|
On October 15 2011 05:45 ExO_ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2011 05:31 Mora wrote:On October 02 2011 17:09 CatNzHat wrote:
I currently think that terran has the highest skill cap, the the koreans would seem to agree.
In masters league on NA, i find that terran is the most mechanically challenging of the races, and has the least forgiving decision making, if you miss read and react with improper tech, you're usually gonna be way behind due to having invested a ton in production that can't be use otherwise, compared to toss and zerg which have much more forgiving tech trees (build robo, no biggie immortals are very versatile and obs are required anyways for mobile detection, build roach warren, no biggie, just don't make roaches).
High masters terran btw (rank 400 masters NA atm). Posts like these I find so odd. If you don't play all three races, how are you supposed to accurately judge which ones are harder to play? Sure those things you mentioned are hard for terran (or not, as I actually disagree with them), but what about all the hard things about zerg and protoss that you've never been exposed to? I'm high masters with terran and low masters with zerg/protoss. My personal experience has lead me to believe that Zerg is BY FAR the toughest. This might change with more games played, but right now it certainly seems so. ~750 games of terran ~100 games of zerg ~30 games of protoss Terran mechanics are just so forgiving. Their micro and macro is both simple and easy to execute. And if you slip up your macro rhythm, you just spam a bunch of Mules (or Super Depots). Marines are SOOO versatile. I got to Masters Terran long before I had any clue how to play this game, and once there, it was very easy to just learn as I went and I moved up the ranks. ZERG? Miss a larva inject? screwed. Miss an overlord? screwed. Guessed the attack was coming at 8:00 instead of 7:30? screwed. Guessed the attack was at 7:30 instead of 8:00? probably screwed. Missed expanding your creep? screwed. A bit too much hyperbole, I think you should tone it down and realize that zerg isn't instantly screwed if you don't do everything perfect.
Uhm, you are wrong. I am a diamond zerg/toss/terran player and yes, as zerg, if you make even the littlest mistake, you are screwed. this is on top of knowing your opponents build orders to a T so you know how to prepare when all you see is 2 buildings.
terran's basic unit is the marine, so even if they prepare wrong, marines can do decent damage to any unit composition if you micro. but zerg, if u go roach against banshee, good luck. or if you banelings pop 2 seconds late, good luck. or if your overlords die and you get supply capped right when terran is coming at you, good luck.
this is coming from someone who plays all 3 races at the diamond level. i feel at diamond, my terran has the biggest room for improvement because i don't drop harass nearly enough. my toss i feel is hardest to improve because there's nothing more i can improve on besides memorizing endless build order trees. can't really micro zealot charge like i micro marine stim. can't really micro immortals like terrans can micro marauder kiting. can't really do any drops until late game... but if i survive to late game, more often than not, i've already won. terran is definitely the race that has the most number of tools. micro/macro and build order based. at the diamond level, toss has already maxed out, and can only get better by analyzing build orders trees.
edit: i also feel like the terrans i play at the diamond level are the weakest players in general. PvP and ZvZ are hard as hell, and the other guys actually know waht they are doing. but whenever I do a TvT, the other terran always has horrible macro or has bad multitasking. I'm willing to bet that if you measure total games played, it takes less games to get to terran diamond than it does to get to toss or zerg diamond.
|
I've played all three races to masters, high masters terran. I started off in gold and quickly moved to diamond and halted there for a while. Diamond level terran is much much harder than diamond zerg and toss. The bigger engagements require losing over and over and over before learning how to micro properly. If you don't think so, take a standard 200/200 zerg/protoss army and a move against a 200/200 terran army. It'll give you a good laugh. At this level zerg is easy, i love playing zerg at the diamond level because you feel so gosu. Get 80 drones then pump out ling/bane/muta and scout for when the terran moves out > surround > feel awesome.
Terran at that level requires your mechanics to make a huge leap, learning to pressure/drop and then the big one is engagements like i said before. I honestly think that racial imbalance is zerg favored followed by toss then terran up to diamond (i dont know about bronze-silver, was never bad enough to be there), once terrans learn to utilize what good mechanics and high apm have to offer, it becomes what we're seeing at the highest level, the strongest race.
|
They need to give Protoss something very difficult to use, but powerful. Maybe a new unit with a new skill? This would mean that the lower levels wouldn't be able to use it properly enough to give them an advantage, but at the higher levels would give Protoss players a new option.
|
This is the worst thread I have ever read. So pointless. Gratz on getting a high post count on it though.
