Why does flash play terran?
Forum Index > Brood War Strategy |
Virus(shield)08
6 Posts
| ||
Virus(shield)08
6 Posts
| ||
Optimate
242 Posts
Terran is actually the best race to defend against cheeze as. Nowadays Korean Terran pros are fewer in number than Zerg and Protoss pros. There is also an argument that Zerg is just as hard as Terran. ZvT is the matchup for Zerg that takes the most skill. TvZ is the matchup for Terran that takes the most skill. Would be happy if someone that is A/S rank tries to do a better job explaining this than me. | ||
Leonix
161 Posts
On June 08 2021 12:49 Virus(shield)08 wrote: So im not sure anyone even is on this forum anymore,but i was watching Artosis stream and he said terran is the weakest, and hardest race,but if thats true why does flash play terran,and why has he had more success with terran than the other races. the only thing i can think of is tvt is easier to be consistant than the other mirrors. I honestly have no clue. can someone who knows what they are talking about answer this question plz. Isnt it obvious ? The guy doesnt have a clue what he is talking about... If you want a honest answer dont ask RAGETOSIS, but your friendly Caster ARTOSIS. | ||
JieXian
Malaysia4677 Posts
On June 08 2021 12:49 Virus(shield)08 wrote: So im not sure anyone even is on this forum anymore,but i was watching Artosis stream and he said terran is the weakest, and hardest race,but if thats true why does flash play terran,and why has he had more success with terran than the other races. the only thing i can think of is tvt is easier to be consistant than the other mirrors. I honestly have no clue. can someone who knows what they are talking about answer this question plz. I love artosis' casting but as a streamer artosis is like an absolute madman | ||
kogeT
Poland2000 Posts
As for argumenting my 1st point on terran being significantly more difficult mechanicly think about these points: - Supply depots need to be build one by one, they are big and hard to fit. They are also voulnarable and they can burn down, making terran super sensitive about them in all matchups. They take a lot of space making terran bases clunky and taking a LOT of time. - You need to babysit your SCVs while making any building, and even then you will often end up with not building something. Placing turrets in mineralline is an extreme example and sometimes you need to spend 10 seconds just trying to build your turrets. Any other race builds any building instantly. - Terran macro is most intensive - building marines / vultures requires a crazy amount of APM as they build fast and are very cheap, so you will need to have more macro cycles. Compare P macro to T macro - Protoss orders 1 zealot each 25 seconds spending 100 minerals. Terran needs to order 2 marines every 15 seconds spending 100 minerals. Similar dragoon and vulture. That is almost double the effort on macro. Zerg can build multiple units with one click and produces everything from 1 building, making it way easier too. - Every terran unit has an activated ability, so it is not enough to just 1a2a3a your army and macro, you need to manualy control your units abilities most of the time. - Individual terran units are very weak vs both Z and P and only grow in power in bigger groups and good positions. You need to constantly think about where you are on the map (highgrounds, vision etc.) as otherwise you can lose in 1 second (muta attacking from highground, protoss army catchin you out of position etc.) With other races if you are out of position most of the time you can just move back and avoid the fight, but not with terran. - Terran builds are VERY voulnarable to cheese - 1 wrong decision can mean GG (1 DT, lurker instead of muta, lack of a turret in a key position vs muta, recall etc.). Now all of the above can be handled and Flash does it perfectly, and that is when terran starts to shine and becomes so strong. But 99.9% of people cannot nail it and struggle with terran and get frustrated. I recently switch to Z and it blows my mind how big of a skill gap I see when playing vs 1900-2000 MMR people facing my zerg. As terran playing vs B rank protoss, the game would still go at full length (15+min), I could risk getting cheesed, maybe get a bad engagement and play from behind to win in the long game. As zerg, I make 6 mutas and realize that terrans at that level cannot even build turrets in time and lose to 1st engagement. Protoss players lose to 6 lings or just me making hydra from 6 hath. There are no mindgames, no build order wins, just pure dominance based on mechanics etc. As I was playing terran this didnt exist, every game was difficult and I couldnt let my guard down even vs opponents that were 400-500MMR lower than me. To sum it up, it doesnt surprise me seeing 1900-2000 MMR terrans looking like "they are not doing anything and sitting in the base". They just try to macro correctly and they don't have more APM to use their army, as otherwise they float thousands and get supply blocked all the time.. | ||
TMNT
1833 Posts
It's just that only at the highest level, Terran players can effectively utilize their race's potential to dominate other races, hence we have the likes of Flash. Also explains why at lower levels, i.e. the foreign scene, it's more or less Protoss dominance. And for Artosis, he just likes to blame his shortcomings on the race he plays. If he plays Protoss and dies to a Terran 2 Fact all in, he'll claim Protoss the weakest race. | ||
kogeT
Poland2000 Posts
In comparison you get 9 Zergs and 6 Protoss players with WR >= 50%.. saying a lot in my view. ;-) I've played all races at S rank level and terran is by far the hardest race. | ||
chillzzz
30 Posts
since Koget brought up statistics, let's do that as well but we'll use a dataset (sponbang) that instead has a significant sample size and modern date range if someone wants to claim that Flash is sufficiently biasing these statistics? no. Flash only played a small total amount of sponbang games (243) in 2021. if someone wants to claim something where there is an extreme room for improvement, like Protoss being easier to play than Terran at D rank? git gud. On June 08 2021 20:08 TMNT wrote: the foreign scene, it's more or less Protoss dominance. this isn't true, take a look at the qualified players for the BSL proleagues and RCGs and you'll find a fairly balanced race distribution. | ||
Virus(shield)08
6 Posts
| ||
Optimate
242 Posts
| ||
FlaShFTW
United States9655 Posts
On June 09 2021 01:27 Optimate wrote: Hey Koget thanks for the expert opinion. How come some players argue that ZvT takes a similar high skill as TvZ does? I think it was TT1 that I saw making a case that Z is just as hard as T. I wonder if any Z mains can attest to that. Zerg has macro challenges of needing to have a better understanding of how to adequately use larva and the lack of being able to really hotkey their entire army in the late game because zerglings basically shrink your hotkeys to nothing. You also need to get quite good at muta micro which is some of the hardest micro in the game to play 2/3 matchups properly (ZvZ and ZvT). Past that though, I don't think Zerg is necessarily as hard as Terran. As Koget said, Terran is just very apm intensive of a race because of how much macro and micro you need simultaneously. When done well, I think Terran is the strongest race, which is why when you get geniuses that play Starcraft and are Terran, they rise to the cream of the crop (the bonjwas are notoriously Terran dominated). I would say in terms of difficulty, it would go Terran > Zerg >> Protoss. | ||
Soulforged
Latvia868 Posts
If you play only/mostly reactive defensive middle of the road 'standard' strategies then you'll find that any matchup can feel like Artosis @ TvP. That sort of playstyle usually means that you're supposed to be constantly scouting, reacting properly, and even then only barely holding the (properly executed) aggression. Where the aggression(or unusual greed) can come in multiple flavors every few minutes of the game and you need to know how to deal with all of it...while your own first timing may be planned ten minutes into the game or even later. Naturally, there's a lot of room to fail - and you can play any race and any matchup like this and reap constant frustration. And surely there's a lot of mechanical difficulty in any race's modern strategies. The number of people outside of korea who can play a modern progamer's mid game+ build as it is intended(if unpolished) rather than some bastardized version of it probably doesn't reach 5, for all races involved. | ||
Virus(shield)08
6 Posts
| ||
vOdToasT
Sweden2870 Posts
There is a Protoss favoured map, Ascension, on which Protoss has a good winrate against both Terran and Zerg, and there are some maps on which Zerg is even in ZvT and favoured in ZvP, and some on which Zerg is even in ZvP and favoured in ZvT, but overall, most of the current maps are good for Terran. | ||
Hawk2
United States229 Posts
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. | ||
MrHoon
10183 Posts
| ||
TaardadAiel
Bulgaria750 Posts
Plus, I'd argue Terran has one thing the two other races don't - almost unstoppable access to information in the form of scan. You can drain scanner energy by forcing scans, true, and limit Terran ability to scan around, but there is no other way to stop it. Observers are nice and invisible, but they can be somewhat easily killed and they cost precious gas and Robo queue time. Zerg can scout with units other than ovies, plus they can burrow them around the map, but that requires a dedicated upgrade that's not used too often for other stuff and is pretty apm intensive. So when you're a friggin genius like Flash and you have access to info, you just get even stronger. | ||
kogeT
Poland2000 Posts
| ||
Dante08
Singapore4101 Posts
There is a reason why there are so few top level foreign terrans, it's simply because their mechanics aren't good enough. | ||
rararara
115 Posts
Try to watch some of Shinee's FPVOD-games. He's not Flash, but he streams his ladder runs on Afreeca, which often go to Top10. His play is very clear cut and can give you an idea where to put your priorities. He has very good mechanics but his APM will be relatively low for a pro for most ladder games. (250ish) It's mostly about optimization, decisions and timing. Lots of games are well below 10min until 2300 MMR. I'm not saying it's easy to duplicate, because he's very sharp and efficient. But you can learn a lot about how to play Terran because he has a very clear style. | ||
QOGQOG
817 Posts
| ||
BisuDagger
Bisutopia19033 Posts
Also, @Koget play Terran like Protoss and just mass goliaths. Then you can a-move without sweating casting abilities. | ||
kogeT
Poland2000 Posts
On June 11 2021 02:25 BisuDagger wrote: How the heck did this get highlighted lol? Also, @Koget play Terran like Protoss and just mass goliaths. Then you can a-move without sweating casting abilities. Goliath also have an activated ability. Its called “antystuck” and “spam attack” | ||
Leonix
161 Posts
On June 08 2021 16:30 kogeT wrote: The problem with terran is that it is significantly more difficult on mechanics than any other race and it takes thousands of hours to automize your habits before you can be really good. Flash has mastered terran macro (and other things) to perfection, noone even comes close to his level. Then comes TvP which in my view is often a game of protoss mistake, e.g if protoss plays as well as terran they will win most of the time. As for TvT I fully agree it is the least random mirror of all and is purely skill dependant - if you know what you are doing you will never lose to a weaker opponent which is nice. As for argumenting my 1st point on terran being significantly more difficult mechanicly think about these points: - Supply depots need to be build one by one, they are big and hard to fit. They are also voulnarable and they can burn down, making terran super sensitive about them in all matchups. They take a lot of space making terran bases clunky and taking a LOT of time. - You need to babysit your SCVs while making any building, and even then you will often end up with not building something. Placing turrets in mineralline is an extreme example and sometimes you need to spend 10 seconds just trying to build your turrets. Any other race builds any building instantly. - Terran macro is most intensive - building marines / vultures requires a crazy amount of APM as they build fast and are very cheap, so you will need to have more macro cycles. Compare P macro to T macro - Protoss orders 1 zealot each 25 seconds spending 100 minerals. Terran needs to order 2 marines every 15 seconds spending 100 minerals. Similar dragoon and vulture. That is almost double the effort on macro. Zerg can build multiple units with one click and produces everything from 1 building, making it way easier too. - Every terran unit has an activated ability, so it is not enough to just 1a2a3a your army and macro, you need to manualy control your units abilities most of the time. - Individual terran units are very weak vs both Z and P and only grow in power in bigger groups and good positions. You need to constantly think about where you are on the map (highgrounds, vision etc.) as otherwise you can lose in 1 second (muta attacking from highground, protoss army catchin you out of position etc.) With other races if you are out of position most of the time you can just move back and avoid the fight, but not with terran. - Terran builds are VERY voulnarable to cheese - 1 wrong decision can mean GG (1 DT, lurker instead of muta, lack of a turret in a key position vs muta, recall etc.). Now all of the above can be handled and Flash does it perfectly, and that is when terran starts to shine and becomes so strong. But 99.9% of people cannot nail it and struggle with terran and get frustrated. I recently switch to Z and it blows my mind how big of a skill gap I see when playing vs 1900-2000 MMR people facing my zerg. As terran playing vs B rank protoss, the game would still go at full length (15+min), I could risk getting cheesed, maybe get a bad engagement and play from behind to win in the long game. As zerg, I make 6 mutas and realize that terrans at that level cannot even build turrets in time and lose to 1st engagement. Protoss players lose to 6 lings or just me making hydra from 6 hath. There are no mindgames, no build order wins, just pure dominance based on mechanics etc. As I was playing terran this didnt exist, every game was difficult and I couldnt let my guard down even vs opponents that were 400-500MMR lower than me. To sum it up, it doesnt surprise me seeing 1900-2000 MMR terrans looking like "they are not doing anything and sitting in the base". They just try to macro correctly and they don't have more APM to use their army, as otherwise they float thousands and get supply blocked all the time.. For the sake of balance Doesnt Zerg player normally have higher apm than the other races, because larva spawning is around ~12,5 seconds? -> Marine 15 ... :d I think it can be argued about zerg timings with larva saving, and obviously more production output is saved in the Zerg economy, but most of the time you want those units out as fast as possbile. Even without that you would still need 2 click to select the larva. *Zerg loses worker for every building in connection with supply. Overlords also take a ton of attention and can make you lose the game. Even on Pros matches, sometimes we see overlords fly directly into terran army. So there are negative points for a one production buildingin contrast to the separation -> As such you can count it as something similar to the scv babysitting and to a degree more probally... Zerg needs the information and its overlords(one of the most importnat parts to gather this information) are vulnerable in all matchups-> flying buildings, surprise scanner sweeps, roaming units, static defence, flying units,etc. -> 1/1/1, 2port wraiths, etc. come into mind. Any unit needs attention to be used effectivly. I am not sure if an ability makes it more attention intensive though. Thinking from the zerg side, buggy Ultras come into mind-> chokes,etc. Isnt Zvt one of those matchups that can go south in an instant for the Zerg players? Natural bust, Drops, flying paratroopers,etc. Is 8rax a cheese? :d What about all those bunker rushes vs zerg? What about late sunken? Those 1 base rax openings, the flying factory into the zerg mains,etc. How are Zerg builds vs Terran not very vulnerable? "But 99.9% of people cannot nail it and struggle with terran and get frustrated" I thought Terran is the second most played race on ladder ? https://tl.net/forum/brood-war/572031-ladder-statistics-race-distribution-2021 Last ASL : 2021 AfreecaTV StarCraft League Remastered Season 11 7 Protoss, 12 Terrans, 9 Zerg. ... "I recently switch to Z and it blows my mind how big of a skill gap I see when playing vs 1900-2000 MMR people facing my zerg. As terran playing vs B rank protoss, the game would still go at full length (15+min), I could risk getting cheesed, maybe get a bad engagement and play from behind to win in the long game. As zerg, I make 6 mutas and realize that terrans at that level cannot even build turrets in time and lose to 1st engagement. " I dont think it is fair to compare to different matchup based on time without defining "all" the variables. After all ZVT and TVP are quite different matchups. (TvZ and ZvP are probally closer) Your example is questionable. "Protoss players lose to 6 lings or just me making hydra from 6 hath. There are no mindgames, no build order wins, just pure dominance based on mechanics etc." ? 2 gate, proxy 2gateway, 9/9,9/10, Nexus first, 10 gate 2 base all in, 5gategoon,etc.? Isnt the cannon timing a mindgame itself. So Zerg rewards good mechanics? " As I was playing terran this didnt exist, every game was difficult and I couldnt let my guard down even vs opponents that were 400-500MMR lower than me." ->Ragetosis is right!!! | ||
tankgirl
252 Posts
His ability to multitask and prioritize actions, especially while under pressure, convey an incredibly deep understanding of the game that I've not observed in most other FPVODs. Even top terrans like Light and Last seemed an order of magnitude behind flash. It takes an expert level of skill to "contain" the entropy of a starcraft game. Most top terrans seem able to do this. But we're watching skills at another level when we watch Flash wield the entropy like a weapon and bend it to his will. Just watch this mindblowing FPVOD vs Larva and you'll see what I mean. Even the other pros observing (hero, snow, stork) were completely speechless: | ||
vOdToasT
Sweden2870 Posts
On June 10 2021 04:26 rararara wrote: If it helps OP: Try to watch some of Shinee's FPVOD-games. He's not Flash, but he streams his ladder runs on Afreeca, which often go to Top10. His play is very clear cut and can give you an idea where to put your priorities. He has very good mechanics but his APM will be relatively low for a pro for most ladder games. (250ish) It's mostly about optimization, decisions and timing. Lots of games are well below 10min until 2300 MMR. I'm not saying it's easy to duplicate, because he's very sharp and efficient. But you can learn a lot about how to play Terran because he has a very clear style. I agree. Shinee is a great player to learn from, especially if you have low apm. In other words: he's the Terran player to look at for non Koreans xd | ||
