|
On June 29 2021 10:50 ggsimida wrote:
Reductio ad absurdum can also be a fallacy. your example u use is too absurd to draw any conclusions from, when real life data have already shown that statements like " All T wins were from Flash." is clearly untrue
Maybe one last try.
The example was meant to show that we can look at underlying data if there is reason to do so. The example was meant to be “absurd” and no real-world conclusion should be drawn from it.
And I have no idea where “all T wins were from Flash” is coming from.. I was the one who posted how many times T actually won w/o counting Flash!
|
then why do u reject magic powers statement to that the dataset is erroneous and to check the data set? if its truly absurd shouldn't there a check on the dataset itself?
|
|
|
Terran very well could be the hardest race...but 4 of the 5 bonjwas, including the undisputed GOAT, have been terran. I don't think you can call it the weakest race for that reason alone.
|
On June 29 2021 11:48 ggsimida wrote:
then why do u reject magic powers statement to that the dataset is erroneous and to check the data set? if its truly absurd shouldn't there a check on the dataset itself?
I guess he meant data is valuable, but by far not to the only thing we should look into. That's why he deliberately provided absurd data, to demonstrate we should consider other factors too.
|
On June 09 2021 07:14 Hawk2 wrote:
SC does not have a strongest race and there never will be a strongest race. The races in SC are unique and have unique strengths and weaknesses. Games of Starcraft are played on maps, which vary, and favor one race's strengths over another. Maps that favor T, Z, or P can easily be created.
Map design which favors each specific race is well understood (at least in the Korean scene). For example, if we wanted P to have the highest winrate, then we would play on island maps. For Zerg, we would reduce the mineral patch count on bases and make the map closed. For Terran, we would increase the mineral patch count on bases and add cliffs.
SC balance doesn't exist, there is only map balance. And so, the obvious questions that follows is, 'Why has Terran had the highest historical winrate?'. There are two decent answers.
1) Terran players have consistently outperformed map-makers and tournament organizer's expectations over two decades of map design and play.
2) Tournament organizers favor Terran maps as a hedge against ZvZ and PvP finals, which lead to lower viewership.
Personally, I lean towards the latter.
Without having read the entire thread Ill just say that this post nailed it. The only thing that I will add is that Terran arguably can be good on island maps as well depending on the terrain. In addition, we also practically only ever see 128X128 maps and we never see anything 64X, 96X, 192X or 256X. The simple reason for that is that is that it would likely greatly disrupt the map win rate stats we have that are as close to 50% for all MU's that we've currently got. Imagine playing a 1v1 on a 256x256, you'd be scouting for minutes trying to find your opponent and the luck factor in the game would greatly increase.
Artosis is great for the community and as a caster but he is really polluting and distorting the reality that this game is as balanced as it will ever get. He needs to stop complaining about protoss and zerg and appreciate why some maps and situations favor one race over the other. If it were possible, I would love to see him try to get to mid to high A playing only PvZ and see how that works out for him. :d
|
Because that is the race he chose to play with when he was younger hes always played terran however the last few years or two years or year hes played random but lost probably should of stuck with playing terran. Bisu will comeback win more asl ksls starleagues than flash and jaedong.I'll win the rest of the asl ksls starleagues myself if I have to. Jaedong has 6 more months to go until he gets out of the military.Flash has 1 year and 4 more months until he gets out. Bisu has already been out for the last year now.He plays terran because he chose terran at a very young age or at a young age and has always played terran faithfully loyally and has been committed and dedicated to terran. He's won the most starleagues out of all South Korean Professional Starcraft players and the most for a Terran player too.He plays Terran because he is Terran. He has won 10 starleagues now. I predict Jaedong to win more asls and ksls starleagues than flash.He only has 6 more months until he gets out.Bisu win the rest of the starleagues even if the next asl is your last one you still can qualify play and win ksls the rest of them.Flash plays terran because he chooses to play terran and always has.Their is your answer.
|
Flash has always played terran and always will.
|
Terran has been the strongest race for the vast majority of bw's life and have the statistics,tournament wins and bonjwas to back it up.
Even as I speak right now the bnet ladder's top 100 has 63 terrans. And it was like this before flying scvs was discovered too.
This terran is weak stuff usually comes from terran players, such as artosis.
|
Precisely. To say Terran is weak is a joke looking at their results. It is, however, true that the weakest race in BW is a much much clearer case than the strongest, and nothing has been done to fix this, save one season of imbalanced P maps to finally allow P to dominate.
|
On July 24 2021 06:31 sauc wrote:
Terran has been the strongest race for the vast majority of bw's life and have the statistics,tournament wins and bonjwas to back it up.
Even as I speak right now the bnet ladder's top 100 has 63 terrans. And it was like this before flying scvs was discovered too.
