|
On December 01 2011 17:10 ceaRshaf wrote:
This thread is such a whine and I don't know how Teamliquid staff allows it. I mean to call other races easy and A-Movers is just ignorant and stupid. Sorry. Back it up with real facts. Show us videos from streams with battles to see what micro is so insanely done by the terrans.
Until you give me that let me remind you something: unmicroed units in tvp and terran ALWAYS wins. Microed units in tvp protoss wins most of the time. So guess what, the protoss has the hard time and requirement to micro to get the upper hand.
Now stop the whine and learn to play from the successful terrans.
I come onto these forums just to have a browse, learn off the intelligent posts and just laugh at the absolutely rediculous posts like these.
Honestly dude, can you really say that Terran can A move into a Deathball? This isn't any worse then saying Terran would come out on top if he was to a move his marines into banelings.
I thought I'd just point out some things you say are really really silly.
I'm actually a Protoss player myself and I used to play Terran. I for one can say that Terran is by far the hardest race to play out of the two and Terran is very micro intensive when comparing them to Protoss. Although I get frustrated when my whole army gets blanket emp, It really dosen't bother me considering the amount of AOE damage my army has.
Yes, I can 1 A my army into a Terran and win. That is why I switched to Protoss ages ago. Those Terrans who want to whine that it's hard work, just switch to Protoss. I did and have never looked back. I should also mention that within 2 weeks of switching to Protoss that I jumped up a leauge. Yes, Protoss is indeed an easier race to play in the lower levels of ladder, but I can see how it would be much harder at the top professional level. I feel at that level, you are always trying to look for that BO win as the game would get far harder against a Terran with sharp micro.
You can really only do so much with the Protoss race and I feel that it's not the players fault but Blizzards.
I would also like to point out that the mule is not completely broken as some say. Considering I can warp units in at the Terrans front door.
If Blizzard were to make the Protoss race more difficult to play, I would go back to playing Terran tomorrow. But the race really is that much easier to play. Blame Blizzard. Fact is, Protoss rewards you for your hard work and practice much earlier then what it does with Terran. This is why there aren't much Terrans around anymore, it is quiet a shame really.
|
Honestly it's not just terrans having this problem, if you want to balance the game equally on all scales, its important to consider the problems of other races. Personally, I think Protoss gets away with the least of troubles thanks to the weird idea of Warp Gate and Force Fields.
While on terran's side micro plays an enormous factor in the outcome of most of terran related battles, there's equal problems in zergs economy management in the first 5 minutes of a game. It get's pretty ridiculous watching mutalisks lose to equal numbers of marines if marines attack at a specific timing. Likewise, its ridiculous watching zerg players lose games to 3 pylon ramp blocks, bunker rushes, and losing their first hatchery to cannon rushes and the like, and having no way to return to the game without serious flaws on the opponents play. Meanwhile, risky builds like these have no real punishments, like terrans salvaging their bunkers, and protoss simply canceling cannon warp ins, since 1 worker can warp in a fully functional and indestructable wall in the first few minutes of the game.
But overall, I always thought TvZ was a fine match-up. Usually the games related to protoss was something I always felt needed work since their mechanics are really really simplified. The fact that all their warpgates are given a specific hotkey- W and a small picture to the right side of the screen is a sign of this. If they want the race to be noob friendly, thats fine, but I always found the warp gate hotkey to be a little overboard, just like the salvage functionality.
But this is not to say protoss is necessarily easier on all fronts. At the same time this becomes extremely hindering when I watch protoss units really have very little to do when they are in huge engagements. High templars being outranged by ghosts was probably the biggest example, now I'm not sure since I haven't been able to play due to being hospitalized, and school-work and all that. But while protoss have a large tech variance, they lack in engagement opportunities as well, since the most they can really do in a fight is go back, warp in, and throw in t-storms, and maybe force fields.
Protoss, if anything, would probably benefit the most if they nerfed deathball more, and had more micro-rewarding units, like maybe the reaver or something. Too many of their units either make or break games just by their existence rather than their use.
|
On December 01 2011 11:22 blacklist_member wrote:Would've never thought Zerg is the most played Race, OT - The fact that there are so few terrans at these plat/dia only prove that Terran is infact harder at lower levels
No, it only proves that terran are less played at Plat/diamond levels, but you cannot prove why are they less played based just on that graph.
