|
On December 01 2011 01:45 Honeybadger wrote:
I support this message. Terran is just a harder race to play, with more unforgiving macro mechanics and more rewarding micro mechanics (which have been balanced in such a way that failing to micro properly results in losing)
But I'm not whining for buffs or changes. I know I'm only diamond because I'm doing things wrong, not because my race is bad.
I personally think it is quite of a stretch to call macro mechanics like the MULE and Supply Drop as "unforgiving". One might even argue and that's what I read all the time in the past, that is in fact the opposite of "unforgiving".
Anyway even if the OP is right, and it is harder with terran too reach the maximum potential of the units, I think that this would not be a fundamental flaw in the terran race but in the other races.
|
i think this thread dose not understand one thing about low lvl players
for example you can perfect 1000 things in a sitation(matchup) (ofcourse its much much more complicated).
Pro players might be 912 vs 892 things, wich is close and in play it dosent seem overpowered.
but if a bronze player knows 100 vs 100, then those 100 might cover completely different things, like 50 on attack and 50 on macro, other is 50 on attack and 50 on rushing (means one cant handle long game, other cant handle rushes basically), so its like poker, its tottaly random what seems to be overpowered to who (ladder), this is the reason why you dont care about the lowest players.
|
Do people really think mech is the answer in TvP?
Even Goody stopped meching in TvP after the immortal buff for gods sake. Get your heads out of your asses.
|
as others have said in this thread, I would MUCH rather they give Z and P the higher skill cap instead of removing that from T. Let non terrans show their incredible micro skills instead of just need to to have positioning and hit a few spells in fights.
Personally I wish they'd bring back BW muta micro style play for zerg...
|
On December 01 2011 02:52 heroofcanton wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2011 02:05 Umpteen wrote:Not sure if Polt said it 1-2 GSL's ago that once patch hits "all the bad terrans will drop out from GSL because of this" I could sympathise with the OP but for this. Here is Polt (I also think it was him) stating the GSL was oversubscribed with bad Terrans prior to a certain patch. Presumably bad Terrans don't have awesome micro and multitasking. Yet they were still able to eliminate top-notch Zergs and Protoss.To me, this undermines rather than reinforces the pillars supporting the OP's hypothesis. Polt didn't think the GSL was full of Terrans because Terran was balanced but rewarded great micro better. He thought they didn't deserve to be there. He didn't think they were as good as the Zergs and Protoss they were beating. If he's right, and the patch corrected an imbalance that was allowing inferior players to flourish, need we look further for an explanation of the distribution of races in the GSL? I think what Polt said makes a lot of sense. I remember Artosis saying on SotG that a lot of "bad Terrans" were going to suffer because of the EMP nerf, as they would not hit as many and they'd get stormed more. We saw that in that hour-long game between TOD and Happy at dreamhack (not shitting on Happy, just saying pre-nerf he would have left no templar un-EMPed), and that a lot of "bad terrans" who thought they were good were going to start losing more games TvP. I don't sympathize with a lot of the current threads that terran players have been making about the inherent "betterness" of Terran players. Terran micro is simply more rewarding, not more difficult. I don't think Terran has ANY fundamental problems. Furthermore- Terrans are still set on Bio play in TvP, and most refuse to mech instead focusing on Bio play which is going to be inherently weaker, especially to AoE attacks. If terrans want to play a more mobile style they need to accept that its going to be weaker and move on. There needs to be like, a Terran Bunker thread, where all the Terran players can go to post threads like this and they can all agree and have fun together with their marines and ghosts and shit.
Mech isn't good in TvP, if you choose to go that you're basically asking to lose the game. Terrans don't choose to go bio, we're forced into it because we have no other good options.
|
I completely disagree with so many things here.
I fell like terran is not well equipped to deal with mutalisks. I think these problems will be addressed in HOTS.
I feel like terran is fully equipped to deal with protoss. Especially if they capitalize on their advantages in the early game.
PF with turrets is much more difficult to kill than a comparable amount of canons or spine/spores+queen.
Terran has the most rewarding harass, especially when takign into account that they dont need to diverge from their regular tech path to get medivac/marine or hellions or banshees. The only possible costs wasted on failed harass could be the research of cloak or Blue flame (which could very well end up being useful later in the game). how often do we see a banshee go out and multi-prong mineral lines in the late game. All you have to do is put it close to the mineral line but out of range of any static defenses and hold position until you have the time to attend more micro to it.
Terran has the most unexplored units/upgrades (specifically the raven in all matchups, and thor/tank with bio in tvp). Not to mention, how often do you see terran players repairing their vikings/medivacs in the late game.