User was banned for this post.
|
Poll: how many tiny tiny things do you stack until you reach the end of the universe.
If a race takes more micro/macro, more control, more multitasking, more spreading, more clicking ==the other races aren't doing enough. The point of the ranking system is to bring a natural curve to these things based on performance. For the W. Get the W. If your race is "Harder to play at level(x)" then your opponents are on their way to to level(x+1) while you are staying still. select builds that compliment your level of macro/micro/multitasking. Storm drops are pretty good. BFH drops are good. They would ride herd in bronze - then you would be out of bronze and into silver in about a day.prism play with chargelots counters immobile army play, but you have to micro and multitask or you're just being inefficient.
the point being that you've missed the meter, you've improperly read the metrics. it's not the difficulty of play of your race defined by league, it's league defined by skill at play with no accepted top end. we don't know how good it can get. Just watched bomber v puma saw tons of mistakes. It's not because the race is too difficult to use. It's because perfection is beyond us, always right in front of us (TRON).
|
I'm biased of course since I play Protoss but constant blink micro and warping in armies at the same time isn't exactly easy
|
thats interesting that ppl consider toss to be the hardest race to play at the GM and pro level. at that level im pretty sure all races are easy to play when it comes to machanics/macro/etc.
its usually the strategies and decision making that play a very big role at that level since it is assumed everyone should know how to easily play there race with no kinds of mistakes what so ever.
|
On October 15 2011 05:45 ExO_ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2011 05:31 Mora wrote:On October 02 2011 17:09 CatNzHat wrote:
I currently think that terran has the highest skill cap, the the koreans would seem to agree.
In masters league on NA, i find that terran is the most mechanically challenging of the races, and has the least forgiving decision making, if you miss read and react with improper tech, you're usually gonna be way behind due to having invested a ton in production that can't be use otherwise, compared to toss and zerg which have much more forgiving tech trees (build robo, no biggie immortals are very versatile and obs are required anyways for mobile detection, build roach warren, no biggie, just don't make roaches).
High masters terran btw (rank 400 masters NA atm). Posts like these I find so odd. If you don't play all three races, how are you supposed to accurately judge which ones are harder to play? Sure those things you mentioned are hard for terran (or not, as I actually disagree with them), but what about all the hard things about zerg and protoss that you've never been exposed to? I'm high masters with terran and low masters with zerg/protoss. My personal experience has lead me to believe that Zerg is BY FAR the toughest. This might change with more games played, but right now it certainly seems so. ~750 games of terran ~100 games of zerg ~30 games of protoss Terran mechanics are just so forgiving. Their micro and macro is both simple and easy to execute. And if you slip up your macro rhythm, you just spam a bunch of Mules (or Super Depots). Marines are SOOO versatile. I got to Masters Terran long before I had any clue how to play this game, and once there, it was very easy to just learn as I went and I moved up the ranks. ZERG? Miss a larva inject? screwed. Miss an overlord? screwed. Guessed the attack was coming at 8:00 instead of 7:30? screwed. Guessed the attack was at 7:30 instead of 8:00? probably screwed. Missed expanding your creep? screwed. A bit too much hyperbole, I think you should tone it down and realize that zerg isn't instantly screwed if you don't do everything perfect.
Missing 2 larva injects is like forgetting to make your 2nd and 3rd barracks/gateway. Can you imagine a 10 minute timing attack where your queens have ~65 mana and you're sitting on 800 with all larva morphed?
10 roaches can make the difference between dying to a 6gate or beating it.
And since the whole crux of the zerg race is maxing drones as much as possible without dying, anticipating an attack when it doesn't come puts you economically behind, and if you anticipate it too late you're dead cause you don't have enough shit. People often tell me "play less greedy", but then these people are never masters level zerg players.
|
On October 15 2011 10:54 Ballistixz wrote:
thats interesting that ppl consider toss to be the hardest race to play at the GM and pro level. at that level im pretty sure all races are easy to play when it comes to machanics/macro/etc.
its usually the strategies and decision making that play a very big role at that level since it is assumed everyone should know how to easily play there race with no kinds of mistakes what so ever.
have you ever watched pro sc2?
pros make tons of mistakes all the time. Watch sc2 in 4 years and it will be much closer to what you're referring to.
|
Tbh, I understand why they voted toss to be the hardest when you get into the GM's and Pros. Its easy if your playing a simple opponent to build a maxed out army and just push out and win. If you noticed, most people in masters and below cant win without doing an all-in with toss unless there opponent is just bad. I for one as a former gold league toss player can say, once you move out in our league, you cant go back or you lose. Thats why its so easy to when if you turtle with toss in the lower leagues. BUT (there is always a but), when you get into gm and pro level games, it is very difficult to play toss correctly and that is why I give the utmost respect to all pro toss players.
