|
On December 07 2010 09:16 adeezy wrote:
What about leenock vs Nada in GSL2.
Maybe the reason we don't see a terran dominating lategame is because of the lack of creativity. We haven't seen cattlebruisers or anything. Maybe the Terrans right now are so focused on winning early/mid game that they don't formulate strong late game strategies, and I don't think it's fair to see "because there are none because zerg dominate so hard". It's because we see the same thing... marines, thors, siege tanks...if we saw like ghost snipes or something we could easily see a new game where Zerg dominates.
Leenock vs clide reference is valid... I mean why not? Even the news in teamliquid rated those games as some of the best games in GSL.
Well...it's pretty naive to think top level koreans have never played into late game TvZ...or that others haven't. It's very favorable for Zerg.
And you bring up some good points about BC/ghosts not being used much...but all of those things feel and seem very gimmicky. They just aren't too good, I do not think it's a matter of Terran's having not tried them - I'm sure they have. But most of the stuff is just horribly inefficient or bad.
Like, mass ravens should be great in theory right...? But in actual games, Zerg can just run away from HSM, and the splash was nerfed to hell, as well as it's almost impossible to get up to a critical number of ravens and then accumulate 125 energy, as all that gas takes away from tank count, upgrades, etc.
I think everything has honestly been tried and tested, and that's why we're seeing the games we are now. I really doubt it's a lack of creativity.
And as for nada vs leenock or what not...that shakuras game...didn't he aggro and gain a good advantage from that early game? And leenock vs clyde...leenock won. Clyde won on jungle basin...not that hard to do that TvZ 
|
I don't think you can "honestly say" everything has been tried and tested only 4 months after the game has been out. We constantly see new trends every GSL. And terran has been just as successful for the past few seasons regardless of the trends. I see your posts everywhere and they basically say that yeah TvZ is late game imba.... but it's not always the case and even when you do see even late game TvZ you say it's because the zerg sucks.... it's not fair arguing.
Ghosts I think can see more play... i mean they have light dmg bonus so even just there auto attack rapes zerglings and mutas, but snipe play I think will hopefully show in the gsl (it's also very entertaining)
|
lol now I understand why everyone has given up on this thread
|
It's hard to say definitively if there is anything wrong with TvZ lategame when they all go for 8 minute victories. I think this thread is strong evidence to support further nerfs to terran early game options. If they had to eco then we could really see if there is was a huge problem with the late game, since every terran would be forced into it instead of their acceptably high percentage all-ins.
Maybe require one supply depot per barracks to stop 12/14 rax
But on a more serious note, the games just suck to watch. It's really boring to see the same cheesy shit game after game.
|
On December 07 2010 07:34 avilo wrote:
Every time some tip top Zerg like idra/ret complain about the recent two raxes they usually leave out that, "oh btw, once [if] they patch this Zerg will never lose late game! ahahahaa!"
That's because they find that most terrans are skill-less noobies who only know how to all-in Dx
I still say sample-size of non all-in high-level terran is too small. By seeing a few of the lategame Zerg nerfs (nerf to 300 supply army, fungal growth no longer affecting air units), Terrans will see more of a reason to take it to later stages of the game because it won't be (alledgedly) as easy.
|
I'm sorry to derail again but according to the chat channels terran require no strategy.
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/mOfyP.png)
(Image shows 0 people in all 10 chat channels for terran, while protoss has 19 and Zerg has 22, of course teamliquid is at 50+)
</rage> My apologies, tired of all the 2 raxing which we wouldn't see if it was a bit more balanced late game.
