|
United States23455 Posts
On April 26 2014 12:43 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2014 12:20 Darkhorse wrote:On April 26 2014 11:40 Chaggi wrote:On April 26 2014 08:43 Darkhorse wrote:On April 26 2014 08:39 The_Red_Viper wrote:On April 26 2014 08:28 Big J wrote:On April 26 2014 08:19 pure.Wasted wrote:On April 26 2014 08:06 Big J wrote:On April 26 2014 07:50 pure.Wasted wrote:On April 26 2014 07:39 Big J wrote:
[quote]
You know, that's exactly why I responded (and why I shouldn't have in the first place). Best Zerg currently (whose best winrate is against T) plays best Terran currently (whose worst winrate is against Z and has been since 2011). Terran loses. You come in and pretend that Maru is 3times as good as soO. Hilarious. Your assumption that the players with the best results are all equally skilled is hilarious. Do you understand that if the game is imbalanced, that actually means that less skilled players will have better results? Hence talking about results when the state of the game is so disconcerting is fucking useless? I guess Roro was the most skilled Zerg player back when WOL was ending, so if Maru, Innovation, Rain, and Parting can't beat him, everything is legit and the game is fine!!!!!! If the game was actually balanced right now, Maru would be unstoppable. However, if the game was also properly designed on top of that, all bets are off because Protoss and Zerg victories would come down to mechanical skill the same way Terran victories do, and there's no telling which of them would step up to the plate and how hard they would step up to the plate. I expect Rain would start massacring everybody left and right, for one thing. Maru would still get killed by most topzergs if the matchup was in Terrans favor. As showcased by him trying to parade push Alterzim which is a map with a ~70% winrate for T against Z. As showcased by his TvZ winrate also being low in mid 2011 and early-mid 2013, times in which Terran had on average 53-54% winrate in that matchup. Did... you just... bring up Maru's winrate from 2011? Are you for fucking real? Let's talk about his APM when he was back in gradeschool while we're at it! The kid is 16. Three years ago he was 13 years old. Terran was at best even with Zerg during early HOTS when Zerg still didn't know wtf to do about widow mines, when Maru was still coming into his own. Look at s1 RO8, the time of Innovation's domination, there are two times as many Zerg as there are Terran. Does that look like 53-54% to you? Not going to bother with that bullshit in your last sentences. Do your "mechanical skill" dick measuring contest with someone who has complexes about it. I don't know what I'm thinking holding up mechanical skill and multitasking ability as virtues in a real time strategy game. You have not a single piece of evidence for Terran requiring more mechanical skill. That's why it is a dick measuring contest, nothing more. One evidence might be that there is next to no foreign terran who has a shot at winning against koreans. The same isn't true for Zerg or Protoss. Circumstantial and not able to be confirmed. Could just be that foreign terrans are worse. Nothing you can prove. Same with the often used, "Well more terran players have wrist issues than others". Can't be used to confirm the amount of mechanical skill needed. If we say that foreign Terrans are just worse, then why couldn't we say that Korean Terrans were just better than everyone else in the days of GomTvT? Or the same argument that was used for Zergs in Broodlord/Infestor days? Or as the argument now? Protoss players are just better than everyone else, and that's why they're winning. You see how this line of logic doesn't really work when you look back on it? I think you are missing the point of my argument D: I'm just saying that we can say anything we want to try to explain why things are the way they are like "foreign terrans are just worse" and it is just as unprovable as saying "foreign terrans do badly because it is more mechanically difficult to play". I don't believe that foreign terrans are just worse but there is just no way to prove that terran is the most mechanically difficult. Just like there's no way to prove that BL/Infestor was ever overpowered. All we can prove is that it is a strategy, and sometimes when Zerg players employ it, they win games. They win too many games? It's just a coincidence. The T/P weren't on top of their form, they haven't figured out the new meta yet, the Zerg just outplayed them hard. See how useless and stupid that is? Absolute proof is great, but there aren't a lot of things in life that can be absolutely proven, and waiting for absolute proof is pointless. Given the piling 'coincidences', from lack of foreign success, to Protoss ladder domination, to prevalence of wrist injuries, to Artosis repeatedly claiming that this is the case even though he plays Protoss, to circumstantial evidence from the plays we viewers observe in games, which are all very easy to explain without resorting to making shit up if we just assume Terran is mechanically tougher, it's a very reasonable conclusion. And what do we gain by waiting? Let's assume for a moment that these coincidences aren't coincidences, and the Terrans are right on this one, Terran is much harder to play mechanically and in terms of multitasking. What then? There won't ever be conclusive proof. So Terrans are just fucked? Because I just don't see what kind of absolute proof could possibly come along and convince you if you aren't convinced already. You're fine with actually screwing over the players who are - if this is true - playing harder and better than anybody else?
Well how the hell would you redesign the game based on the idea that, "Hey we think that Terran maybe is harder to play than the other two races." And in your view where Terran is harder than everything else you can take a logical leap to thinking you believe that if the game was balanced than terran would win everything, because as of now Terran is playing with a huge disadvantage. This kinda blows my mind.
So yeah absolute proof is stupid. We didn't have "absolute proof" that Blord/infestor was overpowered, just like we don't have absolute proof on Protoss right now. However the opposite is just as "useless and stupid" (thank you for so respectfully arguing your point). The opposite is "well we kinda think Terran is harder than the other races. Lets redesign the game so Terran is as easy as the others even though we have no statistical benchmark for how hard the races are to play or the knowledge to bring the game to a state which makes Terran as easy as the other races". There is simply no room to jump to that conclusion and no way to make that judgement. They have to make balance choices based on win rates which is what they are doing (although I would like them to also look at premier tournament results for the love of god Blizzard).
Anyways what I a saying is I don't think that all terran players who are winning are just simply better than the protoss/zerg players that are also winning while the other two races always hold an "easy" advantage over Terran.
(disclaimer: I am a terran player who had originally played protoss because I felt I was not good enough to play terran well and only switched to Terran once I felt I could macro/micro much better).
|
On April 26 2014 12:56 Darkhorse wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2014 12:43 pure.Wasted wrote:On April 26 2014 12:20 Darkhorse wrote:On April 26 2014 11:40 Chaggi wrote:On April 26 2014 08:43 Darkhorse wrote:On April 26 2014 08:39 The_Red_Viper wrote:On April 26 2014 08:28 Big J wrote:On April 26 2014 08:19 pure.Wasted wrote:On April 26 2014 08:06 Big J wrote:On April 26 2014 07:50 pure.Wasted wrote:
[quote]
Your assumption that the players with the best results are all equally skilled is hilarious. Do you understand that if the game is imbalanced, that actually means that less skilled players will have better results? Hence talking about results when the state of the game is so disconcerting is fucking useless? I guess Roro was the most skilled Zerg player back when WOL was ending, so if Maru, Innovation, Rain, and Parting can't beat him, everything is legit and the game is fine!!!!!!
