|
On June 24 2014 17:47 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2014 17:02 Foxxan wrote:On June 24 2014 16:58 ZenithM wrote:On June 24 2014 16:52 Foxxan wrote:On June 24 2014 06:20 DinoMight wrote:On June 24 2014 05:36 Sapphire.lux wrote:
Protoss has more simplistic macro compared to Z and T and "suffers" from the deathball syndrome (as Dustin B. correctly pointed out, this is the easiest way to play). On the other hand it is dependent on some very unforgiving units and abilities, like FF and timing attacks/ all ins.
There is a reason as to why people have been asking for Protoss redesign since the very beginning of SC2. How is Protoss macro more simplistic than Terran macro? I swear if people just thought about things they said instead of just repeating stupid shit they hear online, statements like this would never be made. As protoss: You dont need to constantly produce units cuz of warpgate. As terran: You need to constantly produce units or else u can never catch up This is why its considdered easy for protoss. Another thing that goes away from the RTS-core. What race? Protoss. ? If you miss a round of warp-ins you can never catch up, that's exactly the same. A production cycle is essentially the output of a unit, associated with a cooldown. With Terran, it's cooldown then output, with Protoss it's output then cooldown, but when you chain cycles it's basically the same sequence. Theoretically the only advantage Protoss has is the first warp-in of a warpgate (which is why 4-gate is so scary supply-wise, btw). No, not true. Protoss gets 2units each cycle. Terran get 1 how so? going by Zenith's definition of "production cylce" we have Warpgate: U(1)--------C--------U(2)--------C--------U(3)--------C--------U(3)-------....-------U(n) Terran: |||||||---------P--------U(1)--------P--------U(2)--------P--------U(3)--------P--------U(3)-------....-------U(n) U(x)... being the x-th unit produced C... being Cooldown P... being Production Time With constant production and cooldown/production time coinciding, after n-Warpgate cycles Protoss has n-units from it while the Terran has (n-1)-units from his production facility.
Ye you are right.
My mistake.
|
On June 24 2014 16:58 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2014 16:52 Foxxan wrote:On June 24 2014 06:20 DinoMight wrote:On June 24 2014 05:36 Sapphire.lux wrote:
Protoss has more simplistic macro compared to Z and T and "suffers" from the deathball syndrome (as Dustin B. correctly pointed out, this is the easiest way to play). On the other hand it is dependent on some very unforgiving units and abilities, like FF and timing attacks/ all ins.
There is a reason as to why people have been asking for Protoss redesign since the very beginning of SC2. How is Protoss macro more simplistic than Terran macro? I swear if people just thought about things they said instead of just repeating stupid shit they hear online, statements like this would never be made. As protoss: You dont need to constantly produce units cuz of warpgate. As terran: You need to constantly produce units or else u can never catch up This is why its considdered easy for protoss. Another thing that goes away from the RTS-core. What race? Protoss. ? If you miss a round of warp-ins you can never catch up, that's exactly the same. A production cycle is essentially the output of a unit, associated with a cooldown. With Terran, it's cooldown then output, with Protoss it's output then cooldown, but when you chain cycles it's basically the same sequence. Theoretically the only advantage Protoss has is the first warp-in of a warpgate (which is why 4-gate is so scary supply-wise, btw).
As toss you kind of can catch up by building extra warpgates. I rarely see toss players that use their production constantly. As terran you kind of have to. Warpgates are a smaller investment. As toss you can build production and build your army on demand. I can at least understand how someone would say that toss macro is a bit easier.
And by less accurate clicks i meant that terran has a few more tasks to do that require accurate mouse usage; aka the most difficult macro task.
-dropping mules
-placing depots
-selecting multiple workers to build infrastructure
-sending them back to mine
-placing infrastructure
-addon management
-binding management (army, infrastructure)
Over all i think toss is just a little bit more userfriendly. Lux called it "easier". I think this is a reasonable statement.
|
On June 24 2014 19:23 submarine wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2014 16:58 ZenithM wrote:On June 24 2014 16:52 Foxxan wrote:On June 24 2014 06:20 DinoMight wrote:On June 24 2014 05:36 Sapphire.lux wrote:
Protoss has more simplistic macro compared to Z and T and "suffers" from the deathball syndrome (as Dustin B. correctly pointed out, this is the easiest way to play). On the other hand it is dependent on some very unforgiving units and abilities, like FF and timing attacks/ all ins.