Everybody knows about the deathball with toss and how deadly it is, and when your at high levels of play... your opponent does too. I can guarantee you that almost EVERYONE that plays a toss player knows not to let them get that deathball so they mass alot of units early and go in for the kill. Regardless of weather or not they can kill the toss with that attack, they will most certainly be ahead if they can manage to kill off most of the toss army since anything that doesnt come out of the gateway takes alot of time to rebuild. even with chronoboost, it is very difficult to win after an army trade with against any race unless its a pvp.
|
On October 15 2011 12:15 Mora wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2011 10:54 Ballistixz wrote:
thats interesting that ppl consider toss to be the hardest race to play at the GM and pro level. at that level im pretty sure all races are easy to play when it comes to machanics/macro/etc.
its usually the strategies and decision making that play a very big role at that level since it is assumed everyone should know how to easily play there race with no kinds of mistakes what so ever. have you ever watched pro sc2? pros make tons of mistakes all the time. Watch sc2 in 4 years and it will be much closer to what you're referring to.
mistakes do happen, but its not as common place as some ppl think. something like killing off your command center with ur siege tanks for example is a once in a blue moon mistake.
|
On October 15 2011 08:23 LoneWolf.Alpha- wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2011 05:45 ExO_ wrote:On October 15 2011 05:31 Mora wrote:On October 02 2011 17:09 CatNzHat wrote:
I currently think that terran has the highest skill cap, the the koreans would seem to agree.
In masters league on NA, i find that terran is the most mechanically challenging of the races, and has the least forgiving decision making, if you miss read and react with improper tech, you're usually gonna be way behind due to having invested a ton in production that can't be use otherwise, compared to toss and zerg which have much more forgiving tech trees (build robo, no biggie immortals are very versatile and obs are required anyways for mobile detection, build roach warren, no biggie, just don't make roaches).
High masters terran btw (rank 400 masters NA atm). Posts like these I find so odd. If you don't play all three races, how are you supposed to accurately judge which ones are harder to play? Sure those things you mentioned are hard for terran (or not, as I actually disagree with them), but what about all the hard things about zerg and protoss that you've never been exposed to? I'm high masters with terran and low masters with zerg/protoss. My personal experience has lead me to believe that Zerg is BY FAR the toughest. This might change with more games played, but right now it certainly seems so. ~750 games of terran ~100 games of zerg ~30 games of protoss Terran mechanics are just so forgiving. Their micro and macro is both simple and easy to execute. And if you slip up your macro rhythm, you just spam a bunch of Mules (or Super Depots). Marines are SOOO versatile. I got to Masters Terran long before I had any clue how to play this game, and once there, it was very easy to just learn as I went and I moved up the ranks. ZERG? Miss a larva inject? screwed. Miss an overlord? screwed. Guessed the attack was coming at 8:00 instead of 7:30? screwed. Guessed the attack was at 7:30 instead of 8:00? probably screwed. Missed expanding your creep? screwed. A bit too much hyperbole, I think you should tone it down and realize that zerg isn't instantly screwed if you don't do everything perfect. Uhm, you are wrong. I am a diamond zerg/toss/terran player and yes, as zerg, if you make even the littlest mistake, you are screwed. this is on top of knowing your opponents build orders to a T so you know how to prepare when all you see is 2 buildings. terran's basic unit is the marine, so even if they prepare wrong, marines can do decent damage to any unit composition if you micro. but zerg, if u go roach against banshee, good luck. or if you banelings pop 2 seconds late, good luck. or if your overlords die and you get supply capped right when terran is coming at you, good luck. this is coming from someone who plays all 3 races at the diamond level. i feel at diamond, my terran has the biggest room for improvement because i don't drop harass nearly enough. my toss i feel is hardest to improve because there's nothing more i can improve on besides memorizing endless build order trees. can't really micro zealot charge like i micro marine stim. can't really micro immortals like terrans can micro marauder kiting. can't really do any drops until late game... but if i survive to late game, more often than not, i've already won. terran is definitely the race that has the most number of tools. micro/macro and build order based. at the diamond level, toss has already maxed out, and can only get better by analyzing build orders trees. edit: i also feel like the terrans i play at the diamond level are the weakest players in general. PvP and ZvZ are hard as hell, and the other guys actually know waht they are doing. but whenever I do a TvT, the other terran always has horrible macro or has bad multitasking. I'm willing to bet that if you measure total games played, it takes less games to get to terran diamond than it does to get to toss or zerg diamond.
Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal. Every page we have somebody spouting nonsense, "I switched to Terran/Protoss/Zerg and won 5 billion games in a row! Everybody who plays Terran/Protoss/Zerg is just bad/doesn't have game sense/sucks at multitasking/must not have a brain!"
Fact of the matter is, even if Terran has a lot tools, there is no defined goal in ANY matchup compared to Protoss and Zerg. There is no army composition or number of bases where a Terran spawns an "I win" button like there is for Protoss and Zerg. No damage done by the 3rd base for TvZ? Zerg is pretty much guaranteed the win. Same for TvP, except it's about them getting an unmanageable amount of colossi or HTs. Sure, Terran may have the Swiss army knife of SC2, but what good is that if you have to be a Ranger to use 90% of those tools effectively? It's pretty obvious (look at populations on SC2ranks.com) that below the APM spamming range, most people plain can't play Terran effectively because the requirements are too steep.
Even then, however, it goes further beyond that. Look at the Pro players for SC2. Give me a list of Terran players with little to no RTS experience able to at least make it semi-pro. Tell me about the interview with a top Terran who claims he only practices 3-4 hours a day, like many top Protoss and Zerg have claimed in the past. The Terran dominating groups have been those like SlayerS, who boast that they practice more than anybody else, and yet people think Protoss is the hardest race to play at the top? Please.
|
On October 02 2011 16:56 sVnteen wrote:ok guys im only masters but how can protoss ever be the hardest race? i played terran and zerg and random also but everything was WAY harder than the protoss i mean you can really do good stuff with protoss which take a lot of skill and an awful lot of multitasking but in my opinion terran is the hardest by quite a bit then zerg because of decision making and protoss at the easiest EDIT: just look at this: http://www.sc2charts.net/en/edb?zone=7for example and it shows how the metagame is by far hardest for terran right now (this is only pro level ofc)
This link discredits your points imo. It also notes that the map with the highest Terran win rate is Shakuras Plateau. The map with the highest Protoss win rate? Shakuras Plateau. The map with the highest Zerg win rate? Shakuras Plateau. The best players? Beastyqt for terran ToD for protoss and Nerchio for Zerg.
None of those really make any sense.
So your statistics are clearly mostly from Europe (given the 'best' player rankings) thus not indicative of the whole pro scene balance, and in addition there is a serious problem with the formula if the winningest map is the same for all races.
|
On October 15 2011 08:23 LoneWolf.Alpha- wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2011 05:45 ExO_ wrote:On October 15 2011 05:31 Mora wrote:On October 02 2011 17:09 CatNzHat wrote:
I currently think that terran has the highest skill cap, the the koreans would seem to agree.
In masters league on NA, i find that terran is the most mechanically challenging of the races, and has the least forgiving decision making, if you miss read and react with improper tech, you're usually gonna be way behind due to having invested a ton in production that can't be use otherwise, compared to toss and zerg which have much more forgiving tech trees (build robo, no biggie immortals are very versatile and obs are required anyways for mobile detection, build roach warren, no biggie, just don't make roaches).
