|
On June 11 2013 13:26 Sabu113 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 11:54 Emzeeshady wrote:On June 11 2013 10:38 usethis2 wrote:
The way games are played now, Terran is by far the easiest race macro-wise. It seems like all they need is stim + combat sheid + 2 ebays throughout the game. Add widow mine burrow speed upgrade whenever you remember. Their techs are set within the first 7~8 mins of the game. Rest of the game is simply adding more rax or CCs as you have excess minerals. It's a huge advantage for T in that they can spend more time on their units and map than P or Z. Someone hasn't played Protoss :p Such a lazy answer. I don't know how in any world hitting 5 and tapping aaaa isn't easier than looking away from your army to warp in when the timers run down. Whatever. SC2 matches its audience. A simple solution for mutas would have been to limit air control groups to 12. Somewhat helps with voids as well. Frankly, they kinda missed the mark with airplay in sc2.
terran needs to look back to base to grab reinforcements, simply building is not enough (but of cause Toss has warp in so this problem usually don't come across toss player's mind)
but toss doesn't have the "oh shit didn't split get stormed" moment
|
United States7483 Posts
On June 11 2013 13:36 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 13:26 Sabu113 wrote:On June 11 2013 11:54 Emzeeshady wrote:On June 11 2013 10:38 usethis2 wrote:
The way games are played now, Terran is by far the easiest race macro-wise. It seems like all they need is stim + combat sheid + 2 ebays throughout the game. Add widow mine burrow speed upgrade whenever you remember. Their techs are set within the first 7~8 mins of the game. Rest of the game is simply adding more rax or CCs as you have excess minerals. It's a huge advantage for T in that they can spend more time on their units and map than P or Z. Someone hasn't played Protoss :p Such a lazy answer. I don't know how in any world hitting 5 and tapping aaaa isn't easier than looking away from your army to warp in when the timers run down. Whatever. SC2 matches its audience. A simple solution for mutas would have been to limit air control groups to 12. Somewhat helps with voids as well. Frankly, they kinda missed the mark with airplay in sc2. terran needs to look back to base to grab reinforcements, simply building is not enough (but of cause Toss has warp in so this problem usually don't come across toss player's mind) but toss doesn't have the "oh shit didn't split get stormed" moment
It's called fungal, yeah they do.
|
but toss doesn't have the "oh shit didn't split get stormed" moment
Do you really think protoss hasnt the problem of engagements when they didnt look ? please keep your biased useless opinion out of this thread. Emp has teh exact same effect ups i got emped guess i cant storm anymore and im dead now. Because Protoss cant disengage. (thx 50% more runspeed on stim and concussive)
|
On June 11 2013 13:39 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 13:36 ETisME wrote:On June 11 2013 13:26 Sabu113 wrote:On June 11 2013 11:54 Emzeeshady wrote:On June 11 2013 10:38 usethis2 wrote:
The way games are played now, Terran is by far the easiest race macro-wise. It seems like all they need is stim + combat sheid + 2 ebays throughout the game. Add widow mine burrow speed upgrade whenever you remember. Their techs are set within the first 7~8 mins of the game. Rest of the game is simply adding more rax or CCs as you have excess minerals. It's a huge advantage for T in that they can spend more time on their units and map than P or Z. Someone hasn't played Protoss :p Such a lazy answer. I don't know how in any world hitting 5 and tapping aaaa isn't easier than looking away from your army to warp in when the timers run down. Whatever. SC2 matches its audience. A simple solution for mutas would have been to limit air control groups to 12. Somewhat helps with voids as well. Frankly, they kinda missed the mark with airplay in sc2. terran needs to look back to base to grab reinforcements, simply building is not enough (but of cause Toss has warp in so this problem usually don't come across toss player's mind) but toss doesn't have the "oh shit didn't split get stormed" moment It's called fungal, yeah they do.
