Hey teamliquid community I had some time on my hands so I thought I would create a thread asking everyone what race they think is the most challenging to play at each level of skill in Starcraft II. I have my own opinions and arguments included, I have given this a good deal of thought. Not including random for simplicity.
Please read the entire OP before casting your votes.
Bronze and Silver level - Zerg
My reasoning for this is because of the significant difference in the macro mechanic Zerg has compared with Terran and Protoss. Larvae injecting is almost non-existant past the first few minutes in my experience, and forgetting to create workers (the bane of nearly all low-level players) tends to punish Zerg most severely.
As macro and mechanics improve for all races, Terran's at this level can find themselves caught in an awkward rut. With often a little bit more to do than their apm can handle, Terran's can suffer from not being able to keep up with the production of a Zerg or Protoss because they cannot mass-produce/instantly warp-in reinforcements. No race at this level really has the apm to continue producing units while controlling their army or dealing with harrassment, and Terran is punished harder for this than either Zerg or Protoss because of the way Terran production facilities function.
With another jump in apm, mechanics, game knowledge and strategy to this level of play, Protoss can have the most difficulties. Terran can maintain production on par with Protoss, and Zerg, well, know how to make drones and infestors... I kid. More importantly, players of the other two races learn how to read the Protoss' opening and have decent scouting, causing timings to fail and making it very easy to counter the Protoss composition.
Ok its the big one, which race is the hardest to play at the highest tier of skill? I think this one is very difficult to discuss without bringing up balance, which I DO NOT want to do. So I think I'll just leave explanations to you guys. I voted Zerg, because they have the greatest reliance on scouting, which becomes the most inconsistent variable when mechanics are fine.
definitely for me its zerg at lower levels, then somewhere around platinum/diamond things get difficult for terrans... hard to say for master/grandmaster because i have no experience playing at that caliber. things have been looking particularly grim for protoss right now tho, so i guess itd be those. so in essence i agree entirely with the majority vote so far.
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)
Definitely Zerg at bronze/silver. You have to learn how to scout properly quite a bit earlier than the other two races, your early game defence is quite fragile and you can't rely on a nice easy 1 base timing push build.
On October 02 2011 16:56 sVnteen wrote: ok guys im only masters
said nuff. not being GM disqualifies you to discuss the GM statistics, also if you look at the site you linked to and go to progamer statistics, they disagree with you.
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)
I've played in tournaments as both Protoss and Terran. IMO its just so easy to lose to timing attacks as Protoss, at Masters/Diamond level the timings are always late or not very powerful, but at high masters/GM they get it perfect and you feel helpless.
Results seem spot on. I'll never understand how anyone below diamond plays Zerg, as it just takes too much higher level thinking for people who have trouble avoid supply blocks. At the diamond and master level, Terran needs a lot of micro to overcome Zerg and Protoss' AOE unit compositions that can 1a for the win. At the pro level, Protoss players need to make extremely subtle reads on scouting information, never take their eyes off the minimap and react instantly to any dots that appear on it, and defend vs pressure using the minimum number of units possible to maintain the tech lead needed to win.
I don't think there's much difference in any ladder league, when we look at the whole population of players in that league. Blizzard maintains the ladder itself close to that. Only at progaming level (above gm) they don't have enough data and analysis to ensure that. Although they're doing their best.
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).
The most difficult race to play in masters and grand masters is Terran... i'm absolutely convinced of that. In higher levels of play, you need a lot of APM and multitasking to play as terran.
However, i'm a bit confused... i don't understand why the poll shows us that protoss is more difficult than terran in GM... in a lot of cases, as masters (high) you can play against a GM guy perfectly... that's a fact.
Totally agree with all the results so far. Terran only dominates at the top end of Korea, which shows that it has the highest skill cap with the micro and multitasking that is required.
Scouting in Bronze-Platium is really really bad => Zerg "hardest" in Bronze-Platium
Playing Diamond-Masters is a suprise box. Get a real hard macro player or a real hard all-in. Since it takes less skill to get into Diamond-Masters as Terran and those people don't know how to defend these attacks, => Terran "hardest" in Diamond-Masters
Protoss macro is very very easy, but very strict in tech, which doesn't give you a lot of options to react fast enough. So you have to make the difference by splitting your units, flanking from the sides, dropping your opponent, control your army very good. (Why? A protoss maxed army will always have a lower "unit-count" , so proper micro effects the battle way more) That doesn't really happen yet. Pros like f.e. IncontroL are still having all there units in 1 control group... Making 1 emp kill your whole army. => Protoss "hardest" in GM
I choose Zerg for all except for Grandmasters, where i choose Terran.
Why? Because it doesn't ask which is the best race but which is the hardest to play.
Zerg imo is the hardest to play until each race players are pretty damn good. At the highest level however Terran has so much to do, simultaneaous dropping, microing etc... It's the reason why in Korea Terrans dominate imo. You can do the most things if you have skill and play terran.
Toss on the other hand is pretty easy to learn but can however do not too much on higher level, although the stronger warp prism changed that a bit recently, as seeing SaSe streaming showed me some impressive games of warp prism use... Still it doesn't change the fact that it probably is still the easiest race.
Bronze/Silver - Zerg (Too much multitasking for that low apm) Gold/Platinum - Zerg (Same as above) Diamond/Master - Terran (Can't really explain why I think it's T here, but I tend to fail my macro while controlling my army all the time, whereas I can macro without any problem as Z and P) GrandMaster - Protoss (Okay, now we've past my skill level, but I think Protoss terrible winratio at prolevel recently is proof by itself. Not necessarily hardest race to play at that level, but rather there are too few things to capitilize on even when you have the skill to theoretically do so, whereas your Terran and Zerg opponents still can)
On October 02 2011 17:10 DjRetro wrote: The most difficult race to play in masters and grand masters is Terran... i'm absolutely convinced of that. In higher levels of play, you need a lot of APM and multitasking to play as terran.
However, i'm a bit confused... i don't understand why the poll shows us that protoss is more difficult than terran in GM... in a lot of cases, as masters (high) you can play against a GM guy perfectly... that's a fact.
APM and multitasking is no problem in GM, decision making seperates weak from strong players.
On October 02 2011 17:14 Iatrik wrote: Pros like f.e. IncontroL are still having all there units in 1 control group... Making 1 emp kill your whole army. => Protoss "hardest" in GM
But, that is a player's mistake. It shouldn't matter for purposes of determining which race is more difficult to play imo.
seem right. Zerg is shit hard to play at low lvls. I remember trying to learn zerg when I was in diamond. It was really hard. Also agree with Protoss being hardest at pro level. Every attack is like an all-in, lose you army? GG. Miss forcefield in battle? GG. Oh and all-ins by terran is very strong.
I think for players that are rather new to starcraft and don't have godly apm and multitasking terran is the hardest race in masters/GM. But for people who are already really good (like nestea, mvp etc) Zerg is the hardest race, because it takes incredible knowledge and decisionmaking to cut all the edges perfectly.
Z-Z-Z-P, bronze/silver -> macro - zerg needs those drones gold/plat -> scouting - zerg is mostly played in a reactive style diamond/masters -> strategy/game sense - I answered Z but I don't think I have an informed enough opinion. GM -> making no major mistakes/very few minor mistakes. - As OP said, constantly need to be aware of a possible engagement and taking the bare minimum units for tech means you're walking along the wire similar to zerg with drones at lower levels. I believe protoss has the easiest time making mistakes, which is what separates the best players.
With T and P it's easier to cheese your way into diamond, so I voted Z hardest for all lower leagues.
Even in higher leagues Z has the least capability to cheese. They are kinda forced to practice their macro game while learning the many contingencies against opponent cheeses. So I voted Z for high leagues as well.
Im bronze/silver player, random, and the poll is very accurate in that: zerg is a beast to handle (i always get to flow in minerals, even with fairly good injecting), the other two im ok with. Just wanted to say
I dont agree with Terran being harder to play than either brotoss or zerg at diamond/masters. I started out as Terran and played at diamond level as Terran for a while. The stutterstep micro really isnt that hard to learn, tank placement doesnt take long to get the hang of. Managing multiple drops/attacks is a little tougher though. Still, Terran is by far the strongest in the early game and having other races fearful of whether or not youre doing some early 1 base attack or some annoying bunker rush is such a huge advantage.
I agree with the results so far as well. However, it will be interesting to watch the polls as the NA community comes online. It would also be interesting to compare the results to the number protosses terrans and zergs in each league and see how much they diverge.Naturally people will always have a degree of bias.
People should stop making threads like these. It's going to be completely biased as every person complains that their race is the hardest to play at each level. In reality, they're all equally easy to play at every level.
Oh and I learned how to do a decent (obviously not perfect) marine split vs banelings 1 day after I saw it done by a pro in GSL (mighta been MKP, dunno it was a long time ago).
Ive always found the task of remembering to macro properly much more annoying than microing battles or multitasking. With Terran units benefiting the most from micro, maybe thats why I dont think Terran deserves to be the top of the difficulty list in any of the leagues
Assuming a player has infinite skill (meaning above GM and beyond), the number of useful actions he could do to his advantage for each race should also be close to the highest vote of GM 'hardest to play'.
However, I don't feel this is a fair measurement. There is no such thing as a perfect player who is able to get all potential deadliness out of each race. Also, the numbers in these polls won't be close to correct untill:
- You confine the vote to 1 vote overall, only allowing players to vote for the league they are currently in in 1v1. - You have at least half the player's votes for the current patch and these patches do not overlap. - Players voting have played all races in their respective lead at least several dozen times.
To this end, the poll statistics are (I don't mean to be rude...) meaningless to say the least. They are like a horoscope in a popular magazine.
This poll is a great idea, but has one HUGE flaw in my opinion...
I think the poll needs to separate diamond and masters. The two are extremely different.
In diamond, i think zergs are still the hardest (since most diamond zergs haven't learnt how to scout properly), but in masters, terrans (since most terrans don't start learning how to micro properly until this point).
I really don't understand how protoss can be more difficult to play than terran at any level, including pro.
In term of balance, I believe terran is much stronger than protoss, so if you want to win GSL, it will be easier as terran.
But, in term of how difficult it is to reach the top of your race, I really think protoss is the easiest.They have the lowest skill ceiling of all races. Seriously, is it easier to reach Nestea's level as a zerg or to reach MC's level as a protoss ?
I really don't see anything impressive from pro protoss. So many of them still have all their army in 1 control group...
Protoss is the race that rewards skills the least. In term of balance at pro level, it's a disavantage. But that makes protoss the easiest race to master.
On October 02 2011 16:56 sVnteen wrote: ok guys im only masters
said nuff. not being GM disqualifies you to discuss the GM statistics, also if you look at the site you linked to and go to progamer statistics, they disagree with you.
what progamer statistics those are progamer statistics dude read before you post
also everyone can discuss about statistics no matter what league hes in
On October 02 2011 17:46 Elean wrote: I really don't understand how protoss can be more difficult to play than terran at any level, including pro.
In term of balance, I believe terran is much stronger than protoss, so if you want to win GSL, it will be easier as terran.
But, in term of how difficult it is to reach the top of your race, I really think protoss is the easiest.They have the lowest skill ceiling of all races. Seriously, is it easier to reach Nestea's level as a zerg or to reach MC's level as a protoss ?
I really don't see anything impressive from pro protoss. So many of them still have all their army in 1 control group...
Protoss is the race that rewards skills the least. In term of balance at pro level, it's a disavantage. But that makes protoss the easiest race to master.
The OP worded his question wrong IMO. Obviously it's harder to play T/Z but currently it's harder to actually win with P. At least that's how I answered.
On October 02 2011 17:46 Elean wrote: I really don't understand how protoss can be more difficult to play than terran at any level, including pro.
In term of balance, I believe terran is much stronger than protoss, so if you want to win GSL, it will be easier as terran.
But, in term of how difficult it is to reach the top of your race, I really think protoss is the easiest.They have the lowest skill ceiling of all races. Seriously, is it easier to reach Nestea's level as a zerg or to reach MC's level as a protoss ?
I really don't see anything impressive from pro protoss. So many of them still have all their army in 1 control group...
Protoss is the race that rewards skills the least. In term of balance at pro level, it's a disavantage. But that makes protoss the easiest race to master.
Protoss skill ceiling is so high because of micro. Hightemplars in prisims are extreamly efficient in battles. Very hard to use. Pheonixes, faster than any other unit that can hit them, and regen shields. Nearly unlimited micro sink. Warp prisim haras, as they are by far the fastest dropships they have the most potential, but hardest to use. Also there is blink micro and forcefield usage.
And you are right, I dont see anything impressive from pro protosses, but you can see the results of that in GSL, but there is so much impressive stuff they could do.
On October 02 2011 17:46 Elean wrote: I really don't understand how protoss can be more difficult to play than terran at any level, including pro.
In term of balance, I believe terran is much stronger than protoss, so if you want to win GSL, it will be easier as terran.
But, in term of how difficult it is to reach the top of your race, I really think protoss is the easiest.They have the lowest skill ceiling of all races. Seriously, is it easier to reach Nestea's level as a zerg or to reach MC's level as a protoss ?
I really don't see anything impressive from pro protoss. So many of them still have all their army in 1 control group...
Protoss is the race that rewards skills the least. In term of balance at pro level, it's a disavantage. But that makes protoss the easiest race to master.
chose a fixed skill lvl, let's say... better than everyone in code S. Is is easier to reach it as Terran or as Protoss ?
This is anecdotal, but I'll say it anyways. In my personal experience, I have never seen a Masters+ level Terran who didn't already have a solid background in RTS. I've seen Zerg and Protoss rise up to Masters+ without that background though.
Before diamond, Zerg is probably hardest to play because you can't wall off.
I don't think Protoss is ever the hardest to play, just that it may lack some tools to make it a "deep" race.
One of the very few times I agree with every thing on a poll, yea once ~master zerg macro kicks in and they start actually thinking about the game, Terran has to be godly to pressure.
Hi. I have a question regarding this thread especially since many including mods like iamke55 seem to already agree to the poll results. How are the results valid in any way, especially since anyone and everyone can vote on each level? And what are the objective measures that makes a certain race the hardest to play at a certain level?
Unless there is some sort of filter to ensure that grandmasters and others indeed vote and chime in on their appropriate level, this thread will only end up as "my race is harder/better than your race".
On October 02 2011 17:46 Elean wrote: I really don't understand how protoss can be more difficult to play than terran at any level, including pro.
In term of balance, I believe terran is much stronger than protoss, so if you want to win GSL, it will be easier as terran.
But, in term of how difficult it is to reach the top of your race, I really think protoss is the easiest.They have the lowest skill ceiling of all races. Seriously, is it easier to reach Nestea's level as a zerg or to reach MC's level as a protoss ?
I really don't see anything impressive from pro protoss. So many of them still have all their army in 1 control group...
Protoss is the race that rewards skills the least. In term of balance at pro level, it's a disavantage. But that makes protoss the easiest race to master.
Since there are NO protoss players that really master the race how in Gods name can you say they reached the ceiling the fastest? There is no protoss that plays so incredible good that you can say "This is the way protoss has to play". There are no dominant protosses, but there are MANY dominant terrans and one dominant zerg.
Terran is obviously the most figured out race, and that means the road was easier. A LOT easier. Zergs are right there behind, but they still have lot's of room for improvement and protsses are like just starting the game.
You get confused by the fact that protoss is not a complicated race, but mastering it takes a lot skill.
if everybody voted the race he/she played then one race would be ahead in all polls, as we see this isnt the case so people are not voting for their race only
i dont agree with P being the hardest to play at GM
there is a confusion between "P having success" and hardest to play. if someone made this poll back when MC popularized the 6-gate timing attack vs T and every T in GSL was scared of picking a protoss everyone would have voted for either T/Z in GM.
this just shows how current results of the game influence the output of the poll.
i also think diamond and master should be 2 diff categories. overall i kinda agree with the overall votes except for GM..
I only voted for the Diamond level, because that's where I play. Everything else looks pretty spot on though.
I play random at the moment, but I was Terran through season 1. I have way more games played as Terran than the other races, and my Terran matchups are my worst 3. I feel like it's the least forgiving race in terms of engagements, and the race for which macro means the least. I can consistently out-macro my opponents for every race, but it doesn't really convert to a win as terran. Obviously it's different at gold/platinum level, when everyone just macros up an army and a-moves. Once you reach the skill area where you're to face facing casting units or attacks on multiple fronts, it feels like you have to position and control all your units perfectly as Terran. One fungal, baneling hit, or missed EMP can cost you the game.
I never feel safe as Terran, except in TvT. Conversely, I feel like I can just go on auto-pilot and still crush terrans as either Z or P, assuming I live past the first 9-10 min.
Most of this should go away at higher levels, when unit control is stronger and you really know how to dictate the pace of the game with drops/position plays.
Edit: I worked my way to diamond in season 1 as Terran and switched to random at the beginning of season 2. Even with essentially no experience playing zerg or protoss (aside from a few team games), they quickly became my strong races.
The thing about this poll is that there's almost nobody on gm/pro level here and people just vote Protoss being the hardest due to the huge amount of recent Protoss QQ and the low number of P in the GSL. I'm not saying P is not the hardest on that level, I don't know, but neither can most of you.
On October 02 2011 18:24 alepov wrote: The thing about this poll is that there's almost nobody on gm/pro level here and people just vote Protoss being the hardest due to the huge amount of recent Protoss QQ and the low number of P in the GSL. I'm not saying P is not the hardest on that level, I don't know, but neither can most of you.
I agree with the other tiers.
well said sir
yeah P is pretty hard at GM/pro level but this poll (or any poll at any time really) can never be objective because the "hardest race" picked for GM/pro is always gonna be the one "sucking" or having an hard time -in GSL- at that particular moment.
As a masters level random player, I think Terran. at some point, you begin to understand Zerg and different timing attacks so it's easy to macro, and for Protoss, I honestly don't have much of a gameplan every game and yet it's still my winningest race.
Terran is just hard as you really need to understand precise timings well, and need to constantly micro and multitask
I feel at low levels the macro of zerg is too tough, and the micro of terran is also too hard, mid level I feel z has the advantage because I'd say there's a low level of micro needed for a lot of zerg styles(outside of muta) a lot of a moving lings, banes, and roaches and hitting F a few dozen times can work every game, and lets the zergs macro a lot easier. At the highest level, I feel the "easier" mechanics of protoss mean that we have had no advantage in that regard since diamond, and we need perfect positioning, and decision making in almost every case to succeed.
Pretty much agree. Once you get to diamond/master and everyone's macro is pretty good then you need to start having good micro and timing, and terran is heavily reliant on micro to come out cost efficient. If both players have good macro and they just 1 a into each other terran will lose most of the time.
Terran has good all-ins, but without proper timing and micro against someone with good macro they'll just have enough to hold it off.
At a certain point in GM/pro level I think it switches from zerg to protoss. At the very highest level I'd say protoss, but anything before that I think protoss has it okay.
On October 02 2011 17:27 Tanukki wrote: With T and P it's easier to cheese your way into diamond, so I voted Z hardest for all lower leagues.
Even in higher leagues Z has the least capability to cheese. They are kinda forced to practice their macro game while learning the many contingencies against opponent cheeses. So I voted Z for high leagues as well.
As a zerg who cheesed a good 1/3 of his games to get into diamond, I disagree. Baneling busts, 9pools and roach all-ins are all pretty damn easy to pull off and result in quite a few free BO wins.
Anyway I started as a plat toss and got to diamond eventually but ended up switching to zerg because just about everything was easier after I got somewhat of a handle on the mechanics. At the diamond level zerg is the easiest race imo, army control is easy, production is all on one hotkey so macro is easy, although scouting is pretty difficult compared to toss as no observers or hallucinated phoenix. I do agree with zerg being harder at lower levels as you need more finger-speed to efficiently play zerg.
Also totally agree with terran being hardest at diamond/masters. Terran macro is the hardest and terran army control is def harder than zerg and toss at that level. Although that's just my experience as I'm really bad with terran.
As example, people say zerg is the hardest in bronze/silver (could be), Both the players their reactions are way slower, making it possible that a little muta harrasement kills tons of SCV's. And a Terran wouldnt be able to run/split marines very well, making banelings extremely deadly.
I am pretty sure there are a lot of examples for why every race plays out differently in the lower leagues, but that is exactly the reason why it is impossible to determen what race would be the weakest/hardest to play in league X.
So Zerg is more difficult for lower leaguers because the macro is difficult as fuck. Im not sure that makes Terran difficult at Diamond/Masters I also dont know what makes Protoss difficult at GM, someone let me know please.
Here's my opinion on this poll, most of the lower level stuff is based off of the experiences I have had teaching friends who are trying to get into SC2.
Bronze-Silver: Zerg - Larvae and Drone management are extremely lackluster at this level. The result of not properly managing the core macro mechanics of Zerg is most noticeable at this level since money is generally not an issue (sloppy macro at this level), so larvae will limit the Zerg player a lot. Gold - Platinum - Protoss - While the other races do fairly well just macroing properly and intelligently attack moving, the forcefields of a Protoss player really determine how far he can go at this stage. Getting familiar with more economically oriented openers starts to occur at this level, and forcefields are essential to successfully execute them. They are also major factors in most engagements throughout the game. Diamond - Masters: Terran - People have decent mechanics by now. Micro starts to determine how well a player does (in addition to all the other factors of course), and Terran is the most reliant on proper micro, which is a difficult task. How well you can split your marines and manage your tanks factors greatly into many engagements, and the result of the game. Being able to properly execute drops is also essential. GM - Pro: Protoss - Mechanics are not an issue at this level, if you are at this level you have those down. Decision making generally determines the victor of the game, and Protoss...well, Protoss has been having a couple issues as of late.
I am actually a top 15 diamond protoss player and I personally disagree with people saying terran is hardest race to play at this level.90% of my PvT, the Terran is all-ining and I think terran all-ins are too easy to execute compared to the skill u need to have to stop it.
On October 02 2011 19:14 KimJongChill wrote: I'd say zerg is hardest to play at all levels, with protoss coming on top only towards the very end of the skill spectrum, like GSL.
No at high levels Zerg is pretty much attack move.
I'm a top diamond protoss, and as the polls stand now I completely agree...the races all have differences in difficulty that hit at different times, zerg is hard right away due to the weird timings and with the added resource of larva. Terran is easy at the start, mainly due to campaign and its straight forward style but around the plat-diamond level you run into alot of issues you need to work at. As Protoss I feel as you play and learn you just get better and better until you hit the zergs and terrans that know what they are doing. Don't fall for the tricks or easy win timing pushes. This is where currently protoss is struggling (as seen in gsl etc.) and as the poll is currently saying, it is the most difficult race and the top right now.
I find it funny that people say terran is hardest at masters. I play terran and zerg at masters, and terran is easier to defend cheese and to play vs protoss. Dont get me started on how easy it is for terran to all in on one base.
On October 02 2011 17:46 Elean wrote: I really don't understand how protoss can be more difficult to play than terran at any level, including pro.
In term of balance, I believe terran is much stronger than protoss, so if you want to win GSL, it will be easier as terran.
But, in term of how difficult it is to reach the top of your race, I really think protoss is the easiest.They have the lowest skill ceiling of all races. Seriously, is it easier to reach Nestea's level as a zerg or to reach MC's level as a protoss ?
I really don't see anything impressive from pro protoss. So many of them still have all their army in 1 control group...
Protoss is the race that rewards skills the least. In term of balance at pro level, it's a disavantage. But that makes protoss the easiest race to master.
chose a fixed skill lvl, let's say... better than everyone in code S. Is is easier to reach it as Terran or as Protoss ?
The question is in itself flawed due to the lack of defining the core expression 'core' and the usage of the blizzard leagues as 'skill levels'.
First you would have decide whether you want to target the ability to win or the rate of improval in play ('cheese' versus 'being good at the game'). Then you should build up more reasonable levels like beginner, irregular and regular (although the term doesn't fit perfectly, the average regular will be better than the average irregular).
And even then it's still nonsense because the game is constantly shifting and all people have different skills and or flaws in different aspects of the game (macro, micro, strategy, tactics etc.) so you won't find a common ground for comparison.
At lowest levels it is very easy for a new player to beat a zerg with just about anything and harder for a zerg to put together a viable strategy and good unit compositions. After that zerg still has the most trouble scouting which is basically a design problem that causes even pro zergs to guess many times. Multitasking execution at highest levels is most commonly required for terran, while protoss and zerg can more often have less strategic multitasking even with warp prisms or baneling mines for example, compared to multi-pronged harass that basically all terrans should always do.
So Terran has the highest skill level to exploit and when all races are taken to their extremes in challenge I think Terran both requires and rewards challenging yourself the most. At low levels terran is the safest and has a huge variety of very powerful builds that new players will often lose to. In other words, terran is very easy until you face players who are very good and then you need to be very good as well and in some cases superior to win, but if you excel greatly you can win more even against players with equivalent mechanics.
On October 02 2011 19:18 Iroh wrote: I'm a top diamond protoss, and as the polls stand now I completely agree...the races all have differences in difficulty that hit at different times, zerg is hard right away due to the weird timings and with the added resource of larva. Terran is easy at the start, mainly due to campaign and its straight forward style but around the plat-diamond level you run into alot of issues you need to work at. As Protoss I feel as you play and learn you just get better and better until you hit the zergs and terrans that know what they are doing. Don't fall for the tricks or easy win timing pushes. This is where currently protoss is struggling (as seen in gsl etc.) and as the poll is currently saying, it is the most difficult race and the top right now.
there is a big difference between a race having an hard time due to current trends/meta-game and objectively being the hardest to play.
if you made this poll back when the P was dominating Z and during the MC-era even T, you would have seen a completely different result from the "GM/pro" level on this poll.
i think it's so obvious.. yet so many people seem to fail to see it.
I understand why protoss may be difficult. Warpgate favors timing attacks and constant pressure, and sometimes counters. But it's protoss' main weakness too. I mean, you can't macro as easily as the other races while attacking, cause you need to have a pylon in sight,in order to reinforce your army, and you reinforce directly on the field, which eats up your apm and multitask.
Plus, from early to mid game, it's the most micro intensive, and it requires to be more precise than with other races (for example, often bad forcefields = immmediate loss). So, higher is the level, hardest it is to play protoss. But that's what makes this game so tense and fun: main strengths are also main weaknesses for each race: ( zergs' macro/decision making, terran cost efficiency....)
I'll say it's pretty monumentally hard to be a macro Terran regardless of level. Siege tanks/marines are the hardest core units to control in big quantities.
Probably why I switched to Zerg. I'm still Terran at heart though. I get wiggly and jiggly when I watch Nada or MVP go at it. Awe inspiring.
On October 02 2011 18:40 Lobber wrote: Hardest ZZTP For easiest PPZT
I feel at low levels the macro of zerg is too tough, and the micro of terran is also too hard, mid level I feel z has the advantage because I'd say there's a low level of micro needed for a lot of zerg styles(outside of muta) a lot of a moving lings, banes, and roaches and hitting F a few dozen times can work every game, and lets the zergs macro a lot easier. At the highest level, I feel the "easier" mechanics of protoss mean that we have had no advantage in that regard since diamond, and we need perfect positioning, and decision making in almost every case to succeed.
I pretty much agree with the poll except on the GM one. IMO it's the other way around with Zerg being the easiest. I can imagine TvZ being pretty hard.
I too think a lot of people are misunderstanding the premise behind the poll, especially the last one. The conversation needs to stem from "how hard is it to make it to _______ level of play" and not "who does the worst at _______ level." The latter is more of a balance discussion about the meta game, while the former is more of a general design perspective.
On October 02 2011 18:40 Lobber wrote: Hardest ZZTP For easiest PPZT
I feel at low levels the macro of zerg is too tough, and the micro of terran is also too hard, mid level I feel z has the advantage because I'd say there's a low level of micro needed for a lot of zerg styles(outside of muta) a lot of a moving lings, banes, and roaches and hitting F a few dozen times can work every game, and lets the zergs macro a lot easier. At the highest level, I feel the "easier" mechanics of protoss mean that we have had no advantage in that regard since diamond, and we need perfect positioning, and decision making in almost every case to succeed.
Agree 100%
Ditto that!
On October 02 2011 20:00 MaderA wrote: I pretty much agree with the poll except on the GM one. IMO it's the other way around with Zerg being the easiest. I can imagine TvZ being pretty hard.
If you play in Korea then ZvT is atleast as hard as TvZ imo.
at a low level, zerg is by far the hardest to play because of the ability to be able to use one building to build anything.
^ same applies to low-mid
high-mid level terran gets harder because of the intensive micro of marine split, multiple dropping, etc etc.
at the highest level, at the current state of the game, protoss is by far the hardest. However, as the game develops and the metagame evolves, the hardest race at gm and pro level will change from time to time.
Zerg players can lose because they make drones one times too many, every larva makes a huge difference on the highest level, but at the same time a protoss can lose if he isn't ready with a FF when the terran stims and runs down the ramp, it's like 1second and if he's not ready he's dead. So which one of these is harder? I'd say that's impossible to say they're just different, both extremely hard to always get right.
Isn't this just another "what race do you play and therefore think is the hardest, and what race do you hate and therefore think is the easiest to you?"-thread?
Making a difference between "levels of play" doesn't make any sense because people lack different abilities when they are in lower leagues. While someone might be very good at the micro part and he doesn't have the multitasking to macro while doing so, thus making him bad at all three races(There would be no difference, he would just be bad at injecting, chronooing, muling etc. ), someone else might be good at multitasking but completely lack the knowledge of what to do and what to look for/react to.. Both would be in a lower league because they lack important parts of the game, but saying "this race is better for him, this race is better for him" would not be possible because they just lack so important parts that winning and losing is mostly due to luck and "build order losses" etc.
And just as people have different problems, people have different opinions on this. The only discussion here would be about other's opinions and what they are based off, and that is, in the most case, nothing. They just made their opinion up by what they feel about each race.
I have got a friend in Diamond who is playing Protoss. He has some experience as Z and T, but 80% av his games has been played as a Protoss. He recently tried playing Zerg and Terran and had no problems holding his diamond ranking, he mostly lost in mirror matches.
At masters and GM level, where everybody has excellent mechanics and excellent game sense / decision making, Protoss is definitely harder than the other 2 races because of their smaller ability to do multi prong attacks and flanks, which are important in getting you slightly ahead.
That being said, I feel the for plat and below, Zerg is definitely the most difficult cos of the abundance of cheese, and the lack of equivalent Zerg cheese. Add in the unique concept of "larvae for drone or unit", and at those levels Zergs still dont have the appropriate game sense to decide on the fly whether they need units or they can get away with making more drones.
At Diamond to Mid-masters, I won't say that any race is much more dificult to play than any other, cos pple are still figuring out their own styles of play, and mechanics for everyone will have been worked to a rather high standard, so it is up to the player to make the best use of the qualities of their race, and whoeever does that the best will win.
It's really funny how more players answeerd for GM/Pro than there are GMs. unless a shitload of korean pros voter here, that's kinda wrong. i don't think everyone should vote all 4 -.- how the hell is some low masters supposed to know how a race plays in GM. or a bronze or whatever...
another thing is, that most people don't understand why protoss has a hard time. it's not because it's hardest to play.... it's because protoss needs to get into lategame without getting too much damage done early on to be able to use the racial advantages. but toss is kind of weak in early and mid game therefore it's hard to get into a good lategame postion.
i would say toss might be the hardest to play in the early stages of the game, but the longer the game goes the easier toss is to play.
I don't see how terran's hardest for diamond/masters, the players there are good enough to abuse majority of things the race offers.
I tend to agree with that, I am high diamond and all I see is Terran "abusing" what their race offers, they don't seem at all to struggle... (against Zerg at least...)
Can anyone explain how Protoss is the most difficult race to play? Because a race has a horrible design and no room for any kind of creativity doesn't mean it is hard. P seems to win when they can sit on 2-3 base and build an unstoppable deathball. And they lose when they can't. Disregarding cheese games.
I think Terran is hardest to play on higher levels because they are micro intensive (drops, splits etc.), have most options (and most units) out of all races, and they generally always have to make something happen against both other races. And TvT also seems to be the "most difficult" mirror-match-up. Though PvP obviously is developing.
You can see prevailing opinion is Zerg with their Queen inject mechanics, importance (AND PAYOFF) of surrounds and positional fighting, drone vs. units dilemma etc. 52.4% Terran winrate, all nonmirror matchups, 50.4% Zerg winrate, all nonmirror matchups, 46.9% Protoss winrate, all nonomirror matchups, for the month of August, all major tournaments & qualifiers, across international and Korean scenes. No Huge tilt, no uncompromisable differences.
Said this before in irc & Battle.net 2.0 chat: There is no overarching skill difference between races across skill levels. Your individual player skill at the RTS concepts embodied within and fitting your playstyle to each race is supremely important. The race choice is a drop in the bucket compared to the drive behind that player playing that race. Hardly even worth talking about considering the tournament performance of the race as a whole. I'll consider revision when we see sub-40% winrates for a race in a single bracket for a month (with substantial sampling pool).
Before Diamond, Zerg is the hardest race mainly because scouting is usually the issue and therefore drone timings are usually off and is really easy to be caught off guard by some sort of strong timing push. I also think they have a hard time because their MACRO is mechanically flawed (supply blocks, drone timings/expand timings/army timings, and have awful decision making and engagements), whereas Terran and Protoss at this level can be a little more forgiving.
But as you get higher up the ladder (High Diamond-High Grandmaster) I think its a lot harder for Terran since a really good Macro Zerg/Toss can quickly outmacro a Terran if the Terran is going for a macro style game and is a bit passive. In terms of macro, I think Terran has it the hardest, since their mechanics are the least forgiving and one bad engagement or missed EMP will usually cost you the game even if they had built a really good lead earlier on.High Diamond-Low Grandmaster I think its really all about Micro and making sure each one of your units is used to the best of its ability. If not, that is usually what costs you the game.
I also think, a lot of Protoss were having difficulty in PvT and PvZ in the past because they stopped going the 1a tech route and started 2 base Templar play or 2 base stargate play and not the standard 2 base collosus play into templar or stargate. I notice a lot of Protoss' are winning now because they have fallen back to their roots (making a critical amount of collosus early...then teching to Templar/Archons) rather than rushing storms, archons and chargelots off two bases.
I'm high master level, but that doesn't matter at all because if you'd be objective you could see that Terran benefits most from multitasking and is the most micro intensive race. Considering you have to constantly micro your units compared to zerg who just just A moves practically, with the occasional flank, and Protoss, witch has some micro units but still doesn't compare to Terran in the raw time and concentration it takes to micro your units witch always detriments from your macro.
