Website Feedback
Closed Threads
IRC Chat
irc.quakenet.org #teamliquid
IRC Web ClientTeamSpeak 3 (73 users) | |
|
| DG.Zeya United States. June 21 2012 02:01. Posts 39 | Profile # |
I don't know if this has been addressed yet or not, but I see a very obvious problem with this unit composition.
Marine Marauder Medivac Thor Hellion Raven... It's too much. Simple as that. To well produce all of those units, you need all three production facilities (well, duh), but you also need several of each with tech labs, and one (or more I guess) of each with reactors. That's a fucking lot of production facilities, and you're not gonna get to that any time soon .That's a lot of gas, too. I mean hell, what is this composition? MMM is a composition. Thor Hellion, I've seen done as a composition. Ravens are pretty good too. So let's combine them all together and it'll be fucking awesome?
No. |
|
|
| Dark.EX United States. June 21 2012 05:38. Posts 1504 | Profile Blog # |
On June 21 2012 02:01 DG.Zeya wrote:
I don't know if this has been addressed yet or not, but I see a very obvious problem with this unit composition.
Marine Marauder Medivac Thor Hellion Raven... It's too much. Simple as that. To well produce all of those units, you need all three production facilities (well, duh), but you also need several of each with tech labs, and one (or more I guess) of each with reactors. That's a fucking lot of production facilities, and you're not gonna get to that any time soon .That's a lot of gas, too. I mean hell, what is this composition? MMM is a composition. Thor Hellion, I've seen done as a composition. Ravens are pretty good too. So let's combine them all together and it'll be fucking awesome?
No.
You didn't read the build order.
The composition slowly adds more and more units as they're needed, starting with Marines and Hellions, then adding Marauders and Medivacs while stopping Hellion production for a little. Then it adds back the Hellions and adds Thors, and finally once I have 4 bases, I add Ravens as a precaution against Broodlords and mass Banelings, as Ultralisks are easy to deal with.
TL;DR: That is the final composition. I don't wait until I have all of those units before I first push.Last edit: 2012-06-21 05:39:30 |
|
|
| DG.Zeya United States. June 21 2012 06:09. Posts 39 | Profile # |
On June 21 2012 05:38 Fencer710 wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 21 2012 02:01 DG.Zeya wrote:
I don't know if this has been addressed yet or not, but I see a very obvious problem with this unit composition.
Marine Marauder Medivac Thor Hellion Raven... It's too much. Simple as that. To well produce all of those units, you need all three production facilities (well, duh), but you also need several of each with tech labs, and one (or more I guess) of each with reactors. That's a fucking lot of production facilities, and you're not gonna get to that any time soon .That's a lot of gas, too. I mean hell, what is this composition? MMM is a composition. Thor Hellion, I've seen done as a composition. Ravens are pretty good too. So let's combine them all together and it'll be fucking awesome?
No.
You didn't read the build order. The composition slowly adds more and more units as they're needed, starting with Marines and Hellions, then adding Marauders and Medivacs while stopping Hellion production for a little. Then it adds back the Hellions and adds Thors, and finally once I have 4 bases, I add Ravens as a precaution against Broodlords and mass Banelings, as Ultralisks are easy to deal with. TL;DR: That is the final composition. I don't wait until I have all of those units before I first push.
That's not the point though. There's so many other problems with many-unit composition. For example, remaxing your army is difficult. You'd come to the awkward point where you've got 30 army supply of MMM (and hellions) and your ravens and thors are still producing, and he hits you with maxed ultra-ling-bane. Yes you could defend, but still. Keeping careful and smart ratios is difficult (nigh impossible, unless you're extremely good at scouting)- that is, there's late game compositions where hellions would be completely useless.
Microability is another problem. MMM requires pretty intense micro, with splitting, spreading, stutter step, load-drop micro, etc. Not much micro is needed for thors and hellions, really, but ravens are also really micro intensive. So GL with that.
Obviously it's a good composition in the sense that it can deal a lot of damage and has so many unit roles that it'll counter tons of stuff. But that doesn't outweigh its problems.
TL;DR Not a great build/unit composition. I don't see it gaining much momentum. |
|
|
| Dark.EX United States. June 21 2012 06:37. Posts 1504 | Profile Blog # |
On June 21 2012 06:09 DG.Zeya wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 21 2012 05:38 Fencer710 wrote:
On June 21 2012 02:01 DG.Zeya wrote:
I don't know if this has been addressed yet or not, but I see a very obvious problem with this unit composition.