Highgamer
1346 Posts
On June 11 2021 17:37 tankgirl wrote: Flash's mastery of the terran race and its mechanics are at a meta-level compared to other players + Show Spoiler + His ability to multitask and prioritize actions, especially while under pressure, convey an incredibly deep understanding of the game that I've not observed in most other FPVODs. Even top terrans like Light and Last seemed an order of magnitude behind flash. It takes an expert level of skill to "contain" the entropy of a starcraft game. Most top terrans seem able to do this. But we're watching skills at another level when we watch Flash wield the entropy like a weapon and bend it to his will. Just watch this mindblowing FPVOD vs Larva and you'll see what I mean. Even the other pros observing (hero, snow, stork) were completely speechless: https://youtu.be/oXCLAQF7qKo?t=68 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXCLAQF7qKo&t=660s Damn, noone can throw down buildings so quickly, in the heat of battle, like Flash... I think I noticed this back in the days when he started streaming, he was just so much quicker about these things than any other Terran streamer I'd watched until then. The whole early-game until the mutas arrive shows so well how he has mastered Terran economy on another level... looks as if each small decision is 100% thought through in real-time, I mean, in the moment. He has a precise plan, obviously, but it looks as if he's constantly adapting to the current situation, "build this SCV or delay it for the factory add-on", "not start this upgrade now but after this depot", etc. | ||
darktreb
United States3014 Posts
On June 11 2021 10:54 Leonix wrote: For the sake of balance Doesnt Zerg player normally have higher apm than the other races, because larva spawning is around ~12,5 seconds? -> Marine 15 ... :d I think it can be argued about zerg timings with larva saving, and obviously more production output is saved in the Zerg economy, but most of the time you want those units out as fast as possbile. Even without that you would still need 2 click to select the larva. *Zerg loses worker for every building in connection with supply. Overlords also take a ton of attention and can make you lose the game. Even on Pros matches, sometimes we see overlords fly directly into terran army. So there are negative points for a one production buildingin contrast to the separation -> As such you can count it as something similar to the scv babysitting and to a degree more probally... Zerg needs the information and its overlords(one of the most importnat parts to gather this information) are vulnerable in all matchups-> flying buildings, surprise scanner sweeps, roaming units, static defence, flying units,etc. -> 1/1/1, 2port wraiths, etc. come into mind. Any unit needs attention to be used effectivly. I am not sure if an ability makes it more attention intensive though. Thinking from the zerg side, buggy Ultras come into mind-> chokes,etc. Isnt Zvt one of those matchups that can go south in an instant for the Zerg players? Natural bust, Drops, flying paratroopers,etc. Is 8rax a cheese? :d What about all those bunker rushes vs zerg? What about late sunken? Those 1 base rax openings, the flying factory into the zerg mains,etc. How are Zerg builds vs Terran not very vulnerable? "But 99.9% of people cannot nail it and struggle with terran and get frustrated" I thought Terran is the second most played race on ladder ? https://tl.net/forum/brood-war/572031-ladder-statistics-race-distribution-2021 Last ASL : 2021 AfreecaTV StarCraft League Remastered Season 11 7 Protoss, 12 Terrans, 9 Zerg. ... "I recently switch to Z and it blows my mind how big of a skill gap I see when playing vs 1900-2000 MMR people facing my zerg. As terran playing vs B rank protoss, the game would still go at full length (15+min), I could risk getting cheesed, maybe get a bad engagement and play from behind to win in the long game. As zerg, I make 6 mutas and realize that terrans at that level cannot even build turrets in time and lose to 1st engagement. " I dont think it is fair to compare to different matchup based on time without defining "all" the variables. After all ZVT and TVP are quite different matchups. (TvZ and ZvP are probally closer) Your example is questionable. "Protoss players lose to 6 lings or just me making hydra from 6 hath. There are no mindgames, no build order wins, just pure dominance based on mechanics etc." ? 2 gate, proxy 2gateway, 9/9,9/10, Nexus first, 10 gate 2 base all in, 5gategoon,etc.? Isnt the cannon timing a mindgame itself. So Zerg rewards good mechanics? " As I was playing terran this didnt exist, every game was difficult and I couldnt let my guard down even vs opponents that were 400-500MMR lower than me." ->Ragetosis is right!!! Spawn rate of one larva is not the right way to look at it. Letting one larva sit there is usually not a big deal. It matters more if you let there be 3 larva since only then do you start to lose total long term production. Whereas with Marines you ideally want exactly the right number of Barracks and to spawn Marines exactly every 15 seconds. It is also sometimes better not to use larva until you're sure you know what you want from it. You can't cancel eggs like you can Terran or Protoss units. And the ability to make three of something per building is quite nice. If Hatcheries are containable in one screen you can even select up to 12 Larva in one go. Zerg macro is hard for many reasons, but Larva spawn rate is not comparable to Marine build time from a mechanical demand perspective. | ||
iFU.pauline
France1388 Posts
I feel Terran relies much more on defense, macro, micro and speed that any other race (which is to me the real hard part). Most dominant Terran in bw history are Nada, iloveoov, Flash, all of them were HEAVILY macro oriented players, it looked like they were just rolling over their opponents with sheer number. I know this will not be liked but I felt when playing terran that I didn't have to be very creative in order to improve, when you think about it, terran's gameplay is pretty straight forward and macro/micro/speed is more rewarding than strategy plain and simple (exclude TvT). As a zerg I was stuck at 2000MMR because of this lack of creativity/strategy, I am kind of convinced that Terran can climb higher with minimal strategy. When I lost with Zerg, the feeling was often a feeling of being powerless like you are just not enough as a human being. You lose in Terran the feeling is like, "ok where did I fuck up, I had everything in my hand to win, ho ok I got countered stupidly on that move, fine next time won't happen" Now T v P is an other story, this match up is hard for Terran and you get easily punished, but I never felt powerless as if I was playing Zerg. | ||
Soulforged
Latvia868 Posts
This trend fell off entirely after Kespa, though. | ||
Leonix
161 Posts
On June 13 2021 06:03 darktreb wrote: Spawn rate of one larva is not the right way to look at it. Letting one larva sit there is usually not a big deal. It matters more if you let there be 3 larva since only then do you start to lose total long term production. Whereas with Marines you ideally want exactly the right number of Barracks and to spawn Marines exactly every 15 seconds. It is also sometimes better not to use larva until you're sure you know what you want from it. You can't cancel eggs like you can Terran or Protoss units. And the ability to make three of something per building is quite nice. If Hatcheries are containable in one screen you can even select up to 12 Larva in one go. Zerg macro is hard for many reasons, but Larva spawn rate is not comparable to Marine build time from a mechanical demand perspective. It is true that until you reach the 4th larva spawn timing you dont lose production in contrast to the other races. And i also agree that you want to see what the opponent strategy is, before you commit to your production. Since you are bind to the spawn rate and would lose immensly in that regard. If you need to canceal your larvas. Iam not sure if it is on the same step as the build timings of the others races in regard of strategic importance. Since there are other factors to consider, like the fact that those races can premake their production, while doing other stuff like overwhelm you in some regard. But larva spawn time is mechanically demanding in connection to instant drone production and the fact that often you need to think what you are even producing. It isnt just mindless clicking on that larva/hatcheries like some people seem to suggest. And not to forget the fact that you will need to separate the units often after that.Or suffer consquences like overlords/drones flying into death. All typ units clumbed up in cluster hell,etc. Of course the other races suffer similar stuff, but separated production has its benefits aswell. | ||
XenOsky
Chile2142 Posts
come on guys, we know this shit since 2003 | ||
BisuDagger
Bisutopia19033 Posts
On June 14 2021 01:39 Soulforged wrote: Yeah, during Kespa era there has always been a number of terrans who'd go on a hot can-beat-anyone streak in TvZ or TvP, just based off of crisp mechanics and not really ever bringing anything new to the table. Didn't happen nearly as much to Z or P. This trend fell off entirely after Kespa, though. I don't agree that this trend fell off. Hiya, Sea, and sSak did a great job of holding the torch until Flash/Last/Mind came back. | ||
whaski
Finland575 Posts
On June 15 2021 02:54 BisuDagger wrote: I don't agree that this trend fell off. Hiya, Sea, and sSak did a great job of holding the torch until Flash/Last/Mind came back. I would take it even further and say that it was truly after Flash that Terran started to have something truly new. Like 2015 there was a short period with +1 4 rax sk terran against zerg and gas-cc-factory expands in tvp but it was Flash who truly shaked matchups in 2016. And I personaly think it was due maps starting from ASL 4 that caused most groundbreaking changes like bunkered expand against p or factory openings against z. The "dark ages" were mostly fs and cb in every tournament with modern 4 player maps like Sniper Ridge, La Mancha and Neo Jade. | ||
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On June 10 2021 07:10 QOGQOG wrote: Don't get your ideas of game balance from Artosis. | ||
GTR
51135 Posts
On June 09 2021 10:03 MrHoon wrote: iirc flash first started as a random player and moved onto terran when he realized he had more success with terran than the other races it was a theme with a lot of highly touted amateurs back in the day - proficient in all three races but stuck with/were told to go with terran when turning pro because it was considered the most stable race within the scene in order to achieve success. iloveoov and sea most notably were terran players who before turning pro could play the other two at a high level (the story goes is that iloveoov was headhunted by boxer himself after he got beaten up by him with all three races on the gamei ladder). | ||
JieXian
Malaysia4677 Posts
| ||
kidcrash
United States616 Posts
| ||
krooked
376 Posts
At the absolute highest levels, all players has adequate mechanics to play their respective race properly on a purely mechanical level. Thus, "easy" or "hard" doesn't matter as much. At that point, it is my belief that Terran is probably the strongest race, all else being equal - simply because the Terran lategame army is so strong. At lower levels, and by that I mean literally everything below the cream of the crop, the mechnical challenges of each race become very defining of which race is "hardest" to play. In this respect, it is to me clear that Terran is the most challenging race mechanically. | ||
ThunderJunk
United States577 Posts
One thing that often gets overlooked is that Terran has very clear timings in every matchup. Like, the number of control groups to move out with is pretty homogenous, and there isn't as much variation about that. No matter what kind of army the enemy has, because the Terran units have range and the movement AI is what it is, you are all but guaranteed to be cost effective in engagements if you have a specific number of units with specific upgrades at specific timings. 6-7 tanks with an aribtrary number of vultures and mines on the high ground? That can pretty much guarantee a cost-effective trade against dragoons, no matter how many there are. Whereas there is no magic number of dragoons that are cost-effective against any number of terran units. This means that the Protoss player has to do more figuring out on-the-fly about the number of units he needs to build and send out to be effective. So, in that way, Protoss is more difficult than Terran. Zerg has a similar sort of function via Dark Swarm, but that only comes out at hive tech. So, until hive tech, it's very difficult to balance how many units to make against T. In other words, Terran is more of a set it and forget it race than the other two races in terms of basic army composition. Of course it's possible to overextend in any matchup, but competent Terran players can rest assured that the number of units they decide to make can be leveraged more effectively based on preset benchmarks than the other two races, strategically speaking. Tactically, the units are still very difficult to control, but I think all 3 races can make an argument in that direction. So yes, you just heard me say that Protoss is more difficult than Terran in a specific way. I hope that doesn't cause anyone's blood pressure to raise to unhealthy levels. | ||
kogeT
Poland2000 Posts
On June 18 2021 01:58 ThunderJunk wrote: I'm going to express an unpopular opinion here. One thing that often gets overlooked is that Terran has very clear timings in every matchup. Like, the number of control groups to move out with is pretty homogenous, and there isn't as much variation about that. No matter what kind of army the enemy has, because the Terran units have range and the movement AI is what it is, you are all but guaranteed to be cost effective in engagements if you have a specific number of units with specific upgrades at specific timings. 6-7 tanks with an aribtrary number of vultures and mines on the high ground? That can pretty much guarantee a cost-effective trade against dragoons, no matter how many there are. Whereas there is no magic number of dragoons that are cost-effective against any number of terran units. This means that the Protoss player has to do more figuring out on-the-fly about the number of units he needs to build and send out to be effective. So, in that way, Protoss is more difficult than Terran. Zerg has a similar sort of function via Dark Swarm, but that only comes out at hive tech. So, until hive tech, it's very difficult to balance how many units to make against T. In other words, Terran is more of a set it and forget it race than the other two races in terms of basic army composition. Of course it's possible to overextend in any matchup, but competent Terran players can rest assured that the number of units they decide to make can be leveraged more effectively based on preset benchmarks than the other two races, strategically speaking. Tactically, the units are still very difficult to control, but I think all 3 races can make an argument in that direction. So yes, you just heard me say that Protoss is more difficult than Terran in a specific way. I hope that doesn't cause anyone's blood pressure to raise to unhealthy levels. Theorycraft at its best. If you get 2 lurkers under swarm in terrans natural you are guaranteed to do great. If you get 4 lurkers and 12 lings + delifer you win the game. This is same as moving enough thanks to have a cost effective engagement.. Also, having 10 carriers will guarantee you having cost effective trades against terran. Same as making a huge recall in their main. | ||
ThunderJunk
United States577 Posts
On June 18 2021 04:33 kogeT wrote: Theorycraft at its best. If you get 2 lurkers under swarm in terrans natural you are guaranteed to do great. If you get 4 lurkers and 12 lings + delifer you win the game. This is same as moving enough thanks to have a cost effective engagement.. Also, having 10 carriers will guarantee you having cost effective trades against terran. Same as making a huge recall in their main. Yes, Zerg and Dark Swarm works in precisely a similar way, but it doesn't come until hive tech. And 10 carriers is such a rarity in high level games that I can't remember the last time I've seen it. Like, if you could point to a game where the protoss got 10 carriers against a top 5 Terran that didn't go 8 rax in the middle of the rax to start the game, I'd be surprised. Arbiters and recall may come off as arbitrary, but that's only because it's mostly used to avoid the army and attack the infrastructure. If it's used as part of a flank, then a decision does need to be made on the fly about what mixture of units to recall to the flanking position to deal with the Terran's army as it exists currently. There isn't a correct preset composition to use for flanks that works well in every situation. So, in this way that I've outlined, and that you've described in more detail - in terms of difficulty, P > Z > T. | ||
Dante08
Singapore4101 Posts
| ||
nattacka
2 Posts
| ||
Kare
Norway786 Posts
I think the main things are that mistakes get punished much more, and that Terran is the race that ultimately has to do something. The mistakes part has been mentioned in this post, so not gonna say anything more about that. As for the part about ultimately having to do something, I think this is very overlooked. In TvZ, Terran has to kill the Zerg though starving them for resources or just straight up killing them. In PvT, Terran has to move out at some point and start to kill the Protoss, unless you play a map that can be easily split in half and the Protoss is not going early carriers. I think this is a bit problematic, as Terran is by far the worst race at attacking, since units are slow, weak on their own and positioning is so important. Flash also talked about this earlier, I think it was with NaDa. He really struggles in TvP sometimes, because ultimately there comes a point where he has to actually kill the Protoss. I think this "problem" really shows when the Protoss is going carriers. If you wait for a Protoss player to attack in TvP, when the Protoss player goes for carriers, you will get absolutely destroyed 100% of the time. | ||
kidcrash
United States616 Posts
On June 18 2021 11:02 Dante08 wrote: Lol some people trying to argue Terran is not the hardest by using the Korean progamer Terrans with god level mechanics as examples. Shouldnt pro gamer level optimal play be the gold standard for balance discussion? If we were to decide "3 pointers are OP" would we use high school sports or the NBA as a reference point? | ||
Dante08
Singapore4101 Posts
On June 18 2021 12:14 kidcrash wrote: Shouldnt pro gamer level optimal play be the gold standard for balance discussion? If we were to decide "3 pointers are OP" would we use high school sports or the NBA as a reference point? OP's discussion point was on Terran being the weakest and hardest race which is absolutely true and holds up even at Korean pro level. Look at the number of top Terrans now compared to Protoss and Zerg. The difference gets even larger once you look at the foreign scene. How many top level Terrans are there? So yes Terran is hard at pro gamer level and even harder below pro gamer level. | ||
