|
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 can sympathise with this. On the other hand, I can sympathise with the haters too  Zerg and Protoss have done a lot of thrashing about trying to figure out how to scout and deal with a range of builds from each other and from Terran, and Terrans have been... pretty quiet. Not because they aren't losing, but because the answer has always been fairly obvious. Want to know if a particular build is coming? Time a scan. (If that's even necessary. I read a prominent TvZ guide here on TL where the author said that if he saw an expo go down he never bothered looking to check what the Zerg was doing before the ten minute mark). There has never been the sense that Terrans have struggled with much beyond execution. Virtually all the ZvT and TvZ threads I've read concerned Terran builds. And when you watch top level ZvT, even where the zerg wins, what you generally see is someone expertly defending, expertly deflecting aggression until the Terran makes a serious error and over-commits without taking an expansion. Terran just comes across as the bully in the playground
|
International terran win-rates have been >50% since release up until October (the latest stats http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=283186). It'll be interesting to see the November stats but I doubt much has changed, Terran are still winning their fair share of lesser online tournies. Basically, it's far too early for this sort of discussion, foreigner terrans are not doing badly enough to warrant this amount of bitching. It's not like TLO and Morrow's switches have yielded much improved results and I have no doubt if Idra had picked terran there'd be several more major tourney trophies in the foreign terran cabinet.
As for non-pro balance, it's not an issue as everyone has bad mechanics and there are many ways to win e.g you can beat lower level tosses and zergs with just 1 unattended drop. If you want to win with your chosen race, practice, improve and play to your strengths. Just being a terran player doesn't make you more 'skilled' than your opponent on the ladder (despite what your ego would have you believe).
|
im sorry din´t want to insult somebody wether the hole community.
but im so tirred of this discussions. Yes and true i got emotinal by myself. But thats the part i din´t bother with.
Its the respect not the emotion.
So I´m sorry. Wasn´t my best post. And "stfu" wasn´t my my best line ass well.
Try to be more helpfull and objektive next time.
|
On December 01 2011 12:48 Kwanny wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2011 11:31 Chamenas wrote: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 Once again, this is proof of nothing. A races popularity has no necessary reflection on the skill required to play it, there's no data to support that, it's all conjecture. On December 01 2011 11:19 Kwanny wrote:
We have an observation, that foreign terrans aren't performing as well as korean terrans do, and foreign terran's are definitely far from dominating, whereas koreans are. Koreans in general practise harder, and thus are more likely to be better. Problem: Why is there a discrepancy between those groups of terran players? Hypothesis-> Because there seems to be a different skill ceiling within the races. The graph here, so to speak, shouldn't be called a graph, and rather be understood as a model. And the model serves to help understand the skillceiling difference in races graphically.
And a theory is something different from a hypothesis. You put those equal. We use the term hypothesis, when we try to explain something, based on some observations that can't or haven't been explained well enough. A hypothesis can be dismissed, and new ones formed, in order to have an incentive to go after the truth. But we first need to explore the hypothesis. A theory works that way that it is an explanation of something based on a good amount of facts. If the hypothesis has developed enough, it might eventually end up as a theory, so long as every new evidence supports it. If not, the theory is dismissed, aswell. You need a lot of testing before you can call anything a theory.
Examples of hypotheses: Moon is made out of cheese. Trees can melt. Terran has the highest skill ceiling.
More or less theorylike: A marine is only cost efficient if it has done damage equal to 50 minerals (+upgrade cost/unit).