Marine Marauder Medivac Thor Hellion Raven... It's too much. Simple as that. To well produce all of those units, you need all three production facilities (well, duh), but you also need several of each with tech labs, and one (or more I guess) of each with reactors. That's a fucking lot of production facilities, and you're not gonna get to that any time soon .That's a lot of gas, too. I mean hell, what is this composition? MMM is a composition. Thor Hellion, I've seen done as a composition. Ravens are pretty good too. So let's combine them all together and it'll be fucking awesome?
No.
You didn't read the build order. The composition slowly adds more and more units as they're needed, starting with Marines and Hellions, then adding Marauders and Medivacs while stopping Hellion production for a little. Then it adds back the Hellions and adds Thors, and finally once I have 4 bases, I add Ravens as a precaution against Broodlords and mass Banelings, as Ultralisks are easy to deal with. TL;DR: That is the final composition. I don't wait until I have all of those units before I first push.
That's not the point though. There's so many other problems with many-unit composition. For example, remaxing your army is difficult. You'd come to the awkward point where you've got 30 army supply of MMM (and hellions) and your ravens and thors are still producing, and he hits you with maxed ultra-ling-bane. Yes you could defend, but still. Keeping careful and smart ratios is difficult (nigh impossible, unless you're extremely good at scouting)- that is, there's late game compositions where hellions would be completely useless. Microability is another problem. MMM requires pretty intense micro, with splitting, spreading, stutter step, load-drop micro, etc. Not much micro is needed for thors and hellions, really, but ravens are also really micro intensive. So GL with that. Obviously it's a good composition in the sense that it can deal a lot of damage and has so many unit roles that it'll counter tons of stuff. But that doesn't outweigh its problems. TL;DR Not a great build/unit composition. I don't see it gaining much momentum.
If the Zerg's economy is at a point where he can insta-remax on Ultra/Bling, you're screwed regardless since even if you have a ton of Siege Tanks, or whatever composition (besides maxed raven/BC) he can remax on the appropriate counter and kill you anyway.
MMM is 'okay' against Ultra/Ling/Bane anyway. It's not the best, but it's ok in a pinch.
Micro is actually much easier when you have Thors as you have more time because the enemy units have to get through your Hellion/Thor and Marauders before they attack your Marines. Simple pre-split of Marine/Marauder, then selecting ONLY Marines and pulling them back and splitting from there is not that hard. Ravens just HSM clumps of Banelings and/or Broodlords.
Edit: Yet another thing, a 'deathball' composition for Terran that is not impossible to reach has been sought-after for a long time. Thor/Raven with MMMH support is that composition IMO, as Ravens kill clumped air and clumped banelings, MMMH kills the Zerglings and Broodlings and helps DPS, Thors kill everything else.Last edit: 2012-06-21 06:39:24 |
|
|
| kezz_ Australia. June 21 2012 07:16. Posts 25 | Profile Blog # |
Great TvZ strategy, well thought out and explained. I'll give this one a try and report back  |
| |
|
| Dark.EX United States. June 21 2012 17:27. Posts 1504 | Profile Blog # |
Four new replays are up! :D
Raven HSM is like a worse version of an archon toilet. Luckily you can cast a lot of them if you have a lot of Ravens. Last edit: 2012-06-21 17:28:29 |
|
|
| Dark.EX United States. June 28 2012 13:29. Posts 1504 | Profile Blog # |
I've added two replays where my macro isn't terrible. I lose both games, but for very obvious reasons.
I've also added a section on discussion topics. I'd love to know what you guys think about adding a couple of BC's!Last edit: 2012-06-28 13:51:42 |
|
|
| Debian Canada. June 28 2012 15:22. Posts 42 | Profile # |
| Every time I try to do marine maruader hellion build I die to 2 base all ins, even with supply depot wall and bunkers. Frustrating like all hell. Is there a build order that is more conservative but the general principal that'll keep me safe from 2 base all ins? |
|
|
| Dark.EX United States. June 28 2012 17:12. Posts 1504 | Profile Blog # |
| Can you post a couple of replays of said 2base all-in's? The only advice I can give without them is get 2 bunkers, wall with your ebay and depots, and split while otherwise playing normally. |
|
|
| OriginalBeast United States. June 28 2012 17:36. Posts 701 | Profile # |
I feel like this post in particular comes from an angle where having superior mechanics to your opponent aren't considered. Saying things like "marine/tank is bad" "zerg has figured out bio/tank" "terran only won when zerg made mistakes" along with the "facts" of how zerg has figured it out. Thats all bullshit, ask anyone in masters league that has terran figured out that marine tank is fine vs zerg, and you can win with this composition if you have the superior mechanics and game understanding. You honestly hype-up non tank, bio mech compositions as if they were better than bio tank.
