|
On November 30 2011 21:16 Pulimuli wrote:
Terran rewards skill and multitasking more then say, protoss which is the same as it was in BW due to all the microing. Which makes them really strong in the hands of a godlike player but very weak in the hands of lesser players
This is nothing new
I hardly doubt that PvT in BW and SC2 are comparable at all.
In SC2 I agree that with free dropships that can heal and insanely high dps-infantry thanks to stim you get a lot out of multi-dropping.
However in BW Protoss had options like Reaver harass or DT drops to put the pressure back on Terran, furthermore there was recall. Also as Protoss you had to constantly take care of Vulture harassment and clear minefields which requires multitasking and skill as it does to harass effectively with Vultures.
|
On November 30 2011 21:42 Apolex wrote:He's comparing foreign terran players ... with foreign zerg and protoss players. if you take koreans out of the picture and watch the games without koreans ...you'll see that terran is fundamentally ... very very weak. But Koreans have overcome that with hard training ... good strategies and extremely good micro. It seems that it takes a lot more to be a good terran then a good zerg / protoss is what the op is trying to say. I don't believe the other two races can blame terrans for posting so much of these threads in the past weeks because it is EXTREMELY hard to play terran on ladder from bronze to mid masters. I can't say the same about GM level because i've never been there. http://www.sc2ranks.com/stats/league/all/1/allthe stats do show that terran is under represented out of all three races from GM - Masters - Diamond - Platnium - even gold. It sky rockets at the silver and bronze levels. These are active players that have done their placements this season. While people argue it's easy to learn and play terran... it's definitely a lot harder to get good at it.
That link doesn't really matter. There's a difference of a little more than 1% between zerg and terran in Grandmaster, and a few percent in Masters which means that there's no huge discrepancy. There's so many different explanations for this yet people jump on the UP bandwagon as soon as possible.
|
*Sigh* comments are frustrating, lol.
The recent results don't even matter to the point at hand - I simply put them there to show that it *appears* this phenomena exists not only theoretically but in practice as well.
The point of the post is quite simple really:
Logically, if one race requires more multitasking owness than the others, but is being balanced around only those who have the necessary ability at the top of the game to get every inch of power from those units, then below that level the race logically should be less powerful than the other races because you simply cannot utilize its full potential.
While I'm not saying that if you play shit you'll still be great as a zerg or protoss, I am saying that logic dictates you should be penalized less for lack of multitasking if you play a race that punishes you less for it.
The argument that this means "you need to get better" does not solve this problem, because if all terrans get better the game will still be balanced around that top level, and you will still be behind where you would otherwise be.
|
On November 30 2011 22:04 SpunXtain wrote:
*Sigh* comments are frustrating, lol.
The recent results don't even matter to the point at hand - I simply put them there to show that it *appears* this phenomena exists not only theoretically but in practice as well.
The point of the post is quite simple really:
Logically, if one race requires more multitasking owness than the others, but is being balanced around only those who have the necessary ability at the top of the game to get every inch of power from those units, then below that level the race logically should be less powerful than the other races because you simply cannot utilize its full potential.
While I'm not saying that if you play shit you'll still be great as a zerg or protoss, I am saying that logic dictates you should be penalized less for lack of multitasking if you play a race that punishes you less for it.
The argument that this means "you need to get better" does not solve this problem, because if all terrans get better the game will still be balanced around that top level, and you will still be behind where you would otherwise be.
Terran players have been doing great overall since release. You have no proof that says otherwise beside some tournament results that have several good explanations that don't involve balance.
This thread seems to be thinly veiled whine to me.
|
I think your point about terran units having a higher potential with good micro is interesting and valid. I think it is a general consensus that terran and protoss require more micro than zerg (i play zerg fwiw).
But, you could really make this argument about arbitrary aspects of the other races as well. For example, I could say that only pros really understand larvae management, and therefore zerg is UP below the pro level. Or I could say that gateway armies are very weak, and that without gosu forcefields, protoss is the weakest race.
The entire concept of "balance below the pro level" really just doesn't make sense to talk about. The only concrete definition of balance is that if the game is played as perfectly as it can be played by humans, then all three races are viable.
|
Terran is by far the most complete and versatile race by design, with good game overall early, mid and late, please stop whining for not being as imbalanced and not being +4 terrans in top 8's anymmore, please.
