|
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 |
The late game terran thing...
I think it comes down to this... when you're playing against P or Z (no matter which race you are yourself) there is regularly that sense of urgency. "I have to kill his 4th before the brood lords get out" or "I need to move out before he adds colossi to his templar" etc. When you play against terran, where's the urgency? Zerg and Protoss can afford to be so much more patient against terran than against each other because there isn't anything on the horizon to push them into attacking sooner.
I really don't care what it is, but there has to be that late-game threat to push a P or a Z opponent into attacking before they might want to ideally, like you often have to do when you play against a P or Z.
|
On June 22 2012 12:28 Advocado wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2012 12:19 Shiori wrote:On June 22 2012 12:13 Advocado wrote:On June 22 2012 11:35 Dodgin wrote:On June 22 2012 11:29 Plethora wrote:On June 22 2012 11:20 Blyadischa wrote:Select, Mvp, and Polt have also stated in various interviews, flat out, that TvZ is essentially unwinnable atm. Even speaking as a Terran player who does think the queen buff went a little too far... comments like these really make these players come off as whiny and stubborn to me. Professional players have every right to complain about a bad patch, this game is their job and the balance can directly impact how successful they are. So now we have ( korean players only ) Mvp MMA Marineking Supernova Ryung Sculp Jjakji Polt all complaining about the current balance, how many players do we need to speak up before we take it seriously? On June 22 2012 11:32 Mohdoo wrote:
Balance shouldn't even be considered less than 3 months after a patch. It takes more than a month, I don't even see why this thread is open. Its so far from a good amount of time that its silly to even discuss now.
There have been countless times in the past, such as 2 food roaches, roach range, archon changes, infestor changes, EMP, etc that people completely and utterly flipped shit over that ended up being okay. Stuff takes time to adapt to and it shouldn't be a surprise that the game gets a lot harder suddenly after a big balance change. But it works its self out 99% of the time. The problem is every time there is a patch and Terran " adapts " another patch comes along to nerf them again, the most recent patches involving TvZ have been the Snipe nerf and now the Queen buff, one of them made Zerg favored in the late game and the other made them favored in the early/midgame. You don't need to " wait and see " to understand that this is imbalanced, It's common sense. Have you noticed how a lot of these people have had insane TvZ winrates? A bunch of those terrans have all built their success on their TvZ, of course they will be vocal about the game. Perhaps the game will better without the allin victories off the zerg simply not receiving information. I do agree that the hellion expand was getting really stale and even slightly unpredictable? These all-in victories had nothing to do with the Queen buff, and you know it. Even though I think they were a non-issue to start with, you guys got your Overlord buff. Nobody is complaining about that (much). The problem is that Creep can't be expediently denied in the early game, which allows the Zerg a fast third. I personally felt that hellions gave a lot of mapcontrol for very little investment. Queens dont just run off and take full mapcontrol. Some of the maps in the gsl/gstl has gotten too big if anything making it harder to punish a greedy zerg.
I do think the point about maps is valid. The sheer size of several pro maps is a major detriment to terran in tvz. Its not the only problem but hopefully mapmakers realize this and compensate going forward.
|
On June 22 2012 12:33 Plethora wrote:
The late game terran thing...
I think it comes down to this... when you're playing against P or Z (no matter which race you are yourself) there is regularly that sense of urgency. "I have to kill his 4th before the brood lords get out" or "I need to move out before he adds colossi to his templar" etc. When you play against terran, where's the urgency? Zerg and Protoss can afford to be so much more patient against terran than against each other because there isn't anything on the horizon to push them into attacking sooner.
I really don't care what it is, but there has to be that late-game threat to push a P or a Z opponent into attacking before they might want to ideally, like you often have to do when you play against a P or Z.
Well, yes and no. I would say most of what you're talking about right there are vulnerable timings that Terran try to exploit. The thing about Terran is that they generally don't have the same kind of vulnerable timings against them. For instance, a terran doesn't have to go before a protoss gets colossus out on the field, they can just as well sit back and build up their own viking-army, but going before colossus most certainly benefits terran in such a situation.
I could be way off here, but I'll rather look at it as beneficial attack-timings rather than a "forced" attack because of certain units coming out.
|
On June 22 2012 12:45 hashaki wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2012 12:33 Plethora wrote:
The late game terran thing...
I think it comes down to this... when you're playing against P or Z (no matter which race you are yourself) there is regularly that sense of urgency. "I have to kill his 4th before the brood lords get out" or "I need to move out before he adds colossi to his templar" etc. When you play against terran, where's the urgency? Zerg and Protoss can afford to be so much more patient against terran than against each other because there isn't anything on the horizon to push them into attacking sooner.