kidcrash
United States616 Posts
On June 18 2021 12:19 Dante08 wrote: OP's discussion point was on Terran being the weakest and hardest race which is absolutely true and holds up even at Korean pro level. Look at the number of top Terrans now compared to Protoss and Zerg. The difference gets even larger once you look at the foreign scene. How many top level Terrans are there? So yes Terran is hard at pro gamer level and even harder below pro gamer level. Someone posted the all time ASL win stats recently and it was like 50.6% Zerg 50% Terran and 49.5% Protoss. I dont see any particularly glaring gaps in results. | ||
Highgamer
1346 Posts
'Terran is the hardest' doesn't mean that Terrans are doing the impossible every time they get a win, even less that they try harder, and it's not as if Zerg or Protoss had an easy time playing one of the mechanically most demanding games out there. It's also clearly a maximal short-summary of a discussion with contradicting points, which means that there can very well be aspects of the game or situations that are harder for Zerg or Protoss. In the same way 'Protoss is the easiest' is not to be misunderstood as 'Protoss is easy' in absolute terms. This should be clear by just comparing what people say about the general difficulty of PvT and PvZ. It's hinting at, for example, the fact that a noticeably bigger percentage of people, but not an overwhelmingly vast majority, picks/stays with Protoss as their main race, assumably in many cases because "it's the race I felt most comfortable with in the beginning". My impression is: The bottom line for most serious participants in the discussion, who have played all races or try to weigh all the voices of different significance justly, seems to be that overall there are slightly more factors that can give Terran a hard time, especially when you're still learning the basics or even moderately advanced aspects of the game. And I personally feel that this discussion is to be completely separated from what happens at the very top where a handful of Koreans, not more, have full control over Terran and have then arguably the strongest race at their hands - and also here: by a small margin; for the individual player temporarily when they're in good shape. And someone pointed out that at the end of the day BW-balance is always strongly determined by maps and meta, and there were times when Terran couldn't do shit just because of that. On June 18 2021 13:56 kidcrash wrote: Someone posted the all time ASL win stats recently and it was like 50.6% Zerg 50% Terran and 49.5% Protoss. I dont see any particularly glaring gaps in results. I think Dante08 would be wrong if he meant 'Top-Terrans have it harder than Top-Protosses/Zergs', but I think he is right when he tells you that the balance at the top (mainly: maps and meta) doesn't tell you anything about how hard a race is to play in general. What does the good balance at the top have to do with this: Doesn't look to marginal here xD... but this is a very particular sample/case, general ladder-statistics don't look so bad afaik. Still, to me the best explanation for why there are so few Terrans at foreigner top-level is: It's harder to get to that level as Terran... | ||
krooked
376 Posts
He gets to C rank playing with one hand. Would that even be possible with Terran? I doubt it. | ||
Dante08
Singapore4101 Posts
On June 18 2021 13:56 kidcrash wrote: Someone posted the all time ASL win stats recently and it was like 50.6% Zerg 50% Terran and 49.5% Protoss. I dont see any particularly glaring gaps in results. ASL winrate being close doesn't mean it's not hard for Terran. All the Terrans in that list have god tier mechanics, try finding one that has below 300apm. Now people here will say apm doesn't matter but let's see a pro Terran try to keep up in TvZ with sub 300apm. Answer is you can't. | ||
TMNT
1833 Posts
On June 18 2021 12:19 Dante08 wrote: OP's discussion point was on Terran being the weakest and hardest race which is absolutely true and holds up even at Korean pro level. Look at the number of top Terrans now compared to Protoss and Zerg. The difference gets even larger once you look at the foreign scene. How many top level Terrans are there? So yes Terran is hard at pro gamer level and even harder below pro gamer level. Agreed about the hard part, but what about the weak part? As I dont see how a race can be the hardest to play just to yield the minimum. If that was the case no one would even bother to play Terran. I think someone put it quite close in the previous page with the "high risk high reward" comment, although I'd correct it as "high demand high reward". | ||
sadego
10 Posts
On June 08 2021 20:37 kogeT wrote: Exclude Flash and you find that there are 2 terrans that have a WR >= 50% while one of them is retired. In comparison you get 9 Zergs and 6 Protoss players with WR >= 50%.. saying a lot in my view. ;-) I've played all races at S rank level and terran is by far the hardest race. Okay, lets arbitrarily pick 45% instead of 50% and exclude the best Protoss and best Zerg and the analysis looks a lot different. 8 Zerg 6 Protoss 6 Terrans Looks pretty balanced to me. | ||
JoinTheRain
Bulgaria386 Posts
| ||
SlayerS_BunkiE
Canada1702 Posts
I will also be the first to admit that I can only play Terran, I just cant get the hang of the other two races. As “hard” as it may be to play, its the race that comes naturally for me.. so its actually the “easiest” race. | ||
Patriot.dlk
Sweden5462 Posts
| ||
Improvement
203 Posts
| ||
Barneyk
Sweden297 Posts
On June 19 2021 05:14 SlayerS_BunkiE wrote: I firmly believe that outside of Flash and a fluke win here and there, Terrans cannot compete in modern korean broodwar tournaments. It has been an uphill battle for ~15years and today is no different. You can cite all the stats you want.. Ive been watching this game a long time and I stand by that statement. I will also be the first to admit that I can only play Terran, I just cant get the hang of the other two races. As “hard” as it may be to play, its the race that comes naturally for me.. so its actually the “easiest” race. While I agree with Koge and others that Terran is the hardest race to play for various reasons, I think this is taking things way to far. First of all, it feels to me like Terran has lost more of their top-tier pros than other races. Fantasy never really did anything in BW after kespa fell. Last hast left due to wrist issues. What happened to Sea? Mind is missed as well. And with Flash being the dominant player and pushing the Terran meta in a way that might be hard to follow. Other races has lost some of their best pros as well, but not as severely imo. Second of all, lets look at the winning of major tournaments since remastered was released (from ASL 1) without Flash: SC:BW RM Tournament wins (not Flash): Terran: 4 Protoss: 3 Zerg: 5 That is without Flash, claiming that Terran struggles in modern brood war when they are winning more tournaments than Protoss even without their best player seems like a stretch. SC:BW RM 2nd place (not Flash): Terran: 4 Protoss: 6 Zerg: 4 Again, that does not seem that unbalanced. And we need to consider that the map pool has been pretty hard for Terran lately as a way to stifle the dominance of Flash. Now that Flash is gone for a while, maybe we can see a more Terran friendly map-pool. 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. | ||
Dante08
Singapore4101 Posts
On June 18 2021 18:33 TMNT wrote: Agreed about the hard part, but what about the weak part? As I dont see how a race can be the hardest to play just to yield the minimum. If that was the case no one would even bother to play Terran. I think someone put it quite close in the previous page with the "high risk high reward" comment, although I'd correct it as "high demand high reward". 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. | ||
niteReloaded
Croatia5281 Posts
Highest potential Hardest to reach full potential Protoss: Lowest potential Easiest to reach full potential Zerg: Middle Middle | ||
TMNT
1833 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
Singapore4101 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
1833 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
Singapore4101 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
Austria2661 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
1833 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
Canada1702 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
Canada1702 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
Sweden297 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
Canada1702 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 States616 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
Canada1702 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 States616 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
Canada1702 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 States616 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
Canada1702 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 States616 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". | ||
SlayerS_BunkiE
Canada1702 Posts
On June 21 2021 09:02 kidcrash wrote: 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". I would say we always need to apply critical thinking when analyzing data. There is danger of bias for sure, but not looking at the details and taking numbers at face value can be just as dangerous. Let me ask you, if the numbers were something like this: 99 tournaments, 33 wins for each race. All T wins were from Flash. No P/Z player won more than 1 title. Do we still say “all Flash wins are T wins period”? Should we really be so closed minded as to not entertain the possibility that maybe its actually really hard to win with T, that its so hard to play that only one guy has managed to win with it after 99 tries? If Flash doesnt play on the 100th tournament, what unbiased rational person will pick T to win it? I hate exaggerating it this way but just doing it to make a point. | ||
Magic Powers
Austria2661 Posts
On June 21 2021 10:05 SlayerS_BunkiE wrote: I would say we always need to apply critical thinking when analyzing data. There is danger of bias for sure, but not looking at the details and taking numbers at face value can be just as dangerous. Let me ask you, if the numbers were something like this: 99 tournaments, 33 wins for each race. All T wins were from Flash. No P/Z player won more than 1 title. Do we still say “all Flash wins are T wins period”? Should we really be so closed minded as to not entertain the possibility that maybe its actually really hard to win with T, that its so hard to play that only one guy has managed to win with it after 99 tries? If Flash doesnt play on the 100th tournament, what unbiased rational person will pick T to win it? I hate exaggerating it this way but just doing it to make a point. In this hypothetical example, I'd be more inclined to suspect an error in the dataset rather than draw the conclusion that terran is too difficult to play except for Flash. In my job I frequently do data analysis and I've never seen anything come even remotely close to such an extreme example. Whenever I discover something like that, then - assuming that the sample size isn't too small - I find that I've made some error while preparing or going through the data, i.e. it's the result of a bad input or a selection bias. So even though your example is hypothetically possible, in reality it's best to suspect an input/selection error rather than go ahead and continue using the data without further inspection. A good example would be Dream's case of cheating in a Minecraft speedrun. Even while definitive proof was lacking (or faulty) at first, people were right to remain suspicious and to reject his time until a mathematician definitively solved the case, proving beyond all reasonable doubt that Dream's time was too far off from the rest of the dataset. And that proof is not perfectly logical by the way. Hypothetically it's possible that every other speedrunner before and after Dream was playing extremely illogical strats that would explain why he was able to set himself apart from all other runners. But that assumption is so unreasonable that it borders on insanity, because it would require that our perception of all speedrunners including Dream was completely off (i.e. everyone sucks at Minecraft except for Dream, and every observer misperceives every speedrunner including Dream. A completely absurd - yet statistically possible - explanation). | ||
A.Alm
Sweden494 Posts
| ||
Leonix
161 Posts
At this point it isnt even a parody anymore. Reminds me about 1948. I wonder if the terran players actually would meet their goals, if they actually used their time to reach it instead of trashing the forums. | ||
Dante08
Singapore4101 Posts
On June 20 2021 20:11 TMNT wrote: 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. God dam I think it's pointless to argue at this point, obviously you don't play the game. | ||
Frozenhelfire
United States420 Posts
On June 21 2021 11:30 Magic Powers wrote: In this hypothetical example, I'd be more inclined to suspect an error in the dataset rather than draw the conclusion that terran is too difficult to play except for Flash. In my job I frequently do data analysis and I've never seen anything come even remotely close to such an extreme example. Whenever I discover something like that, then - assuming that the sample size isn't too small - I find that I've made some error while preparing or going through the data, i.e. it's the result of a bad input or a selection bias. So even though your example is hypothetically possible, in reality it's best to suspect an input/selection error rather than go ahead and continue using the data without further inspection. The hypothetical is mostly a shit test. You can tell a lot about the validity of someone's position/thought process by how they answer or don't answer. | ||
Timebon3s
538 Posts
One of the things that made Bisu so good was his ability to multitask, and he did it with the “easiest” race. That speaks to the insanely high skill ceiling in Starcraft, so one can only imagine what is possible to do with Z or T | ||
vOdToasT
Sweden2870 Posts
This is a copied comment from a Youtube video replying to the claim that Terran is a weak race. The statistics are about two weeks dated at the time of this posting. My conclusion from the statistics is that most maps that people like to make are slightly or significantly Terran favoured in one or both match ups. They are usually slightly or significantly Zerg favoured in ZvP. However, truly balanced maps can exist, and for Protoss and Zerg, maps are possible that give them one even match up and one favoured match up, although this post is only about Terran, so it doesn't show ZvP. Maps on which either Zerg or Protoss is favoured in both match ups exist but are rare. It's also possible that the more a map is played, the better Terran becomes on it. Also, an interesting fact is that from one year to the next, Circuit Breaker went from being significantly Terran favoured against Zerg but not Protoss, to being significantly favoured against Protoss but not Zerg. _____________________________________________________________________________________________ KSL Second place finishes (no Flash in KSL finals): 1 Terran 1 Zerg 2 Protoss KSL first place finishes: 2 Terran 1 Zerg 1 Protoss ASL second place finishes: 4 Terran (3 if you remove Flash) 3 Zerg 4 Protoss ASL first place finishes: 5 Terran (1 if you remove Flash, look at that Protoss dominance without Flash, whew lads) 2 Protoss 4 Zerg Terran Sponbbang win rates on sponsored matches by map in 2021 so far: Polypoid: TvZ 56.4% (1310 games) TvP: 55.8% (800 games) Eclipse: TvZ: 56.4% (957 games) TvP: 51.5% (513 games) Shakuras Temple: TvZ: 55.6% (419 games) TvP: 59.3% (231 games) Fighting Spirit: TvZ: 58.9% (327 games) TvP: 56.8% (236 games) Ascension: TvZ: 57.9% (368 games) TvP: 47.9% (165 games) Hidden Track: TvZ: 49.9% (363 ganes) TvP: 56% (150 games) Ultimate Stream: TvZ: 56.3% (323 games) TvP: 48.4% (126 games) Ringing Bloom: TvZ: 56.3% (256 games) TvP: 43.4% (152 games) Benzene: TvZ: 44.3% (228 games) TvP: 56.3% (87 games) Some 2020 statistics: Sylphid: TvZ: 48.7% (1947 games) TvP: 50.4% (1258 games) Circuit Breaker: TvZ: 51.9% (412 games) TvP: 59.9% (384 games) Some 2019 statistics: Sylphid: TvZ: 51.9% (1996 games) TvP: 52.4% (1563 games) Circuit Breaker: TvZ: 62.1% (2013 games) TvP: 53.1% (1351 games) Overwatch: TvZ: 55.9% (1165 games) TvP: 48.8% (807 games) Fighting Spirit: TvZ: 58.6% (1656 games) TvP: 56.2% (1563 games) Match Point: TvZ: 53% (247 games) TvP: 46% (150 games) Most current (and recently passed) maps are slightly Terran favoured at the highest level of human skill in one or both match ups. A few are significantly Terran favoured in one match up. There are a few maps which favour Z or P against T, but overall, most maps are good for Terran. If you look at statistics for previous years, you get similar results. You can do your own research to stop being ignorant at sponbbang.com. Use ipvoid.com or google translate to translate. If Flash is the reason for these statistics, then he must have played hundreds of games more than other Terran players in sponsored matches. I watch sponsored matches, and that hasn't been my experience, and now that he's not playing at all, unless the norms for maps change, map statistics will continue to be the same without him, because most maps that people make are slightly Terran favoured in one or both match ups. There was one point in history at which the Terran winrate was only good because of Flash, and was significantly worse without him, but that was during the KeSPA era. It was true once, it's not true now. It's silly to use that excuse for every thing, and from now on, because he's gone to to the military, you can't use it for any future results. | ||
TMNT
1833 Posts
On June 22 2021 19:21 vOdToasT wrote: There was one point in history at which the Terran winrate was only good because of Flash, and was significantly worse without him, but that was during the KeSPA era. It was true once, it's not true now. It's silly to use that excuse for every thing, and from now on, because he's gone to to the military, you can't use it for any future results. Well, Terran kinda sucks for the first 5 weeks of this current KCM season, now that Flash's gone. But then again, he barely played in the previous KCM seasons either. Maybe it's not Flash contributing to the stats by playing the game himself. It's his aura. When he's around, other Terran players just automatically become better. | ||
CHEONSOYUN
492 Posts
the units can be fragile, the mechanics for building structures and defending certain rushes can cause stupid losses or disadvantages. people love to exploit this. everyone wants to just cheese out a terran player. terran armies once they’re built up can be easily mismanaged by bad decisions. the other races have ways of either exploiting the compositions or backstabbing or negating it’s effectiveness. that all being said, a good terran player should be very difficult to kill, and very scary once they’re on the map with a high supply. scanner sweep, upgrades, spider mines, vessels and siege tanks are strong. the best terran players look invincible: their builds account for all possible scenarios and feature sharp kill timings. and they have a knack for recovering in bad scenarios mounting strong comebacks | ||
