|
This thread is going nowhere and I'm tired of dealing with it. Either drop the personal attacks and whining and replace it with actual discussion or it'll be closed.
12:09 KST Page 98 |
On June 25 2012 21:04 Meff wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2012 18:43 SnipedSoul wrote:
Terran needs to slow down the zerg economy or enter the midgame with a huge disadvantage being down 30 workers. I'm not entirely sure about the truth of this statement. MULEs last for 90 seconds and are equivalent to 4 workers. If I'm not mistaken, OCs generate 50 energy in about 80 seconds, so we can approximate each OC as being equivalent to an extra 4.5 workers. If instead of getting gas and hellions, T builds an additional OC (getting 4 instead of the usual 3), then we're looking at about an 18 workers leeway. This means that if you can saturate your main and natural by the time Z has saturated his three bases, then you're about even. And with a 4 OC build... I don't know, it sort of seems doable. The disadvantage is that you enter the midgame with access to less gas than Z (4 geysers vs 6, presumably quickly going to 6 to 8 since Z is likely to grab a fourth when you claim your third), but you should have a substantial mineral income advantage once the third gets claimed - or at least you should have a ton of scans for clearing creep. I'm not saying that it will surely work, but I've got the suspicion that it might.
The Mule being equal to four workers is calculated with the time it takes for the orbital to accumilate 50 energy, the time it takes for the mule to acually bring in the extra money doesnt matter.
Going for a fast third used to be a very solid build. The Hellions kept the Zerg on lower drone count and stopt the third base from going up for a while. At the time the hellions were dealt with and the Zerg got his third base the Terran would be close to saturating his main and nat, and it was a pretty close game (Note that I am not a pro by any means, so maybe pros thought that the Terran had an advantage going into this mid game situation).
In the current state however, the hellions dont keep the Zerg economy lower. I believe that going for a fast third is still plausible, but at least a lot harder. The Zerg can get their economy up significantly faster and the Terran is much more vulnerable. You already see some very potent 3 base Zerg pushes where Terrans have a very hard time holding on (It kinda reminds me of ZvP a while back where the Protoss was hardly holding on and generally took a very late third as a result).
Having said the "problem" of the current fast 3 base, it looks like its a dead wish to go up to very fast 4 OC. Only when you are very sure that your opponent goes for a very late game push it seems viable.
|
On June 25 2012 21:08 Rockmonsterdude wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2012 21:01 iaguz wrote:
Tank buff would be a fucking awful idea. in TvZ the only difference is that tanks would 1shot upgraded lings pre-+1 weapons upgrade and be slightly better vs queens. That's it. But if you were to do that you'd turn TvT back into mech only and probably fuck over TvP while you're at it. I think tanks should be good, it is the staple of the Terran race... Now it is shit... Tanks was nerfed because of the maps and now we have huge maps so why should it not have back the damage it had?! edit. Just wanted to add... And it would make zerg not be able to just have mass zerglings very long into a game.
Or they could just give tanks a hold fire/target fire only command. It would help very much against infestor broodlord.
|
Zerg is soooo OP! its not even funny.
User was warned for this post
|
On June 25 2012 21:19 aka_star wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2012 21:08 Rockmonsterdude wrote:On June 25 2012 21:01 iaguz wrote:
Tank buff would be a fucking awful idea. in TvZ the only difference is that tanks would 1shot upgraded lings pre-+1 weapons upgrade and be slightly better vs queens. That's it. But if you were to do that you'd turn TvT back into mech only and probably fuck over TvP while you're at it. I think tanks should be good, it is the staple of the Terran race... Now it is shit... Tanks was nerfed because of the maps and now we have huge maps so why should it not have back the damage it had?! edit. Just wanted to add... And it would make zerg not be able to just have mass zerglings very long into a game. Yes and perhaps give zerg a tank so it can tank the Terran tank so it would not be in the game very long too. Seriously, its damage was reduced and the patch notes said it was because it did too much damage to light units. Its role is to kill armored units and be less effective vs light so asking for more damage means your not using your units effectively enough.