Good Thread but having diamond and masters in 1 poll isnt correct imo,the difference between those 2 leagues is huge
I think its as big as for example Bronze Silver. Youre not giving any arguments or statistics. I think diamond and masters arent that diffrent. In diamond people already know all the builds, what to do against this and that and theire mechanics are pretty good too. so whats so diffrent about masters? people just play a little bit faster and little bit better.
Bronze player sometimes are people who played that game like 10 times and lost everyone of that or just 6pooling everygame with 0 micro cause they saw it once in husky's channel. Silver league dudes on the other hand know more builds, they show at least a bit micro (stutter step).
So imo the diffrence between Bronze/Silver is bigger than DIamond/Master
MACRO Everything until Diamond is just Macro. Zerg has the most counter-intuitive macro mechanic. Period.
MICRO At Diamond macro tends to even out, and then Terrans who play Bio (90% of Terrans) suddenly get SMASHED by Zerg mass units and overwhelmed by armor upgraded zombiezealots.
DECISION MAKING At anything higher... Protoss. Simply because Protoss is the "simplest race" as in there are really very few drastic changes you could make to the Protoss race without instantly becoming SERIOUSLY vulnerable. You're on a knife's edge... and you have to balance on it nigh on perfectly. Sometimes even that isn't enough.
Bronze/Silver - Zerg Gold/Platinum - Zerg(slight tendency towards protoss maybe?) Diamond/Master - Definitely Terran Grandmaster/Pro - Hard to say really... It's difficult to differentiate between power, potential, and the actual skill it takes to play certain race successfully.
Explanations:
Bronze/Silver + Gold/Platinum: In these leagues it feels to me that mastering the basic (macro) mechanics of your respective race is your biggest challenge. Zerg definitely has the most 'stuff to do regularly', and without it they are weak.
Diamond/Master:
- Protoss has the best death ball relative to the amount of control it takes to use it efficiently. In other words, Protoss is extremly powerful by just a-moving a huge one-control-group army and dropping a few spells here and there.
- Zerg needs the least amount of actual build orders, openings or 'strategies' and are very strong just by virtue of their now acquired macro mechanics. Very simple army compositions are very powerful and usually don't require a lot of control.(Ling/Infestor, Infestor/Broodlord, etc.)
- Terran on the other hand certainly has its advantages too, but literally every single unit needs to be microed correctly to be efficient. A-Move scenarios are very rare and usually only happen when you've won the game anyway. Furthermore in most supply limit fights against the other two races you have to apply much more control in comparison to have a chance of winning the fight. Moreover I feel like Terran needs the most refined builds/openings to compete in Diamond/Master League. Of course every race has its problems and none of them is easy to play, but Terran is the hardest to play on Diamond/Master imho.
Grandmaster/Pro: As I said, it's tough to differentiate between power, potential and skill requirements. Once your control has improved to a certain extent, Terran has a huge potential and becomes very powerful. With perfect army composition and EMPs you can suddenly crush 200/200 protoss armies that would have rolled over you otherwise. Does that make Terran the easiest race to play on pro level? I don't know. However it certainly seems like it's the strongest at the moment, at least in Korea. In terms of 'toughest to be successful with" I think it's pretty obvious that protoss is the hardest race to play at Pro-Level.
Note: Of course these explanations are simplified. Matters are always more complicated than a few sentences. Furthermore there's always the current metagame to consider, and we all know how that can change everything all of a sudden.
I think the only players who can really comment are the top random players. If you play one civ only then you've no right to judge how hard it is to play the others. Take it from me, I play Z only and when I off race with T or P I just can't keep my macro straight. Hatcheries are easier to manage for me than Gateways or Barracks simply because I'm so much more used to the mechanic. Z macro is nothing special, even at lower levels.
A hardcore random player might be able to talk about how difficult each match up is and then might eventually be able to say which civ is overall the hardest to play. But since most of us only play one (maybe 2) I don't think we can comment.
I honestly don't think any civ is harder to play than the next. But that's just my opinion.
Good Thread but having diamond and masters in 1 poll isnt correct imo,the difference between those 2 leagues is huge
I think its as big as for example Bronze Silver. Youre not giving any arguments or statistics. I think diamond and masters arent that diffrent. In diamond people already know all the builds, what to do against this and that and theire mechanics are pretty good too. so whats so diffrent about masters? people just play a little bit faster and little bit better.
Bronze player sometimes are people who played that game like 10 times and lost everyone of that or just 6pooling everygame with 0 micro cause they saw it once in husky's channel. Silver league dudes on the other hand know more builds, they show at least a bit micro (stutter step).
So imo the diffrence between Bronze/Silver is bigger than DIamond/Master
No the difference between masters/diamond is actually huge. Masters it top 2% while diamond is top 20%. If someone is one of the stronger masters players he can compete with GM players and even pros.
On October 02 2011 20:55 Blizzard_torments_me wrote: I'm high master level, but that doesn't matter at all because if you'd be objective you could see that Terran benefits most from multitasking and is the most micro intensive race. Considering you have to constantly micro your units compared to zerg who just just A moves practically, with the occasional flank, and Protoss, witch has some micro units but still doesn't compare to Terran in the raw time and concentration it takes to micro your units witch always detriments from your macro.
What does them benefiting from most multitasking and is (according to you) the most micro intensive race have anything to do with them being the hardest race to play?
And it's usually easier for terran to macro while microing when it comes to making units and such, compared to protoss having to actually stop watching the battle to do it.
But once again, just because they benefit more from multitasking doesn't make the race harder, just more complete.
On October 02 2011 20:21 blackbrrd wrote: I have got a friend in Diamond who is playing Protoss. He has some experience as Z and T, but 80% av his games has been played as a Protoss. He recently tried playing Zerg and Terran and had no problems holding his diamond ranking, he mostly lost in mirror matches.
I'm a diamond protoss aswell, with very little experience as Z and T. Tried playing a few games as zerg and terran for fun recently, and I actually had an easier time winning with those races except in mirror matches. But I guess it's the other way around for someone else. I think the different races just suits different people.
Well i can play all 3 at a masters level, with Zerg being my best and i'd say
Bronze/Silver : Zerg Gold/Platinum : Zerg Diamond/Low Masters : They're all about the same High Masters/GM/Pro : Protoss
I don't really agree with Terran being the most micro intensive race either. Stutter step micro is probably one of the easiest thing in the game to perform. EMP is an instant damage spell etc...
The Protoss probably have the most micro at the higher levels. Getting off good storms, making sure your forcefields are good, organising your army, making sure it's not clumped against EMP/fungal. Controlling your important units carefully etc...
The results of the poll looks pretty good. As someone who played both Protoss and Terran at masters I feel that Terran is a little bit harder, mainly easier to make a small mistake and lose your entire army to things like storm, banelings etc. But at the top Pro level (Korean) Protoss is the hardest to succeed with.
On October 02 2011 21:27 TheHova wrote: Well i can play all 3 at a masters level, with Zerg being my best and i'd say
Bronze/Silver : Zerg Gold/Platinum : Zerg Diamond/Low Masters : They're all about the same High Masters/GM/Pro : Protoss
I don't really agree with Terran being the most micro intensive race either. Stutter step micro is probably one of the easiest thing in the game to perform. EMP is an instant damage spell etc...
The Protoss probably have the most micro at the higher levels. Getting off good storms, making sure your forcefields are good, organising your army, making sure it's not clumped against EMP/fungal. Controlling your important units carefully etc...
I agree with this.
I would even say zerg to some extent at High Masters/GM/Pro. But I think at the absolute top it's hardest for protoss players.
By far Zerg is hardest up to Platinum because of the mechanics required just to be mediocre with Zerg macro and make good decisions based on limited/no scouting. I would say for Diamond and up Protoss is the hardest because it is harder to macro Warp Gates + micro, their timing attacks are mostly known, and it is relatively hard to do anything innovative with the race. Plus their macro mechanic is the weakest after the 15 minute mark.
I think both Zerg and Protoss are the hardest race at their respective skill levels simply because of poor race design.
Bronze/Silver - Didn't answer since I was never that low or even seen games at that level. Gold/Plat - zerg I think. Wierd ass timings from T/P hurt and most gold/plat zergs can't macro to save their lives. Dia - low dia = zerg. top dia = terran Masters - low = terran, top = toss GM = toss since they're so 1 dimensional and easy to predict,
the way I see it from my limited experience: zerg: hard to learn, hard to master terran: easy to learn, hardest to master protoss: easy to learn, easy to master
Glad there is so much interest in the thread :D. On a couple of things people have picked out as issues
On October 02 2011 20:30 A-BomB wrote: Good Thread but having diamond and masters in 1 poll isnt correct imo,the difference between those 2 leagues is huge
In a perfect world I didn't really want to have any leagues placed together but I didn't want 8 polls because I thought it would be too repetitive. In the end I went for tiers of skill rather than actually league rankings, and remember masters is only the top 2 percent of diamond, on a linear skill scale they are quite close.
Hi. I have a question regarding this thread especially since many including mods like iamke55 seem to already agree to the poll results. How are the results valid in any way, especially since anyone and everyone can vote on each level? And what are the objective measures that makes a certain race the hardest to play at a certain level?
Unless there is some sort of filter to ensure that grandmasters and others indeed vote and chime in on their appropriate level, this thread will only end up as "my race is harder/better than your race".
They are in no way valid and should never be used in any kind of data gathering about race tendencies or balance lol. Its purely opinion
nice so low level players vote what race is hardest on pro level lol.... pointless poll made just to boost your own ego
Bit harsh IMO, I included in the OP that I didn't state my race is the hardest, I was just interested in what the community had to say. To each his own I suppose
The ONLY thing that this poll reflects is that it is easier to get to Master and GM as Terran and Protoss, and hardest to get out of the lower leagues as Zerg.
The vast majority are obviously going to say that the race THEY play is the toughest.
At the lower level Terran is the hardest macro because you cannot see the progress bar with multiple buildings selected (which I think is a mistake in a game with MBS), unlike warpgates where you see a cooldown and hatcheries where you see the number of larvae.
Zerg can easily hotkey all hatcheries together and making units is easy, and effective at a low level.
Protoss don't need many non-gateway units, really, and those units usually take such a long time to build and there are so few that the production isn't hard. You can probably have one robotics or one stargate and then you don't have to worry about the MBS issue.
Terran, though, is a lot harder. You have to constantly check up on your barracks, and there's no way to know how close they are to needing you to queue another unit, and players will often just queue up a bunch of units. Not only this, but Terran is practically forced to get units from multiple types of production facilities. You can't go Bio without Medivacs. You could try to go mech although without Vikings that's pretty tough, and even if you went all ground mech it requires way more micro and positioning than bio so that also counts as "hard."
In addition, with Warp Gates and Hatcheries you cannot queue, so players will be forced to just get more of them to spend their money, and this allows players to easily macro better.
People say Zerg, but Creep spread is not really important at all in the lower leagues. Obviously if you're less good than July you don't have to worry about Creep yet. Pure Macro is a better focus for your APM. Injects are still important, but it's not as big of a deal as the ability to turn larvae into units. Lower level players tend to stack up larvae even with poor injects.
I think Terran is probably the hardest race at most levels. In the higher levels (higher than I am) I can't say for sure, but they are probably good enough at macro that it doesn't matter.
On October 02 2011 17:46 Elean wrote: Terran is obviously the most figured out race,
Are you kidding? Terran is the LEAST figured out race. They just have so much crap that it doesn't even matter anyway. Just look at how long it took for people to incorporate blue flame hellions or hunter seeker missles. This shit was so popular in beta but oops... One nerf and "oh look, it must be useless now! Guess it's back to good ol' marine marauder/marine tank!"
People are still perpetuating the myth that protoss is hard to play at masters? I'm a zerg main, and after losing to tons of protoss on ladder, I queued up as protoss for a match and stomped a protoss who had played 600 ladder games this season in a 25 minute game. I then wrecked a zerg ez.
I play Zerg mostly, but I would say that Terran probably has the highest skill cap. There is so much potential with all of their units, from stutter-step marine micro to stacking vikings to snipe colossi, to all the different builds they can do by switching add-ons, their ability to tech so fucking quickly, and just the sheer number of toys and upgrades they have available... This is probably why they dominate at the higher levels of play, and why Brood War pros often choose to play Terran in SC2.
I think some people are confusing balance with how hard a race is to play. Terran is the hardest to play at the highest levels for sure (mechanically), but conversely it's the easiest to win with. Protoss and Zerg are about the same, probably you need better micro as Toss, though macro is of course easier. At lower levels Zerg are quite hard to learn and they need the most multi-tasking (at lower levels) due to their heavy reliance on scouting and hitting their larva injects. However if you get these things semi-right you will decimate other players at a similar level (in lower leagues).
I think Terran is the hardest race to play at the highest level. The extreme highest level.
Because I feel that they can - theoretically - get more out of micro in battles than the other races.
Now granted, I also think that Terran is OP, personal opinion, so I am probably biased - but I think that when your skill is incredibly high (read: best koreans), you get to a point where, as Z and P, your decision making and what you chose to do is the most important, whereas for Terran, I feel that you can get more and more effective with better and better micro.
On October 02 2011 23:21 Zorkmid wrote: LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.
The ONLY thing that this poll reflects is that it is easier to get to Master and GM as Terran and Protoss, and hardest to get out of the lower leagues as Zerg.
The vast majority are obviously going to say that the race THEY play is the toughest.
What are you even talk about? A poll's shown that the majority of TLers are zerg, so why would terran and protoss be voted as the hardest race if this is the case, and why would there be terran be harder at diamond and master with protoss at the last, and protoss at grandmaster with terran at the last? Logic, your post makes none.
On October 02 2011 23:48 Papulatus wrote: People are still perpetuating the myth that protoss is hard to play at masters? I'm a zerg main, and after losing to tons of protoss on ladder, I queued up as protoss for a match and stomped a protoss who had played 600 ladder games this season in a 25 minute game. I then wrecked a zerg ez.
Zerg is by far the hardest race at all levels.
I'm a masters protoss and have queued up as terran and zerg and beat other masters fairly handedly sometimes. Isn't random anecdotal evidence based off a few games just fun? Are we going to pretend that a 10/15 minute marine/tank push or a quick third into mass roach is hard?
On October 02 2011 23:48 Papulatus wrote: People are still perpetuating the myth that protoss is hard to play at masters? I'm a zerg main, and after losing to tons of protoss on ladder, I queued up as protoss for a match and stomped a protoss who had played 600 ladder games this season in a 25 minute game. I then wrecked a zerg ez.
Zerg is by far the hardest race at all levels.
And that proves what? I also off-raced as Zerg at High Masters / Grandmaster level and in my first ZvZ ever i beat a known Grandmaster player. Does that mean Protoss caps my skill, and if i would play Zerg i would already be a known Grandmaster player? No. And no, it wasn't a build order loss, on top of it it was Meta close air, so both had full scout.
Your post doesn't add anything, it's just flamebaiting.
On October 02 2011 17:07 iamke55 wrote: Results seem spot on. I'll never understand how anyone below diamond plays Zerg, as it just takes too much higher level thinking for people who have trouble avoid supply blocks. At the diamond and master level, Terran needs a lot of micro to overcome Zerg and Protoss' AOE unit compositions that can 1a for the win. At the pro level, Protoss players need to make extremely subtle reads on scouting information, never take their eyes off the minimap and react instantly to any dots that appear on it, and defend vs pressure using the minimum number of units possible to maintain the tech lead needed to win.
This, zerg is hardest until mid/top master (because to play zerg well, you just need tons of games to be able to interpret what your scouting shows you) where it is terran and in pro level it is protoss, because you have to "guess" where roach/hydra and marine/marauder drop will occure and stuff like that.
ive laddered as zerg/toss at diamond level and i do almost as well as i do when i play T despite T being my main race so T for sure at that level, zerg for anything below.
On October 03 2011 00:01 Knightess wrote: So we can conclude that Terran is the easiest race to play? I doubt it >_> I can't play Terran that well as Zerg or Protoss
Different strokes for different folks, each of the three races are designed quite differently and require a different skill set to do well, Terran undoubtedly have the biggest toolkit under their belts.
At the end of the day which ever race the community decides is hardest to play comes down to which ever race is struggling the most in the current meta-game, right now it is Protoss, if you were to take this poll 5-6months ago then Protoss would most likely be voted the easiest to play at the highest level
On October 02 2011 17:07 iamke55 wrote: Results seem spot on. I'll never understand how anyone below diamond plays Zerg, as it just takes too much higher level thinking for people who have trouble avoid supply blocks. At the diamond and master level, Terran needs a lot of micro to overcome Zerg and Protoss' AOE unit compositions that can 1a for the win. At the pro level, Protoss players need to make extremely subtle reads on scouting information, never take their eyes off the minimap and react instantly to any dots that appear on it, and defend vs pressure using the minimum number of units possible to maintain the tech lead needed to win.
I use to think that, but then I realized that although that may be the minimum requirement to play the race somewhat well, you don't have to play any of the races well at the lower levels to actually win. Bronze-Diamond isn't exactly D- material, when you go that far down the shear amount of mistakes and poor play out weigh the difficulty of the race
On October 02 2011 23:48 Papulatus wrote: People are still perpetuating the myth that protoss is hard to play at masters? I'm a zerg main, and after losing to tons of protoss on ladder, I queued up as protoss for a match and stomped a protoss who had played 600 ladder games this season in a 25 minute game. I then wrecked a zerg ez.
Zerg is by far the hardest race at all levels.
Of course your anecdote must prove your point. "I offraced as P and beat EVERYBODY, therefore P fucking ez."
1. How many voters can honestly say they've played each race enough to make this judgement? There are like 30 random players in grandmasters across the world. How many people are just picking a race they think is hardest without ever having actually tried any others?
2. There are currently more votes than there are grandmasters / pros.
So don't take the data from this poll too seriously.
On October 02 2011 23:21 Zorkmid wrote: LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.
The ONLY thing that this poll reflects is that it is easier to get to Master and GM as Terran and Protoss, and hardest to get out of the lower leagues as Zerg.
The vast majority are obviously going to say that the race THEY play is the toughest.
No, the results and comments dont reflect that at all.
At plat level I can say Terran is ridiculously easier for me than toss. I mean i practice toss like crazy, and i still cant beat my toss friends, whom i rather easily roll over just by doing medivac drops over and over when i offrace T. I think thats because at plat its a LOT easier to do drops than defend drops, since plat players cant multitask. I'd say terran is probably the hardest race to play really really well at the highest level though, since it seems terran just has the most shit to do after midgame. The hardest race at lower levels is probably zerg, simply because the decision making under pressure as zerg is a bitch to get a grip on
I agree with the results here. Well, you can argue about Diamond & Master being terran. Everything else correct, no doubt. As a Zerg specialist i want to emphasize that learning Zerg is extremely difficult, but there'll be a point when you can hold off almost every cheese. Then you make a huge jump, because in most low leagues players can't really do much, apart from cheesing and as Zerg you've got the macro aspect of the game in your blood.
not sure how zerg is hard in lower divisions, you only need to inject larvae and make mutalisks and you're bound to win the game with good harass. you can probably only use mutas till diamond.
On October 03 2011 00:29 Silidons wrote: not sure how zerg is hard in lower divisions, you only need to inject larvae and make mutalisks and you're bound to win the game with good harass. you can probably only use mutas till diamond.
the problem for low league zergs is either having 50 drones 0 units or the other way around. finding the necessary balance is the hard part in the lower leagues which causes many zergs problems
My prediction is that Zerg is the hardest race at top level and that 2 months from now we will see a surge in Zerg QQ again since Protoss/Terran will just run over Zerg in the GSL again. Then blizzard is going to buff Zerg against shinnanigans (read hydralisk) and the QQ cycle repeats since Ps will be furious again.
On October 02 2011 23:48 Papulatus wrote: People are still perpetuating the myth that protoss is hard to play at masters? I'm a zerg main, and after losing to tons of protoss on ladder, I queued up as protoss for a match and stomped a protoss who had played 600 ladder games this season in a 25 minute game. I then wrecked a zerg ez.
Zerg is by far the hardest race at all levels.
I play mostly Protoss but I have smashed people in ZvP and TvP (also won ZvZ and TvZ but not ZvT vs good players) that are ranked similarly to myself. Guess what that proves? The things I tried worked! Guess what it doesn't prove: anything else!
I'd have to agree that Terran is the hardest race higher up mechanics wise. Obviously Korean pros excel at that due to their sheer number of practice hours which that benefits most from so they make it look fairly easy.
People answering this poll with anecdotal evidence and personal experience of "well this one time I offraced and won so clearly my race is hardest". The truth is that difficulty is subjective, some people will be better at drop multi tasking vrs queen inject etc. Silly poll with lots of self righteous answers.
I think the vast majority of people who picked Protoss for the hardest race to play at a pro level have jumped on the imba train, which the OP said to disregard. Speaking as a former random player, I believe that Terran has the highest skill ceiling and need for sound strategic decision making at a high level, so I voted for T. Especially if you take mirrors into account ><
On October 03 2011 00:50 Badfatpanda wrote: I think the vast majority of people who picked Protoss for the hardest race to play at a pro level have jumped on the imba train, which the OP said to disregard. Speaking as a former random player, I believe that Terran has the highest skill ceiling and need for sound strategic decision making at a high level, so I voted for T. Especially if you take mirrors into account ><
On October 02 2011 23:48 Papulatus wrote: People are still perpetuating the myth that protoss is hard to play at masters? I'm a zerg main, and after losing to tons of protoss on ladder, I queued up as protoss for a match and stomped a protoss who had played 600 ladder games this season in a 25 minute game. I then wrecked a zerg ez.
Zerg is by far the hardest race at all levels.
I play mostly Protoss but I have smashed people in ZvP and TvP (also won ZvZ and TvZ but not ZvT vs good players) that are ranked similarly to myself. Guess what that proves? The things I tried worked! Guess what it doesn't prove: anything else!
I agree.
I've beaten a top 8 masters offracing as zerg with a roach baneling bust, that must mean zerg is easy peezy. /sarcasm
It's always Protoss players that say Terran is easiest to play when offracing. I find that really funny since I've beaten a Protoss offracing as Terran with me offracing as Protoss (and i didn't even know what I was doing, I just made collosus and blink stalkers most of the games) Beat him 4 games in a row and he blocked me after I won the 4th game (2 base carrier rush vs mass maruader) T.T. Those games don't prove anything. I did the dumbest strats and they worked, but against competent Terrans, I'm pretty sure that wouldn't have worked.
Are we pretending a low level Zerg will actually try to go for a macro game, read his opponent, hit all his injects and spread his creep? Of course thats too hard without decent apm and game knowledge. However if you just use 8 pool, RR , 2 base baneling and build macro hatches and forget about creep like the gold players i know its much easier. Also you dont need a lot of micro with Zerg until masters so that helps.
For diamond and masters I would say terran is the hardest based on my own experiments but again it depends on how you play the game and your personal weaknesses.
At the highest level we all know Protoss isnt doing so well in Korea. Dont really know the statistics for all GM and pro players so I'll go with that.
I think we should distinguish between which race is hardest to play and which race is hardest to win with. The "win with" parts brings balance in to it a bit so for grandmaster i'd probably vote protoss as hardest to win with but i think either zerg or terran is actually harder to play if that makes any sense.
since every level below grandmaster/pro can be owned with either 3 rax, marine+scv | 6pool / banelingbust | 4 gate, its completely irrelevant how much "skill" is needed imo.
on the highest level, every race is pretty much equally hard to master.
I don't have enough experience/knowledge to rank difficulty across all skill levels. However in terms of mechanics I don't think zerg is as hard to play as people make it seem. Really, the only thing you have to do is inject larva. If you do that, than almost all other sins can be forgiven. While it is never good to get supply blocked or to miss production cycles with any race, as long as you keep up with larva injects, as zerg you can easily catch-up in your production/macro.
(Yes you also have to spread creep but I see it as no different than protoss having to sim city their base and building forward pylons, or for terrans managing their add-ons. Zergs have so few buildings to build in general no doubt makes it easier for them.)
TL;DR - inject larva and you will be fine as far as mechanics are concerned. Obviously you still have to make the right unit composition, have game sense and timings but this is more or less the same for all races.
Wow people actually think Zerg is difficult to play at bronze-diamond levels? Most protoss / terrans dont even think to wall off in bronze so zerglings can end the game at any time in lower leagues. And even then any engagement is good for a zerg because their units require 0 micro to be effective. I never knew team liquid was so zerg biased.
I voted Zerg up to and including Plat, Terran for diamond and masters then Protoss for GM and pro. Zerg has extra mechanics that a player has to keep up with so most low level players will forget to do their injects, spread their creep, balance drones/army, etc.... where as you can just make workers/units as T/P.
Once you hit diamond/masters and try to break into diamond from Plat, Terran is definitely the hardest race. I feel with Zerg and Protoss, you can recover faster from mistakes due to wrapgates(you can also chronoboost them*) and the larvae mechanism, so, if you forgot to make some units, etc.... you can make a gazillion slings while he makes his way to your base. From my experience(mid Plat), once my Zerg opponent has secured his third, no amount of harass has helped me win the game unless we engage and I come out on top to which he gg's or leaves. Once infestors or BLs are out on the field, I rarely win my games(need more ghost practice) unless he makes a big mistake(running his 10-12 infestors around and only spawning 1 ITs XD <--- happened before XD).
As for GM and pro level, I feel like Protoss is the hardest but not crazy far from Terran since most players at this level would have their MM micro up to par and would do multiple drops, etc.... and that would stretch the Protoss army. That and having to rely on sentries really become crucial at this point. Even though with Zerg, you can't scout well like Terran and to a lesser extent Protoss, but, once you secure your exp and drone up a bit, get an evo incase of cloak units for spores, work on expanding, etc.... I think Zerg is essentially an unstoppable race. The larvae mechanism really makes the race a swarmy race and allow the ability to make a ton of units which can't be matched by T/P unless they have a lot of production structures. That doesn't take into account how creep spread gives vision among other things
I made it to masters playing random but gave up mostly because zerg was to hard. Settled with p but my terran is actually very close despite having much less practice with it. So I'm really surprised to see terran as "hardest" on diamond-masters level.
The winner for each poll actually represents which race in that league/group is whining the most on teamliquid.net instead of playing the game right now.
On October 03 2011 01:21 iKlutz wrote: I think we should distinguish between which race is hardest to play and which race is hardest to win with. The "win with" parts brings balance in to it a bit so for grandmaster i'd probably vote protoss as hardest to win with but i think either zerg or terran is actually harder to play if that makes any sense.
Thats what I was going for, I was attempting to talk about the difficulty in playing the race on a design and style basis, not based on balance. Interestingly, there have been posts on how for example Zerg is the hardest race to play at lower levels because of the mechanics required, and at the same time others saying Protoss is hardest at the pro level because they are being crushed lately.
So the first 3 polls are being answered the way I intended, but the last poll is being answered with a different mindset. Hmm.
MID diamond and below: zerg based off mechanics purely player's have too low of apm to do things that are necessary to the success of the zerg race. mid diamond-mid masters: i honestly don't know. top masters/gm/pro: depends your relative definition of whats difficullt zerg requires the most apm due to larva injecting, spreading creep, constantly poking proding w/ your zerglings to get any scouting info possible and even the slightest decisions have the biggest impact. protoss is almost purely decision making as the race takes almost no apm to play, however, to an extent their decisions are slightly less impactful as zerg's, yet are still very "impactful." lastly, terran it has always been considered the easiest race to play pro for quite some time.
On October 03 2011 01:35 BroboCop wrote: MID diamond and below: zerg based off mechanics purely player's have too low of apm to do things that are necessary to the success of the zerg race. mid diamond-mid masters: i honestly don't know. top masters/gm/pro: depends your relative definition of whats difficullt zerg requires the most apm due to larva injecting, spreading creep, constantly poking proding w/ your zerglings to get any scouting info possible and even the slightest decisions have the biggest impact. protoss is almost purely decision making as the race takes almost no apm to play, however, to an extent their decisions are slightly less impactful as zerg's, yet are still very "impactful." lastly, terran it has always been considered the easiest race to play pro for quite some time.
wah i am surprised at the results given that majority of TLers are zergs. And most zergs hate protoss, often crediting their lose to imbalance. Since I play protoss I am probably bias. But split seconds wrong decision can lead to my death. Even lings run by is gg.
ehh, protoss requires no apm to play? early game stalkers kiting can take away almost all your apm. mid game blink stalkers harass and warp prism with templar? Don't forget you need to hotkey your pylon to switch screen and warp in units for reinforcements. Try playing protoss dude.
I am diamond or low master level Zerg player and I can compete with other diamonds on T or P without playing T/P basically. By competing I mean I probably have 50% winrate overall.
This is just me tho. I just find decision making and macro a lot easier as Terran for example. PvT Is kinda hard tho.
I agree with Terran needing more APM but (lol) it's not that kind of APM that's hard to manage. I mean as T you have to babysit your army 24/7 or you die. You should've mastered that at master/gm level in my opinion. Macro is different from Z but I wouldn'nt EVER say it's hard. Maybe in lower levels.
short said: You can succeed up to masters or diamond with only macro as T or P. Not with zerg (to drone or not to drone?). Also as Zerg you have to make more smaller decisions all the time while wrong decision probably loses you the game (no mules).
On October 03 2011 01:29 eugalp wrote: I don't have enough experience/knowledge to rank difficulty across all skill levels. However in terms of mechanics I don't think zerg is as hard to play as people make it seem. Really, the only thing you have to do is inject larva. If you do that, than almost all other sins can be forgiven. While it is never good to get supply blocked or to miss production cycles with any race, as long as you keep up with larva injects, as zerg you can easily catch-up in your production/macro.
(Yes you also have to spread creep but I see it as no different than protoss having to sim city their base and building forward pylons, or for terrans managing their add-ons. Zergs have so few buildings to build in general no doubt makes it easier for them.)
TL;DR - inject larva and you will be fine as far as mechanics are concerned. Obviously you still have to make the right unit composition, have game sense and timings but this is more or less the same for all races.
My 2 cents.
The most difficult part as is knowing when to build units, and what kind of units. Since zerg is the reactionary race you also need to know what's good against the unit composition your opponent is using. And you need to some basic cheese timings and how to spot if your opponent is cheesing you since you can't build units and workers at the same time.
Not to take anything away from terran or protoss, I know how hard it can be tabbing between your production facilities, avoiding supply blocks and building workers all the time.
On October 03 2011 01:31 Passionless wrote: Wow people actually think Zerg is difficult to play at bronze-diamond levels? Most protoss / terrans dont even think to wall off in bronze so zerglings can end the game at any time in lower leagues. And even then any engagement is good for a zerg because their units require 0 micro to be effective. I never knew team liquid was so zerg biased.
Gotta agree with this. I believe the root of it is Idra being so popular, low level Zerg players attempt to mimic his play before they can handle it. If you do aggressive play and cheese as Zerg it's not any more difficult than the other two. Proxy hatches or baneling busts will get you to diamond in 1 day, people don't check their bases or scout.
I seriously laughed when I read the thing about Zergs only needing to make infestors. I agree with all of them except the Protoss being the hardest at the GM level. I don't know if Minigun is GM or not but his play shows you don't even need 100 apm to play Protoss effectively at a high level of play. I guess I think terran would take the most in the GM league
On October 03 2011 01:31 Passionless wrote: Wow people actually think Zerg is difficult to play at bronze-diamond levels? Most protoss / terrans dont even think to wall off in bronze so zerglings can end the game at any time in lower leagues. And even then any engagement is good for a zerg because their units require 0 micro to be effective. I never knew team liquid was so zerg biased.
Gotta agree with this. I believe the root of it is Idra being so popular, low level Zerg players attempt to mimic his play before they can handle it. If you do aggressive play and cheese as Zerg it's not any more difficult than the other two. Proxy hatches or baneling busts will get you to diamond in 1 day, people don't check their bases or scout.
6pool also gets you to masters. Does this mean Zerg is easy?
And even then any engagement is good for a zerg because their units require 0 micro to be effective.
Im sure I lose 30% of my games because of hard micro as Z. Its lower actions but more complicated. T/P Simpler but more actions.
When you get to the very top level of the sc2 pro scene, skill requirements among the three races becomes very gimmicky, in the sense that it is very arbitrary and almost impossible to compare. For example, Terran has I would say the biggest potential for harassment, since they can be the most abusive race when played correctly. However, to set the precedent to this level would be insane, since most tip top players can't execute the type of drop harass on par with MMA. Protoss on the other hand has the greatest micro potential. Watching Liquid Hero micro is fucking insane. Even other tip top Protosses can't do that. Zerg's hardest difficulty is to scout, and their biggest potential for success is easily single-handedly crushing harassment like Nestea, a mistake usually is game-changing. Thus you could say that Terran's harder to play portion revolves around potent harassment, whereas Protoss revolves around intense micro, and finally Zerg has to be extremely careful.
On October 03 2011 01:40 clazzi wrote: And you need to some basic cheese timings and how to spot if your opponent is cheesing you since you can't build units and workers at the same time.
I always wondered why zerg never tried building some workers and some other units at the same time? Why can it only be pure drones or pure attacking/defending units?
On October 03 2011 01:31 Passionless wrote: Wow people actually think Zerg is difficult to play at bronze-diamond levels? Most protoss / terrans dont even think to wall off in bronze so zerglings can end the game at any time in lower leagues. And even then any engagement is good for a zerg because their units require 0 micro to be effective. I never knew team liquid was so zerg biased.
Gotta agree with this. I believe the root of it is Idra being so popular, low level Zerg players attempt to mimic his play before they can handle it. If you do aggressive play and cheese as Zerg it's not any more difficult than the other two. Proxy hatches or baneling busts will get you to diamond in 1 day, people don't check their bases or scout.
6pool also gets you to masters. Does this mean Zerg is easy?
On October 03 2011 01:31 Passionless wrote: Wow people actually think Zerg is difficult to play at bronze-diamond levels? Most protoss / terrans dont even think to wall off in bronze so zerglings can end the game at any time in lower leagues. And even then any engagement is good for a zerg because their units require 0 micro to be effective. I never knew team liquid was so zerg biased.
Gotta agree with this. I believe the root of it is Idra being so popular, low level Zerg players attempt to mimic his play before they can handle it. If you do aggressive play and cheese as Zerg it's not any more difficult than the other two. Proxy hatches or baneling busts will get you to diamond in 1 day, people don't check their bases or scout.
