|
Australia720 Posts
On October 03 2011 20:04 ForgottenOne wrote:
Fun fact: the skill difference between the average diamond and the average master is huge. Hence, there's no way "diamond and master" should be on the same "level" in the poll.
Theres an even bigger difference between GM and pro, and its pretty significant between bronze and silver. I didnt separate the leagues any more than I did becuase then there would be 8 polls and thats way to many.
Out of interest, would you have given two different responses had diamond and master been separate? Because I think the majority of people would have answered the same race for both of them
|
hmm i'd saaaay
Bronze - zerg
Silver - zerg
Gold - hmmm...zerg ( or protoss if he doesn't know what a timing push is )
Platinum - zerg
Diamond - gets tricky...i think terran (if he doesn't know what a 1-1-1 is and such)
Master - Protoss
GM - Protoss
Pro - Protoss
|
Interesting poll. Definitely agree that protoss is a lot easier to play than zerg at lowlow levels, but protoss is probably somewhat harder (at least currently =p) than zerg. What is hard to play on the top level depends a lot on the 'metagame' though. You would have to make pretty big changes to make Zerg easier to play than protoss at a low level, but very small changes could completely change what is "easier" to play at a top level.
|
I play random on my brothers account.
I suck at playing protoss.
For me:
Platinum hardest ----> Protoss (Till I figure out I should stay on 1 base longer)
Diamond hardest ----> Terran (TvZ is a bitch)
|
On October 03 2011 13:30 Black Gun wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2011 13:07 Supamang wrote:
This is why I dont understand how Terran is harder at Diamond/Master level. Everyone says "Oh well its because Zerg mechanics are hard to learn early on but everyones used to it by Diamond/Masters." How the hell does that not apply to Terran micro? Ive said so numerous times, but I started out playing Terran. I was stutter stepping in beta and marine splitting by GSL2. In Diamond/Masters, yea most Zergs are good enough to have their macro mechanics down to a decent level. At the same time most Terrans should have their micro mechanics down to a decent level as well. With that in mind, why would Terrans micro somehow make them the hardest race to play in Diamond/Masters? its not only that the mechanical requirements increase drastically as a terran hits diamond/masters league, its that their whole playstyle becomes much less forgiving. terran units allow for the most amount of micro and they are very versatile. this means that given abundant apm/multitasking, terran has a very high potential. this is reflected by terran being the dominant race at the very top end of the skill spectrum. the downside of this, however, is that terran units have to be relatively weak if their micro- and multitasking-abilities are not used. because terran is gosu in the hands of mvp, bomber or mma, they must necessarily suck in the hands of a skillless casual noob who only knows how to 1a. or to put the same issue from a different perspective: terran armies are by far the weakest in high tech high food count ball vs ball battles. mules are very useful for players with macro deficiencies and the early game strength of terran means that the opposing player needs a certain treshold amount of skill to not die or fall behind massively against early game terran aggression. this is why terran is certainly not the hardest race on bronze to platinum level. once the majority of opponents has passed the skill treshold to enter the mid- to lategame relatively unscathed though, the lack of "raw muscle" of terran armies starts to become a huge issue. an issue that has to be circumvented by splitting armies, doing drops, multi-pronged attacks, micro like a champ in the big engagements and so on. this critical skill treshold currently lies somewhere around the diamond- to masters-level. the opponents start to have good enough scouting, game-knowledge and macro to enter a long macro game against terran on a regular basis, forcing the terran to actually showcase all the micro, apm and multitasking that their race allows for. forced to have and use the skill that, up to this point, wasnt necessary for terran to win games. suddenly they cant lean back anymore, they cant engage directly anymore. their whole tactical approach to any game that goes longer than 10 minutes has to change or else they are lost. and this new approach requires vastly more skill than what you could get away with against lower level opposition. this is the reason why, in my eyes, terran is the hardest to play on the (high) diamond - masters level. in my opinion, at the very top level, terran is the most demanding race, but also the strongest one. the terran race offers more things to put one's skill to use than the other races, so that terran is the strongest race at the top level. at the same time, you are forced to use at least some of the huge potential of the race to remain competitive. imho terran requires the most skill to reach its skill cap (as it is higher than that of the other races), but is also the easiest to win with IF you can come close to this skill cap.
