| Forum Index > Brood War Strategy |
|
Jealous
10081 Posts
On November 26 2018 17:26 L_Master wrote: How any of these situations end up in protoss on 3 bases I have no idea what you are talking about. In no situation does protoss have double nex and 6 goons at first tank timing. I can show you how. + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/2836/2982/products/gouda_hero_grande.jpg?v=1529434181) | ||
|
Highgamer
1373 Posts
On November 26 2018 17:26 L_Master wrote: Dunno what you're getting at. Autosuggestion based on flawed perception? What autosuggestion? It's not clear what "that" refers to. As for the main paragraph....it sounds like a rant. What do you mean by 2zlot vs 2-3 marines is "built into BW by accident"? That sounds like garbage nonsense. The whole game was largely built by accident. I agree it's an easier attack to do as protoss than it is to defend as terran. No doubt. Especially in lag. But you make it sound like it's absurdly powerful...which it isn't. You know that you're the first Protoss to just admit this? This makes me quite happy and I estimate it quite high because even though it's so obvious, dozens of Protoss players that I calmly confronted with this issue over the years just can't bring thelselves to do it. They ignore that I insist on only talking about low-/mid-level, only about this specific situation, that I don't say it's unbeatable, that I don't say the MU is broken or anything... Just like I would admit that it's easier to cast an irradiate than to split your mutas, for example... What tipped me off - that's why I quoted it, to show what I'm refering to... - was this bit by Jealous: On November 25 2018 21:05 Jealous wrote: This beats: 1. Bad players 2. Players worse than you if you're not that good 3. Players who don't wall and don't know how to micro vs zealot (see 1) 2. Players who don't wall and don't wall in-base (see 1) 1. Most terrans up until 1700 or so You (Jealous) have to admit that is an intentional, pretty mean summary of sub 1700 Terrans... Bottom line is: All Terrans until 1700 are bad players because they keep losing to early zealot pressure from time to time. If you can do this build order and order your zealots to attack, then you're better than them even though they might follow a build order just as well as you do... It doesn't occur to you why they lose to this and I tried to explain why. I think it is because if both players just follow their build order, Protoss ends up with the better, easier to use units at this specific points in time. See: I know how to beat zealot pressure now, but posts like yours bring me back to when I was a Terran starting out and couldn't get my head around the fact that any Protoss, no matter their level, should have this tool in their arsenal for free to cause me problems before I can even have any more marines or any factory unit. So I argue out of principle here, not because I don't know what helps (play more, become better). If Protoss goes for the early zealots, the scenario is: 1 Zealot agianst 1-2 marines. 2 Zealots against 3-4 marines. Terran can wall - but learning to wall, I think you can agree, would be an additional skill that Terrans need that Protoss does not... what is to be argued about this? Additionally: If you don't have a wall, that is a pretty good matchup for Protoss. The zealots shred the marines if both players are not that good at micro, so it's harder for the Terran player at first. Oftentimes you can deal with the zealots, but it puts you behind for a bad start, Protoss can calmy expand behind this. There is no way for Terran to avoid this situation, you cannot have more marines or a factory faster without sacrificing economy. So every game a low/mid-level Terran might face this unfavorable scenario and there is nothing to be done about it... except gaining additional skills that Protoss doesn't need: walling on every map every starting locations (and learning to deal with it's problems), learning to micro better. What is your answer to this? Except "well, you just have to get better and then it won't matter". Exactly, and until then a lot of equally bad Protoss players can get a free win with this strategy - that's ALL I'm saying. As for the other situations I mentioned, I admit it was a bit frustration speaking and I should have made it clear by "FE" i mean a pre-factory expand, but I think I have a point with the observation of the unit-ratios: I just find it interesting that we consider it normal that a Terran has to hide in his base behind 1-2 siege tanks and a wall against 5-6 goons at the front that would crush his army in any open-field scenario. Later on its 5-6 tanks against 12-14 goons or something. The unit counts can be so out of proportion in this matchup, that's just how it is. Of course Terran can win with a good push at some point, but see it from the Terran perspective: "well, the game gives him more bases, more units, more tech-variety, more map control - I on the other hand have one push that can go either way..." Another example: If Protoss goes for something like a fast reaver combined with goon-pressure Terran needs perfect turrets, perfect control of the 2-3 tanks he can have at this point, SCV-pull - just to survive a by no means all-in attack... All I'm saying is that in a lot of the "standard" situations in this matchup Terran is incredibly close to defeat. Terran can create such a situation for Protoss once or twice in the course of a game, but Terran can die to so much shit it's not funny, not if you're a low-/mid-level player. And then a guy like you comes around telling you you're just worse than your opponent... You even claim in your edited post that creative, positive people naturally gravitate towards Protoss and stubborn, lazy, angry people naturally gravitate towards Terran... This was pretty self-revealing. One can not know why people pick a certain race, but one can assume that you have people of all talents pick each race. If they change race later that might have to do with their experience of losing/winning more with a certain race. But you rather go with that convenient, self-righteous none-sense that switches up cause and effect instead of asking yourself a reasonable question: What might be the reason that low/mid-Terrans complain more? They lose more. Now why might that be? "They're just baaaad." | ||
