|
On September 10 2014 04:24 _Epi_ wrote:
Just to add something to the conversation:
I am high terran diamond player,
almost every protoss i lose to has 50-60% winrate vs Protoss (PvP) or Zerg (PvZ), but each of them has 75-90% winrate in TvP.
I think that Protoss is easier to play and from that to be in an advantageous position also applies to diamond and maybe also Platinum
Yeah but that doesn't matter. Balance is made on Pro level and top Terrans are good enough to beat Protoss. Below GM Protoss will always have an advantage in PvT.
|
United States9232 Posts
On September 09 2014 23:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2014 14:39 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 07 2014 07:03 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 07 2014 06:34 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 07 2014 01:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:
@b1ob
But the problem tha you are presentin is not linked to mechanics but to meta game shifts and player choice. One CAN play mech vs toss just as Avilo does and still be better than 98% of the player base he competes in. The concept of "forced" gameplay means shit unless you're one of the 100-200 people being paid to play this game. Avilo is not the outlier, Maru is.
Protoss can be just as tactically proactive. Heck, do you remember how excited everyone was the first time we saw Sage beat Losira with multiprong strikes of zealots, Phoenix, warp prism harass while still moving his deathball while expanding? Or the nestea vs San game when we first learned about whack-a-mole Protoss? Then we had parting's heavy Templar style where he spread his Templars in 4-5 different parts of the map while tracking unit movement with constantly active observers to wear down enemy movement with storms making the matchup more akin to TvP on creep?
There have always been active Protoss players and there has always been passive Terran players. And both play styles can be used to get a player to the top 2% of the player base. It is only the exception to the norm top .5%-1% of players that certain play styles become no longer viable. And even then, it's purely dependent on meta game. While you have a point, I think it's taken a little far to the extreme. You can say whatever you want about player choice, but certain styles are bound to be notably less effective than others. For example, in PvT, you could be rank 1-2 masters if you open colossus each time. But if you open templar, you might hover around rank 10-12 masters. Which is a decently notable jump, considering a rank 1 masters should beat a rank 10 masters 90% of the time, I'd garner. I was responding to b1ob's comment that sitting and turtling with terran being effective as being the exception, and not the norm. The truth is that play style being the thing holding you back isn't a thing until you get to the top percentage points of the population. The exact opposite of what he's talking about. Only 2% of a population gets to be masters. And only a small percent of those gets to be rank 1 masters instead of rank 10 masters. And only a small percentage of that is when you can start legitimately saying "Terran can't mech ever" and even then, there will be a few GM players still doing it. That is not to say that there is a reason Maru is considered the best Terran in the world while Flash is only a "very very good terran" and it all has to do with the fact that Maru is much better at the kinetic, mechanics focused playstyle that people in this thread is complaining about. But the truth is that with enough practice, you can beat 98%-99% of starcraft players durdling with Terran. For MAJORITY of players, myself included, Terran does not HAVE to be proactive and click-happy ala Maru. I happen to find Terran play much easier mechanically than Protoss play. But I also play protoss like I play Terran and Zerg. Highly aggressive, and always on the map. Its hard to be out on the map hitting multiple areas while constantly warping in reinforcements either from a forward pylon, active prism, or to defend a drop/runby. Sure if I sit in my base and just twiddle my thumbs until max supply Protoss would be easy to play. But then, so would Terran if I played Terran that way. For 98%-99% of all Starcraft2 players, the race being mechanically difficult or easy is a choice. Because it's still exactly what I stated - it is holding you back and you're failing to recognize that. If you go mech - TvP, you may plateau at platinum. Merely switching to bio may enable you to reach Diamond. The style in itself is simply less powerful and more vulnerable, and this holds true for the vast, vast majority of the player base. Nothing you're stating is getting around that fact - that you have to outplay your opponent to a more degree than you would normally have to, if you want to use it. Avilo would also be considered in the top 1-2% so not sure why you're using him as an example. Build order choice =\= player skill. Maru is not where he is today because he plays bio based Terran play. He's where he is today because he's ridiculously good. He'd still be better than everyone in the US if he was practicing mech play for as much and as long as he's been practicing bio play. But since he's in the GSL, build order actually matters. But low GM and below your build order is irrelevant and the only thing holding you back is player skill. If your practice regiment playing mech only gets you to plat, your practice regiment playing bio will also get you to plat.
Once again, you're completely and entirely disregarding the point and then proceeding to respond with something irrelevant. The only relevant part is where you start off with build order choice =! player skill.
You keep stating that "low GM and below your build order is irrelevant" which is a load of crap. You're not making any points to back up your assertions, either. All you state is that somehow, your choice in build isn't holding you back, when it's clearly outlined by nearly every other person that is a factor. You make it sound like there can't be multiple factors at the same time, which is preposterous.
If marines had 5 HP, I could still knock down players left and right with a pure bio style if they had never played the game before. That doesn't mean that playing a pure bio style wouldn't be severely limiting compared to alternatives. Insisting on playing a pure bio style would eventually cap me out somewhere around bronze. I'd be limited solely due to the playstyle, regardless of whatever skill I may or may not be at.
