| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Dalavita
Sweden1113 Posts
On April 26 2013 05:08 Saumure wrote: The problem is that not everyone has so much APM that mines don't do damage no more. Sometimes my overseer gets sniped, and I just dont see it. Then get better. It's not like you're physically uncapable of doing it. I can do half-assed marine splits fine. Sending single units to get widow mines isn't very hard. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On April 26 2013 05:25 Dalavita wrote: Then get better. It's not like you're physically uncapable of doing it. I can do half-assed marine splits fine. Sending single units to get widow mines isn't very hard. How hard it is does not matter--both are doable. One being harder or easier is not relevant to the discussion. I would argue that making workers is a better and more important skill than either of those two--but require much less manual dexterity. So please, stop the "isn't very hard" quips. | ||
|
Decendos
Germany1341 Posts
basicall you get 3 bases, get lair and do a lairtech all in. if you macro you will lose vs much lesser opponents. mass mines are okay while mass infestors were broken...yeah right. nice double moral. oh and i HATE mass infestors in wol. havent even played the game sinece 7-8 months. its just really bad to introduce a unit that has no counter and ALWAYS will do damage. there is literally no way for zerg to kill mines without losing something. and since mines are dirtcheap, the mine needs to kill 4 lings and has paid for itself.... people will laugh about how broken this unit was in some months. once T know the all in timings and how to scout for them (which are like 90% of all high level wins = all in from Z) there will be no way for Z to win since you cant trade with mines in a closely cost efficient way. really hope they dont wait too long. mines are the way they are for 3-5 months now...its time blizzard. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On April 26 2013 07:00 Decendos wrote: yeah there is literally no way to play macro game ZvT right now. all you can do ist mass ling bling all ins and hope T fucks up or do really gimmicky stuff like symbols roach nydus all ins etc. basicall you get 3 bases, get lair and do a lairtech all in. if you macro you will lose vs much lesser opponents. mass mines are okay while mass infestors were broken...yeah right. nice double moral. oh and i HATE mass infestors in wol. havent even played the game sinece 7-8 months. its just really bad to introduce a unit that has no counter and ALWAYS will do damage. there is literally no way for zerg to kill mines without losing something. and since mines are dirtcheap, the mine needs to kill 4 lings and has paid for itself.... people will laugh about how broken this unit was in some months. once T know the all in timings and how to scout for them (which are like 90% of all high level wins = all in from Z) there will be no way for Z to win since you cant trade with mines in a closely cost efficient way. really hope they dont wait too long. mines are the way they are for 3-5 months now...its time blizzard. You don't play for 7-8 months and then whine that mines are OP? Brilliant analysis! I can't believe that zerg gets 3 or more bases, applies heavy pressure, and then has to defend terran counterpressure until hive tech where terran then has to turtle like this is somehow some back and forth match where the aggressor and the defender bounces around as initiative shifts. Terran has to multitask to beat zerg and zerg loses if they can't keep up with moving units around the map? For shame! | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On April 26 2013 07:00 Decendos wrote: yeah there is literally no way to play macro game ZvT right now. all you can do ist mass ling bling all ins and hope T fucks up or do really gimmicky stuff like symbols roach nydus all ins etc. Out of the 17 Zerg wins against Terran in Code S (in which, during the darkest times of the Mine/Medivac Apocalypse, Zergs have to endure an abysmal 17:18 ratio in maps won/lost), 11 were macro games. Maybe you would know this if your "complaining:trying to adapt" ratio was inferior to 100:1. its just really bad to introduce a unit that has no counter and ALWAYS will do damage. there is literally no way for zerg to kill mines without losing something. and since mines are dirtcheap, the mine needs to kill 4 lings and has paid for itself.... You live in fairylands if you think Terran is interested in trading one Mine against 4 Zerglings. I mean, don't tell me that your thought process is actually "One Mine costs 75/25, 75 + 25 = 100, 4 Zerglings cost 100/0, so things are equal". Please tell me this is something else... | ||
|
Decendos
Germany1341 Posts
On April 26 2013 07:07 Thieving Magpie wrote: You don't play for 7-8 months and then whine that mines are OP? Brilliant analysis! I can't believe that zerg gets 3 or more bases, applies heavy pressure, and then has to defend terran counterpressure until hive tech where terran then has to turtle like this is somehow some back and forth match where the aggressor and the defender bounces around as initiative shifts. Terran has to multitask to beat zerg and zerg loses if they can't keep up with moving units around the map? For shame! i havent played wol since 7-8 months. i played all of hots beta and hots...nice try... mines are just horribly broken. they are way too cost efficient. if you manage to see its not that way...yeah well you are ultra biased. btw no counter argument to why its okay to have 10-20 mines but 10-20 infestors was broken while both are supposed to be support units. oh and @dwf: was it 11 games from the 35 that were macro games or 11 wins? and did you count 3 base ling bling all ins there? thats not a macro game... User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
