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.
On June 27 2012 07:42 Reaps wrote: You know guys, you can always run past the queens with your hellions and roast some drones.
LOL you kidding me...Lets see... roast maybe 5-6 drones max (with maybe 4 helions) from a gassless zerg with 4-5 queens, Not only is that completely cost inefficient but now you lost all map control, creep spread removal, and zergs ability to take a fast 3rd and drone like crazy (but it seems they do this anyway regardless of run-bys thanks to the buff). Maybe you missed the part queens have 5 range, which makes it impossible for helions not to take some level of damage. Any "drone roasts" are a mineral-wasting suicide mission by Terran unless your play on the diamond or lower leagues.
I still don't understand why you think it's ok to be able to drive into your opponents base and potentially kill him outright for the cost of 400 minerals.
Forgive Zerg players for thinking they should be able to at least do a bit of damage to the four ultra fast aoe damage units which are roasting their precious drones.
Are you really that delusional that you find it unjust that Zerg can actually now do some damage to Hellions in the event of a run by?
It's not like the Queens which are at the perimeter of the Zerg territory are capable of keeping up with Hellions that drive past them. Unless you drive yourself into a choke and get blocked off by some slow lings or drones, you're highly likely to kill enough Drones that the Hellions have paid for themselves.
People are still completely hung up on the Queen range being responsible for all of this when there's a whole lot more at work.
Letting hellions get into your main is a fuckup on the level of having your supply depots lowered when speedlings run into your main. It wasn't hard to block your ramp off with queens and walloff with evo chambers and one spine crawler previously, and if done correctly, it did stop hellions effectively.
You really cannot compare raising a supply depot to blocking a ramp with queens. One takes far more time than the other, can have a detrimental affect on your economy and does not protect your natural and certainly doesn't help your third whatsoever.
On June 27 2012 07:42 Reaps wrote: You know guys, you can always run past the queens with your hellions and roast some drones.
LOL you kidding me...Lets see... roast maybe 5-6 drones max (with maybe 4 helions) from a gassless zerg with 4-5 queens, Not only is that completely cost inefficient but now you lost all map control, creep spread removal, and zergs ability to take a fast 3rd and drone like crazy (but it seems they do this anyway regardless of run-bys thanks to the buff). Maybe you missed the part queens have 5 range, which makes it impossible for helions not to take some level of damage. Any "drone roasts" are a mineral-wasting suicide mission by Terran unless your play on the diamond or lower leagues.
I still don't understand why you think it's ok to be able to drive into your opponents base and potentially kill him outright for the cost of 400 minerals.
Forgive Zerg players for thinking they should be able to at least do a bit of damage to the four ultra fast aoe damage units which are roasting their precious drones.
Are you really that delusional that you find it unjust that Zerg can actually now do some damage to Hellions in the event of a run by?
It's not like the Queens which are at the perimeter of the Zerg territory are capable of keeping up with Hellions that drive past them. Unless you drive yourself into a choke and get blocked off by some slow lings or drones, you're highly likely to kill enough Drones that the Hellions have paid for themselves.
People are still completely hung up on the Queen range being responsible for all of this when there's a whole lot more at work.
Letting hellions get into your main is a fuckup on the level of having your supply depots lowered when speedlings run into your main. It wasn't hard to block your ramp off with queens and walloff with evo chambers and one spine crawler previously, and if done correctly, it did stop hellions effectively.
You really cannot compare raising a supply depot to blocking a ramp with queens. One takes far more time than the other, can have a detrimental affect on your economy and does not protect your natural and certainly doesn't help your third whatsoever.
Why? It's far easier to MAKE the zerglings than it is to make the hellions. One affects the build order, the other is basically part of it.
Effort required isn't part of the equation. If it's what's required to defend against hellion runbys, it's what you have to do. The comparison with supply depots is that the mistake of letting hellions get through is a mistake the same level as not keeping your supply depots up or missing a force field. The way to do it is clear, and it doesn't require korean levels of APM. It simply requires you to do it. The game is full of similar situations that require differing amounts of effort or affect you overall in different ways.
Also, evo chamber + spine crawler walloffs do defend your natural, and hopefully you have some units by the time you take your third.
The equivalent would be having burrowed Queens on the ramp and unburrowing in time to block a run by. But even that's not an equivalent, because they're Queens.
Sroobz, I'm not sure where I said Zerglings in that post, but I recommend you check again and write something relevant to what I said if you're going to quote me.
