter, he claimed that 20 chargelots lose to 20 hellions unmicroed and it was a lie. Not my fault someone else is lying here. Hellions are bad in TvP everyone knows that, Jinro said it, give it a rest guys.
I even recorded a video just to prove that 20 chargelots beat 20 BFH hellions even with only 1-1 upgrades. I didn't lie, he did, and yes liard make me angry, because they contribute nothing to the discussion and direct the discussion to a misleading conclusion (obviously when you just make up facts). So yes, I get really angry at these people, because had I not checked everyone would now think that 20 chargelots lose to 20 BFH hellions, but they don't, it's a lie and I even recorded a video, so if you really want to keep disagreeing with me then fine, I'll upload it to youtube, it's gonna be a lot of fun for me to see you apologize then.
[quote]
First of all, I didn't insult you. Second of all, you lied, hence why I called you a liar. I have evidence, should I upload it to youtube, like do you really want to go there?
[i] If the hellions are in a line they win most of the time, if they in a ball of course they are going to lose. Hellions shoot in lines.
Just tried 20vs20 with hellions in a straight line of 2 vs 20 chargelots clumped up. 10 chargelots survived. Want me to post that video aswell? I'll post both, or will you finally give it a rest. Your choice.
Thanks you very much for the videos. Can I suggest another scenario? 100 templar against 1 Marine. Micro both sides of the battle in the same way you did in the above videos. I don't want to jump the gun, but if 15,000 gas and 5,000 minerals loses to 50 minerals, I think we can both agree something is very much wrong with the matchup.
Edit: Looking back, there may have been an argument about unmicroed chargelots against unmicroed hellion. While this would be a stupid argument, completely unrelated to Starcraft 2 balance, if that was the argument you were having, your videos do make some sense.
Excuse me? all the "protoss" does in that situation is a-move, why should the terran HAVE to micro to win if he has the "counter unit" hellion
Uhm thats the dumbest argument ever? If a protoss is fighting lings with stalkers why does he have to micro while the Z can just A move?! Why do i have to micro my sentries to place my "counter Z" forcefields? Quit being stupid plz and get back on topic.
I suggest you do the same. The videos present you pretty much the biggest problem in terran gameplay in general. Your units dont do shit against anything, without micro. Thats goes not just for hellions, but every frikkin unit. Comparing that to forcefields (had a good laugh, thank you) its, well, at least "naive".
Yeah, microed Hellions with a lot of space would devour the zealots. So? You dont have the luxury to kite zealots in a big fight. Protoss a-moves his army into yours, and goes back to macro. A terran has to rotate like a tornado with at least 250apm+ to beat "a-leftclick". Even your "counterarguments" are wrong, lings have to be microed vs stalker (especially earlygame) to surround them. Smartcasting forcefields has nothing to do with real micro. At all. It doesnt even need high apm, you could CLICK them vs T without using a hotkey and it still would be enough.
So, conclusion: yeah. Hellions can roast zealots. In theory. In theory, a warp-engine would be possible in reallife (the math proves it). Problem is, [i] theres no practical way to do it. Unless of course you want to sac the whole rest of your army, because you kited zealots - while collossi and every other a-move unit just smashes the rest of your unmicroed army.
let's play a quiz game I call: the answer is micro! This episode will be about Protoss (vs Terran) gameplay. (It's pretty easy, though in this thread one gets to the point to believe that some Terran players simply won't be able to answer those questions correctly)
1) Marines beat stalkers (and zealots) early on in a move duels (later on even harder, but that's not a realistic scenario most of the time). Question: How come Protoss pressures Terran with stalkers at that periode of time? 2) MMM (or just MM) demolish any kind of Protoss Gateway (or gateway + Immortal or gateway + void ray) allin, bunkers make this difference even bigger. So how come, there are Protoss "Immortal busts" or 6-8gates or blink allins etc against bunkered Terrans? 3) Marines beat any Protoss nonsplash composition early on on amove, so how come that Protoss can defend against such Terran pressure/allin strategies at that time? 4) Casters on a-move don't do anything apart from attack (if they can), so how come that storms and FFs occur in battles? 5) In bigger army compositions, melee units like zealots tend to get stuck behind the other units, so how come that most of the time we see zealots in the front of the other units?
Sentry guardian shield makes gateway units decent in a move battles and FF makes bunkers less efective. Zealots are good in late game because of basic unit positioning.
If you are trying to implay that these situations are the same with needing to kite half the map to make mmm (or hellions) good, then you are wrong. One click micro (unit positioning, spells, etc ) is completly different from constant kiting. Most people can do one of these with resonable succes while they have big trouble with the other until they reach a certain skill level.
yup, seeing how kiting was pretty much the first micro that was invented somewhat back in the beta and proper forcefielding took pretty much until GSL season 3, I can definatly see how people fail with one of those things (FF) nearly always on the ladder and do the other thing quite decently (kiting). Completly agree.
Sorry to disagree with you. I will take your sarcasm as a sign of superiority and hope that you will continue with anecdotes and quizzes so enlighten us all.
In video 2 and 3 I had music coming through my speakers and I didn't realize that (they are not in order, I first recorder 3 and then 2 and then 1) so I aplogize for that noise, just mute the video. The quality is still bad since the videos are being processed but they should be 1080p once that's finished. I did this all for you tomato and for fig. You are welcome guys <3
On March 18 2012 16:05 TheTomato wrote: [quote] If the hellions are in a line they win most of the time, if they in a ball of course they are going to lose. Hellions shoot in lines.
Just tried 20vs20 with hellions in a straight line of 2 vs 20 chargelots clumped up. 10 chargelots survived. Want me to post that video aswell? I'll post both, or will you finally give it a rest. Your choice.
Thanks you very much for the videos. Can I suggest another scenario? 100 templar against 1 Marine. Micro both sides of the battle in the same way you did in the above videos. I don't want to jump the gun, but if 15,000 gas and 5,000 minerals loses to 50 minerals, I think we can both agree something is very much wrong with the matchup.
Edit: Looking back, there may have been an argument about unmicroed chargelots against unmicroed hellion. While this would be a stupid argument, completely unrelated to Starcraft 2 balance, if that was the argument you were having, your videos do make some sense.
Excuse me? all the "protoss" does in that situation is a-move, why should the terran HAVE to micro to win if he has the "counter unit" hellion
Uhm thats the dumbest argument ever? If a protoss is fighting lings with stalkers why does he have to micro while the Z can just A move?! Why do i have to micro my sentries to place my "counter Z" forcefields? Quit being stupid plz and get back on topic.