There is a reason as to why people have been asking for Protoss redesign since the very beginning of SC2. How is Protoss macro more simplistic than Terran macro? I swear if people just thought about things they said instead of just repeating stupid shit they hear online, statements like this would never be made. As protoss: You dont need to constantly produce units cuz of warpgate. As terran: You need to constantly produce units or else u can never catch up This is why its considdered easy for protoss. Another thing that goes away from the RTS-core. What race? Protoss. ? If you miss a round of warp-ins you can never catch up, that's exactly the same. A production cycle is essentially the output of a unit, associated with a cooldown. With Terran, it's cooldown then output, with Protoss it's output then cooldown, but when you chain cycles it's basically the same sequence. Theoretically the only advantage Protoss has is the first warp-in of a warpgate (which is why 4-gate is so scary supply-wise, btw). As toss you kind of can catch up by building extra warpgates. I rarely see toss players that use their production constantly. As terran you kind of have to. Warpgates are a smaller investment. As toss you can build production and build your army on demand. I can at least understand how someone would say that toss macro is a bit easier. And by less accurate clicks i meant that terran has a few more tasks to do that require accurate mouse usage; aka the most difficult macro task. -dropping mules -placing depots -selecting multiple workers to build infrastructure -sending them back to mine -placing infrastructure -addon management -binding management (army, infrastructure) Over all i think toss is just a little bit more userfriendly. Lux called it "easier". I think this is a reasonable statement.
barracks is 150 minerals
gateway is 150 minerals
i dont see how adding gateways is more on demand than adding raxes, considering the only advantage being the first production cycle sooner
your also severely over-selling the difficulty of most of those macro tasks
honestly no race in this game is easier, they just reward different skillsets
terran rewards multi-tasking and general unit controll
protoss rewards good spellcaster controll and relies heavier on positioning
zerg rewards solid macro mechanics, scouting + reactions and general gamesence
|
I thought what made protoss easier to macro was that you actually didn't want to produce constantly from gateways, because you would end up with too many core units and not enough tech (be it colossi immortals air or templars). So when you make macro mistakes and forget to get units for a while, it can still be fine because you end up with the right amount of core units "by accident".
A lot of ridiculous stuff was proposed so far, though, so that's cool, keep on going.
|
On June 24 2014 19:39 Enigmasc wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2014 19:23 submarine wrote:On June 24 2014 16:58 ZenithM wrote:On June 24 2014 16:52 Foxxan wrote:On June 24 2014 06:20 DinoMight wrote:On June 24 2014 05:36 Sapphire.lux wrote:
Protoss has more simplistic macro compared to Z and T and "suffers" from the deathball syndrome (as Dustin B. correctly pointed out, this is the easiest way to play). On the other hand it is dependent on some very unforgiving units and abilities, like FF and timing attacks/ all ins.