|
kogeT
Poland2023 Posts
On November 26 2018 19:02 Highgamer wrote: You know that you're the first Protoss to just admit this? This makes me quite happy and I estimate it quite high because even though it's so obvious, dozens of Protoss players that I calmly confronted with this issue over the years just can't bring thelselves to do it. They ignore that I insist on only talking about low-/mid-level, only about this specific situation, that I don't say it's unbeatable, that I don't say the MU is broken or anything... Just like I would admit that it's easier to cast an irradiate than to split your mutas, for example... What tipped me off - that's why I quoted it, to show what I'm refering to... - was this bit by Jealous: You (Jealous) have to admit that is an intentional, pretty mean summary of sub 1700 Terrans... Bottom line is: All Terrans until 1700 are bad players because they keep losing to early zealot pressure from time to time. If you can do this build order and order your zealots to attack, then you're better than them even though they might follow a build order just as well as you do... It doesn't occur to you why they lose to this and I tried to explain why. I think it is because if both players just follow their build order, Protoss ends up with the better, easier to use units at this specific points in time. See: I know how to beat zealot pressure now, but posts like yours bring me back to when I was a Terran starting out and couldn't get my head around the fact that any Protoss, no matter their level, should have this tool in their arsenal for free to cause me problems before I can even have any more marines or any factory unit. So I argue out of principle here, not because I don't know what helps (play more, become better). If Protoss goes for the early zealots, the scenario is: 1 Zealot agianst 1-2 marines. 2 Zealots against 3-4 marines. Terran can wall - but learning to wall, I think you can agree, would be an additional skill that Terrans need that Protoss does not... what is to be argued about this? Additionally: If you don't have a wall, that is a pretty good matchup for Protoss. The zealots shred the marines if both players are not that good at micro, so it's harder for the Terran player at first. There is no way for Terran to avoid this situation, you cannot have more marines or a factory faster without sacrificing economy. So every game a low/mid-level Terran might face this unfavorable scenario and there is nothing to be done about it... except gaining additional skills that Protoss doesn't need: walling on every map every starting locations (and learning to deal with it's problems), learning to micro better. What is your answer to this? Except "well, you just have to get better and then it won't matter". Exactly, and until then a lot of equally bad Protoss players can get a free win with this strategy - that's ALL I'm saying. As for the other situations I mentioned, I admit it was a bit frustration speaking and I should have made it clear by "FE" i mean a pre-factory expand, but I think I have a point with the observation of the unit-ratios: I just find it interesting that we consider it normal that a Terran has to hide in his base behind 1-2 siege tanks and a wall against 5-6 goons at the front that would crush his army in any other scenario. Later on its 5-6 tanks against 12-14 goons or something. The unit counts can be so out of proportion in this matchup, that's just how it is. Of course Terran can win with a good push at some point, but see it from the Terran perspective: "well, the game gives him more bases, more units, more tech-variety, more map control - I on the other hand have one push that can go either way..." Another example: If Protoss goes for something like a fast reaver combined with goon-pressure Terran needs perfect turrets, perfect control of the 2-3 tanks he can have at this point, SCV-pull - just to survive a by no means all-in attack... All I'm saying is that in a lot of the "standard" situations in this matchup Terran is incredibly close to defeat. Terran can create such a situation for Protoss once or twice in the course of a game, but Terran can die to so much shit it's not funny, not if you're a low-/mid-level player. And then a guy like you comes around telling you you're just worse than your opponent... You even claim in your edited post that creative, positive people naturally gravitate towards Protoss and stubborn, lazy, angry people naturally gravitate towards Terran... This was pretty self-revealing. One can not know why people pick a certain race, but one can assume that you have people of all talents pick each race. If they change race later that might have to do with their experience of losing/winning more with a certain race. But you rather go with that convenient, self-righteous none-sense that switches up cause and effect instead of asking yourself a reasonable question: What might be the reason that low/mid-Terrans complain more? They lose more. Now why might that be? "They're just baaaad." I disagree with what you wrote.. I'm a 2500 terran and still die to 1 gate zealot rushes like a noob, both wie rax fe and 12 gas. :D | ||
|
Highgamer
1373 Posts
I didn't want to rant btw and I don't think I did, I love playing BW and TvP because it's such a challenge, it's so rewarding to win this mu in particular. I just want to really sort things out sometimes even if it means being picky about seemingly insignificant details - like admitting zealot-pressure, even though it can be dealt with cleanly, is a bit OP on lower levels (and especially if you're tired or drunk or high or have lag xD). edit: and of course 2500-zealot-pressure must be one of the scariest things, more than if some noob does it... I'm not saying I don't deserve some losses against it if I see that the Protoss knows what he's doing. | ||
