|
On April 11 2013 05:34 HeyJude wrote:
He doesn't make a bad point. Random player here so I don't have a bias towards a certain race...outside of ling/bane zerg has very little micro. Now I do understand that with some play styles you'll be using both all game, but even then the micro required is minimal compared to bio micro unless it's ZvZ ling/bane vs ling/bane micro(which imo is the hardest micro in the game hands down, but that's just one MU, one scenario).
Well... there's early burrow roach pushes, muta harass, swarm host burrow/unburrow and landing fungals, off the top of my head.
|
On April 10 2013 19:21 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2013 18:59 Fencar wrote:On April 10 2013 16:41 Big J wrote:On April 10 2013 16:35 Fencar wrote:On April 10 2013 14:40 DARKHYDRA wrote:
But saying Terran is implies that it is vastly more micro intensive than the other two races. When the only examples that terran players point out is splitting units vs aoe and stutter step that's silly because all 3 races do that. That was my point.
I also did not say zerg was the micro race lol. Terran is both more punished and more rewarded for bad and good micro respectively than the other two races. It's not harder in the sense that the micro is more difficult, but it is more punishing if you get it horribly wrong, and far, far more rewarding if you get it right. yeah, no... this is not Code S open seasons 2 anymore with the only known micro being marine splitting. This is 2012/2013 HotS where we see Life countering hellions with zergling micro, Protoss stutterstepping zealots, zergs trying to pick off/trigger widow mines with few forces etc etc etc. But if Terran runs around with a clumped up MMMM ball they still die to Ling/Bane even if they still get the mines burrowed, since all the mines fire on the zerglings in the front, doing almost as much damage to allied units as to enemy units. Note: I'm mainly talking about big engagements, not single widow mines or hellions vs lings. Also, Hellions vs Lings requires the Terran to kite with the Hellions, and that can still be screwed up ending with the surround of Zerglings around the Hellions. Also remember I'm not talking about difficulty; just what happens when one or neither side micros, and when both sides micro really well. that doesn't make sense, because it's impossible to not micro at all. a-move in itself is micro. Waiting for the blings to catch up to the lings is micro. Burrowing the mines is micro. Basically what you say is if Zerg has all it's units in an unnatural formation achieved by micro "ling/bling ball" instead of lings far in front of blings and terran just sits there he loses. Yeah. But if Terran just burrows the mines, double clicks a marine and clicks a little to the back he wins because the mines kill most of the zerglings and the banelings crash into the marauders. Same goes for sieged tanks + marines vs ling/bling/muta. If zerg only does the little micro to get his units somewhat synchron into the combat and terran just positions not superbadly but with sieged tanks and marines behind the tanks, terran wins again in the amove battle. and that's stuff every bronze player is capable of doing.
Oh god no. The debate of "a-move is micro!" "No it's not!" "Yes it is!". To put it simply, a-moving is not considered micro by the majority of the population; otherwise, Protoss would not have been considered the 'a-move race' for a long time in WoL. IIRC, we don't redefine things like that.
Look, in roughly the same amount of clicks the Terran does, the Zerg can stop his army, throw some Banelings in front to splash on the mines, then chase down the Bio with Muta/Ling/Bane. Which can then be countered by splitting the mines or only burrowing a few. Which can then be countered by using individual Zerglings or Mutalisks to take down the mines. Which can then be countered by....
You get the idea, right?
Also, both armies can be split apart; the Medivacs could get far ahead of the Marine/Marauder, as could the Widow Mines. I'd rather not argue the details of this.
|
On April 11 2013 00:04 Protosnake wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2013 23:53 Rabiator wrote:On April 10 2013 16:33 Big J wrote:On April 10 2013 16:14 Rabiator wrote:On April 10 2013 16:06 DARKHYDRA wrote:On April 10 2013 15:24 plogamer wrote:On April 10 2013 14:40 DARKHYDRA wrote:
But saying Terran is implies that it is vastly more micro intensive than the other two races. When the only examples that terran players point out is splitting units vs aoe and stutter step that's silly because all 3 races do that. That was my point.
I also did not say zerg was the micro race lol. My God, we have a genius here. Single handedly debunked all false heresy that Terran is the harder race to play. Or maybe... Terrans are punished more severely when they fail to micro properly. Everypony, including the pro-players, make micro mistakes from time to time. When the Terran player makes a micro mistake, it is a much bigger deal than if Zergs or Protoss players make a mistake. Zergs have immense mobility and map-control. They are less likely to get unaware and make micro mistakes. They can pull back immediately without having to commit. Protoss units are big, bulky, except zealots - which are extremely tanky. So the damage of mistake in micro'ing against aoe is automatically reduced by default. With mothership core, protoss can also pull back immedialy without having to commit. Terrans have drops that force out mistakes. But for the main army (unless they're doom-dropped via medivac) there is no real way of quickly retreating in a bad engagement. Is your main army engaged? Then here is your mobility - Seige tanks, immobile. Widow mines, immobile. TLDR: Generally speaking, Terran mistakes with micro are less forgiving than Zerg or Protoss mistakes. And with this piece of excellent terran bias I rest my case. ggwp. It is only "stupid bias" if you prove that he is wrong. Since you dont bother disputing his claims your post is the biased one. The burden of proof is not on him, but on the guy who makes the claims. Kinda obvious IMO ... - sieging and unsieging tanks give Terrans a HUGE window of vulnerability - clicking STIM at the wrong time can screw you a few seconds later - mass bio is powerful, but both other races have a crowd control ability to "manage the battlefield", but Terrans dont have that ... which is a clear disadvantage - Siege Tanks deal friendly fire ... are there any Protoss or Zerg units which do the same (apart from Psi Storm, which is a controlled spell and not an automatic unit reaction)? The gist of it is that only Terran units have disadvantages like an hp cost for an ability or a long "immobile and unable to shoot" time. This means that there are many more ways to screw up as a Terran and the Baneling is a powerful anti-Marine unit where you HAVE TO MICRO your units perfectly or lose a big chunk of your army more or less instantly. tl;dr Terrans live more dangerous lives than either Zerg or Protoss ... You're just pointing out how terran get punished for their mistakes, not why it is more punishing than others races, I could also point stuff like the fact one widow mine can blow up 40 banelings or that swarm host are vulnerable while unburrowed, doesnt make my race live more dangerously than any other
I've never seen 40 banes made in one go (except when zerg is way ahead or is otherwise making a mistake), so let's leave the exaggerations to minimum.
Let's be generous and say 20 banes caught some bad hits in the middle of the map. You can run mutas and lings back and reform your army. Same with mutas, yes its painful to lose mutas, but atleast you don't have to lose the rest of the army if your mutas get slaughtered by thors or whatever.
When marines get caught clumped, there is no way to run the tanks back. Or if the tanks get sniped (caught unseiged, or not properly guarded against mutas), the lings will surround the marines and then banes will connect.
With a similar micro mistakes, Terran loses pretty much the whole army, and Zergs retreat with 2/3 of their army and live to fight another day.
|
On April 11 2013 09:33 Fencar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2013 19:21 Big J wrote:On April 10 2013 18:59 Fencar wrote:On April 10 2013 16:41 Big J wrote:On April 10 2013 16:35 Fencar wrote:On April 10 2013 14:40 DARKHYDRA wrote:
But saying Terran is implies that it is vastly more micro intensive than the other two races. When the only examples that terran players point out is splitting units vs aoe and stutter step that's silly because all 3 races do that. That was my point.
