|
On August 29 2011 18:06 Vlare wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2011 17:53 BLitZkRiEG. wrote:
@ Vlare I think what he's trying to get across is not what is the best race, but how each race's different design plays out compared to other generic rts games' races.
to the op: I agree with the you about terran and zerg, but protoss just seems to be the race that relies the most of timings or making an unbeatable army, not so much on positioning. Well in that case. Terran : Every unit has the potential to end the gameZerg: Many very quick and flimsy units - Super succeptible to quick losses by being caught off guard. Protoss: super dependent on not losing units and using unit spells well/actively.
Lol..... I'm sorry I can't tell if this is a joke since im very tired, but is this an excuse to whine about balance?
Anyway:
Zerg: Easy techswitch, amazing mobility, the creep and
Terran: Nice harassment advantage, quite powerful units
Protoss: Powerful units, able to take advantage of high and lowground easily (Warp ins and blinking)
|
I agree with most of what has been said already. Here's my $0.02 to add:
Terran: Strongest early game. Can win with 3rax against most opponents at lower levels. Options for all types of play (harass, drop, technical, air force, death ball). Easiest race to defend with. Played a couple +1 hour games against Terran. Interchangeable tech labs makes tech switching an option at any point in the game.
Protoss: The death ball is extremely hard to break. Easiest mechanics to learn due to warp-in ability (don't have to rally as much). High Templars used to be absolutely baller and now aren't as worth it. Carriers do the most damage per upgrade in the game, but at 350/250 who can afford them? If you lose any units, especially your Colossus, you just... lose.
Zerg: Most interesting mechanics IMO. Mass Mutas ruin Protoss if handled correctly. Creep is great for vision. EXTREMELY powerful in the late-late game. Ultralisk/Brood Lord chews apart ground armies, if the Zerg player can get there. Still, Zerg do no win games against Protoss or Terran; Protoss and Terran just lose games to Zerg.
|
[B] Still, Zerg do no win games against Protoss or Terran; Protoss and Terran just lose games to Zerg.
ke?
explain more
|
Well the difference is that:
1. Terran has complete control over the game from the start. They have so many units with so many completely different functions and possibilities (and followups) that they could be doing absolutely anything. They dictate what units you make (in a macro game), and they force you to respond perfectly, or you lose to them just playing normally. You'll see this evidenced a lot in tournaments, where incredible Zergs win huge macro games then lose to some abusive 2rax variation twice in a row.
2. I feel like Zerg has the best flow with their upgrades, it just feels so much smoother to put down two evo chambers and start upgrading than it does with say double forge. Zerg obviously also has the huge speed advantage and creep, you can keep lings up in some corner and then counterattack when you see people moving out. Coca used that to great effect in Raleigh. Pretty easy to have map control as Z, get a decent spread with your overlords and you can see everything coming, keep lings outside their base, at their potential expos and the towers and you'll have a huge map advantage.
3. Protoss's advantage has got to be the combination of their T3 and forcefields. Forcefields are crazy good, essentially allowing you to construct the terrain on which you engage yourself, and then with a unit like the Collosi or High Templar you can kill anything.
|
On August 29 2011 21:53 TheGiz wrote:
Protoss: The death ball is extremely hard to break. Easiest mechanics to learn due to warp-in ability (don't have to rally as much). High Templars used to be absolutely baller and now aren't as worth it. Carriers do the most damage per upgrade in the game, but at 350/250 who can afford them? If you lose any units, especially your Colossus, you just... lose.
Part of this I cannot agree with. The warp-in mechanic makes macroing MORE difficult for toss, definitely not less.
Simply if you have three rax and you want to rally them with 3 marines to a certain area, you hit hotkeyrax, a, a, a, right click
For toss you have to get "w", switch frame, hit shift, s, click three times, select the stalkers and rally them.
Zerg is similar to terran but slightly easier since you only have one type of prod building.
The frame switch makes toss more annoying in terms of mechanics than the other races. Also I'm not sur carriers do the most DPS (last time I saw a table they weren't first for sure) but their main problem isn't the resources but the speed and time it takes to get one out (I think it's 120 seconds if not more build time, which is hella long even with CBs).
And templars are still an absolute necessity against anybody going for ghosts or infestors, alongside good micro.
|
I never said Carriers do the most DPS, I said carriers scale the best with upgrades. One +1 attack upgrade increases a Carrier's initial attack by 16 damage.
You're also looking at unit production from a Terran perspective while failing to consider my viewpoint. On the other hand I cannot manage the multitasking required of a Terran; I end up with units rallied to the wrong place or new un-hotkeyed Barracks doing nothing (my worst offense). For me it's just easier to make a bunch of forward pylons and warp in units to just-outside where I need them. At 40-60 APM a frame switch is the least of my concerns. Considering we're outlining the basics for a beginner picking a race, I'd say my points are valid. Protoss macro is easier.
|
On August 29 2011 21:16 SEA_GenesiS wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2011 18:06 Vlare wrote:On August 29 2011 17:53 BLitZkRiEG. wrote:
@ Vlare I think what he's trying to get across is not what is the best race, but how each race's different design plays out compared to other generic rts games' races.
to the op: I agree with the you about terran and zerg, but protoss just seems to be the race that relies the most of timings or making an unbeatable army, not so much on positioning. Well in that case. Terran : Every unit has the potential to end the gameZerg: Many very quick and flimsy units - Super succeptible to quick losses by being caught off guard. Protoss: super dependent on not losing units and using unit spells well/actively. Lol..... I'm sorry I can't tell if this is a joke since im very tired, but is this an excuse to whine about balance? Anyway: Zerg: Easy techswitch, amazing mobility, the creep and Terran: Nice harassment advantage, quite powerful units Protoss: Powerful units, able to take advantage of high and lowground easily (Warp ins and blinking)
No it's not an OP or whine. It's just an observation.