You must realize that protoss has the most apm demanding macro mechanics, they must crono different things constantly as well as moving their screen with press a keyboard button and mouse click for every unit. Zerg and terran can macro units with just hotkeys, , zerg can larva inject with just hotkeys. Of course terran has to mule, and zerg has creep spread. To say Protoss has easier macro is just silly.
|
in my opinion:
macro difficulty wise
zerg > terran > protoss
micro difficulty wise
terran > zerg > protoss
i have played over 2k games each as protoss zerg and terran on high masters mmr.
|
On June 11 2013 23:21 willstertben wrote:
in my opinion:
macro difficulty wise
zerg > terran > protoss
micro difficulty wise
terran > zerg > protoss
i have played over 2k games each as protoss zerg and terran on high masters mmr.
I think a highly overlooked fact in all of this is that protoss is the most apm demanding and mechanically demanding for macro, however, the very high cost of units and warp gate mechanic allow toss players to dump large amounts of bank into an army very quickly. So while it is easier to keep your money spent, it is more demanding imo.
The fact that a single probe can dump a lot of money and produce a mass of buildings quickly by shift queuing, is helpful to spend a bank as well. The double edge to this sword is that high cost army is often too valuable to lose. If the core units (casters, robo units, or air units) get killed and the gateway buffer units are not replaced quickly enough, it is very often GG for protoss. While with Terran or Zerg, large armies are often thrown away or traded (sometimes cost effectively but often not) yet it is by no means a crippling blow. This often occurs in earlier stages of the game, when protoss simply doesn't have the infrastructure or economy yet, in order to "instantly replace" what was lost.
People need to stop acting like protoss is so easy to play and so godly. Look at any graph you want for the history of sc2 since early in WOL and it's clear the race has been outperformed consistently. The reason I believe this is the case, is because although protoss has it's strengths, it has massive holes in its game play that are extremely exploitable. Tech switches, losing a single battle, losing a single base, losing a single tech structure, are all almost fatal to protoss, where we've seen Terran and zerg recover from these things time and time again. Rarely do any of these things happen to a protoss and they win. Once protoss gets behind, it's very rare to see them come back in any matchup.
Then there is the great troubles protoss has in taking and holding a 3rd (especially any kind of "early" 3rd, even when it is later than a zerg or terran 3rd) , it is such a defining problem of the race, that map making is very skewed and restricted by it. It is VERY hard to make a protoss favored map, and very common for maps to be favored against protoss.
The last protoss issue that has existed since the dawn of sc2 is how weak protoss is against cheese's and all in's. Often protoss is so poor at defending them cost effectively that an all in vs protoss isn't even all in. Even after a very good defense by protoss, the game is often still on equal footing after the defense.
The mothership core was supposed to be a big band aid for many of these issues, it certainly does help with many of them, but I feel it is greatly inadequate, and the reliance on it is almost as shameful as protoss reliance on force fields.
I really hope we see some huge fundamental changes to protoss and its units in LOTV. So protoss players can feel less restricted and often abused, and the other races can stop complaining about it, while it is clearly and undeniably the weakest race in sc2 throughout it's history, by a solid margin.
|
On June 12 2013 00:48 Reborn8u wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 23:21 willstertben wrote:
in my opinion:
macro difficulty wise
zerg > terran > protoss
micro difficulty wise
terran > zerg > protoss
i have played over 2k games each as protoss zerg and terran on high masters mmr.
