|
On December 01 2011 11:17 Bango wrote:
this post is very very strange, and i think this basically sums it up.
my race is the most difficult to play, but once you get good at it you get really good and win lots of games!
i agree that terran is the most micro intensive race. but i disagree that it is more challenging, nor that it requires more multitasking than others. yes protoss wants to keep one ball of units, yes zerg has big engagements with all of its units. but both protoss and zerg have to harass as well as terran and have to deal with the harass from the opposing races.
example: if terran drops in 4 places and pushes at the front. the opposing race has to deal with all the 4 drops (like the terran) and deal with the front in an effective manner. the amount of work you put in, is the amount of work you get out!!!!
LOLOL, drop at 4 places? Try winning that engagment in the front of your base with half to 2/3 of your army. So what maybe your drops kill an expansion or 2, but if their main army is knocking at your base terran production will not keep up. Now if i was only able to instantly call marines and mauraders to where my medivacs are...
|
Of course no problem with Terran, they own just about 50%+ of the Top places in GSL History (instead of 30%).
They have the Longest Range on Ground AND Air, they can be Healed/Repaired during Battles, have a Mineral-Only AoE unit, AoE Silence and Snipe (Invisible). While their Weekness should be the Fragility of their Cheap units, they can Kite for Ages.
(My personal opinion)
|
Blizzard shouldnt care about anything but the balance of the pro - scene. Most bronze - gold level players do not care about the balance of the game and just play the game as it is. If you care whether you win or lose ( you shouldnt cos you are terrible compared to the pro's ) then you are taking the game way too seriously, unless you're a pro.
|
Chamenas, just deal with the fact you play a easy race bro! Its hard to deal with when you thought you were good this whole time! trollololol
User was warned for this post
|
On December 02 2011 01:05 Superneenja wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2011 11:17 Bango wrote:
this post is very very strange, and i think this basically sums it up.
my race is the most difficult to play, but once you get good at it you get really good and win lots of games!
i agree that terran is the most micro intensive race. but i disagree that it is more challenging, nor that it requires more multitasking than others. yes protoss wants to keep one ball of units, yes zerg has big engagements with all of its units. but both protoss and zerg have to harass as well as terran and have to deal with the harass from the opposing races.
example: if terran drops in 4 places and pushes at the front. the opposing race has to deal with all the 4 drops (like the terran) and deal with the front in an effective manner. the amount of work you put in, is the amount of work you get out!!!! LOLOL, drop at 4 places? Try winning that engagment in the front of your base with half to 2/3 of your army. So what maybe your drops kill an expansion or 2, but if their main army is knocking at your base terran production will not keep up. Now if i was only able to instantly call marines and mauraders to where my medivacs are...
Isnt this NOT supposed to be a balance thread??? Stop complaining about the game. Go play it. And if you dont want to play it, get out of our community.
|
The difference to me seems to be that terran is just a better designed race. The units are all good and most importantly versatile, they have structure and unit healing, there are many viable compositions and the option to be both aggressive and passive with regards to play style. They are hard to balance in game terms because they are the most balanced race.
Protoss and Zerg both suffer from being non-human. If you look at terran you see humans, which makes sense, so they have stuff which makes sense. Protoss and Zerg are aliens which means they shouldn't have the same stuff as Terrans (or it would be a one race game with some alternate skins) so game designers made stuff that followed a different philosophy for them but as the line of reasoning was more complicated it has some flaws. The hydralisk for example, no one uses it because it doesn't fit into armies properly, it is a good unit but just not for the way zerg seems to work.
***I think the hydra and the stalker were mixed up in the delivery room by the way. If hydras functioned like stalkers they would fit zerg so much more and the hydra with a stalker skin works much better in a protoss army.***
Anyway, I feel that terran is the benchmark and Wings of Liberty post release was only ever going to buff/nerf units to keep things balanced until Heart of the Swarm came out. The expansion, particularly including its beta period is where massive racial disparities will be sorted out and a lot of the issues people have will likely go away. Starcraft was not nearly as good BroodWar, the expansion filled the holes that balance changes try to hide.