maybenexttime
Poland5231 Posts
On June 08 2021 12:49 Virus(shield)08 wrote: So im not sure anyone even is on this forum anymore,but i was watching Artosis stream and he said terran is the weakest, and hardest race,but if thats true why does flash play terran,and why has he had more success with terran than the other races. the only thing i can think of is tvt is easier to be consistant than the other mirrors. I honestly have no clue. can someone who knows what they are talking about answer this question plz. For the same reason God took human form as Jesus Christ. | ||
Timebon3s
538 Posts
| ||
maybenexttime
Poland5231 Posts
On June 23 2021 22:18 Timebon3s wrote: Is God and Jesus Christ supposed to be the same person? I thought Jesus was his son?? Same deity, different person. Or something like that. | ||
Nambona890
Australia14 Posts
| ||
vOdToasT
Sweden2870 Posts
On June 23 2021 22:18 Timebon3s wrote: Is God and Jesus Christ supposed to be the same person? If you are a catholic, yes. If you are an Arianist, no | ||
Redicboss
4 Posts
On June 24 2021 09:38 Nambona890 wrote: This is an extremely high quality thread. Thank lord Artosis for telling us about it. | ||
Timebon3s
538 Posts
| ||
kaspa84
Brazil159 Posts
On June 21 2021 10:05 SlayerS_BunkiE wrote: I would say we always need to apply critical thinking when analyzing data. There is danger of bias for sure, but not looking at the details and taking numbers at face value can be just as dangerous. Let me ask you, if the numbers were something like this: 99 tournaments, 33 wins for each race. All T wins were from Flash. No P/Z player won more than 1 title. Do we still say “all Flash wins are T wins period”? Should we really be so closed minded as to not entertain the possibility that maybe its actually really hard to win with T, that its so hard to play that only one guy has managed to win with it after 99 tries? If Flash doesnt play on the 100th tournament, what unbiased rational person will pick T to win it? I hate exaggerating it this way but just doing it to make a point. Reductio ad absurdum is a great too to get your point across, provided the people reading/listening are aware and capable of understanding it. Personally I liked your point very much. | ||
SlayerS_BunkiE
Canada1702 Posts
On June 26 2021 08:49 kaspa84 wrote: Reductio ad absurdum is a great too to get your point across, provided the people reading/listening are aware and capable of understanding it. Personally I liked your point very much. Ty sir. I couldnt believe the response I got was “most likely an error in data set”. | ||
ggsimida
1100 Posts
| ||
SlayerS_BunkiE
Canada1702 Posts
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! | ||
ggsimida
1100 Posts
| ||
SlayerS_BunkiE
Canada1702 Posts
| ||
sugarmuffinpuff
Canada38 Posts
| ||
kaspa84
Brazil159 Posts
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. | ||
Newblish
Canada116 Posts
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 | ||
TheGreatOne
United States534 Posts
| ||
Toss_Master
United States46 Posts
| ||
sauc
Canada26 Posts
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. | ||
Rainalcar
Croatia320 Posts
| ||
Magic Powers
Austria2661 Posts
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? | ||
sauc
Canada26 Posts
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.'' | ||
niteReloaded
Croatia5281 Posts
| ||
krooked
376 Posts
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. | ||
QOGQOG
817 Posts
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. | ||
krooked
376 Posts
On July 27 2021 03:07 QOGQOG wrote: Is this an Artosis smurf account? No, and your attempt at ridicule is honestly just embarrasing. 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. 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. 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: 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. 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. 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. 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. | ||
QOGQOG
817 Posts
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. | ||
krooked
376 Posts
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. | ||
QOGQOG
817 Posts
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. | ||
TMNT
1833 Posts
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? | ||
kidcrash
United States616 Posts
KCM/Race Survival | ||
Magic Powers
Austria2661 Posts
| ||
QOGQOG
817 Posts
On July 27 2021 07:55 TMNT wrote: 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? Yeah, it's a sort of tilting at windmills experience. Nice to have company though. The scouting thing still baffles me. Forget PvT, has no one ever played/watched PvP or PvZ? On July 27 2021 09:01 kidcrash wrote: Yes protoss is the easiest race which is exactly why they won almost every KCM season and got 2nd place when they didn't..... https://liquipedia.net/starcraft/KCM/Race_Survival Geez, I had forgotten just how brutal the record there was. | ||
krooked
376 Posts
On July 27 2021 07:55 TMNT wrote: 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? Lets look at the matchups involving Terran, and what Zerg and Protoss needs to scout for: TvZ (bio): Terran needs to: - Scout once at 11/12 supply. If not finding Zerg first, must send another scv immediately towards other location. Must also have hotkeyed scvs ready to send to choke, or will die to even initial lings off of any pool first build. - Keep scv alive at minimum to see if Z saves larva, is making lings, lair timing and number of hatcheries - See with scv or scan to see spire or hydra den, each requiring completely different response - Constantly scout for 3rd base, scout for army composition At this point, failing to identify any of this can result to an immediate auto loss to speedling all in, early ling rush, lurker all in, muta all in - in fact, even without going all in, Terran will die to any tech choice unless heavily attempting to counter it. Further: - Is Zerg doing Crazy Zerg? Requires a very specific response (sit 2base, add rax earlier than normal, wait for upgrade timing, keep all units together) - Is Zerg going Guardians? - Is Zerg doing heavy lurker style? Must put down multiple factories immediately - Is Zerg sneaking 4th base? Unless scouted and punished, Terran will lose the game Now what does Zerg HAVE to know to not simply lose the game? Generally, Zergs doesn't even bother to drone scout - Terran openers are predictable and can be countered completely blindly, as long as initial lings are put outside base. Must put overlord to look for bunker rush outside nat. Later, Zerg needs to identify mech vs bio, but can do so with initial mutas without any issues - there is no auto loss if its not identified earlier. Later, Zerg can easily see a possible mech switch and deal with it as it happens. True, there are some builds that requires Zerg to be more adaptive, such as 2port wraith - but that is a complete non meta build, as viable Terran builds are, as mentioned, extremely predictable. Zergs are totally happy with Terrans essentially expanding at free will - 5base Z vs 5 base T means a clean victory for +5 carap ultra/defiler/ling. In terms of micro: Zerg needs to have muta micro, but can be effective even without using mutas at all, or making them but not using them very procatively. Defilers can be totally avoided, but are as mutas, difficult to use without having developed skills in using them. Zerg has the option to just not use these units, such as getting into ultras, or doing lurkers. Terran (in bio play), must use M&M and be very delicate about anti muta micro, map movement to avoid lurkers, anti lurker micro, all units must be stimmed quickly and microd vs ultras. Meanwhile lings and ultras are simply a-moved and are extremely effective without even being controlled beyond a simple a-move across the map. Compare that to terran units - all must be babysat the entire game through. TvP: Scouting: - Terran must scout for proxy 2gate (and other proxies such as reaver etc), identify whether an expand is coming up or not - or they autolose to DTs, fast Zealots etc. - Terran must look for timing of bases, number of gates, tech choice / playstyle What does Protoss need to do ? Countering even the strongest all in (2fact) can be done with pure kiting micro, no need for any specific response in terms of build. If, however, P goes DTs or fast reaver, Terran MUST get ebay + turrets or it is simply over. There is no way to counter it once it has been made obvious, as is the case with any Terran cheese. Micro: - Even the most low effort, lazy Protoss offense such as forward gate or simply sending a zealot across the map requires sim city and heavy micro. - All Terran units must be microed delicately to be effective. Tanks needs to be sieged and unsieged and mindful of their position on the map - just to not die to simple gateway push needs careful set up tanks and sim city, and mines. All this is WAY more micro intensive than any Protoss army control. - Tanks needs to focus fire goons, vults needs to be kept in front of army and focus zealots, and continually placing mines - Vessels and tanks needs to be spread to avoid being easily countered by Arbiter stasis. All of this is the bare minimum to survive against D level Protoss. Meanwhile, Protoss micro is a lot simpler - zealots run first, dragoons follow up, use arbiter to stasis (or recall). On the point of recall, Terran needs to be very sensitive to the timing of recalls, and place mines and turrets to even attempt to hold the recall - which often will still go through and do damage no matter what, effectively preventing a Terran pushout. Protoss is playing worry free - some cannons is enough to defend mineral line and bases, and they enjoy full map control. kogeT has already stated how Terran is a lot more demanding than the other races - The amount of confirmation bias that must exist to not see this obvious fact is to me absurd. It isn't really relevant who says it tho - it is clear as day. | ||
iFU.pauline
France1388 Posts
On July 27 2021 23:07 krooked wrote: Now what does Zerg HAVE to know to not simply lose the game? Generally, Zergs doesn't even bother to drone scout - Terran openers are predictable and can be countered completely blindly, as long as initial lings are put outside base. Must put overlord to look for bunker rush outside nat. Later, Zerg needs to identify mech vs bio, but can do so with initial mutas without any issues - there is no auto loss if its not identified earlier. Later, Zerg can easily see a possible mech switch and deal with it as it happens. True, there are some builds that requires Zerg to be more adaptive, such as 2port wraith - but that is a complete non meta build, as viable Terran builds are, as mentioned, extremely predictable. Zergs are totally happy with Terrans essentially expanding at free will - 5base Z vs 5 base T means a clean victory for +5 carap ultra/defiler/ling. I need water. | ||
krooked
376 Posts
| ||
Anc13nt
1557 Posts
| ||
Anc13nt
1557 Posts
On July 27 2021 23:45 krooked wrote: ^ I get it, its much easier to attempt to ridicule than to actually form any coherent argument. But consider the following: It is 200/200 armies, both on full 4 base economy. Who has the advantage, T or Z? That is an odd scenario (Z rarely maxes only on 4 bases) but if it's mech, then probably T. If it's bio then probably Z. | ||
krooked
376 Posts
2. Many Zergs opt out of drone scouting. This is completely normal, and while nobody is saying its completely pointless to drone scout, the key point is that it is not strictly necessary, as scv scouting is as Terran. 3. Going back to the lategame T vs Z scenario, its not "probably" better for Z to be endgame, it is "definitely" and "obviously" better for Z. Its honestly absurd to claim anything else. 3-3 marines do absolutely nothing vs +5 carap ultra/defiler. Its not even a point of contention. edit: 4. Speaking of defilers, if Zerg sneaks a defiler into T nat, the game is just over, it is essentially irrelevant how the game has gone up until that point. What kind of "autolose" scenario does Z have, where they are ahead by god knows how much, but just lose the game? Same goes with missclicking marines or not scanning lurkers, or not babysitting army - the game can simply be lost in a moment. This just doesn't happen with Zerg, unless they make much more grave mistakes, like flying all of their mutas into the bio ball. | ||
Magic Powers
Austria2661 Posts
On July 27 2021 23:07 krooked wrote: Later, Zerg can easily see a possible mech switch and deal with it as it happens. It took zerg players years to figure out a counter to the quick mech switch. Zerg had to adapt by utilizing broodling tech much earlier in the game than normal. Without it, various mech switch timings were looking more and more broken over time. Then after a few more years came another counter by terran where they deceptively go for mass goliaths because zerg virtually or sometimes literally can't scout the terran base after a certain point, so they don't know if terran goes pure goliaths or also mixes in some tanks, making quick broodling tech a gamble. Unexpected mass goliaths - unsurprisingly - are still giving zerg players at every level a headache, and is one of the easier and least taxing strategies (which also addresses another point you make later). True, there are some builds that requires Zerg to be more adaptive, such as 2port wraith - but that is a complete non meta build, as viable Terran builds are, as mentioned, extremely predictable. How is 2 port wraith predictable in any capacity? This is literally one of the most hated builds by zerg players precisely because it's almost completely unpredictable. On top of that it's also quite effective unless zerg knows the correct response(s) inside out. Zergs are totally happy with Terrans essentially expanding at free will - 5base Z vs 5 base T means a clean victory for +5 carap ultra/defiler/ling. That's the current state of the game. It used to be zerg players suffering against mech transition combined with mass expanding and having no good response to it. Thanks to the rivalry between Flash and Larva, the cards have been flipped, and terrans again have to play a much more aggressive style to win their fair share of games. PS: I'm terran main, so no bias there on my part. In terms of micro: Zerg needs to have muta micro, but can be effective even without using mutas at all, or making them but not using them very procatively. This is akin to saying: "Terran needs to have m&ms, but can be effective even without using m&ms at all." (See: goliaths) The second part in your sentence is even more absurd. If zergs build mutas and don't use them, the huge ball of m&ms can roam freely all over the map and zerg will have to expend lots of valuable resources just to survive until hive tech. That approach doesn't have a great record compared to, you know, the mutas actually being used to kill marines. And every zerg player knows how difficult muta micro is, but you seem to not want to admit that, and your argument devolves into "just don't do any muta micro". Defilers can be totally avoided, but are as mutas, difficult to use without having developed skills in using them. Not sure what you mean by that. Defilers can be avoided? The truth is that zergs depend on defiler tech because it offers the best winrate on average. They can surely skip it, but then they're typically making a small sacrifice to their winrate. The longer the game goes, the more valuable defiler tech becomes. We've seen terrans make all sorts of crazy comebacks when there's a lack of defilers on the map. They're more than just a booster to a zerg army, they also create crucial stability in the zerg defenses. That's why terran has to try various timing attacks and drops to destabilize a zerg using defiler tech (at least that's the current meta). Zerg has the option to just not use these units, such as getting into ultras, or doing lurkers. Terran has the option to not use m&ms, too. Simply tech to goliaths and play a whole game using mech. Also, when you say "or lurkers", that's a strange point. Lurkers without defiler tech lose their value very rapidly. The combined power of siege tanks, vessels and m&ms obliterates lurker/hydra or lurker/ling. Terran (in bio play), must use M&M Yes, but they can do a mech build. Why are you ignoring that option? and be very delicate about anti muta micro Same goes for muta micro. , map movement to avoid lurkers Same goes for lurkers against m&ms with tanks and/or vessels. , anti lurker micro Anti m&m micro isn't any easier. , all units must be stimmed quickly and microd vs ultras. Meanwhile lings and ultras are simply a-moved and are extremely effective without even being controlled beyond a simple a-move across the map. Compare that to terran units - all must be babysat the entire game through. Zerg has to keep repositioning his army and refilling it with key units like defilers. Zerg has to manage more bases than terran and constantly keep an eye out for timing attacks and dropships (if terran plays a standard m&m build). I could also address your claims about TvP, but your arguments about TvZ are off by so much that I don't care to also go into that. What your opinion boils down to is this: zergs can just sit around and build units without using them, until they use them with a-move and win. Every single point in your argument derives from that premise. What this means is that - instead of observing the game from an unbiased point of view and coming to factual conclusions - you have a preconceived idea and then build your argument to support that, and you handwave away every observation that contradicts your idea. So you put the cart before the horse, and when it gets stuck you ignore the facts rather than objectively and honestly address the problem with your approach. Edit: funny coincidence. Just now I'm watching a game on stream from JyJ against Effort, skipping over m&m tech in the early game and instead quickly massing goliaths. Seems like even some top players see the value in this build. | ||
krooked
376 Posts