There is a reason as to why people have been asking for Protoss redesign since the very beginning of SC2. How is Protoss macro more simplistic than Terran macro? I swear if people just thought about things they said instead of just repeating stupid shit they hear online, statements like this would never be made. As protoss: You dont need to constantly produce units cuz of warpgate. As terran: You need to constantly produce units or else u can never catch up This is why its considdered easy for protoss. Another thing that goes away from the RTS-core. What race? Protoss. ? If you miss a round of warp-ins you can never catch up, that's exactly the same. A production cycle is essentially the output of a unit, associated with a cooldown. With Terran, it's cooldown then output, with Protoss it's output then cooldown, but when you chain cycles it's basically the same sequence. Theoretically the only advantage Protoss has is the first warp-in of a warpgate (which is why 4-gate is so scary supply-wise, btw). As toss you kind of can catch up by building extra warpgates. I rarely see toss players that use their production constantly. As terran you kind of have to. Warpgates are a smaller investment. As toss you can build production and build your army on demand. I can at least understand how someone would say that toss macro is a bit easier. And by less accurate clicks i meant that terran has a few more tasks to do that require accurate mouse usage; aka the most difficult macro task. -dropping mules -placing depots -selecting multiple workers to build infrastructure -sending them back to mine -placing infrastructure -addon management -binding management (army, infrastructure) Over all i think toss is just a little bit more userfriendly. Lux called it "easier". I think this is a reasonable statement. barracks is 150 minerals gateway is 150 minerals i dont see how adding gateways is more on demand than adding raxes, considering the only advantage being the first production cycle sooner your also severely over-selling the difficulty of most of those macro tasks honestly no race in this game is easier, they just reward different skillsets terran rewards multi-tasking and general unit controll protoss rewards good spellcaster controll and relies heavier on positioning zerg rewards solid macro mechanics, scouting + reactions and general gamesence
"150 = 150"
Ok, i thought this was obvious:
Time to get a marauder on the field:
65s(rax build time)+25s(t-lab)+30s(mara)= 120s
In the same time a warpgate with two chronos can produce 3 Stalkers
65s(gateway)+10s(transition to wg)+21.3s(stalker with chrono)+21.3=117.3s
The "150 minerals = 150 minerals" statement is either totally ignorant or intentionally misleading.
In general toss will always have a bigger production capacity because it is cheaper and the investment pays off faster.
That is just the way warp gate works.
The rest
It's the sum of all the stuff I listed. I made the claim that "terran macro requires more accurate clicks" and listed specific examples
|
Saying zerg is an A-move race is a complete misunderstanding of the game. A-moving blindly your army will make you lose in almost every situation.
When you have to engage as a a zerg, there is a ton of things you should think about.
In a muta ling baneling vs bio MMM (with Thor or hellbats) situation : first, unless you already have a major advance in the game, you have to engage on creep to be cost effective. You also want to prepare a flank in advance, that means seperate your ground army in 2 equally strong groups and idealy at the same distance from your opponent's army (if you don't do that last step, one half of your army will be crushed before the second half engage). This is not easy to do, considering that a good player will not walk his army on creep without being very prudent. Once you have set your army, you want to select the ground army and a-move, then (and the quicker the better) select your mutas and shift-clic the medivacs for exemple. You don't want banes to explode on thor or marauders, and you don't want a mine to kill 6 of them in one shot, so a little bit of split is necessary.
Consider now a roach hydra vipers composition with infestors against protoss or mech. you need to set a hell of a concave before engaging, then you A-move and select the casters who HAVE to be in a different group (medivacs and sentries can easily be in the same control group because A-moving them will not make them advance stupidly, sentries can shot with a decent range and medivacs will heal when ordered to a-move) and use fungal, cloud or grab. A protoss with zealots, stalkers void-rays and HT doesn't have to prepare such a concave because of the range of the collosi and the flying void rays. HT can be in a different control group and used in order to one shot vipers with feedback then storm the shit out of zerg.
I don't want to compare how difficult it is to engage whith every race and every army composition but, please, do not say zerg is an A-move race.
|
On June 24 2014 20:38 submarine wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2014 19:39 Enigmasc wrote:On June 24 2014 19:23 submarine wrote:On June 24 2014 16:58 ZenithM wrote:On June 24 2014 16:52 Foxxan wrote:On June 24 2014 06:20 DinoMight wrote:On June 24 2014 05:36 Sapphire.lux wrote:
Protoss has more simplistic macro compared to Z and T and "suffers" from the deathball syndrome (as Dustin B. correctly pointed out, this is the easiest way to play). On the other hand it is dependent on some very unforgiving units and abilities, like FF and timing attacks/ all ins.