6pool also gets you to masters. Does this mean Zerg is easy?
And even then any engagement is good for a zerg because their units require 0 micro to be effective.
Im sure I lose 30% of my games because of hard micro as Z. Its lower actions but more complicated. T/P Simpler but more actions.
Oh do tell, explain this "hard micro" as Z! I'm interested.
no need to be offensive but I explain: It requires more thought process. TvP MU also requires a lot thought process imo. TvZ activating stim for example requires thought process. Splitting marines does not.
I'm not saying either race is harder or easier. I'm not even saying if Z, T, P is hardest to micro or macro.
I don't understand why it would be different across leagues. As a Protoss player, there is an entire dimension of decision-making that I don't really have to think about (making probes vs making drones). Obviously, having timing attacks or number of probes lined up with expansions is necessary (aka stop probes at this time or pause for this time), but it isn't an every-second decision that could lose you the game like it is for Zerg. I would assume that the higher level you are, the more refined, dusted, and thin your droning is. Which means that making one extra drone at the wrong time could lose you the game.
the thing is that the toss are ok at mid level but once you get a bit higher, the difficulty scales pretty heftily. Also harrass (until possibly 1.4 we'll see how the Warp Prism works out) can be an issue for toss and the entire game can be decided on whether or not toss can stop the harrass
I started out as a bronze level terran..I'm now masters but when I was coming up the ranks I had a hard time against zerg and protoss. It takes alot of practice to learn how to micro against banelings, how to split up units when fighting colossus, and how to doge psi storms. This was just my experience.
This will probably make me a total newb to sc2, since I'm in gold league, but how is it that Protoss is the hardest race to play in the pro leagues? I know that it is, I just don't know HOW it is. Protoss is the easiest race to play in the other leauges (according to the chart) but then it becomes the hardest race. Tons of tosses can win in the lower leagues, but I've never seen many tosses win any major tourneys.
On October 03 2011 01:29 eugalp wrote: I don't have enough experience/knowledge to rank difficulty across all skill levels. However in terms of mechanics I don't think zerg is as hard to play as people make it seem. Really, the only thing you have to do is inject larva. If you do that, than almost all other sins can be forgiven. While it is never good to get supply blocked or to miss production cycles with any race, as long as you keep up with larva injects, as zerg you can easily catch-up in your production/macro.
(Yes you also have to spread creep but I see it as no different than protoss having to sim city their base and building forward pylons, or for terrans managing their add-ons. Zergs have so few buildings to build in general no doubt makes it easier for them.)
TL;DR - inject larva and you will be fine as far as mechanics are concerned. Obviously you still have to make the right unit composition, have game sense and timings but this is more or less the same for all races.
My 2 cents.
The most difficult part as is knowing when to build units, and what kind of units. Since zerg is the reactionary race you also need to know what's good against the unit composition your opponent is using. And you need to some basic cheese timings and how to spot if your opponent is cheesing you since you can't build units and workers at the same time.
Not to take anything away from terran or protoss, I know how hard it can be tabbing between your production facilities, avoiding supply blocks and building workers all the time.
Disagree. Knowing the right units to make is important with any race. But with zerg you can actually delay making units until you really need them (within reason of course). The only requirement is that you have enough lavra (see my original post).
The only reason people say that Zerg is much harder is because unlike other races, we don't have a "forgive for not scouting" countermeasure. I'm going to say I'm Zerg, and it might be biased, but hear me out:
*Edit: This is meant as a lower-league argument, not a high level, since high levels would naturally scout.
If Terran goes 2port banshee with cloak, what can a Terran do? They already have marines and scan capabilities, so unless they came RIGHT after a mule, Terran should be relatively fine.
What can Protoss do? Against Terran, they probably already have a robo and already have stalkers, so stalkers+observer.
What can Zerg do? Nothing, lol. The only real anti-air we have are queens, and they are quite fragile if you just micro your banshees. We'd have to make extra queens ahead of time, and then we'd have to create spores assuming that we even have an evo chamber. This is all assuming that no one scouted.
Another case, if a toss goes DT, what can Terran do? Scan and done
What can Protoss do? Assuming you didn't 4 gate all-in or something of that variant, you probably have a robo and can chrono out an obs. If you got lucky and saw the blur, you could forcefield the ramp to keep it out to bide for some time.
What can Zerg do? Hopefully we have an evo chamber, and spores take long enough that one dt can snipe most of them or just kill as many drones as possible until detection comes out. A dt rush will also come before lair hits in, so no overseer.
The other races are much more forgiving if you didn't scout. Zerg relies on processing scouting information as the blueprint of their gameplan. The other races can just tweak theirs a bit and they're fine (this might be a little exaggerated, but it's to prove a point).
Zerg was, in BW, capable of holding all those off without a sitch. Overlords were already detectors, and instead of roaches, they had hydras, which are anti-air. Protoss was generally the same, and Terran had a separate building that could scan, so no shared energy with something like muling.
Zerg is impossible to play at below gold, and somewhat at gold through diamond. There's just so much stuff you have to do, none of which you can que, that it just is overwhelming to play as. Which is why I cheesed into high silver, then macro'd into gold and higher.
I always wondered why zerg never tried building some workers and some other units at the same time? Why can it only be pure drones or pure attacking/defending units?
Because it's economically viable to make pure drones for as much time as possible, until you realize HOLY SHIT I NEED ZERGLINGS.
So in grandmasters hardest is protoss? :D What's the reasoning behind that?
They're basing it off the amount of times a protoss has won Code-S.
I dont see why people are voting for grandmasters... even if one race is having a hard time, it doesn't mean we (the non-pros) have a right to judge whether it is "harder" or not.
On October 03 2011 01:31 Passionless wrote: Wow people actually think Zerg is difficult to play at bronze-diamond levels? Most protoss / terrans dont even think to wall off in bronze so zerglings can end the game at any time in lower leagues. And even then any engagement is good for a zerg because their units require 0 micro to be effective. I never knew team liquid was so zerg biased.
Gotta agree with this. I believe the root of it is Idra being so popular, low level Zerg players attempt to mimic his play before they can handle it. If you do aggressive play and cheese as Zerg it's not any more difficult than the other two. Proxy hatches or baneling busts will get you to diamond in 1 day, people don't check their bases or scout.
6pool also gets you to masters. Does this mean Zerg is easy?
And even then any engagement is good for a zerg because their units require 0 micro to be effective.
Im sure I lose 30% of my games because of hard micro as Z. Its lower actions but more complicated. T/P Simpler but more actions.
Oh do tell, explain this "hard micro" as Z! I'm interested.
no need to be offensive but I explain: It requires more thought process. TvP MU also requires a lot thought process imo. TvZ activating stim for example requires thought process. Splitting marines does not.
I'm not saying either race is harder or easier. I'm not even saying if Z, T, P is hardest to micro or macro.
Guys lets be honest here, zergs tend to really over-inflate how hard the race is to play. Yes, its difficult, but its difficult in a different way. Instead of understanding how to cast perfect force-feilds, or how to perfectly split marines, zergs have to inject well. Toss has to CB and Terrans have to scan or drop mules. Zergs tend to Q.Q (QQ face) because of scouting, its not difficult to inject even in a difficult battle (i have no experience in GM or M) but the difficulty lies in having the units out. That said, late game zerg is easy mode zerg is about surviving the mid game since early game and late game they are hard to crack. The units require fairly little micro (lets be honest how often do you see someone micro a ling or a bling in their army of 80 lings and 20 blings) and they are very, very fast. Zergs need to make the right units at the right time, and drone when not, its not that hard if you have some game sense, and are constantly either sacking an ovie or using one to scout what your opponent is doing. You have 100 min scouts that you can make a lot of, and they are hard to kill, can drop units, and spread creep, use them. Zergs QQ because they attempt to be like Idra, while not fully understanding what he does, why does it when he does it. Its like if i just took a game from MC and said yeah i'm doing this every game, it would be wrong and i'd be pissed off. I'm not trying to flame, all i'm saying is that zerg is a bit over-inflated for what zerg takes, especially since its them and terran, not protoss who tend to be most visible in pro tournaments, making it seem like on a high level toss is the hardest.
On October 03 2011 02:09 Goshdarnit wrote: I dont see why people are voting for grandmasters... even if one race is having a hard time, it doesn't mean we (the non-pros) have a right to judge whether it is "harder" or not.
Agree. Only master-GM randoms should vote! :D I'd be glad to see poll where only randoms vote.
I disagree that zerg is the hardest race to play at lower levels, you can do really well with low economy/bad injects just because people can't micro. Playing bio terran and not having like 100 apm to micro vs colossus/banelings means you'll lose a lot of games to attack moves.
Uhhhhhh, T harder than Z, at any level? I laughed.
I don't think "I need great micro to take full advantage of my much stronger units!" figures into the discussion as anything other than delusion or trolling.
On October 03 2011 01:31 Passionless wrote: Wow people actually think Zerg is difficult to play at bronze-diamond levels? Most protoss / terrans dont even think to wall off in bronze so zerglings can end the game at any time in lower leagues. And even then any engagement is good for a zerg because their units require 0 micro to be effective. I never knew team liquid was so zerg biased.
Gotta agree with this. I believe the root of it is Idra being so popular, low level Zerg players attempt to mimic his play before they can handle it. If you do aggressive play and cheese as Zerg it's not any more difficult than the other two. Proxy hatches or baneling busts will get you to diamond in 1 day, people don't check their bases or scout.
6pool also gets you to masters. Does this mean Zerg is easy?
And even then any engagement is good for a zerg because their units require 0 micro to be effective.
Im sure I lose 30% of my games because of hard micro as Z. Its lower actions but more complicated. T/P Simpler but more actions.
Oh do tell, explain this "hard micro" as Z! I'm interested.
no need to be offensive but I explain: It requires more thought process. TvP MU also requires a lot thought process imo. TvZ activating stim for example requires thought process. Splitting marines does not.
I'm not saying either race is harder or easier. I'm not even saying if Z, T, P is hardest to micro or macro.
Guys lets be honest here, zergs tend to really over-inflate how hard the race is to play. Yes, its difficult, but its difficult in a different way. Instead of understanding how to cast perfect force-feilds, or how to perfectly split marines, zergs have to inject well. Toss has to CB and Terrans have to scan or drop mules. Zergs tend to Q.Q (QQ face) because of scouting, its not difficult to inject even in a difficult battle (i have no experience in GM or M) but the difficulty lies in having the units out. That said, late game zerg is easy mode zerg is about surviving the mid game since early game and late game they are hard to crack. The units require fairly little micro (lets be honest how often do you see someone micro a ling or a bling in their army of 80 lings and 20 blings) and they are very, very fast. Zergs need to make the right units at the right time, and drone when not, its not that hard if you have some game sense, and are constantly either sacking an ovie or using one to scout what your opponent is doing. You have 100 min scouts that you can make a lot of, and they are hard to kill, can drop units, and spread creep, use them. Zergs QQ because they attempt to be like Idra, while not fully understanding what he does, why does it when he does it. Its like if i just took a game from MC and said yeah i'm doing this every game, it would be wrong and i'd be pissed off. I'm not trying to flame, all i'm saying is that zerg is a bit over-inflated for what zerg takes, especially since its them and terran, not protoss who tend to be most visible in pro tournaments, making it seem like on a high level toss is the hardest.
Nice wall of text. Did you read what I said? I also dislike your attitude where you assume people who play certain race are certain type of people.
What I was able to read from your text I got one thought. Why you make such effot to convince this one race is harder than another? When you play ladder at your own level no game should be easy when played standard or something other than stupid all-in or 6pool. ^^
On October 03 2011 01:31 Passionless wrote: Wow people actually think Zerg is difficult to play at bronze-diamond levels? Most protoss / terrans dont even think to wall off in bronze so zerglings can end the game at any time in lower leagues. And even then any engagement is good for a zerg because their units require 0 micro to be effective. I never knew team liquid was so zerg biased.
Gotta agree with this. I believe the root of it is Idra being so popular, low level Zerg players attempt to mimic his play before they can handle it. If you do aggressive play and cheese as Zerg it's not any more difficult than the other two. Proxy hatches or baneling busts will get you to diamond in 1 day, people don't check their bases or scout.
6pool also gets you to masters. Does this mean Zerg is easy?
And even then any engagement is good for a zerg because their units require 0 micro to be effective.
Im sure I lose 30% of my games because of hard micro as Z. Its lower actions but more complicated. T/P Simpler but more actions.
Oh do tell, explain this "hard micro" as Z! I'm interested.
no need to be offensive but I explain: It requires more thought process. TvP MU also requires a lot thought process imo. TvZ activating stim for example requires thought process. Splitting marines does not.
I'm not saying either race is harder or easier. I'm not even saying if Z, T, P is hardest to micro or macro.
Guys lets be honest here, zergs tend to really over-inflate how hard the race is to play. Yes, its difficult, but its difficult in a different way. Instead of understanding how to cast perfect force-feilds, or how to perfectly split marines, zergs have to inject well. Toss has to CB and Terrans have to scan or drop mules. Zergs tend to Q.Q (QQ face) because of scouting, its not difficult to inject even in a difficult battle (i have no experience in GM or M) but the difficulty lies in having the units out. That said, late game zerg is easy mode zerg is about surviving the mid game since early game and late game they are hard to crack. The units require fairly little micro (lets be honest how often do you see someone micro a ling or a bling in their army of 80 lings and 20 blings) and they are very, very fast. Zergs need to make the right units at the right time, and drone when not, its not that hard if you have some game sense, and are constantly either sacking an ovie or using one to scout what your opponent is doing. You have 100 min scouts that you can make a lot of, and they are hard to kill, can drop units, and spread creep, use them. Zergs QQ because they attempt to be like Idra, while not fully understanding what he does, why does it when he does it. Its like if i just took a game from MC and said yeah i'm doing this every game, it would be wrong and i'd be pissed off. I'm not trying to flame, all i'm saying is that zerg is a bit over-inflated for what zerg takes, especially since its them and terran, not protoss who tend to be most visible in pro tournaments, making it seem like on a high level toss is the hardest.
Zerglings require a ton of micro, but not the same kind of micro as marines (ie. stutter step) or as a caster (ie. sentry). Ever tried to a-move lings against marines or a death ball, they evaporate! You have to constantly micro/position them to flank the correct set of units or they are a waste, such as trapping marines for blings, trapping stalkers, avoiding FF, spread out against tanks, etc... sling is basically the unit that requires most micro after mutas or infestors for zerg. The only time they don't require micro is if the game is already won for zerg.
On October 03 2011 02:07 ChoiBoi wrote: The only reason people say that Zerg is much harder is because unlike other races, we don't have a "forgive for not scouting" countermeasure. I'm going to say I'm Zerg, and it might be biased, but hear me out:
*Edit: This is meant as a lower-league argument, not a high level, since high levels would naturally scout.
If Terran goes 2port banshee with cloak, what can a Terran do? They already have marines and scan capabilities, so unless they came RIGHT after a mule, Terran should be relatively fine.
What can Protoss do? Against Terran, they probably already have a robo and already have stalkers, so stalkers+observer.
What can Zerg do? Nothing, lol. The only real anti-air we have are queens, and they are quite fragile if you just micro your banshees. We'd have to make extra queens ahead of time, and then we'd have to create spores assuming that we even have an evo chamber. This is all assuming that no one scouted.
Another case, if a toss goes DT, what can Terran do? Scan and done
What can Protoss do? Assuming you didn't 4 gate all-in or something of that variant, you probably have a robo and can chrono out an obs. If you got lucky and saw the blur, you could forcefield the ramp to keep it out to bide for some time.
What can Zerg do? Hopefully we have an evo chamber, and spores take long enough that one dt can snipe most of them or just kill as many drones as possible until detection comes out. A dt rush will also come before lair hits in, so no overseer.
The other races are much more forgiving if you didn't scout. Zerg relies on processing scouting information as the blueprint of their gameplan. The other races can just tweak theirs a bit and they're fine (this might be a little exaggerated, but it's to prove a point).
Zerg was, in BW, capable of holding all those off without a sitch. Overlords were already detectors, and instead of roaches, they had hydras, which are anti-air. Protoss was generally the same, and Terran had a separate building that could scan, so no shared energy with something like muling.
The bias here is overwhelming, you go if the terran goes 2port banshee how can the races react, and then you say protoss should have already perfectly reacted and zerg for someone reason has done nothing. Not to mention no one goes 2port banshee in anything but TvZ, and if they do you should realize what they're doing by some indicator.
Your standard here is stupid. It's like saying now, assuming the zerg played like shit and didn't try to do any scouting at all and did a build that isn't safe against this specific terran build, how screwed is he? Now, if a terran does a tvz build tvp against a protoss, how screwed is the protoss? He's not? OMG Z SO HARD
On October 03 2011 02:07 ChoiBoi wrote: What can Protoss do? Against Terran, they probably already have a robo and already have stalkers, so stalkers+observer.
... hey, what can zerg do? zerg can have spore crawlers and queens! What i just said made about as much sense as your statement above
On October 03 2011 01:31 Passionless wrote: Wow people actually think Zerg is difficult to play at bronze-diamond levels? Most protoss / terrans dont even think to wall off in bronze so zerglings can end the game at any time in lower leagues. And even then any engagement is good for a zerg because their units require 0 micro to be effective. I never knew team liquid was so zerg biased.
Gotta agree with this. I believe the root of it is Idra being so popular, low level Zerg players attempt to mimic his play before they can handle it. If you do aggressive play and cheese as Zerg it's not any more difficult than the other two. Proxy hatches or baneling busts will get you to diamond in 1 day, people don't check their bases or scout.
6pool also gets you to masters. Does this mean Zerg is easy?
And even then any engagement is good for a zerg because their units require 0 micro to be effective.
Im sure I lose 30% of my games because of hard micro as Z. Its lower actions but more complicated. T/P Simpler but more actions.
Oh do tell, explain this "hard micro" as Z! I'm interested.
no need to be offensive but I explain: It requires more thought process. TvP MU also requires a lot thought process imo. TvZ activating stim for example requires thought process. Splitting marines does not.
I'm not saying either race is harder or easier. I'm not even saying if Z, T, P is hardest to micro or macro.
Guys lets be honest here, zergs tend to really over-inflate how hard the race is to play. Yes, its difficult, but its difficult in a different way. Instead of understanding how to cast perfect force-feilds, or how to perfectly split marines, zergs have to inject well. Toss has to CB and Terrans have to scan or drop mules. Zergs tend to Q.Q (QQ face) because of scouting, its not difficult to inject even in a difficult battle (i have no experience in GM or M) but the difficulty lies in having the units out. That said, late game zerg is easy mode zerg is about surviving the mid game since early game and late game they are hard to crack. The units require fairly little micro (lets be honest how often do you see someone micro a ling or a bling in their army of 80 lings and 20 blings) and they are very, very fast. Zergs need to make the right units at the right time, and drone when not, its not that hard if you have some game sense, and are constantly either sacking an ovie or using one to scout what your opponent is doing. You have 100 min scouts that you can make a lot of, and they are hard to kill, can drop units, and spread creep, use them. Zergs QQ because they attempt to be like Idra, while not fully understanding what he does, why does it when he does it. Its like if i just took a game from MC and said yeah i'm doing this every game, it would be wrong and i'd be pissed off. I'm not trying to flame, all i'm saying is that zerg is a bit over-inflated for what zerg takes, especially since its them and terran, not protoss who tend to be most visible in pro tournaments, making it seem like on a high level toss is the hardest.
Nice wall of text. Did you read what I said? I also dislike your attitude where you assume people who play certain race are certain type of people.
What I was able to read from your text I got one thought. Why you make such effot to convince this one race is harder than another? When you play ladder at your own level no game should be easy when played standard or something other than stupid all-in or 6pool. ^^
you misunderstood me, sorry if i was not clear, its not that a certain type of people play the race at all. However, the ones that stand out to me (its probably because i watch a lot on youtube) are zerg players that adore Idra and on any one of his losses scream imba-toss/imba-T on youtube. Also i'm not convincing anyone, i'm just letting out a bit of rage is all , i'll summarize my point to what i thought it was to make it clear: at any level one should be playing against people of their own skill (like you said) however, at any level each race is more difficult in each matchup, i have trouble with PVZ personally. However, zerg has gotten a name for its base, it fairly well known that most zergs think that zerg is by far the hardest race to play and i disagree i think that each race has its own level where each race can be more or less difficult to play. Thats why i brought up the toss evidence at the end and the Idra evidence in the middle or so.
People don't give enough credit as to how much focus PvT requires. When you're out in the middle of the map, if you don't have the multi tasking to keep your observers alive within vision of his army, you need lightning fast reaction speed when he appears, and even more speed to be able to macro simultaneously.
The worst thing a protoss can do is look away for less than a second, to find himself EMP'ed when he was warping in. Everyone says injecting makes zerg the hardest. It's a lot of concentration at high levels. You can watch several pro toss streams to find they actually won't macro/spend their money at all when they're maneuvering to fight. It's so crucially important to engage perfectly it doesn't even matter if you're floating 2000 minerals with 12 gates off cooldown. Protoss has a much higher skill ceiling than credited for.
Also, speaking purely of mechanics, Zerg only look at their base to inject. They create all of their supply/units off of a single hotkey. Protoss need to slam down pylons, production facilities, warp-in, and chrono boost. The only difference is that zerg is a mobile, swarming race, which makes it easy as a Protoss to sit at your base and macro mindlessly.
On October 02 2011 17:10 DjRetro wrote: The most difficult race to play in masters and grand masters is Terran... i'm absolutely convinced of that. In higher levels of play, you need a lot of APM and multitasking to play as terran.
However, i'm a bit confused... i don't understand why the poll shows us that protoss is more difficult than terran in GM... in a lot of cases, as masters (high) you can play against a GM guy perfectly... that's a fact.
APM and multitasking is no problem in GM, decision making seperates weak from strong players.
)))) Look at SjoW or GoOdy or... and those are not only GrandMasters but top pros. A lot of GM don't have multitasking.
On October 02 2011 17:10 DjRetro wrote: The most difficult race to play in masters and grand masters is Terran... i'm absolutely convinced of that. In higher levels of play, you need a lot of APM and multitasking to play as terran.
However, i'm a bit confused... i don't understand why the poll shows us that protoss is more difficult than terran in GM... in a lot of cases, as masters (high) you can play against a GM guy perfectly... that's a fact.
APM and multitasking is no problem in GM, decision making seperates weak from strong players.
)))) Look at SjoW or GoOdy or... and those are not only GrandMasters but top pros. A lot of GM don't have multitasking.
I played goody last night... And lost... But he really didn't seem like some high level pro or anything, his multitasking wasn't amazing and his engagement positioning was so-so... Though it was PvP so who knows?
I think you should change the last poll to GM, because really we only have a couple real pros here. Anyone else' opinion wouldn't be helpful to this kind of study, really, since they are not actually pros.
As a mid masters, this is what I FEEL to be true, assuming MACRO games:
Gold and under: Zerg Hardest Plat-Dia: Zerg hardest High Dia-Mid Master: terran hardest GM: I have no idea cause Im not gm
I feel it's too easy for the zerg to see your comp, make units, crush your push, drone and grab infinity bases, and turtle till broodlords for the gg. The terran has to be constantly aggressive and if the aggression messes up once, he can potentially lose the game.
Also, the terran has to have great splits and micro whereas the zerg just has to flank/position well and amove
IMO, playing Terran seems to be the hardest. "Tapping" is an acquired skill, and is very easy to forget about. There's a lot of multitasking involved with Terran, not to mention all the variance of the spellcasters (ghost and raven -- banshees aren't spellcasters), and abilities (tank sieging, stim). Terran is hard because it has a huge, specialized toolkit, and it's difficult to learn it.
Zerg has easier macro (no tapping, just select hatches and hit sdddddzzzz). The hard part is knowing when to drone, when not to drone. It's pretty easy in bronze league -- essentially drone all the time, or when you're not being attacked. Spines rape gateway units. Zerg's only spellcaster (fuck corrupters, they don't qualify) isn't easy to use, but it's very good.
Protoss has pretty easy macro (hit W once in a while), but the hard part about Protoss is the unit composition, IMO. Protoss units don't die. It has two spellcasters (sentry and HT, phoenix doesn't really count). They're not that hard to use, but they're not easy either.
I think that Terran is hardest to play (I suck at Terran). It takes great multitasking to play terran.
On October 02 2011 17:10 DjRetro wrote: The most difficult race to play in masters and grand masters is Terran... i'm absolutely convinced of that. In higher levels of play, you need a lot of APM and multitasking to play as terran.
However, i'm a bit confused... i don't understand why the poll shows us that protoss is more difficult than terran in GM... in a lot of cases, as masters (high) you can play against a GM guy perfectly... that's a fact.
APM and multitasking is no problem in GM, decision making seperates weak from strong players.
)))) Look at SjoW or GoOdy or... and those are not only GrandMasters but top pros. A lot of GM don't have multitasking.
LOL. Are you saying that SjoW doesn't have multitasking ? Do you follow SC2 scene at all ? Apart whining in GSL LR threads ?
On October 02 2011 17:10 DjRetro wrote: The most difficult race to play in masters and grand masters is Terran... i'm absolutely convinced of that. In higher levels of play, you need a lot of APM and multitasking to play as terran.
However, i'm a bit confused... i don't understand why the poll shows us that protoss is more difficult than terran in GM... in a lot of cases, as masters (high) you can play against a GM guy perfectly... that's a fact.
APM and multitasking is no problem in GM, decision making seperates weak from strong players.
)))) Look at SjoW or GoOdy or... and those are not only GrandMasters but top pros. A lot of GM don't have multitasking.
look on elfi who has half of sjow or goodys apm (not that old apm means anything it was mostly useless spam anyway), clicking 10 times to move army into one place instead of 1 doesnt make u good in multitasking
Bronze-Gold; Zerg is easily the hardest. It's a whose mechanics you actually need to understand, and the bad one base plays vs. its weakness to allins makes it all the worse.
Plat-Diamond: terran. Honestly ZvT in diamond was the easiest matchup for me, I literally never lost. All you have to do is a. stop their allins or b. make a shit ton of banelings/roaches/mutas/lings and rofl stomp their poor packed up marines. I imagine the same thing goes for terran; stop poorly done allins, make collossi, steamroll.
Masters: hard to say, i actually feel like the game is pretty balanced at the masters level lol. probably protoss because of 1-1-1
GM-Pro: Apparently protoss cause they are doing bad lol.
On October 03 2011 01:38 msjakofsky wrote: people are not able to comprehend the difference between "hardest to play" and "hardest to succeed with"
What is the difference?
It is always easy to be unsuccesful but if you re trying to win but cant it was too hard.
Unless you mean the skill cap for Protoss in GM for example isnt high enough so its not harder to play but they cant actually play at a higher level to get the win because its not possible to win if the terran or zerg plays too good or something?
On October 03 2011 02:07 ChoiBoi wrote: The only reason people say that Zerg is much harder is because unlike other races, we don't have a "forgive for not scouting" countermeasure. I'm going to say I'm Zerg, and it might be biased, but hear me out:
*Edit: This is meant as a lower-league argument, not a high level, since high levels would naturally scout.
If Terran goes 2port banshee with cloak, what can a Terran do? They already have marines and scan capabilities, so unless they came RIGHT after a mule, Terran should be relatively fine.
What can Protoss do? Against Terran, they probably already have a robo and already have stalkers, so stalkers+observer.
What can Zerg do? Nothing, lol. The only real anti-air we have are queens, and they are quite fragile if you just micro your banshees. We'd have to make extra queens ahead of time, and then we'd have to create spores assuming that we even have an evo chamber. This is all assuming that no one scouted.
Another case, if a toss goes DT, what can Terran do? Scan and done
What can Protoss do? Assuming you didn't 4 gate all-in or something of that variant, you probably have a robo and can chrono out an obs. If you got lucky and saw the blur, you could forcefield the ramp to keep it out to bide for some time.
What can Zerg do? Hopefully we have an evo chamber, and spores take long enough that one dt can snipe most of them or just kill as many drones as possible until detection comes out. A dt rush will also come before lair hits in, so no overseer.
The other races are much more forgiving if you didn't scout. Zerg relies on processing scouting information as the blueprint of their gameplan. The other races can just tweak theirs a bit and they're fine (this might be a little exaggerated, but it's to prove a point).
Zerg was, in BW, capable of holding all those off without a sitch. Overlords were already detectors, and instead of roaches, they had hydras, which are anti-air. Protoss was generally the same, and Terran had a separate building that could scan, so no shared energy with something like muling.
I think something that you're forgetting is that Zerg also has some amazing scouting options that other races don't. Creep tumors are awesome for spotting pushes, and when you get overlords parked over every expo you know exactly where your opponent is expanding and when. And your basic unit, Zerglings, come in pairs so its very very cheap to park single units all over the map for vision.
Zerg also has very cheap infastructure. 2 port cloak banshee requires a ton of investment; 100 gas for factory, 200 gas for starports, 50 gas for 2 tech labs, 200 gas for cloak, 200 gas for first two banshees. Thats 750 gas. As a Zerg you're looking at 100 gas for lair and 50 gas for an overseer. Thats it. You only need 150 gas to defend against a 750 gas push; Queens alone can handle the banshees themselves.
And unlike scans, overseers are permanent units with useful spells. And unlike observers, they have 200 friggin hitpoints, move fast, and build 3x as quickly without taking up any production capacity.
I would certainly agree that Zerg has the most trouble scouting in the early game. But you've also got to consider they get fantastic, persitent vision in the mid/late game. No race should be the best at everything.
On October 02 2011 17:10 DjRetro wrote: The most difficult race to play in masters and grand masters is Terran... i'm absolutely convinced of that. In higher levels of play, you need a lot of APM and multitasking to play as terran.
However, i'm a bit confused... i don't understand why the poll shows us that protoss is more difficult than terran in GM... in a lot of cases, as masters (high) you can play against a GM guy perfectly... that's a fact.
APM and multitasking is no problem in GM, decision making seperates weak from strong players.
)))) Look at SjoW or GoOdy or... and those are not only GrandMasters but top pros. A lot of GM don't have multitasking.
I played goody last night... And lost... But he really didn't seem like some high level pro or anything, his multitasking wasn't amazing and his engagement positioning was so-so... Though it was PvP so who knows?
Terran is hardest at high diamond/masters level. Former Masters zerg who switched to terran a few months ago (before all the Terran imba whine came back). I had to drastically improve my multitasking, map awareness, "tapping", and general APM to get to masters as Terran.
This is... a pretty bad poll. It's very hard to just say what makes a race hard to play as, and how that affects every level. It gets even worse when you consider how different players have different strengths. If I were to generalize, I'd say that Zerg requires the most consistent play (larva injects, creep spread), Terran requires the most active play (stutterstep, drops, harass in general), and Protoss requires the most immaculate play (timing pushes, drop and counterattack defense, Forcefields). The issue is that it's hard to say where the cut-offs are where players start to get consistent or start to get active or start to get immaculate. Do players develop a sense of when to hit their Larva injects around Gold, or around Diamond? Do people figure out how to manage their armies at Masters level, or can they start doing that at Platinum? Do players figure out how to lay down good Forcefields at Silver level play, or do you really have to wait until Grandmaster to see effective ones? I'm just not sure what to answer for most of this.
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)
The link to your "chart" has only about 600 games recorded. So that makes no argument at all towards the current meta game. If you were to check real statistics you would see that Terran has a 57% WR vs Toss and a 53% WR against Zerg.
Toss at the highest level is hard to play in the sense that there are certain things few people are able to do properly and consistently. I don't think I've ever seen perfect blink micro in a game, maybe a few chinese players coming the closest. No one really does warp prism templar micro perfectly yet (what about using 2-3 prisms?). In pro games, you still see terrible forcefields frequently (split half army, all zealots die), poor phoenix/void ray micro... there's actually some skill required to do this. At the highest level, everyone has the necessary apm to handle the macro/micro of their race, but perfect strategical/tactical execution is different.... most people have stutter stepping figured out.
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)
The link to your "chart" has only about 600 games recorded. So that makes no argument at all towards the current meta game. If you were to check real statistics you would see that Terran has a 57% WR vs Toss and a 53% WR against Zerg.
Regardless of the merits of having a poll like this... I agree with the results we're seeing right now.
Zerg is probably harder for lower level players because scouting and reaction time along with a decent sense of timing are important, and these skills aren't close to developed until diamond/masters level.
Terran is probably the most demanding race in terms of micro and multitasking as explained by others here, so at a master's level the other races will do better since those players are closer to using their race optimally.
At grandmasters Terran becomes easier I suppose, because people have the skills to really unlock the race's power. And then all I can say is based off of results, Protoss makes sense as the hardest race at top level.
On October 03 2011 03:54 xsevR wrote: Toss at the highest level is hard to play in the sense that there are certain things few people are able to do properly and consistently. I don't think I've ever seen perfect blink micro in a game, maybe a few chinese players coming the closest. No one really does warp prism templar micro perfectly yet (what about using 2-3 prisms?). In pro games, you still see terrible forcefields frequently (split half army, all zealots die), poor phoenix/void ray micro... there's actually some skill required to do this. At the highest level, everyone has the necessary apm to handle the macro/micro of their race, but perfect strategical/tactical execution is different.... most people have stutter stepping figured out.
Very little people give credit to MC for having this skill. Strategically, I don't think MC is top notch but his quick and accurate decision making/execution is what used to put MC up there. To consistently force field well is very hard given all the different possibilities when it comes to units/terrain/how many units/etc.
Most people think its ffff and spam it like mad, sadly it isnt the case. FF placement make some of the biggest differences in mini skirmishes/battles.
On October 02 2011 17:10 DjRetro wrote: The most difficult race to play in masters and grand masters is Terran... i'm absolutely convinced of that. In higher levels of play, you need a lot of APM and multitasking to play as terran.
However, i'm a bit confused... i don't understand why the poll shows us that protoss is more difficult than terran in GM... in a lot of cases, as masters (high) you can play against a GM guy perfectly... that's a fact.
APM and multitasking is no problem in GM, decision making seperates weak from strong players.
)))) Look at SjoW or GoOdy or... and those are not only GrandMasters but top pros. A lot of GM don't have multitasking.
I played goody last night... And lost... But he really didn't seem like some high level pro or anything, his multitasking wasn't amazing and his engagement positioning was so-so... Though it was PvP so who knows?