It did to much damage because maps was so small back then and had alot of narrow paths...
|
Tanks are not really the problem. I'm against a return to the beta tanks because 50 damage tanks would be fucking obscene in TvT and TvP. Does anyone else remember how fun viking/tank was back in the day? Nobody does because it was fucking awful.
|
On June 25 2012 21:27 Deckkie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2012 21:04 Meff wrote:On June 25 2012 18:43 SnipedSoul wrote:
Terran needs to slow down the zerg economy or enter the midgame with a huge disadvantage being down 30 workers. I'm not entirely sure about the truth of this statement. MULEs last for 90 seconds and are equivalent to 4 workers. If I'm not mistaken, OCs generate 50 energy in about 80 seconds, so we can approximate each OC as being equivalent to an extra 4.5 workers. If instead of getting gas and hellions, T builds an additional OC (getting 4 instead of the usual 3), then we're looking at about an 18 workers leeway. This means that if you can saturate your main and natural by the time Z has saturated his three bases, then you're about even. And with a 4 OC build... I don't know, it sort of seems doable. The disadvantage is that you enter the midgame with access to less gas than Z (4 geysers vs 6, presumably quickly going to 6 to 8 since Z is likely to grab a fourth when you claim your third), but you should have a substantial mineral income advantage once the third gets claimed - or at least you should have a ton of scans for clearing creep. I'm not saying that it will surely work, but I've got the suspicion that it might. The Mule being equal to four workers is calculated with the time it takes for the orbital to accumilate 50 energy, the time it takes for the mule to acually bring in the extra money doesnt matter. Going for a fast third used to be a very solid build. The Hellions kept the Zerg on lower drone count and stopt the third base from going up for a while. At the time the hellions were dealt with and the Zerg got his third base the Terran would be close to saturating his main and nat, and it was a pretty close game (Note that I am not a pro by any means, so maybe pros thought that the Terran had an advantage going into this mid game situation). In the current state however, the hellions dont keep the Zerg economy lower. I believe that going for a fast third is still plausible, but at least a lot harder. The Zerg can get their economy up significantly faster and the Terran is much more vulnerable. You already see some very potent 3 base Zerg pushes where Terrans have a very hard time holding on (It kinda reminds me of ZvP a while back where the Protoss was hardly holding on and generally took a very late third as a result). Having said the "problem" of the current fast 3 base, it looks like its a dead wish to go up to very fast 4 OC. Only when you are very sure that your opponent goes for a very late game push it seems viable.
Hmm... one thing that Z doesn't deal well with unless they tech is a critical number of siege tanks. Do you think that it would be possible, to be safe from a 3 base all-in from Z, to just turtle for a couple more minutes in your natural, then take the third while pushing to take advantage of the fact that hive tech must be delayed?
After all, 2 bases + 4 MULEs are equal, at least mineral-wise, to 3 bases. In fact, 2 over-saturated bases + 4 MULEs are better than 3 bases in that regard. As long as T has at least 2 mining bases, he should be at least equal with Z.
(sorry if this sounds like nonsense, I don't know the exact timings of the all-ins you're referring to - nor how easy they are to scout. More details could help me understand whether this is a dead end or not)
P.S.: as for the MULE, it was actually the minerals/minute that are equal to 4 workers (see the calculations on http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/MULE ). Since you have two out at a time for 10 seconds and one at a time for 70 seconds after that, it does indeed average out to 4.5 extra workers. Not a large difference anyway, mind.
