EPTIndividual League Results by Race - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Tiazi
Netherlands761 Posts
| ||
|
twiitar
Germany372 Posts
On August 08 2011 22:05 Fig wrote: there is absolutely NO INCENTIVE to choose a race besides terran if you are planning on playing SC2 competitively for money. That's why the people that made the most cash with SC2 progaming so far are a Protoss and a Zerg, right? These statistics are pretty silly and only fuel the Protoss complaints about "hurr game is unbalanced durr terran too strong give us back amulet or else!11!1" which were p awful to begin with. It's not like Protoss suck, it's just that Terrans have invested more time into finding the small tidbits that give you an advantage while Protoss prefer a-moving or getting bloody noses on 1-1-1 without sitting down and analyzing why they fail against it with mass stalkers and horrible positioning. | ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5212 Posts
On August 08 2011 22:16 twiitar wrote: Protoss prefer a-moving or getting bloody noses on 1-1-1 without sitting down and analyzing why they fail against it with mass stalkers and horrible positioning. This is a very ignorant and offensive thing to say. I've spent hours breaking down the 1-1-1 with no success in finding a decent counter to the hundreds of variations, and I bet that professional Protoss players have spent even longer doing the same, and yet there is still no way to effective counter it. The same arguements you presented were used by Terrans when Reapers were imbalanced, but once Blizzard nerfed them now every Terran seems to think they were imbalanced looking back. On August 08 2011 22:08 Shadrak wrote: And no, I don't play toss but I do think they are at a disadvantage right now. Not in terms of actual power but in terms of number of viable strats which has a more severe effect in competitive play. Exactly, and you know what would help a lot? Fixing Carriers and Motherships so they are viable. Stargate tech against Terran is a gimmick, because Marines effective counter Void Rays, Pheonixes and Carriers (because they kill interceptors so fast). Motherships can be useful in limited situations, but when you consider the cost of the Fleet Beacon plus the Mothership itself (since you won't be building Carriers) it is tough to justify. So basically, if you go for a Stargate against Terran it is because you're doing a cheesy 1 base Void Ray all-in or because you need to counter a mass air. I honestly can't understand why Blizzard would leave useless units in the game and cripple one of the three tech trees for a race in the game (Carriers are useless against Zerg and Protoss too). | ||
|
Fig
United States1324 Posts
On August 08 2011 22:16 twiitar wrote: That's why the people that made the most cash with SC2 progaming so far are a Protoss and a Zerg, right? These statistics are pretty silly and only fuel the Protoss complaints about "hurr game is unbalanced durr terran too strong give us back amulet or else!11!1" which were p awful to begin with. It's not like Protoss suck, it's just that Terrans have invested more time into finding the small tidbits that give you an advantage while Protoss prefer a-moving or getting bloody noses on 1-1-1 without sitting down and analyzing why they fail against it with mass stalkers and horrible positioning. There is a lot wrong with this post, but I will just say that I did mention that the GSL would be ALMOST all terran, since there are a few players from the other races that are actually just unbelievably good, like MC and Nestea, the two players that you were referring to. They have such strong mechanics that they would be winning with any race. The fact that you wrote "Terrans have invested more time" and "Protoss prefer a-moving" shows that you have no idea about the highest level of competition in SC2. | ||
|
eourcs
United States459 Posts
| ||
|
Gladiator6
Sweden7024 Posts
On August 08 2011 22:27 eourcs wrote: I really don't like these statistics because they don't really mean anything balance wise (does this includes games from 2010?) and they just fuel the OMG MY RACE SUCKS LOOK AT THE GRAPH!!!! when really, there are few Protosses that have impressed me and there have been many Terrans/Zergs that have. There really hasn't been much Terran that has impressed me much either besides Bomber, MMA, MVP and perhaps Jjaki recently.. I guess the mediocrity of terrans > protoss and zerg. | ||
|
djfoxmccloud
France185 Posts
On August 08 2011 22:16 twiitar wrote: That's why the people that made the most cash with SC2 progaming so far are a Protoss and a Zerg, right? . This is true at the very top for 2 people (mc and nestea). Do the same with top 25 earnings in each race. You can't compare individual skill to balance. | ||
|
Probe1
United States17920 Posts
Just because Korean tourneys have poor showings for Protoss does not reflect on the game as a whole, only on KTourney-Toss. I found it very misleading thinking this was a wider sample than just Korea. | ||
|
Verator
United States283 Posts
2: Korea only is a bad example, because its effectively just GSL. | ||
|
RaNgeD
United States730 Posts
| ||
|
sopas
509 Posts
| ||
|
K3Nyy
United States1961 Posts