All I'm trying to say is that there is no miracle composition vs any race, there is no I do A opponent does B and A is better so I win.
With all of that in mind, I don't think tanks are necessary vs zerg, but the ability of tanks is unparalleled by any other unit in the game when it comes to locking down an area of the map as far as defense is concerned. Having tanks to protect your expansions allows you to take expansions and out macro your opponent. Without tanks your composition will have to constantly be on the offensive to make sure zerg can't pressure your expansions, but if you lose map control you have nothing to really rely on to keep your expansions easily defendable.Last edit: 2012-06-28 17:37:40 |
| |
|
| Dark.EX United States. June 28 2012 17:45. Posts 1504 | Profile Blog # |
On June 28 2012 17:36 OriginalBeast wrote:
I feel like this post in particular comes from an angle where having superior mechanics to your opponent aren't considered. Saying things like "marine/tank is bad" "zerg has figured out bio/tank" "terran only won when zerg made mistakes" along with the "facts" of how zerg has figured it out. Thats all bullshit, ask anyone in masters league that has terran figured out that marine tank is fine vs zerg, and you can win with this composition if you have the superior mechanics and game understanding. You honestly hype-up non tank, bio mech compositions as if they were better than bio tank.
All I'm trying to say is that there is no miracle composition vs any race, there is no I do A opponent does B and A is better so I win.
With all of that in mind, I don't think tanks are necessary vs zerg, but the ability of tanks is unparalleled by any other unit in the game when it comes to locking down an area of the map as far as defense is concerned. Having tanks to protect your expansions allows you to take expansions and out macro your opponent. Without tanks your composition will have to constantly be on the offensive to make sure zerg can't pressure your expansions, but if you lose map control you have nothing to really rely on to keep your expansions easily defendable.
Here's a simple fact:
It's impossible to 'out macro' a Zerg when both players are even.
The whole problem of Siege Tanks is that they're immobile. This wouldn't be as big of a problem if they were a lot better in straight-up engagements and did more damage to Zerg units, but they don't, and it is a problem.
In my view, this composition IS better than Marine/Tank. Opinions ftw.
Also of course there isn't a miracle composition. There's probably a way to beat this that hasn't been figured out yet. |
|
|
| OriginalBeast United States. June 28 2012 18:03. Posts 701 | Profile # |
On June 28 2012 17:45 Fencer710 wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 28 2012 17:36 OriginalBeast wrote:
I feel like this post in particular comes from an angle where having superior mechanics to your opponent aren't considered. Saying things like "marine/tank is bad" "zerg has figured out bio/tank" "terran only won when zerg made mistakes" along with the "facts" of how zerg has figured it out. Thats all bullshit, ask anyone in masters league that has terran figured out that marine tank is fine vs zerg, and you can win with this composition if you have the superior mechanics and game understanding. You honestly hype-up non tank, bio mech compositions as if they were better than bio tank.
All I'm trying to say is that there is no miracle composition vs any race, there is no I do A opponent does B and A is better so I win.
With all of that in mind, I don't think tanks are necessary vs zerg, but the ability of tanks is unparalleled by any other unit in the game when it comes to locking down an area of the map as far as defense is concerned. Having tanks to protect your expansions allows you to take expansions and out macro your opponent. Without tanks your composition will have to constantly be on the offensive to make sure zerg can't pressure your expansions, but if you lose map control you have nothing to really rely on to keep your expansions easily defendable.
Here's a simple fact: It's impossible to 'out macro' a Zerg when both players are even. The whole problem of Siege Tanks is that they're immobile. This wouldn't be as big of a problem if they were a lot better in straight-up engagements and did more damage to Zerg units, but they don't, and it is a problem. In my view, this composition IS better than Marine/Tank. Opinions ftw. Also of course there isn't a miracle composition. There's probably a way to beat this that hasn't been figured out yet.
Opinions ftw until you make a thread where you call 90% of what pros are doing bad, I would like to see some of your games going marine/ tank. Because I bet there is a chance that you tried it maybe for like 30 games TOPS before you said it was a bad composition. I bet you get fungled in the middle of the field because you lead with your weak marines instead of with your meaty tanks. I bet that you don't make more than 6 medivacs. I bet that you don't split up your marines to leave some to defend your tanks and let some of your marines attacking whatever. Your opinion is fine, but your made a thread that is completely ill informed.