I also did not say zerg was the micro race lol. Terran is both more punished and more rewarded for bad and good micro respectively than the other two races. It's not harder in the sense that the micro is more difficult, but it is more punishing if you get it horribly wrong, and far, far more rewarding if you get it right. yeah, no... this is not Code S open seasons 2 anymore with the only known micro being marine splitting. This is 2012/2013 HotS where we see Life countering hellions with zergling micro, Protoss stutterstepping zealots, zergs trying to pick off/trigger widow mines with few forces etc etc etc. But if Terran runs around with a clumped up MMMM ball they still die to Ling/Bane even if they still get the mines burrowed, since all the mines fire on the zerglings in the front, doing almost as much damage to allied units as to enemy units. Note: I'm mainly talking about big engagements, not single widow mines or hellions vs lings. Also, Hellions vs Lings requires the Terran to kite with the Hellions, and that can still be screwed up ending with the surround of Zerglings around the Hellions. Also remember I'm not talking about difficulty; just what happens when one or neither side micros, and when both sides micro really well. that doesn't make sense, because it's impossible to not micro at all. a-move in itself is micro. Waiting for the blings to catch up to the lings is micro. Burrowing the mines is micro. Basically what you say is if Zerg has all it's units in an unnatural formation achieved by micro "ling/bling ball" instead of lings far in front of blings and terran just sits there he loses. Yeah. But if Terran just burrows the mines, double clicks a marine and clicks a little to the back he wins because the mines kill most of the zerglings and the banelings crash into the marauders. Same goes for sieged tanks + marines vs ling/bling/muta. If zerg only does the little micro to get his units somewhat synchron into the combat and terran just positions not superbadly but with sieged tanks and marines behind the tanks, terran wins again in the amove battle. and that's stuff every bronze player is capable of doing. Oh god no. The debate of "a-move is micro!" "No it's not!" "Yes it is!". To put it simply, a-moving is not considered micro by the majority of the population; otherwise, Protoss would not have been considered the 'a-move race' for a long time in WoL. IIRC, we don't redefine things like that. Look, in roughly the same amount of clicks the Terran does, the Zerg can stop his army, throw some Banelings in front to splash on the mines, then chase down the Bio with Muta/Ling/Bane. Which can then be countered by splitting the mines or only burrowing a few. Which can then be countered by using individual Zerglings or Mutalisks to take down the mines. Which can then be countered by.... You get the idea, right? Also, both armies can be split apart; the Medivacs could get far ahead of the Marine/Marauder, as could the Widow Mines. I'd rather not argue the details of this.
You get what I was saying, right?
If you don't have your marines at the front tanking the bling shots you are golden in an amove ling/bling/muta vs biomech battle. And being not stupidly setup is hardly great micro. (double click marine, click towards the back, done)
Just like not a-moving over half the map which splits your ling/bling/muta in 3parts that die separatly is hardly great micro.
But in such a scenario, Terran wins the amove battle.
On April 11 2013 10:16 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2013 00:04 Protosnake wrote:On April 10 2013 23:53 Rabiator wrote:On April 10 2013 16:33 Big J wrote:On April 10 2013 16:14 Rabiator wrote:On April 10 2013 16:06 DARKHYDRA wrote:On April 10 2013 15:24 plogamer wrote:On April 10 2013 14:40 DARKHYDRA wrote:
But saying Terran is implies that it is vastly more micro intensive than the other two races. When the only examples that terran players point out is splitting units vs aoe and stutter step that's silly because all 3 races do that. That was my point.
I also did not say zerg was the micro race lol. My God, we have a genius here. Single handedly debunked all false heresy that Terran is the harder race to play. Or maybe... Terrans are punished more severely when they fail to micro properly. Everypony, including the pro-players, make micro mistakes from time to time. When the Terran player makes a micro mistake, it is a much bigger deal than if Zergs or Protoss players make a mistake. Zergs have immense mobility and map-control. They are less likely to get unaware and make micro mistakes. They can pull back immediately without having to commit. Protoss units are big, bulky, except zealots - which are extremely tanky. So the damage of mistake in micro'ing against aoe is automatically reduced by default. With mothership core, protoss can also pull back immedialy without having to commit. Terrans have drops that force out mistakes. But for the main army (unless they're doom-dropped via medivac) there is no real way of quickly retreating in a bad engagement. Is your main army engaged? Then here is your mobility - Seige tanks, immobile. Widow mines, immobile. TLDR: Generally speaking, Terran mistakes with micro are less forgiving than Zerg or Protoss mistakes. And with this piece of excellent terran bias I rest my case. ggwp. It is only "stupid bias" if you prove that he is wrong. Since you dont bother disputing his claims your post is the biased one. The burden of proof is not on him, but on the guy who makes the claims. Kinda obvious IMO ... - sieging and unsieging tanks give Terrans a HUGE window of vulnerability - clicking STIM at the wrong time can screw you a few seconds later - mass bio is powerful, but both other races have a crowd control ability to "manage the battlefield", but Terrans dont have that ... which is a clear disadvantage - Siege Tanks deal friendly fire ... are there any Protoss or Zerg units which do the same (apart from Psi Storm, which is a controlled spell and not an automatic unit reaction)? The gist of it is that only Terran units have disadvantages like an hp cost for an ability or a long "immobile and unable to shoot" time. This means that there are many more ways to screw up as a Terran and the Baneling is a powerful anti-Marine unit where you HAVE TO MICRO your units perfectly or lose a big chunk of your army more or less instantly. tl;dr Terrans live more dangerous lives than either Zerg or Protoss ... You're just pointing out how terran get punished for their mistakes, not why it is more punishing than others races, I could also point stuff like the fact one widow mine can blow up 40 banelings or that swarm host are vulnerable while unburrowed, doesnt make my race live more dangerously than any other I've never seen 40 banes made in one go (except when zerg is way ahead or is otherwise making a mistake), so let's leave the exaggerations to minimum. Let's be generous and say 20 banes caught some bad hits in the middle of the map. You can run mutas and lings back and reform your army. Same with mutas, yes its painful to lose mutas, but atleast you don't have to lose the rest of the army if your mutas get slaughtered by thors or whatever. When marines get caught clumped, there is no way to run the tanks back. Or if the tanks get sniped (caught unseiged, or not properly guarded against mutas), the lings will surround the marines and then banes will connect. With a similar micro mistakes, Terran loses pretty much the whole army, and Zergs retreat with 2/3 of their army and live to fight another day.
Pick up with medivacs, retreat.
Happens all the time.
|
On April 11 2013 15:09 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2013 09:33 Fencar wrote:On April 10 2013 19:21 Big J wrote:On April 10 2013 18:59 Fencar wrote:On April 10 2013 16:41 Big J wrote:On April 10 2013 16:35 Fencar wrote:On April 10 2013 14:40 DARKHYDRA wrote:
But saying Terran is implies that it is vastly more micro intensive than the other two races. When the only examples that terran players point out is splitting units vs aoe and stutter step that's silly because all 3 races do that. That was my point.