You make some decent points here, and it's one of the more intelligent posts I've seen in this thread. Here's my issue: Hypotheses are meant with the intention that they will eventually become theories when supported. But there are not attempts by any of these posters to legitimately support their hypotheses and make them theories. When asked to bring up data, they bring up information which is irrelevant to what they're trying to suggest (which is to say that it's invalid) such as mentioning a race's popularity as a means by which we can determine the level of skill it takes to play the race. Furthermore, the hypothesis generated by your statements has issues simply because it is actually only one of many possible explanations to the "problem" you've presented (problem is in quotes because the problem itself isn't necessarily supported by the evidence, especially since the evidence is a very small data sample). How do you choose on hypothesis over the other? When does one abandon the hypothesis for another if they won't use or research data pertaining to it? If it's truly a hypothesis, then why do the posters get defensive when it goes under scrutiny, as all good hypotheses should, and begin to lash out against the skeptics, telling them they should refer to what is "already known" as "common sense"? That's why I decided to make my post above. To give people a structure to work with, and I'm probably not the only one that thinks that people just give their opinions instead of well argued statements or facts/statistic. That's the major problems with forums anyway. Here, hypothesis form once someone decides to make a more or less supported thread, while the posters discuss. I completely agree with you that the way it's running, probably won't give any satisfactory results, unfortunately. It should be that, as long as someone hasn't made their mind up yet, they shouldn't wholeheartedly post. But cmon, it's a forum. So, the best one can do is to read as many opinions as one can, and weight and evaluate the infos as best they can. And the only reason I told you that the graph is not worth nothing, was because it's a graphic that well models the OPs hypothesis. You didn't give it credits for the role it was supposed to have. And you should have at least thought it through, how the hypothesis could work instead of dismissing as false, simply because it didn't have arguments (that you agree on). If the hypothesis is close to the truth, but the statements are false, the hypothesis is still close to the truth. In predicate logic, it's the same. An implication as a whole is always true, if the outcome is true, even though the statement might be wrong, because the way it was derived was wrong (still doesn't make it less true). On the terran topic, it is a fact that it used to be that there were much more terran players than zergs, but nowdays, the percentage has gone down. Else, on average, a terran player has been playing less games than a protoss or a zerg. So, one could definitely state, that terran has become less and less popular for whatever reasons, so that terran players either stop playing, switch races (many more than that are coming over at least), and those that don't play less than their counterparts. I have rough estimates, but by first glance, those numbers are pretty statistically significant. Maybe I get motivated enough to work something up. Anyways, may it be the patches (terran nerfs, z/p buffs), the metagame, terran player mentality, the race mechanics, or the skill ceiling (or for any other reason(read hypothesis)), playing terran doesn't seem to be a very satisfactory experience, and doesn't seem to motivate people. Why is that? I personally believe, it's because terran players don't *perceive* the game to be fair. I believe that the basic motivation of someone playing a game after the current one, especially after a loss, is that one believes that they will be able to win the next game, and that they'll improve gradually, and that they have enough mental condition to keep their game up. You don't play the game, if you know you'll lose most likely, and you probably won't play, if you're tired as hell, and if you do, you'll probably lose (and then you'll be pissed, and won't play). You might play, even if you're not improving, but about the first two, I'd like to find someone who disagrees. If either of them is true to some extend, ruling out them being the only contributors, then I'd like to explore each individually. Why is it, that terrans don't think as much that they'll win the next one? Firstly, maybe, because terrans are told, and terrans experience that they are at a disadvantage the longer the game goes, and feel like playing against a timebomb. That they feel that they need to harass and do damage to become even with the opponent. That playing just like the opponent won't result in a win. This would feel overwhelming. Those are reasons that I have come up with for now why it might be demotivational. If the latter is somewhat true, then terrans might get tired more easily then zergs/protoss. It might be due to the fast-paced micro required for terrans. It might be due to the mental stress of believing, that simply macroing won't always win you the game. It might be because of the need to constantly produce instead of in waves. It might be due to the slow army movement speed of almost any terran unit compared to the other races, resulting in more stress. Maybe it's the frequent badmanner received that they don't deserve the win, when terran players win. That all would drain some mental toughness. Now that is some thought I have about why terran nowdays has become the least played race. That unfortunately doesn't explain much why terran hasn't been as succesful when played as a foreigner, which is the original issue. That's why I am in this thread. Trying to read what others think.
You sir, make pretty good points about the subject. I have seen a couple times in these forums people completely dismiss the fact that Terran is the least played race from gold to even grandmaster, in every place except Korea. They even say that the difference is not statistically significant. They like to think it's a coincidence or they come up with some really "strange" (to be polite) reasoning about this fact.