As far as who can out macro who as far as races "when players are even" this means even bases, even economy, even mechanics, even skill level, even micro. You want to know who is ahead FUCKING NO ONE, its fucking even your idiotic moron. You think this game is balanced so that when opponents are even someone is ahead what in the serious fuck are you thinking.
If you payed attention to TvZ trends like you say you do you would also notice that terrans are starting to take their 3rd faster than zerg and push when 2-2 is finnished, you want to know what that is? the game not being even, Instead of terran trying to make counter units, terran can rely on taking faster bases using tanks for defense and push when they have a timing.
Its amazing, people who makes guides have a I'm 100% right attitude and make these generalized statments "impossible to out macro zerg" "tanks are bad". when there is something good about tanks in every match up, and you can easily out macro a bronze league zerg if your a grandmaster terran. Don't even start the bullshit about even games again, because that was the stupidest shit I've ever heard. |
| |
|
| OriginalBeast United States. June 28 2012 18:13. Posts 701 | Profile # |
| My opinion sir, is that you think that TvZ is imbalanced towards zerg. You think that tanks are the problem, and so you made a thread that explains that you think tanks make the matchup worse for terran and that if you don't make tanks you have a higher chance on winning. This logic is flawed because if you viewed the game as balanced (which it is) composition wouldn't be the issue, loses for games would be because your opponent was better than you. This thread was made because you have a problem with the match up, and you wanted a credible place to whine about it so that you feel warm and fuzzy, maybe if you bullshit hard enough with bolded text and a clean OP that people would agree with you. If you actually wanted to help people "the community" whatever you would have made a thread on mechanics, how you choose to play the TvZ match up, not just the composition you use and how the standard composition is flawed. Last edit: 2012-06-28 18:14:56 |
| |
|
| Talack Canada. June 28 2012 18:14. Posts 2492 | Profile # |
On June 28 2012 18:03 OriginalBeast wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 28 2012 17:45 Fencer710 wrote:
On June 28 2012 17:36 OriginalBeast wrote:
I feel like this post in particular comes from an angle where having superior mechanics to your opponent aren't considered. Saying things like "marine/tank is bad" "zerg has figured out bio/tank" "terran only won when zerg made mistakes" along with the "facts" of how zerg has figured it out. Thats all bullshit, ask anyone in masters league that has terran figured out that marine tank is fine vs zerg, and you can win with this composition if you have the superior mechanics and game understanding. You honestly hype-up non tank, bio mech compositions as if they were better than bio tank.
All I'm trying to say is that there is no miracle composition vs any race, there is no I do A opponent does B and A is better so I win.
With all of that in mind, I don't think tanks are necessary vs zerg, but the ability of tanks is unparalleled by any other unit in the game when it comes to locking down an area of the map as far as defense is concerned. Having tanks to protect your expansions allows you to take expansions and out macro your opponent. Without tanks your composition will have to constantly be on the offensive to make sure zerg can't pressure your expansions, but if you lose map control you have nothing to really rely on to keep your expansions easily defendable.
Here's a simple fact: It's impossible to 'out macro' a Zerg when both players are even. The whole problem of Siege Tanks is that they're immobile. This wouldn't be as big of a problem if they were a lot better in straight-up engagements and did more damage to Zerg units, but they don't, and it is a problem. In my view, this composition IS better than Marine/Tank. Opinions ftw. Also of course there isn't a miracle composition. There's probably a way to beat this that hasn't been figured out yet.
Opinions ftw until you make a thread where you call 90% of what pros are doing bad, I would like to see some of your games going marine/ tank. Because I bet there is a chance that you tried it maybe for like 30 games TOPS before you said it was a bad composition. I bet you get fungled in the middle of the field because you lead with your weak marines instead of with your meaty tanks. I bet that you don't make more than 6 medivacs. I bet that you don't split up your marines to leave some to defend your tanks and let some of your marines attacking whatever. Your opinion is fine, but your made a thread that is completely ill informed. As far as who can out macro who as far as races "when players are even" this means even bases, even economy, even mechanics, even skill level, even micro. You want to know who is ahead FUCKING NO ONE, its fucking even your idiotic moron. You think this game is balanced so that when opponents are even someone is ahead what in the serious fuck are you thinking. If you payed attention to TvZ trends like you say you do you would also notice that terrans are starting to take their 3rd faster than zerg and push when 2-2 is finnished, you want to know what that is? the game not being even, Instead of terran trying to make counter units, terran can rely on taking faster bases using tanks for defense and push when they have a timing. Its amazing, people who makes guides have a I'm 100% right attitude and make these generalized statments "impossible to out macro zerg" "tanks are bad". when there is something good about tanks in every match up, and you can easily out macro a bronze league zerg if your a grandmaster terran. Don't even start the bullshit about even games again, because that was the stupidest shit I've ever heard.