I really don't care what it is, but there has to be that late-game threat to push a P or a Z opponent into attacking before they might want to ideally, like you often have to do when you play against a P or Z. Well, yes and no. I would say most of what you're talking about right there are vulnerable timings that Terran try to exploit. The thing about Terran is that they generally don't have the same kind of vulnerable timings against them. For instance, a terran doesn't have to go before a protoss gets colossus out on the field, they can just as well sit back and build up their own viking-army, but going before colossus most certainly benefits terran in such a situation. I could be way off here, but I'll rather look at it as beneficial attack-timings rather than a "forced" attack because of certain units coming out.
Point taken, and I think I agree with you for the most part thinking about it. I still think there is something to be said for having something and the end of the tech tree that opponents would actually fear seeing and thus want to try to end the game before that. But maybe its not as big a point as I was thinking.
|
On June 22 2012 12:45 hashaki wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2012 12:33 Plethora wrote:
The late game terran thing...
I think it comes down to this... when you're playing against P or Z (no matter which race you are yourself) there is regularly that sense of urgency. "I have to kill his 4th before the brood lords get out" or "I need to move out before he adds colossi to his templar" etc. When you play against terran, where's the urgency? Zerg and Protoss can afford to be so much more patient against terran than against each other because there isn't anything on the horizon to push them into attacking sooner.
I really don't care what it is, but there has to be that late-game threat to push a P or a Z opponent into attacking before they might want to ideally, like you often have to do when you play against a P or Z. Well, yes and no. I would say most of what you're talking about right there are vulnerable timings that Terran try to exploit. The thing about Terran is that they generally don't have the same kind of vulnerable timings against them. For instance, a terran doesn't have to go before a protoss gets colossus out on the field, they can just as well sit back and build up their own viking-army, but going before colossus most certainly benefits terran in such a situation. I could be way off here, but I'll rather look at it as beneficial attack-timings rather than a "forced" attack because of certain units coming out.
Because we all know that viking army is the core default in Terran army composition.
|
On June 22 2012 11:32 Mohdoo wrote:
Balance shouldn't even be considered less than 3 months after a patch. It takes more than a month, I don't even see why this thread is open. Its so far from a good amount of time that its silly to even discuss now.
There have been countless times in the past, such as 2 food roaches, roach range, archon changes, infestor changes, EMP, etc that people completely and utterly flipped shit over that ended up being okay. Stuff takes time to adapt to and it shouldn't be a surprise that the game gets a lot harder suddenly after a big balance change. But it works its self out 99% of the time.
No offence but i cannot agree on even a single word of your post.
for a player like me who only has time to play 3 - 5 games a day maybe yes, i will need 3 months or even longer to figure out the new patch. But for the pros, can you imagine how much effort had they put in to study the matchup in one long month? How many games they practised per day? Not to mention they have team coach who don't need to practise 24/7 but trying to find a solution for their Terran players every day? And not to mention, the enormous amount of matches had been played in all the tournaments after the patch. MLG, Dreamhack, Half of GSL code S, Half of GSTL... All showing no answers from Terran just yet.
And then for the "works its self out 99% all the time". No it didn't just happen like that, its Terrans are adjusting and make more effort to adapt with the patch ALL THE TIME. Barracks building time increase? We use less proxy barracks build. Blue flame helion nerf? We stop using BFH drop. Reaper speed upgrade delay? We stop using Reapers pressure build. This time around we are forced to abandon the Helion expand build as well, and its hard for me to see Terran can adapt again. Lots of pro gamers had already stated current T v Z has became the most imbalance matchup IN THE HISTORY. The conclusion they made that based on countless matches they practised and played should be more reliable than those that made by casual players in TL forum.
|
On June 22 2012 12:45 hashaki wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2012 12:33 Plethora wrote:
The late game terran thing...
I think it comes down to this... when you're playing against P or Z (no matter which race you are yourself) there is regularly that sense of urgency. "I have to kill his 4th before the brood lords get out" or "I need to move out before he adds colossi to his templar" etc. When you play against terran, where's the urgency? Zerg and Protoss can afford to be so much more patient against terran than against each other because there isn't anything on the horizon to push them into attacking sooner.
I really don't care what it is, but there has to be that late-game threat to push a P or a Z opponent into attacking before they might want to ideally, like you often have to do when you play against a P or Z. Well, yes and no. I would say most of what you're talking about right there are vulnerable timings that Terran try to exploit. The thing about Terran is that they generally don't have the same kind of vulnerable timings against them. For instance, a terran doesn't have to go before a protoss gets colossus out on the field, they can just as well sit back and build up their own viking-army, but going before colossus most certainly benefits terran in such a situation. I could be way off here, but I'll rather look at it as beneficial attack-timings rather than a "forced" attack because of certain units coming out.
Well, it's actually rather simple for Terran to just stay back and macro up. We could probably just scout from time to time to see what he has and add the respective counter to it.