All these discussions are generally irrelevant until a while after the protoss expansion hits. In the meantime can we agree that our 1/3 finished game is the best new RTS out and be done?
|
On December 02 2011 01:12 RaKooNs wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2011 01:05 Superneenja wrote:On December 01 2011 11:17 Bango wrote:
this post is very very strange, and i think this basically sums it up.
my race is the most difficult to play, but once you get good at it you get really good and win lots of games!
i agree that terran is the most micro intensive race. but i disagree that it is more challenging, nor that it requires more multitasking than others. yes protoss wants to keep one ball of units, yes zerg has big engagements with all of its units. but both protoss and zerg have to harass as well as terran and have to deal with the harass from the opposing races.
example: if terran drops in 4 places and pushes at the front. the opposing race has to deal with all the 4 drops (like the terran) and deal with the front in an effective manner. the amount of work you put in, is the amount of work you get out!!!! LOLOL, drop at 4 places? Try winning that engagment in the front of your base with half to 2/3 of your army. So what maybe your drops kill an expansion or 2, but if their main army is knocking at your base terran production will not keep up. Now if i was only able to instantly call marines and mauraders to where my medivacs are... Isnt this NOT supposed to be a balance thread??? Stop complaining about the game. Go play it. And if you dont want to play it, get out of our community.
I didn't really complain about balance, just said it'd be nice to have another races ability just like how everyone QQs about MULES?? Anyways you play EZ race so I need to disregard anything you say... jk trollolol
PS - pretty sure OUR community doesn't know you or I and don't really care what WE have to say. This thread is just fun for me now and its funny reading some of these posts. People will believe what they believe and I believe T takes more skill to play thats just my opinion.
User was warned for this post
|
On December 02 2011 00:55 Superneenja wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2011 10:58 Chamenas wrote: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?
Keeping your zealots in front of your collosus / sentreys is actually insanely hard you even see pros in the gsl like ace squirtle and naniwa forget to do this so dont laugh it off too fast buddy. i wouldnt mind blizzard removing magic box so that zerg have to split theyre mutas maybe then ht would be viable against them.
|
Hmm. I don't think this is actually a good argument. Essentially your argument is that foreigner terrans are bad, korean terrans are good, therefor terran is hard to play, but I think that's an assumption. Their are a wide variety of reasons why foreigner terrans are poor compared to their korean counterparts, but you offer no reason that this reason is difficulty - you just assume it is.
|
Just for fun...
Based on the Wiki data (which is obviously quite coarse, so pinches of salt all around):
T plays 0.91 x average games per hour
P plays 1.15 x average games per hour
Z plays 0.96 x average games per hour
What might this mean?
Well, in general, fewer, longer games mean less repetition within the same practice time, and could result in slower improvement.
Consider some scenarios:
Foreign players A and B play terran and protoss respectively for the same time per day. B manages 5 games, A only 4.
Korean players X and Y practice for much longer each day. Y manages 10 games, X only 8.
Factoring in diminishing returns, Y's two extra games could lead to less of a skill gap with Z than exists between A and B.
If the Korean players actively try to keep up in games - if Terrans practice for longer to compensate - the gap would close further.
Now suppose the Terran strategies employed in Korea are not the same as elsewhere. Suppose TvX is more aggressive and short-lived, such that the differences in average game length outside the GSL are even more pronounced than the data we have (which a very nice post above me suggests). That would retard the practice of foreign Terrans still further.
TL;DR: There are potential contributing factors the OP overlooks, preferring to attribute the entire Korean/Foreign Terran discrepancy (such as it is) to a single cause: the advantages of microing Terran units. Given that there is hardly ever just one reason for anything, I don't think his hypothesis is well supported.
|
On December 02 2011 00:25 RavenLoud wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2011 20:07 ceaRshaf wrote: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. Show nested quote +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 guess reading skills is not really your strong suit. I've never said is not feasible to get better. I just said you won't have have any SUBSTANTIAL improvement after masters by playing 1-2 hrs a day (and sometimes even missing some days at all). You will improve, just not enough to make a real change in your level. Then, the obvious choice, if you don't actually have that kind of time to make the big leap, is to switch races.
|
Keeping your zealots in front of your collosus / sentreys is actually insanely hard you even see pros in the gsl like ace squirtle and naniwa forget to do this so dont laugh it off too fast buddy. i wouldnt mind blizzard removing magic box so that zerg have to split theyre mutas maybe then ht would be viable against them.
Magic boxing just means you spread shit out before you give it an attack move, spread your marines out then a move on the minimap and they will be all spread out just like mutas and shoot all the shit you don't want them too just like mutas. Mutas are the dumbest unit in the koprulu sector, followed very closely by the zergling which just will not behave itself either lololololol
|
On December 02 2011 01:14 BBQSAC wrote:
The difference to me seems to be that terran is just a better designed race. The units are all good and most importantly versatile, they have structure and unit healing, there are many viable compositions and the option to be both aggressive and passive with regards to play style. They are hard to balance in game terms because they are the most balanced race.