They go into large engagements with an army that is injured or damage, medivacs with depleted energy, and often attack into bad angles.
Yes, if you attack up a ramp into zealot/sentry/stalker/colosus/archon.. you shoudl lose... dont do it...
if you attack way in the open, ya you will probably win.. or kill a ton of zealots for only the cost of a stim
|
It is largely situational. Different situations require more or less micro from different races. Lets take 1-1-1 vs protoss. For terran, they need to get their siege tanks into position, control their marine ball, and handle their banshee(s). For protoss, they need to have their army spread out, use guardian shield, try to trap marines with ff, keep zealots up front, have immortals (or phoenix) focus tanks, and micro stalkers back and forth. I'd say more is asked of protoss in that situation.
I do think terran usually has the "micro advantage" in a lot of situations. What I mean by this is that it is up to the terran to succeed or fail on particular micro tasks, and if they succeed the other two races do not have a "micro counter play" to try to over come what the terran did, they just lose that micro engagement. This is a little theoretical, but I'll try to give an example.
I think Ghost vs. HT is a good example of this. Snipe has range 10, feedback has range 9. 1 range isn't a huge margin for error, ghosts could easily be hit with feedback if terran isn't really on point that instant. However, if they are, 10 range will always beat 9 range, and there is nothing protoss can do about it. Of course you could say well use blink stalkers, lead with chargelots, etc. Then the terran ball could lead instead of ghosts, and on and on. There are other situations that I think this is true as well (marines vs. banelings), and I think the point stands. Terran are usually in a situation where if they micro correctly, the other two races don't have a real response to the micro play, however the requirement put on terran is pretty difficult, and if they fail, they will probably lose.
|
On December 01 2011 02:54 Applesqt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2011 02:52 heroofcanton wrote:On December 01 2011 02:05 Umpteen wrote:Not sure if Polt said it 1-2 GSL's ago that once patch hits "all the bad terrans will drop out from GSL because of this" I could sympathise with the OP but for this. Here is Polt (I also think it was him) stating the GSL was oversubscribed with bad Terrans prior to a certain patch. Presumably bad Terrans don't have awesome micro and multitasking. Yet they were still able to eliminate top-notch Zergs and Protoss.To me, this undermines rather than reinforces the pillars supporting the OP's hypothesis. Polt didn't think the GSL was full of Terrans because Terran was balanced but rewarded great micro better. He thought they didn't deserve to be there. He didn't think they were as good as the Zergs and Protoss they were beating. If he's right, and the patch corrected an imbalance that was allowing inferior players to flourish, need we look further for an explanation of the distribution of races in the GSL? I think what Polt said makes a lot of sense. I remember Artosis saying on SotG that a lot of "bad Terrans" were going to suffer because of the EMP nerf, as they would not hit as many and they'd get stormed more. We saw that in that hour-long game between TOD and Happy at dreamhack (not shitting on Happy, just saying pre-nerf he would have left no templar un-EMPed), and that a lot of "bad terrans" who thought they were good were going to start losing more games TvP. I don't sympathize with a lot of the current threads that terran players have been making about the inherent "betterness" of Terran players. Terran micro is simply more rewarding, not more difficult. I don't think Terran has ANY fundamental problems. Furthermore- Terrans are still set on Bio play in TvP, and most refuse to mech instead focusing on Bio play which is going to be inherently weaker, especially to AoE attacks. If terrans want to play a more mobile style they need to accept that its going to be weaker and move on. There needs to be like, a Terran Bunker thread, where all the Terran players can go to post threads like this and they can all agree and have fun together with their marines and ghosts and shit. Mech isn't good in TvP, if you choose to go that you're basically asking to lose the game. Terrans don't choose to go bio, we're forced into it because we have no other good options.
I think a lot of Protoss would argue that Mech was not used beause Bio was far more effective and faster. Since the launch, terrans have been floating the factory around as the most expensive scout in SC2. Although I understant that pure mech may not be the way to go, but terrans could start by building units out of the factory and see who they work out.
Also, players continue to use Goody as an example of a terran player who gave up mech vs protoss. Although I do like Goody and his style, other pros have been critical of his mechanics. He is known for having lack luster macro and decision making. I think an MMA or MVP could find a way to make factory units work as support for bio. Just like protoss were forced to figure out how to make zealots work in PvZ. I never used zealots in that match up 5 months ago and they were widely considered horrible(Day 9 said protoss feel stupid building them). Now they are one of my main units that I use all the time.
|
I don't really get the point of this thread. Terran players are bad?