You're ethier trolling really hard, or just incredibly ignorant. I just can't tell which it is.
|
|
|
| Dark.EX United States. June 28 2012 18:14. Posts 1504 | Profile Blog # |
On June 28 2012 18:03 OriginalBeast wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 28 2012 17:45 Fencer710 wrote:
On June 28 2012 17:36 OriginalBeast wrote:
I feel like this post in particular comes from an angle where having superior mechanics to your opponent aren't considered. Saying things like "marine/tank is bad" "zerg has figured out bio/tank" "terran only won when zerg made mistakes" along with the "facts" of how zerg has figured it out. Thats all bullshit, ask anyone in masters league that has terran figured out that marine tank is fine vs zerg, and you can win with this composition if you have the superior mechanics and game understanding. You honestly hype-up non tank, bio mech compositions as if they were better than bio tank.
All I'm trying to say is that there is no miracle composition vs any race, there is no I do A opponent does B and A is better so I win.
With all of that in mind, I don't think tanks are necessary vs zerg, but the ability of tanks is unparalleled by any other unit in the game when it comes to locking down an area of the map as far as defense is concerned. Having tanks to protect your expansions allows you to take expansions and out macro your opponent. Without tanks your composition will have to constantly be on the offensive to make sure zerg can't pressure your expansions, but if you lose map control you have nothing to really rely on to keep your expansions easily defendable.
Here's a simple fact: It's impossible to 'out macro' a Zerg when both players are even. The whole problem of Siege Tanks is that they're immobile. This wouldn't be as big of a problem if they were a lot better in straight-up engagements and did more damage to Zerg units, but they don't, and it is a problem. In my view, this composition IS better than Marine/Tank. Opinions ftw. Also of course there isn't a miracle composition. There's probably a way to beat this that hasn't been figured out yet.
Opinions ftw until you make a thread where you call 90% of what pros are doing bad, I would like to see some of your games going marine/ tank. Because I bet there is a chance that you tried it maybe for like 30 games TOPS before you said it was a bad composition. I bet you get fungled in the middle of the field because you lead with your weak marines instead of with your meaty tanks. I bet that you don't make more than 6 medivacs. I bet that you don't split up your marines to leave some to defend your tanks and let some of your marines attacking whatever. Your opinion is fine, but your made a thread that is completely ill informed. As far as who can out macro who as far as races "when players are even" this means even bases, even economy, even mechanics, even skill level, even micro. You want to know who is ahead FUCKING NO ONE, its fucking even your idiotic moron. You think this game is balanced so that when opponents are even someone is ahead what in the serious fuck are you thinking. If you payed attention to TvZ trends like you say you do you would also notice that terrans are starting to take their 3rd faster than zerg and push when 2-2 is finnished, you want to know what that is? the game not being even, Instead of terran trying to make counter units, terran can rely on taking faster bases using tanks for defense and push when they have a timing. Its amazing, people who makes guides have a I'm 100% right attitude and make these generalized statments "impossible to out macro zerg" "tanks are bad". when there is something good about tanks in every match up, and you can easily out macro a bronze league zerg if your a grandmaster terran. Don't even start the bullshit about even games again, because that was the stupidest shit I've ever heard.
1) Note how 90% of pro players are also doing badly in tournaments and against Zerg in general. I've played Marine/Tank for a long time, it just didn't fit with me, period.
2) By even players I mean fairly even skill level, not what you're talking about.
3) I don't like this because the Zerg can drone up and get Ultralisks out in time to defend as well as their own 2-2, a lot of Zerglings, and Infestors.