The problem is for both vs P or Z, at 200/200 we're at a disadvantage, so sitting back and going macro mode until 200/200 is a disadvantageous strategy unless you're doing the split-map scenario and going for the Endgame.
|
On June 22 2012 13:07 gengka wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2012 11:32 Mohdoo wrote:
Balance shouldn't even be considered less than 3 months after a patch. It takes more than a month, I don't even see why this thread is open. Its so far from a good amount of time that its silly to even discuss now.
There have been countless times in the past, such as 2 food roaches, roach range, archon changes, infestor changes, EMP, etc that people completely and utterly flipped shit over that ended up being okay. Stuff takes time to adapt to and it shouldn't be a surprise that the game gets a lot harder suddenly after a big balance change. But it works its self out 99% of the time. No offence but i cannot agree on even a single word of your post. for a player like me who only has time to play 3 - 5 games a day maybe yes, i will need 3 months or even longer to figure out the new patch. But for the pros, can you imagine how much effort had they put in to study the matchup in one long month? How many games they practised per day? Not to mention they have team coach who don't need to practise 24/7 but trying to find a solution for their Terran players every day? And not to mention, the enormous amount of matches had been played in all the tournaments after the patch. MLG, Dreamhack, Half of GSL code S, Half of GSTL... All showing no answers from Terran just yet. And then for the "works its self out 99% all the time". No it didn't just happen like that, its Terrans are adjusting and make more effort to adapt with the patch ALL THE TIME. Barracks building time increase? We use less proxy barracks build. Blue flame helion nerf? We stop using BFH drop. Reaper speed upgrade delay? We stop using Reapers pressure build. This time around we are forced to abandon the Helion expand build as well, and its hard for me to see Terran can adapt again. Lots of pro gamers had already stated current T v Z has became the most imbalance matchup IN THE HISTORY. The conclusion they made that based on countless matches they practised and played should be more reliable than those that made by casual players in TL forum.
You can only adapt so much before they run down a list and close all your options. It's pretty bad right now let's just hope it's last of it.
|
On June 22 2012 13:01 Plethora wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2012 12:45 hashaki wrote:On June 22 2012 12:33 Plethora wrote:
The late game terran thing...
I think it comes down to this... when you're playing against P or Z (no matter which race you are yourself) there is regularly that sense of urgency. "I have to kill his 4th before the brood lords get out" or "I need to move out before he adds colossi to his templar" etc. When you play against terran, where's the urgency? Zerg and Protoss can afford to be so much more patient against terran than against each other because there isn't anything on the horizon to push them into attacking sooner.
I really don't care what it is, but there has to be that late-game threat to push a P or a Z opponent into attacking before they might want to ideally, like you often have to do when you play against a P or Z. Well, yes and no. I would say most of what you're talking about right there are vulnerable timings that Terran try to exploit. The thing about Terran is that they generally don't have the same kind of vulnerable timings against them. For instance, a terran doesn't have to go before a protoss gets colossus out on the field, they can just as well sit back and build up their own viking-army, but going before colossus most certainly benefits terran in such a situation. I could be way off here, but I'll rather look at it as beneficial attack-timings rather than a "forced" attack because of certain units coming out. Point taken, and I think I agree with you for the most part thinking about it. I still think there is something to be said for having something and the end of the tech tree that opponents would actually fear seeing and thus want to try to end the game before that. But maybe its not as big a point as I was thinking.
Yes, I agree that maybe terrans should have some kind of units the other races fear like they fear the lategame composition of Z/P, but I don't think it's a big point at all when you look at the races overall. However, this is a bit off topic so I don't see the point (there are no points ^^) of discussing it any further in this thread atleast 
On June 22 2012 13:13 HeroMystic wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2012 12:45 hashaki wrote:On June 22 2012 12:33 Plethora wrote:
The late game terran thing...
I think it comes down to this... when you're playing against P or Z (no matter which race you are yourself) there is regularly that sense of urgency. "I have to kill his 4th before the brood lords get out" or "I need to move out before he adds colossi to his templar" etc. When you play against terran, where's the urgency? Zerg and Protoss can afford to be so much more patient against terran than against each other because there isn't anything on the horizon to push them into attacking sooner.
I really don't care what it is, but there has to be that late-game threat to push a P or a Z opponent into attacking before they might want to ideally, like you often have to do when you play against a P or Z. Well, yes and no. I would say most of what you're talking about right there are vulnerable timings that Terran try to exploit. The thing about Terran is that they generally don't have the same kind of vulnerable timings against them. For instance, a terran doesn't have to go before a protoss gets colossus out on the field, they can just as well sit back and build up their own viking-army, but going before colossus most certainly benefits terran in such a situation. I could be way off here, but I'll rather look at it as beneficial attack-timings rather than a "forced" attack because of certain units coming out. Well, it's actually rather simple for Terran to just stay back and macro up. We could probably just scout from time to time to see what he has and add the respective counter to it. The problem is for both vs P or Z, at 200/200 we're at a disadvantage, so sitting back and going macro mode until 200/200 is a disadvantageous strategy unless you're doing the split-map scenario and going for the Endgame.