Most of the low level players I know are happy with terran, because for them is noob friendly. Lots of ranged units, stim and turtling is good when you lack the skill or just don't give a fuck and want to have fun.
Anyway I concour about terran strugling at the moment, because most of the time the other players have learnt how to deal with 1 or 2 base all ins which most terrans were using to scalate on ladder, and now they are lost, because they don't know how to play. I can count more than a dozen players who just give up after a failed 2 rax rush or 2 fac BF hellion marine push, because they don't know how to play after that.
So in the end, in the low level range (from bronce to diamond) zerg and protoss have to play more solid than terrans, because of all the weird all ins or strange push they had to deal with from terrans.
Of course, there are pretty good solid terran players, but they are not ranting about, just friendly chatting (most of the time)
Plat player zerg here, just for fun.
PS: to all saying zerg and protoss is a-move, I dare you to play vs a same level terran and just "a move" your stalker colossi or your ling bling muta into the terran army. I was promoted from silver to gold when I discovered the bling split and the ling "move/surround then attack" micro. I'm still trying to micro mutas... hope I will get to diamond after that ^_^
|
On November 30 2011 13:12 Endymion wrote:
u gotta sk8
furthermore, when is 30/11/2011...
best post ever
|
On December 01 2011 18:24 Enoryt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2011 17:10 ceaRshaf wrote:
This thread is such a whine and I don't know how Teamliquid staff allows it. I mean to call other races easy and A-Movers is just ignorant and stupid. Sorry. Back it up with real facts. Show us videos from streams with battles to see what micro is so insanely done by the terrans.
Until you give me that let me remind you something: unmicroed units in tvp and terran ALWAYS wins. Microed units in tvp protoss wins most of the time. So guess what, the protoss has the hard time and requirement to micro to get the upper hand.
Now stop the whine and learn to play from the successful terrans. I come onto these forums just to have a browse, learn off the intelligent posts and just laugh at the absolutely rediculous posts like these. Honestly dude, can you really say that Terran can A move into a Deathball? This isn't any worse then saying Terran would come out on top if he was to a move his marines into banelings. I thought I'd just point out some things you say are really really silly. I'm actually a Protoss player myself and I used to play Terran. I for one can say that Terran is by far the hardest race to play out of the two and Terran is very micro intensive when comparing them to Protoss. Although I get frustrated when my whole army gets blanket emp, It really dosen't bother me considering the amount of AOE damage my army has. Yes, I can 1 A my army into a Terran and win. That is why I switched to Protoss ages ago. Those Terrans who want to whine that it's hard work, just switch to Protoss. I did and have never looked back. I should also mention that within 2 weeks of switching to Protoss that I jumped up a leauge. Yes, Protoss is indeed an easier race to play in the lower levels of ladder, but I can see how it would be much harder at the top professional level. I feel at that level, you are always trying to look for that BO win as the game would get far harder against a Terran with sharp micro.
I find your view on anecdotal evidence is useless, your opinion shouldn't be used as fact period. That being said the argument that micro is a significant issue in lower leagues usually isn't the cause because like it has already been said 4910481904 times in this thread, there are hundreds of other things that play much bigger factors. Most games don't make it to 200/200 supply and if they do it's a 30+ minute long game, because macro isn't nearly on the level that it should be. Furthermore, saying that protoss is easier because they can theoretically do less micro at lower levels makes little sense, because up until plat you can pretty much pull any random 1 base allin out of terrans arsenal, and so long as it's fairly refined you will win 90% of the time. It's hard to argue that micro is such an issue for terran etc, when most games for the over 80% of people that don't fall in diamond + will just straight out die to good early pressure or any sort of real macro. They either will die to a good executed all in or be outmacrod that even with perfect micro their army would still be steam rolled. People are attributing way too much to micro in lower league play, when the huge difference makers are early pressure and macro in general. I could go make an account tmrw, and pick one build from each race, 6-8 pool, 2 gate proxy, 2 rax proxy and make it into plat from bronze. And i wouldn't be winning because of stellar micro, i would be winning often times (especially in bronze-low gold) because people don't know how to deal with early pressure at all. Yes in theory micro could make a difference in some games, but learning how to deal with early pressure in general and learning the basics of macro make more difference on an almost infinitely higher level
|
On December 01 2011 18:59 Ace.Xile wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2011 18:24 Enoryt wrote:
I come onto these forums just to have a browse, learn off the intelligent posts and just laugh at the absolutely rediculous posts like these.