This terran is weak stuff usually comes from terran players, such as artosis.
Artosis claims that most of these terran accounts are smurfs, and he says that means terran isn't actually overrepresented in the top 100. Any validity to that claim?
|
Some could be. Looking at the match numbers some are sitting at 50-60 games while some are sitting at over 300. But even if they were, why is it only terrans smurfing and not zerg/protoss. Or do they smurf as well but can't reach top 100?
From what I've noticed watching starcraft for like 16 years is that terran is the easiest race to lose with, but it also the most rewarded the better you get while protoss is the opposite which is probably why Artosis often says he can barely tell the difference between B or S rank protosses and also probably the reason they've been the least successful race in individual starleagues both in the past and present. I really don't buy that circlejerk that ''Terran just works harder dood.''
|
Terran slightly strongest race, but hardest sub-300 apm.
|
Reasons Terran is more difficult than Protoss or Zerg:
1. Importance of scouting
Terran needs to scout both in TvZ and TvP to a much larger degree than their opponents. Not only does P and Z have a wide variety of viable cheese builds, but even in standard play, Terran needs to constantly be on the lookout for what playstyle the opponent is doing.
Examples of this:
TvZ: Terran MUST know whether Z is doing hatch or pool first, whether they are saving larva or not, whether they are going fast lair or getting speed. Not having this information is potentially game losing.
Later, Terran MUST know whether Z is going mutas or lurkers, keep constant track of Z bases and dronecount, whether quick hive or greater spire. Any of these not being picked up on and responded correctly to will end in game loss. For instance, unscouted greater spire with guardian cliff abuse will result in a swift loss. Unscouted and unpunished 4th base will result in a game loss.
This requires frequent scanning, and knowledge of the specific response to each situation, for instance wraith production vs guardians, ramp block vs pool first, bunkers and turrets vs lurker bust, turrets vs mutas. Just holding a lurker bust isn't enough - Terran must know the exact follow up, or they lose to defilers in their nat.
Zerg, on the other hand, essentially only needs to know whether or not Terran is going bio or mech, which is extremely telegraphed.
TvP:
Protoss has a wide variety of playstyles. Reaver play, goon pressure, fast arbs, fast carriers, aggressive expanding etc - Terran needs to be constantly on the lookout for what P is doing, or it will be potentially game losing. Protoss doesn't need to worry about fast BCs, or any particular cheese play that requires a very specific response from P. In fact, most Terran cheeses are laughably weak.
Any build that requires P or Z to scout what T is doing is completely outside of the meta - Terran must play predictibly to be competitive.
The result of this is that both P and Z can grow very accustomed to what a standard ZvT or PvT will look like from their perspective, while T must continually evolve specific knowledge about how to play each style of Z and P, such as lurker/defiler, crazy zerg, low econ aggressive play, greedy passive play etc. Protoss knows that Terran MUST get into tank/vult/gol/vessels every single game.
2. Issues with buildings/sim city:
Terran must have knowledge about how to sim city their base for each map and each spawn location. Having the wrong sim city can mean losing the game to muta harass, not being able to macro, have units get stuck, or losing the game to recalls etc.
Further, factories and starport has add ons, making sim citying even more difficult. Supply depots are massive, adding to the difficulty. SCVs has to work on the buildings, blocking new buildings. Just the fact that things needs to be sim citied creates difficulties, like things not building because another SCV or unit popping out blocks whatever needs to be built, resulting in it not building.
Because of Terran unit weakness early on, sim city is also a prerequisite to not simply losing to the most low effort offense from Z or P. Anti zealot wall with rax and depot, anti ling wall and bunker to not die to even the intitial lings from regular 12H vs 1raxFE play etc. All of this not only requires specific knowledge on how to do it, but also requires a lot of APM and attention, which makes every other action harder.
3. Immobile armies/Difficulty of micro:
Both TvP and TvZ, Terran armies are in essence immobile, for different reasons.
In TvP, the Terran army is immobile simply because of siege tanks, and the importance of having the perfect fight to even be able to have a chance at winning the game down the line. As a result, Terran cannot readily attack or capitalize on an advantage in TvP. Protoss can easily out-expand Terran unpunished, and Terran cannot do the same. Not only does it take time to siege/unsiege, but because of the importance of a good fight, Terran army needs to crawl slowly forward, constantly keeping tabs on the Protoss army.
In TvZ, the Terran army is immobile in a different way - firstly, because of the difficulty of moving the sheer numbers of marine/medics around the map. Secondly, because marines needs to be stimmed to be effective, and the dangers of running into lurkers or defilers means that actually moving the army around the map is extremely difficult and APM intensive, taking attention away from the already difficult macro. Terran has to constantly babysit its army to avoid simply losing the game in seconds. Typical example is lurkers running into terran army while terran isn't paying attention - instant game loss. Terran has no such tricks against P or Z.