Yes, I agree they are at a disadvantage when it comes to 200/200-ball armies. Just like protoss is at a disadvantage when it comes to miniskirmishes and multipronged attacks vs stimmed bio. Or zerg is at a disadvantage when... oh who am I kidding, Zerg is never at a disadvantage! Oh I kid, I kid
|
On June 21 2012 14:51 pdd wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2012 14:03 Bippzy wrote:
A few things.
1: whoever posted that the queen buff made the matchup better was right. I dont know about broken or not, but zerg looks more comfortable to play, and more stable as a race.
2. I saw a build that got a banshee and then a raven. It was used to deny creep prepatch. I guess that build is my reccomendation for new builds.
3. "everytime terrans innovate something, it gets nerfed". Everytime terran innovates "something", it's overpowered. Although you can paint terran as frustrating to play because you play the best build and then it gets nerfed, it doesn't make nerfs unjustified or tvz uninnovatable because it will just get nerfed. It's an empty argument.
4. Possibly, terrans needs more lategame. Or ghosts need to be brought back. But, something. Everytime I think of tvz lategame i think of marineking vs symbol. It does feel like infestors arent threatened enough, and in turn if infestors arent threatened neither are broods.
5. The OP likes to talk about how terran is strong early/mid game, and zerg is weak early game and strong late game. That isn't how the matchup is. It's supposed to be either person's game at all points. This argument is not a good argument to argue for reverting the change, but it is a good argument for how it exposed flaws in the matchup. 1. Except now Terran is less stable as a race. There's no clear way of how to play the game anymore. Code S TvZ maestros like MMA and MVP have looked kinda clueless recently when playing TvZ. They're trying to innovate, but it's clear they're struggling to find an answer. Pre-patch the Zergs weren't really that unstable. Zergs had been winning games (a lot of games.. and they understood how to play, given the reactored hellion opening). 2. I saw TheStC get a banshee and a raven vs Nestea's 6-queen back and the creep still spread to the middle of Cloud Kingdom. The build is still not stable. Just because it worked in one game, doesn't mean it's very good. The amount of gas invested into ravens and banshees delays other vital upgrades and tech, while still not really being good enough to push creep back. 3. How is the reactored hellion opening overpowered? I see so many arguments that it's boring and stagnant, but yet no one questions the FFE or the hatch first builds. Getting 3 bases of 4-6 hellions is OP? Well Zerg gets to get 3 fully saturated bases off 6 queens and a couple of Zerglings in ZvT nowadays. They get 3 fully saturated bases off 3-4 queens and less than 10 Zerglings in ZvP. While Terran can get 3 bases off 4-6 hellions in TvZ, its not like they could instantly take the 3rd, they needed to get their tank count up before floating to the 3rd. 4. "Possibly"? 5. Except, that is how David Kim said he thinks SC2 should pan out when discussing TvP balance, where 1 race should have the advantage in different stage of the game. It feels now that Terran is weak in almost all stages of the game vs Zerg as a lot of their all-ins are scoutable and defendable and by mid-game they can't really catch up to Zerg's economic and production power.
1. That's not what I meant. Although the argument of keeping zerg economy in check and checking creep with not overpowered hellions is valid, I feel like terran just felt more stable early game than zerg, with the amount of hellions or terran transition unscouted. For this reason, I feel the queen change and overlord change are justified in making zerg feel stable like terran. Your response of "terran is less stable as a race" isn't quite what I meant, though I get what you are saying. This is a pretty opinionated topic, but I will just say I would prefer the queen and overlord change to stay and for terran to figure out/get buffed rather than an alternative.
2. Yeah, my number 2 was just idle banter. Yeah, it probably doesn't work everytime. I concede.
3.I'll just preface my old point with what I was arguing against.
On June 21 2012 13:01 [Azn]Nada wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2012 14:30 Eps wrote:On June 20 2012 14:24 johnnywup wrote:
still too early to tell imo, terrans need to learn different openers besides hellions which they haven't really yet The Terran race has used some of the most innovative and diverse strategies and openers. Reaper openers, nerfed. All sort of Marine-Aggro 2Rax builds, nerfed Rax Build time/Bunker Build Time/Stim Timing. Banshee openers -> Quicker Spore Root. Hellion BF Nerf. Now a Queen buff to deal with as well. And keep in mind, these are just the opening builds that were affected. This isn't even including the Siege Tank nerfs, Ghost nerf, Thor nerf. I have to say with all the "Let the metagame play out, they'll learn out to adapt". Terrans have adapted many times throughout most of the patches to changes (read: Nerfs). But once anything that is remotely even decent is found, it's nerfed into the ground. Pity my ZvZ/ZvP is abysmal, or else I'd immediately switch to zerg. This man tells the heart of the problem with terrans. It's like every patch one of our units gets worse (statisically speaking, every unit (scv, marine, marauder, ghost, viking, medivac, ravens, BCs, hellions, tanks, thors) has been nerfed at least once. Terrans are told after every patch to go and "adapt" and we do, but at least me (and many of my friends) have long passed the end of our patience. We've practiced dozens of builds, and the fact is, anytime we get good at something (ie. i was particularly good with the 5rax reaper back in the day due to lots of vulture micro UMS), dustin balder nerf bats us in the face, and we have to start from kindergarden again. .