I think a highly overlooked fact in all of this is that protoss is the most apm demanding and mechanically demanding for macro, however, the very high cost of units and warp gate mechanic allow toss players to dump large amounts of bank into an army very quickly. So while it is easier to keep your money spent, it is more demanding imo. The fact that a single probe can dump a lot of money and produce a mass of buildings quickly by shift queuing, is helpful to spend a bank as well. The double edge to this sword is that high cost army is often too valuable to lose. If the core units (casters, robo units, or air units) get killed and the gateway buffer units are not replaced quickly enough, it is very often GG for protoss. While with Terran or Zerg, large armies are often thrown away or traded (sometimes cost effectively but often not) yet it is by no means a crippling blow. This often occurs in earlier stages of the game, when protoss simply doesn't have the infrastructure or economy yet, in order to "instantly replace" what was lost. People need to stop acting like protoss is so easy to play and so godly. Look at any graph you want for the history of sc2 since early in WOL and it's clear the race has been outperformed consistently. The reason I believe this is the case, is because although protoss has it's strengths, it has massive holes in its game play that are extremely exploitable. Tech switches, losing a single battle, losing a single base, losing a single tech structure, are all almost fatal to protoss, where we've seen Terran and zerg recover from these things time and time again. Rarely do any of these things happen to a protoss and they win. Once protoss gets behind, it's very rare to see them come back in any matchup. Then there is the great troubles protoss has in taking and holding a 3rd (especially any kind of "early" 3rd, even when it is later than a zerg or terran 3rd) , it is such a defining problem of the race, that map making is very skewed and restricted by it. It is VERY hard to make a protoss favored map, and very common for maps to be favored against protoss. The last protoss issue that has existed since the dawn of sc2 is how weak protoss is against cheese's and all in's. Often protoss is so poor at defending them cost effectively that an all in vs protoss isn't even all in. Even after a very good defense by protoss, the game is often still on equal footing after the defense. The mothership core was supposed to be a big band aid for many of these issues, it certainly does help with many of them, but I feel it is greatly inadequate, and the reliance on it is almost as shameful as protoss reliance on force fields. I really hope we see some huge fundamental changes to protoss and its units in LOTV. So protoss players can feel less restricted and often abused, and the other races can stop complaining about it, while it is clearly and undeniably the weakest race in sc2 throughout it's history, by a solid margin.
Nice to see such a well written and thought out post in this thread 
|
Complaint
Problem: Zerg Mutalisk
Solution: Protoss Cannons should do the same amount of damage as the new spores to bio units.
Side Effects: will help defend mass muta without intensive micro of phoenix because you will float a lot of minerals, and it will help so you can have safe 3rds
Metagame Observation: It will help so you dont have to mass 1 unit to win the game so it is more like a composition.
Observation:
|
On June 12 2013 01:22 iDaNkS wrote:
Complaint
Problem: Zerg Mutalisk
Solution: Protoss Cannons should do the same amount of damage as the new spores to bio units.
Side Effects: will help defend mass muta without intensive micro of phoenix because you will float a lot of minerals, and it will help so you can have safe 3rds
Metagame Observation: It will help so you dont have to mass 1 unit to win the game so it is more like a composition.
Observation:
That would absolutely kill any zerg air against toss. If zerg went air you could just expand with cannons all around and zerg could´t do a thing. That would force zerg to go SH every match.
|
it would not kill it thats excatly why you are suppose to have a mix of air/ground army in your forces. compared to massing mutas and just amove and kill every single cannon/pylon and production with losing only a few because storm and blink/archons are not good against mutas you have to open up phoenix if you dont that is a auto loss or at least have the phoenix come with the + range upgrade
|
On June 11 2013 13:39 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 13:36 ETisME wrote:On June 11 2013 13:26 Sabu113 wrote:On June 11 2013 11:54 Emzeeshady wrote:On June 11 2013 10:38 usethis2 wrote:
The way games are played now, Terran is by far the easiest race macro-wise. It seems like all they need is stim + combat sheid + 2 ebays throughout the game. Add widow mine burrow speed upgrade whenever you remember. Their techs are set within the first 7~8 mins of the game. Rest of the game is simply adding more rax or CCs as you have excess minerals. It's a huge advantage for T in that they can spend more time on their units and map than P or Z. Someone hasn't played Protoss :p Such a lazy answer. I don't know how in any world hitting 5 and tapping aaaa isn't easier than looking away from your army to warp in when the timers run down. Whatever. SC2 matches its audience. A simple solution for mutas would have been to limit air control groups to 12. Somewhat helps with voids as well. Frankly, they kinda missed the mark with airplay in sc2. terran needs to look back to base to grab reinforcements, simply building is not enough (but of cause Toss has warp in so this problem usually don't come across toss player's mind) but toss doesn't have the "oh shit didn't split get stormed" moment It's called fungal, yeah they do.
