EPTAlso, I sense a small hint of whine in what you wrote.
Terran Early-game Discussion - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Twinkle Toes
United States3605 Posts
Also, I sense a small hint of whine in what you wrote. | ||
|
Boggyb
2855 Posts
| ||
|
CharAznable2
26 Posts
On October 03 2017 08:35 Boggyb wrote: Nerf ravagers to held Terran defend and you weaken Zerg's ability to handle bunker rushes. My god the bunker was nerfed a ton of times because of bunker rushes. Zerg never needed ravager to defend against bunker rush. If you said cannon rush would make more sense, because cannon rush was buffed with the lotv economy. | ||
|
brickrd
United States4894 Posts
On October 03 2017 07:59 Twinkle Toes wrote: LOTV seems to have opened up a lot of strategic options from all races. Some strats emerged strong, like early mass oracle and adept all in, but all in all there are more things to choose from now than before. Also, I sense a small hint of whine in what you wrote. yea, i generally agree. also, "strategic diversity" as spectators imagine it is more about patch recency than design tbh. most stuff gets figured out and most people at the top levels play stable styles because they're trying to win. on ladder at almost any level there's an insane amount of diversity in how you can play if you execute well and understand your own build. look at ruff for example - not a fan of the guy but he makes crazy shit work at high levels. harstem just cannon rushed in pvp the other day. i personally play in diamond and i do crazy made up builds all the time with all 3 races because it's fun. it's never going to be the top pros doing wacky new shit every single game because as a general rule pros pick stable builds. thats why players like sOs are celebrated, because theyre unusual and special | ||
|
Fango
United Kingdom8987 Posts
However, in terms of actual tactics/unit comps, LoTV is probably more diverse than HoTS which was rather static for most of the time | ||
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?37023 Posts
| ||
|
SpecKROELLchen
Germany151 Posts
You cannot deny the fact that it is boring to see and play reaper opening only. And the general trend that mass reapers got nerfed (which is a really good thing) and widow mine gets nerfed (also good against frustration) the question is what builds will replace these strats. And i think it is good to discuss this. Maybe some people have tried out some new strats at ptr. I think there could be some nice early game unit interaction in general against protoss without the mothership core and the shield battery IN THEORY. But i doubt that there will be anything vs z. | ||
|
Hadronsbecrazy
United Kingdom551 Posts
| ||
|
bulya
Israel386 Posts
CC first is either followed by a factory or 2, or simply by 3 rax for constant marine production. With the LOTV eco there are 3 CC builds. For example rax FE factory 3rd CC. And TY played a build where he skipped the factory on Acolyte vs Dark and put the 3rd CC straight after the 2nd CC. There are plenty of ways to play it early on, and I meet different builds. A reaper is important for scouting which tech the protoss goes for in TvP, as well as denying the 3rd as long as possible in TvZ. Many people on the ladder treat it as a tool to grab a few workers early on, but pros treat the reaper otherwise. This is why a reaper fast expand is that common on pro level, and on the ladder many just go for builds the find on the internet or simply copy pros. There are plenty of ways playing it early on. | ||
|
Psychobabas
2531 Posts
| ||
|
JackONeill
861 Posts
On October 03 2017 06:03 JimmyJRaynor wrote: you can create whatever dreamworld standards you want and call anything bad. "experts" are doing it for every Blizzard game and then proclaiming that the reason Blizz is still afloat is that all their other titles are good. the only title that is bad is the 1 that they have "expert level" knowledge. its interesting to see Blizz unwilling to release the name of the multiplayer design lead now that DK is gone. Prolly sick of the irrational hate. How interesting is it that when i state that "only casters and silly blizzard fanboys" call LOTV the best version of SC2, someone immediately proceeds to defend blizzard as a company and not argue the point? HOTS was a failure, and only solved the BLfestor meta to remplace it with even more ridiculous mechanics. LOTV was even more of a trainwreck, with an absolute lack of hype from the community and a failed "long beta stage". Any counterpoint should be about how community reception and player population evolution. You illustrate yourself perfectly as a blizz fanboy defending the company, and not the product. | ||
|
Vanadiel
France961 Posts
| ||
|
clickrush
Switzerland3257 Posts
First there are two very important general concepts T was always the most vulnerable and awkward race when it comes to macro openings since forever and this is not exclusive to LotV and even SC2. This is because Marines *suck* before they have stim plus healing and mech is kind of slow and expensive in the early game. When it comes to the midgame T is the dictating race in both non-mirrors. In general T has the most firepower per ressource (min/gas/supply) which makes it so that P and Z get punished ultra hard and *fast* if they make mistakes or don't react accordingly to what T is doing. T is simply the best midgame race when it comes to both controlling space (tanks/liberators) and counterattacking (MMM). Now specifically to roach ravager openings Look back at some of the losses you had against ravager timings. Any potent roach ravager attack is a huge investment on the Z side. In most of those games you are up in economy and Z is trying to deal damage as efficient as possible to you. This is Z abusing the fact that T is so vulnerable in a macro opening. But this is true for all races. If you are up against an aggressive opening then you need to respond as efficiently as possible or you die. If you look at the number of really safe openings for all matchups then you will notice that they aren't really that many. All races have about 1-2 general openings that lead to a macro game and *can* react to early game aggression. With Z it is either baneling nest or roach warren, with T it is additional barracks with stim or factory and with P it is robo or stargate. There are build order variations on all of those but the general theme is the same with all of them: You need to scout and be ready to pump out an early-midgame centric composition if you need it. This is just the way safe openings work, not just for T but for all races. So going back to the tradeoff T has I mentioned at the start There are basically two solutions to the early game of T. You can open aggressively yourself. In terms of aggressive openings T has by far the most options and is the best at denying scouts. Or you can simply scout with a reaper and/or scans which are the best scouting options in the game and build reactively until you reach your huge midgame spike which will reward you for scouting and reacting in the early game. | ||