Honestly dude, can you really say that Terran can A move into a Deathball? This isn't any worse then saying Terran would come out on top if he was to a move his marines into banelings.
I thought I'd just point out some things you say are really really silly.
I'm actually a Protoss player myself and I used to play Terran. I for one can say that Terran is by far the hardest race to play out of the two and Terran is very micro intensive when comparing them to Protoss. Although I get frustrated when my whole army gets blanket emp, It really dosen't bother me considering the amount of AOE damage my army has.
Yes, I can 1 A my army into a Terran and win. That is why I switched to Protoss ages ago. Those Terrans who want to whine that it's hard work, just switch to Protoss. I did and have never looked back. I should also mention that within 2 weeks of switching to Protoss that I jumped up a leauge. Yes, Protoss is indeed an easier race to play in the lower levels of ladder, but I can see how it would be much harder at the top professional level. I feel at that level, you are always trying to look for that BO win as the game would get far harder against a Terran with sharp micro.
I find your view on anecdotal evidence is useless, your opinion shouldn't be used as fact period. That being said the argument that micro is a significant issue in lower leagues usually isn't the cause because like it has already been said 4910481904 times in this thread, there are hundreds of other things that play much bigger factors. Most games don't make it to 200/200 supply and if they do it's a 30+ minute long game, because macro isn't nearly on the level that it should be. Furthermore, saying that protoss is easier because they can theoretically do less micro at lower levels makes little sense, because up until plat you can pretty much pull any random 1 base allin out of terrans arsenal, and so long as it's fairly refined you will win 90% of the time. It's hard to argue that micro is such an issue for terran etc, when most games for the over 80% of people that don't fall in diamond + will just straight out die to good early pressure or any sort of real macro. They either will die to a good executed all in or be outmacrod that even with perfect micro their army would still be steam rolled. People are attributing way too much to micro in lower league play, when the huge difference makers are early pressure and macro in general. I could go make an account tmrw, and pick one build from each race, 6-8 pool, 2 gate proxy, 2 rax proxy and make it into plat from bronze. And i wouldn't be winning because of stellar micro, i would be winning often times (especially in bronze-low gold) because people don't know how to deal with early pressure at all.
I just wonder if you realize that you're just as factless as he is. Except, that he is talking about what he experienced, and you're stating made-up numbers and give predictions on future events. In regards of credibility, I'd probably go with him. Doesn't mean, you're wrong (read my posts a few pages back), but you're not helping.
|
That video posted here is just and illusion of superior micro by the terran because the stimmed bio moves so fast and it's looking good when viewed so we are all OMG GODLIKE MICRO. No, if you look close the zerg microes his banes, moves his damaged roaches in behind but because the terran is so fast when stimmed they all die. Bio vs 10 stalkers and 3 sentries is a roflstomp you don't even need to stim to win. That was lame to add to the video.
Stop having the illsusion of such superior micro. Stimming and stutter step is lame to call hard. Remember when you stutter step back the enemy does the same micro but reverse to try and catch you while also moving the damaged units in the back.
inca vs TaeJa yesterday matches. The bio ball just stimmed and stood still vs deathball 200/200 and won convincingly. So that goes for the importance of micro when both maxed.
|
It's so sad that most people are so stuck in their way of "terran is op" since the beta that it seems a productive discussion is impossible to most. 
|
On December 01 2011 19:18 Kwanny wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2011 18:59 Ace.Xile wrote:On December 01 2011 18:24 Enoryt wrote:
I come onto these forums just to have a browse, learn off the intelligent posts and just laugh at the absolutely rediculous posts like these.