NEEDZMOAR
Sweden1277 Posts
On April 26 2013 05:11 BigBossX wrote: Absolute bull shit, I don't believe this for even a second. Masters players will win over diamonds and platinums with sheer mechanics alone. Also its highly unlikely a player can consistently lose 2/3 matchups and still maintain masters. Stop throwing fuel onto the fire for this retarded zerg whine. yeah Id call bullshit as well, then hots-T happend. 2/3 matchups thats why I said I wasnt sure about the TvT because it just doesnt make sense. | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On April 26 2013 15:22 Decendos wrote: oh and @dwf: was it 11 games from the 35 that were macro games or 11 wins? and did you count 3 base ling bling all ins there? thats not a macro game... As I said, 11 games out of the 17 ZvT wins. And no, I did not include succesful 3-bases attacks cutting eco and/or tech such as 3-bases Baneling busts or Shine's Roach attack against KeeN on Bel'shir Vestige. Moral of the story, winning macro games in ZvT is perfectly possible and you have zero evidence of the contrary. | ||
|
NEEDZMOAR
Sweden1277 Posts
On April 26 2013 21:03 TheDwf wrote: As I said, 11 games out of the 17 ZvT wins. And no, I did not include succesful 3-bases attacks cutting eco and/or tech such as 3-bases Baneling busts or Shine's Roach attack against KeeN on Bel'shir Vestige. Moral of the story, winning macro games in ZvT is perfectly possible and you have zero evidence of the contrary. Im sorry but Ive seen all of them and none of the games were straight up macro games were the zerg didnt abuse a fuckup from T or an all-in timing. If you have any examples of what you call straight up macro games please list them and I'll reconsider my statement but until then, no. | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On April 26 2013 21:23 NEEDZMOAR wrote: Im sorry but Ive seen all of them and none of the games were straight up macro games were the zerg didnt abuse a fuckup from T or an all-in timing. If you have any examples of what you call straight up macro games please list them and I'll reconsider my statement but until then, no. I don't understand your objection. Macro game ≠ no rush 15, and exploiting mistakes from your opponents to win is something common in a strategy game. | ||
|
NEEDZMOAR
Sweden1277 Posts
On April 26 2013 21:30 TheDwf wrote: I don't understand your objection. Macro game ≠ no rush 15, and exploiting mistakes from your opponents to win is something common in a strategy game. not when its 1) metagame "mistakes" such as not building tanks which leads to an all-in attack with ling bling or 2) your opponent is much worse than you, makes an earlygame pressure attack that fail miserably and then proceeds on to non-stop rallying troops into your opponent and hoping for your opponent to not be good enough to micro against it/blindly throwing away units at you which gives the Z opponent an advantage, not because he outplayed his opponent but because his opponents play made zero sense. Those are all things that first of all, the zerg can absolutely not afford to do, secondly as soon as T figure out the timings of all-ins from Z and evolve in the matchup (InNovations TvZ being a great example) there wont be any major brainfarts for Z to capitalize on. I consider a macro game to be when both opponents meet on equal grounds and are able to do so. Im still waiting for your examples, mate. | ||
|
mechengineer123
Ukraine711 Posts
On April 26 2013 21:35 NEEDZMOAR wrote: not when its 1) metagame "mistakes" such as not building tanks which leads to an all-in attack with ling bling or 2) your opponent is much worse than you, makes an earlygame pressure attack that fail miserably and then proceeds on to non-stop rallying troops into your opponent and hoping for your opponent to not be good enough to micro against it/blindly throwing away units at you which gives the Z opponent an advantage, not because he outplayed his opponent but because his opponents play made zero sense. Those are all things that first of all, the zerg can absolutely not afford to do, secondly as soon as T figure out the timings of all-ins from Z and evolve in the matchup (InNovations TvZ being a great example) there wont be any major brainfarts for Z to capitalize on. I consider a macro game to be when both opponents meet on equal grounds and are able to do so. Im still waiting for your examples, mate. You have no examples either. You basically just said that when zergs fuck up it's because terran is op, and when terrans fuck up it's because they are bad. Wow, solid arguments there, mate. | ||
|
NEEDZMOAR
Sweden1277 Posts
On April 26 2013 21:46 mechengineer123 wrote: You have no examples either. You basically just said that when zergs fuck up it's because terran is op, and when terrans fuck up it's because they are bad. Wow, solid arguments there, mate. Im claiming that not a single zvt in GSL this season has been a straight up macro game. Now go ahead and disprove me by naming any of the 11 games. Do you even watch GSL? Now for theDwf, please link the games or name the ones youre referring to... | ||
