|
I am currently a 1800 to 2000 Point Protoss with about 1,000 games played, thinking of Switching to Terran, not because i feel that Terran is OP or Protoss is UP. I come from a Warcraft III background where its not Macro that wins games like Starcraft 1/2, But micro did. I did compete @ the Semi-Semi Pro Level, if that makes sense.
So recently I've felt that the Protoss race emphasises more on Tactics such as
-Dark Templar Harrass
-Using Voidrays and Warping units into a base.
-Voidray into Chargelots forcing him to go marine heavy
Stuff like that and having the Right unit composition. Like Zealot Sentry heavy early game against Zerg.
After watching some of the GSL games, the ones that stood out to me was Bless's first game in the RO64 where he just tore appart the protoss with perfect EMP's and great unit control. Also of course Fake Boxer vs Fruitdealer. Also I've been watching some replays on QXC and his dropship play (totally baller) and how much those tactics emphasise on Micro management. Where as in PvP if anything it is more of a defensive micro, and when i say that i mean. spreading out templars so they don't get emp'd, moving your collosis back so they don't get sniped, basic stuff like that.
Obviously I'm not saying you don't need Micro to play Protoss or Zerg, obviously you do. The races are made differently and obviously certain things will be more needed then others. For Example, not many people think of IdrA as a micro god but more of a macro god (even though micro was one of his strong points in sc1) because being good at Macro has to be one of your best skills to play Zerg.
So the question is.
As a player whos strong point has been and always will be micro, is Terran the best race for that and can you do more with Micro as Terran then any of the other races?
I would appreciate lots of feedback, I have been struggling with this decision for about a month now.
|
IIRC, the dream was:
Zerg: Most macro, least micro
Protoss: Most micro, least macro
Terran: Somewhere in between
|
On October 30 2010 07:46 TheGreatHegemon wrote:
IIRC, the dream was:
Zerg: Most macro, least micro
Protoss: Most micro, least macro
Terran: Somewhere in between
Yeah but that was around the time the game just came out and the meta game has changed a lot since then
|
Actually "macro styles" were based on expansions and lots of units. "micro styles" were based on lots of high tech harass units//low eco stuff in general. It didn't necessarily take better micro to play a "micro style", to play a "macro style" you really needed good control to manage large armies.
Idra was a "macro player" in that he almost never did any low eco//allin/harass/trick play/mind games, but he had good mechanics, which is macro and true "micro" as in good unit control.
|
Ranged units in general are more micro intensive with target firing, spreading out, and stop and shoot. Terran are all ranged units, so I feel that they are definitely going to yield the best results from good micro. That being said, if you can't macro VERY well, micro won't help. Slowly but surely, macro will eclipse micro. That's just starcraft man...
|
I main Terran, and the Terran race has a lot of micro potential. If you spread your bio right, banelings will do very little damage. Drops can destroy opponents, and banshees, reapers and hellions are very micro intensive units. In addition, I feel as if Terran macro is easier, because you can call down 3 or 4 mules at a time if you forget. If you are looking to maximize the damage done from micro, I would pick Terran.
However, the Protoss style of play might fit you better. Learn some Terran strategies, play some matches as Terran to get a feel for them, then make your decision.
|
Well, to start things off vZ you REALLY need good zergling/marine micro not to be absolutely raped by banelings.
Zealots are too slow to be micro'd, stalker blink micro requires a bit of attention to the battle, void rays needs to be charged. FF is essential.
I think it's a pretty dead run so far. Maybe a bit in favor for T since Zealots don't have to worry AS MUCH about banelings.
EDIT: Yea. T flying units are pretty micro heavy compared to P.
Oh and don't forget that Blizzard "added the micro mechanic" to the phoenix xD
|
If you're still struggling with the decision for a whole month, I'd say go for it and switch to Terran.
However, I'm unconvinced that Terran has more opportunities for micromanagement than Protoss. Some of the things you're talking about aren't necessarily exclusive to Terran (like drop play and unit control). EMPs are very similar to storms and forcefields -- correct placement and timing really display the difference between a good player and a great player.
If I were to guess, it sounds like you simply like Terran's style better and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Personally, watching pros micro their marines in this past GSL is making me want to off-race Terran and I'm a die-hard Zerg!
|
I do think that certain Terran units will turn out to be much more effective when people figure out how to micro them well and will open a lot of more Micro focused strategies that might not have parallels in the other two races. Marines and Ghosts become so much more effective when they are stutter-stepped for example.
|
On October 30 2010 07:48 Beef Noodles wrote:
Ranged units in general are more micro intensive with target firing, spreading out, and stop and shoot. Terran are all ranged units, so I feel that they are definitely going to yield the best results from good micro. That being said, if you can't macro VERY well, micro won't help. Slowly but surely, macro will eclipse micro. That's just starcraft man...
Agree 100% with this, because all the terran units are ranged aside from the SCV there is more kiting involved. My macro is good, Not great obviously otherwise i would be pro. I actually beleive that Macro will eventually be perfected or atleast close to it and then Micro will be all the buzz, and some pros have said this before too.
|
I understand your point, but it kinda came across as "I don't want to macro".
The most important aspect (in my opinion) of this game is macro; micro will only get you so far. In the early game micro can be game changing, but as the game drags on micro becomes a little less important in an economy based rts. The focus usually boils down to unit positioning as army size increases.