|
On December 07 2010 06:24 rick-dmg wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2010 05:49 Tsagacity wrote:On December 07 2010 05:23 dasanivan wrote:On December 07 2010 03:11 Tsagacity wrote:Since Avilo loves to make knee-jerk reactions based off of small subsets of games: GSL Ro8 SPOILERS+ Show Spoiler +No zergs even made it to Ro4. Obviously this means zergs need buffs and TvZ is way too easy for terran. GSL 3 is obvious and irrefutable proof of this. /s + Show Spoiler +i don't understand. avilo was saying expect more all in games and that's exactly what we saw. at this point i dont know whether zerg lategame is overpowered or not, but we know for a fact that all-ining is less of a risk than taking it to mid/lategame He's also been saying Z>T How is it not 100% obvious to people at this point? Terran is fine as long as they win it early. After that Z is massively favored to win (assuming they are around the same skill level). Anybody that has been watching the last two GSLs (2-3) can see this. The rare exceptions (Nada last season, and Jinro this season) aren't actually exceptions... they are one player outplaying the other. Virtually every other game has Terran winning early or losing late game. The pattern is so clear - I don't understand why anybody would try to deny this. My comment wasn't about balance (/S means /sarcasm. I was being sarcastic).
My post was about how Avilo is obviously biased and makes knee-jerk reaction threads. A few months ago when terrans were dominating with reapers Avilo had a massive thread talking about how TvZ only *looked* imbalanced because zerg players hadn't learned how to play yet.
When zergs talked about the problems with ZvT, here was Avilo's reply:
On September 09 2010 09:47 avilo wrote:
solution: play the game it is and get better at it.
And then of course a month later terrans got nerfed and Avilo has been QQing nonstop ever since. Whenever anything in GSL goes zerg's way he acts like it's undeniable proof of how OP zerg are, so now when there aren't even any zerg left this early it's just soooo tempting to turn it around on him
|
so now when there aren't even any zerg left this early it's just soooo tempting to turn it around on him
You must really not like reading, because zergs were eliminted by allins, which is the only thing he was trying to say. You have nothing to turn around "on him". He called a zerg win in GSL2 and tons of tvz allins in GSL 3. He was right.
Accusations of bias = lulz. I can similarly accuse all zergs in this thread of bias. Hey zergs, you're biased. Every time you say Z > T late game isn't true, it's just your personal bias talking!
Damn, and here I thought I'd have to argue for my position. Nope, just gotta accuse the other person of being biased and whine until the other race gets nerfed.
On December 07 2010 09:47 floor exercise wrote:
It's hard to say definitively if there is anything wrong with TvZ lategame when they all go for 8 minute victories. I think this thread is strong evidence to support further nerfs to terran early game options.
That's wrong. If you can't definitively say there's anything wrong with TvZ lategame, then you also can't definitively say T early game is too strong.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either call it like it is, i.e. T>Z early, Z>T late (supported by GSL games) or don't say anything (then you don't have to defend your position)
|
Is it really that hard for anyone in this thread to admit that maybe, just maybe, they were wrong, or at least overreached in their conclusions?
I guess so.
|
On December 07 2010 13:10 Sadistx wrote:
You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either call it like it is, i.e. T>Z early, Z>T late (supported by GSL games) or don't say anything (then you don't have to defend your position)
But that kind of sucks to say that Z>T late, when most of the games that advance beyond 2 rax play advance there because the zerg has miraculously managed to survive the aggression which obviously was most of the terrans game plan. If you aim for a short game, it is clear you should lose to someone who can barely defend there and aims for more economy/tech... This and the fact every zerg that has lost to terran past early game obviously "sucked" regarding to many posters - I don't agree there btw - does not really make the late game statistics easy to read.
I'm not saying terran > zerg late game either, but I'm saying there's really not enough high level terran players who aim to win at the late game since they know zerg is at it's weakest early on and they have such great early aggression, and as a result nobody really knows the late game balance in this matchup too well at the moment. There's a lot more decisions to make until late game also, which makes it even more difficult to see whether a player was just worse or if the other player got a 'racewin' or whatever. It is easy to see these early game all-ins are race wins indeed, as they require so little to pull off and even the most skilled players struggle defending against them. And this does not go well with competitive gaming or make for a good entertainment for watchers in my opinion.
Best solution in my opinion would be to nerf every early all-in for all races to the ground (not aggression / harrasment ofc) and then balance the late game according to the results a few months later, and then add a balanced early game. This will obviously never happen since most terrans would prolly just rage quit or race change and it would not be beneficial to anyone.