On September 10 2014 04:33 TurboMaN wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2014 04:24 _Epi_ wrote:
Just to add something to the conversation:
I am high terran diamond player,
almost every protoss i lose to has 50-60% winrate vs Protoss (PvP) or Zerg (PvZ), but each of them has 75-90% winrate in TvP.
I think that Protoss is easier to play and from that to be in an advantageous position also applies to diamond and maybe also Platinum Yeah but that doesn't matter. Balance is made on Pro level and top Terrans are good enough to beat Protoss. Below GM Protoss will always have an advantage in PvT.
That's silly. I'm random that averages around 100 APM and I find Terran to be substantially easier to play than Protoss, and I've played random since early 2012. Protoss is definitely my weakest link, as I find multi pronged drop defense significantly harder than executing multi pronged drop attacks.
|
I'd just like to point out that the discussion on player skill is now at least in its second iteration, if not third. Reading what has come before would help. For example, take Fabled's point on Protoss being personally difficult for him at a lower level.
I find Terran to be substantially easier to play than Protoss
The issue arose a few pages back and I'd expect that the same response from ThievingMagpie holds true:
Just because I find Protoss hard does not mean Protoss is objectively hard. And just because you and naruto find it easy does not make them objectively easy. It depends on how you choose to play them--which I different from matchup to matchup which is different from meta game shift to meta game shift.
So, instead of sending the discussion into another cycle of the same, please take what has come before into account and actually develop the discussion.
|
On September 10 2014 16:33 Ghanburighan wrote:I'd just like to point out that the discussion on player skill is now at least in its second iteration, if not third. Reading what has come before would help. For example, take Fabled's point on Protoss being personally difficult for him at a lower level. The issue arose a few pages back and I'd expect that the same response from ThievingMagpie holds true: Show nested quote +Just because I find Protoss hard does not mean Protoss is objectively hard. And just because you and naruto find it easy does not make them objectively easy. It depends on how you choose to play them--which I different from matchup to matchup which is different from meta game shift to meta game shift. So, instead of sending the discussion into another cycle of the same, please take what has come before into account and actually develop the discussion.
It really depends on how you play. Any race can be played in an easier or harder manner. Colossus, Stalker, Sentry deathballs are relatively easy to control. So it's always pretty good. The disadvantage is that it is difficult for good players with high APM to squeeze even more value out of the composition. It is only possible to micro a Colossus so much. So that composition is always good, but never really great, which is unfortunate. It tends to be more about pre-battle positioning and composition. Big Roach hydra armies are similar. Terran mech is also rather similar and requires very little APM to work well (e.g. Goody).
On the other hand, phoenix and blink stalker styles tend to require the highest level of control. Those units get better with more control and APM. MMM and Muta/Corruptor are similar.
|
On September 09 2014 23:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2014 14:39 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 07 2014 07:03 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 07 2014 06:34 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 07 2014 01:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:
@b1ob
But the problem tha you are presentin is not linked to mechanics but to meta game shifts and player choice. One CAN play mech vs toss just as Avilo does and still be better than 98% of the player base he competes in. The concept of "forced" gameplay means shit unless you're one of the 100-200 people being paid to play this game. Avilo is not the outlier, Maru is.
Protoss can be just as tactically proactive. Heck, do you remember how excited everyone was the first time we saw Sage beat Losira with multiprong strikes of zealots, Phoenix, warp prism harass while still moving his deathball while expanding? Or the nestea vs San game when we first learned about whack-a-mole Protoss? Then we had parting's heavy Templar style where he spread his Templars in 4-5 different parts of the map while tracking unit movement with constantly active observers to wear down enemy movement with storms making the matchup more akin to TvP on creep?
