EPTHighest potential
Hardest to reach full potential
Protoss:
Lowest potential
Easiest to reach full potential
Zerg:
Middle
Middle
Why does flash play terran? - Page 4
| Forum Index > Brood War Strategy |
|
niteReloaded
Croatia5281 Posts
Highest potential Hardest to reach full potential Protoss: Lowest potential Easiest to reach full potential Zerg: Middle Middle | ||
|
TMNT
2656 Posts
On June 19 2021 20:24 Dante08 wrote: Terran is hard because the units are weak. Let's look at the matchups: TvZ bio: vulnerable early on to lings, mutas lurker all-in (note this applies to Zerg as well early game). Bio gets considerably weaker as the game goes on vs ultra ling. Very hard to control more than 5 groups of bio and you have to babysit your army compared to Zerg who can a move. TvZ mech: units are much stronger than bio but builds are more fragile and you tend to give up more map control due to less mobility. TvP: don't really need to go much into this, Terran can die at any moment to Protoss, from the first zealot/Dragoon to Arbiter recall. The Terran 3-3 mech army is scary but it still takes a skilled player to control, e.g. if you siege too late you can lose your whole army. This is such a pointless way of argueing. For any races and any matchups, you have certain difficulties. Just listing them out like that doesn't mean your race is harder than the other races. ZvT you can die any moment if you don't anticipate Terran's timing, PvT your whole army can evaporate in the blink of an eye etc. etc. | ||
|
Dante08
Singapore4126 Posts
On June 19 2021 22:04 TMNT wrote: This is such a pointless way of argueing. For any races and any matchups, you have certain difficulties. Just listing them out like that doesn't mean your race is harder than the other races. ZvT you can die any moment if you don't anticipate Terran's timing, PvT your whole army can evaporate in the blink of an eye etc. etc. Did you not read my post? I said TvZ bio early to mid game it works both ways but once you get to late game Zerg units get stronger but Terran is still on marine medic. And nobody would disagree if TvP is way harder on T than P. If Protoss anticipates any timing attacks it's pretty easy to counter, and Protoss can always back their army away if the engagement is not good. Terran can lose 2 zealot rushes, dragoon rushes, DTs, Reavers, Carriers and the list goes on. Every match up has its difficulties but from F to A level it is harder for Terran by far. | ||
|
TMNT
2656 Posts
On June 19 2021 23:58 Dante08 wrote: Did you not read my post? I said TvZ bio early to mid game it works both ways but once you get to late game Zerg units get stronger but Terran is still on marine medic. And nobody would disagree if TvP is way harder on T than P. If Protoss anticipates any timing attacks it's pretty easy to counter, and Protoss can always back their army away if the engagement is not good. Terran can lose 2 zealot rushes, dragoon rushes, DTs, Reavers, Carriers and the list goes on. Every match up has its difficulties but from F to A level it is harder for Terran by far. You're really starting to sound like Artosis, especially with the TvP part, who only looks at the matter from one perspective. Late game TvZ bio you have Science Vessel and Battle Cruiser as well, and a whiny Zerg can complain about being helpless against Irradiate. Also I don't see Terran mentioning their late game 3 3 mech army while Protoss is still on Dragoon Zealot. Any units can be considered weak until they hit their critical mass. Any timing attack of any race is "pretty easy" to counter if anticipated, no? Protoss can also lose to any Terran dedicated push, including 2 Fact, 6 Fact, even bio, plus Vulture runby, Vulture drop, stepping on a mine field, or just by taking one bad trade. Mind, I wasn't against the argument that Terran is the hardest race to play. What I was against is people citing the difficulties of their match-up, while pretending the other races dont have to suffer the same. | ||
|
Dante08
Singapore4126 Posts
Do you base your opinions off just pro games or something? | ||
|
Leonix
161 Posts
On June 20 2021 11:53 Dante08 wrote: Have you actually played TvP before and if yes at what level? Here is a video between Flash and Nada where Nada who is one of the best Terrans ever asking for TvP tips and discussing how hard the matchup is. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CWEYKFG7Y8&ab_channel=jinjin5000 Do you base your opinions off just pro games or something? Wait, we need to agree to this non sense ? | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria3939 Posts
