The title basically says it all. Why is Terran seeming to be the dominant contender in the GSL series? Though T hasn't won a finals (not yet anyway), the data is still overwhelmingly in support of this thesis. Compiling results from the first four GSLs, Ro8 and onward, here are the averages we get:
Ro8: 3.8/8 (47.5%) Ro4: 3/4 (75%) Ro2: either 1.2/2 or 1.4/2, so we'll round to 1.3/2 (65%)
Obviously in an ideal world we'd expect each race to have approximately 33% of the total presence in the late games of the GSL. But Terran is doing better than that...much better. And now that the fourth GSL is nearly over, I think the sample size is finally large enough to call it more than a fluke.
That said, I'm not a SC2 pro; I'm not even very good at the game. So rather that present my own half-assed theories of why this statistical anomaly exists, I'm gonna leave it up to you guys to enlighten me. What's the deal yo?
Poll: T is having more success in the GSL because of...
Map imbalance (Maps favor Terran) (642)
42%
Inherent race imbalance (Terran is OP) (430)
28%
Player preference (More players pick T, so more T succeed) (325)
21%
Random chance (It could all equalize with the next season) (69)
5%
Lower skill requirement for Terran (other races will catch up as Z and P players mature) (51)
3%
1517 total votes
Your vote: T is having more success in the GSL because of...
(Vote): Map imbalance (Maps favor Terran) (Vote): Inherent race imbalance (Terran is OP) (Vote): Player preference (More players pick T, so more T succeed) (Vote): Lower skill requirement for Terran (other races will catch up as Z and P players mature) (Vote): Random chance (It could all equalize with the next season)
If you took out the results from maps like Jungle Basin and steppes, Z would be killing. The maps are the primary problem, so just wait and see until next season when Gardens of Aiur and other hilariously Z-favored maps come into play. These things are like shakuras cross position except with a natural in the back, longer distances, and a narrow ramp.
Terran strategies have evolved past others due to the flexibility of units IMHO. They've taken the lead so the other races react rather then dictate ... so terran is ahead because people are better with them at the moment i would say .. not neccesarily because they are OP.
1) Alot of progamers play terran 2) Terran has its strength in the early game, so they will have a higher win rate during the early parts of SC2 as Protoss/Zerg players refine their expansion timings
your stats need to include what % of players overall play each race. it's not like 33% play zerg, 33% protoss, 33% terran. if 90% of all sc2 players play terran, your stats actually show that terran is not successfull at all.
Also maps do favor the type of mobility terran has. Slightly bigger or more open maps would balance things out (warp in, creep and nydus becoming better) as long as you don't go overboard with it.
Right now Terran is not as mobile as the other races imho - but isn't affected since the maps are small.
Map imbalance seems to be a favorite choice so far. An additional question then would be, why isn't protoss receiving the same benefit from maps as terran? Surely maps like Steppes are as easy PvZ as they are TvZ, so why don't we see the same level of P success?
On January 20 2011 19:16 Lipski wrote: your stats need to include what % of players overall play each race. it's not like 33% play zerg, 33% protoss, 33% terran. if 90% of all sc2 players play terran, your stats actually show that terran is not successfull at all.
It would probably be more relevant to get the percentages of each race in Master League, or some similar benchmark. But yea, anyone know where I can find those numbers?
On January 20 2011 19:19 CarlyZerg wrote: Map imbalance seems to be a favorite choice so far. An additional question then would be, why isn't protoss receiving the same benefit from maps as terran? Surely maps like Steppes are as easy PvZ as they are TvZ, so why don't we see the same level of P success?
Smaller maps are more important for T than P because tank sieging (which has become a staple in the matchup) becomes far, far more powerful on shorter attack distances. Basically, you walk your tanks to creep, and then you are forced to turtle forward incredibly slowly. When the zerg player has time to spread creep, you're ending up slowing down your attack longer and longer for every little bit of extra space. The effect is magnified when you're playing the common marine/tank/medivac game. Creep doesn't actually slow down protoss armies.
Where is the option where I say that I think the terran pros are just that much better than the zerg/toss pros in terms of micro/macro/decision making/strategic analysis.
Mostly due to player preference, though I wont deny maps have some impact too, that said many games can be won (or extreme damage dealt) before any perceived map issues play a role in the game, depending on the strategies used.
Blaming race imba and skill req is just for poorer players to shift the blame from their play to something outside their control.
I might be biased, but I think there are simply more potentially top level players who chose Terran than the other two races. The very best of zerg and protoss are doing quite well (as shown by those two races actually winning the three first GSLs), but there's a bigger amount of top level terran players.
On January 20 2011 19:17 stinger_ro wrote: Also maps do favor the type of mobility terran has. Slightly bigger or more open maps would balance things out (warp in, creep and nydus becoming better) as long as you don't go overboard with it.
Right now Terran is not as mobile as the other races imho - but isn't affected since the maps are small.
Why would say that? Terran is the most mobile race of all. They dont need mines or something to success, they have mobile units with stim, drop by default and dirt cheap units. How does that make sense?
According to sc2ranks, for masters league there is 36.87% of terrans, which isn't that much. But looking at the top 200, which is probably closer to the players in skill who would be in the GSL, 41% are terran.
terran's gameplay is way rich than P/Z powerfull army - best harass(hellion/drop) - good mobility (bio stim?) - solid defense (tank/bunker/PF/scan/..) - solid eco (MULE) - good late game eco (the more you have cc, the more you can MULE). Terran OP (sry). You are not limited by your race, but by your hands.
On January 20 2011 19:33 PraetorianX wrote: The argument about player preference doesn't hold because protoss is the most played race, even in Masters league. Source:
The argument about Terran being strong in the "early meta-game" and Protoss and Zerg players not being mature is just silly. Silly, silly.
Terran is clearly OP, specifically marauders, stimpack, mules and planetaries.
That's globally. It's different for Korea. Protoss is the most played race in North America and Europe, which is pulling the percentage up. If you look at my post, I detailed out the stats for Korea.
On January 20 2011 19:17 stinger_ro wrote: Also maps do favor the type of mobility terran has. Slightly bigger or more open maps would balance things out (warp in, creep and nydus becoming better) as long as you don't go overboard with it.
Right now Terran is not as mobile as the other races imho - but isn't affected since the maps are small.
Why would say that? Terran is the most mobile race of all. They dont need mines or something to success, they have mobile units with stim, drop by default and dirt cheap units. How does that make sense?
Tanks are super mobile right? Considering almost every T in the world plays TvZ with tanks right now they are super immobile in that match up. TvP on the other hand with more Marauder centric play is pretty mobile but saying they are the most mobile units in the game is just silly.
On January 20 2011 19:33 PraetorianX wrote: The argument about player preference doesn't hold because protoss is the most played race, even in Masters league. Source:
Best early all-ins. Good Mid-Game all-ins. Best Harass capabilities. Rock solid defense against all-ins. Heck, there is only 1 Unit in the entire Game that is a little hard to counter for Terran (Templar).. And even this unit has a very clear counter (Ghost).
I think the main issue is that: 1) Marines are the core unit of the Terran army. It's also the first unit they get. 2) Terrans have a very strong early game. When combined with strong positional strength in many of the maps, Terrans just have the ability to dictate how the game will go.
Now, there probably is a core of better Terran players, given the Metagame's current state, than any of the other classes. But it also seems like the Protoss & Zerg players have to be considerably better than their opponent to win. An "evenly" skilled Terran seems to have an advantage. But maps could easily change all of that.
On January 20 2011 19:33 PraetorianX wrote: The argument about player preference doesn't hold because protoss is the most played race, even in Masters league. Source:
The argument about Terran being strong in the "early meta-game" and Protoss and Zerg players not being mature is just silly. Silly, silly.
Terran is clearly OP, specifically marauders, stimpack, mules and planetaries.
But how can Terran be OP if most people in Master leagues are Protoss. I mean, you cant say "Terran is OP because most people getting far in GSL are Terrans", while saying "Protoss is not OP, even though most people getting far in the leagues are Protoss".
Terrans are the most solid race in the game. By that I mean, from my point of view it looks like the terrans have found their "right" gameplay style.
-Protoss Players are still very much stuck on all-ins and cheeses -(Most) Zerg players seem very unstable
Terrans succeed best because from my POV they play the best, solid, macro games out there. This season protoss players who try to play long macro games seem to just do the wrong things: Genius teching too fast(I think?), some guy killing his army into enemies (don't remember his name, metapolis phoenix/colossus protoss guy), and one protoss fast expanded...and lost when his terran enemy sent ONE marine and ONE marauder.
Terrans do better because they have a better gamestyle. NOT because "terran is overpowered", but because the zerg and the protoss have yet to find "the right style", IMO.
Because Terran is overpowered. Blaming maps and saying that Terran is OP is pretty much the same thing as you can throw everything around by changing maps.
Terran has been overpowered since release and the only reason people aren't crying more about it is that lone Zergs won the first two GSL. The first GSL was still an indication that Terran was overpowered (Terran domination in the brackets) while the second GSL was during the few weeks in October that represent the only time that Terran didn't dominate. The same can be said about the foreign scene:
On January 20 2011 19:33 PraetorianX wrote: The argument about player preference doesn't hold because protoss is the most played race, even in Masters league. Source:
Not an overwhelming number but GSL is a Korean tournament and there are more terrans in masters.
I'd say terran strategies are just more refined right now.
Well, the Korean masters is 37% Terran and 35% Protoss, to be specific.
So the argument "More players pick T, so more T succeed" is faulty. Which is why it's strange that it has 24% of the votes, at the time of writing this.
I would say it's because there's seemingly more Terran Players at the top level so a higher chance of a Terran going through to the semi finals/finals?
Just look at Code A, the Semi's are both TvT's (AFAIK)
On January 20 2011 19:33 PraetorianX wrote: The argument about player preference doesn't hold because protoss is the most played race, even in Masters league. Source:
Not an overwhelming number but GSL is a Korean tournament and there are more terrans in masters.
I'd say terran strategies are just more refined right now.
Well, the Korean masters is 37% Terran and 35% Protoss, to be specific.
So the argument "More players pick T, so more T succeed" is faulty. Which is why it's strange that it has 24% of the votes, at the time of writing this.
I'm going to blame the maps before I start calling Terran truly OP.
Terran late-game is a lot better than people think. I've played games on Shakuras where the Terran had me by the balls by macroing and doing good drops. It's just that late-game Terran is mechanically demanding, so they choose to win early instead.
On January 20 2011 19:58 toadstool wrote: Oh Bleach is top 2 in code A now and will probably take out someone like sanZenith to make it into Code S.
Somehow I can't imagine him doing that with Protoss.
That would be a teamkill and I doubt that they'd do that. It'd be pretty stupid to have a teamkill in the regulation matches if you can choose your opponent.
On January 20 2011 19:33 PraetorianX wrote: The argument about player preference doesn't hold because protoss is the most played race, even in Masters league. Source:
Not an overwhelming number but GSL is a Korean tournament and there are more terrans in masters.
I'd say terran strategies are just more refined right now.
Well, the Korean masters is 37% Terran and 35% Protoss, to be specific.
So the argument "More players pick T, so more T succeed" is faulty. Which is why it's strange that it has 24% of the votes, at the time of writing this.
OK, I guess you're never going to read my posts. I think it's preferable to use the top 200, as that is more indicative of the GSL caliber players. For the top 200, 41% are terrans. Of the top 20, 50% are terran. Of course the ladder isn't the greatest measure of the top players, as most of them practice with their team more.
I think the most important reason that terrans are doing so well is that there are just so many more great terran players. Here's a list of some of the greatest Korean players by race:
Obviously you could say that the reason there are so many good terran players is because terran is op, but I think these players would be really good regardless of race, as they all have really solid macro and micro.
Better player playing terran. MVP, Jinro, MKP, Nada, Boxer. You could say that these players are good because of a race imbalance, but that would be silly. Zerg and protoss just dont have alot of really good people playing.
The third or fourth most sucessful protoss player is ChoyafOu, pretty sad : /
Zerg dont have alot of really good players either, atleast not compared to Terran.
Ofc maps also play a big role. But in EU and NA, terran isnt dominating like this, mainly because they distribution of good players is more even, if that makes sense.
I think it's pretty stupid to imply that Terran is imbalanced this much. Balance is almost perfect, the only problem is the maps.
As a Terran player, i voted that Terran is "OP". I hope no TL mods tackle me now for this and beat me with a banhammer =P
The OP part i feel is the early game against Protoss where we can kill them unless they do perfect forcefields. Against Zerg i feel things have evened out more, but i still say we have the upper hand, and we only get in trouble if we let Zerg macro up.
Late game against both i feel that Terran is lacking, we cant compete with Zerg macro late game, whereas a 200/200 Protoss army with Colossi and HTs is our worst nightmare, even perfect EMPs against Toss would barely make the playing field even.
I still think Blizzard has done a great job by giving Zerg a significant buff (Roach range) and recently buffed Phoenix and lowered the cost of Observers.
A slight nerf to early Terran aggression and a slight buff late game i feel would go a long way into making all the matchups better for everyone.
On January 20 2011 19:42 Gigaudas wrote: Because Terran is overpowered. Blaming maps and saying that Terran is OP is pretty much the same thing as you can throw everything around by changing maps.
Terran has been overpowered since release and the only reason people aren't crying more about it is that lone Zergs won the first two GSL. The first GSL was still an indication that Terran was overpowered (Terran domination in the brackets) while the second GSL was during the few weeks in October that represent the only time that Terran didn't dominate. The same can be said about the foreign scene:
This was after a balance patch that Terran players needed a few weeks to figure out.
The last few weeks represent a change as well as European Protoss players have been doing very well.
exactly what i wanted to say. the entire sc2 community was complaining about Terran being OP and then few patches come that doesn't change the inherent problems like mule, PF, marauder and T supporters over-exaggerate what the patch did so people actually started to believe everything was balanced...and then over time, people are still curious why T is still dominating?
imo, nothing drastic changed. I have been praying to blizzard to nerf marauders since beta and the only thing that they do is make concussive shells a 50/50 tech. I say this and I USE marauders in all three matchups very often so it shows how serious it is
On January 20 2011 20:05 Tyree wrote: A slight nerf to early Terran aggression and a slight buff late game i feel would go a long way into making all the matchups better for everyone.
this is how i feel too. take away from T's early game and give a slight buff to T's late game. Nerfing Marauders = Hinder's T's early game Give T a decent T3 unit that can be massed like Ultras (Thors is out of the question because they can be neural parasited)
On January 20 2011 19:42 Gigaudas wrote: Because Terran is overpowered. Blaming maps and saying that Terran is OP is pretty much the same thing as you can throw everything around by changing maps.
Terran has been overpowered since release and the only reason people aren't crying more about it is that lone Zergs won the first two GSL. The first GSL was still an indication that Terran was overpowered (Terran domination in the brackets) while the second GSL was during the few weeks in October that represent the only time that Terran didn't dominate. The same can be said about the foreign scene:
This was after a balance patch that Terran players needed a few weeks to figure out.
The last few weeks represent a change as well as European Protoss players have been doing very well.
exactly what i wanted to say. the entire sc2 community was complaining about Terran being OP and then few patches come that doesn't change the inherent problems like mule, PF, marauder and T supporters over-exaggerate what the patch did so people actually started to believe everything was balanced...and then over time, people are still curious why T is still dominating?
imo, nothing drastic changed. I have been praying to blizzard to nerf marauders since beta and the only thing that they do is make concussive shells a 50/50 tech. I say this and I USE marauders in all three matchups very often so it shows how serious it is
On January 20 2011 20:05 Tyree wrote: A slight nerf to early Terran aggression and a slight buff late game i feel would go a long way into making all the matchups better for everyone.
this is how i feel too. take away from T's early game and give a slight buff to T's late game
I rarely use marauders, almost only against a roach Z. Marauders arent the problem. Actually terran imbalance isnt the problem. If there even is a problem, it has to be the maps.
On January 20 2011 19:33 PraetorianX wrote: The argument about player preference doesn't hold because protoss is the most played race, even in Masters league. Source:
Not an overwhelming number but GSL is a Korean tournament and there are more terrans in masters.
I'd say terran strategies are just more refined right now.
Well, the Korean masters is 37% Terran and 35% Protoss, to be specific.
So the argument "More players pick T, so more T succeed" is faulty. Which is why it's strange that it has 24% of the votes, at the time of writing this.
OK, I guess you're never going to read my posts. I think it's preferable to use the top 200, as that is more indicative of the GSL caliber players. For the top 200, 41% are terrans. Of the top 20, 50% are terran. Of course the ladder isn't the greatest measure of the top players, as most of them practice with their team more.
I think the most important reason that terrans are doing so well is that there are just so many more great terran players. Here's a list of some of the greatest Korean players by race:
Obviously you could say that the reason there are so many good terran players is because terran is op, but I think these players would be really good regardless of race, as they all have really solid macro and micro.
You left out for Zerg: Zenio, Check, July and for Protoss: Sangho, InCa. Any of them would have a decent shot against any Terran on that list, except maybe MVP.
Most koreans picked terran because they heard it was the best race, after that stopped being the case mostly, they just sticked with terran. Thats why there are so many terrans.
The reason there are so many terrans in the ro8 and higher is mostly due to map imbalances. Jungle basin, steppes of war, delta quadrant, I mean really?
On January 20 2011 19:33 PraetorianX wrote: The argument about player preference doesn't hold because protoss is the most played race, even in Masters league. Source:
Not an overwhelming number but GSL is a Korean tournament and there are more terrans in masters.
I'd say terran strategies are just more refined right now.
Well, the Korean masters is 37% Terran and 35% Protoss, to be specific.
So the argument "More players pick T, so more T succeed" is faulty. Which is why it's strange that it has 24% of the votes, at the time of writing this.
Sure it shouldn't mean that 7/8 of Code S ro8 are Terran but still.
Those leagues were created from the players that did the best in previous seasons. In GSL season 1 protoss had the most players qualify, and didnt even make the semis. In GSL season 3 zerg had the most players qualify, and didnt even make the semis. The other races have plenty of players, they just cant beat terrans for the top spots.
Its the maps people, wait till a terran try an 2 rax scv All-in on maps like Aiur garden. Haha i wanna see how that works, a whole Zerg army will pop up by the time the Terran arrives at the ramp.
Wow, lower skill required option in a poll is silly. I mean, sure Z has higher skill requirement, but Protoss is the easy race in Starcraft (least apm intensive, easy macro mechanics etc., something day9 said in one of his dailies). Second silly argument is about imbalance. The reason why terran is dominant is because most of the better pros play terran. But you can see that good tosses and zergs still manage to win (MC, Whitera, Nestea). If you want to bring up the balance arguments - only zergs can complain, but only on maps like steppes and delta, still I would say the most imbalanced map in poll - Blistering Sands - is heavily zerg favoured.
a medivac with 8 marines can do instane amout of economic dmg. while terran can recover from economic damage way faster than the other races thanks to mules.
this gives terran in most cases an Edge in playing more risky (bringing scvs with attacks), but also more rewarding. Also Terran has the most flexibel and easy to reach techtree, while still beeing low on cost.
having most cost efficient units also helps a ton.
don't think terran is op in generel, (except Stimmed Marauders with Medivacs and consequtive shells! this is definitly imho) They destroy buildings way faster than anything, cost to cost they are even better than fucking Immortals!
2 marauder 200/50 for 40dps on Armored vs. 1 immortal 250/100 for ~ 34 dps on armored
since their techtree is so flexibel they can also "counter" the enemy composition pretty fast.
Terran is simply OP and the Koreans just show this better. They have so many more viable strategies and are simply more powerful in so many situations. Over all this time it has been shown again and again. Simply look at all the stats for proof, it's not that difficult to understand. Up until now like 80% of all tournaments since beta have been won by Terran. Thread after thread has been created showing T domination in every category.
On January 20 2011 20:17 FlamingTurd wrote: Terran is simply OP and the Koreans just show this better. They have so many more viable strategies and are simply more powerful in so many situations. Over all this time it has been shown again and again. Simply look at all the stats for proof, it's not that difficult to understand. Up until now like 80% of all tournaments since beta have been won by Terran. Thread after thread has been created showing T domination in every category.
On January 20 2011 19:42 Gigaudas wrote: Because Terran is overpowered. Blaming maps and saying that Terran is OP is pretty much the same thing as you can throw everything around by changing maps.
Terran has been overpowered since release and the only reason people aren't crying more about it is that lone Zergs won the first two GSL. The first GSL was still an indication that Terran was overpowered (Terran domination in the brackets) while the second GSL was during the few weeks in October that represent the only time that Terran didn't dominate. The same can be said about the foreign scene:
This was after a balance patch that Terran players needed a few weeks to figure out.
The last few weeks represent a change as well as European Protoss players have been doing very well.
exactly what i wanted to say. the entire sc2 community was complaining about Terran being OP and then few patches come that doesn't change the inherent problems like mule, PF, marauder and T supporters over-exaggerate what the patch did so people actually started to believe everything was balanced...and then over time, people are still curious why T is still dominating?
imo, nothing drastic changed. I have been praying to blizzard to nerf marauders since beta and the only thing that they do is make concussive shells a 50/50 tech. I say this and I USE marauders in all three matchups very often so it shows how serious it is
On January 20 2011 20:05 Tyree wrote: A slight nerf to early Terran aggression and a slight buff late game i feel would go a long way into making all the matchups better for everyone.
this is how i feel too. take away from T's early game and give a slight buff to T's late game
I rarely use marauders, almost only against a roach Z. Marauders arent the problem. Actually terran imbalance isnt the problem. If there even is a problem, it has to be the maps.
People have been asking for Marauder nerfs since the very start of the beta. Lots of other things have been nerfed since then, but the Marauder has gotten off pretty easily (50/50 conc shells; I'm trying to remember if this was the same patch Stim was made much cheaper.)
At this point, they've nerfed lots of other things, I almost feel like they're balancing around the Marauder.
I think the most important reason that terrans are doing so well is that there are just so many more great terran players. Here's a list of some of the greatest Korean players by race:
Obviously you could say that the reason there are so many good terran players is because terran is op, but I think these players would be really good regardless of race, as they all have really solid macro and micro.
You left out for Zerg: Zenio, Check, July and for Protoss: Sangho, InCa. Any of them would have a decent shot against any Terran on that list, except maybe MVP.
Those guys aren't the cream of the crop. If you're gonna include those players, then for terran you can add Top, Ensnare, Maka, Hyperdub, Rain (super iffy but he did get second in GSL 3), TheSTC (Although, he never got to play GSL because of the army thing, he's still one of my favorite players). Probably also add Leenock for zerg.
this thread is incredibly stupid. it will only draw balance whiners, as seen, and u shouldve thought of that >.<
i might aswell give my 2 cents when im in here. i think its maps+ alot of terrans wins (most el oh el) are early/mid game wins, because of their easily massed and cost efficient bio. maybe z/p need to refine their expansion timings more, and figure out Ts timings to handle it, or nerf terran early/buff late, as our "cost efficient" units (aka only shit that works consistently) melts late game normally.
On January 20 2011 20:17 FlamingTurd wrote: Terran is simply OP and the Koreans just show this better. They have so many more viable strategies and are simply more powerful in so many situations. Over all this time it has been shown again and again. Simply look at all the stats for proof, it's not that difficult to understand. Up until now like 80% of all tournaments since beta have been won by Terran. Thread after thread has been created showing T domination in every category.
Its not a big surprise when you think about it, the game is called WINGS OF LIBERTY centering around a terran campaign. The developers just put the most amount of time into making sure they got terran right. You can tell by the mirror matchups. TvT is the only mirror solid enough to go past 10 minutes.
Rofl, this thread is like accumulated frustration of all players that cant stand they are not playing good enough and blame their loses for racial imbalance. You guys realize that the skill level you are playing at has nothing to do with balance? First focus on your game and try to see mistakes you make and maybe then you can throw something like "I think Terran early game is too strong" in.. Things like "Stim is OP" is such a ridiculous statement, that I dont even know.. Do you have a bit of judgment? I dont think so..
It does seem like terran is the most forgiving race in terms of BO and scouting. A combination of wall-ins, marines, and scan make you safe against pretty much any opening, whereas the other two races can easily get caught with their pants down.
THis would give Terran an advantage while the game is still new, that would diminish with time as BOs became more predictable.
On January 20 2011 20:29 CarlyZerg wrote: It does seem like terran is the most forgiving race in terms of BO and scouting. A combination of wall-ins, marines, and scan make you safe against pretty much any opening, whereas the other two races can easily get caught with their pants down.
THis would give Terran an advantage while the game is still new, that would diminish with time as BOs became more predictable.
Wow, have you ever played Terran? Have you ever made another unit than MMM? Like Tank? Then tell me how it feels to be caught with your pants down..
It's just a flexible race, as a result there are viable strategies available and in use for just about any map and match up, which is obviously not the case for other races (see zerg close pos. etc). I wouldn't say they are overpowered, rather that they simply aren't weak anywhere.
I also believe they have a higher proportion of the best players playing the race at the top end of things. Certainly Toss seems to have a less convincing line up of top players in Korea.
I think the most important reason that terrans are doing so well is that there are just so many more great terran players. Here's a list of some of the greatest Korean players by race:
Obviously you could say that the reason there are so many good terran players is because terran is op, but I think these players would be really good regardless of race, as they all have really solid macro and micro.
You left out for Zerg: Zenio, Check, July and for Protoss: Sangho, InCa. Any of them would have a decent shot against any Terran on that list, except maybe MVP.
Those guys aren't the cream of the crop. If you're gonna include those players, then for terran you can add Top, Ensnare, Maka, Hyperdub, Rain (super iffy but he did get second in GSL 3), TheSTC (Although, he never got to play GSL because of the army thing, he's still one of my favorite players). Probably also add Leenock for zerg.
July is a 3 time OSL champion. Zenio, Check and InCa were top of the line during beta and got respectable places in GSL1-3. Sangho was a consistent BW proleague player. All of the above players have strong solid playstyles, but just haven't achieved any big results yet. They're certainly just as talented as any of the Terrans on that list. How would you know, that they wouldn't be making better results if they had played Terran instead?
Leenock is good, but overhyped by Tastetosis. Hyperdub and Rain are way overrated (I would put Choya before them), but I would agree with Top, Ensnare, Maka and TheSTC (if he still played).
I'm by no means a professional, but I have watched all GSLs, and take a pretty serious interest in the game.
Personally, I feel that Terran is more methodical than either Zerg or Protoss. It is more straight forward, more forgiving.
I don't feel any part is OP. Mules are not OP. Scanning is not OP. Bunkers are not OP. For zerg in particular, their main hinderance is also part of the best part of Zerg. They can chose to make 6 drones in the same time Terran can make 1 SCV, however if they have read the opponent wrong, they can easily be crushed. There is A LOT of balancing for Zerg to consider. More drones means less immediate army. More immediate army means shit economy. You either have to be a natural, or a mathematician to get the balance perfect.
Protoss is a little different, in that their 1st tier ranged units are SO expensive per dps. Nothing makes me more moist than a protoss microing seamlessly. You really need to find a way to make those units cost effective. I think Sentrys are extremely good units, and can make many losing games into a win. But again, 100 gas! Wowzers!
In summary. I don't feel any part of Terran is simply too strong. I just feel it takes less of a "SC Brain" to maximize potential. Also, you don't have to risk as much for the same amount of reward.
My opinions only.
EDIT: Forgot to mention my points are more so aimed at the early game of each race. In a long, macro game, Terran can turtle harder than anyone, but they generally can't re-max as fast as the other two races.... That being said, they can use mules, and cut SCVs in the end game too, to get a bigger army.
Hahaha. Biased thread, how cute You give the options "terran's OP" and "terran's easy" but not "the terran players are simply better than the z and p players this season". If I made a thread about that Zerg Zerg Protoss has been the previous winners of gsl with the options: 1. Map Imbalance (map favours P and Z) 2. Z and P is OP 3. Lower skill req for P and Z (T players will catch up once they play more) Would you find that fair or just biased propaganda?
I definitely don't think Protoss has anything to complain about.
Zerg *maybe* but I think that is completely map related and not game related. The game seems relatively balanced to me on better maps. Zerg and Protoss aren't exactly playing good with exception of a few. Not to mention that due to the GSL system you have tons of good players not in the spotlight at the moment.
On January 20 2011 20:42 Healingproof wrote: Hahaha. Biased thread, how cute You give the options "terran's OP" and "terran's easy" but not "the terran players are simply better than the z and p players this season". If I made a thread about that Zerg Zerg Protoss has been the previous winners of gsl with the options: 1. Map Imbalance (map favours P and Z) 2. Z and P is OP 3. Lower skill req for P and Z (T players will catch up once they play more) Would you find that fair or just biased propaganda?
except Terrans made all the finals appearnace and has very good representation at all rounds. Not really the same thing. I think the option "More good players playing terran" can be used to represent your sentiment, so the poll wasn't lacking in detail at all to cater your opinion.
On January 20 2011 20:42 Healingproof wrote: Hahaha. Biased thread, how cute You give the options "terran's OP" and "terran's easy" but not "the terran players are simply better than the z and p players this season".
On January 20 2011 20:19 raidmaster wrote: Rofl, you made my day.
Last time I saw someone add up all known wins, what he wrote was correct.
If you only count like pro tournaments, with known players, then no, he couldnt be less correct.
How someone can even believe that this is the case amazes me haha
Shrug, I remember the thread from TL. I'm not sure what period/patch it was from though.
The last 80 tournies in the TLPD have a 65% terran win rate (25% toss, 7.5% zerg, 2.5% random), which is still pretty illuminating.
Maps are obviously a part of it but I think its more terran has the easiest time capitalising on mistakes combined with having the best chance of inflicting a build-order loss and minimal chance of suffering one.
On January 20 2011 20:44 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: I definitely don't think Protoss has anything to complain about.
Zerg *maybe* but I think that is completely map related and not game related. The game seems relatively balanced to me on better maps. Zerg and Protoss aren't exactly playing good with exception of a few. Not to mention that due to the GSL system you have tons of good players not in the spotlight at the moment.
Thread probably getting closed sooner or later.
Thank you for saying this. Unfortunately it sometimes takes a highlighted name to get people to listen
On January 20 2011 20:42 Healingproof wrote: Hahaha. Biased thread, how cute You give the options "terran's OP" and "terran's easy" but not "the terran players are simply better than the z and p players this season". If I made a thread about that Zerg Zerg Protoss has been the previous winners of gsl with the options: 1. Map Imbalance (map favours P and Z) 2. Z and P is OP 3. Lower skill req for P and Z (T players will catch up once they play more) Would you find that fair or just biased propaganda?
except your thread wouldn't work because everyone would realize the OP of that thread is trolling.
This one works because everyone knows its not troll thread
From watching pretty much all the GSL games, and heap of streams besides, it seems to me to boil down to this:
Terran seems to get more chances to win.
A Zerg win in ZvT, for instance, generally seems to consist of the zerg repeatedly denying the Terran's bids for victory until he runs out of steam. Terran can earn a win by taking down one tech structure, one base, one unit (if it's a queen). Terran can win with mass units, or he can win with tech. The better the Terran, the more bases get taken, the more resources get mined, the longer the game goes on and the more chances he gets.
A better Z or P player can still win, no question - it's just that he has to demonstrate his superiority consistently, multiple times over the course of a match, and that's really, really hard when you get up to GSL and skill differentials become more marginal.
Now, this may all settle down eventually, or it might require some adjustment of the game. I could, if I were going to speculate, imagine marines being toned down a tad (with upgrades bringing them back up to current upgraded strengths), or perhaps a buff to nydus play (cheaper tech/worms, or worms requiring detection to see while they're building). Something to make it practical to punish Terrans for leaving their bases undefended.
On January 20 2011 20:42 Healingproof wrote: Hahaha. Biased thread, how cute You give the options "terran's OP" and "terran's easy" but not "the terran players are simply better than the z and p players this season". If I made a thread about that Zerg Zerg Protoss has been the previous winners of gsl with the options: 1. Map Imbalance (map favours P and Z) 2. Z and P is OP 3. Lower skill req for P and Z (T players will catch up once they play more) Would you find that fair or just biased propaganda?
First of all, it's compiled results from all four seasons. So yea, reading comprehension...
Second, the reason that isn't an option is because it doesn't seem like a realistic possibility to me. It is very statistically unlikely for all the best players to make the same random choice (picking T because they liked the space suits or something). And if the choice isn't random, then it begs the question of the OP - why are so many of the best players rolling Terran? In any one match, or series, or even tournament it makes sense explain it away with player skill. But over the course of hundreds of matches, that logic begins to fall apart.
On January 20 2011 20:42 Healingproof wrote: Hahaha. Biased thread, how cute You give the options "terran's OP" and "terran's easy" but not "the terran players are simply better than the z and p players this season". If I made a thread about that Zerg Zerg Protoss has been the previous winners of gsl with the options: 1. Map Imbalance (map favours P and Z) 2. Z and P is OP 3. Lower skill req for P and Z (T players will catch up once they play more) Would you find that fair or just biased propaganda?
except Terrans made all the finals appearnace and has very good representation at all rounds. Not really the same thing. I think the option "More good players playing terran" can be used to represent your sentiment, so the poll wasn't lacking in detail at all to cater your opinion.
except terran is a more popular race in korea so obviously it's going to have a higher representation? If 1000 plays terran 500 plays zerg, do you expect there to be an equal amount of terrans and zergs in every stage of the tournament then? No, terran is supposed to have more representation. And for previous gsls, s1 and s2 T was OP, but they got nerfed so that's irrelevant. s3 - 50% toss 50% terran in the RO4 even tho terran is a more popular race? doesn't that make protoss overrepresented?
On January 20 2011 20:44 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: I definitely don't think Protoss has anything to complain about.
Zerg *maybe* but I think that is completely map related and not game related. The game seems relatively balanced to me on better maps. Zerg and Protoss aren't exactly playing good with exception of a few. Not to mention that due to the GSL system you have tons of good players not in the spotlight at the moment.
Thread probably getting closed sooner or later.
So is your vote then that it's just random so far? I am earnest in my ignorance and would sincerely appreciate the opinion of someone who actually might know.
On January 20 2011 20:42 Healingproof wrote: Hahaha. Biased thread, how cute You give the options "terran's OP" and "terran's easy" but not "the terran players are simply better than the z and p players this season". If I made a thread about that Zerg Zerg Protoss has been the previous winners of gsl with the options: 1. Map Imbalance (map favours P and Z) 2. Z and P is OP 3. Lower skill req for P and Z (T players will catch up once they play more) Would you find that fair or just biased propaganda?
First of all, it's compiled results from all four seasons. So yea, reading comprehension...
Second, the reason that isn't an option is because it doesn't seem like a realistic possibility to me. It is very statistically unlikely for all the best players to make the same random choice (picking T because they liked the space suits or something). And if the choice isn't random, then it begs the question of the OP - why are so many of the best players rolling Terran? In any one match, or series, or even tournament it makes sense explain it away with player skill. But over the course of hundreds of matches, that logic begins to fall apart.
Oh ok, sorry didn't read the whole OP. Just read the options and couldn't be bothered to read the actual post after seeing those biased options. s1 and s2, sc2 was a complete dif game and terran was OP as hell, why would you count those? Are you gonna count broodwar tournaments in aswell next?
I'm a firm believer that a player's skill can overcome racial or map imbalance. I think this is what we saw in Fruitdealer when he won GSL1; he was considerably better than the Terran opponents he faced. When a player of top caliber plays the "better" race, no one can top him, like Flash in BW is doing right now. Looking at statistics can tell us some info but I think 4 seasons is still too small of a time frame to make decisions about the data. We haven't seen enough S class players come out and its still too early to make a decision about the relative skill levels
I think the most important reason that terrans are doing so well is that there are just so many more great terran players. Here's a list of some of the greatest Korean players by race:
Obviously you could say that the reason there are so many good terran players is because terran is op, but I think these players would be really good regardless of race, as they all have really solid macro and micro.
You left out for Zerg: Zenio, Check, July and for Protoss: Sangho, InCa. Any of them would have a decent shot against any Terran on that list, except maybe MVP.
Those guys aren't the cream of the crop. If you're gonna include those players, then for terran you can add Top, Ensnare, Maka, Hyperdub, Rain (super iffy but he did get second in GSL 3), TheSTC (Although, he never got to play GSL because of the army thing, he's still one of my favorite players). Probably also add Leenock for zerg.
July is a 3 time OSL champion. Zenio, Check and InCa were top of the line during beta and got respectable places in GSL1-3. Sangho was a consistent BW proleague player who only picked up SC2 recently. All of the above players have strong solid playstyles, but just haven't achieved any big results yet. They're certainly just as talented as any of the Terrans on that list. How would you know, that they wouldn't be making better results if they had played Terran instead?
Leenock is good, but overhyped by Tastetosis. Hyperdub and Rain are way overrated (I would put Choya before them), but I would agree with Top, Ensnare, Maka and TheSTC (if he still played).
So 6 for Z, 6 for P, and 9 for T.
July and Sangho were great BW players, but they don't really have the SC2 results (Rain, Choya, Hyperdub, Leenock, and Clide all have better GSL results). I think if you want to include those, you should include the other five. Which would be 7 Zergs, 7 Protoss, and 12 Terrans. Which makes 46% Terrans. If you don't include any of them, it would be 5 Zergs, 5 Protoss, and 9 Terran, which makes 47%. If you include July and Sangho, and not the other five, 43% Terrans. That's pretty high, and would account for 47.5% in the top 8.
If you want to think about how the top 4 is 75% Terran, you should probably only look at those players who really would be in top 4. These would be: Zerg: Nestea, FruitDealer Protoss: MC, (Genius, HongUn, and Tester are iffy, so I'll count it as 1.5) Terran: BoxeR, Jinro, MarineKing, MVP, Nada This makes 53% Terran. Obviously this isn't as high as 75%. It was kind of a weird tournament though, FruitDealer, MC, Genius, Hongun, and Boxer didn't make it out of group stages (Of these, only MC lost to terrans, so you can't really blame terran imbalance for that). Notice that most of these players who didn't get out of group stages are not terran.
Man... Where´s the "Players from the others races suck hard compared to MVP , Jinro , MKP and Nada? " thats my opinion... im sorry man , but if other zerg players or protoss players played as good as Nestea or MC it could be different..
Nestea its the best zerg like 2X better than Idra , doesnt quit even when the game seems lost , smiles and talks to us fans , that sometimes just like to see a smile and wise words ..
MC is on a completely different level than other protoss players , a simple 4 or 5 warpgate by MC is much more powerfull and well-timed than any other protoss! See Tester ( tsl-sks) vs MVP and see Jinro vs MC , see the difference between the best protoss and a code S protoss..
this kind of polls just bring more stupid comments about imbalances .. Nada seemed like a potential winner of the GSL yet against MKP he looked like a normal player , so.. what do you have to say about that? Nerf terran ? its to powerfull for TvT?
What i saw is a player that is half a year ahead of all others, MKP showed perfect timings of doing things , showed Fast expands every game and showed improvisation!!! improvisation is so beautifull in this game..
damm i saw him win against NADA AND JINRO with just marines! Marine is a tier 1 unit man.. you dont see the rest of the terran play with just marines do you ? why is that? i tell you ...
because they can´t do it , they can´t compare to that , thats like a Ferrari F-40 and a Ferrari Enzo..
This thread is essentially a giant lightbulb for the annoying insects that are balance whiners. The OP doesn't really want to know the reason why terrans are having "so much success" in GSL, he already has his theory (terran imba) and wants to have other people who think the same come and make lots of noise about it.
I think it is player preference...have you ever seen a terran winning something big? From my point of view the game is fine atm...just need some more maps.
I think its a mix between maps and race balance. Terran has so many openings, and such a solid way to tech overall. Their tier 1 unit is a dps monster, and its the only race who can effectively drop. (1 dropship, 8 marines) The dps \ cost \ effectiveness is 10 times higher then the other races. They just have all these small advantages all over the board. Scouting, mineral gathering, all units ranged, PF, sensor towers, very effective units. All those small advantages added up makes for quite an advantage. Its just easier and more forgiving to play solid as Terran compared to Zerg and Protoss
I think it is because Terran can be played save. Always. And since most Tourneys right now are best of one / best of three on preelimination (and remember the first 3 GSLs had also pretourneys), you will have most succes with the race you can play most savely. If the final of a Tourney is not TvT, mostlikely the Terran will lose, because in a best of 5 you can start feeling your enemy, which is super important for the drone poker Zergs have to play and the russian build order Roulette Protoss are forced into.
Not one of the GSLs so far was won by a Terran - GSL 4 had a lot of bo1 so far, but if the finals are not TvT, there most likely won't be a Terran winner this time either.
On January 20 2011 21:03 NikonTC wrote: This thread is essentially a giant lightbulb for the annoying insects that are balance whiners. The OP doesn't really want to know the reason why terrans are having "so much success" in GSL, he already has his theory (terran imba) and wants to have other people who think the same come and make lots of noise about it.
you've been constantly whining about this; it's one thing to try to defend your race but there are some good discussion going around. there are other people also curious why T has been so successful in GSL, you just want to shush all the people who complain about T, its really obvious why
I think on balanced maps and balanced spawn positions, Terran enjoy no substantial advantage over zerg. The problem is that just a little under half the times you get very bad maps or bad spawns. Delta Quadrant, Lost Temple, Steppes of War, Jungle Basin, close position Metapolis, horizontal position shakearus, are very imbalanced in favour of terran against zerg. Jinro agreed with this sentiment in the gsl interview after the round of 8. Those positions may make terran as a race seem more imbalanced than it maybe is.
On balanced positions, the game seems pretty fair in ZvT. Maps with relatively open center and sizable push distances can let zerg drone up and actually have a sizable economy, without dying in the first ten minutes to some post-expansion 4 rax bio "poke", makes for far more entertaining games. Marine scv allins, I feel, can be resolved by having a tighter natural choke, although I'm not certain on that as it may affect other things. There is this perception that maps that doesn't allow you to take advantage of zergs as terran automatically are zerg favoured, which is a ridiculous sentiment. This stims from the illusion that terran cannot keep up in macro games, which understandably can happen if you just got stomped by a zerg player better than yourself, who make use of your missed timings, etc. If the opponent has better mechanics that are not micro related, it can seem like your macro cannot keep up due to racial reasons. I see, in most games when the terran actually go for a proper 3rd base timing, that terran has no issue keeping up with Z, especially with a planetary gaurding against counters . The few maps that are zerg favoured (scrap station, cross position shakearus), moreover, do not favour zerg nearly as much as Steppes favours Terran. Zerg has maybe a 55% chance of winning on these "imbalanced" maps, compared to say 80% for terrans on Steppes.
making larger maps would definitely not make the game imbalanced in Z's favour. Terran drawns benefits to a large map as well, especially with planetary fortresses. Some maps may favour Z if the air distance or the push distance is skewed, but that shouldn't be imbalanced to an unacceptable level, as current blizzard map pools are for terrans. Conclusion: ZvT is imbalanced only because of the map pools.
PvT seems relatively balanced to me, and ZvP is a different story, but that's not part of this thread.
For me, definitely maps - from a protoss perspective.
The close positions are hard to digest for protoss. Protoss may have it easier than zerg, but still they have to gamble. If toss goes early expo against a planned timing-push, he already fights an uphill battle. On bigger maps, the timing pushs would be way less effective. As opposed to BW, terrans now have a really good early game mobility which makes punishing greedy play very easy on small maps. Toss on the other hand also has a strong early game composition, but against this terran has (was designed to have) bunkers and repair. The combination of good defense and good and mobile early game gives terran more options on small maps/close positions, which makes them more flexible to play. This is also why we very often see very good PvT if the build order poker doesn't give one side an advantage (meaning no 4 gate vs 1/1/1 and no timing push vs early expo play). On bigger maps the game would definitely be less dependent on the "correct" opening.
I tend do think it's just much easier to be consistent while playing Terran, than with the other races. The potential for game-ending mistakes seems higher for Zerg and Protoss (let's pretend 4gate doesn't exist for the time being, and all Protosses play a proper macro style). Zergs often complain about how hard it is to live through the first 10 minutes of the match with imperfect scouting information, and how a bad call can just make you lose right there. With Protoss, it's like Tyler said during a SotG some time ago - a Protoss playing perfectly looks amazing, and feels untouchable, but one mistake can just make you lose the game instantly, or put you significantly behind. And Protoss are really bad at playing from behind. There's a reason you sometimes see really good Protoss players look like noobs (like Tester vs mvp) - all it takes is one mistake.
Think to yourself: How many times have you seen a Zerg successfully playing from behind and winning? What about a Protoss? And how about a Terran?
This doesn't mean the game is imbalanced, of course. But imo, it does explain the Terran dominance, and is in line with how the games actually play out.
On January 20 2011 21:03 NikonTC wrote: This thread is essentially a giant lightbulb for the annoying insects that are balance whiners. The OP doesn't really want to know the reason why terrans are having "so much success" in GSL, he already has his theory (terran imba) and wants to have other people who think the same come and make lots of noise about it.
you've been constantly whining about this; it's one thing to try to defend your race but there are some good discussion going around. there are other people also curious why T has been so successful in GSL, you just want to shush all the people who complain about T, its really obvious why
I thought someone might bring that up. And beleive me threads like this make me seriously consider switching my main race from terran. Not because of self respect, or because i think terran is OP, but because I don't like playing a race and having to worry that the voices of a very vocal minority might actually end up having an effect on the balance of the game (again).
And there is no good discussion being done in this thread that hasn't already been discussed in better threads. This thread was just a honey trap for people that think a certain way (terran imba) and a place for them to all come in and confirm "Its ok guys there's several of us, its ok to think this way".