3. "everytime terrans innovate something, it gets nerfed". Everytime terran innovates "something", it's overpowered. Although you can paint terran as frustrating to play because you play the best build and then it gets nerfed, it doesn't make nerfs unjustified or tvz uninnovatable because it will just get nerfed. It's an empty argument.
That's what I was talking about.
4. Yeah, possibly. I'm conceding perhaps something needs to be done. I ain't no genius kid who understands starcraft 2. While I would like to let it sit, maybe there is a change that makes the matchup more dynamic and brings hope to terrans that I just don't know about. I won't say authoritatively the queen change broke the game.
5. I feel like when a race has an "advantage" in the game developers terms, it describes the ability to have map control, leave your base, and harass while your opponent cannot leave his base, has to defend any hastily made expansions, and must survive off of less if any tech is being done. What advantage doesn't mean is: Stuff has to get done during this part of the game or you have failed and bar a mistake of your opponent, you have lost. I know the 3 orbital is talked down a lot in this thread, but I feel it is completely defendable with scouting. With this as my premise, there is more than one way to go about the early game than finding some way to abuse the zerg a little.
5(Continued). by mid-game they can't really catch up to Zerg's economic and production power.
An interesting point. However, that doesn't sound like the most terrible thing to happen ever anyway. Terran has a goal of cost efficiency with their army. While this is harder with the newfound prevalence of creep, it can still be done and cool tactics with drops are not dead. I feel this argument referring more towards brood lords, and the only thing I can say with regards to that idea is that infestors don't seem to be actively threatened by terrans. I'm not throwing in suggestions, just saying brood lord compositions look invincible because the infestors protect the brood lords and vice versa, so one of them needs to be taken out. Recently, terrans have been going more of the viking route, hoping for siege tanks to keep infestors in check while the vikings do their job. I have no idea if this is the right idea, but zergs deal with it just fine.
Edit:
On June 22 2012 12:33 Plethora wrote:
The late game terran thing...
I think it comes down to this... when you're playing against P or Z (no matter which race you are yourself) there is regularly that sense of urgency. "I have to kill his 4th before the brood lords get out" or "I need to move out before he adds colossi to his templar" etc. When you play against terran, where's the urgency? Zerg and Protoss can afford to be so much more patient against terran than against each other because there isn't anything on the horizon to push them into attacking sooner.
I really don't care what it is, but there has to be that late-game threat to push a P or a Z opponent into attacking before they might want to ideally, like you often have to do when you play against a P or Z.
Interestingly, it was ghosts. I still think the completely unrealistic composition of battlecruiser raven ghost counts as what you are looking for, but considering the way symbol plays, that can never be reached. I think the type of game like blizzcon finals MVP vs Nestea still could be pulled off by a terran, it would just require a few different units. But all protoss and zerg have to worry about is the following, and most terran "plans" don't incline themselves to it: The terrans securing all their bases with planetaries and missile turrets, sacking all their scvs except gas for orbitals, and then building the ultimate unit composition with about 180 army supply. That just doesn't happen unless you are MVP in a GSL finals, and even then he kinda messed up that.
Edit2:
On June 22 2012 13:33 Inquisitor1323 wrote:
The whole point of slower terran reinforcement was that terran should be able to trade well with good micro. Zerg's ability to have both the strongest economy and strongest lategame composition is slowly breaking the game. Considering both protoss and terran are having a problem with BL/infestor/corrupter composition, it's clear that it needs to be nerfed.
No one touches the infestors. No emps or feedbacks. If the zerg can have their ideal lategame composition, than P/T can sure as hell have their spellcasters. I don't think it needs to be nerfed yet, because I haven't seen their immobility problems negated reliably or the most ideal engagements.
|
The whole point of slower terran reinforcement was that terran should be able to trade well with good micro. Zerg's ability to have both the strongest economy and strongest lategame composition is slowly breaking the game. Considering both protoss and terran are having a problem with BL/infestor/corrupter composition, it's clear that it needs to be nerfed.
|
|
|
to sum it up, if terran does a greedy build, he gets all inned...
if terran does a safe build, you get economically behind...
awsome...