There have always been active Protoss players and there has always been passive Terran players. And both play styles can be used to get a player to the top 2% of the player base. It is only the exception to the norm top .5%-1% of players that certain play styles become no longer viable. And even then, it's purely dependent on meta game. While you have a point, I think it's taken a little far to the extreme. You can say whatever you want about player choice, but certain styles are bound to be notably less effective than others. For example, in PvT, you could be rank 1-2 masters if you open colossus each time. But if you open templar, you might hover around rank 10-12 masters. Which is a decently notable jump, considering a rank 1 masters should beat a rank 10 masters 90% of the time, I'd garner. I was responding to b1ob's comment that sitting and turtling with terran being effective as being the exception, and not the norm. The truth is that play style being the thing holding you back isn't a thing until you get to the top percentage points of the population. The exact opposite of what he's talking about. Only 2% of a population gets to be masters. And only a small percent of those gets to be rank 1 masters instead of rank 10 masters. And only a small percentage of that is when you can start legitimately saying "Terran can't mech ever" and even then, there will be a few GM players still doing it. That is not to say that there is a reason Maru is considered the best Terran in the world while Flash is only a "very very good terran" and it all has to do with the fact that Maru is much better at the kinetic, mechanics focused playstyle that people in this thread is complaining about. But the truth is that with enough practice, you can beat 98%-99% of starcraft players durdling with Terran. For MAJORITY of players, myself included, Terran does not HAVE to be proactive and click-happy ala Maru. I happen to find Terran play much easier mechanically than Protoss play. But I also play protoss like I play Terran and Zerg. Highly aggressive, and always on the map. Its hard to be out on the map hitting multiple areas while constantly warping in reinforcements either from a forward pylon, active prism, or to defend a drop/runby. Sure if I sit in my base and just twiddle my thumbs until max supply Protoss would be easy to play. But then, so would Terran if I played Terran that way. For 98%-99% of all Starcraft2 players, the race being mechanically difficult or easy is a choice. Because it's still exactly what I stated - it is holding you back and you're failing to recognize that. If you go mech - TvP, you may plateau at platinum. Merely switching to bio may enable you to reach Diamond. The style in itself is simply less powerful and more vulnerable, and this holds true for the vast, vast majority of the player base. Nothing you're stating is getting around that fact - that you have to outplay your opponent to a more degree than you would normally have to, if you want to use it. Avilo would also be considered in the top 1-2% so not sure why you're using him as an example. Build order choice =\= player skill. Maru is not where he is today because he plays bio based Terran play. He's where he is today because he's ridiculously good. He'd still be better than everyone in the US if he was practicing mech play for as much and as long as he's been practicing bio play. But since he's in the GSL, build order actually matters. But low GM and below your build order is irrelevant and the only thing holding you back is player skill. If your practice regiment playing mech only gets you to plat, your practice regiment playing bio will also get you to plat.
I do not buy into that. Playing mech in TvP is like not building workers early on just for the sake of it. The playstyle is just weaker over all. Playin mech is a huge handicap that can be offset at lower leagues (below diamond/master) by surprising your opponent. Once you reach a level where toss has a general idea how to play against mech you need to outplay the toss by a very large margin. That's why you don't see any pros going mech. If mech was at least semi viable, far more pros would use it from time to time just to catch toss players of guard, that do not have any practice against it.
|
On September 11 2014 00:00 submarine wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2014 23:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 09 2014 14:39 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 07 2014 07:03 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 07 2014 06:34 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 07 2014 01:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:
@b1ob
But the problem tha you are presentin is not linked to mechanics but to meta game shifts and player choice. One CAN play mech vs toss just as Avilo does and still be better than 98% of the player base he competes in. The concept of "forced" gameplay means shit unless you're one of the 100-200 people being paid to play this game. Avilo is not the outlier, Maru is.
Protoss can be just as tactically proactive. Heck, do you remember how excited everyone was the first time we saw Sage beat Losira with multiprong strikes of zealots, Phoenix, warp prism harass while still moving his deathball while expanding? Or the nestea vs San game when we first learned about whack-a-mole Protoss? Then we had parting's heavy Templar style where he spread his Templars in 4-5 different parts of the map while tracking unit movement with constantly active observers to wear down enemy movement with storms making the matchup more akin to TvP on creep?
There have always been active Protoss players and there has always been passive Terran players. And both play styles can be used to get a player to the top 2% of the player base. It is only the exception to the norm top .5%-1% of players that certain play styles become no longer viable. And even then, it's purely dependent on meta game. While you have a point, I think it's taken a little far to the extreme. You can say whatever you want about player choice, but certain styles are bound to be notably less effective than others. For example, in PvT, you could be rank 1-2 masters if you open colossus each time. But if you open templar, you might hover around rank 10-12 masters. Which is a decently notable jump, considering a rank 1 masters should beat a rank 10 masters 90% of the time, I'd garner. I was responding to b1ob's comment that sitting and turtling with terran being effective as being the exception, and not the norm. The truth is that play style being the thing holding you back isn't a thing until you get to the top percentage points of the population. The exact opposite of what he's talking about. Only 2% of a population gets to be masters. And only a small percent of those gets to be rank 1 masters instead of rank 10 masters. And only a small percentage of that is when you can start legitimately saying "Terran can't mech ever" and even then, there will be a few GM players still doing it. That is not to say that there is a reason Maru is considered the best Terran in the world while Flash is only a "very very good terran" and it all has to do with the fact that Maru is much better at the kinetic, mechanics focused playstyle that people in this thread is complaining about. But the truth is that with enough practice, you can beat 98%-99% of starcraft players durdling with Terran. For MAJORITY of players, myself included, Terran does not HAVE to be proactive and click-happy ala Maru. I happen to find Terran play much easier mechanically than Protoss play. But I also play protoss like I play Terran and Zerg. Highly aggressive, and always on the map. Its hard to be out on the map hitting multiple areas while constantly warping in reinforcements either from a forward pylon, active prism, or to defend a drop/runby. Sure if I sit in my base and just twiddle my thumbs until max supply Protoss would be easy to play. But then, so would Terran if I played Terran that way. For 98%-99% of all Starcraft2 players, the race being mechanically difficult or easy is a choice. Because it's still exactly what I stated - it is holding you back and you're failing to recognize that. If you go mech - TvP, you may plateau at platinum. Merely switching to bio may enable you to reach Diamond. The style in itself is simply less powerful and more vulnerable, and this holds true for the vast, vast majority of the player base. Nothing you're stating is getting around that fact - that you have to outplay your opponent to a more degree than you would normally have to, if you want to use it. Avilo would also be considered in the top 1-2% so not sure why you're using him as an example. Build order choice =\= player skill. Maru is not where he is today because he plays bio based Terran play. He's where he is today because he's ridiculously good. He'd still be better than everyone in the US if he was practicing mech play for as much and as long as he's been practicing bio play. But since he's in the GSL, build order actually matters. But low GM and below your build order is irrelevant and the only thing holding you back is player skill. If your practice regiment playing mech only gets you to plat, your practice regiment playing bio will also get you to plat. I do not buy into that. Playing mech in TvP is like not building workers early on just for the sake of it. The playstyle is just weaker over all. Playin mech is a huge handicap that can be offset at lower leagues (below diamond/master) by surprising your opponent. Once you reach a level where toss has a general idea how to play against mech you need to outplay the toss by a very large margin. That's why you don't see any pros going mech. If mech was at least semi viable, far more pros would use it from time to time just to catch toss players of guard, that do not have any practice against it.