|
On June 25 2012 21:38 Rockmonsterdude wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2012 21:19 aka_star wrote:On June 25 2012 21:08 Rockmonsterdude wrote:On June 25 2012 21:01 iaguz wrote:
Tank buff would be a fucking awful idea. in TvZ the only difference is that tanks would 1shot upgraded lings pre-+1 weapons upgrade and be slightly better vs queens. That's it. But if you were to do that you'd turn TvT back into mech only and probably fuck over TvP while you're at it. I think tanks should be good, it is the staple of the Terran race... Now it is shit... Tanks was nerfed because of the maps and now we have huge maps so why should it not have back the damage it had?! edit. Just wanted to add... And it would make zerg not be able to just have mass zerglings very long into a game. Yes and perhaps give zerg a tank so it can tank the Terran tank so it would not be in the game very long too. Seriously, its damage was reduced and the patch notes said it was because it did too much damage to light units. Its role is to kill armored units and be less effective vs light so asking for more damage means your not using your units effectively enough. It did to much damage because maps was so small back then and had alot of narrow paths...
Also players became much better now at the highest level. So if tanks would do more damage it would become more important as Zerg or Protoss to split against them like to split against Storm for example. I think that would actually make Protoss and Zerg micro more important. But it could also easily become overpowered, so giving tanks more damage has to be tested and thought about a lot.
It would be really good if tanks were made to a unit that forces micro out of other players. Make tanks so that they are strong when you don't micro against them but weak when micro'ed against correctly.
|
On June 25 2012 21:58 Yello wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2012 21:38 Rockmonsterdude wrote:On June 25 2012 21:19 aka_star wrote:On June 25 2012 21:08 Rockmonsterdude wrote:On June 25 2012 21:01 iaguz wrote:
Tank buff would be a fucking awful idea. in TvZ the only difference is that tanks would 1shot upgraded lings pre-+1 weapons upgrade and be slightly better vs queens. That's it. But if you were to do that you'd turn TvT back into mech only and probably fuck over TvP while you're at it. I think tanks should be good, it is the staple of the Terran race... Now it is shit... Tanks was nerfed because of the maps and now we have huge maps so why should it not have back the damage it had?! edit. Just wanted to add... And it would make zerg not be able to just have mass zerglings very long into a game. Yes and perhaps give zerg a tank so it can tank the Terran tank so it would not be in the game very long too. Seriously, its damage was reduced and the patch notes said it was because it did too much damage to light units. Its role is to kill armored units and be less effective vs light so asking for more damage means your not using your units effectively enough. It did to much damage because maps was so small back then and had alot of narrow paths... Also players became much better now at the highest level. So if tanks would do more damage it would become more important as Zerg or Protoss to split against them like to split against Storm for example. I think that would actually make Protoss and Zerg micro more important. But it could also easily become overpowered, so giving tanks more damage has to be tested and thought about a lot. It would be really good if tanks were made to a unit that forces micro out of other players. Make tanks so that they are strong when you don't micro against them but weak when micro'ed against correctly.
Yeah! This is a great point! It would make the a move with protoss and zerg harder which is one of the biggest problems.
|
On June 25 2012 17:06 freakhill wrote:
1 terran top8 NASL...
demuslim played very nice games though
yeah man. Queen buff surely improved PvT a lot. I mean, if we were going to talk about the NASL.
------------------------------
Thanks for the responses to my ghost question. I've tried it a few times before but never got it to work. Thought it was user error since I'm still in Plat. I see that the fact that a banshee can just run away is its biggest asset.
