EPTIt's not because I genuinely believe they are easier than others, but they complement my play style much better than the others. I have absolutely no problems larva injecting or spreading creep, and I like the ability to 'correct' minor macro slip-ups by buying slightly more expensive units with my larva.
Which race do you consider the "easiest"? - Page 12
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
SyX
Australia5 Posts
It's not because I genuinely believe they are easier than others, but they complement my play style much better than the others. I have absolutely no problems larva injecting or spreading creep, and I like the ability to 'correct' minor macro slip-ups by buying slightly more expensive units with my larva. | ||
|
maahes`ra
United States255 Posts
On May 27 2011 21:52 Rorra wrote: I'll admit I didn't consider something like that as the issue is that if you become accustomed, "being able to scout" or sacking to many overlords, or rather more particularly if you become used to over defending(and assuming you'll still come out ahead), it could really hamper your improvement, I had assumed that as well as playing a standard game, you would have the goal of improving, though I realize not everyone has this goal. The other issue is that I'd consider over-defending, if you don't have a strong economy running a fault in play as opposed to something making it easier to win as zerg. The issue with you point implying this is that you mention that as zerg, other players macro has been subpar when comparable, this kind of supports the idea that you have to have stronger fundamental skill, at least macro/mechanically w/ zerg to compete at that level, this implies that zerg is more difficult I see what you're getting at but I meant to imply that the ability to make so much of anything all at once (all from the same hotkey, too [and like terran, you don't have to stop watching a fight to do it]) allows you to come back from macro pitfalls rather easily if you survive timing attacks. The assertion of 'subpar macro' was absolute, not comparable. ;o | ||
|
Tobberoth
Sweden6375 Posts
On May 27 2011 21:57 Cosmos wrote: oO, with the bunker compared to the photon canon and the spine crawlers and the 200/200 losing to both other races, I feel that terran has the less cost effectives units and the less good defensive options. Not saying terran is weak, but your point is false. Bunker isn't comparable to a spine crawler. Not only do you lose the worker building the spine, you can't just sell it and get 75% of the minerals back. Once that spine is down, you can't change your mind when your opponent decides to play economically instead of aggressive. There is very little commitment in a bunker, but a big commitment in a spine. As for 200/200 armies, I think that discussion is moot. From a mathematical perspective a zerg 200 army is the weakest, but it means nothing when you're talking a real battle since composition, micro and engagement means everything. A mass ling army will barely put a dent in a proper marine/tank 200 army from terran, but a properly microed broodlord, infestor, roach composition will easily ruin the same army. | ||
|
IreScath
Canada521 Posts
but IMO: Zerg army: A-move, fundal, click Terran: stim, a-move, emp, click Toss: a-move, FF, click, GS, Storm, click, Feedback, click seems pretty balanced to me. | ||
|
KimJongChill
United States6429 Posts
On May 27 2011 21:57 Cosmos wrote: oO, with the bunker compared to the photon canon and the spine crawlers and the 200/200 losing to both other races, I feel that terran has the less cost effectives units and the less good defensive options. Not saying terran is weak, but your point is false. I think that thread idea is good, if you can make a long-enough poll. Marines are one of the most cost efficient, dps/mineral unit in the game, while bunkers are salvageable. I suppose the only thing lacking for terran is static defense that can attack ground, although planetary fortress can be used to much greater effect later in the game. | ||
|
Spitfire
South Africa442 Posts
Dont see how anyone can say without having experiance with all 3 races at the highest level. From my view as a Terran player, Protoss seems the most difficult because its so micro-intensive, having to use forcefields, keeping zealots in front etc. The heavy-macro style of Zerg seems far more appealing to me. A lot will say Terran is the easiest but IMO TvZ and TvT are both difficult match-ups. I know a lot of Zerg players will say differently, but TvZ is very micro-intensive for the Terran player, leap-frogging tanks and spreading marines. TvT is a frigging nightmare to play at times. I excluded TvP from this because Bio is a lot easier to play then Marine-Tank, though not as powerful and frankly somewhat boring. | ||
BroOd
Austin10833 Posts
| ||
| ||