Honestly dude, can you really say that Terran can A move into a Deathball? This isn't any worse then saying Terran would come out on top if he was to a move his marines into banelings.
I thought I'd just point out some things you say are really really silly.
I'm actually a Protoss player myself and I used to play Terran. I for one can say that Terran is by far the hardest race to play out of the two and Terran is very micro intensive when comparing them to Protoss. Although I get frustrated when my whole army gets blanket emp, It really dosen't bother me considering the amount of AOE damage my army has.
Yes, I can 1 A my army into a Terran and win. That is why I switched to Protoss ages ago. Those Terrans who want to whine that it's hard work, just switch to Protoss. I did and have never looked back. I should also mention that within 2 weeks of switching to Protoss that I jumped up a leauge. Yes, Protoss is indeed an easier race to play in the lower levels of ladder, but I can see how it would be much harder at the top professional level. I feel at that level, you are always trying to look for that BO win as the game would get far harder against a Terran with sharp micro.
I find your view on anecdotal evidence is useless, your opinion shouldn't be used as fact period. That being said the argument that micro is a significant issue in lower leagues usually isn't the cause because like it has already been said 4910481904 times in this thread, there are hundreds of other things that play much bigger factors. Most games don't make it to 200/200 supply and if they do it's a 30+ minute long game, because macro isn't nearly on the level that it should be. Furthermore, saying that protoss is easier because they can theoretically do less micro at lower levels makes little sense, because up until plat you can pretty much pull any random 1 base allin out of terrans arsenal, and so long as it's fairly refined you will win 90% of the time. It's hard to argue that micro is such an issue for terran etc, when most games for the over 80% of people that don't fall in diamond + will just straight out die to good early pressure or any sort of real macro. They either will die to a good executed all in or be outmacrod that even with perfect micro their army would still be steam rolled. People are attributing way too much to micro in lower league play, when the huge difference makers are early pressure and macro in general. I could go make an account tmrw, and pick one build from each race, 6-8 pool, 2 gate proxy, 2 rax proxy and make it into plat from bronze. And i wouldn't be winning because of stellar micro, i would be winning often times (especially in bronze-low gold) because people don't know how to deal with early pressure at all. I just wonder if you realize that you're just as factless as he is. Except, that he is talking about what he experienced, and you're stating made-up numbers and give predictions on future events. In regards of credibility, I'd probably go with him. Doesn't mean, you're wrong (read my posts a few pages back), but you're not helping.
If he wants to go make a point i can just as easily, as i did, make a point that seems 100 percent more likely. Most of us have played in the bronze and moved up from there. Games do not make it to 200/200 and if they do they take significantly longer than the zergs that max in 11 minutes. Games typically end in one way or another, either early pressure that out right ends the game for one player, or someone can macro better. Micro is a luxury in the lower leagues and short of the infamous baneling marine play that's the only time that someone micro will have a ridiculously huge effect on the rest of the game. His claim or at least one of many claims from people in this thread, was that micro was some huge determining factor in lower league games for terran(despite it already bein shown how terran micro is not particularly more difficult than other races), my claim which while unsupported factually (much like his claim) seems infinitely more likely, is that micro isn't an issue because the general lack of knowledge in lower leagues in areas such as early pressure, macro, unit compositions, counters, and scouting vastly skills such as micro, because of it's inherent reliance on these factors. Early pressure can and often times will kill people before real micro can occur in lower leagues, macro often times will result in one player having a much larger army than the other and because of this making micro almost pointless, unit composition and counters can make micro null n void entirely. If i'm a terran and i'm going against a zerg and he only makes lings or roaches off 1 base an no queen (like many lower league players will do), if i just happen to make mass banshees by chance, i win the game outright.
The best way to illustrate this is by asking someone how they would teach someone how to play sc2, they wouldn't start out with micro, micro would in fact be one of the last things that would be taught, because so many other factors will straight up negate perfect micro if you have horrible macro, counters, scouting, etc.etc. etc. like explained above. Yes micro can make a difference but i find it hard to believe a circumstance short of the aforementioned bane/marine scenario where micro is a determining factor in lower league games.
|
I have a question. Why does everyone in the room seem to think that what is personally harder or easier for them to deal with is necessarily the absolute and final way it actually is?