I don't think I have ever seen any toss splitting against fungal to be honest. Not to mention fungal doesn't kill or injure the toss units as quickly as storm on terran bio.
Just look at the void rays tanking those fungal man lol
Also to those who said toss macro is difficult because of chrono, I will have to disagree. Chrono is only important during early mid game, just like any other races mechanics.
Missing an inject is just as important. Not having good creep is probably even more important.
|
On June 12 2013 01:22 iDaNkS wrote:
Complaint
Problem: Zerg Mutalisk
Solution: Protoss Cannons should do the same amount of damage as the new spores to bio units.
Side Effects: will help defend mass muta without intensive micro of phoenix because you will float a lot of minerals, and it will help so you can have safe 3rds
Metagame Observation: It will help so you dont have to mass 1 unit to win the game so it is more like a composition.
Observation:
That might be a little to good at defending terran drop harass as well. While protoss is the turtle race, I feel "giving" them easier defense is bad for the game, I would prefer some better mechanics that allow good player to defend better. One suggestion I've brought up several times is giving Nexus a psi field (like pylons) so it's easier to place cannons. On many maps it is hard to get a good amount of cannons + back up pylons in the area you need to guard the most, the mineral lines. The nexus field doesn't do anything on it's own, but would allow good toss players to better position their defenses. I don't feel it would have any major affect for providing warp ins, who doesn't put a pylon at expansions? However, when you think about it the needed pylon at every expansion does put the cost up to 500 for an expo.
I think one highly underused item in the protoss arsenal is shield upgrades. They affect everything, even buildings and workers. With how the mutalisk glave worm mechanic works, shield upgrades are a huge reduction in the overall dmg muta's can put out. It would help cannons last a little longer for sure. Other benefits to shield upgrades include making blink micro stronger, because you often blink the forward stalkers when their shields are down, this gives them a little more buffer. When switching into heavier air play, later in the game, shield upgrades will benefit both the early and mid game ground army, and then continue to add value to air units. Which are very expensive and any good player wants to keep them alive. Now you have a cyber producing air attack upgrades while your forge(s) can add defense to everything you have with shield upgrades, and continue to upgrade ground attack as well. I feel this is a very under-explored upgrade style because it is difficult to really feel the effect or to break down the benefit mathematically. The shield upgrade would probably be described by most as situational. It's kind of an abstract thing to grasp.
As time goes on, I feel we will see more and more protoss going for a late game composition that includes tempests and even carriers. Carriers put out so much dmg with air attack upgrades, as well as being a good mineral dump for fighters. Combined with the range of Tempests, they really add a lot to a protoss army. The reason I like the mix is because the 2 units both have crazy range, and they can defend themselves against vikings and corruptors well. An army like this is not scared of hive tech at all, or mech.
|
On June 12 2013 01:48 iDaNkS wrote:
it would not kill it thats excatly why you are suppose to have a mix of air/ground army in your forces. compared to massing mutas and just amove and kill every single cannon/pylon and production with losing only a few because storm and blink/archons are not good against mutas you have to open up phoenix if you dont that is a auto loss or at least have the phoenix come with the + range upgrade
I agree that Protoss midgame is very volatile to Zerg (and Terran). I disagree that the fix to this is to make boring 3base turtle play inpenetrable. Mutas are only strong if Protoss goes heavy void ray or Colossus. Or both.
Mutas are not strong against Protoss that straight up opens with defensive blink and templar - unlike what Protoss players like to claim. But if you open blink-->templar, you are fucked against most forms of ground play.