Meanwhile, Zerg and Protoss generally can a-move to a much larger degree. This can never be done with Terran.
4. Importance of upgrades:
Both in TvP and TvZ, upgrades are everything for Terran. The game simply isn't winnable without upgrades. Terran against Crazy Zerg must have upgrades quick enough - ebays literally cannot be resting, or the game will be lost. Every build must revolve around getting quick upgrades, or the game cannot be won. This also involves that any build that isn't fast upgrade economical play is essentially a cheese build. This contributes to Terrans being very predictable in standard play.
5. Importance of taking initiative, despite how difficult it is as Terran:
Terran is on a clock both vs Zerg and Protoss. Terran MUST stop Zerg economic growth, or Terran cannot win. This forces Terran to constantly be threatening Zerg and forcing Zerg to build units, sunkens and ultimately Terran must kill the Zerg economy or contain it, or else Terran will lose. Zerg on the other hand is happy to let Terran expand freely, as long as Zerg too can expland freely.
In TvP, it is a bit better for Terran because the mech army out scales in a straight up fight, but if the Protoss economy gets too big, Terran runs into a problem of having to move too far away from its production to secure bases, while unable to threaten Protoss in a similar way, resulting in Protoss having an economy so big it can take bad trades until Protoss wins a war of attrition.
Taking initiative requires intimate knowledge of timings, what the opponent can have at any given time, how the opponent plays etc. Protoss and Zerg can have much more passive relationship to such timings and go unpunished.
6. Lack of static defence:
Zerg has spore colonies and sunken colonies, Protoss has photo cannons - fast to make, simple and effective static defence. Meanwhile, Terran only has turrets for anti air, and bunkers. Bunkers are limited in use because it can only house 4 marines, which is ineffective vs both Zerg and Protoss at holding bases. As such, Terran MUST leave clumps of units to defend, or keep tabs on enemy movement at all times to avoid being ran over and counter attacked. Because of Terran army immobility, counter attacks are also a lot more harmful.
Illustrations of how difficult Terran is to play:
Hawk did a one handed challenge to C rank as Zerg. I challenge ANY player to do the same with Terran - playing from F rank to C rank only using one hand. I am certain it is literally impossible.
Foreigner Terrans usually struggle playing at the highest level. BSL medals are a nice illustration of how poorly foreigner Terrans generally do compared to foreigner P and Z.
The reason Terrans has been a lot more successful at the higher levels in pro gaming can be easily explained - considering how mechanically demanding and difficult the race is to play, its effectiveness will keep rising as we approach perfect play, while Z and P in comparison caps out a lot sooner.
It is completely understandable that most people don't want to accept or admit, even to themselves, that this is the fact. If Z and P players were to admit that Terran simply was a lot harder to play, that would potentially mean that they were not in fact the superior player when they win against a Terran. This would obviously hurt their egos a lot. When people win games, they want to feel they are actually better than their opponent. Nobody wants to win just because they picked a certain race. This doesn't however mean, that that isn't exactly what happens.
If you could somehow have three identical players start playing starcraft, each picking each respective race, I have no doubt in my mind that after 1 year of play, the Terran would be the weakest performer of the three. Maybe after several years, this would no longer be the case.
|
On July 26 2021 17:12 krooked wrote:
Reasons Terran is more difficult than Protoss or Zerg:
Is this an Artosis smurf account?
On July 26 2021 17:12 krooked wrote:
1. Importance of scouting
Terran needs to scout both in TvZ and TvP to a much larger degree than their opponents. Not only does P and Z have a wide variety of viable cheese builds, but even in standard play, Terran needs to constantly be on the lookout for what playstyle the opponent is doing.
Examples of this:
TvZ: Terran MUST know whether Z is doing hatch or pool first, whether they are saving larva or not, whether they are going fast lair or getting speed. Not having this information is potentially game losing.
Later, Terran MUST know whether Z is going mutas or lurkers, keep constant track of Z bases and dronecount, whether quick hive or greater spire. Any of these not being picked up on and responded correctly to will end in game loss. For instance, unscouted greater spire with guardian cliff abuse will result in a swift loss. Unscouted and unpunished 4th base will result in a game loss.
This requires frequent scanning, and knowledge of the specific response to each situation, for instance wraith production vs guardians, ramp block vs pool first, bunkers and turrets vs lurker bust, turrets vs mutas. Just holding a lurker bust isn't enough - Terran must know the exact follow up, or they lose to defilers in their nat.