There is a reason as to why people have been asking for Protoss redesign since the very beginning of SC2. How is Protoss macro more simplistic than Terran macro? I swear if people just thought about things they said instead of just repeating stupid shit they hear online, statements like this would never be made. As protoss: You dont need to constantly produce units cuz of warpgate. As terran: You need to constantly produce units or else u can never catch up This is why its considdered easy for protoss. Another thing that goes away from the RTS-core. What race? Protoss. ? If you miss a round of warp-ins you can never catch up, that's exactly the same. A production cycle is essentially the output of a unit, associated with a cooldown. With Terran, it's cooldown then output, with Protoss it's output then cooldown, but when you chain cycles it's basically the same sequence. Theoretically the only advantage Protoss has is the first warp-in of a warpgate (which is why 4-gate is so scary supply-wise, btw). As toss you kind of can catch up by building extra warpgates. I rarely see toss players that use their production constantly. As terran you kind of have to. Warpgates are a smaller investment. As toss you can build production and build your army on demand. I can at least understand how someone would say that toss macro is a bit easier. And by less accurate clicks i meant that terran has a few more tasks to do that require accurate mouse usage; aka the most difficult macro task. -dropping mules -placing depots -selecting multiple workers to build infrastructure -sending them back to mine -placing infrastructure -addon management -binding management (army, infrastructure) Over all i think toss is just a little bit more userfriendly. Lux called it "easier". I think this is a reasonable statement. barracks is 150 minerals gateway is 150 minerals i dont see how adding gateways is more on demand than adding raxes, considering the only advantage being the first production cycle sooner your also severely over-selling the difficulty of most of those macro tasks honestly no race in this game is easier, they just reward different skillsets terran rewards multi-tasking and general unit controll protoss rewards good spellcaster controll and relies heavier on positioning zerg rewards solid macro mechanics, scouting + reactions and general gamesence "150 = 150"Ok, i thought this was obvious: Time to get a marauder on the field: 65s(rax build time)+25s(t-lab)+30s(mara)= 120s In the same time a warpgate with two chronos can produce 3 Stalkers 65s(gateway)+10s(transition to wg)+21.3s(stalker with chrono)+21.3=117.3s The "150 minerals = 150 minerals" statement is either totally ignorant or intentionally misleading. In general toss will always have a bigger production capacity because it is cheaper and the investment pays off faster. That is just the way warp gate works. The restIt's the sum of all the stuff I listed. I made the claim that "terran macro requires more accurate clicks" and listed specific examples
You misrepresent a little bit yourself. Chronoboost isn't infinite, so your production example with stalkers is extreme. A nexus needs about 44s to regenerate enough energy for a CB and then you rarely spend it on gateway units. CBs consume resources, too. Also barracks' produce units quicker which means that at some point barracks' will surpass warpgates in cost effectiveness and that happens pretty quickly.
Of the things you listed only addon management is apm intensive. The rest Protoss has to do, too, with pretty much the same accuracy. Maybe Terran needs a few more apm to operate but, to me, it doesn't seem too much of a difference.
|
On June 24 2014 19:23 submarine wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2014 16:58 ZenithM wrote:On June 24 2014 16:52 Foxxan wrote:On June 24 2014 06:20 DinoMight wrote:On June 24 2014 05:36 Sapphire.lux wrote:
Protoss has more simplistic macro compared to Z and T and "suffers" from the deathball syndrome (as Dustin B. correctly pointed out, this is the easiest way to play). On the other hand it is dependent on some very unforgiving units and abilities, like FF and timing attacks/ all ins.
There is a reason as to why people have been asking for Protoss redesign since the very beginning of SC2. How is Protoss macro more simplistic than Terran macro? I swear if people just thought about things they said instead of just repeating stupid shit they hear online, statements like this would never be made. As protoss: You dont need to constantly produce units cuz of warpgate. As terran: You need to constantly produce units or else u can never catch up This is why its considdered easy for protoss. Another thing that goes away from the RTS-core. What race? Protoss. ? If you miss a round of warp-ins you can never catch up, that's exactly the same. A production cycle is essentially the output of a unit, associated with a cooldown. With Terran, it's cooldown then output, with Protoss it's output then cooldown, but when you chain cycles it's basically the same sequence. Theoretically the only advantage Protoss has is the first warp-in of a warpgate (which is why 4-gate is so scary supply-wise, btw). As toss you kind of can catch up by building extra warpgates. I rarely see toss players that use their production constantly. As terran you kind of have to. Warpgates are a smaller investment. As toss you can build production and build your army on demand. I can at least understand how someone would say that toss macro is a bit easier. And by less accurate clicks i meant that terran has a few more tasks to do that require accurate mouse usage; aka the most difficult macro task. -dropping mules -placing depots -selecting multiple workers to build infrastructure -sending them back to mine -placing infrastructure -addon management -binding management (army, infrastructure) Over all i think toss is just a little bit more userfriendly. Lux called it "easier". I think this is a reasonable statement.