Whether canons could use a tiny buff vs mutas, I don't want to disagree. Putting the sporecrawler buff on canons is just plainly too much, against mutalisks and against everything else as well (drops, scouting overlords/overseers, corruptors that need to go into canonrange to attack colossi).
What blizzard should consider instead is changing the immortal to not be such a lackluster unit against hydras, swarmhosts and zerglings (and marines), such that a Protoss does not have to invest into 400/400 tech + 2-3 costly (300/200) units, just to be able of holding a third against early-midgame tech unitspam.
|
On June 12 2013 00:48 Reborn8u wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 23:21 willstertben wrote:
in my opinion:
macro difficulty wise
zerg > terran > protoss
micro difficulty wise
terran > zerg > protoss
i have played over 2k games each as protoss zerg and terran on high masters mmr.
I think a highly overlooked fact in all of this is that protoss is the most apm demanding and mechanically demanding for macro, however, the very high cost of units and warp gate mechanic allow toss players to dump large amounts of bank into an army very quickly. So while it is easier to keep your money spent, it is more demanding imo. The fact that a single probe can dump a lot of money and produce a mass of buildings quickly by shift queuing, is helpful to spend a bank as well. The double edge to this sword is that high cost army is often too valuable to lose. If the core units (casters, robo units, or air units) get killed and the gateway buffer units are not replaced quickly enough, it is very often GG for protoss. While with Terran or Zerg, large armies are often thrown away or traded (sometimes cost effectively but often not) yet it is by no means a crippling blow. This often occurs in earlier stages of the game, when protoss simply doesn't have the infrastructure or economy yet, in order to "instantly replace" what was lost. People need to stop acting like protoss is so easy to play and so godly. Look at any graph you want for the history of sc2 since early in WOL and it's clear the race has been outperformed consistently. The reason I believe this is the case, is because although protoss has it's strengths, it has massive holes in its game play that are extremely exploitable. Tech switches, losing a single battle, losing a single base, losing a single tech structure, are all almost fatal to protoss, where we've seen Terran and zerg recover from these things time and time again. Rarely do any of these things happen to a protoss and they win. Once protoss gets behind, it's very rare to see them come back in any matchup. Then there is the great troubles protoss has in taking and holding a 3rd (especially any kind of "early" 3rd, even when it is later than a zerg or terran 3rd) , it is such a defining problem of the race, that map making is very skewed and restricted by it. It is VERY hard to make a protoss favored map, and very common for maps to be favored against protoss. The last protoss issue that has existed since the dawn of sc2 is how weak protoss is against cheese's and all in's. Often protoss is so poor at defending them cost effectively that an all in vs protoss isn't even all in. Even after a very good defense by protoss, the game is often still on equal footing after the defense. The mothership core was supposed to be a big band aid for many of these issues, it certainly does help with many of them, but I feel it is greatly inadequate, and the reliance on it is almost as shameful as protoss reliance on force fields. I really hope we see some huge fundamental changes to protoss and its units in LOTV. So protoss players can feel less restricted and often abused, and the other races can stop complaining about it, while it is clearly and undeniably the weakest race in sc2 throughout it's history, by a solid margin.
i was talking purely from a difficulty aspect. i don't want to discuss protoss balance because i think it's too early to judge. most protosses still purely rely on gimmicks and refuse to play straight up games so it's going to take quite a while longer than the other races to develop a stable meta to judge.
and no protoss macro is not the most apm demanding, what the fuck kind of statement is that. it's in fact the least. that's not even debatable.