I suggest you do the same. The videos present you pretty much the biggest problem in terran gameplay in general. Your units dont do shit against anything, without micro. Thats goes not just for hellions, but every frikkin unit. Comparing that to forcefields (had a good laugh, thank you) its, well, at least "naive".
Yeah, microed Hellions with a lot of space would devour the zealots. So? You dont have the luxury to kite zealots in a big fight. Protoss a-moves his army into yours, and goes back to macro. A terran has to rotate like a tornado with at least 250apm+ to beat "a-leftclick". Even your "counterarguments" are wrong, lings have to be microed vs stalker (especially earlygame) to surround them. Smartcasting forcefields has nothing to do with real micro. At all. It doesnt even need high apm, you could CLICK them vs T without using a hotkey and it still would be enough.
So, conclusion: yeah. Hellions can roast zealots. In theory. In theory, a warp-engine would be possible in reallife (the math proves it). Problem is, theres no practical way to do it. Unless of course you want to sac the whole rest of your army, because you kited zealots - while collossi and every other a-move unit just smashes the rest of your unmicroed army.
let's play a quiz game I call: the answer is micro! This episode will be about Protoss (vs Terran) gameplay. (It's pretty easy, though in this thread one gets to the point to believe that some Terran players simply won't be able to answer those questions correctly)
1) Marines beat stalkers (and zealots) early on in a move duels (later on even harder, but that's not a realistic scenario most of the time). Question: How come Protoss pressures Terran with stalkers at that periode of time?
2) MMM (or just MM) demolish any kind of Protoss Gateway (or gateway + Immortal or gateway + void ray) allin, bunkers make this difference even bigger. So how come, there are Protoss "Immortal busts" or 6-8gates or blink allins etc against bunkered Terrans?
3) Marines beat any Protoss nonsplash composition early on on amove, so how come that Protoss can defend against such Terran pressure/allin strategies at that time?
1)Stalkers have higher range and are faster, also regenerate shield out of battle. As long as you cannot harm the stalker with enough damage per shot he can and will kite you.
2) The truth is, you will most likely not have a high enough medivac count to counter immortal / gateway allins IF at all have them. Bunkers are very good, if you could actually repair them. A competent Protoss will not allow you to get repair on your bunkers and even so, the damage output of the Protoss army such as an immortal allin is insane, you cannot counter-repair it.
Monchi for example beats very good Terrans and he said he can play very well with Sentry/Zealot/Immortal against MMM as long as his economy is ahead eventually having to transition out of it, but it can work if you are spot on with forcefields. The current builds allow Protoss to play greedy, as 1 gate expansion is a very tricky thing to punish. If he follows it up with 4 gate pressure you can end up losing all your units for barely anything
3)Forcefields and the double-nexus chronoboost all into units instead of economy. Its like countering a non-splash allin with double or tripple reactors to get a high unit count with high damage output.
I understand the point you want to make, yet you have to understand that forcefields, especially in a situation where you have to defend an allin will not allow for a lot of micro. Ofcourse you can counter it, but its very hard, especially against those allins. You will not have ghosts by that time and a good Protoss can either push all your units out of range, or in a circle so they actually cannot attack.
Forcefields are a huge design flaw in my opinion. Good forcefields will leave your opponent nearly without a chance even with a superior army, while bad forcefields can lose you a game when you acutally would be perfectly fine. Protoss relies on forcefields way too much, but unfortunately I cannot see that change.
Honestly, I'm not sure you understood it. I was implying that the Protoss player has to micro to make those things work, because basically in all those situations the Terran army wins the a-move battle. (to show that Protoss is not just "a-move") (I agree that things like FF, and some other abilities that don't allow for any countermicro if properly done feel very "random" and unfair)
In video 2 and 3 I had music coming through my speakers and I didn't realize that (they are not in order, I first recorder 3 and then 2 and then 1) so I aplogize for that noise, just mute the video. The quality is still bad since the videos are being processed but they should be 1080p once that's finished. I did this all for you tomato and for fig. You are welcome guys <3
On March 18 2012 16:05 TheTomato wrote: [quote] [i] If the hellions are in a line they win most of the time, if they in a ball of course they are going to lose. Hellions shoot in lines.
Just tried 20vs20 with hellions in a straight line of 2 vs 20 chargelots clumped up. 10 chargelots survived. Want me to post that video aswell? I'll post both, or will you finally give it a rest. Your choice.
Thanks you very much for the videos. Can I suggest another scenario? 100 templar against 1 Marine. Micro both sides of the battle in the same way you did in the above videos. I don't want to jump the gun, but if 15,000 gas and 5,000 minerals loses to 50 minerals, I think we can both agree something is very much wrong with the matchup.
Edit: Looking back, there may have been an argument about unmicroed chargelots against unmicroed hellion. While this would be a stupid argument, completely unrelated to Starcraft 2 balance, if that was the argument you were having, your videos do make some sense.
Excuse me? all the "protoss" does in that situation is a-move, why should the terran HAVE to micro to win if he has the "counter unit" hellion
Uhm thats the dumbest argument ever? If a protoss is fighting lings with stalkers why does he have to micro while the Z can just A move?! Why do i have to micro my sentries to place my "counter Z" forcefields? Quit being stupid plz and get back on topic.
I suggest you do the same. The videos present you pretty much the biggest problem in terran gameplay in general. Your units dont do shit against anything, without micro. Thats goes not just for hellions, but every frikkin unit. Comparing that to forcefields (had a good laugh, thank you) its, well, at least "naive".
Yeah, microed Hellions with a lot of space would devour the zealots. So? You dont have the luxury to kite zealots in a big fight. Protoss a-moves his army into yours, and goes back to macro. A terran has to rotate like a tornado with at least 250apm+ to beat "a-leftclick". Even your "counterarguments" are wrong, lings have to be microed vs stalker (especially earlygame) to surround them. Smartcasting forcefields has nothing to do with real micro. At all. It doesnt even need high apm, you could CLICK them vs T without using a hotkey and it still would be enough.