If the game was actually balanced right now, Maru would be unstoppable. However, if the game was also properly designed on top of that, all bets are off because Protoss and Zerg victories would come down to mechanical skill the same way Terran victories do, and there's no telling which of them would step up to the plate and how hard they would step up to the plate. I expect Rain would start massacring everybody left and right, for one thing. Maru would still get killed by most topzergs if the matchup was in Terrans favor. As showcased by him trying to parade push Alterzim which is a map with a ~70% winrate for T against Z. As showcased by his TvZ winrate also being low in mid 2011 and early-mid 2013, times in which Terran had on average 53-54% winrate in that matchup. Did... you just... bring up Maru's winrate from 2011? Are you for fucking real? Let's talk about his APM when he was back in gradeschool while we're at it! The kid is 16. Three years ago he was 13 years old. Terran was at best even with Zerg during early HOTS when Zerg still didn't know wtf to do about widow mines, when Maru was still coming into his own. Look at s1 RO8, the time of Innovation's domination, there are two times as many Zerg as there are Terran. Does that look like 53-54% to you? Not going to bother with that bullshit in your last sentences. Do your "mechanical skill" dick measuring contest with someone who has complexes about it. I don't know what I'm thinking holding up mechanical skill and multitasking ability as virtues in a real time strategy game. You have not a single piece of evidence for Terran requiring more mechanical skill. That's why it is a dick measuring contest, nothing more. One evidence might be that there is next to no foreign terran who has a shot at winning against koreans. The same isn't true for Zerg or Protoss. Circumstantial and not able to be confirmed. Could just be that foreign terrans are worse. Nothing you can prove. Same with the often used, "Well more terran players have wrist issues than others". Can't be used to confirm the amount of mechanical skill needed. If we say that foreign Terrans are just worse, then why couldn't we say that Korean Terrans were just better than everyone else in the days of GomTvT? Or the same argument that was used for Zergs in Broodlord/Infestor days? Or as the argument now? Protoss players are just better than everyone else, and that's why they're winning. You see how this line of logic doesn't really work when you look back on it? I think you are missing the point of my argument D: I'm just saying that we can say anything we want to try to explain why things are the way they are like "foreign terrans are just worse" and it is just as unprovable as saying "foreign terrans do badly because it is more mechanically difficult to play". I don't believe that foreign terrans are just worse but there is just no way to prove that terran is the most mechanically difficult. Just like there's no way to prove that BL/Infestor was ever overpowered. All we can prove is that it is a strategy, and sometimes when Zerg players employ it, they win games. They win too many games? It's just a coincidence. The T/P weren't on top of their form, they haven't figured out the new meta yet, the Zerg just outplayed them hard. See how useless and stupid that is? Absolute proof is great, but there aren't a lot of things in life that can be absolutely proven, and waiting for absolute proof is pointless. Given the piling 'coincidences', from lack of foreign success, to Protoss ladder domination, to prevalence of wrist injuries, to Artosis repeatedly claiming that this is the case even though he plays Protoss, to circumstantial evidence from the plays we viewers observe in games, which are all very easy to explain without resorting to making shit up if we just assume Terran is mechanically tougher, it's a very reasonable conclusion. And what do we gain by waiting? Let's assume for a moment that these coincidences aren't coincidences, and the Terrans are right on this one, Terran is much harder to play mechanically and in terms of multitasking. What then? There won't ever be conclusive proof. So Terrans are just fucked? Because I just don't see what kind of absolute proof could possibly come along and convince you if you aren't convinced already. You're fine with actually screwing over the players who are - if this is true - playing harder and better than anybody else? Well how the hell would you redesign the game based on the idea that, "Hey we think that Terran maybe is harder to play than the other two races." And in your view where Terran is harder than everything else you can take a logical leap to thinking you believe that if the game was balanced than terran would win everything, because as of now Terran is playing with a huge disadvantage. This kinda blows my mind. So yeah absolute proof is stupid. We didn't have "absolute proof" that Blord/infestor was overpowered, just like we don't have absolute proof on Protoss right now. However the opposite is just as "useless and stupid" (thank you for so respectfully arguing your point). The opposite is "well we kinda think Terran is harder than the other races. Lets redesign the game so Terran is as easy as the others even though we have no statistical benchmark for how hard the races are to play or the knowledge to bring the game to a state which makes Terran as easy as the other races". There is simply no room to jump to that conclusion and no way to make that judgement. They have to make balance choices based on win rates which is what they are doing (although I would like them to also look at premier tournament results for the love of god Blizzard). Anyways what I a saying is I don't think that all terran players who are winning are just simply better than the protoss/zerg players that are also winning while the other two races always hold an "easy" advantage over Terran. (disclaimer: I am a terran player who had originally played protoss because I felt I was not good enough to play terran well and only switched to Terran once I felt I could macro/micro much better).
It's clear now that you haven't read any of my posts on the last two pages, so a little bit of my frustration was coming from the fact that I thought you had and simply 'weren't getting it.' I apologize for getting frustrated, but at the same time you have to understand you jumped into an ongoing conversation and it wasn't very clear where you stood. Now that I know where we stand, I'll address your point that the logical leap from what I said is that Terran should win everything.
I absolutely do think that if the game were perfectly balanced right now, that would be the outcome. What makes this less preposterous than it might seem at first glance is that I also believe the only reason this is true is that the races are poorly designed. If Blizzard redesigns some of the units and mechanics... which is a perfectly legitimate expectation for a game with multiple expansions which is the basis of a competitive esport... then it can absolutely be balanced for 30/30/30 competition. Blizz won't do any major redesigns until LOTV even though they took a vacation with HOTS, fine, then balancing it to the full extent that I think is called for would obviously suck, but that doesn't mean we just leave it as is.