It's like zerg got terrans ability to shut down greedyness while keeping they're positive attributes.
|
That doesn't mean it's broken. It means they are finding their old strats aren't as viable and are coming up with new ideas. Zerg did this for a year, Toss have probably done this. Just because it's your turn does not mean it's "broken".
|
On June 22 2012 15:08 DarKcS wrote:
That doesn't mean it's broken. It means they are finding their old strats aren't as viable and are coming up with new ideas. Zerg did this for a year, Toss have probably done this. Just because it's your turn does not mean it's "broken".
One example of this is in my quote.
Safe against all-in's with Marines and Hellions, and has a very strong 10:00 timing to force a ton of units, AND a 12:00 follow up to keep him from droning for just a little bit longer all while setting up a third at 11:00, more infrastructure, and double Ebay+Armory.
Protoss did something similar by forgoing mostly Stalker in favour of Zealots in TvP, as well as getting more Templar.
|
I feel like the queen rush builds are strong counters to the primary terran midgame crutch builds pre patch. Reactor hellion and Medi drop heavy investment builds. Because those are really the primary midgame options for Terran, Terrans are either left with midgame timing pushes that feel like dice rolls, early game all ins, or macro games.
Zerg, currently, in the metagame, are a real nightmare for late game terran. Getting the ratios of vikings to other stuff just right to counter brood lords is hard, and terran don't have the choice of flipping between broodlord countering compositions and ultralisk countering compositions the way zerg have the choice of flipping between broodlords and ultralisks, which makes late game zerg extremely potent from a metagame perspective (although I feel their max armies are still less powerful, to remax on a composition your opponent can't counter is extremely powerful)
From watching tonnes of games, I really do feel like there's probably many unexplored solutions for terran. QXC's bunker thing gives some hope. The new realization that queens are psyonic units and therefore vulnerable to ghosts I think also has yet to be more thoroughly explored. I also feel like I've seen successful midgame timing pushes that terrans can make more ironclad and reliable than currently they are... That being said, terrans lost their silver bullet to kill the zerg werewolf, and they are CLEARLY heavily suffering when you study the tournament results. They were already probably the toughest race to play, I think SOME buff from blizzard would be in order, although I hesitate to claim they need to rollback the queen. I'd personally like to see a tank buff, and maybe something late game relevant, like a BC buff.
|
On June 22 2012 15:16 SwiftSpear wrote:
I feel like the queen rush builds are strong counters to the primary terran midgame crutch builds pre patch. Reactor hellion and Medi drop heavy investment builds. Because those are really the primary midgame options for Terran, Terrans are either left with midgame timing pushes that feel like dice rolls, early game all ins, or macro games.
Zerg, currently, in the metagame, are a real nightmare for late game terran. Getting the ratios of vikings to other stuff just right to counter brood lords is hard, and terran don't have the choice of flipping between broodlord countering compositions and ultralisk countering compositions the way zerg have the choice of flipping between broodlords and ultralisks, which makes late game zerg extremely potent from a metagame perspective (although I feel their max armies are still less powerful, to remax on a composition your opponent can't counter is extremely powerful)
From watching tonnes of games, I really do feel like there's probably many unexplored solutions for terran. QXC's bunker thing gives some hope. The new realization that queens are psyonic units and therefore vulnerable to ghosts I think also has yet to be more thoroughly explored. I also feel like I've seen successful midgame timing pushes that terrans can make more ironclad and reliable than currently they are... That being said, terrans lost their silver bullet to kill the zerg werewolf, and they are CLEARLY heavily suffering when you study the tournament results. They were already probably the toughest race to play, I think SOME buff from blizzard would be in order, although I hesitate to claim they need to rollback the queen. I'd personally like to see a tank buff, and maybe something late game relevant, like a BC buff.
BUT BUT BUT
David Kim said that tanks are IMBAAAAAAAA
|
4713 Posts
On June 22 2012 15:16 SwiftSpear wrote:
I feel like the queen rush builds are strong counters to the primary terran midgame crutch builds pre patch. Reactor hellion and Medi drop heavy investment builds. Because those are really the primary midgame options for Terran, Terrans are either left with midgame timing pushes that feel like dice rolls, early game all ins, or macro games.
Zerg, currently, in the metagame, are a real nightmare for late game terran. Getting the ratios of vikings to other stuff just right to counter brood lords is hard, and terran don't have the choice of flipping between broodlord countering compositions and ultralisk countering compositions the way zerg have the choice of flipping between broodlords and ultralisks, which makes late game zerg extremely potent from a metagame perspective (although I feel their max armies are still less powerful, to remax on a composition your opponent can't counter is extremely powerful)
From watching tonnes of games, I really do feel like there's probably many unexplored solutions for terran. QXC's bunker thing gives some hope. The new realization that queens are psyonic units and therefore vulnerable to ghosts I think also has yet to be more thoroughly explored. I also feel like I've seen successful midgame timing pushes that terrans can make more ironclad and reliable than currently they are... That being said, terrans lost their silver bullet to kill the zerg werewolf, and they are CLEARLY heavily suffering when you study the tournament results. They were already probably the toughest race to play, I think SOME buff from blizzard would be in order, although I hesitate to claim they need to rollback the queen. I'd personally like to see a tank buff, and maybe something late game relevant, like a BC buff.