Zerg, on the other hand, essentially only needs to know whether or not Terran is going bio or mech, which is extremely telegraphed.
TvP:
Protoss has a wide variety of playstyles. Reaver play, goon pressure, fast arbs, fast carriers, aggressive expanding etc - Terran needs to be constantly on the lookout for what P is doing, or it will be potentially game losing. Protoss doesn't need to worry about fast BCs, or any particular cheese play that requires a very specific response from P. In fact, most Terran cheeses are laughably weak.
Any build that requires P or Z to scout what T is doing is completely outside of the meta - Terran must play predictibly to be competitive.
The result of this is that both P and Z can grow very accustomed to what a standard ZvT or PvT will look like from their perspective, while T must continually evolve specific knowledge about how to play each style of Z and P, such as lurker/defiler, crazy zerg, low econ aggressive play, greedy passive play etc. Protoss knows that Terran MUST get into tank/vult/gol/vessels every single game.
Zerg needs to know a lot more than just "bio vs mech." That's ridiculous. They need to first watch out for an early stim timing and then know what you're doing to fight mutas (vessels, mass turret, Valkyrie, etc.). For protoss, figuring out when terran is going to push and whether they're going into wraiths (to counter shuttles or carriers) or the standard science vessels is very important. And neither Z or P get the ability to scout instantly at any location like terran does.
On July 26 2021 17:12 krooked wrote:
2. Issues with buildings/sim city:
Terran must have knowledge about how to sim city their base for each map and each spawn location. Having the wrong sim city can mean losing the game to muta harass, not being able to macro, have units get stuck, or losing the game to recalls etc.
Further, factories and starport has add ons, making sim citying even more difficult. Supply depots are massive, adding to the difficulty. SCVs has to work on the buildings, blocking new buildings. Just the fact that things needs to be sim citied creates difficulties, like things not building because another SCV or unit popping out blocks whatever needs to be built, resulting in it not building.
Because of Terran unit weakness early on, sim city is also a prerequisite to not simply losing to the most low effort offense from Z or P. Anti zealot wall with rax and depot, anti ling wall and bunker to not die to even the intitial lings from regular 12H vs 1raxFE play etc. All of this not only requires specific knowledge on how to do it, but also requires a lot of APM and attention, which makes every other action harder.
Whereas Protoss has to memorize walls for every position on every map because of how little building positions matter to them?
On July 26 2021 17:12 krooked wrote:
3. Immobile armies/Difficulty of micro:
Both TvP and TvZ, Terran armies are in essence immobile, for different reasons.
In TvP, the Terran army is immobile simply because of siege tanks, and the importance of having the perfect fight to even be able to have a chance at winning the game down the line. As a result, Terran cannot readily attack or capitalize on an advantage in TvP. Protoss can easily out-expand Terran unpunished, and Terran cannot do the same. Not only does it take time to siege/unsiege, but because of the importance of a good fight, Terran army needs to crawl slowly forward, constantly keeping tabs on the Protoss army.
In TvZ, the Terran army is immobile in a different way - firstly, because of the difficulty of moving the sheer numbers of marine/medics around the map. Secondly, because marines needs to be stimmed to be effective, and the dangers of running into lurkers or defilers means that actually moving the army around the map is extremely difficult and APM intensive, taking attention away from the already difficult macro. Terran has to constantly babysit its army to avoid simply losing the game in seconds. Typical example is lurkers running into terran army while terran isn't paying attention - instant game loss. Terran has no such tricks against P or Z.
Meanwhile, Zerg and Protoss generally can a-move to a much larger degree. This can never be done with Terran.
You're keeping your marine medic force immobile in TvZ? I think I'm starting to understand why you find T so hard. Let's try rewriting it this way:
In PvT, the Protoss army is immobile in a different way - firstly, because zealots and dragoons can't simply be set up in static positions like tanks, resulting in the difficulty of moving the sheer numbers of zealot/dragoons around the map. Secondly, because zealots needs to be spread and sent in in front of other units to be effective, and the dangers of running into tank fire or spider mines means that actually moving the army around the map is extremely difficult and APM intensive, taking attention away from the already difficult macro. Protoss has to constantly babysit its army to avoid simply losing the game in seconds. Typical example is dragoons running into mines while protoss isn't paying attention - instant game loss. Protoss has no such tricks against T or Z.
Isn't that a little ridiculous? It's just describing a fast, mobile army vs a slow, immobile, but more powerful one. Exactly like TvZ in mid- lategame.
On July 26 2021 17:12 krooked wrote:
4. Importance of upgrades:
Both in TvP and TvZ, upgrades are everything for Terran. The game simply isn't winnable without upgrades. Terran against Crazy Zerg must have upgrades quick enough - ebays literally cannot be resting, or the game will be lost. Every build must revolve around getting quick upgrades, or the game cannot be won. This also involves that any build that isn't fast upgrade economical play is essentially a cheese build. This contributes to Terrans being very predictable in standard play.