Protoss and Zerg both suffer from being non-human. If you look at terran you see humans, which makes sense, so they have stuff which makes sense. Protoss and Zerg are aliens which means they shouldn't have the same stuff as Terrans (or it would be a one race game with some alternate skins) so game designers made stuff that followed a different philosophy for them but as the line of reasoning was more complicated it has some flaws. The hydralisk for example, no one uses it because it doesn't fit into armies properly, it is a good unit but just not for the way zerg seems to work.
***I think the hydra and the stalker were mixed up in the delivery room by the way. If hydras functioned like stalkers they would fit zerg so much more and the hydra with a stalker skin works much better in a protoss army.***
Anyway, I feel that terran is the benchmark and Wings of Liberty post release was only ever going to buff/nerf units to keep things balanced until Heart of the Swarm came out. The expansion, particularly including its beta period is where massive racial disparities will be sorted out and a lot of the issues people have will likely go away. Starcraft was not nearly as good BroodWar, the expansion filled the holes that balance changes try to hide.
All these discussions are generally irrelevant until a while after the protoss expansion hits. In the meantime can we agree that our 1/3 finished game is the best new RTS out and be done?
I do think terran is more of a single player race ported to a multiplayer environment as opposed to zerg/protoss who seem to be designed for multiplayer-only from the very beginning. I mean look at supply drop and sensor tower...do these even belong in any multiplayer environment???
I disagree therefor with the notion of terran being the most balanced or "complete" race; as they have way too much stuff that is not needed or are too hard to balance because their underlying function doesn't even belong in multiplayer let alone E-sports. Just because there are two more expansions labeled "zerg expansion" and "protoss expansion" doesn't mean blizzard had this in mind and deliberately designed Terran 'this' and zerg+protoss 'that' way.
What I want to happen in the expos are zerg getting more a bit stuff (that is useful), protoss rid of gimmick units that are useful maybe 1/10 of the time and terran rid of stuff they don't need, adding useful (= NOT BC/Thor) lategame stuff + nerf early game stuff.
|
On December 01 2011 12:48 Kwanny wrote:
(...)
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.
(...)
I actually think that part is really down to the point.
For example:
I just played a match vs a 1k master zerg on europe.
He does a roach ling all in while i'm doing the standard 4 reactor hellion into tanks opening.
After i defended the roach ling all in losing exactly 4 scvs and about 3 marines i counterpush and immediately win the game.
What is his reaction?
"fucking noobish op race. l2p"
It is really frustrating dealing with something like that like every second game.
And if you are looking for help from fellow terrans on the ladder the common answer is "i dont know" or "im having trouble there myself".
I don't know about the tireing part of other races, but i for myself am more tired after 6 maps of sc2 than after a 2 hour lecture of math at the university. ^^
|
@ WaSa
I agree with what you are saying, Terran are definitely single player oriented and they are kinda the crutch of the fluff (or should i say lore as this isn't a GW game) which is why I think they are a jack of all trades. The expansions hopefully will sort out supply call-downs and just how good marines are all game long, but mostly I think some tweaks and changes to toss and zerg to increase their stylistic options will be better over all for the game.
|
I can't help but wonder why people are so adamant in their belief that the game is balanced and foreigner terrans are just worse than their zerg and protoss counterparts, rather than considering the possibility of Korean terrans being better than Korean zergs and protoss. After all, Koreans came into the game biased towards Terran thanks to the legacy of Boxer, Nada, Oov and Flash. Foreigners went into SC2 as a blank slate so their talent distribution into the 3 races should have been more random and equal. I'm not advocating one position over the other and there's probably no way to ever tell which is true. I'm just noting that whenever someone posts or makes a thread suggesting Korean terrans are better the response is a quick 'no' but when threads like this one happen people respond 'learn to play the game bro.'
|
On December 02 2011 01:43 BBQSAC wrote:
@ WaSa
I agree with what you are saying, Terran are definitely single player oriented and they are kinda the crutch of the fluff (or should i say lore as this isn't a GW game) which is why I think they are a jack of all trades. The expansions hopefully will sort out supply call-downs and just how good marines are all game long, but mostly I think some tweaks and changes to toss and zerg to increase their stylistic options will be better over all for the game.
I know, not a balance thread, but terran economically, supply depots firstly cost more than overlords or pylons, and they take longer to build, aswell. Another note, all terran buildings basically cost 200 minerals + some gas (and longer to build), compared to 150 for each gateway. That's probably why there are still supply drops, and mules.
|
On December 02 2011 01:33 SevenShots wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2011 12:48 Kwanny wrote:
(...)