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)
The link to your "chart" has only about 600 games recorded. So that makes no argument at all towards the current meta game. If you were to check real statistics you would see that Terran has a 57% WR vs Toss and a 53% WR against Zerg.
Afaik the real statistics you are talking about was pre 1.4, meanwhile this is after 1.4, and as terran was quite soundly nerfed in 1.4 these charts could well be representative of the current w/l. Doesn't mean it's imbalanced though as the patch is still fresh it can be temproary as terrans haven't adjusted with their nerfs. Nor does win percentage have much with what is hardest to play, or well I guess that depends on the definition of hardest to play, some would say per defintion the race with the lowest w/l is the hardest to play.
As you will see, the first Protoss on this list is MC at #8. The next protoss is Naniwa at 17! HuK 21, Mana 25. So that means at top level, there are 4 protoss players in the top 25. What does that tell you about difficulty?
Terran has alot of need for Micro and Multitasking if you wanna be really good. Drops, Marine Micro, Siege Tanks, Vikings/Ghosts... And you can't just queue up 5 more gateways with 1 Probe.
As you will see, the first Protoss on this list is MC at #8. The next protoss is Naniwa at 17! HuK 21, Mana 25. So that means at top level, there are 4 protoss players in the top 25. What does that tell you about difficulty?[/QUOTE]
I actually agree with the polls so far. Z is pretty tough to learn at the lower levels and the whole reaction/timing thing. the diamond/masters terran is pretty tough to play at that point IMO. About toss having a hard time in GM, i can agree and disagree. i just feel like protoss needs to be further explored.
As you will see, the first Protoss on this list is MC at #8. The next protoss is Naniwa at 17! HuK 21, Mana 25. So that means at top level, there are 4 protoss players in the top 25. What does that tell you about difficulty?
That's silly, you cannot base that terran is the easiest on master/dia because of the 3rax all in. Nearly no players use that at masters/dia level, because it actually doesn't give you a lot of success.
On October 03 2011 01:38 msjakofsky wrote: people are not able to comprehend the difference between "hardest to play" and "hardest to succeed with"
What is the difference?
It is always easy to be unsuccesful but if you re trying to win but cant it was too hard.
Unless you mean the skill cap for Protoss in GM for example isnt high enough so its not harder to play but they cant actually play at a higher level to get the win because its not possible to win if the terran or zerg plays too good or something?
thanks for proving my point
if zerg didn't have queens, creep, and had only 1 fighting unit, hydra for example- zerg would be the easiest race to play, but the hardest to succeed with. entirely different things
you know, just like a car with servo wheel is easier to drive than one without it, but if the 2nd car is faster it's still easier to win a speed race with it.
Protoss macro mechanics are obviously the easiest due to warpgate and chrono being more straight forward than larva/orbital spells. one could argue that micro is the most important/difficult for toss, but still 90% of the people here just wote on protoss cuz they have the worst statistics in korea, which obviously doesn't mean they're the hardest to play. not having succesful strategies =/= hardest to play.
at the highest levels the question is probably related with skill cap of mechanics, which is the highest for terran in my opinion.
Just as in BW, the easiest to play in low levels is Protoss. That's because their units are the strongest and players can just run over others with mass units. In the higher levels, it is the hardest because you actually need timings to win, you can't just mass up a ball and win all day.
On October 03 2011 04:22 GreEny K wrote: Just as in BW, the easiest to play in low levels is Protoss. That's because their units are the strongest and players can just run over others with mass units. In the higher levels, it is the hardest because you actually need timings to win, you can't just mass up a ball and win all day.
the question wasn't "which race is hardest to win with", we have statistics for that.
On October 02 2011 17:10 DjRetro wrote: The most difficult race to play in masters and grand masters is Terran... i'm absolutely convinced of that. In higher levels of play, you need a lot of APM and multitasking to play as terran.
However, i'm a bit confused... i don't understand why the poll shows us that protoss is more difficult than terran in GM... in a lot of cases, as masters (high) you can play against a GM guy perfectly... that's a fact.
APM and multitasking is no problem in GM, decision making seperates weak from strong players.
)))) Look at SjoW or GoOdy or... and those are not only GrandMasters but top pros. A lot of GM don't have multitasking.
I played goody last night... And lost... But he really didn't seem like some high level pro or anything, his multitasking wasn't amazing and his engagement positioning was so-so... Though it was PvP so who knows?
Last time I checked Goody was Terran.
Good has a NA account he offrace P on, or at least that's what people were saying earlier...
I only voted for the Gold/Platinum poll, as I play in Platinum League. I play Random, and to me personally Terran is the most difficult race to use. I think that's mostly because of the reasons mentioned in the OP, I simply don't have the level of multitasking to control all my units well and keep producing units as well. Zerg and Protoss are slightly more forgiving in the sense that you can micro your units, and then go back and instantly produce a huge army, after which you can go micro your units again.
I've played both zerg and terran up to masters level on NA/EU and in my experience it was easier to get to masters as zerg. When your opponents can't control their armies well your banelings/infestors/mutas can do a ridiculous amount of damage. It was harder for me to do well as terran because my unit control isn't the best.
So I think at lower levels the zerg has an advantage with one hotkey macro as well as units that do better when the opponent has bad micro.
I think its a gradient from Z -> P being hardest to play (in diamond, Z being about even with P). I don't think Terran is harder to play at any level of the game.
As a Zerg player in Diamond, when my Banelings and Mutas crash into a 2 base timing of Siege tanks and Marines I always say it must be hard to deal with so many units like that, a lot of the Terran players usually fail at avoiding most of the damage. I would say it's kinda even between all 3 at Diamond level.
I would say terran isn't the hardest race to play at diamond/masters level as the poll says, by then you have the build orders down to do easy all inns and you should have the apm requirement to drop/macro/micro. I do however agree that terran is the hardest race to play in gold/plat because usually your apm isn't to high then and also i imagine they have a hard time dealing with muta harrass, counter attacks and micro vs collosi and storm.
On October 02 2011 17:00 Monkeyballs25 wrote: Definitely Zerg at bronze/silver. You have to learn how to scout properly quite a bit earlier than the other two races, your early game defence is quite fragile and you can't rely on a nice easy 1 base timing push build.
Wouldn't like a 6 pool or some kind of 10 pool speedling/baneling all in work quite well at bronze level?
ZZTP Broadly speaking, this matches up with my own experience and thoughts on the relative learning curves of each race. Zergs have a tough time in the lower leagues, but I think the curve flattens out a bit once they hit diamond/masters. Protoss have the opposite situation, and Terrans are somewhere in the middle. Clearly at the highest level, they are dominating, but I think the majority of Terrans tend to plateau around the Diamond/Masters level. I know I certainly feel like I've hit a brick wall in Diamond as a T.
Well I went Z Z Z and P, Really when in the lower levels playing Zerg you will get punished easier than the other races. Ie: 11/11, 4gate, cannon rushes, unscouted BF will ruin your day, Void rays. Really the stuff that lower levels don't look out for. When I first started Sc2 I was like I want to play Zerg the offensive swarm!
Well my dreams were crumbled with a few days on the ladder.(I played like 200 custom games vs AI and watched like 20+ dailys before even touching ladder.(Had ladder fear)) So I get on expecting to be the offense keeping them on the defense... I learned quickly that bunkers, cannons, voids, DTs, Banshees would completely wreck my thoughts on the game. (I mean yeah this stuff is easy now but I'm still talking about Bronze-Plat level. I found out that the MIGHTY SWARM THAT DEVOURED EVERYTHING had to play on the defensive side of things...
The lower levels you lose ALOT to not knowing what the other player is doing as scouting and reading the information isn't that easy. Example: You walk up a Terrans ramp and its walled off you see 1 Rax so you expect 2Rax pressure or Hellion expand. Then a 6Rax with SCVs comes at you and you have 4 Lings 2 Queens and a Spine you just started its GG.
I'm not saying that the other races do not lose to these things, because they do. But Zerg in my opinion is at an even greater risk than the others. Because the race is purely about scouting information and that's hard for lower levels to read what they just scouted.
For Diamond I say Zerg again (Maybe I'm biased) but I spent most of my diamond days getting crushed by 6Gates, 7?Gate Blink, Death balls, 11/11 Bunker rushes, and Marine Tank compositions. With really no idea how to defend this stuff, I mean a Diamond Zerg can see a 6Gate coming and lose to it never the less. I also feel in the lower levels(Well in all levels Injects are less forgiving.) Yes if a Terran misses Mules or a Toss misses Chrono they are behind, but, that energy builds up and if you don't let it reach 100 you can just use the extra ones and didn't really miss anything. But for Zerg missing your Injects well that means oh well. Its less forgiving in that way. Also creep spread is a great thing to have and its just another thing Zergs have to remember and at the low level remembering Injects/Scouting/Expanding/Droning when safe its hard to remember when to spread that creep.
It also happens alot in the lower leagues happened to me as well, You hear from the great Zergs "Drone hard and win but don't over Drone and die" so we Drone hard and get destroyed, Recently I have been favoring fewer Drones more units and its working out so well. (Thank you aXa for ZvT guide<3)
Then you look at that units Zerg has Baneling when in the lower levels I found my self accidentally sacing all my Banelings on Tanks/Maruaders. It was really annoying back when ZvT was bio and they would just spam stim and kite the Marines and I would sac my Baneling because I was "focusing on macro! as suggested by higher levels". The Ultras are a real problem for Zergs in the lower levels as they need a hell of a lot of babysitting or else they are going to get stuck and suicide. The ZvZ matchup also frustrates many Zergs into quiting the race due to Ling/Bling allins early, They are annoying and 1 mistake will end it. But mirrors aren't supposed to be fun imo looking at you PvP 4gate all day erry'day.
I also don't feel like playing Zerg is as fun as the other races! I mean I love going into 2v2s just to play Terran/Toss and doing Stargates/Mships/Mech/MMTank its all fun as hell to execute. I never get that feeling with Zerg, unless using aXas style and wrecking a Terran with Ultras before he gets his third up.
In the pro level I feel Protoss but that's only because I don't see them doing well in tourneys maybe that's just the players not exploring their race to the fullest. I don't see any reason why they would be harder except the fact that they don't use all their spell casters to their full potential Ie: when having sentries and they build Templar all you see is storms and feedbacks instead of FFs or Shields, Yes Templar are better but use them both! I hear most Toss complain "Thats not easy using 2 spell casters while macroing as well!" but I always hear Toss gloat "we are a micro race it takes more work than Zerg micro!" (This is on a masters level not pro) I agree it does using Templar and Sentries together, but when you don't do it why build both? Zerg really isn't micro-oriented its macro which is easier to control in the pro-games. But pro Zergs still get punished by what the lower levels do ie: 6Gates/11/11 Bunkers.
Its all the same for a Zerg no matter what level it is on.
For the most part, people who aren't low apm, poor scouting, mechanically challenged are no better qualified to judge low-end balance then those baddies would be for high-end. Being able to turtle-up and then do your own thing reasonably safely is the big adv for lower level Terrans, but one that obviously disappears as opponents get better at the game, and hardly the only facet that matters.
It's interesting that no one has mentioned that this kind of examination is exactly what Blizzard tries to even out when the balance for low-end play.
I almost feel like it would be better to include masters and GM (excluding korean GM, top NA foreigners). The reason why terran probably would be the hardetst race to play at this level (and not diamond) is that at this level most players have figued out the 1base/2base allins that terrans are very succesful with at the lower levels, and actually playing a macro game with terran is just harder than with zerg or toss. Using sige tanks/marines or even ghosts correctly is just harder to do (dont misunderstand this for being balance related) than infestors or muta/bling, and having good bio /viking/ghost control is again harder than using chargelots/stalkers/collosus. The korean gm terran obv. is a level above the foreigners and are since doing very well as the skill cap of terran is pretty high.
On October 03 2011 04:10 Sith Inquisitor wrote: Terran has alot of need for Micro and Multitasking if you wanna be really good. Drops, Marine Micro, Siege Tanks, Vikings/Ghosts... And you can't just queue up 5 more gateways with 1 Probe.
Actually, in Starcraft 2, SCVs are nearly as easy to use as Probes. You just need to grab five SCVs and build five Barracks. You're likely thinking about Starcraft Broodwar, where building multiple buildings quickly was quite the task.
On October 02 2011 17:10 DjRetro wrote: The most difficult race to play in masters and grand masters is Terran... i'm absolutely convinced of that. In higher levels of play, you need a lot of APM and multitasking to play as terran.
However, i'm a bit confused... i don't understand why the poll shows us that protoss is more difficult than terran in GM... in a lot of cases, as masters (high) you can play against a GM guy perfectly... that's a fact.
APM and multitasking is no problem in GM, decision making seperates weak from strong players.
)))) Look at SjoW or GoOdy or... and those are not only GrandMasters but top pros. A lot of GM don't have multitasking.
I played goody last night... And lost... But he really didn't seem like some high level pro or anything, his multitasking wasn't amazing and his engagement positioning was so-so... Though it was PvP so who knows?
Last time I checked Goody was Terran.
Good has a NA account he offrace P on, or at least that's what people were saying earlier...
So you're basically not even sure it was Goody, but if it was Goody he was off-racing as Protoss on the NA server. Ok.
Let's assume it was Goody and he didn't seem very pro-like to you. Well, obvious things first - he was off-racing. Even if he can off-race on Grandmaster Level there's still a world of difference between your average Grandmaster player and a Progamer. Furthermore not playing very impressively may very well mean he just didn't have to.
Recently I watched Stephano start his account on the NA server. After a while he got matched vs. a mid/high Master Protoss who obviously didn't know who he was. He destroyed him with speedling only. Certainly didn't look very pro-like to the toss as he called him a lucky idiot doing the dumbest shit he had ever seen before leaving the game.
My point is, either way it's highly unlikely that your game vs. that guy who possibly was Goody was representative for his average let alone maximum skill.
Terran is a bit easy at all stages of the game due to their highly efficient units and the mule. Zerg injecting and protoss CBing doesn't forgive and makes it harder to learn at the lower levels. As far as the higher levels go, it's obviously protoss. We can just look at the GSL to figure out what the easiest race to play is.... *cough* terran
On October 02 2011 17:00 Monkeyballs25 wrote: Definitely Zerg at bronze/silver. You have to learn how to scout properly quite a bit earlier than the other two races, your early game defence is quite fragile and you can't rely on a nice easy 1 base timing push build.
Wouldn't like a 6 pool or some kind of 10 pool speedling/baneling all in work quite well at bronze level?
That's a good question. When I first started playing in silver in season 1 I remember that my few 6pool attempts ended in miserable failure. And likewise whenever a zerg tried to 6pool me I was able to fend them off by simplying A-moving my drones at him until my own lings finished. The 10 pool baneling bust all-in does sound a bit more viable but I've never really tried it.
@Hexxed hehe, of course, no bias involved Don't forget to take into account how micro is much more difficult once you play a Zerg who knows how to macro, downright scary. Actually, I would say the scariest moment I've had in a TvsZ was when I realized that my Zerg opponent had a ton of slings+banes or he just went mass banes XD
Being a GM Terran last season, I'd have to say Terran.
As a Terran, the ball is ALWAYS in your court, and it's up to you to execute plays in order to win. The longer the game drags on where the Zerg or Protoss can up their tech, the more likely Terran is to lose.
the only results you can get are biased results. I tried to be as non biased as possible and simply vote on what I felt was actually true.
Bronze to Platinum is Zerg Diamond to Master is Terran GM is Protoss
But if you look at tip top GSL level I think it might be different. Terran is very hard because they need to have a ton of multi-tasking and need to study their opponents because terran armies are extremely fragile and hard to replace. However, the best terrans are the best players in the world because of the versatility of terran. Zerg on the other hand has an extremely tough time in the early game and in the late late late game against terrans who have mech/ghost, it seems to me like zerg only has timing attacks against terran but has every strategy available to them in ZvP. Protoss is susceptible to a lot of all-ins but if they can get upgrades and survive then they can win. So at GSL level, I think all races might be equally hard to play.
On October 03 2011 06:35 ZiegFeld wrote: Being a GM Terran last season, I'd have to say Terran.
As a Terran, the ball is ALWAYS in your court, and it's up to you to execute plays in order to win. The longer the game drags on where the Zerg or Protoss can up their tech, the more likely Terran is to lose.
So being the dictator of the game makes it harder for you??? Gee, wish I had that problem. While i'm sure you are a good player to be in GM, have you tried ALL the races?
On October 03 2011 06:44 SKYFISH_ wrote: I dont see how people who main ONE race can give unbiased opinions?
The actual fuck, honestly?
I play both Terran and Protoss and P is a lot easier to handle - both Protoss macro and micro are easier and demand less multitasking.
only BS and phoenix openers are as demanding as the usual T midgame
It's quite simple to give an unbiased opinion when you main one race as if you play all 3 you would choose the one you struggle with, and that might not be the one that is harder to play, it might just be the one that you just don't know how to play.
I think it's Z-Z-T-P as many other people. Zergs a no brainer for the B-Plat. Terran is so difficult to play around diamond/low masters because many people only know 1-2 builds, not unleashing the full potential of Terran which is their versatility. As for Protoss, once you're good enough as a Protoss there is just this ceiling. No matter how much Special tactics you can do, your expensive, hard to replenish units get 'countered' too easily and then you're left with a gateway army which is useless past the mid game. I'm liking the recent PvZ though. A lot of Warp Prism harass which Protoss never did before giving them the edge. My favorite Warp Prism use is taking out tech buildings while taking out another base with your army. Killing 8 Zealots is actually a big task because of their DPS and beefyness, they will take out a mineral line or a tech building if the Protoss micros.
- I'd say Up to Diamond, Zerg is hardest since the difference between Diamond and Masters Zerg is usually knowing how to scout and react to scouting denial and various 1-2 base silly stuff or all-ins. But really, any race can be easy at Diamond, and I'd say most Masters+ players could get to diamond easily with any of the 3 races.
Masters+ I would say is definately Terran, although of course there can be games this or that way (ie mech ZvT very easy to play, 111 can be easier to do than defend, terran can do a lot of easy cheesy all-ins, etc).
I've played all 3 races enough to say that terran and zerg are the hardest to play. As zerg you gotta babysit your creep tumors and injects while knowing when to drone etc, and as terran, the macro part i find hard. I find myself going back to protoss all the time just for the ease of playing the race. building your entire base off 1 probe is so easy, especially late game when you have 4+ bases, just shift que a bunch of gate ways and pylons. I know protoss is in a huge rut at top play, but no matter what the micro and macro will always be easy.
I am a masters zerg player and a diamond terran/protoss.
I voted zerg as the hardest up to masters because thats my experience. I also voted for zerg at the GM/Pro level just because I want some zerg love ^^
For all the people voting for protoss as the hardest race, you have to be joking. Protoss is the absolute easiest race macro and micro from my experience. Just because protoss is losing at the top levels doesn't mean they are the hardest race to play, maybe it's just a shitty race at that level. Maybe people just aren't using them properly, I don't know, but it is insane to say they are the hardest to play.
I think terran is the most difficult race to play mechanically speaking. I struggle to keep up with production, proper hotkey setups, harrasing while building what I need etc. I think zerg is the hardest race to play because you just have to know exactly what to do at all times to properly respond to what your opponent is doing. For this reason I feel zerg is the most difficult to play.
On October 02 2011 17:07 iamke55 wrote: Results seem spot on. I'll never understand how anyone below diamond plays Zerg, as it just takes too much higher level thinking for people who have trouble avoid supply blocks. At the diamond and master level, Terran needs a lot of micro to overcome Zerg and Protoss' AOE unit compositions that can 1a for the win. At the pro level, Protoss players need to make extremely subtle reads on scouting information, never take their eyes off the minimap and react instantly to any dots that appear on it, and defend vs pressure using the minimum number of units possible to maintain the tech lead needed to win.
It really depends on what one's strong points are. For example, I find Zerg incredibly easy to play, but can't for the life of me get a grip on playing as Terran, much less Protoss. They're completely different races, so it's completely fine that you can have more of an affinity for a certain race over the others in terms of ease. You can't exactly say one race is by far the easiest or hardest no matter what your skills are. I find keeping up with injections is pretty easy to do, whereas having multiple types of buildings with Terran is impossibly difficult - that being the case, Terran would be the more difficult race for me. It differs with each person, though.
I don't know why, but a good number of people have got it into their heads that protoss doesn't require much micro. I don't know if they just suck or just haven't really played protoss but its really annoying to read. Kind of depressing how stupid some people can be... they just come on here stating their opinion, and I waste about a thousand brain cells reading it. I guess that kinda makes me stupid too.
I can basically assure you the only reason that Terran is ranked the easiest to play at the higher levels, is because people see so many Terran doing well in GSL. That is the only reason, however it is utterly not indicative of how hard or easy the race is to play.
The reason Terran is doing so well at the higher levels is precisely because of the opposite reason, it is the hardest race to play but does exceptionally well in the hands of an extremely skilled user. Protoss does not do well at the high levels similarly because it is easier to play, and the overall skillcap is lower. A Terran like MVP will be pulling twice the APM of his Protoss opponent, because there are that many more things to do as Terran to win, however since he has the APM to do all those things he will beat the Protoss. It would be interesting to see MVP play protoss, but just from a guess I think he would be substantially less awe inspiring, mainly because a good chunk of his APM would go to waste.
Where Terran is far weaker in my opinion is near the platinum level where most players have basic macro down, but little else. Here Protoss can dominate because it is much less micro intensive in most matchups, and relies on basic easy macro with 1 main building (the gateway).
Ideally to balance the game, all races need a similar cap in skill, and learning curves that are more in line with each other.
[QUOTE]On October 02 2011 17:17 decaf wrote: This is what NesTea has to say about it
It was fun to hear what NesTea had to say about it, but I will still point out that the video what posted in april, so it's half a year ago, and patch 1.3 had just gone online at the time. Lots of things has changed and I think it has lost a bit of it's relavence.
On October 03 2011 07:02 Soliduok wrote: I am a masters zerg player and a diamond terran/protoss.
I voted zerg as the hardest up to masters because thats my experience. I also voted for zerg at the GM/Pro level just because I want some zerg love ^^
For all the people voting for protoss as the hardest race, you have to be joking. Protoss is the absolute easiest race macro and micro from my experience. Just because protoss is losing at the top levels doesn't mean they are the hardest race to play, maybe it's just a shitty race at that level. Maybe people just aren't using them properly, I don't know, but it is insane to say they are the hardest to play.
I think terran is the most difficult race to play mechanically speaking. I struggle to keep up with production, proper hotkey setups, harrasing while building what I need etc. I think zerg is the hardest race to play because you just have to know exactly what to do at all times to properly respond to what your opponent is doing. For this reason I feel zerg is the most difficult to play.
So does that mean that once you know how to play each scenario out, Terran is harder?
Has to say that i agree that zerg is the most difficult at my level of play. I was winning a lot more with terran after just a few days of practise, but couldnt stay away from the swarm in the end. A glutton for punishment i guess.
Well...I can't really make the call about how difficult terran/protoss are in the higher leagues as I don't have the time to offrace with them as much as I'd like to reach this level, so take what you will with a grain of salt.
Considering the current balance, I would consider Protoss to be significantly underpowered. So factoring in balance, I'd say protoss is probably the hardest to play right now at the higher levels. A few months ago, when times were brighter for toss I recall quite a few people saying saying toss was the: "loldeathball -> A-move race", or how mindlessly easy, yet strong the 4-gate was. Not so much these days. I wonder what the inevitable poll 4-6 months from now will look like.
I think it's almost universally agreed that zerg is harder in the lower levels. Naturally, when you're a noobie in any game you aren't really comfortable yet. You tend to play scared and are unable to interpret what is going on. Translated to SC2 this would probably mean: building too many units for defense instead of workers, ineffective scouting and not understanding what might be coming your way, scared to expand when needed, relying heavily on cheese, etc. All of these things you're going to have a much harder time getting away with as zerg. Basically, if I were trying to get a friend into sc2, I would absolutely not advise learning the fundamentals with zerg. By design, the race just holds your hand much less and requires you to get out of your comfort zone.
On October 03 2011 07:18 FrostedMiniWheats wrote: Well...I can't really make the call about how difficult terran/protoss are in the higher leagues as I don't have the time to offrace with them as much as I'd like to reach this level, so take what you will with a grain of salt.
Considering the current balance, I would consider Protoss to be significantly underpowered. So factoring in balance, I'd say protoss is probably the hardest to play right now at the higher levels. A few months ago, when times were brighter for toss I recall quite a few people saying saying toss was the: "loldeathball -> A-move race", or how mindlessly easy, yet strong the 4-gate was. Not so much these days. I wonder what the inevitable poll 4-6 months from now will look like.
I think it's almost universally agreed that zerg is harder in the lower levels. Naturally, when you're a noobie in any game you aren't really comfortable yet. You tend to play scared and are unable to interpret what is going on. Translated to SC2 this would probably mean: building too many units for defense instead of workers, ineffective scouting and not understanding what might be coming your way, scared to expand when needed, relying heavily on cheese, etc. All of these things you're going to have a much harder time getting away with as zerg. Basically, if I were trying to get a friend into sc2, I would absolutely not advise learning the fundamentals with zerg. By design, the race just holds your hand much less and requires you to get out of your comfort zone.
This is exactly the wrong perception most people have. Protoss was considered the a move race before, and nothing has changed since then really as far as Protoss macro and micro requirements. The only thing that has changed is the skill of the top Terran and Zerg players, since their race allows for a higher skillcap, while the Protoss race does not, hence why top players were considered A movers.
On October 03 2011 07:02 Soliduok wrote: I am a masters zerg player and a diamond terran/protoss.
I voted zerg as the hardest up to masters because thats my experience. I also voted for zerg at the GM/Pro level just because I want some zerg love ^^
For all the people voting for protoss as the hardest race, you have to be joking. Protoss is the absolute easiest race macro and micro from my experience. Just because protoss is losing at the top levels doesn't mean they are the hardest race to play, maybe it's just a shitty race at that level. Maybe people just aren't using them properly, I don't know, but it is insane to say they are the hardest to play.
I think terran is the most difficult race to play mechanically speaking. I struggle to keep up with production, proper hotkey setups, harrasing while building what I need etc. I think zerg is the hardest race to play because you just have to know exactly what to do at all times to properly respond to what your opponent is doing. For this reason I feel zerg is the most difficult to play.
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.
What's difficult at that level is the metagame. I think that the main problem for protoss is the lack of a good harass unit (when I say "good", I mean it in a relative sense). Protoss cannot pick their opponents apart with drops or muta harass. Protoss either does a timing attack (that usually results in an auto loss if the attack fails) or turtle until they get a deathball (i.e. play very defensive).
On October 03 2011 07:02 Soliduok wrote: For all the people voting for protoss as the hardest race, you have to be joking. Protoss is the absolute easiest race macro and micro from my experience. Just because protoss is losing at the top levels doesn't mean they are the hardest race to play, maybe it's just a shitty race at that level. Maybe people just aren't using them properly, I don't know, but it is insane to say they are the hardest to play
Think of it this way. GSL is TIP-FUCKING-TOP level of play, the best you will see around. Meaning that individual skill really isn't much of a factor anymore, it's more about builds and studying your opponent and figuring out their strengths/weaknesses and how to take advantage of that. If that's the case then GSL results are actually a good indicator of balance. I really feel like the better caliber the players, the more fleshed out the game becomes and you can actually see weaknesses within a race.
Take two evenly matched football teams, the one who wins is the one who understands their opponent. But even a player like MC who is smart enough to know their opponent can be defeated because of the limitations of a race. Build order losses seem to happen a lot more frequently for Protoss in PvT than any other match up except mirror match ups.
The best pros in the world playing each other is the best indication of balance we will ever get. The reason is because "balance" can never be truly defined except through games and it takes the best of the best players to bring out each race to it's fullest.
It's generally agreed that it starts off as protoss being the easiest, zerg the hardest, and terran somewhere in the middle at the lowest levels of play. As skill increases, protoss becomes harder and harder to play (steeper slope), and zerg becomes easier and easier (smaller slope), while terran seems to grow appropriately along with skill level (same slope).
Somewhere around high diamond/low masters, the races meet up and can be described, for all intents and purposes, as equal in difficulty. From this point on, protoss will grow as the hardest race, further distancing itself from the other two the higher up you go, wherase zerg behaves the exact opposite, and terrran continues to grow linearly along with skill.
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.
Protoss micro involves well organized armies with units that must be rearranged due to different speeds, spreading to avoid AOEs, avoiding surrounds, force fields, stutter step, guardian shield, pulling back important units whenever they are hurt or vulnerable, feedbacks, storms, blinks (so many fucking blinks), phoenix lifting, melding archons in combat, and the fact that you need to go to a proxy pylon during fights to macro, etc.
Terran requires engagements simultaneous with drops, dodging AOE spells, tank positioning and leap frogging, stutter step, EMPs and snipes, vikings to target colossi and thors and marines to protect tanks from mutas, etc.
Zerg requires incessant injections and creep spread, great minimap vision, careful timing of baneling attacks, ling surrounds and flanks, extreme care with mutas, infested terrans, fungals, neurals, and good positioning of broodlords, etc.
Shut up. Be practical. Just because you suck against a race doesn't mean protoss a moves a ball, terran is hopelessly OP at ALL levels, and zerg has never microed ever.
i find that on my second account (EU gold because i don't really play it, mostly my NA) Zerg is actually quite easy to play. At that level, i can make 40 zerglings pre-emptively then drone up when i feel uber safe, and the terran or protoss move out with a gold macro worthy army and i just stomp it. Idk, it's probably because i have diamond mechanics playing gold. (i main race terran btw)
On October 03 2011 08:11 Darclite wrote: Everyone who is ignoring these things:
Protoss micro involves well organized armies with units that must be rearranged due to different speeds, spreading to avoid AOEs, avoiding surrounds, force fields, stutter step, guardian shield, pulling back important units whenever they are hurt or vulnerable, feedbacks, storms, blinks (so many fucking blinks), phoenix lifting, melding archons in combat, and the fact that you need to go to a proxy pylon during fights to macro, etc.
Terran requires engagements simultaneous with drops, dodging AOE spells, tank positioning and leap frogging, stutter step, EMPs and snipes, vikings to target colossi and thors and marines to protect tanks from mutas, etc.
Zerg requires incessant injections and creep spread, great minimap vision, careful timing of baneling attacks, ling surrounds and flanks, extreme care with mutas, infested terrans, fungals, neurals, and good positioning of broodlords, etc.
Shut up. Be practical. Just because you suck against a race doesn't mean protoss a moves a ball, terran is hopelessly OP at ALL levels, and zerg has never microed ever.
I can understand much of your opening statement. But your last statement confuses me... how can zerg not require micro if you stated that you have to constantly be positioning your units and that infestors require sufficient micro to be used properly.
people usually think that protoss is easy, because when the game ends, they go to the APM tab in the replay and protoss players almost always have a lower APM, so ------------> easier?
but when I play terran, my APM doubles, I'm not doing anything better/harder than when I play protoss, it just doubles.... maybe is because all the stutter step or the reactored marines....
EDIT: what I'm trying to say is that terran increasses my APM because the commands I need to execute, have to be executed far more times but they are far more easy to do.
what i find funny is how even diamond/master is, maybe its a side effect of blizzard balancing specifically for that level. Perhaps statistically terran is weak there so blizzard refuses to nerf it even though GSL Code S is becoming the League of Terrans. and Protoss being too strong which is why blizzard is taking months to even aknowledge theres a problem with protoss play at top level and even then they are taking the extra small change and wait and see approach
On October 03 2011 08:11 Darclite wrote: Everyone who is ignoring these things:
Protoss micro involves well organized armies with units that must be rearranged due to different speeds, spreading to avoid AOEs, avoiding surrounds, force fields, stutter step, guardian shield, pulling back important units whenever they are hurt or vulnerable, feedbacks, storms, blinks (so many fucking blinks), phoenix lifting, melding archons in combat, and the fact that you need to go to a proxy pylon during fights to macro, etc.
Terran requires engagements simultaneous with drops, dodging AOE spells, tank positioning and leap frogging, stutter step, EMPs and snipes, vikings to target colossi and thors and marines to protect tanks from mutas, etc.
Zerg requires incessant injections and creep spread, great minimap vision, careful timing of baneling attacks, ling surrounds and flanks, extreme care with mutas, infested terrans, fungals, neurals, and good positioning of broodlords, etc.
Shut up. Be practical. Just because you suck against a race doesn't mean protoss a moves a ball, terran is hopelessly OP at ALL levels, and zerg has never microed ever.
I can understand much of your opening statement. But your last statement confuses me... how can zerg not require micro if you stated that you have to constantly be positioning your units and that infestors require sufficient micro to be used properly.
I really dont agree that zerg is hardest at bronze/silver level because if you look at the statistics, a smaller percent of zergs are in the silver/bronze league compared to toss/terran and this must mean that it is easier to get to a higher league as zerg.
Boy, I didn't know that there were so many pro's and GM's that answer these types of polls. It would seem as though anyone under that might be unqualified for answer the specific categories. It would be interesting to see how many players didn't just choose their race.
On October 03 2011 08:39 Imbak333 wrote: I really dont agree that zerg is hardest at bronze/silver level because if you look at the statistics, a smaller percent of zergs are in the silver/bronze league compared to toss/terran and this must mean that it is easier to get to a higher league as zerg.
On October 03 2011 08:39 Imbak333 wrote: I really dont agree that zerg is hardest at bronze/silver level because if you look at the statistics, a smaller percent of zergs are in the silver/bronze league compared to toss/terran and this must mean that it is easier to get to a higher league as zerg.
Wow....That is some bad logic.
how so? I didnt say I had a reason for why zerg is the easiest, im just saying that the statistics support it at that level
Zerg at beginner levels should be obvious, they just have such poor critical thinking, scouting, decisionmaking and prediction skills. Terran at diamond-masters. At this level, strategies are figured out, players know how to scout and react. What seperates any 2 given masters-diamond players is usually their mechanics, and I think terran gets the most benefit from crossing over into the near-perfect mechanical territory.
Protoss at highest levels. There's little you can do to improve mechanically at this level and it mostly comes down to decision making and gathering, reading, and interpreting information. Doing this wrongly has the most severe consequences for protoss.
Doesnt everyone realize that its not THE HARDEST TO WIN WITH, but the hardest to PLAY. most protosses at most levels play deathball style with little to no harass.(in my opinion thats retarded), with terran u have to harass protoss and zerg otherwise u lose most of the time because they 1A all day.