I'm Terran so I would like to agree (and that's what I feel sometimes ;D) but really, the only benefit Protoss has is that their units cost on average more, so you have less buttons to press (or less frequently, as you wish). But I've seen Protoss and Terran both float resources, and this is usually solved by building more production facilities. Plus/minus 25/25 for a meager add-on doesn't change the grand scheme of things.
Edit: Actually what you said in your second post makes sense, you do need more money and especially more time to get to the same production capability as Protoss, and that's without accounting for the fact that a warpgate is instantly ready to warp a unit, whereas a fully add-onned baracks still has production time before you get your first unit.
|
Guys this is ridiculous. Complain all you want about Colossus and Storm as you have for 1020 pages.. I've just given up on that for now... but seriously... Protoss macro is not easier or harder than Terran. Now you're just looking to start a pointless argument.
Terran selects an scv to build a depot - Protoss selects a probe to build a pylon
Terran selects an scv to build a barracks - Protoss selects a probe to build a gateway
Terran drops Mules - Protoss chrono boosts
MMM is produced from 2 structures - the counter to MMM is produced from 2 structures also (gateway + robo)
If you open Templar, you still need a robo for spotting Ghosts and drops
The ultimate Terran army is produced from: Barracks, Starport
The ultimate Protoss army is produced from: Gateway, Robo
It takes zero clicks to produce a marine - it takes one click to produce a Zealot
You can produce all Terran units in the middle of a fight - to produce Gateway units you must be looking at a Pylon
Terran units can be queued - Protoss units cannot, you must remember to keep warping in (but production is front loaded to offset). The only unit you would actually queue besides probes in a TvP costs 300/200.
Terran buildings can be build anywhere and flown around later - Protoss buildings must be placed accurately the first time and must be near Pylons
VERSUS ZERG
Terran builds: Barracks, addons, Factory, Starport to produce units
Protoss builds: Gateways, first choice of tech (Starport or Robo), second choice of Tech
Terran can rally a stream of units into a fight - Protoss has to look at a pylon to create more
Supply depots can be raised and lowered to wall - Protoss has to place buildings carefully and always block with a Zealot to prevent runbys.
I'm not trying to say Protoss is harder than Terran. Nor am I trying to deny that Protoss is an a-move race and all the other stupid crap that is said in this forum. But objectively, clearly, Terran macro is no more demanding than Protoss macro. I think that is fair and reasonable.
|
On June 24 2014 18:27 Foxxan wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2014 17:47 Big J wrote:On June 24 2014 17:02 Foxxan wrote:On June 24 2014 16:58 ZenithM wrote:On June 24 2014 16:52 Foxxan wrote:On June 24 2014 06:20 DinoMight wrote:On June 24 2014 05:36 Sapphire.lux wrote:
Protoss has more simplistic macro compared to Z and T and "suffers" from the deathball syndrome (as Dustin B. correctly pointed out, this is the easiest way to play). On the other hand it is dependent on some very unforgiving units and abilities, like FF and timing attacks/ all ins.