Being that mech is viable in 2/3 of the match ups, I don't know what you're talking about. Its a playstyle you can use for all but 1 matchup; and even some players get results despite that.
Unless you believe the only reason you're not GM is because you play 1 playstyle in 1 of 3 matchups.
|
It wouldn't be a designated balance discussion without someone blatantly ignoring reality, arguing things in the most dishonest way imaginable and then literally saying protoss is harder then terran or zerg mechanically for some people.
Get real.
The only thing this needs now is plansix coming in and telling us that even though stream numbers have dropped by 50% or so, sc2 is still very healthy and that watching pvz endlessly is good for the scene.
|
On September 11 2014 11:40 bo1b wrote:
It wouldn't be a designated balance discussion without someone blatantly ignoring reality, arguing things in the most dishonest way imaginable and then literally saying protoss is harder then terran or zerg mechanically for some people.
Get real.
The only thing this needs now is plansix coming in and telling us that even though stream numbers have dropped by 50% or so, sc2 is still very healthy and that watching pvz endlessly is good for the scene.
In my defense, I find excessively long swarm host games sadistically entertaining. I think some of the viewer numbers didn't disagree (but I'm speaking from memory, so I could be wrong).
|
On September 11 2014 11:46 Spect8rCraft wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2014 11:40 bo1b wrote:
It wouldn't be a designated balance discussion without someone blatantly ignoring reality, arguing things in the most dishonest way imaginable and then literally saying protoss is harder then terran or zerg mechanically for some people.
Get real.
The only thing this needs now is plansix coming in and telling us that even though stream numbers have dropped by 50% or so, sc2 is still very healthy and that watching pvz endlessly is good for the scene. In my defense, I find excessively long swarm host games sadistically entertaining. I think some of the viewer numbers didn't disagree (but I'm speaking from memory, so I could be wrong).
Swarmhost vs mech and swarmhosts vs skytoss are entertaining in the same way that the Westboro baptist church is, good for a laugh the first few times but they rapidly lose appeal. They're a spectacle.
|
On September 11 2014 11:49 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2014 11:46 Spect8rCraft wrote:On September 11 2014 11:40 bo1b wrote:
It wouldn't be a designated balance discussion without someone blatantly ignoring reality, arguing things in the most dishonest way imaginable and then literally saying protoss is harder then terran or zerg mechanically for some people.
Get real.
The only thing this needs now is plansix coming in and telling us that even though stream numbers have dropped by 50% or so, sc2 is still very healthy and that watching pvz endlessly is good for the scene. In my defense, I find excessively long swarm host games sadistically entertaining. I think some of the viewer numbers didn't disagree (but I'm speaking from memory, so I could be wrong). Swarmhost vs mech and swarmhosts vs skytoss are entertaining in the same way that the Westboro baptist church is, good for a laugh the first few times but they rapidly lose appeal. They're a spectacle.
I will not disagree with that sentiment.
|
On September 11 2014 11:49 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2014 11:46 Spect8rCraft wrote:On September 11 2014 11:40 bo1b wrote:
It wouldn't be a designated balance discussion without someone blatantly ignoring reality, arguing things in the most dishonest way imaginable and then literally saying protoss is harder then terran or zerg mechanically for some people.
Get real.
The only thing this needs now is plansix coming in and telling us that even though stream numbers have dropped by 50% or so, sc2 is still very healthy and that watching pvz endlessly is good for the scene. In my defense, I find excessively long swarm host games sadistically entertaining. I think some of the viewer numbers didn't disagree (but I'm speaking from memory, so I could be wrong). Swarmhost vs mech and swarmhosts vs skytoss are entertaining in the same way that the Westboro baptist church is, good for a laugh the first few times but they rapidly lose appeal. They're a spectacle.