I also did not say zerg was the micro race lol. Terran is both more punished and more rewarded for bad and good micro respectively than the other two races. It's not harder in the sense that the micro is more difficult, but it is more punishing if you get it horribly wrong, and far, far more rewarding if you get it right. yeah, no... this is not Code S open seasons 2 anymore with the only known micro being marine splitting. This is 2012/2013 HotS where we see Life countering hellions with zergling micro, Protoss stutterstepping zealots, zergs trying to pick off/trigger widow mines with few forces etc etc etc. But if Terran runs around with a clumped up MMMM ball they still die to Ling/Bane even if they still get the mines burrowed, since all the mines fire on the zerglings in the front, doing almost as much damage to allied units as to enemy units. Note: I'm mainly talking about big engagements, not single widow mines or hellions vs lings. Also, Hellions vs Lings requires the Terran to kite with the Hellions, and that can still be screwed up ending with the surround of Zerglings around the Hellions. Also remember I'm not talking about difficulty; just what happens when one or neither side micros, and when both sides micro really well. that doesn't make sense, because it's impossible to not micro at all. a-move in itself is micro. Waiting for the blings to catch up to the lings is micro. Burrowing the mines is micro. Basically what you say is if Zerg has all it's units in an unnatural formation achieved by micro "ling/bling ball" instead of lings far in front of blings and terran just sits there he loses. Yeah. But if Terran just burrows the mines, double clicks a marine and clicks a little to the back he wins because the mines kill most of the zerglings and the banelings crash into the marauders. Same goes for sieged tanks + marines vs ling/bling/muta. If zerg only does the little micro to get his units somewhat synchron into the combat and terran just positions not superbadly but with sieged tanks and marines behind the tanks, terran wins again in the amove battle. and that's stuff every bronze player is capable of doing. Oh god no. The debate of "a-move is micro!" "No it's not!" "Yes it is!". To put it simply, a-moving is not considered micro by the majority of the population; otherwise, Protoss would not have been considered the 'a-move race' for a long time in WoL. IIRC, we don't redefine things like that. Look, in roughly the same amount of clicks the Terran does, the Zerg can stop his army, throw some Banelings in front to splash on the mines, then chase down the Bio with Muta/Ling/Bane. Which can then be countered by splitting the mines or only burrowing a few. Which can then be countered by using individual Zerglings or Mutalisks to take down the mines. Which can then be countered by.... You get the idea, right? Also, both armies can be split apart; the Medivacs could get far ahead of the Marine/Marauder, as could the Widow Mines. I'd rather not argue the details of this. You get what I was saying, right? If you don't have your marines at the front tanking the bling shots you are golden in an amove ling/bling/muta vs biomech battle. And being not stupidly setup is hardly great micro. (double click marine, click towards the back, done) Just like not a-moving over half the map which splits your ling/bling/muta in 3parts that die separatly is hardly great micro. But in such a scenario, Terran wins the amove battle.
In a marine/tank push, it is not sufficient to run away marines from banelings while the tanks kill them. Then the marines are not contributing to the fight, and it's like you just had tanks sitting on the field naked trying to kill ling/bling/muta. You need to keep the majority of your marines firing to abate the lings and mutas, while trying to target-fire the tanks onto banelings and avoid banelings with the marines. And pre-splitting before the battle isn't really sufficient; you need to be pushing marines around during the fight (towards clumps of mutas, away from clumps of banelings, etc.). So typical micro involves pre-splitting before engagement, target-firing tanks, and between tank shots trying to move marines to where they should be. As a diamond Terran all I can manage is target-firing tanks once at the beginning of the fight, and then pushing marines like a maniac and hoping the tanks fire where they should. Higher level Terrans will shift+right-click the tanks onto multiple banelings at the beginning, push marines, then target the tanks on banelings again when their attack cooldown is done.
I'm less familiar with the micro on the other side. But I do know the lings go largely un-micro'd. Mutas will try to swoop in and pick off tanks before the fight, but during the fight they can usually a-move with the lings and count on the lings to tank marine shots. Higher level Zergs might try to attack from a different angle with the mutas to avoid where the marines are, but in a lot of cases you wouldn't even be better off doing that. You could also target-fire the tanks with mutas, but that could easily be queued up as your army approaches the Terran's with a series of shift+right-clicks. So as you approach, you a-move everything, queue up targets for the mutas, and then during the battle you only need to micro the banelings towards the marines.
Maybe in an ABSOLUTE a-move battle the Terran wins; then the banelings wouldn't be chasing anything in particular, so it'd just be a matter of luck for what the tanks decided to shoot and where the banelings decided to roll. But in low-level micro battles, the Zerg definitely has an easier time of things. When I was in gold/plat in WoL tank pushes were pretty much a bad idea, because even if you didn't do one of the many very easy screw-ups that players know how to avoid at higher levels (e.g. running the bio too far ahead, or getting your medivacs all sniped by mutalisks, or getting caught with the tanks unsieged) the actual battle almost never favored you because the micro was too hard. Better to try multiple drops, or a mech push, or some kind of banshee harass.
Of course I don't think marine/tank pushes are exactly standard in TvZ these days anyway, so I'm not really trying to comment on balance. Just sharing my experience as a mediocre Terran player.
|
On April 11 2013 15:37 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2013 15:09 Big J wrote:On April 11 2013 09:33 Fencar wrote:On April 10 2013 19:21 Big J wrote:On April 10 2013 18:59 Fencar wrote:On April 10 2013 16:41 Big J wrote:On April 10 2013 16:35 Fencar wrote:On April 10 2013 14:40 DARKHYDRA wrote:
But saying Terran is implies that it is vastly more micro intensive than the other two races. When the only examples that terran players point out is splitting units vs aoe and stutter step that's silly because all 3 races do that. That was my point.
I also did not say zerg was the micro race lol. Terran is both more punished and more rewarded for bad and good micro respectively than the other two races. It's not harder in the sense that the micro is more difficult, but it is more punishing if you get it horribly wrong, and far, far more rewarding if you get it right. yeah, no... this is not Code S open seasons 2 anymore with the only known micro being marine splitting. This is 2012/2013 HotS where we see Life countering hellions with zergling micro, Protoss stutterstepping zealots, zergs trying to pick off/trigger widow mines with few forces etc etc etc. But if Terran runs around with a clumped up MMMM ball they still die to Ling/Bane even if they still get the mines burrowed, since all the mines fire on the zerglings in the front, doing almost as much damage to allied units as to enemy units. Note: I'm mainly talking about big engagements, not single widow mines or hellions vs lings. Also, Hellions vs Lings requires the Terran to kite with the Hellions, and that can still be screwed up ending with the surround of Zerglings around the Hellions. Also remember I'm not talking about difficulty; just what happens when one or neither side micros, and when both sides micro really well. that doesn't make sense, because it's impossible to not micro at all. a-move in itself is micro. Waiting for the blings to catch up to the lings is micro. Burrowing the mines is micro. Basically what you say is if Zerg has all it's units in an unnatural formation achieved by micro "ling/bling ball" instead of lings far in front of blings and terran just sits there he loses. Yeah. But if Terran just burrows the mines, double clicks a marine and clicks a little to the back he wins because the mines kill most of the zerglings and the banelings crash into the marauders. Same goes for sieged tanks + marines vs ling/bling/muta. If zerg only does the little micro to get his units somewhat synchron into the combat and terran just positions not superbadly but with sieged tanks and marines behind the tanks, terran wins again in the amove battle. and that's stuff every bronze player is capable of doing. Oh god no. The debate of "a-move is micro!" "No it's not!" "Yes it is!". To put it simply, a-moving is not considered micro by the majority of the population; otherwise, Protoss would not have been considered the 'a-move race' for a long time in WoL. IIRC, we don't redefine things like that. Look, in roughly the same amount of clicks the Terran does, the Zerg can stop his army, throw some Banelings in front to splash on the mines, then chase down the Bio with Muta/Ling/Bane. Which can then be countered by splitting the mines or only burrowing a few. Which can then be countered by using individual Zerglings or Mutalisks to take down the mines. Which can then be countered by.... You get the idea, right? Also, both armies can be split apart; the Medivacs could get far ahead of the Marine/Marauder, as could the Widow Mines. I'd rather not argue the details of this. You get what I was saying, right? If you don't have your marines at the front tanking the bling shots you are golden in an amove ling/bling/muta vs biomech battle. And being not stupidly setup is hardly great micro. (double click marine, click towards the back, done) Just like not a-moving over half the map which splits your ling/bling/muta in 3parts that die separatly is hardly great micro. But in such a scenario, Terran wins the amove battle. In a marine/tank push, it is not sufficient to run away marines from banelings while the tanks kill them. Then the marines are not contributing to the fight, and it's like you just had tanks sitting on the field naked trying to kill ling/bling/muta.