Whining about how micro-intensive Terran is would be comparable to me whining about how I can never keep up with injects and my queens' energy is always floating high. I'm not going to make a thread about it, I'm going to practice injecting and macroing while I'm elsewhere on the map. With Terran you have to out micro your opponent in certain engagements, with Zerg you have to outproduce your opponent and be able to remax quickly mid-late game. I can't speak for the Brotoss but I'm sure someone can step in and say something that they have to worry about incessantly that other races don't.
|
On December 01 2011 02:54 Bagi wrote:
Do people really think mech is the answer in TvP?
Even Goody stopped meching in TvP after the immortal buff for gods sake. Get your heads out of your asses.
I dont think anyone is suggesting pure mech. Throw in labout 6 seige tanks and 2 thors and have them focus the stalkers/colosus while your MM kite the zealots could be incredibly powerful.
I'm not saying it would be easy. im suggesting that it may be effective.
DPS wise, unseiged tanks are huge. they have 7 range, absoultely destroy stalkers. if unseiged can kite along with your army. when the zealtos are dead, you can seige them up to do even more damage to any remaining stalkers that stick around.
|
On December 01 2011 03:10 Plansix wrote:Just like protoss were forced to figure out how to make zealots work in PvZ.
Zealots always tear through my lings early game. I don't have Leenock ling micro.
|
Ideally I would like to see P and Z be more demanding in micro (especially P) but it's already apparent Blizzard is trying to make Terran easier with things like battle hellions fighting chargelots. Terran won't be any better, as I'm sure good kiting will be about equal to battle hellions, but the idea is to just make things as easy as using the chargelots themselves and not have one side use more demanding mechanics to be balanced.
|
On December 01 2011 03:11 DarK[A] wrote:
I don't really get the point of this thread. Terran players are bad?
Whining about how micro-intensive Terran is would be comparable to me whining about how I can never keep up with injects and my queens' energy is always floating high. I'm not going to make a thread about it, I'm going to practice injecting and macroing while I'm elsewhere on the map. With Terran you have to out micro your opponent in certain engagements, with Zerg you have to outproduce your opponent and be able to remax quickly mid-late game. I can't speak for the Brotoss but I'm sure someone can step in and say something that they have to worry about incessantly that other races don't.
I guess I could whine about how chrono only lasts 20 seconds, like inject and mules last for around 45 seconds. It means I have to go back to my base twice as much to use my chrono effectively and that puts me at a disadvantage because I can't control my army...I guess.
But I am not going to make that thread, becase it is silly.
|
On December 01 2011 03:09 Multifail wrote:
It is largely situational. Different situations require more or less micro from different races. Lets take 1-1-1 vs protoss. For terran, they need to get their siege tanks into position, control their marine ball, and handle their banshee(s). For protoss, they need to have their army spread out, use guardian shield, try to trap marines with ff, keep zealots up front, have immortals (or phoenix) focus tanks, and micro stalkers back and forth. I'd say more is asked of protoss in that situation.
I do think terran usually has the "micro advantage" in a lot of situations. What I mean by this is that it is up to the terran to succeed or fail on particular micro tasks, and if they succeed the other two races do not have a "micro counter play" to try to over come what the terran did, they just lose that micro engagement. This is a little theoretical, but I'll try to give an example.
I think Ghost vs. HT is a good example of this. Snipe has range 10, feedback has range 9. 1 range isn't a huge margin for error, ghosts could easily be hit with feedback if terran isn't really on point that instant. However, if they are, 10 range will always beat 9 range, and there is nothing protoss can do about it. Of course you could say well use blink stalkers, lead with chargelots, etc. Then the terran ball could lead instead of ghosts, and on and on. There are other situations that I think this is true as well (marines vs. banelings), and I think the point stands. Terran are usually in a situation where if they micro correctly, the other two races don't have a real response to the micro play, however the requirement put on terran is pretty difficult, and if they fail, they will probably lose.
Snipe has a built in casttime and delay between fires, and it requires 2 to kill the HT. Feedback is instantaneous with zero cooldown and incapacitates the ghost with one hit. The time it takes for the snipe to go off is 100% enough time for the HT to get that 1 range closer.