I would say that it feels like watching pornography. Sure it gets you off, but you're never really happy with it even when it does.
|
United States9232 Posts
On September 10 2014 16:33 Ghanburighan wrote:I'd just like to point out that the discussion on player skill is now at least in its second iteration, if not third. Reading what has come before would help. For example, take Fabled's point on Protoss being personally difficult for him at a lower level. The issue arose a few pages back and I'd expect that the same response from ThievingMagpie holds true: Show nested quote +Just because I find Protoss hard does not mean Protoss is objectively hard. And just because you and naruto find it easy does not make them objectively easy. It depends on how you choose to play them--which I different from matchup to matchup which is different from meta game shift to meta game shift. So, instead of sending the discussion into another cycle of the same, please take what has come before into account and actually develop the discussion.
This entire thread is a rehash of similar points over and over. Would you expect much different from a balance discussion thread? And while by no means would I consider myself "top tier," I still can manage low GM no problem on NA with all 3 races (I've made it multiple times and always been demoted for inactivity midway through the season).
On September 11 2014 11:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2014 00:00 submarine wrote:On September 09 2014 23:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 09 2014 14:39 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 07 2014 07:03 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 07 2014 06:34 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 07 2014 01:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:
@b1ob
But the problem tha you are presentin is not linked to mechanics but to meta game shifts and player choice. One CAN play mech vs toss just as Avilo does and still be better than 98% of the player base he competes in. The concept of "forced" gameplay means shit unless you're one of the 100-200 people being paid to play this game. Avilo is not the outlier, Maru is.
Protoss can be just as tactically proactive. Heck, do you remember how excited everyone was the first time we saw Sage beat Losira with multiprong strikes of zealots, Phoenix, warp prism harass while still moving his deathball while expanding? Or the nestea vs San game when we first learned about whack-a-mole Protoss? Then we had parting's heavy Templar style where he spread his Templars in 4-5 different parts of the map while tracking unit movement with constantly active observers to wear down enemy movement with storms making the matchup more akin to TvP on creep?
There have always been active Protoss players and there has always been passive Terran players. And both play styles can be used to get a player to the top 2% of the player base. It is only the exception to the norm top .5%-1% of players that certain play styles become no longer viable. And even then, it's purely dependent on meta game. While you have a point, I think it's taken a little far to the extreme. You can say whatever you want about player choice, but certain styles are bound to be notably less effective than others. For example, in PvT, you could be rank 1-2 masters if you open colossus each time. But if you open templar, you might hover around rank 10-12 masters. Which is a decently notable jump, considering a rank 1 masters should beat a rank 10 masters 90% of the time, I'd garner. I was responding to b1ob's comment that sitting and turtling with terran being effective as being the exception, and not the norm. The truth is that play style being the thing holding you back isn't a thing until you get to the top percentage points of the population. The exact opposite of what he's talking about. Only 2% of a population gets to be masters. And only a small percent of those gets to be rank 1 masters instead of rank 10 masters. And only a small percentage of that is when you can start legitimately saying "Terran can't mech ever" and even then, there will be a few GM players still doing it. That is not to say that there is a reason Maru is considered the best Terran in the world while Flash is only a "very very good terran" and it all has to do with the fact that Maru is much better at the kinetic, mechanics focused playstyle that people in this thread is complaining about. But the truth is that with enough practice, you can beat 98%-99% of starcraft players durdling with Terran. For MAJORITY of players, myself included, Terran does not HAVE to be proactive and click-happy ala Maru. I happen to find Terran play much easier mechanically than Protoss play. But I also play protoss like I play Terran and Zerg. Highly aggressive, and always on the map. Its hard to be out on the map hitting multiple areas while constantly warping in reinforcements either from a forward pylon, active prism, or to defend a drop/runby. Sure if I sit in my base and just twiddle my thumbs until max supply Protoss would be easy to play. But then, so would Terran if I played Terran that way. For 98%-99% of all Starcraft2 players, the race being mechanically difficult or easy is a choice. Because it's still exactly what I stated - it is holding you back and you're failing to recognize that. If you go mech - TvP, you may plateau at platinum. Merely switching to bio may enable you to reach Diamond. The style in itself is simply less powerful and more vulnerable, and this holds true for the vast, vast majority of the player base. Nothing you're stating is getting around that fact - that you have to outplay your opponent to a more degree than you would normally have to, if you want to use it. Avilo would also be considered in the top 1-2% so not sure why you're using him as an example. Build order choice =\= player skill. Maru is not where he is today because he plays bio based Terran play. He's where he is today because he's ridiculously good. He'd still be better than everyone in the US if he was practicing mech play for as much and as long as he's been practicing bio play. But since he's in the GSL, build order actually matters. But low GM and below your build order is irrelevant and the only thing holding you back is player skill. If your practice regiment playing mech only gets you to plat, your practice regiment playing bio will also get you to plat. I do not buy into that. Playing mech in TvP is like not building workers early on just for the sake of it. The playstyle is just weaker over all. Playin mech is a huge handicap that can be offset at lower leagues (below diamond/master) by surprising your opponent. Once you reach a level where toss has a general idea how to play against mech you need to outplay the toss by a very large margin. That's why you don't see any pros going mech. If mech was at least semi viable, far more pros would use it from time to time just to catch toss players of guard, that do not have any practice against it. Being that mech is viable in 2/3 of the match ups, I don't know what you're talking about. Its a playstyle you can use for all but 1 matchup; and even some players get results despite that. Unless you believe the only reason you're not GM is because you play 1 playstyle in 1 of 3 matchups.