I don't want Terran to be as easy as Protoss, I want Protoss to be as hard as Terran. I want Protoss to have units that are as worthless when out of position as a Hellion, I want them to have units that deal friendly fire, I want them to have less one-button AOE, I want them to have severe risk involved with their pressure openings so that if those pressure openings fail, they roll over and die, I want their armies to be able to melt in two seconds the same way Terrans do vs. banes/storms, I want them to have to attack on three different fronts at the same time the way Terrans do. If this means Protoss units then have to be made more powerful, that's fine, I don't want a one-race game. Just as long as the shitty Protoss players aren't getting carried by their race, I don't mind if Taeja switches to Protoss and makes everybody else look like idiots with the greatest micro plays ever seen in SC2.
disclaimer: I don't even play the game. Last time I booted it up was in 2011. I have zero personal stake in any balance discussions, except I suppose the entertainment/frustration induced by watching tournaments.
|
Northern Ireland23791 Posts
That would be sick if it ever came to pass
|
United States23455 Posts
There are bound to be imbalances when you are trying to make three races that are in fact unique. What you are describing would in theory be good where all three races had similar aspects and were all equally difficult to play, but it would also have the drawback of having 3 races that play so similarly that it would feel like a 1 race game.
I know a lot of people are super into the idea of a massive game redesign but if they took it too far they would end up kind of breaking the uniqueness of the races as they are.
Also I just cannot buy into the idea that the entirety of competitive SC2 has been a farce because Terran players would have won literally everything if the game were just balanced "properly".
|
On April 26 2014 13:20 Darkhorse wrote:
There are bound to be imbalances when you are trying to make three races that are in fact unique. What you are describing would in theory be good where all three races had similar aspects and were all equally difficult to play, but it would also have the drawback of having 3 races that play so similarly that it would feel like a 1 race game.
I know a lot of people are super into the idea of a massive game redesign but if they took it too far they would end up kind of breaking the uniqueness of the races as they are.
I disagree that this is impossible, or even that difficult. I don't think that HOTS TvZ pre-WM nerf was perfectly balanced, but it was as close as this game has ever been, and the races were still incredibly different! All it took was [i]forcing[i] Zerg players to micro against WMs and worry even more about positioning than they did before, which is quite a bit.
That I think is conclusive proof that it's possible. Is it true the MU was getting a little stale? Possibly. But that's again a problem with the game's design, just make mech a viable alternative to bio and as mechanically difficult to play (BW mech was fucking tough to play!), give Zerg other microable units that can defend against it, and viola. A burgeoning, balanced MU with two very different races.
Also I just cannot buy into the idea that the entirety of competitive SC2 has been a farce because Terran players would have won literally everything if the game were just balanced "properly".
Why is it unthinkable? Apart from it being a shitty situation, that is. In terms of probability, it's inevitable that some competitive games will be seriously imbalanced. And it's no secret that the matchmaking system is designed in a way that, should this indeed be the case, we're not going to find out about it until it's way too late. And it's not as though I'm the first person to suggest this idea, lots of people have said that Terran is harder to play over the last four years, they just get ignored.
I can't imagine any other rational explanation for the gradually dwindling number of Terrans across all ladders and tournaments throughout SC2.
edit: here's another way to think of it. Let's grant that I'm right. What kind of proof could we possibly have that we don't already? The only thing I can think of is Terran pros switching to Protoss and dominating everyone, but because Protoss doesn't allow players to excel mechanically, would they really be as good? Would it be worth switching from a RO32 Terran to a RO64 Protoss, even if they had that guarantee? And PvP has always been a complete crapshoot, so obviously there can be no guarantees. So... I don't see what other proof there could be that we haven't had already.
|
On April 26 2014 12:31 Salient wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2014 12:18 Chaggi wrote:On April 26 2014 08:08 DinoMight wrote:
Maru may have among the best unit control in the world. But a guy who stubbornly refuses to make ghosts in TvP is bound to die to horrible horrible storms a few times.
MKP also has great control, and how far did he go? There is more to StarCraft2 than just micro. Decision making and planning also factors into it a lot. So does reading your opponent and scouting.
In my view, Terrans open with very greedy builds vs. Z (3CC off of 6 hellions and 2 reapers,). If they don't scout perfectly, they will lose (like Maru did). It seems like a lot of these Terrans with impeccable micro and APM are dying to rather simple things, or failing to see glaring irregularities in the game because they have blinders on. MMA vs. Starbuck on Frost from WCS is the best example I can think of. Starbuck had absolutely no tech whatsoever in his main, no units at all on the map... NOTHING, and MMA just kept playing as if it were a regular macro game. Proxy infestation pit was never scouted, nothing was ever suspected in the slightest.
MKP may have the best micro in the world, but he also has hands down the worst decision making I've seen in a pro gamer. His micro and APM alone carry him to the level he's at. This is my 3rd post in a row but I just wanna tell you how stupid this view of to make ghosts or not to make ghosts You've said you played Terran at some horrible horrible level, but you don't really seem to understand the fact that by going ghosts, you're giving up a lot of mobility and ability to put pressure on the Protoss. It's an expensive unit that you need to be at least on 3 bases on to really get. Maru's entire strategy has always been put massive pressure on the Protoss, split to negate storm damage and never let the Protoss have a minute to breathe and eventually break him. You literally can't do that with Ghosts in your composition. For one of the best players in the world, and possibly the best Terran in the world, it pains me to see people doubt his decision making to go for a ghostless composition considering this is what he believes will give him the highest chance of winning the game. You see this strategy more and more because ghost/viking is really hard to play and apparently pro players think it's still in the favor of Protoss by playing that comp. Maru is overrated. Mvp was a bonjwa before his wrist problem. He didn't rely purely on superior mechanics to win. He is smart in a way that most players are not. He is like a Terran version of MC, but even better. Maru is nothing like that. He's more like his old mentor MKP (attack, attack, attack!) (or mix it up with econ cheese).
What a hilariously horrible and shallow analysis of Maru. Do you even watch him or did you stop watching SC in 2011? Just because Maru's mechanics are top tier, doesn't mean his In game decisions isn't. Time and time again we see him smash people not just cause of his mechanics but his decision making and his results prove that. He's consistently the best Terran since early HoTS Innovation.
MVP's matches were always great because of his ability to use innovative builds and mind game his opponents.. But this was in WOL when Terran had options against Protoss and actual aggressive timings they could take advantage of. What can a Terran do now? What cheese outside of 11/11 and the occasional TY Proleague timings actually can throw other races off? Cause I haven't seen any at the highest level
|
United States23455 Posts
On April 26 2014 13:30 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2014 13:20 Darkhorse wrote:
There are bound to be imbalances when you are trying to make three races that are in fact unique. What you are describing would in theory be good where all three races had similar aspects and were all equally difficult to play, but it would also have the drawback of having 3 races that play so similarly that it would feel like a 1 race game.