|
kogeT
Poland2023 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28525 Posts
Even Flash ended up losing quite a lot against bisu's single gate zealots because his micro was less than perfect in ASL 4. Sharp fucked up in recent KSL game. I can hold a 1700 mmr's single gate zealot just fine pretty much every game, but against a 2500+ mmr protoss I'll end up disadvantaged quite frequently. | ||
|
chozen86
United States60 Posts
On November 26 2018 19:02 Highgamer wrote: Terran can wall - but learning to wall, I think you can agree, would be an additional skill that Terrans need that Protoss does not... what is to be argued about this? Additionally: If you don't have a wall, that is a pretty good matchup for Protoss. The zealots shred the marines if both players are not that good at micro, so it's harder for the Terran player at first. Oftentimes you can deal with the zealots, but it puts you behind for a bad start, Protoss can calmy expand behind this. There is no way for Terran to avoid this situation, you cannot have more marines or a factory faster without sacrificing economy. So every game a low/mid-level Terran might face this unfavorable scenario and there is nothing to be done about it... except gaining additional skills that Protoss doesn't need: walling on every map every starting locations (and learning to deal with it's problems), learning to micro better. What is your answer to this? Except "well, you just have to get better and then it won't matter". Exactly, and until then a lot of equally bad Protoss players can get a free win with this strategy - that's ALL I'm saying. Reminds me (as a Protoss myself) of PVZ! Just lost a ladder game the other day (I'm E rank) because I built my FFE wallin *slightly* off on Aztec (spawned bottom right) and couldn't figure out how to get the probe to block the forge-pylon gap: didn't get killed by the speedling runby, but suffered enough economic damage that I lost the game pretty quickly after. | ||
|
Jealous
10081 Posts
On November 26 2018 19:02 Highgamer wrote: You know that you're the first Protoss to just admit this? This makes me quite happy and I estimate it quite high because even though it's so obvious, dozens of Protoss players that I calmly confronted with this issue over the years just can't bring thelselves to do it. They ignore that I insist on only talking about low-/mid-level, only about this specific situation, that I don't say it's unbeatable, that I don't say the MU is broken or anything... Just like I would admit that it's easier to cast an irradiate than to split your mutas, for example... You were waiting for years for someone to confirm to you that one Zealot beats 1-2 Marines with no micro? More importantly, you've been complaining to dozens of players over years about this? Lmao. On November 26 2018 19:02 Highgamer wrote: What tipped me off - that's why I quoted it, to show what I'm refering to... - was this bit by Jealous: You (Jealous) have to admit that is an intentional, pretty mean summary of sub 1700 Terrans... That triggered you? Here's I'll make one that is just as accurate for ZvP: Go 5 Pool. This beats: 1. Bad players. 2. Players worse than you if you're not that good. 3. Players who don't wall and don't know how to micro vs zergling (see 1) 2. Players who don't wall and don't block ramp (see 1) 1. Most Protoss up until 1700 or so PS: Unlike for Terran defending against zealots, a wall alone won't save you. Waiting to collect those salty, salty Protoss tears. The bottom line ACTUALLY is: There are cheesy builds in ALL match-ups that are simply easier to pull off because they provide you with a unit advantage against most of the common openings of the opponent. Despite this obvious truth, this hit a nerve with you and made you go on a balance whine tirade. Meanwhile, I'm sure you're perfectly content when a 180 supply 2-1 Terran army takes out two or three waves of 200/200 Protoss, with half of the units getting vaporized by Siege Tanks in the first volley before ever even entering combat, for example. Also, I understand that perhaps forums are not the best venue for subtlety, especially in an international community such as this one, but I thought that it was quite clear that my summary was meant to be somewhat humorous and thus taken with a grain of salt. Furthermore, you got all butthurt over what was essentially me answering a question about a build. I didn't say that the person should do this build, or advertise it as such. They asked: "What build gets 2 Zealots before Cybernetics Core?" and I answered. If that is enough to trigger you, I suggest you stay away from iopq's Zerg ladder guide and the early pool guide threads, because those DEFINITELY advertise cheesy builds that prey upon low level players, Terran included. On November 26 2018 19:02 Highgamer wrote: Bottom line is: All Terrans until 1700 are bad players because they keep losing to early zealot pressure from time to time. If you can do this build order and order your zealots to attack, then you're better than them even though they might follow a build order just as well as you do... You just fell into a classical fallacy of reverse causality. I never stated that 1700 and below Terrans are bad because this works against them. I'm saying this works against bad Terrans because they are bad. There is a big difference there. The fact that most of those Terrans can be found under the 1700 mark is undeniably true, because where else are bad Terrans going to be? I admit that it depends on your definition of "bad" or how exclusive you want to be. For you, perhaps it'd be more fair to say that Terrans under 1500 is a better estimate. For top Korean players, I'm