Every Terran unit has the potential to just make you lose the game. This is why terran has the most openers, and the most diversity in play.
I'm not crying by any means, but for a new player, I am certain that this would be appealing to them. Most non-rts players want to be able to do more than just one thing over and over, every game. Ex: gate gas core pylon + go, or pool hatch => go
Terran allows for a huge variety of unique openers, and honestly it's the only race that can do it right now while being pretty safe vs everything. I think this variety is very appealing to new players is all.
Terran isn't really overpowered, while they do have many strong pushes/timings, so does every race.
|
Zerg - Good for those who's favorite color is red
Protoss - Favoring players who like yellow
Terran - Definitely a good choice for gray lovers
|
Ok there's a little thing I wrote a few weeks ago to try to decide on a race. It's very very subjective and personal to me but maybe there's something you can take out of it. It was a notepad doc that I cant copy & paste else I screw up the formatting and make it unreadable so here's a screenshot of it. :/
+ Show Spoiler +
|
Perhaps a more prudent question (and probably the question your friend means to ask) is what makes each race fun, so I'm going to try to answer that instead. I'm a protoss switched to zerg who hasn't played much terran beyond the campaign, so my opinion may be bias.
I think terran is good if your friend prefers to be aggressive more than reactive. It has a variety of units that are strong situationally and/or in small numbers which makes it good for quick aggression and harassment. Later, it also has some decent power units as well, but in many ways the real strength of terran is in the synergy of different specialized units. The uniqueness of terran units is also, I think, what makes terran fun and creative for people.
Zerg seems much the opposite to me, more passive-aggressive than aggressive. Zerg mechanics make it so that you can devote everything to building economy (and force your opponent to make a move or else be overwhelmed in the long run) and then to quickly switch to full-on unit production (in response to whatever move your opponent chooses to make). The downside however, is that it's easy to miscalculate which area to emphasize at a given moment and then end up economically behind or lose the game outright. Zerg economy can feel like a tightrope walk, but this is part of what makes zerg creative and fun. The other part is the fact that often zerg units are weaker but more mobile than terran or protoss units, which leads to a mindset of outmaneuvering your opponent instead of confronting him.
I have a harder time calling protoss passive/reactionary or aggressive. The basic units for protoss are relatively strong and flexible (as in, general purpose rather than specialized) when compared to those of terran or zerg. Further up the tech tree protoss has very powerful and cost-effective units that will steamroll an opposing army if not dealt with intelligently and carefully. I feel like protoss is pigeon-holed in many ways compared to terran or zerg, but the upside to this is that the 'standard' way to play protoss is solid and straightforward. In my opinion, most of the fun of protoss is the ability to go toe-to-toe against an opponent with confidence. There's also a fair amount of creativity in finding ingenious ways of using the flexibility of protoss units, and in making the most of unique mechanics like warpgate tech and chrono boost.
Of course, each race can be played differently. Protoss can play a passive/reactionary game, terran can make a straight-up and solid 'death ball', and zerg can be highly aggressive. In my own case, I got the idea to switch from protoss to zerg because I'd been told several times that I play protoss like a zerg.
|
On August 29 2011 20:23 deathly rat wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2011 18:27 Malyce wrote:
Terran: is a scrappy race that relies on good unit positionning and multitasking to win the game It has a very strong harass potential and is very cost-effective in small numbers. It has a wide variety of units that can serve every purpose and really adapts to play style. Terran basics are accessible seeing that it is easy to turtle up, but very hard to master due to complex macro and micro.
Zerg: is a swarm race that relies on heavy scouting and timing knowledge to optimise its production. It has massive amounts of very cheap and cost-effective units and good harassment potential. It has complicated macro when executed correctly, but slightly easier micro in most circumstances. This race is difficult to begin with but progress comes smoothly once the basics are mastered. It can be strong in all stages of the game.
Protoss: a technological race that relies on few expensive units. It has the least harassment potential, and is usually most effective when massing up a large and expensive death-ball. Its units are mostly cost-effective in large numbers. It is also the most spell-casting race. It has macro and micro of medium difficulty. A race that is slightly less accessible for beginners than terran namely due to early-game relative weakness, but you can get better quicker.
These descriptions are very general though, if Terran is playing mech for example the description won't apply as much. I hope this helped in some way though. I approve this message. Show nested quote +On August 29 2011 20:10 Klaca wrote:
The advantages are immediately visible from unit speed: EVERY zerg unit is faster than EVERY protoss unit which are in turn faster than EVERY terran unit: Truly, it is the speed that seperates the races, the and is the defining quality in how their units are used for gameplay What? You have to be trollin'. Stalkers are faster than roaches, everything is faster than hydra, hellions are really fast. It's like you never even seen a game of SC2.
I'd also agree with that first quote.
And i think he was being serious in that second quote, but he's unfortunatly misguided. He plays terran so obviously thinks that terran is the weakest race. I think he's been on the recieving end of one too many ling run by's
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/kVXLb.png)