|
Siegetank_Dieter1
117 Posts
back in hots bunkers could defend roach pressure or gateway pressure, which allowed terran to go for openings that don't have an early gas and factory. | ||
|
clickrush
Switzerland3257 Posts
On October 03 2017 20:52 JackONeill wrote: How interesting is it that when i state that "only casters and silly blizzard fanboys" call LOTV the best version of SC2, someone immediately proceeds to defend blizzard as a company and not argue the point? HOTS was a failure, and only solved the BLfestor meta to remplace it with even more ridiculous mechanics. LOTV was even more of a trainwreck, with an absolute lack of hype from the community and a failed "long beta stage". Any counterpoint should be about how community reception and player population evolution. You illustrate yourself perfectly as a blizz fanboy defending the company, and not the product. The only metric you provided so far to evalutate the quality of a game is popularity. Also you mentioned the new units, implying that you don't like them. IMO LotV is the best version of SC2 by far mostly because it is more economy based which leads to longer, more multitasking oriented games. This is mostly due to the map design and economy rehaul, but also due to the fact that the races got cleaned up with new units and balance changes. P moved a way from pure deathball into a more mobile midgame style with adepts (and oracles) while getting disruptors to hold off big midgame pushes. Z got AoE options for the midgame that can also be used aggressively vs macro opponents (due to nydus and the fact that the map opens up much more). T got a more mobile area control unit and the cyclone which helps to tech more smoothly into mech. All of these changes are very beneficial if you want longer games with more variety, especially tactically. Now the upcomming big balance changes will improve this even more. P will get more mobile with the removal of MSC and the changes to Nexus. Right now there are still too many base trades happening against P IMO. The stalker buff helps to diverge even more from deathball scenarios. Z gets stronger defensively with the lurker changes against midgame mass attacks. T mech is overall buffed with the transformation upgrade and the raven being a mech support unit instead of being a pure infinite value generator. | ||
|
Siegetank_Dieter1
117 Posts
My point is that lotv lost a lot of strategic depth in the early game, due to the combination of 12 worker start and certain early game units and mechanics being able to do way too much. Back in hots you had to tech up in order to do what early game units are able to do now in lotv. | ||
|
geokilla
Canada8230 Posts
On October 03 2017 17:49 SpecKROELLchen wrote: I think so many people get this thread wrong. Dieter already said he does not mean the build and playstyle diversity of the game in general BUT that you always have to do a reaper opening. You cannot deny the fact that it is boring to see and play reaper opening only. And the general trend that mass reapers got nerfed (which is a really good thing) and widow mine gets nerfed (also good against frustration) the question is what builds will replace these strats. And i think it is good to discuss this. Maybe some people have tried out some new strats at ptr. I think there could be some nice early game unit interaction in general against protoss without the mothership core and the shield battery IN THEORY. But i doubt that there will be anything vs z. For what it's worth, I've had a couple games against Protoss where I skip the Reaper and go directly into Reactored Marines. I use my SCV to scout the best I can and I can sometimes get away with it. Granted I'm only around 4100MMR so this probably doesn't work at the pro level, but yes, Reaper expands are getting boring. We can't aggro much anymore. I've tried Cyclone openings as well and I get completely destroyed most of the time. | ||
|
IMOrion
24 Posts
I understand trying to speed the game for the viewers but as a player it just seemed to much to me and one of the reason i have stopped playing as much (plus a few units but will not bitch here its a waste). maybe after the new patch ill try and come back but idk. personally i feel we lost a lot in the early game with the changes to the workers and min/gas. everything just feels very rushed like by the time i scout its to late to change my build were as WOL and Hots i could adjust in time, again idk I don't play enough anymore to really have the best opinion. just my 2 cents | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16694 Posts
On October 05 2017 07:12 IMOrion wrote: personally i feel we lost a lot in the early game with the changes to the workers and min/gas. everything just feels very rushed like by the time i scout its to late to change my build were as WOL and Hots i could adjust in time, again idk I don't play enough anymore to really have the best opinion. just my 2 cents i play 40% Terran and 60% Random. early game SC2 pacing feels a lot like the pace of the early game of a C&C title... and i like it... its more fun. when i'm Terran and i lose and i meticulously go over the replay what i discover is.. its usually because my opponent is better than me. On October 03 2017 20:52 JackONeill wrote: How interesting is it that when i state that "only casters and silly blizzard fanboys" call LOTV the best version of SC2, someone immediately proceeds to defend blizzard as a company and not argue the point? HOTS was a failure, and only solved the BLfestor meta to remplace it with even more ridiculous mechanics. LOTV was even more of a trainwreck, with an absolute lack of hype from the community and a failed "long beta stage". Any counterpoint should be about how community reception and player population evolution. You illustrate yourself perfectly as a blizz fanboy defending the company, and not the product. there have been dozens of versions of SC2 since March 2010. its difficult for me to say if this is the absolute best version. the current version is very, very good. i'm satisfied with the product. my #1 beef is that i can't use my skins in WoL games. that is complete and total bullshit and the kind of oversight Blizzard used to never make. Blizzard used to make sure ever dime i spent was 100% well earned. | ||
|
hiroshOne
Poland425 Posts
| ||
| ||