High masters terran btw (rank 400 masters NA atm). Posts like these I find so odd. If you don't play all three races, how are you supposed to accurately judge which ones are harder to play? Sure those things you mentioned are hard for terran (or not, as I actually disagree with them), but what about all the hard things about zerg and protoss that you've never been exposed to? I'm high masters with terran and low masters with zerg/protoss. My personal experience has lead me to believe that Zerg is BY FAR the toughest. This might change with more games played, but right now it certainly seems so. ~750 games of terran ~100 games of zerg ~30 games of protoss Terran mechanics are just so forgiving. Their micro and macro is both simple and easy to execute. And if you slip up your macro rhythm, you just spam a bunch of Mules (or Super Depots). Marines are SOOO versatile. I got to Masters Terran long before I had any clue how to play this game, and once there, it was very easy to just learn as I went and I moved up the ranks. ZERG? Miss a larva inject? screwed. Miss an overlord? screwed. Guessed the attack was coming at 8:00 instead of 7:30? screwed. Guessed the attack was at 7:30 instead of 8:00? probably screwed. Missed expanding your creep? screwed. A bit too much hyperbole, I think you should tone it down and realize that zerg isn't instantly screwed if you don't do everything perfect. Uhm, you are wrong. I am a diamond zerg/toss/terran player and yes, as zerg, if you make even the littlest mistake, you are screwed. this is on top of knowing your opponents build orders to a T so you know how to prepare when all you see is 2 buildings. terran's basic unit is the marine, so even if they prepare wrong, marines can do decent damage to any unit composition if you micro. but zerg, if u go roach against banshee, good luck. or if you banelings pop 2 seconds late, good luck. or if your overlords die and you get supply capped right when terran is coming at you, good luck. this is coming from someone who plays all 3 races at the diamond level. i feel at diamond, my terran has the biggest room for improvement because i don't drop harass nearly enough. my toss i feel is hardest to improve because there's nothing more i can improve on besides memorizing endless build order trees. can't really micro zealot charge like i micro marine stim. can't really micro immortals like terrans can micro marauder kiting. can't really do any drops until late game... but if i survive to late game, more often than not, i've already won. terran is definitely the race that has the most number of tools. micro/macro and build order based. at the diamond level, toss has already maxed out, and can only get better by analyzing build orders trees. edit: i also feel like the terrans i play at the diamond level are the weakest players in general. PvP and ZvZ are hard as hell, and the other guys actually know waht they are doing. but whenever I do a TvT, the other terran always has horrible macro or has bad multitasking. I'm willing to bet that if you measure total games played, it takes less games to get to terran diamond than it does to get to toss or zerg diamond.
Heheheheh, you're in diamond and you think there's nothing more to improve on than memorizing build orders? :p
|
On October 15 2011 14:57 aksfjh wrote:
Fact of the matter is, even if Terran has a lot tools, there is no defined goal in ANY matchup compared to Protoss and Zerg. There is no army composition or number of bases where a Terran spawns an "I win" button like there is for Protoss and Zerg. No damage done by the 3rd base for TvZ? Zerg is pretty much guaranteed the win. Same for TvP, except it's about them getting an unmanageable amount of colossi or HTs. Sure, Terran may have the Swiss army knife of SC2, but what good is that if you have to be a Ranger to use 90% of those tools effectively? It's pretty obvious (look at populations on SC2ranks.com) that below the APM spamming range, most people plain can't play Terran effectively because the requirements are too steep.
Where do people keep getting this from? I've read it quite a few times and it's just flat out wrong. Terran has good representation in GM and masters, struggles a bit in diamond/platinum (but still ok) and tends to dominate below that.
How the the hell does that show terrans below the 'APM spamming range' struggling.
Quite frankly the numbers simply don't agree with what you're saying. Just like the people you were complaining about you're just another player trying to make it sound like they have it harder than everyone else.
On October 15 2011 14:57 aksfjh wrote:Even then, however, it goes further beyond that. Look at the Pro players for SC2. Give me a list of Terran players with little to no RTS experience able to at least make it semi-pro. Tell me about the interview with a top Terran who claims he only practices 3-4 hours a day, like many top Protoss and Zerg have claimed in the past. The Terran dominating groups have been those like SlayerS, who boast that they practice more than anybody else, and yet people think Protoss is the hardest race to play at the top? Please.
I'm sorry but this is such absolute crap. The only protoss and zerg players you hear say that are non koreans which is irrelevant considering the standard of training for non korean players as well (although i'm pretty sure someone like MMA said they don't train much because of a wrist problem, don't remember who). What about someone like TLO who can't train much?
Also i would like you post a list of all these supposed top protoss and zerg players who claim they barely train. I doubt you could find many and i doubt they have much success.
In Korea (which is the main place people talk about balance) all the players train incredibly hard so your point doesn't mean much.