On August 08 2011 22:16 twiitar wrote: That's why the people that made the most cash with SC2 progaming so far are a Protoss and a Zerg, right? These statistics are pretty silly and only fuel the Protoss complaints about "hurr game is unbalanced durr terran too strong give us back amulet or else!11!1" which were p awful to begin with. It's not like Protoss suck, it's just that Terrans have invested more time into finding the small tidbits that give you an advantage while Protoss prefer a-moving or getting bloody noses on 1-1-1 without sitting down and analyzing why they fail against it with mass stalkers and horrible positioning. You're kidding me right? You realize all Koreans practice very hard regardless of whatever race they play. To seriously argue that Terrans practice harder than Protoss is ridiculously retarded and extremely disrespectful to the Koreans that play Protoss. And seriously with the a-move stuff again? Nobody cares about the ladder game you lost in the plat level to a Protoss that a-moved and beat you. Even though I think Protoss is very weak, it's just one month. If this continues for several months then yeah, things should probably be looked into. Still, despite my personal beliefs, I think it's still too early to call. | ||
|
eourcs
United States459 Posts
On August 08 2011 22:32 eYeball wrote: There really hasn't been much Terran that has impressed me much either besides Bomber, MMA, MVP and perhaps Jjaki recently.. I guess the mediocrity of terrans > protoss and zerg. To be honest the only protosses that have impressed me are Huk, MC, and Puzzle (and maybe Sage but we haven't seen enough of his games). Everybody else seems meh. For Terrans, there is also Happy, Nuclear, Ganzi, sC, Byun and Hack. Even though they aren't necessarily in the highest tier they are still better than pretty much every single protoss in the GSL. | ||
|
Belha
Italy2850 Posts
I'LL love if players that make such judgements write a list with arguments to support their words. I have my arguments to support my opinion about the numbers (REAL PROOF) we are seeing for about a year: 1) Terran is the best race (wanna call it "complete"? Ok... "complete", and with Palpatine voice please). Why? Simple: Is the most rewarding for flawless multi task skill, best harassing punisher race, best eco macro mechanic, most efficient all-ins, most efficient micro mechanics, AND (very important too) the least punished race per mistake. Terrans gonna hate me, yes, but PLEASE CHECK THE ENTIRE YEAR NUMBERS. 2) Average pro P player is skilled as average pro T or Z player. The problem is that P is the race that punish most the player per mistake. Bad micro (or luck) with your scouting probes aganist the faster lings in PvZ? Time to play blind till you commit to a tech investment (EVEN HUK suffer this, and is one of the top P's, he get busted a lot by a trillion of lings placing his expo, just because he plays blind). Under average ff's? Dead (again, even pros suffer this, A LOT). Not above average unit spread in PvT? You re dead aganist ghosts. Not microed your templars when the ai tends to pack it together with your army? Emp won. I can keep throwing examples of how many times the P player have to outmicro the opponent, AND if he does not, hes dead. Please guys. Arguments, please. Let's keep the debate nicely. | ||
|
dani`
Netherlands2402 Posts
On August 08 2011 22:04 naggerNZ wrote: Personally, I think it's less due to imbalance, but the fact that there are a lot more skilled Zergs and Terrans than there are Protosses. If I was to put it down to anything, I would argue that Protoss' mechanics don't encourage the same game sense and knowledge as Zerg's and Terran's. Haha oh my god, you have to be kidding... | ||
|
ZaaaaaM
Netherlands1828 Posts
| ||
|
Talic_Zealot
688 Posts
| ||
|
eourcs
United States459 Posts
On August 08 2011 22:58 Belha wrote: The huge amount of trolls/noobs talking crap about protoss in this threads is absurd, annoying, almost insulting ( protoss less skilled by nature, less hard workers, less explored, and so, WTF). Numbers are REAL living proof of the results among races match ups. The shit talk about "protoss players are less skilled" is pure bullshit without a single argument to support it. I'LL love if players that make such judgements write a list with arguments to support their words. I have my arguments to support my opinion about the numbers (REAL PROOF) we are seeing for about a year: 1) Terran is the best race (wanna call it "complete"? Ok... "complete", and with Palpatine voice please). Why? Simple: Is the most rewarding for flawless multi task skill, best harassing punisher race, best eco macro mechanic, most efficient all-ins, most efficient micro mechanics, AND (very important too) the least punished race per mistake. Terrans gonna hate me, yes, but PLEASE CHECK THE ENTIRE YEAR NUMBERS. 2) Average pro P player is skilled as average pro T or Z player. The problem is that P is the race that punish most the player per mistake. Bad micro (or luck) with your scouting probes aganist the faster lings in PvZ? Time to play blind till you commit to a tech investment (EVEN HUK suffer this, and is one of the top P's, he get busted a lot by a trillion of lings placing his expo, just because he plays blind). Under average ff's? Dead (again, even pros suffer this, A LOT). Not above average unit spread in PvT? You re dead aganist ghosts. Not microed your templars when the ai tends to pack it together with your army? Emp won. I can keep throwing examples of how many times the P player have to outmicro the opponent, AND if he does not, hes dead. Please guys. Arguments, please. Let's keep the debate nicely. You can make these stupid "most punished per mistake" arguments with every race. 1) Not paying attention for 5 seconds? All your marines dies to fungal/banelings 2)Get caught unsieged? Everything dies 3)Get unlucky? All your marines die to burrowed banelings 4)Miss an emp? Your entire army is stormed to death 5)Not looking at your army for 5 seconds? All your infestors get feedbacked/emped 6)Not looking at your army for 5 seconds? Everything gets forcefielded and you lose 3/4 of your army 7)Not looking at your mutas for a fraction of a second? All of them die to thors/marines/stalkers/templar | ||