Terrans didn't ever have a "silver bullet" to kill zergs, what they had where some extremely greedy zergs that where often caught with their pants down when they tried to drone to hard and didn't make enough defenses. What terrans had where options to pressure or kill that caused certain reactions from the zerg, those said reactions eventually slowed down the zerg economy enough for the terran to be on equal footing. It took just as much skill for the zerg to figure out how many resources to allocate to defense and how much to drone up as it took skill for the terran to hit a good timing to try and punish said zerg.
QXC's bunker rush was a nice idea, until you realize it's even more vulnerable to a roach or bane bust then other builds, and if you lose all your bunkers on the front like you're in deep trouble once the zerg comes knocking at your front door.
What more exploration do you want there? Do you want to explore how hard the build can really fail?
Your suggestion of unexplored ghost play existing is also absurd. Firstly, it takes a long time to get ghosts and enough of them to even be relevant, secondly it is incredibly expensive, 100 gas at the point of time in the game you're suggesting is nearly half of the gas production of a terran, that delays your tech and transitions by a sever amount. You also don't want ghosts without upgrades because they are nearly worthless, you at least want cloak, so your ghosts don't get sniped by lings, that's another pile of resources out the window.
And what do you get? A really expensive unit that is only really good against queens and infestors, but because it is so expensive it has delayed your tech, your transition and your timings by so much that by the time you move out with an army the zerg can kill you just with a mass of 2/2 lings.
Lastly, ghosts are so expensive they will detract from your early defense, it will make you even more vulnerable to a roach or bane bust. As is it is already very hard to hold that kind of an attack without losing a lot of of SCVs, if you lose too many SCVs then the attack has payed for itself. Now how do you expect to hold that kind of an attack when the snipe can't even 1 shot a baneling any more? Or when the ghost itself costs as much as 4 marines, 2 hellions or more then 1 siege tank?
Seriously, try thinking ahead before you suggest exploring a tech path that will just get you more behind at that point of time.
|
On June 22 2012 06:23 Holophonist wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2012 06:17 bLo0d wrote:On June 22 2012 06:07 Holophonist wrote:On June 22 2012 05:58 scypio wrote:On June 22 2012 05:47 Holophonist wrote:
I didn't say when you clean up creep. I'm merely saying that if there's too much creep to attack, don't attack. clean up the creep and go home. I see so many (and play so many) zvts where terrans still TRY to be aggressive, and then cry when it doesn't work. It's not SUPPOSED to work anymore, that was the point of the buff.
Go home and do what exactly? Buld a couple of thors? Two BCs? Or maybe a bunch of ravens? It is official statement from Blizzard: T has to do early/mid game damage to have a shot at the lategame. And clearing out a couple of tumors will not do the trick. This kind of discussion really isn't helpful at all. The things you have to do to win this game (particularly the later in the game we're talking about), really can't be written out well enough to fully describe the situation. I'm not going to sit here and theory craft with you, as that really doesn't get anybody anywhere. Who would've thought that roaches (even roach drops for heavens sake!) could be a viable counter to stargate play in zvp. You don't think it's feasible to get 3 CC's, start 1/1, get medivacs out and begin to apply pressure using bio? Your first push may get crushed, at the expense of a considerable amount of gas, but bio play on 3 bases can be sustained for a LONG time, giving you a ton of time to trade cost efficiently and while expanding behind it. The point: have some humility and please realize that it may take more than a month for terran to come up with a new playstyle. Do you think it was good for the game to have hellions just plainly parked outside of the zerg natural, denying all creep/ling scouts until speed was done or until you got mutas out? That wasn't good for the game either. Game was perfectly fine before the patch. The period before speedlings, roaches, or mutas were out to push back hellions was Terran's period of map control. After hellions are gone, Zerg has map control with muta and can drone up their third while denying the third of terran. Terrans rarely left their base except possibly with a few drops until they stabilized defenses from muta. On both ends, hellion control and muta control rewarded the player with extended periods of map control. As is, unit control is almost nonexistant in the early game, no amount of hellion control would break through 4 queens, while zerg just has to transfuse. Not only is it broken, it also is very boring. The micro dynamic of the early - mid game with hellions and muta harrass is gone. Also going mutas gave Terran a chance to do damage before a full Hive tech tree was completed. As is, Hive tech at 15 minutes is just the standard and Terran aren't given any time to breathe. With mutas, Zerg had to do some damage to terran and keep him contained long enough to make the mutas worth it, which the best players were able to do. It was a back and forth of defensive vs offensive play. Now, all the burden is on terran all the time. Zerg just deflects attacks as it takes an uninterrupted tech path to Ultra/Brood infestor. ding larva. I understand the point about mutas rewarding the better play moreso than the current metagame does. And I agree that tvz was fine before the patch, for the most part. Long tvz's were often by far the best examples of what sc2 has to offer. The ones that WEREN'T entertaining or impressive were the early wins like marauder hellion, cloak banshee (not so much anymore), etc. And the point of the patch is to get rid of those games. The only question is "can terrans figure out a way to play the matchup that doesn't incorporate as much early aggression/cheese?" If they can't, hopefully blizz will change something to fix that. My point is that we're not at the point yet where we know whether or not they're capable of figuring that out.