"Terran is easier. And I'm a Terran player."
"Protoss is so hard, you have to do [insert a whole bunch of epic stuff]"
"Nah way! I'm Protoss and Zerg is the hardest by far!"
"Oh yeah! Well I'm Random and I say Terran is the hardest!"
How the heck do you know what is harder for someone else? I find Protoss to be extremely difficult. I can barely move the darn probe from place to place. Zerg seems to make more sense, but the basic idea behind it is absolutely foreign to me. Terran seems to make the most sense, to me, but I also seem to have the hardest time actually winning with it. I know a good Zerg who roflstomps me, except when he played Protoss, and I steamroll him. He says he's better with Protoss, and at the time I felt like TvP was my hardest match up. Now I can't win against a Zerg to save my life, but TvT is a breeze. Other people I talk to say TvT is a death grind and they hate it.
Different strokes for different folks, guys. I seriously doubt that any of the races are so much easier to play, master, or win with, than the others. Maybe I'm wrong, but using the "I experience this..." argument, or even the "[insert awesome pro] experiences this..." argument... it gets ridiculous. I don't know how to say it any other way. I am mad impressed with the micro and macro of all three races when I watch games and streams. I've seen the same army either get crushed or crush, completely based on micro. Is there any legitimate reason to call one race harder than the other? Or is it all based on personal experience?
|
Because people need excuses for why they are playing bad and need to praise them selfs when they are playing good.
|
Agreed with OP. I'm pretty sure Dustin B and Co do as well though what would you have them do? People have been bitching and moaning about how "ezmode" Terran is because of the Terran dominance at gsl, their hands are tied. Part of this is the fault of Artosis (sorry but it's true, I still love his casting though), whether he or anyone else wants to admit it or not, he is VERY influential and his bias against Terran players in sc2 is undeniable.
|
On December 01 2011 10:37 kofman wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2011 10:30 Chamenas wrote:
But the graph is meaningless. It's not actually supported by data. It's just drawn and creates a false representation based upon suppositions that aren't actually in any way based in fact. That's just wrong, and misleading. The true numbers show a very different tale. This is the race distribution in America. Terran is the least played race by a significant margin from gold league onwards. http://www.sc2ranks.com/stats/league/am/1/allThis is the race distribution for Korea, where Terran dominates all divisions except for GM, where toss has slightly more people. http://www.sc2ranks.com/stats/league/fea/1/allThis shows that in America, where Terran's are not as strong, they don't do as well, leading to more people playing the other races. However, in Korea, where the Terran's are better, there are more of them because Terran is the best race when in the most skilled hands. As you can see, the graph isn't "superstition not in any way based in fact".
Your interpretation of those graphs makes no sense to me, and does not support the OP's hypothesis.
In both graphs Terran representation dips in the mid-range and increases at either extreme - all of which, bear in mind, is well below the level at which the OP claims gosu micro starts to enable Terran to hold its own. To the extent we need to care about bronze/silver play, I think we can safely attribute the preponderance of Terrans to familiarity with the single player campaign.
Now, you look at that and think "In order to be in Diamond league I should play Zerg or Protoss. Terran must be underpowered at that skill level." I could equally well look at it and think "If I play Terran (and I don't completely stink) I won't be in diamond league; I'm more likely to end up in Masters." Please, explain how we are to establish which of us is correct, looking only at those graphs?
|
This Thread and the ignorance of the community makes me so sad.
I love the game and thats why i can kinda understand why people got so emotional. But i really don´t understand why there is so much disrespect and tollerance against, oppinions, races and players.
People judge about how a certain race is playing out without ever played those race....
terran is by far the most hated race in sc2 and that makes me really really sad... i don´t want to face hate on the ladder couse i play terran.
I want discussions with respect.
I want real help not stupid thinks like: "make emp easy win" or bullshit like: "make Tanks"
Everyone should have more respect.
So please everyone how is hating a race ......shut the fuck up.....