Not saying you should run them home. Just have them 3-5 range behind your tanks. Banelings autoattack the nearest target, which will be the tanks in an amove battle.
On April 11 2013 15:37 ChristianS wrote:
I'm less familiar with the micro on the other side. But I do know the lings go largely un-micro'd. Mutas will try to swoop in and pick off tanks before the fight, but during the fight they can usually a-move with the lings and count on the lings to tank marine shots. Higher level Zergs might try to attack from a different angle with the mutas to avoid where the marines are, but in a lot of cases you wouldn't even be better off doing that. You could also target-fire the tanks with mutas, but that could easily be queued up as your army approaches the Terran's with a series of shift+right-clicks. So as you approach, you a-move everything, queue up targets for the mutas, and then during the battle you only need to micro the banelings towards the marines.
Lings are mostly just setup to surround if you do it properly. You basically want to target with the banelings on the bigger marine groups and split them into clumps that target marine clumps if the terran splits. The mutas should be shiftclicked on the tanks, as you want them to die as fast as possible (without using too many banelings on them).
Of course the higher your apm, the more stuff you can add to this, but that's the basics.
|
On April 11 2013 15:50 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2013 15:37 ChristianS wrote:On April 11 2013 15:09 Big J wrote:On April 11 2013 09:33 Fencar wrote:On April 10 2013 19:21 Big J wrote:On April 10 2013 18:59 Fencar wrote:On April 10 2013 16:41 Big J wrote:On April 10 2013 16:35 Fencar wrote:On April 10 2013 14:40 DARKHYDRA wrote:
But saying Terran is implies that it is vastly more micro intensive than the other two races. When the only examples that terran players point out is splitting units vs aoe and stutter step that's silly because all 3 races do that. That was my point.
I also did not say zerg was the micro race lol. Terran is both more punished and more rewarded for bad and good micro respectively than the other two races. It's not harder in the sense that the micro is more difficult, but it is more punishing if you get it horribly wrong, and far, far more rewarding if you get it right. yeah, no... this is not Code S open seasons 2 anymore with the only known micro being marine splitting. This is 2012/2013 HotS where we see Life countering hellions with zergling micro, Protoss stutterstepping zealots, zergs trying to pick off/trigger widow mines with few forces etc etc etc. But if Terran runs around with a clumped up MMMM ball they still die to Ling/Bane even if they still get the mines burrowed, since all the mines fire on the zerglings in the front, doing almost as much damage to allied units as to enemy units. Note: I'm mainly talking about big engagements, not single widow mines or hellions vs lings. Also, Hellions vs Lings requires the Terran to kite with the Hellions, and that can still be screwed up ending with the surround of Zerglings around the Hellions. Also remember I'm not talking about difficulty; just what happens when one or neither side micros, and when both sides micro really well. that doesn't make sense, because it's impossible to not micro at all. a-move in itself is micro. Waiting for the blings to catch up to the lings is micro. Burrowing the mines is micro. Basically what you say is if Zerg has all it's units in an unnatural formation achieved by micro "ling/bling ball" instead of lings far in front of blings and terran just sits there he loses. Yeah. But if Terran just burrows the mines, double clicks a marine and clicks a little to the back he wins because the mines kill most of the zerglings and the banelings crash into the marauders. Same goes for sieged tanks + marines vs ling/bling/muta. If zerg only does the little micro to get his units somewhat synchron into the combat and terran just positions not superbadly but with sieged tanks and marines behind the tanks, terran wins again in the amove battle. and that's stuff every bronze player is capable of doing. Oh god no. The debate of "a-move is micro!" "No it's not!" "Yes it is!". To put it simply, a-moving is not considered micro by the majority of the population; otherwise, Protoss would not have been considered the 'a-move race' for a long time in WoL. IIRC, we don't redefine things like that. Look, in roughly the same amount of clicks the Terran does, the Zerg can stop his army, throw some Banelings in front to splash on the mines, then chase down the Bio with Muta/Ling/Bane. Which can then be countered by splitting the mines or only burrowing a few. Which can then be countered by using individual Zerglings or Mutalisks to take down the mines. Which can then be countered by.... You get the idea, right? Also, both armies can be split apart; the Medivacs could get far ahead of the Marine/Marauder, as could the Widow Mines. I'd rather not argue the details of this. You get what I was saying, right? If you don't have your marines at the front tanking the bling shots you are golden in an amove ling/bling/muta vs biomech battle. And being not stupidly setup is hardly great micro. (double click marine, click towards the back, done) Just like not a-moving over half the map which splits your ling/bling/muta in 3parts that die separatly is hardly great micro. But in such a scenario, Terran wins the amove battle. In a marine/tank push, it is not sufficient to run away marines from banelings while the tanks kill them. Then the marines are not contributing to the fight, and it's like you just had tanks sitting on the field naked trying to kill ling/bling/muta. Not saying you should run them home. Just have them 3-5 range behind your tanks. Banelings autoattack the nearest target, which will be the tanks in an amove battle. Show nested quote +On April 11 2013 15:37 ChristianS wrote:
I'm less familiar with the micro on the other side. But I do know the lings go largely un-micro'd. Mutas will try to swoop in and pick off tanks before the fight, but during the fight they can usually a-move with the lings and count on the lings to tank marine shots. Higher level Zergs might try to attack from a different angle with the mutas to avoid where the marines are, but in a lot of cases you wouldn't even be better off doing that. You could also target-fire the tanks with mutas, but that could easily be queued up as your army approaches the Terran's with a series of shift+right-clicks. So as you approach, you a-move everything, queue up targets for the mutas, and then during the battle you only need to micro the banelings towards the marines.
Lings are mostly just setup to surround if you do it properly. You basically want to target with the banelings on the bigger marine groups and split them into clumps that target marine clumps if the terran splits. The mutas should be shiftclicked on the tanks, as you want them to die as fast as possible (without using too many banelings on them). Of course the higher your apm, the more stuff you can add to this, but that's the basics.