On June 12 2013 02:01 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 01:48 iDaNkS wrote:
it would not kill it thats excatly why you are suppose to have a mix of air/ground army in your forces. compared to massing mutas and just amove and kill every single cannon/pylon and production with losing only a few because storm and blink/archons are not good against mutas you have to open up phoenix if you dont that is a auto loss or at least have the phoenix come with the + range upgrade I agree that Protoss midgame is very volatile to Zerg (and Terran). I disagree that the fix to this is to make boring 3base turtle play inpenetrable. Mutas are only strong if Protoss goes heavy void ray or Colossus. Or both. Mutas are not strong against Protoss that straight up opens with defensive blink and templar - unlike what Protoss players like to claim. But if you open blink-->templar, you are fucked against most forms of ground play. Whether canons could use a tiny buff vs mutas, I don't want to disagree. Putting the sporecrawler buff on canons is just plainly too much, against mutalisks and against everything else as well (drops, scouting overlords/overseers, corruptors that need to go into canonrange to attack colossi). What blizzard should consider instead is changing the immortal to not be such a lackluster unit against hydras, swarmhosts and zerglings (and marines), such that a Protoss does not have to invest into 400/400 tech + 2-3 costly (300/200) units, just to be able of holding a third against early-midgame tech unitspam.
i disagree completely. protoss has the tools to hold 100% commited allins from zerg even with bad scouting. force fields and mothership core + walloffs are so fucking good defensively it's not pretty to watch.
also aggression without roaches tends to suck because there is nothing to take damage so immortals will always be useful.
|
On June 12 2013 02:40 willstertben wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 02:01 Big J wrote:On June 12 2013 01:48 iDaNkS wrote:
it would not kill it thats excatly why you are suppose to have a mix of air/ground army in your forces. compared to massing mutas and just amove and kill every single cannon/pylon and production with losing only a few because storm and blink/archons are not good against mutas you have to open up phoenix if you dont that is a auto loss or at least have the phoenix come with the + range upgrade I agree that Protoss midgame is very volatile to Zerg (and Terran). I disagree that the fix to this is to make boring 3base turtle play inpenetrable. Mutas are only strong if Protoss goes heavy void ray or Colossus. Or both. Mutas are not strong against Protoss that straight up opens with defensive blink and templar - unlike what Protoss players like to claim. But if you open blink-->templar, you are fucked against most forms of ground play. Whether canons could use a tiny buff vs mutas, I don't want to disagree. Putting the sporecrawler buff on canons is just plainly too much, against mutalisks and against everything else as well (drops, scouting overlords/overseers, corruptors that need to go into canonrange to attack colossi). What blizzard should consider instead is changing the immortal to not be such a lackluster unit against hydras, swarmhosts and zerglings (and marines), such that a Protoss does not have to invest into 400/400 tech + 2-3 costly (300/200) units, just to be able of holding a third against early-midgame tech unitspam. i disagree completely. protoss has the tools to hold 100% commited allins from zerg even with bad scouting. force fields and mothership core + walloffs are so fucking good defensively it's not pretty to watch. also aggression without roaches tends to suck because there is nothing to take damage so immortals will always be useful.
I didn't say it's impossible. I just think that a Protoss that tries to build a third on a map that is not 500% antiaggression is disfavored. I don't know how many PvZs I have seen since the beginning of HotS where Protoss tried to take a third before 11mins and the zerg just went YOLO, threwing all kinds of stuff at the Protoss with up to 70supply advantages at 12-14mins.
And I'm not talking about buffing the immortal. It surely does not need a buff. I'm saying it should undergo a small redesign, such that nonstop immortal production is a good way to stay safe against groundplay in head on engagements.