So, conclusion: yeah. Hellions can roast zealots. In theory. In theory, a warp-engine would be possible in reallife (the math proves it). Problem is, [i] theres no practical way to do it. Unless of course you want to sac the whole rest of your army, because you kited zealots - while collossi and every other a-move unit just smashes the rest of your unmicroed army.
let's play a quiz game I call: the answer is micro! This episode will be about Protoss (vs Terran) gameplay. (It's pretty easy, though in this thread one gets to the point to believe that some Terran players simply won't be able to answer those questions correctly)
1) Marines beat stalkers (and zealots) early on in a move duels (later on even harder, but that's not a realistic scenario most of the time). Question: How come Protoss pressures Terran with stalkers at that periode of time? 2) MMM (or just MM) demolish any kind of Protoss Gateway (or gateway + Immortal or gateway + void ray) allin, bunkers make this difference even bigger. So how come, there are Protoss "Immortal busts" or 6-8gates or blink allins etc against bunkered Terrans? 3) Marines beat any Protoss nonsplash composition early on on amove, so how come that Protoss can defend against such Terran pressure/allin strategies at that time? 4) Casters on a-move don't do anything apart from attack (if they can), so how come that storms and FFs occur in battles? 5) In bigger army compositions, melee units like zealots tend to get stuck behind the other units, so how come that most of the time we see zealots in the front of the other units?
Sentry guardian shield makes gateway units decent in a move battles and FF makes bunkers less efective. Zealots are good in late game because of basic unit positioning.
If you are trying to implay that these situations are the same with needing to kite half the map to make mmm (or hellions) good, then you are wrong. One click micro (unit positioning, spells, etc ) is completly different from constant kiting. Most people can do one of these with resonable succes while they have big trouble with the other until they reach a certain skill level.
yup, seeing how kiting was pretty much the first micro that was invented somewhat back in the beta and proper forcefielding took pretty much until GSL season 3, I can definatly see how people fail with one of those things (FF) nearly always on the ladder and do the other thing quite decently (kiting). Completly agree.
I really think all those who say Protoss doesn't require skill/micro simply QQ. It only hurts them but no player that is actually just a bit skilled would say Protoss doesn't need micro.
Whenever a discussion requires derailing, you're there to provide the service.
I think just give the other races some units that need micro and make mech viable in TvP and everything will be fine. I don't think blizzard should make T easier.
On March 18 2012 16:11 ChaosTerran wrote: [quote] Just tried 20vs20 with hellions in a straight line of 2 vs 20 chargelots clumped up. 10 chargelots survived. Want me to post that video aswell? I'll post both, or will you finally give it a rest. Your choice.
In video 2 and 3 I had music coming through my speakers and I didn't realize that (they are not in order, I first recorder 3 and then 2 and then 1) so I aplogize for that noise, just mute the video. The quality is still bad since the videos are being processed but they should be 1080p once that's finished. I did this all for you tomato and for fig. You are welcome guys <3
On March 18 2012 16:05 TheTomato wrote:
On March 18 2012 16:00 ChaosTerran wrote: [quote]
Doesn't matter, he claimed that 20 chargelots lose to 20 hellions unmicroed and it was a lie. Not my fault someone else is lying here. Hellions are bad in TvP everyone knows that, Jinro said it, give it a rest guys.
I even recorded a video just to prove that 20 chargelots beat 20 BFH hellions even with only 1-1 upgrades. I didn't lie, he did, and yes liard make me angry, because they contribute nothing to the discussion and direct the discussion to a misleading conclusion (obviously when you just make up facts). So yes, I get really angry at these people, because had I not checked everyone would now think that 20 chargelots lose to 20 BFH hellions, but they don't, it's a lie and I even recorded a video, so if you really want to keep disagreeing with me then fine, I'll upload it to youtube, it's gonna be a lot of fun for me to see you apologize then.
[quote]
First of all, I didn't insult you. Second of all, you lied, hence why I called you a liar. I have evidence, should I upload it to youtube, like do you really want to go there?
If the hellions are in a line they win most of the time, if they in a ball of course they are going to lose. Hellions shoot in lines.
Just tried 20vs20 with hellions in a straight line of 2 vs 20 chargelots clumped up. 10 chargelots survived. Want me to post that video aswell? I'll post both, or will you finally give it a rest. Your choice.
Thanks you very much for the videos. Can I suggest another scenario? 100 templar against 1 Marine. Micro both sides of the battle in the same way you did in the above videos. I don't want to jump the gun, but if 15,000 gas and 5,000 minerals loses to 50 minerals, I think we can both agree something is very much wrong with the matchup.
Edit: Looking back, there may have been an argument about unmicroed chargelots against unmicroed hellion. While this would be a stupid argument, completely unrelated to Starcraft 2 balance, if that was the argument you were having, your videos do make some sense.
Excuse me? all the "protoss" does in that situation is a-move, why should the terran HAVE to micro to win if he has the "counter unit" hellion
Uhm thats the dumbest argument ever? If a protoss is fighting lings with stalkers why does he have to micro while the Z can just A move?! Why do i have to micro my sentries to place my "counter Z" forcefields? Quit being stupid plz and get back on topic.
I suggest you do the same. The videos present you pretty much the biggest problem in terran gameplay in general. Your units dont do shit against anything, without micro. Thats goes not just for hellions, but every frikkin unit. Comparing that to forcefields (had a good laugh, thank you) its, well, at least "naive".
Yeah, microed Hellions with a lot of space would devour the zealots. So? You dont have the luxury to kite zealots in a big fight. Protoss a-moves his army into yours, and goes back to macro. A terran has to rotate like a tornado with at least 250apm+ to beat "a-leftclick". Even your "counterarguments" are wrong, lings have to be microed vs stalker (especially earlygame) to surround them. Smartcasting forcefields has nothing to do with real micro. At all. It doesnt even need high apm, you could CLICK them vs T without using a hotkey and it still would be enough.
So, conclusion: yeah. Hellions can roast zealots. In theory. In theory, a warp-engine would be possible in reallife (the math proves it). Problem is, theres no practical way to do it. Unless of course you want to sac the whole rest of your army, because you kited zealots - while collossi and every other a-move unit just smashes the rest of your unmicroed army.
let's play a quiz game I call: the answer is micro! This episode will be about Protoss (vs Terran) gameplay. (It's pretty easy, though in this thread one gets to the point to believe that some Terran players simply won't be able to answer those questions correctly)
1) Marines beat stalkers (and zealots) early on in a move duels (later on even harder, but that's not a realistic scenario most of the time). Question: How come Protoss pressures Terran with stalkers at that periode of time?