So let's proceed to the question: why is Terran the least played race in every place except Korean, from gold to masters? Because Terran players eventually realize that it's easier to switch races and do better (and by do better I mean winning more with the same skill level) then actually become a better player. In other words, in lower levels (gold-masters), with the same raw skill, you basically do worse with T than with P or Z.
One argument I've seen a lot in these forums lately is the whole "It doesn't matter that your doing poorly at diamond/master, you just have to get better and you'll start winning again". I know this is somewhat true. But have you guys ever stopped to think that it's not feasible for everyone to just keep getting better? Getting better when you are already masters, for instance, takes a lot of effort and time. It's not like everybody has the time to make a substantial improvement after masters. I know a lot of people that can only play like around 1h-2h a day. So these people shouldn't play Terran then, is that what you're saying?
Just to be clear. I don't want any balance changes in WoL. I know the game is somewhat balanced in the GSL level. I just want GAME DESIGN changes in HotS. I want Z and P to have their skill cap increased so that we can have better games at GSL level and a more effort/time balanced game in lower levels.
|
On December 01 2011 14:46 Antisocialmunky wrote:
The only weakness of Terran really is TvZ late game. Terran has no Mothership or something to improve their army like Protoss. Terran peaks in late mid-game in army and tech and there's no simple obvious late game army so that's the only real hole. However, just because someone is not straight forward does not mean it doesn't exist. Terrans will figure it out in time. There's a lot of unexplored units. Just look at late-game ghosts. They do quite well at holding the fort against broodlords and infestors though that army never feels like it can push, only take attacks like a boss.
Terran doesn't fare well in TvP late game either. Eventually there's only so much you can get out of MMM/V/G, and the number and composition of higher tech, splash damage Protoss units on the field with high upgrades and faster reinforcment capability becomes too much to deal with. Eventually you just get worn down. That's one of the reasons I disagreed strongly with the EMP nerf. What Protoss needed in my opinion was something to help with the early game, where Protoss can be a little too vulnerable to certain Terran and Zerg timings or all-ins. Nerfing ghosts just makes Terran even worse against Protoss late game than it already is, which is not a good thing.
|
[QUOTE]On December 01 2011 23:02 forsooth wrote:
[QUOTE]On December 01 2011 14:46 Antisocialmunky wrote:
That's one of the reasons I disagreed strongly with the EMP nerf. What Protoss needed in my opinion was something to help with the early game, where Protoss can be a little too vulnerable to certain Terran and Zerg timings or all-ins. Nerfing ghosts just makes Terran even worse against Protoss late game than it already is, which is not a good thing.[/QUOTE]
What about an EMP upgrade late game (fusion core required, radious pre-nerf)? it solves mid game pushes with ghosts and fix part of the late game versus protoss, well, with EMP prenerf you can disable part of the AOE, so you can make more marines vs high amount of chargelots.
I dunno, it's super complex T_T
And yep, at low level (i'm mid diamond now) TvP is a nightmare... 25% wins in that MU.
|
Dude, I agree so much with you. This isnt evena discussion, Terran IS the race with the higher skill cap, but the more skill you put into it, the better it gets, so even with good balance at the top, the low levels will get completely fucked
|
On December 01 2011 21:09 Scarecrow wrote:International terran win-rates have been >50% since release up until October (the latest stats http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=283186). It'll be interesting to see the November stats but I doubt much has changed, Terran are still winning their fair share of lesser online tournies. Basically, it's far too early for this sort of discussion, foreigner terrans are not doing badly enough to warrant this amount of bitching. It's not like TLO and Morrow's switches have yielded much improved results and I have no doubt if Idra had picked terran there'd be several more major tourney trophies in the foreign terran cabinet. As for non-pro balance, it's not an issue as everyone has bad mechanics and there are many ways to win e.g you can beat lower level tosses and zergs with just 1 unattended drop. If you want to win with your chosen race, practice, improve and play to your strengths. Just being a terran player doesn't make you more 'skilled' than your opponent on the ladder (despite what your ego would have you believe).
