|
On November 30 2011 15:05 Whomp wrote: Fundamental problem with terran? Mules on gold, bam solved this thread!!! lock it up boys
Way to contribute to the thread.
|
It should be obvious that this thread suggests terran is underpowered at low levels. Micro simply has an unlimited skill cap and the better you are the more you get out of it. If the race that gets the most out of micro is balanced at the very highest skill level of course its going to be weaker at the level where micro isn't as great. I agree with the OP. One race getting the most out of micro is flawed design.
I personally don't care if im supposed to outmicro someone in the ladder (and it doesnt really matter at lower level), but it's pretty sad if the foreign pros can't have success in tournaments because of it.
|
While I agree with your basic theory, for example that well-microed marines do fine against banelings but non-microed marines die like flies and Blizzard might have to work hard with balancing to get around this, I don't really agree with the point that terran was nerfed into a "bad" position for low level players to fix the potential power at high level.
Most of the nerfs to Terran hasn't really affected this situation. Tank damage was nerfed, but using tanks demands quite a bit of micro already. Reaper timings were nerfed, but using reapers already require micro.
What we would expect if Blizzard balanced the way you mean, would for example be a damage nerf to marines, since that would make it OK that they survive "too long" because of good micro, and it would at the same time be detrimental for low-level players since their marines are dying very quickly.
|
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? Tomatriedes' post is exactly the point and the thread should be closed. The premise is fundamentally flawed. You'd have us balancing around 25+ minute games -.-?
The other contention that terran takes more multitask/mechanics is iffy and isn't seen in the winrates. There's alot of hidden actions that aren't considered, terran muling is very forgiving and don't even try and compare it to chronoboost. Terran macro can be done purely off hotkeys while controlling an army, you don't even have to shift your camera. Toss on the other hand has to look away from whatever they're doing to manually hit unit hotkeys and click the ground X amount of times. Terran has one rally point, toss has to do the rally point click for every single unit they build (it's not flashy but does take actions). Injects and creep spread for zerg are seriously important as is being active with your lings/mutas. All races get better as the player gets better. Queueing 1-2 units late game also helps those without perfect macro (Goody and all non-pro T's), toss/zerg miss inject/wg cycles and they are punished more severely. I just wish the 'but Terran's so hard for non koreans' people would realise their race is at least as forgiving and 'easy' as the others.
On November 30 2011 22:51 Hider wrote: IMO to play terran late game is still harder than playing the other races.
So what? Maybe it is but balance is hard enough without trying for anything beyond overall winrates. Terrans win more than enough early/mid games to make up for having some trouble late game.
|
Fundamental problems with this thread:
Massive balance whine, even though it's stated as not being one.
To be honest, this is the first time in the history of Starcraft 2 so far, where we see glimps of Terrans struggling, all the months before this both Protoss & Zerg had it hard, and still do in some ways. There has been nearly no change in Terran builds, compositions and playstyle during this whole history ever, so maybe look at that first before claiming that the Terran race has fundamental problems.
All the Terran builds I encounter in Diamond league are the same as the ones I encountered a full year ago. Weird, since It has been acknowledged pretty much by everyone that the Terran race has the most options of all 3 races.
While I agree that Bio micro may be intensive, the Terran race as a whole has forgiving stuff in other areas like:
- Detection is an option all the time. - Mules can cover up for a lot of scv losses, while other races would straight up die if they lose a good chunk of their workers - Easy wall-in to deny scouting, making predicting terran builds much harder
And I'm sure I've missed a few things.
The races are different, pick races based on your playstyle. Don't complain that a race is not styled to suit your play.
|
for OP:
The races are different and thus require different skill sets. Certainly you are correct in that this means at some point Terran players will require 'better' unit control then their opponent to defeat them, and this will disappear at the highest levels of play where every race needs perfect control. However other parts of play are more challenging for other races. Larva management is very difficult and very important to victory at higher levels of play. Terrans never need to worry about this, or creep spread, or pylon placement. Warp-In requires the player to be viewing an area of screen with pylon power, taking them away from the main battle. Terran players can build units with their screen anywhere on the map.
The list of different demands goes on. At very early levels (bronze - silver) Zerg is the hardest to play because larva inject and creep spread take up too much APM compared to barracks spam.
In BW Terrans were considered the hardest to play (just ask Artosis, lol) for the same reason, high micro demand. However they also have the best players and the most championship wins. Protoss - considered the easiest in terms of unit control (hello 12 units per group max) have the least BW success. This is because there is more to the game the unit control, and other races have other aspects of the game which are harder for them.