Do you think all those early wins from roach/ling/bane busts are more interesting? While TvZ wasn't perfect it was probably the best non mirror matchup sc2 had to offer. No idea why they didn't start with changing stuff for TvP or ZvP which were way less fun to play and to watch. :/
|
On June 22 2012 16:08 Destructicon wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2012 15:16 SwiftSpear wrote:
I feel like the queen rush builds are strong counters to the primary terran midgame crutch builds pre patch. Reactor hellion and Medi drop heavy investment builds. Because those are really the primary midgame options for Terran, Terrans are either left with midgame timing pushes that feel like dice rolls, early game all ins, or macro games.
Zerg, currently, in the metagame, are a real nightmare for late game terran. Getting the ratios of vikings to other stuff just right to counter brood lords is hard, and terran don't have the choice of flipping between broodlord countering compositions and ultralisk countering compositions the way zerg have the choice of flipping between broodlords and ultralisks, which makes late game zerg extremely potent from a metagame perspective (although I feel their max armies are still less powerful, to remax on a composition your opponent can't counter is extremely powerful)
From watching tonnes of games, I really do feel like there's probably many unexplored solutions for terran. QXC's bunker thing gives some hope. The new realization that queens are psyonic units and therefore vulnerable to ghosts I think also has yet to be more thoroughly explored. I also feel like I've seen successful midgame timing pushes that terrans can make more ironclad and reliable than currently they are... That being said, terrans lost their silver bullet to kill the zerg werewolf, and they are CLEARLY heavily suffering when you study the tournament results. They were already probably the toughest race to play, I think SOME buff from blizzard would be in order, although I hesitate to claim they need to rollback the queen. I'd personally like to see a tank buff, and maybe something late game relevant, like a BC buff. Terrans didn't ever have a "silver bullet" to kill zergs, what they had where some extremely greedy zergs that where often caught with their pants down when they tried to drone to hard and didn't make enough defenses. What terrans had where options to pressure or kill that caused certain reactions from the zerg, those said reactions eventually slowed down the zerg economy enough for the terran to be on equal footing. It took just as much skill for the zerg to figure out how many resources to allocate to defense and how much to drone up as it took skill for the terran to hit a good timing to try and punish said zerg. QXC's bunker rush was a nice idea, until you realize it's even more vulnerable to a roach or bane bust then other builds, and if you lose all your bunkers on the front like you're in deep trouble once the zerg comes knocking at your front door. What more exploration do you want there? Do you want to explore how hard the build can really fail? Your suggestion of unexplored ghost play existing is also absurd. Firstly, it takes a long time to get ghosts and enough of them to even be relevant, secondly it is incredibly expensive, 100 gas at the point of time in the game you're suggesting is nearly half of the gas production of a terran, that delays your tech and transitions by a sever amount. You also don't want ghosts without upgrades because they are nearly worthless, you at least want cloak, so your ghosts don't get sniped by lings, that's another pile of resources out the window. And what do you get? A really expensive unit that is only really good against queens and infestors, but because it is so expensive it has delayed your tech, your transition and your timings by so much that by the time you move out with an army the zerg can kill you just with a mass of 2/2 lings. Lastly, ghosts are so expensive they will detract from your early defense, it will make you even more vulnerable to a roach or bane bust. As is it is already very hard to hold that kind of an attack without losing a lot of of SCVs, if you lose too many SCVs then the attack has payed for itself. Now how do you expect to hold that kind of an attack when the snipe can't even 1 shot a baneling any more? Or when the ghost itself costs as much as 4 marines, 2 hellions or more then 1 siege tank? Seriously, try thinking ahead before you suggest exploring a tech path that will just get you more behind at that point of time.
I do feel like at some point in the game ghosts need to return. Queens and infestors walk around like they own the place, and emp isnt that bad if you hit multiple units, and snipe actually works better on spellcasters. I don't know about your extremely aggressive arguments about imminenent death for experimental builds, but I'll take it as ture and still note that infestors are never ever threatened.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