He is not arguing that Terran is underpowered. It isn't, it's just that it relies on little mechanics, like marine spreading, to be able to do something. Imagine if Terran didn't use marine spread in TvT, the win rate would be like 80% for Zerg, this makes, however, terran to be the hardest race to play by a LARGE margin
|
I stopped playing Terran (and this game really) because I don't find this fun. I understand that no player or race should be able to win without any effort but when you feel that you put in more effort than your opponent and still lose to an opponent who just a moves, it leaves a bad feeling when the loss screen appears.
Secondly, playing Terran feels like a ticking time bomb. I feel somewhat vulnerable in the early game especially against the Protoss and much less against Zerg. I feel the strongest in mid game where I usually try to end the game. Late game feels like an insurmountable challenge. I am not the best player in the world but why should I be deprieved of fun just as much as the next player?
Lastly, I think the decline in Terran players is due to the community. Everywhere you go, people vehemently blast people for playing Terran. "Terran is easy mode; just stim/emp/snipe/tanks." Even the community leaders and SC2 shows like Sogt don't even have prominent Terran players/ guests among them. Why does Korea have so many people playing Terran? Are they simply just so much better than us? I believe not since our foreign players have proven to be able to stand toe to tie or even beat them. No, I believe that since most of the Korea star players are Terran, it inspires them to play Terran. As much as I love Jinro and Thorzain, there isn't a foreign Terran player we can really look up to.
|
Select won the NA Battle.net thing i think?
|
On December 01 2011 23:16 Beikern wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2011 23:02 forsooth wrote:
That's one of the reasons I disagreed strongly with the EMP nerf. What Protoss needed in my opinion was something to help with the early game, where Protoss can be a little too vulnerable to certain Terran and Zerg timings or all-ins. Nerfing ghosts just makes Terran even worse against Protoss late game than it already is, which is not a good thing. What about an EMP upgrade late game (fusion core required, radious pre-nerf)? it solves mid game pushes with ghosts and fix part of the late game versus protoss, well, with EMP prenerf you can disable part of the AOE, so you can make more marines vs high amount of chargelots. I dunno, it's super complex T_T And yep, at low level (i'm mid diamond now) TvP is a nightmare... 25% wins in that MU.
TvP issues and issues with Protoss in general are a lot more complicated than just EMP (please note, this is not some kind of balance whine. I find TvP winnable, I just think it's a terrible matchup). I've got a couple of issues with the way Protoss is designed. First and foremost, which has also been mentioned by numerous other posters on this board, is the way that the warp gate mechanic works. It essentially allows Protoss to project the production capability of every gateway they possess anywhere on the map at any time. Not only does that make defender's advantage nearly disappear, but it also keeps gateway units from being cost effective. You simply cannot have gateway units that can beat marine/marauder straight up in a world where they don't have to traverse the map to get to your base because it would be imbalanced. A lot of Protoss players complain that barracks and hatch tech units are so much cheaper while still being good compared to their own, but they don't seem to understand that this has to be the case to maintain balance. I would welcome a world where I need tanks, hellions, and thors to give me an edge against a gateway based army, but first I need a world where my factory is worth something. Abilities like warp in and blink that allow Protoss to completely ignore the methodical, slow push, mech or biomech styles that Terran employs in TvT and TvZ means that mech is out of the question. It builds too slow, moves too slow, and will get you picked apart every single time.
The second issue is with the colossus. It fails the traditional StarCraft premise that long range, high damage (especially splash) units are nearly immobile. Tanks in both games, lurkers, reavers, brood lords, and colossi all put out amazing amounts of damage, but the colossus is the only one that doesn't have the drawback of being a nearly immobile firing platform. With its ability to walk over its own units or up cliffs to retreat, its ability to actually kite, and its generally quick movement speed on its own, it does too many things too well and has too heavy an impact on what units the opposition is able to make. It's poor design that clearly functions as an overcompensation for how vulnerable gateway-only armies are in a straight up engagement.