4) I had a [D] tag on my thread originally just because I wasn't 100% sure. I got more confident, so I asked a mod to remove it. I also now have a 'discussion' section in the OP which has discussion topics, at the moment just an idea for late-game BC's.Last edit: 2012-06-28 18:15:07 |
|
|
| Dark.EX United States. June 28 2012 18:16. Posts 1504 | Profile Blog # |
On June 28 2012 18:13 OriginalBeast wrote:
My opinion sir, is that you think that TvZ is imbalanced towards zerg. You think that tanks are the problem, and so you made a thread that explains that you think tanks make the matchup worse for terran and that if you don't make tanks you have a higher chance on winning. This logic is flawed because if you viewed the game as balanced (which it is) composition wouldn't be the issue, loses for games would be because your opponent was better than you. This thread was made because you have a problem with the match up, and you wanted a credible place to whine about it so that you feel warm and fuzzy, maybe if you bullshit hard enough with bolded text and a clean OP that people would agree with you. If you actually wanted to help people "the community" whatever you would have made a thread on mechanics, how you choose to play the TvZ match up, not just the composition you use and how the standard composition is flawed.
Thinking the game is balanced=/=thinking all units and or compositions are good. It's called the metagame.
I made the thread because I had a cool strategy that I wanted to share.
Do you have any solid arguments against the composition itself? It might reveal some weaknesses.
Edit: Also, if the game was based solely on who had better Micro and Macro, the game wouldn't be a strategy game; it would be like riding one of those exercise bicycles and seeing who can pedal the fastest. (rough comparison, I know it wouldn't be exactly like that.)Last edit: 2012-06-28 18:22:58 |
|
|
| OriginalBeast United States. June 28 2012 18:23. Posts 701 | Profile # |
On June 28 2012 18:14 Fencer710 wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 28 2012 18:03 OriginalBeast wrote:
On June 28 2012 17:45 Fencer710 wrote:
On June 28 2012 17:36 OriginalBeast wrote:
I feel like this post in particular comes from an angle where having superior mechanics to your opponent aren't considered. Saying things like "marine/tank is bad" "zerg has figured out bio/tank" "terran only won when zerg made mistakes" along with the "facts" of how zerg has figured it out. Thats all bullshit, ask anyone in masters league that has terran figured out that marine tank is fine vs zerg, and you can win with this composition if you have the superior mechanics and game understanding. You honestly hype-up non tank, bio mech compositions as if they were better than bio tank.
All I'm trying to say is that there is no miracle composition vs any race, there is no I do A opponent does B and A is better so I win.
With all of that in mind, I don't think tanks are necessary vs zerg, but the ability of tanks is unparalleled by any other unit in the game when it comes to locking down an area of the map as far as defense is concerned. Having tanks to protect your expansions allows you to take expansions and out macro your opponent. Without tanks your composition will have to constantly be on the offensive to make sure zerg can't pressure your expansions, but if you lose map control you have nothing to really rely on to keep your expansions easily defendable.
Here's a simple fact: It's impossible to 'out macro' a Zerg when both players are even. The whole problem of Siege Tanks is that they're immobile. This wouldn't be as big of a problem if they were a lot better in straight-up engagements and did more damage to Zerg units, but they don't, and it is a problem. In my view, this composition IS better than Marine/Tank. Opinions ftw. Also of course there isn't a miracle composition. There's probably a way to beat this that hasn't been figured out yet.
Opinions ftw until you make a thread where you call 90% of what pros are doing bad, I would like to see some of your games going marine/ tank. Because I bet there is a chance that you tried it maybe for like 30 games TOPS before you said it was a bad composition. I bet you get fungled in the middle of the field because you lead with your weak marines instead of with your meaty tanks. I bet that you don't make more than 6 medivacs. I bet that you don't split up your marines to leave some to defend your tanks and let some of your marines attacking whatever. Your opinion is fine, but your made a thread that is completely ill informed. As far as who can out macro who as far as races "when players are even" this means even bases, even economy, even mechanics, even skill level, even micro. You want to know who is ahead FUCKING NO ONE, its fucking even your idiotic moron. You think this game is balanced so that when opponents are even someone is ahead what in the serious fuck are you thinking. If you payed attention to TvZ trends like you say you do you would also notice that terrans are starting to take their 3rd faster than zerg and push when 2-2 is finnished, you want to know what that is? the game not being even, Instead of terran trying to make counter units, terran can rely on taking faster bases using tanks for defense and push when they have a timing. Its amazing, people who makes guides have a I'm 100% right attitude and make these generalized statments "impossible to out macro zerg" "tanks are bad". when there is something good about tanks in every match up, and you can easily out macro a bronze league zerg if your a grandmaster terran. Don't even start the bullshit about even games again, because that was the stupidest shit I've ever heard.