|
On June 12 2013 03:12 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 02:40 willstertben wrote:On June 12 2013 02:01 Big J wrote:On June 12 2013 01:48 iDaNkS wrote:
it would not kill it thats excatly why you are suppose to have a mix of air/ground army in your forces. compared to massing mutas and just amove and kill every single cannon/pylon and production with losing only a few because storm and blink/archons are not good against mutas you have to open up phoenix if you dont that is a auto loss or at least have the phoenix come with the + range upgrade I agree that Protoss midgame is very volatile to Zerg (and Terran). I disagree that the fix to this is to make boring 3base turtle play inpenetrable. Mutas are only strong if Protoss goes heavy void ray or Colossus. Or both. Mutas are not strong against Protoss that straight up opens with defensive blink and templar - unlike what Protoss players like to claim. But if you open blink-->templar, you are fucked against most forms of ground play. Whether canons could use a tiny buff vs mutas, I don't want to disagree. Putting the sporecrawler buff on canons is just plainly too much, against mutalisks and against everything else as well (drops, scouting overlords/overseers, corruptors that need to go into canonrange to attack colossi). What blizzard should consider instead is changing the immortal to not be such a lackluster unit against hydras, swarmhosts and zerglings (and marines), such that a Protoss does not have to invest into 400/400 tech + 2-3 costly (300/200) units, just to be able of holding a third against early-midgame tech unitspam. i disagree completely. protoss has the tools to hold 100% commited allins from zerg even with bad scouting. force fields and mothership core + walloffs are so fucking good defensively it's not pretty to watch. also aggression without roaches tends to suck because there is nothing to take damage so immortals will always be useful. I didn't say it's impossible. I just think that a Protoss that tries to build a third on a map that is not 500% antiaggression is disfavored. I don't know how many PvZs I have seen since the beginning of HotS where Protoss tried to take a third before 11mins and the zerg just went YOLO, threwing all kinds of stuff at the Protoss with up to 70supply advantages at 12-14mins. And I'm not talking about buffing the immortal. It surely does not need a buff. I'm saying it should undergo a small redesign, such that nonstop immortal production is a good way to stay safe against groundplay in head on engagements.
It's not even just pvz, I'll never forget listening to Idra call a terran making a 3rd command center, IN HIS MAIN, "greedy" and saying "they deserve to lose" when it is punished. Yet the zerg took his 3rd earlier.....
|
On June 12 2013 05:29 Reborn8u wrote:
It's not even just pvz, I'll never forget listening to Idra call a terran making a 3rd command center, IN HIS MAIN, "greedy" and saying "they deserve to lose" when it is punished. Yet the zerg took his 3rd earlier.....
In Idra's world there are two types of terrans:
- those who build a 3rd cc - these are the stupid greedy eco-cheesing idiots that clearly deserve to lose
- those who don't build a 3rd cc - these are the bronze-level no-skill all-inning morons that clearly deserve to lose.
I'm sure that Idra is the perfect balance expert 
|
|
|
|
|
United States7483 Posts
On June 12 2013 05:35 Emzeeshady wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 13:39 Whitewing wrote:On June 11 2013 13:36 ETisME wrote:On June 11 2013 13:26 Sabu113 wrote:On June 11 2013 11:54 Emzeeshady wrote:On June 11 2013 10:38 usethis2 wrote:
The way games are played now, Terran is by far the easiest race macro-wise. It seems like all they need is stim + combat sheid + 2 ebays throughout the game. Add widow mine burrow speed upgrade whenever you remember. Their techs are set within the first 7~8 mins of the game. Rest of the game is simply adding more rax or CCs as you have excess minerals. It's a huge advantage for T in that they can spend more time on their units and map than P or Z. Someone hasn't played Protoss :p Such a lazy answer. I don't know how in any world hitting 5 and tapping aaaa isn't easier than looking away from your army to warp in when the timers run down. Whatever. SC2 matches its audience. A simple solution for mutas would have been to limit air control groups to 12. Somewhat helps with voids as well. Frankly, they kinda missed the mark with airplay in sc2. terran needs to look back to base to grab reinforcements, simply building is not enough (but of cause Toss has warp in so this problem usually don't come across toss player's mind) but toss doesn't have the "oh shit didn't split get stormed" moment It's called fungal, yeah they do. Lol, the new fugal is in no way as menacing to Protoss as it used to be and even how it was it was nowhere as effective as storm is vs Terran. I don't know if you have ever played as Terran so I will tell you. You can be winning the whole game outplaying him left and right and if you step a little to far and don't see yourself get stormed your army is destroyed and the game is over. It takes like 9 fungals to do that to Protoss.
So 9 infestors = entire toss army dead. Good to know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