I think the most important reason that terrans are doing so well is that there are just so many more great terran players. Here's a list of some of the greatest Korean players by race:
Obviously you could say that the reason there are so many good terran players is because terran is op, but I think these players would be really good regardless of race, as they all have really solid macro and micro.
You left out for Zerg: Zenio, Check, July and for Protoss: Sangho, InCa. Any of them would have a decent shot against any Terran on that list, except maybe MVP.
Those guys aren't the cream of the crop. If you're gonna include those players, then for terran you can add Top, Ensnare, Maka, Hyperdub, Rain (super iffy but he did get second in GSL 3), TheSTC (Although, he never got to play GSL because of the army thing, he's still one of my favorite players). Probably also add Leenock for zerg.
July is a 3 time OSL champion. Zenio, Check and InCa were top of the line during beta and got respectable places in GSL1-3. Sangho was a consistent BW proleague player who only picked up SC2 recently. All of the above players have strong solid playstyles, but just haven't achieved any big results yet. They're certainly just as talented as any of the Terrans on that list. How would you know, that they wouldn't be making better results if they had played Terran instead?
Leenock is good, but overhyped by Tastetosis. Hyperdub and Rain are way overrated (I would put Choya before them), but I would agree with Top, Ensnare, Maka and TheSTC (if he still played).
So 6 for Z, 6 for P, and 9 for T.
July and Sangho were great BW players, but they don't really have the SC2 results (Rain, Choya, Hyperdub, Leenock, and Clide all have better GSL results). I think if you want to include those, you should include the other five. Which would be 7 Zergs, 7 Protoss, and 12 Terrans. Which makes 46% Terrans. If you don't include any of them, it would be 5 Zergs, 5 Protoss, and 9 Terran, which makes 47%. If you include July and Sangho, and not the other five, 43% Terrans. That's pretty high, and would account for 47.5% in the top 8.
If you want to think about how the top 4 is 75% Terran, you should probably only look at those players who really would be in top 4. These would be: Zerg: Nestea, FruitDealer Protoss: MC, (Genius, HongUn, and Tester are iffy, so I'll count it as 1.5) Terran: BoxeR, Jinro, MarineKing, MVP, Nada This makes 53% Terran. Obviously this isn't as high as 75%. It was kind of a weird tournament though, FruitDealer, MC, Genius, Hongun, and Boxer didn't make it out of group stages (Of these, only MC lost to terrans, so you can't really blame terran imbalance for that). Notice that most of these players who didn't get out of group stages are not terran.
You can't judge a player simply by looking at GSL results. BitByBitPrime got to Round of 16. Is he better than July? Hell no. It's probably a combination of bad luck/bad maps/whatever reason else that July, Sangho, InCa, Top aren't in Code S (yet). But anyways, I suppose the Ro4 results could be a result of random chance or bad map pool. We'll just have to see if this trend continues.
On January 20 2011 21:03 NikonTC wrote: This thread is essentially a giant lightbulb for the annoying insects that are balance whiners. The OP doesn't really want to know the reason why terrans are having "so much success" in GSL, he already has his theory (terran imba) and wants to have other people who think the same come and make lots of noise about it.
you've been constantly whining about this; it's one thing to try to defend your race but there are some good discussion going around. there are other people also curious why T has been so successful in GSL, you just want to shush all the people who complain about T, its really obvious why
I thought someone might bring that up. And beleive me threads like this make me seriously consider switching my main race from terran. Not because of self respect, or because i think terran is OP, but because I don't like playing a race and having to worry that the voices of a very vocal minority might actually end up having an effect on the balance of the game (again).
And there is no good discussion being done in this thread that hasn't already been discussed in better threads. This thread was just a honey trap for people that think a certain way (terran imba) and a place for them to all come in and confirm "Its ok guys there's several of us, its ok to think this way".
Well, if you make a thread titled "why are zerg players succeeding so much more in tournaments", I don't know what sort of replies it would get... it will be an interesting experiment. Anyways I digress..
3/4 terrans in the GSL Code S Ro4, 4/4 in the GSL Code A Ro4, 8/10 at the IEM. Clearly this isn't indicating any sort of terran dominance over the other races? Go4Sc2 cup is another good example, with at least one terran mirror in nearly every semi final, often times even two. Of course player of other races can overcome this terran dominace with superior skill, as Fruitdealer, NesTea and MC have shown, but that doesn't mean terra hasn't been the dominant race since the launch of Sc2.
If new maps alone will fix the issues is hard to say. First those new maps have to be used for quite some time.
The biggest reason I feel GSL is so Terran heavy is that the difference between a great terran (MVP and MarineKing) and a good Terran (Jinro, Nada, etc.) is not huge. They are pretty much one step behind them.
But then let's compare MC, with good Toss players, in other words Genius and SSKS, and you can see the difference is much larger. The same goes with Nestea and the Zerg.
On January 20 2011 21:03 NikonTC wrote: This thread is essentially a giant lightbulb for the annoying insects that are balance whiners. The OP doesn't really want to know the reason why terrans are having "so much success" in GSL, he already has his theory (terran imba) and wants to have other people who think the same come and make lots of noise about it.
you've been constantly whining about this; it's one thing to try to defend your race but there are some good discussion going around. there are other people also curious why T has been so successful in GSL, you just want to shush all the people who complain about T, its really obvious why
I thought someone might bring that up. And beleive me threads like this make me seriously consider switching my main race from terran. Not because of self respect, or because i think terran is OP, but because I don't like playing a race and having to worry that the voices of a very vocal minority might actually end up having an effect on the balance of the game (again).
And there is no good discussion being done in this thread that hasn't already been discussed in better threads. This thread was just a honey trap for people that think a certain way (terran imba) and a place for them to all come in and confirm "Its ok guys there's several of us, its ok to think this way".
Well, if you make a thread titled "why are zerg players succeeding so much more in tournaments", I don't know what sort of replies it would get... it will be an interesting experiment. Anyways I digress..
Well I wouldnt start a thread with that title because that's not what is happening. However if i started a thread with the title "Why are zerg so unstoppable lategame?" then I expect we'd see a similar influx of terran players whining about zerg lategame being so strong.
On January 20 2011 21:03 NikonTC wrote: This thread is essentially a giant lightbulb for the annoying insects that are balance whiners. The OP doesn't really want to know the reason why terrans are having "so much success" in GSL, he already has his theory (terran imba) and wants to have other people who think the same come and make lots of noise about it.
you've been constantly whining about this; it's one thing to try to defend your race but there are some good discussion going around. there are other people also curious why T has been so successful in GSL, you just want to shush all the people who complain about T, its really obvious why
I thought someone might bring that up. And beleive me threads like this make me seriously consider switching my main race from terran. Not because of self respect, or because i think terran is OP, but because I don't like playing a race and having to worry that the voices of a very vocal minority might actually end up having an effect on the balance of the game (again).
And there is no good discussion being done in this thread that hasn't already been discussed in better threads. This thread was just a honey trap for people that think a certain way (terran imba) and a place for them to all come in and confirm "Its ok guys there's several of us, its ok to think this way".
Well, if you make a thread titled "why are zerg players succeeding so much more in tournaments", I don't know what sort of replies it would get... it will be an interesting experiment. Anyways I digress..
Well I wouldnt start a thread with that title because that's not what is happening. However if i started a thread with the title "Why are zerg so unstoppable lategame?" then I expect we'd see a similar influx of terran players whining about zerg lategame being so strong.
Fair rebuttal, though i feel protoss lategame is stronger vs terran, but anyway
My gut feeling is that way back in Beta when Terran was far and away the strongest race, many good players chose to play Terran and sticked with it. Now I feel we have tolerable balance, but still most of the skilled players are Terran. I'd be hard pressed to enumerate a dozen good Zerg or Protoss players, but with Terran, no problem. Then there's also a certain number of cheesy unskilled Terrans who get uncharacteristically far and inflate the stats, whereas Zerg and Protoss don't have as good cheese options.
I think most of it is an aftereffect of Terran being previously really powerful. Now that it's died down, there's still a lot of T players hanging around more than other races because of it.
^ above 3 posts are very correct. IdrA's anti-terran sentiment since the beta will never die :D. I mostly believe its a mixture of the maps being slightly Terran AND Protoss favoured as well as a higher number of T entrants in the GSL.
To the vocal minority, T is the only race yet to have won a GSL :o).
On January 20 2011 21:20 Mise wrote: The biggest reason I feel GSL is so Terran heavy is that the difference between a great terran (MVP and MarineKing) and a good Terran (Jinro, Nada, etc.) is not huge. They are pretty much one step behind them.
But then let's compare MC, with good Toss players, in other words Genius and SSKS, and you can see the difference is much larger. The same goes with Nestea and the Zerg.
Yeah. If Terran didn't dominate then it would have been a problem. More players playing Terran-->more good Terrans. A good Zerg/Protoss can win the hole thing like they did. I pity the ones that think "IMBA".
It's because terran is easier to be decent at. Sure there are top zergs and protoss that can outskill terrans, but in reality terrans have the most cost effective units, and they have the best economy mechanics.
They have the most versatile early mid and late game.
On January 20 2011 22:00 Qzy wrote: Blizz already stated there's a problem with TvP, and they were looking into it. Toss will most likely get a buff, or terran a nerf.
Terran is just 10% OP and in the top field these sort of procentage is huge.
Wasn't that Blizz statement before the last patch?
well terran is prob the race that isn't explored fully yet I'm not whining about how strong this race is (blame blizzard -.-) but each unit can be put in to full potential and pretty much can work with other units. When one BO doesn't, someone will make it stronger or have a different strat. Cost effective units + high econ w/o high number workers or even if all your scv died I'm not a zerg player but its painful to watch marine+tank+turrets push when zerg can't do anything about it their army just melt like butter In PVT, I'm impressed with MC and showed us different builds but let's face it we can't be good as him =/
On January 20 2011 22:00 Qzy wrote: Blizz already stated there's a problem with TvP, and they were looking into it. Toss will most likely get a buff, or terran a nerf.
Terran is just 10% OP and in the top field these sort of procentage is huge.
At blizzcon blizzard also said that there was a problem with HT + amulet + storm. Expect a HT nerf too if they nerf T.
On January 20 2011 19:32 Hane wrote: terran's gameplay is way rich than P/Z powerfull army - best harass(hellion/drop) - good mobility (bio stim?) - solid defense (tank/bunker/PF/scan/..) - solid eco (MULE) - good late game eco (the more you have cc, the more you can MULE). Terran OP (sry). You are not limited by your race, but by your hands.
On January 20 2011 22:00 Qzy wrote: Blizz already stated there's a problem with TvP, and they were looking into it. Toss will most likely get a buff, or terran a nerf.
Terran is just 10% OP and in the top field these sort of procentage is huge.
You're very wrong there.
Toss is ahead 10%, not terran. And this was pre toss buff patch. If you listen towards the end, they're stating that a well needed nerf for toss lategame is coming. I don't want to sound biased but Protoss has a pretty big advantage vs terran, especially lategame.
On January 20 2011 22:00 Qzy wrote: Blizz already stated there's a problem with TvP, and they were looking into it. Toss will most likely get a buff, or terran a nerf.
Terran is just 10% OP and in the top field these sort of procentage is huge.
They said Terran is too strong early game because of timing attacks and stim, whereas Toss has the advantage lategame with mass Colo/Storm. Now that Toss scouting has been buffed if anything it is Toss lategame that will be nerfed.
On January 20 2011 21:03 NikonTC wrote: This thread is essentially a giant lightbulb for the annoying insects that are balance whiners. The OP doesn't really want to know the reason why terrans are having "so much success" in GSL, he already has his theory (terran imba) and wants to have other people who think the same come and make lots of noise about it.
you've been constantly whining about this; it's one thing to try to defend your race but there are some good discussion going around. there are other people also curious why T has been so successful in GSL, you just want to shush all the people who complain about T, its really obvious why
I thought someone might bring that up. And beleive me threads like this make me seriously consider switching my main race from terran. Not because of self respect, or because i think terran is OP, but because I don't like playing a race and having to worry that the voices of a very vocal minority might actually end up having an effect on the balance of the game (again).
And there is no good discussion being done in this thread that hasn't already been discussed in better threads. This thread was just a honey trap for people that think a certain way (terran imba) and a place for them to all come in and confirm "Its ok guys there's several of us, its ok to think this way".
Well, if you make a thread titled "why are zerg players succeeding so much more in tournaments", I don't know what sort of replies it would get... it will be an interesting experiment. Anyways I digress..
Well I wouldnt start a thread with that title because that's not what is happening. However if i started a thread with the title "Why are zerg so unstoppable lategame?" then I expect we'd see a similar influx of terran players whining about zerg lategame being so strong.
I think that's an interesting question with an interesting answer:
Zerg are unstoppable late-game if you've spent two or three bases' worth of resources blasting the living shit out of them and they've managed to survive. They've starved you out; they've earned the win.
Builds like the '4OC' strategy strongly suggest that if you pour resources into unit production facilities rather than units, late-game Zerg is eminently stoppable. You can match and even overtop their '300 food push'. But you won't be able to do that if you've been constantly aggressive. I think late-game Zerg could be absolutely crushed if a Terran methodically turtled on three or four bases, massed unit producing structures, saved up resources and then pushed out. If you're not prepared to do that, why shouldn't a Zerg's tenacity eventually pay off?
Maybe change topic to "Why so much Terran hate?" because it's like as if Terrans aren't supposed to win a GSL, ffs. For some reason I feel like there's some proper racism within the game, like Zergs are the ones supposed to win all the time, and if not, something is wrong with the game. If Terrans win, everyone cries.
On January 20 2011 22:00 Qzy wrote: Blizz already stated there's a problem with TvP, and they were looking into it. Toss will most likely get a buff, or terran a nerf.
Terran is just 10% OP and in the top field these sort of procentage is huge.
They are actually going to nerf protoss rofl.... .
Some map positions favour Terran, I think this is part of their GSL success.
However, Zerg and Toss players are definitely underperforming, and due to their races being less represented, this results in a perceived 'Terran dominance'. Players like Kyrix, Zenio, Tester, HongUn have all shown flashes of brilliance, but nothing consistently good. With the exception of Nestea and maybe MC, the other two races lack top-tier players which can match that of Terran.
Perhaps that is due to the inherent racial properties, perhaps not.
On a side note, I think (not certain) the regular TL forum posters represent a different racial spread, with more zergs, then toss, then terran (at least according to the voting trends - 'what race do you play'). This would explain why we see more Zerg-derived QQ followed by Toss.
Zergs get affirmative action, Terrans get taxxed extra to support the whinging Zerg babies.
And then the Zergs STILL hate the Terrans anyway, even though they have the gobsmacking rudeness to try to invade in the Terran Chapter of the game. Wait for your turn Zergs, more and more of you keep flooding into our Ladders, soon there wont even be any Terrans left, but still the Terrans can't fight back because they will be called "racist" because it's now a social norm for Terrans to be dominated in public speaking. Standing up for your rights as a Terran is seen as oppressing the minorities.
This is like top whinning op-up hate terran topic EVER. How is it still not closed ? Actually terran is doing nice because mvp mkp jinro and nada are beasts sc2 is like chess, u cant blame your pieces for you failure plz guys be more mcish and less idraish...
My predicition is that with the new maps we will see a huge drop of Terrans at the top. Most Terrans play very aggressiv these days which wont be as good as with larger maps. And to those people saying Terrans early all-ins are to strong: Is the same all-in of Terrans as strong on Meta Cross as on Steppes? No. So blame the Maps.
And about drops: If you are afraid of them just counter them..srsly.. Drops getting really annoying and dangerous when your army is not in range of your base which is more likely mid-/endgame. At this time of the game for goods sake just invest a few hundreds of minerals to defend drops at possible drop locations (speaking about turrets,crawlers,cannons). You will 1) have no losses in production facilities or workers (if u lose just 5 workers its far more of a loss than 5 turrets or whatever), 2) You wont be afraid of them =>psychologic calm, 3) You dont have to handle them micro whise which would put you behind in macro aswell.
I know that there are a few maps where its easier to handle drops with turrets etc (xel naga) and harder ones (shakuras?) but that again is a map thing.
On January 20 2011 22:40 Scrimpton wrote: Zergs get affirmative action, Terrans get taxxed extra to support the whinging Zerg babies.
And then the Zergs STILL hate the Terrans anyway, even though they have the gobsmacking rudeness to try to invade in the Terran Chapter of the game. Wait for your turn Zergs, more and more of you keep flooding into our Ladders, soon there wont even be any Terrans left, but still the Terrans can't fight back because they will be called "racist" because it's now a social norm for Terrans to be dominated in public speaking. Standing up for your rights as a Terran is seen as oppressing the minorities.
The Subversion continues
errm okay, this would be so funny if it wasn't serious
On January 20 2011 22:40 Scrimpton wrote: Zergs get affirmative action, Terrans get taxxed extra to support the whinging Zerg babies.
And then the Zergs STILL hate the Terrans anyway, even though they have the gobsmacking rudeness to try to invade in the Terran Chapter of the game. Wait for your turn Zergs, more and more of you keep flooding into our Ladders, soon there wont even be any Terrans left, but still the Terrans can't fight back because they will be called "racist" because it's now a social norm for Terrans to be dominated in public speaking. Standing up for your rights as a Terran is seen as oppressing the minorities.
The Subversion continues
errm okay, this would be so funny if it wasn't serious
On January 20 2011 22:43 noD wrote: This is like top whinning op-up hate terran topic EVER. How is it still not closed ? Actually terran is doing nice because mvp mkp jinro and nada are beasts sc2 is like chess, u cant blame your pieces for you failure plz guys be more mcish and less idraish...
Because discussing balance isn't against the rules - people just tend to do it in the wrong places.
probably need to add the point terran had an strong opening that was considered imbalanced during the beta and so the other races were played less during the first gsls (and mostly went into matches against terrans with the i am underpowered, which was resulting into alot of mind game losses for the other 2 races in the qualifiers).
I think a good break down to look at is when the game end. I would speculate that terran games are ending in the early game where as protoss and zerg v T games end in the late game.
On January 20 2011 22:43 noD wrote: This is like top whinning op-up hate terran topic EVER. How is it still not closed ? Actually terran is doing nice because mvp mkp jinro and nada are beasts sc2 is like chess, u cant blame your pieces for you failure plz guys be more mcish and less idraish...
wtf sc2 isn't like chess >_>;; what are you talking about... In chess the two sides are the same, except black follows white, so ofc you can't blame your pieces in chess. I can blame my hydralisks.. however.
Small maps. Very powerful t1 and t1.5 units when compared to other races. Add marauder slow against protoss and bunkers against zerg.
Most protoss' lose becouse of 1 early battle becouse they weren't at the best possible location and weren't able to retreat as they would lose they whole army anyway. Zergs are usually bunker rushed and early pressured so they are so far behind that comeback is almost impossible. However if terran doesn't do that they usually lose in end game to both races. It's just retarded at the moment. Short games are one sided rushing in terran favor and in long games terran is slaughtered 95% of time. PvZ is the only good matchup currently in my opinion.
It IMO is a mixture of map pool and overall T population in the GSL. Also some players just defend poorly on the smaller maps. FF in front of an attack then their zelots to get slaughtered by the FF that are supposed to help your army. Just overall bad gameplay causes for many losses on smaller maps.
On January 20 2011 22:40 Scrimpton wrote: Zergs get affirmative action, Terrans get taxxed extra to support the whinging Zerg babies.
And then the Zergs STILL hate the Terrans anyway, even though they have the gobsmacking rudeness to try to invade in the Terran Chapter of the game. Wait for your turn Zergs, more and more of you keep flooding into our Ladders, soon there wont even be any Terrans left, but still the Terrans can't fight back because they will be called "racist" because it's now a social norm for Terrans to be dominated in public speaking. Standing up for your rights as a Terran is seen as oppressing the minorities.
The Subversion continues
what are you talking about? terrans have been the most used race since ever and no GSL results changed that
Problem is Zerg. We can open with fast expansion, 1 base roach all in, 1 base banelings all in, 6 pool!! I mean, it's too limited. Terrans can even Thor rush, com'on. I am not complaining about the Thor rush, but the lack of this possibility from zerg players. Zerg tech is slower, then it opens too much for certain timed attacks that barelly have to scout to succeed (or just be annoying).
I think we should have more tech 1 units, maybe hidra come down to tier 1. And then, as we "evolve" our lair, we open up new evolutions for each of these guys. Roach evolve into a tank-like unit, zerglings into banelings, things like this, even queen could evolve into something cool, maybe get wings and fly (fast!!). (that would result into faster transitions to unpredictble strategies)
I have good ideas for zerg, hope Blizzard don't fail me and do something really cool for zerg in next expansion, cause right now that's what zerg lacks, cool things!!
Edit: Cooler zergs -> more zerg players. I do think zerg has a lot of potential on "coolness". I myself play as random instead of zerg, even though zerg is my favorite race, but not in current sc2 gameplay.
It IMO is a mixture of map pool and overall T population in the GSL. Also some players just defend poorly on the smaller maps. FF in front of an attack then their zelots to get slaughtered by the FF that are supposed to help your army. Just overall bad gameplay causes for many losses on smaller maps.
IMHO there are more T because: 1. The T players in the GSL have more skill i.e. there are a lot more big names for T. 2. The randomness of math ups i.e. there were quite a few ZvZ kills this GSL.
Thankyou everyone for a variety of answers and explanations, many of them quite reasonable. Keep it coming! I believe this thread has potential beyond a back-and-forth QQ fest, there have been a lot of good posts. It will definitely be interesting to see how new maps affect the distribution in the next GSL, that will probably give us our most significant data set, just to see what races make it out of the prelims. I have a feeling Z will benefit, but what about P?
Because new improve AI movement help micro range units >>OP ......I don't think you can micro marines like that in SC1 . ............Best defend and harass units + build >> we all know how hard for zerg to win against terran early game. When I play zerg or watch zerg vs good terran, I always afraid of the early game harass -all in .......Stim marauder. Even with upgrade HP. A group of stim marauder or marines can destroy building like nexus or other tech so fast. ...........Movement. well medivac is way more OP than medic + drop ship.
Its not the map imbalance alone Zergs and Protosses have won the GSL (in fact, the Terran hasn't).
It might be map imbalance, yes. But it is also player skill. More player skill than anything. Maybe some luck since Zergs had to beat each other and Protosses have looked less than mortal.
The topic was about the Terran Sucess in the GSL not being imbalanced...
How many of us here are casual players ? players in Bronze , Silver , Gold that play everyday a few games and see the gsl and other tournments? How many of us just started playing RTS games with starcraft2 ?
We the new players should know that we can´t play like Nestea , MC or MVP ... Have you ever seen the replays of the games you lost? All of your losses didnt come because the race was overpowered or the map wasn´t the right one.. You lost because you did something wrong , and after that you even did something worse , and in fact there should be times in the game when you could have won if you had done that.. When we play we do lots of small mistakes , that cost us the game and dont think about it .. Thats whats wrong , we can´t tell "The game is unfair" , NO! We can tell , well i´m gonna do that next time!
Only the professionals can say something and even them aren´t 100% right , please understand but , IF 8 code S zergs played like IMnestea , or 8 protoss played like MC , would we have this post here?
i do think that MVP , MKP , Nada , Jinro ,even slayersboxer , rainbow and TSLclide play much better than the rest of the Zerg and Protoss field besides MC , Nestea and also Idra... they do different builds and catch the opponents doing always the same build at the same times over and over again.. Even Choya and Hongunprime have much more imagination than the other protoss..
Time will make the game balanced , not insulting others and blizzard the company that made the Starcraft 1 and the best game in the world Starcraft2 , and that is always doing new things to the communty unlike the other companies , that just make games to play 2 months and bye bye , buy the sequel 9 months after..
I don't understand the people that say "The terran players are just better"
That excuse doesn't really seem to work because its not very easy to prove that, because maybe they are just doing better because of imbalances or map flaws.
Assuming the game is not balanced, how long will it take to realise that terrans are not just better?
On January 20 2011 23:10 Aerakin wrote: Sure, Terran players are very common in the GSL, their win rate is great.
So what.
They didn't win when it mattered, while two Zergs did just that.
Alot of things can explain that such as luck or nervousness.
On January 20 2011 23:43 TheKing wrote: I don't understand the people that say "The terran players are just better"
That excuse doesn't really seem to work because its not very easy to prove that, because maybe they are just doing better because of imbalances or map flaws.
Assuming the game is not balanced, how long will it take to realise that terrans are not just better?
It's impossible to know, in fact.
Hence why balancing an rts game like starcraft is such a nightmare.
On January 20 2011 23:36 tapk69 wrote: The topic was about the Terran Sucess in the GSL not being imbalanced...
How many of us here are casual players ? players in Bronze , Silver , Gold that play everyday a few games and see the gsl and other tournments? How many of us just started playing RTS games with starcraft2 ?
We the new players should know that we can´t play like Nestea , MC or MVP ... Have you ever seen the replays of the games you lost? All of your losses didnt come because the race was overpowered or the map wasn´t the right one.. You lost because you did something wrong , and after that you even did something worse , and in fact there should be times in the game when you could have won if you had done that.. When we play we do lots of small mistakes , that cost us the game and dont think about it .. Thats whats wrong , we can´t tell "The game is unfair" , NO! We can tell , well i´m gonna do that next time!
Only the professionals can say something and even them aren´t 100% right , please understand but , IF 8 code S zergs played like IMnestea , or 8 protoss played like MC , would we have this post here?
i do think that MVP , MKP , Nada , Jinro ,even slayersboxer , rainbow and TSLclide play much better than the rest of the Zerg and Protoss field besides MC , Nestea and also Idra... they do different builds and catch the opponents doing always the same build at the same times over and over again.. Even Choya and Hongunprime have much more imagination than the other protoss..
Time will make the game balanced , not insulting others and blizzard the company that made the Starcraft 1 and the best game in the world Starcraft2 , and that is always doing new things to the communty unlike the other companies , that just make games to play 2 months and bye bye , buy the sequel 9 months after..
Actually a poll was done on TL and most of the players here are at least Diamond level so they do have some knowledge on what they're saying. Granted it isn't as insightful as a progamer but they're not bronze leaguers who don't know anything about the game. Also good job disregarding all of the Code A games, with 8 terrans at the top. Are you saying they're just of a much higher skill than every other zerg/toss in the same league? I'm not sure exactly where Zerg are when it comes to balance but it sure seems like Terran are doing much better than them and I can't see it all factoring down to just the maps.
On January 20 2011 23:36 tapk69 wrote: The topic was about the Terran Sucess in the GSL not being imbalanced...
How many of us here are casual players ? players in Bronze , Silver , Gold that play everyday a few games and see the gsl and other tournments? How many of us just started playing RTS games with starcraft2 ?
We the new players should know that we can´t play like Nestea , MC or MVP ... Have you ever seen the replays of the games you lost? All of your losses didnt come because the race was overpowered or the map wasn´t the right one.. You lost because you did something wrong , and after that you even did something worse , and in fact there should be times in the game when you could have won if you had done that.. When we play we do lots of small mistakes , that cost us the game and dont think about it .. Thats whats wrong , we can´t tell "The game is unfair" , NO! We can tell , well i´m gonna do that next time!
Only the professionals can say something and even them aren´t 100% right , please understand but , IF 8 code S zergs played like IMnestea , or 8 protoss played like MC , would we have this post here?
i do think that MVP , MKP , Nada , Jinro ,even slayersboxer , rainbow and TSLclide play much better than the rest of the Zerg and Protoss field besides MC , Nestea and also Idra... they do different builds and catch the opponents doing always the same build at the same times over and over again.. Even Choya and Hongunprime have much more imagination than the other protoss..
Time will make the game balanced , not insulting others and blizzard the company that made the Starcraft 1 and the best game in the world Starcraft2 , and that is always doing new things to the communty unlike the other companies , that just make games to play 2 months and bye bye , buy the sequel 9 months after..
Actually a poll was done on TL and most of the players here are at least Diamond level so they do have some knowledge on what they're saying. Granted it isn't as insightful as a progamer but they're not bronze leaguers who don't know anything about the game. Also good job disregarding all of the Code A games, with 8 terrans at the top. Are you saying they're just of a much higher skill than every other zerg/toss in the same league? I'm not sure exactly where Zerg are when it comes to balance but it sure seems like Terran are doing much better than them and I can't see it all factoring down to just the maps.
Unless a player is random he will be biased, and we can CLEARLY see it here ...
Terran has more possible openings, and is perfectly well designed for aggressive korean playstyle, nothing surprising there. Of course we all know there is a majority of T-favored maps in the pool right now. I'm pretty sure there's also more T players than Z or P, that plays a role but not as much as the 2 previous points.
Drops are far too effective if you ask me. A Terran sat behind some Siege Tanks won't miss 4 Marauders and a Medivac, but his opponent sure will miss their tech.
I don't mean to take anything away from Terran players but the race is just extremely straight forward and versatile at the same time.
Terran has the luxury of fortifying their ramp with bunkers/tanks in the early game and being immune to any early all-ins.. All it takes is 1 scan to see the all-in then add a couple more bunkers and you're set... This doesn't hurt them too bad because when they're ready to take their nat they salvage those bunkers and float their buildings, effectively moving their wall forward without really taking any losses from the turtle-based play... They can play their game the way the want, without taking any risks.
Protoss suffers from having to micro perfectly while having exactly the right unit composition to counter whatever the Terran has.. (Too little zealots you lose, not-so-perfect forcefields = you lose) While the terran can pump from the barracks with a couple tanks and medivacs and be perfectly fine (until storm/collossus comes out, but even they have very easy counters in reactored vikings and ghosts) Overall it seems like the toss has to micro a lot harder than the Terran in order to come out on top.
Zerg is struggling to find the perfect balance of economy/army and its extremely difficult to do this, always... Zergs are terrified of the 1-base all-ins that terran has at it's disposal... Sacking overlords and looking at marine counts are helpful in this, but you never truly know if a terran is going to expand or all-in until you see the 2nd command centre. Zerg has to take calculated risks when playing terran, and they often come back to bite them in the ass... Terran doesn't need to take calculated risks because they can really do whatever they want... 1 early game scan is often enough to give them the information they need to stay safe and punish the zerg...
It's hard for zerg to take the map and expand against terran because the threat of drops and all-ins is always there.... And if we play it safe and get extra queens or keep units at home... then the terran will just add some more defense and power his economy and come out on top.
Seems to me like Terran doesnt have to work as hard for their wins and their race is much more FORGIVING... Whereas a Toss or Zerg has to have a near perfect game to come out on top... A missed injection or bad forcefields is normally a GG while Terran can afford to miss mules or miss production cycles because their units are so cost-effective and go a lot further than zerg/protoss.
This is just my opinion and the small maps DEFINITELY play a huge factor in the terran success... But I dont think large maps would be too detrimental for them either, they'd just have to switch to a macro style while limiting expos with drops instead of all the 1/2 base death pushes that everyone is so afraid of.
Terran has just to many small edges that benefit them in various situations.
Repair-rate / Auto-Repair Planetary Fortress Bunker 100% Salvagin No penalty for missing macro mechanics (also they allow oversaturation, thus more units on equal saturated bases) Easy and save fast Tech, with the possibility to swap add-ons. Dropship and medic in one, amplifies dropping^5 Easy, cheap microable high efficiant allround units (mm, a-click stim and you already deal massssiv damage)
And very subjectiv one: Terran is too forgiving. On 1vs1 Base, if you do make some critical errors, you're still not dead.
Of course everyrace has their strong aspects, but terran has way way too many, those give you little edges in various situations helping you out if you fail something or damping the damage dealt to you.
i see youre a Diamond player , but you have to understand that diamond is not pro-like there´s master league now.. im a simple silver player , nº1 on division but i will respond to your CODE A..
CODE A FINAL 8 : 3 ZERGS !!!! 3!!! 5 TERRANS and 1 PROTOSS ( i don´t have a response to this , maybe learn something other than make 4 gates or collusus)
Zuly lost badly , made lots of mistakes , Cezanne was good but SCfou played better to.. im not even going to talk about FOXMoon , i was hoping he won code A but he played all-inish style against his teammate and lost..
Well if July , Cezanne and FOXMoon won it would have been a 3 ZERGS 1 TERRAN final four..
Another thing , ZeNEXByun e OgsTop are probably the best Code A players
On January 21 2011 00:24 tapk69 wrote: Another thing , ZeNEXByun e OgsTop are probably the best Code A players
Yeah, but if we look a bit back Byun used to play protoss (bleach) and he was fucking terrible with protoss. Why is he suddenly one of the Best in Code A while playing Terran, compared to his godawful play as protoss?
I don't understand people saying Terran is more refined or more explored. Aren't most Terrans almost completely incapable of a fierce macro game (except of course Jinro)? Sure, most of them have moved on from 1basing to 2basing, but other than that, I haven't seen anything that suggests to me the Terrans are more refined or anything. Not to mention that ghosts,ravens, and battlecruisers are still woefully underused.
So I would generally say maps. Because they favor 1basing and 2basing a lot.
Partially that there are more terran players (toss not far behind but there are way less zergs overall so they should be less represented)
Mostly the silly maps though! (new potential gls maps will flip this around really hard afai-can tell, they are way to big, and just feel that way, units clump way too much but the map takes ages to scroll across).
Make maps like shakuras/xel naga and non close LT/Meta, aka medium->"longish" rush distances, not something that's so big relative to your army it feels like a piece of dirt in sahara. BW maps fit their army sizes quite well*, armies clump way more in sc2 so even small maps feel big.
----- *And they were 128x128/128x96/96x128**, not 168x168 or whatever, it's just that early agression is way stronger in sc2 and hence games end early and the sc2 maps are generally medium sized but with silly layouts (hence the short nat 2 nats). **Aside from some real old school ones.
On January 21 2011 00:23 mesohawny wrote: Saying "oh theres just more T players than Z or P, thats why theres more top terrans!" is extremely flawed logic,
Ask yourselvs WHY there are more T players than Z or P...
Is Terran the "cool kid" race? Or is Terran a little better than the other races?
Food for the thought.
You didn't read any replies, I suggest you do, because people have been doing that for a couple pages now.
Terran has been the dominant force in this game since late in the beta. I'm pretty sure if you were to tally up all of the tournament wins since the game was released, Terran would be the leading the other 2 races (combined) by quite a large margin.
Personally, I agree with the guy who said that the gap between good and great players with Terran is far smaller than the other 2 races. Terran rewards good play but it doesn't punish poor play nearly enough. Combine that with the number of easy to execute and extremely powerful early timing attacks and their strong defence making them less vulnerable to the same and you have a good recipe for success.
In my opinion, maps play a big role in this disparity. And also the fact that a lot of great players choose terran (whatever the reason may be). There are not a lot of good zergs (and to a lesser extend protoss) compared to the number of good Terrans.
Does anyone know how MorroW has been doing since he switched fomr T -> Z? I know he recently lost a finals to White-Ra but thats it...
It would be nice if more top players who have switched races would speak up and give their perspectives on balance... It seems like they're all afraid of being called whiners and such. (except for IdrA, he doesnt give a shit about discretion)
w8 so terrans think they are strategically ahead of other races? same race that didn't use mech vs protoss...? the race where they stay on tier 1 units for the longest? im quite suprised that anyone mentioned that with a straight face.
A Mixture between map imbalances (the main part) and Race Imbalance, but it goes hand in hand.
Terran is OP in short distances, for example on Steppes even Protoss have a really hard time. The only thing you can do, and why it is not as bad as Protoss, is because you have good all-ins. Planetary Fortresses are imbalanced imo. Also especially on small maps, because on big maps Terran NEEDS them ... not on JB or Steppes.
So Maps are playing the biggest role.
Terrans are not better than the other players, we can see that from: Rain, Rainbow .. etc. MVP is the first Terran from who i really think he has more skill than others. Even Jinro has a far weaker Macro than for example Idra, and even that he plays macro style.
And imo TERRAN IS THE MOST UNEXPLORED RACE. Mech is far better versus Protoss than MMM (I win most of the time only with Chargelots and some AoE, but Blueflame Hellions only would roast them), Banshee + Viking is one of the sickest combos in TvP. (Also, in my opinion) But MMM is easier to play. And that's why everyone plays it.
I am a Zerg player, but my bias isn't even pro-Zerg, it's anti-Terran. In my time playing video-games I always tend to hate the OP class/character rather than crying about mine being UP, though I have this knack for always picking the weakest class/character out there... What can I say, we all have our talents.
Terran has some obviously favorable balance issues that go beyond simple flavor, most of these are related to their 2 base units, the Marine and the Marauder, mostly the Marine though.
Marauders are good, like unbelievably good. They're cheap, versatile, and ridiculously strong. Not to mention they have the completely unique ability to snare units with every attack at the minor cost of 50/50, this doesn't require energy or activating the ability, it just happens, every shot. The Marauder is hands, down the best early-game unit out there... that is... next to the Marine.
The Marine was ok in Brood War, I might even consider them slightly weaker than Zealots and Zerglings, but holy crap did that turn around in SC2. While Zerglings lost attack speed and Zealots lost health, Marines gained health, gained ranged, gained hp, gained attack speed, and get another hp upgrade on top of all that, oh yeah, stim isn't quite what it used to be, but their new attack speed + weaker stim is still > old stimmed marines. There isn't a single non-splash-damage unit in the game that can take an equal amount of marines straight-up. They are so good, they even counter a lot of the units you would THINK should trump them (Roaches, Banelings, Siege Tanks, Hellions all do surprisingly average against Marines).
All I can say is "What the hell was Blizzard thinking?" MarineKing seems to be the only pro who has caught on to this, making 80-90% of his army composition marines in all MUs, but if things don't change, I can see this idea spreading. This unit has gotten so ridiculously good, its laughable. No wonder Terran has the best all-ins, cheeses, and rushes. They have the god-slayer marine.
Still, I try to look at the whole picture. Marines aren't THAT bad, I think something like adding 0.1 to their attack speed would make them less god-like, but I'm not sure if that would break Terran as a whole. There are too many holes in the Terran army that are filled by the Marine as is, compensation might be required in other areas but its too hard to tell with the dominance of the marine right now. If I were Blizzard, it would be nerf the Marine and watch the results, fixes can be applied to other units later. The Marine is the reason Terran wins more than everybody else, and until Blizzard addresses that, things won't change.
On January 21 2011 00:07 TedJustice wrote: In GSL3 it was map imbalance, because there was no thumbs down.
In all the others, it's just player preference. There are more terrans so more of them get good.
Thumbs down helps a little bit but there is still map imbalance because there are several terran favored maps and only one thumbs down vote. With Steps of War and Jungle Basin, a good terran should be ashamed of himself if he loses to a zerg. Lost Temple and Delta are still terran favored. Metalopolis is terran favored with close positions, and you could even argue Sharkuras is terran favored in close positions because there is no way for zerg to fight effectively in the narrow hallway if terran does a smart slow push.
fact is in each gsl so far theres been 1 Z/P who was miles ahead of any of the competition (terran). compare nestea to foxer, fruitdealer to rainbo, mc to rain. 2 of those terrans have no business being even close to the gsl finals. the other makes 1 type of unit 90% of the time.
On January 21 2011 00:42 mesohawny wrote: Does anyone know how MorroW has been doing since he switched fomr T -> Z? I know he recently lost a finals to White-Ra but thats it...
It would be nice if more top players who have switched races would speak up and give their perspectives on balance... It seems like they're all afraid of being called whiners and such. (except for IdrA, he doesnt give a shit about discretion)
He is doing fine ZvT still cant defend 4-5 gates in ZvP
On January 21 2011 00:25 da_head wrote: terran's pretty op right now. i haven't seen a decent strategy to beat their 1 rax fe currently. if anyone can let me know, i'd appreciate it.
I actually disagree with nearly all of the poll options, i guess "more people play terran" sort of falls under it but really it goes more in depth than that. Remember back when all the zerg players were crying terran OP, well quite a few of the pros changed to terran at that time (even pros such as idra were saying they would have to change to terran to stay competitive unless zerg got a balance change). On top of that obviously players were already playing terran. Hence more a lot of pros playing terran
Also its more micro based than macro based (doesnt have to be this way but most players decide to play terran this way) which many prefer
Another point is a lot of the maps favour drop based play especially on the terrain such as cliffs, which imo protoss and zerg havent fully explored yet
Player preference I think has a part in it, but probably maps are the bigger issue. It's true that new players who are serious about succeeding in SC2 were more likely to pick Terran in patch 1.0 (and probably still are). Like, MarineKing picked Terran because he heard Terran was OP. Maybe we'd have a ZealotKing otherwise.
On January 21 2011 00:45 Treemonkeys wrote: Terran has an advantage against protoss in early game due to stim.
Terran has more options that their opponents need to prepare for and worry about.
There are too many maps that favor terran.
"Terran has more options that their opponents need to prepare for and worry about."
this statement is so overrated. Terran has a lot of openings, however they can only do one opening at a time. Scout the opening and this suggestion of a Terran advantage is negated.
I've noticed alot of early pushes, as terran, that can actually kill an opponent. Now, this isn't unbalanced. There are early pressure options with zerg and protoss as well. I think the problem is, is that terran can do these pushes, and, given that the players aren't terribly seperated in their skill level, the terran has almost no risk for doing it in the first place. The chances of you losing 4 marines in an early push vZ, is pretty low, if you're doing it correctly. If it doesn't work, and your opponent pushes against you with his own force, you can build a defensive structure that returns its investment, which again, leans towards the no risk spectrum of decisions. If a protoss builds cannons to stop a push, any race can walk away with 150*n damage done to the protoss economy, and not lose a single unit. If you push Z, and they build spine crawlers, it's the same thing. If you push terran, and he bunkers up, he can sell them. Of course, the situation arises when he uses turrets, though.
If a zerg misses his queens spit, he's punished by having to wait an extra N amount of seconds to get his larvae. If protoss misses his chronos, he's going to be punished by waiting an extra N amount of seconds to get his tech up. If terran misses his mules, he can just shift click five down on an expo. Another example of non-punishing gameplay aspects favouring terran.
I don't think that terran is overpowered. I think that terran strategies tend to be more surefire than Z or P. I hope that they can change this in the future.
I wonder what happens if we attach weights according to the position, i.e. a terran reaching the finals counts as two zerg/protoss/terran in the ro4, a zerg earning the title counts as two zerg/protoss/terran in the finals.
I think that would represent the success of a certain race better than an unweighted statistics, where nestea as the champions counts as much as any terran in the ro8.
On January 21 2011 01:02 Liquid`Jinro wrote: Easier to play terran safely when you are the better player, as well as easier to play terran cheesily when you arent.
shit. this sums it up perfect in so few words. was about to write the same thing just like 10 times as long and half as clear.
On January 21 2011 00:45 Treemonkeys wrote: Terran has an advantage against protoss in early game due to stim.
Terran has more options that their opponents need to prepare for and worry about.
There are too many maps that favor terran.
"Terran has more options that their opponents need to prepare for and worry about."
this statement is so overrated. Terran has a lot of openings, however they can only do one opening at a time. Scout the opening and this suggestion of a Terran advantage is negated.
They also are the most difficult to scout, they can wall, they can swap tech around, they have the most units, and they are the most flexible. To even scout them effectively at all, protoss is forced into a tech patch and zerg is forced to sacrifice overlords. Terran can scout with a simple click, and yes it "costs" a mule, and they depend the least on scouting, because they have a baseline unit that is extremely strong against most air and ground. They don't have to tech to scout, they don't have to spend minerals up front to scout.
On January 21 2011 00:23 mesohawny wrote: Saying "oh theres just more T players than Z or P, thats why theres more top terrans!" is extremely flawed logic,
Ask yourselvs WHY there are more T players than Z or P...
Is Terran the "cool kid" race? Or is Terran a little better than the other races?
Food for the thought.
I'm willing to bet money at least one progamer's thought process was something along the lines of, "Hey, didn't BoxeR play Terran in BW? I want to play Terran."
On January 21 2011 01:02 Liquid`Jinro wrote: Easier to play terran safely when you are the better player, as well as easier to play terran cheesily when you arent.
EDIT: My clairvoyance tells me this is going to get quoted along with a bunker rush game from not too long ago.
Terran also has the most powerful "cheese", and the best ability to recover from it if it doesn't go well - terran cheese is the least risky cheese.
I liked how Artosis rides bitbybit SO MUCH for the scv all-ins, and didn't say a damn thing when nada did it to tester every game.
Proxy rax doesn't go well? Fly it away.
Cloaked banshees don't go well? You can still use that starport for medicacs vikings, you can just put that tech lab on something else.
Proxy bunker doesn't go well? Oh, just sell it.
Now what happens with a proxy gateway doesn't go well? They lose the gateway and probably the game.
What happens if DT's don't go well? They spent money on a completely useless tech building.
These are just the reasons why terran is easier to cheese with.
On January 21 2011 01:02 Liquid`Jinro wrote: Easier to play terran safely when you are the better player, as well as easier to play terran cheesily when you arent.
EDIT: My clairvoyance tells me this is going to get quoted along with a bunker rush game from not too long ago.
Terran also has the most powerful "cheese", and the best ability to recover from it if it doesn't go well - terran cheese is the least risky cheese.
I liked how Artosis rides bitbybit SO MUCH for the scv all-ins, and didn't say a damn thing when nada did it to tester every game.
What is Terran cheese? Since depot -> rax I havent seen any kind of cheesy builds.. Of course you have 2rax vs 14 Hatch, but that is just punishing greedy Zergs.. I suppose you can proxy your stargate for cloaked banshees, but this is very rare..
when did "T OP" become an acceptable thread on TL :S.
Focus on your own play and improve that, rather than on other races. 99% of posts here are going to be plat/low diamond anyway just scapegoating their badness.
Blizz has data collection tools that absolutely overbear everything that this terrible ranting can bring about.
If T is "OP" the data will reflect this and changes will be made.