So, YES Terrans require the most unit micro. NO this doesn't mean they are any easier or harder to play at any level. Although it COULD be unbalanced (but probably isn't).
|
On November 30 2011 23:24 Scarecrow wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 22:49 Hider wrote: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? Tomatriedes' post is exactly the point and the thread should be closed. The premise is fundamentally flawed. You'd have us balancing around 25+ minute games -.-? The other contention that terran takes more multitask/mechanics is iffy and isn't seen in the winrates. There's alot of hidden actions that aren't considered, terran muling is very forgiving and don't even try and compare it to chronoboost. Terran macro can be done purely off hotkeys while controlling an army, you don't even have to shift your camera. Toss on the other hand has to look away from whatever they're doing to manually hit unit hotkeys and click the ground X amount of times. Terran has one rally point, toss has to do the rally point click for every single unit they build (it's not flashy but does take actions). Injects and creep spread for zerg are seriously important as is being active with your lings/mutas. All races get better as the player gets better. Queueing 1-2 units late game also helps those without perfect macro (Goody and all non-pro T's), toss/zerg miss inject/wg cycles and they are punished more severely. I just wish the 'but Terran's so hard for non koreans' people would realise their race is at least as forgiving and 'easy' as the others.
Exactly. And I would like to point out that among the slow pro players, Terrans are the ones who do the best (Sjow, Goody), compared to slow Protosses like Incontrol, Axslav or (ex) Cruncher, who, let's be honest, don't win games. And there is no slow pro zerg (:D).
I totally agree that Sjow or Goody are not of the caliber of MVP or MMA (to the point where they don't even seem to play the same race), but they win their fair share of games. Fucking Goody beat fucking Nestea, even if it was a long time ago, it's a hard thing to imagine.
|
OP, saying that you are not balance whinning is pretty lame when u actually are.
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. It was meant to happen someday, now the crazy koreans will adapt, and soon the rest of the world as well. Eventually Terrans will begin to dominate again. Just have fun playing and abuse the million builds terran have.
|
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?
Take adventage of the supperiority of early/mid game damage MAYBE???
|
The races are different, pick races based on your playstyle. Don't complain that a race is not styled to suit your play.
^This is the best way to summarize this.
There are still broken things in this game but I don't think Terran's micro requirement is one of them.
|
What the OP is describing sounds exactly what terran was like in BW. Arguably harder to play, less successful on foreign level yet also most successful in Korea.
I've thought this was true for a long time now as well, and I don't see it as a huge problem. The fact that you have always room to improve makes the race more interesting and fun. I also think that the new terran units in HOTS might be there to help with this, as they seem less micro intensive and more about raw power.
|
On November 30 2011 23:31 Xirroh wrote: for OP:
The races are different and thus require different skill sets. Certainly you are correct in that this means at some point Terran players will require 'better' unit control then their opponent to defeat them, and this will disappear at the highest levels of play where every race needs perfect control. However other parts of play are more challenging for other races. Larva management is very difficult and very important to victory at higher levels of play. Terrans never need to worry about this, or creep spread, or pylon placement. Warp-In requires the player to be viewing an area of screen with pylon power, taking them away from the main battle. Terran players can build units with their screen anywhere on the map.
The list of different demands goes on. At very early levels (bronze - silver) Zerg is the hardest to play because larva inject and creep spread take up too much APM compared to barracks spam.
In BW Terrans were considered the hardest to play (just ask Artosis, lol) for the same reason, high micro demand. However they also have the best players and the most championship wins. Protoss - considered the easiest in terms of unit control (hello 12 units per group max) have the least BW success. This is because there is more to the game the unit control, and other races have other aspects of the game which are harder for them.
So, YES Terrans require the most unit micro. NO this doesn't mean they are any easier or harder to play at any level. Although it COULD be unbalanced (but probably isn't).
I know each race has its own challenges facing it :-) the fact its terran is just coincidental.
As an example, imagine if you could put micro/multitasking etc on a scale 1-5 scale (5 being best):
5 - A = 100 B = 100 C = 100 4 - A = 80 B = 90 C = 90 3 - A = 60 B = 75 C = 70 2 - A = 50 B = 60 C = 40 1 - A = 45 B = 40 C = 30
By having such different mechanics in the game there are bound to be different thresholds where 1 race is comparatively better than the other. For example, the game might be balanced around the players at lvl5, so they're all equal. But then the players at lvl4 from group A are weaker than B / C. If they balance around those at lvl 4 so that A = 90 B = 90 C = 90, then at lvl 5 become A = 110, B = 100, C = 100.
Its simply fundamentally hard to balance a game that has so much diversity in playstyles and rewards different levels of micromanagement in different ways. Perhaps Blizzard is trying to make the races *too* different from each other, to the point that its just impossible to have a game that is an even playing field at all the important levels?