Don't you normally move command banelings in that situation, and detonate them manually if needed?
|
On April 11 2013 16:32 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2013 15:50 Big J wrote:On April 11 2013 15:37 ChristianS wrote:On April 11 2013 15:09 Big J wrote:On April 11 2013 09:33 Fencar wrote:On April 10 2013 19:21 Big J wrote:On April 10 2013 18:59 Fencar wrote:On April 10 2013 16:41 Big J wrote:On April 10 2013 16:35 Fencar wrote:On April 10 2013 14:40 DARKHYDRA wrote:
But saying Terran is implies that it is vastly more micro intensive than the other two races. When the only examples that terran players point out is splitting units vs aoe and stutter step that's silly because all 3 races do that. That was my point.
I also did not say zerg was the micro race lol. Terran is both more punished and more rewarded for bad and good micro respectively than the other two races. It's not harder in the sense that the micro is more difficult, but it is more punishing if you get it horribly wrong, and far, far more rewarding if you get it right. yeah, no... this is not Code S open seasons 2 anymore with the only known micro being marine splitting. This is 2012/2013 HotS where we see Life countering hellions with zergling micro, Protoss stutterstepping zealots, zergs trying to pick off/trigger widow mines with few forces etc etc etc. But if Terran runs around with a clumped up MMMM ball they still die to Ling/Bane even if they still get the mines burrowed, since all the mines fire on the zerglings in the front, doing almost as much damage to allied units as to enemy units. Note: I'm mainly talking about big engagements, not single widow mines or hellions vs lings. Also, Hellions vs Lings requires the Terran to kite with the Hellions, and that can still be screwed up ending with the surround of Zerglings around the Hellions. Also remember I'm not talking about difficulty; just what happens when one or neither side micros, and when both sides micro really well. that doesn't make sense, because it's impossible to not micro at all. a-move in itself is micro. Waiting for the blings to catch up to the lings is micro. Burrowing the mines is micro. Basically what you say is if Zerg has all it's units in an unnatural formation achieved by micro "ling/bling ball" instead of lings far in front of blings and terran just sits there he loses. Yeah. But if Terran just burrows the mines, double clicks a marine and clicks a little to the back he wins because the mines kill most of the zerglings and the banelings crash into the marauders. Same goes for sieged tanks + marines vs ling/bling/muta. If zerg only does the little micro to get his units somewhat synchron into the combat and terran just positions not superbadly but with sieged tanks and marines behind the tanks, terran wins again in the amove battle. and that's stuff every bronze player is capable of doing. Oh god no. The debate of "a-move is micro!" "No it's not!" "Yes it is!". To put it simply, a-moving is not considered micro by the majority of the population; otherwise, Protoss would not have been considered the 'a-move race' for a long time in WoL. IIRC, we don't redefine things like that. Look, in roughly the same amount of clicks the Terran does, the Zerg can stop his army, throw some Banelings in front to splash on the mines, then chase down the Bio with Muta/Ling/Bane. Which can then be countered by splitting the mines or only burrowing a few. Which can then be countered by using individual Zerglings or Mutalisks to take down the mines. Which can then be countered by.... You get the idea, right? Also, both armies can be split apart; the Medivacs could get far ahead of the Marine/Marauder, as could the Widow Mines. I'd rather not argue the details of this. You get what I was saying, right? If you don't have your marines at the front tanking the bling shots you are golden in an amove ling/bling/muta vs biomech battle. And being not stupidly setup is hardly great micro. (double click marine, click towards the back, done) Just like not a-moving over half the map which splits your ling/bling/muta in 3parts that die separatly is hardly great micro. But in such a scenario, Terran wins the amove battle. In a marine/tank push, it is not sufficient to run away marines from banelings while the tanks kill them. Then the marines are not contributing to the fight, and it's like you just had tanks sitting on the field naked trying to kill ling/bling/muta. Not saying you should run them home. Just have them 3-5 range behind your tanks. Banelings autoattack the nearest target, which will be the tanks in an amove battle. On April 11 2013 15:37 ChristianS wrote:
I'm less familiar with the micro on the other side. But I do know the lings go largely un-micro'd. Mutas will try to swoop in and pick off tanks before the fight, but during the fight they can usually a-move with the lings and count on the lings to tank marine shots. Higher level Zergs might try to attack from a different angle with the mutas to avoid where the marines are, but in a lot of cases you wouldn't even be better off doing that. You could also target-fire the tanks with mutas, but that could easily be queued up as your army approaches the Terran's with a series of shift+right-clicks. So as you approach, you a-move everything, queue up targets for the mutas, and then during the battle you only need to micro the banelings towards the marines.
Lings are mostly just setup to surround if you do it properly. You basically want to target with the banelings on the bigger marine groups and split them into clumps that target marine clumps if the terran splits. The mutas should be shiftclicked on the tanks, as you want them to die as fast as possible (without using too many banelings on them). Of course the higher your apm, the more stuff you can add to this, but that's the basics. Don't you normally move command banelings in that situation, and detonate them manually if needed?
it depends on the situation. When the Terran just runs, you just movecommand the banelings towards/behind the marines. If the Terran splits, you should focus clumps of banelings on clumps of marines. (rightclick one of the marine in the clump so that your blings follow the group)
Manual detonations... I don't think anybody hardly ever does that (though I think it could make sense vs mines, but not sure if you even want to kill them during the combat, or just destroy them afterwards).
It only makes only sense for the banelings at the front to autodetonate. What we often see is banelings being movecommanded and surrounding the terran without exploding (movecommand towards an unsplit group of units) and then the zerg targetfires or amoves for a second with the banelings when he is close enough, so that the units actually get killed.
|
One large point:
Most of the time the zerg decides when a battle takes place, because his army is more mobile.
This is especially true for rine tank pushes. The terran has to do several tasks in a short timeframe at a time the zerg decides.
For players without top notch control the reaction time will cost terrans quite a lot of games.
|
On April 11 2013 15:09 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2013 09:33 Fencar wrote:On April 10 2013 19:21 Big J wrote:On April 10 2013 18:59 Fencar wrote:On April 10 2013 16:41 Big J wrote:On April 10 2013 16:35 Fencar wrote:On April 10 2013 14:40 DARKHYDRA wrote:
But saying Terran is implies that it is vastly more micro intensive than the other two races. When the only examples that terran players point out is splitting units vs aoe and stutter step that's silly because all 3 races do that. That was my point.