very well written.
i totally agree.
and that's the reason i switched to protoss. cause terran is SO DAM HARD TO PLAY -.-
now i just have to survive ling enough and run over my opponents. up to top masters, there's nor much resistance in the ladder.
so take i from someone who started as terran and switched to toss.
after early game/early midgame toss is the easiest race to play (mid to high master).
zerg is rather easy too as soon as you can wrap your head around the totally different macro mechanics (i play zerg in 2n2).
|
Question for everyone picking toss as the most difficult race to play at the higher levels. If all toss units were buffed by something like 5% and all of a sudden they were imba and showing positive win rates, does the race become any different in terms of difficulty?
In Broodwar, is Toss the hardest to play because Terran and Z fair better in tournaments? Most people would argue the opposite, that Toss is still the easiest to play and has a lower skill cap while T and Z require better players to master but have more potential as races. yea?
|
Sounds like a lot of you are just not scouting and still droning hard as Zerg. Pretty silly mistake to make unless you dont care that you might just die. You can make drones and units at the same time you know if you think scouting is too much work.
|
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
Zerg is most difficult at lower levels because it is the race that requires the most game sense. The race is a reactionary one so scouting, knowing timings, and knowing when to drone or produce units is more difficult than any of the other races' characteristics.
Once you reach diamond it becomes Terran, because mechanics at diamond aren't good enough to macro/position units/split marines/scout/mule/etc.
At masters up it becomes protoss, because really I haven't seen a toss know what he's really doing in every match up in a long time. Most of the good protosses now are just one matchup ponies.
|
On October 03 2011 21:02 secretary bird wrote:
Sounds like a lot of you are just not scouting and still droning hard as Zerg. Pretty silly mistake to make unless you dont care that you might just die. You can make drones and units at the same time you know if you think scouting is too much work.
Well then they should probably stop taking advice from Day9 and Teamliquid on how to make drones
I think even if you did use a psuedo-Protoss/Terran system of making a mix of drones and military every larva inject cycle, you'd be behind your non-Zerg opponents economically. AND even if you did do that, you still need to scout for *what* units and/or static defences you need to build, or just try and defend against everything and be even further behind.
|
On October 03 2011 09:54 kirdie wrote:
I don't get why people say zerg is the hardest in the lower leagues. You dont even *need* larva injects there. I just 6 pooled from bronze to I think platin shortly after release. As terrans can wall of relatively easily I then would say protoss is harder. Also, protoss is in my opinion the hardest race below diamond because they rely on good forcefield micro.
I took the poll to mean how hard standard play is, so no accounting for 6pooling or cannon rushing and the like. And as much as everyone mocks the low leaguers, I suspect they're a little better defending against 6pools now than they were at release a year ago.
|
I haven't played all races at all levels, I don't have a really good opinion. I guess I'll just go with my race bias and say Zerg at all levels, if only for the ling/bling ZvZ early game, which makes for the most painful and excruciating battles in SC2 (and is mostly unavoidable unless you're happy with ceding map control).
|
On October 03 2011 21:26 Monkeyballs25 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2011 21:02 secretary bird wrote:
Sounds like a lot of you are just not scouting and still droning hard as Zerg. Pretty silly mistake to make unless you dont care that you might just die. You can make drones and units at the same time you know if you think scouting is too much work. Well then they should probably stop taking advice from Day9 and Teamliquid on how to make drones I think even if you did use a psuedo-Protoss/Terran system of making a mix of drones and military every larva inject cycle, you'd be behind your non-Zerg opponents economically. AND even if you did do that, you still need to scout for *what* units and/or static defences you need to build, or just try and defend against everything and be even further behind.
You are not behind economically when you do that, probably even or ahead if its 3 base to 2 base but anyway I know that you are just not using your racial advantage for a while. Thats why its better to scout but if you dont I dont think you need to be super greedy for average players, its probably better to be safe if you have no idea what they re doing.
|
Personally im quite intrested to see if anyone will reach a point they can control sentrys/high templar/phoenix's/motherships at the same time at a high level.