2) MMM (or just MM) demolish any kind of Protoss Gateway (or gateway + Immortal or gateway + void ray) allin, bunkers make this difference even bigger. So how come, there are Protoss "Immortal busts" or 6-8gates or blink allins etc against bunkered Terrans?
3) Marines beat any Protoss nonsplash composition early on on amove, so how come that Protoss can defend against such Terran pressure/allin strategies at that time?
1)Stalkers have higher range and are faster, also regenerate shield out of battle. As long as you cannot harm the stalker with enough damage per shot he can and will kite you.
2) The truth is, you will most likely not have a high enough medivac count to counter immortal / gateway allins IF at all have them. Bunkers are very good, if you could actually repair them. A competent Protoss will not allow you to get repair on your bunkers and even so, the damage output of the Protoss army such as an immortal allin is insane, you cannot counter-repair it.
Monchi for example beats very good Terrans and he said he can play very well with Sentry/Zealot/Immortal against MMM as long as his economy is ahead eventually having to transition out of it, but it can work if you are spot on with forcefields. The current builds allow Protoss to play greedy, as 1 gate expansion is a very tricky thing to punish. If he follows it up with 4 gate pressure you can end up losing all your units for barely anything
3)Forcefields and the double-nexus chronoboost all into units instead of economy. Its like countering a non-splash allin with double or tripple reactors to get a high unit count with high damage output.
I understand the point you want to make, yet you have to understand that forcefields, especially in a situation where you have to defend an allin will not allow for a lot of micro. Ofcourse you can counter it, but its very hard, especially against those allins. You will not have ghosts by that time and a good Protoss can either push all your units out of range, or in a circle so they actually cannot attack.
Forcefields are a huge design flaw in my opinion. Good forcefields will leave your opponent nearly without a chance even with a superior army, while bad forcefields can lose you a game when you acutally would be perfectly fine. Protoss relies on forcefields way too much, but unfortunately I cannot see that change.
Honestly, I'm not sure you understood it. I was implying that the Protoss player has to micro to make those things work, because basically in all those situations the Terran army wins the a-move battle. (to show that Protoss is not just "a-move") (I agree that things like FF, and some other abilities that don't allow for any countermicro if properly done feel very "random" and unfair)
On March 18 2012 16:11 ChaosTerran wrote: [quote] Just tried 20vs20 with hellions in a straight line of 2 vs 20 chargelots clumped up. 10 chargelots survived. Want me to post that video aswell? I'll post both, or will you finally give it a rest. Your choice.
In video 2 and 3 I had music coming through my speakers and I didn't realize that (they are not in order, I first recorder 3 and then 2 and then 1) so I aplogize for that noise, just mute the video. The quality is still bad since the videos are being processed but they should be 1080p once that's finished. I did this all for you tomato and for fig. You are welcome guys <3
On March 18 2012 16:05 TheTomato wrote:
On March 18 2012 16:00 ChaosTerran wrote: [quote]
Doesn't matter, he claimed that 20 chargelots lose to 20 hellions unmicroed and it was a lie. Not my fault someone else is lying here. Hellions are bad in TvP everyone knows that, Jinro said it, give it a rest guys.
I even recorded a video just to prove that 20 chargelots beat 20 BFH hellions even with only 1-1 upgrades. I didn't lie, he did, and yes liard make me angry, because they contribute nothing to the discussion and direct the discussion to a misleading conclusion (obviously when you just make up facts). So yes, I get really angry at these people, because had I not checked everyone would now think that 20 chargelots lose to 20 BFH hellions, but they don't, it's a lie and I even recorded a video, so if you really want to keep disagreeing with me then fine, I'll upload it to youtube, it's gonna be a lot of fun for me to see you apologize then.
[quote]
First of all, I didn't insult you. Second of all, you lied, hence why I called you a liar. I have evidence, should I upload it to youtube, like do you really want to go there?
[i] If the hellions are in a line they win most of the time, if they in a ball of course they are going to lose. Hellions shoot in lines.
Just tried 20vs20 with hellions in a straight line of 2 vs 20 chargelots clumped up. 10 chargelots survived. Want me to post that video aswell? I'll post both, or will you finally give it a rest. Your choice.
Thanks you very much for the videos. Can I suggest another scenario? 100 templar against 1 Marine. Micro both sides of the battle in the same way you did in the above videos. I don't want to jump the gun, but if 15,000 gas and 5,000 minerals loses to 50 minerals, I think we can both agree something is very much wrong with the matchup.
Edit: Looking back, there may have been an argument about unmicroed chargelots against unmicroed hellion. While this would be a stupid argument, completely unrelated to Starcraft 2 balance, if that was the argument you were having, your videos do make some sense.
Excuse me? all the "protoss" does in that situation is a-move, why should the terran HAVE to micro to win if he has the "counter unit" hellion
Uhm thats the dumbest argument ever? If a protoss is fighting lings with stalkers why does he have to micro while the Z can just A move?! Why do i have to micro my sentries to place my "counter Z" forcefields? Quit being stupid plz and get back on topic.
I suggest you do the same. The videos present you pretty much the biggest problem in terran gameplay in general. Your units dont do shit against anything, without micro. Thats goes not just for hellions, but every frikkin unit. Comparing that to forcefields (had a good laugh, thank you) its, well, at least "naive".
Yeah, microed Hellions with a lot of space would devour the zealots. So? You dont have the luxury to kite zealots in a big fight. Protoss a-moves his army into yours, and goes back to macro. A terran has to rotate like a tornado with at least 250apm+ to beat "a-leftclick". Even your "counterarguments" are wrong, lings have to be microed vs stalker (especially earlygame) to surround them. Smartcasting forcefields has nothing to do with real micro. At all. It doesnt even need high apm, you could CLICK them vs T without using a hotkey and it still would be enough.