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.
(...) I actually think that part is really down to the point. For example: I just played a match vs a 1k master zerg on europe. He does a roach ling all in while i'm doing the standard 4 reactor hellion into tanks opening. After i defended the roach ling all in losing exactly 4 scvs and about 3 marines i counterpush and immediately win the game. What is his reaction? "fucking noobish op race. l2p" It is really frustrating dealing with something like that like every second game.
I can appreciate how disheartening that must be.
On the other hand I played a game at lunchtime where my opponent hid a barracks in the corner of my natural and marine-rushed (killing two roaches and nothing else at the cost of eight marines and a barracks that couldn't produce for the next two minutes), then hellion dropped (killing four drones for the loss of all hellions and the medivac), then made banshees (but didn't send them in because he saw me scout them), then expanded into marine/tank, without ever achieving anything of significance yet also without ever giving me the slightest opportunity to counter and win.
And when I finally doubled his supply, denied his third and dragged the game kicking and screaming to an end twenty-five minutes later he had the gall to say "I hate muta - its cheat!"
So if it helps, imagine what it's like never to feel able to counterpush and win after defending with minimal losses. Imagine what it's like not to have a standard opening - or to have it dictated to you by the need to fend off your opponent's seemingly free choice of build. Every ZvT, for me, is spent reinforcing my face so I can take punch after punch until he wears himself out.
Now, while it may technically require just as much skill and practice to keep punching as it does to keep taking it in the face, it's hard not to be emotionally swayed by the metaphorical weight of the proceedings 
|
On December 02 2011 01:46 red4ce wrote:
I can't help but wonder why people are so adamant in their belief that the game is balanced and foreigner terrans are just worse than their zerg and protoss counterparts, rather than considering the possibility of Korean terrans being better than Korean zergs and protoss. After all, Koreans came into the game biased towards Terran thanks to the legacy of Boxer, Nada, Oov and Flash. Foreigners went into SC2 as a blank slate so their talent distribution into the 3 races should have been more random and equal. I'm not advocating one position over the other and there's probably no way to ever tell which is true. I'm just noting that whenever someone posts or makes a thread suggesting Korean terrans are better the response is a quick 'no' but when threads like this one happen people respond 'learn to play the game bro.'
You gotta understand that logical reasoning (what you did) doesn't really work well with bias. Your thinking is completely reasonable, but it will get dismissed.
Unfortunately, you will frequently run into this kind of flawed logic here in TL:
- Zerg and Protoss foreigners are just down right better then Terran foreigners? Yes, sure.
- Korean Terrans are better then Korean Zergs and Protosses? No! Are you stupid? It doesn't make any sense! It's obvious that Terran is OP.
|
On December 02 2011 01:28 Umpteen wrote:
Just for fun...
Based on the Wiki data (which is obviously quite coarse, so pinches of salt all around):
T plays 0.91 x average games per hour
P plays 1.15 x average games per hour
Z plays 0.96 x average games per hour
What might this mean?
Well, in general, fewer, longer games mean less repetition within the same practice time, and could result in slower improvement.
Consider some scenarios:
Foreign players A and B play terran and protoss respectively for the same time per day. B manages 5 games, A only 4.
Korean players X and Y practice for much longer each day. Y manages 10 games, X only 8.
Factoring in diminishing returns, Y's two extra games could lead to less of a skill gap with Z than exists between A and B.
If the Korean players actively try to keep up in games - if Terrans practice for longer to compensate - the gap would close further.
Now suppose the Terran strategies employed in Korea are not the same as elsewhere. Suppose TvX is more aggressive and short-lived, such that the differences in average game length outside the GSL are even more pronounced than the data we have (which a very nice post above me suggests). That would retard the practice of foreign Terrans still further.
TL;DR: There are potential contributing factors the OP overlooks, preferring to attribute the entire Korean/Foreign Terran discrepancy (such as it is) to a single cause: the advantages of microing Terran units. Given that there is hardly ever just one reason for anything, I don't think his hypothesis is well supported.
Isn't that just likely because it is nearly impossible for a Terran to be cheesed, and most terran early pushes are more harrassing than game ending? Terran strategy is turtle>harass>leverage into victory. That is just the dynamic that terran creates. Protoss is different and Zerg is different, both are easier to cheese for a crippling blow, both have cheeses that will end with a GG.
Plus, games played isn't very valuable because the first 5 minutes of each game is usually wasted doing the same thing. Longer games = better practice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