I feel theres quite alot of synergy that can be done with protoss units and the casters which takes quite alot of control.
|
Bronze / Silver : definitly z if you it goes mid/late game because of poor apm and general weaker units ( but insta win with a 7 roach push well executed ).
Gold/plat : Z or T, z cause at this level the macro is not so good as well, t because you start to get some worthy opponents in plat who know what to do.
Diam/masters : T because it's begining to get difficult to micro your army to avoid AOE damages or banelings while macroing like crazy. Opponents know how to deal with you and your army is slower than z and weaker than toss
GM : Protoss, at the highest level of play where micro is good and macro as well protoss is hard to play.
|
|
|
The question you are essentially asking here is "What race are you playing?".
In reality what you should be looking at is which race is winning the most. Because the phrase "easy to play" only contains any meaning if it is the same as "easy to win". For example it doesnt make any sense proclaiming that one race is easy to play and at the same time loses all the time.
So look at the winrates, they are solid data, they give you your answer. This result of this poll here is bound to be just a travesty, since most people tend to play one race exclusively and will just vote based on their personal frustration on the ladder.
|
On October 03 2011 20:56 sCuMBaG wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2011 13:30 Black Gun wrote:On October 03 2011 13:07 Supamang wrote:
This is why I dont understand how Terran is harder at Diamond/Master level. Everyone says "Oh well its because Zerg mechanics are hard to learn early on but everyones used to it by Diamond/Masters." How the hell does that not apply to Terran micro? Ive said so numerous times, but I started out playing Terran. I was stutter stepping in beta and marine splitting by GSL2. In Diamond/Masters, yea most Zergs are good enough to have their macro mechanics down to a decent level. At the same time most Terrans should have their micro mechanics down to a decent level as well. With that in mind, why would Terrans micro somehow make them the hardest race to play in Diamond/Masters? its not only that the mechanical requirements increase drastically as a terran hits diamond/masters league, its that their whole playstyle becomes much less forgiving. terran units allow for the most amount of micro and they are very versatile. this means that given abundant apm/multitasking, terran has a very high potential. this is reflected by terran being the dominant race at the very top end of the skill spectrum. the downside of this, however, is that terran units have to be relatively weak if their micro- and multitasking-abilities are not used. because terran is gosu in the hands of mvp, bomber or mma, they must necessarily suck in the hands of a skillless casual noob who only knows how to 1a. or to put the same issue from a different perspective: terran armies are by far the weakest in high tech high food count ball vs ball battles. mules are very useful for players with macro deficiencies and the early game strength of terran means that the opposing player needs a certain treshold amount of skill to not die or fall behind massively against early game terran aggression. this is why terran is certainly not the hardest race on bronze to platinum level. once the majority of opponents has passed the skill treshold to enter the mid- to lategame relatively unscathed though, the lack of "raw muscle" of terran armies starts to become a huge issue. an issue that has to be circumvented by splitting armies, doing drops, multi-pronged attacks, micro like a champ in the big engagements and so on. this critical skill treshold currently lies somewhere around the diamond- to masters-level. the opponents start to have good enough scouting, game-knowledge and macro to enter a long macro game against terran on a regular basis, forcing the terran to actually showcase all the micro, apm and multitasking that their race allows for. forced to have and use the skill that, up to this point, wasnt necessary for terran to win games. suddenly they cant lean back anymore, they cant engage directly anymore. their whole tactical approach to any game that goes longer than 10 minutes has to change or else they are lost. and this new approach requires vastly more skill than what you could get away with against lower level opposition. this is the reason why, in my eyes, terran is the hardest to play on the (high) diamond - masters level. in my opinion, at the very top level, terran is the most demanding race, but also the strongest one. the terran race offers more things to put one's skill to use than the other races, so that terran is the strongest race at the top level. at the same time, you are forced to use at least some of the huge potential of the race to remain competitive. imho terran requires the most skill to reach its skill cap (as it is higher than that of the other races), but is also the easiest to win with IF you can come close to this skill cap. very well written. i totally agree. and that's the reason i switched to protoss. cause terran is SO DAM HARD TO PLAY -.- now i just have to survive ling enough and run over my opponents. up to top masters, there's nor much resistance in the ladder. so take i from someone who started as terran and switched to toss. after early game/early midgame toss is the easiest race to play (mid to high master). zerg is rather easy too as soon as you can wrap your head around the totally different macro mechanics (i play zerg in 2n2).