I also did not say zerg was the micro race lol. Terran is both more punished and more rewarded for bad and good micro respectively than the other two races. It's not harder in the sense that the micro is more difficult, but it is more punishing if you get it horribly wrong, and far, far more rewarding if you get it right. yeah, no... this is not Code S open seasons 2 anymore with the only known micro being marine splitting. This is 2012/2013 HotS where we see Life countering hellions with zergling micro, Protoss stutterstepping zealots, zergs trying to pick off/trigger widow mines with few forces etc etc etc. But if Terran runs around with a clumped up MMMM ball they still die to Ling/Bane even if they still get the mines burrowed, since all the mines fire on the zerglings in the front, doing almost as much damage to allied units as to enemy units. Note: I'm mainly talking about big engagements, not single widow mines or hellions vs lings. Also, Hellions vs Lings requires the Terran to kite with the Hellions, and that can still be screwed up ending with the surround of Zerglings around the Hellions. Also remember I'm not talking about difficulty; just what happens when one or neither side micros, and when both sides micro really well. that doesn't make sense, because it's impossible to not micro at all. a-move in itself is micro. Waiting for the blings to catch up to the lings is micro. Burrowing the mines is micro. Basically what you say is if Zerg has all it's units in an unnatural formation achieved by micro "ling/bling ball" instead of lings far in front of blings and terran just sits there he loses. Yeah. But if Terran just burrows the mines, double clicks a marine and clicks a little to the back he wins because the mines kill most of the zerglings and the banelings crash into the marauders. Same goes for sieged tanks + marines vs ling/bling/muta. If zerg only does the little micro to get his units somewhat synchron into the combat and terran just positions not superbadly but with sieged tanks and marines behind the tanks, terran wins again in the amove battle. and that's stuff every bronze player is capable of doing. Oh god no. The debate of "a-move is micro!" "No it's not!" "Yes it is!". To put it simply, a-moving is not considered micro by the majority of the population; otherwise, Protoss would not have been considered the 'a-move race' for a long time in WoL. IIRC, we don't redefine things like that. Look, in roughly the same amount of clicks the Terran does, the Zerg can stop his army, throw some Banelings in front to splash on the mines, then chase down the Bio with Muta/Ling/Bane. Which can then be countered by splitting the mines or only burrowing a few. Which can then be countered by using individual Zerglings or Mutalisks to take down the mines. Which can then be countered by.... You get the idea, right? Also, both armies can be split apart; the Medivacs could get far ahead of the Marine/Marauder, as could the Widow Mines. I'd rather not argue the details of this. You get what I was saying, right? If you don't have your marines at the front tanking the bling shots you are golden in an amove ling/bling/muta vs biomech battle. And being not stupidly setup is hardly great micro. (double click marine, click towards the back, done) Just like not a-moving over half the map which splits your ling/bling/muta in 3parts that die separatly is hardly great micro. But in such a scenario, Terran wins the amove battle. With a similar amount of micro you can control-click the Banelings and right click towards the Marines, avoiding the Marauders. Then you could say the Terran player moves his Marines in a different direction or splits them. Then I could say that the Zerg player then splits some Banelings. Etc.
But that's not my point. My point is that if Terran screws up his micro he is punished more heavily than the other races, despite the micro itself not being that much more difficult. If you send your Marines into your opponent's Banelings instead of away from them by accident or mess up a hotkey causing a support unit like Ghosts or Tanks to be grouped with your Bio, it can be game-ending. By contrast, if a Protoss for example focus fires a target, what can happen is the Stalkers or Colossus quickly dispatch it, the Zealots and Archons stop doing DPS for a few seconds, but overall it's not nearly as bad as a Terran bio-ball accidently focus firing something, causing it to clump up and likely die to several psi-storms or Colossus shots.
|
|
|
On April 12 2013 03:39 Emzeeshady wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 00:01 Fencar wrote:On April 11 2013 15:09 Big J wrote:On April 11 2013 09:33 Fencar wrote:On April 10 2013 19:21 Big J wrote:On April 10 2013 18:59 Fencar wrote:On April 10 2013 16:41 Big J wrote:On April 10 2013 16:35 Fencar wrote:On April 10 2013 14:40 DARKHYDRA wrote:
But saying Terran is implies that it is vastly more micro intensive than the other two races. When the only examples that terran players point out is splitting units vs aoe and stutter step that's silly because all 3 races do that. That was my point.
I also did not say zerg was the micro race lol. Terran is both more punished and more rewarded for bad and good micro respectively than the other two races. It's not harder in the sense that the micro is more difficult, but it is more punishing if you get it horribly wrong, and far, far more rewarding if you get it right. yeah, no... this is not Code S open seasons 2 anymore with the only known micro being marine splitting. This is 2012/2013 HotS where we see Life countering hellions with zergling micro, Protoss stutterstepping zealots, zergs trying to pick off/trigger widow mines with few forces etc etc etc. But if Terran runs around with a clumped up MMMM ball they still die to Ling/Bane even if they still get the mines burrowed, since all the mines fire on the zerglings in the front, doing almost as much damage to allied units as to enemy units. Note: I'm mainly talking about big engagements, not single widow mines or hellions vs lings. Also, Hellions vs Lings requires the Terran to kite with the Hellions, and that can still be screwed up ending with the surround of Zerglings around the Hellions. Also remember I'm not talking about difficulty; just what happens when one or neither side micros, and when both sides micro really well. that doesn't make sense, because it's impossible to not micro at all. a-move in itself is micro. Waiting for the blings to catch up to the lings is micro. Burrowing the mines is micro. Basically what you say is if Zerg has all it's units in an unnatural formation achieved by micro "ling/bling ball" instead of lings far in front of blings and terran just sits there he loses. Yeah. But if Terran just burrows the mines, double clicks a marine and clicks a little to the back he wins because the mines kill most of the zerglings and the banelings crash into the marauders. Same goes for sieged tanks + marines vs ling/bling/muta. If zerg only does the little micro to get his units somewhat synchron into the combat and terran just positions not superbadly but with sieged tanks and marines behind the tanks, terran wins again in the amove battle. and that's stuff every bronze player is capable of doing. Oh god no. The debate of "a-move is micro!" "No it's not!" "Yes it is!". To put it simply, a-moving is not considered micro by the majority of the population; otherwise, Protoss would not have been considered the 'a-move race' for a long time in WoL. IIRC, we don't redefine things like that. Look, in roughly the same amount of clicks the Terran does, the Zerg can stop his army, throw some Banelings in front to splash on the mines, then chase down the Bio with Muta/Ling/Bane. Which can then be countered by splitting the mines or only burrowing a few. Which can then be countered by using individual Zerglings or Mutalisks to take down the mines. Which can then be countered by.... You get the idea, right? Also, both armies can be split apart; the Medivacs could get far ahead of the Marine/Marauder, as could the Widow Mines. I'd rather not argue the details of this. You get what I was saying, right? If you don't have your marines at the front tanking the bling shots you are golden in an amove ling/bling/muta vs biomech battle. And being not stupidly setup is hardly great micro. (double click marine, click towards the back, done) Just like not a-moving over half the map which splits your ling/bling/muta in 3parts that die separatly is hardly great micro. But in such a scenario, Terran wins the amove battle. But that's not my point. My point is that if Terran screws up his micro he is punished more heavily than the other races In WOL I would agree with you but not in HOTS. This thread has turned into a "my race is the hardest" argument which is pretty useless. On topic Zergs are starting to do better vs Terrans by my random approximation are somewhat close to 50%. Not to mention the games are super entertaining. I am glad medivacs were not nerfed so quickly  .
There are almost twice the number of zerg (12) qualified for challenger division than terran (7) in GSL, with protoss being at (11).
But lets nerf terran because some NA pros can't handle it, and they say so on streams!
|
On April 12 2013 03:39 Emzeeshady wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 00:01 Fencar wrote:On April 11 2013 15:09 Big J wrote:On April 11 2013 09:33 Fencar wrote:On April 10 2013 19:21 Big J wrote:On April 10 2013 18:59 Fencar wrote:On April 10 2013 16:41 Big J wrote:On April 10 2013 16:35 Fencar wrote:On April 10 2013 14:40 DARKHYDRA wrote:
But saying Terran is implies that it is vastly more micro intensive than the other two races. When the only examples that terran players point out is splitting units vs aoe and stutter step that's silly because all 3 races do that. That was my point.