|
Scorch
Austria3371 Posts
You need an overseer neither too far away nor too much in the front. Losing overseers gets expensive quickly and is likely to supply block you. The only zerg ground unit that can just kill mines with superior range is the hydralisk, and you don't really want to build those against terran. That means you will almost always take damage from a mine. Sending single zerglings can be a good trade, but it doesn't work if there's support to kill them before they can set off the mines. If you run your army into a mine unsuspectingly, the result is devastating. The psychological factor is hard to evaluate, but the presence of mines makes the zerg frustrated and paranoid. Widow mines don't take damage from their own splash damage and you can't safely engage them with air either, which just leaves no really good way of cleaning up mines efficiently. They just give a lot of utility and potentially high reward, annoy the zerg to no end and force mistakes, all for a low investment in both resources and apm. | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
On April 26 2013 21:47 NEEDZMOAR wrote: Im claiming that not a single zvt in GSL this season has been a straight up macro game. Now go ahead and disprove me by naming any of the 11 games. Do you even watch GSL? Now for theDwf, please link the games or name the ones youre referring to... Why would he need to post them, there are so few of them and they are all on liquipedia. For example, go watch Bomber v Roro and tell me Z cannot win a macro game when T goes for WM. This is especially true of game 3, Roro just outplayed Bomber through taking small advantages in engagements while building a much stronger economy. | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On April 26 2013 21:35 NEEDZMOAR wrote: not when its 1) metagame "mistakes" such as not building tanks which leads to an all-in attack with ling bling Reading posts would be a nice way to start, because I have already stated I discounted those attacks. Skipping Tanks is not a mistake against 3-bases Baneling busts by the way, you can defend those attacks with 4M (Last vs Life, Akilon Wastes, MLG; Polt vs Life, Akilon Wastes, MLG; YoDa vs Lucky, Akilon Wastes, GSTL). Tanks are only mandatory against hardcore Roaches attacks. I consider a macro game to be when both opponents meet on equal grounds and are able to do so. I don't see why a macro game implies equal skill from both sides, or even an equal position in the game. For instance, on Star Station MarineKing played from behind the whole game against Curious due to his horrible 2 rax reapers expand build order, but it was still a macro game. I don't know if it's the case but assuming Curious is a better player than MarineKing, it changes nothing to the nature of the game. Im still waiting for your examples, mate. You can deduce them from the criteria I gave to Decendos, I discounted all games in which Zerg won with an all-in so the rest fits. | ||
|
achan1058
1091 Posts
On April 26 2013 21:47 NEEDZMOAR wrote: Im claiming that not a single zvt in GSL this season has been a straight up macro game. Now go ahead and disprove me by naming any of the 11 games. Do you even watch GSL? Now for theDwf, please link the games or name the ones youre referring to... Maybe we shouldn't be playing this "macro game", since it's generally very boring. We saw too much of it in late WoL, and I can do with some change. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On April 26 2013 22:08 achan1058 wrote: Maybe we shouldn't be playing this "macro game", since it's generally very boring. We saw too much of it in late WoL, and I can do with some change. By Macro game, he probably means that both get three bases and doesn't move out till BL. Because these back and forth games where Terran or Zerg attack, gets stopped, get counterattacked, defends, and counters back constantly throughout for nonstop action is apparently boring to him. | ||
|
VieuxSinge
France231 Posts
TvZ right now is awesome to watch / awesome to play. | ||
|
NEEDZMOAR
Sweden1277 Posts
On April 26 2013 21:56 Ghanburighan wrote: Why would he need to post them, there are so few of them and they are all on liquipedia. For example, go watch Bomber v Roro and tell me Z cannot win a macro game when T goes for WM. This is especially true of game 3, Roro just outplayed Bomber through taking small advantages in engagements while building a much stronger economy. Roro did shit on Bomber but Bomber fucked up hard and Roro utilized that, none of those games were standard whatsoever, first game Roro did an all-in and won / Bomber killed his own OC. second game bomber did an all-in that failed, still won due to WM 3rd game RoRo held an all-in from bomber and won. Will you please just read previous posts before you say anything? From this moment on Im only going to respond to an eventual(probably will never come) response from TheDwf. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
BSL
TerrOr vs OyAji
UltrA vs Gosudark
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV Invitational
IPSL
Art_Of_Turtle vs KameZerg
Radley vs George
BSL
Artosis vs Dewalt
Ret vs Tech
SOOP
soO vs FanTaSy
WardiTV Weekly
Monday Night Weeklies
PiGosaur Cup
The PondCast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