Well I'm not sure why you mention 2/3 match ups when the only time it was specifically referred to was TvP.
On September 11 2014 11:40 bo1b wrote:
It wouldn't be a designated balance discussion without someone blatantly ignoring reality, arguing things in the most dishonest way imaginable and then literally saying protoss is harder then terran or zerg mechanically for some people.
Get real.
The only thing this needs now is plansix coming in and telling us that even though stream numbers have dropped by 50% or so, sc2 is still very healthy and that watching pvz endlessly is good for the scene.
I struggle with Protoss more than Zerg and Terran exclusively due to mechanics. I find the race intrinsically harder to play. I find myself consistently more supply blocked (with Terran you have call down mule, with Zerg you can continue to inject while supply blocked and produce larvae normally up to 3), especially due to Colossi friggin' costing 6, as well as struggling with warping in units in midbattle which I have aboslutely no problem with Terran.
Lategame Protoss finally becomes easier in PvT, but the early-midgame feels so punishing if you screw up in the slightest as Toss that I overall feel much more comfortable in TvP. I understand it's personal experience, and sure I may be the minority, but until the lategame Terran feels far more forgiving to me than Toss.
|
Protoss has the easiest time macroing. It's not a secret and everyone knows it.
But as for mechanics and micros in other parts of the game, Protoss is very challenging. Those who believe Terran players with higher number of actions are more skilled than Protoss players are totally mistaken. You need to look at what tools (units) you are dealing with.
It has been discussed during early WOL days that Terran has the most units with "instant" attack types. (v. "missile," or "projectile" attacks) As a matter of fact there are very few instant attack units from Protoss and Zerg. (Toss air is somewhat of an odd ball with their moving attacks) Units with instant attacks are inherently more microable and also more rewarding.
So, it is very misleading to argue that Terran players are more skilled or whatever because you see visibly more unit movements from Terran army than from Protoss army. Protoss army requires precision, not speed. Can you imagine twitch-microing zealots and what kind of results that will bring? How about stutter-stepping colossi mid-battle when their attack animations take so long? You are more likely to waste lots of DPS doing that. Give Maru or whoever Terran Protoss units and you won't see the micro that he shows with marines and marauders.
Nevertheless, I agree that Protoss is less mechanically demanding when it comes to macro. But even here, you can kind of see why. Chronoboost is vastly inferior to mules/orbitals/larvae as the game progresses to the later stages. And yes, protoss has it easy in that their buildings require less attention. But it is not Protoss players' fault.
This easy of macro and warp gates resulted in a stunted growth in Protoss game play throughout WOL days. I am not a fan of Mothership core, but I firmly believe it is a necessary evil in HOTS. Back in the WOL days, I could not tell which Protoss players were more skilled players even in PvP mirrors. As Protoss game play is finally being developed in a serious manner, now it started to show who the better Protoss players are.
But it is still not enough. Certainly not up to the level of Terrans and Zergs. I hope Blizzard will address this in LOTV so that it is easier for spectators to actually see who the better macro players among Protoss players are. (I still remember arguing here about flavor-of-the-month Protosses who in my observation are quite lacking yet other members seemed totally believing to be the next Protoss bonjwas)
|
United States9232 Posts
On September 11 2014 14:48 usethis2 wrote:
Protoss has the easiest time macroing. It's not a secret and everyone knows it.
But as for mechanics and micros in other parts of the game, Protoss is very challenging. Those who believe Terran players with higher number of actions are more skilled than Protoss players are totally mistaken. You need to look at what tools (units) you are dealing with.
It has been discussed during early WOL days that Terran has the most units with "instant" attack types. (v. "missile," or "projectile" attacks) As a matter of fact there are very few instant attack units from Protoss and Zerg. (Toss air is somewhat of an odd ball with their moving attacks) Units with instant attacks are inherently more microable and also more rewarding.
So, it is very misleading to argue that Terran players are more skilled or whatever because you see visibly more unit movements from Terran army than from Protoss army. Protoss army requires precision, not speed. Can you imagine twitch-microing zealots and what kind of results that will bring? How about stutter-stepping colossi mid-battle when their attack animations take so long? You are more likely to waste lots of DPS doing that. Give Maru or whoever Terran Protoss units and you won't see the micro that he shows with marines and marauders.
Nevertheless, I agree that Protoss is less mechanically demanding when it comes to macro. But even here, you can kind of see why. Chronoboost is vastly inferior to mules/orbitals/larvae as the game progresses to the later stages. And yes, protoss has it easy in that their buildings require less attention. But it is not Protoss players' fault.
This easy of macro and warp gates resulted in a stunted growth in Protoss game play throughout WOL days. I am not a fan of Mothership core, but I firmly believe it is a necessary evil in HOTS. Back in the WOL days, I could not tell which Protoss players were more skilled players even in PvP mirrors. As Protoss game play is finally being developed in a serious manner, now it started to show who the better Protoss players are.