Whichever strategies show the highest winrate is strongly dependent on the mechanical execution. If I'm only allowed to a-move my whole army (iloveoov), that would certainly inform my strategy in a very different way than if I'm not allowed to go back to macro before I lose all of my army (Boxer). Although that sounds absurd nowadays, this wasn't always so. Boxer was well-known for his sloppy macro and oov was almost as well-known for his sloppy micro. Protoss players on the other hand rarely had as much trouble executing both micro and macro decently well at the top level. Albeit somewhat of an oversimplification, this underscores the main point: terran is a race that is heavily reliant on mechanical execution when trying to play a winning strategy. The requirements for the mechanical abilities are very high in APM and precision, which is because of a functional asymmetry: terran can achieve very high DPS, but that damage comes from a core of units that can easily die (depending on the stage of the game) and therefore fail to inflict maximum damage. Typically these highly valuable core units are marines in TvZ and tanks in TvP. To maximize DPS, terran is incentivized to keep the core units alive for as long as possible and avoid trading them unless necessary, whereas zerg and protoss are incentivized to trade their units (core or not) with the terran core units to minimize terran DPS. This is why we see zerg and protoss sometimes taking seemingly unfavorable trades with the core terran units just so they can get rid of them. Vessels in TvZ and vultures in TvP can also inflict great damage, but they're less scary compared to marines or tanks. As a result of this dynamic, terran must be very focused on keeping a close eye on its core units and their exact positioning and status, ideally at all times, not just during a battle but also before and after. It's why Flash in TvZ would rather fail to protect his vessels and keep his marines alive and not vica versa. That's the additional difficulty for terran: most units also require careful attention during the setup to a potential battle. Stim, siege, unsiege, plus the assistance of supporting units like medics, firebats and vessels in TvZ, or vultures and scvs in TvP. For terran, even such a setup or the claiming of a key position sometimes requires a lot of APM. The most striking example is that clearing out dangerous mines is a job not just for protoss, but also for terran. Of course the zerg setup also requires a lot of APM, but I think a bit less than for terran. And for protoss it's quite significantly less. This also offers ideas for improvements for zerg and protoss: since the setup to a battle is apparently less stressful for protoss and zerg, then both races can increase their meaningful APM by doing things like scouting rigorously before and after a battle to catch runby's and hidden bases. How many times did a small group of sneaky vultures ruin the game for protoss for example? Well, I can say quite often, at every level. I think this doesn't make zerg and protoss overall (!) any less difficult at S-tier, or even A-tier perhaps. That's because when a player has reached that level, the goal is to maximize the winrate against other top players, and for that purpose the only acceptable effort is peak effort. And the way I see it, all races have an infinite skill ceiling both strategically and mechanically, so at the top level there should hypothetically be no difference in difficulty. Just my opinion. | ||
|
TMNT
2656 Posts
On June 20 2021 11:53 Dante08 wrote: Have you actually played TvP before and if yes at what level? Here is a video between Flash and Nada where Nada who is one of the best Terrans ever asking for TvP tips and discussing how hard the matchup is. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CWEYKFG7Y8&ab_channel=jinjin5000 Do you base your opinions off just pro games or something? What? You debate a problem by counter-arguing the others points, not by reiterating your original opinion time and time again. Here's Flash and Nada discussing how hard TvP is. Err, so what? Of course it's hard. Any match-up is hard. Are they supposed to say "TvP is a piece of cake for me"? The question is, is it harder than PvT? If so, is it harder because Terran can die from DT/Reaver (lol)? I can have Bisu and Stork sit there discussing how hard PvT is as well. Does that prove PvT is harder than TvP? No. | ||
|
SlayerS_BunkiE
Canada1707 Posts
On June 19 2021 18:42 Barneyk wrote: While I think it is perfectly fair to talk about how Terran is the hardest race to play in a lot of ways I think it is asinine to claim that Terran cannot compete in modern korean broodwar and can only win with Flash or flukes. I was trying to get a point across but I am sorry for calling T wins flukes. These players worked hard to give themselves that win and calling them flukes is inappropriate. Nevertheless, below are # of golds by race, post-Savior era of the major korean tournaments (OSL/MSL/ASL/KSL). We can maybe argue what constitutes modern starcraft but imo this is appropriate and am confident changing the observation period slightly will yield little difference. I've taken out the winningest player of each race (quite unsurprisingly they are Flash, JD, and Bisu). T - 6 (25%) P - 6 (25%) Z - 12 (50%) Perhaps my only mistake was singling out Terran. Maybe Protoss cannot compete as well. | ||
|
att
128 Posts
| ||
|
SlayerS_BunkiE
Canada1707 Posts