1) Note how 90% of pro players are also doing badly in tournaments and against Zerg in general. I've played Marine/Tank for a long time, it just didn't fit with me, period. 2) By even players I mean fairly even skill level, not what you're talking about. 3) I don't like this because the Zerg can drone up and get Ultralisks out in time to defend as well as their own 2-2, a lot of Zerglings, and Infestors. 4) I had a [D] tag on my thread originally just because I wasn't 100% sure. I got more confident, so I asked a mod to remove it. I also now have a 'discussion' section in the OP which has discussion topics, at the moment just an idea for late-game BC's.
1) Pro players are adjusting to queen range 5, It was a brand new patch and your results from tournaments are from recent ones and this is a hasty decision to say the least.
2) See 1, players adjusting to patch
3) You get 2-2 at like 13 minutes before hive tech is finnished thats why terran players do this push... you have a lot of stuff and so do they you can still win or lose and it doesn't make tanks not viable
4) Late game BCs are good if you have a lot of them, imo I'd rather have 32 supply in marine instead of 32 supply in BCs. but thats just splitting hairs |
| |
|
| Dark.EX United States. June 28 2012 18:29. Posts 1504 | Profile Blog # |
1) Yes, and this is my adjustment.
2) This has what to do with 1?
3) When I was watching MLG Spring Championships Terrans were pushing around 14:00 after Hive tech was out. Can I see some replays/VOD's?
4) Check the OP. I was suggesting just a couple to force Corruptors and absorb their shots so my Ravens have a better chance of getting off HSM's. |
|
|
| OriginalBeast United States. June 28 2012 18:33. Posts 701 | Profile # |
On June 28 2012 18:16 Fencer710 wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 28 2012 18:13 OriginalBeast wrote:
My opinion sir, is that you think that TvZ is imbalanced towards zerg. You think that tanks are the problem, and so you made a thread that explains that you think tanks make the matchup worse for terran and that if you don't make tanks you have a higher chance on winning. This logic is flawed because if you viewed the game as balanced (which it is) composition wouldn't be the issue, loses for games would be because your opponent was better than you. This thread was made because you have a problem with the match up, and you wanted a credible place to whine about it so that you feel warm and fuzzy, maybe if you bullshit hard enough with bolded text and a clean OP that people would agree with you. If you actually wanted to help people "the community" whatever you would have made a thread on mechanics, how you choose to play the TvZ match up, not just the composition you use and how the standard composition is flawed.
Thinking the game is balanced=/=thinking all units and or compositions are good. It's called the metagame. I made the thread because I had a cool strategy that I wanted to share. Do you have any solid arguments against the composition itself? It might reveal some weaknesses. Edit: Also, if the game was based solely on who had better Micro and Macro, the game wouldn't be a strategy game; it would be like riding one of those exercise bicycles and seeing who can pedal the fastest. (rough comparison, I know it wouldn't be exactly like that.)
The meta game is basically how builds are tweeked in order to arrive to the mid game with a different set of advantages, it has nothing to do with composition. Like getting faster +1 and bio with later tanks. metagaming someone involves changing slight things in your build so that you can strike them when your opponent is weak, it happens in tournaments when players have researched each other highly
My arguments on the composition itself is that Its still weak to ling/bane/ultra, you didn't really break any ground. My main problem was that If you lose map control you can't defend expansions, I said most of this in my first post. Tanks help you take expansions and that allows you to out macro your opponent. If you were really going to try to just "counter" your opponents ling/bane/infestor/ultra you would have to make like hellion/tank/ghost/marauder which makes no sense actually because you don't have any anti air and couldn't deal with a broodlord late game except for snipe. Honestly I think that what makes terran so bad vs zerg right now is the lack of ghosts and a few marauders when their opponent goes infestor pros rely too much on micro in that reguard I think.
Its a strategy game, strategy isn't unit composition, strategy is a plan quite simply and you can plan to arrive at a weird composition goal, or you can plan to have more stuff than your opponent. |
| |
|
| Aoxer June 28 2012 18:36. Posts 44 | Profile # |
On June 28 2012 18:23 OriginalBeast wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 28 2012 18:14 Fencer710 wrote:
On June 28 2012 18:03 OriginalBeast wrote:
On June 28 2012 17:45 Fencer710 wrote:
On June 28 2012 17:36 OriginalBeast wrote:
I feel like this post in particular comes from an angle where having superior mechanics to your opponent aren't considered. Saying things like "marine/tank is bad" "zerg has figured out bio/tank" "terran only won when zerg made mistakes" along with the "facts" of how zerg has figured it out. Thats all bullshit, ask anyone in masters league that has terran figured out that marine tank is fine vs zerg, and you can win with this composition if you have the superior mechanics and game understanding. You honestly hype-up non tank, bio mech compositions as if they were better than bio tank.