It took zerg players years to figure out a counter to the quick mech switch. Zerg had to adapt by utilizing broodling tech much earlier in the game than normal. Without it, various mech switch timings were looking more and more broken over time. Then after a few more years came another counter by terran where they deceptively go for mass goliaths because zerg virtually or sometimes literally can't scout the terran base after a certain point, so they don't know if terran goes pure goliaths or also mixes in some tanks, making quick broodling tech a gamble. Unexpected mass goliaths - unsurprisingly - are still giving zerg players at every level a headache, and is one of the easier and least taxing strategies (which also addresses another point you make later). 1. I am talking about the game in its current meta. For all I know, Terran was the easiest race by far at some point in 2001 - but that really isn't relevant to the discussion 2. As I've already stated, mech makes TvZ a lot easier for T, and is not what I am discussing. Bio is the meta viable way to play at the highest levels, and thus the playstyle I am discussing. How is 2 port wraith predictable in any capacity? This is literally one of the most hated builds by zerg players precisely because it's almost completely unpredictable. On top of that it's also quite effective unless zerg knows the correct response(s) inside out. I never said 2port wraith is predictable. Read my post again. What I said was that standard Terran play is predictable. 2port wraith is not standard play. Why do you think I brought 2port wraith up? That's the current state of the game. It used to be zerg players suffering against mech transition combined with mass expanding and having no good response to it. Thanks to the rivalry between Flash and Larva, the cards have been flipped, and terrans again have to play a much more aggressive style to win their fair share of games. PS: I'm terran main, so no bias there on my part. As I've said multiple times, I am talking about bio, not mech. I'm not concerned with whether or not you are Terran main, Zerg main, Protoss main or if you are F rank or S rank. It simply isn't relevant. An F rank Protoss player could come into this thread and say something that is objectively true, and an S rank Terran main could come in here and say something untrue. I look at the argument you make, not who you are as a person or player. This is akin to saying: "Terran needs to have m&ms, but can be effective even without using m&ms at all." (See: goliaths) The second part in your sentence is even more absurd. If zergs build mutas and don't use them, the huge ball of m&ms can roam freely all over the map and zerg will have to expend lots of valuable resources just to survive until hive tech. That approach doesn't have a great record compared to, you know, the mutas actually being used to kill marines. And every zerg player knows how difficult muta micro is, but you seem to not want to admit that, and your argument devolves into "just don't do any muta micro". 1. Again, I'm talking about bio TvZ. 2. I definitely did acknowledge that muta micro is necessary to be a skillful muta user. But mutas aren't actually necessary for zerg, nor is utilizing them with high level muta micro necessary to succeed at lower levels of play. To be able to play SK terran at a base level requires some MM micro, or else you just auto lose the game. To sum up my point: Yes, muta micro is difficult and a display of skill. It is not however a prerequisite to play with great muta micro to succeed at lower levels of play, as Zerg can go into 3H mutas and use mutas without great muta micro and still do well (again, at lower levels) and transition into ultras or lurkers, while Terran is using MM whole game through and a bare minimum of micro skill is needed to not just automatically lose the game (read: stim rines, split vs lurkers, huddle up vs ultras/mutas etc). Yes, but they can do a mech build. Why are you ignoring that option? I'm not ignoring it. If Terrans started playing mech all the time, then TvZ would be easier for T than for Z. But SK Terran is the prefered way of play because it is stronger. That is why I am talking and discussing TvZ in the perspective of bio. TvZ bio is still more difficult to play than ZvT muta into defilers, even though that is also very difficult. + Show Spoiler + Same goes for muta micro. Yep, difference is that there are a ton of other factors (which you of course just ignored) that adds up to Terran being more difficult. But its true, muta micro is difficult. Probably more difficult than just pure anti muta micro. + Show Spoiler + Same goes for lurkers against m&ms with tanks and/or vessels. You're not going to lose all your lurkers in an instance because you looked away for a split second. + Show Spoiler + Anti m&m micro isn't any easier. Yes it is. + Show Spoiler + Zerg has to keep repositioning his army and refilling it with key units like defilers. Zerg has to manage more bases than terran and constantly keep an eye out for timing attacks and dropships (if terran plays a standard m&m build). I could also address your claims about TvP, but your arguments about TvZ are off by so much that I don't care to also go into that. What your opinion boils down to is this: zergs can just sit around and build units without using them, until they use them with a-move and win. Every single point in your argument derives from that premise. What this means is that - instead of observing the game from an unbiased point of view and coming to factual conclusions - you have a preconceived idea and then build your argument to support that, and you handwave away every observation that contradicts your idea. So you put the cart before the horse, and when it gets stuck you ignore the facts rather than objectively and honestly address the problem with your approach. 1. What difficulty is there "managing" a base? Placing some static defence and rallying units isn't very time intensive. 2. IDK what zergs you're playing, but constantly repositioning his army? You mean sending them through nydus canals? 3. Cool, so you can debunk my arguments but you won't. Interesting. 4. That isn't what my argument boils down to. Its not even close to what I'm saying. That might be what your head is interpreting it as, but that is on you. Not surprisingly, you're caught up in attacking me as a player. Its interesting that your "middle of the road" view of everything being fair is somehow automatically correct and "unbiased". I haven't ignored any facts. I've presented an argument for why Terran is harder to play than Z or P. You could of course disagree, like for instance insisting that zerg army micro is in fact harder or somehow exactly equally difficult as MM micro, and we could discuss that in depth. But to say that it is a "fact" that its equally hard isn't any more unbiased than to say it is a "fact" that Terran is harder. | ||
Magic Powers
Austria2661 Posts
On July 28 2021 01:00 krooked wrote: 1. I am talking about the game in its current meta. For all I know, Terran was the easiest race by far at some point in 2001 - but that really isn't relevant to the discussion 2. As I've already stated, mech makes TvZ a lot easier for T, and is not what I am discussing. Bio is the meta viable way to play at the highest levels, and thus the playstyle I am discussing. 1. The current meta is a result of previous metas. If you ignore the context of how it came to be and what the current struggles are for each race, you can make an argument for or against just about anything. Terrans are currently struggling against zergs more than they did until a few years ago. That's just how things go in this game, every discovery has the potential to change the meta. So it is absolutely relevant to the discussion, but that fact doesn't suit your argument. 2. You have to ignore mech because it's an inconvenient fact that throws a curveball into your argument. You're arguing "zerg can play a simpler game and still win", but at the same time you reject the fact that terran also has the same option. And you have to reject this fact, because otherwise your argument falls apart due to being inconsistent. Mech is viable, zerg strats that are less difficult are also viable, and therefore if you embrace one viable option but not the other you're being selective in your argument, and that makes for very poor reasoning. How is 2 port wraith predictable in any capacity? This is literally one of the most hated builds by zerg players precisely because it's almost completely unpredictable. On top of that it's also quite effective unless zerg knows the correct response(s) inside out. I never said 2port wraith is predictable. Read my post again. What I said was that standard Terran play is predictable. 2port wraith is not standard play. Why do you think I brought 2port wraith up? I can't read your mind. Just tell us, why DID you bring up 2port wraith (especially seeing that you prefer to ignore non-standard/non-m&m builds)? Obviously m&m builds are (somewhat) predictable, because they're standard. You can say that about every standard build, regardless of the race! That's the current state of the game. It used to be zerg players suffering against mech transition combined with mass expanding and having no good response to it. Thanks to the rivalry between Flash and Larva, the cards have been flipped, and terrans again have to play a much more aggressive style to win their fair share of games. PS: I'm terran main, so no bias there on my part. As I've said multiple times, I am talking about bio, not mech. I'm not concerned with whether or not you are Terran main, Zerg main, Protoss main or if you are F rank or S rank. It simply isn't relevant. An F rank Protoss player could come into this thread and say something that is objectively true, and an S rank Terran main could come in here and say something untrue. I look at the argument you make, not who you are as a person or player. The mech transition I was talking about there (that resulted in extraordinary terran domination for years) is connected to a standard m&m opening. Are you aware of the historical context of this strategy and its impact on TvZ winrates? The point is that metas change over time, and currently terran players are having trouble with their standard m&m builds, and the reason is that the quick mech transition is significantly less viable than it used to be for several years. The option to transition quickly and unexpectedly at any given time gave m&m builds a huge boost in viability, because it allowed terrans to either play aggressively (skipping mech transition) or defensively (mech transition + many bases). Zerg players were completely overwhelmed by these options. Larva figured out a way to combat every type of mech transition and put the ball back into the terran corner, forcing them to play a more aggressive game again (because nowadays zerg is more powerful in the late late game). Furthermore I made this point in response to your claims about 5 base zerg being stronger than 5 base terran, so it was you who provoked that argument about the viability of mech transition after a standard m&m opening. But this is inconvenient for your case. You prefer to sidestep the argument. This is akin to saying: "Terran needs to have m&ms, but can be effective even without using m&ms at all." (See: goliaths) The second part in your sentence is even more absurd. If zergs build mutas and don't use them, the huge ball of m&ms can roam freely all over the map and zerg will have to expend lots of valuable resources just to survive until hive tech. That approach doesn't have a great record compared to, you know, the mutas actually being used to kill marines. And every zerg player knows how difficult muta micro is, but you seem to not want to admit that, and your argument devolves into "just don't do any muta micro". 1. Again, I'm talking about bio TvZ. How convenient for you that you can just keep sidestepping the solution for terran of simply not doing a standard m&m build that would be easier to pull off. This option is an inconvenient fact for your case. 2. I definitely did acknowledge that muta micro is necessary to be a skillful muta user. But mutas aren't actually necessary for zerg, m&ms aren't necessary for terran either. nor is utilizing them with high level muta micro necessary to succeed at lower levels of play. Oh, now you're selectively talking about lower levels. But your argument also fails here, because terran can use goliaths, which are a viable option for lower level terrans. But you don't like that, you want to have your cake and eat it, too. You want to focus on lower levels of play, but you also want to have the full theoretical terran arsenal from playing standard m&m builds, even though you yourself admit that this is harder at lower levels of play. Well guess what: the exact same thing is true for muta micro (or defiler usage in the late game). Your argument is therefore inconsistent. To be able to play SK terran at a base level requires some MM micro, or else you just auto lose the game. The same is true for muta micro and defiler usage. To sum up my point: Yes, muta micro is difficult and a display of skill. It is not however a prerequisite to play with great muta micro to succeed at lower levels of play, as Zerg can go into 3H mutas and use mutas without great muta micro and still do well (again, at lower levels) and transition into ultras or lurkers, while Terran is using MM whole game through and a bare minimum of micro skill is needed to not just automatically lose the game (read: stim rines, split vs lurkers, huddle up vs ultras/mutas etc). You say that great muta micro is not a prerequisite to play at lower levels, but at the same time you don't want to admit that great m&m micro is not a prerequisite at the same lower level either. This is a double standard. Yes, but they can do a mech build. Why are you ignoring that option? I'm not ignoring it. If Terrans started playing mech all the time, then TvZ would be easier for T than for Z. But SK Terran is the prefered way of play because it is stronger. That is why I am talking and discussing TvZ in the perspective of bio. TvZ bio is still more difficult to play than ZvT muta into defilers, even though that is also very difficult. Why would you care that standard m&m is more difficult if you can instead opt to use goliaths? I know why, it's because then your argument falls apart. Same goes for muta micro. Yep, difference is that there are a ton of other factors (which you of course just ignored) that adds up to Terran being more difficult. But its true, muta micro is difficult. Probably more difficult than just pure anti muta micro. Then what are you complaining about? If zerg can win without great muta micro, then terran can win without playing standard m&m. This solution is obvious. Same goes for lurkers against m&ms with tanks and/or vessels. You're not going to lose all your lurkers in an instance because you looked away for a split second. You don't know what you're talking about, this happens all the time at lower levels. Heck, it even happens at higher levels sometimes. Anti m&m micro isn't any easier. Yes it is. Oh really? A few paragraphs above you said this: But its true, muta micro is difficult. Probably more difficult than just pure anti muta micro. You just contradicted yourself. I think I'll leave it at that. Your argument is filled with holes. | ||
Anc13nt
1557 Posts
On July 28 2021 00:19 krooked wrote: 1. I made it clear I was talking about bio. I dont know how 200/200 mech vs 200/200 Z looks, but I would be surprised if its a clear advantage for T. 2. Many Zergs opt out of drone scouting. This is completely normal, and while nobody is saying its completely pointless to drone scout, the key point is that it is not strictly necessary, as scv scouting is as Terran. 3. Going back to the lategame T vs Z scenario, its not "probably" better for Z to be endgame, it is "definitely" and "obviously" better for Z. Its honestly absurd to claim anything else. 3-3 marines do absolutely nothing vs +5 carap ultra/defiler. Its not even a point of contention. edit: 4. Speaking of defilers, if Zerg sneaks a defiler into T nat, the game is just over, it is essentially irrelevant how the game has gone up until that point. What kind of "autolose" scenario does Z have, where they are ahead by god knows how much, but just lose the game? Same goes with missclicking marines or not scanning lurkers, or not babysitting army - the game can simply be lost in a moment. This just doesn't happen with Zerg, unless they make much more grave mistakes, like flying all of their mutas into the bio ball. 1. Fair enough. 2. Maybe on 2 player maps where overlord is sufficient but if you don't know that terran is going mech, the vulture will be game-ending usually. I might be wrong though but please give some examples. 3. If you macro and control properly, 3-3 marines are not that bad against ultralisks unless you've failed to prevent zerg from getting too many bases. Now there is a certain point where ultralisks in great enough number beats mass 3-3 marines but at that point you should transition into making tanks and bcs or even late mech switch. I think zerg is favoured at this point of the game but this is fair because zerg is weaker than terran during midgame and early late game.. 4. This is not true at all. It is a bad situation but happens fairly often and a calm, collected terran will often be able to survive it by lifting cc while irradiating the lurker/defiler. Also, zerg can be quite ahead and lose to drop or sunken bust, both of which are pretty common ways of losing when ahead as zerg. | ||
krooked
376 Posts