I also did not say zerg was the micro race lol. Terran is both more punished and more rewarded for bad and good micro respectively than the other two races. It's not harder in the sense that the micro is more difficult, but it is more punishing if you get it horribly wrong, and far, far more rewarding if you get it right. yeah, no... this is not Code S open seasons 2 anymore with the only known micro being marine splitting. This is 2012/2013 HotS where we see Life countering hellions with zergling micro, Protoss stutterstepping zealots, zergs trying to pick off/trigger widow mines with few forces etc etc etc. But if Terran runs around with a clumped up MMMM ball they still die to Ling/Bane even if they still get the mines burrowed, since all the mines fire on the zerglings in the front, doing almost as much damage to allied units as to enemy units. Note: I'm mainly talking about big engagements, not single widow mines or hellions vs lings. Also, Hellions vs Lings requires the Terran to kite with the Hellions, and that can still be screwed up ending with the surround of Zerglings around the Hellions. Also remember I'm not talking about difficulty; just what happens when one or neither side micros, and when both sides micro really well. that doesn't make sense, because it's impossible to not micro at all. a-move in itself is micro. Waiting for the blings to catch up to the lings is micro. Burrowing the mines is micro. Basically what you say is if Zerg has all it's units in an unnatural formation achieved by micro "ling/bling ball" instead of lings far in front of blings and terran just sits there he loses. Yeah. But if Terran just burrows the mines, double clicks a marine and clicks a little to the back he wins because the mines kill most of the zerglings and the banelings crash into the marauders. Same goes for sieged tanks + marines vs ling/bling/muta. If zerg only does the little micro to get his units somewhat synchron into the combat and terran just positions not superbadly but with sieged tanks and marines behind the tanks, terran wins again in the amove battle. and that's stuff every bronze player is capable of doing. Oh god no. The debate of "a-move is micro!" "No it's not!" "Yes it is!". To put it simply, a-moving is not considered micro by the majority of the population; otherwise, Protoss would not have been considered the 'a-move race' for a long time in WoL. IIRC, we don't redefine things like that. Look, in roughly the same amount of clicks the Terran does, the Zerg can stop his army, throw some Banelings in front to splash on the mines, then chase down the Bio with Muta/Ling/Bane. Which can then be countered by splitting the mines or only burrowing a few. Which can then be countered by using individual Zerglings or Mutalisks to take down the mines. Which can then be countered by.... You get the idea, right? Also, both armies can be split apart; the Medivacs could get far ahead of the Marine/Marauder, as could the Widow Mines. I'd rather not argue the details of this. You get what I was saying, right? If you don't have your marines at the front tanking the bling shots you are golden in an amove ling/bling/muta vs biomech battle. And being not stupidly setup is hardly great micro. (double click marine, click towards the back, done) Just like not a-moving over half the map which splits your ling/bling/muta in 3parts that die separatly is hardly great micro. But in such a scenario, Terran wins the amove battle. But that's not my point. My point is that if Terran screws up his micro he is punished more heavily than the other races In WOL I would agree with you but not in HOTS. This thread has turned into a "my race is the hardest" argument which is pretty useless. On topic Zergs are starting to do better vs Terrans by my random approximation are somewhat close to 50%. Not to mention the games are super entertaining. I am glad medivacs were not nerfed so quickly .
yeah TvZ looks quite balanced. Though quite dumbed down to be honest. There is not a lot of strategies that seem viable right now with blinding cloud on tanks and pure MMM beating anything that doesn't rush out mutas. It's low tier spamming + upgrades until one player dies.
Hell, I'm having a thousand times more success with mech in TvP than in TvZ right now and nearly all of my swarm host or broodlord or openings without mutas have failed 
|
On April 11 2013 15:09 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2013 10:16 plogamer wrote:On April 11 2013 00:04 Protosnake wrote:On April 10 2013 23:53 Rabiator wrote:On April 10 2013 16:33 Big J wrote:On April 10 2013 16:14 Rabiator wrote:On April 10 2013 16:06 DARKHYDRA wrote:On April 10 2013 15:24 plogamer wrote:On April 10 2013 14:40 DARKHYDRA wrote:
But saying Terran is implies that it is vastly more micro intensive than the other two races. When the only examples that terran players point out is splitting units vs aoe and stutter step that's silly because all 3 races do that. That was my point.
I also did not say zerg was the micro race lol. My God, we have a genius here. Single handedly debunked all false heresy that Terran is the harder race to play. Or maybe... Terrans are punished more severely when they fail to micro properly. Everypony, including the pro-players, make micro mistakes from time to time. When the Terran player makes a micro mistake, it is a much bigger deal than if Zergs or Protoss players make a mistake. Zergs have immense mobility and map-control. They are less likely to get unaware and make micro mistakes. They can pull back immediately without having to commit. Protoss units are big, bulky, except zealots - which are extremely tanky. So the damage of mistake in micro'ing against aoe is automatically reduced by default. With mothership core, protoss can also pull back immedialy without having to commit. Terrans have drops that force out mistakes. But for the main army (unless they're doom-dropped via medivac) there is no real way of quickly retreating in a bad engagement. Is your main army engaged? Then here is your mobility - Seige tanks, immobile. Widow mines, immobile. TLDR: Generally speaking, Terran mistakes with micro are less forgiving than Zerg or Protoss mistakes. And with this piece of excellent terran bias I rest my case. ggwp. It is only "stupid bias" if you prove that he is wrong. Since you dont bother disputing his claims your post is the biased one. The burden of proof is not on him, but on the guy who makes the claims. Kinda obvious IMO ... - sieging and unsieging tanks give Terrans a HUGE window of vulnerability - clicking STIM at the wrong time can screw you a few seconds later - mass bio is powerful, but both other races have a crowd control ability to "manage the battlefield", but Terrans dont have that ... which is a clear disadvantage - Siege Tanks deal friendly fire ... are there any Protoss or Zerg units which do the same (apart from Psi Storm, which is a controlled spell and not an automatic unit reaction)? The gist of it is that only Terran units have disadvantages like an hp cost for an ability or a long "immobile and unable to shoot" time. This means that there are many more ways to screw up as a Terran and the Baneling is a powerful anti-Marine unit where you HAVE TO MICRO your units perfectly or lose a big chunk of your army more or less instantly. tl;dr Terrans live more dangerous lives than either Zerg or Protoss ... You're just pointing out how terran get punished for their mistakes, not why it is more punishing than others races, I could also point stuff like the fact one widow mine can blow up 40 banelings or that swarm host are vulnerable while unburrowed, doesnt make my race live more dangerously than any other I've never seen 40 banes made in one go (except when zerg is way ahead or is otherwise making a mistake), so let's leave the exaggerations to minimum. Let's be generous and say 20 banes caught some bad hits in the middle of the map. You can run mutas and lings back and reform your army. Same with mutas, yes its painful to lose mutas, but atleast you don't have to lose the rest of the army if your mutas get slaughtered by thors or whatever. When marines get caught clumped, there is no way to run the tanks back. Or if the tanks get sniped (caught unseiged, or not properly guarded against mutas), the lings will surround the marines and then banes will connect. With a similar micro mistakes, Terran loses pretty much the whole army, and Zergs retreat with 2/3 of their army and live to fight another day. Pick up with medivacs, retreat. Happens all the time.