But it is still not enough. Certainly not up to the level of Terrans and Zergs. I hope Blizzard will address this in LOTV so that it is easier for spectators to actually see who the better macro players among Protoss players are. (I still remember arguing here about flavor-of-the-month Protosses who in my observation are quite lacking yet other members seemed totally believing to be the next Protoss bonjwas)
How in the world is Protoss macro easier. Everything about it is more challenging, to me. Warpgates is notably harder than going through Raxes. You can't queue with warpgate. You have to actually chrono individual buildings, which may not even all be on the same screen, as opposed to just muling a single location. You also can't macro midbattle without leaving the battle. If you forget to build a depot, you have calldown, whereas toss you ... are just supply blocked.
The only thing I find easier about protoss are the head on engagements, which is the micro aspect. Where are you getting that macro is easier.
|
On September 11 2014 11:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2014 00:00 submarine wrote:On September 09 2014 23:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 09 2014 14:39 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 07 2014 07:03 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 07 2014 06:34 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 07 2014 01:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:
@b1ob
But the problem tha you are presentin is not linked to mechanics but to meta game shifts and player choice. One CAN play mech vs toss just as Avilo does and still be better than 98% of the player base he competes in. The concept of "forced" gameplay means shit unless you're one of the 100-200 people being paid to play this game. Avilo is not the outlier, Maru is.
Protoss can be just as tactically proactive. Heck, do you remember how excited everyone was the first time we saw Sage beat Losira with multiprong strikes of zealots, Phoenix, warp prism harass while still moving his deathball while expanding? Or the nestea vs San game when we first learned about whack-a-mole Protoss? Then we had parting's heavy Templar style where he spread his Templars in 4-5 different parts of the map while tracking unit movement with constantly active observers to wear down enemy movement with storms making the matchup more akin to TvP on creep?
There have always been active Protoss players and there has always been passive Terran players. And both play styles can be used to get a player to the top 2% of the player base. It is only the exception to the norm top .5%-1% of players that certain play styles become no longer viable. And even then, it's purely dependent on meta game. While you have a point, I think it's taken a little far to the extreme. You can say whatever you want about player choice, but certain styles are bound to be notably less effective than others. For example, in PvT, you could be rank 1-2 masters if you open colossus each time. But if you open templar, you might hover around rank 10-12 masters. Which is a decently notable jump, considering a rank 1 masters should beat a rank 10 masters 90% of the time, I'd garner. I was responding to b1ob's comment that sitting and turtling with terran being effective as being the exception, and not the norm. The truth is that play style being the thing holding you back isn't a thing until you get to the top percentage points of the population. The exact opposite of what he's talking about. Only 2% of a population gets to be masters. And only a small percent of those gets to be rank 1 masters instead of rank 10 masters. And only a small percentage of that is when you can start legitimately saying "Terran can't mech ever" and even then, there will be a few GM players still doing it. That is not to say that there is a reason Maru is considered the best Terran in the world while Flash is only a "very very good terran" and it all has to do with the fact that Maru is much better at the kinetic, mechanics focused playstyle that people in this thread is complaining about. But the truth is that with enough practice, you can beat 98%-99% of starcraft players durdling with Terran. For MAJORITY of players, myself included, Terran does not HAVE to be proactive and click-happy ala Maru. I happen to find Terran play much easier mechanically than Protoss play. But I also play protoss like I play Terran and Zerg. Highly aggressive, and always on the map. Its hard to be out on the map hitting multiple areas while constantly warping in reinforcements either from a forward pylon, active prism, or to defend a drop/runby. Sure if I sit in my base and just twiddle my thumbs until max supply Protoss would be easy to play. But then, so would Terran if I played Terran that way. For 98%-99% of all Starcraft2 players, the race being mechanically difficult or easy is a choice. Because it's still exactly what I stated - it is holding you back and you're failing to recognize that. If you go mech - TvP, you may plateau at platinum. Merely switching to bio may enable you to reach Diamond. The style in itself is simply less powerful and more vulnerable, and this holds true for the vast, vast majority of the player base. Nothing you're stating is getting around that fact - that you have to outplay your opponent to a more degree than you would normally have to, if you want to use it. Avilo would also be considered in the top 1-2% so not sure why you're using him as an example. Build order choice =\= player skill. Maru is not where he is today because he plays bio based Terran play. He's where he is today because he's ridiculously good. He'd still be better than everyone in the US if he was practicing mech play for as much and as long as he's been practicing bio play. But since he's in the GSL, build order actually matters. But low GM and below your build order is irrelevant and the only thing holding you back is player skill. If your practice regiment playing mech only gets you to plat, your practice regiment playing bio will also get you to plat. I do not buy into that. Playing mech in TvP is like not building workers early on just for the sake of it. The playstyle is just weaker over all. Playin mech is a huge handicap that can be offset at lower leagues (below diamond/master) by surprising your opponent. Once you reach a level where toss has a general idea how to play against mech you need to outplay the toss by a very large margin. That's why you don't see any pros going mech. If mech was at least semi viable, far more pros would use it from time to time just to catch toss players of guard, that do not have any practice against it. Being that mech is viable in 2/3 of the match ups, I don't know what you're talking about. Its a playstyle you can use for all but 1 matchup; and even some players get results despite that. Unless you believe the only reason you're not GM is because you play 1 playstyle in 1 of 3 matchups.