You switched to Protoss but the last 12 (or even more, i just stopped counting) 1v1 matches on your profile were all terran ones.
And how do you know you will make it to top master as protoss when you're still not master as terran?
I'm not a stalker but you are in the division i'm playing with my offrace smurf and after reading so much sh** here i really had to look up your matchhistory.
Just play Protoss and don't state so much ignorant lies here. Of course everyone wants his race to be the hardest to play in order to gain more respect for performing well with it but please stay calm and think before posting (and don't use wrong statements to underline your perspective).
|
I actually think exactly like the poll. Protoss is proboably easiest in the lowest league, with Terran catching up fast right behind. Around gold level people macro is good enough that pure terran bio can crush anything without micro and the other races usually cant keep up. When it comes to master level protoss is very unforgiving anso Id say its the easiest race but the hardest to win with. Zerg on the other hand is the hardest race to play but pretty easy to win with at top level. Terran is easy to play and easy to win with.
|
easy to play and easy to win, lol;
which league are you robinsa ?
|
On October 03 2011 11:42 xlava wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2011 11:22 JcGuiao wrote:On October 03 2011 10:59 FabledIntegral wrote:On October 03 2011 10:50 kofman wrote:On October 03 2011 09:14 FataLe wrote:On October 03 2011 08:01 Shirolol wrote:I'm sorry but this poll on the GM level is ridiculous. Just because a certain race is currently at a weaker place in it's life doesn't instantly mean it's the most difficult to play at that level. The fact that only Terran (308) so far really shows how few really good terrans there are. As http://www.sc2charts.net/en/edb?zone=7 shows, which someone posted earlier on in the thread. However if we bring koreans into the equation we have a whole new ball game.. They have quite a lot of exceptional terrans because of their really high apm (required for mass harass/marine micro/siege focus etc.) and intense training regimes/amazing practice partners. On October 03 2011 07:37 InvXXVII wrote:
When talking about GM/Master protoss, I think that most of us are not concerned with marco/micro at all. At that level, it should be a given that macro/micro mechanics are mastered. Protoss macro is by far the easiest and your micro is 1a-ing and blinking, sometimes. Oh and pressing f a lot. & it's precisely this ignorant banter which makes me shake my head at everything you've just said. Its true. Sorry, the truth hurts. Such an idiotic statement, really. In my personal experience of playing all three races, Protoss macro is the hardest. At the same time, the battles are also often the easiest if you go the voidray/colossus route vs Zerg, or chargelot/archon vs Terran. Constantly keeping on pylons is much harder than keeping up with ovies, especially since you have to make them so friggin' often, and being unable to just macro without moving your screen to a specific location is huge in itself. However, injecting you can easily simply get in the rythym of doing so, and you're punished the least with Zerg if you get supply blocked imo on a regular basis (if it's occasional then supply drop is fine), due to the fact you can still inject and bank larvae to be used while supply blocked. I don't understand how Protoss macro is hard. Whenever I'm floating a shit tonne of minerals I make more gateways or another nexus as I wait for cooldowns to finish. I never have problems with Protoss macro (probably because I main Terran and constantly go through my hotkeys to make sure I'm always producing) and find it extremely easy to make pylons constantly (i make 3-4 pylons after a warp in). I do get supply blocked a few times but I end up finding ways to dump minerals into either gateways (to catch up in production) or using chronoboosts to make up for a missed production cycle due to being supply blocked. Terran macro is the hardest since there are 3 buildings to be making out of CONSTANTLY.Whoever told you that queing units (1-2 units in the que is fine, anything more is bad) needs to watch some day9 dailies.When Terran gets supply blocked and can't supply drop, it's more detrimental in the long run since there's nothing you can do to help you catch up with that production cycle. Zerg is pretty forgiving in terms of Macro since, they can dump all their minerals and gas with a large round of larvae and can use macro hatcheries to help them catch up in production if they fell behind because of supply blocks. This may single handedly be the most absurd thing I've ever read on the forums. 1) If you're floating money as any race, you can throw down more production structures or make another hub (nexus, cc, hatch), it doesn't just apply to Protoss, lol. 2) Terran macro hardest? What? LOL? What you're saying is that its hard because there are 3 production structures (even though Protoss has 3 as well), and that its hardest because even though you have supply drop, its somehow harder to catch up as Terran than the other races because you can't use supply drop? Are you out of your mind? 3) Zerg macro forgiving? Its probably some of the hardest to keep up with, and you need to know when to drone and when not to. They can make macro hatcheries? You seriously sound like you're trolling. A macro hatch is only useful in certain times of the game, and any other race can make more production structures just as easily. I don't even understand the logic behind your thinking. You're taking the most similar aspects of each races' macro mechanics and then purporting that one is easier than the other (ie. throwing down production, building from different production structures). This sounds like a gold league post tbh... Next time provide more conclusive evidence than just general opinionated comments.