You gain nothing from whining, but you can gain from knuckling down and learning how to play better.
Getting rid of bunker salvage, or changing the function so that it takes LONGER and requires a few SCV's to do it while putting a cooldown on MULE would go a long way in balancing Terran I think. Or leave those aspects the same but cut the healrate down on the medivac
Terran has been successful but for the most part its been the same Terrans... And we also need to look at how many % of GSL players are Terran as well. Statstics are not split evenly. Keep that in mind.
And for the most part it seems as though the same Terrans are doing well. Not random no names coming out of the wood work, taking down the top zergs an tosses. Until we see something of the sort, I think its too early too call balance. Terran still hasn't won a GSL keep that in mind.
On January 21 2011 01:14 mesohawny wrote: Getting rid of bunker salvage, or changing the function so that it takes LONGER and requires a few SCV's to do it while putting a cooldown on MULE would go a long way in balancing Terran I think. Or leave those aspects the same but cut the healrate down on the medivac
Read the post above yours and stop throwing random shit in..
On January 21 2011 01:14 mesohawny wrote: Getting rid of bunker salvage, or changing the function so that it takes LONGER and requires a few SCV's to do it while putting a cooldown on MULE would go a long way in balancing Terran I think. Or leave those aspects the same but cut the healrate down on the medivac
It's hilarious how risk-less a double bunker wall is for terran. Is it even possible for zerg to not come out a little behind? Unless they get lucky and kill the SCV's building.
I'd blame the maps, cause i really don't like them and have way too short distances that usually punish Zerg in longer games. I highly doubt theres any race imbalance though.
On January 21 2011 01:19 WniO wrote: because terran has more options at every stage of the game. its that simple.
Yeah, pretty much this. I think it's obvious that the terran focused single player effected the multiplayer, terran has the most units and the most "cool" shit they can do. I don't expect to have a really balanced game until legacy of the void has been released and patched.
A good way to look at this is by showing map statistics with winning % of every matchup at each map. I wouldn't be surprised if TvZ at least had the lowest win % on the largest maps such as shakuras/metal.
On January 21 2011 00:45 Treemonkeys wrote: Terran has an advantage against protoss in early game due to stim.
Terran has more options that their opponents need to prepare for and worry about.
There are too many maps that favor terran.
"Terran has more options that their opponents need to prepare for and worry about."
this statement is so overrated. Terran has a lot of openings, however they can only do one opening at a time. Scout the opening and this suggestion of a Terran advantage is negated.
You forgot that terran is also the race that is by far the hardest to scout. Combine that with having the most variety of openers and you'll get his point.
Edit: Due to the way tech labs and reactors work it's also much easier (as in cheaper and faster) to techswitch as a terran.
Do you know why you americans have a war each 10 years?
BECAUSE OF THE MARINES MAN.. THEYRE OP... not george w. bush , no nukes , the marines man... Do you see the other countries complain ?
No : they join your forces. Yes : lets suicide in them ( zerg people always blowing stuff )
You should do a poll like Does a Terran have any chance against a 200/200 of the other races? Thats why terran dont like macro games , because it seems to be much weaker if they dont aplly pressure early and mid-game ..
I also think Marauders should shoot air too , and thors should have stim because a marine is inside , so he can drug himself to..
I changed my race to Zerg last month and i love zerg , its much more fun than terran, and against my skill level players im getting quite the same results... Actually TvP for me was hard to win with consistency and ZvP is pretty winnable.. Whats causes Zerg the so big problems against terran is the Tank+Turret strategie but i think someone will find an answer to that!
On January 20 2011 20:24 CryMeAReaper wrote: this thread is incredibly stupid. it will only draw balance whiners, as seen, and u shouldve thought of that >.<
i might aswell give my 2 cents when im in here. i think its maps+ alot of terrans wins (most el oh el) are early/mid game wins, because of their easily massed and cost efficient bio. maybe z/p need to refine their expansion timings more, and figure out Ts timings to handle it, or nerf terran early/buff late, as our "cost efficient" units (aka only shit that works consistently) melts late game normally.
I am so incredibly sorry for quoting an old post, but I just had to say this as a zerg At least you have shit that works consistently
it's hilarious how a 2 second long preparation prevents double bunker walls. it's hilarious how uninformed some posts in this thread are. it's funnier than i can even describe how people flame terran bunkers all the time, while ignoring the little fact that Zergs can move their static defence to the point they need to defend for the entire game.
Seriously, every time i see someone complain about the ability to sell bunkers (never mind that the terran bunker is the only static defense which doesn't actually DO anything by itself) while they ignore the fact that the Zerg have an equal mechanic to move their own defense.
The only race which can complain about those mechanics are protoss because for some reason only blizzard can explain they got left out and their cannons are static and non-refundable.
Ps: The next protoss which tries to tell me that they can't stop a Terran FE will get a link to the Jinro vs. MC semifinals of GSL 3. It isn't that hard if you do it right (unless the Terran goes for the PF straight up, but who does that?)
The Terran players in the GSL are more skilled and make the right decisions during the game and so they win, I thought that was obvious, ofcourse there's going to be zerg/protoss complaining about racial balance but at top level play this is not the case imo
Basically Terran is the more favored race to play. Not because it is Imba/OP, just because people seem to like to play it more. I know that with a lot of tournaments ( do not know about GSL for sure) but there are about 50% T users ,30% p and 20%z. If true, then we do expect to see a higher number of T in the finals
My take on the matter is not that Terran is imbalanced. Its just that the ZvT and PvT match-ups contain fucked up circumstances in the early game which can lead to auto-wins for Terrans also while being completely safe the whole time.
This means, when facing Terran the Protoss and Zerg will always have an x% chance of a stupid loss and (100-x)% chance of a balanced match-up.These are factored by:
1) Maps. * Cliff Drops * Short Rush Distance * Large Ramps (for P) * Non Scouted All-Ins
2) Timings For Zergs: * Bunker Rushes * 2rax Marine For Protoss: * Missed ForceFields * Stim Timing Pushes * Banshees with cloak against non-robo * some Raven Timings.
If not for these things the match-ups go pretty much well. The imbalance we're seing is simply the fact that playing Terran equals to auto-wins in some situations, which in high ranked play can occur quite often.
If you want to verify my hypothesys just check all PvT and ZvTs in the GSL and count the number of retarded wins Terrans got and cross reference them with the number of retarded wins of P and Z vs T.
You will see that Terran early game is completely safe from most crap all while having small opportunities for easy wins.
On January 21 2011 01:17 Noxie wrote: And for the most part it seems as though the same Terrans are doing well. Not random no names coming out of the wood work, taking down the top zergs an tosses. Until we see something of the sort, I think its too early too call balance. Terran still hasn't won a GSL keep that in mind.
Umm... top Zerg and Protoss have always been getting eliminated by lesser Terrans since GSL 1...
So the exact situation you've described is already happening, can we call imba now?
The game right now has plenty of timing attacks and all-ins of one base and Terran feels the most robust against this because their macro mechanic works even though everything is in ruins.
Further, the repair mechanic helps terran hold things better all though MC and a few other protoss players have shown that this might change in TVP and I suspect the recent SCV fix can help out as well.
I also feel that Terran has the most players so to me it's a combination between terran popularity and bad maps but then again Protoss players has been playing so-so overall and zerg has won twice
On January 20 2011 19:28 Talack wrote: Where is the option where I say that I think the terran pros are just that much better than the zerg/toss pros in terms of micro/macro/decision making/strategic analysis.
In your god damn fantasies, seriously that was an incredibly stupid thing to say.
I don't think you put enough work into this, everyone is calling their vote without proper statistics. You need to find a way to incorporate the # of each race from the start of each of the GSLs and maybe go further than just ro8.
If you guys really think terran is overpowered then look at the winners for the past GSLs, the game isn't completely balanced but i'd say it's pretty close.
Map imbalances for terran could be the answer but if we look back to sc1 days, they would always give the race winning the least the map advantage which is fair play imo.
On January 21 2011 01:23 fiskrens wrote: A good way to look at this is by showing map statistics with winning % of every matchup at each map. I wouldn't be surprised if TvZ at least had the lowest win % on the largest maps such as shakuras/metal.
Indeed, Shakuras is the lowest winning % in TvZ, but the funny thing is: It's also the closest to 50%. Even Scrap Station, the map that is soooooo Zerg favored and Terrans obviously can never win on it because it's soooooo imbalanced, has more wins for Terran.
I think the reason why Terran is doing so well is not only one of the reasons listed in the OPs poll, but several. Yes, there are more Terran player, which results in more Terrans getting far in Tournaments. Yes, the maps are imbalanced, resulting in Terran winning more. Yes, Terran is imbalanced, at least I think so. Terran is the only race that has a real defenders advantage. As a Zerg, I can't just say: "Ok, I'm going to attack Terran" because if I do, he will only lose 1 Supply for about every 10 Supply I lose. It works the other way round though, Terran can decide to attack me whenever he wants to. Also, Terran has way more possibilties of what he can do than Protoss or Zerg. I think it's not a particular unit of Terran or anything like that that is imbalanced, but the concept of the race in general, due to way more possibilities than the other races.
On January 20 2011 19:28 Talack wrote: Where is the option where I say that I think the terran pros are just that much better than the zerg/toss pros in terms of micro/macro/decision making/strategic analysis.
In your god damn fantasies, seriously that was an incredibly stupid thing to say.
and a lot of us are that stupid to believe in that (me included), tho I think the best player is still mc but in top 10 best players it´s 2 z 1 p and 7 terran ...
On January 21 2011 01:25 Tula wrote: it's hilarious how a 2 second long preparation prevents double bunker walls.
What would this be? The only thing I know of is to patrol drones at the ramp, so then all terran has to do is NOT build bunkers and zerg is behind on mining time.
On January 21 2011 01:38 Clonze wrote: I don't think you put enough work into this, everyone is calling their vote without proper statistics. You need to find a way to incorporate the # of each race from the start of each of the GSLs and maybe go further than just ro8.
If you guys really think terran is overpowered then look at the winners for the past GSLs, the game isn't completely balanced but i'd say it's pretty close.
Map imbalances for terran could be the answer but if we look back to sc1 days, they would always give the race winning the least the map advantage which is fair play imo.
Winner of GSL is just one set of games out of many, it doesn't mean much for balance really. Terran is winning more games overall, as we have seen terran in every GSL finals. Honestly both zerg wins in the finals were against terrans who shouldn't have even been there.
On January 20 2011 19:28 Talack wrote: Where is the option where I say that I think the terran pros are just that much better than the zerg/toss pros in terms of micro/macro/decision making/strategic analysis.
In your god damn fantasies, seriously that was an incredibly stupid thing to say.
and a lot of us are that stupid to believe in that (me included), tho I think the best player is still mc but in top 10 best players it´s 2 z 1 p and 7 terran ...
what a joke. do u realise that tsl rain made it to a gsl final? therainbow too. a guy who makes only marines... made it to a final. pretty sad rly
On January 21 2011 00:45 Treemonkeys wrote: Terran has an advantage against protoss in early game due to stim.
Terran has more options that their opponents need to prepare for and worry about.
There are too many maps that favor terran.
"Terran has more options that their opponents need to prepare for and worry about."
this statement is so overrated. Terran has a lot of openings, however they can only do one opening at a time. Scout the opening and this suggestion of a Terran advantage is negated.
See, now is is where people make no sense. How do you scout a terran after he gets a wall-off with any race other than T?
Zergs can try to sac overlords, but that is no guarantee, and at worst you just lost a larvae, 100 minerals, and 10(or w/e it is don't play zerg) supply just to see that, yes, he does indeed have 2 marines. Protoss is completely helpless until robo or hallucinate comes into play, none of which are really an critical part to any P build. So explain again how to find out which one of 8 one-base all-ins the T is doing.
That being said T being "op" is essentially because of 3 things, which I will place in order or magnitude(imo).
1. Maps. When half the available maps are completely build for T, then yes, T is op. Steppes is a ridiculous example. A simple tank push below the FE is almost completely unstoppable when played correctly. Delta quadrant provides Ts a free expo, which is all they really need to win vs any kind of play, while enabling them to not only abuse their easy drop mechanics on that said expo, but also keeps macro players from getting past 2 bases without having a sizeable unit lead + map control.
2. Marines. When your base tier 1 unit is viable all the way to end of the game as your primary dps dealer............then yeah, something needs to be changed. They are just too strong, and easily abused when compared to their tier 1 equivalents from the other two races. Sure they have their devastating counters, but losing 20 marines is nothing to the T. While those same 20 marines can devastate a base in half a minute flat.
3. Their ability to come back. Due to their turtling mechanics and units, nothing a T ever does is all in. If a Toss does a DT rush and fails miserably, its GG, the Toss will not recover vs anyone remotely close in skill. Whereas things like cloak banshee rushes are completely viable Terran openings that while still having the same game-ending capabilities as DTs, have basically no effect on a Terran's survivability into mid-game. In short, a T can literally survive ANYTHING. I saw a Z v T on Jungle Basin the other day where at one point in the game, the T had double the Zs units lost(by resources, 19,000 to 10,000), half as many bases, 10 scvs to the Zs 60, multiple times in the game the T lost CCs, entire mining expos, 3 or 4 production buildings, etc, 0-1 upgrades to the zerg's 2-2, and lost multiple groups of high cost units(tanks and thors) for almost no damage in return multiple points in the game due to horrific rally points. Basically the Z completely farked up the T all game, barely holding on with tank/missle turrent forts at a few key points in the game. Then the Z makes one mistake late in the game, losing most of his mutas and lings to the Ts last ditch marine/tank army due to bad attack timing, and the T immediately pushed into the zerg's main, and held off the reinforcements while stimming and taking down all the zerg's tech buildings. Re-rallied marines off his 6 reactored rax, fueled by the 8 MULEs worth of energy he had saved up because his macro was horrific, and won the game. Most pathtic display of a race I've ever seen, tbh, I was horrified.
On January 20 2011 19:28 Talack wrote: Where is the option where I say that I think the terran pros are just that much better than the zerg/toss pros in terms of micro/macro/decision making/strategic analysis.
In your god damn fantasies, seriously that was an incredibly stupid thing to say.
and a lot of us are that stupid to believe in that (me included), tho I think the best player is still mc but in top 10 best players it´s 2 z 1 p and 7 terran ...
what a joke. do u realise that tsl rain made it to a gsl final? therainbow too. a guy who makes only marines... made it to a final. pretty sad rly
I actually think rainbow and the guy that makes only marines (aka MarineKingPrime) better than any other P or Z other than mc nestea and fd I should be crazy or joking ....
This is stupid. Most pro terrans choose terran because of being inspired by famous terrans of the past (NaDa, BoxeR). The terrans who make it this far are damn damn good good damn good damn. Jinro, MVP, MarineKing. All have their only style and all are very insanely good. This is best evidenced by their extremely technical TvT games. Mirror matchups are often the best measure of skill IMO.
How is this thread still alive? I dont get it.. Btw, how is this even possible after recent patch? I really think that especially Protoss players whining here should really think a bit before posting random stuff like "stim is op", etc..
On January 20 2011 19:28 Talack wrote: Where is the option where I say that I think the terran pros are just that much better than the zerg/toss pros in terms of micro/macro/decision making/strategic analysis.
In your god damn fantasies, seriously that was an incredibly stupid thing to say.
and a lot of us are that stupid to believe in that (me included), tho I think the best player is still mc but in top 10 best players it´s 2 z 1 p and 7 terran ...
what a joke. do u realise that tsl rain made it to a gsl final? therainbow too. a guy who makes only marines... made it to a final. pretty sad rly
I actually think rainbow and the guy that makes only marines (aka MarineKingPrime) better than any other P or Z other than mc nestea and fd I should be crazy or joking ....
marineking prime is good, but rainbow isnt even as good as ppl like whitera, morrow. he wouldnt do anything if he wasnt terran. morrow actually switched because terran was too easy m8. problem with marineking is that he makes 1 unit and wins. you realise how absurd that makes terran? no other race could do anything close to wat he does even if they had 5 times the skill.
I think its more to the lopsidedness of units.Let me explain this.
Banshee: you either kill 10-20 workers or die fast and get set behind because of the tech
Thor:you either stomp the force or lose all your army including a handful of scv's setting you way behind
Marauder: you either pwn the ground forces or they run into some sort of air or counter that insta pwns you
hellion: roast 30 probes or die in a blaze of glory.
This even goes for much of the spells
Raven seeker missile: hits you and you take heavy damage or misses and the raven is a waste of gas
Thor strike cannon: takes so long to actually fire that if thor dies before its goes off you just gave them a thor on the other hand it can completely shut down its natural counter with the stun aspect (immortals)
Terrans units seem so "all in" in nature. They are weird units with really awkward mechanics. Engaging an enemy gives you a result of being completely smashed by the enemy or smashing the enemys face into the ground.
On January 20 2011 19:28 Talack wrote: Where is the option where I say that I think the terran pros are just that much better than the zerg/toss pros in terms of micro/macro/decision making/strategic analysis.
In your god damn fantasies, seriously that was an incredibly stupid thing to say.
and a lot of us are that stupid to believe in that (me included), tho I think the best player is still mc but in top 10 best players it´s 2 z 1 p and 7 terran ...
what a joke. do u realise that tsl rain made it to a gsl final? therainbow too. a guy who makes only marines... made it to a final. pretty sad rly
I actually think rainbow and the guy that makes only marines (aka MarineKingPrime) better than any other P or Z other than mc nestea and fd I should be crazy or joking ....
marineking prime is good, but rainbow isnt even as good as ppl like whitera, morrow. he wouldnt do anything if he wasnt terran. morrow actually switched because terran was too easy m8. problem with marineking is that he makes 1 unit and wins. you realise how absurd that makes terran? no other race could do anything close to wat he does even if they had 5 times the skill.
sure ... If u truly belive so, your choice. I dont see any difference to Blink stalker strats. Actually I´m just tired, so ok Rainbow isnt a stable player he is just a joke and you are right ...
On January 20 2011 19:28 Talack wrote: Where is the option where I say that I think the terran pros are just that much better than the zerg/toss pros in terms of micro/macro/decision making/strategic analysis.
In your god damn fantasies, seriously that was an incredibly stupid thing to say.
and a lot of us are that stupid to believe in that (me included), tho I think the best player is still mc but in top 10 best players it´s 2 z 1 p and 7 terran ...
what a joke. do u realise that tsl rain made it to a gsl final? therainbow too. a guy who makes only marines... made it to a final. pretty sad rly
I actually think rainbow and the guy that makes only marines (aka MarineKingPrime) better than any other P or Z other than mc nestea and fd I should be crazy or joking ....
I agree on MKP, but Rainbow can't be compared to MVP, MKP and Jinro. Rainbow is good, but not nearly as good as the other 3 players mentioned.
On January 21 2011 01:48 rysecake wrote: Like I always say, you know something is wrong with a race when BitByBit makes it to the ro16 lol...
I laguhed...But there's some truth inside this.
On January 21 2011 01:49 OmegaSyrus wrote: This is stupid. Most pro terrans choose terran because of being inspired by famous terrans of the past (NaDa, BoxeR). The terrans who make it this far are damn damn good good damn good damn. Jinro, MVP, MarineKing. All have their only style and all are very insanely good. This is best evidenced by their extremely technical TvT games. Mirror matchups are often the best measure of skill IMO.
I agree with Jinro, MVP and MarineKing, they deserve to be in the RO4. But how do you explain Rain getting to the finals? BitByBit getting to the RO16?
On January 20 2011 19:33 PraetorianX wrote: The argument about player preference doesn't hold because protoss is the most played race, even in Masters league. Source:
Not an overwhelming number but GSL is a Korean tournament and there are more terrans in masters.
I'd say terran strategies are just more refined right now.
Well, the Korean masters is 37% Terran and 35% Protoss, to be specific.
So the argument "More players pick T, so more T succeed" is faulty. Which is why it's strange that it has 24% of the votes, at the time of writing this.
OK, I guess you're never going to read my posts. I think it's preferable to use the top 200, as that is more indicative of the GSL caliber players. For the top 200, 41% are terrans. Of the top 20, 50% are terran. Of course the ladder isn't the greatest measure of the top players, as most of them practice with their team more.
I think the most important reason that terrans are doing so well is that there are just so many more great terran players. Here's a list of some of the greatest Korean players by race:
Obviously you could say that the reason there are so many good terran players is because terran is op, but I think these players would be really good regardless of race, as they all have really solid macro and micro.
You left out for Zerg: Zenio, Check, July and for Protoss: Sangho, InCa. Any of them would have a decent shot against any Terran on that list, except maybe MVP.
Did you watch July vs Byun/Bleach? It was not pretty. SangHo also lost to Bleach.
On January 20 2011 19:33 PraetorianX wrote: The argument about player preference doesn't hold because protoss is the most played race, even in Masters league. Source:
Not an overwhelming number but GSL is a Korean tournament and there are more terrans in masters.
I'd say terran strategies are just more refined right now.
Well, the Korean masters is 37% Terran and 35% Protoss, to be specific.
So the argument "More players pick T, so more T succeed" is faulty. Which is why it's strange that it has 24% of the votes, at the time of writing this.
OK, I guess you're never going to read my posts. I think it's preferable to use the top 200, as that is more indicative of the GSL caliber players. For the top 200, 41% are terrans. Of the top 20, 50% are terran. Of course the ladder isn't the greatest measure of the top players, as most of them practice with their team more.
I think the most important reason that terrans are doing so well is that there are just so many more great terran players. Here's a list of some of the greatest Korean players by race:
Obviously you could say that the reason there are so many good terran players is because terran is op, but I think these players would be really good regardless of race, as they all have really solid macro and micro.
You left out for Zerg: Zenio, Check, July and for Protoss: Sangho, InCa. Any of them would have a decent shot against any Terran on that list, except maybe MVP.
Did you watch July vs Byun/Bleach? It was not pretty. SangHo also lost to Bleach.
And there we are again: Bleach was a Protoss player before. Then he switched to Terran and suddenly he's good. If I recall correctly, he even said in an interview that everyone should switch to Terran (or something like that).
On January 21 2011 00:45 Treemonkeys wrote: Terran has an advantage against protoss in early game due to stim.
Terran has more options that their opponents need to prepare for and worry about.
There are too many maps that favor terran.
"Terran has more options that their opponents need to prepare for and worry about."
this statement is so overrated. Terran has a lot of openings, however they can only do one opening at a time. Scout the opening and this suggestion of a Terran advantage is negated.
See, now is is where people make no sense. How do you scout a terran after he gets a wall-off with any race other than T?
Zergs can try to sac overlords, but that is no guarantee, and at worst you just lost a larvae, 100 minerals, and 10(or w/e it is don't play zerg) supply just to see that, yes, he does indeed have 2 marines. Protoss is completely helpless until robo or hallucinate comes into play, none of which are really an critical part to any P build. So explain again how to find out which one of 8 one-base all-ins the T is doing.
That being said T being "op" is essentially because of 3 things, which I will place in order or magnitude(imo).
1. Maps. When half the available maps are completely build for T, then yes, T is op. Steppes is a ridiculous example. A simple tank push below the FE is almost completely unstoppable when played correctly. Delta quadrant provides Ts a free expo, which is all they really need to win vs any kind of play, while enabling them to not only abuse their easy drop mechanics on that said expo, but also keeps macro players from getting past 2 bases without having a sizeable unit lead + map control.
2. Marines. When your base tier 1 unit is viable all the way to end of the game as your primary dps dealer............then yeah, something needs to be changed. They are just too strong, and easily abused when compared to their tier 1 equivalents from the other two races. Sure they have their devastating counters, but losing 20 marines is nothing to the T. While those same 20 marines can devastate a base in half a minute flat.
3. Their ability to come back. Due to their turtling mechanics and units, nothing a T ever does is all in. If a Toss does a DT rush and fails miserably, its GG, the Toss will not recover vs anyone remotely close in skill. Whereas things like cloak banshee rushes are completely viable Terran openings that while still having the same game-ending capabilities as DTs, have basically no effect on a Terran's survivability into mid-game. In short, a T can literally survive ANYTHING. I saw a Z v T on Jungle Basin the other day where at one point in the game, the T had double the Zs units lost(by resources, 19,000 to 10,000), half as many bases, 10 scvs to the Zs 60, multiple times in the game the T lost CCs, entire mining expos, 3 or 4 production buildings, etc, 0-1 upgrades to the zerg's 2-2, and lost multiple groups of high cost units(tanks and thors) for almost no damage in return multiple points in the game due to horrific rally points. Basically the Z completely farked up the T all game, barely holding on with tank/missle turrent forts at a few key points in the game. Then the Z makes one mistake late in the game, losing most of his mutas and lings to the Ts last ditch marine/tank army due to bad attack timing, and the T immediately pushed into the zerg's main, and held off the reinforcements while stimming and taking down all the zerg's tech buildings. Re-rallied marines off his 6 reactored rax, fueled by the 8 MULEs worth of energy he had saved up because his macro was horrific, and won the game. Most pathtic display of a race I've ever seen, tbh, I was horrified.
Okay? and how many truhjillion Terran openings are there? You say that zerg has to sac an overlord, etc, I'd say the 100 minerals is worth the trade for valuable information. Against toss, ever since MC's popular opening protoss's can abuse a wall of with a void ray how about that? And remember the time when blizzard buffed the observer? reducing it's cost? Where's the complaint on that? But you believe that protoss is forced to go robo just to scout terran, well why don't you try to put together a very solid build order uses robo. Many protosses these days are able to 1 gate fast expand even against 3 rax marines or perhaps all ins as well.
On January 21 2011 00:48 Jermstuddog wrote: I am a Zerg player, but my bias isn't even pro-Zerg, it's anti-Terran. In my time playing video-games I always tend to hate the OP class/character rather than crying about mine being UP, though I have this knack for always picking the weakest class/character out there... What can I say, we all have our talents.
Terran has some obviously favorable balance issues that go beyond simple flavor, most of these are related to their 2 base units, the Marine and the Marauder, mostly the Marine though.
Marauders are good, like unbelievably good. They're cheap, versatile, and ridiculously strong. Not to mention they have the completely unique ability to snare units with every attack at the minor cost of 50/50, this doesn't require energy or activating the ability, it just happens, every shot. The Marauder is hands, down the best early-game unit out there... that is... next to the Marine.
The Marine was ok in Brood War, I might even consider them slightly weaker than Zealots and Zerglings, but holy crap did that turn around in SC2. While Zerglings lost attack speed and Zealots lost health, Marines gained health, gained ranged, gained hp, gained attack speed, and get another hp upgrade on top of all that, oh yeah, stim isn't quite what it used to be, but their new attack speed + weaker stim is still > old stimmed marines. There isn't a single non-splash-damage unit in the game that can take an equal amount of marines straight-up. They are so good, they even counter a lot of the units you would THINK should trump them (Roaches, Banelings, Siege Tanks, Hellions all do surprisingly average against Marines).
All I can say is "What the hell was Blizzard thinking?" MarineKing seems to be the only pro who has caught on to this, making 80-90% of his army composition marines in all MUs, but if things don't change, I can see this idea spreading. This unit has gotten so ridiculously good, its laughable. No wonder Terran has the best all-ins, cheeses, and rushes. They have the god-slayer marine.
Still, I try to look at the whole picture. Marines aren't THAT bad, I think something like adding 0.1 to their attack speed would make them less god-like, but I'm not sure if that would break Terran as a whole. There are too many holes in the Terran army that are filled by the Marine as is, compensation might be required in other areas but its too hard to tell with the dominance of the marine right now. If I were Blizzard, it would be nerf the Marine and watch the results, fixes can be applied to other units later. The Marine is the reason Terran wins more than everybody else, and until Blizzard addresses that, things won't change.
Marines attacked at 3.2x ( in "Fastest" when stimmed ) ( Starcraft 1 ) ( frames/time )
15 frames / 24frames/sec to 7.5 frames / 24frames/sec (stimmed)
0.625 and 0.3125 -----> 0.86 and 0.56 ( Latter = SC2 values ) They had lower CD even without stim in SC1
Marines attack when stimmed in SC2 has 2.34x in "Faster" // 1.744 in "Normal"
They added +15 HP to compensate for the loss in attack speed ( nearly one attack is missing for every 1 second of time ( "Faster" = real time )
Animation cancelling is also added in to compensate
They always had the range... just it doesn't cost 100/100 anymore... Stim was 100% down to 50% in SC2
They used to use the fastest mode for their cooldowns, but now they use "Normal" for the default values
The lings got nerfed from 0.33 ( 8frames/24frames)and 0.25 ( Adrenaline Glands ) to 0.70 and 0.56
Zealots run slower on their upgraded speed without charge than they did before, but they get a speedboost to 5.75 after spell ( Would be 3.27ish if they kept the ratios... for upgrading charge ) would be like a complete upgrade if they it was 2.25 / 3.27 / 5.75 (charge)
On January 20 2011 19:16 Ashok wrote: 1) Alot of progamers play terran 2) Terran has its strength in the early game, so they will have a higher win rate during the early parts of SC2 as Protoss/Zerg players refine their expansion timings
1. Just as many pro's play Zerg and in fact the only reason other races keep winning the tittle is because these players are way better than their Terran counterparts.
2. Early game strength for Terran = all-in play style that never actually puts them behind, after that they have mass Marine and Tank's and there is no point harassing their mineral line because even with no SCV's, all it takes is 4 mules to keep up with a 3 base Zerg.
Final answer; Nerf the mule by giving it a cool down, no more SCV all-ins or late game shenanigans.
On January 20 2011 19:28 Talack wrote: Where is the option where I say that I think the terran pros are just that much better than the zerg/toss pros in terms of micro/macro/decision making/strategic analysis.
In your god damn fantasies, seriously that was an incredibly stupid thing to say.
and a lot of us are that stupid to believe in that (me included), tho I think the best player is still mc but in top 10 best players it´s 2 z 1 p and 7 terran ...
what a joke. do u realise that tsl rain made it to a gsl final? therainbow too. a guy who makes only marines... made it to a final. pretty sad rly
I actually think rainbow and the guy that makes only marines (aka MarineKingPrime) better than any other P or Z other than mc nestea and fd I should be crazy or joking ....
Wait, so massing one tier one unit all game and stim + running away = a good player? These guys do nothing special or out of the ordinary besides the occasional drop... Pretty pathetic that you believe these dominating Terrans are so epic.
"Oh crap! He is massing Orbital Commands and using all of his workers to fight!!!! SO GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD!!!!!!!"
On January 20 2011 19:33 PraetorianX wrote: The argument about player preference doesn't hold because protoss is the most played race, even in Masters league. Source:
Not an overwhelming number but GSL is a Korean tournament and there are more terrans in masters.
I'd say terran strategies are just more refined right now.
Well, the Korean masters is 37% Terran and 35% Protoss, to be specific.
So the argument "More players pick T, so more T succeed" is faulty. Which is why it's strange that it has 24% of the votes, at the time of writing this.
OK, I guess you're never going to read my posts. I think it's preferable to use the top 200, as that is more indicative of the GSL caliber players. For the top 200, 41% are terrans. Of the top 20, 50% are terran. Of course the ladder isn't the greatest measure of the top players, as most of them practice with their team more.
I think the most important reason that terrans are doing so well is that there are just so many more great terran players. Here's a list of some of the greatest Korean players by race:
Obviously you could say that the reason there are so many good terran players is because terran is op, but I think these players would be really good regardless of race, as they all have really solid macro and micro.
You left out for Zerg: Zenio, Check, July and for Protoss: Sangho, InCa. Any of them would have a decent shot against any Terran on that list, except maybe MVP.
Did you watch July vs Byun/Bleach? It was not pretty. SangHo also lost to Bleach.
That's cuz we all know July isn't good at SC though. If he were good, he would have picked Terran... Scrub B-teamer IMO.
On January 21 2011 01:14 mesohawny wrote: Getting rid of bunker salvage, or changing the function so that it takes LONGER and requires a few SCV's to do it while putting a cooldown on MULE would go a long way in balancing Terran I think. Or leave those aspects the same but cut the healrate down on the medivac
Read the post above yours and stop throwing random shit in..
Hey man, relax... I take it you play terran? If your ego can't handle this then leave.
On January 20 2011 19:16 Ashok wrote: 1) Alot of progamers play terran 2) Terran has its strength in the early game, so they will have a higher win rate during the early parts of SC2 as Protoss/Zerg players refine their expansion timings
1. Just as many pro's play Zerg and in fact the only reason other races keep winning the tittle is because these players are way better than their Terran counterparts.
2. Early game strength for Terran = all-in play style that never actually puts them behind, after that they have mass Marine and Tank's and there is no point harassing their mineral line because even with no SCV's, all it takes is 4 mules to keep up with a 3 base Zerg.
Final answer; Nerf the mule by giving it a cool down, no more SCV all-ins or late game shenanigans.
On January 20 2011 19:28 Talack wrote: Where is the option where I say that I think the terran pros are just that much better than the zerg/toss pros in terms of micro/macro/decision making/strategic analysis.
In your god damn fantasies, seriously that was an incredibly stupid thing to say.
and a lot of us are that stupid to believe in that (me included), tho I think the best player is still mc but in top 10 best players it´s 2 z 1 p and 7 terran ...
what a joke. do u realise that tsl rain made it to a gsl final? therainbow too. a guy who makes only marines... made it to a final. pretty sad rly
I actually think rainbow and the guy that makes only marines (aka MarineKingPrime) better than any other P or Z other than mc nestea and fd I should be crazy or joking ....
Wait, so massing one tier one unit all game and stim + running away = a good player? These guys do nothing special or out of the ordinary besides the occasional drop... Pretty pathetic that you believe these dominating Terrans are so epic.
"Oh crap! He is massing Orbital Commands and using all of his workers to fight!!!! SO GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD!!!!!!!"
..........................
SCVS = 4.5±0.50 workers during the entire duration So no... 4 mules = 16-20 workers of mining time... tested on "Normal" to reduce rounding
3 Bases full? ( 24x3 for the blue minerals and 6x3 for the gas? )
Terran has the biggest base of players, so more hours have been invested into terran strategies. Terran is the most refined and mature race in the game with regards to how many Blizzard hours has been invested into them.
And: Most of the official maps blatantly favor terran. Improve the map pool, and the situation will be good. When GSL removed map veto this just compounded the problem too.
Most of those games never show the zerg having 24x3 on blue minerals with the terran having 4mules+24x2 on blue minerals though... ( not including workers on gas )
On January 21 2011 01:02 Liquid`Jinro wrote: Easier to play terran safely when you are the better player, as well as easier to play terran cheesily when you arent.
EDIT: My clairvoyance tells me this is going to get quoted along with a bunker rush game from not too long ago.
I'm quoting this because the man knows what he's talking about.
Also, I would like to raise the question as to whether or not, balance talks being put to the side, if this is even the type of Terran we want. MarineKingPrime is a talented enough player, but it troubles me that we are basically having two units, Marines and Medivacs, being used the whole game to such effect. I think there is something fundamentally wrong with the game--again, balance aside--when essentially 1 unit can dominate the game so handily. It doesn't make for an interesting game to watch, and I think that really ought to be a concern.
Okay? and how many truhjillion Terran openings are there? You say that zerg has to sac an overlord, etc, I'd say the 100 minerals is worth the trade for valuable information. Against toss, ever since MC's popular opening protoss's can abuse a wall of with a void ray how about that? And remember the time when blizzard buffed the observer? reducing it's cost? Where's the complaint on that? But you believe that protoss is forced to go robo just to scout terran, well why don't you try to put together a very solid build order uses robo. Many protosses these days are able to 1 gate fast expand even against 3 rax marines or perhaps all ins as well.
This amazing.
A zerg has to sac an overlord for a CHANCE(and a quite small chance) to scout behind the terran wall. In all likelihood, he's going to see something like 3 marines, a rax, and a supply depot before it dies if the t placed its buildings correctly.
And now you suggest that every Toss do a 1-1-1 build every game vs Terran just to counter the fact that T's can wall-off safely 3 minutes into the game.
And "just go robo" is a perfect example of why T is stupid sometimes. A race is almost FORCED to go a particular tech route vs Terran, because not doing it = a 100% bo loss. A T, on the other hand suffers from no such thing. Tier 1 marines can hold off anything in the game. Your OC you get at 15 supply nullifies any and all cloak harass, not to mention Ts usually wall off anyways, so DTs can't even get in the base at all half the time. Do you see? The other races can get gg'ed by a simple bo by Terran. A terran NEVER is killed by a simple rock-paper-scissors bo.
On January 21 2011 00:25 da_head wrote: terran's pretty op right now. i haven't seen a decent strategy to beat their 1 rax fe currently. if anyone can let me know, i'd appreciate it.
4gate
note how i said decent strategy? so i have to resort to a semi all in if terran decides to macro? and if he holds it off (by putting up free bunkers), then im 100% fucked? why not just flip a coin instead?
I would like to see these guys who says MKP sucks play with terran with just marines , i really would ..
A-MOVE , click , A-MOVE? is that so ? wow youre are good , so you haven,t seen MKP send 1 marine ahead stimmed , then split the marines 4 times and do that again over and over when a simple misclick killed all his forces? you havent seen this while doing scvs , expanding , teching ?
so a guy who does everything right all games suck?
You all say Jinro is so good , yes he is good , yes i do love to see him play , have you seen him do marine spliting 30x a game? No ... because he could lose the whole game with bad clicks.. but MKP doesnt care he just entertains us ..
Terran map pool + more Terran players. Why are there more Terran players? I'll let you figure that one out... maybe they were so OP when the game came out everybody played them and they just stuck with it, or maybe they still are.... I don't know. I think it's a combination of everything I said except their OP now. I think the game is pretty winnable for all of the races (except close spawns).
Most of those games never show the zerg having 24x3 on blue minerals with the terran having 4mules+24x2 on blue minerals though... ( not including workers on gas )
already saw most of those
The whole point of the strategy hinges on the fact that if Zerg spends ANY larva on drones, he throws the game due to the brute-force that MULEs + Marines gives Terrans. Once those MULEs start dropping and Terran starts making 14+ Marines per 25 seconds, Zerg has to match this production with blings of their own.
I love the 4OC build because it shows just how broken the MULE/Marine combo really is. Zerg gets stuck at T2 with inefficient counters while Terran is free to do whatever he wants. Awesome mechanics IMO.
On January 21 2011 00:25 da_head wrote: terran's pretty op right now. i haven't seen a decent strategy to beat their 1 rax fe currently. if anyone can let me know, i'd appreciate it.
4gate
note how i said decent strategy? so i have to resort to a semi all in if terran decides to macro? and if he holds it off (by putting up free bunkers), then im 100% fucked? why not just flip a coin instead?
It's not all-in. It's the strongest opening P has right now. You can simply expand if it fails since you'll do so much damage anyway.
MKP is such a beast I can't believe people on here hate on him. Yeah he all-ined that one game against Nada, but the other two games MKP had ABSOLUTELY no business winning yet he thought quick on his feet and out microed the hell out of NADA. It wasn't sanZenith he was playing.. it was Nada... and Nada looked like he had no idea what to do while MKP looked like a natural. Yeah, he gets a lot of marines, but I'm 99% certain that he could adapt in getting a ton of marines stopped working. For gods sake... who else can mass marines aganist banelings and win? Pretty sure he could figure out the other units too...
the thing that still blows my mind is how shitty tier 1 protoss is. Think about it: there is no doubt that marine/maruader is more cost effective than zlot/stalker by FAR, but that can be negated by well placed ff or by teching (no chance to beat em early unless u do a cheesy 4 gate). However, what is simply baffling is that terran can go 1 rax tech lab expand (no way to scout this btw, everything is normal), then he proceeds to push you aggresively off of 1 raz (WHILE expanding). this push does a decent amount of damage (enough needed to stall). he then proceeds to smack down 3 more rax and pump out of em IMMEDIATELY. That's the major issue with mules. They allow terran expansions to "kick-in" SO much quicker than the other races. Also, during their slight period of vulnerability, they can simply smack down 3 or 4 bunkers, and then resell once their 4 rax kicks in. And lol to those who say go 4 gate. 4 rax owns the fuck out of 4 gate. If you try to expand in response, youll be way behind (hell even 2 base protoss is only SLIGHTLY ahead in income due to mules vs a 1 base protoss). And if you try something ridicioulous as double expand, he can just push u and your fucked. Try to tech up to collosus? He'll happily take his third and/or push you way before its up (or when you just have 1). Trying to go hts? He'll simply wait till he has 2 or 3 ghosts (due to his 4 gas, and 4 rax out already lolol), emp the fuck out of your army and gg. I honestly think that the only viable build is 3 gate void ray (which is also an all-in). But like i said before, you can't even scout if he's fast expanding). A lot of good terrans just keep their second orbital in their main, mule once or twice and then send it out. By that time, you would have already made the decision to 3 gate void ray or not. And dont even talk about 2 gate phoenix. Yes its a decent build against most terran openings, but if the terran does 1rax fe, its an autolose (stated by Nony himself, the maker of the fuckin build). So what do you guys propose protoss do? Just blindly 4 gate every game, and hope it fuckin works? Give me a break. [/rant]
On January 21 2011 00:25 da_head wrote: terran's pretty op right now. i haven't seen a decent strategy to beat their 1 rax fe currently. if anyone can let me know, i'd appreciate it.
4gate
note how i said decent strategy? so i have to resort to a semi all in if terran decides to macro? and if he holds it off (by putting up free bunkers), then im 100% fucked? why not just flip a coin instead?
It's not all-in. It's the strongest opening P has right now. You can simply expand if it fails since you'll do so much damage anyway.
so much damage? i don't remb who was playing exactly, but a recent gsl game on shakuras plateu, this exact scenario occured. the terran put up FOUR bunkers. and he repaired them with scvs, wtf can protoss do? if you have enough sentrys to ff all round em, you wont have enough dps to kill the bunkers before the marines RIP through your guys. if anything, he can retreat his orbital and scvs, while your still on one base (with cut probes mind you), tryin to play the catch up game.
On January 20 2011 19:16 Ashok wrote: 1) Alot of progamers play terran 2) Terran has its strength in the early game, so they will have a higher win rate during the early parts of SC2 as Protoss/Zerg players refine their expansion timings
I tend to discount #1 above simply because it's difficult to determine whether or not this is a cause or an effect of Terran's strength.
I read a recent interview with MarineKingPrime where he was answering the question "what made you pick Terran?" He responded that he had heard Terran was strong, so he picked it.
I doubt this is an isolated incident among progamers. How do we know that Terran's apparent strength isn't the reason it's popular?
As for the second point, I think this bleeds into becoming a balance issue somewhat. If an early rush is far easier to execute than it is to defend it, which is in clear violation of Blizzard design philosophy regarding rushes and cheese (this was my understanding behind the depot-before-barracks nerf), then should we consider it overpowered?
There's no give-and-take here, because Terrans aren't necessarily put behind by failed 1-base pressure. I'll throw out a common example: 2-rax pressure. The Terran can put out game-ending pressure on a FE Zerg, so the Zerg needs to respond appropriately (more 'lings than usual, a spine, early gas & speed, etc.) or risk auto-loss. However, the Terran can simply scout, see that the Zerg is appropriately responded to the rush, and simply pull back and FE himself to no detriment or cost.
He could even bunker the Zerg in, FE behind it, and salvage the bunkers for little more than opportunity cost of having 2 SCVs temporarily not mining (but scouting and gaining information, to an extent, so it's hard to call it a complete loss).
Another great example is the SCV all-in cheese that knocked out players it really shouldn't have last GSL. Propped up by the power of MULEs, Terrans could organize rushes that were insanely hard to stop but didn't really put the Terran that behind if their opponent was forced to pull drones to beat it.
This unpredictability of Terran in the early game really screws over Zerg (slightly) more than Protoss, imo, since Zerg really depends on accurate scouting information for maximizing economy (and needs to FE relatively quickly every game unless going all-in/cheese). Zerg is often forced to respond to major aggression that, in some cases, never comes -- putting them far behind. If they under-prepare and the aggression DOES hit, that's gg.
I like the fact that the marine is much stronger than its BW counterpart, but I can't help thinking sometimes that early infantry aggression is a little overtuned.
EDIT: One more point. "Terran has its strength in the early game" makes no sense to me, because Terran is strong at ALL stages of the game. Terran might seem weaker in relation to Zerg and Protoss in mid-game and late-game because they're more competitive in those tech-tiers than in T1. I think it might be more accurate to say that "Zerg (and to a lesser extent Protoss) are weaker in the early game)."
I think most of it is map imbalance, or a problem with Zerg and Protoss.
Zerg requires! 2 base to be able to do anything past the early game. This makes them so vulnerable to anything that can deny that 2nd base, and close position maps only make the problem worse.
Protoss, on the other hand, have shitty units except for the Sentry, Colossus, and Templar. This makes their matchup incredibly volatile, because it depends entirely on the player to make those Sentry, Colossus, and Templar work. A small micro error or bad luck will simply lose a Protoss their game, because they are so dependent on those 3 units. Basically, you have to babysit your Protoss army, or you could have your magic units emp'd or your colossi caught out of position or miss a force field.
1. Terran are the most forgiving to mistakes. With MULES, salvageable bunkers, and planetary fortresses, it's a lot easier to recover from a mistake.
2. Terran are the least forgiving to mistakes for the other races. If you slip up against a thor drop, banshee harass, blue flame hellion, or any other number of things, it's almost instantly GG.
Terran have a softer difficulty curve, and by nature of their units, they also increase the difficulty curve of the races they play against. The best example off the top of my head is Jinro v MKP, in which Jinro clearly played MKP, but a minor slipup cost him the game. Given perfect play I suspect the game is almost perfectly balanced, but humans aren't perfect, so it is much easier to abuse Terran than the other races.