What?!?! Pick up and leave vs muta/ling/bling? Mutas will shoot down the medivacs. Lings will be waiting below for you to feed them units one by one. Please don't just outright lie to us like that. It might happen sometimes if the muta count is low enough, but you never see it happen "all the time".
|
This is what I'm working on at the moment:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At0PE4rdhsI9dDE0cEprWkwwMGxQdTczTTlLNW1qX1E&usp=sharing
(source: liquipedia)
Just to add a little bit of substance to this discussion, most people are relying on anecdotal evidence and personal experience which are terrible indicators for balance. I suggest we wait until May when we have the full data for April to draw any more balance conclusions.
All we could possibly infer on a statistical level, from the games played so far, is that TvZ seems Terran favored, TvP very Protoss favored and PvZ fairly balanced.
Anyhing other than that is pure speculation and should be ignored for now.
|
On April 12 2013 04:34 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2013 15:09 Big J wrote:On April 11 2013 10:16 plogamer wrote:On April 11 2013 00:04 Protosnake wrote:On April 10 2013 23:53 Rabiator wrote:On April 10 2013 16:33 Big J wrote:On April 10 2013 16:14 Rabiator wrote:On April 10 2013 16:06 DARKHYDRA wrote:On April 10 2013 15:24 plogamer wrote:On April 10 2013 14:40 DARKHYDRA wrote:
But saying Terran is implies that it is vastly more micro intensive than the other two races. When the only examples that terran players point out is splitting units vs aoe and stutter step that's silly because all 3 races do that. That was my point.
I also did not say zerg was the micro race lol. My God, we have a genius here. Single handedly debunked all false heresy that Terran is the harder race to play. Or maybe... Terrans are punished more severely when they fail to micro properly. Everypony, including the pro-players, make micro mistakes from time to time. When the Terran player makes a micro mistake, it is a much bigger deal than if Zergs or Protoss players make a mistake. Zergs have immense mobility and map-control. They are less likely to get unaware and make micro mistakes. They can pull back immediately without having to commit. Protoss units are big, bulky, except zealots - which are extremely tanky. So the damage of mistake in micro'ing against aoe is automatically reduced by default. With mothership core, protoss can also pull back immedialy without having to commit. Terrans have drops that force out mistakes. But for the main army (unless they're doom-dropped via medivac) there is no real way of quickly retreating in a bad engagement. Is your main army engaged? Then here is your mobility - Seige tanks, immobile. Widow mines, immobile. TLDR: Generally speaking, Terran mistakes with micro are less forgiving than Zerg or Protoss mistakes. And with this piece of excellent terran bias I rest my case. ggwp. It is only "stupid bias" if you prove that he is wrong. Since you dont bother disputing his claims your post is the biased one. The burden of proof is not on him, but on the guy who makes the claims. Kinda obvious IMO ... - sieging and unsieging tanks give Terrans a HUGE window of vulnerability - clicking STIM at the wrong time can screw you a few seconds later - mass bio is powerful, but both other races have a crowd control ability to "manage the battlefield", but Terrans dont have that ... which is a clear disadvantage - Siege Tanks deal friendly fire ... are there any Protoss or Zerg units which do the same (apart from Psi Storm, which is a controlled spell and not an automatic unit reaction)? The gist of it is that only Terran units have disadvantages like an hp cost for an ability or a long "immobile and unable to shoot" time. This means that there are many more ways to screw up as a Terran and the Baneling is a powerful anti-Marine unit where you HAVE TO MICRO your units perfectly or lose a big chunk of your army more or less instantly. tl;dr Terrans live more dangerous lives than either Zerg or Protoss ... You're just pointing out how terran get punished for their mistakes, not why it is more punishing than others races, I could also point stuff like the fact one widow mine can blow up 40 banelings or that swarm host are vulnerable while unburrowed, doesnt make my race live more dangerously than any other I've never seen 40 banes made in one go (except when zerg is way ahead or is otherwise making a mistake), so let's leave the exaggerations to minimum. Let's be generous and say 20 banes caught some bad hits in the middle of the map. You can run mutas and lings back and reform your army. Same with mutas, yes its painful to lose mutas, but atleast you don't have to lose the rest of the army if your mutas get slaughtered by thors or whatever. When marines get caught clumped, there is no way to run the tanks back. Or if the tanks get sniped (caught unseiged, or not properly guarded against mutas), the lings will surround the marines and then banes will connect. With a similar micro mistakes, Terran loses pretty much the whole army, and Zergs retreat with 2/3 of their army and live to fight another day. Pick up with medivacs, retreat. Happens all the time. What?!?! Pick up and leave vs muta/ling/bling? Mutas will shoot down the medivacs. Lings will be waiting below for you to feed them units one by one. Please don't just outright lie to us like that. It might happen sometimes if the muta count is low enough, but you never see it happen "all the time".
afterburner gets you pretty far away, mutas don't have the dps to shoot down everything, ling/blings can't move around forever... just watch the games. Like todays games. And then tell me that fantasy and teaja don't pick up to retreat. ALL THE TIME.
|
|
|
aligulac is not very reliable. they are missing roughly 25% of all games played just in the GSL qualifiers alone. If you really want to have accurate statistics you can't just leave out 25% of all the games played in any given tournament.
|
On April 12 2013 04:46 SlixSC wrote:aligulac is not very reliable. they are missing roughly 25% of all games played just in the GSL qualifiers alone. If you really want to have accurate statistics you can't just leave out 25% of all the games played in any given tournament.
a) as long as the left out games are arbitrary it doesn't matter statistically
b) qualifiers shouldn't be in there anyways, because everyone can participate and therefore you get many pro vs nonpro games which are won by the pro no matter what. And therefore the winrates turn out closer to 50:50 than they should be.
c) I wish people would stop calling every statistic inaccurate for some reason or another. Yeah sure they are inaccurate. It's statistic. It's always going to be inaccurate to some degree. Be happy that we get stuff to work with, even if it is not perfect.
|
On April 12 2013 05:41 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 04:46 SlixSC wrote:aligulac is not very reliable. they are missing roughly 25% of all games played just in the GSL qualifiers alone. If you really want to have accurate statistics you can't just leave out 25% of all the games played in any given tournament. a) as long as the left out games are arbitrary it doesn't matter statistically b) qualifiers shouldn't be in there anyways, because everyone can participate and therefore you get many pro vs nonpro games which are won by the pro no matter what. And therefore the winrates turn out closer to 50:50 than they should be. c) I wish people would stop calling every statistic inaccurate for some reason or another. Yeah sure they are inaccurate. It's statistic. It's always going to be inaccurate to some degree. Be happy that we get stuff to work with, even if it is not perfect.
You realize that I'm not just complaining but actually doing something and making more accurate statistics. And "as long as the left out games are arbitrary" is a meaningless statement, how could you possibly prove that they were left out arbitrarily. And a) is strongly contradicated by b), you understand the central limit theorem, but only apply it to a) but not to b).
Which makes me think that you are heavily biased, for whatever reason.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