sure they think of everyone below 2000 as being terrible. I know that on ICCup, for example, the expectations for the community were quite clear - the administration said that they intended for the "real ladder" to start at A-, but it is readily apparent that 99% of the BW-playing population of ICCup did not measure up to that standard. I drew the line at 1700 because from my personal experience, that is around the marker where this build simply stops being as effective because Terran micro is now good, in that it deflects the first 1-2 Zealots sometimes with 0 losses. More on that later. On November 26 2018 19:02 Highgamer wrote: It doesn't occur to you why they lose to this and I tried to explain why. I think it is because if both players just follow their build order, Protoss ends up with the better, easier to use units at this specific points in time. I'm sorry but I'm well aware of why Terrans lose to this, so I am going to ignore this line of discussion. On November 26 2018 19:02 Highgamer wrote: See: I know how to beat zealot pressure now, but posts like yours bring me back to when I was a Terran starting out and couldn't get my head around the fact that any Protoss, no matter their level, should have this tool in their arsenal for free to cause me problems before I can even have any more marines or any factory unit. So I argue out of principle here, not because I don't know what helps (play more, become better). There it is. The full admission of this being an emotionally-driven argument from you. This is just simple balance whine at its core. As a young Protoss, I couldn't get my head around the fact that any Terran, no matter their level, should have access to Vultures that shit out 3 invisible heat-seeking mini-nukes, travel faster than any unit, 2-shot Probes, and cost only 75 minerals. See how easy this is? The answer is and always will be: stop crying, get better. Boohoo, certain parts of the meta feel unfair. You could just go 2 Barracks and then you'll be safe from Zealot pressure from now until eternity, but no, you don't do that because you want quick tech in the form of Siege Tanks so you have to cut your early unit production in order to achieve this strategic goal. That's a strategic choice you make every game. Don't complain about the lack of early defenses when you're effectively rushing tech. This is a strategy game - there are trade-offs that you are intentionally making, even if somewhat blindly by following a BO without understanding WHY it is the way it is. I'll address this more later. On November 26 2018 19:02 Highgamer wrote: If Protoss goes for the early zealots, the scenario is: 1 Zealot agianst 1-2 marines. 2 Zealots against 3-4 marines. Terran can wall - but learning to wall, I think you can agree, would be an additional skill that Terrans need that Protoss does not... what is to be argued about this? This is a moronic argument. Since 2007 at the very least, Protoss walling has been much more of a requirement than Terran walling. Ignoring the need to wall your expansions from Vulture harassment, Protoss have to wall in nearly EVERY PvZ they play. I personally find walling your nat with consideration for the placement of no less than 5 buildings (don't block Nexus, place pylon in a way that reaches forward and out enough to afford space for the appropriate Gate/Forge alignment that is also spawn-dependent and map-dependent, while also leaving room for at least one Cannon behind) harder than the 2-3 you need for Terran which can be simplified to "depot on top of or to the right of Barracks, second depot in one of those two locations or next to the other depot if necessary." I will submit that there are some less-than-obvious situations, such as on maps that have those annoying doodads by the ramp, or top right on FS where you need to know to place the depot diagonally instead of adjacent to the other depot. However, this in my opinion does not come close to the multi-factor demands on Protoss walling. Even if you disagree with me that Protoss walling is harder, that's fine. I don't care. However, you cannot openly state that walling is some "additional skill" that Terrans need that Protoss don't. That's simply false. On November 26 2018 19:02 Highgamer wrote: If you don't have a wall, that is a pretty good matchup for Protoss. The zealots shred the marines if both players are not that good at micro, so it's harder for the Terran player at first. Oftentimes you can deal with the zealots, but it puts you behind for a bad start, Protoss can calmy expand behind this. There is no way for Terran to avoid this situation, you cannot have more marines or a factory faster without sacrificing economy. So every game a low/mid-level Terran might face this unfavorable scenario and there is nothing to be done about it... except gaining additional skills that Protoss doesn't need: walling on every map every starting locations (and learning to deal with it's problems), learning to micro better. What is your answer to this? Except "well, you just have to get better and then it won't matter". Exactly, and until then a lot of equally bad Protoss players can get a free win with this strategy - that's ALL I'm saying. I've already addressed this above, and I'll continue here. You've stated earlier that this is a "free" Zealot or a "free win." First of all, this is another emotionally-driven exaggeration that only serves to weaken your argument. Going Zealot first is first and foremost an economic investment. To justify that investment, the Zealot needs to pay for itself. There are a number of ways to do this, and it depends on the build you chose. For example, a seemingly popular option is to not use the Probe for scouting, but scout with Zealot instead. This way you make up for the cost of the Zealot to some extent, by conserving the lost mining time from sending a Probe scout. If you go for 1 Zealot before Cyber without an additional Pylon, I believe you