I know a lot of people are super into the idea of a massive game redesign but if they took it too far they would end up kind of breaking the uniqueness of the races as they are. I disagree that this is impossible, or even that difficult. I don't think that HOTS TvZ pre-WM nerf was perfectly balanced, but it was as close as this game has ever been, and the races were still incredibly different! All it took was [i]forcing[i] Zerg players to micro against WMs and worry even more about positioning than they did before, which is quite a bit. That I think is conclusive proof that it's possible. Is it true the MU was getting a little stale? Possibly. But that's again a problem with the game's design, just make mech a viable alternative to bio and as mechanically difficult to play (BW mech was fucking tough to play!), give Zerg other microable units that can defend against it, and viola. A burgeoning, balanced MU with two very different races. Show nested quote +Also I just cannot buy into the idea that the entirety of competitive SC2 has been a farce because Terran players would have won literally everything if the game were just balanced "properly". Why is it unthinkable? Apart from it being a shitty situation, that is. In terms of probability, it's inevitable that some competitive games will be seriously imbalanced. And it's no secret that the matchmaking system is designed in a way that, should this indeed be the case, we're not going to find out about it until it's way too late. I can't imagine any other rational explanation for the gradually dwindling number of Terrans across all ladders and tournaments throughout SC2.
The idea that terran has been facing such a monumental uphill battle throughout all of SC2 seems ridiculous to me. Do you remember the long period where everyone was saying Terran was overpowered, and that top 8 brackets were all Terran? Is that when you thought the game was well balanced? I dunno man. You are basically calling non Terran players inferior to Terran players because Terran players have gone fairly even through most of SC2's existence even with the perceived "massive imbalance".
Also you think that because there are low terran counts in WCS after 3 years+ of SC2 that there has always been a massive disadvantage for Terran players?
Also your idea for a game redesign is pretty minor "remove the widow mine nerf". What you are talking about would require some serious altering to the races in the game.
|
On April 26 2014 13:52 Darkhorse wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2014 13:30 pure.Wasted wrote:On April 26 2014 13:20 Darkhorse wrote:
There are bound to be imbalances when you are trying to make three races that are in fact unique. What you are describing would in theory be good where all three races had similar aspects and were all equally difficult to play, but it would also have the drawback of having 3 races that play so similarly that it would feel like a 1 race game.
I know a lot of people are super into the idea of a massive game redesign but if they took it too far they would end up kind of breaking the uniqueness of the races as they are. I disagree that this is impossible, or even that difficult. I don't think that HOTS TvZ pre-WM nerf was perfectly balanced, but it was as close as this game has ever been, and the races were still incredibly different! All it took was [i]forcing[i] Zerg players to micro against WMs and worry even more about positioning than they did before, which is quite a bit. That I think is conclusive proof that it's possible. Is it true the MU was getting a little stale? Possibly. But that's again a problem with the game's design, just make mech a viable alternative to bio and as mechanically difficult to play (BW mech was fucking tough to play!), give Zerg other microable units that can defend against it, and viola. A burgeoning, balanced MU with two very different races. Also I just cannot buy into the idea that the entirety of competitive SC2 has been a farce because Terran players would have won literally everything if the game were just balanced "properly". Why is it unthinkable? Apart from it being a shitty situation, that is. In terms of probability, it's inevitable that some competitive games will be seriously imbalanced. And it's no secret that the matchmaking system is designed in a way that, should this indeed be the case, we're not going to find out about it until it's way too late. I can't imagine any other rational explanation for the gradually dwindling number of Terrans across all ladders and tournaments throughout SC2. The idea that terran has been facing such a monumental uphill battle throughout all of SC2 seems ridiculous to me. Do you remember the long period where everyone was saying Terran was overpowered, and that top 8 brackets were all Terran? Is that when you thought the game was well balanced? I dunno man. You are basically calling non Terran players inferior to Terran players because Terran players have gone fairly even through most of SC2's existence even with the perceived "massive imbalance". Also you think that because there are low terran counts in WCS after 3 years+ of SC2 that there has always been a massive disadvantage for Terran players?
I didn't follow the game competitively until mid-2012, so unfortunately I can't speak to how Terran was during the first year after release. It's possible that the Terran cheeses of the time, ie proxy Banshee and all that crap, was almost as no-skill/auto-win as what I think of Oracles now, for example, in which case it absolutely should have been changed.
I do not think that non-Terran players are inferior. I honestly think they just don't have the opportunity to show off how good they are. (that's talking about the genuinely good players; obviously I do think that players like Paralyze, Tassadar, and Terror don't deserve to be in Code A under any circumstances)
I said this earlier, I think that Rain would have some of the best results in SC2 if Protoss was as challenging as Terran but with the same high-risk-high-reward ratio. I'm sure that others would step up to the plate with him. It's just hard to predict precisely who they would be, and who would be held back by mediocre mechanics.
I'm a huge Innovation fan, as you can guess from my sig, but when he got his ass handed to him by DRG in three straight up macro games, you better believe balance whining was the last thing on my mind. Even if in retrospect I think the MU was Zerg favored at the time, in the moment I was blown away by the level of play I was seeing from him. I just want to know that when Protoss players win, they deserve those victories because they played their hearts out. Cannon rushing... isn't exactly playing your heart out, and neither is turtling on a Colossus deathball.
Also your idea for a game redesign is pretty minor "remove the widow mine nerf". What you are talking about would require some serious altering to the races in the game.
I do think the game needs some huge changes, absolutely. But Blizz showed with BW and TFT that they're capable of turning a broken game around, which is why I was honestly appalled at how little they did with HOTS, and still hold out hope. WC3 was insignificant by comparison, and they showed that they cared more. Here they talk about the sanctity of pro players' careers, but all I can think about is mechanically gifted players who are getting shafted, and Blizz doesn't seem to care about their careers all that much.
|
Terran is under performing at all levels of play.
The race itself plays out very static in the early game. In TvP the game usually goes from an early reaper phase, which might be skipped, to a phase of Toss mapcontrol, in which various types all ins from the Toss may occur. After that comes a small window of time where Terran stabilizes with Stim and Medivacs and applies some pressure back. Note that there is very little variance in composition and timing of Terrans counteraggression (infamous 10:00 Medivac timing anyone?).