So, conclusion: yeah. Hellions can roast zealots. In theory. In theory, a warp-engine would be possible in reallife (the math proves it). Problem is, [i] theres no practical way to do it. Unless of course you want to sac the whole rest of your army, because you kited zealots - while collossi and every other a-move unit just smashes the rest of your unmicroed army.
let's play a quiz game I call: the answer is micro! This episode will be about Protoss (vs Terran) gameplay. (It's pretty easy, though in this thread one gets to the point to believe that some Terran players simply won't be able to answer those questions correctly)
1) Marines beat stalkers (and zealots) early on in a move duels (later on even harder, but that's not a realistic scenario most of the time). Question: How come Protoss pressures Terran with stalkers at that periode of time? 2) MMM (or just MM) demolish any kind of Protoss Gateway (or gateway + Immortal or gateway + void ray) allin, bunkers make this difference even bigger. So how come, there are Protoss "Immortal busts" or 6-8gates or blink allins etc against bunkered Terrans? 3) Marines beat any Protoss nonsplash composition early on on amove, so how come that Protoss can defend against such Terran pressure/allin strategies at that time? 4) Casters on a-move don't do anything apart from attack (if they can), so how come that storms and FFs occur in battles? 5) In bigger army compositions, melee units like zealots tend to get stuck behind the other units, so how come that most of the time we see zealots in the front of the other units?
Sentry guardian shield makes gateway units decent in a move battles and FF makes bunkers less efective. Zealots are good in late game because of basic unit positioning.
If you are trying to implay that these situations are the same with needing to kite half the map to make mmm (or hellions) good, then you are wrong. One click micro (unit positioning, spells, etc ) is completly different from constant kiting. Most people can do one of these with resonable succes while they have big trouble with the other until they reach a certain skill level.
yup, seeing how kiting was pretty much the first micro that was invented somewhat back in the beta and proper forcefielding took pretty much until GSL season 3, I can definatly see how people fail with one of those things (FF) nearly always on the ladder and do the other thing quite decently (kiting). Completly agree.
the problem with this however is that the toss has to micro in the early game while the terran has to micro in the lategame. having to spend some 100 apm on micro is no big deal when you have only 4-6 production buildings and only a handful of units, distributed among 3 different types of units.
it is a whole other story if a player has to micro his ass off with an army of over 100 supply against an opposing army which contains multiple things that can instantly destroy yours, all the while avoiding his beefy a-move chargelots and while simultaneously having to macro perfectly behind all this. because, you know, terrans cant catch up on missed production as easily as Z or P and have huge trouble anyway with post-battle warpins cleaning up the measly remainders of their army.
In video 2 and 3 I had music coming through my speakers and I didn't realize that (they are not in order, I first recorder 3 and then 2 and then 1) so I aplogize for that noise, just mute the video. The quality is still bad since the videos are being processed but they should be 1080p once that's finished. I did this all for you tomato and for fig. You are welcome guys <3
[quote] Just tried 20vs20 with hellions in a straight line of 2 vs 20 chargelots clumped up. 10 chargelots survived. Want me to post that video aswell? I'll post both, or will you finally give it a rest. Your choice.
Thanks you very much for the videos. Can I suggest another scenario? 100 templar against 1 Marine. Micro both sides of the battle in the same way you did in the above videos. I don't want to jump the gun, but if 15,000 gas and 5,000 minerals loses to 50 minerals, I think we can both agree something is very much wrong with the matchup.
Edit: Looking back, there may have been an argument about unmicroed chargelots against unmicroed hellion. While this would be a stupid argument, completely unrelated to Starcraft 2 balance, if that was the argument you were having, your videos do make some sense.
Excuse me? all the "protoss" does in that situation is a-move, why should the terran HAVE to micro to win if he has the "counter unit" hellion
Uhm thats the dumbest argument ever? If a protoss is fighting lings with stalkers why does he have to micro while the Z can just A move?! Why do i have to micro my sentries to place my "counter Z" forcefields? Quit being stupid plz and get back on topic.
I suggest you do the same. The videos present you pretty much the biggest problem in terran gameplay in general. Your units dont do shit against anything, without micro. Thats goes not just for hellions, but every frikkin unit. Comparing that to forcefields (had a good laugh, thank you) its, well, at least "naive".
Yeah, microed Hellions with a lot of space would devour the zealots. So? You dont have the luxury to kite zealots in a big fight. Protoss a-moves his army into yours, and goes back to macro. A terran has to rotate like a tornado with at least 250apm+ to beat "a-leftclick". Even your "counterarguments" are wrong, lings have to be microed vs stalker (especially earlygame) to surround them. Smartcasting forcefields has nothing to do with real micro. At all. It doesnt even need high apm, you could CLICK them vs T without using a hotkey and it still would be enough.
So, conclusion: yeah. Hellions can roast zealots. In theory. In theory, a warp-engine would be possible in reallife (the math proves it). Problem is, theres no practical way to do it. Unless of course you want to sac the whole rest of your army, because you kited zealots - while collossi and every other a-move unit just smashes the rest of your unmicroed army.
let's play a quiz game I call: the answer is micro! This episode will be about Protoss (vs Terran) gameplay. (It's pretty easy, though in this thread one gets to the point to believe that some Terran players simply won't be able to answer those questions correctly)
1) Marines beat stalkers (and zealots) early on in a move duels (later on even harder, but that's not a realistic scenario most of the time). Question: How come Protoss pressures Terran with stalkers at that periode of time?
2) MMM (or just MM) demolish any kind of Protoss Gateway (or gateway + Immortal or gateway + void ray) allin, bunkers make this difference even bigger. So how come, there are Protoss "Immortal busts" or 6-8gates or blink allins etc against bunkered Terrans?
3) Marines beat any Protoss nonsplash composition early on on amove, so how come that Protoss can defend against such Terran pressure/allin strategies at that time?
1)Stalkers have higher range and are faster, also regenerate shield out of battle. As long as you cannot harm the stalker with enough damage per shot he can and will kite you.
2) The truth is, you will most likely not have a high enough medivac count to counter immortal / gateway allins IF at all have them. Bunkers are very good, if you could actually repair them. A competent Protoss will not allow you to get repair on your bunkers and even so, the damage output of the Protoss army such as an immortal allin is insane, you cannot counter-repair it.
Monchi for example beats very good Terrans and he said he can play very well with Sentry/Zealot/Immortal against MMM as long as his economy is ahead eventually having to transition out of it, but it can work if you are spot on with forcefields. The current builds allow Protoss to play greedy, as 1 gate expansion is a very tricky thing to punish. If he follows it up with 4 gate pressure you can end up losing all your units for barely anything
3)Forcefields and the double-nexus chronoboost all into units instead of economy. Its like countering a non-splash allin with double or tripple reactors to get a high unit count with high damage output.
I understand the point you want to make, yet you have to understand that forcefields, especially in a situation where you have to defend an allin will not allow for a lot of micro. Ofcourse you can counter it, but its very hard, especially against those allins. You will not have ghosts by that time and a good Protoss can either push all your units out of range, or in a circle so they actually cannot attack.