1. The current meta is a result of previous metas. If you ignore the context of how it came to be and what the current struggles are for each race, you can make an argument for or against just about anything. Terrans are currently struggling against zergs more than they did until a few years ago. That's just how things go in this game, every discovery has the potential to change the meta. So it is absolutely relevant to the discussion, but that fact doesn't suit your argument. 2. You have to ignore mech because it's an inconvenient fact that throws a curveball into your argument. You're arguing "zerg can play a simpler game and still win", but at the same time you reject the fact that terran also has the same option. And you have to reject this fact, because otherwise your argument falls apart due to being inconsistent. Mech is viable, zerg strats that are less difficult are also viable, and therefore if you embrace one viable option but not the other you're being selective in your argument, and that makes for very poor reasoning. 1. No, it isn't relevant. It doesn't matter whether or not Terran was more or less difficult during a different meta. My argument is about the current meta. Maybe one day in the future, Terran will be the by far easiest race - but whatever happens now, won't be an argument for it being harder or easier then. It is as simple as that. 2. Its amazing how obtuse you manage to be. I've several times stated that yes, mech is easier. We both know its completely viable. But when I talk about difficulty in TvZ, as an argument for OVERALL difficulty of playing the Terran race, I bring up BIO PLAY. If someone were to only play mech TvZ, then their experience of Terrans overall difficulty would definitely be less difficult than someone who plays bio, but Terran would still be overall the most difficult race. But bio play exists, it is the most difficult and most viable way to play TvZ, and that is what I revolve my argument around. It really shouldn't be difficult to understand. But to take a page out of your book of arguing, I guess your argument relies on calling out some imagined fallacy in mine. + Show Spoiler + I can't read your mind. Just tell us, why DID you bring up 2port wraith (especially seeing that you prefer to ignore non-standard/non-m&m builds)? Obviously m&m builds are (somewhat) predictable, because they're standard. You can say that about every standard build, regardless of the race! You don't need to read my mind. Simply read the post where I brought it up. There is no ignoring of non standard builds. The argument revolves around what is meta and viable. Sure all terrans could go only goliath in all matchups and just a-move everywhere, and it would be easy af. But it would fall apart at higher levels of play. So we discuss what is actually meta. We talk about standard play because everyone can grab a free strategic win by cheesing. Yes, 2port is hard to hold. So is 2fact, so is one base lurker, so is proxy 2gate. But whereas 2port wraith is pretty rare, 2fact and 2gate isn't. + Show Spoiler + The mech transition I was talking about there (that resulted in extraordinary terran domination for years) is connected to a standard m&m opening. Are you aware of the historical context of this strategy and its impact on TvZ winrates? The point is that metas change over time, and currently terran players are having trouble with their standard m&m builds, and the reason is that the quick mech transition is significantly less viable than it used to be for several years. The option to transition quickly and unexpectedly at any given time gave m&m builds a huge boost in viability, because it allowed terrans to either play aggressively (skipping mech transition) or defensively (mech transition + many bases). Zerg players were completely overwhelmed by these options. Larva figured out a way to combat every type of mech transition and put the ball back into the terran corner, forcing them to play a more aggressive game again (because nowadays zerg is more powerful in the late late game). Furthermore I made this point in response to your claims about 5 base zerg being stronger than 5 base terran, so it was you who provoked that argument about the viability of mech transition after a standard m&m opening. But this is inconvenient for your case. You prefer to sidestep the argument. Again, the context simply isn't relevant. There is no side stepping of any argument. How convenient for you that you can just keep sidestepping the solution for terran of simply not doing a standard m&m build that would be easier to pull off. This option is an inconvenient fact for your case. There is no sidestepping, what do you not understand? I have made no claims that Terran mech is harder to play than Zerg. Thats exactly why I'm focusing on bio. Read this line 10 times until you understand it. m&ms aren't necessary for terran either. If you play SK Terran, which is what I am talking about, and have been talking about all the time, then they definitely are necessary. Oh, now you're selectively talking about lower levels. But your argument also fails here, because terran can use goliaths, which are a viable option for lower level terrans. But you don't like that, you want to have your cake and eat it, too. You want to focus on lower levels of play, but you also want to have the full theoretical terran arsenal from playing standard m&m builds, even though you yourself admit that this is harder at lower levels of play. Well guess what: the exact same thing is true for muta micro (or defiler usage in the late game). Your argument is therefore inconsistent. Again, you keep eternally harping on about mech. Get it through your skull - I'm not talking about mech. Jesus christ. I want to focus on lower level of play because that is what most players are. Once you are a pro player or semi pro, the difficulty of terran isn't that much of an issue anymore, as thousands upon thousands of hours of gameplay has ironed them out. The same is true for muta micro and defiler usage. Not really. Mutas aren't necessarily the main army of Z, and just learning muta micro is easier and less complex than learning how to control MM against all the different types of Z units. Controlling 4+ control groups of MM latgame is just one of many situations where it is simply more difficult than microing mutas. You say that great muta micro is not a prerequisite to play at lower levels, but at the same time you don't want to admit that great m&m micro is not a prerequisite at the same lower level either. This is a double standard. Depending on the definition of "great", it is necessary, because a Z just putting some lurkers in the ground, or a-moving his ultralisks will force a lower level player to show great micro to not just auto die. Marines simply will not be effective unless they are controlled properly, using stim, bunching up etc. Mutas on the other hand can just target fire and pull back and be very effective in lower levels. Why would you care that standard m&m is more difficult if you can instead opt to use goliaths? I know why, it's because then your argument falls apart. As I've said a billion times, not talking about goliath build or mech. Then what are you complaining about? If zerg can win without great muta micro, then terran can win without playing standard m&m. This solution is obvious. Yeah, definitely true. Completely besides the point I'm making or the discussion overall. You don't know what you're talking about, this happens all the time at lower levels. Heck, it even happens at higher levels sometimes. Can you please carefully explain exactly how that would happen? I supposed you have a video since it happens even at the highest level. I'm certain whatever you show me won't be half as bad as walking marines over lurkers.Let me paint a scenario: A group of marines walk across the map, h-position lurkers are in their path, the entire army dies, the game is over. Meanwhile, lets say worst case scenario, a group of lurkers are walking and get shelled by tanks - they simply turn around. Lurkers are essentially never the entire Zerg army, and they don't die as quickly. Oh really? A few paragraphs above you said this: Anti MM micro isn't only muta micro. Be consistent with what words you use. I think I'll leave it at that. Good, bye Anc13nt: 2. Not sure what examples you want? 3. 3-3 marines are that bad against +5 ultra carapace and defilers. Pro players are struggling vs Crazy Zerg even at +4 carap with essentially perfect macro. Even 3base crazy zerg is extremely scary. Again, I really do not understand what the point is discussing this. Go into a game with a friend and just macro up to 5base and let Z tech to +5 carap ultra defiler and see if you can win. I guarantee you, you cannot. 4. Depends entirely on the situation. A single defiler with some backup, just walking up to the army in the nat isn't that dangerous. But several defilers or defiler early in the game walking up while terran is out on the map (which is usually the case) is, as I said, almost always game ending. Terrans aren't turtling at home in their base - thats the easiest way to lose, and that opens for defilers walking up to nat. 5. If Zerg are ahead but losing like that, it is because they are greedy and play with almost no units. Its definitely true that Zerg generally plays as greedy and as brittle as possible for the later powerspike, and that is one of the challenges Zerg players face. As I've said many times before - the fact that Z or P has challenges doesn't disprove that Terran is harder than the other races. | ||
Magic Powers
Austria2661 Posts
On July 28 2021 03:39 krooked wrote: 1. No, it isn't relevant. It doesn't matter whether or not Terran was more or less difficult during a different meta. Yes, it is relevant. You're trying to handwave away arguments that don't support your case, you're trying to conveniently shape the argument in ways to support your position only and not anyone else's. That is dishonest. Its amazing how obtuse you manage to be. I've several times stated that yes, mech is easier. We both know its completely viable. But when I talk about difficulty in TvZ, as an argument for OVERALL difficulty of playing the Terran race, I bring up BIO PLAY. The overall difficulty at lower levels is not affected by m&m builds, because goliath play is viable. So you have an alternative that works perfectly well and is easier to execute than m&m builds, and therefore you have no argument in favor of terran being more difficult at lower levels than the other races. I don't care that m&m builds are more difficult than goliath builds. Goliath builds work and are easier at lower levels. Your argument isn't that m&m builds are more difficult, your argument is that terran is more difficult. You're pointing to m&m builds as a means to support that argument, but you're deliberately handwaving away a viable alternative that proves that terran is not more difficult, because if you accepted that alternative your argument would fall apart. If someone were to only play mech TvZ, then their experience of Terrans overall difficulty would definitely be less difficult than someone who plays bio, but Terran would still be overall the most difficult race. I need evidence for that claim. I don't believe you. You don't need to read my mind. Simply read the post where I brought it up. Nope, either you elaborate on your position on 2port wraiths or I'll ignore that argument. There is no ignoring of non standard builds. The argument revolves around what is meta and viable. Only meta at lower levels, as per your argument. At the lower levels the meta is simple: goliath builds are viable and easier to execute. It's on you to substantiate why those builds are also more difficult to play than the zerg builds that are viable at lower levels, because you made this claim without evidence. Sure all terrans could go only goliath in all matchups and just a-move everywhere, and it would be easy af. And yet again, you contradict something you said earlier: Terran would still be overall the most difficult race. It's either "still the most difficult race" or it's "easy af". Pick one. But it would fall apart at higher levels of play. Ah! Shifting the goalpost back to higher levels of play. You're quite clearly not capable of keeping your argument straight. Your arguments don't challenge me and I'm getting bored. Maybe you can peak someone else's interest. | ||
krooked
376 Posts
Yes, it is relevant. You're trying to handwave away arguments that don't support your case, you're trying to conveniently shape the argument in ways to support your position only and not anyone else's. That is dishonest. I've explained it several times already: It isn't relevant, because the discussion isn't "what race has historically been the most difficult", it is "what race is most difficult in the CURRENT META". If the previous meta was literally just attacking with workers, or if it was all one base, or all 4x expands before making a single unit - it just doesn't matter! The overall difficulty at lower levels is not affected by m&m builds, because goliath play is viable. So you have an alternative that works perfectly well and is easier to execute than m&m builds, and therefore you have no argument in favor of terran being more difficult at lower levels than the other races. I don't care that m&m builds are more difficult than goliath builds. Goliath builds work and are easier at lower levels. Your argument isn't that m&m builds are more difficult, your argument is that terran is more difficult. You're pointing to m&m builds as a means to support that argument, but you're deliberately handwaving away a viable alternative that proves that terran is not more difficult, because if you accepted that alternative your argument would fall apart. As previously stated, mech/goliath build isn't what is being discussed here. If we were talking about TvZ at lower levels, specifically using mech builds, then that is another topic of discussion. We are talking about bio builds. Its like me saying "well Zerg isn't really difficult, because you could simply opt to only play lurkers, and thus its easy!". I need evidence for that claim. I don't believe you. I've presented plenty earlier in the thread. You decided to home in on only TvZ argument, in fact you home in on only the possibility of playing mech instead. Consider that for a second. Nope, either you elaborate on your position on 2port wraiths or I'll ignore that argument. Then ignore it, I don't care. Its your loss. Only meta at lower levels, as per your argument. At the lower levels the meta is simple: goliath builds are viable and easier to execute. It's on you to substantiate why those builds are also more difficult to play than the zerg builds that are viable at lower levels, because you made this claim without evidence. If we consider meta, zerg has more playstyles than Terran, and those playstyles are easier to execute at lower level than SK terran is. Simple. And yet again, you contradict something you said earlier: Yes, easier overall, not in TvZ. God you're slow. Ah! Shifting the goalpost back to higher levels of play. You're quite clearly not capable of keeping your argument straight. No, the argument is perfectly straight. People at lower level follow the meta at higher level because they want to learn to play the strongest style of play, not whatever nets them the easiest strategic wins, such as just spamming strange all ins. Is that so difficult to understand? I'm glad you're getting bored, so you won't waste thread space on your non-argument bickering. | ||
Bonyth
Poland499 Posts
As for controling m&m, it could be harder to control them than controling mutalisks. But on the other side, sending a pair of dropships with d-matrix or without takes much less effort than it takes zerg to deny that. Same goes for battlecruiser usage. But since u seem to limit your theory only to m&m vs zerg, yeah, you are right, terran is probably harder. But there is more to SK build that u mention than just m&m control. Then again, i play protoss, so i could be wrong. | ||
Magic Powers
Austria2661 Posts
On July 28 2021 06:09 krooked wrote: God you're slow. Ah yes, the best way to prove that you're right: resort to ad hominem. I don't "not understand" your point because I'm slow. I don't understand it because your argument is bad. | ||
krooked
376 Posts
Ad hominem is saying you're wrong because of something about you as a person. Saying you're stupid isn't an ad hominem. Saying you are wrong because you are stupid - that would be an ad hominem. Bonyth: I haven't limited my theory to that at all, the discussion revolved around that because those answering my original post decided to focus on those points specifically. I brought up a lot of other points too. I'm not trying to "accomplish" anything, simply stating my opinion on the topic of the thread - whether or not terran is harder to play than P or Z, which I believe it pretty obviously is - again, at "lower" levels. | ||
Magic Powers
Austria2661 Posts
On July 28 2021 07:32 krooked wrote: Magic Powers: Ad hominem is saying you're wrong because of something about you as a person. Saying you're stupid isn't an ad hominem. Saying you are wrong because you are stupid - that would be an ad hominem. Bonyth: I haven't limited my theory to that at all, the discussion revolved around that because those answering my original post decided to focus on those points specifically. I brought up a lot of other points too. I'm not trying to "accomplish" anything, simply stating my opinion on the topic of the thread - whether or not terran is harder to play than P or Z, which I believe it pretty obviously is - again, at "lower" levels. Still an ad hominem the way you used it. Furthermore, you're arguing that standard m&m builds must be practiced in order to climb up the ranks. The same is true for zerg: they have to practice muta micro, and also defiler usage. You're focusing on terran because you have a bias, not because it's honest to say that terran has a harder time. | ||
QOGQOG
817 Posts
| ||
krooked
376 Posts
1. No, it isn't an ad hominem the way I used it. I simply insulted you. An ad hominem is saying your argument is flawed or wrong because you are stupid. Don't use words you do not understand. 2. No, I never said standard m&m "must be practiced to climb up the ranks". I said people play those builds because they are the theoretically strongest. If I focused on whatever is used to climb ranks, I would focus on each races respective cheese builds. Guess which race has the best and most viable cheese builds, just as an aside? Its not terran. 3. You keep focusing on whether I have a bias or not. It simply isn't relevant. Lets say I am the most biased person in the history of the universe - that doesn't mean I am wrong. Nor does being unbiased mean anyone is right. It isn't relevant. | ||
krooked
376 Posts
On July 28 2021 08:26 QOGQOG wrote: krooked, I get that you will likely never be convinced on this point by anything anyone says. But if you exclude all arguments from the discussion that even might challenge your own position, you're just wasting everyone's time. Most of all your own, since such a clearly biased set of "allowed" argumentation won't be persuasive to anyone who doesn't already agree with you. What is this even supposed to mean? I haven't excluded any argument. I've centered my own argument around SK Terran in TvZ, and Magic Powers insist on shoe horning my argument to be about mech in TvZ. You, just as Magic Powers, is so pent up about my "bias", instead of actually refuting the points I am making. You do two things: 1) accuse me of being biased, and 2) harp on about the fact that Z or P has challenges of their own. | ||
Magic Powers
Austria2661 Posts
On July 28 2021 09:00 krooked wrote: 2. No, I never said standard m&m "must be practiced to climb up the ranks". I said people play those builds because they are the theoretically strongest. If I focused on whatever is used to climb ranks, I would focus on each races respective cheese builds. Guess which race has the best and most viable cheese builds, just as an aside? Its not terran. If the purpose of practicing standard m&m isn't to climb up the ranks, then why did you say this: No, the argument is perfectly straight. People at lower level follow the meta at higher level because they want to learn to play the strongest style of play, not whatever nets them the easiest strategic wins, such as just spamming strange all ins. Why would people want to "learn the strongest style of play" as you call it, if not to climb up the ranks? Terrans at lower levels are just looking to improve their skills with m&ms, but without the immediate goal of improving their winrates? Meanwhile lower level zerg players are somehow different? They don't "learn the strongest style of play"? Only lower level terran players do that? Why are the lower level zerg players not following the same philosophy as the lower level terran players? It's obvious why: because you're wrong. Neither the terran players nor the zerg players are doing what you're claiming they're doing. They're all putting roughly equal effort to win more games. The ones who succeed are the ones who practice the best strats and mechanics. That means terran players practice m&m and zerg players practice muta micro. With enough practice those players eventually set themselves apart from the rest of the field. Everyone who doesn't do that remains stuck at the lower levels, regardless of race. You claim that the terran players have to practice m&m in order to... (what ... NOT get better??), but zerg players don't have to practice muta micro in order to... (get... even better than they already are?) Your argument is all over the place. Your bias towards terran is obvious. | ||
kidcrash
United States616 Posts