I was only speaking about the vs toss MU in the quoted post. I do disagree with the notion that mech is viable in this MU for players below top GM. That's all.
|
call me crazy but I think mech has it best in the TvP matchup, there are no stimvacs, no endless waves of roach/swarmhost or 40 air units popping up out of nowhere, if not allready present and constantly poking you whilst constant waves of locusts are sent down upon you.
|
On September 11 2014 17:32 FabledIntegral wrote:
How in the world is Protoss macro easier. Everything about it is more challenging, to me. Warpgates is notably harder than going through Raxes. You can't queue with warpgate. You have to actually chrono individual buildings, which may not even all be on the same screen, as opposed to just muling a single location. You also can't macro midbattle without leaving the battle. If you forget to build a depot, you have calldown, whereas toss you ... are just supply blocked.
The only thing I find easier about protoss are the head on engagements, which is the micro aspect. Where are you getting that macro is easier.
Trust me in a game where macro matters like SC2 if queuing/rallying is easier you would see a lot more gateways than warp gates.
|
On September 11 2014 12:28 FabledIntegral wrote:
...........
I struggle with Protoss more than Zerg and Terran exclusively due to mechanics. I find the race intrinsically harder to play. I find myself consistently more supply blocked (with Terran you have call down mule, with Zerg you can continue to inject while supply blocked and produce larvae normally up to 3), especially due to Colossi friggin' costing 6, as well as struggling with warping in units in midbattle which I have aboslutely no problem with Terran.
Lategame Protoss finally becomes easier in PvT, but the early-midgame feels so punishing if you screw up in the slightest as Toss that I overall feel much more comfortable in TvP. I understand it's personal experience, and sure I may be the minority, but until the lategame Terran feels far more forgiving to me than Toss.
About that supply block part: As toss you will get your WG units as soon as you stop being supplyblocked. As terran the punishment is a bit harsher, because of the production time. I think that's the reason for the call down option.
As toss i feel like it can sometimes be an option to build extra gateways when you are supplyblocked. In a way you can catch up like that.
What i noticed lately is how often the TvP MU is decided by "information asymetry". What i mean by that is: As toss player you generally know what the terran knows about you, because scans and scouts can be seen. With cloaked observers, terrans often operate under the assumption that they were not spotted, while they actually were. At least for me that adds a bit of uneasiness to my terran play, especially in the early to midgame, where i can't scan all the time.
|
United States9232 Posts
On September 11 2014 17:47 usethis2 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2014 17:32 FabledIntegral wrote:
How in the world is Protoss macro easier. Everything about it is more challenging, to me. Warpgates is notably harder than going through Raxes. You can't queue with warpgate. You have to actually chrono individual buildings, which may not even all be on the same screen, as opposed to just muling a single location. You also can't macro midbattle without leaving the battle. If you forget to build a depot, you have calldown, whereas toss you ... are just supply blocked.
The only thing I find easier about protoss are the head on engagements, which is the micro aspect. Where are you getting that macro is easier.
Trust me in a game where macro matters like SC2 if queuing/rallying is easier you would see a lot more gateways than warp gates.
Trust you? I play all 3 races as random, I have my own experience in GM as random. So unless you're stating this only applies to top GM, I have no reason to trust you.
|
On September 11 2014 17:47 usethis2 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2014 17:32 FabledIntegral wrote:
How in the world is Protoss macro easier. Everything about it is more challenging, to me. Warpgates is notably harder than going through Raxes. You can't queue with warpgate. You have to actually chrono individual buildings, which may not even all be on the same screen, as opposed to just muling a single location. You also can't macro midbattle without leaving the battle. If you forget to build a depot, you have calldown, whereas toss you ... are just supply blocked.
The only thing I find easier about protoss are the head on engagements, which is the micro aspect. Where are you getting that macro is easier.
Trust me in a game where macro matters like SC2 if queuing/rallying is easier you would see a lot more gateways than warp gates.
...are you serious?
Rally queues ARE substantially easier to handle than Warpgates. This is blatantly apparent by comparing Stargate/Robotics Bay management with Warpgate management.
The reason you don't see "a lot more gateways than warp gates" is that warpgates are strictly better than gateways, with the trade off being that they're harder to manage efficiently. Quite apart from all the arguments about reduced travel time and front-loaded production giving a time-limited advantage and the tactical flexibility they offer, there's the simple fact of the massive production cycle reductions. Every unit apart from the Sentry takes ten seconds less to produce from a Warpgate than it does from a Gateway, and the Sentry takes five less. Ten seconds per unit is HUGE.
If you don't use Warpgates you are severely, severely hampering your production capability. Which is why people have suggested in the past to make faster to produce from a Gateway and make it an actual choice whether to use one or the other. Flexibility and front-loaded construction vs faster construction cycle time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