I applaud your effort to make it sound like Terran having the best scaling upgrades in the game is a weakness.
On July 26 2021 17:12 krooked wrote:
5. Importance of taking initiative, despite how difficult it is as Terran:
Terran is on a clock both vs Zerg and Protoss. Terran MUST stop Zerg economic growth, or Terran cannot win. This forces Terran to constantly be threatening Zerg and forcing Zerg to build units, sunkens and ultimately Terran must kill the Zerg economy or contain it, or else Terran will lose. Zerg on the other hand is happy to let Terran expand freely, as long as Zerg too can expland freely.
In TvP, it is a bit better for Terran because the mech army out scales in a straight up fight, but if the Protoss economy gets too big, Terran runs into a problem of having to move too far away from its production to secure bases, while unable to threaten Protoss in a similar way, resulting in Protoss having an economy so big it can take bad trades until Protoss wins a war of attrition.
Taking initiative requires intimate knowledge of timings, what the opponent can have at any given time, how the opponent plays etc. Protoss and Zerg can have much more passive relationship to such timings and go unpunished.
If you are playing any race in any matchup, you're going to need to put some checks on your opponent's growth. I'm not sure why you feel that this is peculiar to terran or why doing so is harder than, say, a PvZ. And, if we just use your own ideas, it's a lot more of a necessity for Protoss than Terran in PvT: because you're going to get outscaled, you must get ahead economically, both in defending your own expansions and shutting down those of Terran.
On July 26 2021 17:12 krooked wrote:
6. Lack of static defence:
Zerg has spore colonies and sunken colonies, Protoss has photo cannons - fast to make, simple and effective static defence. Meanwhile, Terran only has turrets for anti air, and bunkers. Bunkers are limited in use because it can only house 4 marines, which is ineffective vs both Zerg and Protoss at holding bases. As such, Terran MUST leave clumps of units to defend, or keep tabs on enemy movement at all times to avoid being ran over and counter attacked. Because of Terran army immobility, counter attacks are also a lot more harmful.
So Protoss in PvZ has to leave behind big chunks of army and build tons of static defense and even then has a horrible time trying to stop drops or defiler pushes. Why is this worse for Terran? As you yourself mentioned in the last point, Terran tends to have fewer expansions than Z or P--so having to leave some army behind sometimes hurts them less than the other races. Not to mention that you're leaving out spider mines and sieged tanks here, which are better at holding a position than any standard static defense and, in the case of mines at least, still don't cost any supply.
In short, I think you're mostly looking at the game like someone who has only ever played Terran: you know everything that's difficult as terran, but are completely ignoring everything difficult about the other two races, even when it's the same thing. Some of what you're saying may be true, but you're carefully avoiding mentioning anything that acknowledges the strengths of Terran relative to the other races. The fact is that there are tradeoffs between the three races and, despite the wannabe martyrs, terran seems to have gotten a pretty good deal given their championship records.
|
On July 27 2021 03:07 QOGQOG wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2021 17:12 krooked wrote:
Reasons Terran is more difficult than Protoss or Zerg:
Is this an Artosis smurf account? No, and your attempt at ridicule is honestly just embarrasing.Show nested quote +On July 26 2021 17:12 krooked wrote:
1. Importance of scouting
Terran needs to scout both in TvZ and TvP to a much larger degree than their opponents. Not only does P and Z have a wide variety of viable cheese builds, but even in standard play, Terran needs to constantly be on the lookout for what playstyle the opponent is doing.
Examples of this:
TvZ: Terran MUST know whether Z is doing hatch or pool first, whether they are saving larva or not, whether they are going fast lair or getting speed. Not having this information is potentially game losing.
Later, Terran MUST know whether Z is going mutas or lurkers, keep constant track of Z bases and dronecount, whether quick hive or greater spire. Any of these not being picked up on and responded correctly to will end in game loss. For instance, unscouted greater spire with guardian cliff abuse will result in a swift loss. Unscouted and unpunished 4th base will result in a game loss.
This requires frequent scanning, and knowledge of the specific response to each situation, for instance wraith production vs guardians, ramp block vs pool first, bunkers and turrets vs lurker bust, turrets vs mutas. Just holding a lurker bust isn't enough - Terran must know the exact follow up, or they lose to defilers in their nat.
Zerg, on the other hand, essentially only needs to know whether or not Terran is going bio or mech, which is extremely telegraphed.