On January 21 2011 02:32 KevinIX wrote: Protoss, on the other hand, have shitty units except for the Sentry, Colossus, and Templar. This makes their matchup incredibly volatile, because it depends entirely on the player to make those Sentry, Colossus, and Templar work. A small micro error or bad luck will simply lose a Protoss their game, because they are so dependent on those 3 units.
couldn't have said it better myself. protoss isn't an rts race, its a hero with three abilities (ff, thermal lance, and storm). If you lose your hero, its gg.
MKP is such a beast I can't believe people on here hate on him. Yeah he all-ined that one game against Nada, but the other two games MKP had ABSOLUTELY no business winning yet he thought quick on his feet and out microed the hell out of NADA. It wasn't sanZenith he was playing.. it was Nada... and Nada looked like he had no idea what to do while MKP looked like a natural. Yeah, he gets a lot of marines, but I'm 99% certain that he could adapt in getting a ton of marines stopped working. For gods sake... who else can mass marines aganist banelings and win? Pretty sure he could figure out the other units too...
theres no doubt that mkp is hugely talented, and most people wouldnt have a hope of emulating him - but thats true of all top gsl players including idra, fruitdealer ogsmc etc. but he *would* have no chance winning with similar strategies as zerg or protoss, and most other terran units for that matter. marines arent beaten for cost by anything in the game that doesnt splash the crap out of them. marines literally dont have a weakness aside for splash, and even then it needs to be burst splash. who else remembers the ultras vs marines in one of mkps games? it was pretty hilarious tbh.
love to read the terran hatred :D. I'd especially like the 'if BitbyBit can get to Ro16 there's something wrong with your race', what kind of statement is that ('If Pro A (who isn't all that pro) can get a lucky good roll in a tourney what ever he plays is flawed) and 'The pro terrans don't do anything special' I must say I haven't seen any zerg or protos pull of anything out of the ordinary either, so they're all bad players too?
I think maps play a big part, SP is only Terran so the game is kinda terran focussed and introduces you to all it mechanics while everyone just has to figure out P and Z. Well it doesn't matter anyway, Terran all the way!
It's mostly the terran-favored maps. But the way protoss are designed make them either totally helpless in some situations and unstoppable in others. Zerg need a good containment unit on the ground that can excel in straight up combat (aka Lurker) because mutas aren't enough. Protoss have VRs and collosi (range upgrade), and terran get siege tank and banshees (cloak = optional).
MKP is such a beast I can't believe people on here hate on him. Yeah he all-ined that one game against Nada, but the other two games MKP had ABSOLUTELY no business winning yet he thought quick on his feet and out microed the hell out of NADA. It wasn't sanZenith he was playing.. it was Nada... and Nada looked like he had no idea what to do while MKP looked like a natural. Yeah, he gets a lot of marines, but I'm 99% certain that he could adapt in getting a ton of marines stopped working. For gods sake... who else can mass marines aganist banelings and win? Pretty sure he could figure out the other units too...
Imagine if he made marauders or was around during the reaper craze.
On January 21 2011 02:36 Oxb wrote: love to read the terran hatred :D. I'd especially like the 'if BitbyBit can get to Ro16 there's something wrong with your race', what kind of statement is that ('If Pro A (who isn't all that pro) can get a lucky good roll in a tourney what ever he plays is flawed) and 'The pro terrans don't do anything special' I must say I haven't seen any zerg or protos pull of anything out of the ordinary either, so they're all bad players too?
I can see you are a Terran player. Your post makes no sense at all.
I'm spending way too much time at work thinking about T, and I think I realize why T is 'op", and it really isn't unit based, map-based, etc. It's mechanics and ability based.
Basically it comes down to the fact that a T is NEVER out of the game. The T has such useful units and abilities that if a t makes a huge mistake and loses most of his army, and, say, and expo, then yes he is behind. But because of the extremely high skill ceiling and usefulness of most of the T units, a simple mistake on the part of his opponent like misjudging the proximity and number of a siege tank line can put the T right back into the game. A T can screw up and lose 50% of his economy and 90% of his army. But a very low risk, high reward harass like an 8 marine drop when the enemy is out of position can completely swing the game back to even. And no other race has the same ability. A T has abilities that while completely counterable, can put them back into a "lost" game with little to no additional risk to themselves.
Also, NO bo that isn't ridiculous isn't viable into midgame. No Terran bo is all-in. Not even proxy faking 2 rax is all-in. A 2 rax 10 scv pull is not all in. A cloak banshee rush is a standard Terran bo that can 100% destroy many P/Z bos, and yet not only does it only barely put T behind, but it can end the game RIGHT THERE. That is completely, 100%, totally farked up. Yes it's easily counterable, but the mere fact it exists is complete bs. If you go for a cheesy build that can gg your opponent just on bo, then it should incur huge risks for you to do it.
You can literally lose your entire army as a T, and as long as you have a couple bunkers up, 400 minerals(2 MULEs) worth of marines, 2 siege tanks, and 4 repairing scvs, you can hold off anything short of basically an all-in push by your opponent. And this turtling abilty won't win you games outright, but it just gives your opponent that many more chances to make a mistake that puts the t right back into the game.
Marines. Tanks. Quick, name one scenario where the T sees "X", then should just basically gg and quit, because he knows he is done, short of mass unit "y". Exactly. Marines, tanks, and scan can hold ANYTHING off.
On January 21 2011 02:39 Gonzodamus wrote: I feel like you're missing an option on the poll. What about the possibility that the Terran players that won are playing better than their opponents?
Because this outcome is so improbable (all the best players independently just happen to pick Terran and all the scrubs happen to pick the others) that it's not worth the time or energy to reasonably entertain.
On January 21 2011 02:39 Gonzodamus wrote: I feel like you're missing an option on the poll. What about the possibility that the Terran players that won are playing better than their opponents?
I also feel like overall, the Terran players are better.
I mean, you have MVP, MKP, Nada, Boxer, Clide, and Jinro who are all possible Terran heroes. (Not to mention Top, Maka, and Ensnare who are on a bit of a slump.)
IdrA isnt as good as jinro, stop moaning about Terrans.
Zerg has been allowed far too much freedom to moan when they lose. Your free to pick other race if you think theres imbalance. The rest of the world will carry on improving their own play rather than moaning about someone elses.
On January 21 2011 02:47 Scrimpton wrote: IdrA isnt as good as jinro, stop moaning about Terrans.
Zerg has been allowed far too much freedom to moan when they lose. Your free to pick other race if you think theres imbalance. The rest of the world will carry on improving their own play rather than moaning about someone elses.
Do you have any idea how big of a backlash there would be if IdrA and NesTea switched to protoss?
They are the threads that are holding the professional zerg scene together.
i bet all the protoss players put that Terran is OP lol. sad a-movers. Part of the reason is the maps, and the other part is the Terran players are just better players. Put any of those Terran players on Protoss or Zerg for a couple months and they will probably win the whole GSL.
On January 21 2011 01:49 OmegaSyrus wrote: This is stupid. Most pro terrans choose terran because of being inspired by famous terrans of the past (NaDa, BoxeR). The terrans who make it this far are damn damn good good damn good damn. Jinro, MVP, MarineKing. All have their only style and all are very insanely good. This is best evidenced by their extremely technical TvT games. Mirror matchups are often the best measure of skill IMO.
only comparing mirror matchups for skill rating has the disadvantage of being completely unable to compare players of different races
On January 21 2011 02:52 IntoTheBush wrote: Put any of those Terran players on Protoss or Zerg for a couple months and they will probably win the whole GSL.
On January 21 2011 02:52 IntoTheBush wrote: i bet all the protoss players put that Terran is OP lol. sad a-movers. Part of the reason is the maps, and the other part is the Terran players are just better players. Put any of those Terran players on Protoss or Zerg for a couple months and they will probably win the whole GSL.
I tried to avoid posting in here, but this is one of the dumbest things I've seen, ever.
On January 21 2011 02:52 IntoTheBush wrote: i bet all the protoss players put that Terran is OP lol. sad a-movers. Part of the reason is the maps, and the other part is the Terran players are just better players. Put any of those Terran players on Protoss or Zerg for a couple months and they will probably win the whole GSL.
lol...but if marine king went with protoss....he would just attack with zealots and probes?
On January 21 2011 02:52 IntoTheBush wrote: i bet all the protoss players put that Terran is OP lol. sad a-movers. Part of the reason is the maps, and the other part is the Terran players are just better players. Put any of those Terran players on Protoss or Zerg for a couple months and they will probably win the whole GSL.
lol rich. a terran player calling protoss players a-movers. let's see here. Terran has to hit stim (t), attack-move (a) and occasionaly kite backwards (lol concussive). any bnetter who plays ums games can kite with terran. k lets try protoss. alright, stalkers in a diff control group? (cuz otherwise zlots get stuck behind due to their inferior speed). ok attack. guardian shield, k time for some forcefields (note, only works in tight chokes or if u have a billion sentries), did it work? yes, you have evenly traded with the terran. no? shit he slaughters you by kiting. o wait, did you fuck up your ff so hard that it trapped your guys? gg
On January 21 2011 02:52 IntoTheBush wrote: i bet all the protoss players put that Terran is OP lol. sad a-movers. Part of the reason is the maps, and the other part is the Terran players are just better players. Put any of those Terran players on Protoss or Zerg for a couple months and they will probably win the whole GSL.
I tried to avoid posting in here, but this is one of the dumbest things I've seen, ever.
See -> Morrow. Morrow is doing amazing as a Zerg player, and he was just as good at Terran.
It's simple. Terran units are too cheap and too cost effective. Terran is not punished for their mistakes because they have MULEs and supply drops. Terrans get free expansions that they don't need to defend due to Planetary Fortress. Marines have too high dps and require no skill to use.
On January 21 2011 02:52 IntoTheBush wrote: i bet all the protoss players put that Terran is OP lol. sad a-movers. Part of the reason is the maps, and the other part is the Terran players are just better players. Put any of those Terran players on Protoss or Zerg for a couple months and they will probably win the whole GSL.
I tried to avoid posting in here, but this is one of the dumbest things I've seen, ever.
See -> Morrow. Morrow is doing amazing as a Zerg player, and he was just as good at Terran.
morrow gets more or less slaughtered most of the time (compared to when he played terran)
On January 21 2011 02:52 IntoTheBush wrote: i bet all the protoss players put that Terran is OP lol. sad a-movers. Part of the reason is the maps, and the other part is the Terran players are just better players. Put any of those Terran players on Protoss or Zerg for a couple months and they will probably win the whole GSL.
I tried to avoid posting in here, but this is one of the dumbest things I've seen, ever.
See -> Morrow. Morrow is doing amazing as a Zerg player, and he was just as good at Terran.
As a Terran player, how many Tournaments did Morrow win ? 12? Something like that. As a Zerg, how many Tournaments did Morrow win? 1? Maybe 2? I don't really know.
On January 21 2011 02:52 IntoTheBush wrote: i bet all the protoss players put that Terran is OP lol. sad a-movers. Part of the reason is the maps, and the other part is the Terran players are just better players. Put any of those Terran players on Protoss or Zerg for a couple months and they will probably win the whole GSL.
lol...but if marine king went with protoss....he would just attack with zealots and probes?
No, he would continue building marines regardless.
On January 21 2011 02:52 IntoTheBush wrote: i bet all the protoss players put that Terran is OP lol. sad a-movers. Part of the reason is the maps, and the other part is the Terran players are just better players. Put any of those Terran players on Protoss or Zerg for a couple months and they will probably win the whole GSL.
lol...but if marine king went with protoss....he would just attack with zealots and probes?
No, he would continue building marines regardless.
If you watched some of MK (Claire in BW) replays from BW, he loved his dragoons. He had pretty good dragoon control too.
On January 21 2011 02:52 IntoTheBush wrote: i bet all the protoss players put that Terran is OP lol. sad a-movers. Part of the reason is the maps, and the other part is the Terran players are just better players. Put any of those Terran players on Protoss or Zerg for a couple months and they will probably win the whole GSL.
lol...but if marine king went with protoss....he would just attack with zealots and probes?
No, he would continue building marines regardless.
If you watched some of MK (Claire in BW) replays from BW, he loved his dragoons. He had pretty good dragoon control too.
I've watched his BW games, it was just a silly joke.
Didn't Foxer say in an interview he's been trying to incorporate BC play? I might just love him forever if he somehow manages to do that.
On January 21 2011 02:41 Sm3agol wrote: I'm spending way too much time at work thinking about T, and I think I realize why T is 'op", and it really isn't unit based, map-based, etc. It's mechanics and ability based.
Basically it comes down to the fact that a T is NEVER out of the game. The T has such useful units and abilities that if a t makes a huge mistake and loses most of his army, and, say, and expo, then yes he is behind. But because of the extremely high skill ceiling and usefulness of most of the T units, a simple mistake on the part of his opponent like misjudging the proximity and number of a siege tank line can put the T right back into the game. A T can screw up and lose 50% of his economy and 90% of his army. BA T has abilities that while completely counterable, can put them back into a "lost" game with little to no additional risk to themselves.
Also, NO bo that isn't ridiculous isn't viable into midgame. No Terran bo is all-in. Not even proxy faking 2 rax is all-in. A 2 rax 10 scv pull is not all in. A cloak banshee rush is a standard Terran bo that can 100% destroy many P/Z bos, and yet not only does it only barely put T behind, but it can end the game RIGHT THERE. That is completely, 100%, totally farked up. Yes it's easily counterable, but the mere fact it exists is complete bs. If you go for a cheesy build that can gg your opponent just on bo, then it should incur huge risks for you to do it.
You can literally lose your entire army as a T, and as long as you have a couple bunkers up, 400 minerals(2 MULEs) worth of marines, 2 siege tanks, and 4 repairing scvs, you can hold off anything short of basically an all-in push by your opponent. And this turtling abilty won't win you games outright, but it just gives your opponent that many more chances to make a mistake that puts the t right back into the game.
Marines. Tanks. Quick, name one scenario where the T sees "X", then should just basically gg and quit, because he knows he is done, short of mass unit "y". Exactly. Marines, tanks, and scan can hold ANYTHING off.
You obviously never played Terran, and haven't made it out of Plat yet. So lets move on to your quotes, and how they make no sense.
"But a very low risk, high reward harass like an 8 marine drop when the enemy is out of position can completely swing the game back to even. And no other race has the same ability." Looks like somebody has never heard of a warp prism, or a proxy pylon. Also you know those annoying things called Mutalisks? get 12 of those and u can cause havoc for a Terran player who doesnt have a Thor or more than 3 Turrets in his main. So there's one point where you're wrong. Lets move onto the 2nd.
"A cloak banshee rush is a standard Terran bo that can 100% destroy many P/Z bos, and yet not only does it only barely put T behind, but it can end the game RIGHT THERE." Ok once again my friend you are wrong. Any HIGH level Diamond player or Master League player can easily prepare for Banshee. Honestly I don't remember when I HAVEN'T played a P or Z who wasnt nearly prepared or already prepared for possible Banshee. Also once that fails that leaves u with what? MAYBE 2 barracks, and ur natural just completing.. while P or Z already has their 3 gates, or Zerg double injecting larva and making a rofflestomp army. Terran is behind MORE than just a little bit if Banshee fails. Next to good ol' quote number 3.
"You can literally lose your entire army as a T, and as long as you have a couple bunkers up, 400 minerals(2 MULEs) worth of marines, 2 siege tanks, and 4 repairing scvs, you can hold off anything short of basically an all-in push by your opponent. And this turtling abilty won't win you games outright, but it just gives your opponent that many more chances to make a mistake that puts the t right back into the game." I mean I honestly don't even have to say anything for this one... BUT I will. First off 95% of Terran players destroy their bunkers and use the marines before they move out for an attack. Second off after you kill your opponents entire army why are u going straight in for an attack? That is if you don't have the ROFLSTOMP army. If you kill their entire army your next move is to expand, get map control, and not sucide what units you have left.
Maybe you should start watching the Day[9] daily's and you won't sound completely wrong when you post.
Imo it's because terran is the most well rounded race having many viable options, which makes them very hard to play against.
Protoss and especially zerg just have way less aggresive options whereas terrans can do anything ranging from MM pushes to bluehellion drops to banshee harass etc.
Also every idiot that brings up the fact terran hasn't won GSL (yet) should really be shot. It's the most stupid argument there is as there have only been 3 GSL, if you however look at match %s in GSL you can clearly see that T > P, P > Z and T = Z for the 3 matchups. Most gsl's had P being knocked out by T while Z got knocked out by P.
On January 21 2011 02:41 Sm3agol wrote: Also, NO bo that isn't ridiculous isn't viable into midgame. No Terran bo is all-in. Not even proxy faking 2 rax is all-in. A 2 rax 10 scv pull is not all in. A cloak banshee rush is a standard Terran bo that can 100% destroy many P/Z bos, and yet not only does it only barely put T behind, but it can end the game RIGHT THERE. That is completely, 100%, totally farked up. Yes it's easily counterable, but the mere fact it exists is complete bs. If you go for a cheesy build that can gg your opponent just on bo, then it should incur huge risks for you to do it.
This is an important point, terran can recover from almost any cheese/all-in. There is almost no risk to it, partially because they can easily defend with so little it is too risky to try and punish them after an attack fails. Zerg can literally wipe the floor with wave after wave of failed terran attacks and it is still to risky for them to try and attack, so they take over the map instead.
Whoever said "terran has a monopoly on aggression until late game" said it best. That sums it all up right there. Terran early aggression is both more potent and less risky. Zerg can do what? Baneling bust all-in or roach rush all-in, if those attacks fail the zerg is fucked. Only those attacks are far less powerful than a number of terran pushes, and terran can recover from them almost as if they didn't happen. That is why terran does it all the time, and that is why zerg almost never does it.
On January 21 2011 01:02 Liquid`Jinro wrote: Easier to play terran safely when you are the better player, as well as easier to play terran cheesily when you arent.
EDIT: My clairvoyance tells me this is going to get quoted along with a bunker rush game from not too long ago.
Yes, but this is a very big deal. If you're a much stronger terran player than the zerg player, you can really play in such a way that you'll win 95%+ of the time because the ZvT cheeses are pretty terrible and there aren't as many build order losses. And if you're playing against a much, much better zerg a terran player can russian roulette between a few different all-ins that can be pretty tough to defend against all of them (not impossible necessarily, just really tough). That in addition to how deceptive the 2-rax itself is, a strong all-in and a quick expand build that look almost identical.
On January 21 2011 03:09 IntoTheBush wrote: Second off after you kill your opponents entire army why are u going straight in for an attack? That is if you don't have the ROFLSTOMP army. If you kill their entire army your next move is to expand, get map control, and not sucide what units you have left.
Yet this is exactly what terran does, if zerg attacks and the attack fails, terran can and will come finish them off. No one can be honest and dispute the fact that zerg almost never attacks in ZvT, and zerg is basically a punching bag for the majority of the matchup.
Marines. Tanks. Quick, name one scenario where the T sees "X", then should just basically gg and quit, because he knows he is done, short of mass unit "y". Exactly. Marines, tanks, and scan can hold ANYTHING off.
LOL ? mass broodlords or broodlords+ roaches... high templars + immortals... tank marine is good early game , the terran thing is that it can go for tanks or thors pretty easilly teching with terran is not too hard thats true...
On January 21 2011 02:52 IntoTheBush wrote: i bet all the protoss players put that Terran is OP lol. sad a-movers. Part of the reason is the maps, and the other part is the Terran players are just better players. Put any of those Terran players on Protoss or Zerg for a couple months and they will probably win the whole GSL.
MKP with zerling and banelings would pretty much own every terran with banelings split... and MKP with Blink Stalkers would own everyone too if thats what you want to know , like MC pretty much owns every race every game..
If the terran players on the GSL arent better than the protoss or zerg , you do believe that if blizzard starts nerfing terran again Jinro will pretty much dissapear ? Thats what youre trying to say right? Because i can see a big difference in Jinro and MKP skill ..
Short rush distances which are found on a lot of maps seem to favor terran. when the new set of gsl maps come for next season we might see more balanced race ratio's. Right now I don't feel terran is op just that with these maps they can do incredibly strong all-in's. The tester/Mvp series game 1 and 2 was a good show of that, as a toss player i've seen that build used a lot and anything short of bringing all your probes to fight and you can't hold it off. there's also the horrible scv/marine all-in's.
I'm definitely feeling like Zerg and Protoss just need to mature in their play styles more. The terran units have VERY straightforward roles and uses, but their buildings allow them to be adaptive and harder to read - so it has made playing against them at the beginning of the game's maturity much more difficult. Now that players really understand what the race is capable of and read their styles more effectively, both of the races are having much more success against Terran.
Zerg still has to find a standard which is a little safer against a few builds and Protoss still hasn't fleshed out Stargate play and warp prisms at all hardly.. No one knows where the Void Ray is really going end up role-wise anymore. Some people still harass, others like White-Ra are going Colossus Void Ray against Z. It's a little bit of a ambiguous.
MKP is such a beast I can't believe people on here hate on him. Yeah he all-ined that one game against Nada, but the other two games MKP had ABSOLUTELY no business winning yet he thought quick on his feet and out microed the hell out of NADA. It wasn't sanZenith he was playing.. it was Nada... and Nada looked like he had no idea what to do while MKP looked like a natural. Yeah, he gets a lot of marines, but I'm 99% certain that he could adapt in getting a ton of marines stopped working. For gods sake... who else can mass marines aganist banelings and win? Pretty sure he could figure out the other units too...
Nada lost a lot of tanks earlier so he couldn't get the 12+ Tanks that kill everything with overlapping splash damage.../overkill damage...
He usually only had like 4-6... He didn't make any more vikings... for vision or like forward scan to get all 13 range for the tanks... Most of the time he was using them unsieged, too, and wasn't slowing moving up also takes a long time to siege up in time, so he didn't get like 2 free volleys on any of the engagements... before they started getting attacked
( Tanks only see up to 11, but can hit 13 if they had extra vision somehow from other units ) Tank/hellion/3/3/blueflame/double armory could kill all of the toss ground units ( colossus/immortal included )
MKP went for more mobility though, while the other one sacrificed mobility for higher potential damage given that MKP usually goes for rines, he'd most likely try to up to 3/3 in a TvT... ( less tanks = more gas for upgrades too )
//He could do something similar to what maka did with ravens/bcs... they looked pretty fun to play + he would most likely start off with rines ( which he's really good at using ) for most of the transitions into higher tier tech
On January 21 2011 03:15 tapk69 wrote: MKP with zerling and banelings would pretty much own every terran with banelings split... and MKP with Blink Stalkers would own everyone too if thats what you want to know , like MC pretty much owns every race every game..
Not true at all. Even if you have godly micro to split the banelings to follow each group of split marines, banelings are not cost effective if they explode on small groups of marines and you would be shitting your gas away to kill dirt cheap marines.
MKP is certainly very good, but it's stupid that what he does with tier 1 is even possible.
Okay? and how many truhjillion Terran openings are there? You say that zerg has to sac an overlord, etc, I'd say the 100 minerals is worth the trade for valuable information. Against toss, ever since MC's popular opening protoss's can abuse a wall of with a void ray how about that? And remember the time when blizzard buffed the observer? reducing it's cost? Where's the complaint on that? But you believe that protoss is forced to go robo just to scout terran, well why don't you try to put together a very solid build order uses robo. Many protosses these days are able to 1 gate fast expand even against 3 rax marines or perhaps all ins as well.
This amazing.
A zerg has to sac an overlord for a CHANCE(and a quite small chance) to scout behind the terran wall. In all likelihood, he's going to see something like 3 marines, a rax, and a supply depot before it dies if the t placed its buildings correctly.
And now you suggest that every Toss do a 1-1-1 build every game vs Terran just to counter the fact that T's can wall-off safely 3 minutes into the game.
And "just go robo" is a perfect example of why T is stupid sometimes. A race is almost FORCED to go a particular tech route vs Terran, because not doing it = a 100% bo loss. A T, on the other hand suffers from no such thing. Tier 1 marines can hold off anything in the game. Your OC you get at 15 supply nullifies any and all cloak harass, not to mention Ts usually wall off anyways, so DTs can't even get in the base at all half the time. Do you see? The other races can get gg'ed by a simple bo by Terran. A terran NEVER is killed by a simple rock-paper-scissors bo.
How is this any different from Broodwar? It was almost always forced to get an observer quick in PvT. Zergs had to sac overlords too.
Terran has really good defensive options in the form of repair, siege tanks, PF's and bunkers that it allows them to be aggressive without nearly as much risk as Z or P. Terran also has more options than the other races in ways to be aggressive, such as Hellions, drops, and banshees. All of these are highly mobile and can do massive damage if unscouted.
They seem to have the best of both worlds and can set the pace of the game however they prefer.
On January 21 2011 01:02 Liquid`Jinro wrote: Easier to play terran safely when you are the better player, as well as easier to play terran cheesily when you arent.
EDIT: My clairvoyance tells me this is going to get quoted along with a bunker rush game from not too long ago.
Yes, but this is a very big deal. If you're a much stronger terran player than the zerg player, you can really play in such a way that you'll win 95%+ of the time because the ZvT cheeses are pretty terrible and there aren't as many build order losses. And if you're playing against a much, much better zerg a terran player can russian roulette between a few different all-ins that can be pretty tough to defend against all of them (not impossible necessarily, just really tough). That in addition to how deceptive the 2-rax itself is, a strong all-in and a quick expand build that look almost identical.
In BW when Sparks Terran was popular Oov started going 2 Rax FE in order to fake an all in, but rather would expand behind the fake aggression. 2 Rax expand is nothing new. If anything it has been nerfed due to the lack of early medics.
I think the poll should include: The Metagame currently favors Terran
This game clearly has balance issues, as I think is pretty much ubiquitously agreed upon, however I think A LOT of how these perceived imbalances express themselves is in the Metagame.
It's all about how people play the game.
• Many of the Blizzard Maps reward one-base play styles, therefore one base plays have become extremely refined.
• The one base plays are then exploited on maps with random spawn positions which could include "Close by Ground."
• Zerg canon, as perpetuated by pro commentators and strategists, suggests they have no one base play options. This belief creates an obvious disadvantages.
• SC2 canon suggests that Zerg is the "Macro reactionary race" which has created a tremendous advantage in play styles on large maps.
I could be way off base, but I think there is some merit to this train of thought.
To me the problem is that the MULE, marines, and bunkers. Because of the extra mineral income, T can at any point, especially early, pressure zerg or protoss just using the "extra" income from mules. The only point where MULES hurt the terran is the very very late game where everything is mined out faster.
If a terran bunkers anywhere near to your ramp, you must account for it. Less drones, more weak low tier units. The terran can afford to bring 1-2 scv's to repair because the MULEs keep his econ up. If it fails, he's just expended the mineral income from the MULE. Since zerg and toss don't have a way to exploit a terran's lack of scans at that point, they come out behind or at best even, after the rush fails. Terran can also commit many units to pressure and lift his buildings to create a very robust wall to block a counterattack.
T isn't necessarily broken, but there are distinct advantages while the advantages of protoss and zerg are less apparent. With the current maps/strats known, the zerg or protoss need to be much better to get a win.
On January 21 2011 03:26 cerebralz wrote: The only point where MULES hurt the terran is the very very late game where everything is mined out faster. .
And then they can just suicide their workers and gain a gigantic army of already ridiculously cost efficient units
Most races can invest in tech that will be worth the investment in the next 3-5 min Terran has alot of tech that becomes worth the investment instantly.
It's stupid to call Terran OP when certain positions and maps don't allow them to win overwhelmingly. Right now, the map pool is just Terran favored. That's it. Blizzard needs to stop tweaking races and completely revamp some maps.
On January 21 2011 03:20 Tachion wrote: Terran has really good defensive options in the form of repair, siege tanks, PF's and bunkers that it allows them to be aggressive without nearly as much risk as Z or P. Terran also has more options than the other races in ways to be aggressive, such as Hellions, drops, and banshees. All of these are highly mobile and can do massive damage if unscouted.
They seem to have the best of both worlds and can set the pace of the game however they prefer.
That's what I feel is out of whack currently; the risk/reward ratio in some of T's common strats. I'm not prepared to say this is inherent imbalance, as it may well result from other races simply not developing the proper ways to punish these strats yet.
Or that maps are not designed with these kinds of strats in mind (longer rush distances would increase the risk of early aggression). However, I definetely agree that T seems to set the pace in both of their matchups.
all I must ask is does no one remember the early BW days where Terran was on top for...how long? BoxeR, NaDa, iloveoov...it will even out but for the moment i feel that more people just pick terran so there will be more in the later stages because there are just so many players that pick terran, most likely because all starcraft games start with terran then go to the other races so people are more comfortable with terran
On January 21 2011 03:20 Tachion wrote: Terran has really good defensive options in the form of repair, siege tanks, PF's and bunkers that it allows them to be aggressive without nearly as much risk as Z or P. Terran also has more options than the other races in ways to be aggressive, such as Hellions, drops, and banshees. All of these are highly mobile and can do massive damage if unscouted.
They seem to have the best of both worlds and can set the pace of the game however they prefer.
That's what I feel is out of whack currently; the risk/reward ratio in some of T's common strats. I'm not prepared to say this is inherent imbalance, as it may well result from other races simply not developing the proper ways to punish these strats yet. Or that maps are not designed with these kinds of strats in mind (longer rush distances would increase the risk of early aggression). However, I definetely agree that T seems to set the pace in both of their matchups.
The issue is that the ability to punish T strategies for cheesy / greedy play is almost impossible when Blizzard basically nerfs any type of strategy that forces certain reactions from T players.
Marines. Tanks. Quick, name one scenario where the T sees "X", then should just basically gg and quit, because he knows he is done, short of mass unit "y". Exactly. Marines, tanks, and scan can hold ANYTHING off.
LOL ? mass broodlords or broodlords+ roaches... high templars + immortals... tank marine is good early game , the terran thing is that it can go for tanks or thors pretty easilly teching with terran is not too hard thats true...
On January 21 2011 02:52 IntoTheBush wrote: i bet all the protoss players put that Terran is OP lol. sad a-movers. Part of the reason is the maps, and the other part is the Terran players are just better players. Put any of those Terran players on Protoss or Zerg for a couple months and they will probably win the whole GSL.
MKP with zerling and banelings would pretty much own every terran with banelings split... and MKP with Blink Stalkers would own everyone too if thats what you want to know , like MC pretty much owns every race every game..
If the terran players on the GSL arent better than the protoss or zerg , you do believe that if blizzard starts nerfing terran again Jinro will pretty much dissapear ? Thats what youre trying to say right? Because i can see a big difference in Jinro and MKP skill ..
Well, if he played toss, he could probably 4gate a ton of people to death... with the higher auto regen in SC2... ( don't need to wait for starport/medivacs ) or constant stalker harass while expanding...
both could macro fine, but the difference in micro is quick big, is it not? It's like he just chooses to use rines almost exclusively while the other ones favour more mech units because they're more comfortable with them...and that he could switch to the other units with relative ease...
early 3/3 units over more gas units might be nice, too...
[B]On January 21 2011 03:09 IntoTheBush wrote: You obviously never played Terran, and haven't made it out of Plat yet. So lets move on to your quotes, and how they make no sense.
Wrong. I played T to start out. With zero RTS experience, and having never played BW, or the beta, and having just watched a few streams.....i had a MMM bo open on my second monitor, went 5-0 in placement, and would have been diamond in a few days if had actually kept playing T. But I tanked my rating to bronze, where I farked around with Z, failed miserably, then switched to toss, and am slowly moving back up, but just don't care as much about ranking up any more. I actually watch streams/replays far more than I actually play.
"But a very low risk, high reward harass like an 8 marine drop when the enemy is out of position can completely swing the game back to even. And no other race has the same ability." Looks like somebody has never heard of a warp prism, or a proxy pylon. Also you know those annoying things called Mutalisks? get 12 of those and u can cause havoc for a Terran player who doesnt have a Thor or more than 3 Turrets in his main. So there's one point where you're wrong. Lets move onto the 2nd.
LOL? A warp prism which can dump a max of 4 units out, not including super fragile warp-ins, and can be destroyed in 2 seconds by 4 stimmed marines, which can also kite anything not stalkers into infinity?? Proxy pylon? What? How do you get a proxy pylon into a Ts base unless they are just rofl bad. Oh, yeah, and you know those annoying things called mutalisks? Yeah, 12 stimmed marines can wreck some mutas. They'll lose to twelve mutas, but cost for cost its ridiculous how effective marines are. P.S., marines are first units you can get. And so, that point alone proves me right. Tier 1 marines hard counter tier 2.5 mutas. This discussion is over.
"A cloak banshee rush is a standard Terran bo that can 100% destroy many P/Z bos, and yet not only does it only barely put T behind, but it can end the game RIGHT THERE." Ok once again my friend you are wrong. Any HIGH level Diamond player or Master League player can easily prepare for Banshee. Honestly I don't remember when I HAVEN'T played a P or Z who wasnt nearly prepared or already prepared for possible Banshee. Also once that fails that leaves u with what? MAYBE 2 barracks, and ur natural just completing.. while P or Z already has their 3 gates, or Zerg double injecting larva and making a rofflestomp army. Terran is behind MORE than just a little bit if Banshee fails. Next to good ol' quote number 3.
The thing is, those diamond/master players MUST prepare for banshees, because not doing so = instaloss if the t does go for banshees, and they have no effective means of scouting those banshees until they cruise into your base. And lets say you epic fail with those banshees. Well that's cool, you probably have at least 10-15 marines out, and your banshees are still alive, so you just swap your factory over to your tech lab, drop a few bunkers for your marines, and 1 minute later you have 2 siege tanks chilling in front of your base while you prepare your CC in base, while your medivac you built off your "rushed" starport is now on the way to your enemies main with 8 marines where his stims, kills off 10 workers and then retreats with no losses, putting you back equal. Just another day at the office for T, where nothing you do is all-in. Once again.....you fail.
"You can literally lose your entire army as a T, and as long as you have a couple bunkers up, 400 minerals(2 MULEs) worth of marines, 2 siege tanks, and 4 repairing scvs, you can hold off anything short of basically an all-in push by your opponent. And this turtling abilty won't win you games outright, but it just gives your opponent that many more chances to make a mistake that puts the t right back into the game." I mean I honestly don't even have to say anything for this one... BUT I will. First off 95% of Terran players destroy their bunkers and use the marines before they move out for an attack. Second off after you kill your opponents entire army why are u going straight in for an attack? That is if you don't have the ROFLSTOMP army. If you kill their entire army your next move is to expand, get map control, and not sucide what units you have left.
You don't know what to say because........you have no argument. bunkers are 100 minerals worth of completely refundable solid gold as a defensive structure. If your attack fails, dropping two bunkers takes 30 seconds, and with 4 marines in each + repair can hold off far more than 600 minerals worth of attacking units. And yes, I know the answer to killing your opponent off when your opponent is T is expanding, but only because they can turtle until they run out of resources and be safe. Vs Z, if you rape their entire standing army before the "300 supply zerg" point, then you can push right in and rape their base 90% of the time, because they have no wall-off and no effective defensive structures that can hold off marines/tanks/anything. If toss loses their death ball, then they are dead, and most just gg on the spot after losing their entire standing army. T can just turtle for a while, pull off a few lucky drop harass, and be right back in the game 3 minutes later if their opponent screws up at all.
Maybe you should start watching the Day[9] daily's and you won't sound completely wrong when you post.
Maybe you should start watching actual games where T's pull all kind of ridiculous bs to win games they have no business winning, instead of day9 dailys telling people how to make pylons and probes while you 2 rax "all-in" into 1 base marine/tank/thor/scv repair every game and think you're pro. I watch day9 all the time, btw.
When he says 400 minerals ( 2 mules ), is that a joke or something...? Mules mine up to ( 240-270 ) on blue minerals ( long distance / 240 ( Dies before the 9th cargo gets back home ) // ( short distance / 270 )
In BW T had the same turtling capabilities, it's just that mules allow them to recover faster after failed attacks, which is a really bad mechanic. Before in BW T's had to be very careful with how they attack, because one failed attack means the game was over for them. One failed attack here in SC2 means they are still in the game, even if they are at a slight disadvantage.
On January 21 2011 03:39 superstartran wrote: In BW T had the same turtling capabilities, it's just that mules allow them to recover faster after failed attacks, which is a really bad mechanic. Before in BW T's had to be very careful with how they attack, because one failed attack means the game was over for them. One failed attack here in SC2 means they are still in the game, even if they are at a slight disadvantage.
So just like how Zerg can reload after an attack.. Terrans can also stay in th egame after an attack?
Yeah ur right T is OP bullshit gimmicky mechanics.
The double standards from Zerg users is mind boggling.
I just feel that Zerg need more time to drone/make units, PvT as far as I see is balanced, ZvP and ZvT just has terrible maps where Zerg can not get enough of an economy while staying reasonably safe. P is not weaker than Terran with Colossus, Sentries and Templar who are all amazing units.
On January 21 2011 03:39 superstartran wrote: In BW T had the same turtling capabilities, it's just that mules allow them to recover faster after failed attacks, which is a really bad mechanic. Before in BW T's had to be very careful with how they attack, because one failed attack means the game was over for them. One failed attack here in SC2 means they are still in the game, even if they are at a slight disadvantage.
So just like how Zerg can reload after an attack.. Terrans can also stay in th egame after an attack?
Yeah ur right T is OP bullshit gimmicky mechanics.
The double standards from Zerg users is mind boggling.
I play P.
fuck the system
Yeah because I play Z. Oh wait, I play P and smash T players all the time.
The issue is that in BW was that T was too hard to play for most people on the planet. In SC2, T has far too many forgiving mechanics, even more so then P who in general is already forgiving of a race as it is (instant warp ins, shield regeneration, etc.)
Z cannot just reload instantly after an attack. If you were any decent at this game you would know that. T and P pressure forces Z to constantly make troops, thus meaning he will not have piles of resources / larvae saved up to instantly rebuild an army, especially if he is expanding properly.
On January 21 2011 03:42 Eppa! wrote: I just feel that Zerg need more time to drone/make units, PvT as far as I see is balanced, ZvP and ZvT just has terrible maps Zerg can not get enough of an economy while stay reasonably safe. P is not weaker than Terran with Colossus, Sentries and Templar who are all amazing units.
Horseshit. P is weaker than T because at best when both sides are played properly, T and P are relatively even mid to late game due to the multitude of options T has at harassing, while P having an incredibly strong deathball. Money EMPs, PDD, scan, and Tanks are all very strong late game, and anyone who has been watching GSL knows that T late game is not as weak as many people (especially the T players on this forum) thought.
The issue is that T holds a HUGE advantage early game, being able to dictate play right from the start. The ability to end games with 1 base pushes that can transition into expansions is just hilarious (Marine/PDD push for example is not an all-in, and can easily be transitioned into an expo).
Terran just has too many subtle advantages over other races, and these subtleties have a powerful synergy with the entire terran army as a whole making it extremely cost effective. Smart fire for siege tanks is one, the removal of the inferior medic freed up the barracks for more attacking units production and the heal bus is a more efficient healer at range and gives vision of cliffs without the need of a scan (when was the last time you abused a ledge on a terran?--->map has more than zero cliff?=terran favor). Marines and marauders having the same range makes them ball up more efficiently further enhancing the effectiveness of heal bus and creates a no micro required phalanx attack/defense formation(=no divide and conquer). Stim micro has also been improved in that the time a ranged unit has to wait after stopping before it can shoot has been made nearly non-existant. These are just the roots of the terran army as a whole, and from what i see. There is just more computer/game mechanic assist in the areas of (required)APM and strategy/tactics for terran compared to the other races. So its just easier to do well with Terran and thats why they are so prominent in all tournaments. But fruit dealer took all that shit and slam dunked it in Terran face!
Terran is more successful because they can be a safe race from all cheeses. Zerg can baneling bust, that is all. Protoss can DT, 4gate, or void ray --- that is all.
Terran can do many different builds and because of that, the other races have to play on the defensive.
I hate these threads. So everyone that plays T are instantly favored from an OP race/heavily favored map and Z is super hard because of larvae management and creep tumors. yawn.
On January 21 2011 03:52 statez wrote: I hate these threads. So everyone that plays T are instantly favored from an OP race/heavily favored map and Z is super hard because of larvae management and creep tumors. yawn.
it is pretty boring and repetitive subject.
Yes, we know TeamLiquid has a very large (over)representation of Zerg players.. and look what its doing for the place, whine threads all over the place.. poorly disguised balance threads.. it's so embarrassing to see the beacon of starcraft 2 in the west like this.. all due to one race with a persecution complex since that reaper thing.
These delightful discussions will get even more interesting than they already are when Terrans win the Code A (locked as final four are all T) and likely Code S tournaments (3 T in final four) this month.
On January 21 2011 03:43 rozero1234 wrote: Terran just has too many subtle advantages over other races, and these subtleties have a powerful synergy with the entire terran army as a whole making it extremely cost effective. Smart fire for siege tanks is one, the removal of the inferior medic freed up the barracks for more attacking units production and the heal bus is a more efficient healer at range and gives vision of cliffs without the need of a scan (when was the last time you abused a ledge on a terran?--->map has more than zero cliff?=terran favor). Marines and marauders having the same range makes them ball up more efficiently further enhancing the effectiveness of heal bus and creates a no micro required phalanx attack/defense formation(=no divide and conquer). Stim micro has also been improved in that the time a ranged unit has to wait after stopping before it can shoot has been made nearly non-existant. These are just the roots of the terran army as a whole, and from what i see. There is just more computer/game mechanic assist in the areas of (required)APM and strategy/tactics for terran compared to the other races. So its just easier to do well with Terran and thats why they are so prominent in all tournaments. But fruit dealer took all that shit and slam dunked it in Terran face!
He would've died in GSL1 if he had to play MKP in the finals though... or at least have a 4-3 win than his dominating win he had...
On January 21 2011 03:10 Treemonkeys wrote: This is an important point, terran can recover from almost any cheese/all-in. There is almost no risk to it, partially because they can easily defend with so little it is too risky to try and punish them after an attack fails. Zerg can literally wipe the floor with wave after wave of failed terran attacks and it is still to risky for them to try and attack, so they take over the map instead.
Whoever said "terran has a monopoly on aggression until late game" said it best. That sums it all up right there. Terran early aggression is both more potent and less risky. Zerg can do what? Baneling bust all-in or roach rush all-in, if those attacks fail the zerg is fucked. Only those attacks are far less powerful than a number of terran pushes, and terran can recover from them almost as if they didn't happen. That is why terran does it all the time, and that is why zerg almost never does it.
Lol I remember one game where I absolutely abolished every terran wave after wave but with the Pf' s and bunkers I couldnt attack into his bases and eventually after the 5th wave I missed an inject cycle finally and couldnt rally enough troops so he walks into my bases and wins. it's bs what can you do I think its alright now since my units attack the scvs repairing haha, I don't think there is any large imbalance or anything I just want better maps that is all.
On January 21 2011 04:01 Eschaton wrote: These delightful discussions will get even more interesting than they already are when Terrans win the Code A (locked as final four are all T) and likely Code S tournaments (3 T in final four) this month.
I dont know who would think that MVP, MKP and Jinro are only in ro4 because they chose the right race. They are there because they are the best players. They have all shown how consistent they are, and they all know how to play a heavy macro game (they arent just cheesers).
Ok, i play terran, but seeing how MVP and MKP plays is just amazing, more so than watching a top level zerg or protoss play. Obviously i'm biased because i'm terran, but besides a few (MC season 3 for example) i havent seen innovative and such brilliant play from the other races. What i mean is that it's hard for me to say what the major differences are between the good zergs and the best zergs. But there is a huge difference between a player like MVP, and then a decent Terran like hyperdub or Maka.
Even if you think Terran is OP, you have to admit that players like Boxer, Nada, MVP, Jinro and MKP make Terran look easy And that they have shown us some of the most innovative, brilliant and sexy play.
On January 21 2011 03:40 hAxel wrote: Terran Success in GSL so far is 0%
Made my day.
Runner up in every gsl and the majority of the top 8s being heavily terran not good enough?
Why is this thread still open :S
I like to think the mods are watching it and creating a teamliquid version of Americas terrorist watchlist, taking notes on all the people "discussing" balance.
edit: and then the TL Jack Bauer will run in and punch them in the face.
On January 21 2011 03:52 statez wrote: I hate these threads. So everyone that plays T are instantly favored from an OP race/heavily favored map and Z is super hard because of larvae management and creep tumors. yawn.
(over)representation of Zerg players..
it's so embarrassing to see the beacon of starcraft 2 in the west like this..
all due to one race with a persecution complex since that reaper thing.
Z, Focus on your own play. Thx Bro
u might be my new favorite poster ever. im pretty sure you aint even trolling too, hilarious.
theres no need to be so defensive about your race btw, try and look at things objectively, and not just from your own point of view. i dont think zerg are miles behind terran, i just think terran could use a few tweaks maybe.
that being said though, with all the available data i don't see how blizzard won't at least rebalance marines and maybe buff something else. its getting silly with foxer.
On January 21 2011 03:40 hAxel wrote: Terran Success in GSL so far is 0%
Made my day.
Runner up in every gsl and the majority of the top 8s being heavily terran not good enough?
Why is this thread still open :S
I like to think the mods are watching it and creating a teamliquid version of Americas terrorist watchlist, taking notes on all the people "discussing" balance.
Your reply gives me hope and faith in humanity again.
On January 21 2011 03:52 statez wrote: I hate these threads. So everyone that plays T are instantly favored from an OP race/heavily favored map and Z is super hard because of larvae management and creep tumors. yawn.
(over)representation of Zerg players..
it's so embarrassing to see the beacon of starcraft 2 in the west like this..
all due to one race with a persecution complex since that reaper thing.