On June 21 2021 00:25 att wrote: We cant ignore that there have been quite many terran bonjwas, and some zerg bonjwas, but protoss bonjwa has been weaker and shorter reign compared to the others so seems like when terrans is on top of the world they really must be an exceptional player That is why Bisu is the best lol Seriously tho, there is no protoss bonjwa. And as great as the bonjwas are (and we should all be fans), for purposes of discussing these topics, imo their reign should be disregarded/excluded. These guys basically changed the game and everyone’s understanding of it. Thats what made them such important figures (apart from winning a bunch of tournaments). But as such, if we want to discuss the game as it exists today, how it was before the bonjwas changed it is irrelevant. | ||
|
Barneyk
Sweden305 Posts
On June 20 2021 23:35 SlayerS_BunkiE wrote: I was trying to get a point across but I am sorry for calling T wins flukes. These players worked hard to give themselves that win and calling them flukes is inappropriate. Nevertheless, below are # of golds by race, post-Savior era of the major korean tournaments (OSL/MSL/ASL/KSL). We can maybe argue what constitutes modern starcraft but imo this is appropriate and am confident changing the observation period slightly will yield little difference. I've taken out the winningest player of each race (quite unsurprisingly they are Flash, JD, and Bisu). T - 6 (25%) P - 6 (25%) Z - 12 (50%) Perhaps my only mistake was singling out Terran. Maybe Protoss cannot compete as well. So your actual point is that T and P are equal and Zerg is OP?  And I would strongly argue that Modern BW is post-Kespa. The game was so very different during the kespa era in so many ways and the player base is so different. I consider "Modern BW" to start at ASL1, and if we count wins removing the top players for each race, Flash, Rain and Zero (queen) since then the stats are this: P: 1 (Shuttle in the very first ASL lol) T: 2 (Last and Light.) Z: 3 (Effort, Soulkey and Larva) So maybe they need to start making less Zerg friendly maps now that Flash is away. But, my point is simply this. While Terran does have some specific difficulties that makes it a hard race to play with slightly less options on how to play the game compared to P and Z, and having a bit more of a problem to finish the game. At the highest levels there is no real race imbalance to speak of. Any slight imbalance is easily fixed with maps. Looking at the results and how people have played I think for the most part the best player has won, the loser, regardless of race, have made mistakes that the winner capitalized on. | ||
|
SlayerS_BunkiE
Canada1707 Posts
On June 21 2021 01:13 Barneyk wrote: So your actual point is that T and P are equal and Zerg is OP? your words And I would strongly argue that Modern BW is post-Kespa. The game was so very different during the kespa era in so many ways and the player base is so different. I would take issue with taking out possibly the most competitive high level period of starcraft in history. Even if there may be merit to the argument that post-Kespa is more "modern", the small sample size makes it impractical to use. Imo the 24-game post-Savior sample size is actually too small. To get more data, I asked the question: "who would have won if Flash/JD/Bisu didn't exist". Taking the simplistic approach of assuming the player these guys beat in the finals would have won the tournament, the revised # of golds would be (FvJ finals excluded): T - 8 (21%) P - 13 (34%) Z - 17 (45%) There is probably a better way to do this, but please forgive me for feeling the Terran race is completely hopeless without Flash. Looking at the results and how people have played I think for the most part the best player has won, the loser, regardless of race, have made mistakes that the winner capitalized on. We can always point to a reason why a player lost. However, we can also take a step back and just look at results. If this were a casino, and Flash didn't exist, betting on T should have a larger payout | ||
|
kidcrash
United States620 Posts
On June 21 2021 00:38 SlayerS_BunkiE wrote: That is why Bisu is the best lol Seriously tho, there is no protoss bonjwa. And as great as the bonjwas are (and we should all be fans), for purposes of discussing these topics, imo their reign should be disregarded/excluded. These guys basically changed the game and everyone’s understanding of it. Thats what made them such important figures (apart from winning a bunch of tournaments). But as such, if we want to discuss the game as it exists today, how it was before the bonjwas changed it is irrelevant. Im not sure how I feel about creating asterisks' for certain players. No reputable sports analyst would remove Michael Jordan or Lebron James from a certain stat to prove a point. It just seems very arbitrary to me and a bit vunerable to bias. Those players would have to have identical metrics between them to justify removing them from a pool of statistics. They exist, they play by the same rules and have the same opportunities as the other players, therefore you absolutely have to include them. | ||
|
SlayerS_BunkiE
Canada1707 Posts