I mean, if you're gonna do proper theorycrafting, you ought to have the facts straight.
|
On December 01 2011 02:53 pecore wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2011 01:45 Honeybadger wrote:
I support this message. Terran is just a harder race to play, with more unforgiving macro mechanics and more rewarding micro mechanics (which have been balanced in such a way that failing to micro properly results in losing)
But I'm not whining for buffs or changes. I know I'm only diamond because I'm doing things wrong, not because my race is bad. I personally think it is quite of a stretch to call macro mechanics like the MULE and Supply Drop as "unforgiving". One might even argue and that's what I read all the time in the past, that is in fact the opposite of "unforgiving". Anyway even if the OP is right, and it is harder with terran too reach the maximum potential of the units, I think that this would not be a fundamental flaw in the terran race but in the other races.
Mules is needed to balance out the economy. Terran always have slower workers production than Protoss and Zerg, and they even need to dedicate 1,2 workers to build stuffs the whole time. If you don't build stuff, you're doing something wrong. It's purely good mechanic coming from the Terran players to keep building scv all the time. I watched pro streams, such as Sage, MC, Huk.., and I don't think I see them building probes as mechanically as Terran players. So yes. Mules do break the game, but for good Terran only. Again, we return to the topic where the Terran race is designed to break the game at high level, but weak at low level.
And Supply Drop is forgiving, but what about Zerg and Protoss? Supply block? No problem, just stockpile your money and larva, after having supply, build 100 stuff at once. And Protoss? It's less forgiving that zerg, but as long as you realize you're supply blocked, you make pylon, wait 25sec, then warp your units in 5 sec. That is still faster build time than most of Terran's units. Imagine if Terran don't have supply drop, he has to build supply for 25sec, then build units which take from 25sec to 60sec to come out again.
|
On December 01 2011 03:14 SolidMoose wrote:
Ideally I would like to see P and Z be more demanding in micro (especially P) but it's already apparent Blizzard is trying to make Terran easier with things like battle hellions fighting chargelots. Terran won't be any better, as I'm sure good kiting will be about equal to battle hellions, but the idea is to just make things as easy as using the chargelots themselves and not have one side use more demanding mechanics to be balanced.
I'm having trouble finding where you could demand more micro of Zerg players without completely crippling the race even more. On top of the general rule of having a base up on our opponent, we have to micro pretty hard to win most engagements, unless our opponent is just plain terrible.
|
|
|
On December 01 2011 03:14 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2011 03:11 DarK[A] wrote:
I don't really get the point of this thread. Terran players are bad?
Whining about how micro-intensive Terran is would be comparable to me whining about how I can never keep up with injects and my queens' energy is always floating high. I'm not going to make a thread about it, I'm going to practice injecting and macroing while I'm elsewhere on the map. With Terran you have to out micro your opponent in certain engagements, with Zerg you have to outproduce your opponent and be able to remax quickly mid-late game. I can't speak for the Brotoss but I'm sure someone can step in and say something that they have to worry about incessantly that other races don't. I guess I could whine about how chrono only lasts 20 seconds, like inject and mules last for around 45 seconds. It means I have to go back to my base twice as much to use my chrono effectively and that puts me at a disadvantage because I can't control my army...I guess. But I am not going to make that thread, becase it is silly.
exactly. everyone could nitpick.. there has to be things different about the races or things would be boring.
you know what is a hell of a lot easier than pressing (Zerg: 5 s zzzzzzzzzzzzzz) or (terran: 5 aaaaaaddd tab dddd).. finding a pylon somewhere, warpign units in idividually, finding a place that is perfectly capable of placing a stalkers but not being able to place it anyways, then adding it to your army hotkey and then going back to your army to attack your enemy, only to notice 5 seconds later that because you told them to A move to a location instead of M moving to a location, they decided to stay put.
the benefit to warp in is that if your army is out of posistion, you do have some ability to re-inforce. obviously you cant hold off an entire army, but you can warp in enough to scare away a small drop if you are not on cooldown.
protoss has widely explored their unit compositions. many have been rendered ineffective because of critical weaknesses to things such as EMP (zealot/archon/HT,Immortal) or the ever present threat of a banshee (you must go robo).