Z, Focus on your own play. Thx Bro
u might be my new favorite poster ever. im pretty sure you aint even trolling too, hilarious.
theres no need to be so defensive about your race btw, try and look at things objectively, and not just from your own point of view. i dont think zerg are miles behind terran, i just think terran could use a few tweaks maybe.
that being said though, with all the available data i don't see how blizzard won't at least rebalance marines and maybe buff something else. its getting silly with foxer.
Sorry man, 750 games played as Z, 500 as P. 25 as T.
Terran isn't my race, the problem is it's EMBARRASSING to be represented as a Zerg or Protoss by threads like these.
On January 21 2011 03:52 statez wrote: I hate these threads. So everyone that plays T are instantly favored from an OP race/heavily favored map and Z is super hard because of larvae management and creep tumors. yawn.
(over)representation of Zerg players..
it's so embarrassing to see the beacon of starcraft 2 in the west like this..
all due to one race with a persecution complex since that reaper thing.
Z, Focus on your own play. Thx Bro
theres no need to be so defensive about your race btw, try and look at things objectively, and not just from your own point of view.
I hate myself but I just have to reply to this. WHAT is with people going "oh well you play terran so of course your opinion is biased".
why don't I just say "well you play zerg so YOUR opinion is biased against terran" ?
If you seriously believe that the people in this thread crying about balance are being unbiased and objective? then I don't know what to tell you.. except, no :p
On January 20 2011 19:28 Talack wrote: Where is the option where I say that I think the terran pros are just that much better than the zerg/toss pros in terms of micro/macro/decision making/strategic analysis.
This is how I feel about it. So far if we would make a list of the best players in terms of micro/macro/decision making/strategic analysis I feel like there would be easily twice as many T comapred to P or Z.
On January 21 2011 03:52 statez wrote: I hate these threads. So everyone that plays T are instantly favored from an OP race/heavily favored map and Z is super hard because of larvae management and creep tumors. yawn.
(over)representation of Zerg players..
it's so embarrassing to see the beacon of starcraft 2 in the west like this..
all due to one race with a persecution complex since that reaper thing.
Z, Focus on your own play. Thx Bro
u might be my new favorite poster ever. im pretty sure you aint even trolling too, hilarious.
theres no need to be so defensive about your race btw, try and look at things objectively, and not just from your own point of view. i dont think zerg are miles behind terran, i just think terran could use a few tweaks maybe.
that being said though, with all the available data i don't see how blizzard won't at least rebalance marines and maybe buff something else. its getting silly with foxer.
Sorry man, 750 games played as Z, 500 as P. 25 as T.
Terran isn't my race, the problem is it's EMBARRASSING to be represented as a Zerg or Protoss by threads like these.
m8 did u not read what u posted?
(over)representation of Zerg players..
it's so embarrassing to see the beacon of starcraft 2 in the west like this..
all due to one race with a persecution complex since that reaper thing.
Z, Focus on your own play. Thx Bro
and u keep talking about other stuff embarrassing you, seriously? i literally dont know wat to say.
On January 21 2011 03:52 statez wrote: I hate these threads. So everyone that plays T are instantly favored from an OP race/heavily favored map and Z is super hard because of larvae management and creep tumors. yawn.
(over)representation of Zerg players..
it's so embarrassing to see the beacon of starcraft 2 in the west like this..
all due to one race with a persecution complex since that reaper thing.
Z, Focus on your own play. Thx Bro
theres no need to be so defensive about your race btw, try and look at things objectively, and not just from your own point of view.
I hate myself but I just have to reply to this. WHAT is with people going "oh well you play terran so of course your opinion is biased".
why don't I just say "well you play zerg so YOUR opinion is biased against terran" ?
m8 no one can achieve objectivity. you can at least try though which idk about you but it does not seem that alot of people do that. people literally think 70%+ of the best players in the world play terran?
Poll option 4 : Marine King Prime, Jinro and MVP are just solid gosus. no races imba involved here It has to do with the persons playing as such a great level that they arrived in semi.
On January 21 2011 03:52 statez wrote: I hate these threads. So everyone that plays T are instantly favored from an OP race/heavily favored map and Z is super hard because of larvae management and creep tumors. yawn.
(over)representation of Zerg players..
it's so embarrassing to see the beacon of starcraft 2 in the west like this..
all due to one race with a persecution complex since that reaper thing.
Z, Focus on your own play. Thx Bro
u might be my new favorite poster ever. im pretty sure you aint even trolling too, hilarious.
theres no need to be so defensive about your race btw, try and look at things objectively, and not just from your own point of view. i dont think zerg are miles behind terran, i just think terran could use a few tweaks maybe.
that being said though, with all the available data i don't see how blizzard won't at least rebalance marines and maybe buff something else. its getting silly with foxer.
Sorry man, 750 games played as Z, 500 as P. 25 as T.
Terran isn't my race, the problem is it's EMBARRASSING to be represented as a Zerg or Protoss by threads like these.
it's so embarrassing to see the beacon of starcraft 2 in the west like this..
all due to one race with a persecution complex since that reaper thing.
Z, Focus on your own play. Thx Bro
and u keep talking about other stuff embarrassing you, seriously? i literally dont know wat to say.
I don't know what to say either? Fairly simple statements I made here.
1) Over representation of Zergs on TL.net (implying that this over representation leads to threads like this far too often by Zergs scapegoating their lack of skill on imbalance)
2) It's a shame to see TL having as many threads and posters who are happy to go along with this sort of "discussion"
3) I feel that it's largely down to how TvZ was at release.
I don't think Terran is overpowered, but their All In are amazingly strong and we see a lot of that in the GSL, right now. There's so much different All In you can do too with Terran... People will eventually figured out how to stop all of them effectively.
i think its redundant to have "player preference" in there, the reason being you already have "maps favor terran" and "terran are OP" in the poll. people tend to prefer terran BECAUSE the maps favor them, and because they're OP.
toss get a time resource boost. zerg get a larvae resource boost. terran get a "vision" resource, a "supply" resource, and literal funding.
blizzard wont recognize it because "the stats are even". well, the stats are even because people use terran as a crutch and more skilled players tend to be more principled.
On January 21 2011 03:52 statez wrote: I hate these threads. So everyone that plays T are instantly favored from an OP race/heavily favored map and Z is super hard because of larvae management and creep tumors. yawn.
(over)representation of Zerg players..
it's so embarrassing to see the beacon of starcraft 2 in the west like this..
all due to one race with a persecution complex since that reaper thing.
Z, Focus on your own play. Thx Bro
theres no need to be so defensive about your race btw, try and look at things objectively, and not just from your own point of view.
I hate myself but I just have to reply to this. WHAT is with people going "oh well you play terran so of course your opinion is biased".
why don't I just say "well you play zerg so YOUR opinion is biased against terran" ?
m8 no one can achieve objectivity. you can at least try though which idk about you but it does not seem that alot of people do that. people literally think 70%+ of the best players in the world play terran?
My point was that you're not being objective, yet you were telling someone else that they should be just because they disagreed with you. Now you're saying noone can be objective?
I've been inspired to come up with a new theory. Terrans are just better players. TvT is the most intense matchup, with very high micro and macro requirements, no a-moving is possible you have to do everything patiently and precisely. This sort of training sets all terrans apart from protoss or zerg who don't get this kind of practice regularly.
No I'm not serious, but it makes about as much sense as most of the arguments here.
On January 21 2011 04:22 Diks wrote: Poll option 4 : Marine King Prime, Jinro and MVP are just solid gosus. no races imba involved here It has to do with the persons playing as such a great level that they arrived in semi.
even if thats true, then how come players like tsl rain got to last gsl's final? how come the code a semis is 4 terran. how come ever since sc2 launched terran have dominated everything except during a few weeks just before nestea won gsl?
my motive for thinking terran is op is not from my own play, im not nearly good enough yet to have an opinion on that. i sit and watch gsl and just cannot help but think that as foxer destroys everything even in the lategame where he only builds one type of (tier 1) unit, and the only time other races win tournaments is normally when they are significantly better than the terran they are facing. nestea is gonna have to totally outplay mvp to win. if they are evenly matched at all he wont win.
On January 21 2011 02:39 Gonzodamus wrote: I feel like you're missing an option on the poll. What about the possibility that the Terran players that won are playing better than their opponents?
Because this outcome is so improbable (all the best players independently just happen to pick Terran and all the scrubs happen to pick the others) that it's not worth the time or energy to reasonably entertain.
Unless you're trolling.
The alternative is that Marine King, MVP and Jinro are worse than the people they beat. I don't think that's the case. They played better and beat them - simple as that.
On January 21 2011 04:25 SkeweredFromEarToEye wrote: i think its redundant to have "player preference" in there, the reason being you already have "maps favor terran" and "terran are OP" in the poll. people tend to prefer terran BECAUSE the maps favor them, and because they're OP.
toss get a time resource boost. zerg get a larvae resource boost. terran get a "vision" resource, a "supply" resource, and literal funding.
blizzard wont recognize it because "the stats are even". well, the stats are even because people use terran as a crutch and more skilled players tend to be more principled.
Apologise for playing that race? Really? After all the nerfs.. not a single buff and thats still the party line?
terran seems to be just much safer than the other races, you almost never see a pro terran player lose vs an average zerg/protoss but you quite often see a lesser terran beat a pro protoss or zerg.
they have very strong allins and very strong defense and they are also the race that wins on build order and never lose because of it.
an example could be protoss went for early stargate play and terran went cloak banshee.. freewin for terran
also the maps seem to favor terran heavily, will be interesting too see if the new maps will help for next season
I think the reason is simple: Terran was very good in the first period of release -> many korean pros and semi-pros pick up terran for the easy edge -> About the same percentage of people get good at each race -> more Terrans at the top of the progaming.
This will equalize but not before a couple of months have passed.
On January 21 2011 04:25 SkeweredFromEarToEye wrote: i think its redundant to have "player preference" in there, the reason being you already have "maps favor terran" and "terran are OP" in the poll. people tend to prefer terran BECAUSE the maps favor them, and because they're OP.
toss get a time resource boost. zerg get a larvae resource boost. terran get a "vision" resource, a "supply" resource, and literal funding.
blizzard wont recognize it because "the stats are even". well, the stats are even because people use terran as a crutch and more skilled players tend to be more principled.
Like who? Idra who played Terran in SC1, then went Toss in SC2 when they were undoubtedly the strongest and after they got some nerfs switched to Zerg with 1 food roaches?
On January 20 2011 19:15 iEchoic wrote: If you took out the results from maps like Jungle Basin and steppes, Z would be killing. The maps are the primary problem, so just wait and see until next season when Gardens of Aiur and other hilariously Z-favored maps come into play. These things are like shakuras cross position except with a natural in the back, longer distances, and a narrow ramp.
You know this post shows you haven't really been able to play terran like others (ones who can macro). I think before you make posts like this you should watch good terrans macro and realize that it is possible to play macro games vs zerg and win. Just because you can't do it for whatever reason doesn't mean terran can't beat zerg.
Have you watched any of the matches on those new maps btw? From gisado or w/e? Terran has won on those maps more then zerg has when I have watched. Think you need to pay more attention before posting something like this ^^
On January 21 2011 04:25 SkeweredFromEarToEye wrote: i think its redundant to have "player preference" in there, the reason being you already have "maps favor terran" and "terran are OP" in the poll. people tend to prefer terran BECAUSE the maps favor them, and because they're OP.
toss get a time resource boost. zerg get a larvae resource boost. terran get a "vision" resource, a "supply" resource, and literal funding.
blizzard wont recognize it because "the stats are even". well, the stats are even because people use terran as a crutch and more skilled players tend to be more principled.
Apologise for playing that race? Really? After all the nerfs.. not a single buff and thats still the party line?
Ahh well, Time to stop reading these posts .
Decaying-leaf league syndrome in here.
decaying leaf league syndrome? fyi, i'm currently 2400 master.
you know whats really sad? a friend of mine got sc2 recently. he plays terran, and he's been winning a lot online. he was telling me that his strat was to "build a whole lot of the football guys". and when i mentioned mules he asked me what those were. don't get me wrong, he plays a ton of RTS so he has the basics down. but it's just...it's sad what terran players can get away with NOT KNOWING
Terran is OP has probably been the biggest thing that people have been complaining about since the launch of SC2. And yes before the ST nerf ST were to strong a unit, but what about now?
I'm a terran player so I'm only going to bring up the matchups that involve T since i am a newbie when it comes to ZvP.
I honestly think that terran as a race is balanced. I especially feel that the TvZ matchup is very fair for both sides, although it is commonly known that way to many match favor Terran alot. But on maps such as Xel Naga, Shakuras (Cross Positions) and Metapolis (Cross Positions) the matchups is really balanced. Although Metapolis (Close Positions) makes it really tough for zerg, so the map isn't perfect.
So as stated, TvZ is good. The problem doesn't lie with the matchup but instead it is a map issue.
And from my point of view i can easily say that i think that TvZ is the most entertaining and dynamic matchup to watch and play.
TvP is a whole other story. It really needs some fixing, but there are hard solved problems.
Firstly its the thing that terran can pull off sick 1 base timing pushes (That almost always includes Scv's) that are able to win them ridiculously easy against protoss players. This makes alot of protoss players mad, and leads them to believe that Terran is too strong. And its not only newbs doing this. I have seen the great terran player Kas pull Scv's and win with a strong push alot of times, both on 1/2 base.
But lets look at it from another point of view. Why is it that it is the Terran race that has become known for these pushes? Why do Zerg and Protoss almost never do it, and why do probes and drones never get used for pushes while scv's so often are.
There are of course alot of answers to this, major ones like (mules) and minor ones like, (5 + health than other workers and able to repair themselves and mech units.) but i won't address them right now.
I think that the biggest reason for terran doing these pushes against protoss is because of the complications in the matchup. It is because alot of terran players really struggle in Macro games with protoss. I can say for a fact that i have almost never won versus a protoss player of similiar skills in games that have gone to the late game. At the same time i do not feel that i struggle in the long time macro games against zerg players on my skill level, so there most be other reasons then the fact that I'm a worse macro player then all the protoss i face.
And sure, every1 has a better and worse matchup that they face. Some people are better against some races and worse against others, so i can't be 100% accurate.
I'm not implying that Protoss are overpowered, but i do think that protoss have it just slightly easier to win versus terran all the way from Bronze league to the higher Diamond leagues.
And i am not saying that Terran can't win macro games against protoss. Because they certainly can proven by the awesome LiquidJinro and many others. I've seen alot of Koreans in the GSL opt for a FE against Protoss which is great. And on the pro level I'm sure that if anything Terran is the stronger race.
But not on all levels, why?
It has alot to do with the fact that protoss have tougher and more expensive units that terran.
I'm just gonna take the easiest example to make the text shorter (Yes it is already pretty long)
: If you look on the papers the Zealot is a far stronger unit than the marine. And one zealot can easily kill two marines without any micro. But when micro is implied to the units it all changes. Suddenly 2 marines can kill off a Zealot without losing any hp if they are microed correctly. In the lower leagues they aren't most of the time resulting in the Zealots having the edge.
But then when it comes to better players it changes and marines suddenly gain the edge of the Zealots. As seen in the gsl. I am sure that Terran may very well be the strongest race if the player playing is capable of astounding micro. But, most of us aren't which makes the matchup fair, and even gives the Protoss the edge in some cases.
Then again some protoss units such as the Sentry requires a good amount of micro, and i must say that just as marines may be OP in the hand of a great player, so is Forcefields.
Protoss also have stronger T3 Units. The collosi + HT with storms are capable of slaughtering so much, while units like Thors, as strong as they can be, aren't.
And even though the Carrier is underused i still think it's way better than BC's.
So when T players have found out that winning over a Protoss in a macro game is harder, many winning-hungry players have strived to find new tactics to beat the Toss. Resulting in the All-ins.
I can honestly say that I don't know exactly what balances sound be implemented, but i think TvP needs some looking into, because we all can't be the elite players. But i still think decent players should be able to play macro games in all matchups fairly.
On January 21 2011 04:25 SkeweredFromEarToEye wrote: i think its redundant to have "player preference" in there, the reason being you already have "maps favor terran" and "terran are OP" in the poll. people tend to prefer terran BECAUSE the maps favor them, and because they're OP.
toss get a time resource boost. zerg get a larvae resource boost. terran get a "vision" resource, a "supply" resource, and literal funding.
blizzard wont recognize it because "the stats are even". well, the stats are even because people use terran as a crutch and more skilled players tend to be more principled.
Apologise for playing that race? Really? After all the nerfs.. not a single buff and thats still the party line?
Ahh well, Time to stop reading these posts .
Decaying-leaf league syndrome in here.
decaying leaf league syndrome? fyi, i'm currently 2400 master.
you know whats really sad? a friend of mine got sc2 recently. he plays terran, and he's been winning a lot online. he was telling me that his strat was to "build a whole lot of the football guys". and when i mentioned mules he asked me what those were. don't get me wrong, he plays a ton of RTS so he has the basics down. but it's just...it's sad what terran players can get away with NOT KNOWING
Oh my god this post made my brain hurt.
I'm out of this thread. I'm going back to the Bronze Practice EU chat channel. Those guys actually want to get better and work hard to improve their own game. I much prefer their company to diamond+ people supposedly around my own skill level that hit a problem and start crying about imbalance rather than just learning how to fix it.
On January 21 2011 04:25 SkeweredFromEarToEye wrote: i think its redundant to have "player preference" in there, the reason being you already have "maps favor terran" and "terran are OP" in the poll. people tend to prefer terran BECAUSE the maps favor them, and because they're OP.
toss get a time resource boost. zerg get a larvae resource boost. terran get a "vision" resource, a "supply" resource, and literal funding.
blizzard wont recognize it because "the stats are even". well, the stats are even because people use terran as a crutch and more skilled players tend to be more principled.
Apologise for playing that race? Really? After all the nerfs.. not a single buff and thats still the party line?
Ahh well, Time to stop reading these posts .
Decaying-leaf league syndrome in here.
decaying leaf league syndrome? fyi, i'm currently 2400 master.
you know whats really sad? a friend of mine got sc2 recently. he plays terran, and he's been winning a lot online. he was telling me that his strat was to "build a whole lot of the football guys". and when i mentioned mules he asked me what those were. don't get me wrong, he plays a ton of RTS so he has the basics down. but it's just...it's sad what terran players can get away with NOT KNOWING
My wife just started taking interest in the game.. and she's winning games as Z making "those fast hopping bugs".. dont get me wrong, she plays a ton of rts so she has the basics down. but it's just...it's sad what Zerg player can get away with NO KNOWING
On January 21 2011 04:36 SkeweredFromEarToEye wrote:
On January 21 2011 04:29 Scrimpton wrote:
On January 21 2011 04:25 SkeweredFromEarToEye wrote: i think its redundant to have "player preference" in there, the reason being you already have "maps favor terran" and "terran are OP" in the poll. people tend to prefer terran BECAUSE the maps favor them, and because they're OP.
toss get a time resource boost. zerg get a larvae resource boost. terran get a "vision" resource, a "supply" resource, and literal funding.
blizzard wont recognize it because "the stats are even". well, the stats are even because people use terran as a crutch and more skilled players tend to be more principled.
Apologise for playing that race? Really? After all the nerfs.. not a single buff and thats still the party line?
Ahh well, Time to stop reading these posts .
Decaying-leaf league syndrome in here.
decaying leaf league syndrome? fyi, i'm currently 2400 master.
you know whats really sad? a friend of mine got sc2 recently. he plays terran, and he's been winning a lot online. he was telling me that his strat was to "build a whole lot of the football guys". and when i mentioned mules he asked me what those were. don't get me wrong, he plays a ton of RTS so he has the basics down. but it's just...it's sad what terran players can get away with NOT KNOWING
Oh my god this post made my brain hurt.
I'm out of this thread. I'm going back to the Bronze Practice EU chat channel. Those guys actually want to get better and work hard to improve their own game. I much prefer their company to diamond+ people supposedly around my own skill level that hit a problem and start crying about imbalance rather than just learning how to fix it.
I absolutely fucking love you NikonTC.
you perfectly encapsulated what is wrong with threads like these.
" I much prefer their company to diamond+ people supposedly around my own skill level that hit a problem and start crying about imbalance rather than just learning how to fix it."
This sort of thing should scroll past on a nice banner at the top of the website every now and then, Or pop up every time somebody posts in a thread, like a little tick box you have to read that calms people down and forces them to acknowledge that their own shortcomings do a lot more harm than mules
On January 21 2011 02:39 Gonzodamus wrote: I feel like you're missing an option on the poll. What about the possibility that the Terran players that won are playing better than their opponents?
Because this outcome is so improbable (all the best players independently just happen to pick Terran and all the scrubs happen to pick the others) that it's not worth the time or energy to reasonably entertain.
Unless you're trolling.
The alternative is that Marine King, MVP and Jinro are worse than the people they beat. I don't think that's the case. They played better and beat them - simple as that.
Nope, this isn't what you're saying. These 3 players being good doesn't explain success and overrepresentation in all rounds of the GSL. I'm not saying that MKP, MvP or Jinro are bad players. They're amazing players. But having 3-4 amazing Terran players doesn't account for the near constant 50% representation in multiple rounds.
For your option, we'd have to be assuming that even the good Terran players (not greats like MKP, MvP or Jinro) are all, on average, superior to their respective peers playing the other races (like in Code A).
Revert the SCV change, implement a change that only alters SCV priority when repairing a Thor, reduce SCV health by 5. There, SCVs are no longer a mobile PDD and all ins are weaker. Objections? None? Good.
On January 21 2011 04:36 SkeweredFromEarToEye wrote:
On January 21 2011 04:29 Scrimpton wrote:
On January 21 2011 04:25 SkeweredFromEarToEye wrote: i think its redundant to have "player preference" in there, the reason being you already have "maps favor terran" and "terran are OP" in the poll. people tend to prefer terran BECAUSE the maps favor them, and because they're OP.
toss get a time resource boost. zerg get a larvae resource boost. terran get a "vision" resource, a "supply" resource, and literal funding.
blizzard wont recognize it because "the stats are even". well, the stats are even because people use terran as a crutch and more skilled players tend to be more principled.
Apologise for playing that race? Really? After all the nerfs.. not a single buff and thats still the party line?
Ahh well, Time to stop reading these posts .
Decaying-leaf league syndrome in here.
decaying leaf league syndrome? fyi, i'm currently 2400 master.
you know whats really sad? a friend of mine got sc2 recently. he plays terran, and he's been winning a lot online. he was telling me that his strat was to "build a whole lot of the football guys". and when i mentioned mules he asked me what those were. don't get me wrong, he plays a ton of RTS so he has the basics down. but it's just...it's sad what terran players can get away with NOT KNOWING
Oh my god this post made my brain hurt.
I'm out of this thread. I'm going back to the Bronze Practice EU chat channel. Those guys actually want to get better and work hard to improve their own game. I much prefer their company to diamond+ people supposedly around my own skill level that hit a problem and start crying about imbalance rather than just learning how to fix it.
i didnt hit a problem. im not crying about imbalance. im merely making speculations. terran are OP, but i dont have a problem with them. but they are OP.
On January 21 2011 03:52 statez wrote: I hate these threads. So everyone that plays T are instantly favored from an OP race/heavily favored map and Z is super hard because of larvae management and creep tumors. yawn.
(over)representation of Zerg players..
it's so embarrassing to see the beacon of starcraft 2 in the west like this..
all due to one race with a persecution complex since that reaper thing.
Z, Focus on your own play. Thx Bro
u might be my new favorite poster ever. im pretty sure you aint even trolling too, hilarious.
theres no need to be so defensive about your race btw, try and look at things objectively, and not just from your own point of view. i dont think zerg are miles behind terran, i just think terran could use a few tweaks maybe.
that being said though, with all the available data i don't see how blizzard won't at least rebalance marines and maybe buff something else. its getting silly with foxer.
Sorry man, 750 games played as Z, 500 as P. 25 as T.
Terran isn't my race, the problem is it's EMBARRASSING to be represented as a Zerg or Protoss by threads like these.
I agree here.
Maybe another thing thats a contributing factor is Terrans psychological warfare. They WANT to seem Feared. They WANT to look OP. They WANT any factor that makes them better.
This lets them to think their ahead so already they have an advantage. Every waking second your sitting their your thinking....."Well fuck, why should I try when I know they are OP?" So in return you don't try as hard while the MM stim and kills your base and you sit back and instead of microing/macroing you think there's nothing you can do.
On January 21 2011 04:25 SkeweredFromEarToEye wrote: i think its redundant to have "player preference" in there, the reason being you already have "maps favor terran" and "terran are OP" in the poll. people tend to prefer terran BECAUSE the maps favor them, and because they're OP.
toss get a time resource boost. zerg get a larvae resource boost. terran get a "vision" resource, a "supply" resource, and literal funding.
blizzard wont recognize it because "the stats are even". well, the stats are even because people use terran as a crutch and more skilled players tend to be more principled.
Apologise for playing that race? Really? After all the nerfs.. not a single buff and thats still the party line?
Ahh well, Time to stop reading these posts .
Decaying-leaf league syndrome in here.
decaying leaf league syndrome? fyi, i'm currently 2400 master.
you know whats really sad? a friend of mine got sc2 recently. he plays terran, and he's been winning a lot online. he was telling me that his strat was to "build a whole lot of the football guys". and when i mentioned mules he asked me what those were. don't get me wrong, he plays a ton of RTS so he has the basics down. but it's just...it's sad what terran players can get away with NOT KNOWING
the people he is playing must be absolutely pathetic
On January 21 2011 04:50 branflakes14 wrote: Revert the SCV change, implement a change that only alters SCV priority when repairing a Thor, reduce SCV health by 5. There, SCVs are no longer a mobile PDD and all ins are weaker. Objections? None? Good.
???? Drones regen ( they have 40 in SC2 from 35 )
Probes regen shields ( 20/20 +regens on the run at a quick rate )
Scvs have +5 hp to offset that ???? are you intoxicated...?
I have a question, why are there so many Zergs in the MSL this season? OMG, THEY MUST BE OP! HURRY BLIZZARD NERF, NERF!
Of course, this is silly. It's just the ebb and flow of the games strategies. There were periods of dominance of one race over the others during BW, sometimes for nearly two seasons straight, where people would question a races "balance" but in the end it just has to do with trends within specific Match-ups.
The Protoss had their time during the 08-09 season with the advent of the Forge FE as standard play, Swarm Season quickly followed as Zergs learned to adapt to the Protoss with the 3 hatch spire into 5 hatch hydra, and before all of that, even before Savior, and look who was dominating? TERRANS. It all has to do with trends and trend leaders and when they arise and how they influence the scene. I expect SC2 to balance out fairly well as time goes on.
On January 21 2011 04:25 SkeweredFromEarToEye wrote: i think its redundant to have "player preference" in there, the reason being you already have "maps favor terran" and "terran are OP" in the poll. people tend to prefer terran BECAUSE the maps favor them, and because they're OP.
toss get a time resource boost. zerg get a larvae resource boost. terran get a "vision" resource, a "supply" resource, and literal funding.
blizzard wont recognize it because "the stats are even". well, the stats are even because people use terran as a crutch and more skilled players tend to be more principled.
Apologise for playing that race? Really? After all the nerfs.. not a single buff and thats still the party line?
Ahh well, Time to stop reading these posts .
Decaying-leaf league syndrome in here.
decaying leaf league syndrome? fyi, i'm currently 2400 master.
you know whats really sad? a friend of mine got sc2 recently. he plays terran, and he's been winning a lot online. he was telling me that his strat was to "build a whole lot of the football guys". and when i mentioned mules he asked me what those were. don't get me wrong, he plays a ton of RTS so he has the basics down. but it's just...it's sad what terran players can get away with NOT KNOWING
And I have a zerg friend that never ever used Ultralisk, Infestors, or Broodlord and got to mid diamond, not to mention he never played other races except in single player.
It is hard to say, there is obviously serious map imbalance but every terran player still in the running is an incredible player who deserves their spot. I think it could just be random chance that things ended up this way. Certainly there is imbalance in the game and particularly the map pool but that is not the reason why we see MVP, Jinro, and MKP in the semis. They are in the semis because they are all incredible players who have worked hard for their spots and deserve them.
On January 20 2011 21:02 tapk69 wrote: damm i saw him win against NADA AND JINRO with just marines! Marine is a tier 1 unit man.. you dont see the rest of the terran play with just marines do you ? why is that? i tell you ...
because they can´t do it , they can´t compare to that , thats like a Ferrari F-40 and a Ferrari Enzo..
Oh, you can't think of another terran who goes all marines? *cough* Marineking *cough*
On January 21 2011 04:36 SkeweredFromEarToEye wrote:
On January 21 2011 04:29 Scrimpton wrote:
On January 21 2011 04:25 SkeweredFromEarToEye wrote: i think its redundant to have "player preference" in there, the reason being you already have "maps favor terran" and "terran are OP" in the poll. people tend to prefer terran BECAUSE the maps favor them, and because they're OP.
toss get a time resource boost. zerg get a larvae resource boost. terran get a "vision" resource, a "supply" resource, and literal funding.
blizzard wont recognize it because "the stats are even". well, the stats are even because people use terran as a crutch and more skilled players tend to be more principled.
Apologise for playing that race? Really? After all the nerfs.. not a single buff and thats still the party line?
Ahh well, Time to stop reading these posts .
Decaying-leaf league syndrome in here.
decaying leaf league syndrome? fyi, i'm currently 2400 master.
you know whats really sad? a friend of mine got sc2 recently. he plays terran, and he's been winning a lot online. he was telling me that his strat was to "build a whole lot of the football guys". and when i mentioned mules he asked me what those were. don't get me wrong, he plays a ton of RTS so he has the basics down. but it's just...it's sad what terran players can get away with NOT KNOWING
My wife just started taking interest in the game.. and she's winning games as Z making "those fast hopping bugs".. dont get me wrong, she plays a ton of rts so she has the basics down. but it's just...it's sad what Zerg player can get away with NO KNOWING
Rofl, nice try, but you are clearly trolling. A single void ray/muta/banshee would completely fark your wife up and could end the game right there. Not to mention all tier one units can easily kill zerglings. No tier 1 units can kill equal cost marines when micro'd correctly.
And again, NOTHING completely farks up a terran player. They can survive anything.
As a masters Zerg I can say it looks like this: [P] > [Z] Protoss units are just so damn cost effective and anything toss does is really capable of killing a Zerg easily. Late game toss is vastly overpowered. His 200 supply army will kill your 200 supply army 3 times easily without losing much.
[T]=[Z] However!, Terran is way easier to play and got way more options. Micro is a need for Zerg and wont be rewarded highly, whereas it's a nice little extra for terran and can easily lose you the game (for instance marine split)
As it is now, Zerg only got very few options and is the hardest race to play (from a nonbiased point of view). If you manage to master the choice between units and workers you end up being ahead. Unfortunately it mostly consists of guessing since your scouting can be easily denied.
On January 21 2011 04:36 SkeweredFromEarToEye wrote:
On January 21 2011 04:29 Scrimpton wrote:
On January 21 2011 04:25 SkeweredFromEarToEye wrote: i think its redundant to have "player preference" in there, the reason being you already have "maps favor terran" and "terran are OP" in the poll. people tend to prefer terran BECAUSE the maps favor them, and because they're OP.
toss get a time resource boost. zerg get a larvae resource boost. terran get a "vision" resource, a "supply" resource, and literal funding.
blizzard wont recognize it because "the stats are even". well, the stats are even because people use terran as a crutch and more skilled players tend to be more principled.
Apologise for playing that race? Really? After all the nerfs.. not a single buff and thats still the party line?
Ahh well, Time to stop reading these posts .
Decaying-leaf league syndrome in here.
decaying leaf league syndrome? fyi, i'm currently 2400 master.
you know whats really sad? a friend of mine got sc2 recently. he plays terran, and he's been winning a lot online. he was telling me that his strat was to "build a whole lot of the football guys". and when i mentioned mules he asked me what those were. don't get me wrong, he plays a ton of RTS so he has the basics down. but it's just...it's sad what terran players can get away with NOT KNOWING
My wife just started taking interest in the game.. and she's winning games as Z making "those fast hopping bugs".. dont get me wrong, she plays a ton of rts so she has the basics down. but it's just...it's sad what Zerg player can get away with NO KNOWING
Rofl, nice try, but you are clearly trolling. A single void ray/muta/banshee would completely fark your wife up and could end the game right there. Not to mention all tier one units can easily kill zerglings. No tier 1 units can kill equal cost marines when micro'd correctly.
And again, NOTHING completely farks up a terran player. They can survive anything.
A single Mothership would also shut down a 6pool, but there's a reason you don't see that.
On January 21 2011 03:52 statez wrote: I hate these threads. So everyone that plays T are instantly favored from an OP race/heavily favored map and Z is super hard because of larvae management and creep tumors. yawn.
(over)representation of Zerg players..
it's so embarrassing to see the beacon of starcraft 2 in the west like this..
all due to one race with a persecution complex since that reaper thing.
Z, Focus on your own play. Thx Bro
u might be my new favorite poster ever. im pretty sure you aint even trolling too, hilarious.
theres no need to be so defensive about your race btw, try and look at things objectively, and not just from your own point of view. i dont think zerg are miles behind terran, i just think terran could use a few tweaks maybe.
that being said though, with all the available data i don't see how blizzard won't at least rebalance marines and maybe buff something else. its getting silly with foxer.
Sorry man, 750 games played as Z, 500 as P. 25 as T.
Terran isn't my race, the problem is it's EMBARRASSING to be represented as a Zerg or Protoss by threads like these.
I agree here.
Maybe another thing thats a contributing factor is Terrans psychological warfare. They WANT to seem Feared. They WANT to look OP. They WANT any factor that makes them better.
This lets them to think their ahead so already they have an advantage. Every waking second your sitting their your thinking....."Well fuck, why should I try when I know they are OP?" So in return you don't try as hard while the MM stim and kills your base and you sit back and instead of microing/macroing you think there's nothing you can do.
Play more, get better QQ less
/End
The problem is it's not about playing it's about watching and appreciating the game. I look in my master league and more than 50% of the players are like me; 200 games or less played. (I'm mainly Z but I also play T and P on ladder). People who understand the game dam well but don't really enjoy playing much.
It's just really hard to appreciate Starcraft2 as an observer when there's obvious balance issues and when too many games are decided by luck.
On January 21 2011 00:42 mesohawny wrote: Does anyone know how MorroW has been doing since he switched fomr T -> Z? I know he recently lost a finals to White-Ra but thats it...
It would be nice if more top players who have switched races would speak up and give their perspectives on balance... It seems like they're all afraid of being called whiners and such. (except for IdrA, he doesnt give a shit about discretion)
It seems OK to whine if you are Zerg on the TL forums for some reason. Morrow's interview had a lot of slightly disguised whining. He had some good points as well, but isn't afraid to complain or criticize.
So much balance whine. I honestly am only recently getting good enough to really notice issues that zerg has a problem with. But personally, I think most people are far too inexperienced with the game to have a good grasp of the balance problems.
Not all of us are. But really, I think Idra summed it up very well:
On December 29 2010 15:44 Liquid`Ret wrote: all these theories on idra ladder are untrue...he ladders to win games...just watch his stream...it also explains why zerg isnt in top10 and why there are less of us in the top200
indeed if i think i can win i stay in the game. there are times when ive left a game and my opponent couldve made a gigantic mistake and handed me the win, but thats rare and irrelevant. its just really fucking easy to lose as zerg.
Do you think that zerg is currently at a disadvantage or do you think it is a momentum race that cannot lose momentum if they want to win?
I know that you don't like to respond very often, but I would like to hear your views on the current state of the zerg race (without iNcontrol telling you to shut up like on SOTG lol)
zerg is fucking awful clearly weakest, least reliable options early game. any viable pressure is nearly a complete allin, besides light roach aggression which is easily nullified. both t and p have lots of ways to put game ending pressure on z early and half of them arent even close to allin, and most are unscoutable and have different counters.
and the idea that z is somehow the strongest late game race is fuckin absurd. hive units are nearly useless and horribly cost inefficient unless broodlords catch them off guard. ya, you can insta remax if you're allowed to get a giant econ, but remaxing on lair units vs collosus or tank based armies hardly matters when you can trade 200/200 for a tenth of their army.
if z guesses, and guessing is required if t and p dont show a ridiculously early expansion, correctly and hits drone timings perfectly then they have a mid game advantage, but its not an advantage that can be used very well. its very easy for t or p to make themselves unkillable and head for that invincible late game army. z gets to use their unit advantage to tech towards hive, which can be nullified, or to expand a bunch so they can throw away a few extra 200/200 armies before getting rolled.
zerg is failing massively in just about every statistic besides gsl first places. the race is fucking awful. i honestly have no idea how so many people dont acknowledge it yet. zergs performance in the foreign scene is very nearly non existent. i think morrow has won one viking cup and otherwise 0 z wins since i won mlg dc. and a pitiful number of titles before that.
Seriously, Idra makes several good points relating to several areas of gameplay. His point about earlygame and lategame disadvantage actually seems pretty accurate IMO.
Personally, I'm surprised that broodlords DO catch people offguard as often as they do, as it takes forever to get them (both Hive and Greater Spire morphing give you signs). But then I suppose people aren't used to needing to scout zerg that often...
[B]On January 21 2011 03:09 IntoTheBush wrote: You obviously never played Terran, and haven't made it out of Plat yet. So lets move on to your quotes, and how they make no sense.
Wrong. I played T to start out. With zero RTS experience, and having never played BW, or the beta, and having just watched a few streams.....i had a MMM bo open on my second monitor, went 5-0 in placement, and would have been diamond in a few days if had actually kept playing T. But I tanked my rating to bronze, where I farked around with Z, failed miserably, then switched to toss, and am slowly moving back up, but just don't care as much about ranking up any more. I actually watch streams/replays far more than I actually play.
"But a very low risk, high reward harass like an 8 marine drop when the enemy is out of position can completely swing the game back to even. And no other race has the same ability." Looks like somebody has never heard of a warp prism, or a proxy pylon. Also you know those annoying things called Mutalisks? get 12 of those and u can cause havoc for a Terran player who doesnt have a Thor or more than 3 Turrets in his main. So there's one point where you're wrong. Lets move onto the 2nd.
LOL? A warp prism which can dump a max of 4 units out, not including super fragile warp-ins, and can be destroyed in 2 seconds by 4 stimmed marines, which can also kite anything not stalkers into infinity?? Proxy pylon? What? How do you get a proxy pylon into a Ts base unless they are just rofl bad. Oh, yeah, and you know those annoying things called mutalisks? Yeah, 12 stimmed marines can wreck some mutas. They'll lose to twelve mutas, but cost for cost its ridiculous how effective marines are. P.S., marines are first units you can get. And so, that point alone proves me right. Tier 1 marines hard counter tier 2.5 mutas. This discussion is over.
"A cloak banshee rush is a standard Terran bo that can 100% destroy many P/Z bos, and yet not only does it only barely put T behind, but it can end the game RIGHT THERE." Ok once again my friend you are wrong. Any HIGH level Diamond player or Master League player can easily prepare for Banshee. Honestly I don't remember when I HAVEN'T played a P or Z who wasnt nearly prepared or already prepared for possible Banshee. Also once that fails that leaves u with what? MAYBE 2 barracks, and ur natural just completing.. while P or Z already has their 3 gates, or Zerg double injecting larva and making a rofflestomp army. Terran is behind MORE than just a little bit if Banshee fails. Next to good ol' quote number 3.
The thing is, those diamond/master players MUST prepare for banshees, because not doing so = instaloss if the t does go for banshees, and they have no effective means of scouting those banshees until they cruise into your base. And lets say you epic fail with those banshees. Well that's cool, you probably have at least 10-15 marines out, and your banshees are still alive, so you just swap your factory over to your tech lab, drop a few bunkers for your marines, and 1 minute later you have 2 siege tanks chilling in front of your base while you prepare your CC in base, while your medivac you built off your "rushed" starport is now on the way to your enemies main with 8 marines where his stims, kills off 10 workers and then retreats with no losses, putting you back equal. Just another day at the office for T, where nothing you do is all-in. Once again.....you fail.
"You can literally lose your entire army as a T, and as long as you have a couple bunkers up, 400 minerals(2 MULEs) worth of marines, 2 siege tanks, and 4 repairing scvs, you can hold off anything short of basically an all-in push by your opponent. And this turtling abilty won't win you games outright, but it just gives your opponent that many more chances to make a mistake that puts the t right back into the game." I mean I honestly don't even have to say anything for this one... BUT I will. First off 95% of Terran players destroy their bunkers and use the marines before they move out for an attack. Second off after you kill your opponents entire army why are u going straight in for an attack? That is if you don't have the ROFLSTOMP army. If you kill their entire army your next move is to expand, get map control, and not sucide what units you have left.
You don't know what to say because........you have no argument. bunkers are 100 minerals worth of completely refundable solid gold as a defensive structure. If your attack fails, dropping two bunkers takes 30 seconds, and with 4 marines in each + repair can hold off far more than 600 minerals worth of attacking units. And yes, I know the answer to killing your opponent off when your opponent is T is expanding, but only because they can turtle until they run out of resources and be safe. Vs Z, if you rape their entire standing army before the "300 supply zerg" point, then you can push right in and rape their base 90% of the time, because they have no wall-off and no effective defensive structures that can hold off marines/tanks/anything. If toss loses their death ball, then they are dead, and most just gg on the spot after losing their entire standing army. T can just turtle for a while, pull off a few lucky drop harass, and be right back in the game 3 minutes later if their opponent screws up at all.
Maybe you should start watching the Day[9] daily's and you won't sound completely wrong when you post.
Maybe you should start watching actual games where T's pull all kind of ridiculous bs to win games they have no business winning, instead of day9 dailys telling people how to make pylons and probes while you 2 rax "all-in" into 1 base marine/tank/thor/scv repair every game and think you're pro. I watch day9 all the time, btw.
SO owned... so so so so owned.. I wanted to respond to this guys post but i was just too lazy...
On January 21 2011 04:36 SkeweredFromEarToEye wrote:
On January 21 2011 04:29 Scrimpton wrote:
On January 21 2011 04:25 SkeweredFromEarToEye wrote: i think its redundant to have "player preference" in there, the reason being you already have "maps favor terran" and "terran are OP" in the poll. people tend to prefer terran BECAUSE the maps favor them, and because they're OP.
toss get a time resource boost. zerg get a larvae resource boost. terran get a "vision" resource, a "supply" resource, and literal funding.
blizzard wont recognize it because "the stats are even". well, the stats are even because people use terran as a crutch and more skilled players tend to be more principled.
Apologise for playing that race? Really? After all the nerfs.. not a single buff and thats still the party line?
Ahh well, Time to stop reading these posts .
Decaying-leaf league syndrome in here.
decaying leaf league syndrome? fyi, i'm currently 2400 master.
you know whats really sad? a friend of mine got sc2 recently. he plays terran, and he's been winning a lot online. he was telling me that his strat was to "build a whole lot of the football guys". and when i mentioned mules he asked me what those were. don't get me wrong, he plays a ton of RTS so he has the basics down. but it's just...it's sad what terran players can get away with NOT KNOWING
My wife just started taking interest in the game.. and she's winning games as Z making "those fast hopping bugs".. dont get me wrong, she plays a ton of rts so she has the basics down. but it's just...it's sad what Zerg player can get away with NO KNOWING
Rofl, nice try, but you are clearly trolling. A single void ray/muta/banshee would completely fark your wife up and could end the game right there. Not to mention all tier one units can easily kill zerglings. No tier 1 units can kill equal cost marines when micro'd correctly.
And again, NOTHING completely farks up a terran player. They can survive anything.
A single Mothership would also shut down a 6pool, but there's a reason you don't see that.
Well, a single mothership could shut down marines too, but...........oh wait, no, lol, a mothership loses to tier 1 marines badly.
Back on subject though, that is a retarded thing to say. 6 pool only works if your opponent doesn't scout it. But its not like a proxy 10 rax wouldn't work in the exact same situation.
Since the beginning of beta I was arguing points everywhere aboot blizzards choices for the map pool as I knew they would balance the game around these strangely small map designs. like broodwar the map pool started off way differently than they ended up, which imo were vastly different and more entertaining (and balanced) in the end.
i read a post in this thread where someone had concerns for the latest gsl releases "aiur garden" and "the other one?" (sorry)
his view was that these new maps are highly in favor of zerg and his view is more than valid:
Zerg (and both terran and protoss) has evolved to grow based off of existing maps in blizzards map pool which many people have a general distaste for. when these maps are inevitably replaced with a larger format I believe zerg will benefit the most while I forsee terran taking the brunt of the change.
terran is designed to play a close quarters match and push while defending. Marines are a prime example of the outer bounds of terrans immobility, without marines most of the terran army is useless because each unit has a somewhat specific focus. A marine is the terrans cherry so to speak. when maps are larger people will see what terran players mean by immobility as the further they stretch themselves apart, the more fragile they become.
Zerg on the other hand only has this restraint for the early game and then through the metagame expand and in more ways than one they grow. A big concern of mine is the power of larvae inject on a larger map format. once a few bases are established (4 or 5) the zerg can begin to overwhelm his opponent with constant harass and once he reaches his 200 supply cap he can decimate any opposition.
on a larger map zerg will have more opportunity to spread creep/expand and retain map control do to their speed and abilities.
but this is my view and could be biased like a lot of peoples are.
I say dont be so eager for change due to some unsupported statistics or the fact that youre having troubles versus a race because this game is still an infant and like an infant it will grow accordingly, too much demand will give it brain damage early on if you get my drift
imho forget aboot this thread and wait for the next GSL before contemplating imbalance as it is somewhat selfish.
let the races grow forget balance work around it check off maps you dont like*
ps: I wanted to write more but I took a pretty ling break to write this and my phones dying.