On June 21 2021 06:07 kidcrash wrote: Im not sure how I feel about creating asterisks' for certain players. No reputable sports analyst would remove Michael Jordan or Lebron James from a certain stat to prove a point. It just seems very arbitrary to me and a bit vunerable to bias. Those players would have to have identical metrics between them to justify removing them from a pool of statistics. They exist, they play by the same rules and have the same opportunities as the other players, therefore you absolutely have to include them. I think you completely misuderstood. I am not arguing to exclude them from the list of the very best to play this game. I am just saying we should exclude old games that were played with obsolete styles/strategies. For obvious reasons. | ||
|
kidcrash
United States620 Posts
On June 21 2021 06:39 SlayerS_BunkiE wrote: I think you completely misuderstood. I am not arguing to exclude them from the list of the very best to play this game. I am just saying we should exclude old games that were played with obsolete styles/strategies. For obvious reasons. I quoted the wrong message but was talking about the post giving OSL MSL KSL and ASL gold medals but excluding Flash Jaedong and Bisu. This is just compiling stats arbitrarily to mold a narrative. It assumes that those 3 players are equals when they are not. Any statastic that creates an asterisks for Flash is meaningless if you think about it. Why do we create an exception for him? Does he not play with the same rules and opprotunities as other players? His accomplishments should absolutely be included in any compilation of stats. Now if we had a large sample size of him play R or off race, THEN maybe we could leverage his games played differently to create some sort of meaningful race balance discussion. Until then, Flash wins = terran wins, period. | ||
|
SlayerS_BunkiE
Canada1707 Posts
On June 21 2021 07:51 kidcrash wrote: I quoted the wrong message but was talking about the post giving OSL MSL KSL and ASL gold medals but excluding Flash Jaedong and Bisu. This is just compiling stats arbitrarily to mold a narrative. It assumes that those 3 players are equals when they are not. Any statastic that creates an asterisks for Flash is meaningless if you think about it. Why do we create an exception for him? Does he not play with the same rules and opprotunities as other players? His accomplishments should absolutely be included in any compilation of stats. Now if we had a large sample size of him play R or off race, THEN maybe we could leverage his games played differently to create some sort of meaningful race balance discussion. Until then, Flash wins = terran wins, period. Ya I got it a little bit after I replied that you quoted the wrong post. Anyway, this started when I said that I firmly believe Terrans cant compete without Flash. Take from that statement what you will. I just posted some stuff to back that up. | ||
|
kidcrash
United States620 Posts
On June 21 2021 08:06 SlayerS_BunkiE wrote: Ya I got it a little bit after I replied that you quoted the wrong post. Anyway, this started when I said that I firmly believe Terrans cant compete without Flash. Take from that statement what you will. I just posted some stuff to back that up. Let me spin it to you a different way. If you were compiling stats for average IQ of a population, would you remove the top X samples from the data? I understand people want to asterisks Flash but the reasons seem so arbitrary. If Broodwar is played for another 100 years and 2 or 3 players obtain more golds than flash, will the asterisks all of a sudden be removed? | ||
|
SlayerS_BunkiE
Canada1707 Posts
On June 21 2021 08:20 kidcrash wrote: Let me spin it to you a different way. If you were compiling stats for average IQ of a population, would you remove the top X samples from the data? I understand people want to asterisks Flash but the reasons seem so arbitrary. If Broodwar is played for another 100 years and 2 or 3 players obtain more golds than flash, will the asterisks all of a sudden be removed? Sorry but I really have no idea what you are trying to get at. Against my better judgment, I’ll respond to the IQ question: outliers can be excluded. That is why median/mode are also used. | ||
|
kidcrash
United States620 Posts
On June 21 2021 08:37 SlayerS_BunkiE wrote: Sorry but I really have no idea what you are trying to get at. Against my better judgment, I’ll respond to the IQ question: outliers can be excluded. That is why median/mode are also used. Maybe the IQ example was bad. Ill return to the original sports related analogy for this discussion. If a sports (NBA) analyst were to compile data for top 10 players in each of the respected positions, do you think they would purposely not include certain players because they were too good? I get removing outliers from certain data sets but the methodology should be well defined enough to apply to any player and should contain concrete benchmarks. It also leads to a slippery slope of creating asterisks for anything that might be deemed "outlier" for example bad map pools during certain seasons, weaker player brackets etc. You see this a lot when people try to create asterisk seasons in the NBA when players were injured during certain seasons. The consensus is its best to just leave the data intact and let the numbers speak for themselves once they reach a certain sample size. Although I agree post-savior era kespa should be a starting point for statistics gathering to focus on what we call the "modern era". | ||
| ||