Seriously give me a list of any Korean players for any race with little RTS experience, what a silly point. Hell even outside of Korea you see very few players actually succeeding without an RTS background.
|
Where does the notion that protoss macro is the easiest come from? Compared to terran it's objectively harder. Terran can queue units if they know they will be busy microing, no such thing for protoss, terran can build while looking at their army while protoss has to move their screen and keep it away from their army for quite a while, chronoboost requires thought where as MULEs don't. Did i forget anything?
|
On October 15 2011 23:28 pezit wrote:
Where does the notion that protoss macro is the easiest come from? Compared to terran it's objectively harder. Terran can queue units if they know they will be busy microing, no such thing for protoss, terran can build while looking at their army while protoss has to move their screen and keep it away from their army for quite a while, chronoboost requires thought where as MULEs don't. Did i forget anything?
Hm. The idea is that, assuming we wanted to macro at a higher level, (ie masters-gm, etc) queuing units is a terrible way to macro. Ideally we want to queue as soon as a unit is produced, in the same way toss wants to warp in as soon as the cooldowns up. It's true that it's a bit less forgiving, but assuming we want to do good macro, it's a lot harder to keep track of 3-4 different cooldowns than to just do, like, w zzzzzzzzzzz or whatever
|
I really don't see how Protoss can be declared the toughest race to play at the highest level.
They have:
-excellent timing pushes
-the means to be aggressive
-mobile units (blink stalkers, colossus cliff-walking, muscley air)
-the means to be extremely defensive and turtley
-warpgate mechanic (offensive and defensive, as well as a huge late game macro ceiling)
I think these mechanics can be abused a lot more than we've seen in sc2 history thus far.
I feel like if a Protoss fucks up really badly, they can always turtle up and make a deathball, and just slowly take bases. You don't need great execution if you have an army that's extremely difficult to kill (speaking mostly from a PvZ perspective).
I played Protoss for 2 weeks and was master-level. I think it says something about the race. I know PvP is a huge head ache and PvT has its ups and downs, but I truly believe Protosses should take a page out of the the Turtle book and be smarter about their builds.
|
On October 15 2011 23:36 Twistacles wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2011 23:28 pezit wrote:
Where does the notion that protoss macro is the easiest come from? Compared to terran it's objectively harder. Terran can queue units if they know they will be busy microing, no such thing for protoss, terran can build while looking at their army while protoss has to move their screen and keep it away from their army for quite a while, chronoboost requires thought where as MULEs don't. Did i forget anything? Hm. The idea is that, assuming we wanted to macro at a higher level, (ie masters-gm, etc) queuing units is a terrible way to macro. Ideally we want to queue as soon as a unit is produced, in the same way toss wants to warp in as soon as the cooldowns up. It's true that it's a bit less forgiving, but assuming we want to do good macro, it's a lot harder to keep track of 3-4 different cooldowns than to just do, like, w zzzzzzzzzzz or whatever
I don't mean that they should queue several units, just that they don't have to build at one exact time, they can queue the next one up a bit earlier when they know they will be busy microing. And doing W shift click Z is harder than doing 5 aaaaaa since as I said earlier the protoss has to move his screen away, and has to do it at a specific time, no queue.
|
On October 15 2011 23:28 pezit wrote:
Where does the notion that protoss macro is the easiest come from? Compared to terran it's objectively harder. Terran can queue units if they know they will be busy microing, no such thing for protoss, terran can build while looking at their army while protoss has to move their screen and keep it away from their army for quite a while, chronoboost requires thought where as MULEs don't. Did i forget anything?
You forgot that having all warpgates on W is really convenient as is having one probe to build 20 buildings instantly. You can queue units but its bad to do so and chronoing warpgates can make up for lost cycles. Droping mules requires some thought as you could scan or wait until you take the gold for instance and deciding what to chrono isnt too hard and isnt really done strategically below high level. Protoss might get by with 20 warpgates and maybe a robo while terran has several of 3 buildings with different add-ons , has to switch add-ons etc. , I could go on.
I'm not saying terran is 'objectively harder' as you put it but you didnt put enough thought into your post as its a pretty complex and subjective thing to judge really.
I mean yea larva injecting is much harder than chrono or orbitals but it can be done quite efficiently if you practice the right method for like 50 games at least until you get under constant pressure where it gets difficult . Its just something you have to remember to do like a terran or protoss has to remember to make units when the last cycle is finished. What about the rest of the game? Not having to build depots or production buildings, being able to tech switch insanely fast, the ability to produce from one kind of building without looking at your base and such has to count for something, I dont mean Zerg is easier just saying its not that simple.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