On October 03 2011 08:39 Imbak333 wrote: I really dont agree that zerg is hardest at bronze/silver level because if you look at the statistics, a smaller percent of zergs are in the silver/bronze league compared to toss/terran and this must mean that it is easier to get to a higher league as zerg.
Wow....That is some bad logic.
how so? I didnt say I had a reason for why zerg is the easiest, im just saying that the statistics support it at that level
This is wrong. In fact this supports the notion that Zerg is harder at those levels. More people probably start as toss/terran then transition into zerg as they master the fundamentals. Zerg really isn't noobie friendly at all if you look at it.
I'm a 100% Protoss player and my list is Z/Z/Z/Z. Protoss isn't very difficult to play, it's just not a very solid race at the highest of levels currently. That doesn't equal difficulty.
For me, Zerg requires a lot more multitasking and APM, unless I survive until 4 bases and GG-lords are on the field.
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.
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.
This data is pretty useless without people being required to include what their own race / bias is. And we've got 1200 votes for how things are at the grandmaster level even though probably only a few at most actually are from grandmasters. Just the latest testament to how newbs think they know anything/everything \= No wonder Protoss comes out on top for the GM poll with that kind of audience voting for it.
Pretty sure there are just ton of Protoss newbs answering a completely different question: "which race is the hardest to win as at the GM level" which they're basing off of who knows what - Korean or NA GM? Korean or Foreigner tournament results?
I'd get a kick out of hearing some GM Protoss describe what it is about their play that is so difficult to perform that beats out the other races.
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.
+1
If you actually think about macro as each race I think Protoss has the hardest time having the most efficient macro.
Protoss macro you are either on cooldown or off cooldown. Chronoboost is usually always used on upgrades and big expensive units or valuable tech (warpgates only if a huge attack is coming or if you are trying to lean on a dying opponent). If you aren't spot on with your macro by hitting your WG timings you will have wasted X amount of seconds every cycle. Over the period of a game it starts to add up. One solution is to become inefficient and make extra gateways to make up for your lack of multitasking. Another fix me up is to save mid-game chronos for your WG units (taking away from chroning upgrades and powerful units).
Zerg hatches constantly make larva as long as the hatchery doesn't support 3 larva already. Queens are able to keep their energy to inject on other hatches and use other useful abilities if you miss an inject.
Terran is able to queue units all game long so you can overlap in case of an impeding battle. Queue and micro queue and micro. This allows for smooth gameplay and constant spending.
If you have 6 gateways though, and you warp in, battle, and go back to the pylon to warpin and you are 5-10 seconds late...that transfers into 30 seconds to a full minute of warp in loss. The macro can be easier if you are inefficient and build more gateways than you can actually support or if you are perfect with your timing on your wg and use chronoboost on warpgates.
Back to the topic at hand though. I'd agree that zerg has an arching curve getting easier to around masters then becoming difficult again as you approach 99.9 percentile. Terran is easy to medium difficulty at the lower levels turns medium to high at the diamond masters level and stays there til the top. Protoss is easy up to diamond and grows harder and harder to play from there. At the top they are all pretty close but I'd say Protoss and Zerg are just a bit (talking about barely) harder to play then Terran at the highest levels.
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 not just about mechanical ease. Terran can pretty much never scout and not have all that much to worry about as far as things that could instantly end the game for them. Even though their macro/micro requires more actions to be performed, the fact that they can play relatively more blind than the other races makes a huge difference. Terran has a lot of safe builds that are never going to be super far behind against anything their opponents do and there's little way for a protoss or zerg to respond.
Protoss and zerg don't have this luxury. You have to scout, interpret, and react, and if you do it wrong you either lose outright or get way behind. There's just so few times when terran is put in this situation, and even if they fuck up and misinterpret something or fail to react, they still have the adaptability to not lose right away.
If this thread was talking about what race is the hardest from a purely mechanical/execution standpoint, then obviously protoss wouldn't be in the running.
On October 03 2011 09:17 Lumi wrote: This data is pretty useless without people being required to include what their own race / bias is. And we've got 1200 votes for how things are at the grandmaster level even though probably only a few at most actually are from grandmasters. Just the latest testament to how newbs think they know anything/everything \= No wonder Protoss comes out on top for the GM poll with that kind of audience voting for it.
Pretty sure there are just ton of Protoss newbs answering a completely different question: "which race is the hardest to win as at the GM level" which they're basing off of who knows what - Korean or NA GM? Korean or Foreigner tournament results?
I'd get a kick out of hearing some GM Protoss describe what it is about their play that is so difficult to perform that beats out the other races.
I don't understand your point of view at all. I'm pretty sure the hardest race to win with at GSL level equals the hardest race to play, especially if you take into account the way Protoss lose their games. Let's take a popular TvP build: the 1/1/1. This build is very easy to execute at all levels, but very hard to stop, and yielded a week ago a 90% winrate. There you go, can you still say that Protoss is very easy?
Now I don't care about lower leagues, the point is, you can always just decide to improve at that level, and not being lazy and complain about protoss or whatever. The fact that many players manage to beat protoss very consistenly (like 90% of the games) should convince you that you JUST have to improve a bit in order to win too, it's not like vP is an unwinnable matchup. If you can't improve, then you don't deserve to win against everybody obviously, and you just have to accept some losses. I could understand if GSL was 64 protoss, but it's very hard to even stay in the GSL while playing this race, that should convince you that the problem comes from you when you lose against Protoss.
Finally, I seriously don't get what's so easy about protoss and so hard about terran and zerg, bite me...
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.
On October 03 2011 09:17 Lumi wrote: This data is pretty useless without people being required to include what their own race / bias is.
Guess I had some time to waste. This should cover all possibilities. There should be no excuse voting your race in gm while you're only bronze with this.
Your vote: I'm Bronze+Silver voting for Bronze+Silver
(Vote): I'm P - P (Vote): I'm T - P (Vote): I'm Z - P (Vote): I'm P - T (Vote): I'm T - T (Vote): I'm Z - T (Vote): I'm P - Z (Vote): I'm T - Z (Vote): I'm Z - Z
Your vote: I'm Bronze+Silver voting for Gold+Platinum
(Vote): I'm T - T (Vote): I'm P - T (Vote): I'm Z - T (Vote): I'm T - P (Vote): I'm P - P (Vote): I'm Z - P (Vote): I'm T - Z (Vote): I'm P - Z (Vote): I'm Z - Z
Your vote: I'm Bronze+Silver voting for Diamond+Master
(Vote): I'm T - T (Vote): I'm P - T (Vote): I'm Z - T (Vote): I'm T - P (Vote): I'm P - P (Vote): I'm Z - P (Vote): I'm T - Z (Vote): I'm P - Z (Vote): I'm Z - Z
(Vote): I'm T - T (Vote): I'm P - T (Vote): I'm Z - T (Vote): I'm T - P (Vote): I'm P - P (Vote): I'm Z - P (Vote): I'm T - Z (Vote): I'm P - Z (Vote): I'm Z - Z
Your vote: I'm Gold+Platinum voting for Bronze+Silver
(Vote): I'm T - T (Vote): I'm P - T (Vote): I'm Z - T (Vote): I'm T - P (Vote): I'm P - P (Vote): I'm Z - P (Vote): I'm T - Z (Vote): I'm P - Z (Vote): I'm Z - Z
Your vote: I'm Gold+Platinum voting for Gold+Platinum
(Vote): I'm T - T (Vote): I'm P - T (Vote): I'm Z - T (Vote): I'm T - P (Vote): I'm P - P (Vote): I'm Z - P (Vote): I'm T - Z (Vote): I'm P - Z (Vote): I'm Z - Z
Your vote: I'm Gold+Platinum voting for Diamond+Master
(Vote): I'm T - T (Vote): I'm P - T (Vote): I'm Z - T (Vote): I'm T - P (Vote): I'm P - P (Vote): I'm Z - P (Vote): I'm T - Z (Vote): I'm P - Z (Vote): I'm Z - Z
(Vote): I'm T - T (Vote): I'm P - T (Vote): I'm Z - T (Vote): I'm T - P (Vote): I'm P - P (Vote): I'm Z - P (Vote): I'm T - Z (Vote): I'm P - Z (Vote): I'm Z - Z
Your vote: I'm Diamond+Master voting for Bronze+Silver
(Vote): I'm T - T (Vote): I'm P - T (Vote): I'm Z - T (Vote): I'm T - P (Vote): I'm P - P (Vote): I'm Z - P (Vote): I'm T - Z (Vote): I'm P - Z (Vote): I'm Z - Z
Your vote: I'm Diamond+Master voting for Gold+Platinum
(Vote): I'm T - T (Vote): I'm P - T (Vote): I'm Z - T (Vote): I'm T - P (Vote): I'm P - P (Vote): I'm Z - P (Vote): I'm T - Z (Vote): I'm P - Z (Vote): I'm Z - Z
Poll: I'm Diamond+Master voting for Diamond+Master
I'm T - T (5)
45%
I'm P - T (2)
18%
I'm Z - Z (2)
18%
I'm Z - T (1)
9%
I'm P - Z (1)
9%
I'm T - P (0)
0%
I'm P - P (0)
0%
I'm Z - P (0)
0%
I'm T - Z (0)
0%
11 total votes
Your vote: I'm Diamond+Master voting for Diamond+Master
(Vote): I'm T - T (Vote): I'm P - T (Vote): I'm Z - T (Vote): I'm T - P (Vote): I'm P - P (Vote): I'm Z - P (Vote): I'm T - Z (Vote): I'm P - Z (Vote): I'm Z - Z
(Vote): I'm T - T (Vote): I'm P - T (Vote): I'm Z - T (Vote): I'm T - P (Vote): I'm P - P (Vote): I'm Z - P (Vote): I'm T - Z (Vote): I'm P - Z (Vote): I'm Z - Z
(Vote): I'm T - T (Vote): I'm P - T (Vote): I'm Z - T (Vote): I'm T - P (Vote): I'm P - P (Vote): I'm Z - P (Vote): I'm T - Z (Vote): I'm P - Z (Vote): I'm Z - Z
(Vote): I'm T - T (Vote): I'm P - T (Vote): I'm Z - T (Vote): I'm T - P (Vote): I'm P - P (Vote): I'm Z - P (Vote): I'm T - Z (Vote): I'm P - Z (Vote): I'm Z - Z
(Vote): I'm T - T (Vote): I'm P - T (Vote): I'm Z - T (Vote): I'm T - P (Vote): I'm P - P (Vote): I'm Z - P (Vote): I'm T - Z (Vote): I'm P - Z (Vote): I'm Z - Z
(Vote): I'm T - T (Vote): I'm P - T (Vote): I'm Z - T (Vote): I'm T - P (Vote): I'm P - P (Vote): I'm Z - P (Vote): I'm T - Z (Vote): I'm P - Z (Vote): I'm Z - Z
Excessive Spoilers because every poll has 9 answers.
On October 03 2011 09:17 Lumi wrote: This data is pretty useless without people being required to include what their own race / bias is.
Guess I had some time to waste. This should cover all possibilities. There should be no excuse voting your race in gm while you're only bronze with this.
Your vote: I'm Bronze+Silver voting for Bronze+Silver
(Vote): I'm P - P (Vote): I'm T - P (Vote): I'm Z - P (Vote): I'm P - T (Vote): I'm T - T (Vote): I'm Z - T (Vote): I'm P - Z (Vote): I'm T - Z (Vote): I'm Z - Z
Your vote: I'm Bronze+Silver voting for Gold+Platinum
(Vote): I'm T - T (Vote): I'm P - T (Vote): I'm Z - T (Vote): I'm T - P (Vote): I'm P - P (Vote): I'm Z - P (Vote): I'm T - Z (Vote): I'm P - Z (Vote): I'm Z - Z
Your vote: I'm Bronze+Silver voting for Diamond+Master
(Vote): I'm T - T (Vote): I'm P - T (Vote): I'm Z - T (Vote): I'm T - P (Vote): I'm P - P (Vote): I'm Z - P (Vote): I'm T - Z (Vote): I'm P - Z (Vote): I'm Z - Z
(Vote): I'm T - T (Vote): I'm P - T (Vote): I'm Z - T (Vote): I'm T - P (Vote): I'm P - P (Vote): I'm Z - P (Vote): I'm T - Z (Vote): I'm P - Z (Vote): I'm Z - Z
Your vote: I'm Gold+Platinum voting for Bronze+Silver
(Vote): I'm T - T (Vote): I'm P - T (Vote): I'm Z - T (Vote): I'm T - P (Vote): I'm P - P (Vote): I'm Z - P (Vote): I'm T - Z (Vote): I'm P - Z (Vote): I'm Z - Z
Your vote: I'm Gold+Platinum voting for Gold+Platinum
(Vote): I'm T - T (Vote): I'm P - T (Vote): I'm Z - T (Vote): I'm T - P (Vote): I'm P - P (Vote): I'm Z - P (Vote): I'm T - Z (Vote): I'm P - Z (Vote): I'm Z - Z
Your vote: I'm Gold+Platinum voting for Diamond+Master
(Vote): I'm T - T (Vote): I'm P - T (Vote): I'm Z - T (Vote): I'm T - P (Vote): I'm P - P (Vote): I'm Z - P (Vote): I'm T - Z (Vote): I'm P - Z (Vote): I'm Z - Z
(Vote): I'm T - T (Vote): I'm P - T (Vote): I'm Z - T (Vote): I'm T - P (Vote): I'm P - P (Vote): I'm Z - P (Vote): I'm T - Z (Vote): I'm P - Z (Vote): I'm Z - Z
Your vote: I'm Diamond+Master voting for Bronze+Silver
(Vote): I'm T - T (Vote): I'm P - T (Vote): I'm Z - T (Vote): I'm T - P (Vote): I'm P - P (Vote): I'm Z - P (Vote): I'm T - Z (Vote): I'm P - Z (Vote): I'm Z - Z
Your vote: I'm Diamond+Master voting for Gold+Platinum
(Vote): I'm T - T (Vote): I'm P - T (Vote): I'm Z - T (Vote): I'm T - P (Vote): I'm P - P (Vote): I'm Z - P (Vote): I'm T - Z (Vote): I'm P - Z (Vote): I'm Z - Z
Poll: I'm Diamond+Master voting for Diamond+Master
I'm T - T (5)
45%
I'm P - T (2)
18%
I'm Z - Z (2)
18%
I'm Z - T (1)
9%
I'm P - Z (1)
9%
I'm T - P (0)
0%
I'm P - P (0)
0%
I'm Z - P (0)
0%
I'm T - Z (0)
0%
11 total votes
Your vote: I'm Diamond+Master voting for Diamond+Master
(Vote): I'm T - T (Vote): I'm P - T (Vote): I'm Z - T (Vote): I'm T - P (Vote): I'm P - P (Vote): I'm Z - P (Vote): I'm T - Z (Vote): I'm P - Z (Vote): I'm Z - Z
(Vote): I'm T - T (Vote): I'm P - T (Vote): I'm Z - T (Vote): I'm T - P (Vote): I'm P - P (Vote): I'm Z - P (Vote): I'm T - Z (Vote): I'm P - Z (Vote): I'm Z - Z
(Vote): I'm T - T (Vote): I'm P - T (Vote): I'm Z - T (Vote): I'm T - P (Vote): I'm P - P (Vote): I'm Z - P (Vote): I'm T - Z (Vote): I'm P - Z (Vote): I'm Z - Z
(Vote): I'm T - T (Vote): I'm P - T (Vote): I'm Z - T (Vote): I'm T - P (Vote): I'm P - P (Vote): I'm Z - P (Vote): I'm T - Z (Vote): I'm P - Z (Vote): I'm Z - Z
(Vote): I'm T - T (Vote): I'm P - T (Vote): I'm Z - T (Vote): I'm T - P (Vote): I'm P - P (Vote): I'm Z - P (Vote): I'm T - Z (Vote): I'm P - Z (Vote): I'm Z - Z
(Vote): I'm T - T (Vote): I'm P - T (Vote): I'm Z - T (Vote): I'm T - P (Vote): I'm P - P (Vote): I'm Z - P (Vote): I'm T - Z (Vote): I'm P - Z (Vote): I'm Z - Z
Excessive Spoilers because every poll has 9 answers.
information will probably be irrelevent as no one will bother voting on the poll as they already done so on the OP
terran need to do more clicks, but the clicks are easier to be done, like: to build a marine you need to select the barrack (hotkey) and build the marine. for protoss you need to move the screen to where you want, select the warpgate (hotkey), select the zealot, and click to warp in.
more clicks =/= Harder
I would say T-T-Z-P, i don't think zerg is harder than terran in the earlier leagues.
zerg is pretty hard to play at lower levels. their playstyle is so.. unique compared to the other 2 races and its too common to overdrone and lose.(actually, thats true for any level of play, it jsut happens less often as you move up in the ladder).
however, i dont agree that Protoss is 'the hardest to play'. hardest to play doesnt mean how well theyre doing or how many games protoss win. actually, i think the fact that toss can still deathball a-move and win games at GM level doesnt really say that theyre hard to play.
protoss have some of the most amazing units in the game, and i think the fact that people dont use them well enough to win doesnt say anything about the race, but the players.
also, the toss metagame hasnt shifted in sometime, which makes them pretty predictable. hopefully well see that change sometime soon since 1.4.1 is out
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.
+1
If you actually think about macro as each race I think Protoss has the hardest time having the most efficient macro.
Protoss macro you are either on cooldown or off cooldown. Chronoboost is usually always used on upgrades and big expensive units or valuable tech (warpgates only if a huge attack is coming or if you are trying to lean on a dying opponent). If you aren't spot on with your macro by hitting your WG timings you will have wasted X amount of seconds every cycle. Over the period of a game it starts to add up. One solution is to become inefficient and make extra gateways to make up for your lack of multitasking. Another fix me up is to save mid-game chronos for your WG units (taking away from chroning upgrades and powerful units).
Zerg hatches constantly make larva as long as the hatchery doesn't support 3 larva already. Queens are able to keep their energy to inject on other hatches and use other useful abilities if you miss an inject.
Terran is able to queue units all game long so you can overlap in case of an impeding battle. Queue and micro queue and micro. This allows for smooth gameplay and constant spending.
If you have 6 gateways though, and you warp in, battle, and go back to the pylon to warpin and you are 5-10 seconds late...that transfers into 30 seconds to a full minute of warp in loss. The macro can be easier if you are inefficient and build more gateways than you can actually support or if you are perfect with your timing on your wg and use chronoboost on warpgates.
Back to the topic at hand though. I'd agree that zerg has an arching curve getting easier to around masters then becoming difficult again as you approach 99.9 percentile. Terran is easy to medium difficulty at the lower levels turns medium to high at the diamond masters level and stays there til the top. Protoss is easy up to diamond and grows harder and harder to play from there. At the top they are all pretty close but I'd say Protoss and Zerg are just a bit (talking about barely) harder to play then Terran at the highest levels.
lol, if you miss an Inject, no amount of Transfuse or Creep Tumors is gonna make up for the delay in getting the extra 4+ larvae (4+ larvae because you will inevitably have more hatches and queens).
zerg is pretty hard to play at lower levels. their playstyle is so.. unique compared to the other 2 races and its too common to overdrone and lose.(actually, thats true for any level of play, it jsut happens less often as you move up in the ladder).
however, i dont agree that Protoss is 'the hardest to play'. hardest to play doesnt mean how well theyre doing or how many games protoss win. actually, i think the fact that toss can still deathball a-move and win games at GM level doesnt really say that theyre hard to play.
protoss have some of the most amazing units in the game, and i think the fact that people dont use them well enough to win doesnt say anything about the race, but the players.
also, the toss metagame hasnt shifted in sometime, which makes them pretty predictable. hopefully well see that change sometime soon since 1.4.1 is out
you'll see more warp prisms and immortals yes, thats not really a metagame shift though, zerg and terran already know how to deal with drops, they will just have to be dealing with it from protoss now. ive personally always liked the immortal more than the colo, but the colo is more important so i don't think, personally, that the immortal change will make a huge difference except for immortal timing pushes im not trying to balance whine or anything, im just trying to say i don't personally see anywhere for anything to shift to
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.
+1
If you actually think about macro as each race I think Protoss has the hardest time having the most efficient macro.
Protoss macro you are either on cooldown or off cooldown. Chronoboost is usually always used on upgrades and big expensive units or valuable tech (warpgates only if a huge attack is coming or if you are trying to lean on a dying opponent). If you aren't spot on with your macro by hitting your WG timings you will have wasted X amount of seconds every cycle. Over the period of a game it starts to add up. One solution is to become inefficient and make extra gateways to make up for your lack of multitasking. Another fix me up is to save mid-game chronos for your WG units (taking away from chroning upgrades and powerful units).
Zerg hatches constantly make larva as long as the hatchery doesn't support 3 larva already. Queens are able to keep their energy to inject on other hatches and use other useful abilities if you miss an inject.
Terran is able to queue units all game long so you can overlap in case of an impeding battle. Queue and micro queue and micro. This allows for smooth gameplay and constant spending.
If you have 6 gateways though, and you warp in, battle, and go back to the pylon to warpin and you are 5-10 seconds late...that transfers into 30 seconds to a full minute of warp in loss. The macro can be easier if you are inefficient and build more gateways than you can actually support or if you are perfect with your timing on your wg and use chronoboost on warpgates.
Back to the topic at hand though. I'd agree that zerg has an arching curve getting easier to around masters then becoming difficult again as you approach 99.9 percentile. Terran is easy to medium difficulty at the lower levels turns medium to high at the diamond masters level and stays there til the top. Protoss is easy up to diamond and grows harder and harder to play from there. At the top they are all pretty close but I'd say Protoss and Zerg are just a bit (talking about barely) harder to play then Terran at the highest levels.
terrans have to wait on their units to create, and if they arent pumping out units, then they have to wait x amount of seconds before their units come out again. they cannot chronoboost. chronoboost is a race unique mechanic that no other race has. terran and zerg have nothing like cb that can speed up upgrades/etc.
actually, i believe that NesTea said that if you miss a larvae inject in a game at GSL level, you basically auto-lose because you dont have enough units to defend against early pressure or you wont have enough drones to stay equal economically. missing an inject is pretty much the worst thing you can do as a zerg, especially early game.
I think this thread is kind of silly, even if everyone doesn't vote for their race--they are going to make blanket assumptions about the higher levels of play and make their vote off that; also the arguments in this thread seem to be affected by racial bias, and people over simplifying things (protoss is all a-move, zerg requires no micro, ect).
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.
Well you need to lighten up a bit then, it was more meant as a joke than me being serious. But your micro is easier than terran, that's a fact is what I mean. Just don't be so touchy, you're meant to have SHIELDS god damnit.
I think you are over-hyping the power of the 1/1/1 by pretty ridiculous amounts.. Is it powerful? Yes. Is it easier to execute than it is to stop? Possibly. (Protoss players would say yes, naturally.) But there are many strategies out there across all matchups where the defender has to work much harder than the guy attacking him, it happens because of the lack of defenders advantage in quite a lot of cases. And it has been stopped at pro levels aswell, so if you want to go see how to stop it - start watching GSL (I think it was GSL anyway.. Correct me if i'm wrong.)
On October 03 2011 09:53 ZenithM wrote: Let's take a popular TvP build: the 1/1/1. This build is very easy to execute at all levels, but very hard to stop, and yielded a week ago a 90% winrate. There you go, can you still say that Protoss is very easy?
Could you tell me the winrate now? Because I assure you terrans are NOT winning 90% of tvps. And I never said protoss is very easy, you're the only one who mentioned that - I just said compared to terran micro it's not on the same level, and you can't really argue with that.
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 not just about mechanical ease. Terran can pretty much never scout and not have all that much to worry about as far as things that could instantly end the game for them. Even though their macro/micro requires more actions to be performed, the fact that they can play relatively more blind than the other races makes a huge difference. Terran has a lot of safe builds that are never going to be super far behind against anything their opponents do and there's little way for a protoss or zerg to respond.
Protoss and zerg don't have this luxury. You have to scout, interpret, and react, and if you do it wrong you either lose outright or get way behind. There's just so few times when terran is put in this situation, and even if they fuck up and misinterpret something or fail to react, they still have the adaptability to not lose right away.
If this thread was talking about what race is the hardest from a purely mechanical/execution standpoint, then obviously protoss wouldn't be in the running.
This post proves you have no idea what you're talking about.. Try playing terran at the GM level. No you can't never scout (especially on the korean server), you'll get raped by well executed all-ins if you don't know they're coming. The original post is pretty useless for the GM poll because well, 99% of the people voting have no clue how it works at that level... every race has their difficulties. I consider terran = protoss in terms of difficulty for GM level players, with zerg a little bit harder because they're more difficult mechanically.
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 not just about mechanical ease. Terran can pretty much never scout and not have all that much to worry about as far as things that could instantly end the game for them. Even though their macro/micro requires more actions to be performed, the fact that they can play relatively more blind than the other races makes a huge difference. Terran has a lot of safe builds that are never going to be super far behind against anything their opponents do and there's little way for a protoss or zerg to respond.
Protoss and zerg don't have this luxury. You have to scout, interpret, and react, and if you do it wrong you either lose outright or get way behind. There's just so few times when terran is put in this situation, and even if they fuck up and misinterpret something or fail to react, they still have the adaptability to not lose right away.
If this thread was talking about what race is the hardest from a purely mechanical/execution standpoint, then obviously protoss wouldn't be in the running.
This post proves you have no idea what you're talking about.. Try playing terran at the GM level. No you can't never scout (especially on the korean server), you'll get raped by well executed all-ins if you don't know they're coming. The original post is pretty useless for the GM poll because well, 99% of the people voting have no clue how it works at that level... every race has their difficulties. I consider terran = protoss in terms of difficulty for GM level players, with zerg a little bit harder because they're more difficult mechanically.
The last word you added to your post ("mechanically") precisely shows that you in fact have no idea of what you're talking about. Mechanics are not a factor at GM level, ever. Everyone at GM level has good mechanics, they don't care if they play Protoss, terran or zerg, they will still have 250 APM to work with and will execute most likely everything they do quite correctly. SC2 mechanics are not hard for ex-BW pro-gamers...
You would have said that Zerg needs better decision making than the other two races at that level, I would have been fine with it. But mechanics, really?
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.
Well you need to lighten up a bit then, it was more meant as a joke than me being serious. But your micro is easier than terran, that's a fact is what I mean. Just don't be so touchy, you're meant to have SHIELDS god damnit.
I think you are over-hyping the power of the 1/1/1 by pretty ridiculous amounts.. Is it powerful? Yes. Is it easier to execute than it is to stop? Possibly. (Protoss players would say yes, naturally.) But there are many strategies out there across all matchups where the defender has to work much harder than the guy attacking him, it happens because of the lack of defenders advantage in quite a lot of cases. And it has been stopped at pro levels aswell, so if you want to go see how to stop it - start watching GSL (I think it was GSL anyway.. Correct me if i'm wrong.)
On October 03 2011 09:53 ZenithM wrote: Let's take a popular TvP build: the 1/1/1. This build is very easy to execute at all levels, but very hard to stop, and yielded a week ago a 90% winrate. There you go, can you still say that Protoss is very easy?
Could you tell me the winrate now? Because I assure you terrans are NOT winning 90% of tvps. And I never said protoss is very easy, you're the only one who mentioned that - I just said compared to terran micro it's not on the same level, and you can't really argue with that.
"My race has hard micro and yours is easier LOL that's a fact. They aren't even on the same level. You CAN'T argue with that!"
See, this is what I meant about people oversimplifying what their opponents do to make themselves feel that their race is harder, when in reality it can't actually be proven, varies depending on the strength of the player, and varies a ton on what style of play is utilized.
Also, while it has become more manageable, the 1/1/1 probably has the greatest gap between necessary skill from each player. Probably even more than the 3 rax scv all-in. While it may not be 90%, it still is far too effective considering the skill it requires. But this is the kind of thing I mean, a 6 pool and a proxy 2 gate can win games in masters and even GM, but they require no skill. It depends on strategy and player strengths, not just race. You can't just say "lol terran micro is harder that's a fact." Prove it objectively. You can't. No one can prove it about any race objectively.
I don't think the other guy needs to lighten up, I think you need to be a bit less closed-minded.
I'm surprised by how incredibly accurate (imo) the results are. Protoss is by far the toughest race at the highest level of play. At diamond and low masters it can be tough to make the transition into huge multitasking attacks as Terran, and of course, nobody knows how to use inject correctly and knows when to drone in the lower leagues as Zerg.
Great post, great and accurate results, good job everyone
What a lot of you don't understand about the game in general is at the highest level how the game/races are actually played. Its such a fragile state that most games will end within 10-15 minutes regardless of the race due to the abusive strategies that we do. I do agree with the poll that at the highest level protoss is the hardest to play due to map control, info and dedication to tech. All those things are very cost heavy for protoss and when they commit to a strategy it has to be 100% while zerg and terran have options of low cost high reward tech plays that are easily switched out of.
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.
What is so hard about stutter stepping? I hear Terrans complain so much about stutter stepping against Chargelots, I'd really like to know what is remotely difficult about it. I'm in Platinum and can do it near perfectly.
Terran is ridiculously easy at the lower levels of play (Bronze-Gold) due to the forgiving nature of the race. Will a supply drop put you behind in a pro game? Hell yeah it will. Will it put you behind in a Gold game? Probably not. Zerg is insanely hard at lower levels but I find it easier to play than my Protoss at my current level of play. As long as you hit injects and know what to scout you can roll over anyone.
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.
Well you need to lighten up a bit then, it was more meant as a joke than me being serious. But your micro is easier than terran, that's a fact is what I mean. Just don't be so touchy, you're meant to have SHIELDS god damnit.
I think you are over-hyping the power of the 1/1/1 by pretty ridiculous amounts.. Is it powerful? Yes. Is it easier to execute than it is to stop? Possibly. (Protoss players would say yes, naturally.) But there are many strategies out there across all matchups where the defender has to work much harder than the guy attacking him, it happens because of the lack of defenders advantage in quite a lot of cases. And it has been stopped at pro levels aswell, so if you want to go see how to stop it - start watching GSL (I think it was GSL anyway.. Correct me if i'm wrong.)
On October 03 2011 09:53 ZenithM wrote: Let's take a popular TvP build: the 1/1/1. This build is very easy to execute at all levels, but very hard to stop, and yielded a week ago a 90% winrate. There you go, can you still say that Protoss is very easy?
Could you tell me the winrate now? Because I assure you terrans are NOT winning 90% of tvps. And I never said protoss is very easy, you're the only one who mentioned that - I just said compared to terran micro it's not on the same level, and you can't really argue with that.
That's quite absurd. At the highest echelons I'd pit them at around even, or Terran a bit easier as EMP has a radius whilst feedback is not. To say either way contemtply is silly.
On October 03 2011 10:54 MattBarry wrote: What is so hard about stutter stepping? I hear Terrans complain so much about stutter stepping against Chargelots, I'd really like to know what is remotely difficult about it. I'm in Platinum and can do it near perfectly.
Terran is ridiculously easy at the lower levels of play (Bronze-Gold) due to the forgiving nature of the race. Will a supply drop put you behind in a pro game? Hell yeah it will. Will it put you behind in a Gold game? Probably not. Zerg is insanely hard at lower levels but I find it easier to play than my Protoss at my current level of play. As long as you hit injects and know what to scout you can roll over anyone.
Protoss I won't comment on since it's my main.
stutter stepping isn't hard, but it's extremely time consuming. When you are stutter stepping, there is no time to micro other units, macro, or do anything else.
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.
No, you just have no concept of how the game is played. I'm willing to bet you're not masters. And if you are, then you're incredibly short sighted.
mechanics are insanely easy for SC2, I'm a shit mid masters player and I have the same APM as pro level players and macro is never a problem for me. Many pro players agree mechanics only make a difference when both player is near the same level of skill
so therefore, when we talk about comparing the 3 races we are not going to look at mechanics, because no matter what race you are the physical is irrelevant.
That said, what does matter is decision making. Decision making is responsible for everything you do. When to do timings, where and when to harass, where to engage, when to decide to save an expansion, etc. Now bringing that to the races, it's clear Terran is the easiest. MULEs make it the most forgiving and you rarely ever have to worry about something like investing the correct amount in an expansion as long as you put some turrets and a PF there.
That leaves us with Protoss and Zerg. Protoss does not have to use Larva, meaning they don't have to worry about when to drone, their units are powerful, and forcefields are a relatively simplistic skill to utilize. Therefore it has to be Zerg. One mistake will mean the game for you.
On October 03 2011 10:54 MattBarry wrote: What is so hard about stutter stepping? I hear Terrans complain so much about stutter stepping against Chargelots, I'd really like to know what is remotely difficult about it. I'm in Platinum and can do it near perfectly.
Terran is ridiculously easy at the lower levels of play (Bronze-Gold) due to the forgiving nature of the race. Will a supply drop put you behind in a pro game? Hell yeah it will. Will it put you behind in a Gold game? Probably not. Zerg is insanely hard at lower levels but I find it easier to play than my Protoss at my current level of play. As long as you hit injects and know what to scout you can roll over anyone.
Protoss I won't comment on since it's my main.
stutter stepping isn't hard, but it's extremely time consuming. When you are stutter stepping, there is no time to micro other units, macro, or do anything else.
as a P player, i agree. T who go bio shouldnt complain about this though. The point of bio is that it is more mobile than the toss deathball and you can abuse drops/kiting to win. If you want to dedicate more apm to macro instead of micro, then go biomech or puremech.
On October 03 2011 10:54 MattBarry wrote: What is so hard about stutter stepping? I hear Terrans complain so much about stutter stepping against Chargelots, I'd really like to know what is remotely difficult about it. I'm in Platinum and can do it near perfectly.
Terran is ridiculously easy at the lower levels of play (Bronze-Gold) due to the forgiving nature of the race. Will a supply drop put you behind in a pro game? Hell yeah it will. Will it put you behind in a Gold game? Probably not. Zerg is insanely hard at lower levels but I find it easier to play than my Protoss at my current level of play. As long as you hit injects and know what to scout you can roll over anyone.
Protoss I won't comment on since it's my main.
stutter stepping isn't hard, but it's extremely time consuming. When you are stutter stepping, there is no time to micro other units, macro, or do anything else.
You just described..... nearly every other micro in the game!! Try microing other units during a emp war or blink micro and I'll guarantee your templars are dead along with your stalkers.
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.