Defending a Hellion run-by is the EXACT SAME THING as both T and P walling off vs Zerglings, if not harder, because our buildings are suspectible to being busted by Banelings/Roaches/whathaveyou. Saying otherwise not only makes you clearly zerg-biased but also a scrub.
Any Zerg player that is complaining about imbalance in the old days needs to stop. The only legitimately overpowered strategy/build was the 3 rax Reaper build which was promptly nerfed into absolute oblivion. The other "imbalances" came from the fact that the maps were heavily Terran biased. Like.. heavily. If we were playing on TDA+ sized maps you'd probably see the complete opposite, with Z dominating T's badly.
On June 27 2012 10:23 Shadow_Dog wrote: Ok, so you can't do the same opening build for the last 13+ months and all of the sudden the game is broken? You serious?
Pretty much. I mean, sure the 4 extra queens cost 600 minerals and can't really leave the base or be aggressive, so the terran has a free 5 minutes of alone time with their side of the map. But they don't want to get to frisky with all those expansions, because the zerg can build banelings. They could do that before, but now they can REALLY build them.
But that's not what matters, what matters is that the whole thing snowballs into the late game which terrans ALSO cannot win. There is a whole lot of mid game in there too, but I am pretty sure a terran can't win that either. Maybe if the zerg makes a mistake.
On June 27 2012 09:59 avc wrote: It's not the same.
The equivalent would be having burrowed Queens on the ramp and unburrowing in time to block a run by. But even that's not an equivalent, because they're Queens.
Sroobz, I'm not sure where I said Zerglings in that post, but I recommend you check again and write something relevant to what I said if you're going to quote me.
OK. So queens are awesome, and building 6 queens makes it impossible for an equally matched Terran to win. Now, how many queens are too many? 10? 14? If I go mass queens now, what league can I get to? Are queen drops viable now? How about nydus queen? What if I build so many queens that I can actually heal workers while they are getting hit by bancheese or hell-ya-all-ins?
On June 27 2012 10:47 Ashakyre wrote: OK. So queens are awesome, and building 6 queens makes it impossible for an equally matched Terran to win. Now, how many queens are too many? 10? 14? If I go mass queens now, what league can I get to? Are queen drops viable now? How about nydus queen? What if I build so many queens that I can actually heal workers while they are getting hit by bancheese or hell-ya-all-ins?
My god, could we please theory craft about the glory of Queen drops? Regardless if it is a good plan or not, if anyone ever wins a game with it, they will be the most majestic player in SC2.
Playing terran in masters right now is just depressing. The funniest MU was broken twice in a row with ghost nerf and queen+lord buff. U got to play the perfect game if u want to win vs zerg or protoss. How some people can't see that? Like the majority of players i want to have fun when i play, and loosing to some midd low diamonds cause u made a single tiny mistake is not fun at all.
On the top of that, terran play right now is BORING AS HELL. Its basically 1 rak expand into mass bio or bio mech every single game and every single match up, when zergs and protoss have a lot of ways to play vs terrans. Thats just utterly stupid.
So what is left? Well TvT, if u have the chance to encounter some T on the ladder lol... And how do u play it? Well, 1 rak expand into biomech, because as u already know, mech is not viable in TvT. Yeah, little marines and little marauders who cost nothing crush an entirely mechanics army who cost ton of ressources. This is pretty unreal btw.
So yeah i know im complaining blablabla, but i play starcraft since 2000 and i LOVE this game. As an ex BW player, i already made a lot of concessions because a lot of very good things we had just diseappeared in SC2 and Bnet2.
Now i think its too much, because i have more fun killing stupid mobs in D3 with my monk, than playing my favorite game of all times vs real people.
Maybe a damage upgrade for siege mode ONLY at Fusion Core tech? It would reduce splash, but increase base damage (+10). Wouldn't rebreak TvP because its at Fusion Core tech and chargelots would be just as effective, plus rushing Fusion Core would significantly reduce your tank count early on. It'd flow with TvT late game through BC/viking/tank and it wouldn't drop off vs ultras in vZ, making remax tech switches more difficult.
The problem was that Marines were (and still are) far stronger than their BW counterparts (immediate free range upgrade, +5 hp, +19% attack speed), while Zealots (-10 shield, +25% attack speed) and Zerglings (-22% attack speed) are not.
Unfortunately, Blizzard would rather stick with their sacred cows and leave Marines untouched, than address the real issue.
Are we still using these stats? BW comparisons are irrelevant. Different games are different.
When we're talking only about the early game, the games are the same.
And it's in that early game that it becomes obvious why marines are ridiculously overpowered, but of course as a Terran player you insist on pretending it doesn't matter.