Again, I will reiterate. TvP is not some unwinnable matchup. I am not calling Protoss OP. I am saying that I think Protoss is poorly designed mainly due to warp in and it makes PvP, PvZ, and PvT all bad, unstable, and uninteresting matchups. That's why I cheese out essentially every Protoss I hit on ladder with some kind of 1/1/1 variation. I love playing long, drawn out games against Terran and Zerg. I feel I have my entire tech tree and multiple styles and transitions at my disposal. Against Protoss, I have one option in a macro game, and it's a boring ass option.
|
On the terran topic, it is a fact that it used to be that there were much more terran players than zergs, but nowdays, the percentage has gone down. Else, on average, a terran player has been playing less games than a protoss or a zerg.
Might that actually be true, though? I'm thinking about the average duration of games here - isn't TvT generally more time-consuming?
EDIT: GSL stats tend to support something similar (TvX taking longer than PvP, PvZ or ZvZ):
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=240774
The Wiki entry for the super tournament also fits this profile (of the 6 matchups, TvX occupied the 1st, 2nd and 4th slots in terms of duration)
|
On December 01 2011 20:07 ceaRshaf wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Didn't you read? Everything against the OP is just weird tangents and misinterpretation. We are simply clueless monkeys for not understanding his great wisdom. The fact that every terran player including some terran pros who depend on the game for their livelihood totally agree with it is absolute evidence already.On December 01 2011 22:02 petro1987 wrote:
So let's proceed to the question: why is Terran the least played race in every place except Korean, from gold to masters? Because Terran players eventually realize that it's easier to switch races and do better (and by do better I mean winning more with the same skill level) then actually become a better player. In other words, in lower levels (gold-masters), with the same raw skill, you basically do worse with T than with P or Z.
One argument I've seen a lot in these forums lately is the whole "It doesn't matter that your doing poorly at diamond/master, you just have to get better and you'll start winning again". I know this is somewhat true. But have you guys ever stopped to think that it's not feasible for everyone to just keep getting better? Getting better when you are already masters, for instance, takes a lot of effort and time. It's not like everybody has the time to make a substantial improvement after masters. I know a lot of people that can only play like around 1h-2h a day. So these people shouldn't play Terran then, is that what you're saying?
Just to be clear. I don't want any balance changes in WoL. I know the game is somewhat balanced in the GSL level. I just want GAME DESIGN changes in HotS. I want Z and P to have their skill cap increased so that we can have better games at GSL level and a more effort/time balanced game in lower levels.
I really sympathize with Terran players from diamond to mid masters. I know that it is the level for which terran has to try their hardest, but because now they suddenly have to face problems they didn't really need to before due to their opponents being bad.
I believe it is irresponsible to single out that fact and make a huge deal out of it. Terrans do well in both low levels and high levels. Amateur terrans either improve and move on or switch races. They can either learn to deal with their troubles or just leave. It is a stage in the race that they have to face. It's not like every other race play the same from all skill levels either. This is NOT necessarily the sign of bad design (of which several do exist imo), but the consequence of having 3 different races.
Saying that it is not feasible to get better is just the poorest excuse I've seen. If a protoss only know how to 4 gate or to 6 gate all the way to diamond, then complain that they can't get better, I'll just have to say too bad, the universe doesn't revolve around you. You deal with it or you don't. No one is telling them to switch races, there is no need for that strawman. They can choose whatever they want, if they prefer the style of another race then why not? Grass is always greener on the other side though, they'll have to deal with new problems and realize they still have to put in the effort to improve no matter what race they play.
|
i think alot of this could be solved if mech was actually strong enough to the point where you arent going for an all in each time when you want to use it against protoss, like i've never seen a macro game involving mech vs a protoss.. The only time you see tanks or thors is for 1 or 2 base all ins.
Now if mech was viable, that ticking time bomb where you know your bio centric army starts to suck late game would no longer be a problem, because you would have a real transition army. Instead it might be up to the protoss to try and fuck you up before reaching 200 food mech.. ( in general i hate turtlers that can just sit in there base, max a huge army and roll over you , if that is allowed then terran should have that too)
(this only to do with (tvp), as i believe tvz and tvt to be in a really good state) Protoss guys complain of terran all ins, but i find protoss has way more, Immortal busts, 6 gate forcefield pushing making bunkers useless, 3 gate voidray cheese, 2 gate proxy zealots, DT drops
pvt is just in a horrible state with many build order wins from both sides.