Forcefields are a huge design flaw in my opinion. Good forcefields will leave your opponent nearly without a chance even with a superior army, while bad forcefields can lose you a game when you acutally would be perfectly fine. Protoss relies on forcefields way too much, but unfortunately I cannot see that change.
Honestly, I'm not sure you understood it. I was implying that the Protoss player has to micro to make those things work, because basically in all those situations the Terran army wins the a-move battle. (to show that Protoss is not just "a-move") (I agree that things like FF, and some other abilities that don't allow for any countermicro if properly done feel very "random" and unfair)
In video 2 and 3 I had music coming through my speakers and I didn't realize that (they are not in order, I first recorder 3 and then 2 and then 1) so I aplogize for that noise, just mute the video. The quality is still bad since the videos are being processed but they should be 1080p once that's finished. I did this all for you tomato and for fig. You are welcome guys <3
[quote] Just tried 20vs20 with hellions in a straight line of 2 vs 20 chargelots clumped up. 10 chargelots survived. Want me to post that video aswell? I'll post both, or will you finally give it a rest. Your choice.
Thanks you very much for the videos. Can I suggest another scenario? 100 templar against 1 Marine. Micro both sides of the battle in the same way you did in the above videos. I don't want to jump the gun, but if 15,000 gas and 5,000 minerals loses to 50 minerals, I think we can both agree something is very much wrong with the matchup.
Edit: Looking back, there may have been an argument about unmicroed chargelots against unmicroed hellion. While this would be a stupid argument, completely unrelated to Starcraft 2 balance, if that was the argument you were having, your videos do make some sense.
Excuse me? all the "protoss" does in that situation is a-move, why should the terran HAVE to micro to win if he has the "counter unit" hellion
Uhm thats the dumbest argument ever? If a protoss is fighting lings with stalkers why does he have to micro while the Z can just A move?! Why do i have to micro my sentries to place my "counter Z" forcefields? Quit being stupid plz and get back on topic.
I suggest you do the same. The videos present you pretty much the biggest problem in terran gameplay in general. Your units dont do shit against anything, without micro. Thats goes not just for hellions, but every frikkin unit. Comparing that to forcefields (had a good laugh, thank you) its, well, at least "naive".
Yeah, microed Hellions with a lot of space would devour the zealots. So? You dont have the luxury to kite zealots in a big fight. Protoss a-moves his army into yours, and goes back to macro. A terran has to rotate like a tornado with at least 250apm+ to beat "a-leftclick". Even your "counterarguments" are wrong, lings have to be microed vs stalker (especially earlygame) to surround them. Smartcasting forcefields has nothing to do with real micro. At all. It doesnt even need high apm, you could CLICK them vs T without using a hotkey and it still would be enough.
So, conclusion: yeah. Hellions can roast zealots. In theory. In theory, a warp-engine would be possible in reallife (the math proves it). Problem is, [i] theres no practical way to do it. Unless of course you want to sac the whole rest of your army, because you kited zealots - while collossi and every other a-move unit just smashes the rest of your unmicroed army.
let's play a quiz game I call: the answer is micro! This episode will be about Protoss (vs Terran) gameplay. (It's pretty easy, though in this thread one gets to the point to believe that some Terran players simply won't be able to answer those questions correctly)
1) Marines beat stalkers (and zealots) early on in a move duels (later on even harder, but that's not a realistic scenario most of the time). Question: How come Protoss pressures Terran with stalkers at that periode of time? 2) MMM (or just MM) demolish any kind of Protoss Gateway (or gateway + Immortal or gateway + void ray) allin, bunkers make this difference even bigger. So how come, there are Protoss "Immortal busts" or 6-8gates or blink allins etc against bunkered Terrans? 3) Marines beat any Protoss nonsplash composition early on on amove, so how come that Protoss can defend against such Terran pressure/allin strategies at that time? 4) Casters on a-move don't do anything apart from attack (if they can), so how come that storms and FFs occur in battles? 5) In bigger army compositions, melee units like zealots tend to get stuck behind the other units, so how come that most of the time we see zealots in the front of the other units?
Sentry guardian shield makes gateway units decent in a move battles and FF makes bunkers less efective. Zealots are good in late game because of basic unit positioning.
If you are trying to implay that these situations are the same with needing to kite half the map to make mmm (or hellions) good, then you are wrong. One click micro (unit positioning, spells, etc ) is completly different from constant kiting. Most people can do one of these with resonable succes while they have big trouble with the other until they reach a certain skill level.
yup, seeing how kiting was pretty much the first micro that was invented somewhat back in the beta and proper forcefielding took pretty much until GSL season 3, I can definatly see how people fail with one of those things (FF) nearly always on the ladder and do the other thing quite decently (kiting). Completly agree.
I really think all those who say Protoss doesn't require skill/micro simply QQ. It only hurts them but no player that is actually just a bit skilled would say Protoss doesn't need micro.
Whenever a discussion requires derailing, you're there to provide the service.
Am I? Please go through my posts this thread, which nearly all have been constructive and I did actually not post a single line of whine here, but all the suggestions I give are simply written off as bullshit instead of trying.
In video 2 and 3 I had music coming through my speakers and I didn't realize that (they are not in order, I first recorder 3 and then 2 and then 1) so I aplogize for that noise, just mute the video. The quality is still bad since the videos are being processed but they should be 1080p once that's finished. I did this all for you tomato and for fig. You are welcome guys <3
On March 18 2012 16:05 TheTomato wrote: [quote] If the hellions are in a line they win most of the time, if they in a ball of course they are going to lose. Hellions shoot in lines.
Just tried 20vs20 with hellions in a straight line of 2 vs 20 chargelots clumped up. 10 chargelots survived. Want me to post that video aswell? I'll post both, or will you finally give it a rest. Your choice.
Thanks you very much for the videos. Can I suggest another scenario? 100 templar against 1 Marine. Micro both sides of the battle in the same way you did in the above videos. I don't want to jump the gun, but if 15,000 gas and 5,000 minerals loses to 50 minerals, I think we can both agree something is very much wrong with the matchup.
Edit: Looking back, there may have been an argument about unmicroed chargelots against unmicroed hellion. While this would be a stupid argument, completely unrelated to Starcraft 2 balance, if that was the argument you were having, your videos do make some sense.