No, it's not relevant at all, and to insist so is fairly stupid.
Marines also had medics in BW, stim doubled the damage output of marines unlike SC2, and Zerg did not have queens early game. In SC2 Zerg can also mass produce Zerglings at a moment's notice, you could NOT do that as Zerg in BW. You had to preemptively pump units, not as a reaction all at once when you see your opponent move out.
Please, don't compare to BW, it's ridiculous to do so.
On June 27 2012 11:15 AKomrade wrote: Maybe a damage upgrade for siege mode ONLY at Fusion Core tech? It would reduce splash, but increase base damage (+10). Wouldn't rebreak TvP because its at Fusion Core tech and chargelots would be just as effective, plus rushing Fusion Core would significantly reduce your tank count early on. It'd flow with TvT late game through BC/viking/tank and it wouldn't drop off vs ultras in vZ, making remax tech switches more difficult.
What exactly would this solve? It wouldn't do jack shit for TvP, trying to transition into tanks at fusion core tech would be a joke, especially without mechanical ground upgrades. TvT already has mass tanks. The damage upgrade would only help vs ultras and nerf it vs every other unit Zerg has since the siege tank already 1 or 2 hits all the units and the +10 damage would not change the number of hits to a kill (still kills lings/blings one shot, infestors two shot, and no one makes roach/hydra that late, although it wouldn't affect roaches anyways).
On June 27 2012 06:19 Dalavita wrote: I don't think any of the terrans will switch to be honest. They'll keep grinding the game in the hopes of finding something new.
Regardless of what they'll find, if they'll discover some endgame composition that works against the endgame of the zerg or whatnot doesn't change the fact that Blizzard hamhandedly broke the earlygame of TvZ, a matchup that was considered balanced.
Edit: Statistics aside. The matchup is less fun than it was before. Who would want to turtle on their ass for 10+ minutes before anything happened? What is the point in those first ten minutes if nothing important happens...
If terrans discovered that turtling on 4 base until BC/Ravens was successful, the earlygame of TvZ would still be broken, regardless of statistical balance.
I see two ways out of this situation, actually.
1) a T build gets developed that takes advantage of the lack of threats from Z in the early game. Everybody starts doing that, the metagame shifts, and Z eventually start cutting corners by getting less queens (because they don't give them an auto-win since aggression isn't that common anymore). At this point, pressure builds, threats and feints become viable again. 2) no such build gets discovered and Blizzard patches this up.
Lack of threats from Z in the early game? Are you kidding me?
Nope. I am, however, referring to a situation in which a gasless early third with mass queens for defense has been scouted. There might be some transition that I haven't considered/seen, but I would suspect that in such a situation Z is unable to move out with any significant early-game force.
You realize that with 3 hatch Zerg can pop down a Warren and produce 30 roach in 90 seconds right? So if you don't have a good sized standing army, Zerg sees it and pop down a Roach Warren, you are dead even if you see the second it starts building.
Let's put it this way: yes, I do realize that as long as Z puts seven overlords in production 30 seconds before he puts down a roach warren, has perfectly aligned injects and can bank larvae producing absolutely nothing for one minute and a half on three hatches while setting aside 2250/750 then he can build 30 roaches in 90 seconds.
However, I do need to ask you: at what timing does this happen? Or, if you can't give a timing... what's the general gameplan that Z needs to follow to do this, so that I may try it out and get an estimate? I'm asking this because the most optimized roach-focused build that I know (the Stephano maxout for ZvP) gets that amount of roaches after the 10:30 mark. Sure, they have speed and +1, but the Stephano build also does not make extra queens for early defense (which seems huge in terms of drones). At 11:00, theStC already had 4 hellions, 18 marines with +1/+1, 1 bunker and 4 siege tanks, while getting +1 vehicle weapons, double upgrades for the bio, stim and producing medivacs out of a reactored starport. If you have spent those 400 minerals on a CC instead of hellions then you must have at least 18 marines with +1/+1, 1 bunker and 4 tanks; this amounts to 1600/500, which ought to hold off those roaches with good sim city (even better if you do scout and therefore put down an extra couple bunkers). This is without even considering the fact that you'd actually have more resources to devote to your army, since the extra CC should have started to pay itself back by then.
So... what is the tightest timing for a 30 roaches push off a 3 hatch, 6 queen build?