|
On December 01 2011 03:10 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2011 02:54 Applesqt wrote:On December 01 2011 02:52 heroofcanton wrote:On December 01 2011 02:05 Umpteen wrote:Not sure if Polt said it 1-2 GSL's ago that once patch hits "all the bad terrans will drop out from GSL because of this" I could sympathise with the OP but for this. Here is Polt (I also think it was him) stating the GSL was oversubscribed with bad Terrans prior to a certain patch. Presumably bad Terrans don't have awesome micro and multitasking. Yet they were still able to eliminate top-notch Zergs and Protoss.To me, this undermines rather than reinforces the pillars supporting the OP's hypothesis. Polt didn't think the GSL was full of Terrans because Terran was balanced but rewarded great micro better. He thought they didn't deserve to be there. He didn't think they were as good as the Zergs and Protoss they were beating. If he's right, and the patch corrected an imbalance that was allowing inferior players to flourish, need we look further for an explanation of the distribution of races in the GSL? I think what Polt said makes a lot of sense. I remember Artosis saying on SotG that a lot of "bad Terrans" were going to suffer because of the EMP nerf, as they would not hit as many and they'd get stormed more. We saw that in that hour-long game between TOD and Happy at dreamhack (not shitting on Happy, just saying pre-nerf he would have left no templar un-EMPed), and that a lot of "bad terrans" who thought they were good were going to start losing more games TvP. I don't sympathize with a lot of the current threads that terran players have been making about the inherent "betterness" of Terran players. Terran micro is simply more rewarding, not more difficult. I don't think Terran has ANY fundamental problems. Furthermore- Terrans are still set on Bio play in TvP, and most refuse to mech instead focusing on Bio play which is going to be inherently weaker, especially to AoE attacks. If terrans want to play a more mobile style they need to accept that its going to be weaker and move on. There needs to be like, a Terran Bunker thread, where all the Terran players can go to post threads like this and they can all agree and have fun together with their marines and ghosts and shit. Mech isn't good in TvP, if you choose to go that you're basically asking to lose the game. Terrans don't choose to go bio, we're forced into it because we have no other good options. I think a lot of Protoss would argue that Mech was not used beause Bio was far more effective and faster. Since the launch, terrans have been floating the factory around as the most expensive scout in SC2. Although I understant that pure mech may not be the way to go, but terrans could start by building units out of the factory and see who they work out. Also, players continue to use Goody as an example of a terran player who gave up mech vs protoss. Although I do like Goody and his style, other pros have been critical of his mechanics. He is known for having lack luster macro and decision making. I think an MMA or MVP could find a way to make factory units work as support for bio. Just like protoss were forced to figure out how to make zealots work in PvZ. I never used zealots in that match up 5 months ago and they were widely considered horrible(Day 9 said protoss feel stupid building them). Now they are one of my main units that I use all the time.
There is this guy called MVP, he is best Terran player, best mech player in TvT and TvZ, he has one weaker matchup - TvP, yet he still doesnt use mech in this matchup.
So i would argue that MVP knows more about viablity of mech in TvP than a "lot of Protoss"
|
On December 01 2011 03:15 gillon wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2011 03:09 Multifail wrote:
It is largely situational. Different situations require more or less micro from different races. Lets take 1-1-1 vs protoss. For terran, they need to get their siege tanks into position, control their marine ball, and handle their banshee(s). For protoss, they need to have their army spread out, use guardian shield, try to trap marines with ff, keep zealots up front, have immortals (or phoenix) focus tanks, and micro stalkers back and forth. I'd say more is asked of protoss in that situation.
I do think terran usually has the "micro advantage" in a lot of situations. What I mean by this is that it is up to the terran to succeed or fail on particular micro tasks, and if they succeed the other two races do not have a "micro counter play" to try to over come what the terran did, they just lose that micro engagement. This is a little theoretical, but I'll try to give an example.
I think Ghost vs. HT is a good example of this. Snipe has range 10, feedback has range 9. 1 range isn't a huge margin for error, ghosts could easily be hit with feedback if terran isn't really on point that instant. However, if they are, 10 range will always beat 9 range, and there is nothing protoss can do about it. Of course you could say well use blink stalkers, lead with chargelots, etc. Then the terran ball could lead instead of ghosts, and on and on. There are other situations that I think this is true as well (marines vs. banelings), and I think the point stands. Terran are usually in a situation where if they micro correctly, the other two races don't have a real response to the micro play, however the requirement put on terran is pretty difficult, and if they fail, they will probably lose. Snipe has a built in casttime and delay between fires, and it requires 2 to kill the HT. Feedback is instantaneous with zero cooldown and incapacitates the ghost with one hit. The time it takes for the snipe to go off is 100% enough time for the HT to get that 1 range closer. I mean, if you're gonna do proper theorycrafting, you ought to have the facts straight.
You are assuming it is 1 ht vs 1 ghost. I never said that was the case, as it usually isn't. If you send 2 ghost vs 2 ht, the ghosts will both snipe the targeted HT, and he will die before his FB goes off, every time. If you add more numbers, the results are the same. Pretty much anything beyond 1 vs 1, ghosts will win. And I'm not going to even get into the use of cloak.
The delay isn't enough time for FB to go off, I have no clue where you got that idea. It is just plain wrong. Try a unit tester before you start trying to sound smart.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