Perhaps lvl1-3 are casual gamers; they probably don't matter too much since they're just there to play for fun etc. But if there is a balance problem at say lvl4, where foreigners for example are playing competitively but arent at the same skill as korean pros, surely Blizzard would want to try and balance it for them as best as they could as well?
|
I don't understand what you are trying to prove. There is no situation were you can come and ask how to get better at one aspect of your play and to be no answer because it's just a balance flaw.
|
On November 30 2011 23:44 SpunXtain wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 23:31 Xirroh wrote: for OP:
The races are different and thus require different skill sets. Certainly you are correct in that this means at some point Terran players will require 'better' unit control then their opponent to defeat them, and this will disappear at the highest levels of play where every race needs perfect control. However other parts of play are more challenging for other races. Larva management is very difficult and very important to victory at higher levels of play. Terrans never need to worry about this, or creep spread, or pylon placement. Warp-In requires the player to be viewing an area of screen with pylon power, taking them away from the main battle. Terran players can build units with their screen anywhere on the map.
The list of different demands goes on. At very early levels (bronze - silver) Zerg is the hardest to play because larva inject and creep spread take up too much APM compared to barracks spam.
In BW Terrans were considered the hardest to play (just ask Artosis, lol) for the same reason, high micro demand. However they also have the best players and the most championship wins. Protoss - considered the easiest in terms of unit control (hello 12 units per group max) have the least BW success. This is because there is more to the game the unit control, and other races have other aspects of the game which are harder for them.
So, YES Terrans require the most unit micro. NO this doesn't mean they are any easier or harder to play at any level. Although it COULD be unbalanced (but probably isn't). I know each race has its own challenges facing it :-) the fact its terran is just coincidental. As an example, imagine if you could put micro/multitasking etc on a scale 1-5 scale (5 being best): 5 - A = 100 B = 100 C = 100 4 - A = 80 B = 90 C = 90 3 - A = 60 B = 75 C = 70 2 - A = 50 B = 60 C = 40 1 - A = 45 B = 40 C = 30 By having such different mechanics in the game there are bound to be different thresholds where 1 race is comparatively better than the other. For example, the game might be balanced around the players at lvl5, so they're all equal. But then the players at lvl4 from group A are weaker than B / C. If they balance around those at lvl 4 so that A = 90 B = 90 C = 90, then at lvl 5 become A = 110, B = 100, C = 100. Its simply fundamentally hard to balance a game that has so much diversity in playstyles and rewards different levels of micromanagement in different ways. Perhaps Blizzard is trying to make the races *too* different from each other, to the point that its just impossible to have a game that is an even playing field at all the important levels? Perhaps lvl1-3 are casual gamers; they probably don't matter too much since they're just there to play for fun etc. But if there is a balance problem at say lvl4, where foreigners for example are playing competitively but arent at the same skill as korean pros, surely Blizzard would want to try and balance it for them as best as they could as well?
If you think back to broodwar, noone really complained about protoss, prootos would be the easy race to start with, very easy, you just make units ant attack, no complicated stuff (low lvl). But blizzard is so obsessed with ballancing the whole spectrum and cant consider that the "broodwar prootos effect" is innevitable.
but higher lvl it gets way harder, one misclick and you lose 5 dragoons to line of tanks in 1 second etc.
|
On November 30 2011 16:28 Neelia wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 16:04 RavenLoud wrote:On November 30 2011 15:40 DemigodcelpH wrote:On November 30 2011 15:35 RavenLoud wrote:On November 30 2011 15:23 DemigodcelpH wrote:On November 30 2011 14:14 ZorBa.G wrote: OK, so to summarise everything up.
Terran has the highest skill cap due to micro capabilities. In order to reach a level of micro that is effective whilst being on par with your macro, you need to put in at least 30 games p/day (Code S Terrans).
If you cannot play such a large amount of games and put in that much practice, Protoss and Zerg is much more rewarding in the short term.
So from now on when I see those threads that state "Which race should I choose?" I will ask such questions first;
- How much time can you put into the game?
30 games p/day? Give Terran a go, they will be the most rewarding in the next 3 years when your micro is perfect. Also keep in mind when spending that 200 - 300 apm on micro, you still need to be on par with your macro.
25 games p/day? You like massing shit and setting up ambushes and prefer macro games? Play Zerg, still a very challenging yet rewarding race to play. However, you will reap the benifits of your hard work within about 2 - 3 years. This largely depends on how your game sense is as well. Very much a reactionary race.
Can only play 1 - 5 games per day and only interested in getting to masters within the next couple of months? Play Protoss.
I'm actually considering switching to Protoss since I can't spend 24/7 trying to perfect my micro with Terran. I'm not even joking here.