will still have to cut Probe production at ~17 for a little bit while your second Pylon comes up. The 100 minerals you spent on Zealot don't just magically appear from nowhere - they are redistributed from your typical 13 Cybernetics/15 Pylon timing, delaying both, which has its own consequences - later Dragoon, later Robo, later Obs, and the aforementioned Probe cut. In the context of this discussion (the build which was requested and which I supplied to the best of my knowledge, which I honestly made up because I don't recall ever seeing it in practice on the pro level), the Protoss has to go Zealot - Pylon - Zealot, which not only delays Cyber/Goon/Range/Robo/Obs even further, it is more readily scoutable (due to 2 Pylons before Cyber in main), and it demands that you justify the cost of TWO Zealots. In order to do so, I find that the best way is to scout with Probe after Gateway on at least 4 player maps (which are most common) because you need to be sure you are sending your Zealot to the appropriate spawn location, because any time wasted in traveling to the Terran base means additional Marines, Factory being closer to finished, etc. Thus, Probe has to potentially scout 2 empty bases and only then can Zealot know where to go, which happens around the time he is leaving the bridge of FS if the Probe scout had no delays after Gateway. Hopefully by now you see where I am going with this - making 2 Zealots is a trade-off, very similar to the trade-off you make by not walling, or by not going 2 Barracks in favor of a standard Factory timing, etc. It trades vital earlier tech for a coin toss of potential gains. The 200 mineral investment into Zealots needs to pay for itself by doing damage. Now, if Terran has walled, you're effectively in the hole pretty deep. You have delayed your Dragoons/Range so that means that you won't have the ability to kite Terran's push. You have delayed your Robo/Obs so that means you won't be able to scout Terran's follow-up build in time. Your Zealots are still military units so they can help you handle the common FD push, but they are less useful in that scenario than Dragoons are, and are undoubtedly easier to micro against in the context of FD. If Terran hasn't walled, the onus is on you to do enough damage/disruption in order to justify the delays you've made to your own tech. Forcing SCV pulls, Marine losses, and delaying Factory is what you need to do just to get even. There are too many variables at hand to determine when exactly that "break even" point happens, but I can assure you that it is not simply at the moment when the first Zealot enters the Terran main. So, your assertion that this is "free" or "free win" is outright false balance whine bullshit. Now, I will give you what you're probably looking for. Is it harder to micro Zealots than it is to micro SCVs + Marines vs. Zealots? I don't think so. However, does the cost value of those Zealots decrease the higher up the ladder you go? Absolutely yes. As Terrans get better at micro/in-base walling, they take more effective trades against Zealots, usually forcing them to retreat without doing damage, or taking losses to their main health, or dying outright inside the Terran's base without causing more harm than some lost mining time. What's the best way to get better at micro? I believe you said it yourself above - practice. Where does practice come from? Largely from playing against Zealot openers. Zealot openers and Zealots themselves are part of the game, part of the meta, part of the ladder environment. Your bleeding-heart diatribes against the Protoss race don't do anyone any favors. Whining about it doesn't change anything. The answer is and always has been "git gud." Protoss players who would rise up to 1700 off the back of this build in a purely PvT ladder would begin to falter heavily upon encountering a player who is more experienced than them at the situation. However, due to the presence of other Protoss and Zerg on the ladder, one-trick PvT ponies are unlikely to get far based off of this one opening alone as Zergs hold the advantage at the lower ranks for much the same reason that Zealots have an advantage over Marines - because Protoss has to sacrifice early unit counts and face Zerglings with a meticulous defense in order to have better odds in the mid and lategame. It is well-known that Zergs must also hang on a razor's edge against Terran through meticulous economy management and timings for Sunken/Mutalisk/Third/Lurker etc. What I'm trying to say is, you're complaining about only one element of the game which in reality doesn't stand out all that much from the greater strategic environment of modern StarCraft. Your race benefits in some situations, has to cut corners in others, so on and so forth. Bitching about that is only going to hold you back. On November 26 2018 19:02 Highgamer wrote: As for the other situations I mentioned, I admit it was a bit frustration speaking and I should have made it clear by "FE" i mean a pre-factory expand, but I think I have a point with the observation of the unit-ratios: I just find it interesting that we consider it normal that a Terran has to hide in his base behind 1-2 siege tanks and a wall against 5-6 goons at the front that would crush his army in any open-field scenario. Later on its 5-6 tanks against 12-14 goons or something. The unit counts can be so out of proportion in this matchup, that's just how it is. Of course Terran can win with a good push at some point, but see it from the Terran perspective: "well, the game gives him more bases, more units, more tech-variety, more map control - I on the other hand have one push that can go either way..." Another example: If Protoss goes for something like a fast reaver combined with goon-pressure Terran needs perfect turrets, perfect control of the 2-3 tanks he can have at this point, SCV-pull - just to survive a by no means all-in attack... All I'm saying is that in a lot of the "standard" situations in this matchup Terran is incredibly close to defeat. Terran can create such a situation for Protoss once or twice in the course of a game, but Terran can die to so much shit it's not funny, not if you're a low-/mid-level player. Addressed in the previous section. On November 26 2018 19:02 Highgamer wrote: And then a guy like you comes around telling you you're just worse than your opponent... Again, there must be a language barrier or an issue with reading comprehension. I didn't tell anyone that they are worse than anyone. If you read the list above as a list of mandatory requirements, you misunderstood. It is a list of things that can possibly affect the outcome, they don't all have to come into play simultaneously. Not even sure how you could arrive at such a conclusion given that Terran would never both wall and in-base wall, and micro was listed twice. This is the only way I can see how you may have misinterpreted my words, but at risk of making this enormous post even larger, I will explain more thoroughly: I said that this works if Terran is bad. This is true. I said that this works if Terran is worse than you. This is true, but not to such a degree in higher levels (hence my mentioning the ballpark 1700 - because those players are worse than ME). I said that this works if Terran doesn't know how to micro vs. Zealot. This is true. Again, I never said that they are bad BECAUSE they can't defend this. They can't defend this because they are bad. Even if it is harder to defend this than it is to execute it, that by definition makes you worse at the interaction. Do you have to try harder/prepare better than the Protoss? Sure. So what? Again, recall what I said above and take a moment to step outside your Terran bias for a moment to consider how many scenarios in this game are easier for one player to execute than they are for the other player to defend against (or vice versa) and perhaps you will see that this particular interaction is not somehow especially offensive on the grand scale of things. On November 26 2018 19:02 Highgamer wrote: You even claim in your edited post that creative, positive people naturally gravitate towards Protoss and stubborn, lazy, angry people naturally gravitate towards Terran... This was pretty self-revealing. One can not know why people pick a certain race, but one can assume that you have people of all talents pick each race. If they change race later that might have to do with their experience of losing/winning more with a certain race. But you rather go with that convenient, self-righteous none-sense that switches up cause and effect instead of asking yourself a reasonable question: What might be the reason that low/mid-Terrans complain more? They lose more. Now why might that be? "They're just baaaad." To be perfectly honest, I had no idea what to say to your post and I had to ask for help from the FBW Discord community to understand what you were going on about, so I said "I have no idea what to say to him" and user Thundax suggested the aforementioned "EDIT:" so I put it in there since it seemed to address your balance whine with appropriate tongue-in-cheek. In other words, I don't actually think that what was written in the edit is necessarily true, I just thought it was humorous. If that offended you, I apologize. Frankly I think TvZ has some of the most fun options in the game. | ||
|
Anc13nt
1557 Posts
| ||
|
Jealous
10081 Posts
On November 27 2018 06:21 Anc13nt wrote: While TvP is kind of like PvZ and ZvT where it's easy to die quickly, I think it is probably the hardest matchup at lower levels because zergs can do weird lurker styles against terran with good success at lower level but there isn't really any reliable cheesy build that terran can do to win in TvP.. 10/10 Strong FD. | ||
|
[AS]Rattus
427 Posts
| ||
|
Highgamer
1373 Posts
edit: maybe I went overboard again like I probably did in my initial post, it was not the place to start that argument (you mentioned you meant it humorously)... maybe here you just wanted to give an example because he asked if you could name "any". I'm sorry for that. You really want to compare cheese-options and "easy to do, harder to defend"-builds in TvP? BBS (full all-in btw... unlike most of the Protoss cheese which always leaves room to play on if it fails) Strong FD Hidden factory (puts you really far behind if it fails) 2 Factory (one mb hidden) vulture drop (added to be generous) 4/5/6 fact-builds (as a bonus; easy to sniff out and actually not at all easy to pull off if Protoss is not ultra-greedy) So we have one full all-in and three realistic cheeses that you don't see very often... because they don't work so well if Protoss plays somewhat safe... vs this variety of Protoss-cheeses or "yolo-I-know-this-can-win-me-ez"-builds which you see all the time (and don't tell me what Flash or Last or any of those super-humans can do against it): Probe-harrass (deserves a spot because SCV-harrass on the other hand can not cause any damage, except delay a nex for a few seconds, whereas Probes can proxy shit, can block walls, stop SCVs from building something and force another SCV to be pulled, manner pylons) Zealot pressure (in different variations, which is a big deal because you don't know how comitted Protoss is) DT (you should know what a big entry this is, far bigger alone than anything Terran has; not always sure if 1 or more; with the option to sacrifice goons to kill the turret in the natural; with drop-option a bit later) Reaver (early or later; can be pimped with speed-shuttle later on) Proxy-anything (2/3gate, DT, reaver-drop or ground against 1rax FE) Bulldog Recall (if you say a recall is not easier to attempt than to defend, noone can help you) Carriers (this is a lower-level-thing; but hidden carriers can flip up games at any level) I guess Protoss players deserve some credit if they can actually do all those builds, but for most it's enough to know one or