Plus, every other race have been in awful patches and pushed the limits of their builds and skills, except terran, so its time for them to brainstorm a bit for new builds that not always involve timmings, specially considering the amazing raid capabilities.
|
Well,
considering your starting post, i agree to you, that the problem of balancing sc2 is fundamentally connected to the amount of micro, that can be used rewardingly for each race. However i´m not sure if you thought about the following point as well. To me it seems that terran proactive battle micro, if applied gives the terran player (and rightfully so) an advantage during the course of the game, whereas no micro at all would put him in a slight disadvantage. As skill level rises, the amount of battle micro will also increase, it appears to me. But i think that proactive terran micro will force zerg and toss opponents to use reactice micro more in order to keep up. As toss or Zerg player this is necessary, as you are behind in battles otherwise. this includes (while you named the options for proactive micro) stuff like, forcefields, collosi positions, storms, feedbacks, blinks as well as flanks, ling surrounds, baneling targets etc. So i would argue, that the amount of micro used by the terran in Tvz and Tvp is necessarily the amount of micro the opponent has to deliver as well not to fall behind.
Considering this, i argue, that all races have the same necessity of micro owness, but depending on the MU, its either pro or reactive micro, thus solving the micro issue in the balance equation.
|
On November 30 2011 13:18 Ruscour wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 13:14 SpunXtain wrote:On November 30 2011 13:12 Endymion wrote:
u gotta sk8
furthermore, when is 30/11/2011... Today? For everyone in the world who isn't American and puts Day before month, as they recognize Month/Day/Year makes no sense. This always confuses the hell out of me. It's off topic, but I need to rant here. Small -> medium -> large, day -> month -> year. How does month -> day -> year make any sense at all? The world doesn't use American measurements because they make no logical sense. So don't discriminate on others, Americans, for not using your flawed system. /rant
Allow me to rant back at you because this day/month/year crap has always annoyed me. Sorry to be off topic as well.
small > medium > large, second > minute > hour
Do you say that the time is 37:10 when someone asks you what time it is at 10:37 just because you're apparently supposed to go in ascending order of measurement? Of course not. When someone asks what the date is, you say (month) (day), and so that's how you write it.
As for our other weird measurements, yes, they're dumb, and yes, we should do away with them.
|
He's not saying it's imbalanced or anything, he's just looking at design flaws and how the game is balanced overall (Which I agree with). AND he isn't being whiny or anything, I have no idea where people are getting that from lol... It's a pretty straightforward post.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On November 30 2011 22:25 forsooth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 13:18 Ruscour wrote:On November 30 2011 13:14 SpunXtain wrote:On November 30 2011 13:12 Endymion wrote:
u gotta sk8
furthermore, when is 30/11/2011... Today? For everyone in the world who isn't American and puts Day before month, as they recognize Month/Day/Year makes no sense. This always confuses the hell out of me. It's off topic, but I need to rant here. Small -> medium -> large, day -> month -> year. How does month -> day -> year make any sense at all? The world doesn't use American measurements because they make no logical sense. So don't discriminate on others, Americans, for not using your flawed system. /rant Allow me to rant back at you because this day/month/year crap has always annoyed me. Sorry to be off topic as well. small > medium > large, second > minute > hour Do you say that the time is 37:10 when someone asks you what time it is at 10:37 just because you're apparently supposed to go in ascending order of measurement? Of course not. When someone asks what the date is, you say (month) (day), and so that's how you write it. As for our other weird measurements, yes, they're dumb, and yes, we should do away with them.
... you can't be serious. The point is that it should be either 1,2,3 OR 3,2,1, not 2,1,3... :/
|
On November 30 2011 22:27 shishy wrote:
He's not saying it's imbalanced or anything, he's just looking at design flaws and how the game is balanced overall (Which I agree with). AND he isn't being whiny or anything, I have no idea where people are getting that from lol... It's a pretty straightforward post.
That's not true as he has no proof yet states that terran is underpowered in lower brackets based on the fact that foreign terrans aren't doing so well. There's been countless arguments against this and there's just so many other explanations that are valid that there's no reason to cry over this for quite some time.
From OP's edit:
My argument is not that Terran is underpowered, it is that fundamentally it is difficult to balance the game for different levels of play.
Conflicts with:
The problem with this response is that at lower levels, where players are not at the same level as the Korean scene and do not have the same micro/multitask potential, Terran is fundamentally going to be a weaker race. Many may dispute this fact, but the results even of top Foreign players show that this statement is true.
|
On November 30 2011 21:38 tomatriedes wrote:
In last month's TLPD win rate graph, which takes into account tournaments worldwide, terran was ahead of the other two races and, according to the same figures, has been ahead of the other two races since the game was released. Let me emphasize- this is not just GSL, but tournaments worldwide. I'm sorry OP, but these figures mean more to me than picking a few recent tournaments. Perhaps in next month's TLPD win rate graph we'll see slightly less terran domination but, if that's the case, that can only be a good thing, considering they've been ahead of the other two races since the game was released. About time one of the other two races in the game had a turn at the top, no?