|
On June 25 2012 21:58 Meff wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2012 21:27 Deckkie wrote:On June 25 2012 21:04 Meff wrote:On June 25 2012 18:43 SnipedSoul wrote:
Terran needs to slow down the zerg economy or enter the midgame with a huge disadvantage being down 30 workers. I'm not entirely sure about the truth of this statement. MULEs last for 90 seconds and are equivalent to 4 workers. If I'm not mistaken, OCs generate 50 energy in about 80 seconds, so we can approximate each OC as being equivalent to an extra 4.5 workers. If instead of getting gas and hellions, T builds an additional OC (getting 4 instead of the usual 3), then we're looking at about an 18 workers leeway. This means that if you can saturate your main and natural by the time Z has saturated his three bases, then you're about even. And with a 4 OC build... I don't know, it sort of seems doable. The disadvantage is that you enter the midgame with access to less gas than Z (4 geysers vs 6, presumably quickly going to 6 to 8 since Z is likely to grab a fourth when you claim your third), but you should have a substantial mineral income advantage once the third gets claimed - or at least you should have a ton of scans for clearing creep. I'm not saying that it will surely work, but I've got the suspicion that it might. The Mule being equal to four workers is calculated with the time it takes for the orbital to accumilate 50 energy, the time it takes for the mule to acually bring in the extra money doesnt matter. Going for a fast third used to be a very solid build. The Hellions kept the Zerg on lower drone count and stopt the third base from going up for a while. At the time the hellions were dealt with and the Zerg got his third base the Terran would be close to saturating his main and nat, and it was a pretty close game (Note that I am not a pro by any means, so maybe pros thought that the Terran had an advantage going into this mid game situation). In the current state however, the hellions dont keep the Zerg economy lower. I believe that going for a fast third is still plausible, but at least a lot harder. The Zerg can get their economy up significantly faster and the Terran is much more vulnerable. You already see some very potent 3 base Zerg pushes where Terrans have a very hard time holding on (It kinda reminds me of ZvP a while back where the Protoss was hardly holding on and generally took a very late third as a result). Having said the "problem" of the current fast 3 base, it looks like its a dead wish to go up to very fast 4 OC. Only when you are very sure that your opponent goes for a very late game push it seems viable. Hmm... one thing that Z doesn't deal well with unless they tech is a critical number of siege tanks. Do you think that it would be possible, to be safe from a 3 base all-in from Z, to just turtle for a couple more minutes in your natural, then take the third while pushing to take advantage of the fact that hive tech must be delayed? After all, 2 bases + 4 MULEs are equal, at least mineral-wise, to 3 bases. In fact, 2 over-saturated bases + 4 MULEs are better than 3 bases in that regard. As long as T has at least 2 mining bases, he should be at least equal with Z. (sorry if this sounds like nonsense, I don't know the exact timings of the all-ins you're referring to - nor how easy they are to scout. More details could help me understand whether this is a dead end or not) P.S.: as for the MULE, it was actually the minerals/minute that are equal to 4 workers (see the calculations on http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/MULE ). Since you have two out at a time for 10 seconds and one at a time for 70 seconds after that, it does indeed average out to 4.5 extra workers. Not a large difference anyway, mind.
Its been a long time since I ded research on the mule. But this were my results back then: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=187243
The ability to defend the natural will depend a lot on the map thats being played. Going straight into three orbitals already makes it hard to defend, I will not say that your strat is impossible, but would it become the meta, I do think (as a first thought) that it will be very easy to break as zerg. Not only does it slow down the tech, it also gives the Terran less units in a cetrain time span. Getting up the frouth CC and transforming it into a OC will take time. And only at the third mule will you start making money out of it. I believe a CC takes around 2 min to build, making it a OC will take another 30-40 sec, and then every mule will take 1.5 min to make. If you also start making SCV's out of it, there will be even less money for a army.
Last thing I will add is that Terran is very much a three base 8 gass race. A fourth base is only needed when the third base is run out of minerals. Although it is not uncommen in TvP to make extra orbitals for Mules I have never seen it early games, since it does cut in heavily in a two base army.
|
Giving tanks more power will make other races even T in Tvt scream OP but once ppl start to spread better etc, it will a non issue. This is ofc that maps like xfire will never be introduced again =p.
|
As a mid master player I'm not too worried yet because at my level it's possible to overcome imbalance with better mechanics. You get wins over toss and Zerg players just because they're bad and can't macro well while defending multi-prong drops. So basically, until you're high master you can't blame your losses on imbalance because you could just get better at the game. If you're mad that the Zerg defends all your pressure, but you float 2k min and take an extremely late 3rd while doing that pressure, then you lost because you failed. I invite any mid master and below Terran to post recent replays against P and Z so I can point out your horrible mistakes that contributed to your loss more than imbalance.