TvP:
Protoss has a wide variety of playstyles. Reaver play, goon pressure, fast arbs, fast carriers, aggressive expanding etc - Terran needs to be constantly on the lookout for what P is doing, or it will be potentially game losing. Protoss doesn't need to worry about fast BCs, or any particular cheese play that requires a very specific response from P. In fact, most Terran cheeses are laughably weak.
Any build that requires P or Z to scout what T is doing is completely outside of the meta - Terran must play predictibly to be competitive.
The result of this is that both P and Z can grow very accustomed to what a standard ZvT or PvT will look like from their perspective, while T must continually evolve specific knowledge about how to play each style of Z and P, such as lurker/defiler, crazy zerg, low econ aggressive play, greedy passive play etc. Protoss knows that Terran MUST get into tank/vult/gol/vessels every single game.
Zerg needs to know a lot more than just "bio vs mech." That's ridiculous. They need to first watch out for an early stim timing and then know what you're doing to fight mutas (vessels, mass turret, Valkyrie, etc.). For protoss, figuring out when terran is going to push and whether they're going into wraiths (to counter shuttles or carriers) or the standard science vessels is very important. And neither Z or P get the ability to scout instantly at any location like terran does. This just isn't the case though, is it. Zerg can easily adapt to the push as it happens (MM push out, place sunkens, see valks, transition out of mutas / build scourge etc). There is no reason for zerg to proactively scout this out - which is why zerg generally don't mind if they can't get vision of T base.
Going wraith as a replacement for vessels isn't a thing. The fact that T has scan and the other races doesn't isn't relevant.Show nested quote +On July 26 2021 17:12 krooked wrote:
2. Issues with buildings/sim city:
Terran must have knowledge about how to sim city their base for each map and each spawn location. Having the wrong sim city can mean losing the game to muta harass, not being able to macro, have units get stuck, or losing the game to recalls etc.
Further, factories and starport has add ons, making sim citying even more difficult. Supply depots are massive, adding to the difficulty. SCVs has to work on the buildings, blocking new buildings. Just the fact that things needs to be sim citied creates difficulties, like things not building because another SCV or unit popping out blocks whatever needs to be built, resulting in it not building.
Because of Terran unit weakness early on, sim city is also a prerequisite to not simply losing to the most low effort offense from Z or P. Anti zealot wall with rax and depot, anti ling wall and bunker to not die to even the intitial lings from regular 12H vs 1raxFE play etc. All of this not only requires specific knowledge on how to do it, but also requires a lot of APM and attention, which makes every other action harder.
Whereas Protoss has to memorize walls for every position on every map because of how little building positions matter to them? Nobody is saying Protoss and Zerg aren't doing anything. Both races sim city to differing degrees. The point is that sim city is more important for Terran, which it obviously is.Show nested quote +On July 26 2021 17:12 krooked wrote:
3. Immobile armies/Difficulty of micro:
Both TvP and TvZ, Terran armies are in essence immobile, for different reasons.
In TvP, the Terran army is immobile simply because of siege tanks, and the importance of having the perfect fight to even be able to have a chance at winning the game down the line. As a result, Terran cannot readily attack or capitalize on an advantage in TvP. Protoss can easily out-expand Terran unpunished, and Terran cannot do the same. Not only does it take time to siege/unsiege, but because of the importance of a good fight, Terran army needs to crawl slowly forward, constantly keeping tabs on the Protoss army.
In TvZ, the Terran army is immobile in a different way - firstly, because of the difficulty of moving the sheer numbers of marine/medics around the map. Secondly, because marines needs to be stimmed to be effective, and the dangers of running into lurkers or defilers means that actually moving the army around the map is extremely difficult and APM intensive, taking attention away from the already difficult macro. Terran has to constantly babysit its army to avoid simply losing the game in seconds. Typical example is lurkers running into terran army while terran isn't paying attention - instant game loss. Terran has no such tricks against P or Z.
Meanwhile, Zerg and Protoss generally can a-move to a much larger degree. This can never be done with Terran.
You're keeping your marine medic force immobile in TvZ? I think I'm starting to understand why you find T so hard. Let's try rewriting it this way: Show nested quote +
In PvT, the Protoss army is immobile in a different way - firstly, because zealots and dragoons can't simply be set up in static positions like tanks, resulting in the difficulty of moving the sheer numbers of zealot/dragoons around the map. Secondly, because zealots needs to be spread and sent in in front of other units to be effective, and the dangers of running into tank fire or spider mines means that actually moving the army around the map is extremely difficult and APM intensive, taking attention away from the already difficult macro. Protoss has to constantly babysit its army to avoid simply losing the game in seconds. Typical example is dragoons running into mines while protoss isn't paying attention - instant game loss. Protoss has no such tricks against T or Z.