There is a reason as to why people have been asking for Protoss redesign since the very beginning of SC2. How is Protoss macro more simplistic than Terran macro? I swear if people just thought about things they said instead of just repeating stupid shit they hear online, statements like this would never be made. As protoss: You dont need to constantly produce units cuz of warpgate. As terran: You need to constantly produce units or else u can never catch up This is why its considdered easy for protoss. Another thing that goes away from the RTS-core. What race? Protoss. ? If you miss a round of warp-ins you can never catch up, that's exactly the same. A production cycle is essentially the output of a unit, associated with a cooldown. With Terran, it's cooldown then output, with Protoss it's output then cooldown, but when you chain cycles it's basically the same sequence. Theoretically the only advantage Protoss has is the first warp-in of a warpgate (which is why 4-gate is so scary supply-wise, btw). No, not true. Protoss gets 2units each cycle. Terran get 1 how so? going by Zenith's definition of "production cylce" we have Warpgate: U(1)--------C--------U(2)--------C--------U(3)--------C--------U(3)-------....-------U(n) Terran: |||||||---------P--------U(1)--------P--------U(2)--------P--------U(3)--------P--------U(3)-------....-------U(n) U(x)... being the x-th unit produced C... being Cooldown P... being Production Time With constant production and cooldown/production time coinciding, after n-Warpgate cycles Protoss has n-units from it while the Terran has (n-1)-units from his production facility. Ye you are right. My mistake.
2 units each cycle is not the same as N and N-1. Protoss gets its unit at the beginning of the cycle versus Terran at the end of the cycle. That doesn't mean Protoss gets twice as many units.
I think this front loaded production argument is only relevant in the case someone is aggressively 4 gating. If every Protoss warped in a full production cycle of Zealots/Stalkers whenever the cooldown was available from the beginning of the game onward, they would obviously lose because they'd have no tech. Protoss units are more expensive and stronger, so you need fewer of them, and the high tech units are far more important in terms of damage dealing. At some point y'all are going to have to realize that these are 2 races designed very differently and the parallels you're trying to make don't make sense.
|
Honestly you should stop as well. I realized I made a mistake when I responded to that stupid comment that started this multipage shit fest. This discussion needs to be steered back to discussing units/spells and shit and not writing paragraphs comparing production cycles and APM macro requirements.
|
On June 24 2014 23:52 Digitalis wrote:
Honestly you should stop as well. I realized I made a mistake when I responded to that stupid comment that started this multipage shit fest. This discussion needs to be steered back to discussing units/spells and shit and not writing paragraphs comparing production cycles and APM macro requirements.
Agreed.
|
On June 24 2014 22:14 Ravomat wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2014 20:38 submarine wrote:On June 24 2014 19:39 Enigmasc wrote:On June 24 2014 19:23 submarine wrote:On June 24 2014 16:58 ZenithM wrote:On June 24 2014 16:52 Foxxan wrote:On June 24 2014 06:20 DinoMight wrote:On June 24 2014 05:36 Sapphire.lux wrote:
Protoss has more simplistic macro compared to Z and T and "suffers" from the deathball syndrome (as Dustin B. correctly pointed out, this is the easiest way to play). On the other hand it is dependent on some very unforgiving units and abilities, like FF and timing attacks/ all ins.