Just to prove my point, here are recent replays of me playing mid master Z and P players on daybreak and cloud kingdom. In these games I go mass marine. I am basically fucking around in these games but my opponents do not have sufficient skill level to beat it. And I even float lots of money in these games. So until you're high master or GM, please stop trying to excuse your failure  .
http://drop.sc/204706
http://drop.sc/204707
http://drop.sc/204709
http://drop.sc/204710
|
On June 25 2012 22:38 Doodsmack wrote:As a mid master player I'm not too worried yet because at my level it's possible to overcome imbalance with better mechanics. You get wins over toss and Zerg players just because they're bad and can't macro well while defending multi-prong drops. So basically, until you're high master you can't blame your losses on imbalance because you could just get better at the game. If you're mad that the Zerg defends all your pressure, but you float 2k min and take an extremely late 3rd while doing that pressure, then you lost because you failed. I invite any mid master and below Terran to post recent replays against P and Z so I can point out your horrible mistakes that contributed to your loss more than imbalance. Just to prove my point, here are recent replays of me playing mid master Z and P players on daybreak and cloud kingdom. In these games I go mass marine. I am basically fucking around in these games but my opponents do not have sufficient skill level to beat it. And I even float lots of money in these games. So until you're high master or GM, please stop trying to excuse your failure . http://drop.sc/204706http://drop.sc/204707http://drop.sc/204709http://drop.sc/204710
So what happens when zergs and protoss are not bad at defending drops and microing?! Should Terrans have to be much better at the game for it to be even?
|
On June 25 2012 22:38 Doodsmack wrote:As a mid master player I'm not too worried yet because at my level it's possible to overcome imbalance with better mechanics. You get wins over toss and Zerg players just because they're bad and can't macro well while defending multi-prong drops. So basically, until you're high master you can't blame your losses on imbalance because you could just get better at the game. If you're mad that the Zerg defends all your pressure, but you float 2k min and take an extremely late 3rd while doing that pressure, then you lost because you failed. I invite any mid master and below Terran to post recent replays against P and Z so I can point out your horrible mistakes that contributed to your loss more than imbalance. Just to prove my point, here are recent replays of me playing mid master Z and P players on daybreak and cloud kingdom. In these games I go mass marine. I am basically fucking around in these games but my opponents do not have sufficient skill level to beat it. And I even float lots of money in these games. So until you're high master or GM, please stop trying to excuse your failure . http://drop.sc/204706http://drop.sc/204707http://drop.sc/204709http://drop.sc/204710
its not all about the ladder, its about the better player should win.
we wanna see mkp and mma destroy some noname zerg. easy as that 
|
I play terran for 2 years now and my zvt is stronger than my tvt beating low gm terrans it feels so wrong -.- ...