*I understand there may seem like a lot of bias here, but I have multiple accounts that I play on. I am approaching this thread as a person who ladders regularly with different races in different leagues and is trying to give their honest and unbiased opinion based on experience.
Macro for me is being able to manage army/economy by constantly spending your minerals and gas,making enough supply (depots/overlords/pylons) and keeping up with your race mechanic (mules, larva inject, chronoboost).
1. Yes I agree, it is always wise to invest into expansions and production when floating a lot of minerals. My point was, it is pretty easy to efficiently expend your resources since you are able to warp in 10-20+ supply of units and dump a good chunk of your resources if you have enough production buildings. The only time I do float minerals, is when I am supply capped and I make up for the lost time by producing more warpgates and/or chronoboosting. In the long run, it is not as detrimental to your army count if you become supply blocked because you can just make gateways and warp in units to make up for lost production (assuming you have the resources).
2.I find Terran the hardest to macro because it requires a lot of attention and multitasking. I find it extremely difficult to constantly produce units and depots while at the same time effectively microing units. You need your fingers to constantly check through your command centres, barracks, factory, and starports and it becomes extremely taxing when there is an engagement and have up to 7 hotkeys you need to go through to keep up with Micro and Macro (i use 1,9,0 for army and 2-5 for production) and if you focus on one, it affects the other.
*Protoss does not need to hotkey all gateways since there is a shortcut to warp in (W)
*I am a high diamond Terran but playing against 600-1000 pt masters on ladder consistently.
Yes, when you are floating a lot of minerals you can make more production buildings, however, as Terran you also have to factor in the build time of the building as well as the build time of the unit you want to produce. It is a lot SLOWER to DUMP resources into a Terran army than Protoss and Zerg therefore, it is more unforgiving. If you did not keep up with macro while microing and the opponent decides to counter-attack, you cannot produce enough units fast enough to hold off the push. If you are Protoss, if you have enough warpgates (assuming you have enough resources) you can make enough units to hold/slow down the push. Same goes for Zerg, if you have enough resources and larvae, you can hold/slow down the push.
As for being supply block, I think Terran has it worst for being supply blocked. A Protoss/Zerg can quickly outproduce a Terran in supply since it takes Terran a lot longer to make units.
3. Now here is where it can differ. I am only high plat-mid diam level zerg but I've won games where I've lost 20 or so drones early on to harass. I was able to quickly catch up in supply and harvestor count by making macro hatcheries instead of a third base. Made enough of the RIGHT (lol banelings) units to hold off the first big push, and was able to power hard enough to gain a big lead in economy to take control of the game. Yes, it is extremely difficult to keep up if you do not keep up with injects and make too many units instead of drones, but if you make the right read on your opponent and scout properly, you can power hard enough to easily outmacro your opponent. I really don't have problems with injects for the first 20 mins of the game. As the game progresses past the 20 min mark is when my injecting and creep spreading goes to shit (lol). Its usually never my macro that losses me games when I'm zerg, but my unit composition or terrible engagements that usually cost me the game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