-protoss expand to early? dies to hidden 2 rax marine marauder push
-terran go marauder focused early? terran dies to any sort of voidray build
-terran take expo after seeing protoss expo and prepares bunkers for incoming push? dies anyway to 6 gate push cause forcefields make bunker useless.
-protoss skip robo? dies to cloakshe
-terran try to prepare for 6 gate with adequate bunkers/bio force? dies to DT surprise cause no money for engineering bay
-terran sit in base and max to 200 food, protoss sit in base and max to 200 food, both fight at middle, protoss wins.
|
On December 01 2011 23:58 Umpteen wrote:Show nested quote +On the terran topic, it is a fact that it used to be that there were much more terran players than zergs, but nowdays, the percentage has gone down. Else, on average, a terran player has been playing less games than a protoss or a zerg. Might that actually be true, though? I'm thinking about the average duration of games here - isn't TvT generally more time-consuming? EDIT: GSL stats tend to support something similar (TvX taking longer than PvP, PvZ or ZvZ): http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=240774The Wiki entry for the super tournament also fits this profile (of the 6 matchups, TvX occupied the 1st, 2nd and 4th slots in terms of duration)
Well, in terms of number of games, a terran definitely plays less games over a given season. I would guess aswell, that TvT games would last longer on average. Doesn't make the statement untrue, that terrans just don't hit that damn Find Match button as likely as a zerg or protoss player (on average). They are still guys, who play just a couple of games as Zerg, and Terrans who ladder all the time. Just ran some simple numbers for now for global master league, as I still don't feel like putting a shitton of time into it, but I guess, I hope it can serve as a decent proxy. I assume that master players do play the most games (except for GM maybe) of all the leagues, and GM is a smaller sample size. Anyway, for this season up to now, I found that on average, protoss plays 228 games, zerg 226 games and, terran 188 games. That's roughly 40 games. Taking the average GSL game time, which is listed as 18:43 minutes (GSL games are maybe longer on average than master league games, but I don't know.). That 40 games would amount to 749 minutes, or over 12 hours game time. Just assuming, that roughly a third of the 188 games were TvT, so ~63, a TvT on average should last roughly 30 minutes, which is by far above the averages given by the GSL graphs. So yeah, under those assumptions, terrans would be spending less time in-game overall.
|
Don't have the mechanics of a Korean progamer and practice 12 hours a day in a team house? Terran isn't for you. Play an easier race if you want to have success.
|
On December 01 2011 10:58 Chamenas wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2011 10:53 kofman wrote:
I shouldn't even have to explain this, but since your in denial, I guess I have to...
Terran has to:
-split marines
-target fire banelings
-emp all of the toss army
-kite zealots
Zerg has to:
-a move
Protoss has to:
-spam forcefields
-amove
which one sounds the hardest to you? Oh, right. Protoss doesn't have to keep Zealots at the front of their ball. They don't have to split High Templar (or even other units in their army against EMP). They don't have to blink their Stalkers (a rather subpar unit in the mid to late game without the upgrade). There are many many things that both Zerg and Protoss have to do for Micro, just because you don't understand them or know what they are doesn't mean they don't exist and it's disingenuous of you to post as if you do understand. It confuses players who are ignorant to the truth and take in only what others post.
For some reason i found this pretty funny... lol micro?
User was warned for this post
|
Where is the convincing empirical evidence that Terran is bad at low levels? I mean, there are pretty cheese-proof and don't have many exploitable weaknesses till late game.
|
On December 02 2011 00:52 syllabic wrote:
Don't have the mechanics of a Korean progamer and practice 12 hours a day in a team house? Terran isn't for you. Play an easier race if you want to have success.
This is not good design. I can't play 1/3 of the game (since there are 3 races) because they made the race out of reach for tons of extra people?
|
ITT: Terrans complain that it's too hard to win because they are too lazy to play their race properly. Terran has dominated this game since release, I can only assume this makes all Terrans feel entitled to win no matter what level they play at. It doesn't, now shut up.
User was warned for this post
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