There is a reason as to why people have been asking for Protoss redesign since the very beginning of SC2. How is Protoss macro more simplistic than Terran macro? I swear if people just thought about things they said instead of just repeating stupid shit they hear online, statements like this would never be made. As protoss: You dont need to constantly produce units cuz of warpgate. As terran: You need to constantly produce units or else u can never catch up This is why its considdered easy for protoss. Another thing that goes away from the RTS-core. What race? Protoss. ? If you miss a round of warp-ins you can never catch up, that's exactly the same. A production cycle is essentially the output of a unit, associated with a cooldown. With Terran, it's cooldown then output, with Protoss it's output then cooldown, but when you chain cycles it's basically the same sequence. Theoretically the only advantage Protoss has is the first warp-in of a warpgate (which is why 4-gate is so scary supply-wise, btw). As toss you kind of can catch up by building extra warpgates. I rarely see toss players that use their production constantly. As terran you kind of have to. Warpgates are a smaller investment. As toss you can build production and build your army on demand. I can at least understand how someone would say that toss macro is a bit easier. And by less accurate clicks i meant that terran has a few more tasks to do that require accurate mouse usage; aka the most difficult macro task. -dropping mules -placing depots -selecting multiple workers to build infrastructure -sending them back to mine -placing infrastructure -addon management -binding management (army, infrastructure) Over all i think toss is just a little bit more userfriendly. Lux called it "easier". I think this is a reasonable statement. barracks is 150 minerals gateway is 150 minerals i dont see how adding gateways is more on demand than adding raxes, considering the only advantage being the first production cycle sooner your also severely over-selling the difficulty of most of those macro tasks honestly no race in this game is easier, they just reward different skillsets terran rewards multi-tasking and general unit controll protoss rewards good spellcaster controll and relies heavier on positioning zerg rewards solid macro mechanics, scouting + reactions and general gamesence "150 = 150"Ok, i thought this was obvious: Time to get a marauder on the field: 65s(rax build time)+25s(t-lab)+30s(mara)= 120s In the same time a warpgate with two chronos can produce 3 Stalkers 65s(gateway)+10s(transition to wg)+21.3s(stalker with chrono)+21.3=117.3s The "150 minerals = 150 minerals" statement is either totally ignorant or intentionally misleading. In general toss will always have a bigger production capacity because it is cheaper and the investment pays off faster. That is just the way warp gate works. The restIt's the sum of all the stuff I listed. I made the claim that "terran macro requires more accurate clicks" and listed specific examples You misrepresent a little bit yourself. Chronoboost isn't infinite, so your production example with stalkers is extreme. A nexus needs about 44s to regenerate enough energy for a CB and then you rarely spend it on gateway units. CBs consume resources, too. Also barracks' produce units quicker which means that at some point barracks' will surpass warpgates in cost effectiveness and that happens pretty quickly. Of the things you listed only addon management is apm intensive. The rest Protoss has to do, too, with pretty much the same accuracy. Maybe Terran needs a few more apm to operate but, to me, it doesn't seem too much of a difference.
.....
Seriously, do i even have to pull "travel time"? Or the fact that without chrono you still will have 3 Zealots out in:
65+10+28+28+5(Warp in time to be absolutely correct)=136s for 450 minerals at your pylon,
while the terran will have one Marauder in his base for 300/50.
All i wanted to say with this is that terran kind of has to plan "long term" with inflexible infrastructure. Terran infrastructure also is nearly always used at max capacity while warpgates are cheap and fast enough to have some slack (aka dropdefense^^).
I am not even the one that claimed "toss EZ". I just wanted to point out that there are indeed some points that can be made to support this claim. And the rebuttal offered by our forum zealots was rather weak^^.
|
A risk for protoss is different from taking a risk with other races. This is why it might seem that Protoss isn't OP, cause it's subtle.
For protoss it's "la, la, la, I can do whatever I want. Making a mistake won't end the game."
For terran it's "scout, scout, scout. panic. Oh, he did protoss allin X instead of protoss allin Y. GG"
The game is not fun for terran. We actually have to scout and defend. And we have to make our decisions ~40 seconds before they take effect (unit/bunker build time). Protoss can keep making and changing decisions with instantaneous results (warpgate/MSC).
The sooner protosses man up and admit their race has too many advantages the sooner the game will be balanced.
I'm sick of watching 13 yr old foreigner protosses defeat korean terran champions. I'm sick of there only being korean terrans in tournaments. I'm sick of people pretending the game is balanced.
I'm switching to protoss and I hope Terrans join me so we can show them how easy their race is with actual good mechanics and game sense. See you in master.
|
On June 25 2014 01:42 eightym wrote:
A risk for protoss is different from taking a risk with other races. This is why it might seem that Protoss isn't OP, cause it's subtle.
For protoss it's "la, la, la, I can do whatever I want. Making a mistake won't end the game."
For terran it's "scout, scout, scout. panic. Oh, he did protoss allin X instead of protoss allin Y. GG"
The game is not fun for terran. We actually have to scout and defend. And we have to make our decisions ~40 seconds before they take effect (unit/bunker build time). Protoss can keep making and changing decisions with instantaneous results (warpgate/MSC).