|
Belha
Italy2850 Posts
On August 08 2011 23:16 eourcs wrote: + Show Spoiler + On August 08 2011 22:58 Belha wrote: The huge amount of trolls/noobs talking crap about protoss in this threads is absurd, annoying, almost insulting ( protoss less skilled by nature, less hard workers, less explored, and so, WTF). Numbers are REAL living proof of the results among races match ups. The shit talk about "protoss players are less skilled" is pure bullshit without a single argument to support it. I'LL love if players that make such judgements write a list with arguments to support their words. I have my arguments to support my opinion about the numbers (REAL PROOF) we are seeing for about a year: 1) Terran is the best race (wanna call it "complete"? Ok... "complete", and with Palpatine voice please). Why? Simple: Is the most rewarding for flawless multi task skill, best harassing punisher race, best eco macro mechanic, most efficient all-ins, most efficient micro mechanics, AND (very important too) the least punished race per mistake. Terrans gonna hate me, yes, but PLEASE CHECK THE ENTIRE YEAR NUMBERS. 2) Average pro P player is skilled as average pro T or Z player. The problem is that P is the race that punish most the player per mistake. Bad micro (or luck) with your scouting probes aganist the faster lings in PvZ? Time to play blind till you commit to a tech investment (EVEN HUK suffer this, and is one of the top P's, he get busted a lot by a trillion of lings placing his expo, just because he plays blind). Under average ff's? Dead (again, even pros suffer this, A LOT). Not above average unit spread in PvT? You re dead aganist ghosts. Not microed your templars when the ai tends to pack it together with your army? Emp won. I can keep throwing examples of how many times the P player have to outmicro the opponent, AND if he does not, hes dead. Please guys. Arguments, please. Let's keep the debate nicely. You can make these stupid "most punished per mistake" arguments with every race. 1) Not paying attention for 5 seconds? All your marines dies to fungal/banelings 2)Get caught unsieged? Everything dies 3)Get unlucky? All your marines die to burrowed banelings 4)Miss an emp? Your entire army is stormed to death 5)Not looking at your army for 5 seconds? All your infestors get feedbacked/emped 6)Not looking at your army for 5 seconds? Everything gets forcefielded and you lose 3/4 of your army 7)Not looking at your mutas for a fraction of a second? All of them die to thors/marines/stalkers/templar So, your mistakes list is "not looking", "unluck", "pay atention"...OMG, that is your conception of skill? Go post somewhere else please, or much better, think before post, elaborate before typing. Do not lower the level of the debate. | ||
|
ArhK
France287 Posts
On August 08 2011 22:58 Belha wrote: The huge amount of trolls/noobs talking crap about protoss in this threads is absurd, annoying, almost insulting ( protoss less skilled by nature, less hard workers, less explored, and so, WTF). Numbers are REAL living proof of the results among races match ups. The shit talk about "protoss players are less skilled" is pure bullshit without a single argument to support it. I'LL love if players that make such judgements write a list with arguments to support their words. I have my arguments to support my opinion about the numbers (REAL PROOF) we are seeing for about a year: 1) Terran is the best race (wanna call it "complete"? Ok... "complete", and with Palpatine voice please). Why? Simple: Is the most rewarding for flawless multi task skill, best harassing punisher race, best eco macro mechanic, most efficient all-ins, most efficient micro mechanics, AND (very important too) the least punished race per mistake. Terrans gonna hate me, yes, but PLEASE CHECK THE ENTIRE YEAR NUMBERS. 2) Average pro P player is skilled as average pro T or Z player. The problem is that P is the race that punish most the player per mistake. Bad micro (or luck) with your scouting probes aganist the faster lings in PvZ? Time to play blind till you commit to a tech investment (EVEN HUK suffer this, and is one of the top P's, he get busted a lot by a trillion of lings placing his expo, just because he plays blind). Under average ff's? Dead (again, even pros suffer this, A LOT). Not above average unit spread in PvT? You re dead aganist ghosts. Not microed your templars when the ai tends to pack it together with your army? Emp won. I can keep throwing examples of how many times the P player have to outmicro the opponent, AND if he does not, hes dead. Please guys. Arguments, please. Let's keep the debate nicely. This. Exactly this. | ||
| ||