This isn't really the point of discussion. Terran can do a lot of stupid shit early/mid game, and hence win. I would like to know what are the probabilites of teran winning in games longer than 25 minutes?
|
You dont need brains to figure out the single obvious truth.
1. Terran units with good micro can counter the units meant to counter them.
This is largely due to the range advantage terran units possess. The marines vs banelings is a classic example, against lower skilled terrans, banelings absolutely destroys mass marines. Against pros, nope, often falls flat on its face and marines destroy banelings with relatively fewer losses.
Another simple example, Marauder with conc shells. Zealots are meant to counter them. Guess what? Doesn't happen vs pros who split and micro with stim.
Feedback to counter ghosts? Works ok vs. lesser terrans who don't pay attention, otherwise emp has a longer effective range and aoe to take out multiple templars etc.
Even Hellions vs roaches are funny in that roaches are almost meant to "hard counter" but with micro, hellions do alright.
What about BC vs VR, the unit with bonus dmg vs massive and meant to take out BCs? With yamato and good micro, the fight ends before it starts with a flawless win for BCs.
Even siege tanks vs immortals, b4 the buff, immortals 5 range vs 7 on unsieged tanks meant even tanks could kite immortals and win, but not that anyone would bother.
|
On November 30 2011 21:43 althaz wrote:
Terran macro is by far the easiest, you can't really argue anything else. However, although their micro is not harder than any other races at the top level, their multitasking requirement is however, higher than the other races. I'd argue that their micro is the least cerebral of all the races, HOWEVER you have to spread it out over the whole battle.
Examples of what I mean:
Zerg - begin battle by manoeuvring several groups of units into a flanking position. Then check hatches for larva and queens for energy.
Protoss - Forcefield, Storm, Focus Fire. Check building queues and chrono-boost and go to a pylon to warp in units.
Terran - EMP, SNIPE. Stutter step bio and focus-fire tanks whilst continuing to check building queues and Orbital energy. <- This last is very hard for most people (especially people who didn't play Broodwar, IMO).
Zerg and Protoss can do their setup micro (which is a lot more involved than Terrans with most compositions) then do their macroing. Terran needs to micro right through the whole battle.
People who don't play Terran complain because Terran micro is drop-dead simple (and it mostly is, but simple does not equal easy). However people who do play Terran understand that keeping up that micro is actually quite difficult whilst also keeping on top of their macro. If Terran had to go back to their base like Zerg (for injects) and Protoss (for warpgates) then they would actually be quite weak in the late game, especially vs Protoss.
I play all three races for what it's worth.
EDIT: Also, it's probably worth pointing out that the main reason pro foreign Terrans aren't doing so well is actually because there just aren't many particularly good ones. I would probably say that Thorzain and Jinro are the best two but Jinro is in a bit of a slump and Thorzain (the best foreigner Terran, IMO) really needs to go back to Korea for a while. The best foreigners play Protoss and Zerg right now. Maybe because with those two races strategy is more important and mechanics less so, compared to Terran?
Yeh I agree that macroing while doing other stuff is kinda easy with terran. But even if you factor that in, IMO to play terran late game is still harder than playing the other races.
|
On November 30 2011 22:49 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 21:38 tomatriedes wrote:
In last month's TLPD win rate graph, which takes into account tournaments worldwide, terran was ahead of the other two races and, according to the same figures, has been ahead of the other two races since the game was released. Let me emphasize- this is not just GSL, but tournaments worldwide. I'm sorry OP, but these figures mean more to me than picking a few recent tournaments. Perhaps in next month's TLPD win rate graph we'll see slightly less terran domination but, if that's the case, that can only be a good thing, considering they've been ahead of the other two races since the game was released. About time one of the other two races in the game had a turn at the top, no? This isn't really the point of discussion. Terran can do a lot of stupid shit early/mid game, and hence win. I would like to know what are the probabilites of teran winning in games longer than 25 minutes?
Depends, GSL terran? Pretty damn good chance.
The argument that "foreign" good players don't play terran doesn't hold water. Given a random size pool of players with a large enough sample size, there will be good players of all races.
A good protoss/zerg > good terran.
An excellent terran > protoss/zerg.
But leenock almost disproved this by defeating MvP, however, the trend needs to keep going for it to be noteworthy.
|
On November 30 2011 22:51 SilverforceX wrote:
You dont need brains to figure out the single obvious truth.