I forgot please please dear mod close this thread......
or rename to: fundamental problems in the community
User was warned for this post
|
thread has nothing to do with problems with the community, people are just idiots and half of them ignore the actual post to begin with... or go off on wierd tangents / misinterpret valid points in their own biased ways and assume the post is just whining and b1tching rather than a valid argument and discussion topic.
|
On December 01 2011 19:51 Gonzo103 wrote:
This Thread and the ignorance of the community makes me so sad.
I love the game and thats why i can kinda understand why people got so emotional. But i really don´t understand why there is so much disrespect and tollerance against, oppinions, races and players.
People judge about how a certain race is playing out without ever played those race....
terran is by far the most hated race in sc2 and that makes me really really sad... i don´t want to face hate on the ladder couse i play terran.
I want discussions with respect.
I want real help not stupid thinks like: "make emp easy win" or bullshit like: "make Tanks"
Everyone should have more respect.
So please everyone how is hating a race ......shut the fuck up.....
I forgot please please dear mod close this thread......
or rename to: fundamental problems in the community
You talk about respect one second and the next line you tell people to stfu...
|
|
|
On December 01 2011 19:51 Gonzo103 wrote:
This Thread and the ignorance of the community makes me so sad.
I love the game and thats why i can kinda understand why people got so emotional. But i really don´t understand why there is so much disrespect and tollerance against, oppinions, races and players.
People judge about how a certain race is playing out without ever played those race....
terran is by far the most hated race in sc2 and that makes me really really sad... i don´t want to face hate on the ladder couse i play terran.
I want discussions with respect.
I want real help not stupid thinks like: "make emp easy win" or bullshit like: "make Tanks"
Everyone should have more respect.
So please everyone how is hating a race ......shut the fuck up.....
I forgot please please dear mod close this thread......
or rename to: fundamental problems in the community
It's kind of hypocritical to insult an entire community right before you complain about disrespectful posts. And it's kind of funny when you talk about people being emotional and then come out with the "terran is the most hated race" line... how exactly is that cool and logical, or even helpful? And when the heck do you face hate on the latter that isn't just BM? Is this "hate" like "OMG TERRAN IMBA!" and then the guy GGs? That's not Terran-hate, dude, that's "I just lost and I'm pissed".
I don't know why, but this post made me chuckle.
|
On December 01 2011 19:57 SpunXtain wrote:
thread has nothing to do with problems with the community, people are just idiots and half of them ignore the actual post to begin with... or go off on wierd tangents / misinterpret valid points in their own biased ways and assume the post is just whining and b1tching rather than a valid argument and discussion topic.
Yeah, people are idiots because they don't agree with what you say.
|
On December 01 2011 19:29 Ace.Xile wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2011 19:18 Kwanny wrote:On December 01 2011 18:59 Ace.Xile wrote:On December 01 2011 18:24 Enoryt wrote:
I come onto these forums just to have a browse, learn off the intelligent posts and just laugh at the absolutely rediculous posts like these.
Honestly dude, can you really say that Terran can A move into a Deathball? This isn't any worse then saying Terran would come out on top if he was to a move his marines into banelings.
I thought I'd just point out some things you say are really really silly.
I'm actually a Protoss player myself and I used to play Terran. I for one can say that Terran is by far the hardest race to play out of the two and Terran is very micro intensive when comparing them to Protoss. Although I get frustrated when my whole army gets blanket emp, It really dosen't bother me considering the amount of AOE damage my army has.
Yes, I can 1 A my army into a Terran and win. That is why I switched to Protoss ages ago. Those Terrans who want to whine that it's hard work, just switch to Protoss. I did and have never looked back. I should also mention that within 2 weeks of switching to Protoss that I jumped up a leauge. Yes, Protoss is indeed an easier race to play in the lower levels of ladder, but I can see how it would be much harder at the top professional level. I feel at that level, you are always trying to look for that BO win as the game would get far harder against a Terran with sharp micro.