Further proof of this statement is not needed. But if you do feel the need to get some, just watch any generic TvP series of any Level above Diamond.
The real imbalance of the Matchup comes from 3 things.
1. Protoss is the first one to push and get a chance to end the game. One might say that this is not entirely true but it really is, for the following reasons: every non stim attack can be deflected with a MSC+Stalkers, while any attack with stim only comes after a 4gate/3gateBlink/proxyOracle etc. Thus, if a Terran decides to all in, he first off needs to be able to hold an all in from Protoss. And the difference of quality of these all ins is atrocious! while a propperly executed Blink play has a chance to outright end a game, it can be transitioned out of. The same goes for any Tech based all in Toss has. But it doesn't hold true for Terran. With Terran an all in is do or die.
Second: Predictability. You just know there is going to be Marines Marauders and Medivacs. The only question is when and where do the drops come and whats the timing of that third cc. A Terran just has a much less diverse strategic toolkit and can really only win by out multitasking and out positioning his opponent. But, that is incredibly hard to do against an opponent of equal mechanical ability.
C. Storm + Colossi + chargelots + Zealot runby is too op. I can't split, focus fire with vikings, kite with main army, snipe/emp templar and kite the runby all at the same time. Its impossible.
Suggested Solutions:
Give us some more diversity in the early game! eg: why do we need to build a Rax and a Factory before we can build a starport? why not go depot ---> Starport immediately (mb. make banshees require a fusion core if its too much)or depot ---> fact both Zerg and toss have good enough scouting and defensive capabilities to withstand this sort of Tech rush.
Or give us some reliable defensive tool for the early game like some sort of Mule drop warhound with a timer etc. (i d love that  )
Or give us some unit that can be used agressively before stim is done, like an upgrade for reapers that lets each one of them throw 1single target grenade (that can be used against both air and ground targets) to increase their early game potential.
|
It has something to do with easier to interprete terran micro compared to other races.
Pre splitting is not difficult, camping on mine fields is relatively harder and the hardest of all is reactive splitting on creep.
Easy to see terran sniping and target firing onto key units but difficult to appreciate the other race protecting them.
Marauders stim in to kill infestors for example is a lot harder to stop, requires to move them back and if caught out, drop fungal and it and burrow and move in lings to protect them.
It's easy to see a terran dropping and doing damage but tend to forget the drops are queued up and whenever we see medivac getting storm and feedback is because protoss paying attention and do the damage instantly.
Instead a good multi tasking terran would have turned around right away.
Yet the viewing experience would not understand this interaction at all and think the drop is easily denied because of storm and feedback.
That is a queuing drop against a pro active attention action.
Not saying terran isn't challenging but please do remember other races are doing micro because how good a terran micro can be.
The only time I really feel terran micro doesn't mean anything is when low amount of units dealing with mass chargelot
|
Vatican City State431 Posts
When you see Vortix beating Korean Terrans left and right you know something is really fishy with the game. The new Terran units are really bad. Widow mines can be play around if you have decent skill and hellbats are just a badly designed unit.
|
On April 26 2014 14:20 ETisME wrote:
It has something to do with easier to interprete terran micro compared to other races.
Pre splitting is not difficult, camping on mine fields is relatively harder and the hardest of all is reactive splitting on creep.
Easy to see terran sniping and target firing onto key units but difficult to appreciate the other race protecting them.
Marauders stim in to kill infestors for example is a lot harder to stop, requires to move them back and if caught out, drop fungal and it and burrow and move in lings to protect them.
It's easy to see a terran dropping and doing damage but tend to forget the drops are queued up and whenever we see medivac getting storm and feedback is because protoss paying attention and do the damage instantly.
Instead a good multi tasking terran would have turned around right away.
Yet the viewing experience would not understand this interaction at all and think the drop is easily denied because of storm and feedback.
That is a queuing drop against a pro active attention action.
Not saying terran isn't challenging but please do remember other races are doing micro because how good a terran micro can be.
The only time I really feel terran micro doesn't mean anything is when low amount of units dealing with mass chargelot
I don't disagree that Terran is more viewer-friendly, but I think you're going too far in looking for micro potential in the other races. You bring up microing Infestors out of harm's way, but how is that different from Terrans microing Vikings away from Blink Stalkers, or Ghosts away from High Templar, or Banshees from Queens, or Medivacs from spores/cannons/planetary nexus/queens/stalkers/mutas? Those are the LEAST micro intensive things Terran players have to do.
Obviously every engagement in the game allows for the possibility of some micro, even Zealots can be microed to some very small extent, the problem is the Terran units allow for the possibility of a lot more micro and taking advantage of it isn't optional. The game is balanced around Terrans always being on top of their mechanics. On the other hand, the game isn't balanced around Protoss getting everything they can out of their Blink Stalkers. Protoss who don't use Blink in battle win games just fine. Imagine a Terran consistently winning games without dropping. It's unthinkable.
For Protoss, microing well is a choice. You can still get into RO32 of Code S without it as Paralyze and all his cohorts prove time and time again, but if you do do it, you just get a nice bonus. For Terrans, you can't get into Code A without microing well. It's not a bonus, it's a requirement for being competitive.
That's not fair. I'm all for the races being different, but 'requiring mechanical skill and multitasking to play' and 'not requiring mechanical skill and multitasking to play' aren't differences, they're just atrocious design.
|
Marauders are much more tougher and cs make it a lot easier to snipe infestors because infestors get 3 shot ish by a group of marauders.
Even if they drop its and burrow and fungal, it is incredibly hard to save them
Unlike pulling back vikings or banshee for example.
Ht and ghost imo are the most mechanically challenging micro in the game.
And nowadays I even see toss doing emp dodge with ht while spreading hts everywhere and still regarded as storm = ez win.
Of cause a marine is more microable than a zealot.
But that also mean zealot player has to cope with the more mobile and microable marine.
I don't play toss often and I will use a zerglings vs drop example.
You can assign lings and baneling to deny a drop, terran picks up and reposition the drops while pushing at front.
The drop is then repositioned which means zerg has to keep an active attention for the lings and banelings to deny a queued drop all while defending the main push.
Without anything to kill the medivac, terran always have the ability to reposition drops via queue command while having full attention to the main push.
You need multi tasking to defend as well, it's something that you have to understand.