Isn't that a little ridiculous? It's just describing a fast, mobile army vs a slow, immobile, but more powerful one. Exactly like TvZ in mid- lategame. The difference here is that what you are typing is just gibberish - moving P army around because of mines isn't hard. You simply a-move with an observer.
You seem very interested in trying to attack me as a player. I don't see the point. The entire point is that the army is immobile because it is so difficult to control it - which is an issue because being active and mobile is a prerequisite for winning the matchup. Show nested quote +On July 26 2021 17:12 krooked wrote:
4. Importance of upgrades:
Both in TvP and TvZ, upgrades are everything for Terran. The game simply isn't winnable without upgrades. Terran against Crazy Zerg must have upgrades quick enough - ebays literally cannot be resting, or the game will be lost. Every build must revolve around getting quick upgrades, or the game cannot be won. This also involves that any build that isn't fast upgrade economical play is essentially a cheese build. This contributes to Terrans being very predictable in standard play.
I applaud your effort to make it sound like Terran having the best scaling upgrades in the game is a weakness. It is a weakness, because it is harder to MUST keep on top of upgrades to be competitive, than for that to not be a necessity. This should be painfully obvious. If Terran didn't have such great upgrade scaling, the game would be broken beyond belief.Show nested quote +On July 26 2021 17:12 krooked wrote:
5. Importance of taking initiative, despite how difficult it is as Terran:
Terran is on a clock both vs Zerg and Protoss. Terran MUST stop Zerg economic growth, or Terran cannot win. This forces Terran to constantly be threatening Zerg and forcing Zerg to build units, sunkens and ultimately Terran must kill the Zerg economy or contain it, or else Terran will lose. Zerg on the other hand is happy to let Terran expand freely, as long as Zerg too can expland freely.
In TvP, it is a bit better for Terran because the mech army out scales in a straight up fight, but if the Protoss economy gets too big, Terran runs into a problem of having to move too far away from its production to secure bases, while unable to threaten Protoss in a similar way, resulting in Protoss having an economy so big it can take bad trades until Protoss wins a war of attrition.
Taking initiative requires intimate knowledge of timings, what the opponent can have at any given time, how the opponent plays etc. Protoss and Zerg can have much more passive relationship to such timings and go unpunished.
If you are playing any race in any matchup, you're going to need to put some checks on your opponent's growth. I'm not sure why you feel that this is peculiar to terran or why doing so is harder than, say, a PvZ. And, if we just use your own ideas, it's a lot more of a necessity for Protoss than Terran in PvT: because you're going to get outscaled, you must get ahead economically, both in defending your own expansions and shutting down those of Terran. For TvZ, Zerg is perfectly happy with 5base vs 5base. In TvP, it will never happen - in fact even in TvZ it basically cannot happen because of Terrans lack of possibility to defend such expands. Show nested quote +On July 26 2021 17:12 krooked wrote:
6. Lack of static defence:
Zerg has spore colonies and sunken colonies, Protoss has photo cannons - fast to make, simple and effective static defence. Meanwhile, Terran only has turrets for anti air, and bunkers. Bunkers are limited in use because it can only house 4 marines, which is ineffective vs both Zerg and Protoss at holding bases. As such, Terran MUST leave clumps of units to defend, or keep tabs on enemy movement at all times to avoid being ran over and counter attacked. Because of Terran army immobility, counter attacks are also a lot more harmful.
So Protoss in PvZ has to leave behind big chunks of army and build tons of static defense and even then has a horrible time trying to stop drops or defiler pushes. Why is this worse for Terran? As you yourself mentioned in the last point, Terran tends to have fewer expansions than Z or P--so having to leave some army behind sometimes hurts them less than the other races. Not to mention that you're leaving out spider mines and sieged tanks here, which are better at holding a position than any standard static defense and, in the case of mines at least, still don't cost any supply. Terran has these issues in both matchups. Protoss has that issue only in one. This isn't comparing matchups to matchups, it is comparing the overall difficulty of each race.In short, I think you're mostly looking at the game like someone who has only ever played Terran: you know everything that's difficult as terran, but are completely ignoring everything difficult about the other two races, even when it's the same thing. Some of what you're saying may be true, but you're carefully avoiding mentioning anything that acknowledges the strengths of Terran relative to the other races. The fact is that there are tradeoffs between the three races and, despite the wannabe martyrs, terran seems to have gotten a pretty good deal given their championship records. Firstly, again you're very focused about who I am as a player. It simply isn't relevant.
As usual, the discussion always ends up in laughable whataboutism. Nobody can bring up any issues with one race, because someone else will counter with "oh yeah, well another issue exists for another race!". Take the points I am making, and refute them. Don't deflect them and bring up issues that other races have - we all know there are challenges with playing brood war in general, and each race has its individual challenges. I have brought up why Terran is harder than the other races. You have done absolutely nothing to refute those points.
|
On July 27 2021 05:23 krooked wrote:
Firstly, again you're very focused about who I am as a player. It simply isn't relevant.