I find your view on anecdotal evidence is useless, your opinion shouldn't be used as fact period. That being said the argument that micro is a significant issue in lower leagues usually isn't the cause because like it has already been said 4910481904 times in this thread, there are hundreds of other things that play much bigger factors. Most games don't make it to 200/200 supply and if they do it's a 30+ minute long game, because macro isn't nearly on the level that it should be. Furthermore, saying that protoss is easier because they can theoretically do less micro at lower levels makes little sense, because up until plat you can pretty much pull any random 1 base allin out of terrans arsenal, and so long as it's fairly refined you will win 90% of the time. It's hard to argue that micro is such an issue for terran etc, when most games for the over 80% of people that don't fall in diamond + will just straight out die to good early pressure or any sort of real macro. They either will die to a good executed all in or be outmacrod that even with perfect micro their army would still be steam rolled. People are attributing way too much to micro in lower league play, when the huge difference makers are early pressure and macro in general. I could go make an account tmrw, and pick one build from each race, 6-8 pool, 2 gate proxy, 2 rax proxy and make it into plat from bronze. And i wouldn't be winning because of stellar micro, i would be winning often times (especially in bronze-low gold) because people don't know how to deal with early pressure at all. I just wonder if you realize that you're just as factless as he is. Except, that he is talking about what he experienced, and you're stating made-up numbers and give predictions on future events. In regards of credibility, I'd probably go with him. Doesn't mean, you're wrong (read my posts a few pages back), but you're not helping. If you'd like i'll go do some random poll to prove it. If he wants to go make a point i can just as easily, as i did, make a point that seems 100 percent more likely. Most of us have played in the bronze and moved up from there. Games do not make it to 200/200 and if they do they take significantly longer than the zergs that max in 11 minutes. Games typically end in one way or another, either early pressure that out right ends the game for one player, or someone can macro better. Micro is a luxury in the lower leagues and short of the infamous baneling marine play that's the only time that someone micro will have a ridiculously huge effect on the rest of the game. His claim was that micro was some huge determining factor in lower league games, my claim which while unsupported factually seems infinitely more likely, is that micro isn't an issue because the general lack of knowledge in lower leagues in areas such as early pressure, macro, unit compositions, counters, and scouting vastly outweighs that of something like micro, because of it's inherent reliance on these factors. Early pressure can and often times will kill people before real micro can occur in lower leagues, macro often times will result in one player having a much larger army than the other and because of this making micro almost pointless, unit composition and counters can make micro null n void entirely. If i'm a terran and i'm going against a zerg and he only makes lings or roaches off 1 base an no queen (like many lower league players will do), if i just happen to make mass banshees by chance, i win the game outright.
I firstly critized you for the reason that you yourself don't deliver facts the way that you have initially demanded for. Your last post does not either. The statement that your point is 100 percent more likely is still as opinion biased as your believe in the outcome of your "random poll". Unit movement, positioning, macroing, unit composition, information gathering and valuation with according reaction, and nonsymmetrical unit design, among others are all factors that account for the outcome for any game played. How much each of these accounted for the win does only depend on how the specific game described has been played out. Whether it is based on micro or macro, or any other factor you or me have mentioned, can't be evaluated by quantifying means that I know of. Does that mean, that one doesn't outweight the other? More likely than not, it probably does. Does it mean, that this can be average according to a skilllevel over a sample of games? I'm not sure about that, but I wouldn't believe that doing so would result in a sufficiently explanatory statement.
When going by empirical results, one player is categorized as better than, if the probability of someone winning is higher than losing, compared to someone else. Empirically, yes, you can win by outright outmacroing the player, but you won't win with at least some rudimentary micro, such as unit movement and attacking. Same is possible for someone who microes extraordinariliy well, but lacks the capabilities to build units. He might still come up on top of a player, but he'll need to build units aswell. If a specific unit is intrinsically too strong, a player is knowingly or unknowingly in favor of someone else. They all account as an entity for the outcome. And simply the probability of something happening does not always correlate with the significance it has over something (such as "macro often times will result in one player").
Don't think that we are able to grasp the whole truth. We can always only close in on what's really going on.
If that what you wrote, works for you, then go with it. But never be too stubborn to reconsider or supplement upon any knowledge or experience you have.
Wondering, why people are so quick to dismiss any opinions that won't agree with. Doesn't make you a better human, but it'll thwart any opportunity of keeping you learning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
