EPTHere's the last tool that tried to pull this stunt.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=289868
[D] Fundamental problems with Terran - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
deadmau
960 Posts
Here's the last tool that tried to pull this stunt. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=289868 | ||
|
Deleted User 26513
2376 Posts
On November 30 2011 13:23 Itsmedudeman wrote: This isn't a problem with terran, this is a problem with the other 2 races. All the races should be difficult and have high potentials of execution. And they do, so I can't see where is the problem. | ||
DemigodcelpH
1138 Posts
On November 30 2011 13:25 Plansix wrote: Another one of these threads. How many more "Terran requires me to be really good at the game. I feel I have to work harder than the other races to be good." threads are people going to make. There seems like an endless line of them. Zerg is my worst match up, can I make a thread about how much harder protoss is against zerg? I mean, its hard for me and really feel that zerg players have it to easy. Why can't the game just be easier for me? You seem to be awfully frusterated, and are spewing things based off of emotion. In order to contribute to the discussion better try to look at things from a more objective perspective like OP. He has concrete statistics to support his hypothesis. On November 30 2011 13:26 Pr0wler wrote: And they do, so I can't see where is the problem. This is generally untrue for Protoss, as the race is generally the most effective in a giant 200/200 attacking deathball. I was actually watching Day9 earlier and heard evidence to support this when he said that it's less effective for Protoss to engage in frequent small skirmishs, and experts tend to agree with this. | ||
|
akalarry
United States1978 Posts
Also if blizzard is nerfing terran, they are just making terran weaker at every other level (code a , code b, foreign pros, every ladder except for masters korea). Does that mean that they think that those terran should theoretically be less skilled than the tosses that they are even with. | ||
|
Darpa
Canada4413 Posts
On November 30 2011 13:10 BlueBoxSC wrote: You're choosing selectively to look at foreigner Terran players, and that's a terrible point to argue on. Koreans (and I hate to say this, because I don't believe in the Korean/Foreigner divide, or I don't want to, at least) generally provide higher level play, and that's why there's always been a Terran in the Ro4 in the GSL. Still, I feel like the design of Terran is remarkably solid, and it's actually the ineffectual design of the other races (in that they don't have amazing micro capability like T) that leads to this perception. I know you said this thread wasn't about balance, but someone will step in and tell me I'm flaunting about garbage, so game is balanced. Im not sure you are understanding, hes using foreigners as the example to exclude koreans for a reason. Hes saying that terran is weaker at lower skill levels because micro is so much a part of their battle success. At the top korean level and maybe the top 1% of foreigners I think terran is even with the other races, if not stronger. But the top korean terrans are robots from outer space. Below Code S terrans, terran is insanely hard to beat protoss (and to a lesser extent zerg) because their units are only as good as the micro that controls them. I have to wholeheartedly agree. There is a reason that Protoss and Zerg players far outnumber terrans. That said, I think your right in the sense that Terrans design is solid. The problem i think lies in the fact that protoss and zerg units dont scale with their micro ability. Yes, micro certainly plays a factor, but really terran units are absolutely devasting under the right control, and absolutely worthless under pour control. I think Protoss and zerg units hit a diminishing returns were more micro isnt necessarily worth the extra benefit. Personally I think they need to increase micro intensive power units for the other races and that will seriously help the issue at hand. | ||
|
babyToSS
233 Posts
As for terran requiring multitasking ability, that is just how the units are. Terran army is like the glass cannon of SC2 so you have to babysit your units no getting around that, in return you get a faceroll army (except for mass chargelots, they just dont die  ) | ||
|
Gamegene
United States8308 Posts
On November 30 2011 13:29 DemigodcelpH wrote: You seem to be awfully frusterated, and are spewing things based off of emotion. In order to contribute to the discussion better try to look at things from a more objective perspective like OP. He has concrete statistics to support his hypothesis. OP is presenting a very subjective opinion. The tournament results you can spin a lot of different ways. | ||