two because the ladder-opponent doesn't know. Not all those are cheeses but Terran has to account for all those possibilities. While Protoss 99% of the time deals with: a 2 base push of factory units, or a 3 base push of factory units... because those are Terrans only other options to win. You could also mention 12nex because it's much harder to punish than 14CC; If you scout it in time and can do the marine/SCV-micro, it looks easy of course, but you have to go counter all-in to do this and the timing is quite small, any mistake and the first goons will defend the rush; on the other hand any normal Protoss-opening can do the bunker-repair-drain vs 14CC and 14CC has big problems against early zealots. You might realize that outside your sworn-in-Protoss-community most people don't have a problem to admit that TvP is harder for Terran if we're not talking about S-Class-Koreans. Maybe I'll answer your thread later which has some strong points in it actually, but is also very impolite [I "whine" and am "butthurt" and am "bitching"... where you come from this seems to be a necessary part of an argument], and full of false accusations and exaggerations against me. You seem to produce those en masse voluntarily so I feel I'm fighting the windmills here. edit: I would never take away from any Protoss who just plays well if I'm in my right mind, and if I drop a bad comment at the end of the game sometimes I'm sorry for it, and I always call gg and never insult the person. Even if they do a cheese-build, I realize if they do this with poor skill or if they could toy with me either way. I know Protoss is hard just like anything in BW. Just not as hard as TvP. Maybe PvZ is equally hard, I don't know but I would concede it if it was true. | ||
|
Anc13nt
1557 Posts
| ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5363 Posts
Q: What would you say is a proper response to 2 base ultras? Trying to kill the Zerg before they arrive? Walling off, playing from 2 bases and getting tanks? Trying to secure a third? Irradiate? Mines? On November 28 2018 09:28 Highgamer wrote: mb you should repost this in the "Simple Questions Simple Answers"-Thread. It's a troll-strat but if you don't react/don't see it coming it crushes the usual marine/tank/vessel push - and in the hands of a good player anything is deadly because they know how to adapt to and play around whatever you're doing to react. If you meet such a person who manages to drag out the game and out-play you tactically and economically, you shouldn't pin it on the 2base-ultra build. The most important thing is to not send out any army that he can crush with his ultra-ling-combo or to be open to a counter-attack. Two base zergs that don't rush for the mutas like usual can produce quite a lot of stuff. I read somewhere that you can counter it with pure bio but I failed sometimes doing it, you can die to a mean flank in the open field if you don't have enough stuff, which is sometimes the case if you realized too late what he's doing but feel pressed to follow the habit of your usual push-timing. Going for a dropship or two if you have the starport already can be a good thing if you can and he can't handle the multitasking. Just going mech with a lot of tanks and mines and walls is the best to be safe, I guess. He can't do anything to your speed vults with his combo if you keep them moving. Make sure you spot if he takes an expo and harrass that with vults. On most maps you should be able to expand yourself at some point with all the tanks you will have but you don't have to against 2 base Zerg. Keep an eye on their army and tech so that they don't go for a doom-drop or make a switch to air-play when you have only tank/vult. When you have enough tanks go for a push but make sure you set up your defenses well at home, too, with the newly produced tanks, lots of walls and mines. It's not that he outplayed me per se. I recently got back to BW (some 5 years ago I used to be a solid D+ player, but not more than that). I only faced this strategy once before (a month ago or so) and did not know how to react. This time I misread it as fast Defilers, thinking I missed the Lurker Den with my scans as there was a 3rd Hatch placed separately in the main and their tech timing was funky. I responded with getting some mines and denying the 3rd. While mines are great against Ultraling in late game, they're not ideal in low numbers, I guess. My M&M force got caught in the open and was demolished. With that said, I don't know what the proper response should've been. | ||
|
kogeT
Poland2023 Posts
On November 28 2018 18:23 maybenexttime wrote: With Highgamer's suggestion, I decided to post my question here. I'm taking the liberty to copy his reply as well. Q: What would you say is a proper response to 2 base ultras? Trying to kill the Zerg before they arrive? Walling off, playing from 2 bases and getting tanks? Trying to secure a third? Irradiate? Mines? It's not that he outplayed me per se. I recently got back to BW (some 5 years ago I used to be a solid D+ player, but not more than that). I only faced this strategy once before (a month ago or so) and did not know how to react. This time I misread it as fast Defilers, thinking I missed the Lurker Den with my scans as there was a 3rd Hatch placed separately in the main and their tech timing was funky. I responded with getting some mines and denying the 3rd. While mines are great against Ultraling in late game, they're not ideal in low numbers, I guess. My M&M force got caught in the open and was demolished. With that said, I don't know what the proper response should've been. 7 rax 2 eb 2 starport vessel kills any amount of ultras | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5363 Posts