All I'm trying to say is that there is no miracle composition vs any race, there is no I do A opponent does B and A is better so I win.
With all of that in mind, I don't think tanks are necessary vs zerg, but the ability of tanks is unparalleled by any other unit in the game when it comes to locking down an area of the map as far as defense is concerned. Having tanks to protect your expansions allows you to take expansions and out macro your opponent. Without tanks your composition will have to constantly be on the offensive to make sure zerg can't pressure your expansions, but if you lose map control you have nothing to really rely on to keep your expansions easily defendable.
Here's a simple fact: It's impossible to 'out macro' a Zerg when both players are even. The whole problem of Siege Tanks is that they're immobile. This wouldn't be as big of a problem if they were a lot better in straight-up engagements and did more damage to Zerg units, but they don't, and it is a problem. In my view, this composition IS better than Marine/Tank. Opinions ftw. Also of course there isn't a miracle composition. There's probably a way to beat this that hasn't been figured out yet.
Opinions ftw until you make a thread where you call 90% of what pros are doing bad, I would like to see some of your games going marine/ tank. Because I bet there is a chance that you tried it maybe for like 30 games TOPS before you said it was a bad composition. I bet you get fungled in the middle of the field because you lead with your weak marines instead of with your meaty tanks. I bet that you don't make more than 6 medivacs. I bet that you don't split up your marines to leave some to defend your tanks and let some of your marines attacking whatever. Your opinion is fine, but your made a thread that is completely ill informed. As far as who can out macro who as far as races "when players are even" this means even bases, even economy, even mechanics, even skill level, even micro. You want to know who is ahead FUCKING NO ONE, its fucking even your idiotic moron. You think this game is balanced so that when opponents are even someone is ahead what in the serious fuck are you thinking. If you payed attention to TvZ trends like you say you do you would also notice that terrans are starting to take their 3rd faster than zerg and push when 2-2 is finnished, you want to know what that is? the game not being even, Instead of terran trying to make counter units, terran can rely on taking faster bases using tanks for defense and push when they have a timing. Its amazing, people who makes guides have a I'm 100% right attitude and make these generalized statments "impossible to out macro zerg" "tanks are bad". when there is something good about tanks in every match up, and you can easily out macro a bronze league zerg if your a grandmaster terran. Don't even start the bullshit about even games again, because that was the stupidest shit I've ever heard.
1) Note how 90% of pro players are also doing badly in tournaments and against Zerg in general. I've played Marine/Tank for a long time, it just didn't fit with me, period. 2) By even players I mean fairly even skill level, not what you're talking about. 3) I don't like this because the Zerg can drone up and get Ultralisks out in time to defend as well as their own 2-2, a lot of Zerglings, and Infestors. 4) I had a [D] tag on my thread originally just because I wasn't 100% sure. I got more confident, so I asked a mod to remove it. I also now have a 'discussion' section in the OP which has discussion topics, at the moment just an idea for late-game BC's.
1) Pro players are adjusting to queen range 5, It was a brand new patch and your results from tournaments are from recent ones and this is a hasty decision to say the least. 2) See 1, players adjusting to patch 3) You get 2-2 at like 13 minutes before hive tech is finnished thats why terran players do this push... you have a lot of stuff and so do they you can still win or lose and it doesn't make tanks not viable 4) Late game BCs are good if you have a lot of them, imo I'd rather have 32 supply in marine instead of 32 supply in BCs. but thats just splitting hairs
Well, maybe this is the answer to the range 5 queens, it allows for early pressure to kill a greedy zerg and can also deny creep spread with that push.
If you look at a lot of mlg games, by the time the terran moved out with his 2/2 upgrades and marine tank comp, the creep spread was right outside his base giving the zerg all the time he needs to prepare.
However, I wouldn't say that tanks aren't viable (Kas still does it on his stream all the time) but this is another way to play that is more mobile and doesn't allow the zerg to exploit the immobility of tanks (and how bad they are against hive tech). |
| | "No amout of macro will make marines beat banelings" |
|
|
| Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next All | |
|
|
|
| |
|
Sidebar Settings...
|
Store
