|
On December 01 2011 03:58 Bagi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2011 03:47 ceaRshaf wrote:On December 01 2011 03:44 Bagi wrote:On December 01 2011 03:35 ceaRshaf wrote: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. Adding tanks and ravens is overkill right? Tanks are worthless outside timing pushes. Once you have upgrades like charge and blink, even pure gateway units can deal with tanks no problem. Don't even get me started on the new immortal. Feedback outranges all raven abilities, PDD does jack shit against zealot/archon/colossus. Ravens are absolutely worthless in comparision to ghosts. I'm sorry, but if you believe tanks can solve lategame TvP you truly do not understand this game at all. Positioning and slow pushing make tanks worth their price. Ravens can have a free roam if ghosts are used against templars. And nobody even tried bio+ tanks + ravens + vikings. What you are describing is a 1-2 base timing push, which are quite common. But the longer the game the less you can rely on tanks, which is why you usually see marauder transitions after it. Protoss just has too many units that effectively counter tanks, especially once you have upgrades for them. Once the protoss has a maxed army, your cute little tank army just gets rolled over unless you have perfect positioning. This is not BW where tank lines could break entire armies, don't delude yourself. Lots of people do bio/tanks/ravens/vikings as a timing push, and they know its not viable in a long game. That's why they are progamers and you are not.
If only pros would be allowed to talk than TL would be quite. That argument is stupid.
And check Hero vs asd from GSL (todays matches). Game 2 is mech play at his best.
|
On December 01 2011 03:44 Empire.Beastyqt 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. Bolded part shows how much you know about game, mech in TvP - okay. Show nested quote +On December 01 2011 03:03 Roxy wrote:
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
You heard it here first, banshees and helions are regular tech path in TvP. Terran having most unexplored units - not sure if you are trolling, thor/tank/bio in tvp? really? More than half of people here are posting stuff like: OMG BUT TERRAN IS GOOD RACE NOOB GTFO!! You should read the thread first, thread isnt about terran being WEAK race, thread is about that terran is more time consuming race because its micro is more difficult than the other 2 races which results in people quiting terran or changing to other race. If you are thinking "well who cares about lower leagues", you should probably re-think again. Terran is already STILL the most hated race from beta which doesnt help new players coming into game or help the old ones stick to their race. I will post again for those people saying "terran was winning before because they were OP and now when they lose terrans suck and zergs and toss are better", sure can you tell me why terrans never won anything outside Korea? You actually want to say that out of over million people that wasnt ONE talented terran player? What terrans want is not their race being boosted, I like my race as it is and I want it to be hard, but I use a lot of time on this game, terrans want the other 2 races to be given MORE options in terms of micro making them not HARDER to use but having the potential to do better, very good example of this are blink stalkers and mutas. Bad example of this is zealot/archon army, the strenght in it is too much for its ..micro - and we need less of those for SC2 to be better game. Also Roxy stop posting you are melting my brain with your posts, newest one "when did zealots become viable vs zerg?". /facepalm
Yeah well I've been saying this since 6 months ago, Terrans outside of Korea haven't won shit besides some online cups. But ofc Terran is OP cuz MVP, Bomber and MMA steamroll everything in GSL and that's all these "sad zealots" and zergs need for their argument.
