[D] Fundamental problems with Terran - Page 5

On November 30 2011 14:56 DemigodcelpH wrote:


Code S Koreans are generally in the same tier of skill. Terran is just more rewarding for (extreme) amounts of skill, and less rewarding when not micro'd.

On November 30 2011 15:01 Steel wrote:
I agree that at the mid masters terran is harder than other races but then again ANYTHING BUT GM protoss is easier than anything else while below masters zerg is essentially 25% WR ratio because you are learning to read your opponent [(which pros can barely do) (don't give me just ovie scout it doesn't work that way)] ...so I don't think the fact that an isolated group of terrans have a 'hard time' (I don't think you can claim that terran is impossibly hard to play at this level, but it is very difficult to play 100% standard; especially considering you might got to that point doing quite a few gimmicky builds) that there is a fundamental problem with terran. Just get over your wall like every other zerg had to.

On November 30 2011 14:06 Plansix wrote:


I see little to no evidence in the OP post that makes any solid argument that terran is under powered in any way. Terran has enjoy the highest win ratio all of the races since launch and solid stats and evidence has been provided on a monthly basis to back this up. The OP only provides a limit sample of tournaments that serve to make his point, while omiting any referance to a tournament where a terran won. He also completely omits the GSL because, in his argument, "terran is harder except at the highest level of play".

This appears to be the new argument for terrans who feel that their race is being over nerfed. Since terrans still dominate the GSL, there is no way to state that terrans are doing poorly. The new argument is that terran is strong if you have a high skill level, but at the lower leagues, zerg and protoss are simply strong due to "easier to play at that skill level".

This creates a nearly unwinable argument for anyone attempting to argue balance. The fundamentals of the argument are based on so many abstract, unfounded theories and claims that no solid argument can be made to counter them. No specific proof or reasoning is provided that terran is more difficult or easier at a specific skill level. Only a bunch of random tournament results where terrans did not win. Even when terrans did post solid results, those are to be ignored because they are Korean and are playing at the highest level.

So the argument is:

Terran did not win these tournaments. They also did not post solid results in the top four. Except in the tournaments where they did post solid results in the top four. But those results are invalid because the players were Korean.

The results of these finding: Terran is to difficult at my skill level, which is not the highest level. This is a problem with terran and I feel it should be corrected.

I have now added to the discussion in a long winded fashion by saying that the OP evidence is BS and his argument lacks any substance to prove his point.

On November 30 2011 15:05 Whomp wrote:
Fundamental problem with terran? Mules on gold, bam solved this thread!!! lock it up boys

On November 30 2011 15:05 Whomp wrote:
Fundamental problem with terran? Mules on gold, bam solved this thread!!! lock it up boys

On November 30 2011 14:14 ZorBa.G wrote:
OK, so to summarise everything up.

Terran has the highest skill cap due to micro capabilities. In order to reach a level of micro that is effective whilst being on par with your macro, you need to put in at least 30 games p/day (Code S Terrans).

If you cannot play such a large amount of games and put in that much practice, Protoss and Zerg is much more rewarding in the short term.

So from now on when I see those threads that state "Which race should I choose?" I will ask such questions first;

- How much time can you put into the game?

30 games p/day? Give Terran a go, they will be the most rewarding in the next 3 years when your micro is perfect. Also keep in mind when spending that 200 - 300 apm on micro, you still need to be on par with your macro.

25 games p/day? You like massing shit and setting up ambushes and prefer macro games? Play Zerg, still a very challenging yet rewarding race to play. However, you will reap the benifits of your hard work within about 2 - 3 years. This largely depends on how your game sense is as well. Very much a reactionary race.

Can only play 1 - 5 games per day and only interested in getting to masters within the next couple of months? Play Protoss.


I'm actually considering switching to Protoss since I can't spend 24/7 trying to perfect my micro with Terran. I'm not even joking here.

Yes, at the upmost highest levels of SC2, Terran is a force to be reckoned with. But I don't see why Blizzard needs to set limitations on those who aren't pros. If anything, blizzard needs to stop nerfing Terran and look at the god damn units Protoss has. DO SOMETHING WITH THE MICRO MECHANICS OF PROTOSS. Make them weaker and make it so they require micro to be effective as well.

The more Blizzard nerfs Terran, the more they put this race out of reach for those players in the lower leagues.

As for Zerg, I don't really see much wrong with their race. I'm not going to elaborate on it, but I respect the skill involved to playing that race.

On November 30 2011 13:21 Crisium wrote:


Although I tend to agree, it's based on how we verbally express the day.

It is November 30th, 2011. 11/30/2011.

Saying it is "The 30th of November, 2011" is really much more formal and makes us think of our former tea-sipping overlords in Britain.

On November 30 2011 15:27 theBizness wrote:
Terran is the most forgiving and flexible race when it comes to unit composition and transitions... by design makes it more accessible for newer players.

On November 30 2011 15:23 DemigodcelpH wrote:


Very well said.

On November 30 2011 15:35 RavenLoud wrote:


It'll balance itself out. What's weird to me is people here whining about how the game takes effort to win, as if there's something fundamentally wrong with that...

On November 30 2011 15:40 DemigodcelpH wrote:


Strawman. OP's crutch, and the general consensus, is that Terran is harder to balance because it's units are unusually micro intensive resulting in a higher skill cap. Fundamentally this can be okay, but as OP says it's hard to balance things when a race has a higher skill cap.

Code S Terrans are a force to be reckoned with, as they have the ability to micro units at 200-300 apm and still macro with 95% efficiency at home (Code S Z/P also have this skill; those races don't benefit as much from it), but foreign Terrans are getting utterly destroyed across the board as OP's insightful statistics show — an after-effect of the discrepancies in required skill.

On November 30 2011 15:40 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Strawman. OP's crutch, and the general consensus, is that Terran is harder to balance because it's units are unusually micro intensive resulting in a higher skill cap. Fundamentally this can be okay, but as OP says it's hard to balance things when a race has a higher skill cap.

Code S Terrans are a force to be reckoned with, as they have the ability to micro units at 200-300 apm and still macro with 95% efficiency at home, but foreign Terrans are getting utterly destroyed across the board as OP's insightful statistics show — an after-effect of the discrepancies in required skill.