On January 21 2011 05:17 RoosterSamurai wrote: I don't understand how you came to the conclusion that Terran is an OP race? Why can't it just mean that the Terran players are better?
Because that would mean they are not the best player!!!111oneoneone
The biggest problem for me against Terran (high diamond), is that it seems like its just really REALLY hard to dictate the game v. Terran. I think Marines and Mules are just a brutal combination that lets Terran really dictate the early game.
On January 21 2011 05:10 DoubleReed wrote: So much balance whine. I honestly am only recently getting good enough to really notice issues that zerg has a problem with. But personally, I think most people are far too inexperienced with the game to have a good grasp of the balance problems.
Not all of us are. But really, I think Idra summed it up very well:
On December 29 2010 15:44 Liquid`Ret wrote: all these theories on idra ladder are untrue...he ladders to win games...just watch his stream...it also explains why zerg isnt in top10 and why there are less of us in the top200
indeed if i think i can win i stay in the game. there are times when ive left a game and my opponent couldve made a gigantic mistake and handed me the win, but thats rare and irrelevant. its just really fucking easy to lose as zerg.
Do you think that zerg is currently at a disadvantage or do you think it is a momentum race that cannot lose momentum if they want to win?
I know that you don't like to respond very often, but I would like to hear your views on the current state of the zerg race (without iNcontrol telling you to shut up like on SOTG lol)
zerg is fucking awful clearly weakest, least reliable options early game. any viable pressure is nearly a complete allin, besides light roach aggression which is easily nullified. both t and p have lots of ways to put game ending pressure on z early and half of them arent even close to allin, and most are unscoutable and have different counters.
and the idea that z is somehow the strongest late game race is fuckin absurd. hive units are nearly useless and horribly cost inefficient unless broodlords catch them off guard. ya, you can insta remax if you're allowed to get a giant econ, but remaxing on lair units vs collosus or tank based armies hardly matters when you can trade 200/200 for a tenth of their army.
if z guesses, and guessing is required if t and p dont show a ridiculously early expansion, correctly and hits drone timings perfectly then they have a mid game advantage, but its not an advantage that can be used very well. its very easy for t or p to make themselves unkillable and head for that invincible late game army. z gets to use their unit advantage to tech towards hive, which can be nullified, or to expand a bunch so they can throw away a few extra 200/200 armies before getting rolled.
zerg is failing massively in just about every statistic besides gsl first places. the race is fucking awful. i honestly have no idea how so many people dont acknowledge it yet. zergs performance in the foreign scene is very nearly non existent. i think morrow has won one viking cup and otherwise 0 z wins since i won mlg dc. and a pitiful number of titles before that.
Seriously, Idra makes several good points relating to several areas of gameplay. His point about earlygame and lategame disadvantage actually seems pretty accurate IMO.
Personally, I'm surprised that broodlords DO catch people offguard as often as they do, as it takes forever to get them (both Hive and Greater Spire morphing give you signs). But then I suppose people aren't used to needing to scout zerg that often...
Maybe one day Zergs will realise that you can Fungal Growth an army and pelt them with Broodlings from out of their range. You'd think the only unit with abilities in the entire Zerg arsenal was the Queen. It's like the ability to lock an army in position is considered worthless.
On January 21 2011 00:48 Jermstuddog wrote: I am a Zerg player, but my bias isn't even pro-Zerg, it's anti-Terran. In my time playing video-games I always tend to hate the OP class/character rather than crying about mine being UP, though I have this knack for always picking the weakest class/character out there... What can I say, we all have our talents.
Terran has some obviously favorable balance issues that go beyond simple flavor, most of these are related to their 2 base units, the Marine and the Marauder, mostly the Marine though.
Marauders are good, like unbelievably good. They're cheap, versatile, and ridiculously strong. Not to mention they have the completely unique ability to snare units with every attack at the minor cost of 50/50, this doesn't require energy or activating the ability, it just happens, every shot. The Marauder is hands, down the best early-game unit out there... that is... next to the Marine.
The Marine was ok in Brood War, I might even consider them slightly weaker than Zealots and Zerglings, but holy crap did that turn around in SC2. While Zerglings lost attack speed and Zealots lost health, Marines gained health, gained ranged, gained hp, gained attack speed, and get another hp upgrade on top of all that, oh yeah, stim isn't quite what it used to be, but their new attack speed + weaker stim is still > old stimmed marines. There isn't a single non-splash-damage unit in the game that can take an equal amount of marines straight-up. They are so good, they even counter a lot of the units you would THINK should trump them (Roaches, Banelings, Siege Tanks, Hellions all do surprisingly average against Marines).
All I can say is "What the hell was Blizzard thinking?" MarineKing seems to be the only pro who has caught on to this, making 80-90% of his army composition marines in all MUs, but if things don't change, I can see this idea spreading. This unit has gotten so ridiculously good, its laughable. No wonder Terran has the best all-ins, cheeses, and rushes. They have the god-slayer marine.
Still, I try to look at the whole picture. Marines aren't THAT bad, I think something like adding 0.1 to their attack speed would make them less god-like, but I'm not sure if that would break Terran as a whole. There are too many holes in the Terran army that are filled by the Marine as is, compensation might be required in other areas but its too hard to tell with the dominance of the marine right now. If I were Blizzard, it would be nerf the Marine and watch the results, fixes can be applied to other units later. The Marine is the reason Terran wins more than everybody else, and until Blizzard addresses that, things won't change.
I agree that Marauders need to be looked into. As for the marine - you said they counter banelings. MarineKing is one of the very few terran who can actually make that happen, but even he has stumbled(against NesTea, at the end of GSL2).
Especially when speed banelings come into play. Yes, you CAN conceivably stim, and stutter-step backward whilst individually targeting each baneling in the rolling death ball. Theory states, yes, ranged > melee, especially when the melee never reaches you. But as shown by that key final game in GSL2, even the mighty MarineKing sometimes falters.
In many cases, the best you can really do, is spread out your marines the best you can, in an attempt to contain your losses. In that situation, it is only a "counter" if, upon adding up all the losses, it ended up poorly for zerg due to cost-efficiency.
If you can always maintain 100% control of your marines, you will counter zerg even when a combination of lings + banelings come rolling your way. The true reason that "banelings counter marines" is due to the insane level of APM required to make that statement untrue. That might have sounded poorly worded but I think it's correct.
On January 21 2011 05:10 DoubleReed wrote: So much balance whine. I honestly am only recently getting good enough to really notice issues that zerg has a problem with. But personally, I think most people are far too inexperienced with the game to have a good grasp of the balance problems.
Not all of us are. But really, I think Idra summed it up very well:
On December 29 2010 17:08 IdrA wrote:
On December 29 2010 17:01 Beef Noodles wrote:
On December 29 2010 16:21 IdrA wrote:
On December 29 2010 15:44 Liquid`Ret wrote: all these theories on idra ladder are untrue...he ladders to win games...just watch his stream...it also explains why zerg isnt in top10 and why there are less of us in the top200
indeed if i think i can win i stay in the game. there are times when ive left a game and my opponent couldve made a gigantic mistake and handed me the win, but thats rare and irrelevant. its just really fucking easy to lose as zerg.
Do you think that zerg is currently at a disadvantage or do you think it is a momentum race that cannot lose momentum if they want to win?
I know that you don't like to respond very often, but I would like to hear your views on the current state of the zerg race (without iNcontrol telling you to shut up like on SOTG lol)
zerg is fucking awful clearly weakest, least reliable options early game. any viable pressure is nearly a complete allin, besides light roach aggression which is easily nullified. both t and p have lots of ways to put game ending pressure on z early and half of them arent even close to allin, and most are unscoutable and have different counters.
and the idea that z is somehow the strongest late game race is fuckin absurd. hive units are nearly useless and horribly cost inefficient unless broodlords catch them off guard. ya, you can insta remax if you're allowed to get a giant econ, but remaxing on lair units vs collosus or tank based armies hardly matters when you can trade 200/200 for a tenth of their army.
if z guesses, and guessing is required if t and p dont show a ridiculously early expansion, correctly and hits drone timings perfectly then they have a mid game advantage, but its not an advantage that can be used very well. its very easy for t or p to make themselves unkillable and head for that invincible late game army. z gets to use their unit advantage to tech towards hive, which can be nullified, or to expand a bunch so they can throw away a few extra 200/200 armies before getting rolled.
zerg is failing massively in just about every statistic besides gsl first places. the race is fucking awful. i honestly have no idea how so many people dont acknowledge it yet. zergs performance in the foreign scene is very nearly non existent. i think morrow has won one viking cup and otherwise 0 z wins since i won mlg dc. and a pitiful number of titles before that.
Seriously, Idra makes several good points relating to several areas of gameplay. His point about earlygame and lategame disadvantage actually seems pretty accurate IMO.
Personally, I'm surprised that broodlords DO catch people offguard as often as they do, as it takes forever to get them (both Hive and Greater Spire morphing give you signs). But then I suppose people aren't used to needing to scout zerg that often...
Maybe one day Zergs will realise that you can Fungal Growth an army and pelt them with Broodlings from out of their range. You'd think the only unit with abilities in the entire Zerg arsenal was the Queen. It's like the ability to lock an army in position is considered worthless.
Facing 2 rax "all-in" every game, transitioning into marine/medivac/tank pressure while you struggle to just produce enough units to keep from getting steam rolled 4 minutes into the game doesn't leave much space to get infestors or brood lords.
The mappool does somewhat favor terran in TvZ. As for protoss, I get the impression that very few of them have actually managed to refine their gameplay. For instance, if every protoss player could 4gate like MC (and there is no reason why they shouldn't be able to), we would see a ton more protoss advancing.
On January 21 2011 05:10 DoubleReed wrote: So much balance whine. I honestly am only recently getting good enough to really notice issues that zerg has a problem with. But personally, I think most people are far too inexperienced with the game to have a good grasp of the balance problems.
Not all of us are. But really, I think Idra summed it up very well:
On December 29 2010 17:08 IdrA wrote:
On December 29 2010 17:01 Beef Noodles wrote:
On December 29 2010 16:21 IdrA wrote:
On December 29 2010 15:44 Liquid`Ret wrote: all these theories on idra ladder are untrue...he ladders to win games...just watch his stream...it also explains why zerg isnt in top10 and why there are less of us in the top200
indeed if i think i can win i stay in the game. there are times when ive left a game and my opponent couldve made a gigantic mistake and handed me the win, but thats rare and irrelevant. its just really fucking easy to lose as zerg.
Do you think that zerg is currently at a disadvantage or do you think it is a momentum race that cannot lose momentum if they want to win?
I know that you don't like to respond very often, but I would like to hear your views on the current state of the zerg race (without iNcontrol telling you to shut up like on SOTG lol)
zerg is fucking awful clearly weakest, least reliable options early game. any viable pressure is nearly a complete allin, besides light roach aggression which is easily nullified. both t and p have lots of ways to put game ending pressure on z early and half of them arent even close to allin, and most are unscoutable and have different counters.
and the idea that z is somehow the strongest late game race is fuckin absurd. hive units are nearly useless and horribly cost inefficient unless broodlords catch them off guard. ya, you can insta remax if you're allowed to get a giant econ, but remaxing on lair units vs collosus or tank based armies hardly matters when you can trade 200/200 for a tenth of their army.
if z guesses, and guessing is required if t and p dont show a ridiculously early expansion, correctly and hits drone timings perfectly then they have a mid game advantage, but its not an advantage that can be used very well. its very easy for t or p to make themselves unkillable and head for that invincible late game army. z gets to use their unit advantage to tech towards hive, which can be nullified, or to expand a bunch so they can throw away a few extra 200/200 armies before getting rolled.
zerg is failing massively in just about every statistic besides gsl first places. the race is fucking awful. i honestly have no idea how so many people dont acknowledge it yet. zergs performance in the foreign scene is very nearly non existent. i think morrow has won one viking cup and otherwise 0 z wins since i won mlg dc. and a pitiful number of titles before that.
Seriously, Idra makes several good points relating to several areas of gameplay. His point about earlygame and lategame disadvantage actually seems pretty accurate IMO.
Personally, I'm surprised that broodlords DO catch people offguard as often as they do, as it takes forever to get them (both Hive and Greater Spire morphing give you signs). But then I suppose people aren't used to needing to scout zerg that often...
Maybe one day Zergs will realise that you can Fungal Growth an army and pelt them with Broodlings from out of their range. You'd think the only unit with abilities in the entire Zerg arsenal was the Queen. It's like the ability to lock an army in position is considered worthless.
Facing 2 rax "all-in" every game, transitioning into marine/medivac/tank pressure while you struggle to just produce enough units to keep from getting steam rolled 4 minutes into the game doesn't leave much space to get infestors or brood lords.
If only there was this structure that would act like a static defence that can move around that completly shuts down any early(4 minute yah) pressure.
On January 21 2011 05:10 DoubleReed wrote: So much balance whine. I honestly am only recently getting good enough to really notice issues that zerg has a problem with. But personally, I think most people are far too inexperienced with the game to have a good grasp of the balance problems.
Not all of us are. But really, I think Idra summed it up very well:
On December 29 2010 17:08 IdrA wrote:
On December 29 2010 17:01 Beef Noodles wrote:
On December 29 2010 16:21 IdrA wrote:
On December 29 2010 15:44 Liquid`Ret wrote: all these theories on idra ladder are untrue...he ladders to win games...just watch his stream...it also explains why zerg isnt in top10 and why there are less of us in the top200
indeed if i think i can win i stay in the game. there are times when ive left a game and my opponent couldve made a gigantic mistake and handed me the win, but thats rare and irrelevant. its just really fucking easy to lose as zerg.
Do you think that zerg is currently at a disadvantage or do you think it is a momentum race that cannot lose momentum if they want to win?
I know that you don't like to respond very often, but I would like to hear your views on the current state of the zerg race (without iNcontrol telling you to shut up like on SOTG lol)
zerg is fucking awful clearly weakest, least reliable options early game. any viable pressure is nearly a complete allin, besides light roach aggression which is easily nullified. both t and p have lots of ways to put game ending pressure on z early and half of them arent even close to allin, and most are unscoutable and have different counters.
and the idea that z is somehow the strongest late game race is fuckin absurd. hive units are nearly useless and horribly cost inefficient unless broodlords catch them off guard. ya, you can insta remax if you're allowed to get a giant econ, but remaxing on lair units vs collosus or tank based armies hardly matters when you can trade 200/200 for a tenth of their army.
if z guesses, and guessing is required if t and p dont show a ridiculously early expansion, correctly and hits drone timings perfectly then they have a mid game advantage, but its not an advantage that can be used very well. its very easy for t or p to make themselves unkillable and head for that invincible late game army. z gets to use their unit advantage to tech towards hive, which can be nullified, or to expand a bunch so they can throw away a few extra 200/200 armies before getting rolled.
zerg is failing massively in just about every statistic besides gsl first places. the race is fucking awful. i honestly have no idea how so many people dont acknowledge it yet. zergs performance in the foreign scene is very nearly non existent. i think morrow has won one viking cup and otherwise 0 z wins since i won mlg dc. and a pitiful number of titles before that.
Seriously, Idra makes several good points relating to several areas of gameplay. His point about earlygame and lategame disadvantage actually seems pretty accurate IMO.
Personally, I'm surprised that broodlords DO catch people offguard as often as they do, as it takes forever to get them (both Hive and Greater Spire morphing give you signs). But then I suppose people aren't used to needing to scout zerg that often...
Maybe one day Zergs will realise that you can Fungal Growth an army and pelt them with Broodlings from out of their range. You'd think the only unit with abilities in the entire Zerg arsenal was the Queen. It's like the ability to lock an army in position is considered worthless.
Facing 2 rax "all-in" every game, transitioning into marine/medivac/tank pressure while you struggle to just produce enough units to keep from getting steam rolled 4 minutes into the game doesn't leave much space to get infestors or brood lords.
For the record, I was referring to the late game, which everyone seems to be saying Zerg is weak in. Just clearing that up. And as for having very few options in the early game, deal with it. If every race had a shit ton of early game options there'd be build order wins all over the place. It's just a characteristic of the race. Though I wouldn't exactly weep if Bunkers required a higher bit of tech. An Engineering Bay sounds like a fitting choice.
lol. The guys above dont know anything about zerg. How u want to win vs mobile units with slow ass units? How u wanna win games with only Fungal and Brood Lords? Infestors are cost inefficient since they can't attack, only have stupid spells that are useless in 99% of the battles. Its better to get upgrades than go for Infestors.
And I laugh at people that say " bigger maps - ZERG OP " It's just playin stupid. How is that giving zerg an edge? Zerg finally will have some freedom, and won't be pinched in it's base like it is on Metal( Close pos.) Steppes, Delta, LT, Jungle Basin where Zerg can't take 3rd which is ridiculous. Now actually more Micro/Macro will come into play, and Terran will extinct cuz all they know right is how to go for 1+ a .
On January 21 2011 05:29 wessie wrote: lol. The guys above dont know anything about zerg. How u want to win vs mobile units with slow ass units? How u wanna win games with only Fungal and Brood Lords? Infestors are cost inefficient since they can't attack, only have stupid spells that are useless in 99% of the battles. Its better to get upgrades than go for Infestors.
Heard it here first guys, High Templars are useless.
On January 21 2011 05:29 wessie wrote: lol. The guys above dont know anything about zerg. How u want to win vs mobile units with slow ass units? How u wanna win games with only Fungal and Brood Lords? Infestors are cost inefficient since they can't attack, only have stupid spells that are useless in 99% of the battles. Its better to get upgrades than go for Infestors.
Heard it here first guys, High Templars are useless.
Really wanna compare HT's to infestors? Really? are you that dumb?
On January 21 2011 05:29 wessie wrote: lol. The guys above dont know anything about zerg. How u want to win vs mobile units with slow ass units? How u wanna win games with only Fungal and Brood Lords? Infestors are cost inefficient since they can't attack, only have stupid spells that are useless in 99% of the battles. Its better to get upgrades than go for Infestors.
Holy shit I had no idea it was possible to be this retarded.
I cant think of a single encounter where fungal/IFM would be bad.
I think that maps play a large part in Terran success in tournaments. I also feel like there is still something very slight that needs to change. Remember when repairing SCV's weren't considered a target priority? I'm sure Terran players then had no problem with that and wouldn't acknowledge that as being imba, but I vehemently felt that was not right. I still feel the same way about Terran having a slight advantage in some way, but I can't quite put my finger on it.
I'm not a pro by any means, but I feel it's to easy for a Terran to sack his economy and all in base race (vs Zerg specifically because that's all I have experience with). One of Zergs biggest advantage is aslo one if it's biggest disadvantages in this case, and thats the fact that all of it's production comes from one structure.
Let's assume a 2 base Zerg is against a 1 base Terran. If he choses to all in and crush your hatchery he just reduced your production ability by 50% for at least the next 100 seconds for a hatchery build time, and another 50 seconds for a queen (another 25 seconds for the inject). Thats 2 minutes of 50% production of not only army, but workers as well. If the Terran did anything besides utterly fail, he will have retained some workers and dropped mules in the meantime whilst losing no structures.
It's simply too cost effective for Terran to do this and thats why you see it all the time. It's not cheesy or even as all in as it looks, it's just smart.
Now, the obvious response is "well don't let him kill your hatchery". But assuming two players of equal skill are playing, then the Terran army stronger unit per unit, in theory, simply needs to hit that critical point where a hatchery will be taken out. Because the Terran build has been optimized and built exactly to accomplish that goal, things like SCV count, building count, army count can be exact. Whilst the Zerg is in the dark wondering whats going to come at him. God forbid he just made a round of drones before scouting the Terran army rolling out. A stimmed Terran force can cross most positions of most maps before another round of larva pops.
How many times do we see protoss and zerg try an all in, it fails miserably, and then they quit because they know there is no way to catch back up?
What about terran?
Banshees can end the game. Blue flame hellions can end the game. An early marine push while expanding can end the game. Throw any of these units in a medivac, and it can end the game. Make any mixture of them, and it can end the game.
The real problem with this is, these attacks can fail soooo horribly, like "terran might as well have killed his own units" horribly, and they still have a very solid shot at coming back to win the game, because they can just turtle up and rebuild a critical mass of their extremely cost effective units.
Oh and to the people who are saying terran is fine, and especially to the people who are upset that this is even being talked about - please explain to me how a zerg can recover from a double bunker wall in without being behind.
On January 21 2011 05:29 wessie wrote: lol. The guys above dont know anything about zerg. How u want to win vs mobile units with slow ass units? How u wanna win games with only Fungal and Brood Lords? Infestors are cost inefficient since they can't attack, only have stupid spells that are useless in 99% of the battles. Its better to get upgrades than go for Infestors.
Heard it here first guys, High Templars are useless.
Really wanna compare HT's to infestors? Really? are you that dumb?
Infestors have an attack that not only does AoE damage akin to Psionic Storm, but also LOCKS UNITS IN PLACE. You know those Marines that your Banelings are chasing? FUNGAL THEM. You know that Protoss ground army with range 6 Stalkers? FUNGAL THEM AND PELT THEM WITH BROODLINGS. Oh god, my mind.
I think, Z is statistically not that much behind, but it is the most unreliable and unstable race. Some wrong or failed scout and you easily loose. Because its hard to get stable results as Z, Z fall short in tourney's (as its hard to perform well a couple of subsequent games ). Additionally there is a psychological construction fault, which makes Z race somewhat unattractive: you are doomed to play reactionary and there are few options. So its both frustrating being the "victim-race" and boring due to the lack of variation in response to opponents build. Its practically impossible to be agressive and dictate the game as Z.
On January 21 2011 05:34 Treemonkeys wrote: Look at it this way:
How many times do we see protoss and zerg try an all in, it fails miserably, and then they quit because they know there is no way to catch back up?
What about terran?
Banshees can end the game. Blue flame hellions can end the game. An early marine push while expanding can end the game. Throw any of these units in a medivac, and it can end the game. Make any mixture of them, and it can end the game.
The real problem with this is, these attacks can fail soooo horribly, like "terran might as well have killed his own units" horribly, and they still have a very solid shot at coming back to win the game, because they can just turtle up and rebuild a critical mass of their extremely cost effective units.
None of the drops you mentioned are by any stretch of the imagination "all-in".
You might want to look up the SC defeniton of all-in, if you can come back from it its not all in at all >_>
The OP missed a poll option that I feel is the biggest. Terran has more ways to come back into the game. What I mean by this is that a terran drop serves more purpose as a zerg or toss b/c it doubles as a medic. Other then that they have things like the planetary that allow them to spread the defense thinly. The other big on is the Banshee, although this unit is quite the glass cannon with great control it can take out a good chunk of a persons economy.
These 3 things dont make terran imba, they all have there exploits and all create there own timing windows. However given the right situation in the right window of time a terran can use any one of these 3 to give them a one up on there opponent
On January 21 2011 05:10 DoubleReed wrote: So much balance whine. I honestly am only recently getting good enough to really notice issues that zerg has a problem with. But personally, I think most people are far too inexperienced with the game to have a good grasp of the balance problems.
Not all of us are. But really, I think Idra summed it up very well:
On December 29 2010 17:08 IdrA wrote:
On December 29 2010 17:01 Beef Noodles wrote:
On December 29 2010 16:21 IdrA wrote:
On December 29 2010 15:44 Liquid`Ret wrote: all these theories on idra ladder are untrue...he ladders to win games...just watch his stream...it also explains why zerg isnt in top10 and why there are less of us in the top200
indeed if i think i can win i stay in the game. there are times when ive left a game and my opponent couldve made a gigantic mistake and handed me the win, but thats rare and irrelevant. its just really fucking easy to lose as zerg.
Do you think that zerg is currently at a disadvantage or do you think it is a momentum race that cannot lose momentum if they want to win?
I know that you don't like to respond very often, but I would like to hear your views on the current state of the zerg race (without iNcontrol telling you to shut up like on SOTG lol)
zerg is fucking awful clearly weakest, least reliable options early game. any viable pressure is nearly a complete allin, besides light roach aggression which is easily nullified. both t and p have lots of ways to put game ending pressure on z early and half of them arent even close to allin, and most are unscoutable and have different counters.
and the idea that z is somehow the strongest late game race is fuckin absurd. hive units are nearly useless and horribly cost inefficient unless broodlords catch them off guard. ya, you can insta remax if you're allowed to get a giant econ, but remaxing on lair units vs collosus or tank based armies hardly matters when you can trade 200/200 for a tenth of their army.
if z guesses, and guessing is required if t and p dont show a ridiculously early expansion, correctly and hits drone timings perfectly then they have a mid game advantage, but its not an advantage that can be used very well. its very easy for t or p to make themselves unkillable and head for that invincible late game army. z gets to use their unit advantage to tech towards hive, which can be nullified, or to expand a bunch so they can throw away a few extra 200/200 armies before getting rolled.
zerg is failing massively in just about every statistic besides gsl first places. the race is fucking awful. i honestly have no idea how so many people dont acknowledge it yet. zergs performance in the foreign scene is very nearly non existent. i think morrow has won one viking cup and otherwise 0 z wins since i won mlg dc. and a pitiful number of titles before that.
Seriously, Idra makes several good points relating to several areas of gameplay. His point about earlygame and lategame disadvantage actually seems pretty accurate IMO.
Personally, I'm surprised that broodlords DO catch people offguard as often as they do, as it takes forever to get them (both Hive and Greater Spire morphing give you signs). But then I suppose people aren't used to needing to scout zerg that often...
Maybe one day Zergs will realise that you can Fungal Growth an army and pelt them with Broodlings from out of their range. You'd think the only unit with abilities in the entire Zerg arsenal was the Queen. It's like the ability to lock an army in position is considered worthless.
Facing 2 rax "all-in" every game, transitioning into marine/medivac/tank pressure while you struggle to just produce enough units to keep from getting steam rolled 4 minutes into the game doesn't leave much space to get infestors or brood lords.
If only there was this structure that would act like a static defence that can move around that completly shuts down any early(4 minute yah) pressure.
If only there was this unit that would outrange this static defence that can move around (seriously, spinecralwers are so imba, nerf please) and shuts down the utility of this uber insane static defence that can actually move around (once again, wtf, so imba, nerf spinecralwers). Not at a 4 Minute push, but at a ~7 min push.
On January 21 2011 05:34 Treemonkeys wrote: Look at it this way:
How many times do we see protoss and zerg try an all in, it fails miserably, and then they quit because they know there is no way to catch back up?
What about terran?
Banshees can end the game. Blue flame hellions can end the game. An early marine push while expanding can end the game. Throw any of these units in a medivac, and it can end the game. Make any mixture of them, and it can end the game.
The real problem with this is, these attacks can fail soooo horribly, like "terran might as well have killed his own units" horribly, and they still have a very solid shot at coming back to win the game, because they can just turtle up and rebuild a critical mass of their extremely cost effective units.
None of the drops you mentioned are by any stretch of the imagination "all-in".
You might want to look up the SC defeniton of all-in, if you can come back from it its not all in at all >_>
That was my whole point, terran can do ANYTHING save sending all their SCVs, and it isn't an all in. Even when they send the SCVs, it's not always an all in.
On January 21 2011 05:10 DoubleReed wrote: So much balance whine. I honestly am only recently getting good enough to really notice issues that zerg has a problem with. But personally, I think most people are far too inexperienced with the game to have a good grasp of the balance problems.
Not all of us are. But really, I think Idra summed it up very well:
On December 29 2010 17:08 IdrA wrote:
On December 29 2010 17:01 Beef Noodles wrote:
On December 29 2010 16:21 IdrA wrote:
On December 29 2010 15:44 Liquid`Ret wrote: all these theories on idra ladder are untrue...he ladders to win games...just watch his stream...it also explains why zerg isnt in top10 and why there are less of us in the top200
indeed if i think i can win i stay in the game. there are times when ive left a game and my opponent couldve made a gigantic mistake and handed me the win, but thats rare and irrelevant. its just really fucking easy to lose as zerg.
Do you think that zerg is currently at a disadvantage or do you think it is a momentum race that cannot lose momentum if they want to win?
I know that you don't like to respond very often, but I would like to hear your views on the current state of the zerg race (without iNcontrol telling you to shut up like on SOTG lol)
zerg is fucking awful clearly weakest, least reliable options early game. any viable pressure is nearly a complete allin, besides light roach aggression which is easily nullified. both t and p have lots of ways to put game ending pressure on z early and half of them arent even close to allin, and most are unscoutable and have different counters.
and the idea that z is somehow the strongest late game race is fuckin absurd. hive units are nearly useless and horribly cost inefficient unless broodlords catch them off guard. ya, you can insta remax if you're allowed to get a giant econ, but remaxing on lair units vs collosus or tank based armies hardly matters when you can trade 200/200 for a tenth of their army.
if z guesses, and guessing is required if t and p dont show a ridiculously early expansion, correctly and hits drone timings perfectly then they have a mid game advantage, but its not an advantage that can be used very well. its very easy for t or p to make themselves unkillable and head for that invincible late game army. z gets to use their unit advantage to tech towards hive, which can be nullified, or to expand a bunch so they can throw away a few extra 200/200 armies before getting rolled.
zerg is failing massively in just about every statistic besides gsl first places. the race is fucking awful. i honestly have no idea how so many people dont acknowledge it yet. zergs performance in the foreign scene is very nearly non existent. i think morrow has won one viking cup and otherwise 0 z wins since i won mlg dc. and a pitiful number of titles before that.
Seriously, Idra makes several good points relating to several areas of gameplay. His point about earlygame and lategame disadvantage actually seems pretty accurate IMO.
Personally, I'm surprised that broodlords DO catch people offguard as often as they do, as it takes forever to get them (both Hive and Greater Spire morphing give you signs). But then I suppose people aren't used to needing to scout zerg that often...
Maybe one day Zergs will realise that you can Fungal Growth an army and pelt them with Broodlings from out of their range. You'd think the only unit with abilities in the entire Zerg arsenal was the Queen. It's like the ability to lock an army in position is considered worthless.
Facing 2 rax "all-in" every game, transitioning into marine/medivac/tank pressure while you struggle to just produce enough units to keep from getting steam rolled 4 minutes into the game doesn't leave much space to get infestors or brood lords.
If only there was this structure that would act like a static defence that can move around that completly shuts down any early(4 minute yah) pressure.
If only there was this unit that would outrange this static defence that can move around (seriously, spinecralwers are so imba, nerf please) and shuts down the utility of this uber insance static defence that can actually move around (once again, wtf, so imba, nerf spinecralwers). Not at a 4 Minute push, but at a ~7 min push.
Tell me what unit outranges a spinecrawler at the 4 minute mark when the push apparently comes, according to a bawling zerg player that can not come to term with that he might not be the best player ever.
That was my whole point, terran can do ANYTHING save sending all their SCVs, and it isn't an all in. Even when they send the SCVs, it's not always an all in.
Then why are everyone crying about these all ins that apparently arent all ins?
Thats easier. Non Terrans want terran to be OP. Thats kind of weird if you think about it. Why would you want your enemy to be stronger than you? The answer is plain simple: Because you need an excuse why you lost that recent PvT / ZvT. Losing is nothing people like to do, but if terran is op, losing to terran is fine. Its not your fault. So, non terrans will naturally always try to make terran look OP. They could be right, but thats irrelevant, because no matter what kind of statistics they see, their conclusion will always be: terran op. More terrans in gsl: terran op More protoss in master league: terran op
Its the same, but vice versa with terrans. Of course you only won that recent TvP / TvZ because your were the better player. Imbalance? No way! Most terrans will always say that terran is fine. At best there MIGHT be a small map imbalance.
So, we have 2 groups of people discussing about a certain topic, even though both groups will never ever admit that they are wrong. You dont even need to hear your opponents arguments to know that they are bad.
Please stop balance discussions. Close this thread.
I think the only problem right now is that everyone is hoping that blizz reads and believe in this thread... It started with a innocent discussion and now it's how we can nerf terran early game and make maps bigger... Makes one wonder why it hasnt been closed yet ....
On January 21 2011 05:10 DoubleReed wrote: So much balance whine. I honestly am only recently getting good enough to really notice issues that zerg has a problem with. But personally, I think most people are far too inexperienced with the game to have a good grasp of the balance problems.
Not all of us are. But really, I think Idra summed it up very well:
On December 29 2010 17:08 IdrA wrote:
On December 29 2010 17:01 Beef Noodles wrote:
On December 29 2010 16:21 IdrA wrote:
On December 29 2010 15:44 Liquid`Ret wrote: all these theories on idra ladder are untrue...he ladders to win games...just watch his stream...it also explains why zerg isnt in top10 and why there are less of us in the top200
indeed if i think i can win i stay in the game. there are times when ive left a game and my opponent couldve made a gigantic mistake and handed me the win, but thats rare and irrelevant. its just really fucking easy to lose as zerg.
Do you think that zerg is currently at a disadvantage or do you think it is a momentum race that cannot lose momentum if they want to win?
I know that you don't like to respond very often, but I would like to hear your views on the current state of the zerg race (without iNcontrol telling you to shut up like on SOTG lol)
zerg is fucking awful clearly weakest, least reliable options early game. any viable pressure is nearly a complete allin, besides light roach aggression which is easily nullified. both t and p have lots of ways to put game ending pressure on z early and half of them arent even close to allin, and most are unscoutable and have different counters.
and the idea that z is somehow the strongest late game race is fuckin absurd. hive units are nearly useless and horribly cost inefficient unless broodlords catch them off guard. ya, you can insta remax if you're allowed to get a giant econ, but remaxing on lair units vs collosus or tank based armies hardly matters when you can trade 200/200 for a tenth of their army.
if z guesses, and guessing is required if t and p dont show a ridiculously early expansion, correctly and hits drone timings perfectly then they have a mid game advantage, but its not an advantage that can be used very well. its very easy for t or p to make themselves unkillable and head for that invincible late game army. z gets to use their unit advantage to tech towards hive, which can be nullified, or to expand a bunch so they can throw away a few extra 200/200 armies before getting rolled.
zerg is failing massively in just about every statistic besides gsl first places. the race is fucking awful. i honestly have no idea how so many people dont acknowledge it yet. zergs performance in the foreign scene is very nearly non existent. i think morrow has won one viking cup and otherwise 0 z wins since i won mlg dc. and a pitiful number of titles before that.
Seriously, Idra makes several good points relating to several areas of gameplay. His point about earlygame and lategame disadvantage actually seems pretty accurate IMO.
Personally, I'm surprised that broodlords DO catch people offguard as often as they do, as it takes forever to get them (both Hive and Greater Spire morphing give you signs). But then I suppose people aren't used to needing to scout zerg that often...
Maybe one day Zergs will realise that you can Fungal Growth an army and pelt them with Broodlings from out of their range. You'd think the only unit with abilities in the entire Zerg arsenal was the Queen. It's like the ability to lock an army in position is considered worthless.
Facing 2 rax "all-in" every game, transitioning into marine/medivac/tank pressure while you struggle to just produce enough units to keep from getting steam rolled 4 minutes into the game doesn't leave much space to get infestors or brood lords.
If only there was this structure that would act like a static defence that can move around that completly shuts down any early(4 minute yah) pressure.
If only there was this unit that would outrange this static defence that can move around (seriously, spinecralwers are so imba, nerf please) and shuts down the utility of this uber insance static defence that can actually move around (once again, wtf, so imba, nerf spinecralwers). Not at a 4 Minute push, but at a ~7 min push.
Tell me what unit outranges a spinecrawler at the 4 minute mark when the push apparently comes, according to a bawling zerg player that can not come to term with that he might not be the best player ever.
That was my whole point, terran can do ANYTHING save sending all their SCVs, and it isn't an all in. Even when they send the SCVs, it's not always an all in.
Then why are everyone crying about these all ins that apparently arent all ins?
Because RTS games should have all ins. Because protoss and zerg have all ins. Because terran should not be able to do anything with little to no risk.
Thats easier. Non Terrans want terran to be OP. Thats kind of weird if you think about it. Why would you want your enemy to be stronger than you? The answer is plain simple: Because you need an excuse why you lost that recent PvT / ZvT. Losing is nothing people like to do, but if terran is op, losing to terran is fine. Its not your fault. So, non terrans will naturally always try to make terran look OP. They could be right, but thats irrelevant, because no matter what kind of statistics they see, their conclusion will always be: terran op. More terrans in gsl: terran op More protoss in master league: terran op
Its the same, but vice versa with terrans. Of course you only won that recent TvP / TvZ because your were the better player. Imbalance? No way! Most terrans will always say that terran is fine. At best there MIGHT be a small map imbalance.
So, we have 2 groups of people discussing about a certain topic, even though both groups will never ever admit that they are wrong. You dont even need to hear your opponents arguments to know, that they are bad.
Please stop balance discussions. Close this thread.
Mucho wisdom in this post, I really dont see what leaving this thread open accomplishes.
Because RTS games should have all ins. Because protoss and zerg have all ins. Because terran should not be able to do anything with little to no risk.
Terrans are not able to do everything without risk, stop being dumb.
how about small statistics pool? didn't the first 3 gsl's determine who was in code s for gsl 4? so if terrans do well in 2/3 (66%) of the gsls they are automatically going to be placed higher in gsl 4 so they represent highly in 3/4 gsls (75%) just food for thought
On January 21 2011 03:52 statez wrote: I hate these threads. So everyone that plays T are instantly favored from an OP race/heavily favored map and Z is super hard because of larvae management and creep tumors. yawn.
(over)representation of Zerg players..
it's so embarrassing to see the beacon of starcraft 2 in the west like this..
all due to one race with a persecution complex since that reaper thing.
Z, Focus on your own play. Thx Bro
theres no need to be so defensive about your race btw, try and look at things objectively, and not just from your own point of view.
I hate myself but I just have to reply to this. WHAT is with people going "oh well you play terran so of course your opinion is biased".
why don't I just say "well you play zerg so YOUR opinion is biased against terran" ?
If you seriously believe that the people in this thread crying about balance are being unbiased and objective? then I don't know what to tell you.. except, no :p
I play Terran and I think Terran is OP, so do I fall under your category? I'm not just saying this, the reason WHY I started playing T in SC2 is because I knew they were stronger than the other races. I would have done the same in BW except BW's T requires too much mechanics and multi-tasking; which is clearly not the case for SC2's T
Why so much balance whine in tl.net forums? Thats easier. Non Terrans want terran to be OP. Thats kind of weird if you think about it. Why would you want your enemy to be stronger than you? The answer is plain simple: Because you need an excuse why you lost that recent PvT / ZvT. Losing is nothing people like to do, but if terran is op, losing to terran is fine. Its not your fault. So, non terrans will naturally always try to make terran look OP. They could be right, but thats irrelevant, because no matter what kind of statistics they see, their conclusion will always be: terran op. More terrans in gsl: terran op More protoss in master league: terran op
Its the same, but vice versa with terrans. Of course you only won that recent TvP / TvZ because your were the better player. Imbalance? No way! Most terrans will always say that terran is fine. At best there MIGHT be a small map imbalance.
So, we have 2 groups of people discussing about a certain topic, even though both groups will never ever admit that they are wrong. You dont even need to hear your opponents arguments to know that they are bad.
Please stop balance discussions. Close this thread.
Fail. Terrans want their race to be not OP, because they feel that would devalue their wins . To be serious: I think T is OP in quite high level play. ZvT is my best match-up, however i really dislike watching 80% TvT starting from round of 16 in any decent tourney (GSL, IEM, CraftCup, ..). That's why i think there should be some T nerfs, which affect highest level play. Lower level play feels quite balanced IMHO.
On January 21 2011 05:10 DoubleReed wrote: So much balance whine. I honestly am only recently getting good enough to really notice issues that zerg has a problem with. But personally, I think most people are far too inexperienced with the game to have a good grasp of the balance problems.
Not all of us are. But really, I think Idra summed it up very well:
On December 29 2010 17:08 IdrA wrote:
On December 29 2010 17:01 Beef Noodles wrote:
On December 29 2010 16:21 IdrA wrote:
On December 29 2010 15:44 Liquid`Ret wrote: all these theories on idra ladder are untrue...he ladders to win games...just watch his stream...it also explains why zerg isnt in top10 and why there are less of us in the top200
indeed if i think i can win i stay in the game. there are times when ive left a game and my opponent couldve made a gigantic mistake and handed me the win, but thats rare and irrelevant. its just really fucking easy to lose as zerg.
Do you think that zerg is currently at a disadvantage or do you think it is a momentum race that cannot lose momentum if they want to win?
I know that you don't like to respond very often, but I would like to hear your views on the current state of the zerg race (without iNcontrol telling you to shut up like on SOTG lol)
zerg is fucking awful clearly weakest, least reliable options early game. any viable pressure is nearly a complete allin, besides light roach aggression which is easily nullified. both t and p have lots of ways to put game ending pressure on z early and half of them arent even close to allin, and most are unscoutable and have different counters.
and the idea that z is somehow the strongest late game race is fuckin absurd. hive units are nearly useless and horribly cost inefficient unless broodlords catch them off guard. ya, you can insta remax if you're allowed to get a giant econ, but remaxing on lair units vs collosus or tank based armies hardly matters when you can trade 200/200 for a tenth of their army.
if z guesses, and guessing is required if t and p dont show a ridiculously early expansion, correctly and hits drone timings perfectly then they have a mid game advantage, but its not an advantage that can be used very well. its very easy for t or p to make themselves unkillable and head for that invincible late game army. z gets to use their unit advantage to tech towards hive, which can be nullified, or to expand a bunch so they can throw away a few extra 200/200 armies before getting rolled.
zerg is failing massively in just about every statistic besides gsl first places. the race is fucking awful. i honestly have no idea how so many people dont acknowledge it yet. zergs performance in the foreign scene is very nearly non existent. i think morrow has won one viking cup and otherwise 0 z wins since i won mlg dc. and a pitiful number of titles before that.
Seriously, Idra makes several good points relating to several areas of gameplay. His point about earlygame and lategame disadvantage actually seems pretty accurate IMO.
Personally, I'm surprised that broodlords DO catch people offguard as often as they do, as it takes forever to get them (both Hive and Greater Spire morphing give you signs). But then I suppose people aren't used to needing to scout zerg that often...
Maybe one day Zergs will realise that you can Fungal Growth an army and pelt them with Broodlings from out of their range. You'd think the only unit with abilities in the entire Zerg arsenal was the Queen. It's like the ability to lock an army in position is considered worthless.
Facing 2 rax "all-in" every game, transitioning into marine/medivac/tank pressure while you struggle to just produce enough units to keep from getting steam rolled 4 minutes into the game doesn't leave much space to get infestors or brood lords.
If only there was this structure that would act like a static defence that can move around that completly shuts down any early(4 minute yah) pressure.
yes, I would love it if zerg had such a building, that would be great... can I has? oh, and by the way, that weird building whatchacallit... spinecrueler... or something... no wait! it was crawlers. and before it was "s" + "type of tree"... limetree? ill go with that, slimecrawlers! yeah, those dont quite count since 15 stimmed marines easily kills off 3 of those slimecrawlers, and support from other units barely matters. thats not what I call "shutting down early pressure". not to mention that the terran doesn't need to fight them (ooh, look at that!), since afterall, going 2rax ISN'T AN ALL-IN! and you STILL forced the zerg into building stuff he didnt want = damage.
p.s. I don't care what you say, slimecrawlers are goddamn awful against anything that isnt a roach, hellion or stalker. p.p.s. I know they are called s pine crawlers but they are so spineless that they don't deserve that name
Well as people said the issue may lie in map imbalances, but there is one little thing that bothers me about Terran.
I don't want to express any misunderstanding about balance, but from my experience and from the ton of games I watched, it seems that the Marine may turn out to be a bit too effective in mid & late-game. I feel that the Marines' cost, survavibility and mobility are fine, but their DPS seems very powerful. In my opinion the most obvious instance is the TvT matchup in which you can easily gauge the insane effectiveness of Marines. I'm quite confused and shocked: especially when you compare that matchup to BW's; in which iirc everything seems to revolve around mech and rightfully so. So that raises the question, if the marines are so powerful even in a mirror matchup, are they as powerful in the other matchups?
But we never know, the metagame will surely evolve in such a way that marines' effectiveness becomes reasonnable.
My point of view may be mistaken though.
About Zerg I think that the standard builds (14 hatch, 14 pool, 14 hatch/15 pool, you name it) are getting a bit old and that's why Terran feel so comfortable early game. I think there is definitely a balance between the 1-base all-in builds and the 14/15 hatch builds. I don't see any reason why Zerg couldn't come up with BOs that allows pressure, expanding, mid-game transitions etc.
I have a very hard time as terran, but that might be because I'm a macroplayer. I never 1basepush.
Against zerg I feel really weak. You can have as much rines as you want and you can split them as much as you want. If mass speedlings and muta's with good upgrades are chasing you, they dissapear very fast. I can't believe how many muta's and banelings a zerg can make on 3bases.
Against protoss it's quite even, untill collossus / HT with amulet is out. Then I feel like it's an uphill battle.
Maybe I should start abusing more 1base allin pushes?
Why so much balance whine in tl.net forums? Thats easier. Non Terrans want terran to be OP. Thats kind of weird if you think about it. Why would you want your enemy to be stronger than you? The answer is plain simple: Because you need an excuse why you lost that recent PvT / ZvT. Losing is nothing people like to do, but if terran is op, losing to terran is fine. Its not your fault. So, non terrans will naturally always try to make terran look OP. They could be right, but thats irrelevant, because no matter what kind of statistics they see, their conclusion will always be: terran op. More terrans in gsl: terran op More protoss in master league: terran op
Its the same, but vice versa with terrans. Of course you only won that recent TvP / TvZ because your were the better player. Imbalance? No way! Most terrans will always say that terran is fine. At best there MIGHT be a small map imbalance.