Rain despite being one of the most passive player, I regard him as one of the best mechanical protoss player due to his amazing drop spot and all the other things he does like obs spreading and instant good defense against multi prone attacks
|
On April 26 2014 13:42 Chaggi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2014 12:31 Salient wrote:On April 26 2014 12:18 Chaggi wrote:On April 26 2014 08:08 DinoMight wrote:
Maru may have among the best unit control in the world. But a guy who stubbornly refuses to make ghosts in TvP is bound to die to horrible horrible storms a few times.
MKP also has great control, and how far did he go? There is more to StarCraft2 than just micro. Decision making and planning also factors into it a lot. So does reading your opponent and scouting.
In my view, Terrans open with very greedy builds vs. Z (3CC off of 6 hellions and 2 reapers,). If they don't scout perfectly, they will lose (like Maru did). It seems like a lot of these Terrans with impeccable micro and APM are dying to rather simple things, or failing to see glaring irregularities in the game because they have blinders on. MMA vs. Starbuck on Frost from WCS is the best example I can think of. Starbuck had absolutely no tech whatsoever in his main, no units at all on the map... NOTHING, and MMA just kept playing as if it were a regular macro game. Proxy infestation pit was never scouted, nothing was ever suspected in the slightest.
MKP may have the best micro in the world, but he also has hands down the worst decision making I've seen in a pro gamer. His micro and APM alone carry him to the level he's at. This is my 3rd post in a row but I just wanna tell you how stupid this view of to make ghosts or not to make ghosts You've said you played Terran at some horrible horrible level, but you don't really seem to understand the fact that by going ghosts, you're giving up a lot of mobility and ability to put pressure on the Protoss. It's an expensive unit that you need to be at least on 3 bases on to really get. Maru's entire strategy has always been put massive pressure on the Protoss, split to negate storm damage and never let the Protoss have a minute to breathe and eventually break him. You literally can't do that with Ghosts in your composition. For one of the best players in the world, and possibly the best Terran in the world, it pains me to see people doubt his decision making to go for a ghostless composition considering this is what he believes will give him the highest chance of winning the game. You see this strategy more and more because ghost/viking is really hard to play and apparently pro players think it's still in the favor of Protoss by playing that comp. Maru is overrated. Mvp was a bonjwa before his wrist problem. He didn't rely purely on superior mechanics to win. He is smart in a way that most players are not. He is like a Terran version of MC, but even better. Maru is nothing like that. He's more like his old mentor MKP (attack, attack, attack!) (or mix it up with econ cheese). What a hilariously horrible and shallow analysis of Maru. Do you even watch him or did you stop watching SC in 2011? Just because Maru's mechanics are top tier, doesn't mean his In game decisions isn't. Time and time again we see him smash people not just cause of his mechanics but his decision making and his results prove that. He's consistently the best Terran since early HoTS Innovation. MVP's matches were always great because of his ability to use innovative builds and mind game his opponents.. But this was in WOL when Terran had options against Protoss and actual aggressive timings they could take advantage of. What can a Terran do now? What cheese outside of 11/11 and the occasional TY Proleague timings actually can throw other races off? Cause I haven't seen any at the highest level
To be honest, Maru makes a lot of BAD decisions but he is so good that he just outplays the fuck out of most of the people that he plays anyway. He goes for cheeses at the weirdest times, and even when they get scouted well ahead of time he just YOLOs and smashes people.
|
On April 26 2014 15:10 ETisME wrote:
Marauders are much more tougher and cs make it a lot easier to snipe infestors because infestors get 3 shot ish by a group of marauders.
Even if they drop its and burrow and fungal, it is incredibly hard to save them
Unlike pulling back vikings or banshee for example.
Ht and ghost imo are the most mechanically challenging micro in the game.
And nowadays I even see toss doing emp dodge with ht while spreading hts everywhere and still regarded as storm = ez win.
Of cause a marine is more microable than a zealot.
But that also mean zealot player has to cope with the more mobile and microable marine.
I don't play toss often and I will use a zerglings vs drop example.
You can assign lings and baneling to deny a drop, terran picks up and reposition the drops while pushing at front.
The drop is then repositioned which means zerg has to keep an active attention for the lings and banelings to deny a queued drop all while defending the main push.
Without anything to kill the medivac, terran always have the ability to reposition drops via queue command while having full attention to the main push.
You need multi tasking to defend as well, it's something that you have to understand.
Rain despite being one of the most passive player, I regard him as one of the best mechanical protoss player due to his amazing drop spot and all the other things he does like obs spreading and instant good defense against multi prone attacks
Rain is my favorite Protoss.  I think that if Protoss units became as worthless without control as Terran units are, and as good with constant control as Terran units are, I think Rain would be A-OK making that transition.
I understand that defending takes multitasking, but there's a difference between a split-second Feedback destroying an incoming Medivac, which takes commendable map awareness and micro, and shutting down ling aggression with a Forcefield, which doesn't, or casting a Photon Overcharge, which is so easy I can't believe it made it into the game at all. If all Protoss units were as high-risk/high-reward as Feedbacking HTs, you can believe me we would not be having this discussion.
|
On April 26 2014 15:52 shockaslim wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2014 13:42 Chaggi wrote:On April 26 2014 12:31 Salient wrote:On April 26 2014 12:18 Chaggi wrote:On April 26 2014 08:08 DinoMight wrote:
Maru may have among the best unit control in the world. But a guy who stubbornly refuses to make ghosts in TvP is bound to die to horrible horrible storms a few times.
MKP also has great control, and how far did he go? There is more to StarCraft2 than just micro. Decision making and planning also factors into it a lot. So does reading your opponent and scouting.
In my view, Terrans open with very greedy builds vs. Z (3CC off of 6 hellions and 2 reapers,). If they don't scout perfectly, they will lose (like Maru did). It seems like a lot of these Terrans with impeccable micro and APM are dying to rather simple things, or failing to see glaring irregularities in the game because they have blinders on. MMA vs. Starbuck on Frost from WCS is the best example I can think of. Starbuck had absolutely no tech whatsoever in his main, no units at all on the map... NOTHING, and MMA just kept playing as if it were a regular macro game. Proxy infestation pit was never scouted, nothing was ever suspected in the slightest.