|
On June 25 2012 22:38 Doodsmack wrote:As a mid master player I'm not too worried yet because at my level it's possible to overcome imbalance with better mechanics. You get wins over toss and Zerg players just because they're bad and can't macro well while defending multi-prong drops. So basically, until you're high master you can't blame your losses on imbalance because you could just get better at the game. If you're mad that the Zerg defends all your pressure, but you float 2k min and take an extremely late 3rd while doing that pressure, then you lost because you failed. I invite any mid master and below Terran to post recent replays against P and Z so I can point out your horrible mistakes that contributed to your loss more than imbalance. Just to prove my point, here are recent replays of me playing mid master Z and P players on daybreak and cloud kingdom. In these games I go mass marine. I am basically fucking around in these games but my opponents do not have sufficient skill level to beat it. And I even float lots of money in these games. So until you're high master or GM, please stop trying to excuse your failure . http://drop.sc/204706http://drop.sc/204707http://drop.sc/204709http://drop.sc/204710
So as long as im playing against very bad players I can win even though the matchup is imbalanced? thanks for pointing that out
|
On June 25 2012 22:44 Acer1791 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2012 22:38 Doodsmack wrote:As a mid master player I'm not too worried yet because at my level it's possible to overcome imbalance with better mechanics. You get wins over toss and Zerg players just because they're bad and can't macro well while defending multi-prong drops. So basically, until you're high master you can't blame your losses on imbalance because you could just get better at the game. If you're mad that the Zerg defends all your pressure, but you float 2k min and take an extremely late 3rd while doing that pressure, then you lost because you failed. I invite any mid master and below Terran to post recent replays against P and Z so I can point out your horrible mistakes that contributed to your loss more than imbalance. Just to prove my point, here are recent replays of me playing mid master Z and P players on daybreak and cloud kingdom. In these games I go mass marine. I am basically fucking around in these games but my opponents do not have sufficient skill level to beat it. And I even float lots of money in these games. So until you're high master or GM, please stop trying to excuse your failure . http://drop.sc/204706http://drop.sc/204707http://drop.sc/204709http://drop.sc/204710 its not all about the ladder, its about the better player should win. we wanna see mkp and mma destroy some noname zerg. easy as that
Sorry, but what have your midmaster experiences to do with the affects of queen and overlord buff? This thread was all about numbers like kr winrates and tourney results and the obvious changes in the dynamic of TvZ. So most of the discussion was about highlevel play. It's very nice to hear that you personally can beat zerg and protoss who don't know how to fend off marines. Grats!
But what has this to do with the quesion of queen patch beeing breaking tvz?
Edit: Sorry acer, quoted the wrong one
|
Mech! Lose hellions to queens early game? Who cares! there's 6 more back home! Get your upgrades and blueflame! Queen buff? what queen buff? top 8 diamond terran here
|
On June 25 2012 22:55 GRCJH wrote:
Mech! Lose hellions to queens early game? Who cares! there's 6 more back home! Get your upgrades and blueflame! Queen buff? what queen buff? top 8 diamond terran here
Top diamond terran thanks, top terrans have never tried mech before...
|
On June 25 2012 22:30 Deckkie wrote:Its been a long time since I ded research on the mule. But this were my results back then: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=187243The ability to defend the natural will depend a lot on the map thats being played. Going straight into three orbitals already makes it hard to defend, I will not say that your strat is impossible, but would it become the meta, I do think (as a first thought) that it will be very easy to break as zerg. Not only does it slow down the tech, it also gives the Terran less units in a cetrain time span. Getting up the frouth CC and transforming it into a OC will take time. And only at the third mule will you start making money out of it. I believe a CC takes around 2 min to build, making it a OC will take another 30-40 sec, and then every mule will take 1.5 min to make. If you also start making SCV's out of it, there will be even less money for a army. Last thing I will add is that Terran is very much a three base 8 gass race. A fourth base is only needed when the third base is run out of minerals. Although it is not uncommen in TvP to make extra orbitals for Mules I have never seen it early games, since it does cut in heavily in a two base army.
100 seconds for a CC, 35 to morph it into an OC to be exact (courtesy of Liquipedia).
As for cutting into a two base army, the idea is exactly that you don't need an early two base army if Z is turtling up behind a wall of defensive units. Might as well cut it, since he can't attack you with queens and you can't attack him - this does, however, rely on scouting a multi-queen, gasless opener with a fast third. All you need to be able to hold is slowlings or very small amounts of roaches, which should be stoppable at the nat choke with a couple of barracks (think of the setup for FFE in PvZ), or some other form of sim city. Needs testing, obviously. So does the rate of return of the fourth CC, as well as the fine details of scouting and deviations. Any of these things could possibly go wrong, but I'm not quite convinced that they will necessarily do so until a few attempts fail.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