|
warshop
Canada490 Posts
On November 30 2011 13:31 Gamegene wrote: OP is presenting a very subjective opinion. The tournament results you can spin a lot of different ways. Weren't the tournament results the exact reason the balance patches were made? | ||
|
Nenyim
France110 Posts
Weren't the tournament results the exact reason the balance patches were made? Ask like this, not at all. A lots of factors enter in why they change something, very high level games (therefore in a sens tournament resultats) are probably the more important but results by themself at higher level of play aren't that meaningfull. | ||
|
Meteora.GB
Canada2479 Posts
Of course, you're only talking about units that require micro, which are marines, hellions and banshees. There's always mech which doesn't require micro as much as good tank placements; though I feel like mech sucks compare to its BW counterpart (so many hard counters to it). My opinion probably doesn't mean jack since I'm gold, but that's my observations. There's still a ways away to balance the game and generally, the highest ELO is where patches are made to balance the game. There's too many variables in lower leagues to balance around our general incompetence. | ||
|
Alzadar
Canada5009 Posts
On November 30 2011 13:29 DemigodcelpH wrote: You seem to be awfully frusterated, and are spewing things based off of emotion. In order to contribute to the discussion better try to look at things from a more objective perspective like OP. He has concrete statistics to support his hypothesis. This is generally untrue for Protoss, as the race is fundamentally the most effective in a giant attacking deathball. I was actually watching Day9 earlier and heard evidence to support this when he said that it's less effective for Protoss to engage in frequent small skirmishs, and experts tend to agree with this. Err, how so? Frequent small skirmishes of small armies is where Protoss works best, because any unit that isn't killed will regenerate all the damage it took. This doesn't happen much because the other races have very good methods of chasing Protoss armies (Concussive shells, stim, having wtf fast units for Zerg), but that doesn't mean Protoss is bad at it. | ||
|
Endymion
United States3701 Posts
On November 30 2011 13:14 SpunXtain wrote: Today? For everyone in the world who isn't American and puts Day before month, as they recognize Month/Day/Year makes no sense. ok well maybe if you said "as of" instead of "as at" i would have understood. and for the record, canadians do it too o.o | ||
|
Kharnage
Australia920 Posts
that said, I honestly feel that things are pretty balanced right now. I'm not sure what nerfs the OP is talking about. Was it the rax building time or the reaper speed nerf which makes TvP so unbalanced? The only nerf of any consequence in TvP was the EMP nerf which I think everyone agrees was well overdue. Ghosts are still cheaper, move faster, have more utility and out range HT. Sure EMP won't outright kill any unit, but the large amount of damage done is more than enough to tip the balance in a fight. Plus it pretty much makes the shield upgrade and obsolete waste of reources. | ||
|
hmunkey
United Kingdom1973 Posts
GSL level Terran takes an absurd amount of APM and multitasking that no other race really has. It turns out Koreans are better mechanically than foreigners. Hmm... | ||
|
DemigodcelpH
1138 Posts
On November 30 2011 13:37 Alzadar wrote: Err, how so? Frequent small skirmishes of small armies is where Protoss works best, because any unit that isn't killed will regenerate all the damage it took. This doesn't happen much because the other races have very good methods of chasing Protoss armies (Concussive shells, stim, having wtf fast units for Zerg), but that doesn't mean Protoss is bad at it. Day9 was arguing that on the scale of small skirmishes Terran units are (generally) more cost effective *if* controlled correctly (for example 4 stalkers and a zealot vs 4 marauders and 2 marines), and that larger Protoss forces are much more effective due to the strength of Protoss units and the ability they have to run over most of everything. On November 30 2011 13:44 hmunkey wrote: You have to be really good to handle terran at the top level. It has a weird curve, where it's easy at low levels but gets progressively harder as your opponents get better. Actually the consensus, and crutch of OP's hypothesis, is that Terran gets easier (as in more effective) the more skilled you are, because all of the units require unusually high amounts of micro. Code S Terrans are a forced to be reckoned with, as they can micro units at 200-300 APM, while still retaining a rate of a 95%+ on-time macro cycles. The rest (majority) of the Terrans don't have this ability to babysit their units (not at such an extraordinary level at least), and subsequently this is affecting foriegn tournament results with Terrans being destroyed across the board as you can see in OP's presented statistics. Edit: I re-read your post, and it seems that you actually may be talking from the perspective of fighting against the top level Terrans, but it's a bit vague (handle as "fight against" or handle as "use"). Sorry. | ||