Oh and HI to YOU, who are about to rant about punishing the greedy zerg - that just isn't a valid argument really.
|
Okay, so after reading just like 3-4 pages I now have a serious problem with this thread. Logic is COMPLETELY abandoned roughly midway through the second page, which is really cool and all but that isn't ever going to get shit done. I'll try to address some of the responses that seem bogus to me:
ThisIsJimmy:
"I actually think this will change very soon. I'm just waiting for a good terran in the GSL to prove this idea wrong. FE play into mass tanks/marines is extremely strong and someone in the GSL better do it or I am gonna be pissed. I think the matchup is balanced and I play terran.... these lame korean terrans are just all in every game and it is just retarded.
I don't care what people say about how good they are, it is just a stupid strategy to do every single game and they need to learn to play a macro game sometime..."
I actually do not think this is bogus at all, but probably one of the more actual "discussion" rather than "flaming" or just saying stupid shit posts out of the whole thing. The idea that T just hasn't adapted enough yet it very possible. The only problems I have with this is "lame korean terrans all in every game......" which implies that its just what they do instead of they actually want to do whats best to win. I don't believe that for a second, because when All-ins start producing better results than any kind of solid play then something is wrong. The second is this is very much just a hopeful post. Its assuming that the game does not have an irreparable (through strategy) flaw that prevents it from happening, which I wouldn't think you could just come across without playing a ton and actually looking for a solution. I am not saying there is or isn't a flaw, or that T can or can't find a solution without changes, but its just very much "I hope they do" instead of actually pointing in a direction.
Iccup.Diamond:
"Remember when Tozar found a Korean replay with the Korean 4 Warpgate Rush (pylons in the min line PvP) and all of a sudden NO ONE could beat it? I know I remember it. After a couple weeks however people realized there was a way to beat it (kill the scouting probe...) and it is now just another build out there that you know could be coming. I'm pretty sure this is what is happening here."
The problem with that is that after only a couple of weeks, the answer was sorted out from all the possibilities and standard play resumed. This has been going on for far longer than a couple of weeks, and no one has found an answer yet. If anything thinks they have the answer, please, let us know.
Liquid`Ret:
"3 terrans in top4 last gsl season, also look up overall TvZ stats pls
if you think zerg lategame is too strong maybe you shouldnt let them get to lategame with 80 drones, theres a million ways to kill or damage zerg early, i cant believe u still havent figured this out yet,
and even then marine/tank is a good option. in the ogs house terrans are doing fine vs zerg, lategame too"
Honestly, I can not even believe this is coming from a player lauded as one of the best. It blows my mind. 3 Terran in the top 4 of last GSL AND overall TvZ stats are heavily skewed by the entire main basis of the balance post in the first place. It isn't hidden, it isn't some kind of puzzle or trick, it was stated pretty openly. Pretty much avilo states that Terran are forced to all-in (or, heavy aggression with no plan for the late game) because of the impossible circumstances they are faced with late game (barring irreparable early game damage). So if the problem is Terrans All-inning all the time because it is the only way they can win, then it is only natural that the win percentages and Terrans placed would be much higher. If half of all terrans All-in all the time, and the other half play for the late game, then the win stats and and placement of terrans would fall dramatically, because of the fact that terran cannot compete late game IS THE MAIN ARGUMENT. So instead of playing for the late game, losing, and killing TvZ stats / their chance at actually winning tournaments, they all-in so that they CAN have a chance of winning.
Idra:
you're impossible to argue with because you just say things that are flat out wrong since you approach the game believing you aren't terrible and thus it confounds you when you lose.
'2 rax pressure is easy to deal with' 'tvz late game is impossible' no, your micro is bad and you dont know how to macro.