EDIT: Typos
|
On November 30 2011 14:18 Empire.Beastyqt wrote:Problem is just in game design, terran as race is made harder to micro than other 2 races and when one unit is micro'd near perfect it seems as "overpowered" and then blizzard nerfs it since they dont know how to balance it out. Examples are marines vs zerglings vs zealots or stalkers vs marauders vs roaches. Marines and stalkers become much powerful with very good micro, while other 4 unit types dont need to be micro'd very good on low level to be successful. Another example is mutas - void rays - banshees, while void rays are "OP" on low levels, mutas and cloakless banshees probably "suck" because they require much more micro to use their full potential. Like someone mentioned already, terran as a race is made micro oriented while other 2 races are played different (not saying they dont require micro on top level but on low level its much harder for terran players to win their games) which results in terran % of players globally decreasing each season while zerg race players % has been increasing (read this on TL). All this nerfing to terran race, even tho it was needed on the GSL code S level, it is killing the lower leagues and players who are playing the game casually would rather switch races than spend more time on the game itself, because...they play game for fun and fun = winning most of the time. 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" + Show Spoiler +. My personal opinion on the whole balance thing - yes koreans were dominating GSL but if the race was overpowered terrans would dominate foreigner tournaments as well - which wasnt the case. Blizzard is balancing the game based on GSL obviously and even if slight nerf was needed I think blizzard overdid it and that we will see zergs and protoss dominate much more very soon. And for those who will probably be "go play other race if u think yours is shit" - you got it wrong, terran is very good race, but reaching top level or even low level play is much more time consuming than other 2 races if you want to win, which is reason why people complain on terran race atm.
wish I could put this in my signature
|
On December 01 2011 04:27 ceaRshaf wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2011 03:58 Bagi wrote:On December 01 2011 03:47 ceaRshaf wrote:On December 01 2011 03:44 Bagi wrote:On December 01 2011 03:35 ceaRshaf wrote: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. Adding tanks and ravens is overkill right? Tanks are worthless outside timing pushes. Once you have upgrades like charge and blink, even pure gateway units can deal with tanks no problem. Don't even get me started on the new immortal. Feedback outranges all raven abilities, PDD does jack shit against zealot/archon/colossus. Ravens are absolutely worthless in comparision to ghosts. I'm sorry, but if you believe tanks can solve lategame TvP you truly do not understand this game at all. Positioning and slow pushing make tanks worth their price. Ravens can have a free roam if ghosts are used against templars. And nobody even tried bio+ tanks + ravens + vikings. What you are describing is a 1-2 base timing push, which are quite common. But the longer the game the less you can rely on tanks, which is why you usually see marauder transitions after it. Protoss just has too many units that effectively counter tanks, especially once you have upgrades for them. Once the protoss has a maxed army, your cute little tank army just gets rolled over unless you have perfect positioning. This is not BW where tank lines could break entire armies, don't delude yourself. Lots of people do bio/tanks/ravens/vikings as a timing push, and they know its not viable in a long game. That's why they are progamers and you are not. If only pros would be allowed to talk than TL would be quite. That argument is stupid. And check Hero vs asd from GSL (todays matches). Game 2 is mech play at his best.
I didnt see the game but if its familiar to Jjakji-Oz and Ryung-Brown its not mech play it timing push with units from all 3 tech trees. So it works in midgame before upgrades kick out. If for example Protoss has 2/0/2 you have decide which upgrade tree you want to go and base army on this.
|
Why is this a problem? I understand your point, that as a player, a given race appears to be more or less effective in my hands against the other two, depending on how good I am, so my perception of balance keeps changing as I move up through the leagues. So Blizzard has a choice -- make all the races fundamentally the same, so every matchup works like a mirror and then this effect never appears, or choose a particular skill level at which the all races should handle more or less equally effectively against each other and try to balance things around that. The former choices leads to boring gameplay, so we're stuck with the latter. The suits over at Activision might be tempted to balance the game towards whoever represents their largest consumer base (bronze/silver players?), but this entire game was designed with high-level competition in mind, and that scene could not exist if the game was balanced for anything other than "perfect" play, or as close to it as players can come.
|
This is such a bad argument because anyone decent at BW knows that Terran by far was the hardest race to learn because they had so many options at their disposal.
|
On December 01 2011 04:52 Iranon wrote:
Why is this a problem? I understand your point, that as a player, a given race appears to be more or less effective in my hands against the other two, depending on how good I am, so my perception of balance keeps changing as I move up through the leagues. So Blizzard has a choice -- make all the races fundamentally the same, so every matchup works like a mirror and then this effect never appears, or choose a particular skill level at which the all races should handle more or less equally effectively against each other and try to balance things around that. The former choices leads to boring gameplay, so we're stuck with the latter. The suits over at Activision might be tempted to balance the game towards whoever represents their largest consumer base (bronze/silver players?), but this entire game was designed with high-level competition in mind, and that scene could not exist if the game was balanced for anything other than "perfect" play, or as close to it as players can come.