On July 28 2021 09:00 krooked wrote: Magic Powers: 1. No, it isn't an ad hominem the way I used it. I simply insulted you. An ad hominem is saying your argument is flawed or wrong because you are stupid. Don't use words you do not understand. 2. No, I never said standard m&m "must be practiced to climb up the ranks". I said people play those builds because they are the theoretically strongest. If I focused on whatever is used to climb ranks, I would focus on each races respective cheese builds. Guess which race has the best and most viable cheese builds, just as an aside? Its not terran. 3. You keep focusing on whether I have a bias or not. It simply isn't relevant. Lets say I am the most biased person in the history of the universe - that doesn't mean I am wrong. Nor does being unbiased mean anyone is right. It isn't relevant. Quick question, why do you think protoss has the worst tournament results in OSL, MSL, ASL, KCM and currently in top 100 ladder? Is it because they are easier to play? | ||
krooked
376 Posts
2. Yes, Zerg players that want to mimic "standard" play at the highest level will play with mutas and defilers, which is harder than not playing with those champions. You claim that the terran players have to practice m&m in order to... (what ... NOT get better??), but zerg players don't have to practice muta micro in order to... (get... even better than they already are?) No, this isn't my claim and never has been. You cannot find it anywhere, except for making it up yourself. My claim is plainly that playing Terran is harder than playing Zerg, including bio vs Z. Zerg players can play a host of viable, played at top level styles that does not require high level of muta micro or defiler micro and still easily outperform similarly skilled MM players, simply because to be minimally effective as SK Terran requires more skill than to be minimally effective with mutas or defilers. Your bias towards terran is obvious. Yet wholly irrelevant. I wonder when you'll let this go? They're all putting roughly equal effort to win more games. So if I understand you correctly, by this you mean that all races are somehow perfectly equal in terms of difficulty? Or what exactly do you mean? Different players put in different levels of effort. Terran takes more effort to perform at the same level of play than for example Protoss. If you are so sure that isn't the case, lets hear your case for why that is so. Quick question, why do you think protoss has the worst tournament results in OSL, MSL, ASL, KCM and currently in top 100 ladder? Is it because they are easier to play? At the highest level, the mechanics and game understanding is at such a level that the requirements to play Terran effectively doesn't hinder the Terran performance, like it does at lower levels. Lets put it like this: Imagine three racecars, where all are equally powerful, but one has aggressive steering, zero traction control etc., while the other one has some amount of that, and the last one has a huge amount of traction control, ABS etc., to the point of hampering performance. For beginners, the most aided car will be quickest, because they lack skill at driving. Once people have put in thousands and thousands of hours, the least aided car is likely the quickest, and the aids might actually inhibit the performers of that car. | ||
kidcrash
United States616 Posts
On July 28 2021 10:11 krooked wrote: 1. I literally, in the text you quoted, explained what I meant. 2. Yes, Zerg players that want to mimic "standard" play at the highest level will play with mutas and defilers, which is harder than not playing with those champions. No, this isn't my claim and never has been. You cannot find it anywhere, except for making it up yourself. My claim is plainly that playing Terran is harder than playing Zerg, including bio vs Z. Zerg players can play a host of viable, played at top level styles that does not require high level of muta micro or defiler micro and still easily outperform similarly skilled MM players, simply because to be minimally effective as SK Terran requires more skill than to be minimally effective with mutas or defilers. Yet wholly irrelevant. I wonder when you'll let this go? So if I understand you correctly, by this you mean that all races are somehow perfectly equal in terms of difficulty? Or what exactly do you mean? Different players put in different levels of effort. Terran takes more effort to perform at the same level of play than for example Protoss. If you are so sure that isn't the case, lets hear your case for why that is so. At the highest level, the mechanics and game understanding is at such a level that the requirements to play Terran effectively doesn't hinder the Terran performance, like it does at lower levels. Lets put it like this: Imagine three racecars, where all are equally powerful, but one has aggressive steering, zero traction control etc., while the other one has some amount of that, and the last one has a huge amount of traction control, ABS etc., to the point of hampering performance. For beginners, the most aided car will be quickest, because they lack skill at driving. Once people have put in thousands and thousands of hours, the least aided car is likely the quickest, and the aids might actually inhibit the performers of that car. So why do we even care about balance at any level besides the very top? Shouldnt the highest level be the gold standard for all balance discussion? Yeah TvP and TvZ might be difficult for Artosis at his level. Should I really value his opinion any more than Light, Rush, Mini etc? | ||
Magic Powers
Austria2661 Posts
On July 28 2021 10:11 krooked wrote: 1. I literally, in the text you quoted, explained what I meant. 2. Yes, Zerg players that want to mimic "standard" play at the highest level will play with mutas and defilers, which is harder than not playing with those champions. No, this isn't my claim and never has been. You cannot find it anywhere, except for making it up yourself. My claim is plainly that playing Terran is harder than playing Zerg, including bio vs Z. Zerg players can play a host of viable, played at top level styles that does not require high level of muta micro or defiler micro and still easily outperform similarly skilled MM players, simply because to be minimally effective as SK Terran requires more skill than to be minimally effective with mutas or defilers. Your argument was that terran is more difficult overall than zerg, which I disputed. You use bio as the metric, even though goliath builds exist. And I don't care how many more times you reject that alternative. It's a real and viable build, it's especially viable at lower ranks, and so it adds to the overall evaluation. I point this out especially since you keep referring to zerg having viable options other than muta micro, therefore out of fairness to the zerg players I will keep referring to goliath builds. I won't drop that argument just because it's not convenient for your case. You shift the argument towards terrans wanting to get better playing m&m builds, but in the same breath you reject the argument that zergs likewise would want to get better using muta micro. As long as I'm involved in this discussion I will point out your double standard until you acknowledge it or you drop that particular argument, since it's only valid if considered equally from both the terran and zerg perspective. You claim that zerg players "easily outperform similarly skilled m&m players" without high level muta micro or defiler micro. But that is an unsubstantiated assertion that I choose to reject. I want to see evidence for that claim, because it doesn't match my own experience and understanding. They're all putting roughly equal effort to win more games. So if I understand you correctly, by this you mean that all races are somehow perfectly equal in terms of difficulty? Or what exactly do you mean? Different players put in different levels of effort. Terran takes more effort to perform at the same level of play than for example Protoss. If you are so sure that isn't the case, lets hear your case for why that is so. I wouldn't know which race is "the most difficult". I believe protoss requires less effort against terran specifically at the lower ranks (I don't know precise numbers though. For that I'd require access to a detailed breakdown of the ladder statistics for ranks, races, matchups, populations, etc. and ways of eliminating various selection biases). This is pretty much agreed on by the majority of experienced players, including those at the top. Protoss is often considered the "easy to learn, hard to master" race (at least when facing terran). What I do know is that the difficulty for each race quickly converges as they approach the middle and upper ranks. I don't know what you mean by "level of play". Do you mean rank? If so, then terran only takes more effort at the lower ranks and only against protoss. At the middle and upper ranks though, TvP difficulty mostly if not fully converges for both races. I've played this matchup a lot from both perspectives and I can't tell a meaningful difference in the difficulty-to-results ratio after escaping the lower ranks. TvZ has a very similar difficulty for both races at every rank. | ||
krooked
376 Posts
So why do we even care about balance at any level besides the very top? Shouldnt the highest level be the gold standard for all balance discussion? Yeah TvP and TvZ might be difficult for Artosis at his level. Should I really value his opinion any more than Light, Rush, Mini etc? Well, it isn't a question of balance per se - it is a question of difficulty. As we approach perfect play, maybe Zerg is "easier" i.e more effective, or maybe its Terran, or maybe its Protoss - who knows. Since the vast amount of players are way, way, way below that skill level, when talking of difficulty we are talking about more normally skilled players, lets say F to A rank for instance. Lets just say that three completely new players start playing the game, and they go to a sort of starcraft school, where they are taking "macro 101", "builds 101", "micro 101", etc. Lets assume each player has identical genetics and all the teachers are equally good etc., so they develop as players at the exact same speed. After 1 year of this, they would all be equally rated on these "objective" RTS metrics, such as macro and micro etc, plus they have x amount of knowledge about race specific stuff. My postulate is this: The Zerg and Protoss player would heavily outperform the Terran player, simply because the skill required to be effective with Terran is higher than the skill required to be effective at a similar level with Zerg and Protoss. The reasons of which I (and others, including kogeT) has summed up earlier in the thread. Magic Powers: 1. You make a mistake when you say that I "reject the argument that zergs likewise would want to get better using muta micro" - thats completely fair, and I agree - the meta is to use muta and defilers, and so when considering only bio, we can also limit ourselves to consider only muta and defiler "standard" play. As already mentioned, it is a higher skill floor on using bio effectively than mutas and defilers, simply because 1) MM is essentially your entire army 2) you must have several control groups of them 3) the difficulty of using them must be seen in context with general difficulty of playing terran, which already puts a strain on APM 4) They are extremely brittle, must cast spells to be effective etc. Defilers can, with a single click of a button, make or break a game. At lower levels, to use defilers effectively isn't really necessary to win even when going muta/ling/defiler in the same way bio play is necessary in SK Terran. And even if we were to say it was, it still isn't as difficult (again, at lower levels of play). When speaking of "lower levels of play", since I can already imagine you typing something about "changing the goalposts": When talking about "difficulty", it should be obvious that we are not talking about the highest levels of play - those players have thousands upon tens of thousands of games under their belt, and we know that Terran has performed well in tournaments - there are no reasons to believe Terran players are just inherently more talented than others, and so it should be very obvious that when talking about difficulty, we are talking about lower levels of play. + Show Spoiler + You claim that zerg players "easily outperform similarly skilled m&m players" without high level muta micro or defiler micro. But that is an unsubstantiated assertion that I choose to reject. I want to see evidence for that claim, because it doesn't match my own experience and understanding. There is no proving this. I can't prove that playing marine/medic vs reaver/ht builds is harder than 7pooling every game either. If you choose to reject it, be my guest. What I do know is that the difficulty for each race quickly converges as they approach the middle and upper ranks. At least we can agree on one thing TvZ has a very similar difficulty for both races at every rank. Equally as unsubstantiated as my claim. | ||
Magic Powers
Austria2661 Posts
On July 28 2021 12:14 krooked wrote:As already mentioned, it is a higher skill floor on using bio effectively than mutas and defilers, simply because 1) MM is essentially your entire army 2) you must have several control groups of them 3) the difficulty of using them must be seen in context with general difficulty of playing terran, which already puts a strain on APM 4) They are extremely brittle, must cast spells to be effective etc. I don't get this part. m&m is two separate units, so is muta&ling. Add science vessels and tanks to terran, well zerg adds lurkers and scourges. They both keep adding new units to their arsenal; and using those units in combat, or preparing them for combat, isn't any easier on the zerg side. If you think it is, I dare you to practice ZvT as much as TvZ and compare the difference. I've tried, and it has frustrated me how insanely difficult to control the common ZvT unit compositions are, despite weeks of practice, and how quickly a zerg force can fall apart after just one or two small mistakes. There's so much nuance that goes into ZvT micro that I can't put to words. And that's just the battle itself. Then there's the positional maneuvering that zerg almost constantly has to do on the map, because otherwise terran can figure out exactly when, where and how to strike, while zerg doesn't. Zerg basically has to dance all over the place and dive in and out many times without taking too much damage, and all that is just pre-fight. I say that you're strongly underestimating how hard zerg is against terran. TvZ has a very similar difficulty for both races at every rank. Equally as unsubstantiated as my claim. My claim is far more substantiated, because terran shows a small winrate advantage over zerg (although not so big that it would indicate a huge difference in difficulty). If there is a meaningful difference in the difficulty, the suspicion would have to be that it's zerg who actually has to work harder, not terran. When looking at the winrate alone, that's the first thing that would come to my mind. It's very clear that your case is based a lot more on opinion than fact. | ||
QOGQOG
817 Posts
On July 28 2021 09:01 krooked wrote: What is this even supposed to mean? I haven't excluded any argument. I've centered my own argument around SK Terran in TvZ, and Magic Powers insist on shoe horning my argument to be about mech in TvZ. You, just as Magic Powers, is so pent up about my "bias", instead of actually refuting the points I am making. You do two things: 1) accuse me of being biased, and 2) harp on about the fact that Z or P has challenges of their own. For someone who calls people "slow" for not understanding simple points, you sure seem to have trouble understanding simple points. If you are trying, as you are, to argue that Terran is the hardest race to play, then "centering" your argument around a single style for a single matchup makes no sense whatsoever. I don't have much hope of getting through to you, but I'll give it one last try. Consider the these two statements: 1. Terran is hard. 2. Terran is harder than Zerg and Protoss. These aren't the same statement. But whether you intend to or not, you seem to be treating them as such. You list things that are hard about Terran (point one) and then act as though you've shown that Terran is the most difficult race (point two). But point one is an absolute statement, one where the veracity wouldn't change even if there weren't any other races in the game. Whereas point two is relative: whether or not Terran is difficult is mostly irrelevant to the question of whether it's harder than other races, what matters is its difficulty in comparison to the difficulty of Zerg and Protoss. When you act baffled about why people are bringing up P and Z it's because they're trying to actually discuss point two (by pointing out challenges that are as bad or worse for Z or P, in order to compare with T) and you seemingly want to argue about point one. Which no one is disagreeing with you about. On the rare occasions you do mention difficulties for other races it's in the context of saying how whatever it is is actually harder for Terran or dismissing whatever it is as irrelevant (which has led to some pretty ridiculous statements, like that Protoss can't be cheesed and doesn't need to scout in PvT). Which is why people keep talking about your bias, myself included. You're ignoring any real discussion of point two to keep arguing point one. So the entire conversation goes nowhere because you're having a different argument than everyone else. I've explained this twice already, and I don't think there's a simpler way to put it. Feel free to just ignore it like the last two, but even if you continue to disagree I hope this will prompt some small understanding of where the people you're disagreeing with are coming from. | ||
krooked
376 Posts