So, we have 2 groups of people discussing about a certain topic, even though both groups will never ever admit that they are wrong. You dont even need to hear your opponents arguments to know that they are bad.
Please stop balance discussions. Close this thread.
Fail. Terrans want their race to be not OP, because they feel that would devalue their wins . To be serious: I think T is OP in quite high level play. ZvT is my best match-up, however i really dislike watching 80% TvT starting from round of 16 in any decent tourney (GSL, IEM, CraftCup, ..). That's why i think there should be some T nerfs, which affect highest level play. Lower level play feels quite balanced IMHO.
Or maybe you are actually wrong, and don't know what you're talking about, and Terran is not actually OP.
On January 21 2011 05:10 DoubleReed wrote: So much balance whine. I honestly am only recently getting good enough to really notice issues that zerg has a problem with. But personally, I think most people are far too inexperienced with the game to have a good grasp of the balance problems.
Not all of us are. But really, I think Idra summed it up very well:
On December 29 2010 17:08 IdrA wrote:
On December 29 2010 17:01 Beef Noodles wrote:
On December 29 2010 16:21 IdrA wrote:
On December 29 2010 15:44 Liquid`Ret wrote: all these theories on idra ladder are untrue...he ladders to win games...just watch his stream...it also explains why zerg isnt in top10 and why there are less of us in the top200
indeed if i think i can win i stay in the game. there are times when ive left a game and my opponent couldve made a gigantic mistake and handed me the win, but thats rare and irrelevant. its just really fucking easy to lose as zerg.
Do you think that zerg is currently at a disadvantage or do you think it is a momentum race that cannot lose momentum if they want to win?
I know that you don't like to respond very often, but I would like to hear your views on the current state of the zerg race (without iNcontrol telling you to shut up like on SOTG lol)
zerg is fucking awful clearly weakest, least reliable options early game. any viable pressure is nearly a complete allin, besides light roach aggression which is easily nullified. both t and p have lots of ways to put game ending pressure on z early and half of them arent even close to allin, and most are unscoutable and have different counters.
and the idea that z is somehow the strongest late game race is fuckin absurd. hive units are nearly useless and horribly cost inefficient unless broodlords catch them off guard. ya, you can insta remax if you're allowed to get a giant econ, but remaxing on lair units vs collosus or tank based armies hardly matters when you can trade 200/200 for a tenth of their army.
if z guesses, and guessing is required if t and p dont show a ridiculously early expansion, correctly and hits drone timings perfectly then they have a mid game advantage, but its not an advantage that can be used very well. its very easy for t or p to make themselves unkillable and head for that invincible late game army. z gets to use their unit advantage to tech towards hive, which can be nullified, or to expand a bunch so they can throw away a few extra 200/200 armies before getting rolled.
zerg is failing massively in just about every statistic besides gsl first places. the race is fucking awful. i honestly have no idea how so many people dont acknowledge it yet. zergs performance in the foreign scene is very nearly non existent. i think morrow has won one viking cup and otherwise 0 z wins since i won mlg dc. and a pitiful number of titles before that.
Seriously, Idra makes several good points relating to several areas of gameplay. His point about earlygame and lategame disadvantage actually seems pretty accurate IMO.
Personally, I'm surprised that broodlords DO catch people offguard as often as they do, as it takes forever to get them (both Hive and Greater Spire morphing give you signs). But then I suppose people aren't used to needing to scout zerg that often...
Maybe one day Zergs will realise that you can Fungal Growth an army and pelt them with Broodlings from out of their range. You'd think the only unit with abilities in the entire Zerg arsenal was the Queen. It's like the ability to lock an army in position is considered worthless.
Facing 2 rax "all-in" every game, transitioning into marine/medivac/tank pressure while you struggle to just produce enough units to keep from getting steam rolled 4 minutes into the game doesn't leave much space to get infestors or brood lords.
If only there was this structure that would act like a static defence that can move around that completly shuts down any early(4 minute yah) pressure.
yes, I would love it if zerg had such a building, that would be great... can I has? oh, and by the way, that weird building whatchacallit... spinecrueler... or something... no wait! it was crawlers. and before it was "s" + "type of tree"... limetree? ill go with that, slimecrawlers! yeah, those dont quite count since 15 stimmed marines easily kills off 3 of those slimecrawlers, and support from other units barely matters. thats not what I call "shutting down early pressure". not to mention that the terran doesn't need to fight them (ooh, look at that!), since afterall, going 2rax ISN'T AN ALL-IN! and you STILL forced the zerg into building stuff he didnt want = damage.
p.s. I don't care what you say, slimecrawlers are goddamn awful against anything that isnt a roach, hellion or stalker. p.p.s. I know they are called s pine crawlers but they are so spineless that they don't deserve that name
Yeah, Terran will sure have 15 stimmed marines at the 4 minute mark in the game.
Guys, it really doesn't have anything to do with the races or the units, its the map... there is already another thread about how they are changing the GSL maps. they are throwing out 4 of them because they are racially imbalanced.
It has nothing to do with units, but more to do with rush distance and expansion availability. Zerg likes expansions, so maps like Jungle Basin and close positions metalopolis are really strong for terran because they can match zerg very easily and deny 3rds.... Long distance metalopolis is likewise favored for zerg in the opposite way: The rush distance is so long that zerg can easily defend and expand. This is why GSL is testing a bunch of candidate maps to improve the balance of play.
Also, its due to Terran having strength in the early part of the game, and losing strength in the late game because of a reliance on low tier combat units. Alot of games in this GSL have been short because there have been a lot of Terran allins. Even pro Terran players are afraid of playing late game because Terran loses momentum against some high tier unit comps like Sentry + Colossus + High Templar (which is like Exodia the forbidden one, get all of them together, and you win the game).
On January 21 2011 05:51 AlBundy wrote: I don't see any reason why Zerg couldn't come up with BOs that allows pressure, expanding, mid-game transitions etc.
Simply because any early pressure from Zerg is almost an Allin.
On January 21 2011 05:51 AlBundy wrote: I don't see any reason why Zerg couldn't come up with BOs that allows pressure, expanding, mid-game transitions etc.
I wonder why this hasn't been closed yet. This poll basically suggests that either the maps are imbalanced or Terran is inherently OP as a race. Some very plausible reasons for the so called "Terran dominance" in GSL are missing.
#1 As some people already mentioned, Terran could have been OP in the beginning => lots of Terrans place high in the first GSL => lots of Terrans are seeded for the next GSL => assuming even outcomes, more Terrans will place high again => more Terran seeds => and so on
#2 Could be a Korea/SEA thing. Outside of Korea Protoss seems to be the "dominant" race, but maybe that's just me. Not so much of a statistics fanatic personally, but I think there are even some stats to support this like race distribution in Master League, etc.
Just two (imho) very possible and plausible off the top of my head, I'm pretty sure there are some more. This poll just fuels race/map imba rants imho, although I have to admit that I don't like the Blizzard maps very much either.
I think the key to terran success is drops. There's no really efficient way to defend them and stimmed MM kill shit real fast. One of the problems with balancing around lower leagues is that they don't do drops that often, and rather turtle.
What would happen if instead of either Droning hard or producing units hard, a Zerg player produced Drones from their Larva at the same rate a Terran/Protoss produces workers, and used the other Larva to produce units over time? Would the Zerg be more prepared for pushes while still having a similar economy to their opponent, even on one base?
On January 20 2011 19:42 Gigaudas wrote: Because Terran is overpowered. Blaming maps and saying that Terran is OP is pretty much the same thing as you can throw everything around by changing maps.
Terran has been overpowered since release and the only reason people aren't crying more about it is that lone Zergs won the first two GSL. The first GSL was still an indication that Terran was overpowered (Terran domination in the brackets) while the second GSL was during the few weeks in October that represent the only time that Terran didn't dominate. The same can be said about the foreign scene:
This was after a balance patch that Terran players needed a few weeks to figure out.
The last few weeks represent a change as well as European Protoss players have been doing very well.
exactly what i wanted to say. the entire sc2 community was complaining about Terran being OP and then few patches come that doesn't change the inherent problems like mule, PF, marauder and T supporters over-exaggerate what the patch did so people actually started to believe everything was balanced...and then over time, people are still curious why T is still dominating?
imo, nothing drastic changed. I have been praying to blizzard to nerf marauders since beta and the only thing that they do is make concussive shells a 50/50 tech. I say this and I USE marauders in all three matchups very often so it shows how serious it is
On January 20 2011 20:05 Tyree wrote: A slight nerf to early Terran aggression and a slight buff late game i feel would go a long way into making all the matchups better for everyone.
this is how i feel too. take away from T's early game and give a slight buff to T's late game. Nerfing Marauders = Hinder's T's early game Give T a decent T3 unit that can be massed like Ultras (Thors is out of the question because they can be neural parasited)
LOl and chorno isnt? or even injecting larva? or even 1a collosus? your view seems pretty biased i dont even use maruders.. havent even used maruders for uhh at least the past 20 games... not a single one.. i dont know but i doubt many people have the right to judge right now O.O cause there have not been enough results
Why so much balance whine in tl.net forums? Thats easier. Non Terrans want terran to be OP. Thats kind of weird if you think about it. Why would you want your enemy to be stronger than you? The answer is plain simple: Because you need an excuse why you lost that recent PvT / ZvT. Losing is nothing people like to do, but if terran is op, losing to terran is fine. Its not your fault. So, non terrans will naturally always try to make terran look OP. They could be right, but thats irrelevant, because no matter what kind of statistics they see, their conclusion will always be: terran op. More terrans in gsl: terran op More protoss in master league: terran op
Its the same, but vice versa with terrans. Of course you only won that recent TvP / TvZ because your were the better player. Imbalance? No way! Most terrans will always say that terran is fine. At best there MIGHT be a small map imbalance.
So, we have 2 groups of people discussing about a certain topic, even though both groups will never ever admit that they are wrong. You dont even need to hear your opponents arguments to know that they are bad.
Please stop balance discussions. Close this thread.
Fail. Terrans want their race to be not OP, because they feel that would devalue their wins . To be serious: I think T is OP in quite high level play. ZvT is my best match-up, however i really dislike watching 80% TvT starting from round of 16 in any decent tourney (GSL, IEM, CraftCup, ..). That's why i think there should be some T nerfs, which affect highest level play. Lower level play feels quite balanced IMHO.
Or maybe you are actually wrong, and don't know what you're talking about, and Terran is not actually OP.
Thanks for sharing your arguments =P. Any fact from real world indicating T is not OP epecially at pro level ?
Terran > Protoss early and mid game. I don't really mind this, I mean maybe it's just the way it's supposed to be. Protoss needs to be more defensive until higher tier units come out, or something. I hate marauders but i don't complain about them anymore. The only things that bug me a lot are PF, medivacs and bunkers. It's harder to punish a Terran for their mistakes. If they feel they are behind, theyll just make their expo a PF. Now you are pretty stupid if you plan on engaging, so you gotta do something else. Same with bunkers, they just make the terran army, early/mid game, last that much longer to your attack. Honestly, i don't think I would have any problem with this if they just didn't have salvage. Medivacs are my main gripe because if they only healed and were the same price, terran would still get them. I always play a terran who has 3 or 4 of them in his army, and maybe I'll win the battle. Terran doesn't know what to do so he mass drops or drops in different locations. Stimmed marauders kill everything and then he leaves when i get there. This would all be fine to me if he had invested in drop, but he really didn't. He just made medics, and then later he was like "oh crap, I guess I'll drop since my medics can do that too".....
ALL THAT BEING SAID:
Player skill can get you out of any imbalance. Maybe you gotta work a little harder, but if you practice hard you can overcome all of it. Maybe If I had been more careful with stalker positioning in my main or something, drops wouldn't succeed as much. Maybe If forcefielded better, or macroed harder or something I could come out ahead more often. So who knows. Complaining can be fun but I won't stop playing because of it.
Why so much balance whine in tl.net forums? Thats easier. Non Terrans want terran to be OP. Thats kind of weird if you think about it. Why would you want your enemy to be stronger than you? The answer is plain simple: Because you need an excuse why you lost that recent PvT / ZvT. Losing is nothing people like to do, but if terran is op, losing to terran is fine. Its not your fault. So, non terrans will naturally always try to make terran look OP. They could be right, but thats irrelevant, because no matter what kind of statistics they see, their conclusion will always be: terran op. More terrans in gsl: terran op More protoss in master league: terran op
Its the same, but vice versa with terrans. Of course you only won that recent TvP / TvZ because your were the better player. Imbalance? No way! Most terrans will always say that terran is fine. At best there MIGHT be a small map imbalance.
So, we have 2 groups of people discussing about a certain topic, even though both groups will never ever admit that they are wrong. You dont even need to hear your opponents arguments to know that they are bad.
Please stop balance discussions. Close this thread.
Fail. Terrans want their race to be not OP, because they feel that would devalue their wins . To be serious: I think T is OP in quite high level play. ZvT is my best match-up, however i really dislike watching 80% TvT starting from round of 16 in any decent tourney (GSL, IEM, CraftCup, ..). That's why i think there should be some T nerfs, which affect highest level play. Lower level play feels quite balanced IMHO.
Or maybe you are actually wrong, and don't know what you're talking about, and Terran is not actually OP.
Thanks for sharing your arguments =P. Any fact from real world indicating T is not OP epecially at pro level ?
Wait, are you asking if there is anything that suggets that terran isnt OP? Anything at all?
Nah man, Terran wins 100% of all games and tournaments, we have yet to see proof that terran isnt OP
I keep looking at this thread thinking that it'll get better or it will get closed, but it never does haha
On January 21 2011 06:00 branflakes14 wrote: What would happen if instead of either Droning hard or producing units hard, a Zerg player produced Drones from their Larva at the same rate a Terran/Protoss produces workers, and used the other Larva to produce units over time? Would the Zerg be more prepared for pushes while still having a similar economy to their opponent, even on one base?
Zerg would lose, because Zerg units are not cost effective.
On January 21 2011 06:00 branflakes14 wrote: What would happen if instead of either Droning hard or producing units hard, a Zerg player produced Drones from their Larva at the same rate a Terran/Protoss produces workers, and used the other Larva to produce units over time? Would the Zerg be more prepared for pushes while still having a similar economy to their opponent, even on one base?
Zerg would lose, because Zerg units are not cost effective.
On January 21 2011 06:00 branflakes14 wrote: What would happen if instead of either Droning hard or producing units hard, a Zerg player produced Drones from their Larva at the same rate a Terran/Protoss produces workers, and used the other Larva to produce units over time? Would the Zerg be more prepared for pushes while still having a similar economy to their opponent, even on one base?
Zerg would lose, because Zerg units are not cost effective.
If anything blizzard should increase the spawn rate and the number of larva that are naturally spawned at hatcheries and possible compensate by nerfing the queens spawn larva function. In my head that would make it easier early game to produce units before you get multiple hatcheries up with queens. But what do I know.
On January 21 2011 06:00 branflakes14 wrote: What would happen if instead of either Droning hard or producing units hard, a Zerg player produced Drones from their Larva at the same rate a Terran/Protoss produces workers, and used the other Larva to produce units over time? Would the Zerg be more prepared for pushes while still having a similar economy to their opponent, even on one base?
Zerg would lose, because Zerg units are not cost effective.
Zerg would also slowly fall farther and farther behind in worker count.
-1 for the expo hatch, -1 for the pool, -1 for the extractor. You're already 3 workers behind and you haven't even build your first combat unit.
On January 21 2011 06:00 branflakes14 wrote: What would happen if instead of either Droning hard or producing units hard, a Zerg player produced Drones from their Larva at the same rate a Terran/Protoss produces workers, and used the other Larva to produce units over time? Would the Zerg be more prepared for pushes while still having a similar economy to their opponent, even on one base?
You need the extra hatch anyways for production, the only advatage to placing it in base is that it is easier to defend. Zerg also has very gas heavy units, so you need the extra gas from the natural. You have to consider that even with getting gas from the natural, zerg has the least cost effective units. This is only much more true off one base, because the only way to dump minerals is with zerglings and spine crawlers.
Basically zerg sits on one base, terran sits on one base. Terran masses up a cost effective army that can attack at any time, zerg masses of a less cost effective army that becomes further less cost effective if they try to attack because of melee and short range. So zerg sits there and does nothing or defends, terran masses up a big enough army until they can take their natural with no risk, and zerg auto loses.
The only viable one basing you can do as zerg are baneling busts, roach all ins, or nydus all ins. If any of these fail, you might as well quit the game. With a baneling bust you have to suicide your units just to get through the wall and actually fight his army, if terran layers his wall this has no chance of sucess. With roach wall in terran only needs one bunker with marauders being repaired and it has no chance of success. If nydus is spotted it has no chance of sucess. If it isn't spotted it can still go either way, because terran will likely kill it before too many units get out, and then zerg is sitting on one base with the terran wise to his only method of attack.
I think some of the best statistics to look at for racial balance would be to see the results of matchups of the top Random players in the world. However, this would not take into account the possibility of map balance (unless you looked even deeper, too deep for one nerd). Are they substancially below 50% ZvT? Vice versa?
If theres any top Random players out there willing to share this information it could help this debate greatly
On January 21 2011 06:00 branflakes14 wrote: What would happen if instead of either Droning hard or producing units hard, a Zerg player produced Drones from their Larva at the same rate a Terran/Protoss produces workers, and used the other Larva to produce units over time? Would the Zerg be more prepared for pushes while still having a similar economy to their opponent, even on one base?
Zerg would lose, because Zerg units are not cost effective.
Stalkers survive a 1 on 1 with a Roach with just 20 health, despite costing almost double, and 4 Speedlings beats a Zealot any day of the week even with Zealot micro to prevent a surround. And as for Terran, Zerglings and Roaches are MORE than enough to hold off a stim MM push. Really. I'm in the unit test map right now, and 10 Speedlings + 3 Roaches is beating 5 Marines and 3 Marauders (which actually costs more) even when the Terran units stim. I'm just attack moving of course, but for the extra minerals the Terran has spent on those Marauders, the Zerg could get another 6 Lings, which would tip the balance even further in his favour. In fact, I'll try it with those extra Lings now, and micro the Terran units. Haha, not even fucking close. How anyone can say Zerg units aren't cost effective is beyond me, especially when I wasn't even doing these units tests on creep and didn't use any Spine Crawlers.
On January 21 2011 05:51 AlBundy wrote: About Zerg I think that the standard builds (14 hatch, 14 pool, 14 hatch/15 pool, you name it) are getting a bit old and that's why Terran feel so comfortable early game. I think there is definitely a balance between the 1-base all-in builds and the 14/15 hatch builds. I don't see any reason why Zerg couldn't come up with BOs that allows pressure, expanding, mid-game transitions etc.
please for the love of god mister AlBundy, go out on ladder, play zerg, evolve a build or strategy that allows you to put pressure (as in serious pressure (that directly wins you games at least 10 % of the time on equal skill)) in the early game on a non-zerg opponent while having an equal or greater economy than said opponent at all times during the game, while being flexible enough to instantly defend any all-in or cheese.
when you have done this, please, tell me about it! because I have given up hope on an aggressive non all-in for zerg.
as a matter of fact, Listen up TL community! all zerg players out there! I give you a challenge! evolve a build or strategy that satisfies the above conditions, and make a thread about it! and if you find that this is impossible, make a thread detailing (down to everything) exactly why you can state that that is true by only using valid facts that can be measured or known! (ex: timings, build times, training times, larvae spawn etc.)
On January 21 2011 06:00 branflakes14 wrote: What would happen if instead of either Droning hard or producing units hard, a Zerg player produced Drones from their Larva at the same rate a Terran/Protoss produces workers, and used the other Larva to produce units over time? Would the Zerg be more prepared for pushes while still having a similar economy to their opponent, even on one base?
Zerg would lose, because Zerg units are not cost effective.
Stalkers survive a 1 on 1 with a Roach with just 20 health, despite costing almost double, and 4 Speedlings beats a Zealot any day of the week even with Zealot micro to prevent a surround. And as for Terran, Zerglings and Roaches are MORE than enough to hold off a stim MM push. Really. I'm in the unit test map right now, and 10 Speedlings + 3 Roaches is beating 5 Marines and 3 Marauders (which actually costs more) even when the Terran units stim. I'm just attack moving of course, but for the extra minerals the Terran has spent on those Marauders, the Zerg could get another 6 Lings, which would tip the balance even further in his favour. In fact, I'll try it with those extra Lings now, and micro the Terran units. Haha, not even fucking close. How anyone can say Zerg units aren't cost effective is beyond me, especially when I wasn't even doing these units tests on creep and didn't use any Spine Crawlers.
use micro.... and real army number try 15 marine with stim vs zerling marine will pwn them.... same maro pwn roach and protoss can use ff to kill z unit without many loss...
Zerg units are extremely cost effective. A lot of zergs like to lump 'cost effective' and 'supply effective' into the same bucket, which is completely inaccurate. Claims that Zerg units are not cost effective can be empirically proven false with a simple unit tester.
On January 21 2011 06:00 branflakes14 wrote: What would happen if instead of either Droning hard or producing units hard, a Zerg player produced Drones from their Larva at the same rate a Terran/Protoss produces workers, and used the other Larva to produce units over time? Would the Zerg be more prepared for pushes while still having a similar economy to their opponent, even on one base?
Zerg would lose, because Zerg units are not cost effective.
Stalkers survive a 1 on 1 with a Roach with just 20 health, despite costing almost double, and 4 Speedlings beats a Zealot any day of the week even with Zealot micro to prevent a surround. And as for Terran, Zerglings and Roaches are MORE than enough to hold off a stim MM push. Really. I'm in the unit test map right now, and 10 Speedlings + 3 Roaches is beating 5 Marines and 3 Marauders (which actually costs more) even when the Terran units stim. I'm just attack moving of course, but for the extra minerals the Terran has spent on those Marauders, the Zerg could get another 6 Lings, which would tip the balance even further in his favour. In fact, I'll try it with those extra Lings now, and micro the Terran units. Haha, not even fucking close. How anyone can say Zerg units aren't cost effective is beyond me, especially when I wasn't even doing these units tests on creep and didn't use any Spine Crawlers.
Any of the units you mentioned can outrange Roaches/Lings and therefore just attack moving doesn't prove anything.
To me it seems each race was made for a certain style. Protoss is the most agressive than the others and allows cheesier tactics to work than the other races, it is also very micro intensive. Zerg on the other hand is the meant to be the least agressive in the earlier sections of the game, they are meant to just build up to a huge army and are the unstoppable in the late game and are very macro intensive.
Terran to me seem like the middle race they have a blanced macro/micro style they are extreamly versatile. They are not as agressive as protoss but much more than zerg.
If I'm a top level player who likes to cheese and play normal games terran seems like the best race to go so I think more people prefer it. We can clearly see when used in the right hands Zerg and Protoss absolutely slaughter terran who are maybe just slightly worse players just look at Nestea and MC with there almost unstoppable play.
In my opinon none of the races are Overpowered but I feel they way they play makes the better players choose terran and they can be more succesful with them as they are so versatile. Also seeing as this is wings of liberty I believe that Terran are probably the most polished race in the game which may make people choose them more.
The maps are somewhat more unbalanced in certain matchups but not to the extent where terran can't loose.
Thats just my opinion I just joined to post that. I'm sure a lot of people disagree but thats your right I really don't think that terran need to be nerfed. If anything Zerg need a small buff really, as a Protoss player I feel that they are balanced pretty well all things considered.
On January 21 2011 06:00 branflakes14 wrote: What would happen if instead of either Droning hard or producing units hard, a Zerg player produced Drones from their Larva at the same rate a Terran/Protoss produces workers, and used the other Larva to produce units over time? Would the Zerg be more prepared for pushes while still having a similar economy to their opponent, even on one base?
Zerg would lose, because Zerg units are not cost effective.
Stalkers survive a 1 on 1 with a Roach with just 20 health, despite costing almost double, and 4 Speedlings beats a Zealot any day of the week even with Zealot micro to prevent a surround. And as for Terran, Zerglings and Roaches are MORE than enough to hold off a stim MM push. Really. I'm in the unit test map right now, and 10 Speedlings + 3 Roaches is beating 5 Marines and 3 Marauders (which actually costs more) even when the Terran units stim. I'm just attack moving of course, but for the extra minerals the Terran has spent on those Marauders, the Zerg could get another 6 Lings, which would tip the balance even further in his favour. In fact, I'll try it with those extra Lings now, and micro the Terran units. Haha, not even fucking close. How anyone can say Zerg units aren't cost effective is beyond me, especially when I wasn't even doing these units tests on creep and didn't use any Spine Crawlers.
use micro.... and real army number try 15 marine with stim vs zerling marine will pwn them.... same maro pwn roach and protoss can use ff to kill z unit without many loss...
For my last test I did use micro, and the Zerg units won by a huge margin, despite actually costing 75 gas less and having no creep advantage. And as I was testing the viability of slowly producing units in the early game as opposed to hard Droning/units, I was keeping the Terran army size reasonably small. And admittedly I haven't factored Force Field into this, but Sentries themselves are pretty weak offensively and use up the gas of 2 Stalkers, meaning more Zealots, which (you can test this yourself if you don't believe me) don't even hold up to equal resources of Lings, let alone Roaches.
I would say its a measure of what I would call race dynamics, more than race imbalance. So far in the GSL for the various match ups, spawn position changes the win rate for different races dramatically so you could call that map imbalance. There is also timings that favor one race over the other, a lot of the solid Terran timings happen faster than the other races, so in a competitive environment, of course that race that gets the earlier chance to smash his opponent will often do so. So yes i would say that it comes down to a sort of imbalance, but many changes alter the game dramatically. I would wait to see how balanced the new maps are, because they look very well rounded, and on the more well rounded maps the game is much closer to a balanced state, because the balance is inherently close already.
Where as on jungle basin, for example, it is just mind bogglingly poor for balance IMO.
On January 21 2011 06:00 branflakes14 wrote: What would happen if instead of either Droning hard or producing units hard, a Zerg player produced Drones from their Larva at the same rate a Terran/Protoss produces workers, and used the other Larva to produce units over time? Would the Zerg be more prepared for pushes while still having a similar economy to their opponent, even on one base?
Zerg would lose, because Zerg units are not cost effective.
Stalkers survive a 1 on 1 with a Roach with just 20 health, despite costing almost double, and 4 Speedlings beats a Zealot any day of the week even with Zealot micro to prevent a surround. And as for Terran, Zerglings and Roaches are MORE than enough to hold off a stim MM push. Really. I'm in the unit test map right now, and 10 Speedlings + 3 Roaches is beating 5 Marines and 3 Marauders (which actually costs more) even when the Terran units stim. I'm just attack moving of course, but for the extra minerals the Terran has spent on those Marauders, the Zerg could get another 6 Lings, which would tip the balance even further in his favour. In fact, I'll try it with those extra Lings now, and micro the Terran units. Haha, not even fucking close. How anyone can say Zerg units aren't cost effective is beyond me, especially when I wasn't even doing these units tests on creep and didn't use any Spine Crawlers.
Any of the units you mentioned can outrange Roaches/Lings and therefore just attack moving doesn't prove anything.
On January 21 2011 06:00 branflakes14 wrote: What would happen if instead of either Droning hard or producing units hard, a Zerg player produced Drones from their Larva at the same rate a Terran/Protoss produces workers, and used the other Larva to produce units over time? Would the Zerg be more prepared for pushes while still having a similar economy to their opponent, even on one base?
Zerg would lose, because Zerg units are not cost effective.
Stalkers survive a 1 on 1 with a Roach with just 20 health, despite costing almost double, and 4 Speedlings beats a Zealot any day of the week even with Zealot micro to prevent a surround. And as for Terran, Zerglings and Roaches are MORE than enough to hold off a stim MM push. Really. I'm in the unit test map right now, and 10 Speedlings + 3 Roaches is beating 5 Marines and 3 Marauders (which actually costs more) even when the Terran units stim. I'm just attack moving of course, but for the extra minerals the Terran has spent on those Marauders, the Zerg could get another 6 Lings, which would tip the balance even further in his favour. In fact, I'll try it with those extra Lings now, and micro the Terran units. Haha, not even fucking close. How anyone can say Zerg units aren't cost effective is beyond me, especially when I wasn't even doing these units tests on creep and didn't use any Spine Crawlers.
use micro.... and real army number try 15 marine with stim vs zerling marine will pwn them.... same maro pwn roach and protoss can use ff to kill z unit without many loss...
For my last test I did use micro, and the Zerg units won by a huge margin, despite actually costing 75 gas less and having no creep advantage. And as I was testing the viability of slowly producing units in the early game as opposed to hard Droning/units, I was keeping the Terran army size reasonably small. And admittedly I haven't factored Force Field into this, but Sentries themselves are pretty weak offensively and use up the gas of 2 Stalkers, meaning more Zealots, which (you can test this yourself if you don't believe me) don't even hold up to equal resources of Lings, let alone Roaches.
... really.... ANY protoss that see the zerg making that many unit early game will go back the ramp and ff or wall it.... zerg will have a bad economy because he made a lot of unit and he wont be able to use them because of the ramp..... and u just need to make more stalker zealot and take a safe expo after...
On January 21 2011 06:00 branflakes14 wrote: What would happen if instead of either Droning hard or producing units hard, a Zerg player produced Drones from their Larva at the same rate a Terran/Protoss produces workers, and used the other Larva to produce units over time? Would the Zerg be more prepared for pushes while still having a similar economy to their opponent, even on one base?
Zerg would lose, because Zerg units are not cost effective.
Stalkers survive a 1 on 1 with a Roach with just 20 health, despite costing almost double, and 4 Speedlings beats a Zealot any day of the week even with Zealot micro to prevent a surround. And as for Terran, Zerglings and Roaches are MORE than enough to hold off a stim MM push. Really. I'm in the unit test map right now, and 10 Speedlings + 3 Roaches is beating 5 Marines and 3 Marauders (which actually costs more) even when the Terran units stim. I'm just attack moving of course, but for the extra minerals the Terran has spent on those Marauders, the Zerg could get another 6 Lings, which would tip the balance even further in his favour. In fact, I'll try it with those extra Lings now, and micro the Terran units. Haha, not even fucking close. How anyone can say Zerg units aren't cost effective is beyond me, especially when I wasn't even doing these units tests on creep and didn't use any Spine Crawlers.
use micro.... and real army number try 15 marine with stim vs zerling marine will pwn them.... same maro pwn roach and protoss can use ff to kill z unit without many loss...
For my last test I did use micro, and the Zerg units won by a huge margin, despite actually costing 75 gas less and having no creep advantage. And as I was testing the viability of slowly producing units in the early game as opposed to hard Droning/units, I was keeping the Terran army size reasonably small. And admittedly I haven't factored Force Field into this, but Sentries themselves are pretty weak offensively and use up the gas of 2 Stalkers, meaning more Zealots, which (you can test this yourself if you don't believe me) don't even hold up to equal resources of Lings, let alone Roaches.
As the numbers increase, terran and protoss cost effectiveness increases drastically compared to zerg, basically because of range. No sentries are not weak offensively, that is hilariously wrong. Everyone knows zealots are bad against roaches. Stalkers can kite roaches for a very long time and then just regen when they get hurt. If you micro correctly you can abuse the range with stalkers, marines, and marauders, your micro was poor and it is the larger numbers that really matter.
With those small numbers it only means zerg had to make units instead of drones and is behind economically, as the game goes on, their cost effectiveness becomes lower and lower.
They had super harvesters that can be thrown down multiple times.
They had static anti air with splash damage with a high rate of fire that builds incredible fast.....that has an upgrade.
They had a protective shell for their units that they can get an instant refund for at any given time....that has an upgrade.
They had a supertank for an expansion that can be repaired.
They had a unit that had the longest range in the game that dealt massive amounts of splash damage that also has the smartest AI in the game which gave it zero overkill.
They had an early game harassing mineral costing only unit that had splash damage with no risk and high reward.
They had a flying dropship medic.
They they could tech to multiple paths off one base.
They could scout by just clicking a spot and viewing instantly what is at the location....AT THE COST OF A PRECIOUS MULE HOW WILL I EVER 6 RAX??!?! NOOOOOOO
Hm...wait they have all of those don't they?
Given you could do the same thing for Toss and Zerg, but the list of stupid things they have would be so much less, and it would be obvious if you tried to force some of the stuff.
I feel like no matter the maps / balance changes there will still always be debates. I've seen every race beat each other in great matches before so I'm just going to PLAY THE GAME.
On January 21 2011 06:00 branflakes14 wrote: What would happen if instead of either Droning hard or producing units hard, a Zerg player produced Drones from their Larva at the same rate a Terran/Protoss produces workers, and used the other Larva to produce units over time? Would the Zerg be more prepared for pushes while still having a similar economy to their opponent, even on one base?
Zerg would lose, because Zerg units are not cost effective.
Stalkers survive a 1 on 1 with a Roach with just 20 health, despite costing almost double, and 4 Speedlings beats a Zealot any day of the week even with Zealot micro to prevent a surround. And as for Terran, Zerglings and Roaches are MORE than enough to hold off a stim MM push. Really. I'm in the unit test map right now, and 10 Speedlings + 3 Roaches is beating 5 Marines and 3 Marauders (which actually costs more) even when the Terran units stim. I'm just attack moving of course, but for the extra minerals the Terran has spent on those Marauders, the Zerg could get another 6 Lings, which would tip the balance even further in his favour. In fact, I'll try it with those extra Lings now, and micro the Terran units. Haha, not even fucking close. How anyone can say Zerg units aren't cost effective is beyond me, especially when I wasn't even doing these units tests on creep and didn't use any Spine Crawlers.
use micro.... and real army number try 15 marine with stim vs zerling marine will pwn them.... same maro pwn roach and protoss can use ff to kill z unit without many loss...
For my last test I did use micro, and the Zerg units won by a huge margin, despite actually costing 75 gas less and having no creep advantage. And as I was testing the viability of slowly producing units in the early game as opposed to hard Droning/units, I was keeping the Terran army size reasonably small. And admittedly I haven't factored Force Field into this, but Sentries themselves are pretty weak offensively and use up the gas of 2 Stalkers, meaning more Zealots, which (you can test this yourself if you don't believe me) don't even hold up to equal resources of Lings, let alone Roaches.
As the numbers increase, terran and protoss cost effectiveness increases drastically compared to zerg, basically because of range.
Which means that in the early game when unit numbers are small, Zerg units are more cost effective and if anything should mean that defending is easier.
On January 21 2011 06:34 Demarini wrote: Terran would be OP if:
They had flying early game DTs.
They had super harvesters that can be thrown down multiple times.
They had static anti air with splash damage with a high rate of fire that builds incredible fast.....that has an upgrade.
They had a protective shell for their units that they can get an instant refund for at any given time....that has an upgrade.
They had a supertank for an expansion that can be repaired.
They had a unit that had the longest range in the game that dealt massive amounts of splash damage that also has the smartest AI in the game which gave it zero overkill.
They had an early game harassing mineral costing only unit that had splash damage with no risk and high reward.
They had a flying dropship medic.
They they could tech to multiple paths off one base.
They could scout by just clicking a spot and viewing instantly what is at the location....AT THE COST OF A PRECIOUS MULE HOW WILL I EVER 6 RAX??!?! NOOOOOOO
Hm...wait they have all of those don't they?
Given you could do the same thing for Toss and Zerg, but the list of stupid things they have would be so much less, and it would be obvious if you tried to force some of the stuff.
On January 21 2011 06:00 branflakes14 wrote: What would happen if instead of either Droning hard or producing units hard, a Zerg player produced Drones from their Larva at the same rate a Terran/Protoss produces workers, and used the other Larva to produce units over time? Would the Zerg be more prepared for pushes while still having a similar economy to their opponent, even on one base?
Zerg would lose, because Zerg units are not cost effective.
Stalkers survive a 1 on 1 with a Roach with just 20 health, despite costing almost double, and 4 Speedlings beats a Zealot any day of the week even with Zealot micro to prevent a surround. And as for Terran, Zerglings and Roaches are MORE than enough to hold off a stim MM push. Really. I'm in the unit test map right now, and 10 Speedlings + 3 Roaches is beating 5 Marines and 3 Marauders (which actually costs more) even when the Terran units stim. I'm just attack moving of course, but for the extra minerals the Terran has spent on those Marauders, the Zerg could get another 6 Lings, which would tip the balance even further in his favour. In fact, I'll try it with those extra Lings now, and micro the Terran units. Haha, not even fucking close. How anyone can say Zerg units aren't cost effective is beyond me, especially when I wasn't even doing these units tests on creep and didn't use any Spine Crawlers.
use micro.... and real army number try 15 marine with stim vs zerling marine will pwn them.... same maro pwn roach and protoss can use ff to kill z unit without many loss...
For my last test I did use micro, and the Zerg units won by a huge margin, despite actually costing 75 gas less and having no creep advantage. And as I was testing the viability of slowly producing units in the early game as opposed to hard Droning/units, I was keeping the Terran army size reasonably small. And admittedly I haven't factored Force Field into this, but Sentries themselves are pretty weak offensively and use up the gas of 2 Stalkers, meaning more Zealots, which (you can test this yourself if you don't believe me) don't even hold up to equal resources of Lings, let alone Roaches.
As the numbers increase, terran and protoss cost effectiveness increases drastically compared to zerg, basically because of range.
Which means that in the early game when unit numbers are small, Zerg units are more cost effective and if anything should mean that defending is easier.
Yeah if all you care about is defending it's easy as fucking pie, but you will be economically behind after a few minutes.
Literally all terran has to do is see zerg's early army, hide behind his wall and ignore it, and he is now soaring ahead economically.
On January 21 2011 06:00 branflakes14 wrote: What would happen if instead of either Droning hard or producing units hard, a Zerg player produced Drones from their Larva at the same rate a Terran/Protoss produces workers, and used the other Larva to produce units over time? Would the Zerg be more prepared for pushes while still having a similar economy to their opponent, even on one base?
Zerg would lose, because Zerg units are not cost effective.
Stalkers survive a 1 on 1 with a Roach with just 20 health, despite costing almost double, and 4 Speedlings beats a Zealot any day of the week even with Zealot micro to prevent a surround. And as for Terran, Zerglings and Roaches are MORE than enough to hold off a stim MM push. Really. I'm in the unit test map right now, and 10 Speedlings + 3 Roaches is beating 5 Marines and 3 Marauders (which actually costs more) even when the Terran units stim. I'm just attack moving of course, but for the extra minerals the Terran has spent on those Marauders, the Zerg could get another 6 Lings, which would tip the balance even further in his favour. In fact, I'll try it with those extra Lings now, and micro the Terran units. Haha, not even fucking close. How anyone can say Zerg units aren't cost effective is beyond me, especially when I wasn't even doing these units tests on creep and didn't use any Spine Crawlers.
use micro.... and real army number try 15 marine with stim vs zerling marine will pwn them.... same maro pwn roach and protoss can use ff to kill z unit without many loss...
For my last test I did use micro, and the Zerg units won by a huge margin, despite actually costing 75 gas less and having no creep advantage. And as I was testing the viability of slowly producing units in the early game as opposed to hard Droning/units, I was keeping the Terran army size reasonably small. And admittedly I haven't factored Force Field into this, but Sentries themselves are pretty weak offensively and use up the gas of 2 Stalkers, meaning more Zealots, which (you can test this yourself if you don't believe me) don't even hold up to equal resources of Lings, let alone Roaches.
As the numbers increase, terran and protoss cost effectiveness increases drastically compared to zerg, basically because of range.
Which means that in the early game when unit numbers are small, Zerg units are more cost effective and if anything should mean that defending is easier.
Really is that why people BLOCK THE RAMP.... omg dude....
On January 21 2011 06:00 branflakes14 wrote: What would happen if instead of either Droning hard or producing units hard, a Zerg player produced Drones from their Larva at the same rate a Terran/Protoss produces workers, and used the other Larva to produce units over time? Would the Zerg be more prepared for pushes while still having a similar economy to their opponent, even on one base?
Zerg would lose, because Zerg units are not cost effective.
Stalkers survive a 1 on 1 with a Roach with just 20 health, despite costing almost double, and 4 Speedlings beats a Zealot any day of the week even with Zealot micro to prevent a surround. And as for Terran, Zerglings and Roaches are MORE than enough to hold off a stim MM push. Really. I'm in the unit test map right now, and 10 Speedlings + 3 Roaches is beating 5 Marines and 3 Marauders (which actually costs more) even when the Terran units stim. I'm just attack moving of course, but for the extra minerals the Terran has spent on those Marauders, the Zerg could get another 6 Lings, which would tip the balance even further in his favour. In fact, I'll try it with those extra Lings now, and micro the Terran units. Haha, not even fucking close. How anyone can say Zerg units aren't cost effective is beyond me, especially when I wasn't even doing these units tests on creep and didn't use any Spine Crawlers.
use micro.... and real army number try 15 marine with stim vs zerling marine will pwn them.... same maro pwn roach and protoss can use ff to kill z unit without many loss...
For my last test I did use micro, and the Zerg units won by a huge margin, despite actually costing 75 gas less and having no creep advantage. And as I was testing the viability of slowly producing units in the early game as opposed to hard Droning/units, I was keeping the Terran army size reasonably small. And admittedly I haven't factored Force Field into this, but Sentries themselves are pretty weak offensively and use up the gas of 2 Stalkers, meaning more Zealots, which (you can test this yourself if you don't believe me) don't even hold up to equal resources of Lings, let alone Roaches.
As the numbers increase, terran and protoss cost effectiveness increases drastically compared to zerg, basically because of range.
Which means that in the early game when unit numbers are small, Zerg units are more cost effective and if anything should mean that defending is easier.
Really is that why people BLOCK THE RAMP.... omg dude....
Keep your units at the bottom of your ramp and target the Sentries.
On January 21 2011 01:28 okrane wrote: My take on the matter is not that Terran is imbalanced. Its just that the ZvT and PvT match-ups contain fucked up circumstances in the early game which can lead to auto-wins for Terrans also while being completely safe the whole time.
This means, when facing Terran the Protoss and Zerg will always have an x% chance of a stupid loss and (100-x)% chance of a balanced match-up.These are factored by:
1) Maps. * Cliff Drops * Short Rush Distance * Large Ramps (for P) * Non Scouted All-Ins
2) Timings For Zergs: * Bunker Rushes * 2rax Marine For Protoss: * Missed ForceFields * Stim Timing Pushes * Banshees with cloak against non-robo * some Raven Timings.
If not for these things the match-ups go pretty much well. The imbalance we're seing is simply the fact that playing Terran equals to auto-wins in some situations, which in high ranked play can occur quite often.
If you want to verify my hypothesys just check all PvT and ZvTs in the GSL and count the number of retarded wins Terrans got and cross reference them with the number of retarded wins of P and Z vs T.
You will see that Terran early game is completely safe from most crap all while having small opportunities for easy wins.
Mostly true. There are some build order losses for Terran, but it's much more rare. They definitely have the safest early game. And since they are such a huge bitch to scout... that compounds the problem. And the fact that they can hide a fast expand is sort of nuts.
On January 21 2011 06:00 branflakes14 wrote: What would happen if instead of either Droning hard or producing units hard, a Zerg player produced Drones from their Larva at the same rate a Terran/Protoss produces workers, and used the other Larva to produce units over time? Would the Zerg be more prepared for pushes while still having a similar economy to their opponent, even on one base?
Zerg would lose, because Zerg units are not cost effective.
Stalkers survive a 1 on 1 with a Roach with just 20 health, despite costing almost double, and 4 Speedlings beats a Zealot any day of the week even with Zealot micro to prevent a surround. And as for Terran, Zerglings and Roaches are MORE than enough to hold off a stim MM push. Really. I'm in the unit test map right now, and 10 Speedlings + 3 Roaches is beating 5 Marines and 3 Marauders (which actually costs more) even when the Terran units stim. I'm just attack moving of course, but for the extra minerals the Terran has spent on those Marauders, the Zerg could get another 6 Lings, which would tip the balance even further in his favour. In fact, I'll try it with those extra Lings now, and micro the Terran units. Haha, not even fucking close. How anyone can say Zerg units aren't cost effective is beyond me, especially when I wasn't even doing these units tests on creep and didn't use any Spine Crawlers.
use micro.... and real army number try 15 marine with stim vs zerling marine will pwn them.... same maro pwn roach and protoss can use ff to kill z unit without many loss...
For my last test I did use micro, and the Zerg units won by a huge margin, despite actually costing 75 gas less and having no creep advantage. And as I was testing the viability of slowly producing units in the early game as opposed to hard Droning/units, I was keeping the Terran army size reasonably small. And admittedly I haven't factored Force Field into this, but Sentries themselves are pretty weak offensively and use up the gas of 2 Stalkers, meaning more Zealots, which (you can test this yourself if you don't believe me) don't even hold up to equal resources of Lings, let alone Roaches.
As the numbers increase, terran and protoss cost effectiveness increases drastically compared to zerg, basically because of range.
Which means that in the early game when unit numbers are small, Zerg units are more cost effective and if anything should mean that defending is easier.
Really is that why people BLOCK THE RAMP.... omg dude....
Keep your units at the bottom of your ramp and target the Sentries.
lol that's a great way to get your lings shredded by zealots...or are these sentries not being controlled by a competent player?
Seriously? this discussion has been discussed like 1000 times if i recall it right? If there is many zergs playing you will say the same thing, just give it a break and let the game evolve
Terran does require less skill? im zerg and to me its much more comfortable to have all my larva in 1 simple button instead of having to create multiple barracks/factories and create from all them at the same time. Same goes to protoss, al gateways in 1 button, shift spam, you get your army.