As usual, the discussion always ends up in laughable whataboutism. Nobody can bring up any issues with one race, because someone else will counter with "oh yeah, well another issue exists for another race!". Take the points I am making, and refute them. Don't deflect them and bring up issues that other races have - we all know there are challenges with playing brood war in general, and each race has its individual challenges. I have brought up why Terran is harder than the other races. You have done absolutely nothing to refute those points.
I'm not going to do another detailed response since when I did a point-by-point rebuttal, you claimed I did nothing to refute you while also making really bad attempts to address those very refutations (Scans "aren't relevant" to discussions of how difficult/necessary scouting is for Terran? Really?) and I don't want to waste more time. I don't really care who you are as a player; my main point is simply that you are myopically focused on difficulties for Terran and totally ignore the difficulties for other races. I assumed this was because you mostly played Terran, but I could be wrong about that.
Are my counterexamples whataboutism?
Whataboutism is when something irrelevant is brought up in a discussion, generally in an attempt to make someone look bad or change the topic. But if you're arguing about which race is the most difficult, then difficulties other races face are very relevant. Terran doesn't exist in a vacuum, so its strengths and weaknesses have to be compared to those of other races if you want to argue that Terran has it the hardest. You seem to acknowledge this in what I've quoted but then just sort of brush it aside between sentences, going from "everyone has challenges" to "Terran's are the hardest," something you've done very little to argue for specifically because you aren't making fair comparisons between races and throw a fit when I try to. Instead, you listed some specific challenges you think are hardest for Terran. You could be right (you're not, as I already pointed out) on every one of these points and it wouldn't matter precisely because you aren't giving the same hyper sympathetic view to other races and considering their challenges.
So, to be clear: Yeah, some things are hard for Terran. They are as hard or harder for other races in some cases, as I've already discussed in depth, and as you belatedly seem to acknowledge. Some things, yeah, are probably hardest for Terran. But since you're just listing challenges for Terran and then going "ah, and see, these add up to more than the challenges for other races" without mentioning much of anything about those other races (in particular completely skipping the PvZ matchup) there are no grounds for comparison and thus no conclusion can be drawn. It's not deflecting to say that rather than just give us the most martyr-y summary of Terran you need to talk about other races and other matchups. It's what you have to do to make the point you're trying to make.
|
1. No, that is not what whataboutism is. Whataboutism is when you point at another issue instead of dealing with the one at hand. Example: Sim city is very hard for terran, you say "ok, but what about sim city for Protoss?" - this doesn't address whether or not Terran sim city is more or less difficult, it simply points to Protoss sim city also being difficult.
2. Scans aren't relevant because it is a method of scouting, which all races have. The distinction isn't which scouting METHOD is most effective (Terran does indeed have the best scouting method), but what scouting is NEEDED to play the game competitively.
3. To argue whether one race challenge is "harder" than another is impossible, because I could name countless of things making terran harder, and you would simply point to an issue that is hard for another race, for instance: "Controlling MM lategame vs Zerg is extremely hard, and harder than playing ZvT" - you answer "but mutas are also hard, so its equal" - no, this isn't true. Yes, controlling mutas is hard, but it is not as hard as controlling 5 control groups of MM, in the context of the matchup. There is no way to "prove" something is harder than another thing. If you insist that you believe it is equally hard to sim city as Protoss as is Terran, then there is no reaching through to you.
4. There is no impotus on me to list every challenge that exist for each and every race, and create a comprehensive thesis on the difficulty of each race in relation to each other. I present issues which is evidently harder for Terran. If you refuse to see that this is the case, then there is nothing I can do. Its like explaining why 2+2 = 4 and you denying that it is so.
|
On July 27 2021 05:23 krooked wrote:
I have brought up why Terran is harder than the other races.
On July 27 2021 06:19 krooked wrote:
There is no impotus on me to list every challenge that exist for each and every race, and create a comprehensive thesis on the difficulty of each race in relation to each other.
Your honor, I rest my case.
|
Lol this kind of debate literally just happened 2 pages before between me and another guy, and of course plenty other times in the past 20 years.
Some guys would make a list of all the hard things Terran has to do, and then claim them harder/hardest, without ever accounting for what Protoss and Zerg have to do.
Or sometimes they did account for, but with completely false information. For example, I find the bit about scouting the most amusing. Terran is the race with the most and the strongest timings in the game, yet somehow he makes it out that P and Z don't need scout as much as Terran. Ever heard of a thing called 5 Fact bro?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