I don't get this part. m&m is two separate units, so is muta&ling. Add science vessels and tanks to terran, well zerg adds lurkers and scourges. They both keep adding new units to their arsenal; and using those units in combat, or preparing them for combat, isn't any easier on the zerg side. If you think it is, I dare you to practice ZvT as much as TvZ and compare the difference. I've tried, and it has frustrated me how insanely difficult to control the common ZvT unit compositions are, despite weeks of practice, and how quickly a zerg force can fall apart after just one or two small mistakes. There's so much nuance that goes into ZvT micro that I can't put to words. And that's just the battle itself. Then there's the positional maneuvering that zerg almost constantly has to do on the map, because otherwise terran can figure out exactly when, where and how to strike, while zerg doesn't. Zerg basically has to dance all over the place and dive in and out many times without taking too much damage, and all that is just pre-fight. I say that you're strongly underestimating how hard zerg is against terran. Again, we could always bring up stuff that are hard from all races ad infinitum. I think it is easier for Zerg to play the matchup than it is for terran for several reasons. Micro is only one part of the equation. + Show Spoiler + When looking at the winrate alone, that's the first thing that would come to my mind. It's very clear that your case is based a lot more on opinion than fact. Winrates doesn't say anything about how difficult it is to play a race. If Terran is more difficult, that would simply mean that, lets say just for example, a B terran player in "objective skill", would have an actual rank of C instead - because his skill doesn't translate into wins because of the difficulty of playing Terran. Meanwhile, lets say, Protoss would be so easy that a B rank Protoss is actually a C ranked player in "objective skill". If you are trying, as you are, to argue that Terran is the hardest race to play, then "centering" your argument around a single style for a single matchup makes no sense whatsoever. I get it, its too hard to actually read the discussion and figure out what is going on. So let me help you: I never centered my argument around this, this is only one part of my argument which Magic Powers and others wanted to discuss further. + Show Spoiler + These aren't the same statement. But whether you intend to or not, you seem to be treating them as such. You list things that are hard about Terran (point one) and then act as though you've shown that Terran is the most difficult race (point two). No, I don't claim to have proven anything. I am stating the difficulties that make Terran more difficult. Why they are more difficult, I cannot prove. You can say "Its easier to play mech than to play bio, because x, y and z", and I can say "no, bio is actually harder because a, b and c". Nobody has proven anything, but one is right and one is wrong. I've gone to great lengths comparing the difficulties of each race. I'm not sure if you've bothered reading my posts? + Show Spoiler + (which has led to some pretty ridiculous statements, like that Protoss can't be cheesed and doesn't need to scout in PvT) Typical straw man argument. I've never said that. Cheeses and all ins are more viable and stronger from P than from T, which is why you will see way more cheesy all ins from P than T generally. I mean feel free to insist that Terran actually has way more cheeses and that they are stronger and seen more often etc. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, then (i.e., you're wrong). + Show Spoiler + Which is why people keep talking about your bias, myself included. You're ignoring any real discussion of point two to keep arguing point one. So the entire conversation goes nowhere because you're having a different argument than everyone else. No, this is a result of you and magic insisting on harping on about the TvZ point. I've made several others, and my argument doesn't hinge on SK Terran specifically at all. + Show Spoiler + I've explained this twice already, and I don't think there's a simpler way to put it. Feel free to just ignore it like the last two, but even if you continue to disagree I hope this will prompt some small understanding of where the people you're disagreeing with are coming from. What am I ignoring? I keep answering line by line, addressing every claim. You know what you and magic are ignoring? Almost every argument except for one; whether or not mech should be included in the discussion or not. | ||
QOGQOG
817 Posts
On July 28 2021 14:23 krooked wrote: + Show Spoiler + (which has led to some pretty ridiculous statements, like that Protoss can't be cheesed and doesn't need to scout in PvT) Typical straw man argument. I've never said that. Cheeses and all ins are more viable and stronger from P than from T, which is why you will see way more cheesy all ins from P than T generally. I mean feel free to insist that Terran actually has way more cheeses and that they are stronger and seen more often etc. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, then (i.e., you're wrong). From "boohoo strawman" to making bizarre claims about me thinking T has stronger cheese than P in just one paragraph, even though the actual quote from me says nothing of the sort. Nice. Also, this is how you describe PvT: On July 27 2021 23:07 krooked wrote: TvP: Scouting: - Terran must scout for proxy 2gate (and other proxies such as reaver etc), identify whether an expand is coming up or not - or they autolose to DTs, fast Zealots etc. - Terran must look for timing of bases, number of gates, tech choice / playstyle What does Protoss need to do ? Countering even the strongest all in (2fact) can be done with pure kiting micro, no need for any specific response in terms of build. If, however, P goes DTs or fast reaver, Terran MUST get ebay + turrets or it is simply over. There is no way to counter it once it has been made obvious, as is the case with any Terran cheese. If you're not going to remember what I've said, at least remember what you said. Maybe look up proxy factories and vulture drops while you're at it. On July 28 2021 14:23 krooked wrote: + Show Spoiler + Which is why people keep talking about your bias, myself included. You're ignoring any real discussion of point two to keep arguing point one. So the entire conversation goes nowhere because you're having a different argument than everyone else. No, this is a result of you and magic insisting on harping on about the TvZ point. I've made several others, and my argument doesn't hinge on SK Terran specifically at all. My one real comment on TvZ was that you seemed weirdly fixated on it. You seem weirdly fixated on it. Magic was arguing that the fact you don't need to go SK Terran makes the difficulty of doing so less relevant to discussions of the trials and tribulations of TvZ. I think that's reasonable, but it's not in any way the point of my post. On July 28 2021 14:23 krooked wrote: + Show Spoiler + I've explained this twice already, and I don't think there's a simpler way to put it. Feel free to just ignore it like the last two, but even if you continue to disagree I hope this will prompt some small understanding of where the people you're disagreeing with are coming from. What am I ignoring? I keep answering line by line, addressing every claim. You know what you and magic are ignoring? Almost every argument except for one; whether or not mech should be included in the discussion or not. Dude, you literally cut out the core of my argument and then went "what an I ignoring?" Clearly I should never have mentioned TvZ even in passing. Ignore that paragraph. Read the rest of what I actually wrote rather than picking a couple sentences out of context and then making up a position to argue against based on those sentences. | ||
krooked
376 Posts
From "boohoo strawman" to making bizarre claims about me thinking T has stronger cheese than P in just one paragraph, even though the actual quote from me says nothing of the sort. Nice. Also, this is how you describe PvT: That is literally, and obviously, what you are implying. So its not a straw man, which your argument was. Again, I never said that and the quote you provided literally proved it. My one real comment on TvZ was that you seemed weirdly fixated on it. You seem weirdly fixated on it. Magic was arguing that the fact you don't need to go SK Terran makes the difficulty of doing so less relevant to discussions of the trials and tribulations of TvZ. I think that's reasonable, but it's not in any way the point of my post. How am I fixated on it? I am replying to people discussing it further. I've made no cherry picking of sentences, I've addressed your claims straight up. | ||
TMNT
1833 Posts
I am stating the difficulties that make Terran more difficult. Why they are more difficult, I cannot prove. Lol. Krooked, are you a joke or something. Is this a real sentence? It's like me saying "I am smarter than you. Why am I smarter, I cannot prove". But somehow I'm right and you're wrong. Also, you literally said this 2 pages before: + Show Spoiler + Any build that requires P or Z to scout what T is doing is completely outside of the meta This is just an example of your many false information to disregard the difficulties of P and Z, and now you're pretending you never said them? I mean, on which universe does P or Z not need to scout what T is doing lol. So as a Protoss you are freely to do whatever you want? Great, maybe I'm going Carrier off 2 Gates while double expanding. It's probably fine, because I can micro my Dragoon to fend off the threat of 5 Fact. | ||
Bonyth
Poland499 Posts
| ||
Cele
Germany4012 Posts
On July 28 2021 18:24 TMNT wrote: Lol. Krooked, are you a joke or something. Is this a real sentence? It's like me saying "I am smarter than you. Why am I smarter, I cannot prove". But somehow I'm right and you're wrong. Also, you literally said this 2 pages before: + Show Spoiler + Any build that requires P or Z to scout what T is doing is completely outside of the meta This is just an example of your many false information to disregard the difficulties of P and Z, and now you're pretending you never said them? I mean, on which universe does P or Z not need to scout what T is doing lol. So as a Protoss you are freely to do whatever you want? Great, maybe I'm going Carrier off 2 Gates while double expanding. It's probably fine, because I can micro my Dragoon to fend off the threat of 5 Fact. Im smarter, stronger, sexier than all of you, as i elaborated in a lengthy discussion of myself. How that compares to you people, i cannot prove! I know it to be true regardless, because i'm really so smart that an actual fair comparison is not needed. Awesome logic i agree. This thread is a pearl in TL's history and needa to be archived for our children. | ||
Cele
Germany4012 Posts
On July 29 2021 00:04 Bonyth wrote: Saw that on your stream, great explanation imo (: | ||
Magic Powers
Austria2661 Posts
On July 28 2021 14:23 krooked wrote: + Show Spoiler + When looking at the winrate alone, that's the first thing that would come to my mind. It's very clear that your case is based a lot more on opinion than fact. Winrates doesn't say anything about how difficult it is to play a race. If Terran is more difficult, that would simply mean that, lets say just for example, a B terran player in "objective skill", would have an actual rank of C instead - because his skill doesn't translate into wins because of the difficulty of playing Terran. Meanwhile, lets say, Protoss would be so easy that a B rank Protoss is actually a C ranked player in "objective skill". This might be the most absurd argument I've read from you so far. If I see that terrans are overperforming against zerg (and we're assuming that I have no information outside of that), and someone asked me to point to the race that is likely more difficult to play as a consequence of my observation, then I'd point to zerg first, not terran. You'd pick terran first. That makes absolutely no logical sense. | ||
Timebon3s
538 Posts
| ||
Magic Powers
Austria2661 Posts
On July 29 2021 00:42 Timebon3s wrote: You understand what he means though, and it's not THAT wrong. I don't live in his head, so no. I don't know what he means. If the assumption is that we only know the winrate of each race, then the suspicion that the worse performing race is actually easier to play is not as reasonable (not necessarily wrong, just not as reasonable) as the suspicion that that the better performing race is easier to play. This is obvious because it makes no sense - unless we know otherwise - to assume that people would have better results with the harder race. | ||
Timebon3s
538 Posts
| ||
Magic Powers
Austria2661 Posts
On July 29 2021 02:40 Timebon3s wrote: He means that C rank with Terran is B rank with Protoss, because P is easier to play than T. That's not what he said. He said this (in response to me saying that the winrates would not indicate terran being more difficult than protoss): If Terran is more difficult, that would simply mean that, lets say just for example, a B terran player in "objective skill", would have an actual rank of C instead - because his skill doesn't translate into wins because of the difficulty of playing Terran. Meanwhile, lets say, Protoss would be so easy that a B rank Protoss is actually a C ranked player in "objective skill". His argument was in response to me saying that terran is showing a winrate advantage over protoss. He tries to explain this in the following way: Assumption: Terran is actually more difficult than protoss. Conclusion: Terrans with B level skill (as per the protoss perspective I'd assume) would end up at rank C. I won't explain why this conclusion is impossible to draw from the assumption, that would be an unnecessary tangent. The real problem with his reasoning is that he assumes terran to be more difficult, and he reasons this by saying that terrans of a certain skill end up at a (lower) rank that they don't deserve according to their skill. But that ignores the observation: terrans are showing a winrate advantage. This contradicts his argument where he says that terran players would end up at (lower) undeserving ranks. This fact throws a curveball into his reasoning, because reality shows that terran players are quite clearly not ending up at (lower) undeserving ranks. If anything, they'd end up at higher ranks (as shown by the winrate advantage). | ||
Magic Powers
Austria2661 Posts
So now I've failed to keep the argument straight, too. This is getting out of hand, I think I'll just leave it for real before the discussion devolves even further. | ||
404AlphaSquad
838 Posts
For example, for terrans it is challenging to consistantly macro marine/medic. Zerg are challenged by muta micro. Protoss players are challenged spelling their names correctly or tying their shoes. + Show Spoiler + take a joke | ||
LUCKY_NOOB
Bulgaria1265 Posts
Objectively however Tesagi was the term that came out first. I wonder why... That being said Splash would probably be the best with any race. Just a ^_._^ | ||
iNstiN
16 Posts
Bitching and complaining about stuff and not working hard enough to get good. It's not just starcraft it's in general also. The foreigners that were good and dominated the foreign scene was rarely the protoss players, and the ones that says protoss is a 1a2a3a race has no understanding about the game at all. Learn how to play the game instead of bitching. If someones gonna tell me "oh protoss is easier in lower elo" That's because in lower elo people don't know how to play and pretty much any strategy works vs newbs so stop fooling urself | ||
Timebon3s
538 Posts
Then you go on to say this didn’t happen in the past, to argue that it actually did happen and that’s why foreigners never beat Koreans GG no re | ||
iNstiN
16 Posts
On August 26 2021 19:10 Timebon3s wrote: Well you made a new account to necro a balance thread. That speaks for itself. Then you go on to say this didn’t happen in the past, to argue that it actually did happen and that’s why foreigners never beat Koreans GG no re New account? Bro my account is way older than yours it's just that i rarely used tl.net to post mostly to lurk so get ur facts straight first before you reply to someone. No before people actually competed against koreans and worked super hard and did decent vs them compared to now. I don't think you were here way back when iccup/pgtour/wgtour was active and if you were u should know. People didn't bitch as much as they do now and i think it's because back then streaming wasn't as big so the only forum to do it on was tl.net or gg.net but here we had mostly beef matches and tournaments and other dumb shit going on. "gg no re" lmfao literally | ||
Timebon3s
538 Posts
| ||
ExpatRights
53 Posts
just check the stats, heh. | ||
dUTtrOACh
Canada2339 Posts
| ||
superovermind
4 Posts
| ||
krooked
376 Posts
On September 19 2021 18:30 superovermind wrote: Terran players always whine as if they don't have the easiest match-ups. TvZ is the easiest match-up in the entire game, TvT is the easiest same race match-up. So the only hard match-up they have is TvP where they complain because... Protoss can take the map and have to send in several armies to manage to destroy the Terran. Try playing Zerg and Protoss and experience the hardest match-ups.. As Protoss you can't properly scout Zerg, Terran has scans which are cheap and there's no counter to that. He just scans your base and builds the counter to what you're doing. It's like playing against someone that has map hack the entire game Is this satire? | ||
whaski
Finland575 Posts
On September 19 2021 18:30 superovermind wrote: Terran players always whine as if they don't have the easiest match-ups. TvZ is the easiest match-up in the entire game, TvT is the easiest same race match-up. So the only hard match-up they have is TvP where they complain because... Protoss can take the map and have to send in several armies to manage to destroy the Terran. Try playing Zerg and Protoss and experience the hardest match-ups.. As Protoss you can't properly scout Zerg, Terran has scans which are cheap and there's no counter to that. He just scans your base and builds the counter to what you're doing. It's like playing against someone that has map hack the entire game Lol you are the overhivemind. | ||
bovienchien
Vietnam1142 Posts
On July 26 2021 17:12 krooked wrote: 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. You are completely right. Only change T to Z in your post. Zerg is hardest race to play. That's why Zerg has most silver medals in the history of StarCraft. | ||
krooked
376 Posts
On October 14 2021 16:28 bovienchien wrote: You are completely right. Only change T to Z in your post. Zerg is hardest race to play. That's why Zerg has most silver medals in the history of StarCraft. There is no reason to believe being the winningest race equals or is even correlated with race difficulty. If we apply your logic, Terran is the easiest and Protoss is the hardest. Do you feel that is true? | ||
iNstiN
16 Posts
| ||
bovienchien
Vietnam1142 Posts
On October 14 2021 19:42 krooked wrote: There is no reason to believe being the winningest race equals or is even correlated with race difficulty. If we apply your logic, Terran is the easiest and Protoss is the hardest. Do you feel that is true? Actually, when we compare to race in the StarCraft. We only need to talk about Z and T. P is just a race for newbie, lazy, not hardcore... players. Every race even have their own limit strength. Example: T 30-90, Z 10-100, 50-60. You can see this clearly in ladder. P appears in B-A rank so much. T is usually in D-S rank and Z is absolutely in everywhere F-S rank. Z has widest limit strength. That's why we often see ZvP, ZvT are imbalance too much. Maybe Z is so weak, maybe Z is so strong. My mean really, Z is hardest to reach maximum strong. In the highest level (top 8 of OSL, MSL, ASL, BSL, KSL...) 3 race is easy to play alike. They just are different from strength what I said above. In short, Z is weaker than T and stronger than T too. If both players do right alike, Z will win. If both players do wrong alike, Z will lose. Anyway, I know you are Arto. I love you so much! | ||
Zoler
Sweden6339 Posts
On October 15 2021 02:47 iNstiN wrote: Is this still going on lmfao, cant believe people are so ignorant and with very little knowledge about the game. Guys lets just move on otherwise this will be a never ending thread filled with whiny people lol its pretty obvious protoss is easiest race at this point otherwise people wouldnt keep saying it after 20 years | ||
| ||