The sooner protosses man up and admit their race has too many advantages the sooner the game will be balanced.
I'm sick of watching 13 yr old foreigner protosses defeat korean terran champions. I'm sick of there only being korean terrans in tournaments. I'm sick of people pretending the game is balanced.
I'm switching to protoss and I hope Terrans join me so we can show them how easy their race is with actual good mechanics and game sense. See you in master.
why master? with how you're talking you should be able to make top gm ez with toss
|
On June 25 2014 01:42 eightym wrote:
A risk for protoss is different from taking a risk with other races. This is why it might seem that Protoss isn't OP, cause it's subtle.
For protoss it's "la, la, la, I can do whatever I want. Making a mistake won't end the game."
For terran it's "scout, scout, scout. panic. Oh, he did protoss allin X instead of protoss allin Y. GG"
The game is not fun for terran. We actually have to scout and defend. And we have to make our decisions ~40 seconds before they take effect (unit/bunker build time). Protoss can keep making and changing decisions with instantaneous results (warpgate/MSC).
The sooner protosses man up and admit their race has too many advantages the sooner the game will be balanced.
I'm sick of watching 13 yr old foreigner protosses defeat korean terran champions. I'm sick of there only being korean terrans in tournaments. I'm sick of people pretending the game is balanced.
I'm switching to protoss and I hope Terrans join me so we can show them how easy their race is with actual good mechanics and game sense. See you in master.
Classic.
|
On June 25 2014 01:42 eightym wrote:
A risk for protoss is different from taking a risk with other races. This is why it might seem that Protoss isn't OP, cause it's subtle.
For protoss it's "la, la, la, I can do whatever I want. Making a mistake won't end the game."
For terran it's "scout, scout, scout. panic. Oh, he did protoss allin X instead of protoss allin Y. GG"
The game is not fun for terran. We actually have to scout and defend. And we have to make our decisions ~40 seconds before they take effect (unit/bunker build time). Protoss can keep making and changing decisions with instantaneous results (warpgate/MSC).
The sooner protosses man up and admit their race has too many advantages the sooner the game will be balanced.
I'm sick of watching 13 yr old foreigner protosses defeat korean terran champions. I'm sick of there only being korean terrans in tournaments. I'm sick of people pretending the game is balanced.
I'm switching to protoss and I hope Terrans join me so we can show them how easy their race is with actual good mechanics and game sense. See you in master.
Ok Sjow.
EDIT - have fun dying to drops.
EDIT 2 - have fun in PvZ and PvP.
|
Yeah, we all know only Zerg foreigners can switch to Protoss and win against top Koreans.
|
About 3 months i didnt have a look at this thread, and it is still a shitload of BS. Always the same guys arguing about 'my race is harder to play than yours"... And this Dinomight guy telling us every 20 pages hes giving up, but still there, spreading his overbiased pro protoss nonsenses. This is just ridiculous... Serioulsy guyz, play the game if you like it, dont play it if you dont, but please, PLEASE, stop these shittty "discussions", it is just pointless and a waste of time for the readers, and the writers.
|
On June 25 2014 04:27 sage_francis wrote:
About 3 months i didnt have a look at this thread, and it is still a shitload of BS. Always the same guys arguing about 'my race is harder to play than yours"... And this Dinomight guy telling us every 20 pages hes giving up, but still there, spreading his overbiased pro protoss nonsenses. This is just ridiculous... Serioulsy guyz, play the game if you like it, dont play it if you dont, but please, PLEASE, stop these shittty "discussions", it is just pointless and a waste of time for the readers, and the writers.
The irony of your post is... remarkable. If you don't want to argue balance then don't post in this thread. But don't complain that other people shouldn't be complaining in a thread basically designed for complaining.
I said nothing about my race being harder to play. What I posted was just an objective comparison of Terran and Protoss macro quoting things such as number of buildings and clicks required. I actually stated that I thought neither was harder. I wasn't exactly waving the flag of Protoss balance whine...
But it's cool if you need a villain to point to then by all means, hey everyone look at how big of a dick DinoMight is!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