Yes, at the upmost highest levels of SC2, Terran is a force to be reckoned with. But I don't see why Blizzard needs to set limitations on those who aren't pros. If anything, blizzard needs to stop nerfing Terran and look at the god damn units Protoss has. DO SOMETHING WITH THE MICRO MECHANICS OF PROTOSS. Make them weaker and make it so they require micro to be effective as well.
The more Blizzard nerfs Terran, the more they put this race out of reach for those players in the lower leagues.
As for Zerg, I don't really see much wrong with their race. I'm not going to elaborate on it, but I respect the skill involved to playing that race. Very well said. It'll balance itself out. What's weird to me is people here whining about how the game takes effort to win, as if there's something fundamentally wrong with that... Strawman. OP's crutch, and the general consensus, is that Terran is harder to balance because it's units are unusually micro intensive resulting in a higher skill cap. Fundamentally this can be okay, but as OP says it's hard to balance things when a race has a higher skill cap. Code S Terrans are a force to be reckoned with, as they have the ability to micro units at 200-300 apm and still macro with 95% efficiency at home (Code S Z/P also have this skill; those races don't benefit as much from it), but foreign Terrans are getting utterly destroyed across the board as OP's insightful statistics show — an after-effect of the discrepancies in required skill. I really don't see the argument that the game being harder to balance because it takes more practice to master a race. BW proved that it doesn't need to have races that play the same at all levels to have a fairly balanced game, it is still considered to be a much better balanced game than SC2 in its current state. This thread is just saying that terran takes more skill to play at the highest level, then it tries to undermine that there is something off with have more units that takes advantage from more micro. It is just a fancy of saying it shouldn't be too hard to play so it can be balanced for both the casuals and the pros. There is no strawman. This racial hubris really has to stop. Seems like every terran believes that the other races don't need to have mechanics or game knowledge as good as they do to beat them. I just can't take anyone who post like that seriously. "Those races don't benefit as much from it" lol exactly what I meant. Yes, the races play differently, who would have thought. Granted in WoL terran has less boring 1a units like zealots, immortals, colossus, roach, corrupters, void rays, etc, but it's not a good argument to blame the game when you still have plenty of room to improve. Sometimes I wish Bliz would go back to when they would only patched once a year so people would focus on the game instead of bitching about how their race takes more skill. EDIT: I still find it extremely ironic that the race with the most forgiving macro mechanic would complain that they aren't noob friendly enough. (Forgot supply depot? Supply drop!. Forgot to mule, has 2 orbitals with 180 energy? No prob drop 6 of em on a gold base. Ah crap, didn't get detection. Scan.) Forgot Overlord? Np, stockpile some larva. Forgot Pylon? Np, Warpgate cooldown resets anyway + Supply Depots take the most time to build out of the three. -_- I didn't realize I sounded like that, but you're missing my point by nitpicking the 2 sentences at the end.
|
On November 30 2011 23:38 Belha wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 22:49 Hider wrote: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? Take adventage of the supperiority of early/mid game damage MAYBE???
Your again missing the point on a few levels here. Its simply bad design if a race cant win late game (or if its too hard tow in late game).
|
On November 30 2011 23:59 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 23:38 Belha wrote:On November 30 2011 22:49 Hider wrote: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? Take adventage of the supperiority of early/mid game damage MAYBE??? Your again missing the point on a few levels here. Its simply bad design if a race cant win late game (or if its too hard tow in late game).
After these recent patches we have terrans playing outdated strategies. It's fair for them to lose but not fair to call UP.
Why doesn't Terran add 5-10 tanks to the BioBall? They want mobility? Well than they pay with vulnerability.
|
On November 30 2011 23:59 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 23:38 Belha wrote:On November 30 2011 22:49 Hider wrote: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? Take adventage of the supperiority of early/mid game damage MAYBE??? Your again missing the point on a few levels here. Its simply bad design if a race cant win late game (or if its too hard tow in late game). Lol this reminds me of when terran said there's no way they could win a macro game back in March when the big maps started to come.
Then they started to use 1 rax expand and realize how good it actually is.
|
I'm sorry but didn't MMA win a GSL where the Ro4 was only terran?
|
On December 01 2011 00:11 mrafaeldie12 wrote: I'm sorry but didn't MMA win a GSL where the Ro4 was only terran? You don't understand. Korean terrans aren't terran, they are Kerrans, and therefore do not ever matter in the balance of the true game that you and I are actually playing. Winrates for the top top doesn't really matter, nor at the bottom, but only at a specific level between diamond and mid masters. You see! Terran is now fundamentally broken because they require effort to win.
|
|
|
|