1. Terran units with good micro can counter the units meant to counter them.
This is largely due to the range advantage terran units possess. The marines vs banelings is a classic example, against lower skilled terrans, banelings absolutely destroys mass marines. Against pros, nope, often falls flat on its face and marines destroy banelings with relatively fewer losses.
Another simple example, Marauder with conc shells. Zealots are meant to counter them. Guess what? Doesn't happen vs pros who split and micro with stim.
Feedback to counter ghosts? Works ok vs. lesser terrans who don't pay attention, otherwise emp has a longer effective range and aoe to take out multiple templars etc.
Even Hellions vs roaches are funny in that roaches are almost meant to "hard counter" but with micro, hellions do alright.
What about BC vs VR, the unit with bonus dmg vs massive and meant to take out BCs? With yamato and good micro, the fight ends before it starts with a flawless win for BCs.
Even siege tanks vs immortals, b4 the buff, immortals 5 range vs 7 on unsieged tanks meant even tanks could kite immortals and win, but not that anyone would bother.
Why do you make shit up. (charge)zealots hard counter mauruders. HT btw were not meant to counter ghosts. It was the other way around.
Hellions do shit vs roaches.
Why is bc vs vr relevant? YOu might as well analyze queens vs carriers or whatever. Stupid irrelevant example.
|
On November 30 2011 22:53 Hider wrote:
Why do you make shit up. (charge)zealots hard counter mauruders. HT btw were not meant to counter ghosts. It was the other way around.
Hellions do shit vs roaches.
Why is bc vs vr relevant? YOu might as well analyze queens vs carriers or whatever. Stupid irrelevant example.
BS on charge zealots "hard" countering marauders. So completely wrong. Stim micro, split, kill a shit load of zealots easy. I've seen it so many times in GSL its not funny anymore.
Hellions do shit vs roaches, yes they should. However, seen some recent games? ie. MKP mass hellion vs mass roach, did a shit load more damage than he should have been able to given the unit composition. Hint: splash dmg, little dmg from a lot of hellions add up to a LOT of dmg.
BC is relevant as another example, of a terran unit countering its counter. Got anything else to prove otherwise?
|
The only problem I see with Terran is the ridiculously long range of most of its units, but that's mainly because I play zerg. I don't know how it is for Protoss, if that even affects them as much. As a whole it just feels weird to have such slow/weak/low range units that require upgrades to be effective when Terran can outrange most units and win with proper micro. Not a whine, just something I've accepted when playing Zerg.
|
On November 30 2011 22:57 SilverforceX wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 22:53 Hider wrote:
Why do you make shit up. (charge)zealots hard counter mauruders. HT btw were not meant to counter ghosts. It was the other way around.
Hellions do shit vs roaches.
Why is bc vs vr relevant? YOu might as well analyze queens vs carriers or whatever. Stupid irrelevant example. BS on charge zealots "hard" countering marauders. So completely wrong. Stim micro, split, kill a shit load of zealots easy. I've seen it so many times in GSL its not funny anymore. Hellions do shit vs roaches, yes they should. However, seen some recent games? ie. MKP mass hellion vs mass roach, did a shit load more damage than he should have been able to given the unit composition. Hint: splash dmg, little dmg from a lot of hellions add up to a LOT of dmg. BC is relevant as another example, of a terran unit countering its counter. Got anything else to prove otherwise?
*trying* to keep off unit balance topics.. but.. voidray is not a counter to BCs... Yamoto cannon is designed for killing high-cost single-target units such as this. Blink stalkers & templar are the appropriate response to BCs.
|
On November 30 2011 22:25 forsooth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 13:18 Ruscour wrote:On November 30 2011 13:14 SpunXtain wrote:On November 30 2011 13:12 Endymion wrote:
u gotta sk8
furthermore, when is 30/11/2011... Today? For everyone in the world who isn't American and puts Day before month, as they recognize Month/Day/Year makes no sense. This always confuses the hell out of me. It's off topic, but I need to rant here. Small -> medium -> large, day -> month -> year. How does month -> day -> year make any sense at all? The world doesn't use American measurements because they make no logical sense. So don't discriminate on others, Americans, for not using your flawed system. /rant Allow me to rant back at you because this day/month/year crap has always annoyed me. Sorry to be off topic as well. small > medium > large, second > minute > hour Do you say that the time is 37:10 when someone asks you what time it is at 10:37 just because you're apparently supposed to go in ascending order of measurement? Of course not. When someone asks what the date is, you say (month) (day), and so that's how you write it. As for our other weird measurements, yes, they're dumb, and yes, we should do away with them.
actually i think its just US/Canada that says "month day year"
the rest of us say day month year :p (the majority at least)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