|
WinteRR
Australia201 Posts
On November 30 2011 13:30 Darpa wrote: Im not sure you are understanding, hes using foreigners as the example to exclude koreans for a reason. Hes saying that terran is weaker at lower skill levels because micro is so much a part of their battle success. At the top korean level and maybe the top 1% of foreigners I think terran is even with the other races, if not stronger. But the top korean terrans are robots from outer space. Below Code S terrans, terran is insanely hard to beat protoss (and to a lesser extent zerg) because their units are only as good as the micro that controls them. I have to wholeheartedly agree. There is a reason that Protoss and Zerg players far outnumber terrans. That said, I think your right in the sense that Terrans design is solid. The problem i think lies in the fact that protoss and zerg units dont scale with their micro ability. Yes, micro certainly plays a factor, but really terran units are absolutely devasting under the right control, and absolutely worthless under pour control. I think Protoss and zerg units hit a diminishing returns were more micro isnt necessarily worth the extra benefit. Personally I think they need to increase micro intensive power units for the other races and that will seriously help the issue at hand. Well written, I completely resonate with this post. There definitely is no problem with the top level of Korean play in Terran.. but there are definite inherent 'issues' at levels of play anywhere below the Koreans. It's well known foreign Terrans have struggled for the longest time, I guess the race's welfare sits on a knife edge (that edge being micro/small-scale decisions). | ||
|
Techno
1900 Posts
Terrans the well designed race, zerg is close to perfect and protoss are weird | ||
|
ThePlayer33
Australia2378 Posts
that there isn't a good foreign terran? | ||
|
canikizu
4860 Posts
On November 30 2011 13:58 ThePlayer33 wrote: whats the fundamental problem????????? that there isn't a good foreign terran? Terran got punished for bad micro. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On November 30 2011 13:29 DemigodcelpH wrote: You seem to be awfully frusterated, and are spewing things based off of emotion. In order to contribute to the discussion better try to look at things from a more objective perspective like OP. He has concrete statistics to support his hypothesis. I see little to no evidence in the OP post that makes any solid argument that terran is under powered in any way. Terran has enjoy the highest win ratio all of the races since launch and solid stats and evidence has been provided on a monthly basis to back this up. The OP only provides a limit sample of tournaments that serve to make his point, while omiting any referance to a tournament where a terran won. He also completely omits the GSL because, in his argument, "terran is harder except at the highest level of play". This appears to be the new argument for terrans who feel that their race is being over nerfed. Since terrans still dominate the GSL, there is no way to state that terrans are doing poorly. The new argument is that terran is strong if you have a high skill level, but at the lower leagues, zerg and protoss are simply strong due to "easier to play at that skill level". This creates a nearly unwinable argument for anyone attempting to argue balance. The fundamentals of the argument are based on so many abstract, unfounded theories and claims that no solid argument can be made to counter them. No specific proof or reasoning is provided that terran is more difficult or easier at a specific skill level. Only a bunch of random tournament results where terrans did not win. Even when terrans did post solid results, those are to be ignored because they are Korean and are playing at the highest level. So the argument is: Terran did not win these tournaments. They also did not post solid results in the top four. Except in the tournaments where they did post solid results in the top four. But those results are invalid because the players were Korean. The results of these finding: Terran is to difficult at my skill level, which is not the highest level. This is a problem with terran and I feel it should be corrected. I have now added to the discussion in a long winded fashion by saying that the OP evidence is BS and his argument lacks any substance to prove his point. | ||
| ||