Excuse me? all the "protoss" does in that situation is a-move, why should the terran HAVE to micro to win if he has the "counter unit" hellion
Uhm thats the dumbest argument ever? If a protoss is fighting lings with stalkers why does he have to micro while the Z can just A move?! Why do i have to micro my sentries to place my "counter Z" forcefields? Quit being stupid plz and get back on topic.
I suggest you do the same. The videos present you pretty much the biggest problem in terran gameplay in general. Your units dont do shit against anything, without micro. Thats goes not just for hellions, but every frikkin unit. Comparing that to forcefields (had a good laugh, thank you) its, well, at least "naive".
Yeah, microed Hellions with a lot of space would devour the zealots. So? You dont have the luxury to kite zealots in a big fight. Protoss a-moves his army into yours, and goes back to macro. A terran has to rotate like a tornado with at least 250apm+ to beat "a-leftclick". Even your "counterarguments" are wrong, lings have to be microed vs stalker (especially earlygame) to surround them. Smartcasting forcefields has nothing to do with real micro. At all. It doesnt even need high apm, you could CLICK them vs T without using a hotkey and it still would be enough.
So, conclusion: yeah. Hellions can roast zealots. In theory. In theory, a warp-engine would be possible in reallife (the math proves it). Problem is, theres no practical way to do it. Unless of course you want to sac the whole rest of your army, because you kited zealots - while collossi and every other a-move unit just smashes the rest of your unmicroed army.
let's play a quiz game I call: the answer is micro! This episode will be about Protoss (vs Terran) gameplay. (It's pretty easy, though in this thread one gets to the point to believe that some Terran players simply won't be able to answer those questions correctly)
1) Marines beat stalkers (and zealots) early on in a move duels (later on even harder, but that's not a realistic scenario most of the time). Question: How come Protoss pressures Terran with stalkers at that periode of time?
2) MMM (or just MM) demolish any kind of Protoss Gateway (or gateway + Immortal or gateway + void ray) allin, bunkers make this difference even bigger. So how come, there are Protoss "Immortal busts" or 6-8gates or blink allins etc against bunkered Terrans?
3) Marines beat any Protoss nonsplash composition early on on amove, so how come that Protoss can defend against such Terran pressure/allin strategies at that time?
1)Stalkers have higher range and are faster, also regenerate shield out of battle. As long as you cannot harm the stalker with enough damage per shot he can and will kite you.
2) The truth is, you will most likely not have a high enough medivac count to counter immortal / gateway allins IF at all have them. Bunkers are very good, if you could actually repair them. A competent Protoss will not allow you to get repair on your bunkers and even so, the damage output of the Protoss army such as an immortal allin is insane, you cannot counter-repair it.
Monchi for example beats very good Terrans and he said he can play very well with Sentry/Zealot/Immortal against MMM as long as his economy is ahead eventually having to transition out of it, but it can work if you are spot on with forcefields. The current builds allow Protoss to play greedy, as 1 gate expansion is a very tricky thing to punish. If he follows it up with 4 gate pressure you can end up losing all your units for barely anything
3)Forcefields and the double-nexus chronoboost all into units instead of economy. Its like countering a non-splash allin with double or tripple reactors to get a high unit count with high damage output.
I understand the point you want to make, yet you have to understand that forcefields, especially in a situation where you have to defend an allin will not allow for a lot of micro. Ofcourse you can counter it, but its very hard, especially against those allins. You will not have ghosts by that time and a good Protoss can either push all your units out of range, or in a circle so they actually cannot attack.
Forcefields are a huge design flaw in my opinion. Good forcefields will leave your opponent nearly without a chance even with a superior army, while bad forcefields can lose you a game when you acutally would be perfectly fine. Protoss relies on forcefields way too much, but unfortunately I cannot see that change.
Honestly, I'm not sure you understood it. I was implying that the Protoss player has to micro to make those things work, because basically in all those situations the Terran army wins the a-move battle. (to show that Protoss is not just "a-move") (I agree that things like FF, and some other abilities that don't allow for any countermicro if properly done feel very "random" and unfair)
In video 2 and 3 I had music coming through my speakers and I didn't realize that (they are not in order, I first recorder 3 and then 2 and then 1) so I aplogize for that noise, just mute the video. The quality is still bad since the videos are being processed but they should be 1080p once that's finished. I did this all for you tomato and for fig. You are welcome guys <3
On March 18 2012 16:05 TheTomato wrote: [quote] [i] If the hellions are in a line they win most of the time, if they in a ball of course they are going to lose. Hellions shoot in lines.
Just tried 20vs20 with hellions in a straight line of 2 vs 20 chargelots clumped up. 10 chargelots survived. Want me to post that video aswell? I'll post both, or will you finally give it a rest. Your choice.
Thanks you very much for the videos. Can I suggest another scenario? 100 templar against 1 Marine. Micro both sides of the battle in the same way you did in the above videos. I don't want to jump the gun, but if 15,000 gas and 5,000 minerals loses to 50 minerals, I think we can both agree something is very much wrong with the matchup.
Edit: Looking back, there may have been an argument about unmicroed chargelots against unmicroed hellion. While this would be a stupid argument, completely unrelated to Starcraft 2 balance, if that was the argument you were having, your videos do make some sense.
Excuse me? all the "protoss" does in that situation is a-move, why should the terran HAVE to micro to win if he has the "counter unit" hellion
Uhm thats the dumbest argument ever? If a protoss is fighting lings with stalkers why does he have to micro while the Z can just A move?! Why do i have to micro my sentries to place my "counter Z" forcefields? Quit being stupid plz and get back on topic.
I suggest you do the same. The videos present you pretty much the biggest problem in terran gameplay in general. Your units dont do shit against anything, without micro. Thats goes not just for hellions, but every frikkin unit. Comparing that to forcefields (had a good laugh, thank you) its, well, at least "naive".
Yeah, microed Hellions with a lot of space would devour the zealots. So? You dont have the luxury to kite zealots in a big fight. Protoss a-moves his army into yours, and goes back to macro. A terran has to rotate like a tornado with at least 250apm+ to beat "a-leftclick". Even your "counterarguments" are wrong, lings have to be microed vs stalker (especially earlygame) to surround them. Smartcasting forcefields has nothing to do with real micro. At all. It doesnt even need high apm, you could CLICK them vs T without using a hotkey and it still would be enough.