MKP may have the best micro in the world, but he also has hands down the worst decision making I've seen in a pro gamer. His micro and APM alone carry him to the level he's at. This is my 3rd post in a row but I just wanna tell you how stupid this view of to make ghosts or not to make ghosts You've said you played Terran at some horrible horrible level, but you don't really seem to understand the fact that by going ghosts, you're giving up a lot of mobility and ability to put pressure on the Protoss. It's an expensive unit that you need to be at least on 3 bases on to really get. Maru's entire strategy has always been put massive pressure on the Protoss, split to negate storm damage and never let the Protoss have a minute to breathe and eventually break him. You literally can't do that with Ghosts in your composition. For one of the best players in the world, and possibly the best Terran in the world, it pains me to see people doubt his decision making to go for a ghostless composition considering this is what he believes will give him the highest chance of winning the game. You see this strategy more and more because ghost/viking is really hard to play and apparently pro players think it's still in the favor of Protoss by playing that comp. Maru is overrated. Mvp was a bonjwa before his wrist problem. He didn't rely purely on superior mechanics to win. He is smart in a way that most players are not. He is like a Terran version of MC, but even better. Maru is nothing like that. He's more like his old mentor MKP (attack, attack, attack!) (or mix it up with econ cheese). What a hilariously horrible and shallow analysis of Maru. Do you even watch him or did you stop watching SC in 2011? Just because Maru's mechanics are top tier, doesn't mean his In game decisions isn't. Time and time again we see him smash people not just cause of his mechanics but his decision making and his results prove that. He's consistently the best Terran since early HoTS Innovation. MVP's matches were always great because of his ability to use innovative builds and mind game his opponents.. But this was in WOL when Terran had options against Protoss and actual aggressive timings they could take advantage of. What can a Terran do now? What cheese outside of 11/11 and the occasional TY Proleague timings actually can throw other races off? Cause I haven't seen any at the highest level To be honest, Maru makes a lot of BAD decisions but he is so good that he just outplays the fuck out of most of the people that he plays anyway. He goes for cheeses at the weirdest times, and even when they get scouted well ahead of time he just YOLOs and smashes people.
GOtta remember Maru bases his decision of perfect information, viewers have all information. Maru makes a really low amount of mistakes for the amount of interactions he goes for!
|
On April 26 2014 16:01 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2014 15:10 ETisME wrote:
Marauders are much more tougher and cs make it a lot easier to snipe infestors because infestors get 3 shot ish by a group of marauders.
Even if they drop its and burrow and fungal, it is incredibly hard to save them
Unlike pulling back vikings or banshee for example.
Ht and ghost imo are the most mechanically challenging micro in the game.
And nowadays I even see toss doing emp dodge with ht while spreading hts everywhere and still regarded as storm = ez win.
Of cause a marine is more microable than a zealot.
But that also mean zealot player has to cope with the more mobile and microable marine.
I don't play toss often and I will use a zerglings vs drop example.
You can assign lings and baneling to deny a drop, terran picks up and reposition the drops while pushing at front.
The drop is then repositioned which means zerg has to keep an active attention for the lings and banelings to deny a queued drop all while defending the main push.
Without anything to kill the medivac, terran always have the ability to reposition drops via queue command while having full attention to the main push.
You need multi tasking to defend as well, it's something that you have to understand.
Rain despite being one of the most passive player, I regard him as one of the best mechanical protoss player due to his amazing drop spot and all the other things he does like obs spreading and instant good defense against multi prone attacks Rain is my favorite Protoss. I think that if Protoss units became as worthless without control as Terran units are, and as good with constant control as Terran units are, I think Rain would be A-OK making that transition. I understand that defending takes multitasking, but there's a difference between a split-second Feedback destroying an incoming Medivac, which takes commendable map awareness and micro, and shutting down ling aggression with a Forcefield, which doesn't, or casting a Photon Overcharge, which is so easy I can't believe it made it into the game at all. If all Protoss units were as high-risk/high-reward as Feedbacking HTs, you can believe me we would not be having this discussion.
herO/Dear or bust!
|
On April 26 2014 15:10 ETisME wrote:
Marauders are much more tougher and cs make it a lot easier to snipe infestors because infestors get 3 shot ish by a group of marauders.
Even if they drop its and burrow and fungal, it is incredibly hard to save them
Unlike pulling back vikings or banshee for example.
Ht and ghost imo are the most mechanically challenging micro in the game.
And nowadays I even see toss doing emp dodge with ht while spreading hts everywhere and still regarded as storm = ez win.
Of cause a marine is more microable than a zealot.
But that also mean zealot player has to cope with the more mobile and microable marine.
I don't play toss often and I will use a zerglings vs drop example.
You can assign lings and baneling to deny a drop, terran picks up and reposition the drops while pushing at front.
The drop is then repositioned which means zerg has to keep an active attention for the lings and banelings to deny a queued drop all while defending the main push.
Without anything to kill the medivac, terran always have the ability to reposition drops via queue command while having full attention to the main push.
You need multi tasking to defend as well, it's something that you have to understand.
Rain despite being one of the most passive player, I regard him as one of the best mechanical protoss player due to his amazing drop spot and all the other things he does like obs spreading and instant good defense against multi prone attacks
This isn't really true. If a Terran drops 1-2 medivacs worth of units into the Protoss base, a warp in round of zealots can deal with it without any other attention. Maybe a photon overcharge on the Nexus if it's not enough. Once you're at a 2/2 or 3/3 especially, zealots become the biggest annoyance ever to kill. That means if you're gonna do any damage at all, you HAVE to stutter and micro, or make the decision to pick up and leave. This means attention away from big battles always. Does Protoss need to micro their zealots to defend drops? No, they don't. Furthermore, losing a drop completely to a Feedback without doing any damage puts the Terran in an absolutely huge hole. It means at least for a window of time, Protoss is free to roam out and roll you. Can anyone really say the same about losing a WP full of zealots? There's no absolute need to do damage to the Terran like there is a huge need to do damage to a Protoss/Zerg player.
|
On April 26 2014 17:26 Chaggi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2014 15:10 ETisME wrote:
Marauders are much more tougher and cs make it a lot easier to snipe infestors because infestors get 3 shot ish by a group of marauders.
Even if they drop its and burrow and fungal, it is incredibly hard to save them
Unlike pulling back vikings or banshee for example.
Ht and ghost imo are the most mechanically challenging micro in the game.
And nowadays I even see toss doing emp dodge with ht while spreading hts everywhere and still regarded as storm = ez win.
Of cause a marine is more microable than a zealot.
But that also mean zealot player has to cope with the more mobile and microable marine.