P.S.: just out of curiosity, I tried running a game against the computer. My terrible offrace macro managed to get an 8:40 completed planetary fortress at the third on Ohana LE, with a macro OC in the main. I only had 1 bunker, 1 tank and 20 marines (with +1 attack), but had 2320/371 floating resources, plus energy for four MULEs - though it did have six barracks, two factories, one engineering bay and two tech labs (as well as three refineries). The build included a scouting barracks that reached the opposing natural at about 8 minutes, which can probably be shortened by at least one full minute. I'm sure that a competent T would get something that would not only defend a Stephano-timed 30 roaches push, but absolutely crush it.
On June 27 2012 09:59 avc wrote: It's not the same.
The equivalent would be having burrowed Queens on the ramp and unburrowing in time to block a run by. But even that's not an equivalent, because they're Queens.
Sroobz, I'm not sure where I said Zerglings in that post, but I recommend you check again and write something relevant to what I said if you're going to quote me.
rofl. That is just awesome whether you're serious or not.
1. only applies when the expansion is already here. Until then, it's a no point. SC2 might have new ideas coming in, but the scene is established, the best players are established and the metagame is established, and we can use history and experience to be able to analyze current situations and changes better. Back then none of these factors were present.
2. I'm sure you enjoy the matchup, and I might as well if I played zerg. However I don't think it's unfair to say that the matchup is worse off because of the change, and considering what we gained with the change (zergs have to try less hard to defend against hellions I guess?) to a previously balanced matchup and what we had to give up to get it. I didn't mind all the trillion bunker nerfs that terrans got even though Blizzard might have gone overboard in combination with larger maps, because they made the matchup better overall. This change? No positive change whatsoever. I don't think I'm the only one feeling this way, since there hasn't been this much of an uproar over a change since ever, and the uproar is cross race.
3. Whether it was wrong or not, it was generally considered that zergs had the super lategame going for them even back then due to the larva mechanics. They did have something to look forward too when they worked at surviving. At the moment as a terran, your thought process is basically "oh, I didn't cripple him the first ten minutes, it's time to slowly die unless he goes full retard."
1. This makes no sense to me. That's like saying in the early days that we can't hope for new improvements until they actually release them? Lol. We already know 2 expansions are coming out, simple as that. You know 100% that there will be massive metagame shifts and unit composition changes, what is there to argue? My point is that it's NOT THAT BAD. Now you just enter into mid and lategame without easily being able to gain an advantage unless you do something clever, you can't simply do the exact same cookie-cutter build every game and have a very high chance of crippling your opponent...back in the early days Zergs had to worry about simply dying in the first 10 minutes of every single game...just let that sink in for a moment as you reflect upon how bad you guys have it now, lawl. Also, I'm still not convinced that Terrans simply don't require more build changes and strategy improvement, Terrans have been crying about this change since the day it came out and I really think that 90% of the people complaining have done hardly a thing to try and change their own play up in compensation. The only reason you see a difference between Terran complaints now and past Zerg complaints is because you are very, very biased.
2. Maybe you think there is no positives but I see plenty. For one, Zergs typically aren't dying nearly as often because one of their Queens was out of position by a quarter of an inch allowing Hellions to run by a gap the Zerg thought was covered. Secondly, ZvZ is greatly improved and a hell of a lot more fun now as well.
3. Actually Zergs still died all the time in the super late game vs Protoss and Terrans...so, your opinion is simply that, your opinion. Also, you seem to still think that Zerg has an advantage over Zerg in the late game but I really doubt that, Terrans can play late game just fine if they utilize their units properly and play it out right. I still almost never see Terrans build Ghosts, yet the few that do always make me happy to play against because their late game is 3x as hard to fight as a scrub Terran who refuses to build them even once.
Beenu, You are obviously "very, very biased" yourself. Simply saying "Terran's need to evolve" and "use their units properly" does not get rid of the pink elephant in the room. Want to talk about bias? Morrow (Pro Zerg and Terran) player, believes they are too powerful and the buff was unnecessary. As a former GM, I would hope you take some advice when i say there is only so much you can do mechanically when a zerg queens up to 5-7 queens, turtles then takes a substantial eco advantage. It becomes a all-in coin flip for Terran. I suggest you watch some of these interviews and read some legitmate Pro threads before you throw your, less experienced, two sense in.
because as u already know, mech is not viable in TvT
What? Since when?
Well, maybe i went over the top when i said not viable, but its far far far easier to play bio vs mech, than mech vs bio. U can easely contain mech player on b2 or even b3 (wich is pretty unreal btw) and take the whole map if u want to, because mech player cant harass or prevent u to take expand. Thats why we dont see so much mech play in tvt.
EPT