On October 03 2011 10:54 MattBarry wrote: What is so hard about stutter stepping? I hear Terrans complain so much about stutter stepping against Chargelots, I'd really like to know what is remotely difficult about it. I'm in Platinum and can do it near perfectly.
Terran is ridiculously easy at the lower levels of play (Bronze-Gold) due to the forgiving nature of the race. Will a supply drop put you behind in a pro game? Hell yeah it will. Will it put you behind in a Gold game? Probably not. Zerg is insanely hard at lower levels but I find it easier to play than my Protoss at my current level of play. As long as you hit injects and know what to scout you can roll over anyone.
Protoss I won't comment on since it's my main.
stutter stepping isn't hard, but it's extremely time consuming. When you are stutter stepping, there is no time to micro other units, macro, or do anything else.
that is why terran can queue units... even MVP queue units.
On October 03 2011 10:54 MattBarry wrote: What is so hard about stutter stepping? I hear Terrans complain so much about stutter stepping against Chargelots, I'd really like to know what is remotely difficult about it. I'm in Platinum and can do it near perfectly.
Terran is ridiculously easy at the lower levels of play (Bronze-Gold) due to the forgiving nature of the race. Will a supply drop put you behind in a pro game? Hell yeah it will. Will it put you behind in a Gold game? Probably not. Zerg is insanely hard at lower levels but I find it easier to play than my Protoss at my current level of play. As long as you hit injects and know what to scout you can roll over anyone.
Protoss I won't comment on since it's my main.
stutter stepping isn't hard, but it's extremely time consuming. When you are stutter stepping, there is no time to micro other units, macro, or do anything else.
You just described..... nearly every other micro in the game!! Try microing other units during a emp war or blink micro and I'll guarantee your templars are dead along with your stalkers.
But that's not the same /facepalm
Kiting against chargelots can often times take up to 30 seconds of gametime, during that time (unless you have 300 apm) you can't do anything else. Splitting and microing in an emp war takes like what..... 3-5 seconds at max? I'm sorry but your statement wasn't just wrong, it was stupid.
On October 03 2011 10:54 MattBarry wrote: What is so hard about stutter stepping? I hear Terrans complain so much about stutter stepping against Chargelots, I'd really like to know what is remotely difficult about it. I'm in Platinum and can do it near perfectly.
Terran is ridiculously easy at the lower levels of play (Bronze-Gold) due to the forgiving nature of the race. Will a supply drop put you behind in a pro game? Hell yeah it will. Will it put you behind in a Gold game? Probably not. Zerg is insanely hard at lower levels but I find it easier to play than my Protoss at my current level of play. As long as you hit injects and know what to scout you can roll over anyone.
Protoss I won't comment on since it's my main.
stutter stepping isn't hard, but it's extremely time consuming. When you are stutter stepping, there is no time to micro other units, macro, or do anything else.
You just described..... nearly every other micro in the game!! Try microing other units during a emp war or blink micro and I'll guarantee your templars are dead along with your stalkers.
But that's not the same /facepalm
Kiting against chargelots can often times take up to 30 seconds of gametime, during that time (unless you have 300 apm) you can't do anything else. Splitting and microing in an emp war takes like what..... 3-5 seconds at max? I'm sorry but your statement wasn't just wrong, it was stupid.
Nice for you to ignore the blink micro then. I'm sure that takes 3-5 seconds max too /facepalm
On October 03 2011 10:54 MattBarry wrote: What is so hard about stutter stepping? I hear Terrans complain so much about stutter stepping against Chargelots, I'd really like to know what is remotely difficult about it. I'm in Platinum and can do it near perfectly.
Terran is ridiculously easy at the lower levels of play (Bronze-Gold) due to the forgiving nature of the race. Will a supply drop put you behind in a pro game? Hell yeah it will. Will it put you behind in a Gold game? Probably not. Zerg is insanely hard at lower levels but I find it easier to play than my Protoss at my current level of play. As long as you hit injects and know what to scout you can roll over anyone.
Protoss I won't comment on since it's my main.
stutter stepping isn't hard, but it's extremely time consuming. When you are stutter stepping, there is no time to micro other units, macro, or do anything else.
So exploit the fact that stimmed units are insanely fast just run them away while you do other things. Then slowly close the gap that you're not stutter stepping as you become faster at queuing/moving ghosts. That makes the learning curve linear and by consequence, easier. I understand the time consuming point, but it can overcome with practice.
On October 03 2011 10:54 MattBarry wrote: What is so hard about stutter stepping? I hear Terrans complain so much about stutter stepping against Chargelots, I'd really like to know what is remotely difficult about it. I'm in Platinum and can do it near perfectly.
Terran is ridiculously easy at the lower levels of play (Bronze-Gold) due to the forgiving nature of the race. Will a supply drop put you behind in a pro game? Hell yeah it will. Will it put you behind in a Gold game? Probably not. Zerg is insanely hard at lower levels but I find it easier to play than my Protoss at my current level of play. As long as you hit injects and know what to scout you can roll over anyone.
Protoss I won't comment on since it's my main.
stutter stepping isn't hard, but it's extremely time consuming. When you are stutter stepping, there is no time to micro other units, macro, or do anything else.
You just described..... nearly every other micro in the game!! Try microing other units during a emp war or blink micro and I'll guarantee your templars are dead along with your stalkers.
But that's not the same /facepalm
Kiting against chargelots can often times take up to 30 seconds of gametime, during that time (unless you have 300 apm) you can't do anything else. Splitting and microing in an emp war takes like what..... 3-5 seconds at max? I'm sorry but your statement wasn't just wrong, it was stupid.
30 Seconds?
Sounds like someones not keeping up in upgrades or Protoss is investing in an all-in. I get the hyperbole.
On October 03 2011 10:54 MattBarry wrote: What is so hard about stutter stepping? I hear Terrans complain so much about stutter stepping against Chargelots, I'd really like to know what is remotely difficult about it. I'm in Platinum and can do it near perfectly.
Terran is ridiculously easy at the lower levels of play (Bronze-Gold) due to the forgiving nature of the race. Will a supply drop put you behind in a pro game? Hell yeah it will. Will it put you behind in a Gold game? Probably not. Zerg is insanely hard at lower levels but I find it easier to play than my Protoss at my current level of play. As long as you hit injects and know what to scout you can roll over anyone.
Protoss I won't comment on since it's my main.
stutter stepping isn't hard, but it's extremely time consuming. When you are stutter stepping, there is no time to micro other units, macro, or do anything else.
You just described..... nearly every other micro in the game!! Try microing other units during a emp war or blink micro and I'll guarantee your templars are dead along with your stalkers.
But that's not the same /facepalm
Kiting against chargelots can often times take up to 30 seconds of gametime, during that time (unless you have 300 apm) you can't do anything else. Splitting and microing in an emp war takes like what..... 3-5 seconds at max? I'm sorry but your statement wasn't just wrong, it was stupid.
Nice for you to ignore the blink micro then. I'm sure that takes 3-5 seconds max /facepalm
You hardly ever blink micro in TvP after a big engagement, it would be counter-intuitive to use your stalkers to blink for 30 seconds, assuming the rest of your army is dead a stimmed terran army can easily catch up to blink stalkers, so blinking in TvP in most cases unless it's used for harrassment is nonsensical and definitely doesn't take 30 seconds or longer /facepalm
"30 Seconds?
Sounds like someones not keeping up in upgrades or Protoss is investing in an all-in. I get the hyperbole. "
Have you ever played against an a-move zealot archon army? You literally have to kite for 30 seconds or longer, whilst all the protoss does is a-move, I'm not even kidding.
On October 03 2011 10:58 Joey Wheeler wrote: ok so my 2 cents are:
mechanics are insanely easy for SC2, I'm a shit mid masters player and I have the same APM as pro level players and macro is never a problem for me. Many pro players agree mechanics only make a difference when both player is near the same level of skill
so therefore, when we talk about comparing the 3 races we are not going to look at mechanics, because no matter what race you are the physical is irrelevant.
That said, what does matter is decision making. Decision making is responsible for everything you do. When to do timings, where and when to harass, where to engage, when to decide to save an expansion, etc. Now bringing that to the races, it's clear Terran is the easiest. MULEs make it the most forgiving and you rarely ever have to worry about something like investing the correct amount in an expansion as long as you put some turrets and a PF there.
That leaves us with Protoss and Zerg. Protoss does not have to use Larva, meaning they don't have to worry about when to drone, their units are powerful, and forcefields are a relatively simplistic skill to utilize. Therefore it has to be Zerg. One mistake will mean the game for you.
On October 03 2011 10:54 MattBarry wrote: What is so hard about stutter stepping? I hear Terrans complain so much about stutter stepping against Chargelots, I'd really like to know what is remotely difficult about it. I'm in Platinum and can do it near perfectly.
Terran is ridiculously easy at the lower levels of play (Bronze-Gold) due to the forgiving nature of the race. Will a supply drop put you behind in a pro game? Hell yeah it will. Will it put you behind in a Gold game? Probably not. Zerg is insanely hard at lower levels but I find it easier to play than my Protoss at my current level of play. As long as you hit injects and know what to scout you can roll over anyone.
Protoss I won't comment on since it's my main.
stutter stepping isn't hard, but it's extremely time consuming. When you are stutter stepping, there is no time to micro other units, macro, or do anything else.
You just described..... nearly every other micro in the game!! Try microing other units during a emp war or blink micro and I'll guarantee your templars are dead along with your stalkers.
But that's not the same /facepalm
Kiting against chargelots can often times take up to 30 seconds of gametime, during that time (unless you have 300 apm) you can't do anything else. Splitting and microing in an emp war takes like what..... 3-5 seconds at max? I'm sorry but your statement wasn't just wrong, it was stupid.
Nice for you to ignore the blink micro then. I'm sure that takes 3-5 seconds max /facepalm
You hardly ever blink micro in TvP after a big engagement, it would be counter-intuitive to use your stalkers to blink for 30 seconds, assuming the rest of your army is dead a stimmed terran army can easily catch up to blink stalkers, so blinking in TvP in most cases unless it's used for harrassment is nonsensical and definitely doesn't take 30 seconds or longer /facepalm
Yes because I said TvP for blinking. When you terrans say that you have to marine split I won't come in and say "derp whern do you split in TvP." You know there exists 2 other matchups for protoss, maybe not in Code S.
On October 03 2011 10:54 MattBarry wrote: What is so hard about stutter stepping? I hear Terrans complain so much about stutter stepping against Chargelots, I'd really like to know what is remotely difficult about it. I'm in Platinum and can do it near perfectly.
Terran is ridiculously easy at the lower levels of play (Bronze-Gold) due to the forgiving nature of the race. Will a supply drop put you behind in a pro game? Hell yeah it will. Will it put you behind in a Gold game? Probably not. Zerg is insanely hard at lower levels but I find it easier to play than my Protoss at my current level of play. As long as you hit injects and know what to scout you can roll over anyone.
Protoss I won't comment on since it's my main.
stutter stepping isn't hard, but it's extremely time consuming. When you are stutter stepping, there is no time to micro other units, macro, or do anything else.
You just described..... nearly every other micro in the game!! Try microing other units during a emp war or blink micro and I'll guarantee your templars are dead along with your stalkers.
But that's not the same /facepalm
Kiting against chargelots can often times take up to 30 seconds of gametime, during that time (unless you have 300 apm) you can't do anything else. Splitting and microing in an emp war takes like what..... 3-5 seconds at max? I'm sorry but your statement wasn't just wrong, it was stupid.
Nice for you to ignore the blink micro then. I'm sure that takes 3-5 seconds max /facepalm
You hardly ever blink micro in TvP after a big engagement, it would be counter-intuitive to use your stalkers to blink for 30 seconds, assuming the rest of your army is dead a stimmed terran army can easily catch up to blink stalkers, so blinking in TvP in most cases unless it's used for harrassment is nonsensical and definitely doesn't take 30 seconds or longer /facepalm
Yes because I said TvP for blinking. When you terrans say that you have to marine split I won't come in and say "derp whern do you split in TvP." You know there exists 2 other matchups for protoss, maybe not in Code S.
So, then we just came to the conclusion that protoss can a-move whilst terran has to micro and macro at the same time in TvP. You can come up with some more scenarios where you have to "blink" in TvP (it's funny you now said that you were talking about a different matchup, when you specifically said "micro units in emp wars and blink")
"So exploit the fact that stimmed units are insanely fast just run them away while you do other things. Then slowly close the gap that you're not stutter stepping as you become faster at queuing/moving ghosts. That makes the learning curve linear and by consequence, easier. I understand the time consuming point, but it can overcome with practice. " You don't play terran do you? So you want us to stim our units, make them lose health, then run away.... and then stim again and run back in so that we lose even more health.... I get it.
On October 03 2011 10:54 MattBarry wrote: What is so hard about stutter stepping? I hear Terrans complain so much about stutter stepping against Chargelots, I'd really like to know what is remotely difficult about it. I'm in Platinum and can do it near perfectly.
Terran is ridiculously easy at the lower levels of play (Bronze-Gold) due to the forgiving nature of the race. Will a supply drop put you behind in a pro game? Hell yeah it will. Will it put you behind in a Gold game? Probably not. Zerg is insanely hard at lower levels but I find it easier to play than my Protoss at my current level of play. As long as you hit injects and know what to scout you can roll over anyone.
Protoss I won't comment on since it's my main.
stutter stepping isn't hard, but it's extremely time consuming. When you are stutter stepping, there is no time to micro other units, macro, or do anything else.
You just described..... nearly every other micro in the game!! Try microing other units during a emp war or blink micro and I'll guarantee your templars are dead along with your stalkers.
But that's not the same /facepalm
Kiting against chargelots can often times take up to 30 seconds of gametime, during that time (unless you have 300 apm) you can't do anything else. Splitting and microing in an emp war takes like what..... 3-5 seconds at max? I'm sorry but your statement wasn't just wrong, it was stupid.
Nice for you to ignore the blink micro then. I'm sure that takes 3-5 seconds max /facepalm
You hardly ever blink micro in TvP after a big engagement, it would be counter-intuitive to use your stalkers to blink for 30 seconds, assuming the rest of your army is dead a stimmed terran army can easily catch up to blink stalkers, so blinking in TvP in most cases unless it's used for harrassment is nonsensical and definitely doesn't take 30 seconds or longer /facepalm
"30 Seconds?
Sounds like someones not keeping up in upgrades or Protoss is investing in an all-in. I get the hyperbole. "
Have you ever played against an a-move zealot archon army? You literally have to kite for 30 seconds or longer, whilst all the protoss does is a-move, I'm not even kidding.
or you mass emp the whole thing, hit t and watch it die
I'd like to say that people have been surprisingly respectful in the thread. I expect fighting to break out at around page ten. The responses are interesting!
Anyway, I'd like to add my observation: If your lag is already at .3 to .5 seconds, terran becomes hardest to play because the effectiveness of stuff like marines and hellions is drastically cut down.
On October 03 2011 10:54 MattBarry wrote: What is so hard about stutter stepping? I hear Terrans complain so much about stutter stepping against Chargelots, I'd really like to know what is remotely difficult about it. I'm in Platinum and can do it near perfectly.
Terran is ridiculously easy at the lower levels of play (Bronze-Gold) due to the forgiving nature of the race. Will a supply drop put you behind in a pro game? Hell yeah it will. Will it put you behind in a Gold game? Probably not. Zerg is insanely hard at lower levels but I find it easier to play than my Protoss at my current level of play. As long as you hit injects and know what to scout you can roll over anyone.
Protoss I won't comment on since it's my main.
stutter stepping isn't hard, but it's extremely time consuming. When you are stutter stepping, there is no time to micro other units, macro, or do anything else.
You just described..... nearly every other micro in the game!! Try microing other units during a emp war or blink micro and I'll guarantee your templars are dead along with your stalkers.
But that's not the same /facepalm
Kiting against chargelots can often times take up to 30 seconds of gametime, during that time (unless you have 300 apm) you can't do anything else. Splitting and microing in an emp war takes like what..... 3-5 seconds at max? I'm sorry but your statement wasn't just wrong, it was stupid.
Nice for you to ignore the blink micro then. I'm sure that takes 3-5 seconds max /facepalm
You hardly ever blink micro in TvP after a big engagement, it would be counter-intuitive to use your stalkers to blink for 30 seconds, assuming the rest of your army is dead a stimmed terran army can easily catch up to blink stalkers, so blinking in TvP in most cases unless it's used for harrassment is nonsensical and definitely doesn't take 30 seconds or longer /facepalm
Yes because I said TvP for blinking. When you terrans say that you have to marine split I won't come in and say "derp whern do you split in TvP." You know there exists 2 other matchups for protoss, maybe not in Code S.
So, then we just came to the conclusion that protoss can a-move whilst terran has to micro and macro at the same time in TvP. You can come up with some more scenarios where you have to "blink" in TvP (it's funny you now said that you were talking about a different matchup, when you specifically said "micro units in emp wars and blink")
You shouldn't take 30 seconds to kill a zealot army unless you're poor in the decision making department and decided pure marauder was good against Zeal/Archon. As PvT evolves, it's going to become insanely micro intensive with HT/Warp Prism micro. Archons are so slow and stupid you have to babysit them to follow the army that the zealots are attacking. HTs are slow that unless you've got a WP they aren't hitting that bio army.
On October 03 2011 10:54 MattBarry wrote: What is so hard about stutter stepping? I hear Terrans complain so much about stutter stepping against Chargelots, I'd really like to know what is remotely difficult about it. I'm in Platinum and can do it near perfectly.
Terran is ridiculously easy at the lower levels of play (Bronze-Gold) due to the forgiving nature of the race. Will a supply drop put you behind in a pro game? Hell yeah it will. Will it put you behind in a Gold game? Probably not. Zerg is insanely hard at lower levels but I find it easier to play than my Protoss at my current level of play. As long as you hit injects and know what to scout you can roll over anyone.
Protoss I won't comment on since it's my main.
stutter stepping isn't hard, but it's extremely time consuming. When you are stutter stepping, there is no time to micro other units, macro, or do anything else.
You just described..... nearly every other micro in the game!! Try microing other units during a emp war or blink micro and I'll guarantee your templars are dead along with your stalkers.
But that's not the same /facepalm
Kiting against chargelots can often times take up to 30 seconds of gametime, during that time (unless you have 300 apm) you can't do anything else. Splitting and microing in an emp war takes like what..... 3-5 seconds at max? I'm sorry but your statement wasn't just wrong, it was stupid.
Nice for you to ignore the blink micro then. I'm sure that takes 3-5 seconds max /facepalm
You hardly ever blink micro in TvP after a big engagement, it would be counter-intuitive to use your stalkers to blink for 30 seconds, assuming the rest of your army is dead a stimmed terran army can easily catch up to blink stalkers, so blinking in TvP in most cases unless it's used for harrassment is nonsensical and definitely doesn't take 30 seconds or longer /facepalm
Yes because I said TvP for blinking. When you terrans say that you have to marine split I won't come in and say "derp whern do you split in TvP." You know there exists 2 other matchups for protoss, maybe not in Code S.
So, then we just came to the conclusion that protoss can a-move whilst terran has to micro and macro at the same time in TvP. You can come up with some more scenarios where you have to "blink" in TvP (it's funny you now said that you were talking about a different matchup, when you specifically said "micro units in emp wars and blink")
"So exploit the fact that stimmed units are insanely fast just run them away while you do other things. Then slowly close the gap that you're not stutter stepping as you become faster at queuing/moving ghosts. That makes the learning curve linear and by consequence, easier. I understand the time consuming point, but it can overcome with practice. " You don't play terran do you? So you want us to stim our units, make them lose health, then run away.... and then stim again and run back in so that we lose even more health.... I get it.
Yes because I said that... And =/= Or Yes I will agree chargealot/arch vs terran all protoss has to do is faceroll. However I will also say the same for terran when its 111.
On October 03 2011 10:54 MattBarry wrote: What is so hard about stutter stepping? I hear Terrans complain so much about stutter stepping against Chargelots, I'd really like to know what is remotely difficult about it. I'm in Platinum and can do it near perfectly.
Terran is ridiculously easy at the lower levels of play (Bronze-Gold) due to the forgiving nature of the race. Will a supply drop put you behind in a pro game? Hell yeah it will. Will it put you behind in a Gold game? Probably not. Zerg is insanely hard at lower levels but I find it easier to play than my Protoss at my current level of play. As long as you hit injects and know what to scout you can roll over anyone.
Protoss I won't comment on since it's my main.
stutter stepping isn't hard, but it's extremely time consuming. When you are stutter stepping, there is no time to micro other units, macro, or do anything else.
You just described..... nearly every other micro in the game!! Try microing other units during a emp war or blink micro and I'll guarantee your templars are dead along with your stalkers.
But that's not the same /facepalm
Kiting against chargelots can often times take up to 30 seconds of gametime, during that time (unless you have 300 apm) you can't do anything else. Splitting and microing in an emp war takes like what..... 3-5 seconds at max? I'm sorry but your statement wasn't just wrong, it was stupid.
Nice for you to ignore the blink micro then. I'm sure that takes 3-5 seconds max /facepalm
You hardly ever blink micro in TvP after a big engagement, it would be counter-intuitive to use your stalkers to blink for 30 seconds, assuming the rest of your army is dead a stimmed terran army can easily catch up to blink stalkers, so blinking in TvP in most cases unless it's used for harrassment is nonsensical and definitely doesn't take 30 seconds or longer /facepalm
"30 Seconds?
Sounds like someones not keeping up in upgrades or Protoss is investing in an all-in. I get the hyperbole. "
Have you ever played against an a-move zealot archon army? You literally have to kite for 30 seconds or longer, whilst all the protoss does is a-move, I'm not even kidding.
or you mass emp the whole thing, hit t and watch it die
I hope you realize that the one protoss unit that gets the least effected by EMP is in fact the zealot, and even if you emp everything you still have to kite for at least 10-15 seconds, they won't just die you know. Usually when a protoss goes zealot/archon they invest alot into upgrades because the only unit they invest gas in are archons. So in most cases the protoss is even or ahead in upgrades, especially since you dont have to chrono your robotics at all. But im done explaining protoss players how their race works now.
"You shouldn't take 30 seconds to kill a zealot army unless you're poor in the decision making department and decided pure marauder was good against Zeal/Archon. As PvT evolves, it's going to become insanely micro intensive with HT/Warp Prism micro. Archons are so slow and stupid you have to babysit them to follow the army that the zealots are attacking. HTs are slow that unless you've got a WP they aren't hitting that bio army."
This is wrong, as terran you can't just change your army composition in 10 seconds. Once you have alot of marauders, you are stuck with marauders, it takes a long time to switch into mass marines and even then it's very risky to overproduce marines, since the protoss can easily go for mass high templar or tech switch into collossus and they absolutely annihilate marines.
It has nothing to do with poor decision making, it's simply not possible for terran to warp in units in 5 seconds and completely switch tech.
On October 03 2011 10:54 MattBarry wrote: What is so hard about stutter stepping? I hear Terrans complain so much about stutter stepping against Chargelots, I'd really like to know what is remotely difficult about it. I'm in Platinum and can do it near perfectly.
Terran is ridiculously easy at the lower levels of play (Bronze-Gold) due to the forgiving nature of the race. Will a supply drop put you behind in a pro game? Hell yeah it will. Will it put you behind in a Gold game? Probably not. Zerg is insanely hard at lower levels but I find it easier to play than my Protoss at my current level of play. As long as you hit injects and know what to scout you can roll over anyone.
Protoss I won't comment on since it's my main.
stutter stepping isn't hard, but it's extremely time consuming. When you are stutter stepping, there is no time to micro other units, macro, or do anything else.
You just described..... nearly every other micro in the game!! Try microing other units during a emp war or blink micro and I'll guarantee your templars are dead along with your stalkers.
But that's not the same /facepalm
Kiting against chargelots can often times take up to 30 seconds of gametime, during that time (unless you have 300 apm) you can't do anything else. Splitting and microing in an emp war takes like what..... 3-5 seconds at max? I'm sorry but your statement wasn't just wrong, it was stupid.
the problem is that you can only do one thing at a time, after the stim/emp, terran only need to kite/stutter step, so even if it is time consuming they can queue their productions with units...
while protoss, you can't blink micro and hide your colossus from being focus fired at the same time.
you can't storm and lay down forcefields at the same time.
you can't focus fire with your imortals and retreat the zealots that are going too far ahead at the same time.
even pros can't manage to storm the terran ball that is kitting (and avoiding the storm by kiting) and get their zealots out of the storm at the same time.
the slow templar can't keep up with a kiting terran ball and always lay down the storm on the stupid zealot that can't get a single hit off.
protoss needs army positioning, they have melee, range, siege and spellcaster, with diferent move speed, unlike terran that can shoot and run from any angle you engage. you may say that you can do this before the engagement, but when terran is droping and dancing, it's incredible hard to put then in the correct position and inside the guardian shield
if protoss are playing with templar inside prisms, they can't do anything else, just babysit the prism.
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.
On October 03 2011 10:54 MattBarry wrote: What is so hard about stutter stepping? I hear Terrans complain so much about stutter stepping against Chargelots, I'd really like to know what is remotely difficult about it. I'm in Platinum and can do it near perfectly.
Terran is ridiculously easy at the lower levels of play (Bronze-Gold) due to the forgiving nature of the race. Will a supply drop put you behind in a pro game? Hell yeah it will. Will it put you behind in a Gold game? Probably not. Zerg is insanely hard at lower levels but I find it easier to play than my Protoss at my current level of play. As long as you hit injects and know what to scout you can roll over anyone.
Protoss I won't comment on since it's my main.
stutter stepping isn't hard, but it's extremely time consuming. When you are stutter stepping, there is no time to micro other units, macro, or do anything else.
You just described..... nearly every other micro in the game!! Try microing other units during a emp war or blink micro and I'll guarantee your templars are dead along with your stalkers.
But that's not the same /facepalm
Kiting against chargelots can often times take up to 30 seconds of gametime, during that time (unless you have 300 apm) you can't do anything else. Splitting and microing in an emp war takes like what..... 3-5 seconds at max? I'm sorry but your statement wasn't just wrong, it was stupid.
the problem is that you can only do one thing at a time, after the stim/emp, terran only need to kite/stutter step, so even if it is time consuming they can queue their productions with units...
while protoss, you can't blink micro and hide your colossus from being focus fired at the same time. you can't storm and lay down forcefields at the same time.
you can't focus fire with your imortals and retreat the zealots that are going too far ahead at the same time.
even pros can't manage to storm the terran ball that is kitting (and avoiding the storm by kiting) and get their zealots out of the storm at the same time.
the slow templar can't keep up with a kiting terran ball and always lay down the storm on the stupid zealot that can't get a single hit off.
In reality, unless you are Grandmaster League you don't have to do all that to beat an equally skilled terran player. It's much easier to lose a bio army than it is to lose a deathball. Just look at the statistics, the lower leagues get dominated by protoss, silver-master league is protoss heaven, I would agree if we were exclusively talking about the pro level, but master or below nobody ever does that, whereas even gold league terrans have to kite to beat a protoss at their skill level.
On October 03 2011 10:54 MattBarry wrote: What is so hard about stutter stepping? I hear Terrans complain so much about stutter stepping against Chargelots, I'd really like to know what is remotely difficult about it. I'm in Platinum and can do it near perfectly.
Terran is ridiculously easy at the lower levels of play (Bronze-Gold) due to the forgiving nature of the race. Will a supply drop put you behind in a pro game? Hell yeah it will. Will it put you behind in a Gold game? Probably not. Zerg is insanely hard at lower levels but I find it easier to play than my Protoss at my current level of play. As long as you hit injects and know what to scout you can roll over anyone.
Protoss I won't comment on since it's my main.
stutter stepping isn't hard, but it's extremely time consuming. When you are stutter stepping, there is no time to micro other units, macro, or do anything else.
You just described..... nearly every other micro in the game!! Try microing other units during a emp war or blink micro and I'll guarantee your templars are dead along with your stalkers.
But that's not the same /facepalm
Kiting against chargelots can often times take up to 30 seconds of gametime, during that time (unless you have 300 apm) you can't do anything else. Splitting and microing in an emp war takes like what..... 3-5 seconds at max? I'm sorry but your statement wasn't just wrong, it was stupid.
the problem is that you can only do one thing at a time, after the stim/emp, terran only need to kite/stutter step, so even if it is time consuming they can queue their productions with units...
while protoss, you can't blink micro and hide your colossus from being focus fired at the same time. you can't storm and lay down forcefields at the same time.
you can't focus fire with your imortals and retreat the zealots that are going too far ahead at the same time.
even pros can't manage to storm the terran ball that is kitting (and avoiding the storm by kiting) and get their zealots out of the storm at the same time.
the slow templar can't keep up with a kiting terran ball and always lay down the storm on the stupid zealot that can't get a single hit off.
When I'm dealing with bio as Protoss, all I do is spread my collosus (usually like to have 4-6 collosus, keep stalkers in front of collosus, keep zealots in front of stalkers and 1a. For extra flair I add HT/Archons/Immortals to help deal with massive amount of bio/vikings. If I get emped, I just chronoboost and make more zealots and make more collosus LOLOL. Most of the time, I just spam attack move and usually win the engagement. My apm gets to 100!!!! (old apm)
Ps. I hotkey the closest pylon so I don't have to scroll around the map looking for a pylon to warp in. When I watch Protoss replays and look through their camera, I always see them frantically looking around for a pylon to warp in and waste 5-10 seconds where they could have been microing.
On October 03 2011 10:54 MattBarry wrote: What is so hard about stutter stepping? I hear Terrans complain so much about stutter stepping against Chargelots, I'd really like to know what is remotely difficult about it. I'm in Platinum and can do it near perfectly.
Terran is ridiculously easy at the lower levels of play (Bronze-Gold) due to the forgiving nature of the race. Will a supply drop put you behind in a pro game? Hell yeah it will. Will it put you behind in a Gold game? Probably not. Zerg is insanely hard at lower levels but I find it easier to play than my Protoss at my current level of play. As long as you hit injects and know what to scout you can roll over anyone.
Protoss I won't comment on since it's my main.
stutter stepping isn't hard, but it's extremely time consuming. When you are stutter stepping, there is no time to micro other units, macro, or do anything else.
You just described..... nearly every other micro in the game!! Try microing other units during a emp war or blink micro and I'll guarantee your templars are dead along with your stalkers.
But that's not the same /facepalm
Kiting against chargelots can often times take up to 30 seconds of gametime, during that time (unless you have 300 apm) you can't do anything else. Splitting and microing in an emp war takes like what..... 3-5 seconds at max? I'm sorry but your statement wasn't just wrong, it was stupid.
the problem is that you can only do one thing at a time, after the stim/emp, terran only need to kite/stutter step, so even if it is time consuming they can queue their productions with units...
while protoss, you can't blink micro and hide your colossus from being focus fired at the same time. you can't storm and lay down forcefields at the same time.
you can't focus fire with your imortals and retreat the zealots that are going too far ahead at the same time.
even pros can't manage to storm the terran ball that is kitting (and avoiding the storm by kiting) and get their zealots out of the storm at the same time.
the slow templar can't keep up with a kiting terran ball and always lay down the storm on the stupid zealot that can't get a single hit off.
In reality, unless you are Grandmaster League you don't have to do all that to beat an equally skilled terran player. It's much easier to lose a bio army than it is to lose a deathball. Just look at the statistics, the lower leagues get dominated by protoss, silver-master league is protoss heaven, I would agree if we were exclusively talking about the pro level, but master or below nobody ever does that, whereas even gold league terrans have to kite to beat a protoss at their skill level.
On October 03 2011 10:54 MattBarry wrote: What is so hard about stutter stepping? I hear Terrans complain so much about stutter stepping against Chargelots, I'd really like to know what is remotely difficult about it. I'm in Platinum and can do it near perfectly.
Terran is ridiculously easy at the lower levels of play (Bronze-Gold) due to the forgiving nature of the race. Will a supply drop put you behind in a pro game? Hell yeah it will. Will it put you behind in a Gold game? Probably not. Zerg is insanely hard at lower levels but I find it easier to play than my Protoss at my current level of play. As long as you hit injects and know what to scout you can roll over anyone.
Protoss I won't comment on since it's my main.
stutter stepping isn't hard, but it's extremely time consuming. When you are stutter stepping, there is no time to micro other units, macro, or do anything else.
You just described..... nearly every other micro in the game!! Try microing other units during a emp war or blink micro and I'll guarantee your templars are dead along with your stalkers.
But that's not the same /facepalm
Kiting against chargelots can often times take up to 30 seconds of gametime, during that time (unless you have 300 apm) you can't do anything else. Splitting and microing in an emp war takes like what..... 3-5 seconds at max? I'm sorry but your statement wasn't just wrong, it was stupid.
the problem is that you can only do one thing at a time, after the stim/emp, terran only need to kite/stutter step, so even if it is time consuming they can queue their productions with units...
while protoss, you can't blink micro and hide your colossus from being focus fired at the same time. you can't storm and lay down forcefields at the same time.
you can't focus fire with your imortals and retreat the zealots that are going too far ahead at the same time.
even pros can't manage to storm the terran ball that is kitting (and avoiding the storm by kiting) and get their zealots out of the storm at the same time.
the slow templar can't keep up with a kiting terran ball and always lay down the storm on the stupid zealot that can't get a single hit off.
When I'm dealing with bio as Protoss, all I do is spread my collosus (usually like to have 4-6 collosus, keep stalkers in front of collosus, keep zealots in front of stalkers and 1a. For extra flair I add HT/Archons/Immortals to help deal with massive amount of bio/vikings. If I get emped, I just chronoboost and make more zealots and make more collosus LOLOL. Most of the time, I just spam attack move and usually win the engagement. My apm gets to 100!!!! (old apm)
Ps. I hotkey the closest pylon so I don't have to scroll around the map looking for a pylon to warp in. When I watch Protoss replays and look through their camera, I always see them frantically looking around for a pylon to warp in and waste 5-10 seconds where they could have been microing.
that work only when 2 things happen 1- the terran does not have enought vikings to kill the colossus 2- the terran is not kiting
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.
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.
Zerg macro is NOT forgiving because of larvae. Its UNforgiving because of larvae. Not only do you have to choose between drones and army units when spending (yes larvae are a separate resource that Terran doesnt have to worry about) larvae, but if you miss injects you lose time that you will never get back.
You also cant say "Zerg can just make extra hatcheries" because then you can just say "Terran can just make extra raxes".