No, ofc the races shouldn't be the same, but retarded micro requirement differences ruin the game. Zealot Archon Colossus Templar vs MMM Ghost Viking for example, while the Protoss just A moves and has to hit a couple of storms, the Terran has to hit perfect EMPs on everything and still have some for the templar who are in the back and most of the time won't be hit with the first wave. Add constant stutter step to small groups of units and you have a huge difference in micro requirement. So while the Terran micros his heart out,the Toss can warp in units, macro at home etc. Maybe MVP can squeeze in some stuff between microing but I bet even some Terran pros can't.
|
On December 01 2011 03:27 robih 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. protoss doesnt choose to go colossi AND templar they are forced into it because otherwise they get raped
Hi, my names Adelscott from the TSL3, and I beat MVP with ONLY gateway units in a real macro game.
|
On December 01 2011 04:54 superstartran wrote:
This is such a bad argument because anyone decent at BW knows that Terran by far was the hardest race to learn because they had so many options at their disposal.
I didn't know SC2 was BW.
|
France12758 Posts
On December 01 2011 05:00 TBone- wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2011 03:27 robih wrote: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. protoss doesnt choose to go colossi AND templar they are forced into it because otherwise they get raped Hi, my names Adelscott from the TSL3, and I beat MVP with ONLY gateway units in a real macro game.
Adel would never have won against Mvp if they played in a no-lag environment.
Even if protoss was considered imba (especially by zerg players) at that time, it was not the race that made Mvp lose lol.
Even NesTea lost to Goody ^^.
|
On December 01 2011 05:00 TBone- wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2011 03:27 robih wrote: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? Bomber went for 14 barracks vs idra and made pure marines. So what? These kind of arguments are not arguments. 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. protoss doesnt choose to go colossi AND templar they are forced into it because otherwise they get raped Hi, my names Adelscott from the TSL3, and I beat MVP with ONLY gateway units in a real macro game.
Bomber went for 14 barracks vs idra and made only marines. So what? This is not an argument of any kind.
|
On December 01 2011 05:10 ceaRshaf wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2011 05:00 TBone- wrote:On December 01 2011 03:27 robih wrote: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? Bomber went for 14 barracks vs idra and made pure marines. So what? These kind of arguments are not arguments. 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. protoss doesnt choose to go colossi AND templar they are forced into it because otherwise they get raped Hi, my names Adelscott from the TSL3, and I beat MVP with ONLY gateway units in a real macro game. Bomber went for 14 barracks vs idra and made only marines. So what? This is not an argument of any kind.
bomber is just too handsome
|
is it too late to ask for mech vs toss, bio vs zerg? 
mmm+x is just so efficient that there's no need to do anything else.
|
Skill to be good at Terran > Skill to be good at Zerg or Protoss IMO!
|
I swear I was reading Artosis' post from the days of old...
|
On December 01 2011 04:59 Blizzard_torments_me wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2011 04:52 Iranon wrote:
Why is this a problem? I understand your point, that as a player, a given race appears to be more or less effective in my hands against the other two, depending on how good I am, so my perception of balance keeps changing as I move up through the leagues. So Blizzard has a choice -- make all the races fundamentally the same, so every matchup works like a mirror and then this effect never appears, or choose a particular skill level at which the all races should handle more or less equally effectively against each other and try to balance things around that. The former choices leads to boring gameplay, so we're stuck with the latter. The suits over at Activision might be tempted to balance the game towards whoever represents their largest consumer base (bronze/silver players?), but this entire game was designed with high-level competition in mind, and that scene could not exist if the game was balanced for anything other than "perfect" play, or as close to it as players can come. No, ofc the races shouldn't be the same, but retarded micro requirement differences ruin the game. Zealot Archon Colossus Templar vs MMM Ghost Viking for example, while the Protoss just A moves and has to hit a couple of storms, the Terran has to hit perfect EMPs on everything and still have some for the templar who are in the back and most of the time won't be hit with the first wave. Add constant stutter step to small groups of units and you have a huge difference in micro requirement. So while the Terran micros his heart out,the Toss can warp in units, macro at home etc. Maybe MVP can squeeze in some stuff between microing but I bet even some Terran pros can't.