Hey thanks idra, you have, in your infinite wisdom and in a well mannered fashion exposed to us how AVILO loses his TvZ games. That's cool. Now, since you are on a helpful streak, why don't you explain how EVERYONE ELSE (top level players included) loses then? Hell, maybe you can solve this for us? All of Terrans ever have bad macro and micro? Maybe the bad macro is because the drone mechanics allow Zerg to have an advantage theoretically build into the game that forces the extra aggression early on which puts T in such a position late game (once again, THE MAIN ARGUMENT)? Maybe T has bad micro because creep is free to spread, gives zerg the ability to be on your army like BM on, well, you, and because its hard to focus tanks so they only fire on banelings/infestors while moving/spreading your marines so that 3 banelings do not kill 20 of them while the zerg just hits a move his army and selects all his banelings so he can just move them into the general area of the marines?
Zelniq:
Useless screenshots.
Once again, we have discovered how AVILO loses his games. That's real damn helpful. It's not that he was saying in context, "I cannot play a macro game against zerg", because its not fucking obvious at all. Clearly he was stating that he can't macro at all. It was a wonder he had more than 5 SCV's.
I'm going to level with everyone here. I only read to page like 9 for the exact same reason that I can't watch the news anymore, and that's because its full of stupid shit and flaming. So this may have all ready been addressed. But for reference:
Avilo states in the opening post that essentially TvZ is just a series of all ins and heavy heavy aggression with no plans for late game due to the fact that they can not win late game against a macro heavy zerg without an edge.
What we get from this:
-(implied: Top level Terran's have tried and can not find a way to answer zergs late game, forcing them to all-in and heavy aggression so that they can win games/tournaments, which is kind of their job.)
-A corollary of this is statistics and tournament participation will be skewed due to the use of these builds. The initial argument is that if people don't want these all-ins to be used every single TvZ (more or less, as if nothing is found that works, then top level players will either switch races or keep all-inning to fulfill their obligations to win and stay competitive) then the underlying cause needs to be fixed.
As for the multitudes of people who claimed that it is possible, that T can compete late game on even footing (again, the problem is that essentially it would seem that if it goes to late game, T is already behind and not on 'even footing'), then lets see some replays. I want to see replays and lots of them of high level players playing long games against zerg with a semi-stable or at the very least related build where the T and the Z both play well and it isn't just a curb stomp. I think some of the people referenced Clyde vs. Leenock (?), well cool, thats 1 set of games. How bout some more? If every top level player is all-inning, then we need to fess up and say there is a big problem somewhere. If its not in the matchup, then people are saying its the players (IE: top level terrans are not really good, they just all-in every game), so that would mean there are essentially no top level Terrans, which also says there is a big problem with the game.
|
Norway28520 Posts
but you're wrong.. it's not impossible to play with two thoughts in your mind at the same time : harass and power. this should be the terran mindset; kill as many drones as you can, force as many larveas to become units as possible, while you yourself build as many scvs as you can. meanwhile the zerg mindset should be; build as many drones as you can while defending harass with as few units as you can.
there's nothing inherently broken about this. races play out differently in sc2. yes, you should not let zerg have 80 drones vs your 50 scvs for 5 minutes. yes, zerg can recreate a force faster than terran can. yes, zerg can mass drones faster than terran or protoss.
yes, terran gets 6 scvs for free for every OC they have. (meaning that the 3 OC terran with 50 scvs is only 12 peons short of the zerg with 80 - meaning he can have 30 supply more worth of units. yes, terran can defend using bunkers for then to salvage them later on leading to no loss of mining. yes, terran is actually impossible to attack cost efficiently at _any_ point of the game.
it's not really that I don't agree that terran is disadvantaged cross position on metalopolis or that I think terran can win a majority of games vs zerg if both terran and zerg do nothing but build peons for 10 minutes before they start massing units and then they start clashing in the middle.. absolutely, zerg has an advantage if that is how the game plays out.. but there's nothing broken about this. IF different races have different abilities and different units, they will always be better at different stages of the game. impossible to get around this. zerg for example, should not engage outside creep because then they have no option of retreat, and they spend longer time getting close to the protoss or terran units that inevitably have longer range. this leads to zerg's preferred style of play being a reactionary style. sure, it's possible to harass with mutalisks. and maybe with nyduses, but that largely depends upon your opponents sloppyness. but I mean, come on, compare zerg's harass opportunity with terran; you have banshees, you have hellions, you have mmm drops or just quick stimsquads.