Terran is also the easiest when it comes to multitasking macro because it doesnt require as much screen time at base. You can watch a battle and make units while you do it. Zerg has to go back to base to inject and Protoss has to go to a place with pylon power to warp in. Terran can watch the battle and make SCVs or units, then when theyre safe they can drop down 2 MULEs and return to battle.
I dont understand how people say Terran macro is the hardest. You dont even need to look at your base to keep production going.
Thought I'll add that you can inject larvae using your minimap. I do it all the time and never have to go back to my base for that. Do need to go back for creep tumours and to build structures but nothing else. Personally, lost a bit when I first started playing as Zerg but eventually fixed my mistakes and now my Zerg is pretty decent for my level. I think the comparisons between the races should stop because there is no one answer to which has the easier micro/macro. Everyone will say that their own race is the hardest and it's pretty subjective.
On October 03 2011 12:26 BigFan wrote:I think the comparisons between the races should stop because there is no one answer to which has the easier micro/macro. Everyone will say that their own race is the hardest and it's pretty subjective.
Well I play both zerg and protoss at a pretty good master level but my terran is barely masters. I feel like terran is the hardest for me to macro and keep up with micro.
Why would you want to play a race that is harder for you? Jeeze
Given the majority of the posts here does not agree with the poll results, I can conclude most of the people that post are bias and apparently thinks their race is the hardest to play. haha
I agree with zerg being a lot harder at the lower level leagues. Lower level players obviously lack the game sense and scouting knowledge and most likely forget to keep up with spreading creep & and injecting larva. Then they supply cap themselves by either losing their overlords due to wandering too close to queens, initial marines, or stalkers. So usually zerg players at lower levels get steamrolled at the beginning of the game and they don't know why because they didn't scout well and built too many drones and not enough army/spine crawlers/spore crawlers.
On October 03 2011 12:26 BigFan wrote:I think the comparisons between the races should stop because there is no one answer to which has the easier micro/macro. Everyone will say that their own race is the hardest and it's pretty subjective.
Well I play both zerg and protoss at a pretty good master level but my terran is barely masters. I feel like terran is the hardest for me to macro and keep up with micro.
Why would you want to play a race that is harder for you? Jeeze
I actually protoss and zerg around a diamond level and terran around high plat/low diamond. I like playing terran even because its my worst cause i like having a challenge
On October 03 2011 10:54 MattBarry wrote: What is so hard about stutter stepping? I hear Terrans complain so much about stutter stepping against Chargelots, I'd really like to know what is remotely difficult about it. I'm in Platinum and can do it near perfectly.
Terran is ridiculously easy at the lower levels of play (Bronze-Gold) due to the forgiving nature of the race. Will a supply drop put you behind in a pro game? Hell yeah it will. Will it put you behind in a Gold game? Probably not. Zerg is insanely hard at lower levels but I find it easier to play than my Protoss at my current level of play. As long as you hit injects and know what to scout you can roll over anyone.
Protoss I won't comment on since it's my main.
stutter stepping isn't hard, but it's extremely time consuming. When you are stutter stepping, there is no time to micro other units, macro, or do anything else.
You just described..... nearly every other micro in the game!! Try microing other units during a emp war or blink micro and I'll guarantee your templars are dead along with your stalkers.
But that's not the same /facepalm
Kiting against chargelots can often times take up to 30 seconds of gametime, during that time (unless you have 300 apm) you can't do anything else. Splitting and microing in an emp war takes like what..... 3-5 seconds at max? I'm sorry but your statement wasn't just wrong, it was stupid.
Nice for you to ignore the blink micro then. I'm sure that takes 3-5 seconds max /facepalm
You hardly ever blink micro in TvP after a big engagement, it would be counter-intuitive to use your stalkers to blink for 30 seconds, assuming the rest of your army is dead a stimmed terran army can easily catch up to blink stalkers, so blinking in TvP in most cases unless it's used for harrassment is nonsensical and definitely doesn't take 30 seconds or longer /facepalm
"30 Seconds?
Sounds like someones not keeping up in upgrades or Protoss is investing in an all-in. I get the hyperbole. "
Have you ever played against an a-move zealot archon army? You literally have to kite for 30 seconds or longer, whilst all the protoss does is a-move, I'm not even kidding.
or you mass emp the whole thing, hit t and watch it die
I hope you realize that the one protoss unit that gets the least effected by EMP is in fact the zealot, and even if you emp everything you still have to kite for at least 10-15 seconds, they won't just die you know. Usually when a protoss goes zealot/archon they invest alot into upgrades because the only unit they invest gas in are archons. So in most cases the protoss is even or ahead in upgrades, especially since you dont have to chrono your robotics at all. But im done explaining protoss players how their race works now.
"You shouldn't take 30 seconds to kill a zealot army unless you're poor in the decision making department and decided pure marauder was good against Zeal/Archon. As PvT evolves, it's going to become insanely micro intensive with HT/Warp Prism micro. Archons are so slow and stupid you have to babysit them to follow the army that the zealots are attacking. HTs are slow that unless you've got a WP they aren't hitting that bio army."
This is wrong, as terran you can't just change your army composition in 10 seconds. Once you have alot of marauders, you are stuck with marauders, it takes a long time to switch into mass marines and even then it's very risky to overproduce marines, since the protoss can easily go for mass high templar or tech switch into collossus and they absolutely annihilate marines.
It has nothing to do with poor decision making, it's simply not possible for terran to warp in units in 5 seconds and completely switch tech.
I dont understand whats wrong here.
Even if you take 30 seconds microing to kill off the zealot/archon a-move army (i still think its an exaggeration), youve just fucking killed off his entire army. Who cares if you havent macroed during those 30 seconds? You still have part of an army and that protoss dumbass who decided to a-move and not pay attention to his army is down thousands of resources.
Id much rather have an army that requires micro but can actually benefit very highly from the micro than an army that requires less micro but is shit when facing a decently microed terran army.
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?
I agree for the most part with the leagues, I would agree that zerg is generally the hardest in lower leagues where mechanics are severely lacking, however once you hit diamond/master area I feel like terran is more difficult because you are forced to macro and micro, doing just one or the other will result in you losing unless you are playing someone much worse than you. Protoss/zerg don't have to worry about doing it both simultaneously as much so and to the extent a Terran does. I haven't played at a GM level so I can't really speculate properly, but people going by win percentages are kinda stupid because having a race that is doing poorly doesn't mean its hard to play, in fact I would say that oppositely having a race do poorly is more likely because its easier to play and thus limited by its own meta game.
At a Pro level it seems to be odd because hardly any foreigner Terrans (Meaning those who aren't living in Korea) are doing well for themselves save an exception or two, however GSL seems to be GomTvT so its tough to say if this is simply because its harder to play, but Much more rewarding when you can play at that top level or if its because the other races are harder to play but haven't quite churned out the strategies that the Terran's have.
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.
The timing of warpins isn't that relevant (knowing when to warp them in), as it's not very different from Terran, as you said. The difference is that you physically have to place the units. It's not hard at all to make units out of three different buildings, and in TvP you only have to use 2 anyways (rax + starport), which is similar to gateway + robo (assuming immortals or colossus).
If you're floating a ton of minerals you're doing something wrong in the first place anyways, I'm not sure how "I just throw down a nexus or more gateways" is anymore legit than "I throw down more raxes or add a CC" or "I throw down more macro hatches or expand more."
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.
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.
On October 03 2011 13:22 Baarn wrote: How'd people come up with zerg being hardest when you can 6 pool through those leagues with relative ease?
I think this is assuming people are actually trying to play the game rather than just trying to BO win, which all the races have easy ways to do, although 6 pool is probably the easiest. I mean its not like you can 6 pool to masters and then all of a sudden stop 6 pooling and actually know how to play.
On October 03 2011 13:22 Baarn wrote: How'd people come up with zerg being hardest when you can 6 pool through those leagues with relative ease?
terran can 2 rax proxy and protoss can cannon rush or 2 gate proxy, I really see no difference. The fact that a race can cheese has nothing to do with how hard a race is to play.
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.
On October 03 2011 07:57 ffadicted wrote: I think it's pretty easy to sum up:
It's generally agreed that it starts off as protoss being the easiest, zerg the hardest, and terran somewhere in the middle at the lowest levels of play. As skill increases, protoss becomes harder and harder to play (steeper slope), and zerg becomes easier and easier (smaller slope), while terran seems to grow appropriately along with skill level (same slope).
Somewhere around high diamond/low masters, the races meet up and can be described, for all intents and purposes, as equal in difficulty. From this point on, protoss will grow as the hardest race, further distancing itself from the other two the higher up you go, wherase zerg behaves the exact opposite, and terrran continues to grow linearly along with skill.
Agree with this post.
On October 03 2011 13:22 Baarn wrote: How'd people come up with zerg being hardest when you can 6 pool through those leagues with relative ease?
This is also true, but I think most team liquid members would assume players are playing "macro" games or the way the game "should" be played.
On October 03 2011 11:14 BarbieHsu wrote: I'd like to say that people have been surprisingly respectful in the thread. I expect fighting to break out at around page ten. The responses are interesting!
Anyway, I'd like to add my observation: If your lag is already at .3 to .5 seconds, terran becomes hardest to play because the effectiveness of stuff like marines and hellions is drastically cut down.
The same can be said with a missed FF on a ramp or choke, it can literally make or break a game for a Protoss. Or missing a pinpoint feedback on a ghost or infestor.
ZZTP: Seems to be the consensus.
Zerg is a reactive race for the most part, the more practice the better you will be at stopping builds you've seen before, ergo the higher the league, the easier it is to play because the player knows what they are doing.
Terran is harder I believe in the diamond-low masters range because your counter part P/Z opponents will know how to deal with most Terran 1 base builds, and will usually tech high enough to just flat out beat the Terran. That being said I think it is hard for Terran to also split their mm army from rolling banelings at this level because it requires much more precision to so than the attacking counter parts and the proper multitasking of medivac drop harass is pretty hard at this level.
I also agree with Black Gun's post about Terran being the most demanding yet the best race, but there in lies the problem for Protoss' at the highest level: Dealing with one of those gosu Terran's is just as hard if not harder than playing Terran itself.
At the highest level of play Protoss is at the most disadvantageous position. Zerg are almost perfect at reacting to what the Protoss are doing and is much more cost effective while taking the entire map where as Terran's at this level can use their amazing multitasking skills to split up and harass the Protoss army and mineral lines. Protoss army is rather weak in smaller fights and the harassment options for Protoss are almost non existent without a heavy investment in infrastructure and not so cost effective units.
For people saying Protoss is the easiest race to play, I believe they are wrong because Protoss has to not only outplay their opponent, but have to be creative in the process. Without creative or new play the Toss army will be too predictable and easy to counter (Here's where a player like MC is having problems, Protoss is basically figured out but they still have to do some harass to barely stay on par with Zerg, or they have to take risky economic builds vs a walled in Terran whom could flat out being going for an economic build or a massive allin, which they most likely won't find out until the Terran decides to move out.) They need the most precision in terms of using their spells to the fullest effect. Feedback is a pinpoint spell that can make or break the toss army. Map awarness is key in terms of stopping drops and run bys more effectively for Toss. A missed FF on a ramp will be devastating or a small Terran drop can be hard to deal with if the army is out of position. Colossus are big and bulky and can easily be sniped by either corrupters or vikings making the remaining Protoss army rather vulnerable.
This thread is very subjective though. Some arguments include having 3 production buildings vs lets say the Zerg's 1 production building and saying that defines the level of hardness. I think the best we can do is to balance the game at the highest levels of play, and let every other player fall in their respective places.
TL;DR: Zerg is hardest at the lower levels of play, Terran is somewhat linear, Protoss is the hardest at highest; which seems to be the basic consensus of the votes.
On October 03 2011 13:51 .Sic. wrote: how did 2200 people vote on grandmasters if only 1200 are qualified to do so?
just because you're not in GM doesn't mean you are unable to make judgments about the level of skill required to properly play a race at that level. that's like saying only other CEOs can judge whether a particular CEO is doing a good job or not. a homeless man could accurately observe how much time he spends on his ass. same thing with the races. a GM player sluggishly moving around his screen and not paying attention to his stuff while still pulling wins is clearly relying on the strength of his race and is therefore playing an "easier" race.
Zerg is hardest at the lower levels, because making drones at the right time and units at the right time is an art, and until you get OK at it you are gonna get rolled a lot. Once you get to Diamond/Masters it is probably terran, since they require the most micro, and can get by less than toss or zerg on good macro alone. At the highest level the "hardest" race is going to depend on the balance status of the game. Until the last past hit it would probably be protoss, but after 1.4 it may be zerg.
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.
Regarding this essay; you make some good points, but I really don't feel like the skill-point for Terran is so high their advantages only kick in in grandmaster.
I'm obviously biased towards PvT, as that's the matchup I have most experience in, but certainly there, stim-kiting is not difficult. It's apm intensive, yes, but it's a simple, repetetive action, just like stalker-kiting lings or whatever. A gold can stim-kite a zealot ball to death almost as well as MVP.
Drops, too, I think are invalid for this discussion. By diamond or whatever it shouldn't be too hard to shift-rally a dropship to the other guy's mineral line, and the psychological effect that has is massive. An awful lot of diamond P/Z will just straight up crack under the kind of harass terran can lay down even at that level, because I think it's a fairly established fact that drop harass is more difficult to defend than to execute until the defender builds excellent map awareness. Look at the BFH debacle pre-patch.
I don't deny that things like correctly leapfrogging tanks, splitting/dodging rines against splash and hitting crisp EMPs is difficult. But I think Terran does just fine even when they can't do those things perfectly, because their advantages are able to exploit all manner of comparable errors the other races can commit. Toss can't forcefield perfectly in diamond either, Z can't get perfect flanks and stop banelings wasting themselves on armour in diamond. It comes out in the wash.
Terran is also much more resilient to cheese and cloak rushes, which is an advantage that really can't ever be understated, especially in leagues where people are starting to be able to execute those things well.
Actually, double post, but I just realised I probably wasted ten minutes of my life.
At the end of it all, I think this is a pretty dumb thread. It's easy enough to say Z is hard at low levels, cool, their macro is hard. But dia-masters is where most of the contention is naturally going to be, because that's where something like 90% of the skill gradient (and posters) is probably going to sit.
After people's errors can't be drowned out by their basic mechanical fail anymore, but before high-level balance comes into play, you start to have to make judgements on what's "diamond level." That's thin ice.
An example in isolation: Blanket EMP is hard. Is placing one or two EMPs on noob templar blobs still hard? Probably not. Is splitting templar to counter EMP hard? It's not impossible, but probably harder than EMPing a single templar blob.
So there's a point where Terrans are good enough to EMP bunched up HTs and toss isn't good enough to split them. At that specific point, in this specific situation, terran is ezpz. But then you go up a few hundred mmr, and toss are starting to split HTs and terran aren't yet fast enough to blanket everything. Now toss is ezpz. Then you go up again and it changes again.
Do you gain anything from discussing that back and forwards? Not really. This whole thread is essentially devoted to low-level balance discussion. It might be interesting, but it's not really ever going to go anywhere.
I think that zerg is the weakest at lower lvls which I would constitute as bronze-plat, all the way through these lvls you won't see crisp play, you won't see constant worker production, there is a lack of solid play period. Zerg is the weakest at lower lvls because of the larvae mechanic and the lack of a wall-in. protoss is the easiest race because of the individual power of their units and relatively good cheese. Terran is not far behind toss, you literally just have to make MMM and you will win most of your games (the ones that you will lose are where you messed up your micro vs banes).
In Diamond Protoss is the easiest, Terran in the middle again and Zerg is still hardest but now terran is a lot closer to the difficulty of Z than the ease of P. Zerg is still the hardest because of the lack of understanding mu's and the Diamond Z's haven't mastered scouting.
In masters I think Terran is prolly the hardest, followed closely by Z. Because of the protoss units need to stay clustered it leads to play that even platinum players can pull off with relative ease. Terran need to start drop play at this point while pushing and macroing, Zergs still die randomly to all-ins and lack of scouting and ranged units.
In GM I think that they are fairly even, protoss becomes significantly more difficult when they are being spread out by attacks on multiple fronts from both Z and T, Zerg macro is a non-issue because by this point they know how to play fairly well, the multitasking for T play is not really ahead of the other races either.
At pro lvl you are going to see Terran dominate because they have a larger variety of units and playstyles, there is more to do and thus more to do well. Protoss are slightly limited by their play because VR's are not a viable long lasting unit, ht aren't worth it on 2 base and barely on 3 base, so P are limited to robo play and more exactly colossi. Zerg is limited because they don't have any efficient units outside of infesters and brolords and both of those are debatable. Terran just has more options and thus a higher skill cap and a bigger advantage.
Judging by the results for GM, I think it is necessary for the OP to clarify his question. Are you asking which race is the hardest to win with, or which race is the most difficult when it comes to mechanics, game sense, and strategy? In my book, the difficulty of playing a race has little to do with how balanced that race is at a given time.
I interpret "difficult to play" as relating to the mechanics, strategy, game sense, and overall strength of player required to play a race. Therefore, T or Z are the most "difficult" races to play.
On October 03 2011 14:57 tskarzyn wrote: I interpret "difficult to play" as relating to the mechanics, strategy, game sense, and overall strength of player required to play a race. Therefore, T or Z are the most "difficult" races to play.
Given how so many Terrans and Zergs are very consistent, whereas Protoss players aren't at all, this would appear to be very false.
Kinda amazing how long the "Protoss are the ez race" meme has stuck around. Crappy deathball play died so long ago (above gold anyways), and that's the only easy part of toss.
On October 03 2011 14:37 Belisarius wrote: Regarding this essay; you make some good points, but I really don't feel like the skill-point for Terran is so high their advantages only kick in in grandmaster.
I'm obviously biased towards PvT, as that's the matchup I have most experience in, but certainly there, stim-kiting is not difficult. It's apm intensive, yes, but it's a simple, repetetive action, just like stalker-kiting lings or whatever. A gold can stim-kite a zealot ball to death almost as well as MVP.
Drops, too, I think are invalid for this discussion. By diamond or whatever it shouldn't be too hard to shift-rally a dropship to the other guy's mineral line, and the psychological effect that has is massive. An awful lot of diamond P/Z will just straight up crack under the kind of harass terran can lay down even at that level, because I think it's a fairly established fact that drop harass is more difficult to defend than to execute until the defender builds excellent map awareness. Look at the BFH debacle pre-patch.
I don't deny that things like correctly leapfrogging tanks, splitting/dodging rines against splash and hitting crisp EMPs is difficult. But I think Terran does just fine even when they can't do those things perfectly, because their advantages are able to exploit all manner of comparable errors the other races can commit. Toss can't forcefield perfectly in diamond either, Z can't get perfect flanks and stop banelings wasting themselves on armour in diamond. It comes out in the wash.
Terran is also much more resilient to cheese and cloak rushes, which is an advantage that really can't ever be understated, especially in leagues where people are starting to be able to execute those things well.
I'd agree. Terran's aren't universally difficult to play at all levels. In fact I'd argue at Silver to Gold they're quite strong due to a low minimum of mechanics needed to execute basic strats, a wide range of options that opponents haven't developed enough skills to counter. They can wall off to block quite a few cheeses, that and the Orbital's quite powerful in that it forgives supply blocking, lack of detection and scouting. And yes while both Orbital abilities actually cost a lot at the higher tiers, Bronze - Gold players float so much income that it actually provides a nice cushion for their caliber of play.
My experience playing up from Silver to Diamond (Yeah I still suck, sue me).
Terran - Originally the scary match up for me. MMM + Stim is relatively easy to execute when both armies just 1A's. Of course stutter step, FF's, banelings etc throw that off but I always felt like Terran MM throws the ball into the oponents court when you first start out playing.
I noticed that fighting Terrans became a lot easier up until I hit mid Diamond and then it steadily became harder. I'd say the Mules, MMM ball, Banshee/Reaper harass and Siege crawls make them a race that's very forgiving in the initial stages of play. Yet to play at the higher tiers you need a lot more multi tasking and skill with the full range of the Terran roster. That's my observation as I saw a major plateau in skill amongst Terrans in Platinum and early Diamond.
Zergs - On the other end of the spectrum Zergs were laughable up until Platinum when they started becoming progressively more difficult to the point where now they're my 50/50 match up. I do think from experience (I off race Z regularly) that the base mechanics required to play Z is higher, Bronze - Gold they're mediocre, but upon hitting that skill threshold players just fly from there and get really good.
Protoss (off topic rant)- I suck at PvP and it's always been a bitch of a match up for me. I hate getting cannoned or proxy Gateway and if that doesn't happen I eat a 4 Gate or a Colo timing push. That fact that most T and Z players miss is that Toss can cheese a lot but they're best at cheesing other Toss and it blows cause of it. It's only after 1.4 that you can find a way to consistently outplay a fellow P since the 4 Gate's finally in its death throes.
On October 03 2011 14:57 tskarzyn wrote: I interpret "difficult to play" as relating to the mechanics, strategy, game sense, and overall strength of player required to play a race. Therefore, T or Z are the most "difficult" races to play.
Given how so many Terrans and Zergs are very consistent, whereas Protoss players aren't at all, this would appear to be very false.
Kinda amazing how long the "Protoss are the ez race" meme has stuck around. Crappy deathball play died so long ago (above gold anyways), and that's the only easy part of toss.
Or is it because protoss has been changed SO much lately? Do you listen to STOG? do you remember when Warp Gates were being nerfed and Tyler was talking about how it will change every opening protoss has? Ever since that patch protoss has been in a slump.
And I wouldn't attribute losses to mechanics, I'd attribute losses to Build Orders and strategy above all else. Protoss has a very difficult tech route compared to the other races which is why a lot of protoss is having trouble in Code S.
for the bronze to platinum votes all being Zerg the hardest I'd think because people who play it think that (noobs) find this new game and being the 'humans' are cool, so they all start with Terran. they look at Protoss as cool looking aliens so they jump on that boat. No noobs would look at that creepy mud race and want to use them. This happens a lot in other games like WoW
Wouldn't say one patch crippled toss, they all hurt. Wasn't talking about results really anyway, more the struggle for consistency that toss players have.
I'm just agreeing with the majority that toss is the most difficult at the top.
I'd say following any chart right now is quite stupid, a new patch recently got released so the win/lose ratio is quite unstable. But following the previous patch, you can see that all races got about 50%, protoss having the lowest win ratio.
I only have experience in diamond/masters with the 3 races
Zerg - hardest by far, just because its easy to overdrone/underdrone and lose Terran - easiest by far (I dont even understand the race or know builds... i 1 rax expand into hellion/thor vs zerg and beat masters players meanwhile i 1 rax expand tvp/tvt and do well enough there) Protoss - Can be difficult, depends on your ability to FF well. If you are good at FF, you are good at protoss.
On October 03 2011 08:39 Imbak333 wrote: I really dont agree that zerg is hardest at bronze/silver level because if you look at the statistics, a smaller percent of zergs are in the silver/bronze league compared to toss/terran and this must mean that it is easier to get to a higher league as zerg.
Wow....That is some bad logic.
how so? I didnt say I had a reason for why zerg is the easiest, im just saying that the statistics support it at that level
That is bad logic because you completely overlooked the more obvious situation. A lack of zerg in bronze/silver would not be caused by zerg being so much easier to use that zergs have that much better of a chance of getting out of bronze/silver. It makes sense that because Zerg may be initially harder to get a hang of that many new players don't want to start out with them.
On October 03 2011 08:39 Imbak333 wrote: I really dont agree that zerg is hardest at bronze/silver level because if you look at the statistics, a smaller percent of zergs are in the silver/bronze league compared to toss/terran and this must mean that it is easier to get to a higher league as zerg.
Wow....That is some bad logic.
how so? I didnt say I had a reason for why zerg is the easiest, im just saying that the statistics support it at that level
That is bad logic because you completely overlooked the more obvious situation. A lack of zerg in bronze/silver would not be caused by zerg being so much easier to use that zergs have that much better of a chance of getting out of bronze/silver. It makes sense that because Zerg may be initially harder to get a hang of that many new players don't want to start out with them.
The relevant number is Z in bronze/total Z versus the same for T/P. I'm not convinced it's skewed at all. Imbak, you're going to need to post some actual stats rather than just talk about them if you want anyone to take you seriously.
On October 03 2011 13:51 .Sic. wrote: how did 2200 people vote on grandmasters if only 1200 are qualified to do so?
just because you're not in GM doesn't mean you are unable to make judgments about the level of skill required to properly play a race at that level. that's like saying only other CEOs can judge whether a particular CEO is doing a good job or not. a homeless man could accurately observe how much time he spends on his ass. same thing with the races. a GM player sluggishly moving around his screen and not paying attention to his stuff while still pulling wins is clearly relying on the strength of his race and is therefore playing an "easier" race.
no its not the same though.
We arent judging performance here, were supposed to be judging difficulty level. Youre right that anyone can judge performance. A general manager could judge how good of a job the CEO is doing based on financials trends and personal observations within the company. A silver league player could pick out mistakes from pro level games and critique them on that.
However, to judge how hard it is to do something in a certain position, you cant really know how it is unless you do it yourself. A general manager cant know how difficult it is to perform as a CEO. A silver league player cant know how difficult it is to play at the pro level. Yea people can speculate, but unless you do something yourself you cant really know how difficult it really is.
I chose these based off the way the macro mechanics work for the respective races.
I didnt choose Terran because I feel like although it is difficult to do, the idea of how to macro properly as terran is simple: you produce constantly and non-stop, and always have all your buildings making units.
with protoss and zerg it is not as simple, as you need to cut drones to defend attacks as zerg, and cut gateway units to tech as protoss. both of which can lose you games easily when you dont know how to do it properly
The macro mechanics and game sense required are really unforgiving. Lack of scouting, means you die. Lack of injects means you die. Lack of droning means you die.
Also the lack of a wall-in makes it really harder to keep yourself safe against early agression. You have to know most of early/mid-game agression builds so you can counter them. It's not like you siege up and say "come at me bro". In the Bronze/Platinum tier are the mechanics that are killing you. In the DIamond/Masters is your lack of scouting/lack of game sense and probably lack of apm. Don't forget that impeccable 3 base macro with creep spreading requires around 80 apm. This does not leave much room for scouting/harassing/cute stuff on mid tier (Diamond/Master) players.
Now, for the GM/Pro: Protoss.
When everyone at your level has all your attack timings figured out. When even lower level players can kill you with a 1-1-1 or destroy your FFE with a bling/sling bust. When DT and VR are not working as they used to work. When while easier on the macro apm department, the other race players have finally "mastered" their harder macro and now you are on even ground. When it's almost impossible to grab map control from a Z or T who decides that he must not just sit idle in his base until he hits 200/200.
Haven't read all 20 pages of comments so guess someone already said the same - but here goes (I'm a P player):
Zerg mechanics are harder - making it tough for lower apm/mechanic players
However - when executed the zerg mechanics have a (debatably higher) pay off. Paying APM for creep spread, injections - rather than macro hatches and poor scouting/unfavourable engagements is a great payoff for good players. Therefore I feel Zerg must by far scale the worst.
Terran is all around pretty basic. Not to judge - but terran can play safe in tons of ways (wall off, bunkers, turrets, siege lines, 1 base). I'm not sure about the lower levels but I guess platinum-diamond T players are required to start harrassing. This is what will take skills for a T player. Macroing while microing drops/hellion runbys is not an easy feat.
Protoss is pretty simple to macro - but pretty darn hard to macro in an optimal way (talking mostly 'bout chronoboost/upgrades) without straight losing to an early push. While I see P having honestly too few harrassment options - and not too too hard macromanagement P's got to be the easiest race for new players. However - when the other races (and the players) are able to overcome the difficulties of their races (zerg-macro / terran-micro) P is suddenly left as a race having difficulties with late scoutingoptions and timedepending techswitches, which seems easilly punishable by the other races.
there seems to ne a misconception that terran takes the most apm/skill at the top levels because of drops, but one thing ppl may not realize is that it takes the same amount or more skill to defend those drops properly because you dont know when they are coming but the terran has control of when he sends his drops. Granted, you can assume the initial drop time by your scouting but aside from map awareness and reactions the terran will akways start at an advantage and it is up to the defending player to mitigate damage. The terran macro.machine takes less than zerg when it comes to the mule vs inject and takes lessthan toss when it comes to quing up units. At gm and higher lvl you arw going to see about the same difficulty, really the only reason you could say one race is harder than the rest is if that race has to work harder than tje other race/races that it is being compared to. I dont think terran fits that description purely based off of terrans tourment play since beta. Terran might have the highest skill cap because of the amount of units that they have.
At bronze, Zerg is the hardest to play mainly b/c this isn't their campaign game and is less straight forward in an RTS sense. In every league above, players equally suck at their respective races.
And I agree with the "I play X, therefore X is the hardest race to play, and can judge play at leagues way above me" sentiment. QQ thread #[ATTACH HUGE NUMBER].
On October 03 2011 17:18 Notfragile wrote: All levels except Grandmasters/Pro: Zerg
The macro mechanics and game sense required are really unforgiving. Lack of scouting, means you die. Lack of injects means you die. Lack of droning means you die.
Also the lack of a wall-in makes it really harder to keep yourself safe against early agression. You have to know most of early/mid-game agression builds so you can counter them. It's not like you siege up and say "come at me bro". In the Bronze/Platinum tier are the mechanics that are killing you. In the DIamond/Masters is your lack of scouting/lack of game sense and probably lack of apm. Don't forget that impeccable 3 base macro with creep spreading requires around 80 apm. This does not leave much room for scouting/harassing/cute stuff on mid tier (Diamond/Master) players.
Now, for the GM/Pro: Protoss.
When everyone at your level has all your attack timings figured out. When even lower level players can kill you with a 1-1-1 or destroy your FFE with a bling/sling bust. When DT and VR are not working as they used to work. When while easier on the macro apm department, the other race players have finally "mastered" their harder macro and now you are on even ground. When it's almost impossible to grab map control from a Z or T who decides that he must not just sit idle in his base until he hits 200/200.
Yes, then you are screwed.
Honestly, I'd drop the bar to diamond (at least for NA server) for protoss. I personally feel that protoss is just the most unforgiving and poorly designed race. So it just has it's limitations. Once your opponent can begin to abuse you, protoss is at a severe disadvantage.
For the longest time other races didn't know how to abuse the weaknesses of gateway-centric armies of toss, like mass sentry and the like. Now as infestors, ghosts and siege tanks have been figured out, it makes it extremely tough to balance the sentry/stalker count in the early game, considering the sheer lack of scouting information.
One sentry toss makes does economic damage to him worth 30 seconds of delayed tech, considering one base gas saturation. Other races didn't know how to abuse that until recently. One would argue that it's actually harder to balance your gateway composition as toss as it is to manage drones/units as Zerg. At least, as Zerg, you have the early map control to decide when it's the right time to mass up an army.
Same applies to stalkers. 8 stalkers has toss tie 400 gas onto them, and they aren't very cost-efficient in the early midgame against various styles of play.
Funny thing is that it seems to be only Koreans who understand that concept and abuse it to their hearts desire. On NA/Foreigner tournaments you see very passive play against toss in the early game (very delayed gas FE plays), giving them room to cut gateway units and get their tech out faster.
On October 03 2011 17:18 Notfragile wrote: All levels except Grandmasters/Pro: Zerg
The macro mechanics and game sense required are really unforgiving. Lack of scouting, means you die. Lack of injects means you die. Lack of droning means you die.
Also the lack of a wall-in makes it really harder to keep yourself safe against early agression. You have to know most of early/mid-game agression builds so you can counter them. It's not like you siege up and say "come at me bro". In the Bronze/Platinum tier are the mechanics that are killing you. In the DIamond/Masters is your lack of scouting/lack of game sense and probably lack of apm. Don't forget that impeccable 3 base macro with creep spreading requires around 80 apm. This does not leave much room for scouting/harassing/cute stuff on mid tier (Diamond/Master) players.
Now, for the GM/Pro: Protoss.
When everyone at your level has all your attack timings figured out. When even lower level players can kill you with a 1-1-1 or destroy your FFE with a bling/sling bust. When DT and VR are not working as they used to work. When while easier on the macro apm department, the other race players have finally "mastered" their harder macro and now you are on even ground. When it's almost impossible to grab map control from a Z or T who decides that he must not just sit idle in his base until he hits 200/200.
I'm currently trying to play as macro terran at plat level and it's really hard vs zerg! I always favored macro style and zerg was easier because I reached diamond. I did not have to pressure while building my economy. Then I guess one playing timing attacks would suffer as zerg, same for those playing cheese. Besides zerg is easier to learn to me because you're punished very hard if you drone too much, whereas as terran, you still can survive and it's harder to know when the big shit happened.
So I would say race difficulty also really depends of playstyle. Zerg really suits well to my playstyle and after thinking T was really OP it became my best matchup because I knew the basic timing attacks while massing drones as much as possible. On the opposite, as a more reactive player I have a hard time doing the first move as terran, but I'm slowly getting it.
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.
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
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)
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.
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 21:02 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.
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.
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.
On October 03 2011 06:35 ZiegFeld wrote: Being a GM Terran last season, I'd have to say Terran.
As a Terran, the ball is ALWAYS in your court, and it's up to you to execute plays in order to win. The longer the game drags on where the Zerg or Protoss can up their tech, the more likely Terran is to lose.
So being the dictator of the game makes it harder for you??? Gee, wish I had that problem. While i'm sure you are a good player to be in GM, have you tried ALL the races?
Read my post. When It's up to the Terran to execute plays, the are ALREADY playing in a reactionary manner. How does that put me in a dictating role?
On October 03 2011 06:35 ZiegFeld wrote: Being a GM Terran last season, I'd have to say Terran.
As a Terran, the ball is ALWAYS in your court, and it's up to you to execute plays in order to win. The longer the game drags on where the Zerg or Protoss can up their tech, the more likely Terran is to lose.
So being the dictator of the game makes it harder for you??? Gee, wish I had that problem. While i'm sure you are a good player to be in GM, have you tried ALL the races?
Read my post. When It's up to the Terran to execute plays, the are ALREADY playing in a reactionary manner. How does that put me in a dictating role?
...I'm pretty sure that's not what reactionary means. Especially in the context of TvZ.