I don't play toss often and I will use a zerglings vs drop example.
You can assign lings and baneling to deny a drop, terran picks up and reposition the drops while pushing at front.
The drop is then repositioned which means zerg has to keep an active attention for the lings and banelings to deny a queued drop all while defending the main push.
Without anything to kill the medivac, terran always have the ability to reposition drops via queue command while having full attention to the main push.
You need multi tasking to defend as well, it's something that you have to understand.
Rain despite being one of the most passive player, I regard him as one of the best mechanical protoss player due to his amazing drop spot and all the other things he does like obs spreading and instant good defense against multi prone attacks This isn't really true. If a Terran drops 1-2 medivacs worth of units into the Protoss base, a warp in round of zealots can deal with it without any other attention. Maybe a photon overcharge on the Nexus if it's not enough. Once you're at a 2/2 or 3/3 especially, zealots become the biggest annoyance ever to kill. That means if you're gonna do any damage at all, you HAVE to stutter and micro, or make the decision to pick up and leave.
Or just right click on the Nexus like Polt and the legion of ladder players copying him.
|
On April 26 2014 12:20 Darkhorse wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2014 11:40 Chaggi wrote:On April 26 2014 08:43 Darkhorse wrote:On April 26 2014 08:39 The_Red_Viper wrote:On April 26 2014 08:28 Big J wrote:On April 26 2014 08:19 pure.Wasted wrote:On April 26 2014 08:06 Big J wrote:On April 26 2014 07:50 pure.Wasted wrote:On April 26 2014 07:39 Big J wrote:On April 26 2014 07:28 pure.Wasted wrote:
[quote]
And? SoO did that build because it works. The fact that it might not have in this case - preparing for a Roach bust doesn't mean you become impervious to it, I've seen many a siege tank-getting Terran die to it because the Roaches manage to get in range of the tank - changes nothing about how little skill the strategy takes to pull off. As that wise American pilgrim once said, have Roach will bust.
Man, you can feel free to dismiss everything I say as whine, only problem is this being whine doesn't explain why there are 4 Terrans in GSL for two seasons in a row, why there hasn't been a Terran champion in a premier tournament since November of last year, and if we don't count Taeja who is a little bit singularly godly at this game, there hasn't been a Terran champion since September, and in Korea, the Terran mecca of the world, where all the best Terrans are supposed to reside, there hasn't been a Terran champion since fucking June as we go into May of the next year.
But you're probably right, there's nothing to the fact that Terrans have to outplay their opponents to get results that are a third as good. You know, that's exactly why I responded (and why I shouldn't have in the first place). Best Zerg currently (whose best winrate is against T) plays best Terran currently (whose worst winrate is against Z and has been since 2011). Terran loses. You come in and pretend that Maru is 3times as good as soO. Hilarious. Your assumption that the players with the best results are all equally skilled is hilarious. Do you understand that if the game is imbalanced, that actually means that less skilled players will have better results? Hence talking about results when the state of the game is so disconcerting is fucking useless? I guess Roro was the most skilled Zerg player back when WOL was ending, so if Maru, Innovation, Rain, and Parting can't beat him, everything is legit and the game is fine!!!!!! If the game was actually balanced right now, Maru would be unstoppable. However, if the game was also properly designed on top of that, all bets are off because Protoss and Zerg victories would come down to mechanical skill the same way Terran victories do, and there's no telling which of them would step up to the plate and how hard they would step up to the plate. I expect Rain would start massacring everybody left and right, for one thing. Maru would still get killed by most topzergs if the matchup was in Terrans favor. As showcased by him trying to parade push Alterzim which is a map with a ~70% winrate for T against Z. As showcased by his TvZ winrate also being low in mid 2011 and early-mid 2013, times in which Terran had on average 53-54% winrate in that matchup. Did... you just... bring up Maru's winrate from 2011? Are you for fucking real? Let's talk about his APM when he was back in gradeschool while we're at it! The kid is 16. Three years ago he was 13 years old. Terran was at best even with Zerg during early HOTS when Zerg still didn't know wtf to do about widow mines, when Maru was still coming into his own. Look at s1 RO8, the time of Innovation's domination, there are two times as many Zerg as there are Terran. Does that look like 53-54% to you? Not going to bother with that bullshit in your last sentences. Do your "mechanical skill" dick measuring contest with someone who has complexes about it. I don't know what I'm thinking holding up mechanical skill and multitasking ability as virtues in a real time strategy game. You have not a single piece of evidence for Terran requiring more mechanical skill. That's why it is a dick measuring contest, nothing more. One evidence might be that there is next to no foreign terran who has a shot at winning against koreans. The same isn't true for Zerg or Protoss. Circumstantial and not able to be confirmed. Could just be that foreign terrans are worse. Nothing you can prove. Same with the often used, "Well more terran players have wrist issues than others". Can't be used to confirm the amount of mechanical skill needed. If we say that foreign Terrans are just worse, then why couldn't we say that Korean Terrans were just better than everyone else in the days of GomTvT? Or the same argument that was used for Zergs in Broodlord/Infestor days? Or as the argument now? Protoss players are just better than everyone else, and that's why they're winning. You see how this line of logic doesn't really work when you look back on it? I think you are missing the point of my argument D: I'm just saying that we can say anything we want to try to explain why things are the way they are like "foreign terrans are just worse" and it is just as unprovable as saying "foreign terrans do badly because it is more mechanically difficult to play". I don't believe that foreign terrans are just worse but there is just no way to prove that terran is the most mechanically difficult.
Why not? Just take some simple examples and think about it. Wouldn't you say hitting & running with a Marine is harder than a-clicking a Charge Zealot? The first task requires constant attention and actions while the second does not. Similarly, a-clicking Hellbats is easier than casting Forcefields (for example); the latter requires mouse accuracy, speed and judgement while the former is simply pressing 2 buttons into no longer paying attention to the unit. There are tons of situations in which you can objectively evaluate the difficulty of the tasks required for both sides.
Same for some attacks/defence situations; it is accepted that 1-1-1 all-ins (during the days of Xel'Naga Caverns & co) were harder to defend than to execute. Why? Among a few reasons because Protoss had very little margin of error. No one would argue Blink attacks with the old 14 MSC sight were harder to execute than the corresponding Terran defence on Yeonsu. Why? Because on top of the defending side having no room for error, the attacking side had perfect intel about the defence with the MSC, and could transition at will while the defending side had also to think about this, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