Lol, this is so wrong :D
Try to A-move protoss army into MMMG ball and see what will happen. When did you see Hero or Huk just A-move and macro behind ? They will never do it cus it's impossible to win that way.
IMO the game should be balanced towards the highest possible level(GSL at the moment). You cannot nerf protoss and zerg units just because bronze, silver and gold players cant handle their army properly. This is competitive game after all.
|
On December 01 2011 03:44 Empire.Beastyqt 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. Bolded part shows how much you know about game, mech in TvP - okay. Show nested quote +On December 01 2011 03:03 Roxy wrote:
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
You heard it here first, banshees and helions are regular tech path in TvP. Terran having most unexplored units - not sure if you are trolling, thor/tank/bio in tvp? really? More than half of people here are posting stuff like: OMG BUT TERRAN IS GOOD RACE NOOB GTFO!! You should read the thread first, thread isnt about terran being WEAK race, thread is about that terran is more time consuming race because its micro is more difficult than the other 2 races which results in people quiting terran or changing to other race. If you are thinking "well who cares about lower leagues", you should probably re-think again. Terran is already STILL the most hated race from beta which doesnt help new players coming into game or help the old ones stick to their race. I will post again for those people saying "terran was winning before because they were OP and now when they lose terrans suck and zergs and toss are better", sure can you tell me why terrans never won anything outside Korea? You actually want to say that out of over million people that wasnt ONE talented terran player? What terrans want is not their race being boosted, I like my race as it is and I want it to be hard, but I use a lot of time on this game, terrans want the other 2 races to be given MORE options in terms of micro making them not HARDER to use but having the potential to do better, very good example of this are blink stalkers and mutas. Bad example of this is zealot/archon army, the strenght in it is too much for its ..micro - and we need less of those for SC2 to be better game. Also Roxy stop posting you are melting my brain with your posts, newest one "when did zealots become viable vs zerg?". /facepalm
I honestly expected more from someone who plays and has as much experience as you.
If you have a factory, yes, that means you can build hellions. I dont see what is difficult to understand here.
If you have a starport (build vikings or medivacs), do you have a tech lab.. build marauders? How about you switch them and build a banshee... not so hard to figure out bro.
If banshee fails, no worries, just switch the starport over to a reactor and build a barax where that tech lab was. again, not hard to do. you are not wasting any money diverging in tech paths (like say... going DTs and realizing they ahve turrets up?)
Yes, terran has not fully explored the raven. I thought this was common knowledge. Zerg doesnt have many units, the units that they have are all used. Protoss puts every unit in its ball, no unexpelored units. Carriers suck.. deny it.. i dare you. By default, yes, terran has the most unexplored units. Not to mention the available upgrades that they dont use. Are zealots killing your PF too quickly? 2 more armor on your PF reduces the zealot damage by 20-25%.. how well would this decrease zergling damage? Up until about 6 months ago, ghosts were largely unexplored as well.
Terran is not harder to micro. Terran is different to micro. Its not like any protoss or zergs put their hands behind their head, kick back, and spectate their battles. All races have more micro oportunity than is physically possible. I would argue that what makes terran appear to be harder to micro is that if you are attacking a protoss army with an army of lesser value, the battle can drag on and you can stay alive long enough to do tones of damage with an inferior force. A comparable protoss or zerg army would have evaporated well before that point. I would assess that you are confusing the length of time microing with the difficulty of micro. pressing 1 EEE, 2 t, stutter is not substnatically more difficult than the options availabe to the other races.