On October 02 2011 20:11 aksfjh wrote: I too think a lot of people are misunderstanding the premise behind the poll, especially the last one. The conversation needs to stem from "how hard is it to make it to get promoted from _______ level of play" and not "who does the worst at _______ level." The latter is more of a balance discussion about the meta game, while the former is more of a general design perspective.
agreed except I edited it a little bit. For me that would be Z T Z P
There's too many "X can do Y cheese to Z league" posts. You can 6 pool, 4 gate, 3 rax to any league depending on your execution. It really just should be based around "standard" play.
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).
Everything that he quoted was true. Terran is the hardest to play in masters because you need to be able to have high apm, multitask, and drop. However, this also makes terran the strongest race, because when controlled correctly, terran gains immensely.
If anything, I think you're the biased one here. Please follow your own advice and stay calm, no one likes little babies.
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).
Everything that he quoted was true. Terran is the hardest to play in masters because you need to be able to have high apm, multitask, and drop. However, this also makes terran the strongest race, because when controlled correctly, terran gains immensely.
If anything, I think you're the biased one here. Please follow your own advice and stay calm, no one likes little babies.
Your right, but so many people blindly hate Terran and Terran players. EDIT: Most of them also say "My Terran sucks though"
In my opinion, zerg is the hardest to play until high diamond, and then terran becomes the hardest to play. That being said, being hardest to play doesn't equate to hardest to be successful with. Obviously, protoss is the hardest to be successful with at top levels right now. Maybe that will change soon though...
The race I play! [Insert other race here] has it so easy, because [anecdotal 'evidence' here] and [Even worse argument here]! Also, my race doesn't have [Insert macro mechanic here] while [insert other race here] does!
People don't appreciate the micro I have to do just to stay even with [Insert other race here], and I feel like their T1/1.5 units are just too strong...
OT:
I feel like it's very dependent on the play style of the month. The game hasn't been fully explored yet and there's a lot lacking beyond the two-base timing pushes we're seeing now (one-base for Terran). I'm sure with Heart of the Swarm and more options being available, the game will regress for a few months while everybody tries the new tactics, before it becomes better than it is now.
I'm actually surprised the amount of people who've admitted terran is really hard to play. Would've thought most would be like lolz noobrace just stim and amove gg.
Certainly at my level terran is fucking hard, like someone said above me, there's so much you need to do at once, and It's difficult to do it! Even at the top foreigner level, terran doesn't dominate, it's just the top top Korean levels, once they have the amazing micro and multitasking, that Terran shows its the strongest race overall.
I'm curious what people find hardest about the various matchups in their respective leagues. As a diamond Z I find my multitasking tested everywhere, and a lot of losses come to unscouted/unexpected timing attacks. Macro slips a bit, but it isn't usually the biggest factor in a loss. Depending on the map I have trouble getting a 3rd base up in time to maintain an even economic footing as well. XNC, Shattered Temple, for example have destructible rocks that slow me down.
I'm interested in finding out what's hardest about, say, PvZ so I can lean on my opponents where it makes it hard to stay balanced. Been trying to keep very close tabs on the 3rd base locations to see that timing. Some wins have come from 16-20 ling backstabs that dart in if I see an opening as well.
On October 04 2011 06:27 Azaryah wrote: Platinum Terrans are pretty horrible, I beat them 90% of the time regardless of race. Protoss and Zerg in Platinum do okay in comparison.
This Poll is interesting, yet at the same time, the failure to define "Hardest to play" makes the results quite meaningless.
Many people here wish to make the distinction between a race being "hard to play" and "hard to win with", but how can you really do this when the two must by nature be intertwined.
If we absolutely do not care at all about whether games are won or lost, then all races are equally easy to play across all leagues. Don't believe me? well next time you start up a game and the screen is loading, try this strategy..
Walk away from your computer, watch a movie, come back and see how you did. Unless your opponent was using this same strategy, you probably lost. Was it difficult to play this way? no. It requires 0 apm. Any race can do this.
It is only when you attribute a certain metric to be achieved that you can compare how difficult it is and get any meaningful information.
Some examples:
"How much player skill is required for each race to get to 50/100/200 supply?" "How much player skill is required for each race to get to 2/3/4 bases?"
or the most obvious one:
"How much player skill is required for each race to win?"
This still doesn't give the whole picture for GM level players as it is not known (and may not be possible to know) whether it is a players skill level or a races abilities which are the limitations on a player reaching targets.
Protoss in 1.3 for example were considered the weakest, and this was shown through many tournaments. Does this mean that the Protoss race was definitely weakest, or is it just that the limitations of current players (300-400apm) was not enough to get the most out of them. If people could play at 3000apm for example, would we see a stronger Protoss? This is of course entirely theoretical and as mentioned earlier, we probably would never know such things.
To summarise.. whilst people claim that Terran/Zerg have more things to do, and I would agree.. this does not alone make them hardest to play. It may just be that Protoss have more things to do, but are so hard to play that people can't achieve it. Each race more or less has the same functions - ground armies that need micro, drop ship style attacks, scouting units, detecting units etc. and hence have the same difficulties. The fact that players don't use all of these functions indicates a game/race balance issue rather than a limitation in the options available.
On October 07 2011 02:23 ggYouWinLOL wrote: This Poll is interesting, yet at the same time, the failure to define "Hardest to play" makes the results quite meaningless.
Many people here wish to make the distinction between a race being "hard to play" and "hard to win with", but how can you really do this when the two must by nature be intertwined.
If we absolutely do not care at all about whether games are won or lost, then all races are equally easy to play across all leagues. Don't believe me? well next time you start up a game and the screen is loading, try this strategy..
Walk away from your computer, watch a movie, come back and see how you did. Unless your opponent was using this same strategy, you probably lost. Was it difficult to play this way? no. It requires 0 apm. Any race can do this.
It is only when you attribute a certain metric to be achieved that you can compare how difficult it is and get any meaningful information.
Some examples:
"How much player skill is required for each race to get to 50/100/200 supply?" "How much player skill is required for each race to get to 2/3/4 bases?"
or the most obvious one:
"How much player skill is required for each race to win?"
This still doesn't give the whole picture for GM level players as it is not known (and may not be possible to know) whether it is a players skill level or a races abilities which are the limitations on a player reaching targets.
Protoss in 1.3 for example were considered the weakest, and this was shown through many tournaments. Does this mean that the Protoss race was definitely weakest, or is it just that the limitations of current players (300-400apm) was not enough to get the most out of them. If people could play at 3000apm for example, would we see a stronger Protoss? This is of course entirely theoretical and as mentioned earlier, we probably would never know such things.
To summarise.. whilst people claim that Terran/Zerg have more things to do, and I would agree.. this does not alone make them hardest to play. It may just be that Protoss have more things to do, but are so hard to play that people can't achieve it. Each race more or less has the same functions - ground armies that need micro, drop ship style attacks, scouting units, detecting units etc. and hence have the same difficulties. The fact that players don't use all of these functions indicates a game/race balance issue rather than a limitation in the options available.
I assume you play protoss? Cause it seems like you're trying to avoid the fact toss is easier to play. I don't get what your trying to say about walking away either...When I look at this discussion I think of people who have very little to medium amount of RTS experiece. I think the mechanics or zerg/toss make it easier to for someone to win with minimal experience or skill. Currently I'm a top ~15 diamond Terran, and I do have a zerg acct and play toss sometimes when I random, and I find that micro/macro mechanics of them are alot easier to get a hold of and alot more forgiving than terran.
I'm curious is there any pros out there that switch from zerg/toss to terran and were successful at it? I know Morrow did it the other way around, and I think the amount of skill taken to use T made him successful at Z.
On October 07 2011 05:07 Superneenja wrote: I assume you play protoss? Cause it seems like you're trying to avoid the fact toss is easier to play. I don't get what your trying to say about walking away either...When I look at this discussion I think of people who have very little to medium amount of RTS experiece. I think the mechanics or zerg/toss make it easier to for someone to win with minimal experience or skill. Currently I'm a top ~15 diamond Terran, and I do have a zerg acct and play toss sometimes when I random, and I find that micro/macro mechanics of them are alot easier to get a hold of and alot more forgiving than terran.
I'm curious is there any pros out there that switch from zerg/toss to terran and were successful at it? I know Morrow did it the other way around, and I think the amount of skill taken to use T made him successful at Z.
Ofcourse this is all IMO
Correct, I do play protoss and hence this is the only race from which I feel validated to give a viewpoint.
If you read my post, I am stating that "easier to play" is a phrase which means nothing without any metrics as to what it means to 'play'. If you mean that protoss are easiest to go from beginning a game to the end of the game, then read my point about how any race can do this without even pressing a key. If you mean that protoss can achieve a particular metric (e.g. winning) more easily than other races, then lets discuss that.
Which mechanics make it easier for Z/P? One big argument in this direction which I have seen is that T have simultaneous drops which require more skill, however Zerg can also do drops and Toss can too - the ability to do simultaneous drops is not unique to Terran. The effectiveness of drops is however unique to Terran. All races can do the same thing, using the same amount of micro (hence equally difficult), but the risk/reward in choosing to do drops means that it is only really Terran who do this as the amount of work required for other races does not pay off as easily. This is why I refer to it as an indication of game/racial balance rather than difficulty.
The fact is that most races can play the same way, but the way the units have been balanced means that it doesn't make sense for them to do so. So it comes back to the original question, if being difficult to play means being difficult to win, then lets just look at the rankings to determine which race is hardest. If being difficult to play means how hard is it to execute a particular strategy, then I would say that it is almost identical for all races to execute the same strategy, however some strategies are so weak for particular races (e.g. drop harass for Z) that they are not used in practice.
Obviously if we just look at ranking T will be up there alot, but its because the Korean T players have mastered the skill of Terran. Ofcourse all races can drop, but its ALMOST always essential that Terrans drop to win a game, especially TvZ. Also on the dropping aspect I think toss really should use warp prisms more, i mean its a mobile pylon...and if the opponents army is out of position can easily devastate their base. I won't even get into the warp mechanics lol. I just think generally that P/Z is alot more forgiving of someone's mistakes, T is just too fragile and without proper control you're more than likely going to lose. But in Korea, you just can't make mistakes period. LOL
On October 07 2011 05:48 Superneenja wrote: Obviously if we just look at ranking T will be up there alot, but its because the Korean T players have mastered the skill of Terran. Ofcourse all races can drop, but its ALMOST always essential that Terrans drop to win a game, especially TvZ. Also on the dropping aspect I think toss really should use warp prisms more, i mean its a mobile pylon...and if the opponents army is out of position can easily devastate their base. I won't even get into the warp mechanics lol. I just think generally that P/Z is alot more forgiving of someone's mistakes, T is just too fragile and without proper control you're more than likely going to lose. But in Korea, you just can't make mistakes period. LOL
Yeah Terran you can make no mistakes but if your all-in fails(1/1/1) you can just do it again with success, but if a protoss screws up the defense against that he cannot defend again even on 2 bases. This has been shown in many GSL games, but yeah I guess you play Terran.
On October 07 2011 02:23 ggYouWinLOL wrote: This Poll is interesting, yet at the same time, the failure to define "Hardest to play" makes the results quite meaningless.
Many people here wish to make the distinction between a race being "hard to play" and "hard to win with", but how can you really do this when the two must by nature be intertwined.
If we absolutely do not care at all about whether games are won or lost, then all races are equally easy to play across all leagues. Don't believe me? well next time you start up a game and the screen is loading, try this strategy..
Walk away from your computer, watch a movie, come back and see how you did. Unless your opponent was using this same strategy, you probably lost. Was it difficult to play this way? no. It requires 0 apm. Any race can do this.
It is only when you attribute a certain metric to be achieved that you can compare how difficult it is and get any meaningful information.
Some examples:
"How much player skill is required for each race to get to 50/100/200 supply?" "How much player skill is required for each race to get to 2/3/4 bases?"
or the most obvious one:
"How much player skill is required for each race to win?"
This still doesn't give the whole picture for GM level players as it is not known (and may not be possible to know) whether it is a players skill level or a races abilities which are the limitations on a player reaching targets.
Protoss in 1.3 for example were considered the weakest, and this was shown through many tournaments. Does this mean that the Protoss race was definitely weakest, or is it just that the limitations of current players (300-400apm) was not enough to get the most out of them. If people could play at 3000apm for example, would we see a stronger Protoss? This is of course entirely theoretical and as mentioned earlier, we probably would never know such things.
To summarise.. whilst people claim that Terran/Zerg have more things to do, and I would agree.. this does not alone make them hardest to play. It may just be that Protoss have more things to do, but are so hard to play that people can't achieve it. Each race more or less has the same functions - ground armies that need micro, drop ship style attacks, scouting units, detecting units etc. and hence have the same difficulties. The fact that players don't use all of these functions indicates a game/race balance issue rather than a limitation in the options available.
I assume you play protoss? Cause it seems like you're trying to avoid the fact toss is easier to play. I don't get what your trying to say about walking away either...When I look at this discussion I think of people who have very little to medium amount of RTS experiece. I think the mechanics or zerg/toss make it easier to for someone to win with minimal experience or skill. Currently I'm a top ~15 diamond Terran, and I do have a zerg acct and play toss sometimes when I random, and I find that micro/macro mechanics of them are alot easier to get a hold of and alot more forgiving than terran.
I'm curious is there any pros out there that switch from zerg/toss to terran and were successful at it? I know Morrow did it the other way around, and I think the amount of skill taken to use T made him successful at Z.
Ofcourse this is all IMO
Claiming that terran is harder to play while terran dominates across the board is just another way of saying that players who chose terran "naturally" are more skilled somehow. Whatever makes you feel better I guess...
Logically, the phrase "easy to play" has to mean something along the lines of "easy to win a game" otherwise it completely lacks any semantics and just serves as an empty phrase for people bullshitting themselves.
On October 07 2011 02:23 ggYouWinLOL wrote: This Poll is interesting, yet at the same time, the failure to define "Hardest to play" makes the results quite meaningless.
Many people here wish to make the distinction between a race being "hard to play" and "hard to win with", but how can you really do this when the two must by nature be intertwined.
If we absolutely do not care at all about whether games are won or lost, then all races are equally easy to play across all leagues. Don't believe me? well next time you start up a game and the screen is loading, try this strategy..
Walk away from your computer, watch a movie, come back and see how you did. Unless your opponent was using this same strategy, you probably lost. Was it difficult to play this way? no. It requires 0 apm. Any race can do this.
It is only when you attribute a certain metric to be achieved that you can compare how difficult it is and get any meaningful information.
Some examples:
"How much player skill is required for each race to get to 50/100/200 supply?" "How much player skill is required for each race to get to 2/3/4 bases?"
or the most obvious one:
"How much player skill is required for each race to win?"
This still doesn't give the whole picture for GM level players as it is not known (and may not be possible to know) whether it is a players skill level or a races abilities which are the limitations on a player reaching targets.
Protoss in 1.3 for example were considered the weakest, and this was shown through many tournaments. Does this mean that the Protoss race was definitely weakest, or is it just that the limitations of current players (300-400apm) was not enough to get the most out of them. If people could play at 3000apm for example, would we see a stronger Protoss? This is of course entirely theoretical and as mentioned earlier, we probably would never know such things.
To summarise.. whilst people claim that Terran/Zerg have more things to do, and I would agree.. this does not alone make them hardest to play. It may just be that Protoss have more things to do, but are so hard to play that people can't achieve it. Each race more or less has the same functions - ground armies that need micro, drop ship style attacks, scouting units, detecting units etc. and hence have the same difficulties. The fact that players don't use all of these functions indicates a game/race balance issue rather than a limitation in the options available.
I assume you play protoss? Cause it seems like you're trying to avoid the fact toss is easier to play. I don't get what your trying to say about walking away either...When I look at this discussion I think of people who have very little to medium amount of RTS experiece. I think the mechanics or zerg/toss make it easier to for someone to win with minimal experience or skill. Currently I'm a top ~15 diamond Terran, and I do have a zerg acct and play toss sometimes when I random, and I find that micro/macro mechanics of them are alot easier to get a hold of and alot more forgiving than terran.
I'm curious is there any pros out there that switch from zerg/toss to terran and were successful at it? I know Morrow did it the other way around, and I think the amount of skill taken to use T made him successful at Z.
Ofcourse this is all IMO
Claiming that terran is harder to play while terran dominates across the board is just another way of saying that players who chose terran "naturally" are more skilled somehow. Whatever makes you feel better I guess...
Logically, the phrase "easy to play" has to mean something along the lines of "easy to win a game" otherwise it completely lacks any semantics and just serves as an empty phrase for people bullshitting themselves.
While I'm Terran and I believe this, there are alot of people who don't play Terran and agree, but I guess you're right whatever makes me feel better. I wouldn't say just picking T = you have more skill, its if you take the time to learn T then ya. I've seen pro T's go other races and be succesful, haven't seen it the other way around but I could be wrong. I think what it comes down to is the mechanics of the races but what do I know, oh except that Terran is the hardest to play /troll
On October 04 2011 14:11 Kenpachi wrote: Terran #1 ez until Diamond. then you start having to micro. And then its suppposedly easier in Masters. w/e
High Masters Protoss. I would have to say that Terran begins to be the hardest to play around Mid Diamond 'till Around High Masters. I understand it's no ez feat beating my army 1a a piece and thus the micro is a lot more intensive at that point in skill level. I give a lot of props to my opponents for things like blanket emping from a flank.. Sniping Collossi whilst keeping their bio out of range. Real good synergy between your units make the difference at this level I believe and that's where Terrans are strained the most imo.
On October 07 2011 06:02 Superneenja wrote: While I'm Terran and I believe this, there are alot of people who don't play Terran and agree
I do believe that's called a baseless assertion.
On October 07 2011 06:02 Superneenja wrote:I wouldn't say just picking T = you have more skill, its if you take the time to learn T then ya.
Wait - what? If you take the time to learn T then you become a more skillful progamer than if you pick P or Z? Where on Earth did you get this from? There is literally no way to prove this with statistical evidence, or even to get a feel for it.
On October 07 2011 06:02 Superneenja wrote: I've seen pro T's go other races and be succesful, haven't seen it the other way around but I could be wrong.
MC dominates in practice as Terran, I know that much.
On October 07 2011 06:02 Superneenja wrote:I wouldn't say just picking T = you have more skill, its if you take the time to learn T then ya.
Wait - what? If you take the time to learn T then you become a more skillful progamer than if you pick P or Z? Where on Earth did you get this from? There is literally no way to prove this with statistical evidence, or even to get a feel for it.
On October 07 2011 06:02 Superneenja wrote: I've seen pro T's go other races and be succesful, haven't seen it the other way around but I could be wrong.
MC dominates in practice as Terran, I know that much.
A) I wasn't even talking about generally, just from what I read on this topic. B) I think if you learn all the mechanics of T and learn to play with precision (as I believe T does take) then you will encompass all the mechanics needed to be good with either of the other races. Again this is IMO and from what I see off racing when I don't play on my main. C) You're right I did briefly see MC smurfing T on Kr server on some stream and he was doing good. It would be interesting to see lets say MC switch to T and MMA switch to toss who would grasp the race faster. My moneys on MMA
Ofcourse this is all my opinion, and I can understand how you'd be offended if you played P or Z. But I mean those with less skill always migrate to things that take less skill to play amirite?
1) Terran is the hardest to master (i think this only really comes out at the masters level) 2) Terran has the highest skill cap - thus at the pro level terran performs very well becuase with infintie skill terran is infinitely strong. (obviously not literally but thats the idea)
Terran is defintely the best designed race, in that every unit can to microed to a lot more effective, plus you can do drops and things to get ahead. With the other races, there really isn't a lot of opprotunities to micro and do multiproged attacks, so its hard for better zergs or protosses to really shine. Because every unit needs micro and you need to be able to do drops as terran, I feel that Terran is the hardest race to play. However, it also makes Terran the strongest race, because there is the highest skill cap.
To increase the skill caps of the other races to allow for better players to play better, blizz should get rid of microless units (ex- collosi) and replace it with something very powerful in the hands of the best players in the world, but very terrible with not so great players. This would allow all 3 races to have equal opportunity in microing, and I think would really help balance the game.
To be honest I think this thread information is unreliable. Mainly because the grandmaster and pro lvl section has like 3k votes and theres not even that many people in that subcategory. Also you can't say anything about difficulty at that level if you do not play at that level.
Another thing is something that could be super easy to one person could be super hard to another person.
Its a good discussion thread but I question the level of quality these polls are actually giving out
Since pretty much no one here has experience playing all three races at each level, this poll is more a reflection of what race TL posters play.
You can see that Zerg is the most played race for TLers from Bronze to Plat, and then most Diamond and Masters TLers play Terran. For GM, since there are likely very few GM TLers who voted in the poll, you can see that the posters are basing their opinion off winrates in tournaments; Protoss is doing poorly, therefore it is the hardest to play (but only at that level!).
On October 08 2011 15:01 zanmat0 wrote: Since pretty much no one here has experience playing all three races at each level, this poll is more a reflection of what race TL posters play.
You can see that Zerg is the most played race for TLers from Bronze to Plat, and then most Diamond and Masters TLers play Terran. For GM, since there are likely very few GM TLers who voted in the poll, you can see that the posters are basing their opinion off winrates in tournaments; Protoss is doing poorly, therefore it is the hardest to play (but only at that level!).
In any case, a very flawed and inaccurate poll.
He just put what I said and made it much better haha
Personally I think that protoss are the hardest at bronze level, I say this because at the lowest level, you have the bio ball with concussive shells, and the early pool all-ins or attack click roach ball.
Silver I think zerg have it the hardest, you try to venture away from the cheeses because your opponents adapt and learn how to defend it. adapting to the macro style of zerg is a little tricky and not like the other two races, reminder to constant inject and creep spread.
Gold I think that terran have it the hardest, dealing with the ling-bling muta composition and protoss deathball.
Plat/Diamond I think it is well balanced.
Masters / GM this is bias opinion but I think that Protoss have it the hardest. Terran have solid builds, and solid units, there is never a composition or timing attack that they struggle against. Zerg are far past the 2 unit composition whine if I lose state of the game. Where protoss are forced to use their entire tech tree at every level of the game.
(We joke about marines being tier 3 units, and the roach deathball is no differen't)
z's stupidly easy once you get past gold. players don't know how to apply pressure effectively besides all ins. then when you hit masters people start doing gay stuff or they actually know how to siege there drop there spread units micro efficiently etcetc. of course before that making units vs making drones is the hardest acquired skill in the game for a new player.
terran is hard until players learn how to macro. splitting rines, sieging properly and dropping efficiently are all required skills that players don't have effectively till masters. hardest race to play until masters if you play standard
protoss is so easy before players learn how to pressure and hard after. then you learn how to properly play protoss defense and it becomes easier.
I played zerg until diamond and then switched to protoss and am now masters and I agree with the polls, even though my case has been quite different.
I played BW as all 3 races quite casually/poorly and watched a lot of pro SC2 before I even got a computer good enough to run it (lol). So by the time I started playing I had an excellent grasp on strategy, considering I was starting from Bronze. It was relatively easy to rise up to Diamond, but I can see how it is very tough to get that high as Zerg for most. It definitely feels like a ton more work. Like, when you open 15h 15p vs. terran you have to learn all the reactions to what he does, but all he has to know is that he indeed can go 2port banshee off of 1 base.
Then I switched to Protoss because playing ZvP felt really shitty.
I think people confusing race difficulty with hard is to win with certain race.
On October 08 2011 15:11 shawster wrote: i play random
z's stupidly easy once you get past gold. players don't know how to apply pressure effectively besides all ins. then when you hit masters people start doing gay stuff or they actually know how to siege there drop there spread units micro efficiently etcetc. of course before that making units vs making drones is the hardest acquired skill in the game for a new player.
Care to explain why zerg is "stupidly easy" past gold?
This thread is full of nonsense and biased opinions.
Terran is definitely the hardest at Diamond/Master level. I went from bronze to diamond as terran, and I can't just straight up out macro the other player any more. At diamond it gets to the point where everyone has as good macro as I do, so Terran has to rely on drops and good engagements to win. This is tough because terran has the hardest micro/multitasking requirements. This is why KR terrans are doing amazing, because they have the mechanics to use the race to its full potential.
This is obviously completely subjective and depends on what you're good at. For me, Terran has definitely been the easiest race in diamond, think I was at around 80% winrate.
Don't even understand why there is a poll from GM and Pro... GMs / pros that voted in that are hardly the majority. These polls/this thread is pretty useless and just biased.
Angry gold zergs voting for Diamond/Master and GM/Pro lol. "I'm not playing at that level, but from what I have seen with my biased opinion I can say that" and " We all know that x(where it mostly is Z and P) is weakest race" are not valid arguments lol.
On October 08 2011 15:11 shawster wrote: i play random
z's stupidly easy once you get past gold. players don't know how to apply pressure effectively besides all ins. then when you hit masters people start doing gay stuff or they actually know how to siege there drop there spread units micro efficiently etcetc. of course before that making units vs making drones is the hardest acquired skill in the game for a new player.
Care to explain why zerg is "stupidly easy" past gold? .
He explained. Its RIGHT THERE in his post. Right after the very line you asked about. Are you so blinded by zerg tears that you couldnt even handle reading the rest of it?
players don't know how to apply pressure effectively besides all ins.
and maybe you missed this part where he explains why its no longer easy after masters
then when you hit masters people start doing gay stuff or they actually know how to siege there drop there spread units micro efficiently etcetc
There you go
On October 08 2011 18:42 GotTheLife wrote: Terran is definitely the hardest at Diamond/Master level. I went from bronze to diamond as terran, and I can't just straight up out macro the other player any more. At diamond it gets to the point where everyone has as good macro as I do, so Terran has to rely on drops and good engagements to win. This is tough because terran has the hardest micro/multitasking requirements. This is why KR terrans are doing amazing, because they have the mechanics to use the race to its full potential.
My race is hardest at the level i play at because i play it Maybe before you say terran is 'definitely' the hardest at diamond/master, you should try getting to masters with zerg and toss
On October 08 2011 18:31 Alpina wrote: I think people confusing race difficulty with hard is to win with certain race.
On October 08 2011 15:11 shawster wrote: i play random
z's stupidly easy once you get past gold. players don't know how to apply pressure effectively besides all ins. then when you hit masters people start doing gay stuff or they actually know how to siege there drop there spread units micro efficiently etcetc. of course before that making units vs making drones is the hardest acquired skill in the game for a new player.
Care to explain why zerg is "stupidly easy" past gold? .
He explained. Its RIGHT THERE in his post. Right after the very line you asked about. Are you so blinded by zerg tears that you couldnt even handle reading the rest of it?
I am just going to say this I have gotten to masters with zerg and terran and gotten to diamond with toss.
I honestly dont think any race is harder then the other because they all have different mechanics and its hard to say. Sure while I play a race and lose I will be like wow this race is so dumb. But that is just in the moment rage.
I honestly think the races have to different playstyles to even tell which one is harder.
from personal expirience as a random player, zerg was the hardest for me in bronze and silver. in gold and plat, zerg became my best and terran was the hardest for me. in diamond i find protoss really difficult and zerg still my best.
Only random playing people have any relevant input to this question, like two posters above this post.
Outside of random players this is just another baseless (and heated) opinion poll like balance discussions tend to be. People try to hide their natural race bias, some better, some not so well.
"I remember back in beta when i was at that level, race X seemed kindof hard to play against, it must be the easy race." "I think race Y has a lot of losses in korean pro level, I vote that" <- with this kind of nonsense reasoning. And then bringing macro and scouting and whatnot arguments to the table to create an infinite loop of arguments which can't be proven or disproven.
At Bronze - Platinum macro is most important, and hitting injects perfectly is a bit more of a chore than queuing. Zerg is also more susceptible to cheese at those levels, until diamond+ where most zerg can defend cheese.
At Diamond-Masters the skill ceiling for terran seems to rise much faster than protoss or zerg, simply because of their macro mechanics and necessary tactics.
At GM-Pro Level, protoss are the least successful at the moment, so its hardest to play them
I think asking a Random GM player who started in Bronze would give you the most accurate answers. Some of the "zerg" answers in the lower leagues I find completely wrong here....
On October 08 2011 18:31 Alpina wrote: I think people confusing race difficulty with hard is to win with certain race.
On October 08 2011 15:11 shawster wrote: i play random
z's stupidly easy once you get past gold. players don't know how to apply pressure effectively besides all ins. then when you hit masters people start doing gay stuff or they actually know how to siege there drop there spread units micro efficiently etcetc. of course before that making units vs making drones is the hardest acquired skill in the game for a new player.
Care to explain why zerg is "stupidly easy" past gold? .
He explained. Its RIGHT THERE in his post. Right after the very line you asked about. Are you so blinded by zerg tears that you couldnt even handle reading the rest of it?
On October 08 2011 18:42 GotTheLife wrote: Terran is definitely the hardest at Diamond/Master level. I went from bronze to diamond as terran, and I can't just straight up out macro the other player any more. At diamond it gets to the point where everyone has as good macro as I do, so Terran has to rely on drops and good engagements to win. This is tough because terran has the hardest micro/multitasking requirements. This is why KR terrans are doing amazing, because they have the mechanics to use the race to its full potential.
My race is hardest at the level i play at because i play it Maybe before you say terran is 'definitely' the hardest at diamond/master, you should try getting to masters with zerg and toss
LOL the poll even agrees that terran is harder at diamond/master. Toss/zerg is pure macro at this level, while it's up to the terran to harass and do damage. Toss/zerg can just sit back and defend all game, but if terran does the same thing they lose.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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 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 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 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 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 23:28 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.
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.
Divide regions up, and you'll see that below GM down to silver, Terran has the smallest representation on foreign servers. In the diamond range, Terran only makes up about a quarter of the league, which is quite abysmal in comparison. Meanwhile, in Korea, where many more players have apm intensive experience in BW, Terran representation is respectable and even quite large in the top leagues.
For the players claiming not to practice very much: Idra took a small break when he got back from Korea, Fruitdealer (who has somewhat faded from the scene), and Trickster. These are the main ones coming to mind, who are all Korean trained players. They maintained relatively successful results for quite a bit of time while claiming not to train very hard.
Also, I'm debating over a spectrum. The (semi)pro scene evolves much more beyond the walls of the GOMTV studio. Top levels of play must include quite a wide range to be statistically and logically reliable. From the semi-pro level, we get players like minigun and destiny who have had very strong showings at times. I know destiny has at least taken a series off of bomber.
If you want to argue ONLY over GSL Code S, then you don't even know how skill works. It should be said and understood that for a majority of those players, if they played another race, they would STILL be in Code S. There are no players who clearly shouldn't be there due to racial abuse.
Polt completely disagrees with this... and so do I.
On October 16 2011 04:28 aksfjh wrote: If you want to argue ONLY over GSL Code S, then you don't even know how skill works. It should be said and understood that for a majority of those players, if they played another race, they would STILL be in Code S. There are no players who clearly shouldn't be there due to racial abuse.
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.
Divide regions up, and you'll see that below GM down to silver, Terran has the smallest representation on foreign servers. In the diamond range, Terran only makes up about a quarter of the league, which is quite abysmal in comparison. Meanwhile, in Korea, where many more players have apm intensive experience in BW, Terran representation is respectable and even quite large in the top leagues.
For the players claiming not to practice very much: Idra took a small break when he got back from Korea, Fruitdealer (who has somewhat faded from the scene), and Trickster. These are the main ones coming to mind, who are all Korean trained players. They maintained relatively successful results for quite a bit of time while claiming not to train very hard.
Also, I'm debating over a spectrum. The (semi)pro scene evolves much more beyond the walls of the GOMTV studio. Top levels of play must include quite a wide range to be statistically and logically reliable. From the semi-pro level, we get players like minigun and destiny who have had very strong showings at times. I know destiny has at least taken a series off of bomber.
If you want to argue ONLY over GSL Code S, then you don't even know how skill works. It should be said and understood that for a majority of those players, if they played another race, they would STILL be in Code S. There are no players who clearly shouldn't be there due to racial abuse.
And considering he's in Grand Masters, has a GSL Title under his belt and plays Terran, I think I'll take his word over yours if you don't mind. But I am impressed by your ability to spin it otherwise. Edit: Did I say impressed? I meant disgusted.
I have to say I'm saddened on how Protoss players have been duped into thinking they've been playing the easy race for so long. This myth was perpetuated even for the top most level until recently. Only when Win Rate Graphs were released corroborated with statements from Blizzard, Code S players and the relatively polite vigilance of Toss fans pointing them out to their Terran & Zerg counterparts did this change. I suppose that's to be expected, since challenging false beliefs is the age old battle. For the longest time in spite of the evidence, the Earth was flat and at the center of the Universe. Just more of the same with SC2, albeit a little more trivial.
Protoss. It is simply supported by the fact that barely any protoss make it to tournaments like GSL, and if they do, they have a lower win rate by far, in comparison to other races. It cannot be that they are bad, everyone that makes it to GSL has pretty much similar skill levels. I mean honestly, the cost in ratio of the efficiency of the troops is just seemingly low... Why is MC by far the best protoss? He is the closest person to mastering the protoss race. Other zergs and terrans seem to struggle as to who is the best at their race. It is because they are all relatively easy to master, so the limit set upon who the best player on is nearly head to head with other terran/zerg players. Whereas for MC, he is ahead of the game by a long shot, only because all the other protoss are lacking something, and are continually struggling to master being a protoss. Every race claims that they get punishes by small mistakes, but protoss by far gets punished the most. one wrong force field? It is over. Didn't command collesei to attack? Over. Didn't send zealots in first? Over. Also, protoss has the most micro skills in the book, by statistics. Every unit plays a crucial factor in micro battles. And above all, Protoss can be read like a book. Early twilight? Expect blink play. 6 Gateways by 6 minutes? Early harass. Other races like terran and zerg have many varieties, and constant scouting must be needed to overcome this, which literally limits all options to phoenix hallucination, and an invisible detector that can only come halfway into the game, which travels a bit faster than an overlord...
Microing drops, timings, and larvae injects make Zerg and Terran the harder races to inexperienced players, but in the end, when every player knows their game, Protoss continually struggles with winning.
EPT
is the easiest, dont know which one of 
and 
that is the hardest though
, i'll summarize my point to what i thought it was to make it clear: at any level one should be playing against people of their own skill (like you said) however, at any level each race is more difficult in each matchup, i have trouble with PVZ personally. However, zerg has gotten a name for its base, it fairly well known that most zergs think that zerg is by far the hardest race to play and i disagree i think that each race has its own level where each race can be more or less difficult to play. Thats why i brought up the toss evidence at the end and the Idra evidence in the middle or so.