That being said, this game allows for many micro opportunities between the different races depending on the build you are trying to execute. Spell casters(ht, infestors, ghosts etc..), banelings, mutas, phoenix's, void rays, marines dodging banelings, drops; all require micro and are evenly spread between the races. Just dont be fooled into thinking t, s, right click, s, right click s in a terran ball is actually micro intensive, that can be done with any ranged unit (minus the stim part).
|
On October 30 2010 07:55 JBrown08 wrote:
I understand your point, but it kinda came across as "I don't want to macro".
The most important aspect (in my opinion) of this game is macro; micro will only get you so far. In the early game micro can be game changing, but as the game drags on micro becomes a little less important in an economy based rts. The focus usually boils down to unit positioning as army size increases.
That being said, this game allows for many micro opportunities between the different races depending on the build you are trying to execute. Spell casters(ht, infestors, ghosts etc..), banelings, mutas, phoenix's, void rays, marines dodging banelings, drops; all require micro and are evenly spread between the races. Just dont be fooled into thinking t, s, right click, s, right click s in a terran ball is actually micro intensive, that can be done with any ranged unit (minus the stim part).
Its not about not wanting to Macro, obviously i wouldn't be playing Starcraft 2 if i didn't. Its just smarter to choose a race that will bring out your strength as a RTS player.
|
On October 30 2010 07:52 BetterFasterStronger wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2010 07:48 Beef Noodles wrote:
Ranged units in general are more micro intensive with target firing, spreading out, and stop and shoot. Terran are all ranged units, so I feel that they are definitely going to yield the best results from good micro. That being said, if you can't macro VERY well, micro won't help. Slowly but surely, macro will eclipse micro. That's just starcraft man... Agree 100% with this, because all the terran units are ranged aside from the SCV there is more kiting involved. My macro is good, Not great obviously otherwise i would be pro. I actually beleive that Macro will eventually be perfected or atleast close to it and then Micro will be all the buzz, and some pros have said this before too.
The only thing is, macro cannot be perfected. There are different ways to macro. The Protoss Free in SC1 was considered a macro GOD. If it ever got to the late game, he would always out produce his opponents. Why? Is it because he never missed a cycle on his gateways?
No. It's because he had a different style. At some moment (only free knows) in the middle of the game, Free would STOP all unit production. He would only build more and more gateways and let his gas and some of his minerals build up. Then when the gateways finished, he would bust ahead of all his opponents with a burst of macro.
This technique is VERY hard to 1) pull off and 2) know when to do it. You have to know when you are safe to cut unit production, and you have to know when you will have the economy to produce off of a TON of gateways a couple of minutes in advance.
Free was a baller, and he shows that macro cannot be "perfected"
|
Personally, Terran micro seems a lot more fun than Protoss.
You might as well do some customs as Terran, and see if you like that micro better.
|
I really don't understand when people say Zerg requires the least micro. What's up with that? I find that it's practically the only race that completely breaks down when you 1a2a3a.
|
Zerg is the most micro intesive with baneling, zergling, infestor and muta micro. However it's also the most macro intensive race so unless your good at both it won't be that beneficial to be better at micro.
Banelings require very unit intensive micro, since you have to decide the best times and places to move command attack command, and (against a good terran marine micro) cloning and how many you need to clone for each group. None of these even include baneling drops, which in the mid game can be extremely effective.
Zerglings are the most positioning intensive micro unit it the game. Flanks and surrounds make them enormously more effective. A good zerg player most constantly pay attention to JUST zergling positioning in comparison to enemy army for effective flanks (2 or more control groups unless your apm is so high you can manually split and keep track.)
Infestor is pretty self explanatory (Fungal control), although I think future infested terran play could prove to be even more micro intensive.
Muta micro not only has to clump micro and box micro, but also when to do either is very important. Also the cap is even higher since you often need to do this while macroing (obviously.)
The hardest part about zerg micro is that to be most effective you have to do all of these at the same time. It's way easier to EMP ---> Stop Move with a ball than do all of these things effectively. Zerg has the highest micro skill cap IMO, the highest benefit from correct micro, and this has not even nearly been achieved yet.
|
I think sick marine micro tends to look the most impressive from a spectator standpoint because they move so fast when stimmed and are so fragile so there are obvious visual indications of any mistakes.
For me though, I feel that protoss has the most gain from micro. Optimal forcefield placement and perfect stalker blinking would be so incredibly powerful.
|
I don't think changing races to suit your micro/macro style is a appropriate. As you said, each race has play styles, some macro based, some micro based.
Just the fact that you pointed our protoss tactics shows you could benefit alot from expanding your play style. Since you seem to have a decent elo standing, studying play styles and implying them is a very realistic goal.
|
Not really a micro skill cap. You can only mico against what your opponent does, and you can always do more.
It's also pretty hard to argue Terran has a higer micro skill-cap when Zerg has mutalisks and ling backstabs etc...
What Terran does have is a more difficult positioning aspect. You simply can't engage in open ground at all. You must choke the opponent in almost every battle; like dropping your marines behind the minerals.
|
Late game protoss definitely got the highest micro skill cap. You can basically micro each and every unit in a protoss army and get more and more out of them.
I've never seen a protoss player use their force fields, storms, colossi focus fire, zealots and stalkers etc etc used optimaly.
What I have seen though is Terran players use their armies to perfection.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