Have you tried incorporating tanks into your play with bio? i'm not guaranteeing that the strategy would be viable, i am just saying that it MAY be viable. tanks trade very cost effectively with stalkers (whether seiged or not), and when not seiged, can kite along with the marine/marauder given that it starts out further back with a minimum of 7 range.
Pretty sure a terran won TSL3, pretty sure thorzain took out MC right after he won GSL, and he beat naniwa right around when he cleaned up MLG.. so there is your "Name one foreign terran winner".
Pure zealot archon are not unbeatable, nor are they more powerful than they should be. You can kite them nearly endlessely while you are stimmed. When terrans lose to zealot archon, it is because of positioning and an incorrect unit response. Marauders are not the answer to zealot/archon.
Are you seriously criticizing me for not knowing that zealots are good against zerg? I'm sorry, i have a job. I dont watch streams 16 hours a day. I said in that OP that i am well aware of zealots being good against zerglings. They would certainly not be my first choice against roach/hydra.
I dont excatly know in what situation zealots are good against zerg other than against zerglings, but if you are suggesting that zealot drop play will regularly do critical damage, I beg to differ. Zerg should have a good spread and good map control or they are a failure anyways. If they fail to notice a warp prism coming to their base and fail to respond to it, that is not because zealots are too strong, that is because they are incompetant. They should have a spore and a spine at every base anyways, that will buy enough time for their army to get there. The only reason zealots would ever be used is because unless you have a storm-ready temp, there is no unit that can pay for itself in a drop. Zealots are the cheapest protoss throw-away unit and all the attakc would do to a zerg is buy some time.
|
1. My argument is not that Terran is underpowered, it is that fundamentally it is difficult to balance the game for different levels of play. The mechanics of the game are such that different levels of players are rewarded more or less by different races - because there are different 'thresholds' of skill levels where races seem to be more or less powerful, there is a fundamental flaw in trying to balance the game in this way.
Yeah... there will be races that are easier to learn right off that bat than other races. It shouldn't be balanced at all levels... because there's a human element to this game and there are many trashy players. I couldn't give a #%* if some diamond scrub can't hold off [insert random thing here]. Don't dumb the game down/hold the players hand to help them get through it. If they don't have the skill for it (i.e. you mean I have to lay down mines and siege my tank and I can't do that on one hotkey? Ugh [+1 for BW example]) then they don't deserve to win a game.
3. This flaw is not necessarily on the Terran's side. It could be, as some pointed out, that the other races have design flaws. If Terran is the 'solid' race and the other 2 races are balanced to compensate for their shortcomings at the top level of play, Terran necessarily appears to be weaker at levels where players cannot fully exploit their full functionality.
Sure this game isn't fully balanced, but why should ALL players be able to fully exploit their race at all levels? You know what a bad game that would be? If any one person in any one league can do exactly what the #1 pro in the world can do... that's bogus.
5. People who say 'so you need to be good to play terran' are completely missing the point of this post. The argument is not that the other races don't require skill, its that Terran has different skill thresholds that make balancing the race difficult across multiple levels.
And again, my question would be why you feel this game needs to be balanced across multiple levels. Seems pretty absurd to me.
6. I'm not discussing bronze-platinum level players etc. As you'll note, the only direct references I've made have been to top level tournaments around the world. I don't think Blizzard mind if bronze-masters is not perfectly balanced, but I would argue that one of their objectives is to have a fairly level playing field across both the GSL as well as these higher level tournaments that foreign progamers compete in.
So you're not discussing lower level players yet you bring up lower level players in a few of your #s up above, such as Terran necessarily appears to be weaker at levels where players cannot fully exploit their full functionality. Be that as it may, if you want to just focus on foreign progamers.. do you think they're all amazing at micro and amazing at macro? Nah, some still are lacking in those areas, obviously, and there are many pro games that I've watched and said, "Well, for the most part he microed really well, but then it seemed there was this one battle where he half-assed it and it cost him the game."
Yep, stuff like that happens - GOOD.
|
Why isn't this thread closed, it should have been about 15 pages ago.
|
Because I had to get my 2 cents in... now it's worthy of being closed.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