terran does not need to go allin to win tvz. this is a hyperbole to such a degree that it's complete bullshit. terran does need to harass. zerg needs to defend harass. this being the nature of the game is a natural consequence of several abilities of each race, and there's nothing wrong with this. if you want to be a defender rather than aggressor, pick a different race.
|
On December 08 2010 09:02 Liquid`Drone wrote:
and maybe with nyduses, but that largely depends upon your opponents sloppyness. but I mean, come on, compare zerg's harass opportunity with terran; you have banshees, you have hellions, you have mmm drops or just quick stimsquads.
terran does not need to go allin to win tvz. this is a hyperbole to such a degree that it's complete bullshit. terran does need to harass. zerg needs to defend harass. this being the nature of the game is a natural consequence of several abilities of each race, and there's nothing wrong with this. if you want to be a defender rather than aggressor, pick a different race.
I have to argue with some of this :/.
If I am reading this right, you are comparing racial advantages to say that every race has its pros/cons at different stages of the game and this is a natural part of having variety, then you go on list things such as:
-Terran gets parity with zergs economy through mules, which frees up supply allowing a larger army.
-Terran has better harass options to help facilitate this harassing game style.
-Zerg has limitations based on the fact that they have the strong late game, notable having to play reactive and be more careful about where/when the engage.
But there is a difference between pros and cons of racial differences and just not being able to handle what is there. T may get the bigger army through mules, but they will never be able to recreate it as fast or with the tech diversity as Zerg. T has better harassment options, but the question then becomes are Z's defense options too good? The problem in my eyes of forcing harassment is that if it gets to the point where if you don't harass you lose, how are they supposed to balance that? If the T harasses the Z, and its too powerful, then the Z can say it is too strong, there is no way for them to win because they would be forced to come back from a bad position (example of this is the old reapers) or just lose outright. The mirror of this is that if T must harass to stay equal, then if the harass because too ineffective from defensive measures, then they will never do enough damage, and will always lose or at least have a much harder game than they should (which I suppose is the argument now).
Harass too good (due to say unit imbalance or lack of defensive measures)----> Z can't defend it (knowing its coming or not) -------> Z is at a disadvantage regardless as nothing they can do will mitigate the damage they are taking (example old reapers)
Harass too bad (due to lack of unit effectiveness or too strong defensive measures against it)----> T can't catch up to a macro zerg just because of the way Z works -----> T is at a disadvantage regardless because there is nothing they can do that will damage the zerg to bring them to equal footing.
Things that would break this chain would be if T could fight zerg without harassing them (Aka: macro game, response being taking bases. I would like to differentiate this by the example of: for harassment, you drop marines in their base primarily to do damage, while for macro you are dropping in their base so that they are forced to focus on other things, hoping their macro slips so you can gain a lead) but there is no proof of this being viable, or at least none I have seen. I am not saying that there isn't something out that there has not been found yet, but there is also the possibility that there isn't.
Also, while playstyle should definitely determine which race you play, I don't think late game viability / inviability should ever be a determining factor. I'll reference back to Bw (I know how much people hate that, but this is the sequel....) in which no race was really just dead in the water playing a macro game. Sure there were strong/weak points, but every single matchup could be played late game without this horrible stigma of "uh oh i'm in trouble now" just for being there in the portion of the game. (With I guess the exception of ZvZ, but that's always strange).
|
Well since this was posted on nov 24, i will give u props, this time it was a good call, turned out the
+ Show Spoiler + best zergs got either coin fliped by terrans or stomped by protoss (that have some very strong player in this gsl ... )
|
|
|
If you're gonna bump a 7 month old thread that is hardly relevant you should at least add something to the discussion -_-;;;.
|
Canada9720 Posts
don't bump old threads pointlessly, please.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