On November 28 2018 20:39 kogeT wrote: 7 rax 2 eb 2 starport vessel kills any amount of ultras Alright, thanks! And at what point is it safe to move out? What upgrades/numbers? I assume I should try to irradiate the ultras before the engagement and avoid doing so when actually fighting? Is it better to focus fire or rather not? Should I play defensively until I get the right army and only then kill expansions with drops or rather take advantage of the low unit count of the Zerg before ultras arrive and only then move back to my base? | ||
|
Highgamer
1373 Posts
So here is Chef's answer from the other thread: On November 28 2018 23:23 Chef wrote: You have to think about it logically. The biggest weakness of a strategy like that is that they're getting ultralisks before they even have 3 gas. Maybe they are sacrificing other techs, maybe they only have one or two, maybe they don't get any upgrades. If you play against someone who goes 2 base ultralisk most games, you will learn how to play against it. If you just saw it one time against a stranger you'll never play again, it's going to be hard to really get a sense for it. In StarCraft you develop a system of checks you do every game to determine what your opponent is doing. The earlier you can deduce what they're doing, the stronger your response will be. There are a variety of effective responses to any strategy. There's nothing wrong with your ideas. If they don't go muta or lurker, you probably can just go kill them before ultra are ready, or at least make them waste a lot of resources on sunken colonies. Walls are good for Terran in all matchups. Mines are probably good too. Irradiate is the only one I think may be a bit slow, because now you're racing tech with the person racing tech, though it's probably playable. If a third has a tiny choke it's probably not hard to defend. I guess the simplest advice is just to ask someone to use it a lot vs you. If they can beat you even if you know it's coming, then you know your response is terrible or you're being outclassed macro/micro/tactics wise. If you can win when you know it's coming, but you still don't see it coming when they use it 25% of their games and lose, then you know it's a problem with your reconnaissance. If they're the same skill level as you, they will probably get better and find innovative ways to do 2 base ultra that keep your games interesting, and you'll get a better sense of the limitations of the strategy. My instinct would be to make sure I'm keeping the Zerg honest with decent pressure, make sure I'm not putting units in vulnerable positions at dangerous points in the game, and probably just play conservatively, keeping an eye out for expos and getting a large, well rounded army. I wouldn't be looking for any special unit to counter the ultralisks, but tanks and vessels are always good. | ||
|
Cryoc
Germany909 Posts
On November 28 2018 21:46 maybenexttime wrote: Alright, thanks! And at what point is it safe to move out? What upgrades/numbers? I assume I should try to irradiate the ultras before the engagement and avoid doing so when actually fighting? Is it better to focus fire or rather not? Should I play defensively until I get the right army and only then kill expansions with drops or rather take advantage of the low unit count of the Zerg before ultras arrive and only then move back to my base? Only irradiate Ultras when they are not right next to your units. When you are already fighting use defense matrix on your units instead. It is better to kill the lings first because they deal most of the damage, so you should not focus individual ultras when there are a lot of lings. If the Zerg rushed to Ultras without even getting Mutas contain his natural to force a lot of sunkens and scout for a possible 3rd expansion. This kind of build relies a lot on getting a hidden base up. It is usually advisable to retreat your units home when ultras are about to be out and you are not able to bust his natural as they usually invest heavily into upgrades and will have atleast +3/+1 for Ultras ready when they move out. The most important thing is to just deny any 3rd base from actually getting up. A good timing to move out again is when you have +2 attack but you can also move out earlier when your additional raxes kick in. I usually go 8 Rax 2 Ebay 2 Starport vessel on 2 base and stay on 2 base for a long time since ultraling is so mobile, it is almost impossible to get a 3rd up without leaving your whole army at home before you wore the Zerg down. | ||
|
rand0MPrecisi0n
313 Posts
On November 29 2018 02:56 Cryoc wrote: Only irradiate Ultras when they are not right next to your units. When you are already fighting use defense matrix on your units instead. It is better to kill the lings first because they deal most of the damage, so you should not focus individual ultras when there are a lot of lings. If the Zerg rushed to Ultras without even getting Mutas contain his natural to force a lot of sunkens and scout for a possible 3rd expansion. This kind of build relies a lot on getting a hidden base up. It is usually advisable to retreat your units home when ultras are about to be out and you are not able to bust his natural as they usually invest heavily into upgrades and will have atleast +3/+1 for Ultras ready when they move out. The most important thing is to just deny any 3rd base from actually getting up. A good timing to move out again is when you have +2 attack but you can also move out earlier when your additional raxes kick in. I usually go 8 Rax 2 Ebay 2 Starport vessel on 2 base and stay on 2 base for a long time since ultraling is so mobile, it is almost impossible to get a 3rd up without leaving your whole army at home before you wore the Zerg down. Great post! | ||
|
Alpha-NP-
United States1242 Posts
| ||
| ||
StarCraft: Brood War Britney Dota 2  7694Pusan 793Larva  342PianO  337JulyZerg 111NotJumperer 51GoRush 29ajuk12(nOOB) 29Terrorterran 24Shinee 14[ Show more ] League of Legends Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
Master's Coliseum
Maru vs GuMiho
Lancer vs GuMiho
herO vs Maru
CranKy Ducklings
Defiler Tour
CranKy Ducklings
OSC
OSC
OSC
OSC
|
|
|
EPT