So, conclusion: yeah. Hellions can roast zealots. In theory. In theory, a warp-engine would be possible in reallife (the math proves it). Problem is, [i] theres no practical way to do it. Unless of course you want to sac the whole rest of your army, because you kited zealots - while collossi and every other a-move unit just smashes the rest of your unmicroed army.
let's play a quiz game I call: the answer is micro! This episode will be about Protoss (vs Terran) gameplay. (It's pretty easy, though in this thread one gets to the point to believe that some Terran players simply won't be able to answer those questions correctly)
1) Marines beat stalkers (and zealots) early on in a move duels (later on even harder, but that's not a realistic scenario most of the time). Question: How come Protoss pressures Terran with stalkers at that periode of time? 2) MMM (or just MM) demolish any kind of Protoss Gateway (or gateway + Immortal or gateway + void ray) allin, bunkers make this difference even bigger. So how come, there are Protoss "Immortal busts" or 6-8gates or blink allins etc against bunkered Terrans? 3) Marines beat any Protoss nonsplash composition early on on amove, so how come that Protoss can defend against such Terran pressure/allin strategies at that time? 4) Casters on a-move don't do anything apart from attack (if they can), so how come that storms and FFs occur in battles? 5) In bigger army compositions, melee units like zealots tend to get stuck behind the other units, so how come that most of the time we see zealots in the front of the other units?
Sentry guardian shield makes gateway units decent in a move battles and FF makes bunkers less efective. Zealots are good in late game because of basic unit positioning.
If you are trying to implay that these situations are the same with needing to kite half the map to make mmm (or hellions) good, then you are wrong. One click micro (unit positioning, spells, etc ) is completly different from constant kiting. Most people can do one of these with resonable succes while they have big trouble with the other until they reach a certain skill level.
yup, seeing how kiting was pretty much the first micro that was invented somewhat back in the beta and proper forcefielding took pretty much until GSL season 3, I can definatly see how people fail with one of those things (FF) nearly always on the ladder and do the other thing quite decently (kiting). Completly agree.
Sorry to disagree with you. I will take your sarcasm as a sign of superiority and hope that you will continue with anecdotes and quizzes so enlighten us all.
You really don't have to be sorry for disagreeing. Especially in discussion about people's skills and abilities (like if you are better with FF or with kiting), it all comes down to personal strength's and can't be generalized. If you are better with FF than with kiting (or generally better with Protoss than with Terran, because it is easier for you), I can only tell you that skillwise you should consider switching races.
Terran just requires better mechanics than protoss or zerg, and truth be told, it was the same way in SC1. There's a reason that 4 of the 5 bonjwas were Terran and 3 of the top 5 Koreans right now according to TL are Terran. It's precisely because it requires better mechanics, meaning that there is a higher skill ceiling, which makes the difference between good and bad Terrans much wider.
On March 19 2012 01:44 Xirroh wrote: To get this discussion back on track, a summary of where we are:
The frustration of Terran is not coming from absolute imbalance. As stated many times Korean terrans are still doing well. The frustration is from a relative imbalance in terms of the APM/unit control required of the terran vs the protoss in the late game.
It appears to the terrans posting here that terran requires a significant amount more unit control skill to trade effectively vs Protoss in the late game with Bio. Other units with less APM requirements (mech/air) don't work as well vs Protoss, Whether this is fair or not is somewhat of a separate discussion.
It seems reasonable that mid-high level terrans would become frustrated by losing games because of unit control when their opponent is not effected in the same way. They would perceive an unfairness (whether real or not) and possibly give up the game or switch races. This is maybe "where they went".
Personal opinions: Unit control seems more important for terran then for protoss at the mid-high levels of unprofessional play in the late game. This is frustrating and appears unfair. However races are balanced differently. It's hard to say if things are actually unfair.
To answer the OP's question: TvP at least appears unfair for terran, whether true or not (an opinion the 70+ pages of previous posts will show). Frustration with this apparent unfairness may explain "where the went" (quitting / another race / playing less).
Solution? Give terran a less APM / fragile style of play vs protoss.
Or
Terrans could man up.
or make protoss harder to play?
See, that's basically an okay idea, but you need to understand that in making protoss harder, they also need to make it better, at the pro level at least. Make changes that allow high skill protoss players to outmicro their way out of a jam. With the state of the pro level as it is it'd be stupid to make terran simply stronger or protoss simply weaker, and I don't think people want to see much dumbing down of terran micro.
Give the best players of the other races options that make them consistent contenders at the pro level, and then you can see about general balance for all skill levels afterwards.
Every time someone says "The terrans in the GSL are just better" or that they have a better broodwar pedigree or something, we're delaying the kind of changes this game needs to see.
On March 19 2012 01:42 Blasterion wrote: Hellions suck Vultures and mines please. Too bad standard TvT/TvZ marine tank style fails hard in TvP =/ i really like my tanks.
Mines would not help. Toss could just kill them in one or two colossus swipe. Stalker can blink to avoid them, Immortal can run in a minefield and take 10 mines with only his shield. In the other hand, not having hellion is a pretty bad idea for TvZ.
On March 19 2012 01:42 Blasterion wrote: Hellions suck Vultures and mines please. Too bad standard TvT/TvZ marine tank style fails hard in TvP =/ i really like my tanks.
Mines would not help. Toss could just kill them in one or two colossus swipe. Stalker can blink to avoid them, Immortal can run in a minefield and take 10 mines with only his shield. In the other hand, not having hellion is a pretty bad idea for TvZ.
Mines never stopped Protoss pushes, But it delayed them. Mines would be beautiful. Mines would save mech. I really want to see how well shredder plays out since that's as close as it gets.
On March 19 2012 02:00 huehuehuehue wrote: I think just give the other races some units that need micro and make mech viable in TvP and everything will be fine. I don't think blizzard should make T easier.
"Make mech viable" is actually equivalent for me to "make T easier" honestly. You want a doom army that can rape the Protoss army lategame without much micro. Assuming mech works, it's not the most mechanically demanding build in the game (aka Goody's existence).
I'm not saying I disagree with you, playing mech would be cool, and not that easy either, but giving a race more options without removing any makes it easier to play, de facto. Now I'm all for making the other races harder to play. I would switch back to Protoss if it became like "teh hard mode", instead I switched to Terran as soon as it appeared they weren't doing so good :D
Honestly though, Terran changes for HotS look much more promising that the Protoss ones. Look forward to it.
EPT