On January 21 2011 05:51 AlBundy wrote: About Zerg I think that the standard builds (14 hatch, 14 pool, 14 hatch/15 pool, you name it) are getting a bit old and that's why Terran feel so comfortable early game. I think there is definitely a balance between the 1-base all-in builds and the 14/15 hatch builds. I don't see any reason why Zerg couldn't come up with BOs that allows pressure, expanding, mid-game transitions etc.
please for the love of god mister AlBundy, go out on ladder, play zerg, evolve a build or strategy that allows you to put pressure (as in serious pressure (that directly wins you games at least 10 % of the time on equal skill)) in the early game on a non-zerg opponent while having an equal or greater economy than said opponent at all times during the game, while being flexible enough to instantly defend any all-in or cheese.
when you have done this, please, tell me about it! because I have given up hope on an aggressive non all-in for zerg.
as a matter of fact, Listen up TL community! all zerg players out there! I give you a challenge! evolve a build or strategy that satisfies the above conditions, and make a thread about it! and if you find that this is impossible, make a thread detailing (down to everything) exactly why you can state that that is true by only using valid facts that can be measured or known! (ex: timings, build times, training times, larvae spawn etc.)
Catz is known for doing the same thing all the time... so much so that a lot of P will go with specific BOs to counter this when they play against him...
Zerg can be aggressive in the early game... just not vs T...
I am still mulling over things and may have a working aggressive opener vs T soon enough, but my play time is limited during the week.
On January 21 2011 06:00 branflakes14 wrote: What would happen if instead of either Droning hard or producing units hard, a Zerg player produced Drones from their Larva at the same rate a Terran/Protoss produces workers, and used the other Larva to produce units over time? Would the Zerg be more prepared for pushes while still having a similar economy to their opponent, even on one base?
Zerg would lose, because Zerg units are not cost effective.
Stalkers survive a 1 on 1 with a Roach with just 20 health, despite costing almost double, and 4 Speedlings beats a Zealot any day of the week even with Zealot micro to prevent a surround. And as for Terran, Zerglings and Roaches are MORE than enough to hold off a stim MM push. Really. I'm in the unit test map right now, and 10 Speedlings + 3 Roaches is beating 5 Marines and 3 Marauders (which actually costs more) even when the Terran units stim. I'm just attack moving of course, but for the extra minerals the Terran has spent on those Marauders, the Zerg could get another 6 Lings, which would tip the balance even further in his favour. In fact, I'll try it with those extra Lings now, and micro the Terran units. Haha, not even fucking close. How anyone can say Zerg units aren't cost effective is beyond me, especially when I wasn't even doing these units tests on creep and didn't use any Spine Crawlers.
use micro.... and real army number try 15 marine with stim vs zerling marine will pwn them.... same maro pwn roach and protoss can use ff to kill z unit without many loss...
For my last test I did use micro, and the Zerg units won by a huge margin, despite actually costing 75 gas less and having no creep advantage. And as I was testing the viability of slowly producing units in the early game as opposed to hard Droning/units, I was keeping the Terran army size reasonably small. And admittedly I haven't factored Force Field into this, but Sentries themselves are pretty weak offensively and use up the gas of 2 Stalkers, meaning more Zealots, which (you can test this yourself if you don't believe me) don't even hold up to equal resources of Lings, let alone Roaches.
As the numbers increase, terran and protoss cost effectiveness increases drastically compared to zerg, basically because of range.
Which means that in the early game when unit numbers are small, Zerg units are more cost effective and if anything should mean that defending is easier.
Really is that why people BLOCK THE RAMP.... omg dude....
Keep your units at the bottom of your ramp and target the Sentries.
lol that's a great way to get your lings shredded by zealots...or are these sentries not being controlled by a competent player?
Go into the unit test map, make 4 Speedling, attack move them into a Zealot, micro the Zealot as much as you like to prevent a surround. The Zealot will lose every time by a huge margin.
They had super harvesters that can be thrown down multiple times.
They had static anti air with splash damage with a high rate of fire that builds incredible fast.....that has an upgrade.
They had a protective shell for their units that they can get an instant refund for at any given time....that has an upgrade.
They had a supertank for an expansion that can be repaired.
They had a unit that had the longest range in the game that dealt massive amounts of splash damage that also has the smartest AI in the game which gave it zero overkill.
They had an early game harassing mineral costing only unit that had splash damage with no risk and high reward.
They had a flying dropship medic.
They they could tech to multiple paths off one base.
They could scout by just clicking a spot and viewing instantly what is at the location....AT THE COST OF A PRECIOUS MULE HOW WILL I EVER 6 RAX??!?! NOOOOOOO
Hm...wait they have all of those don't they?
Given you could do the same thing for Toss and Zerg, but the list of stupid things they have would be so much less, and it would be obvious if you tried to force some of the stuff.
Edit- Maybe not Zerg, lolol.
Zerg would be op if...
List funny exaggerations of their economic advantage, extreme mobility, and superior macro production in the late game. Oh, and maphack with creep tumors. Make sure these advantages sound as absurdly op as possible. Perhaps compare the baneling to a moving suicidal siege tank, or the mutalisk to being a flying hellion that can outrun almost every anti-air unit in the game.
The list of stupid things would be really easy to make.
On January 21 2011 03:40 hAxel wrote: Terran Success in GSL so far is 0%
Made my day.
Runner up in every gsl and the majority of the top 8s being heavily terran not good enough?
I'm sure those ro8 players would have preferred first place and 87k.
Of course unless you play Zerg you don't deserve to ever win a game.
Why is this thread still open :S
You can act all defensive about your race and stuff, but you have to realize that this problem can possibly destroy sc2 as an esport. GSL is not the only tournament with this problem. Spectators dont want to see terran games all the time.
Zerg would lose, because Zerg units are not cost effective.
Stalkers survive a 1 on 1 with a Roach with just 20 health, despite costing almost double, and 4 Speedlings beats a Zealot any day of the week even with Zealot micro to prevent a surround. And as for Terran, Zerglings and Roaches are MORE than enough to hold off a stim MM push. Really. I'm in the unit test map right now, and 10 Speedlings + 3 Roaches is beating 5 Marines and 3 Marauders (which actually costs more) even when the Terran units stim. I'm just attack moving of course, but for the extra minerals the Terran has spent on those Marauders, the Zerg could get another 6 Lings, which would tip the balance even further in his favour. In fact, I'll try it with those extra Lings now, and micro the Terran units. Haha, not even fucking close. How anyone can say Zerg units aren't cost effective is beyond me, especially when I wasn't even doing these units tests on creep and didn't use any Spine Crawlers.
use micro.... and real army number try 15 marine with stim vs zerling marine will pwn them.... same maro pwn roach and protoss can use ff to kill z unit without many loss...
For my last test I did use micro, and the Zerg units won by a huge margin, despite actually costing 75 gas less and having no creep advantage. And as I was testing the viability of slowly producing units in the early game as opposed to hard Droning/units, I was keeping the Terran army size reasonably small. And admittedly I haven't factored Force Field into this, but Sentries themselves are pretty weak offensively and use up the gas of 2 Stalkers, meaning more Zealots, which (you can test this yourself if you don't believe me) don't even hold up to equal resources of Lings, let alone Roaches.
As the numbers increase, terran and protoss cost effectiveness increases drastically compared to zerg, basically because of range.
Which means that in the early game when unit numbers are small, Zerg units are more cost effective and if anything should mean that defending is easier.
Really is that why people BLOCK THE RAMP.... omg dude....
Keep your units at the bottom of your ramp and target the Sentries.
lol that's a great way to get your lings shredded by zealots...or are these sentries not being controlled by a competent player?
Go into the unit test map, make 4 Speedling, attack move them into a Zealot, micro the Zealot as much as you like to prevent a surround. The Zealot will lose every time by a huge margin.
Omg dude, 4 speedling into one zealot means nothing, and if you try to micro melee vs. melee with a slower unit it only lets the lings get free hits lol
I don't need the freaking unit tester, I've actually killed one zealot with 3 lings before, believe it or not. If you micro the lings really good, none will even die! Now I'll just go mass ling vs mass zealot lol
er, no offense u guys but zealots are so good vs lings that u literally get them to counter lings. just because 4 lings beat 1 zealot doesnt make that not true. 2 zerglings beat 1 marine too zerglings obv the better unit am i right?
On January 21 2011 06:17 branflakes14 wrote: [quote]
Stalkers survive a 1 on 1 with a Roach with just 20 health, despite costing almost double, and 4 Speedlings beats a Zealot any day of the week even with Zealot micro to prevent a surround. And as for Terran, Zerglings and Roaches are MORE than enough to hold off a stim MM push. Really. I'm in the unit test map right now, and 10 Speedlings + 3 Roaches is beating 5 Marines and 3 Marauders (which actually costs more) even when the Terran units stim. I'm just attack moving of course, but for the extra minerals the Terran has spent on those Marauders, the Zerg could get another 6 Lings, which would tip the balance even further in his favour. In fact, I'll try it with those extra Lings now, and micro the Terran units. Haha, not even fucking close. How anyone can say Zerg units aren't cost effective is beyond me, especially when I wasn't even doing these units tests on creep and didn't use any Spine Crawlers.
use micro.... and real army number try 15 marine with stim vs zerling marine will pwn them.... same maro pwn roach and protoss can use ff to kill z unit without many loss...
For my last test I did use micro, and the Zerg units won by a huge margin, despite actually costing 75 gas less and having no creep advantage. And as I was testing the viability of slowly producing units in the early game as opposed to hard Droning/units, I was keeping the Terran army size reasonably small. And admittedly I haven't factored Force Field into this, but Sentries themselves are pretty weak offensively and use up the gas of 2 Stalkers, meaning more Zealots, which (you can test this yourself if you don't believe me) don't even hold up to equal resources of Lings, let alone Roaches.
As the numbers increase, terran and protoss cost effectiveness increases drastically compared to zerg, basically because of range.
Which means that in the early game when unit numbers are small, Zerg units are more cost effective and if anything should mean that defending is easier.
Really is that why people BLOCK THE RAMP.... omg dude....
Keep your units at the bottom of your ramp and target the Sentries.
lol that's a great way to get your lings shredded by zealots...or are these sentries not being controlled by a competent player?
Go into the unit test map, make 4 Speedling, attack move them into a Zealot, micro the Zealot as much as you like to prevent a surround. The Zealot will lose every time by a huge margin.
Omg dude, 4 speedling into one zealot means nothing, and if you try to micro melee vs. melee with a slower unit it only lets the lings get free hits lol
I don't need the freaking unit tester, I've actually killed one zealot with 3 lings before, believe it or not. If you micro the lings really good, none will even die! Now I'll just go mass ling vs mass zealot lol
Why mention mass units when I was talking about defending in the early game? You aren't even trying to refute the point.
Terran was the main race played during the campaign, so a lot of the new players drifted in that direction. Also, I think before the "IMBA Wars" broke out, a lot of players actually spent time trying to figure out how to play with what they had. I wasn't in the beta personally, but even with any complaining, players appeared to take solace in the fact this was a beta so things could change relatively quickly. So more focus was on developing what you had before jumping to "IMBA".
The game certainly has errors and issues that need to be addressed at a fundamental level by Blizzard. But overall I think a major contributing factor has been the echo chamber approach to Starcraft 2. If a pro hints at a potential IMBA from his experience in 6-10 hour a day practice sessions against top players, everyone from Bronze to Master echos that sentiment with barely a fraction of personal experience to back it up.
Think what the state of the game could be if players directed all this energy and motivation from hammering on Blizzards door about issues and imbalances, and instead put it towards developing ways around issues with the tools at hand. I think we would have a much high quality competitive platform for the community stand on, who if they did declare IMBA, may be taken more seriously by the powers that be instead of each race calling IMBA on every little thing from the pixel placement to box art.
Zerg would lose, because Zerg units are not cost effective.
Stalkers survive a 1 on 1 with a Roach with just 20 health, despite costing almost double, and 4 Speedlings beats a Zealot any day of the week even with Zealot micro to prevent a surround. And as for Terran, Zerglings and Roaches are MORE than enough to hold off a stim MM push. Really. I'm in the unit test map right now, and 10 Speedlings + 3 Roaches is beating 5 Marines and 3 Marauders (which actually costs more) even when the Terran units stim. I'm just attack moving of course, but for the extra minerals the Terran has spent on those Marauders, the Zerg could get another 6 Lings, which would tip the balance even further in his favour. In fact, I'll try it with those extra Lings now, and micro the Terran units. Haha, not even fucking close. How anyone can say Zerg units aren't cost effective is beyond me, especially when I wasn't even doing these units tests on creep and didn't use any Spine Crawlers.
use micro.... and real army number try 15 marine with stim vs zerling marine will pwn them.... same maro pwn roach and protoss can use ff to kill z unit without many loss...
For my last test I did use micro, and the Zerg units won by a huge margin, despite actually costing 75 gas less and having no creep advantage. And as I was testing the viability of slowly producing units in the early game as opposed to hard Droning/units, I was keeping the Terran army size reasonably small. And admittedly I haven't factored Force Field into this, but Sentries themselves are pretty weak offensively and use up the gas of 2 Stalkers, meaning more Zealots, which (you can test this yourself if you don't believe me) don't even hold up to equal resources of Lings, let alone Roaches.
As the numbers increase, terran and protoss cost effectiveness increases drastically compared to zerg, basically because of range.
Which means that in the early game when unit numbers are small, Zerg units are more cost effective and if anything should mean that defending is easier.
Really is that why people BLOCK THE RAMP.... omg dude....
Keep your units at the bottom of your ramp and target the Sentries.
lol that's a great way to get your lings shredded by zealots...or are these sentries not being controlled by a competent player?
Go into the unit test map, make 4 Speedling, attack move them into a Zealot, micro the Zealot as much as you like to prevent a surround. The Zealot will lose every time by a huge margin.
Put the Zealot in between a pylon and gateway on Hold Position.
Damn I'm winning challenges left and right today...
On January 21 2011 06:34 Demarini wrote: Terran would be OP if:
They had flying early game DTs.
They had super harvesters that can be thrown down multiple times.
They had static anti air with splash damage with a high rate of fire that builds incredible fast.....that has an upgrade.
They had a protective shell for their units that they can get an instant refund for at any given time....that has an upgrade.
They had a supertank for an expansion that can be repaired.
They had a unit that had the longest range in the game that dealt massive amounts of splash damage that also has the smartest AI in the game which gave it zero overkill.
They had an early game harassing mineral costing only unit that had splash damage with no risk and high reward.
They had a flying dropship medic.
They they could tech to multiple paths off one base.
They could scout by just clicking a spot and viewing instantly what is at the location....AT THE COST OF A PRECIOUS MULE HOW WILL I EVER 6 RAX??!?! NOOOOOOO
Hm...wait they have all of those don't they?
Given you could do the same thing for Toss and Zerg, but the list of stupid things they have would be so much less, and it would be obvious if you tried to force some of the stuff.
Edit- Maybe not Zerg, lolol.
hahahah thats a win sir
Protoss would be overpowered if:
They had an insta-cloaked unit that one shotted drones without any upgrades
They had an insta-cloaked detection unit that could move and have a speed upgrade that was also ridiculously cheap
They had an ability that made things build faster; allowing more probe production, faster unit production, quicker warp gate cooldown etc (don't get mad just because you don't have the macro to use it all game)
They had static air defence that also shot ground units with a pretty decent rate of fire; so when they wish to turtle against air AND ground they only have to build one defensive structure
If they had shields that just regenerated making their units invulnerable
They have units that can: Pick up ground units, blink, charge, mass recall, cloak.. i could do this all day..
The point is each race has it's own attributes that contribute to the nature of that race.. Warpgate technology should be considered the single most imba thing in this game - but it's not because it is the benefit of playing Protoss.. I really don't want to have to debate with you about "omg Terran so imba" because that would just result in more balance whine from you.. I find it funny when i look at the option of the polls and the amount of people voting for the first option; kind of sad really.. the game will develop, people will discover optimal timings, unit composition and build orders and all this balance bullshit will be a thing of the past..
But until then if it helps you sleep at night.. terran is OP man :/
edit: quoted wrong post lol it was in reference to the one before..
They had super harvesters that can be thrown down multiple times.
They had static anti air with splash damage with a high rate of fire that builds incredible fast.....that has an upgrade.
They had a protective shell for their units that they can get an instant refund for at any given time....that has an upgrade.
They had a supertank for an expansion that can be repaired.
They had a unit that had the longest range in the game that dealt massive amounts of splash damage that also has the smartest AI in the game which gave it zero overkill.
They had an early game harassing mineral costing only unit that had splash damage with no risk and high reward.
They had a flying dropship medic.
They they could tech to multiple paths off one base.
They could scout by just clicking a spot and viewing instantly what is at the location....AT THE COST OF A PRECIOUS MULE HOW WILL I EVER 6 RAX??!?! NOOOOOOO
Hm...wait they have all of those don't they?
Given you could do the same thing for Toss and Zerg, but the list of stupid things they have would be so much less, and it would be obvious if you tried to force some of the stuff.
Edit- Maybe not Zerg, lolol.
Zerg would be op if...
List funny exaggerations of their economic advantage, extreme mobility, and superior macro production in the late game. Oh, and maphack with creep tumors. Make sure these advantages sound as absurdly op as possible. Perhaps compare the baneling to a moving suicidal siege tank, or the mutalisk to being a flying hellion that can outrun almost every anti-air unit in the game.
The list of stupid things would be really easy to make.
Protoss would be op if...
List funny exaggerations of their ability to produce buildings without giving up mining time / sacrificing drones, ability to dump both minerals and gas through warpgates, and instant warp-ins at any pylon (OR DROPSHIP) regardless of prod fac location of tier 1-2 units, resulting in never-ending pushes. Oh, and maphack with (now cheaper!) observers. Make sure these advantages sound as obsurdly op as possible. Perhaps compare the photon cannon to a faster-healing spine crawler spore crawler gestalt, or the dark templar to a permanently cloaked banshee that one-shots every worker in the game.
The list of stupid things would be really easy to make with any race.
-----
I think the ladder maps, as they stand, are fairly unbalanced, some of them pretty strongly in favor of a very specific style of 1-2 base all-in play. The cliffs available on LT and Delta Quad are ridiculous, and Steppes is just BAD and needs to go away.
On January 21 2011 06:17 branflakes14 wrote: [quote]
Stalkers survive a 1 on 1 with a Roach with just 20 health, despite costing almost double, and 4 Speedlings beats a Zealot any day of the week even with Zealot micro to prevent a surround. And as for Terran, Zerglings and Roaches are MORE than enough to hold off a stim MM push. Really. I'm in the unit test map right now, and 10 Speedlings + 3 Roaches is beating 5 Marines and 3 Marauders (which actually costs more) even when the Terran units stim. I'm just attack moving of course, but for the extra minerals the Terran has spent on those Marauders, the Zerg could get another 6 Lings, which would tip the balance even further in his favour. In fact, I'll try it with those extra Lings now, and micro the Terran units. Haha, not even fucking close. How anyone can say Zerg units aren't cost effective is beyond me, especially when I wasn't even doing these units tests on creep and didn't use any Spine Crawlers.
use micro.... and real army number try 15 marine with stim vs zerling marine will pwn them.... same maro pwn roach and protoss can use ff to kill z unit without many loss...
For my last test I did use micro, and the Zerg units won by a huge margin, despite actually costing 75 gas less and having no creep advantage. And as I was testing the viability of slowly producing units in the early game as opposed to hard Droning/units, I was keeping the Terran army size reasonably small. And admittedly I haven't factored Force Field into this, but Sentries themselves are pretty weak offensively and use up the gas of 2 Stalkers, meaning more Zealots, which (you can test this yourself if you don't believe me) don't even hold up to equal resources of Lings, let alone Roaches.
As the numbers increase, terran and protoss cost effectiveness increases drastically compared to zerg, basically because of range.
Which means that in the early game when unit numbers are small, Zerg units are more cost effective and if anything should mean that defending is easier.
Really is that why people BLOCK THE RAMP.... omg dude....
Keep your units at the bottom of your ramp and target the Sentries.
lol that's a great way to get your lings shredded by zealots...or are these sentries not being controlled by a competent player?
Go into the unit test map, make 4 Speedling, attack move them into a Zealot, micro the Zealot as much as you like to prevent a surround. The Zealot will lose every time by a huge margin.
Put the Zealot in between a pylon and gateway on Hold Position.
Damn I'm winning challenges left and right today...
I dunno, a Pylon and a Gateway is a big investment when you're trying to attack a Zerg base.
use micro.... and real army number try 15 marine with stim vs zerling marine will pwn them.... same maro pwn roach and protoss can use ff to kill z unit without many loss...
For my last test I did use micro, and the Zerg units won by a huge margin, despite actually costing 75 gas less and having no creep advantage. And as I was testing the viability of slowly producing units in the early game as opposed to hard Droning/units, I was keeping the Terran army size reasonably small. And admittedly I haven't factored Force Field into this, but Sentries themselves are pretty weak offensively and use up the gas of 2 Stalkers, meaning more Zealots, which (you can test this yourself if you don't believe me) don't even hold up to equal resources of Lings, let alone Roaches.
As the numbers increase, terran and protoss cost effectiveness increases drastically compared to zerg, basically because of range.
Which means that in the early game when unit numbers are small, Zerg units are more cost effective and if anything should mean that defending is easier.
Really is that why people BLOCK THE RAMP.... omg dude....
Keep your units at the bottom of your ramp and target the Sentries.
lol that's a great way to get your lings shredded by zealots...or are these sentries not being controlled by a competent player?
Go into the unit test map, make 4 Speedling, attack move them into a Zealot, micro the Zealot as much as you like to prevent a surround. The Zealot will lose every time by a huge margin.
Put the Zealot in between a pylon and gateway on Hold Position.
Damn I'm winning challenges left and right today...
I dunno, a Pylon and a Gateway is a big investment when you're trying to attack a Zerg base.
ok, smaller investment, put the zealot next to another zealot!
On January 21 2011 06:26 branflakes14 wrote: [quote]
For my last test I did use micro, and the Zerg units won by a huge margin, despite actually costing 75 gas less and having no creep advantage. And as I was testing the viability of slowly producing units in the early game as opposed to hard Droning/units, I was keeping the Terran army size reasonably small. And admittedly I haven't factored Force Field into this, but Sentries themselves are pretty weak offensively and use up the gas of 2 Stalkers, meaning more Zealots, which (you can test this yourself if you don't believe me) don't even hold up to equal resources of Lings, let alone Roaches.
As the numbers increase, terran and protoss cost effectiveness increases drastically compared to zerg, basically because of range.
Which means that in the early game when unit numbers are small, Zerg units are more cost effective and if anything should mean that defending is easier.
Really is that why people BLOCK THE RAMP.... omg dude....
Keep your units at the bottom of your ramp and target the Sentries.
lol that's a great way to get your lings shredded by zealots...or are these sentries not being controlled by a competent player?
Go into the unit test map, make 4 Speedling, attack move them into a Zealot, micro the Zealot as much as you like to prevent a surround. The Zealot will lose every time by a huge margin.
Put the Zealot in between a pylon and gateway on Hold Position.
Damn I'm winning challenges left and right today...
I dunno, a Pylon and a Gateway is a big investment when you're trying to attack a Zerg base.
ok, smaller investment, put the zealot next to another zealot!
Nah bro that would require too much micro you know how zealots automatically spread 10 feet from each other so they can all be surrounded by lings plus protoss doesn't have any spells to create choke points on the fly so they're pretty much fucked.
On January 21 2011 06:32 Treemonkeys wrote: [quote]
As the numbers increase, terran and protoss cost effectiveness increases drastically compared to zerg, basically because of range.
Which means that in the early game when unit numbers are small, Zerg units are more cost effective and if anything should mean that defending is easier.
Really is that why people BLOCK THE RAMP.... omg dude....
Keep your units at the bottom of your ramp and target the Sentries.
lol that's a great way to get your lings shredded by zealots...or are these sentries not being controlled by a competent player?
Go into the unit test map, make 4 Speedling, attack move them into a Zealot, micro the Zealot as much as you like to prevent a surround. The Zealot will lose every time by a huge margin.
Put the Zealot in between a pylon and gateway on Hold Position.
Damn I'm winning challenges left and right today...
I dunno, a Pylon and a Gateway is a big investment when you're trying to attack a Zerg base.
ok, smaller investment, put the zealot next to another zealot!
Nah bro that would require too much micro you know how zealots automatically spread 10 feet from each other so they can all be surrounded by lings plus protoss doesn't have any spells to create choke points on the fly so they're pretty much fucked.
You're right, Zerg is horribly underpowered, has no way of defending an early push, and should instantly be buffed. ((
terran does not have to tech up to a/an air attacking unit, so why not mass these cheap little units, get some upgrades, and have a beer before battle. I find terran just overplayed, extremely overplayed... Macro Zerg > terran micro protoss > terran , otherwise terran rolls over anything else, for any rush you just get a bunker and call it a day...
Can a zerg player do that for their race, and then we could just sticky all 3 race lists at the top of the forums and not have these threads keep popping up, maybe?
On January 21 2011 02:22 tapk69 wrote: I would like to see these guys who says MKP sucks play with terran with just marines , i really would ..
A-MOVE , click , A-MOVE? is that so ? wow youre are good , so you haven,t seen MKP send 1 marine ahead stimmed , then split the marines 4 times and do that again over and over when a simple misclick killed all his forces? you havent seen this while doing scvs , expanding , teching ?
so a guy who does everything right all games suck?
You all say Jinro is so good , yes he is good , yes i do love to see him play , have you seen him do marine spliting 30x a game? No ... because he could lose the whole game with bad clicks.. but MKP doesnt care he just entertains us ..
At least for meMarineKing is awesome... AWESOME, I do not doubt it. I don't want marines nerfed just because he is so fun to watch. But honestly, Terran has way too many little advantages that end up added up to Terran dominating the top spots at GSL over and over and over.
The bigger things are: 1. Great defense early game against most stuff. 2. Can adjust any early build to handle anything the other guy is doing if T scouts it. Which tends to make Z and P try more macro. Which tends to allow an all-in for T to be more successful. 3. Less risk all over. 4. High DPS units all around. Meaning little groups do big damage if Z and P doesn't have defense or perfect scouting. 5. Maps can only favor Terran, so far, that we have seen. Zerg has some big map advantages though. 6. Expansions. Can get an expansion up and running in 15 seconds due to floating base, MULES. I mean, you scout the gold, die to a marine. One minute later you scout again and you see Terran has been mining the crap out of it and you are now behind and may lose. 7. Expansions. Can float away vs a lot of things if OC. Planetaries are super hard to deal with in a CLOSE game. 8. Best harassment all game except mutas and late game high templar/dark templar in close matches.
On January 21 2011 06:26 branflakes14 wrote: [quote]
For my last test I did use micro, and the Zerg units won by a huge margin, despite actually costing 75 gas less and having no creep advantage. And as I was testing the viability of slowly producing units in the early game as opposed to hard Droning/units, I was keeping the Terran army size reasonably small. And admittedly I haven't factored Force Field into this, but Sentries themselves are pretty weak offensively and use up the gas of 2 Stalkers, meaning more Zealots, which (you can test this yourself if you don't believe me) don't even hold up to equal resources of Lings, let alone Roaches.
As the numbers increase, terran and protoss cost effectiveness increases drastically compared to zerg, basically because of range.
Which means that in the early game when unit numbers are small, Zerg units are more cost effective and if anything should mean that defending is easier.
Really is that why people BLOCK THE RAMP.... omg dude....
Keep your units at the bottom of your ramp and target the Sentries.
lol that's a great way to get your lings shredded by zealots...or are these sentries not being controlled by a competent player?
Go into the unit test map, make 4 Speedling, attack move them into a Zealot, micro the Zealot as much as you like to prevent a surround. The Zealot will lose every time by a huge margin.
Put the Zealot in between a pylon and gateway on Hold Position.
Damn I'm winning challenges left and right today...
I dunno, a Pylon and a Gateway is a big investment when you're trying to attack a Zerg base.
ok, smaller investment, put the zealot next to another zealot!
That's cuz we all know July isn't good at SC though. If he were good, he would have picked Terran... Scrub B-teamer IMO
Umm... top Zerg and Protoss have always been getting eliminated by lesser Terrans since GSL 1...
So the exact situation you've described is already happening, can we call imba now?
I suppose you just hate terran (as you said in your original post on this forum) - i guess we all need excuses in life.. even after multiple patches..
On January 21 2011 06:49 Torpedo.Vegas wrote: Think what the state of the game could be if players directed all this energy and motivation from hammering on Blizzards door about issues and imbalances, and instead put it towards developing ways around issues with the tools at hand. I think we would have a much high quality competitive platform for the community stand on, who if they did declare IMBA, may be taken more seriously by the powers that be instead of each race calling IMBA on every little thing from the pixel placement to box art.
I think JP addressed this in SotG #22 or 23. Thing is, Blizzard actually got immensely connected to the community, listened to people's complains, tinkered the balance (yea I know they're lagging behind on the maps situation, but noone has a definitive answer to yet, so why exactly should they?) and overall did a pretty good job - it's just that people feel they got involved, they are asked to speak aloud and that's where all the QQing is coming from. If Blizzard just didn't care about people's opinions, the game development would be drastically lagging behind; but on the other hand, all the whiners wouldn't have anyone to whine to. There's always two sides to a coin. And that's what we see here. But I guess I'd rather have it like this than the other way around.
To me, Terran have no particular weaknesses. Protoss units are delicate, and Zerg larvae system is doble-edged. Also, Terran have more variety of stuff to do. Either they are OP or Z and P need to play better or different.
On January 21 2011 02:41 Sm3agol wrote: I'm spending way too much time at work thinking about T, and I think I realize why T is 'op", and it really isn't unit based, map-based, etc. It's mechanics and ability based.
Basically it comes down to the fact that a T is NEVER out of the game. The T has such useful units and abilities that if a t makes a huge mistake and loses most of his army, and, say, and expo, then yes he is behind. But because of the extremely high skill ceiling and usefulness of most of the T units, a simple mistake on the part of his opponent like misjudging the proximity and number of a siege tank line can put the T right back into the game. A T can screw up and lose 50% of his economy and 90% of his army. BA T has abilities that while completely counterable, can put them back into a "lost" game with little to no additional risk to themselves.
Also, NO bo that isn't ridiculous isn't viable into midgame. No Terran bo is all-in. Not even proxy faking 2 rax is all-in. A 2 rax 10 scv pull is not all in. A cloak banshee rush is a standard Terran bo that can 100% destroy many P/Z bos, and yet not only does it only barely put T behind, but it can end the game RIGHT THERE. That is completely, 100%, totally farked up. Yes it's easily counterable, but the mere fact it exists is complete bs. If you go for a cheesy build that can gg your opponent just on bo, then it should incur huge risks for you to do it.
You can literally lose your entire army as a T, and as long as you have a couple bunkers up, 400 minerals(2 MULEs) worth of marines, 2 siege tanks, and 4 repairing scvs, you can hold off anything short of basically an all-in push by your opponent. And this turtling abilty won't win you games outright, but it just gives your opponent that many more chances to make a mistake that puts the t right back into the game.
Marines. Tanks. Quick, name one scenario where the T sees "X", then should just basically gg and quit, because he knows he is done, short of mass unit "y". Exactly. Marines, tanks, and scan can hold ANYTHING off.
You obviously never played Terran, and haven't made it out of Plat yet. So lets move on to your quotes, and how they make no sense.
"But a very low risk, high reward harass like an 8 marine drop when the enemy is out of position can completely swing the game back to even. And no other race has the same ability." Looks like somebody has never heard of a warp prism, or a proxy pylon. Also you know those annoying things called Mutalisks? get 12 of those and u can cause havoc for a Terran player who doesnt have a Thor or more than 3 Turrets in his main. So there's one point where you're wrong. Lets move onto the 2nd.
"A cloak banshee rush is a standard Terran bo that can 100% destroy many P/Z bos, and yet not only does it only barely put T behind, but it can end the game RIGHT THERE." Ok once again my friend you are wrong. Any HIGH level Diamond player or Master League player can easily prepare for Banshee. Honestly I don't remember when I HAVEN'T played a P or Z who wasnt nearly prepared or already prepared for possible Banshee. Also once that fails that leaves u with what? MAYBE 2 barracks, and ur natural just completing.. while P or Z already has their 3 gates, or Zerg double injecting larva and making a rofflestomp army. Terran is behind MORE than just a little bit if Banshee fails. Next to good ol' quote number 3.
"You can literally lose your entire army as a T, and as long as you have a couple bunkers up, 400 minerals(2 MULEs) worth of marines, 2 siege tanks, and 4 repairing scvs, you can hold off anything short of basically an all-in push by your opponent. And this turtling abilty won't win you games outright, but it just gives your opponent that many more chances to make a mistake that puts the t right back into the game." I mean I honestly don't even have to say anything for this one... BUT I will. First off 95% of Terran players destroy their bunkers and use the marines before they move out for an attack. Second off after you kill your opponents entire army why are u going straight in for an attack? That is if you don't have the ROFLSTOMP army. If you kill their entire army your next move is to expand, get map control, and not sucide what units you have left.
Maybe you should start watching the Day[9] daily's and you won't sound completely wrong when you post.
Banshees are about 1000 times better than a dark temp rush if prepared against. They ONLY die if you let them since they fly and are faster than Z or P detection. They always do damage and almost always pay for themselves... if not in kills then in anti-banshee costs. Granted, it takes good control to make banshees pay for themself... not a problem in pro leagues or (you would hope) masters.
Whats more important though, is that if Terran has started down the path for cloaked banshees, he can switch his build and be OK if he decides he should. NOT possible for 95% of Z or P "risky" builds.
On January 21 2011 06:32 Treemonkeys wrote: [quote]
As the numbers increase, terran and protoss cost effectiveness increases drastically compared to zerg, basically because of range.
Which means that in the early game when unit numbers are small, Zerg units are more cost effective and if anything should mean that defending is easier.
Really is that why people BLOCK THE RAMP.... omg dude....
Keep your units at the bottom of your ramp and target the Sentries.
lol that's a great way to get your lings shredded by zealots...or are these sentries not being controlled by a competent player?
Go into the unit test map, make 4 Speedling, attack move them into a Zealot, micro the Zealot as much as you like to prevent a surround. The Zealot will lose every time by a huge margin.
Put the Zealot in between a pylon and gateway on Hold Position.
Damn I'm winning challenges left and right today...
I dunno, a Pylon and a Gateway is a big investment when you're trying to attack a Zerg base.
ok, smaller investment, put the zealot next to another zealot!
Very interesting thread. Interesting in * and in responses.
Generally any response by a terran player (denoted by their TL icon) if they respond to another post typically concedes the weaknesses of the other race or procedes to tell the other players to l2p. Quite a few extremely defensive and condescending posts. It is very interesting that there are very very few toss/zerg who are sympathetic to the terran argument.
Overall I think the Z and P present their side pretty well and there is very little in the way of a rebuttal besides Naz's lone post and a few other gems.
The best counter-arguement about the OPness of the race is thew nature of Toss and Zergs ability to completely shut down certain unit compositions by terran. Maybe once we refine the tells we'll be able to know when we can skip that robo and jump directly for templar or voidrays etc. Also, the MKP marine spam bit is not a neg. It takes great mechanical ability and strategic thought to get that much mileage.
Still I am very sympathetic to the arguement that terrans have the best options to fight themselves back to an advantage.
Bwhahaa
On January 21 2011 01:02 Liquid`Jinro wrote: Easier to play terran safely when you are the better player, as well as easier to play terran cheesily when you arent.
EDIT: My clairvoyance tells me this is going to get quoted along with a bunker rush game from not too long ago.
On January 21 2011 05:51 AlBundy wrote: About Zerg I think that the standard builds (14 hatch, 14 pool, 14 hatch/15 pool, you name it) are getting a bit old and that's why Terran feel so comfortable early game. I think there is definitely a balance between the 1-base all-in builds and the 14/15 hatch builds. I don't see any reason why Zerg couldn't come up with BOs that allows pressure, expanding, mid-game transitions etc.
please for the love of god mister AlBundy, go out on ladder, play zerg, evolve a build or strategy that allows you to put pressure (as in serious pressure (that directly wins you games at least 10 % of the time on equal skill)) in the early game on a non-zerg opponent while having an equal or greater economy than said opponent at all times during the game, while being flexible enough to instantly defend any all-in or cheese.
when you have done this, please, tell me about it! because I have given up hope on an aggressive non all-in for zerg.
as a matter of fact, Listen up TL community! all zerg players out there! I give you a challenge! evolve a build or strategy that satisfies the above conditions, and make a thread about it! and if you find that this is impossible, make a thread detailing (down to everything) exactly why you can state that that is true by only using valid facts that can be measured or known! (ex: timings, build times, training times, larvae spawn etc.)
p.s. Suddenly. Motivation.
Unfortunately I am not knowledgeable enough about Zerg so I can't really make a contribution towards Z strategy. However I don't want to fall into a hopeless state of mind; I'd say that I'm optimist, even though some people may call me stupid or naive.
On January 21 2011 05:51 AlBundy wrote: About Zerg I think that the standard builds (14 hatch, 14 pool, 14 hatch/15 pool, you name it) are getting a bit old and that's why Terran feel so comfortable early game. I think there is definitely a balance between the 1-base all-in builds and the 14/15 hatch builds. I don't see any reason why Zerg couldn't come up with BOs that allows pressure, expanding, mid-game transitions etc.
please for the love of god mister AlBundy, go out on ladder, play zerg, evolve a build or strategy that allows you to put pressure (as in serious pressure (that directly wins you games at least 10 % of the time on equal skill)) in the early game on a non-zerg opponent while having an equal or greater economy than said opponent at all times during the game, while being flexible enough to instantly defend any all-in or cheese.
when you have done this, please, tell me about it! because I have given up hope on an aggressive non all-in for zerg.
as a matter of fact, Listen up TL community! all zerg players out there! I give you a challenge! evolve a build or strategy that satisfies the above conditions, and make a thread about it! and if you find that this is impossible, make a thread detailing (down to everything) exactly why you can state that that is true by only using valid facts that can be measured or known! (ex: timings, build times, training times, larvae spawn etc.)
p.s. Suddenly. Motivation.
Unfortunately I am not knowledgeable enough about Zerg so I can't really make a contribution towards Z strategy. However I don't want to fall into a hopeless state of mind; I'd say that I'm optimist, even though some people may call me stupid or naive.
I don't see any reason why Zerg couldn't come up with BOs that allows pressure, expanding, mid-game transitions etc.
On January 21 2011 04:01 Eschaton wrote: These delightful discussions will get even more interesting than they already are when Terrans win the Code A (locked as final four are all T) and likely Code S tournaments (3 T in final four) this month.
I dont know who would think that MVP, MKP and Jinro are only in ro4 because they chose the right race. They are there because they are the best players. They have all shown how consistent they are, and they all know how to play a heavy macro game (they arent just cheesers).
Ok, i play terran, but seeing how MVP and MKP plays is just amazing, more so than watching a top level zerg or protoss play. Obviously i'm biased because i'm terran, but besides a few (MC season 3 for example) i havent seen innovative and such brilliant play from the other races. What i mean is that it's hard for me to say what the major differences are between the good zergs and the best zergs. But there is a huge difference between a player like MVP, and then a decent Terran like hyperdub or Maka.
Even if you think Terran is OP, you have to admit that players like Boxer, Nada, MVP, Jinro and MKP make Terran look easy And that they have shown us some of the most innovative, brilliant and sexy play.
I couldn't agree more about your last paragraph. Those guys have played brilliantly and I loved watching all their games! Z and P just need more options so they can compete in a fair game, beginning to end.
On January 21 2011 03:40 hAxel wrote: Terran Success in GSL so far is 0%
Made my day.
Runner up in every gsl and the majority of the top 8s being heavily terran not good enough?
I'm sure those ro8 players would have preferred first place and 87k.
Of course unless you play Zerg you don't deserve to ever win a game.
Why is this thread still open :S
You can act all defensive about your race and stuff, but you have to realize that this problem can possibly destroy sc2 as an esport. GSL is not the only tournament with this problem. Spectators dont want to see terran games all the time.
Quoting for emphasis. However you explain the Terran dominance phenomenon itself, it clearly doesn't help SC2 as an esport.
@ Cost-effectiveness of Zerg units
As a Protoss player, I'm quite terrified of Roach heavy play. The only thing that stops Protoss from straight up dying to it are Forcefields. No Protoss unit composition is really efficient at killing Roaches in a straight up battle (aside from some theoretical Immortal heavy play, which would lose to everything not-Roach however). That's why the 3 gate sentry expand is so popular in PvZ nowadays, you really need a lot of Forcefields. And if a bad engagement happens, and you lose your Sentries, you've practically lost the game right there.
Not qualified to talk about TvZ, but in PvZ a fair amount of Zerg units feel very cost-effective unless engaging in very specific circumstances (in a Forcefielded choke).
Actualy, having watched all GSL games since season 1, I think this season shows the most balanced games. Each terran win has been legit, so the stats can be abnormal but on the "field" nothing has shown imbalance, except perhaps terran vs zerg on meta close positions (and some maps like jungle bassin) GSL has done a very good job pulling out crap maps in each matchup this season. For instance, we havn't seen any TvZ on steppes (but they kept bassin on TvZ, I think they'll remove it next GSL ?) We have the 3 best players in the world in top 4 atm : MVP, MKP and Nestea. Yeah, MC isn't here but he could have, he had to win one game out of two against jinro to be in ro4, and I don't think anyone can say the 2 MC vs Jinro games have shown imbalance.
So my point again : yes, data could show imbalance, but when you have watched the actual games, you see there wasn't any imbalance involved except in 2 or 3 occurences, and those were maps imbalance.
On January 21 2011 07:42 MrCon wrote: Actualy, having watched all GSL games since season 1, I think this season shows the most balanced games. Each terran win has been legit, so the stats can be abnormal but on the "field" nothing has shown imbalance, except perhaps terran vs zerg on meta close positions (and some maps like jungle bassin) GSL has done a very good job pulling out crap maps in each matchup this season. For instance, we havn't seen any TvZ on steppes (but they kept bassin on TvZ, I think they'll remove it next GSL ?) We have the 3 best players in the world in top 4 atm : MVP, MKP and Nestea. Yeah, MC isn't here but he could have, he had to win one game out of two against jinro to be in ro4, and I don't think anyone can say the 2 MC vs Jinro games have shown imbalance.
So my point again : yes, data could show imbalance, but when you have watched the actual games, you see there wasn't any imbalance involved except in 2 or 3 occurences, and those were maps imbalance.
I wouldn't say maps because PvZ and TvZ are equally imbalanced on certain maps. You could argue on JB PvZ is more imbalanced. So saying it's the maps doesn't explain the lack of protoss.
On January 21 2011 06:34 Demarini wrote: They had flying early game DTs.
Grats on Banshees being tier 3, and you not dealing with it... like 1 cannon, comeon, or one of those cheap as dirt observers since your gonna get colossus anyway.
They had super harvesters that can be thrown down multiple times.
I wouldn't mind trading for chrono boost, man, if I had chrono boost, my proxy raxx bunker rushes would be so sexy!
They had static anti air with splash damage with a high rate of fire that builds incredible fast.....that has an upgrade.
Sounds like a thor... except thors don't build fast... maybe you mean the missile turret? nope, that doesn't have splash... hmmm... what could it be... Marines in a bunker? no, you mention that somewhere else... damn, I WANT this thing!
They had a protective shell for their units that they can get an instant refund for at any given time....that has an upgrade.
Cool for not being able to make units in 5 seconds or making a bajilion units at a time or after i lose a 200/200 army... that would be cool. But I guess I have to settle for saving my rear with a refundable shell.
They had a supertank for an expansion that can be repaired.
Too bad I can't move it... oh well. What can I say, gotta make up the immobility of Terran for something. BTW did you know that most units move faster than Terran units right? Lets face it, the only fast moving terran unit is the hellion. Just about everything (except reapers and some air untis) move at 2.25... also, most alien air units move faster than Terran units. (not included the awesome broodlord or carrier, which are awesome... and I'm jealous that your Carrier can outrun my Battlecruiser)
They had a unit that had the longest range in the game that dealt massive amounts of splash damage that also has the smartest AI in the game which gave it zero overkill.
First of all, the AI is not as perfect as you think... Second of all, the damage is not even that great, its something like 16.5 dps against armored. Cool for having long range, but being slow and cumbersome. You know what, trade you for a colossus that can cliffwalk, has long range, and deals epic splash damage.
They had an early game harassing mineral costing only unit that had splash damage with no risk and high reward.
No risk? Okay...
They had a flying dropship medic.
Now your just trolling... I wish I could mass a caster that could hold my enemies in place and prevent them from microing so my cute little suicide units can destroy their whole army... OR I wish I had a dropship that could let me build units in my enemies base in 5 seconds... But oh well. I guess my thors and hellions and tanks get to miss out on the green love beams!
They they could tech to multiple paths off one base.
Protoss has stronger 1 base play than terran... Zerg has best tech switch power of all the races thanks to larva... i'm not saying its imbalanced or anything... like seriously... its fine.
They could scout by just clicking a spot and viewing instantly what is at the location....AT THE COST OF A PRECIOUS MULE HOW WILL I EVER 6 RAX??!?! NOOOOOOO
Yea... pay 300 minerals for information... thats sooo OP man... I mean, scan is nice... but I would trade for Chrono.
Hm...wait they have all of those don't they?
Just about, except that static defense with splash damage that builds fast and hits air units... I couldn't find that one. Terran have some nice stuff eh? But i'm not gonna deny that I'm jealous of some of the cool toys you aliens get.
EPT
You give the options "terran's OP" and "terran's easy" but not "the terran players are simply better than the z and p players this season". If I made a thread about that Zerg Zerg Protoss has been the previous winners of gsl with the options:
> 
at a disadvantage? 
